Jane Hadley wonders, and so do I...
> Must it be possessive? We have Engelmann Spruce and Douglas Fir. Why
> can't we have Xantus Hummingbird?

> Hal Opperman wrote:
> > John Xntus (there should be an acute accent on the "a") is a person, and
> > the bird is named after him; therefore his name should be in proper form
> > for a possessive adjective; therefore "Xantus" without apostrophe is
> > unacceptable. Barbaric, in fact.

I would say "Xantu's" (which I believe has been posted to tweeters) is
barbaric, but am not so attached to the apostrophe.

Xantus or Xantus' or Xantus's?

Didn't this come up in a recent _Western Birds_? I'm not a recipient, but
recall standing in a library as I read an article on this topic, although I
believe it was in reference to the murrelet named for Xantus. In part, the
author questioned whether the possessive was appropriate: Is the species
possessed by, or named for, Xantus?

Meanwhile, I'll probably accept what the AOU committee advises.

Oh, BTW, speaking of barbaric (and because Jane brought it up), I have stopped
saying Doug-fir for Douglas-fir (not a true fir), out of respect for the
botanist/naturalist for whom the tree is named. Thanks to E. Kozloff for
setting me straight.

Let's not even start on Grays Harbor...
--
Scott Richardson
northeast Seattle
salix at halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/salix/