# 3 Common Names update

[Ron Gatrelle]

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

> I am not a strong proponent of subspp. There are an estimated 30,000 plus
> species of insects found in Texas. That is plenty for me without the need
> for further division.

I would be ashamed of myself if I had this attitude.   This is like a
doctor or nurse in New York on Sept. 11 saying  -- I'm not going to pay
attention to, and thus not treat, the 2,000 other patients lined up out
there as I already have 50 here and that is "plenty for me".  There are
hundreds of thousands of insect taxa in this world.  Conservation is
overwhelmed!!   The answer is not to burry our heads in the sand - or sit
back in a comfort zone conservation job.   It is to cry out and say: Hey!
I am already overwhelmed by 30,000 species. You people need to realize that
there is another 50,000 subspecies here we must take interest in - many of
which are not even described.   We need more people, more money, much more
help.  Now WAKE UP!!!!  The building is on fire and all we have is one
bucket!!!  Or.  Yah, the building is on fire but one bucket is all I can
carry, so I'll focus on what I can handle and ignore the greater need.

"...I am not not a strong proponent of subspp"   I get so tired of this
line of retoric.  Subspecies are real, valid, and what all our endangered
butterflies are.  Don't ever visit the Nature Conservancy site -- as that
is most of what one will find.  Don't read any of the professional check
lists - as subspecies are most of what one will find.  Don't get down and
dirty into living things - as evolutionary variation is ALL one will find.

1) THE Standardized list of North American butterfly names is found on line
at
http://www.tils-ttr.org.  This is true in fact - besides TILS has just as
much right to self proclaim itself as some official whatever as naba or any
other organization.  In this case, might will make right -- with 4,000
members naba can proclaim itself to be just about anything it wants leps
wise and no body can do much about it.  Unless, the naba chapters and rank
and file utilize the only complete official list there is - SC-NABN

2)  The SC-NABN base line is the same one as naba's.  The 1992 Miller et al
list.

3)  At the species level, the TILS list is virtually identical to all
others.  This is due to the common staring point of most lists - Miller et
al.

4) Virtually all other lists have chosen to ignore subspecies common names.
Thus, the reason they don't list any is their own fault (oversight,
omission).  The base line for the TILS subspecific names is also the Miller
et al list.  The next source is public input - since these are their names.
Those who choose to not participate in the input process should keep their
mouths shut and stop complaining that the names they want are not listed.
(If you don't register and vote, don't complain about who gets elected.)

Ron Gatrelle





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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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