These language discussions are fascinating, like all question for which
there is no certain answer and can never be (barring, that is, the
institution of all-powerful Thought Police). It is just that there are so
many different traditions, and individual comfort levels, bumping into one
another out there. I guess that is why science decided to adhere to rigid
rules for the Latin names, and kind of cast the rest adrift into the less
codified waters of linguistic usage. I agree with Jane completely, there
is no reason (other than custom, which changes with the winds and currents)
why we could not have a Clark Grebe, or a Say Phoebe. There *would* be
reason, though, not to add an "s" to these proper names unless it was
accompanied by the dreaded apostrophe.

Does anyone really believe, because we call a particular hump in Colorado
"Pike's Peak," that it ever belonged to Zebulon Pike? Or that "Boyle's
Law" is the personal property of Robert Boyle and his descendants? No more
for "Hammond's Flycatcher" (which, by the way, was described by none other
than John Xntus, who named it in honor of his friend, mentor, and early
supporter, army surgeon and amateur ornithologist William Alexander
Hammond). This particular usage of the possessive persists for two
reasons. First, there is no "default" adjectival form for proper names
such as these, so one must be concocted. Second, the convention that the
"apostrophe s" is the appropriate marker for recognition not just of
ownership, but also of discovery, has gained widespread acceptance. All
that could change, of course. Language evolves in the direction of user
comfort, under social pressure. And if that happens in the case of bird
names, we'll get used to it. I hardly blink any more when I read something
like "A thoughtful visitor will always remove their muddy shoes before
entering the house." Miss Luchsinger and Mrs. McCusky would have found
that usage barbaric too. Back in the Corn Belt, in the Eisenhower
administration....

If we really want to have some fun with this, then we could ask why it's
Canada Goose but not Mexico Chickadee. But not now. Happy Thanksgiving to
all. JoLynn and I are going for a walk.

Hal Opperman

At 8:08 PM -0800 11/26/1997, Rob Saecker wrote:
>I have to agree with Jane on this one. Maybe the rules of English usage say
>that possessive is the correct form to use, but common sense says that
>Xantus no more owns the birds named after him than I do. Same for Swainson,
>Stellar, Heermann, Ross, et al. Makes more sense to me to recognize that
>the name honors the namesake but doesn't imply possession, and drop the
>apostrophe. Besides, it makes for one less keystroke when you're typing the
>name...
>
>Jane Hadley wrote:
>
>>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.
>>>
>
>Rob Saecker
>Olympia