Capital Letters??

[Steve Lister]

I have just spent a few days at Spurn Bird Observatory and got into conversation with an author of angling and wildlife books, Alan Credland. He wanted to know why it is the norm in bird books to use capital letters for birds' names, and also when it started. He had looked at several older books in the Obs. library and found that they included the names without capitals.

I pointed out that the RSPB and at least some county trusts do not use capital letters for the names of birds in their publications, but that such as British Birds, Birding World and so on do. Also that I always capitalise them in anything that I write.

Is there a definitive right and wrong on this? What do others think? Myself I find that using capital letters makes the names stand out, and it also avoids confusion: I know what a Little Egret is but would not be sure about a little egret, for example.

Steve

[birdman]

Personal opinion time...

I don't think there is a "right" and a "wrong" way, but this seems to me to be some sort of half-way-house convention in the English Language.

You perhaps know that German capitalises all nouns (I believe) whereas English only capitalises proper nouns (eg, English, Steve, Leicester).

Russian, on the other hand only capitalises personal Names and Countries, but no other nouns - even in titles - so for examples, a Russian would have titled this thread "Capital letters".

But I digress...

I suppose, therefore, that Little Egret qualifies as (nearly) a proper noun in English, and convention seems to have led to capitalisation.

On a truly personal point of view though, it also conveys a extra meaning to me, that is "Little Egret" is the species whereas "little egret" is merely any egret that is not large.

[Edward]

As Birdman points out it is a matter of personal opinion and there is no real grammatical reason in English to write Blackbird rather than blackbird but there seems to be a convention in birding circles that species names are written in capitals and I do it without fail. It annoys the hell out of me whenever I read something the RSPB produces with lower case for species names, and it really jars the eye. However, I'd write generic names in lower case, i.e. my targets for my trip to Queensland this autumn include Chowchilla, various bowerbirds, especially Golden Bowerbird, Buff-breasted Paradise-Kingfisher, although I'd be happy to see any kingfisher etc.

E

[Tim Allwood]

there is a 'right' way or 'conventional' way if you prefer and that is capitalisation. Little Tern rather than little tern......the reasons are obvious i hope.....can't have 10 little terns in a scientific paper - were they Saunders' Least, Little? etc

write what you like in your own notes of course but anything for publication ought to be capitalised.

[Bluetail]

I think Birdman has said pretty well everything that needs to be said. I guess that technically it depends on whether or not you regard bird's names as a proper nouns. It seems that strict grammarians don't, but most ornitholigical publishers do.

Clarity is everything really and the "Little Egret" v. "the egret that is little" argument speaks for itself. Furthermore, capitals guide the eye and help the name to stand out more clearly on the page.

[Bluetail]

I didn't see Edward's post, but I agree entirely. Used as a proper noun: "Kingfisher". Used generically: "kingfisher(s)".

[Michael Frankis]

It is done for two reasons:

First to avoid confusing the general with the specific, e.g.:
"There are three common terns in Northumberland, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern and Arctic tern, and five common gulls, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Herring Gull, Lesser Black-backed Gull and Great Black-backed Gull"

Second, because it introduces uniformity of treatment, so that you don't have to work out whether a species 'should' or 'shouldn't' be capitalised depending on the etymology of the name. Otherwise you have to go through the silliness of having to capitalise some (e.g. birds named after people or places) but not others, which makes the species concerned appear to be of unequal taxonomic status (even though they are equal)

Michael

[Tim Allwood]

useful stuff here for birders on conventions in scientific writing

http://ic.ucsc.edu/~ggilbert/envs122/ConventionsScienceWriting.html

[Bluetail]

Maybe because the Genus is regarded as a noun, but the specific and subspecific names are adjectival? Only guessing. If memory serves, I don't think classical Latin (as writen by the Romans) had any capitals at all. Could be wrong though.

[Andrew]

The title of a bird is a name so it should be capitalised like people's names. I don't call myself andrew as that is bad grammar. The same should apply to birds as it lets people know you are referring to a species not a description.

[Bluetail]

The title of a bird is a name so it should be capitalised like people's names. I don't call myself andrew as that is bad grammar. The same should apply to birds as it lets people know you are referring to a species not a description.I have a feeling a stict grammarian might argue that a name is not necessarily a proper noun. Thus The Oxford Book of Style (I seem to be quoting this quite a lot lately): "A [Latin] genus name is printed in italic with an initial capital when used alone to refer to the genus. If, however, it also has become a common term in English for the organism concerned it is printed in roman and lower case [...]: thus 'Rhododendron is a widespread genus' but 'the rhododendron is a common plant'." The book should be regarded as interesting rather than a bible. ;)

[christineredgate]

Interesting ".Common Species.Blackbird " .Sentence,"There were 3 blackbirds in the garden this morning." If one used a capital B for blackbirds in the sentence it may seem out of proportion,but to ID a bird then the capital letter seems okay and does highlight the bird species

[Bluetail]

"There were 3 blackbirds in the garden this morning." If one used a capital B for blackbirds in the sentence it may seem out of proportionIt might, but that would not be a valid criterion for capitalisation. Either you capitalise the names of species or you don't, but you must be consistent. Let's assume you do. In your sentence, if you are referring to a garden in the USA, the B might well be lower-case: "I had three blackbirds in my backyard this morning: a Red-winged Blackbird, a Yellow-headed Blackbird and a Brewer's Blackbird." However, if the garden in question is British, "blackbirds" should have a capital B because the birds could only be Turdus merulus.

[Ruby]

.... and what about capitalisation of the 'proper' Latin names....

It seems to be the form to write Common Buzzard (for example) as Buteo buteo.... Why not Buteo Buteo?? (or buteo buteo....)

[scampo]

Is there a definitive right and wrong on this? What do others think? Myself I find that using capital letters makes the names stand out, and it also avoids confusion: I know what a Little Egret is but would not be sure about a little egret, for example.

SteveThere is a convention for this, Steve, but some folk flout some of the "rules" of style and grammar these days because they either don't care enough or never learned them.

Initial capitalisation is only used to indicate what is called a "proper noun", i.e. a naming noun - a name that is given by someone to an individual to identify that individual.

Bird names are not individual names and so should not be capitalized. However, sometimes a proper noun forms a part of a bird's name, such as "Cetti's warbler", in which case the proper noun keeps its initial capital.

[Nightranger]

.... and what about capitalisation of the 'proper' Latin names....

It seems to be the form to write Common Buzzard (for example) as Buteo buteo.... Why not Buteo Buteo?? (or buteo buteo....)

The correct scientific method is definitely to capitalise the genus name and have the species (and subspecies ) in lower case - Buteo buteo. The common name convention has become a little more confused because it is accurate to have Bewick's swan in that we are dealing with a name whereas it should be mute swan because mute is the verb. Having said that, the common use of capitalisation has made writing mute swan look wrong so it is a matter of personal preference. The RSPB follows the proper scientific system (as presumably do the BTO) even if it looks aesthetically wrong. BTW, the rule is reversed with scientific names and it would be wrong to write Cygnus Bewickii, the actual systematic is Cygnus bewickii.

[robinm]

Surely the whole point of having grammatical rules is to ensure clarity in what one is writing. I think the examples above adequately prove that only by capitalising the names can one be sure of this. For that reason alone I think capitals should be used.

Scientific names are different because there is an accepted convention and no confusion can arise.

[Andrew]

Capitalisation of bird names in literature is of utmost importance as far as I am concerned as I have read some American books and where capitalisation is not used I sometimes struggle to see what the actual name of the bird is. I often can not see if the authour is using a descriptive word or the actual name.

[birdman]

Scientific names are different because there is an accepted convention and no confusion can arise.
In fact, of course, convention also dictates that scientific names should be italicised.

[Nightranger]

In fact, of course, convention also dictates that scientific names should be italicised.

Indeed, and I nearly used the convention but thought it would add to the confusion. ;) ;) ;)

[robinm]

In fact, of course, convention also dictates that scientific names should be italicised.
Quite, but like Ian I thought it would add to the confusion!

To me, this whole thread is not about grammar but about conventions that help us to follow what is being written. Hence the need for capitals.

[Charles Harper]

Their website seems to be out of order, but you might email them via this site:

I.C.Z.N. (http://www.iubs.org/test/28th%20GA/Part%20IV/IV%20Proceedings%20Zoological%20Nomenclature.htm)

[Tim Allwood]

i think this has been explained about four times in the above thread now....
ICZN are the last word on this - must be on the net somewhere.

to open another can of worms Steve - grammar - shouldn't it really be capitalise in UK not capitalize? ;)

Ian - you can have mute swan instead of Mute Swan if you like but name me a journal that won't throw it back at you and say 'what are you on?' :eek!: if you insist on it.....

[Andy Bright]

to open another can of worms Steve - grammar - shouldn't it really be capitalise in UK not capitalize? ;)
Obviously bowing to our north American members.
I'm sure Steve wouldn't lay down any rules on grammar, there won't be any rules in the utopian society of the future ;)

[Andrew]

i think this has been explained about four times in the above thread now....
ICZN are the last word on this - must be on the net somewhere.

to open another can of worms Steve - grammar - shouldn't it really be capitalise in UK not capitalize? ;)
;)

(Now go check my posts and get your own back.)

[Tim Allwood]

ooooo get you two!

eye flout konveshun u mus kno dat bi now boyz!

[Bluetail]

Initial capitalisation is only used to indicate what is called a "proper noun", i.e. a naming noun - a name that is given by someone to an individual to identify that individual.Thanks for that neat explanation, Steve.

In business at least there does seem to be an increasing trend towards capitalisation of any noun the writer thinks is important and specific, but, as you point out, many people don't know or care about grammar these days.

[Tim Allwood]

I spend a lot of my time editing ornothological papers and stuff to strict scientific conventions. Bird Forum is a place i don't have to be grammatically correct - if we start all that.......

[Nightranger]

Ian - you can have mute swan instead of Mute Swan if you like but name me a journal that won't throw it back at you and say 'what are you on?' :eek!: if you insist on it.....

Yep, I was thinking about all situations though and I think we are tying ourselves up a little. The RSPB and most other official sources for information tend to follwo scientific convention. However in ordinary conversation, it would be acceptable to use whatever convention one chooses providing the end result is clear. I tend to use italicised wording in brackets when replying to people by email or letter and referring to a scientific name. This is simply my style of writing to avoid breaking the text (and therefore, the gist) up. I tend to use bracketed text quite a bit but it is equally correct to separate a scientific name with a spaced hyphen. If a bird name begins a sentence then it is correct to capitalise the verb (sorry, that sounds a bit too obvious) and I suspect that is another reason why people feel that names should be capitalised despite convention saying otherwise.

Examples:
If I was mentioning mute swans in the text body my preference would be "...the mute swan (Cygnus olor) is..." although this could also be written as "...the mute swan - Cygnus olor is...". If I started a sentence "Mute swans are..." I may not use the scientific name qualifier especially if I had previously done so. I should point out that I would probably have to refine this when talking to anyone outside the UK because some common names are country specific. Indeed, I answered an email reporting a Steppe buzzard where the correspondent used the scientific name Buteo vulpinus whereas this is actually a subspecies (Buteo buteo vulpinus). Interestingly, this is also one of those should I or shouldn't I situations because steppe is not really a proper noun but it is often written that way. (Oooh my head hurts...LOL).

[Bluetail]

to open another can of worms Steve - grammar - shouldn't it really be capitalise in UK not capitalize? ;)Quite the opposite, Tim! In the OED -ize is the standard ending and -ise a variant of it. In practice the latter is steadily ousting the former.

[Nightranger]

Quite the opposite, Tim! In the OED -ize is the standard ending and -ise a variant of it. In practice the latter is steadily ousting the former.

LOL. I was once taken to task for calling myself a Wildlife Advisor when it is equally accurate to use advisor or asdviser in this context. The correspondent never did acknowledge the correction. :C

[birdman]

Proper Nouns, in English, whilst all names, aren't necessarily all individuals - we include georgraphical names and languages also, obviously, although other languages don't necessarily.

That brings me quite neatly to steppe vs Steppe.

I think I'm right in saying (and I know I am when it comes to Karst) that the Steppe / Karst (or should that be The Steppe / Karst???) was the origin of the name for other similar areas which became known as steppe or karst - again, the definitive vs generic argument.

[birdman]

to open another can of worms Steve - grammar - shouldn't it really be capitalise in UK not capitalize? ;)
Quite the opposite, Tim! In the OED -ize is the standard ending and -ise a variant of it. In practice the latter is steadily ousting the former.Not if I've got anything to do with it!!!

[Bluetail]

LOL. I was once taken to task for calling myself a Wildlife Advisor when it is equally accurate to use advisor or asdviser in this context. The correspondent never did acknowledge the correction. :CLOL! Must have been the same person that berated me for using "advisor"!

[Bluetail]

Proper Nouns, in English, whilst all names, aren't necessarily all individuals - we include georgraphical names and languages also, obviously, although other languages don't necessarily.I understood Steve to mean "individual" in the sense "unique".

[robinm]

Pedantic off topic post.

Some argue that words like organize which come from a Greek stem -izein should always be spelt with a z.

Personally, I always use s.

[Bluetail]

I spend a lot of my time editing ornothological papers and stuff to strict scientific conventions. Bird Forum is a place i don't have to be grammatically correct - if we start all that.......No need to be puritanical here, I agree. On the other hand there are a few posters who would be a lot easier to understand if they learnt some basics. We have one who never uses any punctuation or capitalisation at all, another who capitalises every word and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural. OK, you can still work out what they're getting at, but it doesn't make for fluent communication.

There: I've now upset several members. Apologies to anyone I've offended, but I have a rather low tolerance threshhold because I see so much poor writing in my daily work. I'm seriously considering sending back such gobbledygook with a note saying I have no intention of reading it until it has been translated into English!

[Andy Bright]

.......and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural


look's as if I'm one of the culprit's ;)

[scampo]

Quite, but like Ian I thought it would add to the confusion!

To me, this whole thread is not about grammar but about conventions that help us to follow what is being written. Hence the need for capitals.
But grammar, of course, is a set of conventions, Robin, designed as you say to make the thoughts we express in words as unambiguous as language will allow.

[scampo]

Proper Nouns, in English, whilst all names, aren't necessarily all individuals - we include georgraphical names and languages also, obviously, although other languages don't necessarily.

That brings me quite neatly to steppe vs Steppe.

I think I'm right in saying (and I know I am when it comes to Karst) that the Steppe / Karst (or should that be The Steppe / Karst???) was the origin of the name for other similar areas which became known as steppe or karst - again, the definitive vs generic argument.
The rule still holds: a name intended to identify an individual takes an initial capital letter, a generic name does not. Why a genus receives a capital I do not really know except that it is a hangover from early times, Linnaeus himself presumably - it does at least allow the genus to be recognised from the species (e.g. Buteo buteo). The italicisation is another thing altogether - all foreign, unnaturalised words are conventionally italicised in English, e.g. per se.

[scampo]

No need to be puritanical here, I agree. On the other hand there are a few posters who would be a lot easier to understand if they learnt some basics. We have one who never uses any punctuation or capitalisation at all, another who capitalises every word and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural. OK, you can still work out what they're getting at, but it doesn't make for fluent communication.

There: I've now upset several members. Apologies to anyone I've offended, but I have a rather low tolerance threshhold because I see so much poor writing in my daily work. I'm seriously considering sending back such gobbledygook with a note saying I have no intention of reading it until it has been translated into English!You make good points here, Jason (as ever!); but you'll raise a few hackles, sadly. That said, I haven't met anyone yet who would buy a TV with 'Panersonic' on the front, or a car with 'Vokeswagon' on its badge. Yet those same folk will argue their right to spell and punctuate as they wish. As students say to me, "Well, you know what I meant!" or "It was only a first draft...".

Language is uniquely human and the main aspect that separates us from other animals. We should be proud of it and treasure it.

[Bluetail]

The italicisation is another thing altogether - all foreign, unnaturalised words are conventionally italicised in English, e.g. per se.Er, not (according to OUP) if they've been naturalised into English. The Shorter OED actually gives "per se" in roman, but "id est" in italics.

[tom mckinney]

We have one who never uses any punctuation or capitalisation at all, another who capitalises every word and at least one other who invariably puts an apostrophe before the s in every plural.

My favourite is the one that has great trouble spelling the word "Squirrel."

Maybe the next Devonbash/Minsmeet/BBWF could include a brief introduction to spelling, punctuation and grammar.

god doo, eye. NeeD iT ?/

Tony McKinome

[birdman]

That said, I haven't met anyone yet who would buy a TV with 'Panersonic' on the front, or a car with 'Vokeswagon' on its badge.
What a brilliant observation! Now I have another comeback for the language-manglers!!!

See your point re individuals, and I reckon we're in agreement - and as agreeing seems de rigueur at the moment, I will also agree about italics!

[scampo]

The correct scientific method is definitely to capitalise the genus name and have the species (and subspecies ) in lower case - Buteo buteo. The common name convention has become a little more confused because it is accurate to have Bewick's swan in that we are dealing with a name whereas it should be mute swan because mute is the verb. Having said that, the common use of capitalisation has made writing mute swan look wrong so it is a matter of personal preference. The RSPB follows the proper scientific system (as presumably do the BTO) even if it looks aesthetically wrong. BTW, the rule is reversed with scientific names and it would be wrong to write Cygnus Bewickii, the actual systematic is Cygnus bewickii.
"Mute" is not a verb here - it is an adjective, hence it does not need capitalisation. "Bewickii" is interesting because it is conventional to continue the capitalisation of a word derived from a proper noun when its grammatical function changes, hence "Parisian" or "English". I would say that the need for the name of a species not to have a capital overrides this as the convention arose to allow the genus to be made clear where genus and species share the same name.

[scampo]

"Er, not (according to OUP) if they've been naturalised into English..."

I think that's what I said: "all foreign, unnaturalised words are conventionally italicised in English". My example of per se is perhaps now accepted as naturalised and so would no longer need to be italicised.

[scampo]

...and as agreeing seems de rigueur at the moment, I will also agree about italics!
Very good! I needed a smile this morning - just got back from a very ill mum-in-law!

[scampo]

...

Tony McKinome
You should be a professional comedian, Tony cos yer dun arf mek mi smile! And do I need smiles at the moment.

[helenol]

Most amusing, the way these threads evolve....

Keep it up chaps :D

[tom mckinney]

And do I need smiles at the moment.

Sorry to hear about the bad times. Hope your mother in law gets well soon. I'd crack a joke, but after slagging off Ruffled Feathers all day yesterday, that's too much hypocrisy even for me!

[Padraig]

On a slightly different subject-which should probably go in a different thread but, because I dont want to start a new one, I am tagging on here:

What about plural versus singular?

We tend to say- 'I saw three Blackbirds today'- not 'three Blackbird'.

But there is the odd thing of saying 'three Curlew', 'three Shelduck' etc.
Come to think of it, is this tendency confined to waders and waterfowl?

We ceratinly dont say 'three Kestrel' or 'three Eagle'.

Not unless we are very pished indeed-which has been known to happen on occasion, at least in my own persoanl case. Only once or twice of course.

regards,

Padraig. B (:

[Nightranger]

On a slightly different subject-which should probably go in a different thread but, because I dont want to start a new one, I am tagging on here:

What about plural versus singular?

We tend to say- 'I saw three Blackbirds today'- not 'three Blackbird'.

But there is the odd thing of saying 'three Curlew', 'three Shelduck' etc.
Come to think of it, is this tendency confined to waders and waterfowl?

We ceratinly dont say 'three Kestrel' or 'three Eagle'.

Not unless we are very pished indeed-which has been known to happen on occasion, at least in my own persoanl case. Only once or twice of course.

regards,

Padraig. B (:

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new. ;)

[scampo]

Obviously bowing to our north American members.
I'm sure Steve wouldn't lay down any rules on grammar, there won't be any rules in the utopian society of the future ;)
Ah we'll have given up using language by then, Andy. It's odd people get flummoxed about these "rules". It's that word "rules" of course that does it. But they're not "rules" at all. Grammar merely describes what provides the least ambiguous alternative - and clarity is all, I reckon.

[scampo]

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new. ;)
This is an odd thing, for sure and has always intrigued me. It seems that the more familiar birds take the "s", the less familiar not, perhaps. But... not always, e.g. "There are three whimbrel amongst those curlews over there."

[scampo]

Sorry to hear about the bad times. Hope your mother in law gets well soon. I'd crack a joke, but after slagging off Ruffled Feathers all day yesterday, that's too much hypocrisy even for me!
Thanks, Tom. It's not likely she will - but she's enjoyed four score years and ten, which is more than I'm likely to manage! Sadly I have a brother sailing in a similar boat. Such is life, eh?

Keep up the humour, do!

[scampo]

Thanks for that neat explanation, Steve.

In business at least there does seem to be an increasing trend towards capitalisation of any noun the writer thinks is important and specific, but, as you point out, many people don't know or care about grammar these days.
There's nothing new under the sun, eh, Jason? Such a style was conventional in the eighteenth century and before. I love it when the old writers capitalise nouns such as Avarice and Gluttony - personified deadly sins of course.

In business, though, I think much ignorance rules, too. They spend £100k+ on a new logo and image, then mess up on their spelling, punctuation and grammar.

[Tim Allwood]

More smiles Steve....

...and u certainly don't want to buy a Mitsubishi Pajero - if you live in a Spanish speaking country...........

and the japanese named the Toyota Starion after the name for a male horse - kid u not - true, not a cheap jibe at Japanese pronounciation

and an MR2 is not popular in France for obvious reasons - just say it in French!

[scampo]

More smiles Steve....

...and u certainly don't want to buy a Mitsubishi Pajero - if you live in a Spanish speaking country...........

and the japanese named the Toyota Starion after the name for a male horse - kid u not - true, not a cheap jibe at Japanese pronounciation

and an MR2 is not popular in France for obvious reasons - just say it in French!This is great. Yesterday's thread liberated a few from their mind forg'd manacles and today's will add a bit of panache to the English on BF and thanks to a thread of a while back most of us now sign off with a real name. Ah, we're on our way to Utopia!

[scampo]

I think this is an area that is a matter of personal comfort even though there are recognised conventions. Unfortunately, the English language has so many contradictions as in the plural for goose being geese yet it is never mongeese as the plural for mongoose. It feels really uncomfortable to refer to mongooses or use what is probably a more correct usage and refer to "a pack of mongoose". Yeesh! I am glad I grew up with this language instead of trying to start from new. ;)
And the plural of a tailor's iron, called a "goose" is "gooses"!

But I think the apparent contradictions of pluralisation are more often down to the origin of the words involved and changes - especially standardisation - of pronunciation.

[Bluetail]

This is an odd thing, for sure and has always intrigued me. It seems that the more familiar birds take the "s", the less familiar not, perhaps. But... not always, e.g. "There are three whimbrel amongst those curlews over there."I must admit to being very inconsistent about this. I'm as likely to refer to "a flock of Curlew" as "a flock of Curlews". I think it's only wildfowl and waders that suffer from this, isn't it?

[Tim Allwood]

In my Utopia Deportiva Wanka from Peru will win the world club championship

.....I can see Des and his cheeky grin already.... ;)

and if you find that funny, then there's something very wrong with your state of mind and you'll never get to heaven o:)

[scampo]

I must admit to being very inconsistent about this. I'm as likely to refer to "a flock of Curlew" as "a flock of Curlews". I think it's only wildfowl and waders that suffer from this, isn't it?Well, not with me. I'm as likely to say "Three lesser whitethroats in the hedge"` as "Three lesser whitethroat in the hedge". Very odd; especially as they're probably not even lesser whitethroats anyway...

[Tim Allwood]

here's the club badge and a pic of Deportivo Wanka for you non-believers - sometimes real life is funnier than any joke....and don't they look like a bunch of ......nice young men.

On a more serious note if any out there does get into ornithological editing in any form I have the last word on convention written by a world expert (no names, no embarrassment and no beating at BBWF for me). It's used by BirdLife in all their stuff - Red data books, Threatened birds of Asia etc.... and is a mine of useful information

[Jasonbirder]

Is there any chance whatsoever of having Deportivo Wanka sign Paul Dickov? Just imagine....."and its Dickov for Wanka...."
;)

[helenol]

Is there any chance whatsoever of having Deportivo Wanka sign Paul Dickov? Just imagine....."and its Dickov for Wanka...."
;)
How uncouth. ;)

I told you this thread was evolving....

[Andrew]

Is there any chance whatsoever of having Deportivo Wanka sign Paul Dickov? Just imagine....."and its Dickov for Wanka...."
;)
Hope Arthur Cox doesn't take up a managerial post with them!

[helenol]

I told you this thread was evolving....
Or should I say...degenerating. ;)

[Andrew]

Or should I say...degenerating. ;)
I didn't start it . . . . o:D

[Bluetail]

I didn't start it . . . . o:DNo, it was Tim, with his stock tactic when he reckons things are too hoity-toity. ;)

[scampo]

How uncouth. ;)

I told you this thread was evolving....
Well - yesterday we were all discussing liberalisation and censorship, now it looks as if we've got it - and not in Ruffled Feathers, either...

(-;

[Bluetail]

Well if we haven't we're probably going to... ;)

[helenol]

Well - yesterday we were all discussing liberalisation and censorship, now it looks as if we've got it - and not in Ruffled Feathers, either...

(-;
Not from me you haven't, I can be as uncouth as the best of 'em. Where's the tongue in cheek icon?

Or should that be tongue-in-cheek? :D

[scampo]

Liberalisation, I meant...

It always surprises me how some aspects of sex are accepted and others, not so very different, are seen as quite unacceptable. Funny ol' world, innit!

[Michael Frankis]

Initial capitalisation is only used to indicate what is called a "proper noun", i.e. a naming noun - a name that is given by someone to an individual to identify that individual.

Bird names are not individual names and so should not be capitalized. However, sometimes a proper noun forms a part of a bird's name, such as "Cetti's warbler", in which case the proper noun keeps its initial capital.
Trouble with this is it leads to lists of birds looking very weird, with at least seemingly random capitalisation, and the hint that there's two different subclasses of birds, superior species, which are capitalised, and lesser semi-species, which aren't.

And there's plenty of cases where it is virtually impossible to know whether a particular name is 'proper' or not, without a detailed knowledge of the etymology of all the world's numerous languages (e.g. is it mikado pheasant, or Mikado pheasant?).

Far better to capitalise every bird name, then you know you're safe and won't be sneered at by a supercilious professor for getting the capitalisation incorrect.

Michael

[Bluetail]

The two best arguments for capitalisation have already been put: 1) they make the names stand out better in a page of prose and 2) they avoid the ambiguity inherent in names/phrases such as "little owl", "common tern", "garden warbler" etc.

[scampo]

Trouble with this is it leads to lists of birds looking very weird, with at least seemingly random capitalisation, and the hint that there's two different subclasses of birds, superior species, which are capitalised, and lesser semi-species, which aren't.

And there's plenty of cases where it is virtually impossible to know whether a particular name is 'proper' or not, without a detailed knowledge of the etymology of all the world's numerous languages (e.g. is it mikado pheasant, or Mikado pheasant?).

Far better to capitalise every bird name, then you know you're safe and won't be sneered at by a supercilious professor for getting the capitalisation incorrect.

MichaelI know this will sound harsh but I'll say what word came to mind: nonsense. To be able to memorise hundreds of Latin names as you have and then claim not to be able to remember a few proper nouns. Well... I gasp in surprise and sniff just a little lack of sincerity or at least a bit of disingenuity in your argument.

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Steve,

I may know them myself (much of the time) - I'm thinking more of the immense confusion it gives to birders with less knowledge than you or I do.

And there are plenty of birds which I genuinely don't know whether they're derived from proper names or not, nor any reasonable way of finding out . . . how about a Huia? or an ‘Apapane? an ‘I’iwi? or an O’ahu ‘Amakihi? (yes, these are real birds that English speakers have to deal with, on New Zealand and Hawaii, respectively ;))

Michael

[Mickymouse]

How about capitalising I when in the middle of a sentence, most people do but some don't and it looks odd.

Mick

[Bluetail]

Hi, Mick. I is always capitalised, whatever it's position. After all, no one is more important than I! (Believe it or not, that was precisely the reason I was given when I was young!)

[Mickymouse]

I was just wondering because certain amongst us doesn't, stir stir :-)

Mick

[Mickymouse]

I don't know if any one is interested but if you go to http://www.yourdictionary.com/ they have a rather nice forum devoted to words and such.

Mick

[Charles Harper]

... as usual I missed all the fun. Missing '-s' plurals has something to do with venery, as I recall-- many game birds and animals considered as meat...

[scampo]

Hi Steve,

I may know them myself (much of the time) - I'm thinking more of the immense confusion it gives to birders with less knowledge than you or I do.

And there are plenty of birds which I genuinely don't know whether they're derived from proper names or not, nor any reasonable way of finding out . . . how about a Huia? or an ‘Apapane? an ‘I’iwi? or an O’ahu ‘Amakihi? (yes, these are real birds that English speakers have to deal with, on New Zealand and Hawaii, respectively ;))

Michael
I take your point, but locals will be better placed than foreigners on such things. To non-locals these are recondite names to be sure. It would be better to use lower case in my view as that follows conventions most of the time.

I don't think you can make a rule based on ignorance - just accept that some will get it wrong and not be po-faced about their error. To draw a poor analogy, fine wines exist even if those who can appreciate their subtleties are a very few; no reason why language should be different at all.

[Bluetail]

... as usual I missed all the fun. Missing '-s' plurals has something to do with venery, as I recall-- many game birds and animals considered as meat...That would fit with my perception that it's mainly wildfowl and waders that are treated this way. Would Sir like another helping of Golden Plover?

[robinm]

Just another example that came to mind.

If, days after a birding trip, I posted here that I had seen a solitary sandpiper should I be accused of suppression or terminological inexactitude?

[Bluetail]

Just another example that came to mind.

If, days after a birding trip, I posted here that I had seen a solitary sandpiper should I be accused of suppression or terminological inexactitude?That might depend whether it was a white-rumped sandpiper or not. ;)

[robinm]

That might depend whether it was a white-rumped sandpiper or not. ;)
Don't you mean White-rumped Sandpiper ;) 3:-)

[Bluetail]

Actually, I meant Green Sandpiper. I think we rest our case!

[Steve Lister]

Having started this thread and then come back in 90 posts later I am amazed at how it has digressed. The overall impression that I get is that although it is , according to Scampo Steve, definitely wrong to use capital letters on grammatical grounds, it makes much more sense to capitalize (or capitalise) to aid clarity. I liked Jason's solitary sandpiper comment, along the same lines as my slender-billed curlew at Rutland Water last year.

I am going to continue using capital letters, but will pass on the other opinions to Alan so that he can consider them all.

Steve

[Katy Penland]

As far as I know, the marine mammal world doesn't have this problem of ambiguity when referring to species' names, capitalized or not. While there are, of course, species named after scientists and not just in the scientific name (Steller sea lion, Dall's porpoise, etc.), there are also just plain descriptors that are still unique enough so as not to be ambiguous (gray whale, blue whale, fin whale, etc.). The writing convention for marine mammals is NOT to capitalize common names at all (unless, as mentioned, one of the names is proper).

The problem in the bird world seems to be in the use of words like "lesser," "little," etc., where if the common names would use something unique to that species, there would be no need to capitalize them at all. E.g., "Little stint" could be "White-throated stint." "Little egret" could be "Plumed egret." ("Little egret" is a stupid name for a species that is in fact bigger than the Snowy, the species it's most confused with in NA.) "Lesser goldfinch" is another completely unnecessary epithet, since its nearest similar goldfinch is the American yet the two look nothing at all alike (either gender). "Lesser goldfinch" could easily have been named "Greenish goldfinch", which is more accurate.

All of the above with tongue only slightly in cheek. My sympathies to all you editors out there who have to struggle with such conventions. Couldn't we birders organize some kind of protest to the relevant authorities and get rid of all the ambiguous common names? Okay, tongue *firmly* in cheek there. ;)

[Michael Frankis]

The writing convention for marine mammals is NOT to capitalize common names at all (unless, as mentioned, one of the names is proper)
Far from universal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

Michael

[scampo]

All of the above with tongue only slightly in cheek. My sympathies to all you editors out there who have to struggle with such conventions. Couldn't we birders organize some kind of protest to the relevant authorities and get rid of all the ambiguous common names? Okay, tongue *firmly* in cheek there. ;)The conventions are clear - it is people who, often out of ignorance of a convention, choose to use a non-standard style. Some of those folk then insist they are "correct" - all very human, of course, and especially for those today who claim to so hate rules (well... the rules that don't suit, anyway).

The convention is that no English word takes an initial capital unless it starts a sentence, or the equivalent of a sentence, or is a proper noun (...or is the name of a genus!). All so very straightforward. Folk can do what they like but they can't on their own create a convention. It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.

[Michael Frankis]

It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.
Hi Steve,

I reckon it already has, to a very large degree. The process is driven primarily by the various field guides, which almost universally capitalise bird (and other animal & plant) names. Major authoritative works like BWP (Birds of the Western Palearctic) and HBW (Handbook of the Birds of the World) do so as well. A look through BF posts shows that the great majority of birders follow suit, too.

It would be interesting to know who started the process; I'd guess perhaps Peterson, as he started the field guide industry. Anyone got a copy of his first (1934) field guide they can check in?

Michael

[robinm]

The convention is that no English word takes an initial capital unless it starts a sentence, or the equivalent of a sentence, or is a proper noun (...or is the name of a genus!). All so very straightforward. Folk can do what they like but they can't on their own create a convention. It might catch on, one day in the future, that bird names should be capitalised, but I doubt it.
But when the convention has been shown to be inadequate it should change. The logic of the opposite argument is that grammar conventions are fixed: that is the tail wagging the dog. Grammar is only of value if it is an aid to clarity of expression.

I think we have demonstrated that capitalisation aids understanding and therefore is an improvement on the current convention. I shall certainly use it.

[scampo]

But when the convention has been shown to be inadequate it should change. The logic of the opposite argument is that grammar conventions are fixed: that is the tail wagging the dog. Grammar is only of value if it is an aid to clarity of expression.

I think we have demonstrated that capitalisation aids understanding and therefore is an improvement on the current convention. I shall certainly use it.I see no evidence at all that it aids understanding or is inadequate. In fact I think it might even detract from understanding: it is surely useful to know when a bird has been named after a person or place, for example.

But as I have suggested, grammar is merely a way of describing the conventional ways of using language, i.e. the rules that apply to the use of a dialect called standard English. If a convention changes, then standard English and its grammar changes. Above, Michael makes a good point - maybe I am a touch out of date? But, I shall still use lower case because it looks right to my eyes.

[Bluetail]

I see no evidence at all that it aids understanding or is inadequate. In fact I think it might even detract from understanding: it is surely useful to know when a bird has been named after a person or place, for example.You pays your money... At least you can usually tell when a species has been named after someone because the name is in the genitive (Cetti's Warbler). What would your solution be to the solitary sandpiper/white-rumped sandpiper ambiguity highlighted above?

[Bluetail]

It would be interesting to know who started the process; I'd guess perhaps Peterson, as he started the field guide industry. Anyone got a copy of his first (1934) field guide they can check in?No such luck here. I had a copy of his first (1954?) British field guide, but that got replaced long ago. I do have the 1944 edition (first published 1930) of Kirkman & Jourdain's British Birds and that uses capitals, even for families ("Ducks"). It also employs the old-fashioned habit of hyphenating adjectives to following nouns (e.g. "Garden-Warbler"; "Whitetailed-Eagle").

[Tim Allwood]

can't think of any serious bird book or ornithological journal that doesn't use capitalisation - not that I'm making a value judgement here, just an observation....I leave the rest of you to argue the rights and wrongs of it all.....out of my depth when it come to genitive cases....!

[birdman]

What would your solution be to the solitary sandpiper/white-rumped sandpiper ambiguity highlighted above?
Whilst I have both feet planted firmly in the capitalising corner, I suppose it must be said that English (and I suspect all languages) has its (have their) grammatical ambiguities in many areas other than just naming conventions.

Context gets us out of a pickle 99% of the time, for the remaning 1%, then I guess we are forced to go a little bit around the houses.

[Michael Frankis]

At least you can usually tell when a species has been named after someone because the name is in the genitive (Cetti's Warbler)
Hi Jason,

Doesn't happen with birds that I know of, but with trees, Americans often drop the 's at the end, e.g. Brewer Spruce, Jeffrey Pine (rather than Brewer's Spruce, Jeffrey's Pine); Jeffrey Pine is also now fairly common in UK tree books (which usually tend to include the 's for other cases)

Michael

[Michael Frankis]

can't think of any serious bird book or ornithological journal that doesn't use capitalisation - not that I'm making a value judgement here, just an observation
Hi Tim,

Not strictly an ornithological journal, but Animal Behaviour doesn't. That's about the only one I know of.

Michael

[Katy Penland]

Far from universal!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea

Michael

Rather than take the inconsistent presentation of an online "encyclopedia" as some kind of reliable source (look at the entry for "Humpback Whale," for instance, where Wikipedia not only uses upper and lower case for humpback, but uses lower case when referring to "fin" and "blue" whales elsewhere in the same text), I -- as do all marine mammalogists I know -- defer to Dale Rice's "Marine Mammals of the World: Systematics and Distribution" for not only the latest taxonomic order but for the conventional spelling and case. I've seen non-scientific sources (such as Wikipedia) occasionally use upper case but it's non-standard. Newspaper reporting of whales by their common names also employs the lower case. The standard in the marine mammal world IS to use lower case for the common name.

There's a small contingent who has tried to start capitalizing cetacean common names in an effort to give them more "human" standing (particularly in court cases).

As far as "clarity" is concerned, there's no way common names -- capped or not -- will clarify anything unless accompanied by the scientific name, particularly where those discussions span the globe and the same scientific name has multiple *common* names! Who cares about caps if you're calling it something else altogether anyway?

But what the hay, we're not going to resolve this here. I just assumed the capping of common bird names was the convention in the birding world, wrong or right, whether I liked it, and let it go. I get much more exercised over people over the age of 16 for whom English is their first language who can't spell and can't punctuate. (Grammar -- I'm not so fussy, since I can't remember what a dangling participle is much less when to use "like" and "as.") ;)

[craig whitmore]

I see no evidence at all that it aids understanding or is inadequate. In fact I think it might even detract from understanding: it is surely useful to know when a bird has been named after a person or place, for example.

But as I have suggested, grammar is merely a way of describing the conventional ways of using language, i.e. the rules that apply to the use of a dialect called standard English. If a convention changes, then standard English and its grammar changes. Above, Michael makes a good point - maybe I am a touch out of date? But, I shall still use lower case because it looks right to my eyes.
Wonder how Chaucer would have phrased it.
Craig

[craig whitmore]

Hi Katy:
But what the hay, we're not going to resolve this here. I just assumed the capping of common bird names was the convention in the birding world, wrong or right, whether I liked it, and let it go. I get much more exercised over people over the age of 16 for whom English is their first language who can't spell and can't punctuate. (Grammar -- I'm not so fussy, since I can't remember what a dangling participle is much less when to use "like" and "as.")

Right On: What we seem to have here is a case of "much ado about nothing". It's obvious that there are some extremely intelligent folks in the- home country-. Wonder why we can't teach them to lose their English accent. Oh, and don't forget to add the split modifier to your dangling participle.
Craig

[Bluetail]

Wonder why we can't teach them to lose their English accent.Which one, Craig? ;)

[Katy Penland]

Wonder why we can't teach them to lose their English accent.

Oh, please don't lose any of 'em. They're very sexy. ;)

[scampo]

Hi Tim,

Not strictly an ornithological journal, but Animal Behaviour doesn't. That's about the only one I know of.

MichaelAnd no dictionary uses capitals so far as I can find, including the OED; neither do any of the leading encyclopaedias.

[scampo]

...What would your solution be to the solitary sandpiper/white-rumped sandpiper ambiguity highlighted above?Doh... if I say common noun to someone interested in English, would confusion result; if I say March hare...? We know the collocations that exist in our field of interest and so they should never cause ambiguity.

BTW, would anyone here write Oak Tree, Buttercup or Earwig? You can see what English teachers are up against these days - "But I like it that way, Mr. C!" It's little wonder poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are a commonplace.

;-)

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Steve,


And no dictionary uses capitals so far as I can find, including the OED; neither do any of the leading encyclopaedias.

Yeah, they're full of all sorts of other ornithological errors as well, frequently using invalid scientific names that were dropped 50 years ago, etc, etc . . . I often get the impression that dictionary and encyclopaedia compilers don't have a clue about biology and its standard conventions!


BTW, would anyone here write Oak Tree, Buttercup or Earwig? You can see what English teachers are up against these days - "But I like it that way, Mr. C!" It's little wonder poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are a commonplace.

No, as they're not individual species. But I do write Sessile Oak, Holm Oak, Turkey Oak, Northern Red Oak, etc (and so on for all the other 500 or so oak species) - and so do most of the tree books I've got ;)

Under old fasioned grammar, the old world species Quercus cerris is Turkey oak (named after the country), whereas the new world species Quercus laevis is turkey oak (named after the bird that eats its acorns) . . . silly, isn't it! :brains: . . . is it any wonder kids get it wrong if they have to delve into such esoteric information to get their caps right! :h?:

Michael

[Bluetail]

Steve: If nothing else you can console yourself with the knowledge that at least we have a reason for liking it that way!

Hope I haven't missed it amidst all the fun and games, but what is the usual publishers' convention for land mammals?

[Michael Frankis]

Hope I haven't missed it amidst all the fun and games, but what is the usual publishers' convention for land mammals?
Fairly mixed - I've seen both. But I get the impression that capitalising is on the increase. It'll be interesting to see which Lynx do when they start on HMW after they've finished HBW. Whatever they do will become the de facto standard, I expect.

Michael

[scampo]

Ah but dictionaries and encyclopaedia know a thing or two about communication skills. But...

...I would be only too thrilled if even a few of my students had the level of passion in something (anything - except partying and booze) that you have, Michael, for trees (even if, like you, they get their capitalisation all mixed up and insisted they were right).

Some things us teachers happily put up with when enthusiasm and passion are evident in abundance.

(((-;

[cbarfield]

It is done for two reasons:

First to avoid confusing the general with the specific, e.g.:
"There are three common terns in Northumberland, Sandwich Tern, Common Tern and Arctic tern, and five common gulls, Black-headed Gull, Common Gull, Herring Gull, Lesser Black-backed Gull and Great Black-backed Gull"

Second, because it introduces uniformity of treatment, so that you don't have to work out whether a species 'should' or 'shouldn't' be capitalised depending on the etymology of the name. Otherwise you have to go through the silliness of having to capitalise some (e.g. birds named after people or places) but not others, which makes the species concerned appear to be of unequal taxonomic status (even though they are equal)

Michael

At the risk of starting another thread, isn't it time we got rid of the word 'common' in bird names?! Rosefinch succumbed a few years ago, (and so far I've only ever seen one!) so isn't it about time Gull, Tern and Sandpiper followed?

[birdman]

I understand thet the Common Gull was so called, not because it is/was numerous, but because it was "plain".

Don't know about the others... but I think there are many areas where bird names should be "revisited"!

[scampo]

Common whitethroat was always one I could never quite understand - but, thankfully, their numbers have increased of late, so the epithet, "common" seems okay these days!

[Andrew]

I think all bird names should be left as they are to avoid many texts and literature becoming further out of date and prevent time consuming or costly revisions of text/data.

[cbarfield]

[QUOTE=birdman]I understand thet the Common Gull was so called, not because it is/was numerous, but because it was "plain".

I heard that it was because 'common' referred to inland areas where it often gathered outside the breeding season.

[scampo]

[QUOTE=birdman]I understand thet the Common Gull was so called, not because it is/was numerous, but because it was "plain".

I heard that it was because 'common' referred to inland areas where it often gathered outside the breeding season.
Just a tip - if you want to quote from a message, you have to leave in the final square brackets.

[birdman]

I think all bird names should be left as they are to avoid many texts and literature becoming further out of date and prevent time consuming or costly revisions of text/data.
Oh, Andrew... you've got no sense of adventure! ;)