- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
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 involutuswhich may be quite common: ammoniavirescens, obscruisporus & cuprinus. On public forays, ‘in the field’ I would call collections Brown Rollrim or Paxillus involutusbut 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. 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
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.
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.
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 …
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). 
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.