COMMON and SCIENTIFIC NAMES. Originally a COMMON NAME of a fish was the name used by fishers, naturalists, or historians. The two word SCIENTIFIC NAME was first used by Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778, Swedish botanist who proposed the modern system). 

Common name (normal font) can vary: Deep-body Pipefish, Deep-body Pipefish, Deep-bodied Pipefish.

Scientific name (italicised) never varies, can have : Kaupus costatus.

COMMON NAMES:  For a particular species the common name would often vary between regions, and there could be the same common name for several species.  Recently there has been some attempts to formalise common names by public consensus or other means.  The common name may be traditional (Seahorse, Tuna), can be a description (Flathead, Yellow-fin Whiting), can describe behaviour (Flying fish, Toad-fish), can describe a species habitat (Weedy Whiting, Shore-eel), or its call (Grunter), its locomotion (Flying fish, Jumping Mullet), its organs for attachment (Cling-fish), or a cultural event (Hula-fish).  At this site we use hyphenated names (e.g. Deep-body instead of Deepbody pipefish unless hyphenation is in English dictionaries).

SCIENTIFIC NAME: 

The scientific name (always in italics or underlined) not only gives a special (specific and unambiguous) name to a species but also shows the relationships between species.  A scientific name consists of two main parts the GENERIC NAME and the SPECIFIC NAME. The generic name is like a surname and describes species which are closely related, for instance a group of pipefish which among other characteristics have a long prehensile (gripping) tails are the Stigmatopora. There are several species in the Stigmatopora and each has its own specific name, for example the Spotted pipefish is called Stigmatopora argus. To make sure that scientific names are correct, the description of the species and evidence that it is not the same as already recognised species has to be published in a journal where experts in the field review and approve the paper before publication.

However, there are often occasions where species are presented in the literature without a scientific article having been published. This creates certain difficulties. In these cases a scientific name, even a proposed one in descriptive articles in preparation should never be public. This is because the principle of a scientific name is its credibility which can only be established through the review and publication process. However, as just about all species currently discovered do not have previous common names it seems reasonable that the researchers describing the species can present an unambiguous common name. The use of 'Sp. 1, 2.' etc to discriminate possible species should be sufficient. This is the convention adopted on this web site.  Where descriptions are being prepared species may specified by a clear reference to the preparation of a paper (S. sp. nov., Browne et al., in description).  If we strongly suspect a new species we will devote a page to it and specify why we think it is a new species and what we still need to name it properly.

In papers describing fish they may be separated from other species by appearance, or through molecular techniques such as allozyme electrophoresis or mitochondrial DNA.  Even when distinguished by molecular techniques species of fish still have to have descriptions based on morphometrics, meristics and colour published, or the range of the species or subspecies, so they can be distinguished without molecular techniques.  Morphometrics are measurements (ratios of head to body length) and merisitic counts (Fin rays).  Some of these values may be common between species but not all.