Conventions for common names?

[Daniel Janzen]

 With respect to the anguish over common names, I would like to add that in
training parataxonomists - rural residents carrying out massive inventory
of species (plants, fungi, animals, microbes) in biocomplex tropical
habitats in Costa Rica - we have found that simply teaching the scientific
name (family, genus and species name) works beautifully.   In these
species-rich ecosystems, there are extant common names for far less than
0.1% of the species, and it is commonplace for a genus to have 10-50
species in it.

The parataxonomists (Spanish-speaking) have grade-school educations but are
members of the adult workforce.  Whatever name is applied, it has to be
learned by a combination of straight memorization and repeated use.
"Schausiella santarosensis" is no more difficult to learn than is "schaus'
guapinol eater", "guapinolgusano de santa rosa" or some other such
invention.

By teaching scientific names in the first place - two clean words imbedded
in an easily understood nomenclatorial construct - it is not necessary to
learn a second parallel nomenclature in order to bring their knowledge into
the global conversation.  The only drawback is that they do sometimes
create their own imaginative spellings for a scientific name (especially
when learned verbally initially), but as this name moves into databases
(where spelling really matters), the errors are both easily corrected and
become self-correcting as the parataxonomist communicates electronically
with previous records and colleagues.

I should add that the imaginative mutation of spelling in scientific names
in the field is NOTHING compared to the blizzard of geographically
allopatric, parapatric and sympatric synonyms created by history,
immigration and differential application throughout Latin America, all of
which go through their own respective spelling mutations as well.   Even
the sole source of New World amber is known by at least three different
names throughout its range from Mexico to South America.

Having said this, let me also add from practical experience that the very
large body of tropical peoples becoming users of the scientific names of
tropical wild organisms is extremely frustrated by nomenclatorial changes
generated by the scientific community when it shuffles species from genus
to genus, changes family names, and changes species names due to synonomies
(not so bad and can be accommodated) and grammar/gender arguments (very bad
and generally ignored).  The sooner a stable nomenclature can be achieved
for the (every day more computer-literate and web-literate) everyday user
in the species-rich tropics, the better for them and the better for
tropical conservation.

Dan Janzen
University of Pennsylvania





>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
>Date:         Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:01:00 -0400
>Reply-To: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
>Sender: Taxacom Discussion List <TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG>
>From: Ron Gatrelle <gatrelle at TILS-TTR.ORG>
>Organization: TILS
>Subject:      Re: Conventions for common names?
>Comments: To: bjadams at UFL.EDU
>To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Curtis Clark" <jcclark at CSUPOMONA.EDU>
>Subject: Re: Conventions for common names?
>
>
>> At 02:36 PM 8/22/2001, Byron J. Adams wrote:
>
>> >Are there any guidelines or "rules of thumb" for establishing common
>names
>> >for organisms that heretofore are known only by their scientific names?
>
>
>> Don't.
>>
>> If nine-year-old boys can learn dinosaur names, growers can learn
>nematode
>> names.
>> Curtis Clark                 http://www.csupomona.edu/~jcclark/
>
>
>MEGA double dittos on the don't and for the exact same reason.
>
>Ron Gatrelle, president
>International Lepidoptera Survey
>