The beauty of the English language is its flexibility. If a word or name is
commonly understood it can be used.
Ornithology has it's own Scientific Names which are only changeable
through Scientific process and publication. These are generally accepted
world-wide so readers know precisely which bird is referred to. (Pardon the
grammar).
Birdwatchers, in Australia at least, have standardised Common Names as well,
dictated originally by top twitchers, most of them British. In the process we
lost some wonderful common names, understood by all Australian birdos. Eg
"Jabiru", (because this Portuguese name also refers to a South American Stork,
never likely to be seen wild in Australia or confused with our Jabiru by anyone
literate), replaced by "Black-necked Stork" , to my mind, ugly, ungainly and
totally unromantic.
Similarly, "Torres Strait Pigeon" became "Torresian Imperial Pigeon" ; we lose
an Oz name so that some intellectually straight jacketed pseudo -scientist can
inflict their unnecessary pseudo-science on our historic Australian colloquial
bird names.
Earlier bird-books quoted the common names as well as the Scientific ones. In
themselves they made interesting reading.
As the Turkey discussion demonstrates, our original names reflect history and
geography. "Lumping" of Scientific names is being modified as sub specific
differences are revealed.
Perhaps Brush Turkeys dust bathe and Bush Turkeys don't. Just by looking into
the name differences we learn more about birds.
Birding names should not be sterilised, even at the alter of International
Twitching tours. If in doubt use the Scientific names.
Sincerely
Michael Hunter
Sent from my iPhone
<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>
|
