The source appears to be Wikipedia, which does use the name. Feel free to flag the taxon to suggest other common names. I do think maintaining consistency is important, so the names “creeping heartleaf foamflower” and “stoloniferous heartleaf foamflower” make more sense, and keeping that consistency with the other species split from T. cordifolia also makes sense. As long as the species do not share priority common names, I do not think there will be any issues.
That said, you are wrong in your initial statement. No common names were ever removed. Observations solely within the range of T. stolonifera were transferred from T. cordifolia sensu lato into the taxon T. stolonifera, which has not yet been loaded with many common names. Portraying this change as an erasure of culture is disingenuous - the site is under constant change and revision, and attempting to place such intention or damage behind a split helps no one, and misrepresents the study of species concepts. Such an issue could have been easily resolved with a singular flag asking curators to edit common names, or even adding those names yourself (as anyone can).
Species entities are not determined by what we are comfortable with, but what elements have demonstrable variation in adaptations to their environment resulting in unique, describable, inheritable traits of those entities. Tiarella stolonifera is irrefutably unique when compared to Tiarella cordifolia sensu stricto in the presence of creeping stolons. I do not think such changes result in the site not being able to be used by people who are not taxonomists, such is the reason expert identification exists in the first place. Change, revision, and development is inevitable. If anything, I think such a public platform for that change is much better than prior systems of taxonomists revising behind closed doors. For the issue of distinct entities known under the same name, the only solution is to somehow differentiate them.
I think calling the above species “heart-leaved foamflower” in the iNat taxonomy is a very bad idea since that name already belongs to Tiarella cordifolia. I’m sure state and regional floras will continue to refer to “heart-leaved foamflower” for a long time to come, and of course that’s just fine.
The Flora of the southeastern United States does not use common names, only scientific names. I did an exhaustive search for relevant secondary sources in preparation for the wikipedia articles, but since the primary source was just recently published in July 2021, there weren’t many secondary sources to be found. All sources are documented in wikipedia of course.
Looking at the wiki for all three, the common names for genus Tiarella seem to all point to this source which then references this publication in KEW. What I’m not seeing is “creeping” mentioned in the paper though, so I have no idea where the common name came from.
Going a bit deeper, that database points this publication by Nesom, which I don’t think gives a common name for the plants. I only did a word-search, but I couldn’t find a common name “creeping foamflower” in the paper, which is referenced by the database. Maybe whomever made the database entry read the paper and assigned a common name?
I don’t see anything “against iNat policy”, if Common gull ssp called Mew gull was split and now is called Short-billed gull, it is now one, you can add a second common name, but why add confusion instead of making it clear that now you have this species in your area? If Sphagnum magellanicum was described from south of South America we now don’t call North American and Eurasian red Sphagnums that name, even though it’s been established for decades.
I think this database is a secondary source, so it leaves the question of where the common name came from, if it wasn’t in the original paper that was found in a well respected/peer reviewed source. It seems like someone read the paper and created a common name based on that. I’m not sure how that’s different from say an iNatter making up a common name except that it’s done elsewhere, in a different database.
Is there a requirement anywhere to cite the original source of every common name? That’s an impossible thing to ask for. Fun for an etymologist, but a nightmare for anyone else.
I genuinely don’t understand the process of common name assignment to new taxa, but I assume that a database wouldn’t count as a publication since it aggregates information from primary sources, no?
I know from other discussions on the forum, some common names for birds were made up by the author because a publisher wanted common names.
This also brings into the question the relevance of region options on iNat. In the profile editing page, you can choose the region from which you would like to prioritize common names. This may imply the intention of common names in the iNat system to be based on what is actually in use in the region. In this scenario, all of the new taxa would continue to be referred to as heartleaf foamflower. This is not intentionally designed to confuse ID’ers, but to simplify the process for non-taxonomists. I would suggest that users be able to add “colloquial” names to taxa based on an assigned region. For example, people in my particular region refer to Lepomis macrochirus as bream (which iNat lists as a common name). However, in settings, when I add preference to names from my region this does not change. Allowing users to add geographic ranges to these names may be beneficial in this process.
That’s where a lot of the problems arise. And it’s a philosophical argument really as to what way of introducing common names is considered acceptable.
I like to use the phrase “vernacular name in common usage” to be more specific–because, nowadays, not all common names are actually in common usage like in the old days. Based on my research “common” likely originally meant by the “commoners” of a localized geographic region as opposed to explorers who recently arrived at a location.
Long ago, common names originated among the populace (before there were scientists naming things). One might call this the natural way that common names arise. Nowadays, common names are coined by several types of people: 1) field guide authors, 2) the scientist who coined the scientific name, 3) a committee of biologists designated to decide what people should be using as common names, 4) people on websites such as iNaturalist and BugGuide, 5) people who create databases. There may be others.
One might argue that this is the “natural” way that common names have been invented since the beginning of language use by humans–and that all the other ways should be avoided! Note: I’m not making that argument–just saying that one could make that argument.
Yes, this paper was self-reviewed and self-published. There is no acknowledgements of any peer review and no “conflict of interest” statement about him being an author in a journal edited and published by himself. This practice wouldn’t fly in most scientific circles.
https://www.phytoneuron.net/editorial-and-publication-information/
“The editor of Phytoneuron is Guy Nesom. Submissions will be reviewed for content and style by the editor, based on his own knowledge and expertise. If deemed appropriate or necessary by the editor, review by other botanical peers will be sought. An indication of the Phytoneuron review process (if beyond the Editor) will appear in the Acknowledgements. Authors are encouraged to seek reviewers before submitting a manuscript and include appropriate acknowledgement.”
I think it’s fair to suggest raising a flag on the taxon on question, but the post and issue raised go beyond a single taxon and discuss a general approach to common names on iNat. As such, I think posting about this larger issue with a specific example is a reasonable approach for the forum, and raising a flag isn’t a sole solution - it can address one taxon but not the issue as a whole.
I would also suggest avoid saying that other users are being “disingenuous” as this is targeting a user and not ideas (an idea can’t be disingenuous). It’s fair for another user to say that they feel change can amount to erasure and talk about their personal perceptions of change and site usability. As far as I can see, OP did not say that erasure was an intent of changes, just an impact, so this is a bit of a misrepresentation to my mind.
Lastly, while I agree with much of what you write about species entities (at least inasmuch as we can define these…), common names are not species entities and are not bound to be them or correspond to them in a perfectly clean manner (though it is nice when they do). Common names don’t have to be monophyletic and are not governed by any code. Changing common names so that they have a one to one correspondence to scientific names is not necessary, and in many cases not desirable (as @tristanmcknight noted). They are really about what words people use to describe the nature that they interact with. A scientist may create or suggest a common name when they describe a species, but that doesn’t mean that other people have to use it (though perhaps the new name will catch on).
I agree with @keirmorse that there are a lot of intricacies to consider in each situation including weighing the value of creation of new names and the potential for misidentifications. But I think that this is where the community voice comes in, in terms of saying which names should be available because they are in usage/not or where confusion is occurring.
well, changing the name is causing misidentifications too, because everyone calls it heartleaf foamflower and that’s what people put in.
I absolutely don’t think it’s appropriate for the scientific paper to designate a new common name for a broad split like this. A new species, sure. This is a common wildflower known to millions of people as heartleaf foamflower. To 99% of humans who see this plant it will continue to be heartleaf foamflower. Giving it some new common name you made up will just confuse people.
if a new vernacular name comes up it should be added but no, a new name should not be created here, if our policy is not creating common names. i dont think the policy should be ‘taxonomists can change common names any time they want but no one else can’.
we are living in complete chaos, that’s ecology.
the common name heartleaf foamflower was removed from all of my many observations of that species and replaced with a fabricated name.
common names are determined by colloquial use not by taxonomists. Whether the scientific name warrants changing or whether they should be species vs subspecies or varieties isn’t relevant here.
well i think it’s a very good idea because literally everyone who lives here calls it that. So how do we decide?
And therein lies the problem. A tiny fraction of people who may have an interest weigh in and nothing is ever agreed upon even by that small group (everyone is just worn out by the debate and quiets down for a while). Thus we’re stuck with someone having to make a move to change the name and upsetting the others who disagree. I see no solution because there’s no agreement even on who is allowed to “fabricate” a name. Not on iNat (I can understand that), but evidently nowhere else either. Some even think that formal committees created by scientific organizations shouldn’t be fabricating common names.
The humor in all this is that scientific names were created for the purpose of avoiding these problems! That, in itself, was the ultimate solution.