Devonian's picture

Leafhopper, Evacanthus interruptus

Observed: 28th June 2011 By: DevonianDevonian’s reputation in InvertebratesDevonian’s reputation in InvertebratesDevonian’s reputation in InvertebratesDevonian’s reputation in Invertebrates
Froghopper Evacanthus interruptus (2)
Froghopper,Evacanthus interruptus
Species interactions

No interactions present.


MickETalbot's picture

E. interruptus

Family: Cicadellidae, Subfamily: Cicadellinae, Tribe: Evacanthini, not a Froghopper/Spitlebug. The latter belong to thh Family: Aphrophoridae, Subfamily Aphrophorinae.

Devonian's picture

"not a froghopper"

Yes, true! Another lesson learned. Thanks for the correction. I am hoping that the new title of "Leafhopper" will correct the error in the English name.

MickETalbot's picture

Revised ID:

Still has not cleared the incorrect other observations title.

Personally I fail to comprehend why iSpot use common names. I have always been led to believe that in taxonomy, common, vernacular, and colloquialisms in general should be avoided. The question beggared here is simply why do iSpot use them..? The confusion is blatantly obvious.

I hasten to add that should any species, (flora or fauna) have a name associated with it, (other than scientific synonyms), then it should only be used as an aside, and not implicated in it's actual ID.

I cast no individual aspersions, but I do think it is a problem the iSpot team should look at.

chrisbrooks's picture

Latin / Common names

Whilst I agree Mick that the scientific name is the most important, a correct common name adds some sense of understanding to us mortals. I appreciate there is not always a common name in use but it does help me anyway.

MickETalbot's picture

I agree...

...and easier to spell too. Seriously though, used as an aside yes, (the point I was/am making).

Devonian's picture

As an aside

In fairness, iSpot does give priority to scientific names.

Much would be gained if we all had the capacity to remember, pronounce and understand the meaning of the latinized names. The English names have to be the starting point for those of us that know nothing else. Too, if iSpot is to attract the 'citizen scientists' to its ranks, those for whom natural history is of varying degrees of interest,then it has to speak their language while allowing proficiency in the binomials to be accomplished at each individuals own pace. Otherwise the challenge might be might turn to tedium and prove to be to much.

MickETalbot's picture

I agree...

.. I to use common names, for reasons like being unable to pronounce and spell the tongue twisters, indeed I like many, find them very helpful. Indeed iSpot does prioritize the scientific names which is as it should be. What I'm trying to say is if common names are going be used the iSpot team should make sure the correct ones are used.

The fact that the, "Other observations" still reads, (or did at time of writting this reply), "Froghoppers", makes my point, I think.