Please don't change common names when you change scientific names

In other words, if you want to propose a solution specific to this species, a flag is the approach to take. If the problem applies to species beyond this one, then the forum is appropriate. So, let’s stick to the broader problem as @cthawley has requested.

2 Likes

Well, being in NC and seeing that we have all four of the newly adopted species here and they would be difficult to sort out without digging and checking for runners, I’d venture a guess that most NC observations of these on iNat will be demoted to genus level now and be called whatever name the genus has (foamflowers). I suspect on plant ID hikes, it will still be heartleaf foamflower, maybe with a note that it has been split into multiple species now.

6 Likes

But that doesn’t solve the problem that you’ve raised–you were wanting iNat policy to change. Now you’re wanting the entire scientific community to change their approach. Let’s either drop the topic or stick to one problem. We can’t function if the goal posts are constantly changing.

2 Likes

That’s a potential solution. But what we’re needing here is a route to the solution–not the solution itself. Even if an ideal solution is generated here on the forum, there is no way to enforce the solution. Hence my two routes to the solution. I’m pretty sure that the problem won’t be solved here on the forum.

I don’t want to divert the thread too much but i really se a crisis coming in 10-15 years where all the monitoring agencies, land management groups, etc, can’t even exchange biodiversity data any more because everyone has their own taxonomy.

Those entities do not mind at all about taxonomy: they do not spend a dime on it. Nobody does. No input, no output.

1 Like

So there is a twin issue of taxonomy not doing things that work for applied ecologists, and applied ecologists not being involved enough themselves or devoting any resources to it? That sounds believable.

Doesn’t really feel appropriate to me, that you are telling others to drop the conversation. You definitely don’t have to participate in it. I think science needs to be changed AND inat needs to be changed but recognize i can’t change science, they will just have to find out on their own why their policy is a horrible idea since people aren’t willing to listen to some loud rando about it. But i do feel like on iNat we have a chance to build a better system, if others support it. Clearly i won’t get there on my own so yeah if that is the way this is going it’s a waste of time. But the comments here haven’t all been disagreeing with me.

2 Likes

Ah, sure, I think I was using “route” in the sense of a conceptual approach rather than specific next steps. In that sense I agree that iNat staff would probably have to form a committee to weigh the pros and cons of said approach or alternatives. I’m less inclined towards the first option suggested just because the evolution of common name usage is so varied and sometimes organic, sometimes not- any policy on what entities have the “right” will be pretty arbitrary.

Ive read through most of this; and I dont do iNat curation so forgive me if this is a silly suggestion, but why couldnt the original common name be put in parenthesis after the new one so people searching could find it?

Like here we call a plant Hearts A-Burstin’, but it is common name apparently Strawberry Bush, but if you search Hearts A-Burstin’ it comes up because it is in the system as Strawberry Bush (Hearts A-Busting) https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/83150-Euonymus-americanus

Although as I write this I don’t see that parenthesis anymore, but it still came up when i searches Hearts A-Bu is when it auto filled to it.

But it seems to me, if the new common names are accepted, but its confusing due to all being one old common name, the new common names could be first due to the species difference and then after it notes old. This would also help transition too. For example I tend to look for strawberry bush now if I see a hearts a burstin’. ( And yes here we say BuRSting not BuSTing but its still close enough to get to the answer. ) (and yes I know its a euonomyous but i cant spell that ever good enough to get it to come up esp as accents here put a slight D in it like “eudonmyous” lol - I left these misspellings on purpose to show why scientists may still not use sci names on this site ;) )

3 Likes

It’s helpful that the database editors and Tiarella author provide their contact e-mails. I sent this to all three:

Guy Nesom replied with:

Not sure if this is now off-topic, but it’s always worth contacting the sources if possible.

4 Likes

So Guy himself may have entered those common names into the database? He at least appears to think those names are appropriate.

1 Like

Well, in theory you should be able to have Strawberry Bush AND Hearts A-Bursting as common names, because you can have more than one. I think it’s a shame to remove names like that in pursuit of some common name purity since there isn’t any standard for common names, they are just fluid linguistic entities. and hearts a burstin’ is just a neat name.

As for these common names, it appears Guy Nesom created them? Is that considered notable enough for iNat inclusion? It seems sketchy for me to transition widely known species to a new common name based on something like this. I don’t have a problem with it being on the list of common names, but i don’t think it should be the primary one given this origin.

2 Likes

How about the folks who want to participate in determining the primary common name for these species play virtual rock/paper/scissors? There’s no other mechanism to come to an agreement on issues like this as there is no iNat policy to evaluate at what point a vernacular name is widely used enough to be considered here on iNat.

1 Like

I think based on the reply, it’s not clear whether author or editors changed the common name. What is clear, at least from the taxon split is:

Became:

Which I think leads to two other questions:

  1. Why did your T. cordifolia automatically become T. stolonifera? (Maybe I’m misreading the thread)
  2. Why don’t taxonomists just keep the old common name of “Heartleaf Foamflower” for all four: T. cordifolia, T. stolonifera, T. austrina, T. nautila for the new splits rather than creating a new common name for the new species?
3 Likes

That policy is really for people making up names just for iNat. If a paper is used to describe new species, and the author(s) suggest new common names for those new species, it seems OK to me to add on iNat if we’re following that paper. If there are issues with a specific paper and/or its names, then that discussion should be had on a taxon flag.

For splits in general, it seems prudent to me to add both the new name and keep the old name to the species, so that if someone searches for the taxon using the old name, it will appear as a search result. Which name should be the default name for the taxon is a thornier issue, and I don’t think there’s a broad policy which can cover that. Either way, there will always be an adjustment period for changes like this (supposing that the changes hold). And I think people in general will adjust, even if it’s painful and creates mis-ID issues and such on iNat.

As for the broader appropriateness of a taxonomist suggesting common names for newly-described taxa, I think that’s a bit beyond iNat.

11 Likes

I thought in the past people had been taking common names from places like external internet sites that were possibly also created by inat users. And that we decided that wasn’t appropriate? That doesn’t seem too different from this. The main difference here seems academic social status of the person proposing the name, i think.

I don’t have issue with creeping foamflower being a name but it seems pretty clear it shouldn’t be the name. For context this is kind of like deciding the chamise in all of california north of Santa Barbara is a different species and naming it ‘Northern White Shanks’ or something, totally deleting the name ‘Chamise’ for all chamise observations in most of California. This foamflower isn’t quite as ubiquitous as chamise, but it’s a very common and well known species.

3 Likes

I think taxonomists are more interested in the biological reality, and not the feelings of people who like a random common name. Use whatever name you want (creeping, heartleaf, or Bob’s) but keep in mind it doesn’t mean anything to taxonomists. If there are actually 4 species of this genus, laymen shouldn’t impede progress by denying 4 species exist and refusing to change. Of course someone could come along and refute the 4 species hypothesis, but if they can’t then the new taxonomy stands. This is how science works. The one vs 4 species hypotheses (or even something else) are both valid, but the most recent taxonomic revision holds priority given the rules of nomenclature. Oversplitting can be a problem, but if the taxonomic treatment is robust, it stands until more data overturns it. It seems to be more phylogenetics that is changing taxonomy than pure morphology-based taxonomy, because of the adherence to the clade-based labels.

For goodness sakes, this whole thread is another great reason why everyone should default their iNat to scientific names and just get used to using them.

No, we shouldn’t, let’s not decide for others how they use iNat.

13 Likes

Wow, this is super rude. It isn’t about feelings and i’m not a laymen. I have worked in this field for two decades and have a masters. But it shouldn’t matter, because this is iNaturalist not LinkedIn. We aren’t ranked here by our level of education, or at least we aren’t supposed to be. The way a bunch of you can’t form an argument without attacking someone else, it says a lot here. Anyone who doesn’t agree with the splitters’ concept of species or how that is defined is described as ignorant, stupid, lazy, overemotional, or malicious. All because you don’t have any actual arguments that hold up, because in fact there isn’t a consistent definition between species and subspecies, and something that would have been a subspecies before is now a full species, just because that’s ‘how it is done’. I think i am done here, i was trying to resolve a real issue brought up by other users, but i just get attacked for it. Again.

I’m not ignorant i just actually do ecology work on the ground, and talk to landowners and stakeholders and see the problems caused by these policies all the time. It sucks that people won’t listen and try to help, instead they accuse me of being a fake scientist or more worried about my ‘feelings’. Just doing what Tony said, leave the old name and also add the new name, would go a long way but apparently that’s too much to ask to help out the 99% of iNaturalist users who aren’t taxonomists or self styled splitter fanboys. But apparently some people here are too caught up in their ‘feelings’ when they are hurt and offended that someone dare question their complete removal of the subspecies concept over the last 10 years.

4 Likes

As this discussion is becoming personal and (more) contentious, I’ve closed it.

3 Likes