Michael et al.,

The problem with seeking the perfect common name is that we become very
quickly and firmly attached to the names we first learned. The rhythm of
the name is somehow deeply linked to the emotional tone of the experience
of our first and subsequent encounters. There is no rational basis for
judging "skua" better or worse than "jaeger," and each will have its
fierce partisans. In the good old days each community had its own
names... or perhaps each individual called it something meaningful with
no need for universal global standardization. Unfortunately that world
is past for us global birders, so we must somehow arrive at a consensus
on what to call each of the 9000++ species of the world. Such a
situation, of course, may spawn a spate of creative nicknames such as
"garbled nitwit" and "butterbutt," "sky rat" and "mag" (as I noted the
Magnificent Hummingbird is commonly known amongst certain insider Arizona
birders. The bottom line, I suspect, is that the birding community could
never agree on which name should be the proper designation, so we must
accept the dictates of the faceless AOU committee or run the risk of
being misunderstood.

Gene Hunn (hunn at u.washington.edu)

On Thu, 8 Sep 1994, Michael Price wrote:

>
> re: Changing Bird Names.
>
>
> Spot the imposter.
>
> Blue-grey Gnatcatcher. Smew. Worm-eating Warbler. Boat-tailed Grackle.
> Tufted Titmouse. Hump-tailed Flatwhacker. Red-breasted Nuthatch.
> Bristle-thighed Curlew. Northern Beardless-Tyrannulet. Hairy Woodpecker.
>
> *Who* is responsible for such preposterous names? Names which are their own
> worst parody? A few are charming, most I want to mumble when talking to
> non-birders, awkward as a teenager who has to introduce his klutzy,
> tag-along kid brother to his guffawing buddies. Bristle-thighed Curlew
> indeed. Good god.
>
> More seriously, where Europe/Asia & N. America share a species (don't
> bogart that bird, my friend...) there seems to no consistency.
> Herring Gull is the same on either side of the Atlantic but Larus canus is
> Mew Gull here, Common Gull there. With a species such as Pluvialis
> squatarola, for example, why don't we use the name which has been in
> existence longer and would presumably have precedence: Grey Plover instead
> of Black-bellied? Or Long-tailed Duck rather than the somewhat offensive
> Oldsquaw (and-to quote someone or other-not a word about political
> correctness, he said icily. Not. One. Word.).
>
> And, hey, while we're at it, why *not* rejig the Stercs from jaegers into
> skuas? It's not like we'd all have to adopt plummy Brit accents to say
> these names, although the image of a bunch of birders at the settling ponds
> all talking like Jean-Luc Picard is just too good not to run through a
> bunch of mental cartoon sequences....
>
> Is there any reason(s) for the difference in colloquial names? And when
> name changes are proposed, is done in secret conclave, like choosing a
> Pope? Or, to reprise gently the thesis implicit in the introductory
> remarks, could the AOU use some help from the wider public in originating
> names?
>
>
> M. Price
> michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca
>
>
>