|SREL Reprint #2272|
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals
(Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 119-129, 189)
I. Lehr Brisbin, Jr.
Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, The University of Georgia, P.O. Drawer E, Aiken, South Carolina 29802, U.S.A.
I would like to express my strong support for the application by A. Gentry, J.Clutton-Brock and C.P. Groves, published in BZN 53: 28-37 (March 1996). My views are based on more than 30 years of experience as a vertebrate ecologist and wildlife conservation biologist conducting research into the ecology of domestication (Brisbin, 1974) and the conservation biology of the wild ancestors of domestic animals (Brisbin, 1995, 1996) and unique forms of feral (domestic returned to the wild state) wildlife (Brisbin, 1989, 1990; and Brisbin et al., 1994). Considering my background, I believe that I disprove the earlier claim of Schodde (BZN 54: 123; June 1997) that support for Case 3010 'comes largely from a relatively small group of archaeozoologists', and that the proposal brings .confusing complications' to the 'very large world of ecologists, conservation biologists and wildlife managers'. On the contrary, as a person who works extensively in these three latter fields, I welcome this proposal and the clarification/simplification that it brings to my work. My position in this regard also serves to disprove a similar claim by Bock (BZN 54: 125) that this proposal would have the 'potential for creating considerable confusion ... for the large number of ecologists, wildlife biologists and conservationists dealing with these species'.
SREL Reprint #2272
Brisbin, I.L. 1998. Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species, which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55:43-46.