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.