[leps-talk] Papilio machaon aliaska

Andrew Warren warrena at mail.science.orst.edu
Mon Mar 4 15:09:46 EST 2002

I wonder if Pavulaan and Gatrelle* still call their list "taxonomically
correct"?  The title alone has led me to question the methods in which the
correctness of a taxon name is evaluated.  As Felix has shown, the stated
guidelines of the "TC"-ISBN will not necessarily lead to a "correct"
decision, under all viewpoints.  As I tried to point out on leps-l before,
there is no such thing as a "correct" taxonomic list (it is in the
archives).  Anyone who claims to have a/the "correct" taxonomic list is
dreaming.  I think Norbert is correct that this "TC"-ISBN listing has
tremendous potential (way above and beyond what other lists offer), but
with a name like "taxonomically correct", I doubt that there is a single
professionally trained  systematist or taxonomist that will take the list
seriously.  Just my two cents, again.

Andy Warren  
* sorry Ron if you are not involved with the decision making related to
the "TC"-ISBN; I am purposefully picking on you...

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX wrote:

> thanks to Felix for sharing his views on this topic. I differ however,
> insofar as this does inspire confidence in the TC-ISBN because it is being
> developed in a very open and transparent manner and the compiler has
> requested input to improve the quality of the product which as we all know
> will continue to evolve. This is far more credible and far preferable to the
> dreadful ATL/Heppner list which was done behind closed doors and without
> reference to the excellent published work of both Gatrelle and Sperling.  I
> have no confidence in the ATL list and plenty of confidence in the TILS
> index with respect to their usefulness. Regardless of what is written or by
> whom, there will continue to be differing views on some of these topics.  I
> can appreciate that Felix may be disappointed by not having been consulted
> directly before the material was posted. It is likely that Harry was at
> least equally disappointed when Felix and several other people publicly
> rejected Harry's excellent published work on C. idella without consultation
> and on the apparent basis of an opinion by one committee member who has done
> no research on Celastrina that I am aware of.  I hope that Felix will, if he
> has not already done so, propose a revised version of what should go on the
> Index.  
>  ------------------------------------------------------------ 
>    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:


More information about the Leps-l mailing list