I read with interest your call for suggestions on scrub jay names as a
colleague passed it along to our two groups noted above. I must admit I
am still thinking about the nomenclature and will probably drop you
another note tomorrow.
However, I have been considering the postscript to your note with
regard to hyphenated names of species. It is an interesting note, for
several students and I were discussing a similar topic at the end of our
Research Writing class the other day. We were discussing how the hyphen
is generally an intermediate step for two words to become one word--the
examples the students presented to me were day care and fire
fighter--which were found in all three ways as nouns in their research:
two words, hyphenated compound, and one word. We discussed how when
words start being used more and more in the language, hyphens are often
the first step in their being joined, but the change varies from place to
place within the country. The idea of scrub-jay as a word and other
people's reactions over the course of today, as well as the recollection
of the discussion above have led me to the following thoughts. I;d note
here that in these comments, I am just talking here about noun usage, not
adjectives like "bay-breasted" or "red-eyed" which are grammatically correct.
It seems that the hyphenation of bird names occurs in generally
in three categories:
a) Two bird names lashed together to describe a bird with common
characteristics of both, i.e. Quail-Dove, Robin-Chat. In this case, two
nouns are being linked together to describe a bird whose traits are
"intermediate" between two other types of birds. In these cases, I'd say
a hyphen is probably appropriate as the nouns do not link together well.
One name the committee would have to think about in this case is Hawk Owl,
whose current status with regard to hyphens is unclear to me (one sees it both ways
so much).
b) Names based on calls, particularly those with three or more
words making up the title, i.e. whip-poor-will, chuck-will's-widow. There
are other birds whose names have become one word over time similar to
these two: killdeer and chickadee are two which I have seen hyphenated in
late nineteenth-century texts which we do not now hyphenate. Certainly,
whip-poor-will could become hyphen-free as well (if it hasn't already),
but chuck-will's-widow will probably always have to be hyphenated due to
the possessive usage in the second word (unless, of course, apostrophes go
extinct; from reading papers lately, they may slowly be).
c) Names where the hyphen links a defining adjective to the base
name. These are the ones I've found by perusing the books at my desk and
memory: Golden-Plover, Wood-Pewee, Screech-Owl, Pygmy-Owl,
Prairie-Chicken (I think), Rosy-Finch. I think there are more. These
are the most troubling to me because they link an adjective and a noun just
as the examples above do. Therefore, over time, one would expect these
to become one word--rosyfinch or screechowl--if the language evolves as
it often does. I don't think this will happen though. These words are
necessary within the names of the species, but the grouping of the words
alone (Wood Pewee, for example) distinguishes this bird from others.
Indeed, there are inconsistencies even with these. We hyphenate
screech-owl, where the adjective describes the sound, but we don't double
hyphenate saw-whet owl where the same structure occurs. For that matter,
Flammulated Owl is just that, not Flammulated Screech-Owl, which we would
want to distinguish from Flammulated Pygmy-Owl. But birders already know
that there are pygmy owls and screech owls, most do not bother to
hyphenate the names in casual conversation, and most still know what is
being discussed. All the hyphens cause are headaches for editors who
have to make sure they are all there.
There have been times when words were hyphenated and then resplit;
in the birding world, one example from the past century which I have seen
is "herring-gull." In instances a and b noted above, the hyphens have
grammatical merit. The hyphens in the "c" examples really do not. There
are thrown in to emphasize relationships which are generally clear and
really aren't necessary--the evolution of the language will not cause
these to become one word most probably, and the elimination of the
hyphens now will really be, I think, more well accepted than not.
Indeed, the railing against scrub-jay in just three or so hours since
this has been posted to our groups shows most prefer the older style.
I thank you for your consideration of this and appreciate the
opportunity to write you on this matter.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Korpi
rkorpi at clark.edu
wrk: 360-992-2215
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------