Naming conventions

[Bob I]

In another forum where this should not be discussed, I replied to someone who said that a zoanthid was misnamed. I would like to continue the discussion here because I think this might be the right place.

The point I was trying to make was that the only correct naming convention is by the Latin Binomial, which is given by the person describing the organism. I think anyone who has some background in Natural Sciences would agree.

Now in the case of zoanthids there is no such convention, as only the species has been named. Any colour morphs can be called anything anyone want to call them. No name is any more valid than any other.

A case in point is what some West Coasters call the "Green Bay Packer zoanthid" An equally valid name since the colours are green and yellow is "Edmonton Eskimo zoanthid". Certainly anyone who lives in Edmonton probably prefers that name. The point is that there is no such thing as a misnamed zoanthid.:mrgreen:

[Xtasia]

I considered replying to this... but we've had this 'discussion' before Bob..



:mrgreen:

[Bob I]

That is good because it is really difficult to argue with scientifically proven procedure.:razz:

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

Personally, if someone asks about a certain zoo type that I have, I'll just say "oh, those red ones, or the orange one with the green skirt and the yellow mouth?" I've never tried learning the common or uncommon names for zoos because it just leads to more arguments and disagreements, unless there is a consensus on what name goes with what colour combination. Zoos also look different under each person's lighting, so that adds to the confusion. I always thought a lot of names were regional in origin, but I don't know for sure who named them. Are zoo names specific to just the colour combination or are small ones differently named from larger polyps? The only ones I name are my "red rimmed Palys" but that's because it's descriptive in nature. They literally are palys with a red rim.

However, if both parties know exactly what each name refers to, then I can see using those names making sense.

Anthony

[Matt]

If I say I've got "fire and ice", that conjures a picture for many people. Canis familiaris is as good as it gets to describe "dog". From a binomial description, "greyhound" is meaningless, but it does describe a particular configuration that is helpful to someone trying to understand what kind of dog I'm talking about.

Bob, you're right - there is no "wrong" or "valid" common name. There is no accepted "breed standard" for any zoo. I can call it "ginger tea" and you call it "special blend" and we're both right. And wrong. Over time, though, the vernacular will conform. I think that the common names are useful.

Matt

[Fish]

I agree that there isn't a wrong way or a right way, it is just a matter of preference. I personally prefer the (colour) with (colour) skirt descriptions much more than some silly name. As a scientist Bob, I'm surprised you don't prefer it as well - just seems more logical and informative. The goofy names, they're for entrepreneurs not scientists. Someone once figured out that you can sell "crap center zoanthids with crap skirts" for a LOT more money on ebay if you just called them "Purple People Eaters" instead. Appreciating the value of hype, others have followed suite with the "metallic acids", "mean greens" and "safecrackers" etc.
JMO

- Chad

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

Fish,

I think Bob does use the colour of skirt, mouth, etc. method rather than the "marketing" names that sound cool but may mean different things to different people. In the future, if some written convention or methodology is used to classify zoo varieties that most people can agree on, then those fancy names will be useful. From his post, his point seems to be that there is not enough of a consensus to definitively state that a green and yellow zoo is a "Green Bay Packer" vs an "Edmonton Eskimo" zoo because there's no science behind the name, just regional preference.

At this point, I would just like to know if the descriptions used to name/identify a particular type of zoo as a "fire" or some other marketing name is done under what type of lighting because many of my zoos & palys change colour depending on whether its pure 10000k or with actinic or just actinic or under moonlights, etc. I'm assuming the colour descriptions are under 10000k but does anyone know for sure?

Anthony

[Willow]

As a scientist Bob, I'm surprised you don't prefer it as well

scientist.. i thought you drove a bus bob?

[G1GY]

scientist.. i thought you drove a bus bob?

They give drivers permits to scientists all the time now days.

[albert_dao]

They also allow children to stay at home unattended, doesn't mean it's right :D

[Bob I]

scientist.. i thought you drove a bus bob?

Good grief no, I am not a scientist. I have a diploma in Horticulture. It was in a Botany course that I learned about proper naming conventions.:silly:

[G1GY]

Bob,
I'd have to agree with you on the fact that a certain colour morf of zoanthid can't be mis-identified by choosing to call it by one of the less popular trendy names that others identify them by.

Keeping in mind that one zoanthid can actualy look very different depending on which one of the more than likely hundreds of lighting choices available.

If one lighting choice was set as a standard it would be feasable to to use these trendy names to identify them by colour, but since this is not the case it seems redundant to to argue over one trendy name over another.