@arman_
@mettcollsuss
iNat admin doesn't want common names to be invented for iNat. If a group doesn't have a vernacular name in common usage, it should be left without one.

https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-add-a-common-name-to-a-taxon/9792

OK, not everyone sees every flag. And I don't think it's possible to search for the previous flag to find the discussion...so I'm not privy to that.

Pretty sure I was referring to this one. For now I removed the name from M. minimum, but here is the reasoning:

The M. minimum group is a very small species group of at-a-glance identical black ants. All of the species in Florida are referred to as species of "trailing ants" in Ants of Florida. Of course, many ants trail, but these are some of the commonest with very neat trails. I'm sure if the other species were in Florida, they'd also be dubbed "trailing ants." However, the main reason I even propose adding these names is to avoid the usage of "Little Black Ant" with M. minimum sensu stricto, as that name is extremely vague and causes a lot of avoidable misidentifications when people make an observation and type in "tiny black ants" (or something of a similar nature), see the common name pop up, and select the species. More specific names are less associable with vague terms, and thus result in less issues -- I do feel like since the removal of "Little Black Ant" I've seen less misidentifications.

Unfortunately, I had a similar argument not too long ago about removing "Black Cocktail Ant" from Crematogaster peringueyi as it likely also causes misidentifications (from "black ant"), however it was ruled to stay because the name is valid. I think in this case however, there is an argument to perhaps list both "Little Black Ant" and the adapted name "Common Trailing Ant" (for M. minimum), but with priority on the adapted to avoid issues. Then the group would be "New World Trailing Ants" to avoid possible confusion with visually similar Old World Monomorium. I'd rather there be no common names at all though honestly, because both are arguably vague, as long as no one on the site is against it (which judging by the lack of complaints since the old name's removal I would think is the case).

Would we only leave the names of ones directly mentioned in the book then? I guess it works. If we do that I'm for leaving M. minimum without any common name though.

I think just that of ergatogyna

@arman_ I disagree with the removal of "little black ant", I get what you are saying about misidentification and have seen a lot of those misidentifications, but I also feel that when there is a common name that is very widely used for a species, and has been for a long time, as "little black ant" has, and is even accepted by the Entomological Society of America as the standard common name, it causes confusion to NOT list the name

We now have a situation where a search for the official common name of a well known pest species does not return the page on that species, and people who know of that species by its common name may come across the M. minimum page and have no idea it refers to the little black ant they are familiar with

I also do not think the argument against naming species based on a simple descriptor of their appearance is very strong, as this would eliminate a very large number of useful descriptive names, including other very widely used common names

Now if this was an obscure common name used on a few small websites I would agree with you, but we are dealing with an official common name that is universally used for this species across many many books and websites and has been for decades

Now I could see an argument for applying the common name to the species complex instead of the specific species, given the fact that a layperson cannot tell them apart, this would also make it less likely for a misidentification to reach research grade

@arman_ @bdagley Since the issue of whether to remove common names that are in use but confusing extends across species I decided to make a forum post about it here https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/removing-existing-common-names-that-are-deemed-confusing/41104

And I feel like you should be informed of the post since you were both involved in this flag discussion and this flag discussion is referenced in my forum post