Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bob I
Here's something I have always wanted to mention. Common names have no validity when describing an organism. Names vary from region to region, and therefore are equally valid.
Only Latin binomials are scientifically correct when naming an organism. However, I don't think these zoanthid subspecies , or Morphs as people like to call them have ever been properly described or named. Therefore, any name given is as valid as any other.  |
That may be so. But are you going to call them Zoanthid sp #127988-213B. ( I don't think so ) also it's BORING. So give them a nick name and use the name "maybe" to represent the type/colour of zoa that makes sense? Would you call a Pink coloured Zoa a " blue thunder zoos " NO!!!. Lets be realistic. Call it a Pink Panther or something of that nature true to its colour etc and you could have a COMMON "description/identity" which is relevant to that colour of zoa. I do fully admit that some nick names are miss informing and trivial but for the most part have been given as the common name that has been accepted for that type/colour Zoa. I think for the most part people want the zoa for its colour and uniqueness not it's nick name. The zoas in this post are nice looking but are very similar to zoas that have been given names. The sure way around this is to mention that they are close in colour to a specific type of named zoa but are better looking... wink ..wink..
SPS examples.. Super man....... Purple monster ......Birds nest.....etc
LPS examples... Green hammer...... Frog spawn.......... Toad stool.....etc.. just to name a few have been given these nicknames and it's funny that people will know what I am talking about when those names are mentioned. These nicknames must have validity when people know what Frog spawn is and what a birds nest is etc......these corals are mainly identified by those names. How do you justify that these names have no merrit?
I think the names are here to stay.
