Could I suggest that those who are interested in this topic please discuss it among themselves
off line. The whole thing is becoming boring.
Thanks,
Mark
From: Philip Veerman
Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2015 12:38 PM
To: 'n/a n/a'
Cc: 'Cog line'
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Avicide use.
Of course a word means anything that the people using it, agree that it means.
Clearly "avicide" does mean killing of a bird, or as has been shown, "avicide" also means a substance such as a poison, to do that (notwithstanding
that such substances are not legally available here - the word use is still valid). However it means nothing more than that and I don't see how the word could ever mean more than that or even narrow down to one of those meanings. The avi (in avicide) indicating
bird is for the entity that dies, not the entity doing the killing, so it in no way indicates that a bird was the killer. It seems to me that you are making a link there.
To try to do so would only create confusion, as it has. Avicide also does not indicate the eating of the bird or that the killing was specifically
done by its parent or any other particular entity - it could be another bird or some other animal or any event like starvation, old age, disease, crashing into a building, whatever. Given that it is so vague, its use is very unhelpful. We already have good
words like "predation" for "the killing of a bird by another bird (or indeed any animal)". But your original question on the Musk Duck was about parental (or especially paternal) cannibalistic infanticide among birds. That is a particular and unusual behaviour
and so should not go under the same bland word as used for something else. The lions I referred to do another form of infanticide that is specifically NOT parental (nor is it usually cannibalistic).
Beyond all that confusion, the problem I have with "avicide" is I think it carries a tinge of morality to it, by virtue of that people know
of genocide, etc. So I think it is a bad word choice for simple predation. So we should either use specific defined words or just plain English does a better job to use the normal words that in combination give clarity.
If you look at CBN13(2):32, I wrote an article: "Observations of aviphagy by Pied Currawongs" (1988). At least "aviphagy" is clear and specifies
the eating of a bird and the clarifier says by who.
-----Original Message-----
From: n/a n/a
Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2015 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: [canberrabirds] Avicide use.
My thinking about avicide began while waiting for a second breeding attempt by Aust. Spotted Crakes at Forde. Some weeks had gone by following observed copulation with no
chicks emerging from the reeds. The crakes' nests are found in reeds where most of the of breeding is hidden. If a second nest was made, two lots of rain could have washed it away or predators may have been. All speculation. I coined the word not knowing it
already existed as a nonce. The context I had in mind was of a larger bird killing or eating young crakes. I agree with John Harris that plain English and a minimum of syllables is the way to go Aviation, aviator, aviatrix, genocide, pesticide and lunar module
were coined and have come into common usage. I still like the sound and look of avicide even though plain English does a better job. It seems to me to mean , the killing of a bird, so It could mean the killing of o bird by another bird. Could it be brought
back into use?
