[leps-talk] Re: Common names list--need for unique names

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Fri Feb 22 10:06:45 EST 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: [leps-talk] Re: Common names list--need for unique names


> I agree with most of what Ron has said below. But not with the "never
> can be".
>
> That strikes me as nihilistic, particularly in with recent threads about
> the vagaries of the scientific name.  It would be possible for the
> common name to be a stable and universal identifier for a taxon,
> regardless of changes in scientific names which are intended to reflect
> current phylogenetic understanding.
> Mike Gochfeld
>

Yes, common (vernacular) names can be stable over time and _an_ identifier
of a taxon - as long as the scientific nomenclature defines it as a taxon.
But the "correct or official identifier of organisms" will always be the
scientific name.  This is the entire reason we have the international
commissions on nomenclature of zoological, biological, and other life forms
and the rules governing the international (trans linguistic) nomenclatures
of each respective group.  Common names are _A_ nomenclature.  They are
also totally unregulated on an international scale and can never be
universal.  This is for one simple reason -- the whole world does not speak
English.  Gold is not "gold" in every linguistic group, but Au is always
Au. Tons of other examples in every possible catagory.

We already have a nomenclauture for butterflies.  One that is the same all
around the world.  It is highly structured and strictly regulated.  It is
in place.  Common names are fine and useful, unless someone or group wants
to use them to replace what is in place.  Some seem to think common names
are just as good as (equil to) scientific definations.   Stability is not
synonymous with accuracy.   The very reason scientific "names" are adjusted
is to maintain accuracy.   The very reason common names don't change much
is that accuracy is not much of a concern - convienience is the driving
force behind common names.  Those who value the commerce of scientific
epithets are not the Nihilists. Nihilism is the total rejection of
established laws and institutions.

We could send someone to the moon by common names - it's up there. Just
point em' that way.  Or by scientific names - meticulous math.  Common
names relay no evolutionary information or scientific data. There is no
genus concept and many don't even want a subspecific equivilaent. It is
obvious why many consider them dummed down.  Our common names nomenclature
is only a shadow of our scientific nomenclature.  And that is a precise
description.  Without the scientifice understandings on which the
scientific names are based we would not even have these common names. Black
Swallowtail and Ozark Woodland Swallowtail.  Until a scientist came along,
the Woodland was not even known to exist.  And without the scientist the
Baird's and Black would be thought of as the same by many a casual
observer.

I personally find little use for common names.  Others like and use them a
lot.  I have accepted that - and am doing what I can to acomodate those who
wish to use them.  But there is nothing a common name is used for that the
scientific one does not do the same thing.  Conversely, there are many
things that scientific names do that are impossible for common names to do.
My 5 year old grandson wanted me to see the Triceratops and Tyrannosaurus
toys he had a couple days ago.  He seemed to say those words just fine -
and knew exactly which was which.  What is especially interesting is that
he had several more and knew their names too -- I didn't -- so I just
called em all The Dinosaur Toys.

When I talk with the other older lepidopterists I just use one word to
convey most taxa: grynea, tharos, eubule, lisa etc.  With many new comers
who don't know these names I now have to use several words for each and
worry about hyphens, caps etc.  The Linnaean system came about partly to
get rid of the common names of the middle ages  White Rose on Yonder
Mountain.   Black Bird With Red Ring On Neck.  Red Spotted Purple, Monarch
and Mourning Cloak are still stuck in 1310.  Oh, I like those names and in
these cases seldom use the scientific ones.  But I do not confuse my
preferential usage with proper definitions.

>
> Ron Gatrelle wrote:
snips
Having a list of "standardized" common names for
> all North American butterflies has more than one valid utilitarian
purpose.
> But they are still but common names, and as such are neither the correct
or
> official identifier of organisms - and never can be.
>
> I'll take a time out here - to see what others may have to say.  I have
> made notes to remind me of my additional thoughts.
>
> Ron




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list