Should we use more scientific names and native names than using common names to avoid confusion?
Scientific and common names have their problems, as shown in some previous topics:
- Scientific name Vs. Common name?
- Offensive scientific names
- Managing offensive common names
- Decolonization of Common Names
- Name Changes for Plant Taxa
Personally, I prefer to use the scientific name if itās written since itās less ambiguous, but a shorter common name can be less confusing when talking or listening in person (e.g. Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)). However, itās pretty common for naturalists in groups to use scientific names in conversation so itās worth learning, eventually.
Native names are a difficult topic. If the group from which they come is a minority within the area, itās hard to see how to encourage their use amongst more people when a more widely used common name is available.
6 Likes
Interesting question. I think it depends how familiar you are with Latin/native names.
I changed my settings recently to Latin names first. I thought it would help me when identifying, because the English names are confusing to me - āyellow shouldered this, yellow margined that, black shouldered the other.ā But I learned all of them in Latin first. I think it has helped me in that way. But what Iāve found is that Iām completely lost when getting notifications about my own observations in taxa Iām unfamiliar with. āSomeone added an ID - Deroceras reticulatumā - āOh, is that one of those cool plants I saw, or a fungus? Ah no - itās the slug.ā Now if it had come up as āNetted Field Slugā, I would have been much more informed straight away, and I might even have a chance of remembering it!
4 Likes
If youāre already familiar with a genre, it can get worse:
1 Like
Native names are just as prone to confusion (and bias) as common names. In a country like Canada there could easily be a couple hundred different ānativeā names for the same plant.
4 Likes
Yes, I donāt really understand native names being categorised with scientific names rather than common names. Native names are common names - just in a different language.
Scientific names are prone to a different set of potential confusions (they change from time to time, and different scientists may have different opinions about which name is āright/wrongā at any given time) compared to common names - (they vary from place to place and language to language, they may not have the same scope of meaning as any valid taxonomic concept, the same organism can have several names, conversely one name can apply to multiple unrelated organisms (e.g. daddy long-legs!), and the concepts of āright/wrongā simply donāt apply in the same way - Itās called what people say itās called.)
4 Likes
I like Wapiti, an indigenous name for Cervus canadensis but everyone I know uses Elk. But on an international level, the former name is better and less confusing since Elk is a different animal in Europe.
5 Likes
Scientific names are supposed to avoid confusion.
Depends what names your intended audience use and prefer.
2 Likes
Scientific names are the most appropriate and professional form of communication that avoids a number of serious mistakes.
2 Likes
These constant taxonomic revisions defeat that purpose. Cardinals arenāt finches anymore, but now some tanagers are cardinals. It has gotten to the point that if I canāt identify something to species, Iām not sure I should identify it at all, because the genus, family, or order I knew it to be in, it might not be in anymore.
If Iām publishing research on something, then looking up the current scientific name is part of the process. Outside of that use case, I much prefer the stability of common names. A Scarlet Tanager is the same bird whether it is in the Thraupidae, the Cardinalidae, or whatever family it will be in when the new paper is published tomorrow.
3 Likes
Virtual / online solves that. I remember a name in English, Afrikaans, other South African inherited common name, or Latin / Greek, perhaps German from Swiss days.
And the great Google takes me to todayās scientific consensus, with a list of earlier synonyms, and common names in many languages. My Cape robin, is still that, even if ātheyā have moved it to Cape robin-chat (clunky! but we are conforming to foreign usage)
Birds are one of the only groups where common names are consistent and standardized. It wouldnāt work to do that with reptiles. Anole/gecko/chameleon can all be interchangeable locally depending on region, and donāt even get me started on the billion different common names for, say, rat snakes or any venomous (or similar looking harmless) taxa. The attempt to standardize just North American (really, just US) taxa is largely ignored because of local or preferred names.
Taxonomy changes because taxonomy is meant to be a hypothesis that best reflects evolutionary history. New data/analyses lead to better understanding of evolutionary history, which alters those hypotheses. In almost all cases, I use the binomials because it specifically addresses the species Iām referring to. If Iām talking to the public, Iāll choose a (semi-standardized, if possible) common name and also give the binomial.
2 Likes
Does the word ānativeā indicate local or regional names, or are you referring to āindigenous peoplesā name? mikelesnik
1 Like
Except the Sparrow Hawk and Marsh Hawkā¦and all the other common names that I learned when I was younger that have now been changed. https://www.featheredphotography.com/blog/2019/04/07/why-was-the-marsh-hawks-name-changed-to-northern-harrier/
You would have to ask the OP what he meant by native but my comment applies in both cases.
The reason they were changed was because of people wanting to make them as standardized as scientific names. I doubt that they would have changed colloquially without that scientific interference.
I think this is one of the best native name examples out there. I always thought of the animal as a Wapiti, or I guess sometimes a Wapiti Elk, but referring to it as simply an Elk just seems redundant and undescriptive. Of course, Iām no taxonomist, but I like to think it would be a good thing if every animal could have its own unique common name of a reasonable length, as we have tried (and largely succeeded) with scientific names. There are times when a ācommonā name converges with the scientific or native name, such as in Kangaroos or Rhinoceros, and for the most part I think that can be a good thing.
Another thing in regards to indigenous namesā¦ i am never sure when people not in said group are welcome to use them. With some groups it is encouraged, but others might not want their names or language used on this website or elsewhere? I am not sure if it ever really comes up but i think people should be aware of that if they are not part of said group.
In terms of scientific vs common names iāve actually gone back to using common names because of iNatās policy to constantly change scientific namesā¦ itās pretty untenable at this point and i donāt know how anyone uses them any more unless they are taxonomists specifically focused on that taxonomic group. Scientific names on iNat are now for taxonomists, not for anyone else, even other sorts of ecologists.
A couple weeks ago, I came across an observation that had been identified to genus, but ā without any conflicting identifications ā a taxon split had bumped it back to Dicots. Let that sink in.
2 Likes
And all previous identifiers are now bounced to an ID, they didnāt make. Didnāt even SEE to make an ID either way.