Citing Common / Vernacular Names

[bobby23]

Hello, everyone.

It has come to my attention as of late that not everyone trusts or agrees on the usage of certain common names on the site.  In one extreme, some vernacular names are just made up, sometimes for species so obscure that the average user would not know otherwise. For example, when I first joined iNat, the paper wasp Polistes bellicosus was dubbed the "Warlike Paper Wasp". Jon Hoskins recently pointed out to me that this was just a direct translation exclusively found on iNaturalist (or least within internet-space: Google searches for "warlike paper wasp" did not generate results for Polistes bellicosus) warranting its removal from the lexicon.

On the other end of the spectrum, I recently added a common name for the tarantula genus derived from a recently published book on pet tarantulas, only for an arachnid curator on the site to take issue with the name because she never encountered it herself. I completely understood her stance, but I did not appreciate being accused of not adhering to community guidelines.

These are just two recent examples of repeating problems in my experience, and I would not be surprised if I wasn't the only one. To mitigate these occurrences I propose implementing the option to add a reference for an uploaded common name, in the same way that it is available for taxon changes and individual taxa as a "Source". I emphasize option because I think it would be too restrictive for it to be mandatory and very unnecessary for popular taxa with well-established common names. (Does one really need to know where the term "Lion" for Panthera leo came from?) It would really only be helpful for more obscure taxa, but these are by far the majority anyways.

Please let me know if I am crazy. I already know that there has been a lot of discussion as of late on how common names should be implemented (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/inaturalist/Pn5ZJqFMtjM), so I thought now was a better time than ever to bring this up.

- Bobby

[James Bailey]

I think this is a nice idea, but I also think our time should be used elsewhere.

Common names are really not cited. All common names are "made" or "created", without approval or following any real rules, unlike scientific/binomial names. Even in a publication, an author has just made that name themselves. Just because it is in a publication should not make it any more significant, in my opinion.

What is important for a common name is how many people use it. If authorities or databases use it, even better. Sites like EOL import and make up quite a lot of common names. They are basically treated as sacred and now other databases have in turn started using them. Common names can never be cited to an original source, in most cases.

[Mark Rosenstein]

I think the bigger issue with common names isn't when and how they are made up for taxons without a common name, but what to do about collisions where multiple conflicting common names are in use.  That's what gets people upset, when there's a creature well known by a particular name, and then the common name in iNat gets changed to something else.  And often that happens because in some other place, it's well known by a different name.

I don't think it's an issue to add a common name where one didn't previously exist.  And unless there is a good reason to choose otherwise, using a translation into the vernacular of the scientific name is a good idea.

-Mark

[James Bailey]

I'm going to add my general guidelines since I do "invent" common names.

If you are going to invent a common name, it needs to make sense. If there are other species in the genus already with common names, then follow the common noun if possible. Don't go wild with adjectives and descriptive words. Try to keep a common name to 4 words at most, any more and it becomes unwieldy and awkward.

Common names should either reference the species epithet (i.e. "Pieris aurea" could become "golden white", golden from aurea, white from the common name for other Pieris species), or reference the habitat or location that sets it apart from other species. Naming after people is not usually simple, unless the scientific name already contains a name for instance Artemisia douglasiana = Douglas's sagebrush or whatever.

Try to avoid duplication. That is, don't use a name already used by another species elsewhere, even across country lines if possible.