Background

Background thoughts about approaching common names

Common names for mushrooms in English-speaking North America have been in a sorry state for some time. Not many are used regularly by anyone. Even fewer are used regularly by people who study identification or taxonomy. Enthusiasts seeking common names are often redirected to scientific names, and might even be shamed for asking.

It's not something inherently wrong with common names—with common names in general. We all readily use common names for a great many animals and plants, and even a few mushrooms. We're all happy to talk about "great blue herons", "white oaks", "lightning bugs", "grizzly bears", and "chanterelles". Common names in general are alive and well. Unfortunately, so is the idea, in certain communities, that something is inherently and hopelessly wrong with them. Some of the most common arguments brought up against common names are these true facts:

"Sometimes one species has two common names."
Sometimes one species has two scientific names. Taxonomists (eventually) deal with this when it's discovered—they synonymize the names, and follow rules about which one to adopt going forward (rules that don't care much about our preferences). We already do pretty much the same thing for common names, whenever we need to choose one. It's as simple as that—choosing one. We don't have to do it as rigorously as with scientific names. We get to choose the name we like better, for whatever venue we're in—a book, an app, or a walk in the woods. We want to aim for a single name per species across publications, but why not also let additional names thrive regionally?

"Sometimes one common name is used for two species."
Sometimes one scientific name is used for two species. Taxonomists (eventually) deal with this when it's discovered—they split the species and make up a new name to use for the "new" one. We already do pretty much the same thing for common names. As before, we don't have to do it as rigorously as with scientific names. We can keep the same name for both if we want (if they're identical in the field), rename both if we want (to highlight a differentiating feature), or, of course, just rename whichever one of the two we choose.

"Sometimes a species has no common name."
Sometimes a species has no scientific name. Taxonomists (eventually) deal with this when it's discovered—when they find/study an unnamed species, they make up a name for it. We already do pretty much the same thing for common names. As before, we don't have to do it so rigorously as with scientific names. It's much easier to propose a new common name than a new scientific name.

So, why are mushroom common names in particular faring so badly? One reason might be the ways our relationship with mushrooms differs from our relationships with animals and plants. Mushrooms are (for most people, historically) less interesting, less commonly encountered, and much harder to identify. Compared to the amount of effort it often takes just to recognize a genus in the field, learning a scientific name can seem like a trivial extra bit to tack on. If the average mushroom identifier has to put in more hours studying than the average bird identifier, it might make sense that mushroom common names would get less attention.

But they don't have to be doing this much worse. They are wanted, and identification is increasingly un-daunting. Mushrooms are exploding in popular culture. Requests for common names are abundant. Having time and interest to hone sensory ID skills does not necessarily translate to time and interest honing Latin skills, especially not to relearning and re-relearning new names as scientific taxonomy changes. Either way, learning a common name can help to learn the Latin name, as a mnemonic. Our understanding of local species is accelerating. Our identification tools are constantly improving.

Mushroom common names have been stuck at a distant third after animals and plants, but we could be coming in at a close third. Obviously, we can approach this directly by advocating for mushroom common names, using them, or at least easing up from condemning them. But there might be an equally important, if not more important, angle to work from. Mushroom common names might be faring so badly because the ones we have are bad. Those three facts above might be more true than they should be because nobody (more or less) is putting effort into curating them. The "ones we have" are, in large part, halfhearted, uninspired, inconsistent, confusing, awkward, long, boring, or goofy. Many are relics from old times when mycophiles only cared about a few species and mycologists only knew about a few more. They're now dysfunctional in teasing apart the several hundred genera and several thousand species we're becoming familiar with in North America. We've seen names that nobody wants to use fester for years, being typed and printed in all the productions that need a common name, and never earnestly used out loud. Composing and choosing common names that aren't terrible is probably an important step to catching up to the more familiar kingdoms.

Of course scientific names have their own advantages. If you are reading this page, you are probably familiar with them (rules that safeguard against almost any ambiguity). But scientific names and common names are like business suits and swimsuits. On any particular occasion, it's important to choose which one to wear. But trying to choose only one to wear for our entire life would be silly. A well-tailored common name suit has many advantages. The names...

are easier for everyone to remember, say, and spell
are more helpful for identification than scientific names
lend a sense of popular significance to their subjects that scientific names can't
support a useful folk taxonomy based on prominent features, rather than evolutionary relationships
can stay the same, when we like, not being subject to the latest whims of scientific taxonomists
can be proposed or changed, when we like, not being subject to strict rules of the ICN
can support multiple accepted names at once, if/when we like
can name things scientific names can't: provisional names, species groups, unranked clades, different stages of a species' life cycle, and polyphyletic groupings.

Conclusions:

1. We can propose and promote mushroom common names, with a spirit of open-mindedness, creativity, and willingness to experiment.
2. Any project providing common names should be explicitly tentative, until we're confident about what kinds of common names perform well "in the wild" with both laypeople and experts.
3. Common names aren't scientific names. We should embrace the advantages of each, and the differences between them, rather than trying to torture one into a copy of the other.

Next:

Specific guidelines suggested for common names