Unfortunately the only solution with situations like this is to persistently correct all the observations. People use the computer vision suggestions and common names as hints but they will also check other observations to check if they look similar or if the species has been observed nearby. If there are no other observations of the species, or if all the observations have comments saying the species is impossible to identify (which as far as I know is true for Sarcophagids in general), then they might be less likely to identify their own observations as that. Apparently BugGuide is messed up with this family as well which doesn’t help.
If the problem gets too big, you could add it here.
Were you using that common name for that particular species, or just anything which looked like that? Is everyone else doing the same thing? If it’s a common name for a group of species, then it would make sense to move the common name up to the genus or family level and leave the species unnamed. I think that would solve most of the issues mentioned.
This species. It is even named as such on the NBN Atlas, Wikipedia among many other places. Were different species confused for one another - certainly, but the specific name was for this specific species. The group were called flesh flies.
EDIT - just to further detail this specific species has a common name in multiple European languages. For example in Danish it is Kødflue, which means meat fly (which is arguably a better name), in several other languages it is called some variant of grey flesh fly. So English is far from alone in assigning a name to just this species.
No it’s not a name for group of species, well, in the genus not only this species has a common name and others are not less confusing, take Grey Flesh Fly for example, but removing it because someone can’t check the name they’re adding?
For many complicated fly genuses there’s a species called Common, because it is, not because it’s easy to id. (that’s not about your comment, just answer in general)
Here are some common names that should be changed: Hydnum umbilicatum - Depressed Hedgehog. It is true that the cap is described as “depressed,” but a much better common name would be the Bellybutton Hedgehog. Another name than needs changing is for the genus Astraeus. Its current common name is Barometer Earthstars. None of the Astraeus species that I know respond to changes in air pressure. They are all hygroscopic, responding to changes in moisture.
I appreciate the discussion, even if we disagree. :)
I want to clarify that this is NOT an American versus European thing at all - if all species of Sarcophaga were only found in the US, I would still want to get rid of this common name (but I won’t).
There are of course codified rules for nomenclatural stabiity in scientific names (which change regularly anyway), but I am not aware of rules for stability in common names. I don’t see the need to endlessly propagate misleading or hopelessly vague common names for the sake of stability. The scientific literature would certainly NOT be affected by changes in the common name at iNat (or anywhere else) and I seriously doubt anyone actually interested in this family would be confused at all - they just use the scientific names anyway.
As someone who has actively added quite a few common names to iNaturalist, I feel like I may have decent insight here.
While I agree that this policy should and generally is maintained, I am not sure how strict it is suppose to be. I have seen this rule broken sparingly, including by site staff (an example with a certain species of pill louse comes to mind). But these were limited situations where a species lacked any established common name whereas its congeners all did, or a Taxon Split was committed on a highly recognizable species originally known under a single, well-known name (e.g. “Hercules Beetle”, “Raccoon Dog”, “Sea Pork”, “Common Cuttlefish”, or “Jack-o’-lantern Mushroom”) and to give none of the output taxa names would lead to a lot of mis-identification and confusion.
But these were not situations where a species with a legitimate preexisting common name like “Common Flesh Fly” for Sarcophaga carnaria had their names deleted or modified just because it made curatorial duties more difficult. There is a similar policy in place that addresses a situation like this.
Please don’t add information to a name in addition to the name itself, e.g. “grumblefoots (this genus is monotypic, just ID to species!).”
To redub this species’ default name as “Common European Flesh Fly” or remove it entirely is a modification made just for clarification and goes against this policy.
I completely agree. Names should not be removed or modified just to make identifications easier. It is not our place to police what other people call organisms.
Almost every observation initially attributed to the physically distinctive and nocturnal Octopus briareus is incorrect because the user saw it while they were visiting a Caribbean reef and this animal is called the “Caribbean Reef Octopus”. A potential soluton would be to re-dub it the “Caribbean Night Octopus”, but it is not my place to do so.
I don’t really see what the problem is. We have scientific names to make exact distinctions between species.
You claim people pick the wrong species because the common name confuses them.
If that happens it means they are not aware of the significance of scientific names and that probably means they are unaware of all the possible species that could match their observation.
Also, people who pick an ID because “it is a safe bet” probably haven’t consulted a field guide or an appropriate key.
Hence the wrong ID is caused by a lack of knowledge or inexperience. The common name as such doesn’t have anything to do with it.
I hope this is addressed at some point, for invertebrates at least, I agree that ideally species level ID where very difficult or not possible without microscopy should be flagged…and/or at least limited in CV suggestions. The CV suggestions seem often misleading to new users.
In any case I would also love to be reminded of the key details I need to capture for splitting certain invertebrates. I struggle to remember everything …and its frustrating to dig out sources each time.
Why make it that he or others have to remind people over and over again of a piece of information like that… when it could be automated? If flagged once, could it not simply be flagged on all new Scathophaga as a notification? ( the notification itself could be crowdsourced / open for others to edit and source like a wiki) …
So how does one delete a common name on iNaturalist without replacing it with something else? There are quite a few bogus common names for leaf-mining insects on iNat, which I have not encountered anywhere else, and which have led to all kinds of absurdly wrong IDs. For example, someone gave Sumitrosis rosea the common name “leafminer beetle,” which is not at all helpful when there are over 200 species of leaf-mining beetles in North America alone. As a result there were all sorts of random pictures of leaf mines being identified as this species, most of which weren’t even made by beetles. I tried deleting the name but the system insisted that I replace it with something, so I typed in “one of many leaf-mining beetles,” which stuck for a while. I see that the species now has no common name, so clearly it is possible to simply delete a common name, but I haven’t figured out how to do it.
Only a curator or the person who added it (regardless of their being a curator or not) may do so. The ability of all users to edit common names was removed due to unfortunately high levels of edit wars going on…
If you dont fall into one of those 2 buckets, then you can only flag it for review. If you are a curator, then should not be getting prompted about replacing it, that is not required, unless you are somehow trying to edit scientific names that are set as active.
I think we were typing at the same time. Most likely while a common name it was entered as a scientific name as the lexicon. If that is done, you need to edit it to set as inactive first, save it, then go into delete it. If entered under any language, you should not be getting a note saying a replacement is neeed, as common names are not mandatory data.
I disagree with the interpretation of the curator guideline: Please don’t add information to a name in addition to the name itself, e.g. “grumblefoots (this genus is monotypic, just ID to species!).”
I consider it quite proper to add geographical disambiguation to a name, which is very different from a comment about the name or species. For instance the common name “peacock flounder” is applied to a pair of similar fish, one in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific. What we eventually did with this case was to leave that common name on both species, but to make the primary common names “Atlantic Peacock Flounder” and “Pacific Peacock Flounder”. These species have been well known for decades. In the case of recent splits, it is particularly valuable to do this. The guideline seems to be saying don’t name it “Peacock Flounder (the one with the eyes wide apart)”.
Along the same idea, you could leave the name “Common Flesh Fly” on Sarcophaga carnaria but make its primary common name something much more specific. Though here is where you risk running into the rule not to make up names. Is there a specific one that this species is also known by? I don’t know this group to know what would make sense, but something like “European Striped Flesh Fly”.
I mentioned in my previous comment that for Taxon Splits - especially for a well-known species thought to be monotypic with a well recognized common name - that name modifications for the output are necessary and fine.
I would have handled the Peacock Flounder split the same way that you did. However, I think this is a different situation because the taxonomic interpretation of this fly species had not changed so modifying its name seems unnecessary.