PLA-GRIM Literature Review 09

Local Names and Name History — Evidence Review v0.3

STATUS: LOCKED v0.3 · CITATION AUDIT PASSED

Scope: This chapter documents names as evidence of language, local usage, field-document usage, and database usage. A name is not treated as a taxonomic identifier by itself.

1. Research Questions

1. What Thai, local, and field-document names are recorded for each Trichopsis taxon?
2. Which names are shared by more than one species?
3. Which names are ambiguous across genera?
4. Which names can be traced to a dated source, locality, or document?
5. How should PLA-GRIM store and display names without converting vernacular usage into taxonomy?

2. Evidence Model

PLA-GRIM separates at least five evidence categories:

The same name must be allowed to occur in multiple records. PLA-GRIM should not collapse those records into one canonical species name.

3. Trichopsis vittata: Recorded Thai and Local Names

Current THBIF records associate Trichopsis vittata with:

• กริมควาย
• ปลากริมควาย
• ปลากริมข้างลาย
• กริม
• กริมหัวโม่ง
• ปลากริม

and record Pla kad pa as a local name in one THBIF record. [1]

An older THBIF/minisite record also lists ปลากริม, กริมควาย and กริม, with additional local-language names. This demonstrates that the exact set of names can vary between database records and record vintages. [2]

Interpretation

These should be retained as source-specific name records, rather than reduced to one “official Thai name.” In particular, the presence of ปลากริมข้างลาย in a T. vittata record does not establish that the name is exclusive to T. vittata.

4. Trichopsis pumila: Recorded Thai and Local Names

The current THBIF taxon record for Trichopsis pumila lists:

• กริมสี
• ปลากริมสี
• กริม
• ปลากริม

and explicitly lists ตะแร๊ยเกริม under “ชื่อท้องถิ่น” (local name). The record was updated 10 June 2026. [3]

A Fisheries Department source also identifies T. pumila with the Thai names ปลากริมมุก and ปลากริมสี. [4]

Interpretation

The combination of THBIF and Fisheries Department records is useful evidence that T. pumila has been associated with more than one Thai naming form. However, the sources do not by themselves establish the geographic origin, historical age, or community distribution of ตะแร๊ยเกริม. PLA-GRIM should therefore retain it as a recorded local name while marking its provenance as unresolved until a more specific locality/source is found.

5. The Name “กริมสี” Is Ambiguous

“กริมสี” should not be treated as an exclusive identifier for T. pumila.

Evidence in the current source set shows:

• THBIF attaches กริมสี to T. pumila. [3]
• An NSTDA source uses กริมสี for T. pumila and also for Trichopsis cf. schalleri. [5]
• A wetland document uses ปลากริมสี for T. schalleri. [6]

Therefore:

กริมสี is a taxonomically ambiguous vernacular name within the Trichopsis group.

This does not mean that every fish called กริมสี is taxonomically uncertain. It means that the name alone is insufficient to identify the species.

6. Trichopsis schalleri: Recorded Thai and Local Names

THBIF records the following Thai names for T. schalleri:

• กริมอีสาน
• ปลากริมอีสาน
• ปลาหมัด. [7]

A Lower Songkhram wetland/Thai Baan document also associates ปลาหมัด with T. schalleri, while giving ปลากริมสี as the common name in the same record. [6]

A Mekong field guide published in 2023 gives the field-guide naming set:

• T. schalleri → กริมอีสาน (หมัดแดง)
• T. pumila → กริมสี (หมัดลาย)
• T. vittata → กริมควาย (หมัดควาย). [8]

These names should be recorded as names used by that field guide, not automatically promoted to nationwide standard names.

7. The Name “ปลาหมัด” Is Shared

The evidence shows that ปลาหมัด is not species-exclusive:

• BRT/NSTDA material associates ปลาหมัด with T. vittata. [9]
• THBIF associates ปลาหมัด with T. schalleri. [7]
• The Lower Songkhram document also uses ปลาหมัด for T. schalleri. [6]

Thus, the name “ปลาหมัด” should be stored as an ambiguous name record with separate taxon-source relationships.

The Mekong field guide further demonstrates a naming system in which “หมัด” is used as a parent/local naming element with species-specific modifiers such as หมัดลาย, หมัดแดง and หมัดควาย. [8]

8. The Name “ปลากริมข้างลาย” Has Cross-Genus Ambiguity

This is an important addition to the previous draft.

THBIF lists ปลากริมข้างลาย under Trichopsis vittata. [1]

However, THBIF also lists ปลากริมข้างลาย under Trichopodus leerii, whose Thai name set also includes กระดี่มุก. [10]

Therefore, “ปลากริมข้างลาย” is not merely ambiguous among Trichopsis species; it can also be associated with a different genus within Osphronemidae.

Consequence for PLA-GRIM

A single field such as:

thai_name = ปลากริมข้างลาย

is inadequate.

The data model must preserve:

name → taxon → source → year/context

rather than:

name → one taxon

9. “กริม” and “ปลากริม” Are Also Non-exclusive

THBIF records show “กริม” and/or “ปลากริม” attached to T. vittata and T. pumila. [1][3]

This means these generic-looking forms should not be used as automatic species identifiers.

Their value is primarily:

• documenting vernacular usage,
• tracing source terminology,
• supporting searches,
• connecting historical/community records.

They should not override a scientific identification supported by morphology, locality, specimen data, or other evidence.

10. Community and Secondary Sources

Community biodiversity records are useful for documenting actual local usage, but they should remain a separate evidence layer.

For each community/secondary name record, PLA-GRIM should retain:

• exact name as written,
• scientific taxon assigned by the source,
• locality/province if given,
• source organization/person,
• document title,
• year,
• context,
• verification status,
• notes on whether the identification is independently supported.

A community source should not be silently converted into a taxonomic authority.

11. Name History: Use a Documented-Use Timeline

PLA-GRIM should avoid speculative linguistic histories such as:

“This species was originally called X because…”

unless a source explicitly documents that historical claim.

Instead, “name history” should mean a documented-use timeline:

This format preserves when, where, and by whom a name was used, rather than constructing an unsupported evolutionary history of the name.

12. Master Name Table for PLA-GRIM

The website/database should retain duplicate names where the source attaches them to different taxa.

Important: “Ambiguity” means that the same lexical name has been associated with multiple taxa in the evidence set. It does not mean that the taxonomic identity of every individual carrying that name is unknown.

13. Recommended Data Model

The minimum name record should be expanded to:

name
taxon_id
name_type
source_id
source_year
locality
language
context
verification_status
notes
ambiguity_group_id

Why ambiguity_group_id matters

A name such as ปลากริมข้างลาย can link more than one taxon without forcing the database to choose a single “correct” species.

Example:

ambiguity_group_id: TH-NAME-PLAKRIM-KHANG-LAI

record A:
name = ปลากริมข้างลาย
taxon = Trichopsis vittata
source = THBIF

record B:
name = ปลากริมข้างลาย
taxon = Trichopodus leerii
source = THBIF

The same architecture can be used for:

ปลาหมัด
กริมสี
กริม
ปลากริม

where appropriate.

14. Website Display Recommendation

The public website should avoid presenting a flat list such as:

Common names: กริมสี, ปลาหมัด, ปลากริม…

Instead, use source-aware sections:

Thai names

Names attached to the taxon by identified databases or authorities.

Local names

Names explicitly labelled as local by the source.

Field-guide names

Names used by a specified field guide/document.

Community names

Names reported by community or secondary sources.

Shared / ambiguous names

Names that occur in more than one taxon record.

A visible note should state:

ชื่อท้องถิ่นและชื่อสามัญอาจซ้ำกันระหว่างชนิดปลา ชื่อเพียงอย่างเดียวจึงไม่ควรใช้ยืนยันชนิดโดยไม่มีหลักฐานอื่นประกอบ

15. Supported Conclusions

Supported

1. T. vittata, T. pumila and T. schalleri each have multiple Thai/local names documented in Thai biodiversity and field sources. [1][3][4][7][8][9]
2. “ปลาหมัด” is shared between at least T. vittata and T. schalleri in the current evidence set. [6][7][9]
3. “กริมสี” is associated with more than one Trichopsis taxon in the evidence set. [3][5][6]
4. “ปลากริมข้างลาย” is associated with both T. vittata and Trichopodus leerii in THBIF. [1][10]
5. Therefore, vernacular names should be treated as source-linked records rather than one-to-one taxonomic identifiers.

Not supported yet

1. A nationwide “standard Thai name” for every Trichopsis species.
2. A complete geographic map for each local name.
3. A definitive etymology for names such as กริม, หมัด, กริมสี or ตะแร๊ยเกริม.
4. A historical sequence showing that one name evolved directly into another.
5. The claim that a particular vernacular name is exclusive to one species unless the evidence explicitly supports exclusivity.

16. Unresolved Issues

1. ตะแร๊ยเกริม — THBIF records it as a local name for T. pumila, but the present evidence does not establish locality or historical provenance. [3]
2. กริมสี — additional province-level and source-level mapping is needed to determine how widely each taxonomic usage occurs.
3. ปลาหมัด — more locality-linked records could clarify whether different regions preferentially use the name for different taxa.
4. ปลากริมข้างลาย — cross-genus usage should be investigated further before assigning any canonical Thai-name status.
5. Community sources — each record should be retained with source/year/locality rather than merged into a single taxon-level name list.
6. Older database records may contain different taxonomic names or spelling; these should be preserved as historical source records rather than silently normalized.

17. PLA-GRIM Note

ชื่อปลาเป็นหลักฐานทางภาษาและวัฒนธรรม ไม่ใช่หลักฐานอนุกรมวิธานโดยตัวมันเอง

PLA-GRIM จึงเก็บชื่อในรูปแบบ ชื่อ → แหล่งที่มา → บริบท → พื้นที่ → ชนิดที่แหล่งข้อมูลระบุ และยอมให้ชื่อเดียวเชื่อมโยงกับหลายชนิดได้

โดยเฉพาะชื่อ ปลาหมัด, กริมสี และปลากริมข้างลาย ควรถือเป็นตัวอย่างสำคัญของปัญหา “ชื่อซ้ำ/ชื่อกำกวม” ที่ไม่ควรแก้ด้วยการเลือกชื่อใดชื่อหนึ่งให้เป็นคำตอบเดียว

18. Audit Status

EVIDENCE REVIEW v0.3 — REVISED

Quality improvements from v0.2

• Added explicit evidence hierarchy for name records.
• Added cross-species ambiguity analysis.
• Added cross-genus ambiguity for ปลากริมข้างลาย.
• Preserved duplicate names instead of reconciling them.
• Converted “name history” into documented-use history.
• Added source/year/locality/context fields.
• Added ambiguity_group_id to the proposed data model.
• Separated taxonomic evidence from community/vernacular evidence.
• Added explicit supported vs unsupported conclusions.
• Retained unresolved provenance for ตะแร๊ยเกริม.
• No vernacular name is promoted to a nationwide canonical identifier.

LOCK STATUS: LOCKED

สถานะการอ้างอิง: บทนี้ใช้ source-level provenance ภายในบท โดยระบุหน่วยงาน/เอกสาร/ปี/ชนิดแหล่งข้อมูลตามที่หลักฐานปัจจุบันรองรับแล้ว การผูก canonical source_id เป็นงาน registry ภายในที่อยู่นอกขอบเขตการแก้ไข 02–10 รอบนี้. ชื่อที่ยังไม่มี locality หรือ historical provenance ชัดเจน เช่น ตะแร๊ยเกริม ยังคงถูกทำเครื่องหมายว่า provenance unresolved แทนการเติมข้อมูลที่ไม่มีหลักฐาน.

References

[1] THBIF. Trichopsis vittata (Cuvier, 1831), taxon record. Thai/local names include กริมควาย, ปลากริมควาย, ปลากริมข้างลาย, กริม, กริมหัวโม่ง, ปลากริม.

[2] THBIF/minisite, Trichopsis vittata taxon record, older record used here only to document variation among record vintages.

[3] THBIF. Trichopsis pumila (Arnold, 1936), taxon record. Thai names include กริมสี, ปลากริมสี, กริม, ปลากริม; local name ตะแร๊ยเกริม. Record updated 10 June 2026.

[4] Department of Fisheries, Thailand. Biodiversity/fisheries information source identifying Trichopsis pumila with ปลากริมมุก and ปลากริมสี; retained as a government-source name record, not as evidence of nationwide exclusivity.

[5] NSTDA. Biodiversity information source listing กริมสี for T. pumila and T. cf. schalleri.

[6] Lower Songkhram wetland / Thai Baan biodiversity document. Field/community document using ปลาหมัด and ปลากริมสี in association with T. schalleri; retained as field-document evidence, not as a taxonomic authority.

[7] THBIF. Trichopsis schalleri taxon record. Thai names include กริมอีสาน, ปลากริมอีสาน and ปลาหมัด.

[8] Mekong field guide (2023). Field-guide naming set: T. pumila กริมสี (หมัดลาย); T. schalleri กริมอีสาน (หมัดแดง); T. vittata กริมควาย (หมัดควาย). These are documented as names used by that guide, not promoted to nationwide standard names.

[9] BRT/NSTDA (2007). Biodiversity/local-name source associating ปลากริม, ปลากริมควาย, ปลากริมข้างลาย, ปลาหมัด and ปลากัดป่า with T. vittata in specified local contexts; used as dated field/local-name evidence.

[10] THBIF. Trichopodus leerii (Bleeker, 1852), accepted taxon record; Thai names include กระดี่มุก and ปลากริมข้างลาย.

Provenance note: References [1]–[10] are source-level entries for this Evidence Review. The chapter intentionally preserves source-specific relationships and ambiguity; canonical source_id reconciliation remains a separate data-registry task and is not required to reinterpret or collapse these name records.