[leps-talk] Papilio machaon aliaska

Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
Mon Mar 4 15:31:43 EST 2002

Any professional worthy of the name who does not take something seriously
due to the name it is given or because of its source needs to give their
head a serious shake, stop being an arrogant jerk and learn how to think
objectively and constructively. I would hope that professionals (people who
are paid to do something)will support and help those who are not paid to do
this work rather than ignoring it or sniping at it. I would be interested in
suggestions for a better name for this worthy endeavor.  Also I would be
interested in ideas as to how to improve the content. Science and our
collective interests in butterflies will be well served to the extent that
people, who think they have the 'right' answers or simply ideas for
improvement, take their valuable time to be part of the solution.
Constructive ideas for improvement are often well received by other people;
but not always -- such is life :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Warren [mailto:warrena at mail.science.orst.edu]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:10 PM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Cc: 'Felix Sperling'; TILS-leps-talk at yahoogroups.com; Harry Pavulaan;
cguppy at quesnelbc.com; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: [leps-talk] Papilio machaon aliaska

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
> dreadful ATL/Heppner list which was done behind closed doors and without
> reference to the excellent published work of both Gatrelle and Sperling.
> 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
> whom, there will continue to be differing views on some of these topics.
> 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
> and on the apparent basis of an opinion by one committee member who has
> no research on Celastrina that I am aware of.  I hope that Felix will, if
> has not already done so, propose a revised version of what should go on
> 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