species name vs genus name

[Michael Gochfeld]

Ron is correct.

When we did our analysis of name stability starting with the 1890's, the
species part of the name was unchanged MUCH more often than the genus.

But the scientific name of a species comprises both (blame it on Linnaeus).

In fact, my botany professor hammered into me that it was INCORRECT to refer to
a species solely by the species epithet.  If I was lazy or repeating the
reference I still had to write at least P. cresophontes.  (Of course plant
people are different and play by different rules).

Ron also wrote:  "Because I myself do not have any association between common
names and
genera names I see all common names as species level specific."    I think this
is essentially correct, although attempts are being made to ascribe some parts
of a common name to the genus level, particularly for tropical species, few of
which have English names. . I don't know whether that is feasible or will catch
on. But it seems like a good idea.  Personally, I favor at least considering
the genus name as part of the common name.  But then what happens when the
genus gets revised and the generic designation changes.

Mike Gochfeld

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

> ----- 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
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> FREE COLLEGE MONEY
> CLICK HERE to search
> 600,000 scholarships!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/iZp8OC/4m7CAA/ySSFAA/CCYolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> TILS Motto: "We can not protect that which we do not know." © 1999
>
> Subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com
> Post message: TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com
> Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TILS-leps-talk/messages
> Unsubscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
> For more information: http://www.tils-ttr.org
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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