I always thought this one was odd too!
That shouldn’t be an issue, the king vulture’s scientific name means “meat-nosed bishop” and there’s a bird known as the “mosque swallow.” These are old established names with no intention to offend and we should always understand that even in the modern day. They are already trying to change the name of the gypsy moth, whose century-old common name doesn’t even have clear context
5 Likes
To be fair, “gypsy” is generally considered by the roma and by travellers to be offensive and outdated. The term “cardinal” is rarely, if ever, used with derision. While I won’t advocate for willy-nilly renaming I think one less “jew-fish” or “gypsy-moth” is no loss to me-- in fact, I’d never even heard the term “jew-fish” for a grouper until this thread.
5 Likes
There should be a rule against reusing names in taxonomy. For example, take a look at this genus, subgenus, and section, respectively:
Compare with how the lady beetle folks solved the same problem by just changing the ending a bit, super family, family, sub family, tribe, genus, respectively:
It just seems less confusing than reusing the same name. Maybe this belongs in: Unconstructive complaints & grievances?
If subgenera are recognized within a genus, one of those subgenera will have the same name as the genus. Don’t know how sections work.
2 Likes
Penstemon has that name at genus, subgenus, section, and subsection
1 Like
Plants and animals have different taxonomical structure, they even have different names for the same ranks, plus you chose different levels, it’s normal for animal genus and subgenus to have the same name, like Tipula or probably any genus with subgenera.
1 Like
I believe the type species for that genus determines which single species or group of species carries the generic name at ranks below genus, such as subgenus.
Sounds correct. Here’s another example
1 Like
I feel like the American Three-toed makes sense because there’s the Eurasian three-toed.
1 Like
I sort of skimmed the thread so I don’t know if any of these have been referenced. Also I could not be trusted naming animals because I guarantee I would name them all after Alberta and places in Alberta so I’ll try to spare you from that haha.
Red-bellied Woodpecker: why? why would you name it that? I’d maybe name it the Cheerful Woodpecker (other runner ups would be a state like the Virginia Woodpecker, just sounds nice) because they are such amusing birds to watch.
The infamous Ring-necked Duck: Ring-billed Duck, easy fix
I’d also maybe change the names of the tits, it would make it so much easier to talk about birds to other people lol
Connecticut Warbler because it doesn’t breed or winter in that state, I don’t know what i’d call it though
Greater Sage-Grouse: just call it the sage grouse, it would make sense if the Gunnison’s Sage Grouse was called the Lesser Sage-Grouse but it’s not
Long-eared Owl to Cryptic Owl, I just like the name better
Vaux’s Swift: do you really expect me to pronounce that?
I also really like birds that are named after their songs so I think there should be a lot more of those (this would also help for Empidonax Flycatchers lol)
1 Like
I forgot the most important one,
the American Woodcock, it’s other names are so funny.
I am begging taxonomists to let me call this bird a timberdoodle please.
5 Likes
some individuals do have some very light purple/pink feathers (underneath the beak, throat)
However i get what you are saying, most purple finches are NOT purple
1 Like
Anything with “false” or “pseudo” In the name should get a real name.
Wild blue indigo instead of false blue indigo
Spider aralia for false aralia. Etc
2 Likes
“Wild blue indigo” is already a common name for that species.
Douglas-fir = Pseudotsuga. Tsuga is hemlock, so Douglas-fir is “false hemlock”? It really looks nothing like hemlock, other than that the cones point down; it has much longer needles than hemlock, it doesn’t have the silvery undersides that hemlock has, and the cones have the “mouse tails” that hemlock cones do not. Plus you can tell them apart from a distance because the overall shape of the trees is very different.
That’s an error in how iNaturalist handles subgenera and sections. “Euphorbia” is a genus-level name. If it’s a subgenus (of Euphorbia), it’s “Euphorbia subgenus Euphorbia”. If it’s a section (of Euphorbia), it’s “Euphorbia section Euphorbia”. It’s a binomial with a rank marker in the middle. Splitting the subgeneric or sectional name off is equivalent to saying that the name of this species is “stellata”. So, don’t blame the taxonomists. Euphorbia is not the name of a subgenus or section. iNaturalist is simply wrong.
In effect, it’s the same practice as putting different endings on, except the rank marker is a separate word that comes before the name rather than a suffix attached to the name.
2 Likes
If I could rename an existing species? Common Buckthorn, Rhamnus cathartica. I suggest the name that the Doctor and I already use: hostileberry. Can you tell that we’ve been trying to evict the stuff from our yard? Somebody decided that it would be a good idea to plant it somewhere nearby. It’s incredibly invasive, the berries aren’t particularly edible* and the harder you work at eradicating it, the harder it fights back.
*(at least by humans, but birds will eat them if there’s nothing else around, and the berries’ laxitive effect is probably part of the plant’s reproduction and dispersal strategy. As well as leaving behind a great big green mess.)
Birds don’t nest in it. Fire can kill it, but it also seems to encourage seed germination. Grazers and browsers aren’t particularly attracted to it, so it’s not controlled by herbivory. Poor soils appear to be especially vulnerable to colonization, because it’s a nitrogen fixer, but then it outcompetes anything that might benefit from the improved soil. I haven’t found any data that indicates that it uses biochemical defenses to kill possibly competing plants …but I have seen for myself that its establishment in an area that I’ve planted (or kept something planted previously) leads to the decline and death of the plants that I want. And those 2" / 5cm thorns are not to be ignored.
In short, I can’t find anything that speaks well of the plant – at least in a non-native environment. Hence, my proposal of ‘hostileberry’ to better warn people about its nature.
1 Like
The common name “Immigrant Pavement Ant” is based on a literal translation of the scientific name, despite the fact that “immigrant” in english specifically refers to humans, and anything that seems to compare human immigrants to insects can cause offense. It should be Imported Pavement Ant, like the imported fire ants
But in the US there is the Japanese Pavement Ant as well, which is just as imported, so neither immigrant nor imported really make sense. While on the topic of pavement ants, the Red Pavement Ant is not especially red, and they all look so similar there should not be common names more specific than “pavement ant”
Also the Tiny Brown Ant should be named, well, anything other than a pure adjective that applies equally well to 5,000-10,000 other species
2 Likes
Plusiinae as a whole subfamily need a more interesting common name than “looper” IMO – sure, individual species can keep those common names, but having the entire family called that when that common name is variably used for other taxa outside of Plusiinae as well is a bit bothersome. I’d support “dragon moths” personally, based on their tufts looking somewhat like spines on a Western-style dragon; maybe “spineback moths” also could work. Or perhaps a more lighthearted “barber moths”, with the stylish hairdos and all.
1 Like