The J. L. B. SMITH INSTITUTE OF ICHTHYOLOGY SPECIAL PUBLICATION No. 14 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA PART I MARINE FISHES by Margaret M. Smith RHODES UNIVERSITY GRAHAMSTOWN, SOUTH AFRICA April 1975 COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA PART I MARINE FISHES by Margaret M. Smith INTRODUCTION In earlier times along South Africa’s 3 000 km coastline were numerous isolated communities. Interested in angling and pursuing commercial fishing on a small scale, the inhabitants gave names to the fishes that they caught. First, in 1652, came the Dutch Settlers who gave names of well-known European fishes to those that they found at the Cape. Names like STEENBRAS, KABELJOU, SNOEK, etc., are derived from these. Malay slaves and freemen from the East brought their names with them, and many were manufactured or adapted as the need arose. The Afrikaans names for the Cape fishes are relatively uniform. Only as the distance increases from the Cape — e.g. at Knysna, Plettenberg Bay and Port Elizabeth, do they exhibit alteration. The English names started in the Eastern Province and there are different names for the same fish at towns or holiday resorts sometimes not 50 km apart. It is therefore not unusual to find one English name in use at the Cape, another at Knysna, and another at Port Elizabeth differing from that at East London. The Transkeians use yet another name, and finally Natal has a name quite different from all the rest. The indigenous peoples of South Africa contributed practically no names to the fishes, as only the early Strandlopers were fish eaters and we know nothing of their language. The Bantu peoples migrating down from the north were pastoralists and agriculturalists, not fishermen. The Pondo, Xhosa and Fingo peoples that reached the Transkei kept out of sight and sound of the sea. Only the outcasts existed in this coastal strip. Some tribes considered fish flesh akin to snake flesh, and by custom and taboo most tribes were prohibited from eating it. This is a tradition which persists in some areas even to this day. Half a century ago all the different common names produced little confusion. Groups were too isolated. Then the country’s communications improved. A quarter of a century ago J.L.B. Smith collected all the common names he could and published them in his SEA FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA, each, with its locality, carefully attached to the description and figure of the fish so named. He argued that in this way confusion 1 would be avoided and, by referring to the illustration, everyone would be able to ascertain exactly which fish was being discussed. While going a long way to unravel the confusion the SEA FISHES OF SOUTHERN AFRICA did not resolve it, mainly because of man’s inherent laziness and carelessness and owing to the fact that the SEA FISHES, weighing nearly 3 kg, can hardly be tucked into a fishing-bag. Today the necessity to standardise the common names of our fishes is recognised by all sections of the community including the angling fraternity. As early as 1959, L.P.D. Gertenbach in his unpublished Ph.D. thesis on “Marine fishery industries and commerce of the Union of South Africa and South West Africa” states: ‘The fish-producers, fish-traders, fish-consumers, legislators, inspectors, mana­ gers of factories, depots, transport firms, exporters, housewives, etc., all have an interest in a clear, unambiguous labelling of fishery products. The realities of the modern world-economy demand the standardization of the English and Afrikaans common names of at least that hundred or so species of economic significance.5 Nowadays, with good roads, air travel and more leisure, South Africa has not only shrunk, but is no longer isolated at the tip of a continent. A man can fish off Angola one day and in Durban waters the next. Big game anglers come from all over the world. Fleets of many nations fish the fringe of, and beyond, our territorial waters, and endemic fishes such as South African hake, snoek, pilchards, kingklip, etc., can be seen daily on Japanese, Russian, Spanish and other markets. Commerce, law and sport need trade names, names for aquarium fishes, for legal terminology and for general use. Substitutes for scientific names are needed for the increasing number of inland aquaria, for popular and scientific writing in encyclopaedias, dictionaries, popular and scientific magazines, newspaper reports and record lists. It has been shown that common names carefully chosen can be more stable than scientific names, as witness the list given by Gilchrist (1902)1 wherein almost all the scientific names are obsolete but the common names are Just the same today. Even as far back as 1682 Claudius, one of the early travellers to South Africa, labelled his illustrations of Cape fishes with names such as SONVIS and KNORHAAN that are still in use for those same species today. In 1948 the United States of America brought out their first official list of 570 common names, in 1960 there were 1852 species and the most recent list, published in 1970, covers 2131 species. The experience gained by American ichthyologists (Bailey et al, 1970)2 in drawing up their lists of common and scientific names has been invaluable in compiling this list and here are some of the guidelines: Gilchrist, J.D.F. (1902) History of the local names of Cape fish. Tram, S. Afr. phil Soc. 11 (4) : 207-232. ^Bailey, Fitch, Herald, Lachner, Lindsey, Robins &. Scott: A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada (3rd edition). Spec. Publ. Am. Fish. Soc. (6) 150pp. 2 PRINCIPLES FOLLOWED 1. A single vernacular name for each official language shall be accepted for each species or taxonomic unit included. Where possible only one name should be used for both languages (e.g. snoek, kob). 2. No two species on the list shall have the same approved name. 3. The expression “COMMON” as part of a fish’s name shall be avoided wherever possible. Use of adjectives that also describe age or size should be avoided wherever possible. 4. Simplicity in names is favoured. Preference shall be given to names that are short and euphonious. Hyphens, suffices and apostrophes shall be omitted except where they are essential (e.g. three-eyed), are necessary to avoid a misunderstanding, or in Afrikaans names (see below). Compounded modifying words, including paired structures, should usually be treated as singular nouns in apposition with a group name (e.g. soupfin shark), but a plural modifier should usually be placed in adjectival form (e.g. spotted grunter). The compounding of brief familiar words into a single unhyphened name may in some cases promote clarity and simplicity (e.g. rockcod, goldfish), but habitual practice of combining words, especially those that are lengthy, awkward or un­ familiar, is avoided. 5. Common names shall not be capitalised in text use except for proper names (e.g. frigate mackerel, but Natal wrasse). 6. Where possible, names intended to honour persons should be avoided as they are without descriptive value (e.g. Allison’s tuna or Smith’s clingfish). 7. Only clearly defined and well-marked taxonomic entities (usually species) shall be assigned common names. Most subspecies are not suitable for common names unless they are sufficiently different in appearance to be distinguished readily by laymen. The practice of adding geographic modifiers to designate regional populations makes for a cumber­ some terminology. Hybrids in general are not named. 8. The common name, while often based on the scientific name, shall not be tied intimately and permanently to the scientific name. Thus the changing of a scientific name will not entail changing the common name. This leads to the common name being more stable than the scientific name as it is not the function of the common name to indicate relationship. When two or more taxonomic groups (e.g. nominal species) are found to be identical, one name shall be adopted for the combined group. 9. Names shall not violate the tenets of good taste. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Regardless of origin, and in spite of (2) below, truly vernacular names that are widespread and in common use by the public are to be retained wherever possible. Elf is a good example, called bluefish and tailor elsewhere. 3 2. Names for circumglobal or wide-ranging species among the English-speaking peoples of the world should where possible be retained: barracuda, Spanish mackerel, all the different tunnies, various sharks. By the same token universally used names should not be attached to completely different species, like barracouta for a mackerel or blue pointer for the great white shark. 3. Under certain circumstances commonly employed names adopted from traditional Europea (mainly English and Dutch) usage can be given latitude in taxonomic placemen* ve*S* snoek from seesnoek, a gempylid, Thyrsites atun, far removed from the freshwater pike (snoek) of Europe). It is here suggested that kabeljou for Argyrosuma hololepidotus, a sciaenid, be shortened to kob to sever its connection with the European cod (family Gadidae) known as kabeljou or kabeljauw. 4. Colourful, romantic, fanciful, metaphorical and otherwise distinctive and original names are especially appropriate. Many of these names add to the appeal of the fish: Jumping bean, angelfish or cherub (engeltjie), prodigal son, Jewelfish are attractive names to use. 5. Structural attributes, colour and colour pattern are desirable and are in common use in forming names. Sailfin, soapy, glassy, copper, triple tail are some in use. White, black, spotted and striped should be used only when absolutely necessary.