All true, however in this case I think the history is somewhat different. The name Helmeted Honeyeater appears not to have been given in the manner of adopting
a separate name for a subspecies. Old books show that the names Helmeted Honeyeater and Meliphaga cassidix were bestowed on this bird designating it as a separate species (Gould 1867). This was a lot more common back then. It is only fairly recently that
it has been viewed as conspecific with Yellow-tufted Honeyeater. I don’t know why. Is there any hybrid zone?
About “the best policy is to use the scientific name”. Fine, but that would
not work in the cartoon that started all this.
Also the people who would see that cartoon just might know what a Helmeted Honeyeater is, as in some rare bird that has been in the media as such for decades,
that people such as Beryl can get excited about, but few who don’t know birds would relate in any excitement to Yellow-tufted Honeyeater, let alone its 3 word
scientific name.
Philip
From: Geoffrey Dabb [
Sent: Thursday, 7 June, 2018 1:14 PM
To:
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
With respect to the name preferences, it is very clear that different people have different views on English names. There are also differences of view on
whether there is a useful purpose in adopting standard English names for subspecies. If you look at the Birdlife Australia list you will see that English names for subspecies have been created by adding a geographical descriptor to the species name. That is
to avoid creating the impression that a free-standing name, such as ‘Helmeted Honey-eater’ indicates a separate species. However, where there is an established name, such as ‘Helmeted Honeyeater’, an exception is made to the geographic-descriptor rule. Unfortunately,
the geographic-descriptor gives rise to some cumbersome names. That is the price of communicating the geographic information. There is a current proposal to introduce aboriginal names by making use of them for some subspecies, but as with almost any proposal
in this area there will be a range of views about it.
From: Mark Clayton [
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2018 5:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
I agree with Philip on the last point. As for Geoffrey's comment on people noting subspecies in reports, the best policy is to use the scientific name. That way you know that you have the correct species.
Mark
On 6/06/2018 4:58 PM, Philip Veerman wrote:
For the purpose of the cartoon, it is still a
Helmeted Honeyeater, as in a cartoon Viking or even a bear, shown as a helmeted honey eater, and that is the joke. Being a bird or not and any taxonomy that applies, is only of minor
relevance to the cartoon. I suggest Helmeted Honeyeater is a nicer name than Western Yellow-tufted Honeyeater.
From: Geoffrey Dabb
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June, 2018 12:35 PM
To:
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
One reason the Australian list has English names for subspecies is to take account of strong local preferences. Also for conservation reasons. Also some
people like to report subspecies.
From: Philip Veerman
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2018 11:19 AM
To:
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
And a Helmeted Honeyeater is a Helmeted Honeyeater, whilst at the same time is a Yellow-tufted Honeyeater, whilst at the same time is a honeyeater, whilst at
the same time is a passerine, whilst at the same time is a bird, whilst at the same time is a vertebrate, no matter what the locals call it. Mark’s first point is simply that the Helmeted Honeyeater is now mostly listed as a subspecies of Yellow-tufted Honeyeater.
(Will that change again? If the species continues to evolve separately, in a few thousand years it surely will change). Of many species considered as having various subspecies, many of those subspecies are given distinctive English names (Crimson Rosella,
Yellow Rosella, various forms of tiger, etc), although most are not.
It all depends what taxon you choose to take an interest in. The cartoon equally applies to all, in that a man might reasonably wish to show Beryl a Helmeted
Honeyeater as a point of excitement, even though Beryl may well be familiar with and disinterested in the type of Yellow-tufted Honeyeater we have here. If I go to the area, I like to attempt to see Helmeted Honeyeater because they are different. Whether I
call it Helmeted Honeyeater or helmeted subspecies of Yellow-tufted Honeyeater is trivial.
I miss typed earlier: “large” should be “largely”.
Philip
From: Mark Clayton
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June, 2018 10:46 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
A Yellow-tufted Honeyeater is a Yellow-tufted Honeyeater no matter what the locals call it
On 6/06/2018 10:27 AM, Philip Veerman wrote:
But the Yellow-tufted Honeyeater would require a slightly different and coloured cartoon. The joke would be just the same. Indeed you could adapt the cartoon
to several species of honeyeaters. Anywhere in the world we can call it a Helmeted Honeyeater. They are different in appearance. The issue is whether we are specifically referring to that subspecies or not and whether we choose to give it a distinctive name.
These are large arbitrary decisions and context specific.
Philip
From: Mark Clayton
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June, 2018 9:50 AM To: Baird, Ian;
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Even in Victoria it is still the Yellow-tufted Honeyeater, just with a local name. It is also know as the Helmeted Money-eater down there!
On 6/06/2018 9:43 AM, Baird, Ian wrote:
Only in Victoria! – elsewhere it would be a Yellow-tufted….
From: Mark Clayton
Sent: Wednesday, 6 June 2018 9:04 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Apologies to our resident cartoonist.
Ha Ha, very clever
On 6/06/2018 9:02 AM, Martin Butterfield wrote:
