The Right of a Fly to a Common Name

[sbushes]

@joe_fish

If every user on here started coining their own parallel nomenclature, it would lead to uninformative chaos

I am not suggesting that one million people provide their own parallel nomenclature. But, there could, in theory, be a system where people could join together to create the nomenclature. Some sort of crowd consensus, for example, which might only involve a single name entering the public realm eventually. I’m not saying this is even an ideal solution. I just wanted to be clear that I am not suggesting “uninformative chaos”.

@joe_fish

For a good example of how new common names can be established, see the recent field guide to North American syrphid flies. Insects are, with few exceptions, a group whose species-level and genus-level biodiversity rarely has associated common names, so the authors (a group of taxonomists who did considerable research for this publication) established a new series of names in the manner I discussed in my previous post.

Re: the prerequisite for these to be coined by “experts” only. Looking at our equivalent across the pond - the dipterist Steven Falk is also naming our Syrphidae. He has invited public input on these names through his Twitter - so he at least seems open to crowd-sourced input. Looking at his names so far, most seem relatively simple also - either descriptors of visible traits, or based on information that he mentions in the description of the genus. e.g. Nothing that entails particular expertise.

@pmeisenheimer

How would you define taxonomic bias?

The first thing that comes up on Google looks ok to me.
( from Nature)

" Taxonomic bias, also referred to as taxonomic chauvinism, is pervasive in biodiversity research. This bias stems from disparities in our knowledge of different organisms, and in the extent to which they are the focus of scientific research, across a wide range of biological disciplines"

Coming from a paper which suggests something particularly relevant…:

“Our results show that societal preferences, rather than research activity, strongly correlate with taxonomic bias, which lead us to assert that scientists should advertise less charismatic species and develop societal initiatives (e.g. citizen science) that specifically target neglected organisms. Ensuring that biodiversity is representatively sampled while this is still possible is an urgent prerequisite for achieving efficient conservation plans and a global understanding of our surrounding environment.”

@pmeisenheimer

I think that getting into naming things and the arguments that would inevitably follow would be an unproductive distraction for an organization with limited resources and rapidly expanding demands within its existing mandate.

Maybe. But there is already an existing space for users to suggest names and other users to flag and decide what counts and what doesn’t. So like it or not, the issues around common names are ongoing to some extent. E.g. the debate about Sarcophagidae

I just think there is a grey area here for some unnamed species which perhaps could be dealt with differently. I’ll be sad if Fly Death Fungi gets taken down as @joe_fish suggests, just because it doesn’t have expansive precedence. If I had a vote, I would vote for it to remain in place.