When IUCN and the 2005 paper reestablishing its status both only list one common name, it seems to me that that should be the title of the article, not a common name used in a more than a century-old reference. Are there contemporary sources showing that the common name without the "Cofre de" is the more widely-used one today? Umimmak ( talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- When alternative popular names exist, I'm not aware that we necessarily need to worry about which is more common (particularly in a species as obscure as this one), or that more recently proposed names necessarily take precedence over older ones. There are definite practical advantages to listing a species under a shorter common name that does not include an unintelligible foreigh language place name. WolfmanSF ( talk)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When IUCN and the 2005 paper reestablishing its status both only list one common name, it seems to me that that should be the title of the article, not a common name used in a more than a century-old reference. Are there contemporary sources showing that the common name without the "Cofre de" is the more widely-used one today? Umimmak ( talk) 09:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- When alternative popular names exist, I'm not aware that we necessarily need to worry about which is more common (particularly in a species as obscure as this one), or that more recently proposed names necessarily take precedence over older ones. There are definite practical advantages to listing a species under a shorter common name that does not include an unintelligible foreigh language place name. WolfmanSF ( talk)