SSAR Standardized Names

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

SSAR Standardized Names

Post by spinifer »

Anyone know why the online list of Standardized Names maintained by SSAR has not been updated since 24 May 2011?
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

I have an August 2012, 7th edition.

They used to wait until the hard copies had sold before making the electronic version available.
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

They used to wait until the hard copies had sold before making the electronic version available.
That's never been an issue. Once the website was established, the plan was to periodically update it as online editions. The sixth edition was published in hardcopy in 2008. The website was updated afterward, then a request was made to produce another paper version (7th edition) in 2012 to coincide with the World Congress of Herpetology.

The entire names committee operates in unison when a new edition is requested. That is why the website is not continually updated. Brian Crother has asked for all committee members to submit recommended changes this month, which will result in an online 8th edition. All three hardcopy editions are still available from SSAR http://www.ssarbooks.com/?page=shop/bro ... gory_id=19

Jeff
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by spinifer »

Thanks guys. I did not realize they were still putting out hard copy editions once the online version was launched. I guess the online version is not as high on the priority list.
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Fieldnotes »

Because they’re still debating whether to spell Gila Monster with an “H” as they did with MoHave Desert. Every student knows uniformity is crucial when creating lists. The Native American of the United States were way out of line by using a "J". I just wish they would get with it and change that silly Chuckwalla to its modern English name of Fat Lizard. Lets not stop there, Rio Grande Leopard frog; they changed the name of an entire desert, why not change the name of an entire river too. Remember uniformity is key when creating a list.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Brian Hubbs »

I wouldn't pay much attention to the list when they rapidly change names to reflect every so-called study that gets published...like the L. getula fiasco...they'll probably adopt the new L. triangulum splits too...which really need a lot of work before anyone adopts all of it. :roll:

Phieldnotes: You're a funny guy... :lol:
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by spinifer »

They probably will Brian, thats one I wanted to check.
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

thats
should read "that's"

See, we're pretty thorough. And, I'm open to switching back to Brian Jubbs, but that spelling is in the Spanish Names list. It's like Ray Joser.

I'll check on Hila next time I'm on the Papaho Reservation.

Jeff
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Fieldnotes »

Screwing up Hubbs' name would probably suit the SSAR just fine. In essence, they took the birth name of the Mojave Desert to fit their modern egocentric ideas, so why stop there. There is a book fresh on the market about the Mojave Desert. The title of the book is spelled as Mojave using a “J”, yet the species accounts are spelled using an “H” as in Mohave Desert Fringe-toed Liazrd. What a bummer, but at least it has nice pictures.
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

The rationale for the spelling of Mohave/Mojave is discussed in the hardcopy 6th edition. The Mohave or Mojave spellings were non-uniform in the literature, so Brian Crother contacted a specialist in Native American languages at UCLA for an opinion on the matter. She replied that the natives of the Southwest lacked an alphabet, so the spelling of the desert was dependent on whether a writer used the Spanish or English languages -- j or h are both appropriate. We elected to uniformly use h because it was the English language spelling, which is the stated purpose of the Joint Societies list.

The situation could find a parallel with the word Gila, except that it is uniformly spelled with a G, and there was no conflict of opinion.

Jeff
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by chrish »

Jeff wrote:The rationale for the spelling of Mohave/Mojave is discussed in the hardcopy 6th edition. The Mohave or Mojave spellings were non-uniform in the literature, so Brian Crother contacted a specialist in Native American languages at UCLA for an opinion on the matter. She replied that the natives of the Southwest lacked an alphabet, so the spelling of the desert was dependent on whether a writer used the Spanish or English languages -- j or h are both appropriate. We elected to uniformly use h because it was the English language spelling, which is the stated purpose of the Joint Societies list.

The situation could find a parallel with the word Gila, except that it is uniformly spelled with a G, and there was no conflict of opinion.

Jeff
You appear to be of the rather naive opinion that these people will stop whining if you provide them with rationale and facts behind the decision making processes. Silly you. :lol:
They like things the "way they were" which means they way they were when they learned them.

Chris
User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1924
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 12:35 am
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Owen »

If I were Portuguese, would it be spelled Morave? :mrgreen:
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

it be spelled Morave
Very close...

I think Mohave is an Anglicized version of the original "Mo'hottie!" [exclamation point in original petroglyphs]

Jeff
User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by spinifer »

I wonder what the rationale for this one was in the 7th edition.... :roll:
E. l. longicauda (Green, 1818)—Ezstern Long-tailed Salamander
User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 10:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Ribbit »

The 7th edition is available online at http://ssarherps.org/pdf/HC_39_7thEd.pdf.

Typos notwithstanding, I really like this list because of the explanations it includes.

John
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Brian Hubbs »

well, people, ya gotta give Jeff some slack...after all, he edited my new book, "Harmless Snakes of the West". He even let this goof slide:

Nightsnakes
Pg. 48
Prey: Adults average 12-26 in. (30-66cm).

:| :roll: :lol:

Where's that head-slapping icon when you need it?

With editors like that, who cares how Mohave is spelled... :crazyeyes:
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

I wonder what the rationale for this one was in the 7th edition.... :roll:


Quote:
E. l. longicauda (Green, 1818)—Ezstern Long-tailed Salamander
The Committee decided against duplicate names for a species and any of its subspecies to clarify which taxon is involved when only the English name is used. The name "Eastern Long-tailed Salamander" differentiates it from "Long-tailed Salamander" as a subspecies of the latter.
User avatar
Ribbit
Posts: 601
Joined: June 12th, 2010, 10:28 am
Location: Monterey Peninsula, CA
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Ribbit »

Umm, I assumed spinifer was referring to the typo "Ezstern"...
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

Umm, I assumed spinifer was referring to the typo "Ezstern"...
Umm, I assumed spinifer was referring to the typo "Ezstern"...
Note to self: use reading glasses.
troy hibbitts
Posts: 57
Joined: July 20th, 2010, 5:50 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by troy hibbitts »

There is no "law" that says that the names in any of these standardized lists MUST be followed. In the 3 field guides I've written (or am in the process of writing . . . with various collaborators) - Texas Amphibians, Texas Lizards, and Texas Turtles and Crocodilians - we used the SSAR list as a starting point, and then discussed where and why we deviated from the list, ranging from continuing to treat Sceloporus undulatus as a complex rather than elevating species in which the species boundaries have not been clearly delineated or evaluated .... to using older common names in more widespread usage because newer ones are misleading or confusing, as in the Stinkpot for Sternotherus odoratus, which was first changed to "Common Musk Turtle" (which it isn't always) and then more recently changed to "Eastern Musk Turtle", which we feel invites confusion with the related and co-occuring Eastern Mud Turtle (not to mention that its not only the "easternmost" musk turtle, but also the "westernmost" at the same time).

As for the Mohave vs Mojave question, I would argue that rather than basing a choice on a particularly linguistic association, the committee should have used whichever version is most commonly associated with the geographic region for which the species in question were named. I haven't gone through and done any surveys, mind you, but off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that I see "Mojave" in more widespread use than "Mohave" and therefore, were I writing a field guide with Crotalus scutulatus in it, then I would use the spelling with the "J" and explain why I did so.

Troy
troy hibbitts
Posts: 57
Joined: July 20th, 2010, 5:50 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by troy hibbitts »

Jeff wrote:
I wonder what the rationale for this one was in the 7th edition.... :roll:


Quote:
E. l. longicauda (Green, 1818)—Ezstern Long-tailed Salamander
The Committee decided against duplicate names for a species and any of its subspecies to clarify which taxon is involved when only the English name is used. The name "Eastern Long-tailed Salamander" differentiates it from "Long-tailed Salamander" as a subspecies of the latter.
this particular stance seems to open the door for lots of confusion, IMHO, and has lent itself to the creation of quite a few unweildy names. Of course, with the trend of dropping ssp, a lot of the problem goes away. LOL. at least until all ssp get elevated to full species status that is :D

just for example, formerly the south Texas lizard known as the 4-lined skink (p.tetragrammus tetragrammus) is now the "long-tailed skink", although there are certainly skinks with proportionately longer tails, including scincella and p.multivirgatus. The species is still the 4-lined skink, and since the ssp intergrade broadly in south Texas and are probably little more than clinal variants anyway, why not use 4-lined skink for both species and ssp - you could always refer to the ssp as the "4-lined skink (nominate form)", which, IMHO is less confusing than calling it a completely new name that isn't very descriptive.

(note: we avoided having to address this in Texas Lizards by avoiding all use of ssp altogether).
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

this particular stance seems to open the door for lots of confusion, IMHO, and has lent itself to the creation of quite a few unweildy names.
As a committee, with subcommittees, the group needs to set its own guidelines and stick to them. The process has been additive, and one may notice the increasing list of rules from one edition to the next. The 'no subspecies name duplication rule' is one of them.

The subspecies names may be unwieldy in the sense that they're longer. A practical experience led to this self-regulatory matter: When Map Turtles were listed in CITES, Louisiana turtle farmers had to submit CITES export forms with each shipment. The forms did not provide for subspecies, so shipping Mississippi Map Turtles (as G. pseudogeographica) necessitated calling them False Map Turtles. Someone in USFWS pointed out that there was no legal take of False Maps (referring to the nominate race), so they implied that the farmers were attempting to ship prohibited animals. The situation was remedied by calling the nominate race "Northern False Map Turtle."
As for the Mohave vs Mojave question, I would argue that rather than basing a choice on a particularly linguistic association, the committee should have used whichever version is most commonly associated with the geographic region for which the species in question were named. I haven't gone through and done any surveys, mind you, but off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that I see "Mojave" in more widespread use than "Mohave" and therefore, were I writing a field guide with Crotalus scutulatus in it, then I would use the spelling with the "J" and explain why I did so.
Again, this is a self-imposed means of standardizing usage. We can adopt one form and inarguably piss some people off, or we can try to determine which form is most used here or there, and piss some people off who demand a reason.
There is no "law" that says that the names in any of these standardized lists MUST be followed.
Correct, they are only imposed within publications of the joint societies.
as in the Stinkpot for Sternotherus odoratus, which was first changed to "Common Musk Turtle" (which it isn't always) and then more recently changed to "Eastern Musk Turtle",
No one functions on more than one subcommittee except Brian Crother, who handles the Crocodilians as well as serving on the Snakes. The turtle subcommittee decided that it was bad form to imply that a taxon was common, so they elected to change all "common" to something like "Eastern, Northern", etc.

Jeff
User avatar
VanAR
Posts: 590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:36 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by VanAR »

Jeff wrote:The turtle subcommittee decided that it was bad form to imply that a taxon was common, so they elected to change all "common" to something like "Eastern, Northern", etc.
IMO, a direction is just as relative as an estimate of abundance. I think we should standardize all of the vernacular names instead, so we can have stinkpots, cowsuckers, and mountain boomers.
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Fieldnotes »

Stinkpot, next the SS will start labeling Phrynosoma species as Horny toad, because that is the popular name used in the southwest. The SS List is garbage, don’t even get me started on their ineffective practice of using belly or bellied, or stripe over striped... please go back to bird watching. Also Nightsnake vs. Night Lizard come on... where is the standard in that....

Find me a Californian, that pronouns the Mojave Desert using an "H" and I'll label him as old, an Easter Coaster, disrespectful .. or even worse… un-American.


Please no name calling, leave that to the Democrats... cause they make no sense thus must revert to name calling. Cause that is all they got; Basically No logic.
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Brian Hubbs »

Well said Phieldnotes...
troy hibbitts
Posts: 57
Joined: July 20th, 2010, 5:50 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by troy hibbitts »

Jeff wrote:
There is no "law" that says that the names in any of these standardized lists MUST be followed.
Correct, they are only imposed within publications of the joint societies.


Jeff
And even here, this only applies to the "Standardized Common Names" . . . I don't recall the precise citation, but there was an article or series of articles a few years ago arguing about "taxonomic tyranny" and "forcing" people to accept taxonomic arrangements that they didn't agree with . . . and as I recall, the way it all settled out when the dust settled was that no one, even in publication, was forced to use the various Lampropeltis getula splits (for example).

Troy
Travis_W_Taggart
Posts: 31
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 2:00 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Travis_W_Taggart »

CNAH.org is the official on-line outlet for the SSAR list going forward, it is current with the SSAR 7th Ed. and is updated daily.

Best, Travis
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

troy hibbitts wrote:I don't recall the precise citation, but there was an article or series of articles a few years ago arguing about "taxonomic tyranny" and "forcing" people to accept taxonomic arrangements that they didn't agree with
PAULY, G. B., D. M. HILLIS, and D. C. CANNATELLA. 2009. TAXONOMIC FREEDOM AND THE ROLE OF OFFICIAL LISTS OF SPECIES NAMES. Herpetologica 62:115-128.

"The sixth edition of the Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of
North America (Crother, 2008, SSAR Herpetological Circular 37:1–84) is the ‘‘Official Names List’’ for the three major North American herpetological societies. Although this publication is intended to aid users of scientific and common names, we argue that current practices for authoring, reviewing, and using this list, in some cases, generate taxonomic chaos. By this we mean that users are uncertain of which name to use and/or the rationale for using a particular name, and efficient communication is hindered by this confusion. Most importantly, through inadequate and inconsistent review of this list, the societies have endorsed unnecessary and arbitrary name changes and are uncritically promoting individual taxonomic viewpoints when a clear
choice on the most appropriate name has not been reached by the community. This problem is exemplified by North American anurans for which 57 of the 100 species have scientific names (i.e., genus-species combinations) different from the previous version of the list. Forty-eight of these new combinations result from changes to the genus name, and there is controversy over the proposed genus names for at least 43 of these. Despite this controversy and that a stated goal of the list is to report on such controversies, the alternative names are not discussed. As a result, for these taxa, the list fails to provide adequate information
for users to make informed decisions on name usage. Here, we examine the role of such lists in taxonomy. Although we specifically focus on the arbitrary changes to the names of North American Bufo and Rana, the continuation of current practices for generating the list will promote instability and taxonomic confusion on a broader scale. We conclude with recommendations for improving the utility of such lists and for avoiding unnecessary taxonomic chaos."
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Interesting related article on the "Hoser" problem....

Taxonomic vandalism and the Raymond Hoser problem

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tet ... ol_Twitter
User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4735
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Brian Hubbs »

That's hilarious...(I already knew Hoser had a problem from reading his rattlesnake revision), but the "awesome" atrox pictured in the article sure looks like a scutulatus to me... :o I could be wrong...but...aren't those "diamonds" supposed to touch edges? And why are most of them not even diamond shaped?
User avatar
Antonsrkn
Posts: 971
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Antonsrkn »

Its off topic but the article led me to look up some youtube videos of Ray Hoser, I found this description accompanying one of his videos... Atleast he is modest. :roll:
The reptile expert's ultimate reptile expert is the Snake Man, Raymond Hoser. Everyone else in the world who handles or studies snakes in any meaningful way, knows the Snake Man and looks up to him as the greatest reptile expert of all time. As seen on TV, the Snake Man has been handling the world's deadliest snakes for nearly 50 years and amazingly has a perfect safety record. The Snake Man Raymond Hoser doesn't just handle snakes better than anyone else, but he also is the world's leading snake expert, consulting for numerous TV personalities, documentaries and the like. He's authored numerous major books and contributed to countless others.
The Snake Man has published hundreds of definitive scientific papers and discovered and named species, genera, tribes and even a family of snakes from all parts of the world, including Australia, Madagascar, New Guinea, the United States, Central America, Europe, the Middle-east, North Africa, Central Africa, South Africa, Asia, including Taiwan, China, The Philippines, Japan, Nepal, India, (most other Asian countries) South America and places as remote as Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. Hoser names are attached to numerous Rattlesnakes, other pitvipers, Vipers, Death Adders, Pythons, including the world's longest snake (Broghammerus), Coral snakes, Snail eating snakes, Garter Snakes, American Water Snakes, Asian Kukri Snakes, Hog-nosed snakes, Stilletto Snakes, Tree Snakes, Ratsnakes, Keelbacks, Yellow Anaconda, Blind snakes and more, which in total includes more species than named by anyone else in history, including the great scientists of the 1800's.
Frankly after reading that i'm speechless.

The snake presentation that the text accompanies, was bad too, the clip I watched just shows him talking about how if the snakes in question bite you then you die.. with no sort of actual info about the animals or anything. He was also waving them around in a way I imagine must stress the snakes out and seemed to be in a rush to get through it as fast as possible. At the end he takes a venomoid taipans head and mashes it into his own arm.... :roll: You cant even say the snake bit him, more like he stabbed himself in the arm with its head. What a tool... I'd have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.

Sorry sort of off topic, but it was so ridiculous.
User avatar
Carl Brune
Posts: 488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:22 am
Location: Athens, OH
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Carl Brune »

While I understand the logic behind the "no duplicate names for a species and any of its subspecies" rule, it leads to some common names which are more complex and IMO less useful, such as Eastern Long-tailed Salamander or Eastern American Toad. The latter was recently forced upon me... It seems to me these formal common names are now just synonyms for the scientific names, and consequently of little added value.

With regards to the spelling of Mojave. As someone who was born an raised in the desert of eastern Kern County, CA, I kind of have a horse in this race. I can report that if you type mohave rattlesnake into google, it comes back with "Showing results for mojave rattlesnake"...

I certainly agree with Jeff's observation that you will never make everybody happy.
User avatar
chris_mcmartin
Posts: 2447
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 12:13 am
Location: Greater Houston TX Area
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by chris_mcmartin »

Jeff wrote:The rationale for the spelling of Mohave/Mojave is discussed in the hardcopy 6th edition. The Mohave or Mojave spellings were non-uniform in the literature, so Brian Crother contacted a specialist in Native American languages at UCLA for an opinion on the matter. She replied that the natives of the Southwest lacked an alphabet, so the spelling of the desert was dependent on whether a writer used the Spanish or English languages -- j or h are both appropriate. We elected to uniformly use h because it was the English language spelling, which is the stated purpose of the Joint Societies list.
Further brow-furrowing afoot, with this input:
Footnote: The more recent correct spelling of the common name for “Mojave” Rattlesnake is Mohave Rattlesnake. “Mohave” being taken from the Native American term hamakhava, rather than “Mojave” from The Mojave
Desert. “Mojave” was used in this article because most people in West Texas know this species as “Mojave” Rattlesnake.
From http://www.cenizojournal.com/2014_1Q_WEB.pdf
Bob McKeever
Posts: 116
Joined: July 9th, 2010, 5:39 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Bob McKeever »

I open with an apology for the tedium and length to follow and with thanks for the humor so far evident in this thread. I didn’t intend to contribute at first but the continued references to Mohave vs Mojave have struck a nerve and driven me to near madness (of a couple of varieties).

For the Native American people concerned, the Oxford English dictionary lists Mohave as preferred with Mohawa and Mojave as alternatives, tracing these words to the native words aha, and makave. Other sources gives us Hamakhava as the source name, with Năksʹ-ăt, Soyopas, Tzi-na-ma-a, Wamakava, and Wili idahapa as other names used for the people in question either by themselves or by other Native American peoples of the southwest. But Mohave and Mojave are the names we know and that the spelling has been inconsistent in herpetological writing is clear. Which is “correct?”

Mohave and its alter-ego Mojave are said to stem from Hamakava and have historically been spelled according to the European language dominant in a given writer’s background. But Hamakava derives from aha and makave. Perhaps we should address the need for a Makave Rattlesnake, Crotalus scutulatus (Kennicott, 1861), and dismiss all this concern over whether the “h” or the “j” is appropriate. Even better, Yarrow first called it the Scutulated Rattlesnake. Lets use that.

But, of course, we can’t, or shouldn’t do any of those things. The language didn’t develop in any of those ways. Over time, the people in question opted for the northern European “h” in the spelling of their English-language name and settled the issue for themselves. This was good enough for the state of Arizona to name the county in which these people reside as Mohave rather than Mojave, and should be good enough for the rest of us. But wait.

Allthough the Spanish-speaking settlers of the southwest associated the people beside the Colorado River (aha - makave) with the surrounding region, they preferred to spell their rendering with a “j.” The desert ultimately named Mojave is not likely to be renamed any time soon to accommodate an SSAR committee decision, nor are the town, mountain range, river, or other Mojave place names within it.

Turns out that the confusion was not so confusing after-all. Both Random House Webster’s and American Heritage offer that “Mohave” applies to the people and that “Mojave” applies to the desert. It seems to follow that those names deriving from either of these would be likewise spelled. Mohave for the county in Arizona is, thus, appropriate. However, I will suggest that the rattlesnake in question was not named after the people beside the Colorado River but was, more likely, named after the desert and should, thus, be Mojave. This was an issue settled before the committee considered it and was a fight that need not have been fought. Energy would have been better expended on an issue of importance.

I imagine you’ll be surprised to hear that I have other concerns regarding the committee’s “standards” but these await other discussions. I would suggest to Jeff and to anyone else who will listen that true “standards” would extend beyond the next, new committee chair and a new generation of committee members. The trail from Conant through Collins to Crother doesn’t inspire overwhelming confidence in “Standard English Names.” At a minimum, the committee should consider adopting a major English-language dictionary and a style manual to govern their use of the language. Since, I hope, a major part of this effort is to communicate with non-scientists regarding their science, it seems to me that scientists might prefer to use our language as we non-scientists use it.
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Jeff »

For the Native American people concerned, the Oxford English dictionary lists Mohave as preferred with Mohawa and Mojave as alternatives, tracing these words to the native words aha, and makave. Other sources gives us Hamakhava as the source name, with Năksʹ-ăt, Soyopas, Tzi-na-ma-a, Wamakava, and Wili idahapa as other names used for the people in question either by themselves or by other Native American peoples of the southwest. But Mohave and Mojave are the names we know and that the spelling has been inconsistent in herpetological writing is clear. Which is “correct?”
And a big "yah-hah-tay" to you Bob. Your in-depth analysis of the word sounds and subsequent spelling of Mo-ave is very welcome and informative -- I will pass it to Brian Crother for dispersal among the eclectic group of committee members. There are a number of "English" spellings of Native American terms, from Massasauga and Ouachita to Comanche (Springs) and Huachuca. I'll keep your profile on speed-dial as crises arise.

Thanks,

Jeff
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Fieldnotes »

Interesting Bob, thanks for adding those details about the Mojave Desert. As for your further issues with the list, I feel others would like to hear about them. Perhaps the SSAR with address them and even changed them.
User avatar
chrish
Posts: 3295
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 11:14 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by chrish »

I think part of the problem is that the old system we used (your old 1959 Conant Guide names) was fraught with inconsistencies, silly grammar errors, etc..
To fix this, some of those old names have to go. We have to develop a coherent, demonstrable and easily applied plan before we start.

But if you reject change on the principle that you liked it the way it used to be then the whole conversation is a waste of time.

Scientific names are a different issue. A committee should evaluate the most appropriate taxonomy with no a priori assumptions or agenda. They should vote and the votes should be open and recorded somewhere.

I know herpers like to make fun of birders in this regard, but you know what? They do it right.
They have an accepted taxonomy and common name structure that all professionals and amateurs use. Every field guide has the same names for the same birds (assuming they are equally up to date). They don't fight about the correct spelling of names because someone makes that decision for them and they trust the system. Yes, I know you can point out a few naysayers within the ornithological and birder community, but almost everyone accepts the changes put forward by their appropriate naming agencies. And that's a hell of a lot more people than the herp community.

I don't like the fact that Harris's Hawk has an s after the apostrophe, but it is the "official" spelling and I accept it. It was decided on by a concrete set of criteria that were predefined, not based on what people liked.

If we herpers/herpetologists would invest half the energy we spend complaining about this into working towards a solution together, the problem would have been solved years ago.
User avatar
Mark Brown
Posts: 567
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 2:15 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Mark Brown »

chrish wrote:I don't like the fact that Harris's Hawk has an s after the apostrophe, but it is the "official" spelling and I accept it.
I was unaware of the surplus "s" - that is kinda goofy, isn't it? Personally, I would rather see all possessives dumped from vernacular nomenclature. They're just clunky and serve no real purpose, in my opinion, and a significant part of the population these days appears to have no idea how to use them or any interest in learning.

"Jackson's Chameleon" versus "Jacksons Chameleon"......I think the intent of the name remains obvious.
User avatar
Fieldnotes
Posts: 1474
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:12 pm
Location: Anaheim, California
Contact:

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by Fieldnotes »

chrish wrote:
I don't like the fact that Harris's Hawk has an s after the apostrophe, but it is the "official" spelling and I accept it.

Of course it looks funny it is spelled wrong. The correct spelling is Harris' Hawk. It sucks being a follower, cause when they are wrong you're wrong too. Sounds like those birders need someone to speak up and make some changes to their list, perhaps that person could be you chrish.
troy hibbitts
Posts: 57
Joined: July 20th, 2010, 5:50 pm

Re: SSAR Standardized Names

Post by troy hibbitts »

chrish wrote:I think part of the problem is that the old system we used (your old 1959 Conant Guide names) was fraught with inconsistencies, silly grammar errors, etc..
To fix this, some of those old names have to go. We have to develop a coherent, demonstrable and easily applied plan before we start.

But if you reject change on the principle that you liked it the way it used to be then the whole conversation is a waste of time.

Scientific names are a different issue. A committee should evaluate the most appropriate taxonomy with no a priori assumptions or agenda. They should vote and the votes should be open and recorded somewhere.

I know herpers like to make fun of birders in this regard, but you know what? They do it right.
They have an accepted taxonomy and common name structure that all professionals and amateurs use. Every field guide has the same names for the same birds (assuming they are equally up to date). They don't fight about the correct spelling of names because someone makes that decision for them and they trust the system. Yes, I know you can point out a few naysayers within the ornithological and birder community, but almost everyone accepts the changes put forward by their appropriate naming agencies. And that's a hell of a lot more people than the herp community.

I don't like the fact that Harris's Hawk has an s after the apostrophe, but it is the "official" spelling and I accept it. It was decided on by a concrete set of criteria that were predefined, not based on what people liked.

If we herpers/herpetologists would invest half the energy we spend complaining about this into working towards a solution together, the problem would have been solved years ago.
Birding naming committees, as far as I can tell, are also VERY CONSERVATIVE when it comes to accepting species splits (e.g. proposed splits in things like Hutton's Vireo = not accepted) compared to herp naming committees, which seem to accept splits willy-nilly (e.g. Lampropeltis getula splits, Pantherophis obsoletus splits). Perhaps this is a function of there composition of the committee, with more "old school" emeritus-type ornithologists on the listing committee . . . or a function of more ornithologists, so that the people proposing name changes aren't voting to accept thier own proposals . . .

Also, do you know the listing committee composition for the ABA/AOU? IIRC, they are composed of both professional ornithologists AND (serious/experienced) recreational birders . . . or am I wrong?

Troy
Post Reply