Are Scientific Names Unique? (1 Viewer)

annlondon · Sep 11, 2007

I have started an Access database of birds from countries I have been to. To make sure that I don't repeat a bird in my total bird list, I have used the scientific name as a key. However, when I did some cross referencing from the different country lists, the actual names of many birds with the same scientific name seemed quite different. For example, surely a black-bellied plover isn't the same as a grey plover?

If 2 birds have the same scientific name it is going to make this a lot harder than I thought.

delia todd · Sep 11, 2007

Great goodness.... I can answer a question in here:-O

Yes, Black-bellied Plover is the same as Grey Plover (I think that's the name the Americans use)

You should be OK using the scientific names

D

bkrownd · Sep 11, 2007

annlondon said:
If 2 birds have the same scientific name it is going to make this a lot harder than I thought.

Critters can have multiple scientific names, as well as multiple common names in one or more languages. Not infrequently a single species will be split into separate species, and the old names and new names will get mixed up for a while. Also, subspecies are sometimes commonly thought of as different species, with different common names, but they'll have the same scientific species name, sometimes with an additional subspecies/variety name on the end.

annlondon · Sep 11, 2007

Thanks, Delia

Actually, after delving a bit more I found the answer. Should have been a bit more thorough |:$|

Over time, I should have a great database and it means that I can make sure a lifer is a lifer!

Might go the whole hog and add pictures when (and if!) I have time.

Gordon · Sep 11, 2007

Would agree with Delia in principle - that using scientific names SHOULD be OK. But different authorities may well cite different scientific names. That could be due to the gender applied to the specific part of the name or because of updates to either or both of the generic and specific names. To some extent it depends on when the source you use was published. For some taxa there have been significant recent changes based on new molecular studies and/or behavioural/morphological/vocalisation studies.

There are a number of on-line reference sources that you might find useful:

http://worldbirdinfo.net/

http://www.bsc-eoc.org/avibase/avibase.jsp?region=in&pg=checklist&list=clements

http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/taxonomy.html

cheers
Gordon

annlondon · Sep 11, 2007

Oh no, bknownd, didn't want to know that. Oh well, I think I will stick with the scientific name as the key and sort out any discrepencies as they come up. It shouldn't happen often??!!

I have been using avibase, Gordon, for my lists so they should be more or less up to date.

njlarsen · Sep 11, 2007

Using the scientific name as a main key should be more foolproof than using a common name any day. If a scientific name changes, it is often only either the first part (one genus split into two, or one species moved from one genus to another) OR the second part that changes (mostly due to splits or lumps), but rarely both at the same time.

Cheers
Niels

Farnboro John · Sep 12, 2007

You might do better to buy one of the birding databases (which will have a complete list with the authority cited) rather than try to build your own. Less work, more enjoyment, and many of them publish regular updates to help you keep current.

John

ColinD · Sep 12, 2007

At one time I was under the impression that scientific names (why is it no longer pc to call them latin names, which is surely what the language is??), were used because they were the same the World over, never changed and were more accurate than common names. How wrong I was. Scientific names change frequently and are often just as inaccurate about the species as the common name.

My homemade database uses scientific names, but is based on common names, because as far as I'm concerned, they never change. A Dunnock is a Dunnock forever as far as I'm concerned, and if the scientific name changes I don't even notice.

There's no easy solution to the problem though.

Joern Lehmhus · Sep 12, 2007

[/QUOTE]My homemade database uses scientific names, but is based on common names, because as far as I'm concerned, they never change. A Dunnock is a Dunnock forever as far as I'm concerned, and if the scientific name changes I don't even notice.
[/QUOTE]

Well, other english names for Dunnock are Hedge Sparrow (I think that one was more commonly in use than dunnock in the past); Hedge Accentor (giving the true relationship of the bird)...and so on, I think there were some more, ah yes hedge warbler , for example

Also an animal can have the same scientific genus name as a plant:
example:
Prunella

P. vulgaris is self-heal; P. modularis is the dunnock

Farnboro John · Sep 12, 2007

Scientific names use a mixture of Greek and Latin roots, which is why the word Latin is best avoided: not to mention latinisation of modern names to form parts of names.

There are clear rules as to what names take precedence: most of the confusion arises when a sub-species is "split" by one or another authority. In theory even there sub-specific names should follow the precedence rules but if clashes occur (e.g. if a sub-species named for an explorer is split but he also already has a species in the same genus) then a new name may be needed for the new species.

The modern preference is for names to be descriptive rather than due to discovery or patronage but the system isn't perfect. But then what is?

What gets my goat is scientific authorities trying to take hold of and rationalise vernacular names, which is none of their business. Common usage is common usage, and all the authorities should be doing is recording it - I think the McJob furore makes a good parallel. The way the British Army changed after being ordered not to call Falkland Islanders "Bennies" (after woolly-hatted Benny from Crossroads), to calling them "stills" was another good example. The reason? Because they were still Bennies! A yaffle is a yaffle - but Green Woodpecker is OK, a Dunnock is a Dunnock not a Hedge Accentor and a Robin is a Robin and not a European Red-breasted Robin-chat.

John

Tannin · Sep 12, 2007

In defence of common names:

Within a particular region, and increasingly even on a world-wide basis, the formal common names of birds are unique and as accurate as it's possible to be. Several well-known common names of Australian birds have been changed in the last few decades for exactly this reason. Some examples:

OLD >> NEW
Spur-winged Plover >> Masked Lapwing (there is a quite different bird in, I think, Africa called "Spur-winged Plover".
Fork-tailed Kite >> Black Kite (an international species, it makes sense to use the same name for it everywhere, not use a different name for the same bird)

Despite these changes - relatively few in number - formal common names tend to be unambiguous and stable - a Little Egret, for example, is still a Little Egret, no matter how many times they decide it belongs to a different genus.

In short, provided your region has an on-the-ball listing organisation, and you are using the correct formal common name, you should be fine. If you are going to start using informal nicknames, however, you could be in trouble.

ColinD · Sep 12, 2007

Tannin said:
.........Despite these changes - relatively few in number - formal common names tend to be unambiguous and stable - a Little Egret, for example, is still a Little Egret, no matter how many times they decide it belongs to a different genus.......

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. Common names can be and often are more stable than scientific names. For example, I guess it's possible that a species may have an old English which has survived for centuries, yet over the same period, its scientific name may have changed several times as scientific advances (e.g. DNA) move it from one genus to another.

If you're developing a database, especially one for your own use, you're probably better using common names as the key rather than scientific.

Andrew Whitehouse · Sep 12, 2007

Some scientific names are used for more than one genus e.g. Oenanthe is the genus of Wheatears but is also the genus of Water Dropwort plants.

pianoman · Sep 12, 2007

Surely scientific names are, in principle, unique and correct, their very purpose is to identify an organism uniquely and universally.

That the names change from time to time is neither here nor there...scientific ideas often undergo revision or are in dispute, but they remain scientific because they must be supported by evidence and peer-reviewed.

njlarsen · Sep 12, 2007

One thing that has not been mentioned here is that there are several lists in existence that can be downloaded, and contain all the birds of the world. They could easily be adopted to fit your need. Examples would be http://www.worldbirdnames.org/, http://www.ornitaxa.com/SM/TaxChanges.html, and someone had a link to the Clements list for download somewhere as well.

In any case, the disadvantage of maintaining a database for yourself has been mentioned, it can be hard work; the disadvantage of buying a database which other people promise to maintain is the cost (100 US$ and up) and possibly that you will have fun developing your own

Niels

Farnboro John · Sep 12, 2007

Tannin said:
In defence of common names:

In short, provided your region has an on-the-ball listing organisation.

Sound of hollow laughter.

Herring Gull complex anyone? (For consideration, not a psychological defect)

John

Gentoo · Sep 12, 2007

bkrownd said:
Critters can have multiple scientific names, as well as multiple common names in one or more languages. Not infrequently a single species will be split into separate species, and the old names and new names will get mixed up for a while. Also, subspecies are sometimes commonly thought of as different species, with different common names, but they'll have the same scientific species name, sometimes with an additional subspecies/variety name on the end.

True, and to add to this confusion, sometimes part of the scientific name, usually the genus name is often disagreed on by different authorities. Then there are those which may have been split into more than one species on one checklist (ie. BOU split of American and European Herring Gulls), and on another checklist, this split is not recognized (ie. AOU showing only one Herring Gull species). With practice, it will become easier to figure out what's happening.

Xenospiza · Sep 12, 2007

I made my own access database, in which I used the relatively stable Dutch names as a key. Many forms don't have Dutch names, so I make them up. These are not the ones I'm likely to see often anyway, so they're easily changed...
It took me ages, but then again I'm no IT wizzard.
"Current scientific names" and "English common names" are quite a nightmare (too many people don't keep track of changes in the first, too many people don't want to use "American", "European" or "modern" names), so you'll have to keep track! Maybe buying a database is the best option. I am too stubborn to do that.

Farnboro John · Sep 13, 2007

Gentoo said:
Then there are those which may have been split into more than one species on one checklist (ie. BOU split of American and European Herring Gulls), and on another checklist, this split is not recognized (ie. AOU showing only one Herring Gull species). With practice, it will become easier to figure out what's happening.

Is that the right way round? If BOU have split American Herring Gull I must have missed it!

John

Are Scientific Names Unique? (1 Viewer)

Member

If I said the wrong thing it was a Senior Moment

Well-known member

Member

Registered User

Member

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Common; sedentary.

Well-known member

Professor of Listening

duck and diver, bobolink and weaver

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Guest

Distracted

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread