Searchable List of Accepted Common & Latin Names

The above noted list of accepted common names has recently been revised, (March 2016), with approximately 100 more species having been added.

(In total, there are now 1502 species on the UK list with accepted common names).

The revised list can be found at this BMS web page: – http://www.britmycolsoc.org.uk/library/english-names/ but unfortunately is not alphabetically searchable by common name. (And also, at the time of writing this, it appears that the first three species on the list are missing!!!!).

I have revised my searchable Excel file to accommodate the added species, and will ask if Adam might include a linked version of that revised searchable file here.

Regards,

Mike.

Thanks Adam.

Just for info, the download is in Microsoft Excel 97-2003 format, and is approximately 250KB filesize.

For anyone who wants to see how it’s formatted, here’s a quick screengrab of the first part of the list: –

[attachment=0]Common Names.jpg[/attachment]

Regards,

Mike.

While I understand the reasons for the use of vernacular names, and the Continentals seem to have them for even a lot of micro-species, seeing the list like this highlights one of my niggles.

You look down the left hand side and there several species whose name starts “Agaricus” – they are all related – makes sense.

You look down the right hand side and there are several species whose name starts “Alder” – they are not related – makes less sense. At least in this instance the Alder bit could be helpful if that was the associated species, but it is not the case with the majority of vernacular names.

Perhaps Linnaeus was on to something . . . .

I am currently in the process of updating a Yorkshire Mycota. The species total is fast approaching 5500 species; for species accounts of fungi in this list I shall of course include the accepted English name, but in each case I will have to look it up. 5500 species names (most of which I could at least place in their correct taxonomic position if presented with them) is quite enough to remember.

. . . I think these are accepted English names rather than “common”

Mal

Hi Mal,

You will note, if you have a look at my screengrab some six posts above, that I do use “Accepted English Name” on the column header, as that is what BMS use at the head of their version of the list.

When people refer to fungi by these names (especially beginners, people who are not familiar with fungi, and when used in informal foraying situations), most will ask “does it have a common name?” rather than “does it have an English name?”.

So for me, “accepted common name”, “accepted English name” or “accepted English language name” all mean the same thing.

Regardless of which phrase is used, it is the use of the word “accepted” which signifies that the name in question is officially recognised.

If we want to split hairs, the BMS page itself, is worded thus: –

QUOTE “A working party formed in 2005 after the publication of the Checklist of the British and Irish Basidiomycota has been increasing the number of common English language names for our fungi”.

To split even more hairs – my use (in posts on this thread) of “Latin names” isn’t strictly correct, because some fungi names aren’t derived from Latin. 😳

More correctly, I should have used “Scientific names” – But again, when most people, and I include myself, (other than when in strictly mycological circles) discuss such things, they will usually say “this is a such and such, its Latin name is . . . “, rather than “its scientific name is . . . .”.

(Although again, you will note that I do use “Scientific Name” as header on my searchable list).

Regards,

Mike.

The main reason I’m posting here is to point out that Stearn’s brillian “Botanical Latin” is now available as open source: https://archive.org/details/BOTANICALLATINWILLIAMSTEARN/mode/2up

Doh! – I bought the 2010 printing of that book several years ago at great expense – but still, it’s very useful having it to hand – In my view there’s nothing like reading a “proper book”

However, I’m sure that the online version will be of use to a great number of people.

This link takes you directly to a (22MB) PDF download of the sixth impression of the book: –

https://ia800805.us.archive.org/3/items/BOTANICALLATINWILLIAMSTEARN/BOTANICAL%20LATIN%20WILLIAM%20STEARN.pdf

Regards,

Mike.

PS: Adam has just sorted the link in the original post, (thanks Adam!), which now does work, showing my most up-to-date searchable version of the English/Scientific Names list, as well as a PDF version for those who want it.

Lancashire Lad wrote:

>

> Hi Mal,

>

> You will note, if you have a look at my screengrab some six posts above,

> that I do use “Accepted English Name” on the column header, as

> that is what BMS use at the head of their version of the list.

>

> When people refer to fungi by these names (especially beginners, people who

> are not familiar with fungi, and when used in informal foraying

> situations), most will ask “does it have a common name?” rather

> than “does it have an English name?”.

>

> So for me, “accepted common name”, “accepted English

> name” or “accepted English language name” all mean the same

> thing.

> Regardless of which phrase is used, it is the use of the word

> “accepted” which signifies that the name in question is

> officially recognised.

>

> If we want to split hairs, the BMS page itself, is worded thus: –

> QUOTE “A working party formed in 2005 after the publication of the

> Checklist of the British and Irish Basidiomycota has been increasing the

> number of common English language names for our fungi”.

>

> To split even more hairs – my use (in posts on this thread) of “Latin

> names” isn’t strictly correct, because some fungi names aren’t derived

> from Latin. 😳

>

> More correctly, I should have used “Scientific names” – But

> again, when most people, and I include myself, (other than when in strictly

> mycological circles) discuss such things, they will usually say “this

> is a such and such, its Latin name is . . . “, rather than “its

> scientific name is . . . .”.

> (Although again, you will note that I do use “Scientific Name” as

> header on my searchable list).

>

> Regards,

> Mike.

Hi Mike

Just ignore me I was obviously having a bad day.