Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!oliveb!oliven!mjm
From: mjm@oliven.olivetti.com (Michael Mammoser)
Newsgroups: rec.birds
Subject: Re: English & Latin Bird Names
Message-ID: <53934@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Date: 20 Jan 90 15:41:31 GMT
References: <53546@oliveb.olivetti.com> <1990Jan15.135014.11727@axion.bt.co.uk>
Sender: news@oliveb.olivetti.com
Lines: 75

In article <1990Jan15.135014.11727@axion.bt.co.uk>, jhiggott@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk (jeff higgott) writes:
> 
> 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.

	I apologise for having misspoken. What I should have said is:
the British have maintained as a common english name, a term that has
become a generic family name, for hundreds of years after the taxonomic
diversity and the acceptance of the generic family name have become
apparent. Also, bear in mind that when the above mentioned families of
related species were discovered in America, I believe that the english
speaking people who wanted to use the English vernacular name as the
family name were, at the time, the British. It was the British, themselves,
who set the tone for using a qualifier in conjunction with a family
name for groups of closely related birds. An excellent example is the
family of tits. Why they abandoned this format with some British birds,
whose taxonomic diversity occurred outside of Britain, is beyond me.

> The BOU is currently making moves to standardise the English names of 
> West Palearctic birds.  A subject that can be debated ad nauseum.

	I applaud and encourage any effort by both the AOU and the BOU
to standardize the english common names and to use qualifiers for those
common names that have become accepted as family names.

> 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) - True, M. nigra
> is black, but so are the drakes of all the other scoters.  So is this
> name any more useful?  

	Its usefulness comes from its uniqueness, and its applicability
to the species worldwide. It doesn't matter what kind of scoter you
call it, as long as its name is unique and everybody calls it that.

	On a different note, I am currently in Italy on business and
have had a limited opportunity to do some birding. Here is my list,
with appropriate latin names.

Mike

Buzzard - buteo buteo
Rock Dove - columba livia
Collared Dove - streptopelia decaocto
Green Woodpecker - picus viridis
Blackcap - sylvia atricapilla
Firecrest - regulus ignicapillus
(European) Robin - erithacus rubecula
(Eurasian) Blackbird - turdus merula
Fieldfare - turdus pilaris
Long Tailed Tit - aegithalos caudatus
Coal Tit - parus ater
Great Tit - parus major
Blue Tit - parus caeruleus
Marsh Tit - parus parus palustris
Nuthatch - sitta europaea
(Winter) Wren - troglodytes troglodytes
Rock Bunting - emberiza cia
Chaffinch - fringilla coelebs
(European) Goldfinch - carduelis carduelis
Siskin - carduelis spinus
(Eurasian) Bullfinch - pyrrhula pyrrhula
(Eurasian) Tree Sparrow - passer montanus
Jay - garrulus glandarius
(Black Billed) Magpie - pica pica
Rook - corvus frugilegus
Hooded Crow - corvus corone cornix