Category talk:Taxonomic names needing vernacular names

Is "need" the right word here‽
Spoiler: no, it's not!

I came here from the article about a type of algae. —DIV (1.145.119.99 04:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC))
 * There are lots of species that still have no name whatsoever. We could say that they "need" to be named.  (If that happens, it will generally be a formal, scientific name.)
 * There are some familiar species for which the scientific name might be recorded in Wiktionary without the vernacular name. We could say that the vernacular name "needs" to be added to Wiktionary.
 * Then there are many obscure species that have never been specifically discussed in everyday communication. For example, many algae would have been described as "algae from the local pond" or "bugs" or "seaweed" in casual conversation, and there was/is no ability to be more specific because the interlocutors cannot distinguish the species without a microscope, a lot of training, and a reference manual.  Such species do not "need" a vernacular name.  Rather, we could say that they "lack a vernacular name".