Just how does one coin a common name?

Because meaning of scientific name does not mater. It could be as well numerical ID. Latin is still a bit more memorable. People, who use scientific names, know, that it is not important what the name means. In contrast, public assumes that common names are not meaningless or should not be meaningless. That’s why they try to invent jester and batman flies.

1 Like

I volunteer as tribute.

1 Like

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

1 Like

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?

omg :sweat_smile: 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”

1 Like

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?

5 Likes

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.

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.

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.

I’m also a scientist.

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

4 Likes

Great!

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.

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.

3 Likes

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.

that was very much not what i was arguing.

my point exactly.

3 Likes

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.

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

3 Likes

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

2 Likes

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…

2 Likes

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?

why would they be?

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like