Common names invented on iNat

I like the idea of requiring a source for common names. A while back, someone went through and created made-up common names for thousands of spider species and genera. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to clean-up since there is no way to tell which of the common names come from prior use and which were just created on iNaturalist because someone decided that all the spiders needed common names. For those of us who actually know the scientific names, this rash of made-up names just creates confusion.

7 Likes

Crowdsourcing names has a history of going very badly wrong.

You need to have a lot of controls and oversight over something like that, and after a point it no longer is really crowdsourcing as a result of said controls.

Given the documented history of problems with crowdsourcing names I’d be as skeptical of a crowdsourced naming process as I’d be of one that involves someone in their basement just making up names that makes them giggle.

5 Likes

I really don’t think the average iNat user pays attention to binomial names. I understand what they are and even know the binomial names for many common species in my area, but if two species have the same common name listed, I would get them mixed up. Just think of how it would be for the users who don’t even know what a binomial name is.

Just curious, if you are familiar with the scientific names, why does adding common names confuse you?

I love the name Boaty McBoatface…so your idea of badly wrong is probably my idea of perfectly right - it´s hugely subjective. As memorable names for boats in the last 50 years go though, I don´t think I can name any others, and I´m amazed anyone outside of the UK knows of this…so it succeeds objectively in at least one sense I´d argue. Really though, how is Boaty McBoatface any different to the authentic common names for woodlice I posted above, like Crunchy Bats or Belly Buttons?

You are against humour ?..or against people in basements?
I don´t see use of humour as a bad thing.
I don´t have a problem with people in basements either.

7 Likes

i’m pro boaty mcboatface

7 Likes

There’s gotta be a record of this in the DB even if it’s not visible to users. IMO these should probably be bulk reverted since it’s clearly violating iNat’s rules even if it wasn’t malicious. If there is a “real” common name for any of those species, someone will eventually notice it missing and re-add it. Unfortunately, by this point, many of these names are probably referenced in blogs/flickr/etc. because of the (made-up) common name that iNat showed when someone submitted an observation, so it gets kind of muddy as to whether iNat’s fictional common name has actually become “common.” But I don’t think that is a good reason to leave it all in place.

7 Likes

To all: Only opinions and anecdotal evidence exist on the extent of common name invention on iNat. These are often contradicting and therefore preventing a constructive discussion. Let’s try to gather data on invention of common names on iNat. I started a separate topic here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/data-on-history-of-common-name-changes/27507

1 Like

There are bodies that presume to appoint themselves as guardians of the names of things but they have no authority beyond forcing people to use their arbitrary common names in publications controlled by the guardians. As I have mentioned elsewhere, eggheads quibbling over whether to call whiskeyjacks gray (sic) jays or Canada jays are annoyances, not authorities.

As noted, the bird world has a surfeit of these sorts. American fish types tend this way as well but no amount of pedantry is ever going change the fact that a brook trout is a brook char is a brook charr is a speckled trout.

4 Likes

Giggle names are chilish though, if there’s an alternative, I’d use it rather than some joke, I feel sorry for taxa with such names.

2 Likes

I agree. Names should accurately represent a species rather than simply make people laugh.

I do think that there should be a way for citizen scientists to name unnamed taxa though- there are plenty of them out there…

1 Like

Yeah i guess here’s my actual stand on this:

I don’t support people making up names that are confusing or deceptive or problematic or inappropriate. As such i think it’s better for people on iNat not to just make up names for things. I don’t support pushing new names on things that have established ones. However, i see all of those as less problematic than the trend I see of trying to ‘lock down’ and ‘standardize’ common names, which has cultural, social, and ecological implications that i see as a lot more damaging than the goofy irritating names, which if they are no good, will just stop getting used over time. (if they keep getting used they are at least catchy and useful). I also don’t support things that would make curation and nomenclature on iNat even harder to handle. I don’t support schemes that display different names or obfuscate naming.

I’d take it a step further and say that I personally think all names that are culturally inappropriate, target some group in a negative fashion, OR are named after any individual human be phased out and replaced with other ones, or at least accompanied with an alternative name.

These are just my personal non-moderator opinions and do not necessarily reflect any opinions of iNat staff or anyone else.

7 Likes

The ship was eventually named the Sir David Attenborough. As a consolation prize, the submersibles on board are called Boaty McBoatface! They missed a real opportunity there. The name was inspired by a rescued owl named Hooty McOwlface.

5 Likes

What I have found to be very common is common names standard on iNaturalist that disagree with those in published field guides. For instance, my Peterson Field Guide calls Coreopsis gigantea the Giant Sea Dahlia. Well, it isn’t in the genus Dahlia, but that’s how common names work; there are plenty of plants with, for instance, “lily” in their colloquial names that are not even Liliaceae. But when you find it on iNaturalist, it has had a taxonomic change to Leptosyne gigantea, with the common name Giant Coreopsis – again, the common name does not reflect its current genus.

If the common name is not going to match the genus anyway, why not call it what the field guide calls it? That way, we at least have consistency with the published literature. Since the Peterson guide in question was published in 1976, its common name has seniority over iNat’s. If we were talking scientific names, that would settle the matter. If, as @charlie suggests, we have “official” common names, how to we choose which one is official?

In many cases, I think the in-use names should be changed to what was in-use before. If I went to the Leptosyne gigantea taxon page and “changed” the common name to Giant Sea Dahlia, I would only be restoring an earlier name.

That’s kinda what I’m saying.

1 Like

i am actually familiar with this species as i used to work in its habitat. Everyone calls it giant coreopsis and id be shocked to hear it called ‘giant leptosyne’ or ‘giant sea dalia’ (though i think the latter sounds better to be honest). But attempts to make common names match scientific names strike me as both cultural erasure and also futile.

6 Likes

If I search “Leptosyne gigantea”, all the results in the first couple pages have Giant Coreopsis as the common name. That indicates to me that that’s the name most people know the plant by, so it should probably be the default name on iNaturalist. However, if I search “Leptosyne gigantea Giant Sea Dahlia” then there are plenty of results using that name, which indicates that it’s another name people know the plant by, and should be an additional name on iNat so it will come up in search for that name.

5 Likes

Agreed. I’m of the opinion that not every species needs a common name. And those that have one don’t always need to be referred to by their common name, especially if it’s a rather obscure species.

5 Likes

The most confusing thing is that they created numerous genus common names based on species common names. So I would see something identified as “hammerjawed jumping spiders” and assume it was Zygoballus rufipes (which has the legitimate common name “hammerjawed jumping spider”), but that would be incorrect, as the spider was only identified to genus (Zygoballus). Basically, any genus without a common name that contained a species with a common name was given the plural version of that species common name, despite the fact that no one outside of iNaturalist ever used such genus names and in some cases they made no sense at all to apply to the entire genus. For example, many species of Zygoballus don’t have any “hammer process” on their chelicerae, so it makes no sense to call them all “hammerjawed jumping spiders”.

3 Likes

Is there really one such authority for plants? I am not aware of it.

1 Like

Likewise.

1 Like