Dear All,

My comments on common names appear to have stirred a bit of emotion. I
think we should refine the situation.

Generally, I think it is OK to use common names for groups of animals. If I
am on the beach and some kids or someone wants to know what those shells
leaving tracks are, I am happy to tell them they are mudwhelks, but if some
smart kid wants to know what kind of mudwhelk, I will tell them that they
are called Pyrazus ebeninus of the familiy Batillariidae. People who are
really interested, regardless of their age,  are not usually taken aback by
a scientific name. What I object to is the use of common names on a level
where people should be using scientific names. To make up a name for a
shell found only in 1000m of water is utter nonsense. Anyone wishing to
converse in common names on this level might as well be shouting in the
desert - nobody knows what he is talking about. I think what irks me most
is that some books pretend shells have common names where there are none
accepted. The number of shells with generally accepted common names in
Australia can be counted on the fingers of one hand. We simply have to use
scientific names for al the other 9,995 species.

Paul makes a point about the robin. But, not being familiar with the North
American avian fauna, I bet this is not the same thing called a robin in
Europe, and it is definitely not the same as the Australian robins.
Fortunately, we don't go swapping robins, and sending them around the
world, otherwise we would have a problem.

Within certain groups, such as vertebrate animals, common names are
perfectly acceptable. I am yet to meet an ornithologist who uses scientific
names exclusively. Easy! All the bird species have accepted common names
(although there are regional differences). Most native Australian plant
species, however, do not have common names, hence nobody uses any at
species level (not even the nurseries).

Although taxonomy does change from time to time, I wholeheartedly agree
with José in that taxonomists agree with each other in most cases. I find
the 'higher soap box' an insult to the years of dedication these people put
into their work. Yes, if you work with a group for years, you are inclined
to recognise more differences and be prone to wanting to reclassify 'your'
babies, but have you read many scientific publications? Have you noticed
how most of the revisions stay within the currently recognised boundaries
of families or superfamilies? There is really not much change at all. It's
just that some of the shell books (and the Compendium is a prime example)
haven't caught up with the latest changes.

This is really a very enjoyable discussion

Patty
(who is, by the way, NOT a malacological scientist)


Dr. Patty Jansen

Bookshop: http://www.booksofnature.com
Publishing and info site: http://www.capricornica.com

Books of Nature
P.O. Box 345
Lindfield NSW 2070
Australia

phone/fax: 02 9415 8098 international: +61 2 9415 8098

E-mail: [log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]