[leps-talk] Common names can be more stable

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Gochfeld" <gochfeld at EOHSI.RUTGERS.EDU>
Subject: [leps-talk] Common names can be more stable


> All of this rambling, mine included, is really besides the point.
> Common names offer the possibility for stability, while taxonomists
> modify the scientific names to fit the current understanding (or whim)
> about relationships.  Generic names, particularly, are subject to change
> (almost without notice).
>
> Universal acceptance may never occur (but my guess is it will in the
> next generation or two).
>
> I don't know whether the Giant Swallowtail ought to be in Heraclides or
> Papilio, but the common name can remain the same. If someone prefers one
> of the several other common names applied to this butterfly, that will
slow
> things down a bit, but only for a while.
>

I don't know where I exactly fit in at on the use of names from the
perspective of the paradigms of others.  But for me I do not use Heraclides
or Papilio much - I just use cresphontes.  So for me I see the lack of
stability primarily at the genus level.  But I see great stability at the
species/subspecies level.  Cresphontes it is and has been from the
beginning with this one.  All common names, like Giant, in my view, are all
100% parallel to the species/subspecies level names and have virtually
nothing to do with genera on up.  Giant and cresphontes are both single
words.  But with many "common" names they are double or tipple
combinations.  To me it is much easier to just call it an astyanax than Red
Spotted Purple - although in practice I generally use the latter more
myself.

Because I myself do not have any association between common names and
genera names I see all common names as species level specific.  Which from
my view of the elephant sees no difference between cresphontes and Giant or
philenor and Pipevine Swallowtail, Pipe Vine S, or Pipe-vine S.  In
practice and conversation, I do not call it Battus philenor I just call it
philenor. Which is a heck of a lot easier and shorter for me then the other
species specific Pipevine Swallowtail.

This is why I don't see all the instability others say they see.  I don't
look at the genus name.  Common names have no equational component to
genus.   So I see the whole thing as apples and oranges.  I would just call
them all names like ladon, asterius, coloro, dukesi, numitor, etc. Those
are my "common" names.  We also need to remember that in ALL the common
names lists that either to the right or left is the scientific name.  No
common name stands apart from a scientific connection. There is no list
like this.

Orange Sulphur
Cloudless Sulphur
Dainty Sulphur
Clouded Sulphur
etc.

There are three genera here.  Not a genus Sulphur with four speices.  This
is why all the checklists HAVE to have the scientific name there too.
Without the scientific name - specifically the genus name we really would
have a dumbed down nomenclature and taxonomy.  For the same reasons one can
not have a list like this either.

eurytheme
eubule
iole
philodice

So we have two choices of common names listings.
One like this

(Colias eurytheme) Orange Sulphur
(Colias philodice)  Clouded Sulphur
(Phoebis sennae eubule) Cloudless Sulphur
(Nathalis iole) Dainty Sulphur

Or one like this. (which is "my" common names list).

(Colias eurytheme) eurytheme
(Colias philodice)  philodice
(Phoebis sennae eubule) eubule
(Nathalis iole) iole

What we now have is both.

(Deciduphagus irus) Frosted Elfin
(Deciduphagus henrici) Henry's

(Euphyes conspicua)  Black Dash
(Euphyes dukesi) Duke's

(Euphyes arpa) Palmetto Skipper
(Euphyes dion) Dion

(Euphyes bimacula) Two Spotted Skipper
(Euphyes pilatka)  Paltaka

(Parnassius phoebus) Phoebus
(Parnassius clodius) Clodius

(Papilio zelicaon)  Anise Swallowtail
(Papilio ornythion) Ornythion

(Pontia sisymbrii)  Spring White
(Pontia beckerii)  Becker's

(Eurema lisa)  Little Yellow
(Eurema salome) Salome

(Lycaena phylaeas)  American Copper
(Lycaena mariposa)  Mariposa

(Chlorostrymon simaethis) Silver-banded Haristreak
(Chlorostrymon telea)  Telea

(Satyrium calanus) Banded Hairstreak
(Satyrium ilavia)  Ilavia
Note that I am not picking things like Edward's or King's but more non
English (non-common language names).
(Callophrys xami)  Xami

Lots more. In just the Fritillaries: Coronis, Zerene, Nokomis, Callippe,
Hydaspe, Edward's, Atlantis, Frigga, Freija, Astarte, Polaris, Alberta,
Titania.  All so called common names but are actually the scientific names
that are supposedly so hard to teach (older) people.  How many dozens of
common names are just the scientific ones?  All the arguments fall apart.
How can we have stability for Freija if freija is ever changed?  And where
is the logic in this type of listing?

Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus
  'Olive' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus gryneus
  'Sweadner's ' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus sweadneri
  'Siva' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus siva
  'Nelson's ' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus nelsoni
  'Muir's' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus muiri
  'Loki' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus loki
  'Thorne's ' Juniper Hairstreak - Callophrys gryneus thornei
Hessel's Hairstreak - Callophrys hesseli

Why is there no
Hessel's Hairstreak - Callophrys hesseli
    Angular Hessel's Haristreak - Callophrys hesseli angulata

What logic is there in listing all these subspecies but none for Speyeria
cybele?  There is none.

If not just one - but a whole truck load of - scientific names function
fine also as common ones then the question begs to be asked,  why not just
use the existent scientific ones for all the common names?  Why reinvent
the wheel?  The fact is that for years and years the Lep Soc official check
"list" (dosPassos, then Miller/Brown, then Ferris) was _our_ common names
list.  And to all the older lepidopterists it still is (and MONA).  Let me
also say this.  It was/is the shallow stamp type butterfly collectors who
wanted the common English names - the real lepidopterists always wanted
something more informative.

Mike said. Universal acceptance may never occur (but my guess is it will in
the next generation or two).

It is interesting to me that this is the exact same thing I see being said
by the taxonomists about scientific names...  Common names offer no more
stability at the species/subspecies level than scientific ones.  In fact I
think they offer less.  There is an international commission and stiff
rules to regulate the scientific ones and no commission or rules (evidenced
by the mish mash above) to regulate the common butterfly names.

I do not have an either-or view of common/scientific nomenclature.  Both
have a place in the human experience and function.  I utilize both.  But I
see several aspects of communication that common names can never fulfill
and no aspect of communication that scientific names can not fulfill.
Familiarity is strictly in the mind of the user.  Stability of names is
strictly a short term illusion with evolving organisms.  Due to our great
lack of knowledge of Lepidopteran relationships, at this time in history
there can only be stable (stagnant/static) names (in any nomenclature) at
the expense of scientific understanding of organic reality.  The central
mistake of birders who jump over into butterflies, dragonflies, etc. is
their failure to realize that what is known about birds is far in excess of
what we know about lepidoptera -- and other insects.

Ron Gatrelle






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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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