>Date: Fri, 4 Aug 95 08:30:23 -0700
>From: donb at Rational.COM (Don Baccus)

>So, it makes sense to me to keep the current name for the big chunk
>of the population, and invent meaningful geographically based
>(geographically-based?) names for the two "splinter groups".

What is so special about political geographic names? What is so special
about fully symmetrical "geographical attachments" for only two of three,
but not all three, jays? Why is it more important to revert
Florida Jay ---> Scrub Jay ----> Florida Scrub Jay ----> Florida Jay,
than it is to recognize that we've grown to understand and appreciate
much more the close ties of the Florida Scrub Jay to _its_ habitat,
and of that habitat's special significance to environmentalists,
including Florida environmentalists?

Why is the rest of the country jerking around the name of a Florida
bird that Floridians care and now _know_ about by virtue
of its popularization in the newspress, on TV, in the environmental
press? It's a G.. D... SYMBOL. How many of these do we have??
Leave it alone! What is a "common" name anyway, if those who live with
the damn bird can't even call it what they will?

There's no need to by symmetrical, nor politico-geographical:

One jay is on an island, which itself is mostly scrubby (and
bio-interesting) --call it Santa Cruz Island Scrub Jay.

One jay lives over a wide geographic range, and has a long-history,
stable common name --call it the Scrub Jay.

One jay lives in the Florida Scrub --call it the Florida Scrub Jay.
Passionately yours,
Peter