I’d say that Yellow Flat-footed Fly is a particularly unwieldy string too though, no?
And is apricot not more descriptive than yellow? It was pointed out by a member of the Facebook group as looking like an apricot at least… so this comes from a second source, not me.
As an amateur, which is where I presumed common names to come most into play, being told that Platypezidae tend to circle on leaves has been far more helpful for me in searching for them in the field than knowing that they have flat-feet. So how about The Circling Apricot vs Yellow Flat-footed Fly?
Now which is more descriptive and who gets to decide?
Regardless, are the most memorable common names really so connected to taxonomy or descriptors anyway? I’m not sure I see how whimsy is more or less memorable for creating a name in life in general…for me I’d assume this is exactly the kind of place where whimsy can be most effective. As a child at least, the most whimsical sounding plant and bird names would be the ones which I would likely remember the most. I get that there is a boundary here though, and if every species in a genus of 20 has a totally different name, this could be problematic.
What are these Russian common names you mentioned? I’m curious to hear them now…
One of the various things that lead me to asking this was noting that Entomophthora is now called Fly Death Fungus on iNaturalist. Much easier to remember ! (and spell). I can’t see mention of this on Google outside of iNaturalist beyond a single Flickr post. Should an external source of a single person on Flickr be any more authoritative than a single post on iNaturalist? In fact, if I was to add a name for a taxa and that was then used by everyone who finds it, isn’t iNaturalist already creating more “common” names than a single Flickr post? Wouldn’t iNaturalist also plausibly be used as a source for other external bodies? If not, at what point would you see iNaturalist as an acceptable source in and of itself?
Most Diptera just don’t have common names in literature - so if reliant on external sources, they have to remain nameless. Remaining nameless, arguably, just increases their chance of continuing to be ignored.