Just how does one coin a common name?

[anon83178471]

@charlie

If a band writes a song referring to an obscure fly by a certain name

I volunteer as tribute.

[anon83178471]

David Bowie’s spider is my favorite. Super pretty thing, too. Bowie and the spider, both.

[alesbucek]

@jasonhernandez74

So my quandary is, if there is a certain species of fly, which I have consistently thought of as jester fly because of its motley colors and jaunty mannerisms (and that is how always I referred to it in my field journal since I did not know its taxon), how do I go about putting that name out there to see if it sticks?

So what exactly do you mean by “how do I go about putting that name out there” - which other platform than iNaturalist do you want to use to disseminate your new common name?

[charlie]

omg i was trying to think of a witty reference to something but can’t do while kid is climbing on me

“no one likes the opening chrysalis”

[charlie]

this feels like a circular discussion where you just want the group that you are already in to be able to choose the name of a bunch of organisms we share the planet with. I don’t think it’s inherently true that no one is going to ever care about small insects, i think maybe iNat is part of the democratization of our understanding of ecology and the planet we live on that’s been unavailable through the entirety of colonial culture. SO yeah. Overly optimistic? maybe. but why not try?

[alesbucek]

@charlie

the group that you are already in

Why are you including who am I into your argumentation? Please don’t do that, this is not a fight between scientists and non-scientists. Making it a fight is not helping.

@charlie

you just want the group that you are already in to be able to choose the name of a bunch of organisms we share the planet with

This scares me. Do you think that scientists are afraid of loosing their monopoly on naming things? Did you consider that scientists know well how mess in the scientific names can obscure the understanding of nature and therefore they want to use their expertise to limit the mess in common names? The motivation is to give public tools to understand nature. These tools come in form of common names for some groups and education that it is impossible to have a functional common name for every organism.

@charlie

I don’t think it’s inherently true that no one is going to ever care about small insects

Not sure this is still a response for me. I also don’t think so and I’m actually spending substantial amount of time to introduce insect to people around me through public talks, photography exhibitions, writing of popularizing articles etc.

[charlie]

@alesbucek

Please don’t do that, this is not a fight between scientists and non-scientists

I’m also a scientist.

@alesbucek

Did you consider that scientists know well how mess in the scientific names can obscure the understanding of nature

That hasn’t been my experience at all. Scientific names are constantly shuffled despite real downsides.

[alesbucek]

@charlie

I’m also a scientist.

Great!

@charlie

That hasn’t been my experience at all. Scientific names are constantly shuffled despite real downsides.

The scientific names are changing to reflect the changes in our understanding of nature. How else it could work? The body of scientific literature is keeping history of all changes so the chaos can be kept under control.

[charlie]

when and how to change scientific names is certainly not governed by an unbiased, universal truth. Species are a messy thing, a human defined concept, and how they are addressed (ie splitters vs lumpers and name changes) is certainly not the One True Way. It’s a choice, and one i don’t happen to agree with. But since i’m in the minority of scientists (if not everyone else) on this, it doesn’t much matter. Anyway… i should probably leave it at that as everyone else on the forum has already heard me belabor this.

[alesbucek]

@charlie

when and how to change scientific names is certainly not governed by an unbiased, universal truth.

The fact that scientific names are not perfect can not be an argument against the expertise of scientists in developing functional names. Perfect is not what matters - it needs to be functional. Taxonomy, despite the diversity of organisms and our incomplete knowledge on their relationships works remarkably well.

[charlie]

@alesbucek

The fact that scientific names are not perfect can not be an argument against the expertise of scientists in developing functional names.

that was very much not what i was arguing.

@alesbucek

Perfect is not what matters - it needs to be functional.

my point exactly.

[alesbucek]

@charlie

that was very much not what i was arguing.

Than it would be helpful if you’d explain how it relates to me saying that scientists have good expertise in naming things so they just want to use this expertise to help public in developing a functional naming convention that would serve their purpose. I actually suggest to finish it here. Thanks for spending the time with me - it surely clarified for me a lot about the common name expectations.

[fffffffff]

You don’t need to be scientist to have expertise and come up a good name.

[charlie]

I think I want to change scientific names in the opposite way that you do but don’t really feel like debating it.

[jasonhernandez74]

@brian_d

it sounds like Jester may have been used elsewhere, so I recommend a different name.

Too bad you weren’t there to advise early English settlers in North America that Robin was already in use elsewhere. And so was Oriole, and Blackbird, and Flycatcher, and Warbler, and…

[jasonhernandez74]

@pfau_tarleton

as explained by the ESA in their guide to insect common names (which includes some guidelines for coining new names).

I see in those guidelines, “Descriptors of cultures, populations, ethnicity, race, and industries/occupations are generally not acceptable.”

I take it the Hessian Fly and Gypsy Moth will be grandfathered in?

[charlie]

why would they be?

[jasonhernandez74]

Because those names have been in common use for a long time, hence, not being coined under these guidelines. Also, since both are pest species, there is extensive printed literature on them under those names.

[charlie]

well this looks to be guidelines for new names, so not relevant to that in any extent. but Gypsy Moth is not currently an active name on iNat for Lymantria dispar, no. The name is still there as an inactive name so it will still show up in searches.