iNat guidelines are clear that a common name should only be added to a taxon if the name already exists outside iNat, but I am not aware of any consensus or previous forum discussion on if or when a common name that does exist outside iNat should be deemed too confusing and removed from iNat, this i…

My opinion is: Common names are not vital to the site’s function, at least and especially with insects. If a common name is readily used on the site, even if it is poor, it should stay. I wanted to remove “Black Cocktail Ant” a while ago but a few people complained so it remains. If a common name …

It’s also probably worth noting that sometimes, these names, although official, may conflict with other existing names, which I think is a pretty objective reason to avoid them. For M. minimum, so far I’ve only seen one species, M. carbonarium referenced by the same name (“black little ants,” basica…

I think the golden rules here are that having no common name is better than a bad common name, and that the audience for common names is usually an average person with little to no experience in the specific area. A common name being formally recognized is one of a few different factors to consider.…

no one relies on it I have trouble seeing how we can conclude that no one relies on a very widely used common name? and they serve zero benefit as no one needs them; they cause harm but no good. I strongly disagree with this, I agree that there are negatives, but there are also positives, for…

This is a good point, I am the one who put “thief ant” on Solenopsis molesta, when I went through and put on all the ESA ant common names, but not that you mention it I think this was a mistake on ESA’s part that we are not obliged to repeat, so I will remove the name EDIT: looks like you already d…

On the thief ant issue I agree with you, I think ESA erred by applying an almost genus level common name to a single hard to identify species and we should not repeat the error. Put simply my thoughts on Monomorium are that “little black ant” created an unusual amount of misidentifications, but th…

[image] insectobserver123: I can’t speak to anyone else’s reasons, but in this case my argument is that the common name is not just official but has been very widely used for decades to the point where not including the common name is confusing or misleading. I can understand that, and think …

I feel like this is where we should have some freedom to mildly adapt names I agree with you on this, I have even done this a couple times years ago, but I thought I had since read we weren’t allowed to do this, if this is OK it should be clarified in the name guidelines Then, “Little Black Ant…

[image] insectobserver123: This would be problematic IMO because as far as I know neither L. claviger nor L. interjectus is way more common than the other, so calling one the “common” one is misleading. Maybe just replace “yellow” with “citronella” for clarity and call it “smaller citronella ant…

Removing existing common names that are deemed confusing

General

cthawley April 21, 2023, 1:09am 2

You can send DMs on the forum or use the @ symbol to tag people in the same way as you would on iNat. Keep in mind that some users usernames differ between iNat and the forum.

Topic		Replies	Views
What to do about silly common names? General common-names	53	2330	August 5, 2024
Common names from "not good enough" sources Curators	72	5520	November 16, 2021
Common names invented on iNat General common-names	192	12690	March 29, 2023
Editing Common Names for Consistency Curators	50	1359	November 29, 2025
Best Course of Action with Deceptively Incorrect Common Name? Curators	33	1179	April 26, 2024

Removing existing common names that are deemed confusing

Related topics