Hi Jason,
Thanks for taking the time out of your hectic schedule to answer my questions and add to the general discussion. This long thread really has two different "strands" consisting of multiple points and counter points that you effectively managed to address in your single post. Not an easy task since it's hard not to take some of them out of context.
Fortunately the new changes aren't radical enough to affect our ability to do this. Most life-history differences that matter for fishing are distinguished at a high enough taxonomic level that they're immune from the species or even genus-level tinkering.
Admittedly true to a point... I concede information most relative to fishing is at the familial level. But there are some differences within families in terms of form, behavior and habitat that are important to angling success, i.e. "cracking the code" so to speak. There is no question that proposed/accepted(?) generic "shuffling" for lack of a better term (particularly in the Baetidae, Ephemerellidae, and Heptageniidae),
has made these differences more difficult to ascertain in the field for many genera. Especially on "new" water where you don't have the benefit of previous experience & research.
Ernest Schwiebert in his later writings lamented these changes and refused to use (for purposes of discussion) many of the taxonomic changes occurring.
I wrote this poorly and did a disservice to Mr. Schwiebert. My understanding of his backround is that he was a profound lover of science and its advancement. What I should have said was NOT that he lamented "proposed taxonomic changes" but rather their imprudent use in fly fishing literature. He was worried about potential damage to the "movement" he started... and what to do to preserve it. I allude to this later in the thread.
If we want to be scientifically attuned anglers, we can't just pick a snapshot of past scientific results and run with it indefinitely. We can stay up-to-date, or we can use common names and just go fishing, or we can even personally choose to use old scientific names at times with the disclaimer that we know we're doing it.
As to the first sentence, agreed... It certainly wasn't my intent to pooh-pooh that notion, though I certainly see how it could be taken that way. I guess my whole point really boils down to discerning between solid results that take root and those results still contested that are later determined to be wrong. If "scientifically attuned" anglers blindly accept the latest species concepts while still very much in the proposal stage, I would think it could lead to many becoming "out of tune." My engaging in hyperbole didn't help to make my point, but wanting to slow down in terms of the wholesale throwing out of existing names without reference (at least for our purposes) shouldn't equate to some kind of "Church vs. Galileo" polemic.
But what we should not do is belittle or reject the new changes because of convenience or communication concerns... If we turn around and complain about that scientific rigor when it becomes inconvenient for us.
Beware the attack of the Luddites!! Of course you're right. Taking your warning in context, be assured the intent is to question, not belittle or reject. Did I engage in unfounded hyperbole regarding the dark side of human nature's influence on Academia? Yes, so please allow me to pull my foot out of it and apologize. Especially since I see one of the prime "evil doers" contributed to this topic! Ha Ha! However, I do reserve the right to avoid being "inconvenienced" unnecessarily. The core issue I tried to raise is potentially losing the ability to determine generic level in the field... and possibly species back in the study. Not a matter of convenience, a matter of passion...
That's similar to my policy for this site. I want to keep it as current as I can taxonomically, but build in references to well-known former names to combat confusion.
I guess this means we agree after all. Of course, a lot depends on what we mean by "current". Is there an updated generally accepted monograph or paper extant that codifies all these revisions in one location akin to
Biology of Mayflies? I'm not aware of one and I don't profess to know how fully accepted a lot of these revisions truly are in the scientific community, let alone the ones soon to come down the pike. I think Purdue publishes a valid species list they update... Is that what you go by?
BTW - Thanks for clarifying the disciplines. So is it safe to say that Entomology is the field of study where the classification of insects take place, in consultation with taxonomists and systematists not to mention other specializd fields? But not always as some of these disciplines/names can be applied/attributed to entomologists as well? No longer peeved, just dizzy (at least about this topic)! Very informative... Thanks again!
Best regards,
Kurt