Common Name Being Deleted - Mardi Gras Sharpshooter

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I hadn’t heard that about Salsola australis before, learned something new today! Hard to imagine a Salsola species not found in Russia :wink:

5 Likes

Happy to help :-) Sorry I wasn’t clear. I love learning on iNat, and try to help others by passing that knowledge on. It’s one of those species that thrives due to farming. Fields if it blowing around. Not seen as much in the middle of native areas though.

4 Likes

That would perfectly describe the behavior of the introduced Salsola taxa here in North America too. I’ll be interested to learn more about how S. australis was determined to be native in Australia. But probably shouldn’t take this thread any farther off-topic…

2 Likes

Hi everyone,
this discussion reminded me of an issue I sometimes encounter: Common names aren’t always 100% accurate. To name just one example, Zygentoma has the German common name “Silberfischchen” on inat, but this actually refers to the species Lepisma saccharina. The accurate name would be just “Fischchen”. Is it pedantic to want the other name be removed?

2 Likes

Add a flag and it will be removed.

4 Likes

@tiwane based on your comments from this thread, I think some folks would appreciate it if you shared your insight and clarity on this topic (or at least I would) about common name guidelines on the site. It’s not about offensive names, more so about guidelines on common names in general. My understanding from the Community Guidelines is that:

  1. Common names and colloquial names - which are treated as different entities in some contexts - are the same thing on iNaturalist.
  2. Common names should have precedence “elsewhere” and shouldn’t be created for iNaturalist.

Please correct me if I am wrong (I go more in-depth in an earlier post in this thread). I think what constitutes as “elsewhere” varies from the perspective of individual curators and can lead to the deletion of common names, frustration over that deletion, and occasional confusion. Additionally, some people in this thread have given pretty good arguments for why creating a common name for an organism that lacks one may be beneficial in at least some cases, particularly @finatic.

EDIT: Something Tony seemed to allude to in the other thread is that while iNaturalist is not an authority on common names, the site has been growing bigger and has become increasingly influential. This site and the names we integrate do influence other people, not just our user base, on what they call organisms. I find it interesting that BugGuide cite iNaturalist directly for the name “Mardi Gras Sharpshooter”. It may be an example of a Brazilian aardvark situation, but I’m unsure if that’s an apt comparison.

7 Likes

Great discussion.

Yes, both of these are correct. Common names don’t need to come from a recognized authority, but they should be in common use somewhere. Common names on iNat serve mainly a utilitarian purpose - so that someone familiar with a common name like “stinkpot” (love it) can select the correct taxon when making an ID.

While I agree that common names are great for helping people engage with and remember taxa, iNat (and I just did a quick straw poll with the team) asks that only names which are already commonly in use be added, per the current guidelines.

10 Likes

I forgot that yet another common name for this turtle is Stinking Jim, which is not included on the iNat names list for this taxon. While somewhat personally offensive to me (given my name), it’s definitely more of a colloquial/regional name, although it does appear in the herpetological literature. (But that kind of blurs the line with the other discussion thread regarding offensive common names.)

Okay, 'nuff said.

1 Like

@hopperdude215 points out that a name’s presence in a published source doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a widely accepted name. @tiwane I don’t expect an exact answer, but do you have any thoughts about when a new coinage can be considered to cross over to “commonly in use”? I have used the Peterson moth guide, and among my friends we use all the names with equal confidence – we don’t double check which ones have already been published elsewhere.

3 Likes

Yeah, this is really tough. I would say it comes down to utility. If an organism is generally known by a certain name among a population (like a region), or is in a field guide, it’s probably worth adding.

4 Likes

I don’t see the problem with iNat including a common name that was invented by the author of a field guide because there was no common name available. Every common name was invented by someone at some time.

Organisms that are familiar to many people already have a common name, or multiple common names, and there’s no need to invent a new one. But if the species is so obscure that an author has to create a name for it, then what is the issue? For such species, its “common name” will likely never be commonly used because very few people will even be aware of its existence.

I specifically said a name from a field guide is probably worth adding.

2 Likes

You did. Just wondering why it was an issue (to others).

1 Like

I’m new here and reading through stuff to get a feel for things so maybe I should shut up and leave this be.

Oh well. This thread follows similar debates that have gone on since people developed language and started giving things names. It is necessary to have some guidelines about this in a place like iNaturalist but language is language; it evolves according to its own rules.

Scientific names became standardized when Latin was still the international language of science in a bunch of countries. That’s why many of the names are Latin and the rest are latinized. The reason that it works better than common names for communicating is not that it is latinized, it is that there is an internal logic to the naming system that helps organize species in groups. Species are unique; they belong to genera with other species that share characteristics. Common names don’t work that way at all. A lake trout in Scotland is a Salmo trutta that lives in a lake. In Canada it is a Salvelinus namaycush, a member of a genus sometimes referred to as chars or charrs and has therefore appeared in scientific publications as lake trout, lake char and lake charr.

Before Europeans started wandering around Turtle Island giving things European names (like calling Turtle Island North America) Salvelinus namaycush was just namaycush (if you were a member of some Cree cultures) or namegos (if you were a speaker of Anishnaabemowin like the Ojibwe).

The complexities and occasional absurdities of this business are demonstrated by the iNaturalist entry for Salvelinus namaycush, which notes lake trout as a common name, but not lake char or lake charr. It also includes two very local terms for the species that are rarely, if ever, used in publications but excludes others. It does not mention that in the Laurentian Great Lakes the nominate subspecies is widely referred to as lean lake trout or just leans, while the Siscowet (an Indigenous name) subspecies is often called fat lake trout or just fats. The entry for Siscowet says that the English common name is Siscowet lake trout. If that is so, somebody needs to tell the people who fish for them, sell them or study them because they are just Siscowet to everybody I know, and have been since long before Europeans showed up on Lake Superior. Well, that or fats.

This is not a complaint. I just want to make the point that nomenclature is a dicey thing when you start slicing things fine; getting the etymology and usage right for every name of every species is not going to happen. Anyway, iNaturalist is not going to settle any of these arguments. Names should allow clear communication. The best we can manage is reasonable, clear rules about what names get used, what gets referenced, and where the lines get drawn. My vote comes down in favour of not allowing a common name that isn’t actually common somewhere substantially more geographically extensive than your friends’ basement or found in a publication (popular or technical) that makes a persuasive case for it. I’m happy to leave the final decisions to Curators.

If there is a critical mass of folks here with ethno-cultural-linguistic competence who want to start a working group to beef up the taxonomy functionality of the software, go for it, I say, as long it doesn’t turn into a postmodern deconstruction of taxonomy as a manifestation of hierarchy or some other questionable use of bandwidth. My own priorities would run toward putting in an effort to include indigenous names for species (especially when they appear in the scientific name) ahead of some other projects. In cases where there is an indigenous name but no English (or Spanish, or French, or Mandarin) common name, the indigenous name should be inserted as the common name. Cataloguing them would actually serve a purpose, although I’ll leave it up to others whether it’s a purpose suitable for iNaturalist.

8 Likes

I’ve just added those names, but any user (not just curators) can add common names to taxa. https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/111991-Salvelinus-namaycush

3 Likes

Understood. But as I understand the roots of this conversation, that’s a process that is subject to reversion by Curators, some people don’t like that and some people think that the criteria should be stronger. I feel that where indigenous names are concerned there should be some oversight and reference to relevant expertise.

As I noted, my post wasn’t a complaint. It also was not a request for the entries for lake trout and siscowet to be revised, although the fact that they have been is probably a good thing, so thanks. Lake trout and siscowet are just an example problem with these sorts of arguments that contains a few twists that illustrate some complexity.

Nice username, by the way. One of my favourite biirds.

1 Like

That brings up a whole other issue: common mistakes as common names.

  • Example 1: In Texas, I have never met anyone who calls Oenothera speciosa by “Pinkladies” or “Pink Evening Primrose”. Everyone calls them “buttercups” (and a quick google search finds that outside Texas, they are also referred to as “pink buttercups” or “white buttercups”). “Buttercup” is listed as a common name on the first sentence of the attached Wikipedia article in the About section on iNaturalist. It isn’t one of the common names, though, (because buttercups are a family under a different order?) even though people will likely search for it under that name.

  • Example 2: In my family, we’ve long referred to cicadas as katydids. When I learned the difference, I assumed the mistake was limited to my family. Within the last few years I had a non-family member and a naturalized coworker also use “katydid” for a cicada, so I started to wonder if it was more widespread. I just googled “cicada katydid” (sans quotes) and it turns out LOTS of people use the terms interchangeably. I owe my grandfather a mental apology, for assuming he was just making up terms and spreading them within our family. I wouldn’t consider katydid a “common name” for cicadas, though; Just a widespread mistake.

4 Likes

Perhaps it would be helpful if there were an optional (not required) multi line text field that could be used when inputting a common name to either mention external guides that aren’t online or to add a link or two showing the external usage?

Alternately, if common name removals were logged somewhere, like taxon changes or flags are, then one could leave a comment with information (new articles, links, etc) on why the name should be considered.

2 Likes

I think requiring a source would help a ton, here’s a related feature request: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/allow-us-to-add-sources-to-taxon-names/5654 It looks like it is planned?
I say “requiring” because every common name should have source given the requirements and the discussion above. However, even if it was optional it would be helpful.

4 Likes

I believe such names can be added for limitated places, e.g. state, if they’re used by most of people.