Publishing convention re bird-names

To: <>
Subject: Publishing convention re bird-names
From: "Green" <>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:50:22 +0930
This is much the same as the misuse of "should have" becoming should've which 
is ok, but now the expanded version many people are using is "should of" which 
is only spelling out how "should've" sound
I suppose it also stands the same for could and would.

I agree on the capitilisation issue but aren't birds the only group that this 
is the case (at least as far as publishing goes), botany etc seem to use lower 

As far as hyphenation goes I was told that where the word indicates a "true" 
grouping then it's capitalised, if not then it's not.
Two that spring to mind are Red-tailed Black-Cockatoo and Painted Button-quail. 
Please someone correct me if that rule is wrong.

Bob Green

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU