I think the expectation of a 1:1 mapping between common name and scientific name is not valid. The whole point of scientific names is to get around the vagueries of a common name so there’s only one thing that a person is talking about if the scientific name is used? Obviously over time, with splits old records could refer to many taxa, but isn’t this what a scientific name is meant to address?
5 Likes
Yeah, but it’s kind of clunky.
I agree. My own viewpoint on the taxonomic issues here happens to be nearly the opposite of @charlie’s. Rather than trying to reach agreement in that regard, though, I think accommodating disagreement is more likely to be fruitful.
1 Like
I meant that you should email staff about your concerns for further clarification. Your taxonomically conservative opinions are in the minority (not disparaging you, just stating facts), so it will inevitably be suppressed by the mob unless you reach out to those who make the rules. I did not say that you had brought it up on the forum before. I primarily see you voicing your concerns on taxonomic swaps in flags with pretty much the exact same wording and response (Example: https://www.inaturalist.org/flags/580630). You are the only one I know of consistently raising these objections, so it seems like more of a personal problem rather than a trend within the userbase.
Being a “lumper” or “splitter” is, in my humble opinion, not a good way to approach taxonomy. Every situation is unique, and should be approached as objectively as possible.
4 Likes
Agreed. It just makes the situation messy in ways that I haven’t thought through.
1 Like
That’s why I believe the same common name should not be the main one, yes, common names are not scientific, but just today I found that two flying foxes had the same common name listed in the source, I only added one to the more obvious species to avoid confusion, leaving the second blank, it’s not a species that would have a natural common name, so it can “live” without it for some time.
2 Likes
I certainly don’t hate systematists that split species. Some of those splits are justified. However, some (perhaps many) are poorly supported and, quite likely, won’t hold up over time. There has been discussion of this among many zoologists who are systematists; I don’t know about botanists. The pendulum has swung rather far towards splitting in recent years based on often sparse evidence, and it seems likely it will swing back for many taxa.
2 Likes
I’m talking about more radical views on that, I personally don’t write how hearing from one ornithologist that all gulls in Larinae should stay in Larus was like listening to a madman, is it the alternative for splitters?
Some splits go too far, as any taxonomical changes, but if we can id them now there’s nothing to loose, merge will happen and data will still be there, some ids get more challenging because of that, but we id spiders to genus if we can’t see a good look on genitals and deal with it, expert in this taxon will know where to look and what to id. People say they’re ok to wait years to get an id, that is just part of it.
1 Like
It’s funny when looking at common names in other languages, for example I talked to some German botanists a bit while in Europe and they try to maintain a shadow-hierarchy of “official German names” for any plants native in Germany. So for each plant we have the scientific name, the standard German name, and then the 100 common German names (they are much worse than English names, every village has their own common name for each plant).
5 Likes
this comes off as … pretty rude. a disagreement in policy is a personal problem? Perhaps you use that phrase differently from me
I’ve got plenty of opinions on taxonomy yes, but this thread is specifically about this common names issue, i’m trying to avoid the other issues, though not entirely successfully.
4 Likes
It’s not uncommon for several species to share the same common name, even species that are not related. It’s also common for a single species to have more than one common name even within a small local area.
It’s not a big deal, and I am also in the camp of not making arbitrary changes to common names.
Adding ones that are already in use in other areas, that’s fine, but changing the ones that people are using doesn’t clarify things, it confuses things.
8 Likes
If that’s the situation it would seem to call for a flag on this taxon split and a reversion to the original taxon until there is a proper POWO decision on this that’s based explicitly on reputable peer-reviewed publications, not self-reviewed and self-published works.
4 Likes
Although I agree this is a very spurious and dodgy situation, I think it’s important to clarify here that (to my knowledge, and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) taxonomic papers do not need to be peer reviewed; the nomenclatural codes do not state this as a requirement for a change to be accepted/valid (which I disagree with, but that’s another matter)
2 Likes
Apologies if this has been mentioned above - I had a quick skim but there are a lot of comments here. I’m very far from a botanist and I can’t comment at all on the validity etc. of these splits or anything like that. From what I can gather, one widespread species with a single common name was split into five cryptic species, and the problem now is that all of the species are essentially known by the same common name?
In this case, why not create a complex taxon to encompass these five and then give that the common name Heartleaf Foamflower, and the more specific taxa can get different common names or maybe just no common name at all? Common names on iNat should reflect common usage, even if this contradicts what some Wikipedia page or field guide uses. So if all of these species are referred to as Heartleaf Foamflower, the most reasonable option seems to be to just use this name for all of them as a group. I think that would also be a reasonable way to combat the problem of misidentification because of the changes.
I reckon this is the best solution unless I’m missing something obvious :P
3 Likes
Complexes are for species that form gradients through interbreeding, which these species are not known to do.
There is no policy being explicitly broken here, though, as far as I can tell. It has been evidenced that the names provided are sourced externally and not contrived by users, the issue remaining is the naming priority order for determining which names have precedence on which species, which is much more freeform than merely needing a source.
The statement was not meant to be rude. You seem to personally have a problem with the name, hence a personal problem. I can see that the phrase also has other connotations, but I did not mean it that way.
2 Likes
This is kind of a rabbit hole, but as opinions on the topic have been expressed multiple times in the thread perhaps it’s worth providing a different viewpoint. I think this is a misunderstanding of the role of peer review.
I submitted a short response to a paper published in a moderately high-profile journal, once. My response boiled down to: “It’s probably not a good idea to recognize a new genus based on poorly supported phylogenetic results using genetic markers that appear to have high levels of homoplasy.” It was rejected and the editor’s comments were: “We don’t see ourselves as a taxonomic journal, so this isn’t really an appropriate venue for this kind of discussion.”
Since then, I’ve occasionally (not often) been a reviewer for articles submitted to peer-reviewed journals. The most recent article I reviewed was primarily taxonomic in nature, and I agreed with a portion of the taxonomic proposals made in the paper while disagreeing with the majority of them. In my review I expressed that disagreement and recommended that the paper be published, without modification of the taxonomy unless my comments had convinced the authors. So long as the taxonomy represents a viewpoint that a reasonable person might hold, I would not—and hope other reviewers do not—recommend rejecting a paper because the taxonomy represents a viewpoint that I do not hold.
Two different things are joined in “accepted / valid”. Suppose I publish the new plant name Alpha beta. The rules of the botanical code (ICNafp) determine whether or not that name is validly published and legitimate—and you’re right, peer review is not a requirement. If the name is validly published and legitimate, that just means that under the botanical code that name is “kosher” and eligible to be the correct name of a taxon. This is probably what most people would mean by “valid” in this context, although taxonomists often like to be picky about things like this and insist that “valid” should only be used to mean “validly published” (and a name might be validly published but illegitimate).
In any case, supposing the name is validly published and legitimate, whether anyone chooses to adopt the taxonomy that this name represents is up to them, free of rules. You might read my paper and think it’s bunk, so my name Alpha beta is not accepted by you. Someone else, perhaps at an organization like POWO, might reach the opposite conclusion and accept it. This is really where peer review comes into play. Someone proposes a taxonomy, then the rest of us can evaluate it and reach our own conclusions. Or we can ignore it, if we like. Publishing a name just means: Here’s a hypothesis—one more option available to us.
Restricting publication, then, implies a desire to prevent some opinions from being expressed—or an overestimation of the impact of publishing a name.
9 Likes
my comment on the spuriousness of the situation is entirely unrelated to the taxonomy/change itself, on which I hold no view given I have no expertise in the taxa in question, or the peer review process relating to taxonomy broadly. It was purely a comment on the ‘self-publication’ aspect of the situation, which I would find to be spurious in any scientific field, not just taxonomy.
1 Like
Interesting, thanks for the clarification. I assumed it was primarily the lack of peer review that you found objectionable, rather than self-publication. Personally, I do not find either attribute objectionable in this context.
There is a big issue in taxonomy and nomenclature:
like any library, taxonomy is only as good as its librarians—and now a few rogue taxonomists are threatening to expose the flaws within the system. Taxonomic vandals, as they’re referred to within the field, are those who name scores of new taxa without presenting sufficient evidence for their finds.
There’s a pretty interesting case concerning specifically Raymond Hoser, a herpetologist, who has been doing what many call ‘taxonomic vandalism’.
His actions, and those of some other people, have led a lot of folks to suggest that the way scientific names are coined and the process needs to be reviewed, restructured, and to have significantly more oversight than it currently has.
Here are a couple of interesting articles on this subject.
6 Likes
I’m familiar with Hoser. Both the botanical and zoological codes of nomenclature include provisions for dealing with this kind of situation. I’m more familiar with the botanical code, under which the appropriate action would probably be to designate Hoser’s publications as suppressed works under Article 34.1. Why the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature has not taken the equivalent action under the zoological code is a mystery to me. My interpretation is that some people are advocating for changed rules in response to a situation that could be handled under the existing rules—an over-reaction is being contemplated because the commission refuses to react appropriately. I assume the commission understands that this is self-defeating, that inaction undermines their legitimacy and the goals of the zoological code along with it, but people sometimes make very strange decisions.
1 Like