Personally, I hate common names. Here's why:

1) They lack any heuristic value, whereas scientific names supposedly tell
me a lot about the animals place in The Great Scheme. For instance, in
freshwater mussels we have "heelsplitters." To the uninitiated this implies
(and rightly so) that heelsplitters are all related. In fact they cover at
least three genera in two different subfamilies. But tell me that the White
Heelsplitter is Lasmigona complanata and the Pink Heelsplitter is Potamilus
alatus,and I know immediately that the two are not related to each other,
AND what they ARE related to. Same with conchs vs. Strombus, whelks vs.
Buccinum, pig toes vs. Fusconaia, etc. Three-horned Warty Back tells me
very little, but Obliquaria reflexa tells me a lot.

2) Specific names may change, often seemingly at will, but certainly they
are more stable than common names that differ from country to country and
region to region, simultaneously.

3) Some common names are not common at all. Again, with North American
freshwater mussels we have well-entrenched vernacular names that every
river rat and commercial clammer have used for years. But some of these
names are derogatory and certainly politically incorrect. So rather than
risk offending anyone, anywhere, we give them new "common" names that no
one had ever used before (and will not use after) just to finish the
exercise. This is in some way excusable for freshwater mussels because of
their legal status and the fact that wildlife agents must use the names
regularly. But the extension to marine species is often inexcusable. The
misguided Common Names book is a wondrous source of such names that no one
will ever use, applied to species no one will ever see.



G. Thomas Watters, PhD
Curator of Molluscs
Museum of Biological Diversity
Department of Evolution, Ecology & Organismal Biology
The Ohio State University
1315 Kinnear Road
Columbus, OH 43212 USA
v: 614-292-6170
f: 614-292-7774

Visit the Molluscs Division at:
http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~molluscs/OSUM2