Talk:Common name/Archive 1

ARCHIVE PAGE 1: 2005 to 2010

Common names on scientific name pages

Where do we talk about common names when on pages about a Scientific name?

I encountered a new word luce today in Scrabble, and spent some time till I could associate it with Esox lucius and on that page couldn't find a convenient place to say luce -- please put hints on my Talk page. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added byChris (talk • contribs) 06:59, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Common but Endangered

Did anyone else notice a recent BBC headline "Apes 'extinct in a genertion'" that announced the publication of a UN World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation? It coincided with Wikipedia's Featured Article (Main Page) linking to Common Chimpanzee.

In a fast-moving world, simply recording what we find in use, calling it encyclopedic, will tend to be dated. By using available information and thinking ahead (without promoting opinions or research ideas), we can still be encyclopedic as well as being responsible and showing leadership.

Common names of species are important in communicating environmental information; but very little is being communicated. Not just the Great Apes, but many species will be extinct within a few decades and even science has not (yet) really noticed. Wikipedians can help.

I've made major changes to this "Common Names" Article, hoping I've kept to what is acceptable, although I would have wanted to be more radical. In paraticular, I would have liked to say that we prefer to Capitalize Common Names! Our recent debate was trending this way; did we arrive at a conclusion?218.101.117.67 04:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unclear para

The paragraph beginning "Botanists sometimes maintain ..." is very unclear. Can someone who understands what it means pls rewrite it. Nurg 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

lower case naming convention

I was taught as an undergraduate zoology student that capitilizing species' common names was incorrect unless the name included a proper name (e.g. Wilson's storm petrel). This article notes that convention among botanists, but it is more broad than that. Scientific journals use the same convention, I believe. There is great inconsistency in Wikipedia in this regard, although I note that the references to species in this article are for the most part in lower case. --Peter3 17:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there has been much controversy over this point. Look around and you'll find it archived here somewhere.Earthlyreason (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge of "Trivial name"

The article trivial name covers the same territory for chemical names, and should be merged into this one. --Blainster 16:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge, but would want to keep discussion of chemical nominclature in a distinct section. I'd also prefer to wait a day or two to see if there are any serious objections to a merge.ike9898 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: the common name article presents an overview of all its uses in science, trivial name will remain the specialist page V8rik 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'd say "trivial name" for chemistry, and "common name" for biology, which is the usage one sees for example at [1] and [2] (although other sources do not make such a clear-cut distinction). Instead of merging the articles, I'd remove the chemistry section from the Common Name article (replacing it with a short reference to Trivial name). Kingdon 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: If we included as many trivial names for chemicals as de:Liste der chemischen Trivialnamen, this article would be quite unwieldy. That list should be kept separate, either as a list (as in the German wikipedia), or after the brief article as it is currently here.Rigadoun (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Common names that repeat scientific names POV

In section Common names that repeat scientific names, there is no citing of sources, and no mention of any downside; I imagine confusion results from having multiple or dicrepant names. I find these phrases POV: "This is a useful feature", "common and scientific names should be treated differently with no systematic attempt to make them correspond", "New common names are to be welcomed as long as they are helpful to a group of users, no matter how small", "spontaneous names are ideal", "multi-lingual and multiple local common names an increasingly valuable feature". jnestorius^(talk) 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I (anon) pulled the weird POV text, since there's been no update on this since January and the text is bizarrely out of place. - September 23, 2007 Oh, okay, yeah, that was kinda weird. Probably whole article needs reviewed. Thanks.

Correct grammical syntax for common names.

What is the correct syntax for the common name of an animal?

For example a Siberian Tiger or Clown Loach or African Elephant. Or should it be written as Siberian tiger, Clown loach, African elephant?

The article main page indicates a common name for a species is a formal name therefore it surely should be written as 'Clown Loach, etc.'? But I've see so many books use the lower-case second name. Which form is correct?

Can an English expert put me right?

--Quatermass (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no single correct answer, because it is a question of style. I prefer to use all lowercase except when the word normally would be capitalized, so "clown loach" and "African elephant". --Una Smith (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes

Firstly I have added comments about different cultures and scripts. We are inclined to be Western-0-centric about these things. Also I have re-defined common name to be more inclusive and reduce ambiguity.Let me know if you do not feel that the definition is an improvement. added a couple of paragraphs and headings to the introductory material and slightly altered what was written there before. Also addressed the capitalisation issue in a way which I hope is acceptable. There are a few more additions to go. Please bear with me until I've finished. I am now fully aware of the various Wikipedia conventions and policies and am not (I believe) transgressing any of these. I'm sure I will find out if this isn't acceptable ... --Granitethighs (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the opening statement just added because: . it repeats the sentiments of the definition given below it . common names are not only referred to as such by professionals . the ambiguity of common names is discussed in the section "scientific and common names" so it does not add anything

One possibility is to come to an agreement about the definition - let me know Granitethighs (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merger (this discussion is now on the talk page of Trivial name)

Not quite a formal proposal, but shouldn't we deal with common name and trivial name on the same page? Earthlyreason (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually trivial names are the common names for, generally, chemical substances. You call the common name for a chemical its trivial name, but not its common name, while you don't call the common name for a plant a trivial name. They're not the same things. Our articles on neither are very good but conflating the two terms by joining them in the same article won't help. Common names can be official, but trivial names, by definition, never are sanctioned. --KP Botany (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

KP - I wonder if what you say might have something to do with where you come from. In Australia it is very unusual but occasionally common names are referred to as trivial epithets. Admittedly I am not a chemist but I am a trained scientist and am not familiar with the convention of calling a common name like "vinegar" or "epsom salts" a trivial name. I dont know whether I would call them "common" names either but I certainly wouldn't call them "trivial names". What I am saying is that IMO the distinction you see as clear cut (they're not the same things) is not as clear-cut as you imply. Perhaps if, in the merger, it is mentioned that in some places there is a convention that common names of chemicals are referred to as "trivial names" - how would that be? I am not sure that the point that common names "can" be official has any great bearing on the merger - could you expand? Incidentally, you say about the articles "neither is very good" - could you also expand on that please, especially in relation to the article on "common names"? Granitethighs (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It might have everything to do with where I come from. Common names can indeed be official, that's what birders do, they have an organization that sanctions the common names of birds, various organizations, I suppose in various places. Also New Zealand sanctions plant names with an English and a Maori one, and Germany, I believe sanctions their plant names. This also may be an older usage, but I stand by it, it's what chemists call common names for chemicals and compounds. I worked with a group of chemists one summer on a data base. In epithet is not quite the same thing as a trivial name, though. We refer to the names the US government makes up out of the scientific names as "trivial epithets," not as common names, in particular to distinguish that they have no common usage. --KP Botany (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivial name has another meaning in biology as well: In the Latin form nomen triviale, it refers to the specific epithet, the second part of a binomial.

It seems to me there should either be an article Common name (biology) (and considering the disagreements elsewhere over the term "common name", this could be a useful disambiguation), or else this article should refer only to biology and Trivial name only to chemistry, with appropriate hatnotes.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Common vs commonly used

I have reinstated the sentence in the lead saying that a common name is not necessarily a commonly used name. In the context of this article, Common name, the distinction is very important. --Una Smith (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction is confusing

I think that the introduction is confusing:

A common name ... is a name in general use within a community (of whatever size or language). A common name is not necessarily a commonly used name.

This would mean within a scientific community the common name was the scientific name! This is not what it means, it means the name used by the people who are outside the group of specialists that use the term "common name" (patricians and the plebs or House of Lords and House of Commons) and is a relation of such terms as "as common as muck", and Common People . --PBS (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that any better? (see article) Granitethighs (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really it is a sticking plaster. What is meant is that a common name is a term used within a scientific discipline to label a name used outside that scientific discipline, that is used to identify the same entity as identified by a scientific name used within the scientific discipline.

This BTW is no different from any other specialisation which has a special name for something which may have another name outside that specialisation. --PBS (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand. Put very crudely a common name is a name "in common use" - it has nothing to do with science. Common names are used in communities that do not apply or understand science in the way we understand it. Perhaps you are referring to the "common names" of chemistry.Granitethighs (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I see it (as a serious amateur with a concern for correct and consistent use of language): a common name is a part of the vernacular, not something "copied" from the vernacular and "pasted" into scientific terminology, so vernacular usage should be respected. If an educated lay person wouldn't capitalize the tree he knows as "red oak", neither should a scientist or a science writer try to change it to "Red Oak" (he can't actually change it: the vernacular belongs to the general public and the public won't cooperate).

This brings to mind a pet peeve of mine: when a scientist sees a common name as misleading, he re-formats it into something no longer part of the vernacular to make clear the distinction he feels is important. Example: "Douglas fir", Pseudotsuga menziesii (not a "true fir" but a genus of its own), becomes "Douglas-fir" (as in the Wikipedia article). "Western red cedar", Thuja plicata (not a "true cedar" but an arborvitae) becomes "western redcedar". I say the scientist lacks the authority to so arbitrarily change the common name. Could this article please clarify this point? Look to grammarians, not just scientists, for authority. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Wildbirdz (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both your points. I have tried to address the first one in the "writing names" section and the second one in the last part of the "usage" section. Does this do the trick?Granitethighs (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On my first point: fine. I only sought to express on the discussion page a more cogent justification for a position supported by others. On my second point: I'm sorry, but I don't see my objection to the practice addressed in the Usage section. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Wildbirdz (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs some rewriting

I have tweaked the article to some extent, but it is still rather poorly organized. It needs more rewriting and tighter organization. Right now it is only too obvious that many different people have contributed to it, patchwork style. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo. Thanks for your help. Perhaps you could say exactly how it is "poorly organized" and how you would "tighten it up". Better still you could help make it less "patchwork". A couple of comments: you deleted a sentence about the addition and removal of common names from our vocabulary. It may have need a citation and been poorly expressed but the points it was making are important - could you either replace it or make the same points in a more acceptable way please? Also, your use of the expression "the same thing" in the opening sentence does not, IMO, improve teh sentence so I have removed it. I look forward to your assistance in tidying the article up. Granitethighs (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

citation needed

This opinion, despite rewording, needs a citation. It will also need clarification, finding a concordance for a common name with a taxon is fraught with difficulties; this is why systematics has been adopted by anyone wanting to communicate effectively.

• Barking owl (or Barking Owl) refers to Ninox connivens, as does Winking owl or simply owl, but this is the result of a effort by the IOC to create a parallel system of common names for english speakers. This has been "cautiously" adopted by some authorities, appearing as a note for one common name in the accepted taxonomy. This is for the birds.
• German Shepherd may be a familiar name for Canis lupus familiaris (though Alsatian is sometimes preferred, perhaps erroneously), but so is chihuaha. I sometimes generate confusion when I mentiondachshund, "Variations of the pronunciation include däks'hoont, -hʊnt, -hʊnd, -ənd, dɑks-, dæks-, dæʃ-", but I am not referring to the subspecies of wolf. These are merely common names.
• The familiar names Boa constrictor and Tyrannosaurus rex are easy to pronounce and universally understood, in other languages and even in cultures that suppress scientific names. Guinea pig may convey interesting cultural and historical associations, but it is not a certain or accurate reference to Cavia porcellus or any species of 'Guinea pig'. It probably does, in a domestic context, in the english language, unless the term has been replaced with the ultimately ambiguous Cavy.

For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms.

• It is scientific names, not common names, that are the major currency of [everyday] communication about organisms.

A common name for an organism has restricted usage and utility, especially in reference to those few who are 'familiar'. A killer whale is a dolphin, a species of cetacean (whales and dolphins).

Did you read about the killer dolphin? [3]

Do you mean a killer whale?

No, the smaller grey animal. It rescued those sperm whales last year.

Sperm whales!, but they're huge.

No, pygmy sperm whales, the smaller grey animal.

Oh. Shouldn't they be called dolphins too?

Sure, if you like ...

— cygnis insignis 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cygnis the removed statement read For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal because it is easier to pronounce and remember than the Latin scientific name; they also often convey cultural and historical or other associations that are not so evident in Latin (e.g. barking owl, German shepherd). It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms. There are several important points made here about common names:

• Ease of pronunciation
• Ease of remembering
• That they convey cultural or other associations

In the examples given (barking owl etc.) the actual organism referred to by the common name is irrelevant- it was the "content of the name itself" that was being referred to - you seem to have missed this point. In my view this statement is uncontentious, it is not demeaning the utility of scientific names as you seem to assume. My concern is that the important points being made have been removed. Could you please re-edit the sentence to remove the "opinion" but yet still making these key points dispassionately please? Otherwise I think it best for me to revert again. Granitethighs (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncontentious. I disagree with both "For most people a common name in their own language has more appeal" and "It is common names, not scientific names, that are the major currency of everyday communication about organisms". I agree with Cygnis: citations are required. Hesperian 02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK I'll rephrase it and see what you think.

When spoken in a person's native language common names do not present the difficulty that is sometimes encountered by those trying to pronounce unfamiliar Latin words. They have a special appeal because of their historical, cultural or other associations (e.g. love-in-a-mist, fleabane).

Please note the point here refers to the appeal of the words, not whether they are clear in their association with a particular organism. Is this still contentious? Granitethighs(talk) 04:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider the first sentence doubtful, and disagree with the second. Citation needed. Hesperian 07:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are suggesting, essentially, is that people find it easier to speak a foreign language than to speak their native tongue - which is ludicrous (first sentence). Also, that words in a foreign language are more informative to people than words in their native language, which is equally ridiculous (second sentence). This makes me think you are playing games of some sort. Please re-read carefully the proposed re-edit. I think it is time for you to express your concern in the form of a logical argument rather than simply expressing disagreement. If, after that, you still have problems I will assume, as Wikipedia suggests, that you are editing in good faith and as I have clearly also caused some concern to Cygnet (who left a message on my talk page that I do not understand). I will find a reference as suggested.Granitethighs (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That you think my position ludicrous is neither here nor there. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Hesperian 06:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a statement that is self-evidently true is neither an opinion nor an assertion that requires a citation. This is like trying to find a citation for a statement like "all bachelors are unmarried men" - it does not make sense and cannot be done. Get another opinion (not Cygnet).Granitethighs (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How often it happens, that Wikipedians convinces themselves that it is okay to ignore policies, and even the fundamental pillars of the encyclopedia, simply because they know that they are right!Hesperian 11:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement over inclusion of an unsourced assertion):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Common name and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Checking the article, the lead text specifically includes "vernacular name" and "colloquial name" but the Usage section goes on to discuss the use of "common name" for describing organisms (to quote the OED:"a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a class or genus"). As it stands thelead text is deficient as it does not actually reflect the uses of the term as described in the article body and the lead text quotes no sources for the interpretation of "common name" expressed there. I would agree that the most published usage of "common name" is the scientific sense for plants in contrast to "botanical name". However as the lead includes other uses and examples are not that hard to find, for example "Mad Cow Disease" as a common name on CNN, these uses of "common name" can be demonstrated and should be expanded upon if the lead text introduces them. I note that the particular edit in question uses the term "more appeal" and unless sources can demonstrate this to be the case then potentially POV language should be avoided. Conclusion, the article should expand on the variations of usage of the term "common name" as described in the lead. As the lead text states common name can mean "vernacular name" then a name used in the local language (possibly a colloquial name rather than literal translation) is precisely this usage and can be considered on-topic. However sources should be included in order, at a minimum, to illustrate alternate types of usage rather than over reliance on "self evident truth" which in this case has been challenged and so we should allow for the possibility that this truth may not be self evident to all observers.—Ash (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ash thanks for picking up the thread as a new editor to this page. I'm sure the article could do with a lot of improvement. I must be honest and say I'm a bit confused at what exactly you are suggesting. Perhaps the lead is poorly expressed but I am sure the intention is to indicate that "also known as a vernacular name, colloquial name, trivial name, trivial epithet, country name, or farmer's name" indicates that these various terms mean essentially the same thing as "common name" - they are not "various usages" they are simply different terms for the same thing. I am also confused by the point you are making about mad cow disease - could you re-word please? I agree that the lead should be congruent with the main body of text and would be pleased for clear suggestions as to how to achieve that - it could do with some realignment for sure. I agree that the word "appeal" would usually carry a heavy loading of "opinion" and therefore need a citation. However, in this instance it is asserting that for most people words that are familiar (words in someone's native language) will be easier to work with i.e. have "more appeal" that Latin, which is for most people essentially a foreign language. To ask for a citation for this, I am arguing, is like asking for a citation to a sentence like "children like ice creams". I have a strong respect for the use of citations and understand the reason why they are necessary. They are IMO absolutely necessary to qualify opinions and to give a source to assertions, but inserting citations after every sentence on principle does not make sense. They should go in where they are needed and here is not an appropriate place for a citation.Granitethighs(talk) 12:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Ash's comment "sources should be included... rather than over reliance on "self evident truth" which in this case has been challenged and so we should allow for the possibility that this truth may not be self evident to all observers.", I conclude that we're up to three people who consider that the disputed sentences should be sourced or removed, in accordance with ourverifiability policy. It was you who suggested that we get a third opinion; now you've got one. Going to revert yourself now? Hesperian 13:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(Responding to the request for clarification) Hi, happy to clarify though I'll break it down as you highlighted several areas:

• As the lead says "also known as", then yes, when I used various usages I probably should have saidalso known as. This is not quite the same as saying 'these various terms mean essentially the same thing' as for this article 'common name' is 'also known as' 'vernacular name' but this does not imply that 'vernacular name' essentially means 'colloquial name'. I apologise for the logic chopping but the distinction here may be helpful in tidying up the lead text.
• The mad cow disease example is where the term "common name" is being used in the sense of "colloquial". If this article is not intended to cover this type of usage because "colloquial name" does not mean "colloquial language" then a disambiguation page is probably needed as well as making that clear in the lead. Note, I picked this example out of the air, so I give no weight to it being a useful or typical example of usage.
• The guidance of WP:Reliable sources leaves the distinction as to which statements are self evident and which may be considered opinions or assertions needing sources down to common sense andWikipedia:Common knowledge discusses this at some length. If I take your example, in the international readership of Wikipedia, it could be argued that there are countries where "children like ice creams" is not true for the majority of children in that country or that the original expression is loaded with POV problems. I could moderate the statement to be more easily verifiable, "the majority of ice creams are consumed by children" which could be supported by global market penetration reports. I suggest you consider if the statement you wish to make can be expressed in a verifiable form, and if you cannot do so then consider if it really essential for the article; after all, if something is self-evident, do we need to state it in the article? You should also consider that if even one person objects to an unverified statement, then for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines we should probably consider such a statement not self-evident. Sorry this last bit was long-winded, I couldn't think of a pithy way of expressing these ideas.

As a third party, I am cautious of getting involved further in the details of the debate but I hope my generic responses do amount to a clarification rather than less useful reiteration. Note that if after further discussion (over a day or two) a resolution is not reached then you may find WP:Third opinion/User FAQ#What_happens_next? useful.—Ash (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ash, I think you have missed the point, and your response has only muddied the waters. The dispute here is very simple. Should the article text

"When spoken in a person's native language common names do not present the difficulty that is sometimes encountered by those trying to pronounce unfamiliar Latin words. They have a special appeal because of their historical, cultural or other associations (e.g. love-in-a-mist, fleabane)."

be allowed to stand without a supporting citation? Hesperian 14:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No. See WP:Common knowledge as per my earlier opinion.—Ash (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples

English language common names and corresponding scientific names

Common name	Scientific name
wolf	Canis lupus
earthworm	Lumbricus terrestris
honey bee	Apis mellifera
cone flower	Echinacea sp.
daisy, lawn daisy, English daisy	Bellis perennis
white oak, Quebec oak	Quercus alba
acetic acid, vinegar	ethanoic acid
caffeine	1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione
brimstone	sulphur
chalk	calcium carbonate (calcite)
salt	sodium chloride

We either need different examples, for the biota, or a change in the wording: "English language common names and corresponding scientific names". cygnis insignis 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be painting ourselves into a corner and it is getting confusing. Here are some suggestions:

• Clearly I am outnumbered on the perceived need for a citation - my main concern, as I indicated first of all, was loss of information by deletion of these sentences. I suggest using a tag as I am not sure how to cite these sort of statements.
• Cygnet I do not understand what your point is about the table. Perhaps if you make the changes you think are needed we can see whether it is an improvement or not.
• Ash I realize there are subtle distinctions between all the words for common name listed in the lead -but I think they are both subtle and contentious. If you want to try and draw them out good luck - I guess the Lead is not the place to do that but maybe in the main text. For example, for me mad cow disease is a common name "more than" a colloquial name - but I take your point that this is open to interpretation?
• On the "common sense" front I suppose we are just disagreeing about what is common sense ...

What do you think? Granitethighs (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A three to one majority assert that these two sentences should not be allowed to stand without a citation, and your response is to reinsert the sentences without citation, whilst pretending to be complying with consensus?![4] Do you think I cannot smell bullshit when it is shoved under my nose? Hesperian 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not very helpful. I'm trying to find a way of dealing with this. My understanding was that people were commenting on whether the sentences needed citation - not on whether they should be there at all. Also I think Ash has reservations judging from his response above. Lets take a step back. You disagreed with two sentences, thinking they needed justification with a citation - so you deleted them. If you go back to the history you will see my main objection to this was not so much about citation, more about lost information. With due respect I think a more constructive approach would have been to state why you disagreed with the statement, giving examples and/or citations that express a different view. Simply deleting work because you happen to take exception to it is being cavaleer and heavy-handed to say the least. It does not make sense to challenge sentences on principle - there needs to be good reason, which you have not provided. Valuable information need not ne lost from the text and having a tag indicates that some editors consider the statements need justification and I think would satisfy their original concern. This seems a good compromise - you smell bullshit, I smell ego. Granitethighs (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to suffering under the illusion that your unsourceable personal opinion is "valuable information". Hesperian 01:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, the situation is that you are edit-warring against other editors, in violation of the three-revert rule,[5][6][7][8], contrary to acknowledged consensus, and in violation of our verifiability policy, as quoted above. Hesperian 00:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept, and will comply with, the three revert rule and regret apparently transgressing it. However, edit warring is not a one-sided affair, you (Hesperian) have violated WP:Common knowledge,WP:Civil and WP:Dispute resolution. In being notified by Ash of the 3-revert rule it was requested that I use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Would you please take note of my last entry above, and your entry above it and seriously ask yourself which of us is observing WP procedures and recommendations? Granitethighs(talk) 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, very droll.

The claim that I have violated WP:Common knowledge is merely a restatement of your baseless assertion, now disputed by four people, that the highly dubious material that you have inserted into this article solely on the basis of your personal opinion, is "self-evident".

I could refute your other silly accusations too, but that would only shift the spotlight away from your persistent edit-warring against consensus and policy.

Edit-warring is indeed a one-sided affair when we have on one side three, now four, editors who wish only to uphold one of the policy pillars of our community, and on the other a single editor who cares nought for consensus and policy.

Hesperian 02:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A few quotes: "bullshit", "silly accusations", "very droll", "you seem to suffering under the illusion that your unsourceable personal opinion is "valuable information". This is the way you work towards consensus and try to be civil? You're a disgrace cobber. Granitethighs (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

... as opposed to "ludicrous", "ridiculous", "playing games", "cavaleer and heavy handed", "ego".Hesperian 02:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bartender! set up WP:UNHELPFUL all around!--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The missing pieces

(ec)I have long (decades long) been a proponent of common names. I have also long been a proponent of scientific names. Common names (and I mean true vernacular names, not the crap made up by authors of popular guides) have in many cases deep cultural significance. Anthropologists and ethnobiologists cannot avoid carefully considering them. People trying to reclaim their language and culture often wrap their tongues around names that are as hard, or harder, to pronounce than Latin. Common names are bound up with history, sometimes in a way we'd as soon gloss over, e.g. niggerhead. Common names should be cherished, for all these reasons.

But, while they are often the preferred way of communicating in local communities, they are often worthless for communicating in the wider world.

To say that pronunciation is a factor is trivially true, but also complex. As a triviality, it is unencyclopedic ("People can pronounce words that they often say more easily that words with which they are unfamiliar"). As a complexity, the disputed statement doesn't come close to doing it justice (and lacks a citation).

To say that there are "historical, cultural or other associations" is also trivially true, but not so trivial that I would oppose an addition that included that part. It should be easy to find references for specific examples. But the "appeal" part, as it stands, is POV. A statement, "appeals to so-and-so", with a citation, totally defuses the POV, but without that, I must oppose it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Curtis for your considered response. What you seem to be saying above is that you think there is some merit in the sentences that have been deleted but you cannot support them as they stand? Is that correct? Also that by removing the "appeals" bit or by adding an "easy-to-find" reference the situation could be rectified. If I am correct in my interpretation could I request that you go ahead and make those changes that you suggest? I fear the mob will lynch me if I attempt to do this - they're after my blood. Perhaps you could head them off at the pass. Granitethighs (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cut the drama. The way to avoid "lynching" is to propose wording here rather than on the article page.

It doesn't seem likely that you are willing to do the amount of research necessary to deal with the complexities of pronunciation. As for the rest, tell me the historical or cultural associations of love-in-a-mist or fleabane (I'm not being sarcastic; remember I'm interested in this stuff) and give me a reference, and we can take it from there.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Curtis – I have spent many hours researching and dealing with the complexities of prununciation and could bore you silly with the detail but we have other fish to fry right now. Try:[[9]]A reference to the medieval origins of fleabane is given here. and: Try[[10]]for Love-in-a-Mist.The references to cultural and other associations are thick on the ground – just Google them. We can tackle pronunciation later. Quick - I can hear the hooves.Granitethighs (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Book in bibliography

I removed because possible promotion of c.o.i. as regards author Granitethighs or author of book...[11] also reffed and removed elsewhere for similar reasons[12] - skip sievert (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, look who's here, surprise surprise! I suppose you are here to make your usual positive contribution to the article editing Skip - always there helping out ... you can't keep a good man down. Other editors should be aware of a Skips concerns that went to [WP:coi] and were rejected[13] Granitethighs (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not engage in taunting or baiting tactics. Content and not other editors please.skip sievert (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Hesperian ... "Very droll" Skip. Granitethighs (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a very useful rule of thumb, using a user's name is almost always a mistake. I'll assume that Granitethighs use of mine was a legitimate mistake, although now I'm thinking of adopting it. It is as cute as I can be. Anyway, the removed title is:

• Spencer, R., Cross, R.& Lumley, P. 2007. (3rd edn) Plant names: a guide to botanical nomenclature. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Australia. (Also CABI International Wallingford, UK.) ISBN 9780643094406 (pbk.).

This has some relevance to this article, and appears to be a legitimate source for contibutions. The blurb is here. If the user is an author of a publication, I would not see that as an obstacle to its inclusion where appropriate. cygnis insignis 04:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a question is did the user/editor/author add it to the article?,, and if so could it be a promotion then to make money as a commercial interest?,,, and was it revealed previously on the talk page, that dynamic? Paperback - ISBN: 9780643094406 - AU $39.95 This could be considered like a high value link for an editor given that... and, it is true that the book was added to multiple articles by the same editor, all around the commencement of their editing on Wikipedia. Another book added by himself was reffed around numerous times (# ^ a b c d e f Cross, R. & Spencer, R. (2009). Sustainable Gardens. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. ISBN 978-0-643-09422-2.), in this other article before it was tagged, and not by myself [14]. To my knowledge the book is not notable. If another source is needed no doubt a well known and notable one could be found.skip sievert (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert has now been permanently blocked from editing on Wikipedia.Granitethighs 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this article? Hesperian 06:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion going on right here. People might have wondered why it has ceased and did not seem to be resolved. Well, one good reason is that the editor who initiated this section and headed the discussion is now blocked. Is that of no consequence or interest to editors? Answering more precisely, I suppose the significance of the statement above for the article must be in direct proportion to the significance that the discussion in this section has for the article. IMO that is very little if any; but then I did not initiate it. Thanks for your interest though cobber.Granitethighs 11:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. How very kind, how very thoughtful, for you to provide this service to future passers-by, and, indeed, posterity... cobber. Hesperian 12:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation for paragraph in folk taxonomy

Hesperian you reasonably requested a citation for a paragraph that you had deleted. I reinstated that paragraph and was about to add the citation when you deleted it again. I have added the qualifying citation and restored the paragraph. Please do not delete it again without explanation. Granitethighs 04:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked the source. It does not support the paragraph. I have again removed the paragraph as unsourced. More on your behaviour at your talk page. Hesperian 04:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW I wasn't the IP that initially removed it. I noticed your undo on my watchlist and thought I'd check it out. Hesperian 04:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The section in question:

In almost all cultures objects are named using one or two words. When made up of two words (abinomial) the name usually consists of a noun (like salt, dog or star) and an adjectival second word that helps describe the first, and therefore makes the name, as a whole, more "specific", for example, lap dog, sea salt, or film star. The meaning of the noun used for a common name may have been lost or forgotten (whelk, elm, lion, shark, pig) but when the common name is extended to two or more words much more is conveyed about the organism's use, appearance or other special properties(sting ray, poison apple, giant stinking hogweed, hammerhead shark). These noun-adjective binomials are just like our own names with a family or surname likeSimpson and another adjectival Christian- or forename name that specifies which Simpson, say Homer Simpson. It seems reasonable to assume that the form of scientific names we call binomial nomenclature is derived from this simple and practical way of constructing common names - but with the use of Latin as a universal language. Because of this universal and simple way of naming with one or two words modern scientific taxonomy has been described as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles."

• Raven, Peter H., Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science. New Series 174(4015): 1210-1213. p. 1210.

Okay - there are six separate statements which need referencing (it is a fairly fact-dense para). The question is, how many of the six the above source actually accounts for - and if some or all of tehse views are held by other notable writers. The last does not necessarily gell with some of the info on Linnaeus and binomials. Casliber (talk ·contribs) 12:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

None of them. The quote from the Peter Raven paper is accurate, but it doesn't support the statement to which it is attached. In fact, the "Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles" refers to the universe of "generic" taxa.

In most folk taxonomies, taxa that are members of the category generic are more numerous than life form taxa, but are nonetheless finite in number, usually about 500.

The compare the number of plant names in human cultures ("Generic plant names in languages that have been fairly well studied range from 250 to 800 forms, regardless of the richness of the environment in which the people live") with the number of plant genera that Tournefort came up with (698) and Linnaeus (initially 935, eventually 1336...which is one short of leet). They also noted that Linnaeus, like folk taxonomists, "recognized many genera, each with few species, in plant families such as Brassicaceae and Apiaceae-plants of high cultural utility", but that he recognised few genera with many species in families with low utility, like the Cyperaceae. They then go on to talk about families (which Linnaeus didn't use), showing how the number of plant families (100 according to Jussieu, about 300-400 according to early 20th century workers) also fit into this 250-800 range.

Fundamentally, the Raven paper is about higher taxa, not species, not binomials. Not related to this paragraph in any meaningful way. Guettarda (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Having now read the paper myself, I have to concur with Guettarda and Hesperian - it doesn't touch on the issue of binomial names really at all (??) Casliber (talk· contribs) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems some sort of agreement that the referencing objected to by Hesperion was inappropriate -although it should be added that on the Admin Board there are those editors that disagree ... and the people here it seems (e.g. Cadliber) are "mates" of Hesperion judging from another editor's remarks. I accept what seems like a majority view and, when I have time, will go through the whole article with a toothcomb providing good referencing - I agree with the requests for citation given above. As someone noted, it was an early effort of mine on WP. I do this sort of stuff for a living - it is not difficult to provide thorough citation. However, remember I was threatened with a permanent block for this so-called "falsification of references". I do not take that lightly. And ask that editors above seriously consider the following.

There are two important and points that have not been really addressed. Firstly, I take a pride in my referencing. Take a look at my recent efforts: History of botany, Herbal, Botanical gardens. A capital offence (my Wikipedia life is at stake here) always requires intent - a motive. Ask yourself what I have to gain by “falsifying” a reference. The article concerned is not about a person or political ideology it is about “Common names” I have no investment in this article other than that it be accurate and well written. The topic is my bread and butter: I can provide many references to the paragraph that has caused so much concern. I have nothing to gain by being deceptive or devious. If my citation is good it will stand and be ignored. If my citation is poor my editing credibility goes down. Why on earth should I deliberately apply a poor reference or try to falsify anything? My motive is not an irrelevant factor here. Hesperion by threatening to block me permanently treats what he regards as poor citation as some sort of devious and punishable behaviour. I leave you to make your own conclusions. The second point has been alluded to by other editors. Hesperion had options in dealing with what he regards as poor referencing. IMO he could either have deleted the paragraph and pointed out that in his opinion the citation was inadequate. Or, better and less confronting, simply state on the talk page that the referencing was in his opinion inadequate. If my action then was to resist or be awkward he had a case for discipline. My record is good, i respond to reasonable requests, Hesperion by immediately threatening to permanently block me has hugely overreacted. Granitethighs 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is high time we saw some of these putative sources. Whatever of this article is not properly sourced in one week, I will delete. Hesperian 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, boss, instead, why dont we meet and then you could give me a good hiding - perhaps that would help fix some of this aggression that seems to always cloud your judgement? Granitethighs 09:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to save the sarcasm and source the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be a good idea if you find something else to do Hesperian, and leave Casliber and Guettarda to handle this. You should cease from any further dealings with Granitethighs.--Epipelagic (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay well let's get back to the paragraph - the main thrust of the paragraph is discussing the whole binomial issue this is just not touched on in this reference at all. I am not hugely familiar with work in the area, but would ask for appropriate sourcing before it goes back in the article. I'd also like to see sources for the sentences and segments I have tagged in the article. Casliber(talk · contribs) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention another article I recently essentially wrote and referenced — Nomenclature. I hope that this article demonstrates my familiarity with the topic at hand, and its literature, and my desire for good referencing. The topic of the current article, Common names, is my routine business and I am not bluffing and blustering when I say that references can be provided. Casliber's requests for citation are all reasonable (including those in the problematic paragraph) - this article was done in the early days of my editing on Wikipedia - I would even have possibly asked for more accountability. However, I am still smarting from the crude way this whole business was handled and will provide the requested references in my own time. If that means a lot of deletion then so be it - but note Hesperion that your friend Casliber has added uncited information to this article, so be careful. Granitethighs 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Familiarity with a topic does not substitute for a valid reference. And if you happen to post a reference that does not support a statement, then you might as well cite a random box score from Retrosheet, as it would support an unsupported statement equally well. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 14:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - and nothing in the above paragraph contradicts what you say. However, please do me and the article the courtesy of reading the history before making quick judgements. Granitethighs 21:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature section

Hesperian I do not want to get into another unnecessary and destructive edit war. I have accepted your deletion but quoted two eminent authorities on the topic at hand. I think that Stearn's comment is a very lucid summary of the matter, which is why I have put it at the end. However, the Raven-Berlin quote, though possibly irritating to some, draws closer attention to the important point of simplicity of communication that is already present both within the structure of folk taxonomy and taken over by scientific nomenclature (it is also founded in Aristotelian logic - a point that you removed). This is not controversial material, I urge you to please use restraint in you response. Granitethighs 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletion

Hesperian, you have deleted a paragraph once again with the comment "Remove paragraph. Source is about folk /taxonomy/. It has nothing whatsoever to say about /nomenclature/, and certainly nothing about the "underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific" The paragraph was:

This underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific prompted Peter Raven, the Director of the Missouri Botanical Garden, to describe scientific taxonomy as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles."

I would like your interpretation of what exactly you think the above paragraph is referring to. If you do not, or cannot, give an explanation then I shall put the paragraph back and refer the matter to Wikipedia arbitration as I do not want to resort to an edit war. Granitethighs 06:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you not understand the difference between scientific taxonomy and scientific nomenclature? It isn't my job to explain it; you should be able to google it easily enough.

The article you're citing is about taxonomy. It asserts that scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. It is not about nomenclature. It has nothing whatsoever to say about nomenclature. It does not make the connection between vernacular names and scientific names that you are claiming for it.

I understand this. Guettarda understands this: "Fundamentally, the Raven paper is about higher taxa, not species, not binomials. Not related to this paragraph in any meaningful way."[15] Casliber understands this: "I have to concur with Guettarda and Hesperian - it doesn't touch on the issue of binomial names really at all."[16]

I intend to continue removing unsourced material, and, in particular, putatively sourced material that fails verification. I have no objection to you referring the matter to Wikipedia arbitration.

Hesperian 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to explain your view and, yes, my wording is clumsy. But we both seem to be on the offensive here rather than working together for the good of the article. Can I enlist your help here, rather than raising your hackles? What I am trying to draw out in this section is the fact that there are many similarities in the way we name things scientifically and the way we name things in non-scientific life (common names). The Raven quote expresses this well I believe. My specific question to you, Guettarda and Casliber is that in an article on common names the connection between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy is worth drawing out and Raven's way of expressing this seems (to me) apt. What principles exactly is Raven referring to - at face value it would seem worth listing them (or discussing them)to demonstrate the connections between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy? On a totally different point, I feel that our use of common names for organisms and naming in general is of great cultural and linguistic interest. I would like to present present-day research on this matter as accurately as possible in Wikipedia. When I first edited this article it had been stagnating for a long time with very little content of substance. Our contre-temps seems to have thrown it back into a state of stagnation -can't we make it more informative and interesting? Granitethighs 22:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"the fact that there are many similarities in the way we name things scientifically and the way we name things in non-scientific life" is only worth drawing out here if it has been drawn out in a reliable source somewhere. The Stearn quote does this. The Raven quote does not do it, because Raven isn't talking about names; he is talking about taxonomy. i.e. the principles used to divide and group taxa, not the principles used to name taxa.

"In an article on common names the connection between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy is worth drawing out". Why? I think you still don't understand that taxonomy and nomenclature are completely different things, independent and orthogonal. We could abandon our present approach to taxonomy and start again in the most ridiculous fashion. e.g. divide the animals by primary method of moving: walking, crawling, flying, swimming, etc; form a taxon for animals with teeth, and subdivide it by number of teeth; and so on. And yet the ridiculousness of our new taxonomy would have zero effect on our ability to give every one of our stupid new taxa a scientific name in accordance with the present nomenclatural codes. Conversely, we could discard our nomenclatural codes and come up with a whole new naming system, or just go back to a common names free-for-all, and these changes would have zero impact on what taxa we recognise as valid, and the principles upon which we group and divide them.

Hesperian 23:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I think we are at cross purposes. I am not trying to propose anything here, I am looking at why we do things the way we do. Let me explain a bit ... – ... this isn’t intended as a lecture but a way through this impasse. Linnaeus's system of classification follows the principles of Aristotelian logic according to which arranging subjects into classes is classification; distinguishing divisions of classes is Logical Division. The group to be divided is the genus; the parts into which it is divided are the species. The terms “genus” and “species” are derived from Aristotelian logic and the principle of Logical Division. They acquired their specialized biological usage from Linnaeus's predecessors, in particularRay and Tournefort. Another example of Aristotelian logic is the Law of Excluded Middle (everything is either A or not A) used as the basis for dichotomous keys used in identification. This raises questions that are worth exploring (it seems to me):

a) Does the human mind rank objects in a universal way – is the way we break up and name the objects of our experience genetic in some way – corresponding to some way in which the mind structures the world? Or, on a practical level, is it just that one and two-word names are simply the most efficient and economical?

b) Although my personal inclination is for the latter, nevertheless cross-cultural studies indicate that we rank objects in a similar way across cultures - which gives strength to the former proposition. [I suppose, philosophically, we are in the realm of asking whether organisms should a) be put together or separated because they conform to a definition (essentialism) or b) put together with others having similar characteristics generally, regardless of the definition (empiricism). Linnaeus was inclined to take the first approach using the Method of Logical Division but in practice he employed both methods.]

Now, you are saying – why doesn’t he come back to earth and realise that on Wikipedia we need to convey simple things in simple terms ... and I agree. But common names relate to the way we structure/classify/rank the world, which relates to ... folk taxonomy ... which relates to scientific taxonomy. And as the Flora Svecica example and Stearn’s statement indicate, there are strong connections between folk taxonomy and scientific taxonomy. From what you say above it seems to me that you are thinking that the chaos of folk taxonomy is being proposed in preference to the order of scientific taxonomy in some way – which it is not. I think the article can explore this theme much more (in simple terms) and the Raven quote is an excellent way in. There are various other aspects of common names that need introducing to raise the standard of the article and I’ll try and do that with well cited research -which I understand is your main concern. And I'll keep future comments brief. Granitethighs 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here. But I know that the sentence

This underlying connection between the vernacular and scientific prompted Raven to describe scientific taxonomy as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles."

fails verification because Raven makes no comment whatsoever about the "underlying connection between vernacular and scientific", and in fact does not address nomenclature at all. If you shortened that sentence to

Raven describes scientific taxonomy as "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles."

that would at least be verifiable, but it would still be irrelevant, since the topic of the quote is taxonomy, and the topic of this article is nomenclature. Hesperian 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My position is pretty simple really. We don't need to get into these long content debates. All I ask is that you refrain from misrepresenting your sources. Do that, and you won't get any opposition from me.Hesperian 03:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a fair request. I'll re-formulate what I am trying to express (poorly) above into simpler language and well cited research.Granitethighs 04:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also highly relevant:

• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1953.tb30229.x/abstract
• http://91.186.0.45/fileadmin/images/Linnean/Special_Issue_8_-_The_Linneaen_Legacy.pdf

Hesperian 05:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hesperian - now we can move on.Granitethighs 07:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

removed section

Origin and function

There is some evidence for the deep-seatedness of taxonomy which comes from patients who have, through accident or disease, suffered traumas of the brain. Scientists studying these patients’ brains have reported repeatedly finding damage — a deadening of activity or actual lesions — in a region of the temporal lobe, leading some researchers to hypothesize that there might be a specific part of the brain that is devoted to taxonomy. This turns out to be more serious than the loss of some dispensable librarian-like ability to classify living things. Without the power to order and name life, a person simply does not know how to live in the world, or how to understand it, because to order and name life is to have a heightened sense of the world around us and our place in it. And by locating ourselves within the natural world we are more likely to manage it in a sensitive way.

I would call this some kind of argument, if I could glean any meaning from it; it is not a presentation of facts. cygnis insignis 05:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)