Hi Tweeters,

Responding to folks who have shown distaste for substitutive
4-letter...sorry, four-letter codes.

First, I can sure distinguish by the BINA's in the posts who has to write
out these sometimes-long colloquial names out more than a few times a week,
and who doesn't. After the 4,317th time you've written out Northern
Rough-winged Swallow (NRWS) or Greater White-fronted Goose(GWFG), your
fingers will divorce you if you and go to Montana if you don't start using code.

How often would you like to *have* to say in conversation your friend's
complete name every you mentioned it?: "Well, John Frances Brian Foxworthy,
I think the Yankees are in for a good year no matter whether George
Frederick Butterworth Steinbrenner trades Joseph Guicciardini Albertoni
diMaggio for Michael Patrick Claude Mantle and a couple of minor leaguers
whose names, thank god, haven't been announced."

Uh-huh.

Secondly, and more important, I feel like the narrator in the Certs
breath-mint commercial: Stop! You're *both* right...!

In the audio-checklist that instigated this thread, it was obviously a post
whic started off as a private post and the, what the heck, there's so much
good info here, let's make it public. The intention, clearly, was to perform
a public service; the editing, however, which would have made the birds'
identities clear by identifying which code stood for which species, was not
performed, thus the ensuing confusion of those unfamiliar with that usage.

It is the simplest solution to use both *if you want to*, but the basic rule
is one of the simplest courtesy: *invariably* use the full name first and
identify the code with it--hence, "...at least 5 Northern Rough-winged
Swallows (NRWS) were over the Iona Settling Ponds, etc." and then, *if you
want*, subsequently refer to that species in the post using the code from
that point. I'm sure that would make it easier to follow, unless you're
utterly opposed to code usage on some kind of ideological basis. Or simply
don't like it, and that ends the issue right there for you, period, end of
discussion.

The use of code, I'd like to stress, is neither a moral issue nor a case of
imposition by arrogant elitists intent on obfuscation. It is simply a way of
making things easier for people who have to use birds' names many, many,
*many* times over. Code is simply and inarguably more efficient (see second
paragraph). The issue of code in public posts has a simple solution, as
above, and its use is a personal decision.

Neil J.Ferguson (NJFE) says:

(snip)
>(5) Any ambiguities are taken care of as special cases. For example
> Black-throated Green Warbler and Black-throated Gray Warbler
> would both be BTGW. In such a case, I believe that the most
> common one is abbreviated according to the above rules, then the
> other is abbreviated arbitrarily. Comments ?

Intuitively, why not key on the significant consonant?

As in (examples only--let me stress that I don't know if these are the
*real* codes):

Black-throated Green Warbler--BTNW
Black-throated Gray Warbler--BTYW
Black-throated Blue Warbler--BTBW

Bank Swallow--BKSW
Barn Swallow--BNSW

Northern Shoveler--NOSV (instead of its current NOSL)
Northern Shrike--NOSK (instead of its current NOSH, which could be either)

Etc., etc.

>Now, how does one abbreviate Black-backed Three-toed Woodpecker?

Piece of cake: BTWO.
Except that they've changed it to Black-backed Woodpecker BBWO.

How about abbreviating 'Smew'? ;-)


Michael Price
Vancouver BC Canada
michael_price at mindlink.bc.ca