On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Dennis Paulson wrote:

> Interestingly, it may be only in birds that there are committees to
> determine the official names of organisms. There are published lists for
> North American mammals, fishes, amphibians, and reptiles, but I don't think
> they are treated as official, in the sense that these names *must* be used.
> But it still makes sense to have the bookkeeping, for example for work
> with endangered species, where the names used should surely be
> standardized.
>
> In the Dragonfly Society of the Americas, we are deciding right now whether
> there ought to be a committee to rule on nomenclatorial proposals and
> changes. Probably it won't happen, but the fact that we are talking about
> it indicates some wish that the names be standardized--for convenience, if
> nothing else.

The convenience of standardization should not be underemphasized. Perhaps
having a standard published list of "accepted" names is not critical for
recreational types (I am happy to put any name on a dragonfly, I don't
care if it's 30 years out of date!). Some people are obligated to keep up
with current taxonomy, though, including, for example, anyone who wants to
publish in formal scientific journals. As Dennis points out, not even the
editors of bird journals are always up to date, and they have the
"official" taxonomy readily compiled and available. It's harder for
someone studying, for example, aquatic insects to be sure they've used the
currently "best" name, as such authors must do an exhaustive (and probably
exhausting) search of the primary literature just to make sure the name
hasn't changed since they learned it!

And the names do change, quite frequently. Just because the common
waterstrider was _Gerris remigis_ last year, doesn't mean you can assume
it still is this year (in fact, it is _Aquarius remigis_ I *think*).

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu