Common names

[Chris Vynbos]

Below is the discussion so far, copied and pasted from this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3327992

jakob suggested an ID Improving2y

 Compare Agree

Yellow PansyJunonia hierta

jimsteamer suggested an ID2y

Yellow PansyJunonia hierta

wildnothos suggested an ID23d

Yellow PansyJunonia hierta

beetledude suggested an ID Improving3d

 Compare Agree

Junonia hierta ssp. cebreneA member of Buckeyes, Commodores, and Allies Tribe Junoniini

jakob commented2d

@beetledude @peterslingsby @tonyrebelo iNat curator speaking here. 

We previously had a discussion re common names. I just noticed that "Yellow Pansy" had been added as a common name to J. hierta cebrene, "Soldier Pansy" to Junonia terea elgiva, and "Puffadder" to B. a. arietans, which I have now deleted. 

When adding a new common name, there are Guidelines shown, which among other things say Don't add duplicate names, e.g. don't name numerous hawks "hawk" 

This is explained in full here: 
Good and Bad Common Names 
Names, in general, should be as specific as possible, and common names are no exception. Most of us would agree that "mammal" would not be a good common name for the species Homo sapiens, so please don't add names like "snail" for some obscure gastropod with no real common name just because you think it will make it easier for novices to find. If anything, it will make it harder to find, since there are thousands and thousands of "snails." Instead, try to add names at the taxonomic level where they describe all members of that taxon and only members of that taxon. If a species has no common name in usage, please don't make one up. 

I won't add much here but to say that iNat is a global community, and you're kindly asked to follow the Guidelines. A species such as Junonia hierta ranges far beyond South Africa and in fact through most of Asia. It is globally known as "Yellow Pansy", hence that name is taken for the species level. 

Due to rogue users, the ability to update common names has been recently restricted to site curators, which I find very regrettable. I hope that the community will stick to the Guidelines so that no further restrictions need to be put in place.

tonyrebelo commented2d

@jakob
I disagree and will take it up with the iNat team!

if we use a name like Puffadder for Bitus arietans arietans in southern Africa then we have the right to use this name. And so long as it is put under the southern African community then these guidelines do not apply because in southern Africa there is no ambiguity. 
Whereas I understand the need to control the confusion globally, there is the fact that we do call these plants and animals by these names.

So in southern Africa:
there is only one Puffadder - we do NOT call it whatever it is that you want to call it!
there is only one Kudu - we do NOT call it Greater Kudu - there is no other Kudu in our region.
And we call J. hierta cebrene Yellow Pansy and Junonia terea elgiva Soldier Pansy - who are you to tell us that we are no longer allow to use our names?
And we in southern Africa call Aquila verrauxi the Black Eagle - we do not care that in some other part of the world there is another Black Eagle - we have been calling it Black Eagle for over 300 years - it is what we call it. The same with Blackshoulder Kite.

In fact, read the guidelines in the spirit in which they were written: And most especially read this bit:
"Please be judicious when changing the default common name. Recognize that you may be displacing the name used by many other users."

So it would be wrong to add the name "Eagle" to every genus and species in the Accipitridae. But if some island or coutnry has only one species, why can they not legitimately know it as Eagle. In fact, the UK does it: it has the Frog, the Toad, the Kingfisher, the Otter, the Wolf. So - even in terms of the guidelines (note "guidelines") in Nat, the UK would be legitimate to have these names as their common names!

What gives you the right (or in fact anyone else) to tell us that the names we use on the subcontinent are wrong? They are not wrong: they are our names!

Reading the rules, I disagree with your interpretation. The rules do allow us to use our own confusing names locally. We cannot and should not add them to areas outside of southern Africa: they are not appropriate there: I agree with that. But they are our names, so why can we not use them within our region?
All such names that I have added were added specifically for southern Africa.

You have no right to delete them: that is an abuse of your powers! Please reinstate them forthwith.

For the record, there are going to be quite a lot of names that you might disagree with coming soon. For instance, there are over 20 species in southern Africa known as "Geelbos", and almost as many called "Soutbos". That is a simple fact. Different communities and different regions use the same vernacular names for different plants. Who is anyone to tell one group that their name is wrong and some other group is henceforth only allowed to use this name? 
So the guideline "If you find names that don't meet these criteria, e.g. 10 taxa named "snail," please delete them without mercy." would not apply here! That would only apply at higher taxon levels were the name is used so broadly as to be useless.

But for Puffadder, there is nothing wrong with southern Africa calling B. a arietans Puffadder, and the Somalians calling B. a. somalica Puffadder. In both cases there is only one species nationally and therefore that is what the locals call it. Within the two areas the distinction between Common Puffadder and Somalian Puffadder are only applicable for countries that have both, or for regions that have both, like Africa or the world. There is thus nothing wrong with Puffadder appearing at the species level globally, and the subspecies level for arietans in southern Africa and somalica in Somalia: 3 instances.

It is up to the user to decide if he wants to use Global Names, or the local names that the community has chosen for their region. No curator should have the right to tell local communities what names they can and cannot use, especially when those are the names in common use! 

For attention:
@loarie @kueda @joelle 
Can we please have the points above clarified? 
It alarms me to see a big delete button whenever two taxa have the same name! Any name deleted by a curator should be approved by whomsoever put up the name in the first place, and arbitration should be sought in cases of conflict.

peterslingsby commented2d

@jakob @tonyrebelo I agree with Tony wholeheartedly. Removing the name 'Puffadder' for B. a. arientans is an act of linguistic vandalism. There is only one Puffadder in South Afriva and 65 million S Africans call it that whenever they are speaking English. I demand that you add it again as soon as possible. It should not be possible to delete common names unless they are overtly offensive.

peterslingsby commented2d

I have replaced the name on my observation, because PUFFADDER is what its common name is! And shall so remain!

jakob commented2d

@peterslingsby may I kindly ask you to not add the name to the respective taxon page until this issue is resolved? In case this hasn't been clear: the name of the _species_ Bitis arietans is Puff Adder, no one argues about that. The issue is the duplication of that common name with regard to a subspecies of B. arietans.

peterslingsby commented2d

@jakob @tonyrebelo This is a non-issue, and it has been resolved for hundreds of years: B. a. arietans is called PUFFADDER. Any further discussion on the issue is quite unnecessary. To make up a common name merely because two subspecies live exclusively at opposite ends of our continent is daft. Why don't we delete the Somalian puffadder instead? There are a great many more English speaking people here than there are in Somalia!
'Common' names are names used by everyone, scientist or not. Most people are not scientists, most people don't know one subspecies from another, but everyone knows what a puffadder is and it doesn't matter what subspecies it is - you still treat it with the same respect!
I agree with Tony - no one should have the right to delete a name except the person who put it there. That includes you, Jakob - you don't have exclusive rights to interpretation of the 'rules'.

tiwane commented2d

First I'd like to apologize to @jimsteamer for having to get notifications about a discussion that should have never happened on his observation page. @tonyrebelo and @jakob, you've already been told that an observation page is not an appropriate forum to debate iNaturalist policy; please send a private message to the user or start a thread in the Google Group for such an issue. I should not have to remind you about this.

To clear things up, we've just added language to the Common Names section of the Curator Guide that addresses these specific issues. What it says, basically, is that in order to reduce confusion, there should not be an infraspecies name (regional or otherwise) that is a duplicate of its parent taxon.

tonyrebelo commented2d

So: 
" The people in Ireland who want to take it to subspecies can just learn to use the subspecific name (or better yet the scientific name)." 

So basically iNaturalist is saying that the man in the street has to learn the scientific name to make an accurate ID, even though he knows the accurate ID, but iNaturalist is misleading "him" into thinking that the name applies only to the species, and not to the subspecies that he knows. 
Take Kudu. All southern Africans know that this refers to Tragelaphus strepsiseros strepsiseros in southern Africa. But iNaturalist deems that the subspecies in southern Africa may not be known by that name, but only by the name Southern Kudu or Greater Kudu. Furthermore, that name may not be the name of choice for the community on iNat, but they have to accept the name decided by iNat. 
The consequence: instead of getting IDs to subspecies, iNat will only get identifications to species. Simply the accuracy of identifications will be compromised. 

This decision only makes sense if ALL the common names for the species, are ALSO used to deliver all subspecific taxa. So if I type in Puffadder, then all the subspecies must display in that search. 
Note that at present: 
Puffadder - yields only Bitis arietans arietans (and the Shyshark) 
Puff Adder - yields Bitis arietans and the genus Bitis (in contravention of the guidelines made above, although it is plural - but it ignores Horned, Red and Gaboon Adders - only the Puffadder is mentioned), 
Note that Bitis arietans somalica does not have a common name, presumably because locals call it Puffadder, and thus it conflicts with the species name. 

So team? Should I escalate this up to the Google Groups? 
(Note that I replied to @jakobs comments where he posted them. Ignoring them here and only posting on the Google Groups would have served no purpose to our community). 
Or is this not worth the bother? If iNat is not interested in accurate IDs and insists that laymen should learn scientific names in order to contribute accurately to iNat, should we just accept that decision? The problem is that without a reputation system laymen will lock the IDs to species and subspecies names will be difficult to attain. 

Your thoughts please! 

Apologies @jimsteamer - if you wish we can revert the discussion to the previous thread on the Bushbaby, where it was a welcome topic.

beetledude commented2d

Oh man, this is wrong on so many levels. 

I strongly object to the approaches and undemocratic overreaches of both @jakob and @tiwane, but that's a mere personal opinion. 

On a more logical level, I really cannot fathom any reasoning that subspecies of one species should have different vernacular names from the parent species. My goodness, peoples, please go look up the meaning and usual circumscription of what a subspecies is! Any undergraduate biology text will put you right quite sufficiently. 

I do acknowledge that there are a few exceptions where different vernaculars for different sister subspecies are already in existence, but -- as said -- they are exceptions, and can therefore not be used as motivation for that to be the case always ... not that this particular argument has come up in this discussion before. Instead, we are bombarded with arguments from authority (but clearly made up on the fly), and decrees ex cathedra. 

I am a practising taxonomist who has broken the mould to become a fervent supporter of vernacular names. To the great dismay of my colleagues, I have in fact published exactly such in the primary literature. The big thing with vernaculars is that there are no rules. As custodians of names and the order they bring into the living world, all of us in this conversation have the obligation (a) to let this rule-free system not descend into chaos; (b) to celebrate the anarchy of the system and rejoice in its freedom. 

The way that our northern hemisphere conversation partners here vehemently try to force rules down where there are no rules, and should be no rules, is, in my mind, so very typical of the colonialist mentality of which we up here in the South are thoroughly sick in every aspect of our existence. Imagine the chutzpah, arrogance and plain bad manners displayed by those that happened to be iNatting for a longer time: while this very conversation is taking place, they sneak behind the backs of the natives and make changes to the published guidelines! Man, that is just sickening. 

On a personal note again, but most certainly also speaking as a practising taxonomist, I feel more unwelcome and alienated on iNaturalist by the day. Up here in the global South we are involved in fights around colonialism every single day in our real lives. I could do without being subjected to it in my virtual life.

calebcam commented2d

I've always known it as the Puffadder, and I don't think that name should be removed. Just my humble opinion tho - not going to get involved more than that.

peterslingsby commented2d

Beetledude writes: "I feel more unwelcome and alienated on iNaturalist by the day. Up here in the global South we are involved in fights around colonialism every single day in our real lives. I could do without being subjected to it in my virtual life." I absolutely agree. I have had common names and status of my obs changed absolutely arbitrarily, by so-called 'curators' from other places whom I do not know, whose credentials I do not know and who have not referred to me in any way before making these undemocratic, authoritarian and often senseless changes to my personal observations. Pity - we had high hopes for iNat; I hope we last.

forshawn commented1d

It will always be a Puffadder to me

vynbos commented1d

(I'm part of the south african community and a refugee from another platform. Ideally I agree this should be discussed in a dedicated forum, but the horse has clearly bolted the stable now. ) 

I DO get why having the same common name for a sp and a parent would cause confusion, but i DON'T get why it should cause problems. Why not have all regions preferred options with the various taxa in parenthesis? If a person from the Southern African community types in 'puff adder' and accidentally selects 'Bitis or Bitis arietans and overlooks the 'puff adder (Bitis arietans arietans)' option, the rest of the community will soon revise the ID and that person will perhaps learn to discern next time, or might not, who cares? It doesn't undermine the iNat database. Basically the iNat system and community is well able to handle the confusion, so there is nothing broken that needs a dogmatic approach to fix. 
While I understand beetledude's frustration, I'm really enjoying iNat and am not finding it unwelcome and alienating. I'm sure iNat will learn to be more accommodating as more and more regions of the world join the platform.

peterslingsby commented1d

@vynbos - "I'm really enjoying iNat and am not finding it unwelcome and alienating." I absolutely agree [most of the time] BUT ... I have had several obs tampered with, apparently by unknown 'curators', with absolutely no reference to me as the originator, nor any reasons given. I'm left to discover this vandalism for myself - and when I query it I get one person's often quite specious personal interpretation of the 'rules' thrown back at me in a most dictatorial, officious fashion. Being thus treated by wannabe school prefects does not lead to a friendly sense of belonging. I will send you details in an email.

wynand_uys commented1d

I accidentally deleted my tirade. Just as well....
Perhaps we can fix this at a more amicable level.

Beetledude nailed it with:
"...celebrate the anarchy of the system and rejoice in its freedom."

Here is my little celebration:

Afzelia quanzensis
I know it as Chamfuti, and will always think of it by this name. 
Yet, I respect:
Aiyo, Aligna, Apa, Azza, Beyo, Bilinga, Chanfuta, Chanfuti, Chemnen, Doussie, East African Afzelia, Hlafuta, Isbin, Kipapa, Lucky Bean Tree, Mahogany Bean, Mapoortza, Mbambakofi, Mbarakun, Mbarikwa, Mbembakofe, Mbembakofi, Mfunguji, Mkehli, Mkola, Mkongo, Mkora, Mungongona, Mungoriondo, Mungwingwi, Mupapa, Musacassa, Mussalossa, Mwamba, N'shene, Ompow, Onvru, Oshoshi, Peulmahonie, Red-arilled Afzelia, Rhodesian Mahogany and Shenhe.

peterslingsby commented1d

Well said, Wynand. Roll on the Southern African iNat.

bushboy suggested an ID1d

Junonia hierta ssp. cebreneA member of Buckeyes, Commodores, and Allies Tribe Junoniini

bushboy commented1d

It's all been well said by the southern African community. The bottom line is that the risk of confusion within communities of having duplicated vernacular names for different sub-species - even species, genera and orders - is far lower than the risk of misidentification to finer levels needed for conservation purposes as users take the easy option of clicking to the dictats of the 'approved name'.

It's tedious having to recall, or look up, type or copy and paste the full scientific names, including subspecies where appropriate, because the auto-cue fails to prompt to subspecies level. iNat is surely sophisticated enough to link the user's chosen region to his/her proposed observation ID?

Fewer dictats and more community spirit, I say!

fubr suggested an ID1d

Junonia hierta ssp. cebreneA member of Buckeyes, Commodores, and Allies Tribe Junoniini

tuli commented19h

I think I've said this a few times before but I believe that common names is what common people calls 'em and common names should be collected not prescribed, just as in the case Wynand has presented above.

Yes, they can be confusing, they can overlap, they can change from place to place but isn't that one of the justifications for using scientific names which are accepted worldwide, across political barriers, across different language barriers, follow universally accepted rules etc etc

Let the taxonomists fiddle all they like with the scientific names but common names by definition should not be tampered with.

colin25 commented12h

Common names should be just that. What it is locally known as. I do feel uncomfortable with now having to think of what I knew as African Monarch, as such in Woodhall, as Plains Tiger, Guttural Toad as Ranger's Toad, Grey Sunbird as Mouse-colored Sunbird.
To go back to basics, to attract new users, to keep "refugees" from a past site happy, some flexibility, compromise, is needed, without sacrificing the scientific accuracy of the final identification based only on the accepted scientific name. Back in the Dark Ages when at school, I was taught that there was but one accepted scientific name for any form of life, but many accepted common names. I now know that there are synonyms for scientific names which at first horrified me. Just as I was taught that all life ultimately depended on photosynthesis for energy. Simply not true! 
But do let me call a critter/fungus/ plant by the common name that I am familiar and comfortable with.

peterslingsby commented11h

bushboy, tuli, colin25: right on!

andrewm commented10h

From a linguistic point of view, one common name is limiting, and rather patronising. 
In South Africa wehre 11 official languages are spoken, it would be unreasonable to dictate one name. For example a Baobab is 
isimuku, umShimulu, isiMuhu (Zulu); 
kremetartboom(Afr.); 
ximuwu (Tsonga);
mowana (Tswana); 
muvhuyu (Venda)
Cream of Tartar tree, monkey-bread tree, lemonade tree (Eng.); 
yebaobab (Xhosa)
Not to mention Ndbele or Shona or any of the 14 languages spoken in Madagascar. 

If this is an international site, then let it be international and recognise regional variations and other languages rather than telling us what to name things. The Scientific names are for that purpose.

jakob commented7h

Hi everyone, first of all, let's keep this friendly please! @peterslingsby feel free to send me links to observations where you think that there has been negative interference with these in one way or another. I'm sure this can be resolved by reaching out to the respective users. 

Let me try to clarify a few things: 

There is no question that common names have and will have a lot more degrees of freedom than scientific ones. As many of you said, there can be multiple names in one language for the same species, eg the English names African Monarch and Plain Tiger for Danaus chrysippus. You will land on the same species by using either name. Which of these alternative names is preferred in a particular region can be set on iNat. Users who have set their regional preference (place-based) will see that name in preference of any alternative name (if these exist). 

There will be also occasional cases of ambiguity, ie the same common name applied to more than one species. Not a big deal, and certainly nothing that iNat will always enforce to resolve by deleting all but one. 

iNat also supports every language as needed, so all the beautiful diversity of names mentioned above can be easily added to each of the respective species. 

The only issue here is to avoid the duplication of common names from one taxonomic level to the next, specifically from the species to the subspecies level. 

As an example, let's take Junonia hierta, a species widely distributed across Africa and large parts of Asia. This species is commonly known as "Yellow Pansy". iNat's taxonomy currently includes 3 subspecies, J. h. hierta, J. h. cebrene, and J. h. paris. I've taken issue with "Yellow Pansy" being added to the subspecies J. h. cebrene (the ssp occurring in continental Africa) as this will profoundly influence iNat's functionality if systematically applied to subspecies. 

Take a user from India who also knows Junonia hierta by the common name "Yellow Pansy". That user, when entering Yellow Pansy, would be offered 2 options: Junonia hierta and J. h. cebrene, but not J. h. hierta, which is the subspecies occurring in India. 

To avoid these ambiguities or even misleading choices, iNat's guidelines have been clarified that common names of species shouldn't be duplicated at subspecies level. Users should make informed decisions when selecting a name. And I doubt any user in South Africa will struggle to chose "Greater Kudu" among few options when typing in the name "Kudu". 

If you feel that the current way of how common names are being handled should be changed, then please suggest this at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/inaturalist. Until such changes are introduced, you are kindly asked to stick to iNat's guidelines.

tonyrebelo commented4h

"as this will profoundly influence iNat's functionality if systematically applied to subspecies. " 

In what way will having the name affect iNats functionality? 

Surely there is a flaw in iNat if a name that is specified for southern Africa (Kudu) shows up on his Indian locality. 
Might I suggest a better approach would be to fix the coding that creates such an error. 
Names that are flagged for use in southern Africa should not show up in India! That is a bug! 

or in this case. 
If the species is Yellow Pansy and the 
subspecies in southern Africa is Yellow Pansy. 
Then how on earth can someone in India be confused by this? All they will see will be the Indian name, and if there is no Indian name then the global name. 
The only way they can see the southern African name is if they select to follow the local IDs in southern Africa. 

Meanwhile, due to this flawed logic, southern Africans will only be shown the species name, because the name that we use in southern Africa will not be displayed at the subspecies level. Consequently we will get bum IDs because of a bug in iNat. 

I think that the logic of this decision is flawed! Someone clearly has not thought this through properly! 

And to be quite honest, it would make most sense to have the name attached at the finest resolution - that of subspecies, rather than at the highest level. Otherwise someone trying to make an ID of Aardvark will never get blow Order level - because for Family, Tribe, Genus, Species and Subspecies the name will be the same.

jakob commented4h

Yes, someone in India typing in "Yellow Pansy" will see both Junonia hierta and J. h. cebrene if this is the Common Name attached to these 2 taxonomic units on iNat. Which, as I said, would be misleading as the ssp occurring in India is J. h. hierta. 

Place-based preferences affect only the way names are _displayed_ for users who have chosen a specific place. However, place-based names are not hidden to any user. Every iNat user will see, when using a common name to enter an identification, one or several taxa that have this common name attached to it, ie the English lexicon of common names is a resource shared with every iNat user. Hence my emphasis that iNat is a global platform... 

It might make sense to change the way iNat displays ID options when entering name. For example, if Yellow Pansy is the common name of Junonia hierta, and someone types "Yellow Pansy", it would make sense to not only display the species level, but all subspecies of that species. 

Note that for taxa higher than species, the plural should be used.

peterslingsby commented4h

The plural of Aardvark is Aardvark. The plural of Kudu is Kudu. The plural of Eland is Eland. The plural of Zebra is Zebra ... etc etc

jakob commented3h

@peterslingsby I would appreciate if we could keep this discussion constructive.

peterslingsby commented3h

No comment; see Rebelo above on 'aardvark'

tuli commented3h

It (doesn't) works both ways: my moth https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/8763454is has been titled " The Geometrician" but not by me, it's a name which personally I do not use nor have I even seen the name before, ref tohttps://www.africanmoths.com/pages/EREBIDAE/EREBINAE/grammodes%20stolida.htm"Stolid Lines" is the name I know

tuli commented3h

@jakob meaning no disrespect Sir, but I would have thought peeterslingsby's statement re plurals was very relevant to your comment above that.

andrewm commented2h

Ok guys, lets cool it. Points have been made and responded to.

jakob commented2h

www.inaturalist.org/taxa/42337-Tragelaphus
www.inaturalist.org/taxa/43329-Equus
www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47060-Orycteropodidae

peterslingsby commented2h

I am not writing this to be confrontational, but merely to be linguistically correct. I don't think it is iNat's function or indeed intention to mangle my language, so where these taxa are linguistically incorrect they should be corrected.
Nyala is an Nguni word and its plural is not nyalas [iinyala?]
Kudu is a Khoi word and its plural is Kudu
Eland is Dutch and the plural 'elands' is hilarious. It could be 'elande' but not in English.
Aardvark is Afrikaans and if it has a plural at all it should be 'aardvarke'
I repeat, I am not being confrontational, only trying to be helpful.

tonyrebelo commented1h

www.inaturalist.org/taxa/47060-Orycteropodidae 
Aardvarks??? There is only one species. What does this contrived and nonsensical name mean? Aardvarks might be acceptable in the USA, but in southern Africa is is a nonword. 

Aardvarks Order Tubulidentata 
Aardvarks Family Orycteropodidae (according to the guidelines this must be deleted) 
Genus Orycteropus (where is this common name: it is of course Aardvark) 
Aardvark Orycteropus afer 

You have no idea how wrong this looks!!!!!!!! 
Nyalas, Kudus, and Elands - in 50 years of working in the conservation field, this is the first time I have seen this!

bouteloua commented1h

While I can't speak to Nyala, Kudu, or Eland, "Aardvarks" is in common usage in the English language and so, a perfectly acceptable pluralization. English is listed as the language for the name "Aardvarks" at Family Orycteropodidae, taxonomy tab. Many (most?) borrowed words are pluralized the way the English language pluralizes words (with an s). There are, of course, exceptions. Aardvarks isn't one of them. If you want to set the Afrikaans common name for Orycteropodidae ("Aardvark"?), or Nguni, Khoi, or Dutch common names, please do of course! Edited to add after seeing Tony's comment submitted just before mine: This may be for American English, where aardvarks is in common use. I can't speak to any other forms of English. 

To the main point of this thread though, it's still unclear to me why the following situation would be unacceptable and I would appreciate some clarification from @tiwane. 

Bitis arietans - Puff Adder (global English default) 
Bitis arietans arietans - Common Puff Adder (global English default), Puff Adder (South African default, most other African countries default, besides Somalia?) 
Bitis arietans somalica - Somali Puff Adder (global English default), Puff Adder (Somalia default) 

It does seem a little obscene that folks can't call something the name they've used for...forever. Yes, all three taxa will show up when someone types "puff adder," but Bitis arietans or Bitis arietans arietans should appear first in the list of species in the dropdown.. (To my understanding, that is how the search order works when taxa have the same name--the most frequently observed species appear higher in the search result). Any misclicks on Bitis arietans somalica should be, as others mentioned, caught by the community or dedicated taxa curators.

tiwane commented5m

As mentioned above, I'd like to not encourage further iNat policy debate here because a) an observation page should be about that specific observation and b) fewer members of the overall community will see it and be able to weigh in. If someone would like to start a Google Group thread about this topic (and you can provide a link to this observation page for context) so we can have a civil, constructive discussion there, I'd be happy to weigh in.

[Charlie Hohn]

Hmm... setting aside the other issues brought up here, seems to me we could fix this from the other end with a few dev-level changes:

-Heavier weight for common names based on location. If what is known as a puff adder in Somalia is a different snake than what is called a puff adder in South Africa, why not just have it pop up as the appropriate name for your respective location. That is how it is supposed to work but it is a bit buggy and not always doing that. So why not sharpen that? And if all the South Africa people set South Africa as their place, they should see the South Africa names first.  If it's a really big issue, we could have English (American), English (South African) etc available as language preferences so everyone sees their respective common name. 

-We should seek to not have subspecies names the same as species names, beucase it causes people to accidentally add subspecies. I've been adding 'nominate' before the name of the subspecies there.  For instance if a subspecies of puff adder is also called puff adder it shoul be listed as 'nominate puff adder'. And, generally, i think iNat should downweight subspeices in terms of the automatic taxonomy selection. In short, they are kind of a niche thing that most amateurs won't care about. Encourage people to first classify by species, then let experts add the subspecies if applicable. 

I've run into someone deleting perfectly valid names in one place because they aren't used somewhere else, and i agree it is annoying. I totally agree with the idea that common names are cultural features, and that one region should not remove the names of another region. Throw in the whole colonial angle and it's even worse. In the case of duplicable ones, it seems like the above things should fix most of it, and in a few really problematic examples maybe there is another backside solution. As more and more languages get added, we will get more of these multilingual homographs. I for one really value when people add say, an Abenaki Native American name to something found here, for a lot of reasons. But with so many thousands of different languages you will get duplicates... I remember one species in Mexico with an indigenous name that was spelled the same as something else in english that was something like 'tree' or 'plant' or whatever. We should have those names there but it shouldn't pull up if you don't have that language selected.

While I haven't always been in agreement with changes some of the South African members wanted to add to the site, i agree it is important to keep working to be globally inclusive here (something I need to work on too!) and i think these backend solutions are better than having a million duplicates or having peopl efight it out like this. Especially if someone feels marginalized by US/Euro-centric stuff.

[Shaun Swanepoel]

From my perspective, as a generalist. Common names are what I predominantly know.

If a person from the general populace is interested in something and searching, not finding it under the name they know may discourage them from using the site. They may not go and first find the scientific name, enter it and hope they hit the jackpot.
Mission Prickly-pear. Nothing missionary about it. Searching Turksvy should lead them to the same results. Now they get feedback, and will return to the sight at a later stage to use it again.
As to subspecies with the same name. That should be irrelevant in my two pence worth. A yellow pansy is still just that, even though there are subsp, variants and what else.
I am looking for a Cape Robin. O, there a Cape robin subsp A, and B, and C. Wow, did not know that there where differences! Now I do!

I am not sentimental, just practical. Let the site grow, and bring this global community 1 step closer.

INat is global, and as such should reflect the differences from around the world. 

[Charlie Hohn]

well, the problem with subspecies:

if there is a common tree called 'Purple Fir' and it has a very rare species also being called 'Purple Fir'... well, people see the common tree, enter Purple Fir, and accidentally pull up the subspecies and tag it instead. So all these subspecies keep getting tagged unintentionally. It's a really common problem on iNat, I've probably seen it hundreds of times. There are other possible solutions, i like my 'nominate' one (i didn't make it up, got it from someone else but i forget who) but other options may work too. What doesn't work well is leaving the duplicates and then trying to sort through all the subspecies observations seeing which are real.

[Calebcam]

Responding to bouteloua:

This is meant to be respectful: I have no idea where you got "Common Puff(space)Adder". Is that what Americans say to reference Bitis a. arietans? I have always known arientans as the "Puffadder", and I would bet almost every person on the iNat South Africa community would say they have known it as the Puffadder (see Peter's commentary). 

Caleb

[Tony Iwane]

Thanks for bringing the discussion here. We explained the reasoning behind the infraspecies name policy in the Curator Guide, and I think encouraging a species rather than subspecies taxon is probably for the best, since a species-level ID is not an incorrect ID. Obviously there can be some issues here, such as when a subspecies is endangered (eg. San Francisco Garter Snake) but the community is pretty good about fixing an error like that. 

That being said, I think the possible solutions that several people have suggested have merit. Not being a developer myself, I'm not sure how feasible they are to implement but I'll bring it to the team.

Taking a look at the above comment thread, though, I want to really emphasize a few things:

- Comments on an Observation page should directly pertain to that observation. If you want to have a policy discussion, please start one on the Google Group, or you can also email us at he...@inaturalist.org.

- Please read and take to heart the Tone & Attitude section of our Community Guidelines. Assume others mean well, please remain polite and respectful, and try to see things from another person's point of view. I don't think anyone here has it out for anyone or any group, so don't assume that they do. For instance, there is no colonial motivation here; as iNaturalist grows, there will be issues like this and at some point a policy has to be implemented that perhaps not everyone will like. If you think you have a better policy, please rationally and civilly lay it out here and the community and admins will take a look at it. We're all passionate about nature and we're working towards the same goal.

- If you're feeling emotional about something, take a moment before you respond. iNaturalist (and the Google Group) are not fora for attacks or for venting. If you have a specific issue with someone, send them a civil direct message or email us at he...@inaturalist.org. Attacks, insults and/or threats can be grounds for suspension.

Tony

[bouteloua]

Caleb, 

tonyrebelo: "... Within the two areas the distinction between Common Puffadder and Somalian Puffadder are only applicable for countries that have both, or for regions that have both, like Africa or the world...." (emphasis mine)

I make no claim to know which name is "best" for which places, and had simply proposed one solution for the three taxa based on the present information to appease the largest number of people. Excuse my ignorance with a space between puff and adder....this is a species I literally had never heard of before this conversation and folks were using both Puff Adder and Puffadder on the thread. Even currently it looks like the English default for the species is "Puff Adder" and the English default for the nominate subspecies is "Puffadder." (not ideal)

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/30851-Bitis-arietans

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/115431-Bitis-arietans-arietans

cassi

[Calebcam]

Thanks Tony; that is why I didn't get involved on the observation's page.

[Calebcam]

Okay, thanks. I see on the Wiki page, it shows "common puff adder" as a common name. However, near the end of the Wiki page, it shows B. a. arietans as the "Puff(space)adder". I have never heard of ssp arietans as the "common puff adder", neither the name "Puff Adder". This name (in my opinion), would be a better fit for the species than the ssp. The ssp is, and should be Puffadder. For example: Rattlesnake; it is not Rattle Snake. That would look very strange; just like Puff Adder would look strange to the SA community (and myself). 

caleb

[Calebcam]

Jakob: "Bitis arietans is Puff Adder, no one argues about that"

Spadefoot is not Spade Foot

Leafhopper is not Leaf Hopper

Flycatcher is not Fly Catcher

Cowbird is not Cow Bird

Meadowhawk is not Meadow Hawk

Loggerhead turtle is not Logger Head turtle

Sandpiper is not Sand Piper

Butterflyfish is not Butterfly Fish

Unicornfish is not Unicorn Fish

I hope you see where I am going with this; Puffadder is Puffadder and not Puff Adder. Again, trying to be as respectful as possible; only meant to be constructive criticism.

caleb

[Bushboy]

[Peter Slingsby]

The animal is spelled 'puffadder'. To avoid further high blood pressure, guys, we could just call it 'pofadder'.  Would save a lot of time and be beyond dispute.

[Tony Iwane]

Caleb, I think you might be focusing too much on the the letter of Jakob's example and not on the issue at hand here. As I see it (and I may be wrong here, anyone please correct me if I am), the issue is not about puffadders (Puff Adders?) and spellings but:

In the same lexicon (eg English) there are many regional common names for a subspecies that are duplicates of the global common names for the parent species, and in some situations that can cause issues. Currently, if the same common name is applied to both a species and subspecies, both will show up when one types in the common name, regardless of any Place setting the user has on his/her account. This can cause the user to pick the wrong taxon (eg the subspecies rather than the species). This thread is therefore a forum for users to suggest and discuss solutions that would a allow regional subspecies common name (that is a duplicate of the parent taxon) to be applied to a taxon and not be confusing to the general user. 

Tony

[tony rebelo]

The issue is simply.

If we have a generic type name that is used globally such as Kudu for the species, and a local community only has the subspecies, then they should be allowed to use Kudu locally for the subspecies if that is the name they know it by.    Calling it a Greater Kudu will result in lots of good data being misclassified as Kudu because local users will know the subspecies only by the name Kudu and select that name.  And quite honestly the voting system in iNat is so primitive that the name will be stuck on the species, even if lots of knowledgeable people try and classify it to subspecies, when less informed people will go for the name that they know and thus diminish the value of the observation.  

  

The only way around this is to have to laboriously explain on the observation to each new observer that iNat has this funny system whereby we are not allowed to call our Kudu with the name Kudu that we use, because someone else has decided that our name must be used "at a higher level" and that therefore you must in future please call it a "Greater Kudu"  even though no one in the country ever calls it this, because that is how well iNat caters for our local needs and you can always go and use some other site if you dont like it.  Besides stop being such an ignorant and lazy lout and - to quote the words of the iNat curator's guide: "(if you) want to take it to subspecies (you) can just learn to use the subspecific name (or better yet the scientific name)."  So there you are!  If you have a common name for a subspecies, it is time that you grew up and learned the scientific name, otherwise there is no place for you here on iNat. Also, on iNat ID to species is good enough: we dont really want you to make IDs to subspecies: who cares about them anyway: one of the INat programmers has stated "and I think encouraging a species rather than subspecies taxon is probably for the best, since a species-level ID is not an incorrect ID".  So you mompara: it is a Snake: surely that is good enough for you: after all a genus level ID is not an incorrect ID, nor is a family ID, nor is an order ID incorrect - so what the hell are you doing on INat anyway - its Life and what do you want to know more for?  Sheese - I suppose you will want to know next if it is Peter, or Tony or Charlie?   Just go and ask ouma: she will tell you all you want to know. 

Why was a decision made that duplication of a name at one level, was not allowed for a specific place at another level?  

I think that this is just bad programming: it appears that the problem is that if we decide to call Tragelaphus strepsiceros strepsiceros  as "Kudu" in region southern Africa, then iNat automatically includes that name at that level (subspecies) across the entire platform.  Yes, it might not be the preferred name, but it  still comes up in all the searches for the subspecies.  So consequently Kudu will appear globally on any search of the subspecies.  The fact that this is technically correct and that any Greater Kudu is also a Kudu, by definition seems to have escaped the logic.  

A far more logical approach will be to restrict a local name, to that region, and not copy it across as a global name if it is a regional name.  But the programming does not have a "global" region: any regional name also automatically gets elevated to the global list.   That is the crux of the problem and also the way around this problem.  

On the other hand if this is not the issue, it is purely a matter of someone deciding that any common name may only be once in the iNat dictionary - restricted to one taxon, then this is ridiculous.       

* What is iNat going to do with the names we want to load that are duplicated by different communities in southern Africa for different species?   So there are going to be lots of duplicates anyway.    iNat is going to have to live with this problem as more and more countries come on board and start wanting their own local names.  And just like not every country speaks American, not all counties have different languages, or even only one language.  

* And wait until iNat hits the problem of the Tswana being upset because you only allowed the Swahili name, when in fact the exact same name is also used by the Sotho, and the Pedi, and the Shona; why have you only allocated it to one language and why did you chose that language group, and why can they not have their names recognized?

*  And you still have to discover the joys of species named for some medicinal or use value.   A name that will apply "generically" to half the species in the genus, but not the other half.   So 15 species in the genus will have the same name, but 10 will have another name: so that elevating the name simply to generic level will be wrong.   (I dont know any examples, but I imagine that sometimes unrelated genera may have members with the same name, because of some morphological or use similarity).

In short, trying to be proscriptive with Vernacular Names is not going to work!  Sooner or later you are going to have to relent.  it would make more sense to fix the programming and make the system more robust to the fickles and vagaries and sensitivities of Common Names.  After all if you want only one name, that is what the scientific name is for.

Just for the record, I - as a scientific researcher who uses Citizen Science data - and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (that is legally mandated to manage biodiversity information for the country from all sources), would prefer identifications to the finest level that they can be done, even in cases of taxa that have varieties of subspecies, bearing in mind that sometimes "the finest possible" may be a higher taxonomic rank!

[Calebcam]

Yes, there are other issues (which Tony brought up), but Jakob previously removed the names Puffadder and Soldier Pansy, which I wanted to address. I don't really have anything to say about "Kudus" or "Elands" since I am not too familiar with those names.

I notice this problem a lot: I see many observations from all around south western USA of the Northern alligator lizard; and the Common zebra-tailed lizard (which are wrong ssp). People type in "northern alligator lizard" or "zebra tailed lizard", and they get ssp instead of spp and that leads to confusion. Maybe the solution would be to add the ssp name to the common name, like https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/566060-Lanius-collaris-collaris ? But that might not work; there are other problems like the "Painted reed frog" being the same name for 1 species and 3 subspecies. Up till this point it has been up to identifiers and curators to help remove wrong ssp labels from observations. I think my best bet would be having the global names for subspecies as just the scientific name; all common names for ssp should be regional. That way, people typing in "zebra tailed lizard" in California would only see the local ssp appear, but people in Baja would only see their local ssp appear, perhaps even with the same common name. The other ssp would not be displayed unless somebody typed in the scientific name, but this is very occasional and should be easy for identifiers to fix.

caleb

[tony rebelo]

I knew I say this somewhere: 

"The old adage sums it up: "Common names change from place to place, and scientific names change from time to time."

We try to address these shortcomings by showing both common and scientific names wherever possible, and choosing common names based on the language and geographic preferences of the viewer."

So iNat claims to use "common names based on the language and geographic preferences of the viewer"    Unless they are from southern Africa?

No, that is unfair.  I am sure we are not being victimized.  But not being allowed to use our own names for what we want to use them, goes counter to what iNat claims above.  

(In case you wanted to know where it came from, this is shown on all the species pages - e.g.  https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/524159-Tragelaphus-strepsiceros-strepsiceros and https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/115431-Bitis-arietans-arietans)

On Monday, 18 December 2017 19:43:00 UTC+2, Chris Vynbos wrote:

[AfriBats]

Not sure how easy this is from the programming side, but I could imagine a solution that displays all subspecies (which might or might not have associated common names) if the common name of a species is typed in. So using "Yellow Pansy" as an example, the user would be offered 1) Junonia hierta, 2) J. h. hierta, 3) J. h. cebrene, and 4) J. h. paris as options to chose from.

I think that "regionalizing" the taxonomic association of common names is problematic for several reasons. Most importantly, if the location of an observation automatically offers only the (sub)species occurring in the region of that location, it is a completely circular ID rather than an informed choice and selection.

Jakob

[Chris Vynbos]

How about a system similar to the "‘Search external name providers” pop up option when making an ID?
Every time you type in the ID box, you get a message above the results letting you know the current common name setting, an option to select another, an option to change the default, and an option to hide the options.

[tony rebelo]

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen said so far in this debate and there have been some whoppers!

"I think that "regionalizing" the taxonomic association of common names is problematic for several reasons. Most importantly, if the location of an observation automatically offers only the (sub)species occurring in the region of that location, it is a completely circular ID rather than an informed choice and selection."

So let us unpack it.  We have only one subspecies of "Puff Adder" in southern Africa.  But if iNat does not tell us that there is a species name, then we are making a circular  ID, rather than an informed choice and selection.  You MUST have the species name to make an informed choice, even though there is only one species in our region.  Now, of course, above the species there is the genus.  So iNat better tell us the genus name too, just so that we are properly informed and can make an informed choice and selection.  Now in that genus there are 20 odd species, so iNat better add those two: otherwise it will be a completely circular ID (just the genus with the one species) rather than an informed decision.  Of course, we have a family above the genus, so in ordre to make an informed choice and selection, iNat bettter present us with all the species too!

In fact, why not just present us with all 100 000 species that occur in southern Africa, so that we can make a PROPERLY INFORMED DECISION. Not allowing us to see the plants and insects will bias our identification to snakes, and we would not want a circular ID rather than an informed choice and selection.  BUT WHY STOP THERE: just show us all the bloody species on earth!!!   Why can we not see ALL the options to make a properly informed choice and selection.

Come on.  This is just ridicuolous.  You are grasping at straws!

If there is ONLY one subspecies in the region then the most informed decision iNaturalist could help us make is to present only the single choice!!!   That is an intelligent, informed and logical approach to the problem!

Please do not insult our intelligence!!!

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 17:40:02 UTC+2, AfriBats wrote:

[Calebcam]

Completely agreed with Tony. The animal diversity is overwhelming - if the search engine only presented one local ssp, that would be much easier and more accurate than showing all of the ssp and having wrong IDs pop up all over the place.

Caleb

[bouteloua]

I still don't understand what is wrong with the previously-proposed names in the attached. Global default English name appears first, alternate common name should appear in parentheses.

another example, search: "coke"

1. Coke, Cola coke

2. Coke Classic (Coke), Cola coke ssp. classic

3. Coke Zero (Coke), Cola coke ssp. zero

Where is the confusion? If you choose the wrong coke-or-puffadder-or-pansy, the community helps out by fixing it just as if you chose the wrong yellow coneflower or otherwise misidentified something. Are there some more concrete examples/data that show the extremity of this issue that I'm just not realizing?

--

"it is a completely circular ID rather than an informed choice and selection" is perhaps not valid for puffadders in South Africa, but totally valid for taxa with similar names that co-occur or have the potential to co-occur (new invasions/range expansions not yet documented on iNat)...I do not want the system wholly eliminating the possibility of choosing a certain taxon in the dropdown based on its flawed assumptions about range.

cassi

[Charlie Hohn]

I like the parentheses!

There are sometimes certain issues with circular IDs, for instance a bunch of conifers in western North American have different subspecies or varieties on different mountain ranges... if you choose the subspecies ID just based on which mountain range rather than the subspecies characteristic, you miss out on knowing whether the range maps are right (they often aren't).... maybe both subspecies of White Fir are in the Spring Mountains (or whatever) but people are classifying all based on the list. On the other hand you *need* some geographic filters or you won't get anywere (as Tony hyperbolically described above)... when I am trying to identify a Spruce in a natural area eastern North America, i consider red, black, and white spruce, I do not consider all 35 spruce species across the globe because that would be absurd. So yeah it is a balance. But the bottom line is that the current system is resulting in a bunch of false subspecies ID and we need to do something to make sure the subspecies doesn't have the exact same name as the species. This is different from other common name issues. We don't have to stop calling the subspecies a puff adder, but we can preface the subspecies with something like Nominate Puff Adder or Puff Adder (Puff Adder) or whatever. Or we could just make sure the app/observation import does not automatically populate the subspecies unless you specify it and make it so you have to take a second step to get the subspecies - if you put in puffadder it identifies to the species only, and you have to manually change it over to the subspecies. Kinda annoying but better than bad data.

[Chris Vynbos]

My mock up in my last message vanished. At least, I can't see it. 

Chris

[tony rebelo]

And what is wrong with? 

Global

1. Coke, Cola coke

2. Coke Classic (Coke), Cola coke ssp. classic

3. Coke Zero (Coke), Cola coke ssp. zero

Southern Africa

3. Coke

Only southern African users will see the Coke for 3!

But this is obtuse!

 Let us see what actually happened.

This is what iNat had:

• • • • • • • • • • Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros
                    • Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros ssp. strepsiceros

• 0Taxon Changes
• 5Taxon Schemes

Names

Language / Type	Name	Action
English	Greater Kudu
French	Grand koudou
Portuguese	Cudo
Scientific Names	Tragelaphus strepsiceros
Spanish	Gran kudú

Note that there is no problem here with duplicates of the Greater Kudu being used for both the Genus and the species: A bit weird, and contrary to what is being forced on us, but let us ignore it

Now the subspecies was added.  And I added the three names marked "Edit"  They are my names.  Note that all the names are still there.

So what is the issue.

• • • • • • • • • • Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros
                    • Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros ssp. strepsiceros

• 0Taxon Changes
• 1Taxon Schemes

Names

Language / Type	Name	Action
Afrikaans	Kudu	Edit
English	Greater Kudu
English	Kudu	Edit
French	Grand koudou
Khoisan	Koodoo	Edit
Scientific Names	Tragelaphus strepsiceros strepsiceros

Well, what I did was I assigned the three names I put on to the "southern Africa" locality.  

Now, it is possible to use the manage names to adjust these 

so: 

Names for Greater Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros ssp. strepsiceros)

Taxa can have many common names. We support one default common name globally, which can be changed here by dragging a name to the top of the list. You can also specify default names in different places by editing the name and adding a place, but please only do this when different places have conflicting names.

Global names

•  Greater Kudu (English) Edit
  default
•  Kudu (English) Edit
•  Koodoo (Khoisan) Edit
•  Grand koudou (French) Edit
•  Kudu (Afrikaans) Edit

South Africa (country)

•  Kudu Edit
  default

southern Africa (region)

•  Kudu Edit
  default
•  Greater Kudu Edit
•  Koodoo Edit

Now notice my three names.  I had all my names in the southern African region (I dont know who created "South Africa" - not being a curator I cannot see that information), I dont know who moved  Kudu (Afrikaans) out of southern Africa to Global.   

Now notice:   the name Kudu is nowhere else the default except in southern Africa - not under the genus, or the species.  Everywhere else it is called Greater Kudu.  The instance of the name Kudu in the global name for the subspecies is automatic: all names in the regions/countries are shown there by default.  it is not possible to remove a name in the regions from the global list (I tried).

But the curators have banned me from using Kudu in southern Africa as a default.  The name "Greater Kudu" has been pegged as the default name by the curators, so even though I have moved and saved my default name and it has a value of 0 (default), the "Greater Kudu" has a fixed default of zero and trumps mine.

(Is there anyone subscribing to South Africa (go to account and under "Place Customizes a few aspects of the site for a place, like common names." : use South Africa"- what do you see?)

Now in the context of the discussion above, can someone please explain.

1. Why can we not use Kudu for southern Africa as default when it is not listed as a default for anywhere else?

2. Why if we should not duplicate names, is our name Kudu - which is NOT a duplicate, not be usable for our region?

And why were a lot of our names deleted without me being informed that iNat had changed its policy overnight.  And why - since I posted the names - was my opinion not sought: my names were just deleted!

It is really quite petty and pathetic!

....

While on the topic: how is this for a useful taxonomic tree (this is from the top of the species account.

• Life 
• Animals 
• ...
• Greater Kudu 
• Greater Kudu

Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros ssp. strepsiceros

AKA Kudu (English)Koodoo (Khoisan)

There we are: the parent of subspecies Greater Kudu is species Greater Kudu is genus Greater Kudu  - And they accused us of duplicating names unnecessarily (in case you have forgotten:   

"Please do not add common names for infraspecies that are identical to the common name of the parent species, e.g. if the species is Cola coke and it has the subspecies Cola coke ssp. classic and Cola coke ssp. zero, don't add the common name "Coke" for the subspecies. "

Now iNat has not only duplicated it once, BUT TWICE!

In fact, we have been prevented from following the guidelines!

[tony rebelo]

Oh dear: that did not work.  So I have to do 15 minutes of work again, and it will probably bomb out again.

I AM NOT DOING IT AGAIN.

Salient points.

Genus = Nyalas, Kudus, and Elands

Species = Greater Kudu   https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/42339/names

Subspecies = Greater Kudu  https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/524159/names

Hypocrits: they dont want us to post duplicate names but they do.

I added three names to the southern African place for the subspecies:

Kudu

Kudu (Afrikaans)

Koodoo (Khoisan).

This is the only place that Kudu is in the list.

But I have been overwritten and the name Greater Kudu has been locked above mine in the default order (=0) in southern Africa

[Calebcam]

Yes! I would fully support something like that! And it would fix the problems since the user can choose what they prefer! 

Caleb

[tony rebelo]

Note1:  I canot remove "Kudu" from the global names - if it exists in southern Africa it always appears in the global list

Note 2: My name is in the default position, but the curators have locked the duplicate name "Greater Kudu" as default and it overrides my unique southern African name.  So contrary to what they claim, they are enforcing a duplicate name.

Note 3: I dont know who added the South African name.  it was not there when I posted the southern African one.  Does anyone subscribe to South Africa (in your account, under place choose South Africa - but I would recommend southern Africa to those from the Southern African community - and see what displays.  I would regard that as an unecessary redundancy, but at this level it is just adding another country to the same name, so that is technically allowed under all the various versions of the rules.

[tony rebelo]

This is superfluous: please make sure you attend the next iNature course in Cape Town  in early Jan.

Go to your account (11th option if you hold your mouse over your name)

In your account go to 

Place

Customizes a few aspects of the site for a place, like common names.

southern Africa Region

You can change that to Global, or southern Africa or South Africa.  I would recommend southern Africa.

Save

[tony rebelo]

PS: Sorry I should have mentioned.  At this stage the only entries in southern Africa that are not Global are Kudu and Puffadder.

There may be another one or two: I was experimenting with the options when I was nipped in the bud by the (what I consider to be overzealous)  curators.

[Ian Toal]

I am loathe to enter into this noxious and essentially meaningless debate, especially since I am not a researcher nor do I have any mandate. As a Citizen Scientist all I am obliged to do is identify an image to the best of my ability. I don't have a lab, I don't have a dissecting microscope (many of my preferred taxa can only be confirmed by microscopic examination), and frankly, I don't care what the common name for Kudu is in Southern Africa. For the most part, I use scientific names, because they are most accurate, and if I can't find a distinction between two images, I show my work and let others make a decision. And, as a Citizen Scientist whose work may be used in research, I get zero recognition. If my data are used by researchers, it is up to them to confirm the identity of the images, not me. In a sense, researchers who use data from places like iNaturalist are data mining, and it is up to them to determine if the data they use are correct or not. 

As for common names, there are many dialects around the world that use different names for the same being. I could insist that Cree, Anishinabe, Haudenosaunee, Inuit etc names should be included as well,and for my Central Mexican friends, Nahuatl names as well (which may cause some problems as, for example, there is only one word for 'Hummingbird').

This 'thing' is a tempest in a teapot, and I'm sorry I stumbled on the whole debate. . 

...

[paloma]

I totally agree with the characterization as "noxious." I wish there were a way to keep up with new features on iNat without having to subject myself to this behavior.

jakob commented2d

This is explained in full <a style="color:rgb(66,139,202);background-color:transparent" onmousedown="this.href='https:/

[Calebcam]

Meaningless? This is a very serious debate since the iSpotSA-iNatSA move has changed a lot of things. I feel the 'debate' should not have been started in the first place, but now that it has started it is time to change (and debate) things and make people aware they are IDing to ssp instead of the spp they wished to ID as.

Caleb

jakob commented2d

[Calebcam]

"Currently, if the same common name is applied to both a species and subspecies, both will show up when one types in the common name, regardless of any Place setting the user has on his/her account. This can cause the user to pick the wrong taxon (eg the subspecies rather than the species). This thread is therefore a forum for users to suggest and discuss solutions that would a allow regional subspecies common name (that is a duplicate of the parent taxon) to be applied to a taxon and not be confusing to the general user."

[Tony Iwane]

I think Ian and Paloma are correct in that the the amount of rancor in this discussion is completely unnecessary, and is off-putting to many who have valid opinions and ideas. 

Tony, I don't think the tone of your posts and the direct attacks you've made does much to aid in the creation of a healthy community or build any sort of consensus. I reiterated the community guidelines in my previous post - please read them and abide by them. 

Thank you to the users who contributed measured proposals for how to make improvements. I've passed them on to the team so we can discuss them.  

Finally, I want to reiterate that while we at iNaturalist like constructive feedback and we will make changes if we believe they'll improve the site, note that we are a small group of people and we cannot wade through endless arguments and side comments. As I stated earlier, if you have complaint or suggestion, explain it in a civil tone, citing evidence, and try to be brief. We cant't promise to make every change that everyone wants, or that everything about iNat will make every one happy, but we'll listen if suggestions are made in a civil and rational manner.        

Tony

On Tuesday, December 19, 2017 at 12:29:35 PM UTC-8, Ian Toal wrote:

jakob commented2d

[Calebcam]

That looks great bouteloua! Although I would like to see this kind of thing included too, because it would make it very accessible for users: https://08803153282062712724.googlegroups.com/attach/481adc48c0c96/2017-12-19-18%2033%2001.jpg?part=0.1&view=1&vt=ANaJVrE8fBhtAYRNJXw0tyEvic2uFhS9uo665SFMmW_1LE3lI8sFceHKA0INjpQhy8wMyP5C1wPaOQ_49AmsmN9GFoh7Ov-uZqLJewhqAsuQw9MlOgANqAM 

[James Bailey]

I've read most of this thread but if I miss something already brought up, forgive me.

Common names are very loose, often localized, misleading, but also very useful. Since there is no authority controlling common names, among other things, my belief is as follows. Hopefully, many others share these beliefs or can understand why I might think this way:

-If a common name is used by more than one person, whether that is the most common name or only used in a small region, OR occurs in a published field guide, it should be valid and added to iNaturalist.

-We should not remove common names because of confusion with taxa, for instance removing a common name, even one that may be already in use, from a subspecies, because of fear that users will click the incorrect one. Actual scientific classification is done with scientific names, not common names. As citizen scientists it is our role to make sure the correct species is chosen. If a new player chooses the wrong one, we can help them fix it.

-If a certain common name is commonly used in a region (i.e. South Africa), and is not the default taxon name on iNaturalist, it should be added and registered to that part of the world, so users with that location will see the local name instead.

-Family, genus, and less specific levels use plural versions of the name, even if there is only one species in the given region. Don't call the horse family "horse" instead of "horses" or "horses and allied species". Don't call the crow family "crow", it should be "crows and allied species", or a similar composite phrase. That's just for continuity. Again it doesn't matter if there is only one species in that family -- the scientific name is what matters for actual ID.

[AfriBats]

I follow Ian & Paloma here - off and out of this discussion.

On Tuesday, 19 December 2017 18:01:04 UTC+1, tony rebelo wrote:

This is the most ridiculous thing I have seen said so far in this debate and there have been some whoppers!

[Charlie Hohn]

James, there's just no way for all the IDers to keep up with all the is-labeled subspecies. I don't see any reason why subspecies shouldn't have some other sort ofs ignifier rather than an identical name. the biggest issue is when people import things by  common name, they may not even SEE that the subspecies got tagged in. I've seen it many times including by experienced users. People have laid out a lot of ideas here, but leaving it as is isn't really a good solution in my opinion

[tony rebelo]

iNat handles duplicate names in list imports very impressively: when there is more than one match, they are all presented for inspection. Anyone who imports a name and chooses the wrong rank has only themselves to blame. 

More seriously, if a local name is omitted at subspecies rank where it occurs in a country (as the current rules suggest) and is only presented at a species level then an incorrect match will occur and the user will not be informed: that is a serious problem.  This unfortunately means that any instance of a name's use should be documented, even if it is a duplicate, or confusing or "wrong", irrespective of the rank at which it is used. 

[Chris Vynbos]

Our little egret doesn't have a name! 

Come on ppl let's sort this out, that's just horrible. 

Chris

[Calebcam]

https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/516831-Egretta-garzetta-garzetta

Now it does? You can add names here https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/516831/taxon_names/new

[James Bailey]

I guess there is a good point there, which is that the subspecies doesn't really need a common name in most places.

Perhaps subspecies should display the common name of the main species node, by default, if no subspecific common name is in place.

[tony rebelo]

That makes perfect sense!   And it means that all the subspecies will show when making an ID, allowing the user to be aware that subspecies exist and if they are interested they can delve deeper.  

Provided that the common name also displays on the identification line on an observation.  Otherwise people will want to go and add a common name (just like they will go and add a picture), because "it is not displaying one".

[Fubr]

Although I personally did not want to get into this debate at all, and esp not the emotional side. I have followed it and noted that the debate has moved from the crux of the question. which in my humble opinion was " can a common name be used for two species occurring in different regions or should one be changed or omitted to prevent confusion on INat"

The answer to this question is, I believe, quite simple if on examines place names; There is a Port St Johns in Canada and a Port St Johns in South Africa, there is a Place called Newcastle in England, Australia and South Africa.  Now as I see it if one types Newcastle as a location then you get the option Newcastle (Australia), Newcastle (England) or Newcastle (South Africa), which is completely understandable.

Thus, If Inat uses the same method for common names then we have gone a long way to solve the problem, and we can get on to more serious things like trying to figure out which species best fits the photographic evidence presented in an observation.

[tony rebelo]

That is quite straight forward.  

The issue is what happens if we divide Newcastle South Africa into 4, and the residents in each of the 4 regions want to call their region "Newcastle".  This is where a decision was made not to allow any of the four regions to call their area Newcastle, because the name is already being used for the entire town.  Understandably, the residents of all four regions are upset.  

Not least because they are also not allowed to create new names, like North Newcastle, Greater Newcastle, Smokey Newcastle, etc, unless those names already exist and are not in use elsewhere. 

[Chris Vynbos]

Moving on, until iNat policy changes (or not) can we work together practically without having to re-hash old arguments? What do we do about this observation: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9410954

"Buphagus africanus ssp. africanus" is so unfriendly, but what do we call it? I changed it to Yellow-billed Oxpecker, but this was reversed by a curator as per iNat's guidelines. Problem is the name is already applied to the sp. (Perhaps then, the IT system should make it impossible for us to make these sorts of duplicates so as not to frustrate the curators and the well-intentioned users?)

So what do we call our B africanus subsp. africanus? There are no other subspp. (As a layman I'd ask why there is a subsp at all when there are no others? But that's a different matter.) Does this not give us a way around it? Can we not call the subsp 'Yellow-billed Oxpecker' and leave the sp as Buphagus africanus? And if not, what DO we call it? There's no Northern/ Southern /Greater etc to apply here.