There are lots of common names that are worth debating (and changing) for various reasons. Where is the right place to discuss this? What is the mechanism or process on iNat whereby common names are changed?
“Puget sound king crab” – Was neither first reported in Puget Sound, nor originating from there. Far more sightings and abundance in British Columbia. “Salish sea king crab” would be more accurate (conservation efforts in Puget Sound notwithstanding…)
“Red indianfish” – Someone thought this fish looked like the headdress of the Mohawk people of native America. The term “Indian” for this has never been correct, is now also considered derogatory, name changes have occurred elsewhere (sports teams, media vocabulary, etc). Just call it a “Red mohawk fish,” pretty easy fix and more accurate to original reference.
I agree with what you say here, however far fewer are calling themselves “red Indians.” As “red man” for example is closer to derogatory (we changed the sports team name “redskins”)
Your use of the word “supposedly” here implies to me that you haven’t really thought about what I am saying.
Name on iNat don’t need to be fully correct, they only need to be in-use. If these names are widely used, they’re staying on iNat. The place to raise these discussions, if you really feel they are necessary, is the “flags” page.
Agreed on the “commonly in use” basis which is the best default way to populate common names. By construction!
Though there may be multiple such in-use names to choose from. And “common names” are also completely up to revision, depending on whatever a sufficient number of observers or scientists think is appropriate.
is not true on iNat itself. iNat users should not revise existing common names on iNat. If names are changed by some other body and then become used by a reasonable portion of people, that’s fine.