Check ? lists

[Ron Gatrelle]

There are a whole lot of insects in the order Lepidoptera in this world.
More than any one human being will ever be able to deal with.  A great many
are still unknown to science and thus to us.  Just here in the US and
Canada there are a whole lot of known taxa of butterflies and skippers.
There are very few (is any) people who have a working knowledge of all of
these.  If someone is interested in gaining a familiarity with an order of
wildlife and wants to do this with limited time, quickly, and easily - then
Lepidoptera don't fit the bill.  Some appear to have tried to make it fit
the "market" by oversimplification of its volume and dumbing down of its
science.

In the last decade a new kind of "check lists" of the butterflies of the US
and Canada has come into being.  These new check lists only list basic
species only or with very few subspecies.  True check lists list
everything - as they should.  We see several new books that have come out
in just the last 5 years of regional and national scope and all of these
have true check lists in them.  They list all the taxa (species and
subspecies) in the region or country covered.  The latest is Pyles'
excellent book on The Butterflies of Cascadia - with a complete check list
at the back.

The internet is the cheapest and widest avenue of publication in the world
today.  There is absolutely no reason why any "check list" published on the
Web "needs" to be kept short to "cut down on publication costs".   All of
the true check lists of the butterflies and skippers in the US and/or
Canada are found on the Web at one place - The International Lepidoptera
Survey's web site. http://www.tils-ttr.org   There are two main lists.  One
of Scientific names based solely on published research.   And one of common
names based on those most in standard usage.

The USGS list is a logical list as it just lists species level names.
But... it only lists to species.  For example it lists 4 species of
Checkerspots (Euphydryas).

The NABA list is not logical as it lists species but also an arbitrary
assortment of subspecies. This list is also very limited.  For example it
lists 4 species of Checkerspots (Euphydryas) and also 3 subspecies for a
total of 7 entries.

The TILS lists are both logical and thorough.  For example the SC-NABN
common names area lists 5 species of Checkerspots (Euphydryas)  [number of
species recognized in most recent books] with 74 subspecies.

So you want to know what is out there in Euphydryas taxa?

USGS                      4 taxa
NABA                     7 taxa
TILS SC-NABN   74 taxa

Let's also remember that none of the Euphydryas names mentioned on the two
limited lists are endangered "species"   So before someone says that those
74 names are not worth publishing, just remember that the Euphydryas
endangereds are in that number.   If one is going to publish a check list
of anything it should include all taxa in the area covered.   That is what
a true Check List of Butterflies has always done - and still does.

Ron Gatrelle

(PS)
Last month there were 67 posts at the TILS-moth-rah list serve
A moths only list serve with 78 currect members
To subscribe: TILS-moth-rah-subscribe at yahoogroups.com

Last month there were 647 posts at the TILS-leps-talk list serve
A general leps list serve with 175 current members
To subscribe:  TILS-leps-talk-subscribe at yahoogroups.com




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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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