Bird name

["Philip Veerman" <>]

I will put forward a new name option of “Inland Tern”. There are at least two valid and long-standing precedents for “Inland…” (Dotterel and Thornbill).

 

Pizzey’s book lists 18 species called “tern”. I took my comparisons from that book. There are only 3 other Australian terns that also have an inland distribution, but not as much as this one does. Also, all the other terns are NOT inland but have a marine distribution and this one is the only one that is fully inland and does not have a marine distribution.

 

The name is short and distinctive, removes the need for “Australian”. I hope it is distinctive, as in I hope there isn’t something else called “inland tern” in some other part of the world.

 

I think "Deep-billed Tern” would be ok but it is not a very attractive name.

 

Philip Veerman

 

From: Martin Butterfield
Sent: Saturday, 23 May, 2026 8:57 PM
To: Philip Veerman <>
Cc: Geoffrey Dabb <>;
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Bird name

 

I looked at Fraser and Gray for any suggestion of an alterna-tive.  They list only Gull-billed tern noting "for the relatively short deep bill'.  IMO "deep-billed Tern' would be better than "Australian".

Martin Butterfield

http://franmart.blogspot.com.au/

https://mallacootaweatherwildlife.blogspot.com/

 

 

On Sat, 23 May 2026 at 17:28, Philip Veerman <m("pcug.org.au","pveerman");">> wrote:

There are many other species of terns that occur in Australia. So the name Australian Tern is at best a weird choice and very confusing and I suggest not acceptable. In what way is this bird more connected to Australia than any of the other terns? Is it confined to Australia and other terns are not? Even if so, that is hardly a distinctive feature.

 

Maybe it deserves a completely different and new name but I don’t know what. Do we want it to be connected by name to some other form of Gull-billed Tern? Given that it is not a species that is often encountered, then I considered that if Australian Gull-billed Tern is acceptable. However whilst I am within Australia, I am perfectly happy to call it just Gull-billed Tern because the context is clear. Just as I am perfectly happy to call a common bird I see every day, a Magpie, rather than Australian Magpie because I am completely aware that it has no close connection to the various species of magpies of the northern hemisphere. And within Australia, the context is clear.

 

Also, we should not have long names for species that are frequently encountered or written about. If only rarely encountered, it is OK.

 

Which is why Galah is a good name.

 

There are so many birds called “Common something”. How valid is that? It may not even mean common (as in lots of them) but just likely means historically familiar to the situation in Britain long ago. How many birds are called “Rare something.

 

Philip

 

From: Birding-Aus On Behalf Of Geoffrey Dabb via Birding-Aus
Sent: Friday, 22 May, 2026 1:56 PM
To: m("birding-aus.org","birding-aus");" target="_blank">
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Bird name

 

I would be very interested to hear what people think of the different English names for the one species that are now appearing:  sometimes  ‘Australian Gull-billed Tern’, sometimes ‘Australian Tern’.

 

 

<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> m("birding-aus.org","Birding-Aus");" target="_blank">
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>

<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>