Common Names update

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

I am probably missing the point of this argument.  But I see no reason for 
the offense.  Is the Miller Common names book widely available?  The fact 
that it did or did not include subspecies & those politics don't interest me, 
simply I am wondoring whether that master compilation in print?  If not, why 
not?  

It's a free world, no one owns butterfly names ("Butterflies are Free"), and 
where the point is being debated, even Lep zealots are subjected to freedom 
and plurality of religion.  As Ice said in "Top Gun", why can't some authors 
acknowledge the Compendium "Can be my WING-MAN Any Day."  If one really want 
to "durably" name some species, the option for doing some hard core science 
still exists and has never been argued.  Though it will be an interesting 
discussion when a nomenclature system is developed based on combined 
phenotype-DNA system that prenames everything that doesn't exist or might be 
discovered.  Gee I hope I haven't given anybody any ideas...

Just cyberventing:)
Doug Dawn
Monterrey, Mexico

En un mensaje con fecha 03/29/2002 12:36:23 AM Central Standard Time, 
gatrelle at tils-ttr.org escribe:

<< Asunto:   Re: Common Names update
 Fecha: 03/29/2002 12:36:23 AM Central Standard Time
 From:  gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
 Sender:    owner-leps-l at lists.yale.edu
 Reply-to:  gatrelle at tils-ttr.org (Ron Gatrelle)
 To:    ento at satx.rr.com, LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu (Leps-L)
 
 
 ----- Original Message -----
 From: "Mike Quinn" <ento at satx.rr.com>
 To: "Leps-L" <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
 Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:54 PM
 Subject: RE: Common Names update
 
 
 > Ron, Most people on this list probably know that I regularly give
 offerings
 > at the alter of common names, but I gotta tell ya that I truly believe
 that
 > your efforts to put common names on subspecies is basically a waste of
 > time... Mike Quinn
 >
 
 Mike -  I find this post and comments very interesting.
 
 First, you say,  you are a common names proponent.   Thus it is odd that
 you would take the time and make the effort to post anything opposing
 common names.  A proponent who is an opponent.  Curious. One can only
 wonder why.
 Of course, I think I know why.
 
 Next, it is my time to "waste" so it is no skin off of anyone else's nose.
 If I and others at TILS want to waste our time (and money) with this why
 should anyone else care?  You didn't post what you did because you care
 about my time - but because some how the list irritates you personally. Of
 course, I think I know why.
 
 To me your post shows that you do not really worship (which is what
 offerings at altars is) at the common names alter.  Your position reveals
 that your interest in common names is only surface.  A "true believer" in
 anything, goes all the way.
 
 On the practicle side, tell us what harm is done by such a list of
 availbale names?  The harm is that it is not the list you support.
 
 When you said, "your efforts to put common names on subspecies..." you make
 it sound like this is some new or novel thing.  The 1992 Official list of
 common names (equivalent of the Ornithological Union's Bird names)
 published by the Smithsonian, edited by the honorable Dr. J.Y. Miller and
 forwarded by Dr. P. Opler and done in consultation with all the top
 lepidopterists in the filed (note that J. Glassberg is not consulted and
 naba not mentioned at all therein), lists the common names for
 _subspecies_.  So it is obvious that you think that was all a waste of thei
 r time and money too - don't you.  Of course, I think I know why.
 
 The harm in not having names for them is like a family that has identical
 triplets and decides to only name one - all three look just alike - so they
 can all answer to the one name - forget their individual uniqueness and
 personal WORTH.  In this brilliant (naba type) system all three loose out
 as the one name renders all three as non-individuals.
 
 The official list by Miller was endorsed, promoted, by Xerces and Lep. Soc.
 It listed all common names for subspecies where they existed.  The SC-NABN
 list is built on that official foundation and tradition.  No one has to use
 it if they don't want to.   And no one should be able to prevent, mock, or
 spit at anyone who does choose to use these standardized names.
 
 Ron Gatrelle

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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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