English names - do people find them helpful?

[Chris Yeates]

to every visitor to the site:

I've just added the fungus Schizophyllum commune (* if you click on this it may take you the wrong image - I've just discovered - you might have to go into the A to Z and search for Schizophyllum there) to the A to Z of fungus photo's; I was asked for an English name and my first thought was 'fine, this has a well established and justifiable English name - "Split-gill" ' this is how it appears on numerous websites including Wikipedia . . .

but the 'recommended' English name is apparently "Common Porecrust" (!) there is also a "Split Porecrust" which is the English name for the resupinate (related to bracket fungi) fungus Schizopora paradoxa

these two fungi are not in the least closely related and yet the English names seem to suggest that they are! I think that far from helping newcomers to mycology, this is going to confuse them; it's almost like naming things Meadow Buttercup and Bulbous Buttercup when the former is indeed a buttercup and the latter is an umbellifer!.

I suspect that the Common Porecrust name is a slip, but that moves us into the serious area . . . who sanctions these English names? what right have they to impose them? The taxonomists who come up with the scientific names are bound by a whole series of carefully assembled rules. Unfortunately that's why sometimes the names change in a rather annoying way . . . as happened today it was pointed out that a fungus I referred to as Bolbitius vitellinus should be called Bolbitius titubans: it's annoying but I know it has been done for justifiable scientific reasons

so who has come up with Common Sporecrust? what was wrong with the "Split-gill" of Roger Phillips and other books which most of us have?

I really would be interested to learn what people think - this is not a dig at English names in themselves, but I'm just wondering how useful they actually are if used like this . . .

by the way the Schizophyllum is worth a look - any organism with 28,000 sexes is surely worth a look . . .

Chris

[svenrufus]

Hi Chris
Yes, I defintely find English names useful - I understand and agree with the issues you identify regarding differing names but still find the ability to pronounce and recognise a name for species useful, even if only for myself in being able to embed knowledge.

As a botanist, there are similar situations all over the place, different names for the same plant, same name for different plants, regional names and so on, but there are some times in your career at learning about the natural world when having a name that it is relatively easy to get a handle on is invaluable for the retention of information.

As a (virtually) complete novice in the world of mycology, I have found it a particularly frustrating field at times for how difficult it is to be able to tell anyone (let alone myslef) what something (I think) I recognise, is. This is largely due to the complex nature of Latin nomenclature. English names break that down.

[Chris Yeates]

thanks for that

your post coming from the area of the vascular plants - where I suspect the situation is more stabilised - raises some interesting questions . . . | shall wait to see what others say before coming back in

as you may have seen my main problem is where the names are coming from; there has to be some sort of control or we are all over the place

Chris

[RobSutton]

Common names for vascular plants have evolved through common usage over a long time period - hundreds of years for some I guess. Their derivation and etymology in itself can be quite fascinating. The situation with fungi, and also for mosses and liverworts, where common names have, largely, been newly created is different. I think in time if they become established their usage and usefulness will increase but at the moment I'm unconvinced about them.

As an environmental educator the people I talk to fall into two categories. There are the ones I ask for help identifying things - they all use the proper scientific names. When I try and pass on what I know to people who know nothing about a group of organisms they do find descriptive names useful at first, especially if they give useful clues as to identification (velvet shank for example) or interesting stories about use (fly agaric would be a good example here). Scientific names do have that same usefulness and knowing a little about their derivation means that I can use them to highlight ID features just as effectively. A botanical example would be the specific squarrosus - it crops up in bryology as Rhyitidiadelphus squarrosus and in vascular plants as Juncus squarrosus. In both cases it refers to the plant having leaves bent at right angles.

I think overall I would have been happier to let the common names evolve naturally. If something doesn't have one then it's not something that people have found necessary and the scientific names would be good enough. I know the argument is that people can't handle the long complicated scientific names but ask any ten year old lad and I'm sure he can recite quite a list of long scientific names for dinosaurs - Tyranosaurus rex, Diplodocus, Brontosaurus etc. If the subject is interesting enough then people will learn to use the proper names.

Giving things common names may help stimulate an interest but the real problem with both fungi and also the mosses and liverworts is that identification depends very much on microscopy and for many people that makes them inaccessible. Bryologists are working on a field key for mosses and liverworts that uses macroscopic characters and ecological habitat characters together with first rate photography to try and overcome this British Bryological Society Fieldguide - Introduction. Yes it's not always possible to identify all bryophytes without microscopy (just like fungi) but with a good key combining all the other characters and a bit of experience you can get a lot down to species. Roger Phillips' book goes someway down that route but having a decent key using better habitat information and better field photographs might help even more.

[Hedge Witch]

Complete novice here.

I enjoy the English names. I find them interesting and "colourful". I like to include them if I'm describing a fungus to another novice like me. I know it helps them remember.

I've heard the comparison to dinosaurs names before. It's not quite the same thing, I don't think. It's the image of the dinosaur that captures the imagination first - the size, power, mystery of the creature. I believe learning the name then follows. For many people fungi are not nearly as interesting (sorry to say this, especially here ). It therefore helps if the fungus has a name that people relate to - something to bring the fungus "to life" in their imagination.

But there is only so far you can take this and the average person will never become very interested in the subject.

However, I think that anyone who already has a real interest in fungi for whatever reason (including those who wish to eat them or take them for other purposes beyond this discussion) will naturally and easily pick up their scientific names. I say from experience. I used to think "all those names" looked very complicated at first. But now I'm learning them faster than I would a foreign language. And I'm starting to think in terms of the scientific name now. It's just natural to do this.

But this is just my opinion. I'd like to stress this as I know from experience what a hot bed of emotion threads like this one can become. I'm simply expressing my thoughts in reply to an interesting question.

[NickCantle]

Hi Chris,

I've never heard of Schizophyllum commune being called 'Common Porecrust- Always 'Split Gill'.

[juliejam]

As you may already know...Im into the Common English names big time...I just enjoy taking a few pic's and finding interesting and sometimes rare finds...So English names are right up my street..
Plus some of them do bring a smile to my face..and a chuckle..and somehow allow me to remember them more easily...well that my excuse...and im sicking to it..

Cheers Guys ...


Julie

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by juliejam

somehow allow me to remember them more easily...well that my excuse...and im sicking to it..

Cheers Guys ...


Julie

you been eating funny fungi julie - i'd get treatment for that

[cybershot]

Originally Posted by juliejam

As you may already know...Im into the Common English names big time...I just enjoy taking a few pic's and finding interesting and sometimes rare finds...So English names are right up my street..
Plus some of them do bring a smile to my face..and a chuckle..and somehow allow me to remember them more easily...well that my excuse...and im sicking to it..

Cheers Guys ...


Julie

That'll be emetica I take it!

[kiltoncomp]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

Hi Chris,

I've never heard of Schizophyllum commune being called 'Common Porecrust- Always 'Split Gill'.

Hi Nick,
i think that its probably a regional thing, for example Coprinus comatus is known as Judges wig or lawyers wig , shaggy ink cap and others,
while i can remember them as cocky laddys from years ago , a term i have never heard of other than in my locale, (and then only from the older generation), and Lepista nuda has several names, even in the same locale,often sharing the common name with L.saevea

so in the end, if its a scientific name or a common english name, there will still be confusion in some quarters,
at least the english names are easier on the tongue

Brian