Subject
[Fwd: RE: Cyclargus and Hemiargus rear their head yet again]
From
Date
Body
EDITOR's NOTE. Lepidopterist Kurt Johnson is, along with Steve Coates,
the author of NABOKOV's BLUES-- a fascinating account of VN's work as a
scientist.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Cyclargus and Hemiargus rear their head yet again
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:52:45 -0500
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
For those of us who thought that ALL the work of the Nabokov centenary
had put to rest the quandary of Cyclargus and Hemiargus, it was not to
be. First the quotation from our friend Mr. N, then the story of the
current resurrection of the errors he tried to correct 50+ years ago!
"As happens in zoological nomenclature when a string of obsolete,
synonymous, or misapplied names keeps following the correct designation
of a creature throughout the years and not only cannot be shaken off, or
ignored, or obliterated within the brackets but actually grows on with
time, so in literary history, the vague terms "classicism",
"sentimentalis", "romanticism", "realism" and the like struggle on and
on, from textbook to textbook".
From Commentary of Eugene Onegin; Vladimir Nabokov, quoted on page 259
of Nabokov's Blues
Now, in the current petition just published by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the protection of Cyclargus thomasi as an
endangered species, the know-nothings of the scientific world have
listed the beast as Hemiargus thomasi and ask for distinction of this
species from Hemiargus ceraunus! The two species not only are not even
in the same genus and the genera are not even sister genera! Alas!
How did this happen? Well, the petitioners are our friends the North
American Butterfly Association, a powerful, monied organization of
mostly good, wonderful and nice (but not scientific) butterfly
enthusiasts who (apparently to grab glory for the listing) (a) refused
to cooperate with any other lepidopterists in filing the move for
petition, are not professionals themselves, and explicitly profess that
scientific names should mostly be given the back seat to common names
(and when used, used in a way most understandable to the "old folks at
home") and (b) therefore have never seen the current scientific
literature. I am told there were those who tried to get them to use
the right name AND to also cooperate with more knowledgeable people in
filing the move for petition BUT, alas that name, "We, the N.A.B.A." (to
which I belong by the way and which has some wonderful people)" carries
a lot of weight-- money, membership, glossy magazines etc. So, this
will be cleared up in the opining process (I hope) and also it has
already been cleared up, to some extent, by the journal Holarctic
Lepidoptera (issue still in press) changing their references to
Cyclargus in their treatments of the relevant data regarding this petition.
But it is amazing how Nabokov's words remain prophetic... this
Cyclargus/Hemiargus thing will just not go away....simply because in the
wings, they look alike. No.... bats and birds are not the same! And
even bats are not all the same (some are rodents [mousey-rats]; some are
lagomorphs [the rabbit group]).
KURT JOHNSON
KURT
Kurt Johnson
the author of NABOKOV's BLUES-- a fascinating account of VN's work as a
scientist.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Cyclargus and Hemiargus rear their head yet again
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 18:52:45 -0500
From: "Johnson, Kurt" <JohnsonK@Coudert.com>
To: "'Vladimir Nabokov Forum'" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
For those of us who thought that ALL the work of the Nabokov centenary
had put to rest the quandary of Cyclargus and Hemiargus, it was not to
be. First the quotation from our friend Mr. N, then the story of the
current resurrection of the errors he tried to correct 50+ years ago!
"As happens in zoological nomenclature when a string of obsolete,
synonymous, or misapplied names keeps following the correct designation
of a creature throughout the years and not only cannot be shaken off, or
ignored, or obliterated within the brackets but actually grows on with
time, so in literary history, the vague terms "classicism",
"sentimentalis", "romanticism", "realism" and the like struggle on and
on, from textbook to textbook".
From Commentary of Eugene Onegin; Vladimir Nabokov, quoted on page 259
of Nabokov's Blues
Now, in the current petition just published by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service for the protection of Cyclargus thomasi as an
endangered species, the know-nothings of the scientific world have
listed the beast as Hemiargus thomasi and ask for distinction of this
species from Hemiargus ceraunus! The two species not only are not even
in the same genus and the genera are not even sister genera! Alas!
How did this happen? Well, the petitioners are our friends the North
American Butterfly Association, a powerful, monied organization of
mostly good, wonderful and nice (but not scientific) butterfly
enthusiasts who (apparently to grab glory for the listing) (a) refused
to cooperate with any other lepidopterists in filing the move for
petition, are not professionals themselves, and explicitly profess that
scientific names should mostly be given the back seat to common names
(and when used, used in a way most understandable to the "old folks at
home") and (b) therefore have never seen the current scientific
literature. I am told there were those who tried to get them to use
the right name AND to also cooperate with more knowledgeable people in
filing the move for petition BUT, alas that name, "We, the N.A.B.A." (to
which I belong by the way and which has some wonderful people)" carries
a lot of weight-- money, membership, glossy magazines etc. So, this
will be cleared up in the opining process (I hope) and also it has
already been cleared up, to some extent, by the journal Holarctic
Lepidoptera (issue still in press) changing their references to
Cyclargus in their treatments of the relevant data regarding this petition.
But it is amazing how Nabokov's words remain prophetic... this
Cyclargus/Hemiargus thing will just not go away....simply because in the
wings, they look alike. No.... bats and birds are not the same! And
even bats are not all the same (some are rodents [mousey-rats]; some are
lagomorphs [the rabbit group]).
KURT JOHNSON
KURT
Kurt Johnson