Common name or not...A question.

[Martin Wilson]

This is by no means is a question to undermine the skill, knowledge, nor the great perseverance in identifying a particular fungi. But just a question about the common name of a fungi...by Definition it is just that!!! a common name.
It...the common name has been used for hundreds of years by people living in this country of ours to describe what they where looking at and what they would call it.
The Scientific name is more recent than the Common name and it does have a major significance to the correct naming and identification of the fungi, I am in no way against this as that would be illogical and a pointless discussion.
What I am not in favour of is the way Scientific names will slowly take over our common names and eradicate them from our reference books.
To achieve what?
The loss of a traditional name and of our heritage, yes insist on the Scientific name, that is a must. I am not questioning that, but not to use the common name is a crime against our Heritage and would be a great loss to our language. So please keep the common name, it is not trying to be an all round, encompassing word....Just a common one!!!
Martin

[cybershot]

The majority of the common names in current (often at variance with the traditional) use were concocted very recently by a BMS working party operating piece meal on allocating as many species as possible a common epithet based on nothing more than fanciful thinking ......and I understand there is another batch in the melting pot.

And depending on precise location they are anything but 'common'

[Lancashire Lad]

I know what you are getting at Martin, and, (having no scientific background myself), I find it considerably easier to use common names.

But - even I have found that common names can vary quite extensively for a given species -be it fungus, fish, bird, animal, flower - whatever.

The only definitive way to identify a given specimen (of whatever fauna or flora that specimen might be) is to use the latin name.

I am trying to get into the habit of remembering the Latin names - but it is hard going.

Regards
Mike.

[NickCantle]

Hi Martin, a good debating point, and now we have a thread for it.

I have to immediately pick you up on one thing though;

It...the common name has been used for hundreds of years by people living in this country of ours to describe what they where looking at and what they would call it.

Very few of our historically applied common names are being used- instead, common names created within the last decades by people who have no knowledge of the subject, to insultingly make it 'easier' for the beginner to recognise. There are many common names which are great and have been in use for years. Things like The Ballerina, Fly Agaric and Velvet Shank, I have no qualms with as they are perfectly logical names- i.e names that are descriptive or helpful in recognition. However, genus common names like Cavalier, Poisonpie and Domecap are so illogical and confusing. I mean 'Poisonpie'?! What's that all about.

I'm all for useful common names, but a large chunk of names have been created and applied without thought, and it does nothing for the beginner but confuse them or falsely lead them to thinking that all Lyophyllum have caps like domes.

[flaxton]

Martin
Just reiterating what David said really. If you want to keep the "common" names that have been in use for hundreds of years fine but there are only a few dozen of those out there and some fungi have more than one "common" name. By there very nature these also only applied to common fungi. If you want this site to identify these select common fungi fine but if you want to try and find and identify less common species you have to resort to the Latin much of which has also been about for hundreds of years.

Mal

[Martin Wilson]

And depending on precise location they are anything but 'common'[/quote]

I understand your point, as you know I am a novice to fungi.
The term Common I would think does not apply to its quantity but to its origion..ie. The common peoples name.

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by NickCantle

names created within the last decades by people who have no knowledge of the subject

that bit is is simply not true, Nick . . . Geoff Kibby, Shelley Evans , Ted Blackwell, Pat Leonard, Paul Kirk, Pete Roberts, the late Maurice Rotheroe . . . I've met all these people, some I would call friends; they are seriously good mycologists many of whom have discovered and described new species

but then I start to agree with you, I think that with a few exceptions they are confusing at best; I am sure it was/is an effort to "de-mystify" mycology, to make it appear less elitist to the powers that be - if you ever listen to radio news programmes with conservationists talking about attempting to save anything: a snail, a beetle, a moss, whatever, they will always use an English name

so IMHO use them then but otherwise the scientific name can give a better picture of the real affinities of a fungus (though the frequent name changes in scientific nomenclature don't help there!)

when I worked in a biological records centre a colleague often grumbled about English names like "Common Spotted Orchid" because the powers that be would say "if it's called that how can you tell us it's rare in this area"

can't win really; I have to chuckle when on forays members of the public sigh about all the Latin names (though explaining them is often enlightening - after all Velvet Shank only refers to the velutipes part of the name: Flammulina- 'little flame' is highly apt also); but when you ask these people what they have in their gardens they will tell you they've got Dahlias, Cammellias, Antirrhinum, Forsythia, Lavatera, Nicotiana etc etc

just my two penneth

Chris

[NickCantle]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

that bit is is simply not true, Nick . . . Geoff Kibby, Shelley Evans , Ted Blackwell, Pat Leonard, Paul Kirk, Pete Roberts, the late Maurice Rotheroe . . . I've met all these people, some I would call friends; they are seriously good mycologists many of whom have discovered and described new species

I know of a few of those names and concur that they are seriously good, but I recall reading somewhere that it isn't these people, nor other mycologists that devise these ridiculous names! I read that the last batch were created by an American wildlife group or something.

I fail to believe that mycologists as good as this would apply names with ill logic and lack of thought. If there's anyone to complicate things, it's a mycologist!

[Martin Wilson]

I am glad you understand me Mike. The Latin name is vastly correct and far more important. I understand that. In many cases there is not a common name and the Latin name is the only one, so be it. This might be because the average person could not identify the differences. Like myself I am totally ignorant to the Scientific name and like yourself am going to have to learn them. But the common name if it has one should be used, this helps the less educated in this field have an understanding and can have an interest. Lets face it, if you just see a Scientific name used it is quite daunting.

[NickCantle]

I can definitely see your point Martin, no question, but I can only agree to an extent- agreement that a few common names should be used- perhaps the more traditional ones. The fungi such as Fly Agarics will always be recognised by their common names, their traditional names, their apt names, and rightly so.

The 'Poisonpies' of this world, just create confusion and leave nothing decent to go on to the beginner.

To name a few names I think are very apt;

Shaggy Scalycap (Pholiota squarrosa) - Is shaggy and has a scaly cap.
The Ballerina (Hygrocybe calyptriformis) - Is pink and striates like a Tutu.
Velvet Shank (Flammulina velutipes) - Has a shank with a velvet aesthetic.
Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria) - Has a name infused with culture and tradition.
Bog Beacon (Mitrula paludosa) - Grows in Bogs and looks rather 'Beacon-like'.

I think the golden (bootleg) rule should be- if you're going to be giving out common names, at least make sure they're apt or traditional in some way. Believe me, it makes understanding it in the long run a lot easier.