HTML

ePub

PDF

Introduction

Since early in history, man has attempted to describe his environment; this required naming the local plants and animals in the surroundings (Clutton-Brock 2015). The names of living organisms serve two essential purposes. The first is that the properties of any organism such as color, size and shape can be associated with its name, so that we can infer the information on an organism through its name alone; for instance, the word “mouse” automatically communicates the intrinsic characteristics of this animal. Second, the name is essential for communication, and the more widespread the name is, the better the communication between people.

These roles of information and communication of names are equally applicable to scientific and vernacular names. However, since the publication of the tenth edition of Sistema Nature (Linnaeus 1758) and after a number of issues of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to the latest revision (ICZN 1999), scientific names acquired additional functions, such as being unique and universal, both characteristics not shared by vernacular names. However, the vernacular name is the first thing we know about a mammal (Verts and Carraway 1998); thus, early in life we learn names such as “cat” or “dog”. These common names, which we learn from childhood or by interacting and communicating with others in adulthood, are key because they remain in our memory and are part of our common sense. Ultimately, these play an important role in meeting the need to identify and have in place an efficient communication means about a specific kind of mammal (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Another advantage of vernacular names vs. scientific names is that, outside of the academic environment, the latter are little known, unfriendly, and difficult to learn and remember. The lack of knowledge of Greek and Latin roots do not allow to understand and express their meaning to our partners (Álvarez-Castaneda and Alvarez 1996).

In Spanish, vernacular names are little used in scientific literature; in fact, there are questions and discussion as to the definition of common, vulgar and vernacular names (Mones and Mones 1991). Here we define common name as the one used by ordinary people, in most cases at the local level, and generally in little known languages or dialects; this is the case of “citli”, a name of Nahuatl origin that refers to the hare (Lepus sp.; Sanchez 1985). Vernacular names are those used in a regional context. These are usually designed by zoologists, and their use has expanded over time; an example is the name “murciélago magueyero” (long-nosed bat) mentioned by Arita and Humphrey (1988) to refer to the species of the genus Leptonycteris, the use of which became subsequently widespread. Vulgar name refers to any of the previous two. It must be recognized, however, that in many cases the distinction between these two types of names is ambiguous or unclear. For example, the vulgar names coyote (Canis latrans), ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), and temazate (Mazama sp.) have their origin in the common names of the Nahuatl words “coyotl”, “ocelotl”, and “temazatl”, respectively.

In English, the use of vernacular names is extremely widespread even in the academic environment. It is commonly used in the description of species (e. g., Porter et al. 2017), being used in taxonomic monographs since the end of the 18th century (Kerr 1792; Allen 1894; Merriam 1918), as well as in monographs at the state level in the English language (Hall and Dalquest 1963; Anderson 1972, Sánchez-Hernández et al. 2016). In addition, it is traditionally used in taxonomic list of the mammals of North America (Jones et al. 1973; Hall 1981; Wilson and Ruff 1999; Baker et al. 2003; Reid 2006) and of the world (Wilson and Cole 2000; Wilson and Reeder 2005). U.S. researchers discovered the advantages of the vernacular name, namely that it improves the efficiency of communications by having names in their own language. These names are even more frequently used in the academic environment even when the scientific name is known, and because vernacular names can contribute to resolve taxonomic or nomenclature issues since, in many cases, these are more stable than scientific names (Jackson and Groves 2015).

In Mexico, vernacular names are frequently used in publications to the general public (e. g., Alvarez and González 1987), being widely accepted for birds (Escalante et al. 2014) and marine mammals (Gallo-Reynoso 1985); however, these are rarely used in most scientific publications of terrestrial mammals, even when remarkable reviews are available. Sanchez (1985) performed a search of names in the Mexican Nahuatl dialect, and found 51 names of common use, whereas Gaumer (1917) provided the names of the mammals of Yucatan in the Mayan language; in both cases, common names were correctly associated with the respective scientific names. To the best of our knowledge, pioneering work in Mexico on the use of vernacular names was conducted by Villa (1967) and Ramírez-Pulido et al. (1983). From then on, these have been used in some regional monographs (e. g., Ceballos and Galindo 1984; González-Christen 2010) and in extensive monographs of the mammals of Mexico (Aranda 2000; Villa-Ramirez and Cervantes 2003; Ceballos and Oliva 2005). However, all these publications have particular vernacular names that are unique to charismatic species of mammals, of economic importance in medicine or as food, of in conservation, as is the case of the jaguar (Panthera onca), or the tapir (Tapirella bairdii). Other names are applied to a wide range of mammals that share common characteristics such as bats, mice, and gophers; some of these names are applicable to all species in the same family or belonging to several families. Collective names for similar species are frequently used in many parts of the world (Simpson 1941; Verts and Carraway 1998).

Today, electronic media have made it possible to increase the flow of information and its accessibility. They have also allowed non-specialists in the study of mammals to access information about various species. Vernacular names are particularly important in this case, as they serve as a link between the academia and users that share information: in fact, this is the modern objective of vernacular names (Jackson and Groves 2015). That is why the use of the vernacular names is necessary in disclosure documents or official, as in the Mexican Official Standard 059 (SEMARNAT 2001, 2010) and the Red Book of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN; http://www.iucn.org).

We are currently working on keys to identify mammals in North America, where we have recorded 800 species, Based the previous works of Álvarez-Castañeda et al. (2015, 2017). In virtually all cases a vernacular name in English is available for each species, and less than 15 % of species have a name in Spanish. The work will be published as a book in bilingual format; thus, it was decided that all species should have a common name in English and one in Spanish to facilitate their identification. This motivated us to produce a list of names that may be useful and of wide distribution and use at the regional level (Table 1). As vernacular names in English are already extensively used, we only gathered a list, seeking matches between the different lists available, as needed (Jones et al. 1973; Hall 1981; Wilson and Ruff 1999; Wilson and Cole 2000; Baker et al. 2003; Wilson and Reeder 2005; Reid 2006); we designed novel names in the case of either new species or those with recent taxonomic changes. For the Spanish names, we reviewed all the literature to the extent possible (see above), compiling vernacular names commonly used in the literature in Spanish; for the majority of species, however, there is no information on their names, so a common name is proposed for each in these cases.

Formulating vernacular names is complicated and involves many discussions. We are aware that these names are subject to changes, may be potentially misleading, and in some cases may be even absurd and ridiculous (see Mones and Mones 1991). However, as we are convinced of the usefulness of vernacular names (see above), we took the task of collecting, rescuing and proposing vernacular names for all the species of mammals of North America (Table 1). However, to the extent possible, we decided to follow the following basic principles to propose vernacular names, which have been partially discussed by Jackson and Groves (2015):

1) We keep the names that are mentioned frequently in publications and/or that are used in many regions by the local people. These apply to the medium-sized and large mammals, such as the jaguarondi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi), puma (Puma concolor), spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), etc. Others should be modified as a result of the recent taxonomic changes, for example, the name mantled howler monkey (Alouatta palliata) to differentiate it from the black howler monkey (Alouatta villosa).

2) Vernacular names must serve as a descriptor of the species; thus, they should be informative and facilitate using the name regardless of the extent of knowledge about the species. Accordingly, names are based on characteristics that provide information to the user; this may be a widely used name, a morphological trait, a distinctive coloration, or refer to the geographical distribution of the species. There are groups of names that refer to geographic location, as in the case of the Zempoaltepec Deer Mouse (Peromyscus melanocarpus), Cozumel Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), or Michoacan Pocket Gopher (Zygogeomys trichopus); others highlight a unique feature that differentiates a particular species from the rest: Collared Pika (Ochotona collaris), White-toothed Woodrat (Neotoma leucodon), or Black-eared Rice Rat (Handleyomys melanotis).

3) In both English and Spanish, our aim was that the name indicate the relationship between species; hence, the first (in Spanish) or last (in English) part of the name refers to the genus. For example we use “water mouse” or “ratita nadadora” for the genus Rheomys, and “spiny pocket mouse” or “ratón espinoso” for Heteromys. In both cases, we avoided using the same vernacular name for any other genus of rodent. Separately, it was decided to designate the genus Habromys using the name “ratón arborícola” to maintain the relationship between the species in the genus, although not all species are strictly arboreal (Leon-Paniagua et al. 2007).

4) We seek to choose the shortest names possible, although the two prerequisites just mentioned prevented this in some cases. In addition, names are written in singular to make them shorter, as in “Mexican shrew” instead of “Mexican shrews”.

5) The vernacular name should be easy to pronounce, be euphonious and hence easy to remember.

6) Vernacular names are written in lower case, except when these include the name of a geographic place or a proper noun.

7) We avoided using translations of vernacular names in English for the respective names in Spanish, as they do not convey sufficient information in the latter, even within the scientific community itself. Some are derived directly from the scientific name, as in the case of Geoffroy’s Tailless Bat (Anoura geoffroyi), Findley’s Myotis (Myotis findleyi) or Baker’s Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys bakeri); in other cases, we not used the name of the author who described the species, as in Thomas’s Fruit-eating Bat (Dermanura watsoni), Davis’s Round-eared Bat (Lophostoma evotis) or Baird’s Pocket Gopher (Geomys breviceps). In both cases, most persons are not familiar with the meaning of the name, thus making its use difficult. Adequate translations from English are used in some cases, provided these meet the above criteria; in other cases, completely new names were designed.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to colleagues, students and friends who have shared common names in Spanish and English with us over the years. G. Ameneyro discussed some ideas expressed in this work. Two anonymous reviewers improved the quality of the writing. María Elena Sánchez-Salazar translated the manuscript into English.

Literatura Citada

Allen, H.. 1894. A monograph of the bats of North America. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 43:1-98.

Álvarez-Castañeda, S. T., and T., Álvarez Solorzano. 1996. Etimologías de los géneros de mamíferos mexicanos. Ciencia 47:39-49.

Álvarez-Castañeda, S. T., T., Álvarez, and N., González-Ruiz. 2015. Guía para la identificación de los mamíferos de México en campo y laboratorio. Centro de Investigaciones Biológicas del Noroeste, S. C., and Asociación Mexicana de Mastozoología, A. C. Guadalajara, México.

Álvarez-Castañeda, S. T., T., Álvarez, and N., González-Ruiz. 2017. Keys for identifying Mexican Mammals. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, U. S. A.

Álvarez, T., and M., González E. 1987. Fauna. Atlas Cultural de México. Secretaría de Educación Pública, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Grupo Editorial Planeta 9:1-187.

Anderson, S.. 1972. Mammals of Chihuahua, taxonomy and distribution. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 148: 149-410.

Aranda, M.. 2000. Huellas y otros rastros de los mamíferos grandes y medianos de México. CONABIO e Instituto de Ecología, A. C. Ciudad de México, México.

Arita, T. H., and S. R., Humphrey. 1988. Revisión taxonómica de los murciélagos magueyeros del género Leptonycteris (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae). Acta Zoológica Mexicana (n. s.) 29:1-60.

Baker, R. J., L. C., Bradley, R. D., Bradley, J. W., Dragoo, M. D., Engstrom, R. S., Hoffmann, C. A., Jones, D. W., Rice, and C., Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of México. Occasional Papers, Museum Texas Tech University 229:1-23.

Ceballos, G., and G., Oliva (Coords.). 2005. Los mamíferos silvestres de México. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad y Fondo de Cultura Económica. Ciudad de México, México.

Ceballos, G., and C. L., Galindo. 1984. Mamíferos silvestres de la Cuenca de México. Editorial Limusa. Ciudad de México, México.

Clutton-Brock, J.. 2015. Naming the scale of nature. Pp. 171 in Taxonomic tapestries: the threads of evolutionary, behavioural and conservation research (Behie A. M., and M. F. Oxenham, eds.). Australian National University Press, Australian.

Escalante, P., A. M., Sada, and J. G., Robles. 2014. Listado de nombres comunes de las aves de México. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México y Sociedad para el Estudio y Conservación de las Aves en México, A. C. Ciudad de México, México.

Gallo-Reynoso, J. P.. 1985. Nombres científicos y comunes de los mamíferos marinos de México. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Serie Zoología 56:1043-1056.

Gaumer, G. F.. 1917. Monografía de los mamíferos de Yucatán. Departamento. de Talleres Gráficos de la Secretaría de Fomento. Ciudad de México, México.

González-Christen, A (coord).. 2010. Los mamíferos de Veracruz. Guía ilustrada. Colección la Ciencia en Veracruz, Consejo Veracruzano de Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico, México.

Hall, E. R.. 1981. The mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons.

Hall, E. R., and W. W., Dalquest. 1963. The mammals of Veracruz. University of Kansas Publications, Museum of Natural History 14:165-362.

Hilton-Taylor, C. (compiler).. 2000. 2000 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland and Cambridge, Switzerland and United Kindom.

ICZN. 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth edition. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London, United Kindom.

Jackson, S. M., and C. P., Groves. 2015. Taxonomy of Australian Mammals. CSIRO Publishing. Melbourne, Australia.

Jones, J. K. Jr., D. C., Carter, and H. H., Genoways. 1973. Checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 12:1-14.

Kerr, R.. 1792. The Animal Kingdom, or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnæus: Class I. Mammalia. Edinburgh: A. Strahan, and London: T. Cadell, and Edinburgh: W. Creech.

León-Paniagua, L., A., Navarro-Sigüenza, B. E., Hernández-Baños, and J. C., Morales. 2007. Diversification of the arboreal mice of the genus Habromys (Rodentia: Cricetidae: Neotominae) in the Mesoamerican highlands. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42:653-664.

Linnaeus, C.. 1758. Systema naturae, 10th edn, vol. 1. Stockholm: L. Salvii.

Merriam, C. H.. 1918. Review of the grizzly and big brown bears of North America (genus Ursus), with description of a new genus Vetularctos. North American Fauna 41:1-136.

Mones, A., and U. K., Mones. 1991. Comentarios sobre el uso de los nombres vulgares en zoología. Anales del Instituto de Biología, Serie Zoología 62:249-252.

Porter, C. A., N. E., Beasley, N., Ordóñez-Garza, L. L., Lindsey, D. S., Rogers, N., Lewis-Rogers, J. W., Sites, and R. D., Bradley. 2017. A new species of big-eared climbing rat, genus Ototylomys (Cricetidae: Tylomyinae), from Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 98:1310-1329.

Ramírez-Pulido, J., R., López-Wilchis, C., Müdespacher, and I., Lira. 1983. Lista y bibliografía reciente de los mamíferos de México. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa y Editorial Contraste. Ciudad de México, México.

Reid, F.. 2006. Peterson field guide to mammals of North America. Fourth edition. Houghton Mifflin. New York, U. S. A.

Sánchez-Hernández, C., M. L., Romero-Almaraz, G. D., Schnell, M. L., Kennedy, T. L., Best, R. D., Owen, and S. B., González-Pérez. 2016. Bats of Colima, Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press. Norman, Oklahoma.

Sánchez, O.. 1985. Los mamíferos en las culturas antiguas de México. Zacatuche 2:2-12.

SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). 2002. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059- ECOL-2001. Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio, y lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 6 de marzo de 2002, Segunda Sección. Ciudad de México, México.

SEMARNAT (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales). 2010. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Protección ambiental, especies nativas de flora y fauna silvestres de México, categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o cambio, y lista de especies en riesgo. Diario Oficial de la Federación, 30 de diciembre de 2010, Segunda Sección. Ciudad de México, México.

Simpson, G. G.. 1941. Vernacular Names of South American Mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 22:1-17.

Verts, B. J., and L., Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. Berkeley, U. S. A.

Villa-R., B.. 1966. Los murciélagos de México. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ciudad de México, México.

Villa Ramírez, B., and F. A., Cervantes. 2003. Los mamíferos de México. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica e Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Ciudad de México, México.

Wilson, D. E., and D. M., Reeder (eds.). 2005. Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, U. S. A.

Wilson, D. E., and F. R., Cole. 2000. Common names of mammals of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, U. S. A.

Wilson, D. E., and S., Ruff (eds.). 1999. The Smithsonian book of North American mammals. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, U. S. A.

Notes

Author notes

* Corresponding author: Sergio Ticul Álvarez-Castañeda, e-mail: sticul@cibnor.mx

IR