Subject: RE. Tanager names
Date: Apr 10 09:17:31 2002
From: Jim McCoy - jfmccoy at earthlink.net


Careful with that asbestos, Deborah, although I suppose the risk of
cancer is less than that of flame mail.

The writer in me "quails" at the sound of "tanager-grosbeak".
It's just too clunky a term; it's even hard to say. Of course, it's
not much good saying there's a problem without offering a solution,
so I'll perch out on a limb and suggest that coining a new name
altogether might be in order.

If the status quo is not acceptable, why not come up with a descriptive
name like "stoutbill", or make reference to the bright coloration of
the males? (I confess to liking "paintball", but I'm not optimistic
about that one making it through committee...)

Jim McCoy
jfmccoy at earthlink.net
Redmond, WA



-----Original Message-----
From: Deborah Wisti-Peterson [mailto:nyneve at u.washington.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2002 12:36 PM
To: tweeters at u.washington.edu
Subject: Re: RE. Tanager names



name changing is what separates the men from the boys, er, in this
case, it separates the birds from the birders. or something like that!

wearing an asbestos bra, "just in case"

Deborah Wisti-Peterson, PhD Candidate nyneve at u.washington.edu
Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash, USA
Visit me on the web: http://students.washington.edu/~nyneve/
Love the creator? Then protect the creation.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Larry & Jacque Goodhew wrote:

> I vote leave the names alone. It is interesting that they may be more
> closely related to some other bird. But stop changing names.
> Larry Goodhew
>