Is the use of latin names in posts always necessary?

[Bluetongue1]

I think the names discussion should be divorced from the herper/keeper definitions/discussion. Common names and their usage go way beyond reptiles and amphibians. In fact, they apply to virtually every group of animals, not mention plants and fungi and even bacteria. If common names did not serve a useful purpose, they would not exist.

They are recognisable, sayable and can be interpreted without any additional training or learning. So if someone reading a magazine or travel brochure sees a photo caption “Pygmy Python”, then can determine it is a very small python. Just as an aside, if they saw the caption “Antaresia perthensis” and new that “ensis” means where it occurs, they would arrive at the wrong conclusion that it is found in Perth. I am sure we all use common names for at least some reptiles and frogs and no doubt even more so if you are talking about other animals such as birds, aquarium fish or sea food etc (not to mention plants).

Clearly, common names have their limitations. Things like whether you use Mulga or King Brown don’t really matter. They both refer to one species. However, where two or more species have the same common name, then there is immediate confusion. While there is no governing body responsible for common names, like there is for scientific names, certain organisations are trying to standardise the common names used.

The object of communication is conveying information accurately from one person to another. A good communicator takes into his or her audience and ability to relate to what is being said. In response to the OP’s question, this is why I suggested from the outset that for posts in a forum such as this, it is appropriate to use both the scientific name and the common name on most occasions. That allows those with no existing background in scientific names to maintain pace with the conversation and perhaps achieve a little incidental learning along the way.

Blue

 

[Skippii]

IT'S ACTUALLY SOME PEOPLE BEING MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT A SPECIES. INSTEAD OF SAYING COPPERHEAD, COPPERHEAD, COPPERHEAD, COPPERHEAD OR COPPERHEAD WHICH COULD BE FIVE (5) DIFFERENT SPECIES IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, THEY COULD JUST SAY Austrelaps ramsayi AND PEOPLE WILL KNOW THE EXACT SPECIES THEY ARE REFERRING TOO ............skinks

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT... LOUUUD NOISES!

Sorry.. Couldn't help myself..

I actually have nothing against people using scientific names, though I still don't know most of them, I seem to be picking up on the more commonly used ones (mostly our aussie pythons at the moment). I do agree it's a bit overwhelming when someone makes a list of reptiles using only scientific names, even if I go and look them up. Looking up a large list one after the other just doesn't seem to make them stick, if anything I get them jumbled up haha. So sometimes it would help to have both scientific and common name listed.

Still, I'm pretty indifferent, scientific name or no, if I want to know what it is I'll learn.

Interesting question, gnome, thanks for bringing it up. I hope your back heals up nicely!

x

 

[kwaka]

The object of communication is conveying information accurately from one person to another.

I would go one step further with a great quote from Marcus Fabius Quintilian (35-95 AD) - "we do not write so that we can be understood - we should write so that it is impossible to be misunderstood".

Hence latin names.

 

[Snowman]

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT... LOUUUD NOISES!

Sorry.. Couldn't help myself..

I actually have nothing against people using scientific names, though I still don't know most of them, I seem to be picking up on the more commonly used ones (mostly our aussie pythons at the moment). I do agree it's a bit overwhelming when someone makes a list of reptiles using only scientific names, even if I go and look them up. Looking up a large list one after the other just doesn't seem to make them stick, if anything I get them jumbled up haha. So sometimes it would help to have both scientific and common name listed.

Still, I'm pretty indifferent, scientific name or no, if I want to know what it is I'll learn.

Interesting question, gnome, thanks for bringing it up. I hope your back heals up nicely!

x

Make a list of both common and scientific names. Stick em on your dunny door and you'll have em down in no time

 

[-Peter]

I have to redo my fork ticket and have the literature in the toilet.

 

[Bluetongue1]

I have been using scientific names since my early teens. So I am fairly familiar with them. I also spent some 20 years plus heavily involved in native wildflowers. The use of scientific names with those that I associated was a primary means of exchanging information. I often had the same experience as Jedi­­_339, in that I struggled to remember the common name but had no difficulty in quoting the scientific names.

The point I have tried to make is that neither naming scheme has overall precedence. It is not a case of one takes universal precedence over the other and therefore that one must be used irrespective of circumstance. Those that would advocate that one scheme has total precedence over the other, regardless, are simply not considering the circumstances in which each should be used.

Following is a list of 30 scientific names of some Australian animals, including a few Australian reptiles and frogs. Who amongst you can immediately distinguish the reptiles and frogs? You might also like to have a crack at identifying the non-herptiles from their scientific names, without Googling their identities first…

Acrochordus granulatus, Aipysurus laevis, Cacatua roseicapilla, Caretta caretta, Centroberyx gerradi, Cerberus australis, Chelosania brunnea, Clupea harengus, Cryptagama aurita, Dacelo novaguineae, Disteria kingii, Enhydris polylepis, Erythrura gouldiae, Eugongylus rufescens, Geopelia cuneata, Hypsilurus spinipes, Lasiorhinus latifrons, Ligisaurus foliforum, Lissolepis luctuosa, Macropus rufus, Mirounga leonine, Neelaps calanotus, Oligosoma lichenigera, Orraya occultus, Phascolarctos cinereus, Pletholax gracilis, Poephila guttata, Saiphos equalis, Tursiops truncates, Wollumbinia latisternum.

I shall post the identities in a day or so and you can see how you went. In the mean time have a crack at he exercise and see how you go.

Blue

EDIT: Have deleted a couple and also put them in alphabetical order. [Sorry Scott]

 

[eipper]

Olive Sea Snake, Loggerhead Turtle, Stoke's Sea Snake XX, XX
XX,XX King's Sea Snake, Black Striped Snake, Coral Snake,( next one should be Pseudoferania...but )Macleay's Water Snake, Bockadam, Little File Snake, Southern Angle Headed Dragon, Pebble Dragon, Chameleon Dragon, Two Toed Skink, Lord Howe Island Skink, Western Mourning Skink, Litter Skink, Bar Sided Skink(...generally no commonly used common name here as this name can also apply to C. tenius as well as Eugongylus), Javlin Lizard, Mcwraith Leaf Tail, Saw Shelled Turtle, Gouldian Finch, XX,XX, Drop Bear...aka Koala, Northern Hairy Nosed Wombat, assuming you missing the M...red Kangaroo, Laughing Kookaburra and finally a Galah.....

Off the top of my head...btw there has been a sea snake revison and both Disteria and Astrotia are "apparently" Hydrophis

 

[longirostris]

Hey Blue,

Interesting challenge. Whilst I am not up to all of it and I am certainly not in the same street as Scott (eipper) with regards to his knowledge of nomenclature and taxonomy, I certainly instantly recognise those species that are in my field of interest. The thing about this arguement is that whilst it is difficult to confuse a Chameleon dragon or Southern Angle Headed dragon with any other species, it could be very easy to confuse the Pebble dragon with the Pebble Mimmicking dragon in certain circumstances. Drop the word "mimmicking" (in the course of a conversation or written commentary) as I have heard people do many times for this species and you have the same dragon name for two completely different animals not even in the same genera.

I myself refer to several species within the Tymanocryptis group as "Pebble" dragons when discussing these animals. The species I regard as "Pebble" dragons when referring to the earless group include, T. intima, T. cephalus (already cited), T. centralis and T. uniformis. All of these dragons are short, robust almost squat little dragons that use pebble mimmicking as a defense mechanism. Even though T.intima, T.centralis and T.unformis do not have the word pebble in their more readily accepted and used common names, it could be very easy to confuse these animals as well when referring to a Pebble dragon.

If you say Cryptagama aurita there is absolutely no confusion as to what is being referred to, even for those of us who have never been fortunate enough to have seen one. When you say Tympanocryptis cephalus I know you are specifically referring to the earless dragon.

To further illustrate confusion when using common names. How many times have I heard people in far north Queensland call D.bilineata a "nobbi dragon". Granted it's in the same genera (now) and yes there is some work to do in Diporiphora regarding species taxonomy but D. bilineata is not a Nobbi dragon. D.bilineata goes by the common name of Northern Two lined dragon. The nobbi dragon is very much Diporiphora nobbi.

And what is a "Ta Ta" dragon. No disrespect to anybody who uses the term but it is a totally inappropriate use of a common name applied to any of potentially a half a dozen different species covering potentially 3 or more genera. Again If I use the correct name for a species and say Lophognathus gilberti, there is absolutely no confusion about what I am talking about.

However, if I use the term ta ta dragon, then I could be referring to anything that is a relatively slender, mid sized dragon that has a tail length 4 to 5 times its body length, that is generally somewhere between 16 to 22 inches total length as an adult. Generally the "ta ta" dragon has very long hind legs that can in most cases reach the tip of the snout when straightened out. Generally "ta ta's" are found pretty much anywhere across the top end of Australia usually but not always north of the Tropic of Capricorn and they have a "peculiar" habit of running bipedially and arm waving. Pretty vague species description if you ask me. I can think of at least 4 or 5 species that could fit into that general description.

Whilst I understand and accept the use of common names I also understand and see the necessity of using THE CORRECT NAME for species. What I don't understand is why there are people on here who seem to have a problem with other people who choose to use the actual name assigned to a species when discussing that species. If you don't know what the species is and you are interested then you will go and find out. If you are not really interested, then it doesn't matter anyway and you should not be making comment about a process that for all intents and purposes is the correct process.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Thank you Scott. You have done well and at the same illustrated the exactly the point I have been trying to make. Your knowledge of scientific nomenclature of Australian reptiles and amphibians is second to none. To the point where you ensure you are fully informed of any actual or pending taxonomic revisions or additions. You also have an extensive knowledge of non-Australian herpetological nomenclature. With such a huge depth and breadth of knowledge of herpetological scientific names, you were able to identify all the reptiles present. Yet only some of our common mammals and birds were recognisable to you. I can only wonder how you might have gone had I thrown in a dozen scientific names of common plants.

A couple of points emerge. In identifying the owners of the scientific names, common names were used. No-one is fully familiar will all the scientific names of each organism and when we look them up, what are we looking for? Invariably, a common name! A simple English description that anyone can understand and relate to.

Scientific names have the ability to pinpoint a particular species without ambiguity. They are a powerful tool in the scientific investigation of organisms. On the down side, they require dedication to learning and understanding them, including even learning to pronounce them correctly.

Common names can also provide unambiguous identification of many species. Some common names, however, can be less than species specific and result in a measure of confusion. The big plus of common names is that anyone with a command of simple English can relate to the particular species being talked about.

What I have tried to get across is that neither is intrinsically better than the other. Each has its pluses and minuses and as such, where it is best used. It really depends on what you want to do as to whether you use one or the other. Circumstances dictate which naming system is the most appropriate to use.

My simple suggestion was that if you use both, then you will cater for a much fuller audience and at the same time assist those unfamiliar with scientific nomenclature to start or continue to learn about it.

From a personal perspective, I believe learning about the whys and wherefores of scientific nomenclature can only be to the betterment of the individual. Yet at the same time I place no expectations on anyone to have done so.

Blue

 

[montysrainbow]

wowza this threads like a novel lol. I come on here and expect to see all the pro herpers using the scientific names however i choose to stick with the old common coastals, jungles etc im just a chick that thinks snakes r pretty cool no need for me 2 use fancy names lol.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Hi Longirostris,
Always good to hear from you.

I hope I covered most of your concerns in my last response. Just in case I haven’t I shall add a little more.

I stated that circumstances dictate the appropriate use of the names. Let’s say you are referring to the rather unique Crytogama aurita, which has a few common names but the one being ‘pushed’ is “Gravel Dragon”. At the same time you have a vey similar looking dragon found in the same state and commonly referred to as the “Pebble Dragon”, that being Tympanocryptis cephalus. These two animals are quite distinct from the scientific point of view yet are visually they appear very similar. Clearly, given the similarity of their names and appearance, it would be appropriate to use both the common name and the scientific name hen referring to either.

Ta-Ta Dragons are a group of species. So anyone using the term “ta-ta” to indicate a specific species is doing so incorrectly. It is the same as someone referring to a “water skink”. These are not common names of individuals but instead refer to groups. In contrast, if someone refers to a “Long-nosed Ta-Ta Dragon” or an “Eastern Water Skink” then the reference is species specific. Whether you are using scientific names or common names, you need to know that which is correct. While we have a governing body that determines scientific names, common names are not so controlled. However, web resources like AROD are proposing a consistent system of common names and one could do a lot worse than to
follow their lead.

It is about communicating what species is being referred to and circumstances will dictate whether or not common names or scientific names should take priority – but inclusion of the other can only only assist in the long term.

Blue

 

[eipper]

I make no excuses, I am a herper, not really a naturalist. I have little knowledge of other groups nomeculature. If I don't know a name I look it up.

Cheers
scott

 

[PythonLegs]

I will use scientific terms wherever possible, as I must distance myself from common folk, who will only recognise my brilliance and worth when I correct their outdated nomenclature. Amphibolurus Temporalis?? I spit on thee, ignoramus.

 

[Darlyn]

I will use scientific terms wherever possible, as I must distance myself from common folk, who will only recognise my brilliance and worth when I correct their outdated nomenclature. Amphibolurus Temporalis?? I spit on thee, ignoramus.

Ha ha pythonidae lower ambulatory limbs. I'm with you. I know that using the proper wordage is needed in a lot of threads.
But at times reading about someones jungle or childrens and people start throwing around the "wordage" it's kinda unnecessary.
I'm sure it makes their chest puff out with pride at their all knowing knowingness but it's pretty much redundant.

 

[longirostris]

It is not about chestbeating and I have never picked up on somebody for using outdated or revised nomenclature. I know A.temporalis is actually L. temporais. I read the paper that put it back in that group 18 months or more ago. As far as I am concerned it should never have been placed in Amphibolurus in the first instance. However, I have no problem with people who still like to use Amphibolurus for the this group of dragons, at least I know which species they are referring to and I certainly would not berate anybody for using outdated nomenclature. But then my opinion doesn't count for much since I am not a professional herpetologist, because I don't have the necessary qualifications, even though I probably know more about Australian dragons as a group and individually then most Professional herpetologists. I am not going to get started on this train because I will go off topic and want to stay on it.

I have no problem with people using common names in fact I use them virtually all the time myself. When I refer to a Painted dragon, I call it a Painted dragon. I would rarely if ever call it Ctenophorus Pictus because a Painted dragon is unmistakebly a Painted dragon, everybody knows what it is. However if I was writting something or trying to make some sort of point regarding the species or an ID then I would most definately use the correct scientific name because that scientific name (even a revised or out of date scientific name) is unique to the animal described and there can be no misunderstanding as to what species is being discussed.

Blue, Re the ta ta example, your arguement is exactly my point. Go back and have a look at how many posts there are on this forum that respond to an ID query with "Ta Ta" dragon. I know it is a colloquial term used collectively to discuss a group of dragons as do many others, but to respond to an ID query with this is inappropriate and does not help the person asking the question who probably already knows it is a Ta ta dragon but wants to know which one. I have no problem with your example of a response saying Long Nosed Ta ta dragon, this is descriptive enough that most people would know what animal is being referred to. The ambiguity element has been removed by using the words "Long Nosed".

How do we address the FNQ'ers who call D.bilineata a nobbi. I have had reptile keepers and enthusiasts from up that way refer to D.bilineata as a Nobbi. So much so that I actually went through the process of organising importation permits for Nobbi dragons (at the time A.nobbi now D.nobbi) only to determine just before shipment that the animals being shipped were actually D.bilineata, the Northern Two Lined dragon. Not to mention how many people use the term Tommy Roundhead for either D.australis (correct species) or D.bilineata (incorrect species).

I think all we are interested in at the pointy end of all this is, that we all know beyond any ambiguity or confusion what particular animal is being discussed. If common names are being used and there is the possibility of ambiguity then yes use the scientific nomenclature to mitigate the ambiguity. I still think the best way to achieve this is to use the correctly assigned name for a species in most cases in the first instance. If it happens to be in Latin then so be it. By the way I take your point about Cryptagama aurita having and using the more readily recognisable name Gravel dragon, which is in fact correct. Always nice to speak with you Blue.

 

[-Peter]

The good thing about scientific names is it avoids confusion so I know that longirostris has taken his name from a Caribean cuckoo.

 

[Bluetongue1]

Hi Scott.
I am concerned you may have taken my post the wrong way. You have an awesome knowledge of scientific names, both in and outside of Australian herpetology, and there are lots of us who are dead jealous and inspired to learn more as a result of the example you set… me for one!

Longirostris,
Thankyou for your input! You have said it better than I mate. The use of scientific names versus common names is all about appropriate circumstances. Neither holds a universal precedence over the other.


The problem of duplicity encountered in the use of one name for different species is a real shortcoming. Other animal and plant groups experience the same difficulty. The basic problem lies in the fact that there is no official arbiter for allotting common names. To overcome this, certain highly influential groups have addressed the issue with the organisms they are involved with e.g. Birding Australia, Society for Growing Australian Plants.

The state of flux in the basic taxonomy of our reptiles and amphibians, including the high rate of discovery or recognition of new species, has not helped efforts to establish a stable register of common names. In addition to that, succeeding authors of field guides have often seen fit to alter common names to that which they see as more appropriate… noble intentions, but not helpful in terms of establishing wide-spread usage.

I am in awe of what Stewart MacDonald has done with the AROD resource. The way he has set it up and the immense amount work and research and inclusivity of other high profile herpetologists, is an absolute credit to the man. That it is free to access speaks volumes for the gentleman’s commitment and passion to this hobby and scientific interest area. Say no more. I, for one, am happy to use this as my primary reference to common names, despite the fact that I have a bookshelf full of different field guides. There are some names on AROD that I do not entirely agree with, but those differences simply need to be put aside. A small price to pay for the development and publication of an exhaustive list of common names attached to up-to-date scientific nomenclature (plus the rest).

If I were to choose a word to describe my personal reaction to AROD, I could do better than SCINTILLATING!

Blue

 

[Bluetongue1]

The good thing about scientific names is it avoids confusion so I know that longirostris has taken his name from a Caribean cuckoo.

Whilst the Caribbean Cuckoo comment left me non-plused, you do raise a point that many may not be aware of with respect to science names. As was previously pointed out, the scientific name an organism consist of the name of the genus, beginning with a capital and the species name (= specific epithet) in all lower case. Scientific names should be either italicised or underlined to indicate that is what is being used.

Use of specific epithets is restricted to once only in any given genus. However, they may be used again in a different genus. The example given was “longirostris” which basically means ‘long snouted”. This epithet has been used to describe reptiles, frogs, fish, birds and numerous other organisms. Not to be unexpected. Following is a list of scientific names where it has been used as the species epithet. I quit about a quarter of the way through what was available on the one web page… Stenella longirostris,Parapenaeus longirostris,Forcipiger longirostris,Synodontis longirostris, Oxymonacanthus longirostris, Trachyrincus longirostris, Haematopus longirostris, Caridina longirostris, Heliomaster longirostris, Mormyrus longirostris, Forcipiger longirostris, Litoria longirostris, Balaka longirostris, Ischnaspis longirostris, Arachnothera longirostris, Caprimulgus longirostris, Plestiodon longirostris, Phaethornis longirostris, Diacavolinia longirostris, Neosebastes longirostris, Phaethornis longirostris, Sorex longirostris, Thryothorus longirostris, Lycopsis longirostris, Craugastor longirostris…

So what are the rules when it comes to scientific names? Basically, the name of a GENUS or any grouping ABOVE that, all the way to Kingdom, has to be UNIQUE. It can only be used ONCE in the entire scheme of naming any living organism. Species epithets may be used repeatedly for different genera but must only be used ONCE within any given genera. Sub-species names work the same as species names. They can only be used once for a given species but may be used again with different species.

Blue

 

[-Peter]

Whilst the Caribbean Cuckoo comment left me non-plused,

I beg to differ. That you deemed it necessary to respond in such a longwinded fashion shows that you were anything but nonplussed. You did though elaborate my point.

 

[Crotalid]

I haven't read the whole thread, but it's definitely needed.

Especially for venomous snakes, it's important to know what exact species you were bitten by. For example, there are dozens of arboreal pit viper that are known at 'green tree viper' in Asia.