What's in common names: Are they really valuable in insect conservation?

Journal of Insect Conservation

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 447-449

  New, T R ^a  

^a LA TROBE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HEXAPODA;

EID: 50849137208     PISSN: 1366638X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10841-007-9127-0     Document Type: Editorial

References (10)

1. Braby MF, Atkins AF, Dunn KL, Woodger TA, Quick WNB (1997) A provisional list of common names for Australian butterflies. Aust J Entomol 36:197-212
2. Ehrlich PR, Murphy DD (1982) Butterfly nomenclature: A critique. J Res Lepidopt 20:1-11
3. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (1985) International code of zoological nomenclature, 3rd edn. British Museum (Natural History), London
4. ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th edn. Natural History Museum, London
5. Murphy DD, Ehrlich PR (1983) Crows, bobs, tits, elfs and pixies: The phoney "common name" phenomenon. J Res Lepidopt 22:154-158
6. Newman LW, Leeds HA (1913) A text book of British butterflies and moths. Gibbs & Bamforth, St Albans
7. Samways MJ (2002) A strategy for the national red-listing of invertebrates based on experiences with Odonata in South Africa. Afr Entomol 10:43-52
8. Samways MJ (2005) Insect diversity conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
9. Theischinger G, Hawking J (2006) The complete field guide to dragonflies of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood
10. Thompson FC (1997) Names: The keys to biodiversity. In: Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO (eds) Biodiversity II. Understanding and protecting our biological resources. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC, pp 199-211