All, tempers are flaring and posts are going way off topic, so I am temporarily closing this thread for 12 hours.
7 Likes
Aside from the concrete benefits of having a place to discuss bugs, feature requests, and other more actionable topics, the impetus behind this forum was to provide a place where people could share and discuss their ideas and thoughts in a civil, evidence-based manner - not too much different than iNat itself!
The original post here was thoughtful, and I think many of the posts here have been as well, whether I agreed with them or not. We all draw from a wealth of diverse experiences and views, and the chance to share and listen to each other is a huge benefit of this place.
At some point, though, these discussions often devolve into a few people who are dug in and it becomes less of a dialogue than an argument. People stop listening to each other (which is the part of a discussion we often forget about when weāre emotional) and instead try to prove someone wrong, and thatās not what this place is for. If you canāt further the discussion, please refrain from posting any more. This comic from xkcd is actually something that always helps to keep me in check when Iām feeling heated and want to dispute something.
If correcting someone becomes your motivation in an open-ended discussion like this, then itās probably time to take a break. If you disagree with someoneās opinion, rather than try to prove them wrong, maybe ask them why they think that way, or share your reasons for your own opinions. Odds are slim youāll change someoneās mind by correcting them on a forum, but personally, Iāve changed my views more often when someone asks me to examine them than when someone tries to shut me down.
And please refrain from sarcasm. Itās difficult to interpret online, and is not a positive contribution to a discussion (and I say this as someone with a deeply sarcastic streak).
This topic reopens in another hour or two. Please keep it on track or it will be closed permanently.
12 Likes
This topic was automatically opened after 11 hours.
Thereās no way for me to discuss that taxa specifically as its way outside of my field of expertise, but the competitive exclusion principle suggests that there would be some unique defining characteristic, be it range, habitat, microhabitat, nutritional needs, etc., or they wouldnāt have developed as separate thriving species. For example, if Iām reading the table correctly, donāt each of those species have a different host? So the host can be an aspect of the name, and if the host has particular requirements that limit the habitat or microhabitat then those can add on as well.
And again, for naming we donāt even need a āuniqueā characteristic, simply a notable one. And every organism on Earth, when you know it well enough, has dozens of notable attributes. If some of those attributes overlap with another, so what? Itās still better than just throwing in a random name completely unrelated to the organism.
1 Like
It was already stated that what thought to have unique host ended up having many host species and such a name is confusing. No name is related to the organism.
1 Like
Not sure why thatās so confusing - Deer Ticks arenāt literally on deer alone and Cat Fleas arenāt literally on cats alone, far from it. Both both names are still more meaningful than āMelodiās Tickā and āHakimās Fleaā.
And going back to my statement, what of the competitive exclusion principle? Every organism has a unique niche or it wouldnāt survive as a viable species. And you donāt even need something unique in order to name it, as I keep pointing out.
1 Like
We donāt know about life of thousands of species, many are known from 1 exemplar only, so it canāt be applied to all species, having a flea named after cats while itās found on many hosts doesnāt sound like a good idea at all, it is a confusing name, both common and scientific.
1 Like
By that logic, we better get rid of āBlack Bearā cause not all of them are Black and āWhite-tailed Deerā because other deer also have white tails. āBighorn Sheepā should be trashed because some of them have small horns and āSnowy Owlā because theyāre often observed outside of snow.
I think weāre gonna have to agree to disagree. I still donāt see how āHakimās Fleaā benefits anyone other than Hakim and I honestly havenāt seen any arguments for why using honorifics is objectively better or advances science or conservation in any way, but people seemed attached to the notion and they have the power so it isnāt going to change.
1 Like
Well, Snowy Owl is white, thatās why it had such common name before any scientific names were invented, I donāt think we talk here about common names at all, weāre talking about latin names. If thereās a reason to argue Iād better look at species that have ānormalā latin names but their common names have people names in it, it doesnāt make much sense. Name shouldnāt benefit, it just exists and helps understand what exactly weāre talking about, so itās the same as number coes, but much easier to remember as we talk in letters, not numbers. So thereās no difference if it Heermannās Gull or Black-headed Gull, you clearly see the picture of the bird in your mind in both cases. (And yes, BHG has brown hood while other species have black)
1 Like
Or, as long as weāre on the subject, Honorific genus names with multiple species. The genus Wilsonia currently has three species, only one of which has the common name Wilsonās warbler. Of the other two, one has a geographical name (Canada warbler, although there are many warbler species found in Canada), and the other, a descriptive name (hooded warbler). And hereās the kicker: the type species of the genus is the hooded warbler, not the Wilsonās warbler.
1 Like
Coincidentally, thereās an article in CNN this morning about a incredibly unique new species of snake discovered in Vietnam, an odd-scaled snake with shiny, iridescent scales.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/asia/vietnam-snake-discovered-intl-hnk-scli-scn/index.html
It was dark and iridescent, its scales shifting through blues and greens in the light. The scales were small, ridged, and oddly patterned. The seasoned scientists had no idea what it was ā and soon realized they were looking at an undiscovered species.
āThat was a really exciting moment,ā said Aryeh Miller, one of the researchers and a fellow at the Smithsonianās National Museum of Natural History, on the Smithsonianās blog. āThe specimen looks very different. So different, in fact, that we didnāt know immediately what it was.ā
The researchers, from the Smithsonian and the Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, published their findings in the journal Copeia on Monday.
So the arguments about species not being unique enough to name well really donāt appear to apply.
Despite being such an amazing unique Vietnamese species, theyāve named itā¦Achalinus zugorum, after George Zug, an American who once was the curator of reptiles and amphibians at the Smithsonian but is now retired. So far as I can tell Zug never had any connection to odd-scaled snake research and wasnāt particularly more involved with Vietnam than other countries, nor did he have anything to do with funding this expedition as heās been retired for some time, but there were staff from the Smithsonian on the expedition and the Smithsonian helped fund it. It appears to be at least the 9th species that has been named after Zug, most of which are in Asia or Latin America and now carry his name in their common names (āZugās Monitorā, āZugās Slender Geckoā, āZugās Robber Frogā, etc.).
5 Likes
Interestingly, one of the authors on this new paper on Achalinus was lead author on another paper in 2019 in which three new species in this genus were described and named from Vietnam, in collaboration with Vietnamese colleagues. Near as I can tell, the three new species were each named with the first names of family members of the lead author: A. juliani, A. timi, and A. emilyae and the proposed common names for each incorporate the first name of the family member (e.g., Julianās Burrowing Snake). Nothing in these scientific or common names suggests the snakes are found in Vietnam and they certainly are not descriptive.
4 Likes
This is not a very good practice, indeed. But, whatever heated discussions we may have here, species are named not following wishes and grievances of internet forum users but exclusively following the rules defined by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (animals) and the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (plants, algae, fungi), and correct Latin, of course. If the species name complies them, it is accepted. Common names have no rules (unless there are national language regulations) so it is after the creators what kind of names are to be used.
3 Likes
I think it is related to the problem of making up and describing species just to add name the person wants to.
One potential requirement that could be included within a scientific collecting permit issued by a government to a foreign researcher could be that local biologists have some oversight in what scientific names are applied to any newly discovered organisms in that nation. Iāve never heard of such a requirement, but itās feasible.
1 Like
Right. Iāve just remembered an excellent example of a descriptive name: Toninia aromatica. Like other lichens, it has no smell whatsoever. But the author who described it, received it from a nature-interested lady, who packed the specimen in a scented envelope.
2 Likes
No, and I do not think it will ever happen, because it will be looked upon as a breach of research freedom. Some countries require to leave specimen duplicates if permission is granted, which is very reasonable and a good practice. But naming is another thing.
1 Like
And, as I pointed out earlier, the descriptive name draws attention to the organism, while the honorific draws attention to people.
This is a really fair point, but I donāt know if the scientific name alone should be the basis for this. English/common names are far more efficient for descriptive use, which is one argument I had used in the past for not erasing common names entirely, and encouraging the creation of new ones. As it is not everyone knows Latin and Greek so terms like āimmundaā, ānitensā and āxanthocephalusā go over the head of people who would seemingly care the most about non-honorific names. Wouldnāt that effort be better focused on common names instead? The scientific name originates from descriptive taxonomy after all. Iām making some assumptions here, but hopefully not unfair ones.
3 Likes
Youāre probably right, but restrictions on āresearch freedomā have a way of arising after a researcher does something that could be controversial. Iāve had to write permits for scientific researchers in which requirements I thought would never have to be stated were included. And I donāt know what other governments might feel is important when allowing foreign scientists in to study their fauna and flora.
3 Likes