Ethnobotanical research provides ample justification for comparing diverse biological nomenclatures and exploring ways that retain alternative naming practices. However, how (and whether) comparison of nomenclatures is possible remains a subject of discussion. The comparison of diverse nomenclatural practices introduces a suite of epistemic and ontological difficulties and considerations. Different nomenclatures may depend on whether the communities using them rely on formalized naming conventions; cultural or spiritual valuations; or worldviews. Because of this, some argue that the different naming practices may not be comparable if the ontological commitments employed differ. Comparisons between different nomenclatures cannot assume that either the naming practices or the object to which these names are intended to apply identifies some universally agreed upon object of interest. Investigating this suite of philosophical problems, I explore the role grey nomenclatures play in classification. ‘Grey nomenclatures’ are defined as those that employ names that are either intentionally or accidently non-Linnaean. The classification of the lichen thallus (a symbiont) has been classified outside the Linnaean system by botanists relying on the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). But, I argue, the use of grey names is not isolated and does not occur exclusively within institutionalized naming practices. I suggest, ‘grey names’ also aptly describe nomenclatures employed by indigenous communities such as the Samí of Northern Finmark, the Sherpa of Nepal, and the Okanagan First Nations. I pay particular attention to how naming practices are employed in these communities; what ontological commitments they hold; for what purposes are these names used; and what anchors the community's nomenclatural practices. Exploring the history of lichen naming and early ethnolichenological research, I then investigate the stakes that must be considered for any attempt to preserve, retain, integrate, or compare the knowledge contained in both academically formalized grey names and indigenous nomenclatures in a way that preserves their source-specific informational content.

民族植物学研究为比较各种生物学术语和探索保留替代命名方法的方法提供了充分的理由。然而，如何（以及是否）比较命名法仍然是讨论的主题。各种命名惯例的比较引入了一系列认识论和本体论方面的困难和考虑因素。不同的术语可能取决于使用它们的社区是否依赖于正式的命名约定。文化或精神评估；或世界观。因此，有些人认为，如果采用的本体论承诺不同，则不同的命名方法可能不具有可比性。不同命名法之间的比较不能假定命名惯例或这些名称旨在应用的对象都标识了一些普遍同意的关注对象。在研究这套哲学问题时，我探索了其中的作用灰色命名法发挥分类。“灰色命名法”定义为使用有意或无意使用非拉丁语的名称。植物学家已经根据林藻，真菌和植物的国际命名法（ICN）对林奈植物（共生体）的分类进行了分类。但是，我认为，灰色名称的使用不是孤立的，并且并非仅在制度化命名惯例中出现。我建议，“灰色名称”还可以恰当地描述土著居民使用的术语，例如北芬马克的萨米人，尼泊尔的夏尔巴人和奥肯娜根原住民。我特别注意在这些社区中如何使用命名惯例。他们持有什么本体论承诺；这些名称用于什么目的；以及锚定社区的因素 的命名惯例。探索地衣命名的历史和早期的民族地貌学研究，然后，我研究了在尝试以任何形式保存，保留，整合或比较学术上正式使用的灰色名称和土著命名法中包含的知识时必须考虑的问题特定于源的信息内容。