Common names

Post Reply
User avatar
jimmymac2
Frequent user
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 1:23 pm
Location: Sussex/Surrey
Contact:

Common names

Post by jimmymac2 » Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:30 am

How important are common names in mycology? For instance Nettle Clustercup (Puccinia urticata).
Always keep your eyes open... :shock:

roy betts
Frequent user
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 9:28 pm

Re: Common names

Post by roy betts » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:08 am

English Names can be useful when talking to the 'general public' (public forays), otherwise I stick to Latin: then everyone knows what you're talking about. For example what is "Brown Rollrim"? We now have three segragates of Paxillus involutus which may be quite common: ammoniavirescens, obscruisporus & cuprinus. On public forays, 'in the field' I would call collections Brown Rollrim or Paxillus involutus but I would be taking a sample home to check which of the 4 species it is. If you say to most field mycologists "I've found a Goldleaf Shield" they won't know what you mean but they will immediately know if you say Pluteus romellii.

Flaxton
Frequent user
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 2:13 pm

Re: Common names

Post by Flaxton » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:21 am

Hi
It depends on who you talk to. Vital to encouraging people new to mycology according to those at the BMS who came up with the English (not common) names. http://www.britmycolsoc.org.uk/library/english-names/
Nothing but a nuisance according to many old hands. If someone asked me if a fungus was an "inky mushroom" or a "salty mushroom" I wouldn't have a clue what family they were talking about let alone which species but if they said is it an Agaricus moelleri or Agaricus bernardii I would at least know the family and be able to find the differences between the two.
I suppose that puts me in the "old hands" camp but I do sometimes use the English names.
Mal

User avatar
adampembs
Frequent user
Posts: 1534
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:40 am
Location: Pembrokeshire
Contact:

Re: Common names

Post by adampembs » Tue Jun 09, 2015 8:52 am

I sometimes use English names when they are well established and the scientific name is hard to say.
When a genus is obvious and familiar, I use the scientific name, eg Russula. For less familiar fungi to me, I can often remember just the English name, eg Candlesnuff Fungus (off the top of my head, I can't remember the scientific name.) For the forum, however, it takes a few seconds to look up the scientific name, so I use that to avoid confusion.
Adam Pollard
Site admin

User avatar
Lancashire Lad
Frequent user
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 11:59 am
Location: Red Rose County
Contact:

Re: Common names

Post by Lancashire Lad » Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:58 pm

In anything other than strictly mycologist company, if a fungus has an "accepted" common name, (in terms of British Mycological Society list of accepted common names), and whether I agree that the name appropriately fits the fungus in question - or not, I will always try to give that name along with the scientific name. But I do advise those present of the potential pitfalls in using common names. ;)

I think in such circumstances, giving the common name as an additional snippet of information, makes for a more receptive audience, leaving them more likely to remember what's been seen or shown to them. - If that leads to some of them forming a lasting interest in the subject, so much the better!

Regards,
Mike.
Common sense is not so common.

User avatar
Wood Wanderer
Frequent user
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 12:06 pm
Location: Warwick VC38

Re: Common names

Post by Wood Wanderer » Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:16 pm

Lancashire Lad wrote:In anything other than strictly mycologist company, if a fungus has an "accepted" common name, (in terms of British Mycological Society list of accepted common names), and whether I agree that the name appropriately fits the fungus in question - or not, I will always try to give that name along with the scientific name. But I do advise those present of the potential pitfalls in using common names. ;)

I think in such circumstances, giving the common name as an additional snippet of information, makes for a more receptive audience, leaving them more likely to remember what's been seen or shown to them. - If that leads to some of them forming a lasting interest in the subject, so much the better!

Regards,
Mike.
I agree entirely Mike, as a beginner a few years ago it certainly helped me to progress as initially common names seem to be easier to remember, albeit you really do need to learn the scientific ... ;)

User avatar
jimmymac2
Frequent user
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 1:23 pm
Location: Sussex/Surrey
Contact:

Re: Common names

Post by jimmymac2 » Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:18 pm

Thanks all! I will try my best to use all the scientific names in this forum (I think I do it a lot of the time anyway). :)
Always keep your eyes open... :shock:

marksteer
Frequent user
Posts: 348
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:08 am
Location: Glamorgan VC41

Re: Common names

Post by marksteer » Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:23 am

I agree that the use of scientific names is essential to be precise. However the use of English names engages a wider audience - many people with an interest in fungi but no depth of knowledge look blank when you use the scientific name. Certainly on Glamorgan Fungus Group Forays we have a number of attendees who struggle with the Latin (I do as well at times!). When I write up our Species list I use the English name (if there is one!) first and then the scientific name.
'The more I know the more I realise I don't know'

User avatar
jimmymac2
Frequent user
Posts: 500
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 1:23 pm
Location: Sussex/Surrey
Contact:

Re: Common names

Post by jimmymac2 » Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:28 am

That's the same as I do, in my lists I put the English name first and then the scientific name.
Always keep your eyes open... :shock:

Post Reply