Some of Dr. Yanega responses are really, really encouraging for newly entomology graduates like myself:

Entomology as a discipline doesn’t get much respect or support. Unfortunately, no one seems to care about the estimated 10 million undocumented life forms on this planet. However, as a career choice, it is phenomenal. I help bring attention to these species. Unfortunately the current California budget turmoil has put my career at risk because I’m considered a staff member rather than a faculty member.

Yay!, phenomenal he said. Anyways, I do welcome his attitude in regards to his new appointment:

I think the present system by which we name species is not policed effectively and has loopholes and ambiguities. For example, scientific names can be published in journals without peer review. Although that freedom is fine, the reality effectively permits taxonomic vandals to plagiarize others or publish without scientific merit.

The ICZN, a 28-member commission, is now trying to deal with this and other messy issues. I advocate substantial changes to the code, such as provisions for online-only publication, but others prefer the status quo, which makes for a contentious debate.

Our current system of scientific nomenclature is one of the greatest achievements in human conventions; when it comes to universal acceptance it puts the Human Rights Convention to shame. The code has its problems for sure, but it is under constant scrutiny and revision, albeit slowly. In any event, it is better to introduce changes from within its governance, little by little, than to try to erect a shady government that no one in his right mind will join.

Read the full interview here.

First, it must be explained why the name of the bee appears in the title as two words, though “honeybee” is the customary form in the literature of apiculture. Regardless of dictionaries, we have in entomology a rule for insect common names that can be followed. It says: If the insect is what its name implies, write the two words separately; otherwise run them together. Thus we have such names as house fly, blow fly, and robber fly contrasted with dragonfly, caddicefly, and butterfly, because the latter are not flies, just as an aphislion is not a lion and a silverfish is not a fish. The honey bee is an insect and is pre-eminently a bee; “honeybee” is equivalent to “Johnsmith.” [vii]

It is an interesting paragraph, full of common sense.

In myrmecology, we do write acacia ant, army ant, carpenter ant, fire ant, harvester ant, weaver ant, and wood ant. However, we also refer to non-formicids like Mutillidae wasps as velvet ants and Isoptera (=termites) as white ants.

I always feel a little queasy over conventions that seek to regulate the proper use of common names from a scientific standpoint; such names, after all, belong to the common, not to the self-absorbed scientist. Snodgrass’ grammatical rule presupposes that the person using a common name has a good grasp of the taxonomy of the group. The same feeling goes for the insistence by some anthropologically-inclined taxonomists that one should compile and list all the existing common names for a given taxonomic group while preparing a monograph, flora or fauna (if you ever worked in an area with a rich ethnographic diversity you know this would require a dissertation work in itself). If we as scientists wish to talk science or convince the public to do so, if we seek taxonomic correctness, we should then use and promote our system of scientific names designed specifically for this purpose.

In other words, go try to convince geneticists that, if they won’t call their beloved model organism vinegar fly, at least they should call it fruitfly. Wait, does this applies?

Reference