Several times, I have added common names that are used a “trade names” - that is, the common names that many private breeders use when they sell the animal. I have been told by several users that this is not a legitimate source for common names, but I can’t find anything about this in the common name guidelines. Thoughts?
3 Likes
If the trade names refer specifically to domestic breeds and varieties that are not taxonomic separations and names don’t apply to the taxon as a whole, I feel they should not be added. For example, we don’t need to list all the different dog breeds for Canis familiaris.
If the trade name does refer to the specific taxon as a whole, I don’t see a big issue with adding it. But perhaps I should defer judgement without specific examples. Also, I think purpose of adding trade names matters…are you just being pedantic or are these names that would actually help observers find the taxon they are looking for.
9 Likes
I’m not sure why they wouldn’t be a legitimate source
Heck, that’s way better than most of the “common names” that just get slapped onto random insects on here
6 Likes
Many peoples’ first use of iNat will be testing the app on the plants on their windowsill or the fish in their aquarium. I think they should at least be able to search by the names they know for those species, if it isn’t actually the top name in use for the taxon.
5 Likes
I think it varies a lot by the common name in question. Cardinal Tetra, for instance, is the trade name for Paracheirodon axelrodi and is also the common name used on Wikipedia, on here, and in most (English-speaking) resources.
There’s also “Algae Eater” which is used for a varity of taxa, most often Gyrinocheilus but can be used for a number of unrelated Siluriformes (catfish) as well.
And don’t get me started on plant/insect common names, which are all over the place.
One of the issues with curating names that I see people run into a lot is there are not many sole standardized common names with plants and invertibrates. Everything typically has several common names, often used by different field guides or at roughly equal amounts.
(For instance, one Raymie and I have debated before is the plant Solidago nemoralis- should it be Field Goldenrod or Gray Goldenrod? I lean towards Field Goldenrod- it’s an oldfield species that shows up in habitats transitioning from disturbed pastures to mid-quality native-dominated grasslands, so Field Goldenrod fits the habitat well, but it seems Gray Goldenrod is becoming more popular of late due to the plant’s gray hairs.) I tend to prefer using the Wikipedia entry name if there is one.
1 Like
I am one of the people who have been telling OP that trade names should not be added. However, I am not arguing that no name originating in the pet trade is ever a legitimate common name, this is a more specific situation.
The issue at hand is specifically common names of ants that derive solely from a single ant dealer. Ant dealers often make up random English names for species they are selling that have no use anywhere else, and the general consensus among curators and ant specialists on iNat as far as I can tell is that a common name used by a single website to sell ants should not be added
20 Likes
Many names are sources only from a single scientific paper or field guide. These names are generally deemed acceptable? Is there any difference between this a name that breeder uses? Surely the name a breeder uses is likely to be adopted by their costumers?
A scientific paper or a field guide are very different from a website that made up a name for something they sell. A name used by a seller could be adopted more widely, and then it may be worth adding as a common name, but that has not been the case with the names we have debated
7 Likes
Ah fair. I’ve had this issue before too where I wish that a particular plant had a common name, and there’s a pretty obvious name it could have, but everyone who keeps them refers to them by their scientific name and only one clickbaity website has any sort of common name for it.
If it’s one guy making up a name for marketing or search engine optimization then I don’t think it’s good to reward that. Presumably either nobody else in the hobby keeps that species, or they use the scientific name?
5 Likes
In general people use the scientific name for ants, or if there is a real common name people might use that, but these random names made up by ant dealers aren’t really used much
2 Likes
My experience from the exotic invertebrate trade in Europe is that each trader makes up their own ‘common names’ to sell, which varies by language they’re selling in, and more importantly often varies over time - i.e. some invent new names when the last stock isn’t selling well, or they just get new stock from somewhere else and want to claim it’s different. The scientific names they often write underneath their invented names however usually explain what stock they have.
The plurality of repeatedly invented names is probably the core reason behind why each species is now given a single universal scientific name, with lots of formal regulations about those for what’s ‘published’ what’s “accepted” and such.
3 Likes
Why is it different, though?
2 Likes
This is exactly what I am referring to
3 Likes
Academic papers and field guides have to go through a publishing process where they’re at least theoretically reviewed and implicitly accepted by other people. I’d be hesitant to accept a common name from a random blog post or the title of an individual BugGuide post too (if it’s a more formal website, sure). It goes against the principle that the name is actually “in use” if all you can find is the initial invention of a name. It’s unlikely that these names will catch on, but if they do then better evidence will show up.
7 Likes
But then this logic would seem to apply to accept the wildspecies.ca names, which everyone seems to universally consider unacceptable.
Some of those names are used here, I have added some myself, while many others are misleading or conflict with the name of another species
2 Likes
Patagonian toothfish was the English common name for Dissostichus eleginoides until it entered the global fish trade, at which time it it was marketed as Chilean sea bass. Chilean sea bass (and Chilean seabass) are both listed on iNat as accepted common names.
There are many examples of this sort of thing. The fish is probably known to more English speakers by the trade name than by the original broadly used one so it’s an actual vernacular name now and it makes no sense to disallow it because of its origin.
The same logic applies to the pet trade.
2 Likes
Of what? how does this fish relate to the conversation?
EDIT: This comment was made when the comment I was responding to said only “Patagonian toothfish was the English common name”
Makes me think of endemic plants in NZ, where the common name is the Te Reo name, but there are English names too, although typically they’re not used (and the situations in which I see them most commonly used are less than desirable).
2 Likes
Yes, they are and it makes no sense. Some grad student publishes a paper in a second or third tier journal in which they propose new “common” names for a recently split species and iNat considers that good enough to be listed on the Taxonomy entry. Inventing (or policing) vernacular names is not and never has been part of the academic biologist’s job description.
1 Like