Use of scientific names?

[Rod Warnock]

Wonder why so few Forum users include the Scientific name of the subject photographed? Is there a policy against it? Other sites it is mandatory to include scientific names.
Common names can vary and cause confusion while the use of the scientific name allows precise identification and also allows experts in a particular field to point out identification errors.
Just seems odd to this user that very few include the scientific name.
Best regards
Rod Warnock

[John Chardine]

Hi Rod- It's a good point but I'm not sure most people here would find this easy to do. I can see using scientific names on sites devoted to birds and birding but not on a primarily photographic site like BPN. I could be wrong. Interested in other opinions.

[John Goldman]

I don't know any scientific names to post.

[Ian Cassell]

Personally, I don't mind if people add scientific names to their images, but I'd be opposed to requiring them. This is not an ornithology site -- it is a bird photography site. Many of us are on this site for the art and not necessarily the science. I subscribe to a birding site where the scientific names are used, but that would be expected.

[arash_hazeghi]

It would be nice if people who know the scientific names would include them with their images so the rest of us can learn.

[Christopher Miller]

I agree with Ian's point. This is a photography site, so I don't think there's any good reason to require people to include scientific names. Personally, I think that might even discourage some people from posting because they don't know the scientific names. I would suggest that if anyone wants to know the scientific name for a subject, just ask!

[Bill Jobes]

The scientific names are listed beside or under the common names in the Peterson and Sibley guides, as I suspect they are in most others.

While I'm sure there's no policy against including the scientific designation, I don't believe it should be a requirement on what's, as others have noted, primarily a site devoted to photography.

In fact, in some instances it could be quite useful.

[Jerry van Dijk]

Here's my two cents as a non-US resident. I'd like to add that the English common names do not ring any bells with me, not only for species that are not found in Europe, but also for the species that are found here. The scientific names partly overcome this problem, but that's only because I've had a scientific training as an ecologist. I can imagine that for non-scientists the scientific names won't ring any bells either. In my time with BPN so far, I've never found that I wasn't able to convert the English common name to the scientific name and vice-versa using a short search on the internet (except for some obscure insects that don't have common names). Usually, the first hit on Wikipedia will give you both, as well as any alternative common names.

Note that scientific names are not set in stone either. Scientific names have changed often over time because of new insights of (or disputes between!) taxonomists. Lots of scientifc names have changed over the last years because of genetic analyses, which have challenged the classical taxonomy based on morphology. A few years ago, the Dutch flora has been completely reorganized according to the latest genetical insights, changing several scientific names in the process. The funny thing is that this process generally does not change the common names. This is because the scientific names are reflecting kinship between species at the genus level, while common names do not necessarily reflect kinship between species. Botanical gardens are usually set up to reflect kinship between plant species. One of the oldest botanical gardens in the Netherlands actually changed its layout to reflect the newest genetic insights and had to move a lot of plants!
Most (good) identification guides will list the earlier scientific names if they have changed over time.

Because I often post species that will be unfamiliar to non-Europeans, I usually post both the English common name as well as the scientific name.

[Rod Warnock]

Despite BPN by its very name BirdPhotographers.Net I assumed that anyone entering would want to know exactly what they are looking at. Common names vary greatly but we all tend to use Common names my point being if we used the birds scientific name as well one would know exactly what bird we are looking at. I also will not known many of the Scientific names for Australian birds but it is very easy to check this and add it both to precisely ID the subject. While some sites ask for it and like. Arash: Your comment is spot on. That was my intent. I know that often I will see an image from USA or Africa or Europe that is similar to an Australian species and will try to ID it from that countries Bird Book or on the Internet.
Waders are a typical section many breed in the Northern Hemisphere and migrate 12000+miles to Australia and look different in breeding plumage so here it is a great help to have the scientific name. For me if I take any wildlife image I really want to know what I am taking and will always try (often alas not succeeding to ID it). Apart from that our images are valuable to those who study our subjects. It is really thinking a bit more broadly about whsat we do.
Thanks commenting
Best regards
Rod