Scientific Name Knowledge

[Zoofan15]

The majority of people I talk to off the site have only a casual interest in zoos and have enough problems with common names - referring to a False gharial as a Gharial etc. I’ve never once used scientific names off the site unless the conversation was about scientific names.

On here, I primarily discuss megafauna, where the common names are well known. I only use scientific names if compiling a species list.

 

[aardvark250]

This poll is incomplete. I use scientific names primarily and common names only as a the expendable ornament that they are.

Wouldn't your username be Strigops habroptilus then?

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

This poll is incomplete. I use scientific names primarily and common names only as a the expendable ornament that they are.

To regard common names as nothing more than "expendable ornaments" is, in my opinion, a bit simplistic. For the vast majority of people, common names are the first and only way they interact linguistically with nature. They are the gateway to communicate about conservation and research with all but the most taxonomically informed around us - and therefore of great importance. Learning the local common name of a species should be an important step for every field researcher or conservationist working outside their own area or country. Ignoring those names is simply a luxury that many people in the field cannot afford to take. And that's not even touching on the wealth of information regional or local names can provide us about the way people see, live with or interact with a certain species.

That being said, if one finds oneself at a table talking with about a dozen conservationists, each of them from a different country and few of them with English as their first language, one will experience a certain appreciation for scientific names.

 

[Terry Thomas]

I usually use both on this site but rarely use scientific names in real life. I honestly do not often talk to people who are knowledgeable about animals so there's no point in doing that, I would only confuse them.

I agree, very few people are familiar with scientific names.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

Personally speaking I like to use common names as much as possible unless that species practically don't have any common names or it gets confusing real quick.

I don't think I needed to use Loxodonta africana when talking about the largest animal on land.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

Only if you are separating it from Loxodonta cyclotis.

 

[ifesbob]

Only if you are separating it from Loxodonta cyclotis.

That also has a different common name, though.

 

[Tetzoo Quizzer]

But if someone uses African Elephant what do they mean? And yes, I agree simply using Loxodonta africana doesn’t clarify this either.

 

[RatioTile]

In certain hobbies, such as fish, reptiles, tarantulas, orchids, and many types of houseplants, hobbyists will use scientific names all the time, as many species they work with don't have common names. In extreme cases as with many plecos and Corydoras they don't even have scientific names, and they have to rely on codenames like the L-series and C-series. Tarantula hobbyists also often collect undescribed species and their nomenclature is extremely decentralized and disorganized.

 

[ifesbob]

In certain hobbies, such as fish, reptiles, tarantulas, orchids, and many types of houseplants, hobbyists will use scientific names all the time, as many species they work with don't have common names. In extreme cases as with many plecos and Corydoras they don't even have scientific names, and they have to rely on codenames like the L-series and C-series.

I can say that in terms of tarantulas I am more likely to recognize the scientific name than I am the common name, simply because tarantula common names aren't particularly useful and my experience with tarantulas is the tarantula hobby. You get used to them pretty quickly when you have no choice, even in actual conversation.

But if someone uses African Elephant what do they mean? And yes, I agree simply using Loxodonta africana doesn’t clarify this either.

L. africana is the African bush/savanna elephant and L. cyclotis is the African forest elephant. But yeah if someone just says "African elephant" it's not necessarily clear. In my (limited) experience it's usually africana anyways.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that some scientific names are simply fun to say. The first one that comes to mind for me is Chromatopelma cyaneopubescens (Green bottle blue tarantula). Also the tarantula genus Aphonopelma. Edit: or even Actinopterygii.

 

[Emanuel Theodorus]

But if someone uses African Elephant what do they mean? And yes, I agree simply using Loxodonta africana doesn’t clarify this either.

If we're talking about the largest mammal on land, then no doubt they're referring to the Bush Elephant specifically.

 

[UngulateNerd92]

There have been times where I have only used scientific names without using the common name, even when the taxon has a common name. Maybe we can add a fourth option to vote for.

 

[RatioTile]

I was just thinking that fossil taxa generally don’t have common names at all, and kids have no problem learning how to say Tyrannosaurus rex. Children’s dinosaur books tend to translate scientific names into layman’s terms - maybe books on modern animals and plants should include this feature too?

 

[Dassie rat]

'The Animal Review' by Jacob Lentz and Steve Nash mentions scientific names: "Well, all of us could make a collective decision to employ Linnaeus's clunky binomial nomenclature system in everyday conversation. And, sure, that would eliminate the problem of misleading animal names. But it also nearly doubles the number of names to remember. What's more, the movement would certainly lose steam the first time someone at the beach spotted a large dorsal fin tearing through the water and yelled, "Carcharodon carcharias!" - and then watched in erudite horror as children continued to splash around and their parents avoided eye contact with what they assumed to be a crazy Armenian tourist."

 

[Astrotom3000]

No one I talk to in person is knowledgeable enough about animal taxonomy nor do we usually talk about rarer species enough to warrant inclusion and I am also bad at memorizing scientific names off the top of my head.

In online discussions, however, I will readily use them as needed. For example, I make sure to always include scientific names on my species lists and I feel this should be standard practice, especially if said species list involves fish and/or invertebrates because assignments of common names are an absolute mess there. This is also true when I am referencing other websites or publications such as iNaturalist, who tend to be a bit....rebellious when it comes to what common names they use.

I was just thinking that fossil taxa generally don’t have common names at all, and kids have no problem learning how to say Tyrannosaurus rex. Children’s dinosaur books tend to translate scientific names into layman’s terms - maybe books on modern animals and plants should include this feature too?

The thing about Dinosaur names is that the scientific names ARE the common names as far as your average layperson is concerned. They only ever use those names as common names, and often don't even realize that's suppose to be the scientific name.

As a result, you often see stuff like Tyrannosaurus rex and just Tyrannosaurus being used interchangeably even though we know the former is just the genus while the later specifically refers to a single species. This is also why you see dinosaur names often using the wrong text formatting (such as having the species name capitalized like Tyrannosaurus rex often does). Y

You never see this with the scientific names of extant (and even recently-extinct) animals because most people never use them.