# Curator guidelines about made-up names

**URL:** <https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/curator-guidelines-about-made-up-names/53099>\
**Category:** Curators\
**Tags:** common-names\
**Created:** [July 5, 2024, 1:43am UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/curator-guidelines-about-made-up-names/53099 "2024-07-05T01:43:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 81

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jasonhernandez74](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/forum.inaturalist.org/jasonhernandez74/32/33615_2.png) [@jasonhernandez74](https://forum.inaturalist.org/u/jasonhernandez74)\
**Post date:** [August 7, 2024, 8:26pm UTC](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/curator-guidelines-about-made-up-names/53099/81 "2024-08-07T20:26:14Z")

</div>

Several of the points being made here have been discussed in threads on the other Forums

> [@raymie](#):
>
> But many, many people care far less, and are often disinterested, in species that lack them. I interact with these people all of the time. Most of the general public falls into this camp

This was a discussion on [Second-rate species? - Nature Talk - iNaturalist Community Forum](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/second-rate-species/48050)

> [@jdmore](#):
>
> In my experience “experts” are often (not always) the last people I want suggesting names to become “common names.” The results tend to emphasize taxonomic “correctness” over linguistic aesthetics and are not very pleasing or memorable.

The thread [If you could rename an existing species - Nature Talk - iNaturalist Community Forum](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/if-you-could-rename-an-existing-species/6554) started out fun, but soon degenerated into taxonomic pedantry, as people focused on widespread, established common names that did not match taxonomy. Rename ‘Electric eel’ as ‘Electric knifefish,’ that sort of thing.

> [@environ](#):
>
> So to return this to the relevant point, inat is best placed to (and IMO should simply) _observe_ that process, not try to become a(nother) place that attempts to drive it.

I got into a bit of trouble along these lines because of a weed with a regional common name that was the same as a more widespread name of a different weed. Tansy. To most of you, that means _Tanacetum vulgare_. In Washington State, when people say tansy, they usually mean _Jacobaea vulgaris_. So, naturally, I added “tansy” as a common name (not the display name) for _Jacobaea vulgaris_, and added Washington as the place. Sometime later, I received direct messages asking me to remove it because it conflicted with a “more correct” name that a group was trying to promote to the public. I explained that this was the only name I ever heard people call it, and showed them several example observations where the observer had actually written “tansy” in the notes, but apparently this was unconvincing. We reached a compromise whereby I removed Washington as the place (so that the name would not be prioritized there) but kept it as one of the common names. Whether people use a name is separate from whether the iNat powers that be like or approve of the name.

---

_[View the full topic](https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/curator-guidelines-about-made-up-names/53099)._