You cannot make an overarching approach to common names on iNat since there is very little consistency between organisms and the common names assigned to them. Those who rely on common names will always be subject to the changes implemented by taxonomists. There is no way around that other than to disregard all species concepts or break iNat’s curator guidelines for taxon naming. Every problem of this nature should be handled individually (by group of taxa), if it is worth handling. The platform for tackling such issues is in curator flags, since it deals with issues that can only be handled by curators.
As for the statement of disingenuousness, I stand by it. To be disingenuous is to lack sincerity, which holds true for the misrepresentation of the changes implemented. @charlie attempted to portray the split as an erasure of culture because it changed the common name on posts. Such a problem can be easily remedied with a statement of changes they would like implemented in a curation flag. This is the latest (and probably most dramatic) instance of the user’s continued resistance to changes in taxonomy. For the statement of intent, I had meant for that to be interpreted as a hypothetical, not an accusation. Lastly, no erasure occurred. Nothing was removed, deleted, or obliterated. The Latin name was changed, which resulted in a change of common name displayed on individual posts. The same would happen if I suggested a disagreeing ID on their posts. Do I erase culture every time I disagree with an ID? The conclusion does not follow from the premises.
For the common name points, you are arguing past me. I never said or argued for any of the points listed in your comment. I said there should be an indication of uniqueness of taxonomic entity’s identifier in the prevailing common name of a taxon, as is suggested by iNat’s curator guidelines. Would you have us implement 5,000 species of “daddy longlegs?” I don’t care whether common names represent monophyletic groups. I am perfectly fine with adding the same common names for multiple taxa, so long as the prevailing name is unique. I am not particular about the origin of a common name.
I live in Vermont, and I call it “heart-leaved foamflower” too, but that’s not important, at least not as important as you’re making it out to be. Popping up a level, we now know that the taxon we once called “heart-leaved foamflower” is at least two different taxa, one that produces stolons and one that does not. I’ve never seen the latter (except in photos) but now I know it exists, and so every time I see foamflower in Vermont, I see it differently, in that larger context. So it doesn’t bother me if the name changes. In fact, I would expect the name to change, to reflect the new concept.
That’s not true at all, it’s the taxonomists who are breaking the iNat curator guidelines by changing common names from widespread accepted names to other ones they are making up in their scientific papers without any common use.
This appears to go against the forum guidelines to assume goodwill right? it appears you perceive i am not sincere about this because you disagree with me? am i reading this right? especially after "do i erase culture every time i disagree with an ID’ which seems absurd.
No, because that name is commonly applied to a higher taxonomic entity. No one is intending daddy longlegs to apply to just one species they can’t distinguish from others without dissecting genitals. But you know that, right?
I am noting that it is not important to you. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t important to others. I think it’s neat to learn about how some of these plants create stolons and some do not, as well. But i don’t think that means we rename heart-leaf foamflower something else on inat even though no one else uses the name.
@tiwane can i get some admin input here? is it true that the ‘do not make up common names that are not commonly used’ policy does not apply to taxonomists, who instead are allowed to make up any common names they want, even if millions of people continue to use the existing names? It would be good to get some guidance here because that is what i see others arguing for here.
I never made the argument that we should use a specific name, please re-read my statements. What taxonomists have broken the iNat guidelines? As I understand it, the name was pre-existing on Wikipedia, and was added to differentiate the species. I don’t think we are understanding each others’ points, so I’d like a more in-depth and specific explanation of your grievances so I can better understand your position, aside from your initial claims.
Assuming goodwill is irrelevant to referencing real statements you made. I am saying that I disagree with your statement, and that it is not a sincere or accurate representation of aspects of the taxon change. I make no assumptions about your will in making it, and would be interested to hear which statements I have made misrepresent or assume your points. I am genuinely curious how you justify the statement that the taxon change is a form of cultural erasure, especially in relation to your statement of displayed common name on observations. I cannot make sense of your position, and I am asking, sincerely, for you to explain your position to me so I can.
The name “heartleaf foamflower” now applies to the clade of heart-leaved foamflowers split from T. cordifolia in the split. It is a relevant and accurate analogy, considering how some species in some regions can now only be identified by digging around them to look for stolons. “Heart-leaved foamflower” can now be used to refer to five species, the same way a higher taxon name could be used to refer to many more.
Here is a list of my points: 1. Taxa should not share the same priority common name. 2. The taxon change migrated observations to another taxon, but did not contribute to “cultural erasure.” 3. This should have been addressed in a curation flag.
Say what now? That ain’t even close to what happened in this instance. An iNat user simply entered the vernacular name that other sources are now using. Please stop blaming the evil “taxonomists” for disrupting the stasis that you desire.
Charlie, you need to go back and re-read portions of this thread. No names were made up. A new scientific name was accepted (Tiarella stolonifera) and an associated common name was extracted from the literature (creeping foamflower). The entire process remained above-board and transparent. AFAIK, all iNat policy was adhered to.
If instead we were to attach the common name heart-leaved foamflower to the scientific name Tiarella stolonifera, then we would have a problem since there is no usage of those two names side-by-side. That claim is easy to verify since there are so few sources for Tiarella stolonifera. ALL of those sources are listed in wikipedia.
I don’t. I just don’t agree with you that this sort of change should be made. Most of the taxonomists here seem to think i must either not understand, must be malicious, must be accusing them of being malicious or must be ignorant if i don’t agree with them. None of that is true. I think it’s wrong to change the common name of this plant (or any other newly divided taxa) on inaturalist for this reason, and i believe it violates the policy as it currently stands.
Creeping foamflower isn’t a widespread name, it didn’t even exist until a year or two ago, and whoever did the taxonomy for the plant put it into wikipedia but anyone can edit wikipedia. I could go on there and add another common name, like ‘frizzy foam flufftooshy’ that doesn’t mean we should get it on inat.
becuase it isn’t accepted by most people! That is the issue right there. it’s bad enough to constantly chop up the taxonomy of scientific names… i ended up just defaulting back to common names on inat because the scientific names are now unusable… but now you all are trying to change all the common names too. It’s too much. Please just stop.
Charlie, we are not taxonomists (at least I’m not). Taxonomists are professionals who handle the names and classifications of organisms, we are volunteers and site users basing our treatments for iNat off of the decisions of taxonomists. I don’t think a productive conversation is possible anymore, but I do want you to know that I do not think you are malicious. I just think we have different understandings of the role of names, and, frankly, that you are wrong in your understanding. I think this is probably an individual issue that requires engagement with staff for clarification of the rules and guidelines over email rather than a public forum. I can see you getting overwhelmed with responses, which was not my intention, and is probably not going to produce the conversation I was hoping for. This issue seems to be one you consistently bring to the public forum, so I don’t think other users or curators can help you in a meaningful way, or at least one different from the other times you have brought these issues up.
No user of iNat invented any common names. The wikipedia page entries are not the source of the common name. Rather, they cite the source of the common name. For example: "Being endemic to the southeastern United States, it is sometimes referred to as the southern foamflower.[4][5]. " Those sources are:
4. “Tiarella”. Alabama Plant Atlas. Retrieved 20 October 2022.
5. “Plant List”. Vascular Plants of North Carolina. North Carolina Biodiversity Project. Retrieved 16 November 2022.
At some point, you’ve got to come to terms with the fact that as our knowledge of the living world changes, both scientific and common names will change. This has been going on since well before Linnaeus’ time and cannot be stopped. This is not Taxonomists vs. Charlie. I don’t even think there are any taxonomists on this thread–I’m certainly not one.
yes, i think you have different understandings of how common names work vs me and i also think you are wrong. Perhaps staff will email you. I haven’t brought up common name response to taxonomic splits on the forum before.
I looked it up on wikipedia and it is true that North Carolina Parks created this new name, and then it was linked to wikipedia. I don’t think they should have done so, and i certainly don’t think one agency fabricating a name like that constitutes a valid reason for inat to adopt it.
I’m not sure you understand how horribly condescending this is. Im an ecologist and have been since 2002 or so. I fully understand that our knowledge of the living world changes, and with full understanding, i disagree with this common name change. I believe most users of iNat would agree with me too, but i have no way of proving that. In the mean time, i hope you can move past this idea that i am ignorant just because i don’t agree with you.
Thanks for pointing that out - I was unaware this was already discussed.
Except when it doesn’t. The difference between these two cases being a split (fast adoption) vs. merge (ignored)? But those things are best discussed on the corresponding taxon flags, not here.
Looks like I need to update - the 2020 version I have for NC does not have it yet.
Glad to hear I’m not the only one who thought it was strange. It does sound like other experts in the field have adopted it though, so I guess that could count as a sort of peer review.
i dont understand why splitters are so dead-set on attacking and defaming people who don’t agree with them, and ascribing ignorance. The lumper vs splitter issue has gone on for centuries and just because you all seem to have the upper hand right now, doesn’t mean everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent or ignorant or ‘doesnt understand that change exists in science’. FFS people. seriously.
I think with @charlie adding in “Heartleaf Foamflower” to Tiarella stolonifera, it at least shows up when user’s search for “heartlearf foamflower”; isn’t this kind of allowing some co-existence? I guess if someone really wanted to, they could give all four of the splits the Spartacus-treatment and add “Heartleaf Foamflower” to their common name so users can still find them by common name.
Edit: Great example of one common name, many taxa is “pigweed”
You search the name and choose by latin name, ideally it should be first it the list (but iNat search is sometimes weird in it).
I’m not sure why everyone on forum has to say how they hate “splitters”, from one topic to another there’s a feel of them being less than normal, now they’re just evil and try to ruin someone’s life. That is ridiculous, is it about age affecting views on change or something else? Try to stay open to that, there’s nothing crucial in learning even a hundred new common names a year, and it doesn’t even happen at that rate locally.
To the extent common names are being relied on as a workaround because scientific names have proven intractable—and I don’t know if that’s where @charlie is coming from in this particular case, but it seems like what I might do in his place—a fix that focused on scientific names might be cleaner.