Flag for Taxon: Larinia borealis
| Flagger | Content Author | Content | Reason | Flag Created | Resolved by | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jeremyhussell | Larinia borealis |
someone gave it a confusing common name |
Apr. 28, 2020 14:54:04 +0000 | loarie |
no common name |
Comments
Looks like @bobby23 added it in June 2019. Here's one potential source of the name: https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.110820/Larinia_borealis
Anyone else taking any common name that NatureServe promulgates with a huge grain of salt? Quite often they appear to be just making it up, I suspect to make the species more relatable to the public.
They didn't get the name from the references they provided, so far as I can tell (I can't find a copy of the checklist of spiders of Saskatchewan).
Whatever may have been on the draft list in 1999, it isn't referred to by a common name on the current list of invertebrates in Saskatchewan http://biodiversity.sk.ca/SppList/invert.pdf [edited for clarity]
I believe I did source this name from NatureServe because it is considered an accredited resource like the IUCN, but if there are issues with the common names they attribute to invertebrates I will be more cautious about integrating them into iNaturalist in the future.
A double check suggests this species is called the "Striped Orbweaver" only on NatureServe and iNaturalist. I agree that it should be removed.
I've noticed it with more than just invertebrates. Plants, too.
Yeah, NatureServe has a fair chunk of erroneous common names for arthropods (maybe other invertebrates as well). They've been quite a pain with insect names already, and I would frankly recommend that their names not be added without fairly thorough research. I'm not even sure how they get common names added either, so it would be hard to even say how familiar the person is with the species.
If this taxon's name had been Pin-striped orbweaver, I might be fighting to keep it... Maybe I should be the person making up common names for NatureServe. :)
I'm also seeing the name a few other places:
https://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ILARAG5010
I've re-added the name for now.
Note the iNaturalist logo on the Montana field guide site. I strongly suspect they copied the name from here.
The one from Canada is also copied from iNaturalist, via some active iNaturalist users in the working group. (If necessary I can email some specific people and ask if they remember whether they used iNaturalist as a source, but I'm pretty sure what the answer is.)
Edit: nope, see below.
Ah, I just noticed the earlier date on the Excel spreadsheet. (I first went to the website and looked at the current version.)
I will still argue that this is not evidence of a common name as iNaturalist defines them, since the National General Status Working Group explicitly created "common" names which did not previously exist, rather than documenting existing common names. https://www.wildspecies.ca/common-names
"Striped Orbweaver" is less confusing in Canada, where Larinia directa isn't known to occur, but it definitely should not be the default global name in English on iNaturalist.
Many common names that appear in field guides were made up, all common names were made up at some point. I think the iNat rules is intended to stop people from making up their own names and then adding them to iNat - this is not that.
This is not from a field guide, nor is it a name that has been in use for even a decade (much less centuries). People (some of whom I know) made it up, and it got added to iNat. It is exactly the sort of thing iNat guidelines reference.
"If a species has no common name in usage, please don't make one up."
"Names, in general, should be as specific as possible, and common names are no exception."
At most, one could argue this is a Canada-specific name in use by the Canadian government, even though it has never appeared in print and is effectively a proposal which is not, in fact, in use.
Even if that were conceded, names need to be far more specific if they're to be used globally on iNat. Imagine if someone tried to name an uncommon species of bird something incredibly generic, like naming Cackling Geese "Black Bird", even though there's both a much more common and near-identical species which doesn't have a common name (Larinia directa = Canada Goose in this metaphor) and a different type of bird which already uses the name (genus Singa = Blackbirds). Trying to name Larinia borealis "Striped Orbweaver" is exactly as ridiculous as that.
@kitty12, is it possible to re-open this, since the action got reversed?
I'd like to get this fixed before it spreads. https://xkcd.com/978/
I feel like this issue is whether or not "Striped Orbweaver" qualifies as a "Brazilian aardvark", though official government bodies are usually treated as as trusted sources for common names on iNaturalist even if they were invented by said government body, or at least that is my interpretation of site policies.
Another important stipulation for curators is that common names come from "elsewhere" - I elaborate on my personal understanding of what that means here on the iNatForum.
Google image search for "brazilian aardvark": https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=%22brazilian+aardvark%22
Google image search for "striped orbweaver": https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=%22striped+orbweaver%22
At the time I write this, there are only 46 results on the search for "Striped Orbweaver". The genera which appear in the results:
10 Argiope
8 Araneus
3 Hortophora
3 Neoscona
2 ? (I couldn't ID them to genera, but at least they were both orbweavers)
2 Larinia
1 Aculepeira
1 Beregama
1 Dolomedes
1 Enoplognatha
1 Eustala
1 Gasteracantha
1 Hypsosinga
1 Larinioides
1 Latrodectus
1 Mecynogea?
1 Nephila?
1 Platycryptus
1 Segestria
1 Tetragnatha
5 of those genera aren't even orbweavers. The two results which do contain images of Larinia are both from https://inaturalist.ala.org.au/taxa/172561-Larinia.
4 images do not contain spiders. Of these, two are images of text listing Singa as "Striped Orbweavers", 1 is a banner image from one of those sites, and the last appears to be a screenshot of a "Random Spider Species Generator", which is intriguing, but not relevant.
The results are from 19 unique websites, mostly stock photo sites (which are renowned for putting generic, inaccurate descriptions on images). Another site that appears multiple times is an article on the iNaturalist forum about identifying orbweavers, which contains photos of lots of species of orbweavers, lots of mentions of the word "orbweaver" and a few mentions of the word "stripe". I can confidently say that it contains no photos of Larinia (borealis or otherwise) because I wrote most of it.
So searching for the known hoax shows far more and far more accurate results than searching for "striped orbweaver".
How about one of these suggestions to change the common name to?:
American Striped Orbweaver
Common Striped Orbweaver
Or, if the color or pattern of the stripes is distinctive it could become part of the name, e.g. Red- or Black-striped Orbweaver
There are lots of American orbweavers which are striped. The genus Singa is already known as the “Striped Orbweavers”.
Larinia borealis is less common than other near-identical species in its genus. E.g. Larinia directa, which occurs in the US but not Canada.
Please don’t make up names. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
I knew these things actually. Note that I only offered initial names to discuss, and didn't state they were necessarily optimal/finished. Yet, my suggestion is really just to work as closely as possible with the original name (change it only as much as absolutely needed, if at all).
There also isn't exactly a name rule in the way you imply. It is justified (although caution should be used) for some users to coin names, ideally if they contact relevant sources and experts of the taxon when doing so, and have any necessary discussion with them and iNat first. Some of the users are specialists, so "no new names by users" is contradictory. For myself, I've only added names specialists typically validated.
Re: the current species question, I'll modify my comment to be I'm suggesting if the name is to change at all, possibly a slight modification adding some more-distinctive info would be best, while retaining as much of the original as possible. Not being entirely distinctive doesn't necessary exclude all names, since it's often impossible to truly distinguish all species of a genus. But, if anyone thinks of a distinctive name they can suggest it to discuss. It may also be relevant (although I won't be doing it) to contact the experts or source(s) who coined Striped Orbweaver for their input. In the event iNat changes anything, we often want to be on the same page with external orgs and experts.
Finally, note that this debate over this name doesn't entirely only have one objective right or wrong answer, even whether or not to retain the original name. You seem to imply it does but also don't suggest an ideal replacement name. Typically it's not ideal to remove a name without replacing one.
By American Orbweaver I also meant to imply something like Transcontinental or North American. You assume instead that I only meant it occurs in the US. Another possible change would be to start by just adding "Spider" to the end of the species name (and for spider genus names too). That will prevent confusion with non-spider taxa. Another possibility is replacing "Orbweaver" with "Grass Orb-web Spiders." That's just to start, I don't have a final full name suggestion. I'll leave it at that for my input.
Question: why do you want to preserve the made-up name? Let it die. It's been more than five years since it was proposed, and no-one has used it in print, so far as I can tell, and it hasn't become popular among spider enthusiasts on the internet (hasn't even been noticed, really).
There also isn't exactly a name rule in the way you imply.
This is a direct quote from the Curator Guide, which is about as close to rules as iNat gets: "If a species has no common name in usage, please don't make one up." https://www.inaturalist.org/pages/curator+guide#names in the paragraph under the heading "Good and Bad Common Names". I agree that this not a hard rule, that we're allowed to use our own best judgment. But it is a guideline which exists in writing.
Typically it's not ideal to remove a name without replacing one.
Typically it's not ideal to add a non-scientific name when a species doesn't have one in use. Again, why do you think it's typically not ideal to remove a name without replacing one? More importantly, what would a non-typical case look like?
By American Orbweaver I also meant to imply something like Transcontinental or North American. You assume instead that I only meant it occurs in the US.
I did not. All I said was "There are lots of American orbweavers which are striped," with the same intended meaning of "American" as you.
We could keep responding point for point, and I could have responses to those questions, but it's better to mostly stick to the main flag content. In summary of my view, my preference is to update the name (if anyone makes name suggestions) versus merely delete it, although it's also possible to merely delete it.
Re: common names, I prefer all species be named, since they have value in education, identification, and translation for any reader who doesn't recognize what animal a scientific name refers to. Also, using them has essentially become the standard format now used in many contexts, seemingly including iNat. It seems best to typically update vs. merely delete a common name, especially if it's for an abundant or relatively well-known or significant species. It's also possible to merely delete the name, but in my view info. is lost. That said, a new name would depend on people suggesting one and I don't plan to suggest a final name for this (but would give feedback if others did).
Re: your questions, much of these matters like the question over this species aren't purely objective but involve some interpretation, so there can be multiple preferences without any being a one single answer. For example, there's no exact answer to should this name be deleted, although it's possible to argue it would be reasonable to do so. My argument is similar, I'm just adding that I prefer replacing names when removing them. By saying "typically," I'm caveating that there are many possible exceptions, and indicating that I'm not describing a common name "rule."
Someone gave Larinia borealis the common name "Striped Orbweaver". This name is not in use, and way too generic.
1) Genus Singa are the striped orbweavers. If any species were to be given this common name, it would be one of them. See "Common Names of Arachnids (2003)" http://www.americanarachnology.org/assets/pdfs/arachnid_common_names2003.pdf
2) The only references to L. borealis by this name which I can find on the web are derived from iNaturalist.
3) Larinia directa is nearly indistinguishable from Larinia borealis, and more commonly observed. Assigning a common name to one which would be equally applicable to both (plus many other species) is likely to increase the misidentification rate.
I recommend this common name be deleted from this species.