At 07:00 PM 11/19/2009 Carl Clifford wrote:
I think you would find it difficult to convince an American
birder that a Black-faced Cuckoo-Shrike is a Blue-Jay
I'm certainly not convinced. :-) For one thing, Black-faced
Cuckoo-shrikes are not blue, at least the ones I saw weren't.
It seems to me that the purpose of having standardized names is
to communicate with each other. Calling totally different birds
by the same name works fine on a local level where everyone is
sure of which species you mean, but it is increasingly
problematic on a bigger level. Thirty-some years ago when I
started birding, I never came into contact with birders outside
my little local area. Now I regularly communicate with people on
the far side of the world. I think it is good for each species
to have a unique standard name that we can all use to
communicate on a larger level but I see nothing wrong with also
referring to birds by other names on a more personal level. The
way I talk to my birding pals at home differs from the way I
talk to a larger group of people I don't necessarily know in a
variety of ways. Different situations call for different
standards of communicating. I find that many older names are
more interesting and descriptive than the standard names. In
North America, the people who assign names have been way too
fond of "Eastern", "Northern" and "American", none of which tell
me much about the bird in question or sound pleasing. "Jabiru"
is a more satisfying name than "Black-necked Stork" but to me,
it doesn't mean the bird in Australia. Whatever you call it,
seeing one was very satisfying for me. I'd love to have an
opportunity to see more of them.
--
Katrina Knight
Reading, PA, USA
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
