[SoWestLep] NABA Checklist

Dameron, Wanda be496 at lafn.org
Wed Jun 20 14:10:58 EDT 2001


Dear Michael, et al,

	The new NABA checklist may be purchased on line at http://www.naba.org
- click on Sales....   You do need to have Acrobat Reader to download
the order form to obtain shipping charge info.... which Jim Springer has
thoughtfully provided a direct hookup.    (Note to Springer--after many
tries was unable to do this--maybe put some sort of order form on that
is directly printable?   Or would have ordered already!)

	However, my new "American Butterflies" quarterly mag came yesterday and
see the checklist can also be ordered for $5 ea + 1.50 S&H for first
copy, .50 ea after.....   from NABA Checklist, 4 Delaware Rd.,
Morristown,NJ 07960

	Understand there are explanations given for many of the changes and
non-changes....     The old list still appears on the website.

					Cheers, Wanda

Michael Klein wrote:
> 
> Is there or is it possibly to update the Checklist of Lepidoptera of America
> North of Mexico?  As far as I am aware 1983 was the published book with
> periodic updates since then.  Can it possibly be compiled into a revised
> book?
> 
> Michael Klein
> San Diego
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Chris J. Durden [mailto:drdn at mail.utexas.edu]
> Sent:   Tuesday, June 19, 2001 10:09 PM
> To:     Andrew Warren
> Cc:     soWestLep at yahoogroups.com
> Subject:        Re: [SoWestLep] Confusion has set in
> 
> Thank you Andy for a very clear description of the names situation.
>     If you ever want to put together a checklist of butterflies of North
> America, an inclusive one that indexes all names proposed together with one
> or more suggestions for their status, an inclusive one that includes ALL of
> North America from Darien to Tule and Grenada to Nome, I would be happy to
> join a committee of compilers to assist you.
>     All experts do not agree. We can however collect our disparate
> viewpoints in one place where they may be useful for a while until future
> advances in taxonomy are made.
> ...............Chris Durden
> 
> At 05:28 PM 6/18/2001 -0700, you wrote:
> 
> >Dear SoWestLeppers,
> >
> >         Doug poses two interesting questions at the end of this message
> >that I will try to answer.
> >         The NABA names committee was assembled by Jeff Glassberg, nobody
> >else.  I do now know what criteria Jeff used in choosing members for his
> >committee.  I spent about three months as a member of the NABA names
> >committee, until I realized that my efforts were in vain.  The list of
> >changes to be "considered" by the names committee (when I was a member)
> >was composed entirely by Jeff, despite the fact that I had proposed
> >several dozen other changes to the group; discussion of these additional
> >changes never made it onto Jeff's lists of discussion topics.  While the
> >names committee is called a "committee," in my experience, rarely is an
> >opinion other than Jeff's expressed, and curiously, Jeff was almost never
> >out-voted by other committee members.  The majority of my concerns and
> >suggestions were never addressed by the group.
> >         While some may see logic in having a group of non-systematists
> >debate and "decide" butterfly names, this seems logically inconsistent to
> >me.  How can any group of intellectuals debate on what is a species or
> >subspecies, when they have never defined what they consider a species or
> >subspecies to be?  As a systematist, I am continuously working with a
> >specific species concept, always comparing data from nature to my concept
> >of what a species is.  I could go into great detail about the specifics of
> >the species concept that I believe in, but it really doesn't matter.  What
> >matters here is that systematists perform their work in the context of a
> >particular species concept.  While it is true that many systematists have
> >different species concepts, each systematist can justify his or her work
> >in the context of their species concept.
> >         The NABA names committee has never defined their use of "species"
> >or "subspecies."  It is clear that not all "species" on the NABA names
> >list are equivalent, nor are the subspecies.  The NABA names list
> >apparently does not take any species concept into consideration.
> >"Subspecies" on the NABA list seem to be taxa considered to be species by
> >some systematists.  The NABA names committee, admittedly a group of
> >non-systematists, have taken it upon themselves to evaluate the recent
> >systematic work on North American butterflies.  Clearly, the group has
> >found most of the recent changes in nomenclature to be "less than
> >compelling."  This suggests that the group does have some concept of what
> >they consider a species to be, but the details of that concept remain a
> >mystery.  Until the NABA names committee defines (explicitly) what they
> >consider a species and subspecies to be, I don't see how anyone with a
> >knowledge of systematics and taxonomy can take the list seriously.  The
> >fact that the first names list was based mostly on Scott's (1986) book,
> >and on some subsequent works, suggests that this committee never has had a
> >working definition of "species" or "subspecies;" the whole project is
> >philosophically bankrupt.
> >         To try to answer Doug's second question, the "scientists" will
> >never sit down and come to an agreement.  That is because the
> >scientists have different species concepts.  There is no way all of these
> >researchers will arrive at the same species definition.  Does that mean
> >that some of them are wrong and others are correct?  Is there a correct
> >species concept?  Just because researchers use different species concepts
> >does not mean that their research is primitive, or un"modernized".  If one
> >wants to fairly evaluate this research, it must be considered in the
> >context of the species concept of the researcher.  NABA has failed to do
> >this.  The fact that disagreement exists suggests that the "true"
> >taxonomic positions of many of these taxa remains to be resolved; NABA is
> >doing a dis-service to its members by promoting the use of this
> >standardized list and making it look like all is well in the world of
> >butterfly nomenclature.  What more can we learn from these organisms if we
> >all sit back and follow NABA's "simplified" list?  It is clearly
> >misleading from the start.
> >         The Lepidopterists' Society is made up of all kinds of people with
> >an interest in Lepidoptera; from collectors to photographers to butterfly
> >gardeners. It is a diverse group.  Even the Executive Council of the Lep.
> >Soc. is diverse, with all types of members.  There is no reason this group
> >should be expected to "step up to the plate" and produce a list of
> >standardized names.  Recognizing the diversity of species concepts, the
> >Executive Countil of the Lep. Soc. has chosen not to assemble a list
> >simply because NABA asked it to do so.  How could the Lep. Soc. decide on
> >what species concept to use?  All previous checklists published by the
> >Lep. Soc. (as Memoirs) have been authored by individual authors (dos
> >Passos, Miller and Brown).  These were not group efforts, but efforts of
> >individual authors working with an explicit species concept.  While many
> >people may not agree with the arrangement of these lists, those authors
> >can (or could) defend each decision in the context of their species
> >concept.
> >         To some this debate seems absurd, since we will never have a
> >"perfect," "natural," "true," or "correct" classification.  However, since
> >long before Linnaeus humans have tried to make order of the universe.
> >Classification schemes are developed to organize information and make it
> >accessible.  Modern systematic research emphasizes the importance of
> >monophyletic groups (groups that contain all the decendants of a common
> >ancestor) because the use of these groups enables classifications to have
> >predictive power.  A classification with predictive power is certainly
> >better than one based only on perceived convenience.
> >
> >Best,
> >
> >Andy Warren
> 
> When the birds are few and far between-Look Down!, because there is a world
> of color you may have missed looking up.
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> When the birds are few and far between-Look Down!, because there is a world of color you may have missed looking up.
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- 
Wanda Dameron
Flutterby Press
LA-NABA, LepSoc, ATL, Lorquin, Xerces
23424 Jonathan St., Los Angeles, Ca. 91304
818-340-0365     be496 at lafn.org

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list