# Is the use of latin names in posts always necessary?



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

I am not that versed in what I assume are Latin names for snakes and lizards and after reading replies to some posts over the last few years I felt it would be a good question. Why do some people tend to use Latin names when replying to posts that have been using common names, eg: rattling off 8 to 10 names that are complex to the novice when using common names really would have sufficed? Is there a need to do so or are some of these trying to impress others with their knowledge? I have read some herping posts were people will talk about monitors, geckos, jungles, carpets etc and out of the blue someone posts a barrage of Latin names they have seen. I then leave the post because I'm absolutely out of my element and lost. I then wonder how the other novices and newbies to the hobby go when they encounter the same. I'm not having a go at anyone but am curious to the necessity in some posts? No flaming required, just opinions.


----------



## Chicken (Mar 1, 2013)

Lol.
They're Scientific Names, most know them better by that.
Learn them here! AROD > Home | AROD.com.au


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

there is this thing called google?
if youre not sure its a good way to learn them.
alot of australian herps dont have common names and the use of latin names is much easier and much less confusing than saying whip snake and people go what. parasuta or demansia?


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks Chicken, not that up on it.


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

What got me questioning it was I get so far into a thread were everyone uses common names and someone blurts out a heap of scientific names when if they'd stuck to the common ones myself and newbies are still able to follow.


----------



## wasgij (Mar 1, 2013)

there is also the issue of grouping, for example instead of just saying knob tail it makes it much clearer for people to say nephrurus levis, amyae etc. Same with capet pythons. there is also the case that so many reptiles are so variable in pattern and colour that it just makes things simpler and clearer. As richoman has stated, google is invaluable, it doesnt take to long to pick up the scientific names if you look them up as you come across them.


----------



## Chicken (Mar 1, 2013)

Best way is to learn them.
You'll be become familiar with them after a while, just practice!


----------



## snakefreak16 (Mar 1, 2013)

i agree with chicken thats a great site, i like using latin names because its just easyer for me haha i have been using them from a very early age and thats why i like to use them and its another little fact i like to add after i use the common name if that makes sence lol


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

Just some posts use a large amount of them that it is too time consuming for me to look up and follow. Im struggling on my feet at the moment from back surgery and cant sit so Im even more limited time wise on the computer.


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

well if its really that much of a worry try and learn them? google it! .. you will get so used to them after a while
i learnt every australian herps latin name off by heart in a year. 

as i said ... not everything has a common name. if i say something like spiny tailed gecko which species do i mean? i can be much more specific and just say strophurus krisalys


----------



## Dendrobates (Mar 1, 2013)

Latin names stick very quickly if you have a deep interest in reptiles, it's amazing how easily they sink in when the interest is there. Get a field guide and just read it - it's a priceless tool.


----------



## solar 17 (Mar 1, 2013)

90% PLUS HAVE COMMON NAMES ITS JUST A LOT OF FIVE MINUTE HERPERS TRYING TO LOOK TECHINICAL (IMO) ......solar 17


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

Shall do Skinks, got field guide just waiting for clear head.


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

solar 17 said:


> 90% PLUS HAVE COMMON NAMES ITS JUST A LOT OF FIVE MINUTE HERPERS TRYING TO LOOK TECHINICAL (IMO) ......solar 17



.......................
cant tell if serious or?


----------



## Dendrobates (Mar 1, 2013)

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


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

SKINKS IT IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY WESTERN BROWN SNAKE OR BLUE TONGUE THAN SAY ALL THESE IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN SCIENTIFIC NAMES LIKE MENGDEANITLI AND SCINGIOSDS .... _richo_


----------



## Stuart (Mar 1, 2013)

Play nice all. Each are entitled to their opinions


----------



## apprenticegnome (Mar 1, 2013)

Thanks Solar, I felt that in some posts it was more practical if common names could be used so it didn't narrow down the field of readers and didn't discourage some who have no desire to learn the scientific names. I understand there are cases were it is practical but I wondered if sometimes it is overused. I found doing a venomous snake handlimg course that the instructor used scientific names and a fair percentage of the class would be half interested but he would then use common names and the class attention came back. I appreciate everyones opinions though and do intend to learn for my own benefit.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 1, 2013)

Is that snake a king brown or a mulga?... could be either really, though it is definitely a _Pseudechis australis_


----------



## Dendrobates (Mar 1, 2013)

Seriously though, often there are commonly used 'common' names which are easily recognised, it's just that latin names are a lot more accurate to what the species actually is. A good example is if someone says Death Adder - but that could mean a whole heap of different species e.g. Acanthophis antarcticus, A. praelongus, A.pyrrhus, A. wellsi, etc.. if the latin name is used than the exact species being referred to is known.


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

exactly!
its only one word you need to learn for each species, its really not that hard.
once you understand the genus and all that it becomes a piece of cake and its so simple! use AROD as james pointed out and just buy any field guide and read through it


----------



## Stuart (Mar 1, 2013)

Does the use of Latin names depend on the audience though, I can imagine that to a new helper, it can be a bit daunting?


----------



## Dendrobates (Mar 1, 2013)

SniperCap said:


> Does the use of Latin names depend on the audience though, I can imagine that to a new helper, it can be a bit daunting?



I think it encourages people to learn, if people actually have the drive to learn about these animals that they claim to love so much then they will make the effort to learn everything about them that they can... including the scientific names of the species that they are interested in.


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 1, 2013)

no not at all in my opinion.
i wish i learnt the latin names first! it would be much easier and so much more less confusing.
i just had someone messaging me before confused about why little whip snakes and yellow faced whip snakes are not in the same genus because they both have 'whip snake' in their common name. 
if you really have an interest in reptiles the latin names become as easy as keeping levis!


----------



## Stuart (Mar 1, 2013)

Tis a fair response.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 1, 2013)

SniperCap said:


> Does the use of Latin names depend on the audience though, I can imagine that to a new helper, it can be a bit daunting?



Depends if your having a chat or trying to educate....

Father in law:

_"What kind of a python is that"

"its a jungle python"
_
Newby herper interested in getting a snake:

_"What kind of a python is that"

"its a jungle python - Morelia spilota cheynei"
_


----------



## Goldie74 (Mar 1, 2013)

I agree that scientific names stick, and as others have stated, they're more definitive (particularly concerning botany). Whatever works for you


----------



## dragondude (Mar 1, 2013)

I understand what you mean apprenticegnome
I think it largely depends who you are talking to and the environment
I probably wouldn't start busting out scientific names to those who are just starting out
I definitely don't say Pogona Vitticeps to my partner when I'm talking about my "Beardy"
But a place like this forum, I don't think you can ever "overuse" it because of the reasons already mentioned by the members


----------



## Umbral (Mar 1, 2013)

I love looking at stars, that doesn't mean I want to know everything about them and what they are called in Russia. 

Each to their own, I want to learn about reptiles so I google the Latin names I don't yet know. Another person may feel that there is no need to and would prefer to put their time to use in another area. I don't think it's a big deal either way, there are more important issues that can be argued in the world.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 2, 2013)

*Background Information*
The use of only common names has several problems associated with it.

- A given species may have more than one common name, which varies according to where you live… 
e.g. Shingleback (east coast), Bogeye or Boggi (areas of NSW, especially the ranges and western slopes), Sleepy Lizard or Pine Cone Lizard (common in SA), Stumpy Lizard or Stumpy (parts of Vic, SA and WA), Bobtail or Bobbie or Bobby (most of WA), Two-head Lizard (odd places). It is also known as a Deaf Adder in some places.

- More than one species may have the same common name…
e.g. Brown Snake can refer to around 9 members of the genus _Pseudonaja_ and 1 member of the genus _Pseudechis_. To be fair, herpers differentiate between the different browns, usually by adding another term in, such as Common, Western, Northern, Speckled, Ringed, King etc. Any brown coloured snake is likely to be identified by local residents who are not versed in identification as a “Brown Snake”. Any banded snake is often called by locals a "Tiger Snake” etc.

- A common name used in one region may be more applicable to another animal in another region…
e.g. The common name “Pygmy Bearded Dragon” is used for _Pogona henrylawsoni_ in the eastern states. Yet _Pogona minor_ in Western Australia is a significantly smaller animal. So a West Aussie might justifiably think that their local bearded was being referred to by the name “Pyg.

- Different texts and field guides differ in the common names they give to specific species.



*Scientific Names*
The use of *scientific names* overcomes the above problems as each type of animal has ONE and only one scientific name. 

Scientific names consist of two parts – the first part is the *genus* to which the organism belongs; and the second part is the *species* name for that organism. Where a species has been further grouped into subspecies, the *subspecies* name may be added after the species name. So where any scientific name contains three names, the last name refers to a *subspecies* group of that species.

Scientific names are made using mostly *Latin* root words. The reason is that Latin used to be the language of scholars as it allowed them to read the works of and communicate with other scholars from all different countries and speaking different languages. This was still pretty much the case when the system of naming organism by their genus and species (*binomial nomenclature*) was introduced by *Linneaus*. So by learning the meanings of some of the Latin roots, you can understand why an organism has given its particular scientific name.

Not all words in scientific name come from Latin. For example, for the Pygmy Bearded Dragon mentioned above, Pogona derives from “pogon” meaning beard but “henrylawsoni” derives from an Australian historical writer. So referring to scientific names as Latin names is incorrect.

*AROD* is great for scientific names because it shows both the *pronunciation* and how the word was derived (*etymology*). Anyone serious about developing their skills and understanding of any group of living things, be it reptiles, fish, plants, sea shells or whatever, will need to become familiar with scientific names. 

Scientific names are a foreign language when you first come across them. Understanding that the first word is the *GENUS* and the second is the particular *SPECIES* helps a lot. But that alone does not bridge the initial gap. So what needs to happen is for people to use both the most generally accepted common name *AND* the scientific name. It may be seen as a pain in the butt by many, but one needs to appreciate that by using both it is being as to the animal and at the same time helping the reader to learn correct scientific names.

Blue


----------



## mummabear (Mar 2, 2013)

I teach my 5 year old the scientific names. If she can get it I'm sure most can. I think it's a good way of knowing exactly what species people are talking about.


----------



## bk201 (Mar 2, 2013)

some nice field guides to australian reptiles are out those are the names i use
most of em are probably out of date by now but i don't have 20 hours a day to keep up with revisions like others i actually go outside!


----------



## Echiopsis (Mar 2, 2013)

solar 17 said:


> 90% PLUS HAVE COMMON NAMES ITS JUST A LOT OF FIVE MINUTE HERPERS TRYING TO LOOK TECHINICAL (IMO) ......solar 17



You don't tend to say stupid things too often but you've done quite well this time. Real herpers use scientific names, common names are a waste of time. As a side note, people who keep reptiles are not herpers, people who get out of their comfy chair and observe them in the wild are.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Mar 2, 2013)

Wow, some very condescending attitudes in this thread. As a biology student it is kind of mandatory to know latin terminology and technical jargon and somewhat crucial in an id thread at times but come on, someone posts a picture of their new 'blah blah' and there always has to be one that says nice 'blah blahii', just comes of as pretentious. Sorry if that offends any 'real herpers'


----------



## Dendrobates (Mar 2, 2013)

Echiopsis said:


> As a side note, people who keep reptiles are not herpers, people who get out of their comfy chair and observe them in the wild are.



About time that someone pointed this out! Reptile KEEPERS are not herpers, and the majority don't even know of a world outside of a melamine box.


----------



## Demansiaphile (Mar 2, 2013)

Stop expecting to be spoon fed. Use a book, google coupled with a brain.

I'll and anyone else who actually spend times in the field and likes learning about reptiles will post how we want to. 

Learning scientific names will help you understand some basic characteristics of said species and sometimes where their common name come from. 

"Carlia sexdentata" literally translates to six toothed and guess what its common name is, Six Toothed Rainbow Skink. 

Skinks already touched on the international and interstate level. Different species have similar common names. The easiest example would be Blue Tongues. The species differ from state to state but colloquially, people just call them Blue Tongues. 

The main point is that Scientific names are direct and won't change from place to place. 

When it comes to smaller reptiles it becomes much more simple to use the scientific name.
99% of people will have no idea what a Top End Fire Tailed Skink is. If I say Morethia storri, it's a different story. Even if you only knew the genus you would have a better understanding. If not, Google would give you a direct answer straight away.



solar 17 said:


> 90% PLUS HAVE COMMON NAMES ITS JUST A LOT OF FIVE MINUTE HERPERS TRYING TO LOOK TECHINICAL (IMO) ......solar 17



Injecting rodents with water and injecting incubators with medical grade oxygen isn't being overly technical and unnecessary? 

HERPERS GO OUTSIDE OF A MELAMINE BOX.

............[Demansiaphile]


----------



## jedi_339 (Mar 2, 2013)

I use scientific names all day everyday, it's a part of the job I do. Often I return home and say scientific names without evening realising I am doing it, it takes me longer to stop and think of the common name when someone gives me a blank look because they aren't second nature to me anymore. Even to the point if I say Lerista punctatovittata and I receive a blank look I struggle to come up with anything other then 'skink........that burrows'

Skinks, demansiaphile and echiopsis all raise really great points, despite the common perception of the term 'herper' or even 'herpetologist' it isn't your average joe or joanne who sits at home stroking their Anteresia in front of the computer all day. Everyone should try to get out into the field, see what you can find and have a poke around to try a bit of amateur herping. You never know you might learn something.

Also as a side note, I hate having useless information stored in my head, when am I ever going to need ophisthodon or even ornatus anymore?? 5 years ago my world was safe and secure then bam Bam two hits by taxonomists on ornate burrowing frogs :lol: that'd be my biggest gripe with herpers, always changing things just to confuse me haha


----------



## spongebob (Mar 2, 2013)

I've stumbled in my pronounciation of scientific names throughout my life. I've certainly don't do it to impress nor have I been made to feel an idiot when I've been corrected. But they are necessary in herpetology to be clear about what you are talking about. A common name is fine for a bird as they have been standardised and subspecies are not so prevalent. Herps on the other hand are far more complex. these scientific names can in themselves create "better" names like ackie and brevie.


----------



## solar 17 (Mar 2, 2013)

l am sure glad some of you people aren't fish because you bite really well  solar 17 (Baden)


----------



## KaotikJezta (Mar 2, 2013)

According to the Australian Society of Herpetologists the only true herpetologists have a degree and have written several peer reviewed papers, books etc. So I guess it's all in the perception.


----------



## J-A-X (Mar 2, 2013)

As has already been said, scientific names certainly have their place in the animal kingdom.

If I told you I kept a 'weero' or a "Quarrion" chances are most wouldn't know what I had. If I told you I had a 'cockatiel' most would know what I had. 
If I told you I had a "Nymphicus hollandicus commonly known as a cockatiel" you could google the scientific name and see what I have  
It doesn't seem to be quite as confusing with reptiles although I'm sure that what we commonly call animals here could be different if you lived overseas.

It's not necessary to include the scientific name in all posts but it certainly helps to identify an animal and helps educate people globally.


----------



## RedFox (Mar 2, 2013)

I think the use of scientific names is great but I agree with blue it could sometime be helpful to have the common names. In I'D threads I believe the scientific name is important. 

Also something to think about the other day someone asked me about centralian carpet pythons. I gave them a blank stare before realising they meant morelia bredli. I guess that is an example of the common name not being so common.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Mar 2, 2013)

They are called Centralian Carpet Pythons on the Victorian species list so how could you not know what they meant


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 2, 2013)

Echiopsis said:


> You don't tend to say stupid things too often but you've done quite well this time. Real herpers use scientific names, common names are a waste of time. As a side note, people who keep reptiles are not herpers, people who get out of their comfy chair and observe them in the wild are.


boom, perfect!


----------



## RedFox (Mar 2, 2013)

KaotikJezta said:


> They are called Centralian Carpet Pythons on the Victorian species list so how could you not know what they meant



Yes but it isn't the term I commonly use or hear all the time. I haven't thought about centralian CP for some time. I remembered pretty quickly.


----------



## eipper (Mar 2, 2013)

Scientific names are the best.....why

Clarity...I can say _Pseudechis porphyriacus_ or _Austrelaps superbus_ and mean the Australian elapids not the american equivlents.

As for taxonomy, I keep up with the changes. I am a herper though.....not a cultivator


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 3, 2013)

While I agree with the previous comment, I also feel that use of scientific names depends upon the circumstances. Some situations require it, such as taxonomic papers, field guides and such. Others don’t e.g. referring to a “Diamond” on an APS thread. Common names have their place and they are easier to say, spell and remember. However, where there is any possible chance of ambiguity of the identity of an animal because of its common name, then the scientific name should be used. General discussion in threads included. 

Blue


----------



## -Peter (Mar 3, 2013)

eipper said:


> Scientific names are the best.....why
> 
> Clarity...I can say _Pseudechis porphyriacus_ or _Austrelaps superbus_ and mean the Australian elapids not the american equivlents.
> 
> As for taxonomy, I keep up with the changes. I am a herper though.....not a cultivator



Taxonomy leaves me bewildered with its' constant changes. I may be odd but that excites me. I stopped keeping reptiles for a number of years while I pursued other life requirements. I then read an article where Amphibolurus had been split and Pogona was the new genus. Bang, I was straight back into it. With common names you may know the players but you dont know which team they play for.


----------



## cadwallader (Mar 3, 2013)

scientific names make me feel smart!


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Mar 5, 2013)

I need to google most of the common names, those are the really confusing names that make no sense. Half of them are also completely misnomic and plenty of them are terribly misused. Scientific names are far far easier to learn.....



> Is that snake a king brown or a mulga?... could be either really, though it is definitely a _Pseudechis australis_[/QUOT]
> When talking to friends I'll often say _P.australis_ referring to the frog, they all think I mean the snake.


----------



## treeofgreen (Mar 5, 2013)

KaotikJezta said:


> According to the Australian Society of Herpetologists the only true herpetologists have a degree and have written several peer reviewed papers, books etc. So I guess it's all in the perception.



Makes me wonder how many "true herpers" we actually have here haha. 

I dont know if its just me, or the lack of info/emotion when using text, but it has always felt like the "real herpers" have an "im better than you caus i know more" air about them. Obviously not everyone, but just a general vibe i have noticed.


----------



## Red-Ink (Mar 5, 2013)

We have plenty of herpers here going by numerous post from people of wild reptiles... I myself go herping from time to time when I can.


----------



## GeckPhotographer (Mar 5, 2013)

> _According to the Australian Society of Herpetologists the only true herpetologists have a degree and have written several peer reviewed papers, books etc. So I guess it's all in the perception._



A degree in what? There is no herpetology degree in Australia, most professional herpetologists don't even come from Zoology, they come from Biology, or Environmental Science, the rare case can even come from paleontology, medicine, engineering etc. A degree doesn't mean anything to what you're called. 

But I agree to be a herpetologist (which is different than a herper), you should be scientifically studying herpetologists.


----------



## treeofgreen (Mar 5, 2013)

How would you guys define:
herper
real herper
herpetologist

just interested


----------



## Snowman (Mar 5, 2013)

Can't say I care much about what defines the above. You have pet keepers, people who like to find wild reptiles, people who study wild reptiles, people who study captive reptiles, people who just have a general interest. Does it really matter?

I keep and breed captive reptiles. I also like to find and photograph wild reptiles and pencil locations of sightings in my field guides. I'm not an arm chair herper, but I'm not studying anything either. 

As far as having a degree... I doubt you will find a better herpetologist in WA than Brian Bush. Who doesn't have a degree but a lifetimes worth of field study.


----------



## KaotikJezta (Mar 5, 2013)

Not saying you have to have a degree, just saying it's all in the perception. There are plenty of people that go observe wild reptiles but wouldn't have a clue how to keep them in captivity etc. I'm not saying there are no knowledgeable people without degrees but the holier than thou attitude shown by some members astounds me.


----------



## richoman_3 (Mar 5, 2013)

GeckPhotographer said:


> A degree in what? There is no herpetology degree in Australia, most professional herpetologists don't even come from Zoology, they come from Biology, or Environmental Science, the rare case can even come from paleontology, medicine, engineering etc. A degree doesn't mean anything to what you're called.
> 
> But I agree to be a herpetologist (which is different than a herper), you should be scientifically studying herpetologists.




wait ...
so to be a herpetologist i need to study OTHER herpetologists? .... how crazy?
but you said there none in australia because there is no herpetology degrees .. which means i need to go to another country?
this is crazy


----------



## Echiopsis (Mar 5, 2013)

KaotikJezta said:


> Not saying you have to have a degree, just saying it's all in the perception. There are plenty of people that go observe wild reptiles but wouldn't have a clue how to keep them in captivity etc. I'm not saying there are no knowledgeable people without degrees but the holier than thou attitude shown by some members astounds me.



It's not a holier than thou attitude, it's simply explaining the meaning behind the word. The word herper was always used to refer to people who go into the scrub and observe reptiles, not people who keep reptiles in boxes only. This isn't attacking keepers, it's purely using the word herper correctly.

As for the common name/ scientific name debate, its a no brainer. Scientific names are exact and valid internationally, common names are neither. I still use common names for a few common species but for the most part I don't see the point in remembering a whole heap of extra rubbish names that I'll never use. If you don't want to learn them that's your prerogative but don't whine at the people who choose to. Google is your friend.


----------



## westernrocky (Mar 5, 2013)

What a hobby we are part of, people going off because someone else is only a Melamine keeper others are being labelled poachers others talking down to others over the use of a Botanical name a couple taking the mickey out of everybody others questioning others qualifacations "WOW" and we are all part of supposedly similar hobby WR


----------



## treeofgreen (Mar 5, 2013)

westernrocky said:


> What a hobby we are part of, people going off because someone else is only a Melamine keeper others are being labelled poachers others talking down to others over the use of a Botanical name a couple taking the mickey out of everybody others questioning others qualifacations "WOW" and we are all part of supposedly similar hobby WR


Sounds like a very tame, run-of-the-mill APS thread to me


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 5, 2013)

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 (Mar 7, 2013)

Skinks said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2013)

Bluetongue1 said:


> 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 (Mar 8, 2013)

Skippii said:


> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT... LOUUUD NOISES!
> 
> Sorry.. Couldn't help myself..
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 8, 2013)

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


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 8, 2013)

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&shy;&shy;_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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 9, 2013)

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 (Mar 10, 2013)

PythonLegs said:


> 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 (Mar 10, 2013)

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 (Mar 10, 2013)

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


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 10, 2013)

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 (Mar 10, 2013)

-Peter said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2013)

Bluetongue1 said:


> 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 (Mar 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## longirostris (Mar 11, 2013)

-Peter said:


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



Ahhh but no, the inspiration was in fact that I tend to put my nose into things and discussions sometimes when perhaps it is not warranted or appropriate so I thought how clever of me if I took the name longirostris. But then again I could have had a profound interest in Spinner dolphins, (Stenella longirostris) perhaps.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 12, 2013)

-Peter said:


> 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.


You are quite correct. That is a perfect example of poor communication on my behalf. I should have used “example” instead of comment, as I could not locate a ‘longirostris’ cuckoo for the Caribbean. 

I thought it was a good example for those unfamiliar with the way scientific naming work. They may have wondered why there is some measure of repetition when names are supposed to be unique. So thankyou for pointing me in that direction. 

I should add here that I have very deliberately used the term ‘species epithet’ rather than ‘species name’ or even ‘species, to avoid any confusion. The latter two terms are used to refer to both the species epithet as well as the binomial name of a species.

Blue


----------



## -Peter (Mar 12, 2013)

Member of the Coccyzus genus. Has a common name of lizard cuckoo that it shares with other species throughout the region but Spinner dolphins is much more appealing.


----------



## Spiral-Python (Mar 13, 2013)

In the same way that some Australian plants have shared common names, the Latin is the specific way to describe species so there is no confusion. Saying that it is also usual to be familiar with the common name so as to not exclude people outside the circle, but it's also fun to recognise the meanings behind the Latin, eg maculata means spotted, whether referring to a python or a eucalypt. I like the Latin names, they describe the species often in ways beyond any common name!


----------



## saratoga (Mar 15, 2013)

Just looking up Wilson and Swan field guide and found there are 2 Black-striped snakes but both are quite different

Just as well for scientific names so we know which one we are talking about _Cryptophis nigrostiatus_ or _Neelaps calonotus_


----------



## Snowman (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow three pages from all you people.... Or should I say from all you homosapiens?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Mar 16, 2013)

"_Homo sapiens sapiens_" please... don't want to leave the door open for any possible ‘neanderthalensis’ heritage to creep in.



saratoga said:


> Just looking up Wilson and Swan field guide and found there are 2 Black-striped snakes but both are quite different
> 
> Just as well for scientific names so we know which one we are talking about _Cryptophis nigrostiatus_ or _Neelaps calonotus_


The interesting thing there is Cogger attempted to distinguish between the two by referring to Neelaps species as the Western Black-striped Snake – which would be highly appropriate I would have thought. Yet succeeding authors did not take up his lead, unfortunately.


----------



## Ellannn (Dec 7, 2013)

I personally like it when people use the Latin names, because it helps me learn!


----------



## jacevy (Dec 7, 2013)

Ellannn said:


> I personally like it when people use the Latin names, because it helps me learn!



I too love the use of Latin terms. But they must be coupled with a common name. If not I have to open seperate windows to Google what people are talking about.


----------



## sd1981 (Dec 7, 2013)

I know the Latin names of the species that interest me, if a Latin name pops up and I don't know what it is and am slightly intrigued, I either google it, or continue living my life... Whichever I feel is more necessary at the time...


----------

