Display common name for species when infraspecies (e.g. subspecies) lacks one

Feature Requests
, ,
1

Platform(s), such as mobile, website, API, other:
All Platforms
URLs (aka web addresses) of any pages, if relevant:
Various

Description of need:

Inspired by this post:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/common-name-v-latin-name-for-subspecies/59401

Many users have account settings asking for taxon names to be displayed using the common name (if one exists). Many taxa have a common name for the species, but don’t have one listed for the subspecies.

As a result, the species IDs show in the vernacular, but the subspecies IDs show in Latin. Pages across the site wind up looking like this (these are observations of the same species):

image
image621×392 111 KB

I don’t like this; apparently many don’t like this.

  • It makes it harder for all users - especially inexperienced users (“I had a Gulf Fritillary, now I don’t?”) - to understand at a glance what’s going on.

  • It doesn’t honor the user’s request for the site to display common names (as well as it could).

  • Definitely least importantly, but still a thing, I believe a number of users don’t like it for aesthetic reasons.

It also results, I suspect, in fewer observations receiving a more precise, subspecies community taxon.

Feature request details:
I request that when the following are both true: (1) the user has asked for common names to be displayed, and (2) the species has a common name listed, but the subspecies does not, then the display should read, for example:

Like this:

  • Species: Gulf Fritillary
  • Subspecies: Gulf Fritillary ssp. incarnata

And not like this:

  • Species: Gulf Fritillary
  • Subspecies: Dione vanillae incarnata

I specifically request: (1) that this be implemented site-wide, but (2) if that’s not practical, for users to be authorized to change subspecies common names, in the manner suggested above.

As an aside, I don’t believe this violates iNaturalist guidelines to not “make up” common names; it’s just the acknowledged common name with a scientific qualifier to indicate a subdivision of that species (as @matthewvosper noted elsewhere). But if that’s an issue, I request the guidelines be amended to allow this sort of use. :slightly_smiling_face:

Anyway, I look forward to hearing any feedback/seeing votes in favor, and seeing Staff, upon review, declare this to be the best idea since sliced bread! :sweat_smile:

2

Step One: Vote in favor of my own proposal, lol

4 Likes
3

Yes!! this is so confusing the way it works now

5 Likes
4

I would have voted for it if you had put it this way:

…as you did in the linked thread. That is more in keeping with the way “member of” display names work. @kevinfaccenda and @bouteloua also expressed that they liked that form better.

3 Likes
5

This would be pretty nice to have especially with mushrooms like Amanita Subcokeri

6

Amanita Subcokeri is an unpublished species name and so won’t be added to iNat. This discussion is about the lack of common names for infra-specific (published) names, and it is a different issue.

7

Hey @jasonhernandez74! That was actually @kevinfaccenda’s idea in the linked thread, although I did agree it would be an improvement (while also indicating I liked this idea better). :slightly_smiling_face:

One limitation of that idea, I think, is that it would just apply to the page from which IDs are being made, so it wouldn’t fully solve the issue.

It’s also quite an eyeful, when a simpler format, more aligned with the species common name presentation, is possible.

Another thing I stumbled across (while putting together this feature request), is that the other idea was previously rejected. That was in August 2021, and I suppose it could be modified in some form, but it looked like it got complicated to implement based upon whether one’s user preference was for common names or Latin names.

So, I like this proposal - but to each their own! :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
8

A pro of some variant on this proposal (displaying subspecific common names in some automated fashion if none are set but one is for the parent species) is that it would help discourage making up common names. It would be most especially helpful in cases where the nominate variety has no particular specific common name but every other variety does, because that inconsistency is confusing and not very aesthetic.

5 Likes
9

I was just about to link this old request. I’m not sure it was established that it would get too complicated to implement (though undoubtedly it is easier to describe than to program). But the request was closed on the basis that the status quo was adequate. It’s a fair judgement but I don’t agree with that conclusion - I think the lack of common name in those situations affects accessibility. And, in my opinion, helping make iNat easy to use for anyone should be a priority. So in this respect this new feature request could help I believe. And it wouldn’t affect those who only want to display scientific names, plus scientific names would still be shown for everyone else.

I agree with what’s been said about a coding implementation.

Text could get quite lengthy for users who use 2 or 3 lexicons. However, that can already happen with some names so don’t think it’s a problem just something to be aware of.

2 Likes
10

Another thought. My proposal was discussing the bold type in these sort of situations:

image
image621×392 111 KB

As we all know (probably, lol), if something has a common name, in most (all?) instances, the Latin name still shows up in parentheses (like for the above right). So in my proposal, the above left would actually wind up looking like this:

Gulf Fritillary ssp. incarnata (in large, black bold print)
(Dione vanillae incarnata) (in smaller, gray regular print)

Somebody messaged me this morning, saying they were too new to join the main thread, and suggested the above left should instead look like this:

Gulf Fritillary ssp. (in large, black bold print)
(Dione vanillae incarnata) (in smaller, gray regular print)

I wouldn’t say I prefer that format, but it seems reasonable, too. It does have the advantage of keeping the Latin subspecies epithet from appearing twice.

1 Like
11

I prefer the former. I’m in favor of this request, but I want it to be apparent at a glace when the observation ID is at the subspecies level. I don’t want to accidentally click “agree” at the subspecies level unless I am confident in my ability to actually ID to that level.

2 Likes
12

I’m not really concerned with this either way, but if there’s real interest in including the species common name for a subspecies that lacks a common name, an annotation like the following might work for each unnamed subspecies without adding too much text to the name:

Gulf Fritillary (ssp.)

For some taxa, like North American herpetofauna, there are established common names for all recognized subspecies. Less so with mammals and birds apparently.

2 Likes