>As Rick
>Mayden demonstrated at the NANFA convention in Jackson, understanding a
>species'
>evolutionary relationships can aid in its conservation.
I hope you summarized that in the new AC.
> > also wonder why this wasn't named the silverjaw
> > shiner instead of silverjaw minnow. I never understood
> > the shiner, chub, minnow logic.
>
>That's because there is no logic!
I still wish there was a better scheme for common names. I know why it's
done the way it is (thank you Peggy Shute and Fritz Rohde and others for
your explanation and defense), but bad, confusing and misleading common
names probably also make it harder for the public to understand fishes and
those common names are their link to the fishes. I think it can create
conservation problems rather than solve them. Calling a moronid or
percichthyid (or whatever that family is called now) a perch runs contrary
to the reality of these family relationships. It rather goes against
Mayden's statement about understanding evolutionary relationships to
accomplish conservation. The public is going to have to get more involved
in fish and environmental conservation and since common names are what they
know, they're learning wrong from the start. I don't know the solution;
you can't go and change common names all the time.
-- Jay DeLong Olympia, WA where shift happens
/----------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes / Association" / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org </x-flowed>