names

[Philip Veerman <>]

Provided it would be Djinki Honeyeater, rather than just Djinki. Otherwise
there would be a name absurdly sticking out as having no connection with
anything else, for a bird that is barely distinctive and this makes an index
in a book look silly. Names can be distinctive if the animal they are
describing is distinctive, thus we can get by with Koala rather than Koala
Wombat and Panda rather than Panda Bear.

This discussion has been turned upside down, going from "Jabiru". Which has
been shown to be a silly name for our bird as it is quite different from a
Jabiru and does not have the swollen neck that the Jabiru does have. Some
have even suggested that the word Jabiru has historic precedence over
Black-necked Stork. I doubt that. Surely the group name Stork is much older
(and traditional) than is Jabiru. The Black-necked or even Satin are simply
adjectival descriptors to specify which species of stork. How about we
reverse it and call it a Uribaj. The argument for retaining Jabiru for our
bird (apart from that it is an easy word that sounds nice, something that
will jab at a fish that sounds a little be kangarooish) is as pointless as
those who will call the wombat a badger.

Philip

-----Original Message-----
From: Birding-Aus  On Behalf Of
casliber0134
Sent: Friday, 27 January, 2017 7:50 AM
To: Birding-aus
Subject: names

I must say I have no problem with a local indigenous name (like Djagana)
becoming generalised as other local names have become general Australian or
wolrd wide words.

I like *djinki *for Melithreptus chloropsis rather than Gilbert's
honeyeater or western white-naped honeyeater...

In the 80s we saw all the wrens become fairywrens and (Turnix) "quails"
become buttonquails so some name changes take hold pretty seamlessly.

Cas



<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> 
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>