Common Names update

[robert beiriger]

Mike and all:

    Just to add my two cent onto Mike Quinn's e-mail and to say I strongly
agree with Mike.

1.    I know from personal experience that there in several of families of
Hymenoptera you will not if be able to even get a species ID.  Even the
"experts" can not tell the species apart and will stop at the genus.  You
can not get subspecies until you can at tell the species apart.

2.     In longhorn beetles and others (Scarabs) there really is not a lot of
good subspecies described.  If you get a red and a green form of a beetles
from the same location they sometimes are considered different subspecies.
I do not believe that this is the correct use of a subspecies.

3.      I think most people want to find something new and spend too much
time describing very small differences in a population.


Robert Beiriger
Loxahatchee,FL

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Quinn <Mike.Quinn at tpwd.state.tx.us>
To: 'Leps-L' <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: Common Names update


> Ron, In your three replies, you attempted to rebut every single sentence
> except the following:
>
> "There's a strong correlation between the number of subspp. a taxon has
and
> the number of amateur enthusiasts involved. Examples include Tiger and
> Longhorn Beetles, Butterflies, Orchids, and Cacti (though the latter two
are
> further split by crossbreeding). I believe there are relatively few
subspp.
> described for Moths, Diptera, and Hymenoptera. This is not to suggest that
> there is no utility to subspp. Apis mellifera L. has numerous important
> subspp."
>
> This is the crux of my view of subspecies. If someone tried to publish a
> paper today describing a bunch of subspp. of Staphylinids, Braconids, or
> Chalcidoids I think he or she would be politely asked to get a life.
>
> Your reference to the doctor with too many patients is an apt analogy for
> today's ever older and ever fewer systematists. I think their time would
be
> best spent working on the many entomological groups which have no
specialist
> rather than further dividing the charismatic butterflies.
>
> Mike Quinn
>
> PS: I don't recall mentioning my political persuasion. For all you know, I
> voted for Nader!
>
> ===
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
>
>


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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