I have to admit to a certain skepticism about the value of routinely assigning common names in groups where species are numerous, poorly known, and rarely in the public eye. Here in the Hawaiian Islands we have more than 700 species of native non-marine mollusks to deal with, many if not most of which have gone extinct in the 1000 years or since humans first settled these islands. Common names have been assigned to those few species that have been listed as protected species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act such as Newcomb's Snail (Erinna newcombi), and the Oahu Tree Snail (all surviving species in the genus Achatinella). Even there, however, it was not felt necessary to assign individual names to each of the surviving Achatinella species; all are included in the collective name "Oahu Tree Snail". I cannot imagine what purpose would be served by assigning individual common names to each of the dozen or so surviving Achatinella species, or our 40+ species of Succineidae or our 300+ species of Amastridae (most of which are regrettably extinct). On those rare occasions when individual species in these or our other native groups appear in the literature the scientific names will be recognizable to the informed reader on at least the generic level, but erecting an entire parallel system of vernacular nomenclature for species that may appear in the scientific literature on the order of once in a generation (and even less often in the non-scientific literature) strikes me as an exercise in busy work.   

I am answering you from the world of mycology. However, I see no problem. In Japan common names are 'invented' for mushrooms and other fungi. Also, in Thailand where I now live we have given names to some fungi and these have sometimes been adopted. The general public will take more interest if you can offer them such delights as lombriz de tierra marrón, lombriz roja or lombriz de tierra púrpura- manchado for example.

I think this is a good idea, in Hungary we have venacular names for many earthworm species as well. It is easier to speak to the public about earthworms using such names and also highlight s that there are several different species around and not all earthworm is the common worm (Lumbricus terrestris). (Sometimes it should be stressed not only for the public :)

personally I also think it would be a good idea, especially for the public and policy makers. In The Netherlands the vernacular names are  proven to be more stable than latin names, at least for more popular groups as plants, butter- and dragonflies. I recently (2013) invented Dutch names for (existing) aquatic oligochaetes and I must say, it is not common use, yet. Probably this will take some time for people to get familiar with it. In marine oligochaetes I was trying to invent names, but I didn't succeed in every species. In a couple of species I decided not to give them Dutch names for they were so similar in external morphology it was very hard to.keep the name 'simple'. You must realize that in Annelids many species awaits discovery, especially using DNA analysis. This already happened with Lumbricus terrestris. So if you invent a local name like 'common earthworm' it may prove in the near future to contain many hidden species. In that case you may have to add new local names and which one is the common one?. If I can make a suggestion:  try to use easy to spot features, like the color or the shape of the head/tail or a particular sediment or its habitat. If you have species that are very similar in external appearance and only differ in some minor internal organs or a DNA sequence, then do not give them a local name.

Dear Colleagues

Yes I think is very important give a common name when the species are without it in the description but the challenge is worse in invertebrates. It is an important factor when the species need conservation action or is into a protected area or simplicity when there are several species into a genera or a group related or when are important in the environmental education actions. However I prefer use the common names used by local people or common person that have been in contact with the supposed unknown species (by scientific). Some time the local people know well and know identify its species. The people, farmer, police maker are not totally familiarized with scientific names and generally it are complicated.

If the species have an important character that permitted the description, it character could be include in the common names. (ex. Blue worm if the species is blue or small grey worm if the sp. is grey small etcetc). The conspicuous characters must be included. Other important information in the common names are the localities or important geographic accident overall when it are endemics like a mountain or lake, etc.

In English the Cuban solenodon (Solenodon cubanus) received the common names of a mountain (Almiqui) in Spanish when was discovered or first know by Felipe Poey a great Cuban naturalist. Other Cuban mammals, the rodent hutias, have common names related with the names of slave origins (conga, carabali, andaraz). For examples the common name in Spanish of a species is jutia conga (Capromys pilorides) however in English is more known as Desmarest Hutia because it was one of the first descriptor. I am in disagreeing that a species had different names in Spanish and English. The native names must be respected.

I am not agreeing to give common names like a domestic dog or pet or using invented names.

Cuba has published Diccionaries of Vernacules names for animals and plants

Rafael, I agree with you about the importance of respecting the traditional native names (when they exist). It's also true that researching this local knowledge can be a difficult task. I suspect my species don't have any local name, as most of the times I have interacted with farmers and local people they didn't even know them.

Yes, in the case of invertebrates is more difficult find a local common names at least the aninal is used for some proposes. Some cases in Cuba the genera names is the common name (ex. Polymita spp., the wanderfull terrestrial snail endemic from easter part of Cuba, have as common name polimita).

Cuba has many common names that are from the aborigen time.

However in the case of your worm, the local people use some of them to fishing or produce natural fertilizant?

I agree with previous responses. It is the same case with Puerto Rican earthworms, as only one species (from more than 20 endemics) has a common name, "Lombriz gigante de El Yunque" (in English "El Yunque giant earthworm," Trigaster logissimus, which grows up to a meter long and maybe longer), but not commonly used. And yes, people (biologist or not) usually ignores the high diversity that the island have and usually thinks that we have only 2 or 3 species. I think that the incorporation of more specific common names would increase the general knowledge of the diversity present in a area and the differences between groups, as no one would confuse “lombiz de tierra” (earthworm) with a “lombriz intestinal” (some Cestoda and Nematodes) or a “solitaria” (Tenia spp.), or El Yunque giant earthworm with any other earthworm species. Otherwise, every earthworm species, genera, and families will be perceived just as earthworms not different from each others.

Dear Roberto,

Sure, this is what I wanted to stress. Venacular names help to increase of recognition that there are not only one but many many species of earthworms (like of beetles or other more attractive groups).

I think we all agree on the usefulness of vernacular or common names to increase the recognition by the general public of the diversity (in our case of earthworm diversity). Thanks a lot for your opinions and advice.

I think it's a good thing to have a consensus about this topic and to start implementing it across the research community.

I can"t see any reason why not! But it would be more interesting and valid if local people are envolve in naming local species.

I have a mild dissent to most of the answers here, though of course vernacular names can be useful in many cases.. Where there is already a long tradition of detailed amateur study, as with most vertebrates, flowering plants and some insects (as here in UK) they work very well. But when more obscure groups are concerned, many authors in various European countries have "coined" vernacular names for all species in a group (in my case, land snails), but also using the recognised vernacular names for those few, usually large  or familiar pest species. Although these are published, they seem to have little impact, and amateur enthusiasts (needed for recording) seem to be happy to learn the scientific names if they start off with them. But of course if there is action around some particular species, it may be very helpful to give it a unique vernacular name. Lists, even in popular or local publications, often use just the scientific names. 

Where genuine vernacular names do not exist, the coining of a name often results in something just as hard to remember. Many "obscure" invertebrates in the same genus are named (scientifically) after their describer, and look very similar. Use these personal names? (like Alexandrov's bulin) or try to use a distinguishing feature?

Benjamin is surely right that genuine (locally inspired) vernacular names are far more likely to catch on. But in some parts of the world  a different name may be used for the same species in different places, even within the same country.

Yes, name them, and have fun! (Many common names, and even some scientific names, are playful and even risque.)  Do let your audience know that these names were coined by you.  If they catch on, they will indeed become the 'common names'.

Vernacular names are very important especially for conservation purposes, because you can design conservation measures easier for local or regional populations vulnerable to local extinction,  in this case  common names becomes important when you have geographic subspecies or races of any kind of animal or plant, for example the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae) is a rare tiger subspecies that inhabits the Indonesian island of Sumatra. It has been listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List in 2008 as the population was estimated at 441 to 679 individuals, with no subpopulation larger than 50 individuals and a declining trend. The Sumatran tiger is the only surviving member of the Sunda Islands group of tigers that included the now extinct Bali tiger and Javan tiger. 

I have a book on Palawan fishes which includes local names. However, there are numerous species having the same local names, which still causes confusion to local fishers and traders, even foreign traders. So I am planning to give specific local names to different species. This is done by Japanese fish taxonomists, where every species found in the waters of Japan has an equivalent Japanese name, which I find useful.

To sum up some of the useful thoughts on this topic:

-Vernacular names are useful for conservation measures/local awareness of diversity

-Taxonomists giving species vernacular names is relatively common

-When available, local native names should be researched to be used instead of newly created ones.

-It is easier to create vernacular names for narrowly distributed species as it makes it unlikely that they will receive a different vernacular name elsewhere.

-It is advisable to include "diagnostic", easily perceived traits into the vernacular name. Names referring to geographic features or regions are also useful.

Yes, Daniel you are right. Diagnostic/geographic features are easy to comprehend and remember. Habitat of the species, color, and physical traits and characteristics may help too in naming species. Good luck! Hope to see your paper soon!

While recording the diversity/extent/geographical spread of a species specially during field survey common name is very handy. But when we are narrating the field data in front of wider academia, common name loose its importance altogether. The reason is simple, different locality can have different common name for a single species. So how to standardize the observations? We have to rely on the latinized name, and this is the reason why the ICBN and ICZN have recommended using scientific names in the first place.

Well, in my opinion, the existing , traditional vernacular names, as well as the existing and traditional names  in languages obviously others than Latin, are important for Ethnozoology and Ethnobotanics, cultural Anthropology, etc.; I think that the introduction of new vernacular names, may  result in a pre-Linnean systematics

I disagree Mario. As long as a Linnean scientific name is given (and its relevance is stressed over the new vernacular name) I don't think there is a reason to beleive we would be creating a pre-Linnean systematics.

I think it is a good idea, especially if your aim is to make people aware of the diversity of your group and somehow sensitize them...

This is a very good question and its particularly interesting for poorly-known/studied groups with conservation goals. But in my experience, we know it is important to have a "common name" empirically. So, may I benefit from the interest on this question, by asking you if any of you have any paper/study/books on this topic ?

Thanks !

I am disagree with Mario too. The discussion is not with the intention to create a new system to give common names under standard steps. I am sure that Linneo could do before..however, yes,  the common names are very important for the etnozoology  and etnobotanic, popular communication and antropology .  The environmental education without common names is difficult.

Abhiroop is ok with the problems of several common names depending of localities (including countries) but it is the same for all things of the human life. In Caribbeean Islands, shearing the same species and many similar species, exist many common names for one species and the same common names for different sp. too, specially in botanic.

Rafael, do you know the word Aguacate? Its synonym in Southern America is Palta: it will be interesting to study the ethymology of both names, however, Persea gratissima is scientifically universal

I understand your concerns Michael: I don't think it would be always wise to use vernacular names due to the problems you mention. But in the specific case you mention in your last paragraph (which is my own situation right now) their bennefits would by far outweight the disadvantages.

About cryptic species, I don't see it being a different problem for common names and scientific names. I think this problem can be easily avoided if the species for which the new vernacular names are being created have alredy being scanned for cryptic diversity through DNA.

I am sorry but I really don't have time right now to read multitude of answers previously given by esteemed colleagues, but the topic is very interesting to me so I couldn't refrain from response! And I must try to be as short as I can be.

I deal with fungi, and the situation in my country (Croatia) is that only a minor part of fungal species recorded so far (mostly edible and poisonous mushrooms) bear vernacular names, and at the same time a number of particular species has multitude of vernacular names. Most popular species has even tens of different names! On the other hand, great majority of species do not have a single name! Vernacular names are quite often illogical or even confusing. There are lot of homonyms too.

Still, my opinion and of my colleagues is that vernacular names are part of national heritage. What is probably more important, for any country it is essential to have vernacular names of as many biological species as possible, so that scientific  community can communicate in every possible way with the broader community (professional issue stakeholders, legislation, education etc.).

For instance, in an situation where you are appointed from the government in establishing the national red list, red book etc and where you deal with a group where majority of species does not have vernacular name, I think is very advisable to create new names. That is what we have done in 2005 (Red List) and in 2008 (Red Book). But surely, a linguistic help would be highly recommendable here.

In order to do that, we assembled a working group and started with work on system of professional vernacular naming (with proposals of recommendable names) in order to avoid any future naming problems and to reduce existing ones (homonyms, illogical or inadequate names, reducing the superfluous names etc).

If you would need additional information on this, do not hesitate to write to [email protected]

Cordially,

Neven

Thank you for the very useful insight Neven. I will surely write you again for more details. It's so fortunate to find a researcher who has dealt with this topic in practice.

Common names can be very useful when dealing with the general public, but using them can be confusing from region to region.  An example that I would point out is the common Ameiurus natalis.  The common name of mud cat is also applied to the Pylodictis olivaris in different areas.  As I am at present attempting to compile an species specific bibliography that contains the multiple common names; the best answer that would be appropriate here is to stick with the scientific names as those are universal.  As in the Loricarids and Corydoras species that have not been officially described and given a scientific species name; the aquarist community refer those specimens as L or C number.

James E. Burgess

I think that I need to point out that in recent years, with the constantly shifting phylogenetic evidence, common names are often more stable than scientific names!

In my opinion a scientific names are more value than a common names.For example the species Lumbricus terrestri (lombriz) is knowed araound the world,meanwhile the common name lombriz is knowed in Spain and Argentina.So we must  to use the scientific names,for identification and knowing the differents species,maybe to  include the common names but it is not necesary. 

Mauricio, the problem is this: the general public has associated the name lombriz de tierra/earthworm with the species Lumbricus terrestris, and they tend to think it means this is the only species out there. Check Google for amateur contributed picture of earthworms: almost all of them are tagegd as Lumbricus terrestris.

By giving other species their own common names, their recognition of diversity will surely change. Obviously, for taxonomy and scientific research the scientific names are paramount. But there is also a huge deal of synonimy/polifily/lack of consensus with Linnean taxonomy (at least in earthworms), let's not put all the blame on common names.

If done with a little creativity (not naming every species "brown earthworm" and being happy with it) and rigour (checking bibliography to avoid redundancy, making sure the named species are "good" species) the problems mentioned in this thread shouldn't arise.

To be honest, developing a consistent, phylogenetically valid genera system in earthworms should be a priority over this matter. But in cases like mine, where a taxonomic revision of a family is being developed, I think both issues can be solved at the same time and with a certain synergy.

Interestingly, the (sadly only) 5 IUCN evaluated earthworm species have common names. This invites us to reflect about the correlation between common names, general public awareness and conservation policies.

Probably common names are not useful, except if local names are used. The last is/must be rather common on most of vertebrate  taxa, where native names give a lot of real information on song, behaviour, toxicity, and so on. Academic/Common names  use to forget it.

Daniel, I would urge you to assign common names. There was a time when only scientists were involved with these organisms and scientific names were fine. However, today many of these are involved in commerce or conservation endeavors and having a common name is far less intimidating to individuals that are not trained in taxonomy.

I would encourage you to look at American Fisheries Society Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico, 7th Edition (2013), as it has a section on "Principles Governing Selection of Common Names," which provides some very good advice on formulation of names. One of the recommendations is to capitalize the common names as proper nouns, which makes them more recognizable. For example, one might be talking about a green sunfish, but if it's capitalized (Green Sunfish), it's immediately recognizable as the common name of Lepomis cyanellus. Otherwise, one could be talking about a sunfish that is green in color, which many are.

One other advantage of assigning common names is they remain constant even though the taxonomy may change. We've had several generic changes for some North American minnows, but regardless of generic placement, the common name stayed the same. Again, this is very helpful to natural resource agencies and conservation organizations involved in protection of these species.

Good luck.

Jim

Incredibly useful advice James, thanks a lot!!

I echo the comments by Jim Williams on common names, in my case for mollusk. We worked with the American Fisheries Society to develop common names for the majority of terrestrial, freshwater and marine mollusks of the United States and Canada (Turgeon et al. (1988, 1998) and have carried this forward with common names in our conservation assessment for the freshwater gastropods of the United States and Canada (Johnson et al. 2013 Fisheries). We have also adopted the capitalization of the common names making them proper nous and there by more recognizable. It gives a name to an often obscure little snail living in an isolated spring. The Public finds it easier to learn about and identify an animal if is given a common name. As Jim mentioned many common names are more stable than the taxonomy. look at the AOU bird checklist over time. Good luck.

I agree that common names may increase public awareness of biodiversity conservation and taxa diversity. However, it also may difficult communication about species with wide ranges, which could receive more than one name. Another issue happens when common names are not properly chosen. Puma concolor is a nice example for both problems. It may be cougar, mountain lion, Florida panther, suçuarana, and so on; plus, thanks to two of these names, many Americans think the cat is a Panthera. 

I have to admit to a certain skepticism about the value of routinely assigning common names in groups where species are numerous, poorly known, and rarely in the public eye. Here in the Hawaiian Islands we have more than 700 species of native non-marine mollusks to deal with, many if not most of which have gone extinct in the 1000 years or since humans first settled these islands. Common names have been assigned to those few species that have been listed as protected species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act such as Newcomb's Snail (Erinna newcombi), and the Oahu Tree Snail (all surviving species in the genus Achatinella). Even there, however, it was not felt necessary to assign individual names to each of the surviving Achatinella species; all are included in the collective name "Oahu Tree Snail". I cannot imagine what purpose would be served by assigning individual common names to each of the dozen or so surviving Achatinella species, or our 40+ species of Succineidae or our 300+ species of Amastridae (most of which are regrettably extinct). On those rare occasions when individual species in these or our other native groups appear in the literature the scientific names will be recognizable to the informed reader on at least the generic level, but erecting an entire parallel system of vernacular nomenclature for species that may appear in the scientific literature on the order of once in a generation (and even less often in the non-scientific literature) strikes me as an exercise in busy work.   

Carl, I see your point. I'm seriously considering giving common names only to each genus (as you mentioned for Achatinella) in the family Hormogastridae, which would be already a huge gain over the current situation (every one of them would be plainly an "earthworm" to the public). Maybe a handful of specific common names for specially endangered species.

In our case this approach is advantageous as several genera contain/are cryptic species complexes, hence it's intuitive to assign the same common name to all of them. We have the scientific names to reflect the rest of the real biodiversity.

I just wanted to share another easily accessible example of regulated vernacular names, in this case for arthropods: http://www.entsoc.org/pubs/use-and-submission-common-names

The two species Bena bicolorana and Pseudoips prasinana (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae,Nolinae) have a very strange history of their scientific names. Sometimes they completely changed their names.

So it was and it is good, that they have at least stable German names, which almoust scientists use in order not to mix them up!

Hi.

About common names of plants and animals there is a big problem especially when there are many species in a single genus (e.g. in vascular plants and some orders of insects), and even more if these taxa are endemic from a single archipelago, as occurs in the Canary Islands, Madeira, etc. We don't have problems with birds, mammals, reptiles and other vertebrates, as all the species have their particular common names, but the problem is clear mainly with insects. 

Every single mammal has got a common name ... in English, at least! Whether every single earthworm would need to have one might be questionable, as to this discussion here.

But if you thought a particular earthworm species "deserved" to be protected, then it might be a good idea to coin a "nice" common name for it:

If a politician is to be convinced to protect a particular plant or animal, that species had better have a "nice" common name, otherwise one will have a hard time trying to "sell" the importance of that organism to the public. Simple, maybe regrettable, but true!

In my opinion it is simply harmful! It is true that many people consider scientific ("Latin") names "horrific", but why? It is just because in popular literature only (or almost so) "Polish", "Czech", "German" "English" &c. (in fact, neither Polish nor Czech &c. but a kind of artificial Volapük!) names are used, and the authors (or at least publishers) get it into the readers' heads that "Latin" names are difficult and appropriate only for strictly scientific (original research) publications! It makes no sense: why "English" tyrannosaur is OK but "Latin" Tyrannosaurus is so terribly repulsive? What - except superstitious prejudice - makes "English" Magaliesberg Eremomela better than "Latin" Magalilais usticollis? In non-English languages (e.g. in Polish) it is still worse! And what the effect? Evident: a (e.g.) Polish person interested in animals reads in a popular book about some "Cipirytka szczebiotliwa" and has practically no possibility to find out (in either Polish or foreign source) any information about it or even - I myself have very frequently such problems with "identification" of organisms mentioned in popular albums, travelogues, or "nature"-films! If he/she asks a Polish biologist - say, me - my answer will probably be: "sorry, I have no idea what kind of animal is it, please tell me the scientific name"; any communication with foreigners (even those who know their - Russian, Chinese or German - "common" name) is impossible "by definition", &c.! This is true even in case of birds or mammals, but what about insects, snails or, for that matter, just earthworms? Who, except their inventor, knows "Polish" names of such animals??? Who, except you Daniel, will know the "Spanish" name you give your earthworm???

You outline an interesting problem Roman. However, I don't think that must be the case.

If we follow the example of (for example) the guides mentioned by Jim Williams, both the scientific names and the vernacular names in English (let's call it "universal") and local languages (for endemic species) should be compiled in an easily accesible book/list/publication. This should solve almost all the problems you mentioned.

First, an expert on a certain group would know both names, as they would be compiled together. Or in the case of a biologist not familiar with the group (who wouldn't know the scientific name anyway), he/she would be able  to check the "List to scientific and common earthworm names" and know both.

On the other hand, in the case of most invertebrates most people would know no name for the "bugs" they find in the wild to begin with. They could choose to learn the name I'm providing to them (even the scientific name, if they are so inclined) or to ignore it. But the end result is increased awareness of the biodiversity of the group. They are not birds, or fish, or big cats. Most people know nothing about them. Of course it would be of the first interest for the researcher to make his publications widely known so the most people can adopt said names.

I have already aknowledged the dificulty of implementing this to already widely known animal groups due to some of the concerns you mentioned. And not following a well structured, organized system to do it could end in further difficulties. But I think developing a well organized effort in groups with characteristics as the Hormogastridae earthworms (poor common knowledge of their diversity, restricted distribution) could work really well and be beneficial.

Hence, it's clear the characteristics of each group must be considered before approaching the vernacular name conondrum.

Furtunately commun names are important for interested  local people principally. It is normal and almost always common names are different for speakers of different languages. Native and endemic species must be named in the local lenguage. Later translators will do the work to other lenguage. In case  of invasive species, pets, pest or other with international distribution each country  will named different or similar if the original name is imported.

Rattus rattus (black rat, roof rat, house rat, ship rat, rata negra, rata comun, rata de campo, rata de  los tejados, etc) only this names are for English (4) and Spanish (4), some are translation from each other languajes  and all countries around the world must have a common names for this species. It is normal.

However if a native worm from an X country is named as ¨lombriz de tierra de rayas amarillas¨and later the species spread to others many countries, I consider that the common names must be the translation of the original name. it must be kept.

Some time the Media are responsable (for ignorance) for some changes in common names. Good reason for a standarization.

Dear collegues

it is usefull for  species with international distribution or knowledges.

MULTILINGUAL GLOSSARY OF COMMON NAMES OF ANIMALS

www.agroweb.bf.uni-lj.si/nomenklatura-multilingual1.htm

40+ items - Latin-English-Slovenian-German-Spanish-French-Croatian- ...

Dear Daniel,... From an ecological-conservational perspective you are absolutely right when you say:

"But the end result is increased awareness of the biodiversity of the group."

By the way: in the U.S. we have official panels for standardization of names of certain groups of organisms with economic and agricultural importance as, e.g., Insects by The Entomological Society of America... http://www.entsoc.org/common-names; and Fishes by The American Fisheries Society ... http://fisheries.org/bookstore/all-titles/special-publications/51034c/

In Germany there has been a unique effort to coin common names for Auchenorrhyncha of Central Europe by Nickel, Niedringhaus et al.: ... http://www.zikaden.uni-oldenburg.de/pages/bestellen.html

The vagueness around issues of "true" species is one that also revolves around Latin names ... so if there's a group with a "significant relevance" and a species that you think is unique and should be also publically recognized, then ALSO give it a common name for the sake of "increased awareness", as you say! ... and EARTHWORMS do have an enormous agricultural relevance, too!

Where I live, there is a local earthworm species called Lumbricus badensis ... the people call it "Badischer Riesenregenwurm", quite impressive ... the German name is descriptive ... yes they get pretty big, up to 60 cm! I include "him" in my forthcoming: "Dictionary of Invertebrates" (Springer 09/2016) along with a few other earthworms, unfortunately not that many, simply because common names do not seem to exist for many of the other less conspicuous ones. But you could help to change that! Yes, I unequivocally encourage COMMON NAMES and your effort in that direction ... ! ;-)

Very best, TED

Hmmm, Daniel, I am still not able to see any real use of "common" names. My Colleagues from your country have recently described a new species of buprestid beetle under the name Anthaxia exigua - suppose they gave it (of course they did not, but suppose...) the "Spanish" namebupréstido corto, [oreven written - as James suggested - in capitalized form: Bupréstido Corto] - and what??? This name would have existed only in their original taxonomical (so, not likely to be read by non-zoologists) paper, i.e. nobody except some specialists will know it (but specialists will probably - as I would certainly do - neglect and immediately forget it, because for them the "Latin" name is the only important and perfectly sufficient!). But, for the sake of discussion, suppose some author of a popular book or TV-program had used it and, say, my non-zoologist friend wishes to know something about this Bupréstido Corto - where to look for it? He asks me - but I have no idea (not, as you suggest, because I am not specialist - I am - but because for me the animal is Anthaxia exigua, and even if the "common" name was introduced simultaneously with this, there is no reason for me to remember - or even notice - it: the scientific name suffices!). In scientific publications my interested friend will find Anthaxia exigua, but I cannot imagine how could he know that this is just the animal he is looking for; in foreign popular literature he will perhaps find (if anything at all) something like "Bogatek Krótki", "Rövid Diszbogár" or "Kurzprachtkäfer" what also will not help him very much! But suppose further, the best possible situation: after some years a dictionary like that mentioned for fish by James has been published (likely for a commercially important group like fishes, very unlikely for small, only scientifically important invertebrates, but - for the sake of discussion - suppose...). What is the chance that my non-zoologist friend will have it (or even know of its existence)? But suppose still further (as we have done so many times...) that he has it, what is the advantage (even for a non-zoologist like him!) of the "common" name? He now, with the help of the dictionary, can find out  that Bupréstido Corto means Anthaxia exigua, and can look for the information on it, under that latter name, in Spanish or foreign sources (or ask e.g. me) - but would it not be much easier if he knows the "Latin", instead of "common",  name from the very beginning, without the superfluous procedure of looking for dictionary and "translation"??? To sum up, even in the optimal (from the viewpoint of "common" names) situations the scientific names, invented just for making the communication and mutual understanding easier and more exact, perform in this role much better than "common" substitutes - and nothing else but superstitious, mostly artificially fanned up, fear from "scientific", is the only "raison d'etre" of "common" names for not commonly known organisms! In non-taxonomic literature, instead of "Buprestido Corto", should simply be "el bupréstido Anthaxia exigua"! 

To Theodor (your comment "arrived" when I wrote mine...): I do not know in which way the increasing of the "awareness of the biodiversity of the group" would be better served by "Bupréstido Corto" than by "el bupréstido Anthaxia exigua"???

I'm sorry Roman, we will have to agree to disagree.

There is such a thing as popular science articles, released in online blogs, nature magazines and newspapers. This kind of articles has huge dissemination compared to scientific papers (more so when dealing with very niche animal groups). And this kind of article tend to avoid scientific names like the plague. Superstition? No, it's practicity. People tend to remember common names better than scientific names for a number of resons: 

-They are in their language, instead of latin (nowadays, most children don't learn latin in any point of their formation).

-They are descriptive, so they can identify them with the animal easily (scientific names sometimes are, too, but if people doesn't know latin the meaning won't stick).

-Most people is familiar with "common" taxonomy: insects, spiders, earthworms, crabs, etc. but not with the scientific taxonomy -Hexapoda, Aranea, Crassiclitellata, Decapoda-. Using common names based on said "common" taxonomy builds upon this well-rooted, popular knowledge to help people be more familiar with the species in their environment.

As much as you say scientific names perform a better role at (scientist-society) communication than common names, I still don't think it's true. Honestly, please tell me how many times you have heard a non-scientist friend/random citizen use a scientific name if he/she had an alternative?

Two of the main problems with science in my country (and I can bet in others too) are biodiversity conservation and science-society connection. With less and less money invested by the government in the public teaching of biodiversity contents in schools, I think we zoologist must make an effort to make it easier for people to become familiar and to acknowledge the biodiversity around them.

The case of hormogastrid earthworms is perfect for developing an integrated, standarized, well-thought scientific/vernacular taxonomy, which will be easy to disseminate (most Spanish citizens will know these species for the first time in this publication). Up to that point I have received enough support to know many zoologist support my initiative. For cases in which the implementation of such a system seems more divisive/suboptimal/inefficient I can totally understand biologists deciding against it. 

Common names are not concern for taxonomists. To avoid confusion of common names Code of nomenclature advocated scientific names. Although common names are useful in local context to ascribe scientific names, technically they may not be useful.

I think that common name are important for all people, biologist and  taxonomist too. Many many  time the common names in known before the scientific description. The primitive peoples and American  aborigine give common names to fauna and flora, century later they recieved a scientific names. A common names is very important  for all things around human, it is part of the general knowledge and common senses.

In some groups the common names are less conspicous that others. It could be used more or less by general people. If the commom people are no given common names to a species, because it is cyiptic for the observation, the taxonomic could help to identify including using as common names the genus like bacterias, fungus and parasite.

As the taxonomist need a scientific names, the rest of the world need a common names

In Cuba many vertebrates species have been described because the popular knowledge first  recognized  and named commonly as differents.

OK., Daniel, of course we can „agree to disagree”: you asked for our opinion, I have formulated mine, and you can accept it or not – now I wish only to clarify some apparent misunderstandings.

1). Let’s try to avoid confusion (most evident in Rafael’s comment but lurking in the background of many others, including yours) between two completely different questions: truly common, “native” Polish, English, Spanish &c. names given by inhabitants (not scientists or scientific bureaucrates) of the particular countries to organisms which they (at least believe to) know and can recognize; and artificial, known to and used by nobody, constructs introduced “from above” only because “there must be a common name”. Of course nobody (certainly not me!) opposes usage of names like sparrow, deer, frog or earthworm in every-day talks.

2). Yes, now people usually do not learn Latin in school (I also did not…) – but this is in no sense necessary: it is no need to know that viridis means green to know that the name of Green Woodpecker is Picus viridis! To me, even truly Polish names like "sroka" (magpie)," jaszczurka" (lizard) or "mucha" (fly) – as, I think, "urraca", "lagarto" or "mosca" for you – were, until I have learned them, exactly as “foreign” as Latin Pica, Lacerta or Musca!

3). “They are descriptive, so they can identify them with the animal easily” – huuu! this is, unfortunately very common, but very dangerous misbelief! Firstly, the “descriptiveness” is usually entirely or partly false: “ladybird” is neither lady nor bird, “sárgarigó” (“yellow thrush”: Hungarian for Oriolus oriolus) is only sometimes yellow and has – like “vizirigó” (“water thrush”: Hung. for Cinclus cinclus) – nothing to do with thrushes, only one of many colour variants of “biedronka dwukropka” (Polish for Adalia bipunctata) has two spots on elytra, &c. What are the results of such “identifications” can be nicely illustrated by the following (true!) story: Polish Bird-ringing Center received a report from a ringer in which he claimed to have ringed several “puhacz” (Polish for Bubo bubo – at that time use of scientific Latin names was not yet obligatory for ringers); as Eagle Owl was (and remains…) very rare in Poland, ornithologists from the Ringing Center specially asked: was it certainly “puhacz”?, and received the very resolute answer: oh, absolutely sure, it called clearly “puhu, puhu”! [Further investigation evealed that “puhacz” was in fact probably “puszczyk” (Strix aluco)]. So, please, do not suggest anybody to identify animals (or plants) according to “descriptive” names: names are just names (labels), not diagnoses or even reliable descriptions – just therefore James suggested to write them in Capitals: there may be many green sunfishes, but Green Sunfish may or may not be green!).

4). “how many times you have heard a non-scientist friend/random citizen use a scientific name if he/she had an alternative?” – firstly, see above under 1). But then, yes, speaking of birds or mammals also we, biologists, frequently use common (the truly common!) names for well-known species like stork, sparrow or fox, but as myself as many of my friends do not even remember “common” names of less popular ones; of course it is “exponentially” so with the overwhelming majority of lower-rank taxa of reptiles, amphibians, to say nothing of invertebrates; of course any (Polish) biologist knows what is “owad” (insect) or “chrząszcz” (beetle), but I wonder how many of even coleopterologists could immediately answer “how to eat” an “okrajka” (Coccinellidae: Chilocorus), “borzewka” (Tenebrionidae: Diaperis) or “szykoń” (Carabidae: Pterostichus), to mention only some of the better known (naturally I had also not known these names: I must have looked for them specially in a book…). So much only about Polish names – and what if we wish to read a Spanish, German or Hungarian book (or speak to Spanish, German or Hungarian colleagues)? I – like any scientist – must use English literature and it is terribly frustrating that there – even in strictly scientifis works – frequently only English names are used: I read something about, say, Subalpine Warbler and have no idea what kind of representative of probably (but only probably!) Sylviidae is it… Of course I can (and frequently must) search in other literature, but this is a very time-consuming and absurdly superfluous complication even in case of European birds – and what in the case of Magaliesberg Eremomela or similar? what about names like Robin or Oriole (or even Lion) which mean totally different animals in various continents? As to the non-scientists, you are right: they usually know only common names – but why? of course because they find only such in popular literature; don’t mix the cause with the result!!! When I was a child, I (and my friends of that time) loved the adventure-books of Verne, May, Umiński &c. where (in adventure novels, not even popular-scientific books!) animals and plants mentioned were usually explained by Latin name, and we have by no means been “abhorred” but opposite: we enjoyed it, it was intriguing, increasing or simply initiating our interest in biology, for me and at least one of my friends probably one of those stimuli which directed us in the “route” to become scientists! Only the currently propagated, relatively recent, superstitious “fear from Latin” changed the atmosphere (one of the indirect results being the dramatically decreasing interest in taxonomy among even biology students…).

5). “With less and less money invested by the government in the public teaching of biodiversity contents in schools, I think we zoologist must make an effort to make it easier for people to become familiar and to acknowledge the biodiversity around them” – yes, of course, but introduction of “common” names for animals known only to zoologists makes it more difficult rather than easier! A name (whether scientific, truly common or artificially introduced) means something only to those who know their meaning (i.e. know not only the name but also the respective animal or plant), and the more names describe the same animal the more the confusion and less understanding; the less familiar will interested people be with scientific names, the more difficult will it be for them to acquire the real knowledge; the stronger will be the belief that if a large earthworm has been found in Baden then it must be “Badischer Riesenregenwurm”, the less reasonable will be the nature-protection decisions; &c., &c., &c.! How many people in Spain can recognize particular species of earthworms – to be frank I, a zoologist, am not able to go beyond “a Lumbricus”, and even with this am not sure…

To sum up, in my opinion introduction of artificial “common” names can serve only the – unfortunately increasingly popular not only in this respect… – “make-believe science”: for dissemination of real scientific knowledge and interest it is definitely counter-productive!

Best wishes!

Roman

I do agree with Roman here, though there may be particular cases where a vernacular name may be usefully coined. It is worth remembering (based on my children and grandchildren) that kids getting into dinosaurs rattle off some real tongue-twisters with relish.

 A very brief story: Many years ago our daughter, at primary school, was asked by the teacher of a nature study class what kind of animal "this" was, showing them a small snail. She expected the answer " a snail, Miss" what she got was "Discus rotundatus" OK, Dad works on snails, and would have told her the names of ones found in the garden, but she never showed much enthusiasm, Needless to say, the teacher knew neither the scientific nor any vernacular name. To her, it was just a snail.

Start early, and these problems are pretty minor. All the interested amateurs in my area are perfectly OK with scientific names: In fact they usually tick me off for using, through force of habit,,scientific names that have been changed under ICZN rules!

Dear Roman, as you say we are agree or disagree. It is constructive. But disagree is not synonym of confusion. My comments are point of view or reflections and sometime are not answer to other comments.

We have been talking about “give or not to give a common names”. The exercise of give names to things is a particular capacity of the human being and the Linguistics Semantics is a complicated science….for biologist. The significations of words are never artificial but could be subjective. We give name to things in the real and no real world and material and immaterial things. The common names as a word have two components: denotation, that is basically the relation between a word and those that it refers, and connotation, that is in function of determined experience and values associate to signification. The connotation is important to fix a name, and the use could be an exponential grows. We must take account the time to know the effectivity of a common name. Give a common name for a biologist or taxonomist is not a mandatory regulation or bureaucrat decision. It is a proposal that could have good luck and remain in the memory of the people. The environmental education could help to reach this propose.

Daniel is asking the case when a species is discovery and the local people have no knowledge of the animal. If the local people know and use the species it supposes that will have a common name. If the species is cryptic and unknown by people, the best person to give a common name is the taxonomist or biologist that is studying the animal (OR NOT?). The biologist or taxonomist has the best tools to give a correct and objective name in base of the characteristic of the species. The species could be important in the future by divulgation, use, etc. and in this case the common name proposed by him could befixed. Contrary, if the species is only for scientific use, never need be named again and without interaction with common people, only simply is forgotten. A common name always has an origin in the idea of a person (common or specialist) and the oral transmission spread people by people.

I think that is not necessary that Daniel collect specimens and distribute samples into the local people and wait for all proposed names and the name with the big modal value could be selected as the truly named. It could be a possible semantics experiment.

I think that Daniel could have an important material to prepare a report.

Well, Rafael, I think we must, indeed, agree to disagree and stop discussion, because we "speak different languages"! To me, the question is (and should be) simply practical: what are the advantages vs. harms of artificially created "common" names to organisms known only to specialists; you in fact "skip" this question as if taking for granted that they "must" be coined, and dwell on some philosophical aspects and secondary questions of who should coin such names. As in my opinion they should not be coined at all, as I do not see any advantage but clearly see many negative effects, the question of "who" or distinction between denotation and connotation &c. are in my opinion simply irrelevant.

Best wishes!

Roman

Dear Roman,

I do not wish to go into this debate any further (I also gave just my opinion, nothing more), but have to say that I really cannot see how can anyone make any harm if coin a new vernacular names for unnamed species. Especially through elaborated serious naming system and through the collaboration with linguists.

Best wisshes,

Neven

The main harm is in strengthening the irrational "fear from scientific names", with consequent separation of potentially or actually interested people from serious knowledge. There are some other problems, too, but I do not wish to repeat here what I have already explained several times - see my earlier comments!

All the best!

Roman

Dear Roman, only other final but important point of view (for me of course).

The scientific names have the same problem that you refer for the common names and could have advantages vs. harms. Scientific names could be very artificial, bureaucratic and only useful for few scientist. Scientific names are suppose be ruled and coded by international nomenclatures and using a dead language. A scientific name can be nomen nulum, synonymy, species inquirendae, etc. The scientific names could be disappearing fast for artificial analysis of the taxonomist. Other scientist names only are used few times in list and catalogs and the species never is studied again (their ecology or natural history, etc). Many species around the world are considered as Less Concern because almost are unknown but described. Some of them could be become extinct without any other posterior studies. Some species were described with scientific names and have been without specialist for year and the name is almost forgotten.

Could be interesting to know how many scientific names could be considered artificial? You can describe a species and give as specific name ¨denisei¨ because you have a best friend that the wife or sister is named Denise. Or not? For me is artificial that a foreign scientific that is working in Pacific island give a specific names dedicated to a Germany or Poland scientist only because this important person (for the describer) was a professor or friend. The names will be forever dissociated from the biology and origen of the species.

Are those negative effects of the scientific names? Must we reject the Code of Zoological Nomenclature? By the way I am agree with both the scientific names and with the common names. The last one is perhaps least conflictive.

Dear Rafael,

“The scientific names have the same problem that you refer for the common names and could have advantages vs. harms” – of course you are right, scientific names are also not perfect (nothing is perfect in this world…), but this is not the point: they are the best possible tool of communication between biologists, and without them biological science would be impossible. They are – not “could be” and not “many of them”: they all are – indeed artificial, and they must be artificial: their function being to assure exact mutual understanding between the users, they could not be left to the vagaries of free “random walking” like common, national ones. Whereas folk-names (sparrow, bear, earthworm) are simple words, scientific names (Passer, Ursus, Lumbricus) are terms, and as such must be invariable and univocal. The origins and function of common names are different: they have been originally invented by inhabitants of particular area to communicate with members of the same community on plants and animals known to all of them, which all or at least most of them could recognize and distinguish from others, so there was no need to care about the stability or universality of these names. Later on, the names spread to the neighbour areas, then still farther, gradually (or sometimes suddenly) changing (like other words of living languages) they form and meaning, and being from time to time replaced by others. So, in some areas of Poland “żołna” means – like in “official” Polish nomenclature – Merops apiaster, in other that word denotes Picus viridis, in still other Dryocopus martius; in England Robin is Erithacus rubecula, in N-America Turdus migratorius, in Africa several other genera of Turdidae, in Australia various birds more closely related to flycatchers than to thrushes – for scientific names such ‘liberty” is of course unacceptable. On the other hand, to taxonomically oriented biologists every – however cryptic and “practically” useless – species is equally interesting and important, so we scientists need a name for any of them; for non-specialists overwhelming majority of invertebrates and even many vertebrates are completely unknown or (roughly) known only in terms of groups (butterflies, snails, earthworms, frogs) and so they do not need names for particular lower taxa (or, in those cases where they are interested and know the species – as in case of native hunters of New Guinea who as described by Mayr, knew all species of local birds recognized by ornithologists – they have already names for all of them, there is no need to coin any by us!).

So, there is no sense to create names which nobody needs – and who really needs names for organisms which are neither known nor interesting to him/her? If, on the other hand, somebody becomes interested in some species (or generally in flora/fauna) and wishes to really know particular species of, say, earthworms, he/she anyway cannot (and I am unable to imagine why he/she could wish to) avoid familiarity with exact, scientific (“Latin”) name – and as soon as he/she knows the scientific name, I cannot find any reason for him/her to learn and remember additionally a “common” one… So, such artificial “common” name is (at the best!) useless (additional superfluous synonym, according to taxonomical terminology), and as such harmful (increasing the “Tower of Babel”).

Yes, “names will be forever dissociated from the biology and origen of the species” – and they must be! As I wrote in my earlier comment, “names are just names (labels), not diagnoses or even reliable descriptions – just therefore James suggested to write them in Capitals: there may be many green sunfishes, but Green Sunfish may or may not be green!” – only it (Green Sunfish), and especially its scientific name (Lepomis cyanellus) should be unique and be applied always to the same animal, but they not need to have any special meaning or at least should not be interpreted according to that meaning (Green Sunfish may be yellow, red or violet with orange spots – no matter!).

All the best!

Roman

I think this topic carried us as far as it potentially could; maybe we should leave it rest.

We have seen general support for the informed, structured coining of new vernacular names (in suitable cases) and strong, well-argumented opposition to them from a few. This could be (or not) a reflection of the general state of matter about this topic in the wider scientific community.

A last thought from me. Roman, in my experience people is not interested in earthworms due to two main reasons: one, they can't see them under their feet (even if they are in their lawn and measure 30 cm) and two, they think they are all the same. Does being all named earthworm play a big part on the latter? You think it doesn't, I think it actually does. In Britain, for example, earthworms are popular enough to have an Earthworm Society (in the vein of Ornithological Societies) for their citizen research. Is it a coincidence or a cause that almost every British earthworm species have a common name?

My main motivation is spreading through the public the knowledge of a very rich, ecologically relevant (but almost invisible) group in Spain. I think including common names will help me do it, and I will do it following all the constructive advice contributed here.

I'm very grateful for everyone who shared their opinion and experience, even if it was to argue against my initiative.

Best regards to everyone,

Daniel

Ok, Daniel, I also have my "last thought". Who is (for whatever reason) not interested with earthworms, will not bother more with "lombriz de tierra de rayas amarillas" than with Lumbricus flavolineatus or any other - if you wish to increase the interest in earthworms, the way is not creation of more names, but e.g. publication of popular identification keys, booklets (or even folders) showing how various species live and how to identify them, organizing open lectures, nature lovers' camps, discussions on biodiversity &c. - I am sure, such activity (like that I observe e.g. in Hungary) has, as you mention, raised interest in England, creation of common names being only a (in my opinion superfluous) by-product.

Best wishes - Roman

 I agree with Jim. I have written three land snail books now and have used common names first, then the scientific names in all three.  If we as biologists want people to be interested and care about our natural world, we must make it accessible not just for scientists but lay persons as well.  Bird-watching's popularity is partly due to the fact that they have common names.

Bird-watching popularity is due to the popularity of birds, and to the popularity of birds is due also the popularity of their really common (i.e. created by, and known to, the "folk" itself as normal words of the particular language, not artificially coined and known only to (some) specialists of a given group! Everybody who speaks English, whether interested in birds or not, knows "from the beginning" not only the names of sparrow, stork, nightingale, and tens of other birds, but also these birds themselves: have more or less exact knowledge about what the respective animal looks like, where can it be found, &c. So, it is not the bird-watching popularity what is "due to the fact that they have common names", but the opposite: their common (I repeat: really common!) names are due to the popularity of birds! I wonder how many can, to a similar degree, distinguish between various species of snails, flies or - for that matter - earthworms? Those who wish to gain such basic knowledge cannot anyway avoid scientific ("Latin") names, what makes any "pseudo-common" ones superfluous, while without it any artificially introduced "lombriz de tierra de rayas amarillas" will remain but an empty combination of words without any meaning! "Make-believe knowledge" does not seem worth popularization...

All the best!

Roman

Daniel is right. Common and local names make it easier for laymen and locals to identify and know the species around them. "knowing them leads to understanding and appreciating them. And if local people and laymen appreciate them, they will conserve and protect them" It's part of human behavior that if you don't know or understand them, you simply don't care? Hence, simple identification and knowledge could be the first step to conservation and protection.

That will be good!

Common names in local language should come from the communities. Taxonomists have know business to propose them. Although the species are same, they are spelled with different common names. Hence scientifically attributing common names are useful only in local context.

Good point, Ravi. In a local context letting those whose help you want in conservation have their own name for an animal or plant of interest is a great idea, provided the professionals keep track and can recognise the different local names given to the same species. Most centrally composed lists of "common" names end up with tongue twisters, because the attempt to encapsulate a miniature decription or differentiation from similar species. I am not convinced that they are easier than scientific names

Dear all, at the tender age of 10 I received my first identification guide for land snails, which provided scientific and vernacular names. I decided then that I needed to use only one set of names, which obviously had to be the scientific one. Being at elementary school at this time, I had no exposure to Latin, but this did never occur to me as a problem. Up to this date I didn't find any fault with my original decision. We need invented vernacular names as much as a hole in the head. 

My conception is if common names are existing, we have link up them with scientific names and really its of immense value, but proposing common names from scientist seems to be incorrect.

Daniel, i believe common names of a species comes into practice if there is a regular contact of the species with humans say economic, medicinal or social use. the  common name of a species is evolved depending on the distinguishing  character  (color, size, number of limbs, etc) or traditional  use or may be derived even from mythology in some case. i believe even after providing common names to a species, if that common name does not comes into day to day reference  by the people may cause more confusion. there has to be a systematic way to assign common names looking into mind the language, dialect and life style of the native people of the area.