Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!image.soe.clarkson.edu!sunybcs!dmark
From: dmark@acsu.Buffalo.EDU (David Mark)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: English & Latin Bird Names
Message-ID: <15807@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU>
Date: 15 Jan 90 19:46:53 GMT
References: <53546@oliveb.olivetti.com> <1990Jan15.135014.11727@axion.bt.co.uk>
Sender: nobody@acsu.Buffalo.EDU
Organization: SUNY at Buffalo
Lines: 93

In article <1990Jan15.135014.11727@axion.bt.co.uk> jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk writes:
>From article <53546@oliveb.olivetti.com>, by mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser):
>> In article <1990Jan10.212757.22128@utzoo.uucp>, rising@utzoo.uucp (Jim Rising) writes:
                              [some lines deleted]
>> 
>> 	It seems that the British had this habit of giving the generic
>> family name as the common english name to those birds represented in
>> Britain by a single species of the family. Other examples are the Wren, ...

                              [some lines deleted]
>
>Bear in mind that _T. troglodytes_ was named the Wren long before 
>taxonomists had stumbled across another few related species in the States.
>Similarly, Nuthatch and Jay are old names for familiar, common British
>birds, named long before there was a full understanding (or even discovery?)
>of other taxonomically related birds.  It is really not the "British"
>who had/have the "habit of giving the generic  family name as the common 
>english name to those birds represented in Britain by a single species of
>the family", but the English speaking who want to use the English
>vernacular name of a common British species as the `family' name for a 
>group of related species.

  But, the English themselves do this sort of thing a lot, using Redstart
  for one species, and Black Redstart for another species THAT ALSO OCCURS
  IN ENGLAND!  So, if I am biring at Dungeness, and someone says "here's
  a redstart!", how do I know whether its the species that I've seen
  (Black Redstart; it's my first visit to the UK), or the one I haven't
  (Unmodified Redstart)?  What do you call out if you see a member of this
  genus but don't know what it is?  The rule that, if there are two known
  forms with the same basic or generic name, then each must have an
  adjective in its formal name, seems eminently sensible, and reduces
  ambiguity, especially if one does not spell bird-names with the leading
  upper-case letter.  (American practice on that could allow one to
  distinguish a "Redstart" from a "redstart" in writing, if not in speech.)

>
>> 	I think that the AOU has taken some decent strides recently in
>> trying to standardize the common english names used in North America
>> with those being used in other parts of the world. Some more examples
>> would be Black-Shouldered Kite, Northern Harrier, American Kestrel,
>> and Merlin; just to name a few raptors. However, it seems that the
>> BOU would have to reciprocate a little in order to alleviate the some-
>> what confusing situation mentioned above.

  I HEARTILY agree!!  Just as in genetics, two descendents of a common
  ancestor are equally close to it, so the two major versions of the
  'English' language, UK and American, are equally descended from 18th-century
  English and are equally 'valid' vesions of it.  Thus, I see NO reason that a
  highly commendable effort to standardize English-language names for birds
  should involve only changes by the AOU.  I would like to see a
  roughly-equal number of cases where the BOU changed to adopt US
  names, which certainly go back hundreds of years.  
>
> "Northern" harrier is still known as Hen Harrier in Britain.
>
  That is a very regressive name, since it at least implies predation
  on domestic fowl.  That would seem like an excellent case for the
  British to compromise, and adopt the name "Northern Harrier", that
  if it caught on might improve the image over raptors in the UK.

>The BOU is currently making moves to standardise the English names of 
>West Palearctic birds.  A subject that can be debated ad nauseum.
>For example, is it sensible to change the name of _Melanitta nigra_ from
>Common Scoter (because it is not the most common scoter over the whole of
>its range) to Black Scoter (as the Americans call it).

  Of course, the AOU does some really stupid things, too.  One of the worst,
  in my opinion, involved the recent split of loons, to Gavia arctica
  a G. pacifica.

  G. pacifica is the new name for the common form in North America.
  G. arctica is the ma,e for the form found from the UK east to western
     Alaska; there are few if any records of this in North America outside
     of Alaska.

  G. arctica was always called "Black-throated Diver" in the UK, and in European
  field guides.  Both it and G. a. pacifica were known as "Arctic Loon" in
  North America.

  So, the AOU, in its wisdom, decided that we should all learn the new name,
  "Pacific Loon", for all of our non-Alaskan birds; and that the ones we
  don't get here should be called "Arctic Loon" even though they don't
  call them that where they get them (Europe)!  They could have left ours
  as "Artic Loon", and called the Eurasian form "Black-throated Loon", or
  even "Black-throated Diver".

  And, oh BOU types, there's a good nominee for the first UK concession to
  American usage:  isn't "Loon" a far more picturesque and colorful term
  for Gavia than "Diver"?


  David Mark
  dmark@cs.buffalo.edu