HomeGuideID RequestRecentFrassForumsDonateHelp

Clickable Guide

Calendar

Upcoming Events

Registration is open for the 2024 BugGuide gathering in Idaho July 24-27

Moth submissions from National Moth Week 2023

Photos of insects and people from the 2022 BugGuide gathering in New Mexico, July 20-24

Photos of insects and people from the Spring 2021 gathering in Louisiana, April 28-May 2

Photos of insects and people from the 2019 gathering in Louisiana, July 25-27

Photos of insects and people from the 2018 gathering in Virginia, July 27-29

Previous events

Common names

I am a fan of common names for things we see. It doesn't work too well when you are outside with someone and you see something neat and get excited and want to share what it is and you tell the average person the Latin name of something. Basically, it kills it because it makes it "too nerdy", "boring" and, therefore, an exciting thing becomes a bad thing! I have found it shocking how often I go to expand the taxonomy page on this wonderful site and find so few have common names. It makes me wonder how they get common names. Can we still give discovered species common names somehow?

I think it would be in the interest of science in the ongoing future to make these names more accessible, so people could build enthusiasm for them more easily. I hate the thought of losing out to a video game in the family room because kids get turned off by Latin names. I am sure no one will feel they have a real solution to giving things common names, but I would still like to know if you have had the same situation when you were outdoors with someone and felt the same way. Perhaps, in addition to posting to support the guide, we can for fun suggest what a practical name for them would be. Or perhaps we could also comment on how appropriately named the Latin name is when translated too. Or, in rare instances, we could say that the common name is impractical (e.g. our beloved local guy Ornate Grasshopper is always a welcome thing to see but not so ornate. Sorry, friend.) One last point. In identifying other things, I have seen things with more than one common name. That is better than none because we will always have the Latin name too for accuracy. This is my first post. I say all this because I hope it would be a fun topic and it would be nice to make it easier for the average person to get into all this too and perhaps help--not to be unscientific. It is hoped that it is well-received with that in mind. :) Thank you for reading this long post.

Contributed by dcslaugh on 18 December, 2015 - 4:15pm

I'm a bit late to this topic,

I'm a bit late to this topic, but I do agree/disagree. Common names are, as you say, useful for communicating with the public. This is especially true for those insects that already have common names; when you work with laypeople or even just socialize as you normally would, people are going to be turned off when you go around talking about "Danaus plexippus" instead of "monarch butterflies".

However, for species that don't have common names, I really don't see the need to come up with new scientific names to make entomology any more accessible. Most of these species belong to taxa that as a group have a common name that, if not already familiar, is descriptive and memorable enough to give the layman an idea about what you're talking about. If I'm out in the woods with my friends and find a Gonia, for example, I would call it a "Gonia fly" and, from that, introduce them to the concept of tachinid flies and talk about their interesting life histories as parasitoids of other insects. An exception would be when you're publishing a written beginner's guide to a single group, in which case coming up with common names is the best way to avoid confusion.

That being said, you are right in arguing that coming up with common names is a form of science outreach in itself (sort of like when taxonomists open up contests to name new species), and in fact I believe some myrmecologists did just what you proposed a few years ago with a genus of North American ants.

… uso, 31 December, 2015 - 2:42pm

Imagine the fun our first taxonomist Adam had

in naming living creatures. Don't know how he managed to find time for Eve.

… Peter W. Messer, 31 December, 2015 - 4:16pm

I suspect that

after seeing Eve, Adam did not have time for anything else except for poetry.
This could be the reason for the lack of so many ... many 'common name'
And, of course, why so many undescribed species still exist, we can blame. :)

… Iustin Cret, 31 December, 2015 - 11:18pm

Another question would be, ar

Another question would be, are there more species in total that have been around in the last 150 years before extinction of species due to damaging the environment/extensive poaching than is believed that there were say...5000 years ago? I'm noticing names of subspecies as I go and I am wondering if they are more recent on the scene, and if so, if it is possible that there could be a higher species count within the last 150 years.

… dcslaugh, 31 December, 2015 - 4:42pm

Not sure if I understand the question, but...

For the last 150 years extinction has outpaced speciation (the evolution of new species) by an astonishing rate. There are far fewer species today than 5000 years ago. I suggest looking up 'speciation' on Wikipedia to learn more about how it works. A subspecies isn't "newer" than a species, it is simply a further subdivision. They represent often groups within a species that are usually phenotypically distinct yet don't meet the requirements of being a full species. A lot of taxonomists don't like the subspecies concept at all.

… Will Chatfield-Taylor, 1 January, 2016 - 9:29pm

You did in spades! :). Thanks

You did in spades! :). Thanks!

… dcslaugh, 1 January, 2016 - 10:28pm

I don't think you can be too

I don't think you can be too late :)
Interesting method calling them a Gonia fly after the genus.
Thanks!

… dcslaugh, 31 December, 2015 - 2:56pm

Common Names

I enjoyed your comment regarding Common Names and am fascinated by the historical basis of such names. I would like to know if they have ever been recorded? Are they perhaps part of an oral tradition?
When I was a kid (many years ago) - I collected Butterflies and Moths. My friends and I gave our treasured insects our own names - which described the way they flew, or the colour that distinguished them...and this is how I suspect common names were derived in most cases?
But who awarded them to the insects and I would also like to know if they 'travel'? in other words, is a butterfly known as say a 'tiger' in Sri Lanka also known by the same name in other countries? Does the name translate into Chinese or Arabic? How did they travel if they did.
My uncle is an entomologist and I have had this discussion with him. He said that in the 19th Century it was very fashionable to go to exciting new countries in search of new species. Large 'fashionable' creatures, mammals, were the first to be discovered, recorded, and given common names - elephant, tiger, rhino etc..
The smaller, less well known creatures followed very slowly and basically remained a bit more obscure..

I would love to hear other peoples' views on this subject.
Bails

… Bails, 30 December, 2015 - 7:39am

Swinging On A Star

Would you like to swing on a star?
Carry moonbeams home in a jar?
And be better off than you are?
Or would you rather be a Equus asinus x Equus caballus? (mule)
... Or would you rather be a Sus scrofa domesticus? (pig)
... Or would you rather be a Craniata/Craniota/Pachycardia? (fish)

And all the Cercopithecoidae (monkeys) aren't in a zoo
Every day you meet quite a few
So you see, it's all up to you
You can be better than you are

You could be ...well, an entomologist.

… Lee Penner, 24 December, 2015 - 11:44am

Common names are great

Common names are great for insects as long as you don't go to species level. Sure, some of the more common and eye-catching species have a common name which is the same (almost) all over the English speaking world (hercules beetle, white witch). But for the zillion other species? I don't think so. Most 'common' names are just common in a limited area, and often based on things that may be geographically variable (a butterfly may be called orange here, but red 1000 km away). The same common name may also indicate different species, depending on where you are. Why not having just common names down to family level (and maybe a bit lower in large families), and then saying "some kind of leaf beetle" or "a small reddish ant"? Would it really help increasing ecological interest in youngsters when you have a list of 'common' names of the 78 ant species living in your neighbourhood? Common names are basically for easier communication with the non-scientific people you meet each day. Scientist may also 'commonize' scientific names for easier use when talking (NOT when writing). Why say Cyclocephala when you could do with 'Cyclo'? They will usually not use common names down to species level though.

For some time, I've used the 'common' name zzzpoc for scarab beetles of the genus Stenocrates which came to my collecting lights. That was because of the sound they made when they flew against the sheet. Both me and my collegue knew exactly what me ment, but we were not certain of the genus by then. We now don't use this name anymore because we're confident in distinguishing specimens from this genus from other genera.

Basically, I think common names have only value when they are made by people who want to distinguish between the things they see in their surroundings. You shouldn't force such names to people. Once people get really interested, they will realize soon enough that they have to use scientific names when communicating with their peers.

… Scarabaeoid, 23 December, 2015 - 10:12pm

That's an encouraging point r

That's an encouraging point regarding the how common family names are helpful.

… dcslaugh, 24 December, 2015 - 11:59am

Once you start working with insects....

Common names, in my opinion, are completely useless, and as what has been said here several times, most of the beetles I work on do not have "common" names. When I am in the field collecting or observing insects with kid or students, I use the scientific names, and everyone learns the scientific names, which are their names. I tell them that calling insects by a common name is like calling their friend Suzie Smith "dark haired polish girl".

… Guy A. Hanley, 23 December, 2015 - 12:19pm

Besides ...

scientific Latin names are fun when one learns the meaning of their word parts. The various parts will frequently occur again in different combinations for other scientific names encountered.

… Peter W. Messer, 23 December, 2015 - 8:54pm

That sounds good.

… dcslaugh, 23 December, 2015 - 9:30pm

The problem is that most insects don't have common names

Most people don't pay enough attention to them for them to acquire common names. We would suggest you have the folks who see the creature make up their own 'common name'. We actually find it offensive when folks try to tell us that we have to use their official 'common name'. It seems to us that they are just trying to create English scientific names. If you want to be absolutely clear to all what creature you are talking about, you need to use its scientific binomial. Other than that call it something that is meaningful to you and your neighbors. One of the first warblers that pass through here in the spring is known as the 'butterbutt'. Try finding that in a book. But folks here will know exactly what you are talking about. Please let's not try to legislate English names.

… john and jane balaban, 18 December, 2015 - 6:23pm

Well, I sure don't want anyth

Well, I sure don't want anything to make you feel offended! :)
Yes, we agree that the Latin name will always make it clear what something is.
I am also not saying you have to adopt a common name a random, small group made up!

What I was hoping is that somehow there would be an English name made by a universal authority that you and everyone would accept that would make it more enjoyable for the average person in hopes that they would want to pay more attention (e.g. Palm Warbler or Forster's Tern). Now that you have helped me this far, I see that I suppose then we run the risk of always having scientists (who are the ones who have the authority) having equally challenging last names who would have to forego the opportunity of using their last name after having the fun of discovering something new! Well, that's not something we can ask!! It seems a dead language does indeed work well for living discoveries!

I suppose my friends who find the Latin to be unappealing perhaps would find knowing the roots of the Latin name and their translation into English interesting because it would make the reason why they were given that name more clear to them.

Please understand that I was frustrated by the situation and chose to try to deal with it. I can see that this situation has caused you and others on the opposite end frustration too! I can appreciate that! I did not know about that when I posted the comment! I also appreciate that you were kind enough to make a suggestion from experience, as well. You have helped me to process the issue further. Thank you for your help through this forum! I hope this message finds you well and that you feel that you have made a positive contribution that will help everyone with the guide going forward!
Thank you again!

… dcslaugh, 18 December, 2015 - 10:25pm

Don't give up so easily

We were just giving our own opinion. You will likely hear from some other folks who feel exactly the opposite of how we feel and who appreciate when English names are legislated for species, which has been done, for example, in the Odonata. One interesting thing about English names, we'll use that term to distinguish them from localized Common names, is that even when the scientific binomial changes all over the place, sometimes so much that one can hardly keep up, the English name tends to stay the same. The spring wildflower known as Toothwort is still Toothwort even when it's scientific name has changed from Dentaria laciniata to Cardamine concatenata!
All we were saying is don't miss out on the fun of having kids make up common names for what they are seeing. You'll be surprised how accurate their names can be. And don't come down hard on folks who call Pachydiplax the Blue Pirate by saying "That's not its name! It is the Blue Dasher!! Harrumph!" We have seen some folks refer to Erythemis simplicicollis as the Green Clearwing, which we think is perfectly fine if that is what they choose. Yet others feel they must be scolded and told to call it the Eastern Pondhawk. We just don't get the point of scolding. That's certainly not the way to get folks to enjoy what they are seeing.
It will be interesting to see what other comments you get. Enjoy!

… john and jane balaban, 19 December, 2015 - 8:12am

Thank you for your comment!

Thank you for your comment!
I don't exactly know what you mean by legislated, but I do know I was trying to figure out why it was so hard for us not to have names for these things in our own language when we have names for everything else! And I know you helped me to figure out why for myself. And I feel better! And that helped me to feel better about not having to feel that something needed to be done about it. I was hoping to be able to use both names, but feel comfortable with the way things are.
I think that is great that English names help as you say because I do notice that the classification of things change or that the comment is made about how some feel that there are some that should.
One other thing I must say is that I think this may help me with further frustration with common names. Some common names are not appealing. It's funny that you mention Toothwort because not too long ago I saw some beautiful Milkwort. While "wort" does not mean "wart", it is one of several names that don't sound as pretty as they should for such beautiful flowers. I think that helps me appreciate the Latin names more. I think that if I choose to learn those names and the translation of their root words, that will help me with these problematic names, as well. I thank you for helping me to find something that works for me there.
As far as the scolding, yes, I think you are right about that. It can be frustrating to learn one name and then hear another for it. It can make us want to say that our name we learned was better. I appreciate that your comment helps us to accept others' traditions.
Again, I appreciate the time you took to reply on the forum. I must have a lot of interest to keep writing about different points on the matter! Thank you for helping me do what works best for me to enjoy the nature that we all share! And thank you for your continued helpful contributions to the guide! See you around as they say!

… dcslaugh, 19 December, 2015 - 1:23pm

common names

You might find this link interesting -- Common names of insects and related organisms.

… Ilona L., 20 December, 2015 - 5:54pm

Thank you for the nice link!

… dcslaugh, 20 December, 2015 - 7:52pm

Numbers and language

The fundamental problem is that there are approximately 1.5 million described species of insects. It isn't possible to give a 'Common' name to them all that is unique. Common names don't even work that well for birds, and there are only ~10,000 species. People cant agree on them, they change in every language, and they are often applied to multiple species. There's a reason the binomial system is still being used after 250 years. Additionally, there are an estimated 5-30 million MORE undiscovered species of insects out there that common names would have to be given to.

I know learning scientific names can be a pain, but it's by far the most efficient method, and you learn the most by it. A common name tells you nothing about a species. A binomial tells you the genus and the species, so it teaches you something about how it is classified.

For example: the genus Agrilus is a genus of beetles in the family Buprestidae. There are over 1000 species in that genus alone. To my knowledge, only one has a common name because it's a pest - the Emerald Ash Borer. Can you imagine trying to name the other 999 species, most of which can't be distinguished without a microscope with a common name to be used 'in the field'?

Hope this helps a bit to explain why entomologists eschew common names and really, really dislike it when they're suggested.

… Will Chatfield-Taylor, 20 December, 2015 - 5:17pm

I appreciated your comment.

… dcslaugh, 20 December, 2015 - 7:52pm

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Printer Friendly Version