On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Michael Price wrote:

> [snip] *But* your refusal to
> change does not alter my previous observation, that many birding terms in
> current use require the misuse of English. What I usually hear in response
> to this is one of two variations: 1. I/we don't care, and/or 2. if enough
> people misuse a term it becomes right.
>
> No. The second response is wrong

On the larger point, I'm fully in agreement with Michael - the
Humphrey-Parkes terminology is accurate, and learning it encourages clear
thinking. If Roger Tory Peterson had taken it to heart, he would have
avoided the scathing reviews of his ca 1980 revision of his field guide,
when he portrayed all the peeps in 'winter' and 'breeding' plumage,
apparently unaware that peeps wear three distinct plumages. For example,
as a fieldmark on a 'winter' (i.e. basic) plumage Western Sandpiper, he
painted red scapulars which are not present in full basic plumage, but are
often the last feathers of juvenal or alternate plumage to be replaced
before full basic is attained. Awareness of the plumages involved would
have prevented that mistake, and learning the H-P terminology has helped
me, at least, be aware of plumages.

But linguistically speaking, you're swimming upstream on that last point,
Michael. The *only* thing that does make usage "correct" is that enough
people use it. Each generation tends to see the usage of its
predecessors as archaic, the usage of the young as barbaric, and the usage
they grew up with as "correct," but language keeps evolving nonetheless.

Chris Hill
Everett, WA
cehill at u.washington.edu