Yeah, but it’s the ornithologists who really get their shorts in a twist about common names. Especially the birding crowd, of which I count myself a member, alas.
4 Likes
some of your Latin, is Greek.
2 Likes
The Catocala names have had a long history of “relationship” names going back to their original descriptions. Most are named for relationship status or for female gods of various types. I think only the American Catocala got this treatment. Bride fits “neogama” which means newly wed.
3 Likes
A good example of the difficulty of a new common name to break through is the case of Lymantria dispar in the U.S. This has had the name “Gypsy Moth” for over 100 years. I don’t believe the name ever had a derogatory intent (I think it referred to the wandering nature of the larvae) but some people in the U.S. changed the name to “Spongy Moth” quite recently. Most entomologists still use it’s original common name because it is well entrenched and is probably as recognizable as the Latin name to entomologists and very well known to laypersons.
No need to discuss the moth name any further (to avoid off topic debates) but people are probably going to keep calling this a Bowfin for both species, and only a small group of ichthyologists will use the new common names. I think if the name was more catchy or clever it would catch on better? The green color of the breeding males is cool, and “ruddy bowfin” and “green bowfin” might have been better names. “Eyetail” is clunky.
3 Likes
We’ll keep bowfin for the nominate species, and the segregate shall be called Bowfin McBowface. 
5 Likes
How do you think “things work” in the age of iNat? There has never been a platform of the size and influence of iNat that would have that high potential in generating and disseminating non-scientific names for organisms. Likely hundreds of common names were flagged and/or removed by curators because they were created by iNat users or it was not possible to find any reference to the names that would not originate circularly from iNat (no systematic analysis exist as far as I know, but you can see comments from curators here and there, I flagged perhaps few tens of insect common names not existing outside of iNat). And that is despite guidelines being in place asking users not to create names. Without such guidelines and with the power of iNat, we would have in my opinion a surge of crowd-sourced names that has not happened before. I don’t think it is clear now how this would help or damage the ability of non-researchers to communicate with each other and understand nature and biodiversity.
1 Like
I largely agree with @alesbucek. While not perfect, I think that the current guidelines about creation of common names on iNat are the best option I am aware of. Common names can be useful to communicate about taxa, but they can also lead to confusion if they are similar to names used for other species or poorly constructed.
As an example, the skinks of the genus Plestiodon (common name “Toothy Skinks”) are called “scorpions” by many people in the southern United States. I’ve had multiple conversations with local folks about these “scorpions” while doing lizard fieldwork, and we’ve all understood each other correctly. This common name would meet iNat’s requirement of being naturally in usage, but I haven’t added it. The reason is because it would introduce confusion (people searching for scorpions get lizards instead!?!?). Side note: the origin of this name is a belief that the blue tails of these skinks can be used to “sting” someone who picks them up.
I am sure that there are iNat users who would be qualified to generate quality common names for species that don’t have any. However, I think that allowing iNat users to invent new common names would open the floodgates to a large influx of common names of varying quality with no clear guidelines for distinguishing between useful common names and those that are just confusing or don’t improve users’ ability to connect with nature (iNat’s main goal). If user-generated names were allowed, what would a clear or easy to apply guideline be for which names are acceptable and which aren’t? Anyone could essentially say “I use this name with my friends”, and it would be “valid”.
Additionally, allowing names generated solely on iNat could lead to conflict and take much time and effort to moderate. We already have joke IDs and “battles” around taxon photos which can take up a large amount of curator time. Adding more time moderating a large volume of common names of mixed quality, some of which would likely inhibit the use of the site does not seem like a good idea. Curators would essentially have to use their own judgment (not a good guideline for widespread use), and this would lead to both conflict between users and less time for curating more important elements of iNat.
While the current system might preclude creation of some useful common names on iNat (a small [to my mind] benefit), it also avoids major costs in terms of poor quality common names that generate confusion, increased conflict between users, and demands on (volunteer) curator time. Given what I think would be these costs and benefits, I think the current system makes the most sense.
11 Likes
How does this
get represented as this
or this?
There is no suggestion that a free-for-all of naming would be a good idea. The idea that only academics or field guide authors are qualified to provide novel common names is both anti-historical and snobbish. The “eyetail bowfin” is a good example of the reality that academics are as fallible as anybody else when it comes to naming. The “eye” is not a diagnostic character, it is only more clearly defined on average in the proposed “eyetail bowfin” and its presence on many A. calva specimens would render this name more confusing, not less so. This is especially true insofar as the putative eye doesn’t always look like an eye in either species.
A name that bug/beetle/flower/weed/fungus/fish/tunicate/cnidarian/whatever forum would probably turn out to be both useful and fun. It would rechannel the arbitrary naming into an at least potentially useful process and away from the main site. I don’t see the downside.
As for the matter of scorpions
the world is a confused and confusing place. Users of iNat aren’t going to change that by refusing to record the diversity of naming conventions that exist. Better that it’s front and centre and properly discussed in the About tab than denied. People are going to continue to call vultures buzzards and lizards scorpions whatever we do here and it is better for iNat to explain why than to pretend it’s not an issue.
3 Likes
Given that I trip over homonyms between Planet Botany and Planet Zoology most days. Why restrict common names, when the biologists sustain approved confusion?
3 Likes
I agree that the world can be a confusing place, but this doesn’t mean that iNat can’t try to make some aspects of using the site less confusing.
iNat’s primary purpose is not
That might be a useful product of iNat (just like scientific data), but it shouldn’t be prioritized at the expense of the main goal of the site in my opinion.
Additionally, the proposal that a process for adding common names created by iNat users should be
is a proposal for a moderated process that would definitely take a lot of time and effort. It isn’t necessarily readily apparent, but managing Feature Requests on this forum (which has only a small fraction of the users iNat itself has) involves a significant amount of moderating work by a team of volunteer mods and iNat staff. Scaling that process to iNat itself or a separate forum would be non-trivial (the amount of flags that volunteer curators deal with on iNat proper is already massive), and require serious investment of volunteer curator time.
4 Likes
OK. Let’s use use that item of agreement as a starting point.
INat’s main mission is fostering learning about and understanding of biodiversity. Many - probably most - users engage using common names, not binomial nomenclature and many of those folks find so-called scientific names challenging. Many species have no agreed common name in English and no doubt in other languages. I think we agree on all this. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think I have heard widespread agreement that establishing common names for things would ease the iNat experience as regards its main mission for a bunch of folks. Finding ways to give them what they want/need is therefore not at cross purposes to the main mission.
Establishing a new venue for these discussions will divert significant existing labour invested by curators, mods and staff in dealing with annoyances and challenges to functionality on the main site. In the initial stages it will not be a zero sum proposition but there are ways to remove the conversation from the main site, at least in the case of species with no default name. Just pondering this in an ad hoc, stream of consciousness sort of way, potential technical solutions seem reasonably plausible. A few lines of script would be sufficient to grey out the option of adding names for any species without a default. It could be made language specific. If a curator sets a default name, the ability to add a name is opened. You could even slap a hyperlink reading No Default Name Selected in the space where names should go with the link connecting to an explanation about how to use the forum.
Even the most bizarre bun fights over naming will have no implications for functionality in a forum setting. All the same issues with anger management, personality disorders, ideological weirdness and generic human stupidity will still need to be dealt with, just someplace else where it might actually lead to something useful and won’t get in the way of the actual work of identification. Just getting the conversation away from species pages would improve life for everybody. It might very well reduce the amount of labour involved in this issue once the system is set up, not increase it. Maybe.
A lot of labour is invested in ways to improve user experience. The CV is very much a work in progress and lots of folks have argued that it creates a huge number of misidentifications. Having spent some time IDing Green Beetle Hangers I can attest to the fact that there are a nontrivial (to borrow a word) number of Asian Lady Beetles that have been IDed as a fungus on the advice of the CV. Resources are invested in it because it has promise to make iNat’s ease of use much greater for non-technical users. That’s a good thing.
Soooo…
My thought is if common names are good and more common names would be helpful, don’t wait for clunky monikers to appear in academic journals or deadline-driven field guide publications, find ways to harness the strengths of the iNat model, engage the iNat membership, set some boundaries and get on with naming some stuff. It will have no official standing, most of the names may well evaporate into thin air at the borders of the iNat community and there will undoubtedly be some lame ones created here too. Oh well.
Anyway, I’ve made my points. I didn’t expect rejoicing. I was annoyed by yet another arbitrary, dreary and misleading common name being applied to a unique and interesting animal by an arbitrary process and puzzled that iNat does not recognize that it’s model presents opportunities to do the job better. If the resources and the interest aren’t there, so be it.
3 Likes
You’re not the only one.
1 Like
Leave your preferred common name as a comment?
This is my flying crayfish It is little and furry and airborne, but.
We don’t HAVE hummingbirds in Africa. And why is a moth a hawk? Then @cthawley 's lizard can be a scorpion.
1 Like
Yeah. I’m also a little sad to know that not only are common names now the exclusive domain of “experts”, the experts will suppress use of common names they don’t like, thereby disenfranchising to some degree those for whom the unfashionable, confusing name is the norm, should they come to iNat. If it’s OK for scorpion lizards, it will be OK for a lot of stuff that is less egregiously strange. As I said, this does not reflect the historical reality of common names and, with all due respect to folks posting in defense of the practice, it smacks of academic snobbery. If we want to restrict the right to name, I would prefer that biologists be banned from naming anything outside of what’s required for formal taxonomic purposes and common names be assigned by a committee of poets and visual artists.
3 Likes
The herpetologists in North America make a distinction between common names and standard English names which seems to be a good approach. Any of us might call a common little turtle in the Southeast a stinkpot or stinking Jim but it’s an Eastern Musk Turtle for consistency in published works. Even these standardized names aren’t that standardized and some get revised. Everything evolves.
6 Likes
Oh please no. The other biologist sitting here agrees. I’m in favor of something better than the current method of generating names but artists ain’t it.
First, an observation; common names, as we mostly see them, appear to be “names in the common language” rather than names commonly used. I’d prefer commonly used but how do you get them? Wait until an organism is more well known by a large number of people and then poll them? How did it get to be well known since most people won’t learn a scientific name? And what happens when users want that names to be unique in their group?
I’ve witnessed name generation from a number of sources but none are often collecting a previously known name. At best they’re modifying a commonly used name to make it unique. Any organization that makes names is trying to complete a unique list (field guide authors, state wildlife, natural heritage programs, enthusiast websites and checklists). Sometimes it’s a group effort but often it’s a single editor transcribing scientific names into english. Most are “experts” but more importantly, they’re active and in the position to get it done.
I’d love to hear proposals for how iNat can improve things. Most ideas I have just end up sounding like a competing list.
2 Likes
The best approach in my opinion is a names committee that includes specialists in that taxonomic group and an opportunity for interested individuals to weigh in on the proposed names. The names may include those already in use and others that are newly invented if there is none in use. I think that’s how the North American Odonata names were standardized and I don’t believe there’s been any major protest. Many of the names are poetic and quite memorable.
4 Likes
Why do you think that iNat users will be generating better common names than biologists? Did you try to do any research on this? For example, ask curators which names they removed because they were created on iNat and whether they think these were good names? Or compare how good on average are names suggested by biologists versus names created by iNat users?
3 Likes
I believe the American Fisheries Society has a common names publication but it apparently hasn’t been updated since 2013. I suppose that group could decide the matter for the bowfins at least for most of us.
Option one: Horrendous Space Kablooey
Option two: Big Bang
You can just tell which of those names was invented by a scientist.
I’m with meisenheimer’s proposal about the artists and poets.