And what is in a name?

Anne Kilmer viceroy at anu.ie
Mon Jul 16 13:43:50 EDT 2001


"Grkovich, Alex" wrote:
> 
> Now we have a new argument created by the anti-scientists: First,
> "common/scientific names", now "lumpers/splitters". I am a "splitter". A
> "lumper" is one who has neither motivation nor the inspiration, and is
> probably too indifferent, to learn scientific names.
> >
> > Anne Kilmer wrote
> > snip
> > >  ...with the mutability of scientific names, at the mercy
> > > of lumpers and splitters...
> >
> 

I am by no means an anti-scientist. I spent eight years imbibing science
at two respected universities. Some of my best friends are taxonomists.
Perhaps some of my postings have been read hastily and misunderstood. 
Nor have I invented the lumpers and the splitters. The splitters are
those taxonomists that like to find that a sub-species is indeed a
separate species (and a new or ancient name is assigned).
The lumpers are taxonomists who like to discover that two species, often
on opposite sides of the globe, are, in fact, the same bug or bird or
whatever, and therefore should have the same name. The oldest one is
used, as Ron points out. 
With advances in DNA analysis and such, many creatures may change names,
back and forth, several times in your lifetime. 
Both lumpers and splitters are, in fact, scientists, and neither term is
an insult.
I am very happy to use both scientific and common names, and have been
doing so for many years. I think perhaps the confusion here results from
my NABA membership. Not all NABA members espouse all the prejudices and
failings that a few do. 
Myself, I am kind to collectors, and treat taxonomists with courtesy and
understanding. And I cannot understand why anyone should think
otherwise. 
Anne Kilmer
Mayo, Ireland
and
South Florida

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list