Hi again Paul
"> I'm surprised nobody has commented on the clumsy way that capitalised
> names are now hyphenated (or not!) Opening my Christidis and Boles at
> > (believe me?) I see Night Heron, Sea-Eagle and Button-quail."
Yes, its believable. I suspect it comes down to an editing issue in the
end. When writing, professionals (some anyway) tend to write as quickly as
they think, leaving the responsibility of such details as hyphenation to
the editor. This doesn't mean its OK to be inconsistent with such things,
especially capitalisation, but it does save time for the writer.
Part of my job is to edit scientific reports, in which I pick up varying
inconsistencies - I'm sure they're due to time demands. I pick them up in
my own writing sometimes too, when I go into my edit mode.
I guess the editors of these books don't always pick them up.
> From: Paul Taylor <>
> To: Birding-Aus <>
> Subject: Re: birding-aus bird-Names
> Date: Thursday, 29 July 1999 18:24
> Trevor Ford wrote:
> > I'm surprised nobody has commented on the clumsy way that capitalised
> > are now hyphenated (or not!) Opening my Christidis and Boles at random
> > (believe me?) I see Night Heron, Sea-Eagle and Button-quail.
> There was some discussion of this topic around this time last year in
> regard to the name changes introduced by the current RAOU Recommended
> English Names.
> Ideally the common names would have a consistent form, and follow a
> defined rule set. For example, this could be a naming system:
> * Common names have two parts: a "given name" and a "surname".
> * "Surnames" describe the type of bird (e.g. Albatross, Gull, Swallow)
> * "Given names" distinguish between birds sharing "surnames" (e.g. Shy
> Royal, Yellow-bellied)
> * For each of the two parts ("given names" and "surnames"), the
> first letter is always capitalised; all other letters are lowercase.
> * For each of the two parts, a hyphen may be used (e.g. White-browed,
> Night-heron, Sea-eagle.)
> Using this system, you would have names like "Nankeen Night-heron",
> "White-bellied Sea-eagle", "Black-breasted Button-quail" which are
> both consistent and logical. ("Nankeen Night-Heron", "White-bellied
> Sea-Eagle" and "Black-breasted Button-Quail" is another sensible
> naming system.) Unfortunately, trouble sets in when you consider
> names like "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross" and "Lesser Sooty Owl".
> It shouldn't be difficult to expand the rule set to handle these,
> provided that the rule set is simple, unambiguous, logical and
> consistent. This in itself isn't difficult; the hard part is
> generating names that are also aesthetically pleasing
> ("Black-Breasted Button-Quail" etc., while logical and consistent,
> would fail the aesthetic test, IMHO.)
> As to "Red Kangaroo" vs. "red kangaroo", "Red Kangaroo" should be
> the name used, particularly when female Red Kangaroos are not red
> and often referred to as "blue fliers" (or should that be "Blue
> Paul Taylor Veni, vidi, tici -
> I came, I saw, I ticked.
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
> Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus" in the message body (without the