Our experiences differ.
2 Likes
Youāre not in minority here! I have no idea how people can confuse scientific and common names origins, if common name suits the organism - let it be, if then other websites will use it too and people will use it, then itās a good name.
5 Likes
Same thing for Australia
Firstly, this is against iNat guidelines: new names should not be created on iNat. There are good reasons for that which are probably beyond this topic.
Secondly, it is not true that only good names stick - In my original post I gave examples of misleading common names on iNat for a termite genus and for a spider genus (both of them are not present on iNat anymore after i flagged them and curators removed them). These names were and probably will be for a while featured as top hits during google search. Hopefully they will stop spreading now but the large impact and good name that iNat has makes it a sort of authority for public and that is a big responsibility. There is no reason why only good made-up names should survive and spread - people using common names cannot typically asses whether the same name is already being used for ten other completely different organisms or the name is encouraging some false assumptions on the organism appearance or biology. I understand why iNat tends to have as many common names as possible - it makes the users happy because they can put an common name on as many of their observations as possible. But these names are often not existing outside of iNat - they function by making people happy, not by helping them understand nature better.
They do and I think the explanation is that some of the common names are assigned rigorously and in a very organized way (see discussion on bird common names in this topic) - in quite similar process in which a scientific name is assigned. On the other extreme, an iNat user can entertain himself/herself by inventing a common name on iNat. There are huge differences between these two kinds of common names in terms of 1) conflict with same common names for other organisms, 2) how misleading they are with respect to organism appearance or biology, 3) how frequently they are used outside of iNat. Currently, both are treated equally by iNat and are served as the default main name of organism.
3 Likes
Thereās little difference between making up new names and using those that was created by someone else and used once before, which is the case for thousands of common names.
Common names are more often misleading than not, same could be said for scientific names if we were using them blindly as description. Thereāre many cases of long established common names that do more bad than good, why should it be different with new names? Of course there will be both good and bad ones.
6 Likes
I think this is important question but it is out of this topic - or rather above it. There is also clearly a problem with how the term ācommon nameā is defined. But again: iNat does not allow creation of new names and most of the time it is fairly clear what is a new name. Your suggestion that creating new names is OK is above my questions and makes it irrelevant (if new names are allowed there is little need to discuss what special treatment they should recieve on iNat). The āno new namesā guidelines are the basis for this topic. If you want to discuss changes of these guidelines a new topic might be better place and I will most likely join the discussion there.
1 Like
I didnāt suggest itās ok as itās against guidelines, have no idea why you think I meant this, I wrote I agree with another user that I see no reason in making it such a big deal. I havenāt met a name that was created on/for iNat, though personally I woulnāt mind a name for many taxa, e.g. families under Fulgoridae, as for now iding on iNat is a constant alt+shift.
4 Likes
What about misleading scientific names? There are plenty of those in use, and we are stuck with them.
Basilosaurus, an extinct genus of whales, is a prime example of an immensely misleading scientific name, and there are many more.
This entire common name conversation just seems like another rehash of the many previous ones, and should probably be merged into those.
Common names, in my opinion, absolutely should not be subject to standardization. I think itās often deeply culturally insensitive to do so, and it ignores the origins (even if those are modern origins) and dynamism of common names.
If you want rigor, stick with the scientific names, thatās why we have them, even with all their own problems.
3 Likes
Iām not sure why you oppose my simplification that you are OK with new names on iNat when in the next sentence you say you would not mind new names for many taxa. Sorry if Iām being too ignorant here but to me you are clearly OK with new names.
FYI, I met and flagged already several names most likely invented on iNat just by looking at common names at the first half page of my observations. These are mostly marine and terrestrial invertebrates but many of them are very recognizable or abundant and often encountered in nature. New names are being invented and disseminated by iNat on a large scale. I find this a problem and iNat also finds it a problem according to its guidelines. In this topic Iām just trying to address this problem.
3 Likes
Well, rerea what I wrote then, I want those taxa to have names, it doesnāt mean I want someone to come and make up them specifically for iNat, I donāt know how itās a hard concept.
Again, I didnāt see any, I donāt check English common names as I donāt need them and donāt use them on iNat, so I have no idea about sitution with them. This problem was brought up many times before, thereās nothing iNat can do with that, making system stricter will mean no new names at all, as curators are last people who would spend their time on adding common names they personally may even not use at all.
No common names other than those which are offensive or vandalism shall be removed, of course. But the main name used by default by iNat should not be a name invented on iNat.
Because of below:
It is hard concept to me because, as you now explained, in first part of sentence you talk about new names on iNat and in the second part about new names coming not from iNat.
I really donāt know why youāre so focused on that part, it doesnāt add anything to conversation, big taxa like families should have common names, thatās all, my position has nothing to do with iNat itself and its guidelines, because itās my wish, not my suggestion for someone to do something against guidelines, it may be easy to you to use latin as itās really the same alphabet, but not easy for me and many other people to switch language back and forth because one obs is āŃŠ°Š·Š½Š¾ŠŗŃŃŠ»ŃŠµ ŃŃŃŠµŠŗŠ¾Š·Ńā and next is āFlatidaeā.
4 Likes
They are not ideal but we are not discussing scientific names. I stated that āmisleadingā is not the only criteria to reject them. I used āmisleadingā just to make it clear there are additional problems with them, not only the fact they are created by iNat users.
Thatās exactly what I do. But I do not want common names being generated on iNat and immediately being used as default organism name. Iām convinced that this is not helping us to make sense of biodiversity - it just makes us happy that iNat generated a nice-looking ID for us.
Yes, it unfortunately gravitated there. It seems that we tend to start discussing the advantages and disadvantages of common versus scientific names whenever there is any kind of conversation related to common names on iNat. This is not helpful and that is the reason why I started the topic, specifically addressing a problem of new names invented by iNat users. I do not want to compare scientific and common names. There is a problem of new names being generated on iNat. It is a problem because it is against iNat guidelines and obviously out of control of iNat. Do you have a suggestion how to deal with it? In case you do not agree with iNat guidelines please let move the discussion elsewhere.
1 Like
Sorry, I did not mean to misinterpret what you are saying. I did not mean that you suggest to iNaturalists to invent names, I meant that you do not mind it, which you have confirmed. Iām so focused on invention of new names on iNat because it is what this topic is about - it shall not be about advantages and disadvantages of common and scientific names or how they are generated outside of iNat.
You started interpreting what I originally said, which was adressed to another user, you wanted me to clarify things again and again, and now you say theyāre irrelevant, ok.
Yes, because I finally understood you did not talk about invented names on iNat which is the topic here. Sorry for wasting your time.
The problem with the ones Iāve encountered is that the ones already set on here are the default names, and pre-empt the common names that are actually used by people dealing with the plants in the wild or in their backyard. In the cases Iām thinking of itās due to plant names being invented on the USDA site and then propagated to iNat first, but the principle is the same.
3 Likes
Thatās been well established and, as has already been stated repeatedly, is against iNat policy in any event.
As has also been mentioned, itās even unclear if that really has been happening to begin with.
1 Like
Do you mean that it is unclear whether iNat users are inventing names? That is clearly happening on large scale - multiple examples on a half-page of my observations. Testimonies in any iNat topic that discusses common name usage.
2 Likes