| 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