Although this discussion is degenerating into unrepentant silliness (a
case of Art vs science? (sorry Art- couldn't resist!!)), i would like to
say Bravo to good old Charlie Sturm, and the chap who pointed out that
scientific names are used for
(and origionated for the pupose of) accuracy and simplicity.  Further,
they are truly international, which common names can never be, since
they are coined and used within a specific community-context.  Many of
the "gentle readers" on Conch-l do not have English as their first
language, so when they hear the designation "dog whelk", they are not
nessessarily enlightened!!!  The words "Nucella lapillus", however,
immmediately denote a specific, well-known North Atlantic species, with
no confusion at all.
 
        As for "fun" (which i have nothing against , and indulge in
whenever
possible and/or ethical ("fattening", i don't have to worry about
yet!!)), it is quite possible to have fun using sientific names, as the
sage person who pointed to the dinosaur phenom noted.  If you asked a
5-year
old what he thought of the "terrible lizard king" in Cretaceous park or
whatever that movie was, he would look at you like you had three eyes!!
When introducing a non-initiate to a species whose English name i don't
know or wish to forge, i often just tell them the scientific name, then
explain it to them- which they generally find fascinating - or at least
listen to politely!  I'll be able to do this a bit better for some spp
now, thanks once again to that font of knowledge we call Paul M.
 
        Therefore, i will not feel guilty about not looking up the "most
commonly used" common name of a species, and i  hope that when someone
does use an English name for anything except  the most widely recognized
of taxa (eg: "slit shells"), that they would perhaps also include the
internationally-recognized scientific name, for the benefit of those who
either do not normally use English, or common-language names.
 
 
-Ross M.