Common Names update

Andrew Warren warrena at
Sat Mar 30 01:05:58 EST 2002

Ron thinks he knows why.....  Please tell us since you got our curiosity
up (or did I miss it somehow?)...


On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ron Gatrelle wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Quinn" <ento at>
> To: "Leps-L" <LEPS-L at>
> 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:


   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit: 

More information about the Leps-l mailing list