B
Bluetongue1
Guest
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
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