Sometimes a common name is repeated for two different species. Today I uploaded a sighting of a White-rayed Metalmark Methone noctula and found out that the same name is also in use as the default name for two other butterfly species, Melanis cephise and Brachyglenis esthema, which gives us three different White-rayed Metalmarks in total. Of these three species, Methone noctula overlaps with Melanis cephise in Central America, and with Brachyglenis esthema in Colombia, so they do not only share the same common name but two out of three species can co-occur in most of the combined distribution range of these species.
There was already a discussion about repeating common names five years ago, in this topic from 2021: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/can-two-different-species-have-the-same-common-name-on-inat/25885. Here, the change of ââGreen Toadââ as the default name for both Bufotes viridis and Anaxyrus debilis into preserving Green Toad for Bufotes viridis and using Chihuahuan Green Toad for Anaxyrus debilis respectively, was discussed. Also, the issue of misidentification of two Vanessa species due to both of them having ââRed Admiralââ as common name was addressed, and the solution was to preserve Red Admiral for Vanessa atalanta and to use New Zealand Red Admiral for Vanessa gonerilla.
Now, if having the same common name for two different species can produce confusion and lead to misidentifications, having White-rayed Metalmark as a name for three different species is, in my opinion, not only annoying but simply unacceptable. A lot of species still lack a common name; what if we end up with five White-rayed Metalmarks? Or twelve? We can easily come up with different names for them, like Red-spotted White-rayed Metalmark (or Mexican White-rayed Metalmark) for Melanis cephise, Orange-shouldered White-rayed Metalmark (or Central American White-rayed Metalmark) for Methone noctula and Blue White-rayed Metalmark (or South American White-rayed Metalmark) for Brachyglenis esthema, just as examples of how to avoid repetitions.
Any species, I would say, deserves to have a unique common name as the preset common name, and when common names are repeating they can be given as alternatives. Is it an idea to have a topic for these cases and to notify curators so they can change the common names into unique ones, based mostly of course on names that are already in existence or that accurately describe a field mark or geographical region? For birds, having a different common name for every species is already (almost) accomplished thanks to the lists of AviList, Clements, eBird Taxonomy and previously the IOC World Bird List, with only minor differences that will hopefully be resolved in the near future.
Please note that different common names for the same species (such as Black-necked Grebe or Eared Grebe for Podiceps nigricollis) is not at all the point of this topic. The point is to avoid repetitive common names for different species.
We are not meant to create common names, rather common names are meant to provide an entry for people who already know and call things by those names, so that they might type those names into iNaturalist and find suggestions based on those names.
It is problematic that multiple species may be known by the same name, yes, especially when species with the same name overlap, which is why skilled identifiers are key, especially when things with the same common name look alike but are not actually the same genus.
All three of these are commonly called xtakay here, which is their common name in maya⌠at least the maya spoken here. They could well have one or more different common names (that could be similar) in the lenguas mayas spoken elsewhere.
They also each have various common names in Spanish, location and peoples dependent, and I bet at least one common name apiece in English.
But thankfully as far as I know their scientific names are unique and the same no matter where they fly or what language is spoken by the people there. I try to introduce scientific names alongside common names as I am able, for this reason.
common names are meant to provide an entry for people who already know and call things by those names
The main argument in my post is to make the default common names unique, so I refer to the first name that will be displayed. People from different parts of the world know their jays simply as ââJayââ, so referring to Eurasian Jay, Brown Jay, Inca Jay, Blue Jay, Canada Jay or what have you, but should we therefore display all of them as ââJayââ? That is certainly not helpful as an entry for people to find suggestions, as there will be too many.
It is problematic that multiple species may be known by the same name, yes, especially when species with the same name overlap, which is why skilled identifiers are key
We can help those skilled identifiers by having a different common name to be displayed for each species.
All three of these are commonly called xtakay here, which is their common name in mayaâŚ
This may show that maya, with all due respect to the beautiful language, is maybe simply not yet specific enough when providing common names for species. Great Kiskadee, Boat-billed Flycatcher and Social Flycatcher are superficially alike but they are in three different genera, and rightly so, and they have different common names in English. I am pretty sure something similar can be achieved in maya, too.
They also each have various common names in Spanish, location and peoples dependent
As I have stated in the last remark in my initial post, the diversity of common names for the same species was not the intention of this topic. My intention is to strive for a different common name for every species to display as default. Of course all of the alternatives can be saved, but as such: alternatives.
Avoiding repeat names is precisely why scientific names were developed. Common names are merely the names used by locals to refer to a species in their area. The fact is that people in different places often use the same words to refer to different species. Common names generally arenât meant to be a âtop downâ choice where authorities declare a name and everyone uses it, but rather a âbottom upâ situation where people call things whatever they call them and we just recognize the names theyâre using. There are of course a few exceptions (most notably birds, which now have committees and societies that declare âofficialâ common names, but thatâs the exception rather than the rule). If everyone in the UK calls a moth âred twin spotâ and everyone in the USA calls a different moth âred twin spotâ, then thatâs the common name of both species. You can try to make everyone in one of those places start using a new name if you want, but iNat isnât in the business of inventing names de novo to try to make them catch on.
Thereâs lots of repetition in common names and it might cause some confusion at times but we deal with it. A Ringtail can be a mammal or a dragonfly while a Bluet can be a flower or a damselfly. As already stated, thatâs why we have scientifc names.
Daniel argues that common names are for common usage. That may be the case, but nowhere does it say that the common name to be displayed as default for each species should be the name that is most used. We simply do not know which name is the most common in usage. Nobody may use ââNew Zealand House Spiderââ in the field and just quickly say ââHouse Spiderââ instead, but we can certainly use the addition of ââNew Zealandââ here in the database so as to avoid confusion with fifty different species that are all called ââHouse Spiderââ.
Furthermore, Daniel argues that we might as well use scientific names in order to have unique names, but why not have both? We can flip this around: if we have achieved a unique scientific name for every species, we can also have a unique English name for every species, making separating between two species much easier. What stops us from doing so? Since scientific names are latin/greek-based, an English name is much easier in usage for people who use English. We have an almost standardized list of common names for all of the bird species, many of them called ââAmericanââ so or so, ââEurasianââ so or so, and there is no problem with that either. So with a bit of creativity we can achieve the same result for all of the other taxa.
Sorry for coming across as rude about maya maybe, but you were the one who brought the maya language into the topic and I cannot say if maya is fine as it is or not. Of course I understand that speakers of maya do not have to adapt to non-speakers of the language just to satisfy them (which is actually unlikely because non-speakers will probably not search for a species in maya to begin with). All I wanted to point out is the repetition of common names for different species and that this may be avoidable for practical purposes. Even in maya, having a different name for a different species could actually be helpful.
Learning a new name can be fun. I do not see a problem here. The scientific name has a different purpose than the common name in X language. This topic is not about ââscientific versus commonââ. My concern is having a repetition of an identical common name for multiple species, which is confusing and unnecessary. If we have achieved a unique set of scientific names in ââneolatinââ, without a doubt we can also achieve this in any other language (English, in my examples).
No to both questions. Although I have added common names in cases where they were already in use but not yet uploaded to the database (and always with a reference to the source in the comments), I have not done this ââcreativelyââ, no.
And no, this topic is not a plea for assistance in naming all taxa, which is definitely not my ambition. You have clearly missed my point: this is about renaming taxa with an identical common name shown as default, so that at least the default names in display are all unique.
Well, see the examples I have mentioned in the initial post: ââGreen Toadââ was changed into Green Toad for one species and Chihuahuan Green Toad for the other, ââRed Admiralââ was changed into Red Admiral for one species and New Zealand Red Admiral for the other, so the hypothetical ââRed Twin Spotââ can be changed into Red Twin Spot for one species and ââAmerican Red Twin Spotââ for the other. Again, I see no problem here in doing so, only for those cases where the default common name shown is repeated for two different species.
You can set your common name on iNat to your preferred local language. You cannot force people who speak âwhateverâ language in âwhateverâ place to learn new names ⌠to suit you. A common name is a name in common usage, not something to suck out of your thumb.
I really dislike duplicate common names because when you have duplicates, theyâve lost their purpose. If a name cannot actually be associated with a species (or other strictly unique taxon), it is actively harmful in the context of iNat. People who know the taxonomy donât need the common names, and the people who need the common names are actively misled.
This is especially problematic when you have new users typing in names theyâve heard when uploading, and frequently selecting wildly incorrect taxa. I really wish some sort of system was put in place to try to minimize this. The simplest would probably be a warning when selecting a taxon that there is another taxon with an identical name which you should also consider. Really though, I just wish it was standard to not try to put a common name on every species. If thereâs a family of plants, and various different species share the same name colloquially, that name should not be applied to any of the species, but instead just to the family, so when a user types in the name they are able to select the family as an ID. iNat seems to push users to select a genus or species in many cases because of how common names and the CV work, but this is not the most helpful way to get things identified.
In the case of the butterflies you mentioned, it would make sense to me to have the name applied to the family level. It could also be useful to have some sort of âhiddenâ common name option, i.e. if someone were to type in âwhite-rayed metalmarkâ the family Riodinidae would show up, but Riodinidae would not have âwhite-rayed metalmarkâ as its default common name on its taxon page because it includes other taxa as well. Maybe call these ânested names.â
Alternatively, the duplicate names could remain on each species, but the search system would detect this and display the highest shared taxon. If someone were to search âwhite-rayed metalmark,â they would get a result saying that Riodinidae includes 3 matching taxa, and be able to select that.
Thereâs also the case of taxa that simply donât have well-established common names. I see a lot of really terrible common names for ants, and I always have to ask myself if a single person has ever used them. The standard seems to be that you can only add a common name if it has a âsource,â but what exactly counts as a proper source, and why does some random person writing a book for instance get to decide whatâs a âcommonâ or âcolloquialâ name? 90% of the time these names on obscure taxa were made up by authors on a whim just so they have something for their books/publications, not because the names are really used by anyone colloquially. Itâs a bit of a different issue, but names like these can often be so generic that they get overselected when people type in descriptive names, which again leads to misidentifications on uploads. Common names should only be added when they actually have common usage, and the site needs to have a system to prevent confusion when thereâs overlap for the sake of both identifiers and observers. I think this is probably a better compromise than inventing new names.
Thank you for your reply, Diana, and sorry to say so but you also seem to have missed the point of my initial post. I understand that you can set the common names to a preferred local language but that is not what I wanted this topic to be about, neither is it about forcing names upon people or creating new names just to suck something out of your thumb and have a new name. The issue I am addressing is to avoid using the same name shown by default in a given language for different species, and to solve those duplicates by renaming them so that you do not have, for example, three species that are all called ââWhite-rayed Metalmarkââ in English when you set your iNat database to English. This is a way to avoid confusion. I do not even think there are that many repeated names, so it should be easy to do.
Donât forget that it is not only multiple species having the same name, but often 1 species has more than one common name. Who will choose which one to use. There seems to be no universal authority for common names. What good would it do since there is already a nomenclature system to differentiate species.
