And what is in a name?

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenelm Philip" <fnkwp at aurora.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re: And what is in a name?
snip
> However, I lack Ron's certainty about there being one 'correct'
> name for a given organism. Taxonomists can disagree (about almost
> anything, it would seem). What I call _Erebia youngi_, Scott calls _
> Erebia dabanen-sis_. What many people call _Clossiana polaris_,
> others call _Boloria polaris_--and North American and Eurasian
> workers disagree about many names for holarctic species.
>
> The new book about the butterflies of British Columbia lumps _Clos-
> siana chariclea_ and what, in North America, has been called _Clossiana
> titania_ as a single species under the name _chariclea_. In Interior
> Alaska these two taxa fly in the same bog habitat in the taiga--but
> '_titania' flies every year in late summer, while _chariclea_ flies in
> odd-numbered years in mid-summer, and is different in facies from
> '_titania_'. I cannot accept these as conspecific, but Shepard fails to
> find this behavior any reason for their _not_ being conspecific.
> So what is the 'correct' name for these taxa? At this time I would
> have to say that there is disagreement among taxonomists, pending
> further work.
__________________________

These good examples are precisely what throw people off. The "fault" in the
above does not lie in systematics or the ICZN Code etc. It lies in the fact
that 1) individuals are writing broad "popular" books who are not expert on
every single taxa they cover. The problem is that so-n-so does not know
what he is talking about in some places and is right on the money (even
ahead of the game) in others. THIS CAN NOT BE AVOIDED. No one is that up on
every single critter. So, let's not attribute human error (a drunk driver)
as being the fault of the vehicle or its manufacturer (Volvo). For the
topic here, let's QUIT attributing.   2) Specialists may be in honest
disagreement on generic placement or specific placement, but at the lowest
level (subspecies) there would have to be agreement. (I am not talking here
about agreement that X is or is not a valid subspecies.) This is still a
human element and not a result of the system. Boy, am I pressed for space
here! Example, I hope, later.

Every name should be lined up properly at the subspecific level (which is
the level below most current common names=species). I feel I have not yet
properly communicated something. The word "correct" in my primary usage, is
not relative to turnus vs. glaucus NOR Mourning Cloak vs. Camberwell
Beauty.  It relates to a correct system - names based on science vs. an
incorrect system - names based on cultural and linguistic whims.  There is
an absolute correct scientific "name" for everything, WE have just not
figured out what they all are yet or settled all the individual arguments.

The Linnaean system and the ICZN, ICBN etc. are masterpieces. Once the
light really goes on to what these actually are in structure and function
they take on enormous import and solicit our submission and deepest
respect. We, and the "names" it allows us to create, are subject to it.
Whereas in common names they are totally subject to us.

Got to wrap this up. Xus is a genus; wus is a taxon and gus in a taxon
everyone knows this. But, some say it is
Xus wus and Xus gus    (two species)
others that it is Xus wus wus and Xus wus gus (one species two subspecies)
others Xus gus gus and Xus gus wus.   (ditto, different combination)

Lots of changes there right? Nope. wus is always wus and gus is always gus
as an individual taxon. The combinations change but the same "name" is
always fixed to the same biological entity - at the lowest level it is
immutable. Another example.

Some say troilus is in genus Papilio
Some say troilus is in genus Pterourus (me for one)
Which?
That is by in large the wrong question if you understand the system.

The Genus level name Pterourus is forever tied to the species name troilus
because Scudder in 1871 introduced Pterourus with troilus as its biological
type species. Thus - and I hope this is communicating  - troilus will
always be a Pterourus and Pterourus will always be a troilus. Glaucus,
palamedes etc. (others now placed in this genus Pterourus) may be moved to
other genera or others added in the future - but Pterourus and troilus are
always welded together. NOW, with the evolutional and morphological
characters set forth by Scudder we also now see that Pterourus is where
glaucus, palamedes and others belong to - by our understanding of these
characters they have to go there because, evolutionally, they ARE there.
Again, the taxonomist really creates nothing - he only relays in systematic
terminology what already exists in nature. He is but a translator of the
organic to the human understanding.

Next systematic step. Some think the "differences" Scudder deliniated are
not of such magnitude to warrent a full genus stature. Thus, these believe
that the proper genus (by its evolutionary, morphological (including
genatalic), biological (inc. larval structures etc) - gobs of stuff-
criteria dictates that troilus, glaucus, palamedes and the others be placed
in the genus Papilio. So these guys got rid of Pterourus - right?   Nope,
not
at all. Even when they write,
    Papilio troilus
the following is also assumed (by anyone who really uderstands systematics)
   Papilio (Pterourus) troilus.

In recognizing the genus Papilio OVER Pterourus, it is gross error to
assume that Pterourus has some how been done away with - it is simply moved
to a position of subgenus. Just because (Pterourus) is not written does not
mean at all that it is not present. This is like our species subspecies
example above. When a worker feels that there are not two species Xus wus
and Xus gus but one - and he then merges the two under wus, gus is not done
away with it is simply moved from the rank of species to that of subspecis
Xus wus gus.

Papilio troilus and Papilio (Pterourus) troilus are identical. But, in
Pterourus troilus - watch closely - Papilio is not negated as a genus, it
is just excluded as the genus in which troilus resides. Papilio is moved to
a sister generic position. troilus is immutable, Pterourus is immutable,
and Papilio is immutable. The systematic combinations are to a great degree
dictated and to a minute degree pliable. But even where pliable rules exist
to regulate even there. To say troilus is a Papilio is to still be saying
it is a Pterourus - but in the subgenus position. To say troilus is a
Pterourus by genus is to say it is NOT a Papilio by genus.  In these three
combinations troilus is always the same - Pterourus troilus is always
present even if the word Pterourus in not in print or spoken i.e Papilio
troilus - only in the combination Pterourus troilus is Papilio excluded but
not negated.

Ken started by saying,  "However, I lack Ron's certainty about there being
one 'correct' name for a given organism. Taxonomists can disagree (about
almost anything, it would seem)."  If taxonomists are turely submitted to
and working within the ICZN code they may disagree about which Family,
Subfamily, Genus, Subgenus, Species a single basic taxon belongs in - but
they can never disagree about the taxon's unique epithet as it is totally
dictated by the Rules of Priority and subsequent elements of the Code. Nor
can they disagree about its author or date. Those who do disagree at this
basic level just need to be set straight.

When we talk of "common names" we are specifically and only talking about
names that apply to the same _solitary_ basic taxa that the immutable
scientific names are affixed to - WHY?  There are no common names for
Genera  NOT ONE.  Swallowtail, satyr, ringlet etc. all extend well beyond
or around specific genera. Neither Gulf Fritillaries nor Variegated
Fritillaries are Speyeria, Argynnis, Mesoacidalia etc. To say that common
names are not dumbed down compared to scientific names is dumb.
The long phrase Great Spangled Fritillary is just a big phrase for
_cybele_  Not Speyeria cybele.  I wish people would realize how important a
statement I just made - but I have little hope of that. I will close with
the following statement that was sent to another group by an eminent
English scientist, teacher, taxonomist.

"Don't forget that the American Audubon Society, or whatever its moniker
is,
uses common names for all the birds. The names even require the use of
capital letters. This has the wonder action of removing identified
relationships (genus and related species).  For example, for the American
Robin (not American robin), what genus is it, and what other species are in
the genus, and in what family is it?  American Robin - what the heck does
that tell us?"

What the "heck" indeed!  Spicebush Swallowtail says nothing compared to
Papilio (Pterourus) troilus fakahatcheensis. Ken's indecisive collage says
much more than Arctic Fritillary. In their seeming confusion they are
infinitely more correct - they actually tell us something is going on.
Ron


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl