Jane,

I agree totally. I am required to use the 4-letter abbreviations when
filling out Bird Banding schedules, when taking neo-trop point count data
for USFS, for any number of things.

Even though I am familiar with them, their use makes reading Tweeters
notes somewhat tedious. As professionals and as 'enlightened' amateurs,
we get into the habit of using jargon. This jargon *might* have its
place in scientific journals and the 4-letter codes are helpful when
entering computer data (however, the Bird Banding Lab requires banders to
enter BOTH the 4-letter code as well as the AOU Number - e.g. AMRO, 761.0
!!??!), but when we communicate amongst ourselves, we should realize that
we have a diverse birding community and correspond accordingly.

Jon. Anderson
Olympia, WA
anderjda at dfw.wa.gov


On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Jane Hadley wrote:

>
> As we all know, it's a demanding task to keep current with all the
> Tweeters postings. One thing that slows me down considerably as I try to
> scan through the messages is the four-letter abbreviation for bird names
> (e.g. RNSA). I think I would find it a lot easier to absorb the messages
> quickly if the author at least used the spelled-out name in first
> reference (red-naped sapsucker?). Otherwise, I am left sitting at my
> computer playing a guessing game, sometimes for a quite a long time. It's
> obvious these abbreviations are convenient for those who are experienced
> at using and recognizing them, but for those of us who aren't, it can be
> frustrating. Thanks in advance for considering this request. Jane Hadley
>
>