USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Names”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2015

Rafinesque’s names for western American mammals, including the earliest scientific name for the coyote ( Canis latrans Say, 1822), based on the apocryphal journal of Charles Le Raye

In 1817, the naturalist Constantine S. Rafinesque named nine new species of mammals from the American West, indicating the recently published journal of Charles Le Raye as the primary source for his descriptions. Le Raye was purported to be a French Canadian fur trader who, as a captive of the Sioux, had traveled across broad portions of the Missouri and Yellowstone river drainages a few years before the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-1806) traversed much of the same region. Le Raye's journal was relied upon by generations of scholars as a valuable source documenting the native peoples and natural history of the Upper Missouri river in the era just prior to European settlement. Subsequent research, however, has shown that Le Raye never existed, and his purported journal is fraudulent. Despite this, Rafinesque's creation of the names followed conventional and accepted practice at the time, and they are porentially available. Fortunately, much of the Le Raye journal was based on verifiable sources, such as Patrick Gass's published account of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Identification of the original source materials makes it possible to establish the correct application of Rafinesque's names and to determine their current status. This process reveals that the earliest scientific name for the coyote ( Canis latrans Say, 1822) was Canis chlorops Rafinesque, 1817; this name is now a nomen oblitum , however, and is no longer available.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washingto↗
USGS2023

Guidelines for conducting reviews of geologic names and aquifer names in U.S. Geological Survey hydrogeologic maps and reports

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is officially charged with assessment of various aspects of geology and hydrogeology throughout the Nation. Hence, USGS publications adhere to broadly uniform procedures in the classification and nomenclature of geologic and hydrogeologic units. Responsibility for this uniformity is under the technical guidance of the Geologic Names Committee (GNC), which formulates general policy and advises on specific nomenclatural issues. Central to the GNC proceedings is the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter referred to as “the Code”) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN], 2021). Geologic reports typically contain geologic maps and cross sections, geologic unit names, lithologic descriptions, and stratigraphic correlation charts, as well as results of drilling activities and structure-contour, depth-to-top, depth-to-base, or sediment-thickness maps. Groundwater-resource maps and other hydrogeologic maps and reports can also contain many of these same elements. Groundwater-resource reports rarely contain original geologic mapping, revisions of stratigraphic nomenclature, or redefinitions or changes in the ranks or ages of geologic units; however, these reports usually contain descriptions and classifications of hydrogeologic units, and they also may introduce new or modify existing aquifer nomenclature. The following general guidance is published for those designated as geologic and aquifer names reviewers.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2009

The National Map - geographic names

The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN), contains information about the official names for places, features, and areas in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the territories and outlying areas of the United States, including Antarctica. It is the geographic names component of The National Map. The BGN maintains working relationships with State names authorities to cooperate in achieving the standardization of geographic names. The GNIS contains records on more than 2 million geographic names in the United States - from populated places, schools, reservoirs, and parks to streams, valleys, springs, ridges, and every feature type except roads and highways. Entries include information such as the federally-recognized name and variant names and spellings for the feature; former names; the status of the name as determined by the BGN; county or counties in which each named feature is located; geographic coordinates that locate the approximate center of an aerial feature or the mouth and source of a linear feature, such as a stream; name of the cell of the USGS topographic map or maps on which the feature may appear; elevation figures derived from the National Elevation Dataset; bibliographic code for the source of the name; BGN decision dates and historical information are available for some features. Data from the GNIS are used for emergency preparedness, mapmaking, local and regional planning, service delivery routing, marketing, site selection, environmental analysis, genealogical research, and other applications.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1987

The National Geographic Names Data Base: Phase II instructions

The Geographic Names Information System is a computer-based information system developed to meet major national needs by providing information for named entities in the United States, its territories, and outlying areas. The National Geographic Names Data Base, a component of the Geographic Names Information System, currently contains most names and associated information recorded on the 1:24,000-scale (or largest scale available) topographic maps of the U.S. Geological Survey. The work involved in this initial compilation of names shown on the topographic-map series, and the development and editing of the National Geographic Names Data Base, is referred to as Phase I. Optimal use and effectiveness of an automated names system require that the names of features not recorded on topographic maps be added. The systematic collection of names from other sources, including maps, charts, and texts, is termed Phase II. In addition, specific types of features not compiled during Phase I are encoded and added to the data base. Other names of importance to researchers and users, such as historical and variant names, are also included. The rules and procedures for Phase II research, compilation, and encoding are contained in this publication.

Circular↗
USGS1967

Dictionary of Alaska place names

This work is an alphabetical list of the geographic names that are now applied and have been applied to places and features of the Alaska landscape. Principal names, compiled from modem maps and charts and printed in boldface type, generally reflect present-day local usage. They conform to the principles of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names for establishing standard names for use on Government maps and in other Government publications. Each name entry gives the present-day spelling along with variant spellings and names; identifies the feature named; presents the origin and history of the name; and, where possible, gives the meaning of an Eskimo, Aleut, Indian, or foreign name. Variant, obsolete, and doubtful names are alphabetically listed and are cross referenced, where necessary, to the principal entries.

Alaska↗
USGS1995

Geographic names of the Antarctic

This gazetteer contains 12,710 names approved by the United States Board on Geographic Names and the Secretary of the Interior for features in Antarctica and the area extending northward to the Antarctic Convergence. Included in this geographic area, the Antarctic region, are the off-lying South Shetland Islands, the South Orkney Islands, the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, Bouvetøya, Heard Island, and the Balleny Islands. These names have been approved for use by U.S. Government agencies. Their use by the Antarctic specialist and the public is highly recommended for the sake of accuracy and uniformity. This publication, which supersedes previous Board gazetteers or lists for the area, contains names approved as recently as December 1994. The basic name coverage of this gazetteer corresponds to that of maps at the scale of 1:250,000 or larger for coastal Antarctica, the off-lying islands, and isolated mountains and ranges of the continent. Much of the interior of Antarctica is a featureless ice plateau. That area has been mapped at a smaller scale and is nearly devoid of toponyms. All of the names are for natural features, such as mountains, glaciers, peninsulas, capes, bays, islands, and subglacial entities. The names of scientific stations have not been listed alphabetically, but they may appear in the texts of some decisions. For the names of submarine features, reference should be made to the Gazetteer of Undersea Features , 4th edition, U.S. Board on Geographic Names, 1990.

Report↗
USGS1999

Commemorative naming in the United States

Naming is a basic human tendency; it allows us to perceive the distinct identities of people and places and conveys those characteristics that make them unique. The name of a geographic feature can describe spectacular physical attributes (such as the Grand Canyon or Half Dome in Yosemite National Park), indicate cultural or historical significance (such as Washington Crossing on the Delaware River), or commemorate a worthy individual (such as the Hudson River, named for Henry Hudson, the explorer). Names have many different origins, and regardless of the type of name, they give us a greater familiarity with our surroundings and a sense of belonging to our environment. Naming rivers, mountains, and valleys after individuals was one way settlers marked the land; it signified their lives on these lands were important and, in addition to being a point of reference, usually satisfied the need for stability and enhanced the general concept of sense of place. Even today, naming geographic features after individuals helps us to recognize their special achievements and contributions to the physical or cultural landscape. However, what may be most significant about the present commemorative naming decisions is their permanence. It is important for us to realize that the commemorative names assigned today may last for centuries.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1998

Commemorative Naming in the United States

Naming is a basic human tendency; it allows us to perceive the distinct identities of people and places and conveys those characteristics that make them unique. The name of a geographic feature can describe spectacular physical attributes (such as the Grand Canyon or Half Dome in Yosemite National Park), indicate cultural or historical significance (such as Washington Crossing on the Delaware River), or commemorate a worthy individual (such as the Hudson River, named for Henry Hudson, the explorer). Names have many different origins, and regardless of the type of name, they give us a greater familiarity with our surroundings and a sense of belonging to our environment. Naming rivers, mountains, and valleys after individuals was one way settlers marked the land; it signified their lives on these lands were important and, in addition to being a point of reference, usually satisfied the need for stability and enhanced the general concept of sense of place. Even today, naming geographic features after individuals helps us to recognize their special achievements and contributions to the physical or cultural landscape. However, what may be most significant about the present commemorative naming decisions is their permanence. It is important for us to realize that the commemorative names assigned today may last for centuries.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2008

Fast, Inclusive Searches for Geographic Names Using Digraphs

An algorithm specifies how to quickly identify names that approximately match any specified name when searching a list or database of geographic names. Based on comparisons of the digraphs (ordered letter pairs) contained in geographic names, this algorithmic technique identifies approximately matching names by applying an artificial but useful measure of name similarity. A digraph index enables computer name searches that are carried out using this technique to be fast enough for deployment in a Web application. This technique, which is a member of the class of n-gram algorithms, is related to, but distinct from, the soundex, PHONIX, and metaphone phonetic algorithms. Despite this technique's tendency to return some counterintuitive approximate matches, it is an effective aid for fast, inclusive searches for geographic names when the exact name sought, or its correct spelling, is unknown.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2000

The United States Board on Geographic Names: Standardization or regulation?

The United States Board on Geographic Names was created in 1890 to standardize the use of geographic names on federal maps and documents, and was established in its present form in 1947 by public law. The Board is responsible for geographic name usage and application throughout the federal government and its members must approve a name change or new name before it can be applied to federal maps and publications. To accomplish its mission, the Board has developed principles, policies, and procedures for use in the standardization process. The Board is also responsible legally for the promulgation of standardized names, whether or not these names have ever been controversial, and today this is accomplished by the universal availability of electronic databases for domestic and foreign names. This paper examines the development of Board policies and the implementation of these policies to achieve standardization with a view to relating these policies and activities to questions of standardization or regulation.

Names↗
USGS2006

Generic names of northern and southern fur seals (Mammalia: Otariidae)

We have resolved a nomenclatural problem discovered during research on the northern fur seal that concerns the correct generic name for this taxon and for fur seals of the Southern Hemisphere. The unfortunate practice by some 19th-century authors to use names in their Latinized form but to date them from their first appearance as French common names led to the use of Arctocepbalus for southern fur seals when the name correctly applies to the northern fur seal, known today as Callorbinus ursinus . However, Arctocepbalus and Callorbinus are antedated by Otoes G. Fischer, 1817, which is the earliest available generic name for the fur seal of the northern Pacific. The earliest available generic name for southern fur seals is Halarctus Gill, 1866. To avoid the confusion that would result from replacing the currently used generic names with those required by strict adherence to the Principle of Priority, we have petitioned the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to preserve Arctocepbalus and Callorbinus for the southern and northern fur seals, respectively.

Marine Mammal Science↗
USGS2018

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for review, interrupted tetrahedral framework structures are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundance in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite ( Si : Al ⩾ 4.0 ). Dehydration, partial hydration, and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr.-Ba: chabazite-Ca.-Na.-K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca: dachiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-K, -Ca: faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Na: paulingite-K. -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -Ka; stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data. IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry; unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Mineralogical Magazine↗
USGS2020

“Mostri Marini”: Constantine S. Rafinesque's names for three of Antonino Mongitore's Sicilian whales

In 1815, the naturalist Constantine Samuel Rafinesque (1783–1840) previewed three new species of cetaceans – Delphinus dalippus , Physeter urganantus and Oxypterus mongitori – that he intended to describe from Sicily based on illustrations in Antonino Mongitore's published work Della Sicilia ricercata nelle cose più memorabili (1742–1743). Although formal descriptions of the three species were never published, Rafinesque's reference to Mongitore's illustrations made the names available by “indication”. The names, nonetheless, fell into obscurity, most likely a result of contemporary taxonomists' lack of access to Mongitore's work. Rafinesque's names remain relevant to the history of cetacean taxonomy, although they are no longer applicable. Moreover, the animals associated with these names add to the historical record of whale strandings in the Mediterranean. For these reasons, we studied the illustrations Rafinesque indicated for his cetaceans and reviewed Mongitore's accompanying text, which together provide sufficient distinctive characters that two of the three animals can be confidently identified with modern species, namely the sperm whale, Physeter catodon ( Linnaeus, 1758), and the false killer whale, Pseudorca crassidens (Owen, 1846). Had Rafinesque's name D. dalippus been recognized for what it was, it would have had priority over P. crassidens as the earliest scientific name for the false killer whale.

Archives of Natural History↗
USGS1997

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on new Minerals and Mineral names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for this review, structures containing an interrupted framework of tetrahedra are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundant in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemicalsymbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix, except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on the ratio Si:Al except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite (Si:Al ??? 4.0). Dehydration, partial hydration, and overhydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr, -Ba, chabazite-Ca, -Na, -K, clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca, dachiardite-Ca, -Na, erionite-Na, erionite-Na, -K, -Ca, faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Mg, ferrierite-Mg, -K, -Na, gmelinite-Na, -Ca, -K, heulandite-Ca, -Na, -K, -Sr, levyne-Ca, -Na, paulingite-K, -Ca, phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -K, and stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data, IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry, unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, dvetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Canadian Mineralogist↗
USGS1998

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the Subcommittee on Zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for this review, structures containing an interrupted containing an interrupted framework of tetrahedra are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is alloowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundant in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix, except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely in Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite (Si:Al ??? 4.0). Dehydration, partial hydration and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr, -Ba; chabazite-Ca, -Na, -K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca; dechiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-Na, -K, -Ca,; faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Mg; ferrierite-Mg, -K, -Na; gmelinite-Na, -Ca, -K; heulandite-Ca, -Na, -K, -Sr; levyne-Ca, -Na; paulingite-K, -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -K stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data, IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry, unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

European Journal of Mineralogy↗
USGS2021

Whence Orycteropus? The correct authorship and date for the generic name of the aardvark (Mammalia, Tubulidentata, Orycteropodidae)

All else being equal, the principle of priority in zoological taxonomic nomenclature gives precedence to the earliest name for a particular taxon. Determining the origin of some late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century taxonomic names, however, can be vexing, particularly when the history of a name was never completely documented in contemporary synonymies. The authorship and date for Orycteropus Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796: 102, the genus-group name for the African aardvark, Orycteropus afer (Pallas, 1766), has been variously ascribed to at least four authors other than É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. Using digitally imaged publications now available in a variety of internet-accessible libraries, I traced the comprehensive history of the name and show how and, to some extent, why its origin became obscured. É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s original description was re-published twice, most likely to make the description more widely available. Rather than reinforce his authorship for the name, however, the surprising consequence of the multiple publications was to cast doubt on it.

Bionomina↗