The issue is that, if I’m not mistaken, iNaturalist isn’t supposed to be a publisher of original taxonomic information, and I think standards should be a little bit higher than “at least one person on Earth said it once and at least one other person added the name to iNat”. Someone may state or comment, be it on iNat, Flickr, Reddit, or in real life: “this bug reminds me of a Power Rangers villain” or “looks kinda like my childhood classmate Tom Jackson,” but I don’t think that alone is justification to “formally” call it “the Mighty Morphin’ Power Ranger Beetle” or “Tom Jackson Beetle” on iNat and thus every site that mirrors iNat. Many species even in North America still lack common names (several field guides to insects I have simply state “no common name” when applicable), and I think that the more conservative approach is better than reaching to apply tenuous, joking, or extremely uncommon “common” names.
biosam
213
Related topics
| Topic | Replies | Views | Activity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inventing common names redux | 68 | 2563 | May 6, 2023 | |
| Interpretation of rule against invented common names | 85 | 1883 | September 12, 2025 | |
| Common names from "not good enough" sources | 72 | 5535 | November 16, 2021 | |
| What to do about silly common names? | 53 | 2391 | August 5, 2024 | |
| Curator guidelines about made-up names | 80 | 2259 | September 24, 2024 |