Common Names update

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Quinn" <ento at satx.rr.com>
Subject: RE: Common Names update

snips

> Dr. Jacqueline Miller's system was to determine the most widely used
common name and designate it as the preferred name. Her list of names has
not been widely adopted. (NABA wasn't mentioned in her book as NABA was
formed in the same year as it was published.)
>
> Miller, J. Y. (ed.) 1992. The common names of North American Butterflies.
> Smithsonian Press, Washington, D.C.
>

Why do you insist on calling this "her list".  You sure must not know
Jackie Miller.  You wouldn't talk like this to her face long before she
would politely put you in you place.  Do you know what the word "editor"
means?

Of course THEY determined the most "widely used common name" -- that is
what a common name is!!  The one the common folk use!!  Not one made up by
a rubber stamp "committee"!!


> Miller's list was criticized because it was compiled by one person, as
were
> the lists she drew from.

First, I have never heard this.  Two, if that is what someone or group has
put out it is a patently false.  It was compiled by one only in the sense
of editor.

> Incidentally, NABA used the Miller list as their starting point.

So that must make it pretty good - right?  Is that what you are now saying
out the other side of your mouth?  The list was a one sided piece of crap
but the great and mighty OZ used it as The Staring Point down the yellow
brick road?

> The NABA English Names Committee is actually the closer analogy to the
AOU Committee. Committee members of the first NABA checklist

That is surely the impression that has gone out.   It is not accurate, but
that is the myth.  And one of its first slight of hands is the dissing of
the Miller et al list. The ignoring of the collective support it had in
concept and fruition from The Lepidopterists' Society and Xerces.  Sure,
that works. Especially since the vast majority of people in NABA have
never, and will never, see or read that publication.  A publication that
says of itself that it IS THE AOU equivalent.  A big time 1992 lepidopteron
project and publication that never asked Glassberg's opinion on anything
(he was "around" then, wasn't he) - as he was way out of that league at
that time.  They didn't ask me our you for input either.

> edition included Paul Opler and Robert Robbins. (They continue to serve
on
> the NABA BOD.) The NABA list has been adopted by most recently published
> field guides and most governmental and non-governmental entities that
keep
> lists of butterflies. I think this is the list that the vast majority of
> general public will continue to defer to unless the Lep. Soc. publishes a
> list of common names.

That is how the monopoly works.  Glassberg's NABA (see I can do it too),
basing their names on Galssberg's books, which are based on Glassberg's
suggested names to his committee.  It is but a monopolizing circle that the
other Mr. G (at Microsoft) would be proud of.

> The committee formed for the second edition was without systematists.
> Glassberg concluded that the non-systematist committee members deferred
to
> the systematists when their group was being debated, thus the committee
was
> once again effectively reduced to a committee of one on these groups. The
> second committee (sans systematists) has been described by Andy Warren as
> basically a group of intellectuals, a criticism that unfortunately
sticks.
>

I remember Andy posting recently on one of the list-serves that after just
three months on the "committee" he got fed up and got off as he felt it was
a one man show (Jeff) with a bunch of inner circle yes "men".   I have not
heard very glowing reports from a couple other "former" members of the
committee who got off too.   Maybe the reason it was without systematists
is that the word had gotten out and none wanted to be on 'his" committee
any more?   That is the "rumor" I hear.  (I may have the Scientific and
Common names ones mixed up - but a leopard does not change his spots when
he get to a different conference room.)

> Regardless, if you want to post common names for butterfly subspp., I
would
> suggest:
>
> 1) Form a committee and

First, what makes you think we haven't?  We have - its the best committee
one could ever have in this area - the people in the field.   Those past
lepsters whose _choices_ are reflected in the historical literature and
those present who are emailing into the site to give us the real scoop on
what is used in their region.  Second, why the heck would we want a back
room committee on something like this when via the internet a town meeting
is taking place.

> 2) Use the NABA list as a starting point.
>

Now there is a bright thing to say.   First, why not do one better, start
at the NABA starting point -- THE MILLER LIST?    Second, its the
"_sub_species stupid" -- isn't that how your beloved Clinton phrased it?
NABA has used very few subspecies common names -- next to none.  They don't
even want them (which is why you as a good party liner don't either).   At
the _species_ level the MILLER, USGS, NABA and TILS are _already_ almost
identical!!!!  Especially the Miller, USGS and TILS lists. NABA is the odd
man out.

> Ron, I am curious as to what event triggered your acceptance of common
> names?

I've always "accepted" common names - and used (use) several all the time
(ie. Buckeye, Painted Lady, Monarch etc. etc.).   A few years ago I
developed an aversion to them for two reasons.  One, they were being put
forth as if they were equal to the correct names (scientific ones), and
two, all subspecies were being amalgamated into non-existence under one
common name per species.   Then I snapped out of it and realized that my
aversion was not with the "common" name (as that never was my problem) --
but with the ignorance being fostered via the combination of the
abandonment of scientific epithets and replacement with very broad common
name replacement players.  Result, dumbed way down lepsters.  The solution
was simply to bring _back_ the many common names already in existence for
the _sub_species in dire need of reintroduction into the minds (awareness)
of this new mass of butterfliyers.

Thus, this is not about "names" at all.  It is about valuable important
wildlife that have been shut out of the lepster-public's awareness.   Why
is this rich diversity being shoved under the rug and hidden?  My
irritation is not at you, or common names, or naba or whatever.  It is at
the terrible situation we have where we need much more awareness of living
things - if we hope to conserve them - and not less.   Yes, I am ticked
off.  Who will speak for the butterflies   ME!  They are - and they have
names - BOTH scientific and common.  Neither of which we hardly see anymore
for the vast majority of butterflies and skippers -- which exist as
subspecies.
(one more post to go)
Ron



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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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