[leps-talk] subspecific common names

Ron Gatrelle gatrelle at tils-ttr.org
Sat Feb 23 17:10:24 EST 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Kunkel" <joe at bio.umass.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2002 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [leps-talk] subspecific common names


> The common names can also not be rigidly enforced to be unique to a
> species in the case of genetic polymorphisms.   The Albino Sulphur is a
> morph of the Clouded Sulphur, _Colias philodice_ or the Orange Sulphur,
> _Colias eurytheme_.   How should this type of biological variation be
> included in the common name list?   The list is becoming a list of
> common names of recognizable forms and the currently accepted
> terminology for the name should be listed after it.  In such instances
> one could allow duplicate common names for instances where duplication
> is unavoidable:
>
> Albino Sulphur.  "alba" morph of the Clouded Sulphur, _Colias
> philodice_ .
> Albino Sulphur.  "alba" morph of the Orange Sulphur, _Colias eurytheme_.
>
> This confusion would exist whether one used binoculars or captured
> specimen to identify the sulphur.  Somehow the list should be annotated
> to allow for the rich possibilities of texture in the nameable world.
>
> The underwing moths are rife with examples of polymorphic species, each
> with individual morph names which a trained or discriminating eye can
> recognize:  The common Dark Red Underwing, _Catocala ultronia_ has
> morphs Celia, Lucinda, Adriana, and Nigrescens.  These are not
> subspecies but are recognized distinct (in most cases) forms that a
> hobbyist or professional collector might separate out as a potential
> distinct species until one discovers the umbrella species they are
> gathered under.  Some of these morphs or varieties can be more abundant
> in one area versus another leading to erroneous suspicions that they are
> distinct species.
Joe,
___________________________

    There are several good points here (as you know or you wouldn't have
written it :-)   We have to know what we are trying to accomplish in
forming a list of standardized/approved  names.

1)  Is it a list to facilitate communication among the masses of
Lepidoptera amateurs and professionals via common names?  The NABA, USGS,
TIARA,  NatureServe, and TILS lists do this (and others).  But how they do
it directly manifests their purpose and goal.

2)  Is such a list put forth as a parallel nomenclature to the scientific
lists?  If so then it would seem logical that it would be indirectly
following (governed by) the ICZN set of rules.  That is, it would only have
names for validly described subspecies and above but not recognize forms.
The TILS, NatureServe and TIARIA lists do this.   Or, not even recognize
subspecies.  The NABA and USGS lists do this.

3)  Is it a substitute (or replacement) for a scientific list?  If so it
would make decisions of taxonomic validity.   Independently (make decisions
internally) recognize or not recognize taxa.  The NABA  list does this.
The USGS and TILS lists do not do this.

4) The TILS list is the only one that:

a.  totally _parallels_ the scientific literature with common names for all
valid taxa at the ranks of subspecies and species (the NatureServe list
almost does this);

b. makes no taxonomic decisions - it does not sink or lump anything. (But
because it parallels the scientific lists it indirectly follows that
splitting and lumping.);

c. is now considering, due to Joe's post, including at least some form and
hybrid common names since the sole goal of the TILS list is to provide a
stable and comprehensive list of those common names that are approved and
established by their usage among we the people.  If this is not done it
will be because this is already facilitated via the WEBsters' WUDBN list -
which includes everything.

The criteria and rank level that people or organizations choose to use in
conducting and conveying survey or count information is the responsibility
of those individuals and organizations and has no connection to, or
responsibility from, any other organization or lists.

In conclusion people can choose what ever "list" they want.  I would choose
the list that is most comprehensive and user friendly.  I would avoid any
list that is taxon restrictive and name controlled.  The TILS list is
structured in such a way that any organization or group should be able to
use it.  For those who only want species level common names - the name of
the nominate subspecies fulfils this need.  For those who want more
specific identifications this is provided down to the form level.   All
three of our lists do not just sit on the web site, they are actively
updated with every development.  They are all in the roughed in stages -
under construction.

Ron Gatrelle





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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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


More information about the Leps-l mailing list