Who are the Masses??

[Gavin Haig]

A comment by Colin Key on the TWITCHER or BIRD WATCHER thread prompted me to start this. He mentioned a couple of expressions that get his hackles up whenever he hears them, which reminded me of one that pokes me in the eye every time, like it's printed in bold red capitals and accompanied by a trumpet fanfair:

'....gave itself up to the masses....'

Often seen (like, every 7 days it feels like) in Birdguides weekly summaries. And I'm pretty sure Birdwatch magazine must employ the same copy writer. Should that be a capital 'M'? Are the Masses a birding family who never manage to get to the short-stayers?

Well, there you are. That's one that irritates me - let's hear yours........

[Sedgley]

I must be the odd one out because nothing in birding speak irritates me. :hi:

[Johnny1]

I hate hearing the words "waste land" as in ***** are planning to build whatever on "waste land"!!!

[KorHaan]

I've got two.

1. Whenever I hear a birder using an abbreviation of a beautiful bird's name, I get irritated; it's mostly young male twitchers who do this. In Dutch "blako" is being used for "Bladkoninkje" ( Yellowbrowed Warbler ), it's almost an insult...

2. When I'm in a group of birders and I'm the first to spot an unusual bird ( does not happen a lot of times, oh no ), then the others refer to my warning call as being a "claim"... "He claims a -----!!!". Mostly this happens in a group of twitchers, but it sounds like you're considered a dude until they identify the bird as the one I called.
I think it's got something to do with ranking in the group, as an outsider you are obviously not capable of IDing a bird... I wish they had nicer words for "a claim".

Greetings, Ronald

[Chris D]

"
live off things that float to the top"................

[Adey Baker]

I hate hearing the words "waste land" as in ***** are planning to build whatever on "waste land"!!!


Agree 100% - plus those catch-all phrases 'Greenfield' and 'Brownfield' sites

[Bernard the cat]

I hate the phrase 'dude' and 'robin-stroker'. Admittedly it depends upon the context in which they are used, as these phrases can be used in a jokey / light-hearted way. But when they are used in a derisory way to refer to people who enjoy watching birds at places like Titchwell, though may not necessarily be expert birders (whatever that is), then I think it reflects a kind of arrogance and conceit that I find very unpleasant.

[scampo]

A comment by Colin Key on the TWITCHER or BIRD WATCHER thread prompted me to start this. He mentioned a couple of expressions that get his hackles up whenever he hears them, which reminded me of one that pokes me in the eye every time, like it's printed in bold red capitals and accompanied by a trumpet fanfair:

'....gave itself up to the masses....'

Often seen (like, every 7 days it feels like) in Birdguides weekly summaries. And I'm pretty sure Birdwatch magazine must employ the same copy writer. Should that be a capital 'M'? Are the Masses a birding family who never manage to get to the short-stayers?

Well, there you are. That's one that irritates me - let's hear yours........He must have studied Marxism at uni! It doesn't need a capital (Das Kapital!). I know how you feel, though - its use seems to remove all traces of individuality and does have a rather superior tone. A similar expression that riles me is "You lot...".

[chris murphy]

The phrase "just flew off", or "was here five minutes ago" is usually enough to get my goat.

[colonelboris]

'It's less than what I paid for mine, so I wouldn't touch it...'

[martinf]

The term 'ultimate sprite' applied to Pallas's Warbler. aaarrrggghhhh!!

[Vectis Birder]

I hate hearing the words "waste land" as in ***** are planning to build whatever on "waste land"!!!

I agree with you, same here.

[Pete Mella]

I don't like any nicknames for birds or groups of birds, it sounds cliquey and silly and is intentionally designed to exclude non-birders and beginners. Technical terms are fine, as long as people are quite prepared to explain them, but nicknames annoy me. For example I'm happy to call birds of prey "Raptors" but would never call them "BOPs".

I'm not too up to date with birding "slang", what's a dude?

[Steven Astley]

A term I hate is suppression, a term used by extreme tick junkies. The only other time I can remembering hearing this term was recently on the TV describing the actions of Saddam Hussain withholding information from the Iraqis when he was in power.

[Bernard the cat]

I don't like any nicknames for birds or groups of birds, it sounds cliquey and silly and is intentionally designed to exclude non-birders and beginners. Technical terms are fine, as long as people are quite prepared to explain them, but nicknames annoy me. For example I'm happy to call birds of prey "Raptors" but would never call them "BOPs".

I'm not too up to date with birding "slang", what's a dude?

In a nutshell, the stereotype is broadly as follows: older people, possibly retired, who enjoy going to places like Minsmere & Titchwell, who love birds and are likely fully paid up members of the RSPB, but are not that knowledgable & not into rarities etc. For a full explanation see 'Bill Oddie's Little Black Bird Book' by Bill Oddie, or 'Birders: Tales of a Tribe' by Mark Cocker (both books are really good anyway)

[johnraven]

A term I hate is suppression, a term used by extreme tick junkies. The only other time I can remembering hearing this term was recently on the TV describing the actions of Saddam Hussain withholding information from the Iraqis when he was in power.

Suppression is quite a commonplace word most people understand. What about "fire suppression systems" (eg sprinkler systems), or "anger suppression" in psychology or "data suppression" in IT? It's not just the crazed people-hating suppression monkeys of the birding world that bring about the use of the word.

[Bernard the cat]

I don't like any nicknames for birds or groups of birds, it sounds cliquey and silly and is intentionally designed to exclude non-birders and beginners. Technical terms are fine, as long as people are quite prepared to explain them, but nicknames annoy me. For example I'm happy to call birds of prey "Raptors" but would never call them "BOPs".

I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

I hate this for the following reasons:

1, I don't have a clue what people are talking about when they use these words (and I don't care either)
2, these names sound really awkward & cumbersome, not to mention making the birds themselves (some of which can be really beautiful) seem like nothing more than a scientific specimin to be analysed & gawped at
3, its really cliquey & marginalises all but the most knowledgable & experienced birders, & is surely just another way of saying "look at me, I'm REALLY knowledgable!"
4, it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks
5, unless you are a bona fide ornithologist or biologist, its totally unnecessary - why not just say "there's a warbler in the bush"??

[Bernard the cat]

Suppression is quite a commonplace word most people understand. What about "fire suppression systems" (eg sprinkler systems), or "anger suppression" in psychology or "data suppression" in IT? It's not just the crazed people-hating suppression monkeys of the birding world that bring about the use of the word.

I don't know what kind of psychologists you have come across, but 'anger suppression' certainly doesn't sound very healthy to me - sounds more like a recipie for mass murder! (if you have problematic emotions just supress them, you'll be fine!)

[Black Wheatear]

I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

I hate this for the following reasons:

1, I don't have a clue what people are talking about when they use these words (and I don't care either)
2, these names sound really awkward & cumbersome, not to mention making the birds themselves (some of which can be really beautiful) seem like nothing more than a scientific specimin to be analysed & gawped at
3, its really cliquey & marginalises all but the most knowledgable & experienced birders, & is surely just another way of saying "look at me, I'm REALLY knowledgable!"
4, it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks
5, unless you are a bona fide ornithologist or biologist, its totally unnecessary - why not just say "there's a warbler in the bush"??

Oh dear! I am afraid from a very tender aged trainee ringer I learnt to marginalise warblers with words like Phyllosc etc. I had no idea or ever intended to marginalise fellow birdwatchers, birders or whoever. I always supposed these terms were used specifically to mean 'I know it's a Phyloscopus, but not sure which'. I will now and forever be very conscious not to use these terms in the company of others. I hope I can now be referred to as a reformed nerdy geek.

[scampo]

Sprawk. Mipit. Yeuk!

[martinf]

I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

I hate this for the following reasons:

1, I don't have a clue what people are talking about when they use these words (and I don't care either)
2, these names sound really awkward & cumbersome, not to mention making the birds themselves (some of which can be really beautiful) seem like nothing more than a scientific specimin to be analysed & gawped at
3, its really cliquey & marginalises all but the most knowledgable & experienced birders, & is surely just another way of saying "look at me, I'm REALLY knowledgable!"
4, it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks
5, unless you are a bona fide ornithologist or biologist, its totally unnecessary - why not just say "there's a warbler in the bush"??

Trouble is if you bird abroad then Latin names are often more useful. Go to South America and genus becomes much more useful than the english name. If you talk to birders from other countries then latin is often used, so it is useful to know if not use!!
The english names of birds differ between countries, regions, even people!!!

[Steven Astley]

Suppression is quite a commonplace word most people understand. What about "fire suppression systems" (eg sprinkler systems), or "anger suppression" in psychology or "data suppression" in IT? It's not just the crazed people-hating suppression monkeys of the birding world that bring about the use of the word.

'anger','fire', just emphasises my point that suppression is a strong word that's thrown about too easily by many of the manic dirty filthy 'sell your own grandmother' tick donkeys. ;)

Bernard its more useful to learn the Latin names they describe the bird accurately with ambiguity. Nobody is being smart its just a way of narrowing down the identification of a bird, which is part of the fun of what birding is about. Sometimes if unable to id to species then just the genus is used in reports etc.
We use it all the time on Bf identification forum.

[Gavin Haig]

I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

I hate this for the following reasons:

1, I don't have a clue what people are talking about when they use these words (and I don't care either)
2, these names sound really awkward & cumbersome, not to mention making the birds themselves (some of which can be really beautiful) seem like nothing more than a scientific specimin to be analysed & gawped at
3, its really cliquey & marginalises all but the most knowledgable & experienced birders, & is surely just another way of saying "look at me, I'm REALLY knowledgable!"
4, it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks
5, unless you are a bona fide ornithologist or biologist, its totally unnecessary - why not just say "there's a warbler in the bush"??

Got to pick this one up, Bernard. "Just had a Hippo - it's in that sallow" is a sentence guaranteed to cause adrenaline leakage in most birders (assuming we are in the UK). It certainly is not intended to marginalise, but is far more specific, and therefore useful, than "I've just had a warbler in that sallow", which would have to be answered with the query: "what kind?" Instead of wasting time finding out whether or not I should be getting excited, I know straight away, and can just get on with finding the Hippo. ;)

To answer your points one by one (mostly tongue in cheek, ok?):

1. You don't care that you don't have a clue? Surely you didn't mind that you had to learn what a 'Robin' was, or what a 'Shelduck' looks like, did you? What's the difference?
2. Awkward and cumbersome? Try Zitting Cisticola, Lesser Black-backed Gull. Nice, smooth, roll-off-the-tongue English names. 'Sylvia' is hardly a mouthful, is it? What I call a bird doesn't make any difference to how I perceive it.
3. I get like this when people refer with familiarity to members of the England cricket squad. But then I have no interest in cricket. Birding is my hobby, therefore becoming more knowledgable is my aim. You make it sound like something to be avoided!
4. So what? They are.
5. Have to say, I know/have known a few birders whose academic qualifications might fall well short of even a modest O-level or two, but they know their Phylloscs from their Acros, and find that knowledge necessary!

[ghostrider]

I hate the term "jizz". Surely we could come up with a better word than this. If i used this term in the canteen at work, which i rarely do, i can imagine the double entendre responses i would receive.

[Vectis Birder]

Sprawk. Mipit.

Those abbreviations sound more like noises a bird would be making if it were being strangled...I agree they're absurd. 'Vis mig' is another term I'm not that fond of.

[scampo]

Those abbreviations sound more like noises a bird would be making if it were being strangled...I agree they're absurd. 'Vis mig' is another term I'm not that fond of.
You've got me there... Visible migration?

[JTweedie]

I hate the term "jizz". Surely we could come up with a better word than this. If i used this term in the canteen at work, which i rarely do, i can imagine the double entendre responses i would receive.

Same with pishing in Scotland - don't know if this word is used in England or elsewhere or is just a colloquial word for pis*ing.

[iano]

'It's less than what I paid for mine, so I wouldn't touch it...'


:-O .... Took the words out of my mouth m8.

[iano]

There's lots to choose from for me, but here's one ..... "It was Showing well" ...... Birds don't SHOW, they just get on with their everyday lives whilst us "Bird Pervs" go out of our way to get a better look at the action ...... some even stooping so low as to take photo's of courting couples doing the business ...... ;)

[Andrew]

'No sign of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo up to 3:45pm but two Chiffchaffs present and showing well'

Arrrghhhh!

[Vectis Birder]

You've got me there... Visible migration?

Indeed. The 'bird performed well' is another. Performed?! Perleese. It's not a bleedin' circus act!

[Larry Wheatland]

I hate the term "jizz". Surely we could come up with a better word than this. If i used this term in the canteen at work, which i rarely do, i can imagine the double entendre responses i would receive.

You mean if you were overheard asking a birder "Sylvia-like Jizz ?" for example ?

[kmonty1950]

Got to pick this one up, Bernard. "Just had a Hippo - it's in that sallow" is a sentence guaranteed to cause adrenaline leakage in most birders (assuming we are in the UK).

But if you'd just had a Sylvia, it would be considered bad form to tell everyone. ;)

[Bernard the cat]

Oh dear! I am afraid from a very tender aged trainee ringer I learnt to marginalise warblers with words like Phyllosc etc. I had no idea or ever intended to marginalise fellow birdwatchers, birders or whoever. I always supposed these terms were used specifically to mean 'I know it's a Phyloscopus, but not sure which'. I will now and forever be very conscious not to use these terms in the company of others. I hope I can now be referred to as a reformed nerdy geek.

Sorry, I didn't want to make you feel bad! If you're a ringer & coming across little warblers all the time you're bound to refer to their scientific names, + I guess if you're into ringing you would almost fall into the category of ornithologist!

[Bernard the cat]

Trouble is if you bird abroad then Latin names are often more useful. Go to South America and genus becomes much more useful than the english name. If you talk to birders from other countries then latin is often used, so it is useful to know if not use!!
The english names of birds differ between countries, regions, even people!!!

Fair point, I'll let you off on a technicality!

[Bernard the cat]

Bernard its more useful to learn the Latin names they describe the bird accurately with ambiguity. Nobody is being smart its just a way of narrowing down the identification of a bird, which is part of the fun of what birding is about. Sometimes if unable to id to species then just the genus is used in reports etc.
We use it all the time on Bf identification forum.

I agree with your last point - I was going to acknowledge this in my original post but I couldn't be arsed!

[Steven Astley]

I agree with your last point - I was going to acknowledge this in my original post but I couldn't be arsed!

just realised I meant to say LESS ambiguity, obviously, but unfortunately it's past its editable date. :egghead:

[John Eaton]

I like the word "jizz".

Try thinking of another word or phrase that covers the way a bird moves and acts and is as easy to say.

[Bernard the cat]

Got to pick this one up, Bernard. "Just had a Hippo - it's in that sallow" is a sentence guaranteed to cause adrenaline leakage in most birders (assuming we are in the UK). It certainly is not intended to marginalise, but is far more specific, and therefore useful, than "I've just had a warbler in that sallow", which would have to be answered with the query: "what kind?" Instead of wasting time finding out whether or not I should be getting excited, I know straight away, and can just get on with finding the Hippo. ;)

To answer your points one by one (mostly tongue in cheek, ok?):

1. You don't care that you don't have a clue? Surely you didn't mind that you had to learn what a 'Robin' was, or what a 'Shelduck' looks like, did you? What's the difference?
2. Awkward and cumbersome? Try Zitting Cisticola, Lesser Black-backed Gull. Nice, smooth, roll-off-the-tongue English names. 'Sylvia' is hardly a mouthful, is it? What I call a bird doesn't make any difference to how I perceive it.
3. I get like this when people refer with familiarity to members of the England cricket squad. But then I have no interest in cricket. Birding is my hobby, therefore becoming more knowledgable is my aim. You make it sound like something to be avoided!
4. So what? They are.
5. Have to say, I know/have known a few birders whose academic qualifications might fall well short of even a modest O-level or two, but they know their Phylloscs from their Acros, and find that knowledge necessary!

I really can't let a point-by-point rebuttal go unchallenged! See the thing is I already feel marginalised, because when people refer to 'Hippos' & Phylloscs' & 'Acros' I don't know what they're talking about without getting my Collins field guide out & going to the page that explains the warbler genuses (or is that 'geni'?!). I think I know that Dartford Warbler is a 'Sylvia', but other than that I'm stuffed. Sure, referring to the genus could save a couple of seconds here & there, but I've managed all this time without resorting to such scientific verbiage. Now for a point-by-point (& hopefully equally tongue in cheek!) rebuttal of your rebuttal:

1, Yes, I most certainly don't care that I don't have a clue, because its not necessary! Learning the English name for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is more like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!
2, Ok I admit that 'Sylvia' rolls off the tongue quite easily, & also 'Hippo' (though surely there's no justification for referring to a delicate little bird as a 'Hippo'!). The fact that some English species names are cumbersome does not justify complicating things even more by throwing in Latin genus names.
3, I want to watch/identify/enjoy/tick birds, & I can do this fine without learning their genus names - becoming familiar with genus names is not especially something to be avoided, but its also not something I really want to go out of my way for.
4, Speak for yourself! I'm certainly not a nerdy geek, & I don't really want to be seen as one!
5, That's a bit like saying you can't be a great guitar player without being able to read music. Knowing genus names may be helpful for some birders, but I really don't think its necessary by any means, and i've certainly managed ok without it.

[Bernard the cat]

just realised I meant to say LESS ambiguity, obviously, but unfortunately it's best its editable date. :egghead:

Yes I'd assumed you meant that in the first place.

[ghostrider]

I like the word "jizz".

Try thinking of another word or phrase that covers the way a bird moves and acts and is as easy to say.

How about "jazz"..."Nice..."

[colonelboris]

'Jizz' comes from GISS - general impression of size and shape. Apparently an old military term.
I didn't know that until someone on here said it a while ago. Could be entirely rubbish for all I know...

[nctexasbirder]

its really not hard at all to learn genuses and scientific names. they are actually less ambiguous than english names, and they are standardized, so anyone who has actually read their field guide will know what you are talking about. technical jargon is uavoidable in any hobby....its actually what makes it fun! a dude wont be able to understand what the heck you're saying. If you want to become a good birder, you'll have to learn all this stuff anyway! so there....

[Mike Feely]

I really can't let a point-by-point rebuttal go unchallenged! See the thing is I already feel marginalised, because when people refer to 'Hippos' & Phylloscs' & 'Acros' I dodn't know what they're talking about without getting my Collins field guide out & going to the page that explains the warbler genuses (or is that 'geni'?!). I think I know that Dartford Warbler is a 'Sylvia', but other than that I'm stuffed. Sure, referring to the genus could save a couple of seconds here & there, but I've managed all this time without resorting to such scientific verbiage. Now for a point-by-point (& hopefully equally tongue in cheek!) rebuttal of your rebuttal:

1, Yes, I most certainly don't care that I don't have a clue, because its not necessary! Learning the English name for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is more like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!
2, Ok I admit that 'Sylvia' rolls off the tongue quite easily, & also 'Hippo' (though surely there's no justification for referring to a delicate little bird as a 'Hippo'!). The fact that some English species names are cumbersome does not justify complicating things even more by throwing in Latin genus names.
3, I want to watch/identify/enjoy/tick birds, & I can do this fine without learning their genus names - becoming familiar with genus names is not especially something to be avoided, but its also not something I really want to go out of my way for.
4, Speak for yourself! I'm certainly not, & I don't really want to be seen as one!
5, That's a bit like saying you can't be a great guitar player without being able to read music. Knowing genus names may be helpful for some birders, but I really don't think its necessary by any means, and i've certainly managed ok without it.


Bernard TC

Without going through these one by one, i think what Gavin is getting at (especially with warblers) is that you may not, at the time, know which species you have seen and it is helpful to others who may also be watching the same bush or in the same locality to narrow it down to say eg "there's an elusive hippo in there" so that it at least gives others a guide as to what to look for, or recognise when they have seen the same bird that you have (probably only the arse end for a split second!).

The thing about learning scientific names (especially genus's) is that they are natural groups which share common features and so therefore help in discussing / tracking down birds in the field.

If thats geeky, then yes, i'm proud to be one!

I also agree with Gavin in that i am keen to be continually learning - everyday's a schoolday - if learning the names for families, genus, species etc is going to improve my skills as a birder - then why not? Personally i learnt all of the scientific names of all the birds in the Collins Gem Guide when i first got it when i was about 10 (many years ago) and have never looked back - i think it has made my appreciation of birds and ornithology in general much better and even informed my choice of degree (albeit indirectly - Ecology).

Just some thoughts.

Mike

[Tim Allwood]

The thing about learning scientific names (especially genus's)

Mike

here's one more Mike:

genera

sorry, that's so pedantic. One more pint i owe. If you're ever over east Norfolk! B (:

[dan pointon]

Got to pick this one up, Bernard. "Just had a Hippo - it's in that sallow" is a sentence guaranteed to cause adrenaline leakage in most birders (assuming we are in the UK). It certainly is not intended to marginalise, but is far more specific, and therefore useful, than "I've just had a warbler in that sallow", which would have to be answered with the query: "what kind?" Instead of wasting time finding out whether or not I should be getting excited, I know straight away, and can just get on with finding the Hippo. ;)

To answer your points one by one (mostly tongue in cheek, ok?):

1. You don't care that you don't have a clue? Surely you didn't mind that you had to learn what a 'Robin' was, or what a 'Shelduck' looks like, did you? What's the difference?
2. Awkward and cumbersome? Try Zitting Cisticola, Lesser Black-backed Gull. Nice, smooth, roll-off-the-tongue English names. 'Sylvia' is hardly a mouthful, is it? What I call a bird doesn't make any difference to how I perceive it.
3. I get like this when people refer with familiarity to members of the England cricket squad. But then I have no interest in cricket. Birding is my hobby, therefore becoming more knowledgable is my aim. You make it sound like something to be avoided!
4. So what? They are.
5. Have to say, I know/have known a few birders whose academic qualifications might fall well short of even a modest O-level or two, but they know their Phylloscs from their Acros, and find that knowledge necessary!


I agree, they're useful on many occasions, and there is no reason not to learn them (indeed by actively birding you should pick them up along the way), this is no criticism of 'em but they can be confusing. I remember last spring just as the Swallows & House Martins were beginning to arrive I remarked to a guy how there was quite a few hirundines about today, he told me he hadn't seen many himself, only one in the other bay....he thought i'd said Heron!!!!

I know there's some terms that irrititate me, but can't think at the mo, too late, will be back with them soon!

D

[Bernard the cat]

Bernard TC

Without going through these one by one, i think what Gavin is getting at (especially with warblers) is that you may not, at the time, know which species you have seen and it is helpful to others who may also be watching the same bush or in the same locality to narrow it down to say eg "there's an elusive hippo in there" so that it at least gives others a guide as to what to look for, or recognise when they have seen the same bird that you have (probably only the arse end for a split second!).

The thing about learning scientific names (especially genus's) is that they are natural groups which share common features and so therefore help in discussing / tracking down birds in the field.

If thats geeky, then yes, i'm proud to be one!

I also agree with Gavin in that i am keen to be continually learning - everyday's a schoolday - if learning the names for families, genus, species etc is going to improve my skills as a birder - then why not? Personally i learnt all of the scientific names of all the birds in the Collins Gem Guide when i first got it when i was about 10 (many years ago) and have never looked back - i think it has made my appreciation of birds and ornithology in general much better and even informed my choice of degree (albeit indirectly - Ecology).

Just some thoughts.

Mike

That's a fair comment, but I'd just like to point out that in referring to a 'Hippo' in the bush over yonder, its only helpful to people who know what you're talking about - the rest of us mere mortals have to work out what the hell you're all on about, by which time we'll probably have missed the bird completely! By its very nature such language is 'exclusivist' (if that's a word!), and exludes all those who are not 'in the know'. You could say "tough - go and learn the genus names & you won't feel marginalised", but then this puts the onus on less experienced birders to keep up with the 'top boys' so they can understand what they're talking about - no wonder birding can seem so elitist at times.

[Larry Wheatland]

'Jizz' comes from GISS - general impression of size and shape. Apparently an old military term.
I didn't know that until someone on here said it a while ago. Could be entirely rubbish for all I know...

You should know, what with you being a Colonel and all that. Sir.

[Bernard the cat]

its really not hard at all to learn genuses and scientific names. they are actually less ambiguous than english names, and they are standardized, so anyone who has actually read their field guide will know what you are talking about. technical jargon is uavoidable in any hobby....its actually what makes it fun! a dude wont be able to understand what the heck you're saying. If you want to become a good birder, you'll have to learn all this stuff anyway! so there....

With respect, I think that's total nonsense. I'm not saying its hard to learn scientific names, its just not really my idea of fun! And to me a field guide is a reference book to be used in the field, not something that I should have to read and study in order to keep up with the language used by more experienced birders. A certain amount of jargon may be unavoidable in any hobby, but there are levels of jargon, and if certain jargon serves to marginalise a significant proportion of those within the hobby, then this just breeds the kind of elitism & clannish mentality that is illustrated quite succinctly by your comment about 'dudes' not knowing what you're talking about. What's wrong with 'dudes' anyway?? Why do certain birders find it so hard to accept that not everyone who enjoys watching birds shares their own perspective on birds and birding?? And why would you want to get one over on a 'dude' rather than sharing with him or her the bird you have just seen?? And I don't accept that in order to be a 'good birder' (whatever that means) you have to learn scientific names etc anyway. So there, with nobs on...

[Larry Wheatland]

That's a fair comment, but I'd just like to point out that in referring to a 'Hippo' in the bush over yonder, its only helpful to people who know what you're talking about - the rest of us mere mortals have to work out what the hell you're all on about, by which time we'll probably have missed the bird completely! By its very nature such language is 'exclusivist' (if that's a word!), and exludes all those who are not 'in the know'. You could say "tough - go and learn the genus names & you won't feel marginalised", but then this puts the onus on less experienced birders to keep up with the 'top boys' so they can understand what they're talking about - no wonder birding can seem so elitist at times.

Bernard,

I bet if you have just found an interesting bird, and you see someone else approaching that you think might be interested in it, you make a snap almost subconcious decision as to say 1:"look at this interesting bird", or 2:"look at this (insert English name of bird that most of the general public won't have heard of). This may depend on what the passerby looks like.

This decision is probably subconciously made by a birder keen to alert the attention of a passerby to an as yet unidentified, potentially unusual warbler. The finder may say to enlist aid 1:"Have a look at this Acro", or 2: "I've got an interesting warbler here" depending on an assumption of the approaching passerby.

So Bernard, if people are alerting you to Phylloscs, it's probably not so that they can appear elitist, it's probably because you must look the part !

My tongue appears to be stuck in my cheek

[colonelboris]

I found that while I was writing my website, I picked up a lot of the scientific names, and I'm a numpty birder...
Even so, when a chap said to me the other day, 'Oh, there's a few phylloscs about', my first reaction was 'what?' and then it sank in, giving just enough time for my face to look rather puzzled, and somewhat slow.

[scampo]

I suspect Bernard has something of a point as the idea of clarity sounds a bit unlikely when context is accounted for. My guess is that 99% of the time the most generally helpful comment would be, "Hey, I reckon I've got an interesting warbler here - what do you think?"

The most common Latinate name I tend to hear is, while looking at a potential scaup amongst a raft of tufteds, "Nah, just an Aythya hybrid!" Fair enough except that "hybrid" alone would be equally clear.

[Larry Wheatland]

I guess warbler lovers in the Western Pal with chronic G.A.S. (genus abbreviation syndrome) get away quite lightly. Birders with GAS in Africa may well have to announce "I've got an interesting Cist here, what do you make of it ?"

[SteveClifton]

I have followed this thread from the beginning, and am a little confused at some of the comments from Bernard the cat.
Dan Pointon, Mike Feely, Gavin Haig and others have all made some excellent and well-reasoned points as to why it makes sense to learn Latin names of birds, along with their ‘English names’. Yet despite their patience and time spent replying in a non-patronising manner, Bernard has replied with comments such as,
‘Yes, I most certainly don’t care that I don’t have a clue, because it’s not necessary!’ and;
‘Learning the English names for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!’
I have to say, I couldn’t disagree more with the second comment (the former proves that he obviously does care enough about it that he has bothered to write at such length in the first place).
Bernard, I have a question for you. On what basis do you claim that learning English names is one of the building blocks of birdwatching, and that it’s not necessary to learn even some latin names?
I suppose, if I’m honest, when I started out birding, I felt the same. But now I realise there’s virtually no logic at all in ‘English names’. In fact they are exactly that; English names. Names that we, the English gave to our sole representative of that genus (eg. Swallow, Blackbird, Puffin, Jay etc) Of course, we are all aware now that there are many species of swallow around the world, and quite a few variations on the others too!
Furthermore, some English names do nothing but cause further confusion, in an already difficult area. Some examples;
Bearded Tit-not actually a tit at all, but more closely related to Babblers and Parrotbills
Long-tailed Tit- doesn’t belong to the genus ‘Paridae’ as most other British tits do
Black-eared Kite-doesn’t belong to the same genus as Red or Black Kites. In fact it’s probably only lumped with the other two as, superficially, it also has a forked tail. Otherwise it’s obviously a very different bird indeed!
Hedge Sparrow-need I say more!
I certainly don’t mean to imply that learning all latin names is necessary, but being aware of at least some of the trickier/more commonly used ones, makes life a lot easier. Many birders refer to ‘Auks’, ‘Corvids’, ‘Aythya’ ducks and so on, when it’s not always possible to assign a species name, and I really can’t see a problem with that. For the life of me I can’t see a reason why this makes anyone who uses such names a ‘nerdy geek’. If that is the case, then Bernard, the whole of the scientific community are ‘nerdy geeks’, because they all follow the same Linnaean system for classification (eg Passer Domesticus = House Sparrow), and that includes all animals and plants, not just birds!
Actually Bernard, when all is said and done, getting to know more about, and gaining a deeper understanding of your subject is anything but geeky. Afterall, what is wrong with picking up a book, reading it, and learning more about birds? We are fortunate today in that we are living through an information revolution. Books, magazines, the internet are all much more freely available, and to the benefit of birders and the wider scientific community alike. If you feel marginalised by people using scientific language, when discussing a scientific subject, then perhaps you have marginalised yourself!!

One final question Bernard, if you really feel that you’ve managed quite well without using genus names, and without the onus being on you to progress your birding
knowledge, just how far have you managed to get? Are you still at the level of discussing LBJ’s (little brown jobs)? Sorry if this sounds patronising, but if you feel marginalised by your own lack of knowledge, then surely the onus is on you to do something about it. Very few things in life that are worth knowing or achieving come easily!
If you honestly feel that the birders have an elitist and clannish mentality, find yourself a new birding crowd to mix with. I’ve been birding over twenty years, and still meet people who want to belittle me and others. Every walk of life has individuals like that. We all know they’re out there, but they are in a minority, so ignore them and let them get on with it. In my experience, there are far more who will happily take the time to explain and share their knowledge, if you’re prepared to make a little effort yourself.

[Edward]

With respect, I think that's total nonsense. I'm not saying its hard to learn scientific names, its just not really my idea of fun! And to me a field guide is a reference book to be used in the field, not something that I should have to read and study in order to keep up with the language used by more experienced birders. A certain amount of jargon may be unavoidable in any hobby, but there are levels of jargon, and if certain jargon serves to marginalise a significant proportion of those within the hobby, then this just breeds the kind of elitism & clannish mentality that is illustrated quite succinctly by your comment about 'dudes' not knowing what you're talking about. What's wrong with 'dudes' anyway?? Why do certain birders find it so hard to accept that not everyone who enjoys watching birds shares their own perspective on birds and birding?? And why would you want to get one over on a 'dude' rather than sharing with him or her the bird you have just seen?? And I don't accept that in order to be a 'good birder' (whatever that means) you have to learn scientific names etc anyway. So there, with nobs on...

And why do others find it so hard to accept that some birders find it useful and interesting to learn scientific names of birds? It's not nearly as arcane as you are making it out to be.

E

[Larry Wheatland]

I have followed this thread from the beginning, and am a little confused at some of the comments from Bernard the cat.
Dan Pointon, Mike Feely, Gavin Haig and others have all made some excellent and well-reasoned points as to why it makes sense to learn Latin names of birds, along with their ‘English names’. Yet despite their patience and time spent replying in a non-patronising manner, Bernard has replied with comments such as,
‘Yes, I most certainly don’t care that I don’t have a clue, because it’s not necessary!’ and;
‘Learning the English names for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!’
I have to say, I couldn’t disagree more with the second comment (the former proves that he obviously does care enough about it that he has bothered to write at such length in the first place).
Bernard, I have a question for you. On what basis do you claim that learning English names is one of the building blocks of birdwatching, and that it’s not necessary to learn even some latin names?
I suppose, if I’m honest, when I started out birding, I felt the same. But now I realise there’s virtually no logic at all in ‘English names’. In fact they are exactly that; English names. Names that we, the English gave to our sole representative of that genus (eg. Swallow, Blackbird, Puffin, Jay etc) Of course, we are all aware now that there are many species of swallow around the world, and quite a few variations on the others too!
Furthermore, some English names do nothing but cause further confusion, in an already difficult area. Some examples;
Bearded Tit-not actually a tit at all, but more closely related to Babblers and Parrotbills
Long-tailed Tit- doesn’t belong to the genus ‘Paridae’ as most other British tits do
Black-eared Kite-doesn’t belong to the same genus as Red or Black Kites. In fact it’s probably only lumped with the other two as, superficially, it also has a forked tail. Otherwise it’s obviously a very different bird indeed!
Hedge Sparrow-need I say more!
I certainly don’t mean to imply that learning all latin names is necessary, but being aware of at least some of the trickier/more commonly used ones, makes life a lot easier. Many birders refer to ‘Auks’, ‘Corvids’, ‘Aythya’ ducks and so on, when it’s not always possible to assign a species name, and I really can’t see a problem with that. For the life of me I can’t see a reason why this makes anyone who uses such names a ‘nerdy geek’. If that is the case, then Bernard, the whole of the scientific community are ‘nerdy geeks’, because they all follow the same Linnaean system for classification (eg Passer Domesticus = House Sparrow), and that includes all animals and plants, not just birds!
Actually Bernard, when all is said and done, getting to know more about, and gaining a deeper understanding of your subject is anything but geeky. Afterall, what is wrong with picking up a book, reading it, and learning more about birds? We are fortunate today in that we are living through an information revolution. Books, magazines, the internet are all much more freely available, and to the benefit of birders and the wider scientific community alike. If you feel marginalised by people using scientific language, when discussing a scientific subject, then perhaps you have marginalised yourself!!

One final question Bernard, if you really feel that you’ve managed quite well without using genus names, and without the onus being on you to progress your birding
knowledge, just how far have you managed to get? Are you still at the level of discussing LBJ’s (little brown jobs)? Sorry if this sounds patronising, but if you feel marginalised by your own lack of knowledge, then surely the onus is on you to do something about it. Very few things in life that are worth knowing or achieving come easily!
If you honestly feel that the birders have an elitist and clannish mentality, find yourself a new birding crowd to mix with. I’ve been birding over twenty years, and still meet people who want to belittle me and others. Every walk of life has individuals like that. We all know they’re out there, but they are in a minority, so ignore them and let them get on with it. In my experience, there are far more who will happily take the time to explain and share their knowledge, if you’re prepared to make a little effort yourself.

Surely that's enough of this Bashing the Bernard...erm.. especially with such bizarre tit and kite "facts" !

[SteveClifton]

I don't see anything bizarre about them Larry. I was merely making the point that 'English' names are sometimes far more confusing and meaningless than scientific ones.
I myself occasionally also find myself in situations, with other birders, where my lack of knowledge is wanting/lacking. But in no way would I expect them to change on my account. Also, I'm a little baffled as to why anyone who doesn't know what a 'hippo' is, would be so upset at missing one.
I feel that I am extremely accepting of anyone who has a different outlook on, or appreciation of birds and birding than my own. I feel that today too many other birders/twitchers judge one another by the size of their list, but that isn't really a concern of mine either. I'll probably never see over 400 in the UK, but so what! It is afterall, a hobby/pastime/way-of life or whatever you want it to be. It's personal, so live and let live!!

[James Blake]

I'm not keen on jargon or cliche in birding or anywhere else.

Least favourite birding jargon:

Having birds: surely the most interesting thing about wild birds is that you cannot "have" them - they are independent creatures who wer are lucky enough to have brief encounters.

Biometrics: "measurements" would do just as well.

One of the reasons I like DIM Wallace's writings is that he generally avoids most of the cliches of birding prose.

But acro and hippo seem quite useful...and if you told me you'd just seen an Ardea cinerea I'd think you were a bit pompous but I wouldn't really mind.

James

[dbradnum]

Black-eared Kite-doesn’t belong to the same genus as Red or Black Kites. In fact it’s probably only lumped with the other two as, superficially, it also has a forked tail. Otherwise it’s obviously a very different bird indeed!Not getting involved in the main debate here...

.... but don't you mean Black-winged Kite (or Black-shouldered in some books - same bird, whatever)?

Black-eared is the lineatus race of Black Kite, definitely in the same genus!

[Larry Wheatland]

I don't see anything bizarre about them Larry. I was merely making the point that 'English' names are sometimes far more confusing and meaningless than scientific ones.
I myself occasionally also find myself in situations, with other birders, where my lack of knowledge is wanting/lacking. But in no way would I expect them to change on my account. Also, I'm a little baffled as to why anyone who doesn't know what a 'hippo' is, would be so upset at missing one.
I feel that I am extremely accepting of anyone who has a different outlook on, or appreciation of birds and birding than my own. I feel that today too many other birders/twitchers judge one another by the size of their list, but that isn't really a concern of mine either. I'll probably never see over 400 in the UK, but so what! It is afterall, a hobby/pastime/way-of life or whatever you want it to be. It's personal, so live and let live!!

Sorry Steve, I do get your point, I was just Knitpicking. I know things are changing fast, but last I heard Paridae wasn't a genus but a family, and not only was Black-eared Kite in the same genus as Red and Black Kites, but widely thought to be in the same species as one of them. But like you say, it all doesn't matter. It's just a hobby. Cheers.

[SteveClifton]

Yes, I meant Black-winged/shouldered Kite. Not thinking straight!

[Gavin Haig]

I really can't let a point-by-point rebuttal go unchallenged! See the thing is I already feel marginalised, because when people refer to 'Hippos' & Phylloscs' & 'Acros' I don't know what they're talking about without getting my Collins field guide out & going to the page that explains the warbler genuses (or is that 'geni'?!). I think I know that Dartford Warbler is a 'Sylvia', but other than that I'm stuffed. Sure, referring to the genus could save a couple of seconds here & there, but I've managed all this time without resorting to such scientific verbiage. Now for a point-by-point (& hopefully equally tongue in cheek!) rebuttal of your rebuttal:

1, Yes, I most certainly don't care that I don't have a clue, because its not necessary! Learning the English name for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is more like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!
2, Ok I admit that 'Sylvia' rolls off the tongue quite easily, & also 'Hippo' (though surely there's no justification for referring to a delicate little bird as a 'Hippo'!). The fact that some English species names are cumbersome does not justify complicating things even more by throwing in Latin genus names.
3, I want to watch/identify/enjoy/tick birds, & I can do this fine without learning their genus names - becoming familiar with genus names is not especially something to be avoided, but its also not something I really want to go out of my way for.
4, Speak for yourself! I'm certainly not a nerdy geek, & I don't really want to be seen as one!
5, That's a bit like saying you can't be a great guitar player without being able to read music. Knowing genus names may be helpful for some birders, but I really don't think its necessary by any means, and i've certainly managed ok without it.

Hello Bernard - I'd just like to rebut your rebuttal of my rebuttal for a moment. Point by point, of course. ;)

1. Whether or not it is necessary to be familiar with the Latin names of birds is a matter of opinion, of course. What I (and several other posters on here) are trying to get across is that you will not lose, but only gain from doing so. Equally daunting could be the prospect of learning the names of various feather tracts etc. Also - how many casual 'birdwatchers' see only 'gulls', and cannot be bothered to differentiate between Mediterranean and Black-headed, for example? Getting to grips with any of these things is a matter of desire and choice, and the extent to which we do so is up to us.

Whether any of these things is 'necessary' or not is purely subjective.

2. Warblers in the UK can be grouped in just 5 genera (excluding Cetti's and Fan-tailed). Hardly a big deal learning 5 names, is it?

3. Fine. However, if your passion for identifying and ticking should ever stray into the realm of hoverflies or spiders, say, you'll only have to learn a handful of English names....but trillions of Latin ones!

4. Actually, as I am 6'8", built like a Sherman tank, with the rugged good looks of Brad Pitt, 'nerdy geek' is never on anyone's lips........until I put my bins on, when they all point and laugh. You too!

5. Fair point. As a guitar player who cannot read music (well, I can, slowly, but cannot translate it to a fretboard) I would guess that most GREAT guitarists probably can read music, and would doubtless strongly advise any budding guitar hero to learn, perhaps saying something like:

"A fundamental attribute of anyone who wants to call himself a musician is the ability to read music. If you don't bother you'll ultimately regret it, and frequently feel marginalised!" ;) ;) ;)

I rest my case.................... |=)|

[Larry Wheatland]

Hello Bernard - I'd just like to rebut your rebuttal of my rebuttal for a moment. Point by point, of course. ;)

1. Whether or not it is necessary to be familiar with the Latin names of birds is a matter of opinion, of course. What I (and several other posters on here) are trying to get across is that you will not lose, but only gain from doing so. Equally daunting could be the prospect of learning the names of various feather tracts etc. Also - how many casual 'birdwatchers' see only 'gulls', and cannot be bothered to differentiate between Mediterranean and Black-headed, for example? Getting to grips with any of these things is a matter of desire and choice, and the extent to which we do so is up to us.

Whether any of these things is 'necessary' or not is purely subjective.

2. Warblers in the UK can be grouped in just 5 genera (excluding Cetti's and Fan-tailed). Hardly a big deal learning 5 names, is it?

3. Fine. However, if your passion for identifying and ticking should ever stray into the realm of hoverflies or spiders, say, you'll only have to learn a handful of English names....but trillions of Latin ones!

4. Actually, as I am 6'8", built like a Sherman tank, with the rugged good looks of Brad Pitt, 'nerdy geek' is never on anyone's lips........until I put my bins on, when they all point and laugh. You too!

5. Fair point. As a guitar player who cannot read music (well, I can, slowly, but cannot translate it to a fretboard) I would guess that most GREAT guitarists probably can read music, and would doubtless strongly advise any budding guitar hero to learn, perhaps saying something like:

"A fundamental attribute of anyone who wants to call himself a musician is the ability to read music. If you don't bother you'll ultimately regret it, and frequently feel marginalised!" ;) ;) ;)

I rest my case.................... |=)|

Now look what you've started Gav.

5. Jimi of the form hendrixi couldn't read music (apparently).

2. Has anyone attempted to popularise any abbreviations for Locustella ? I've yet to hear anyone mention a Locu , Locus , or 'stella in the field (or pub), and it's blessed with the same number of syllables as Phylloscopus or Hippolais.

[SteveClifton]

I don't find the music analogy particularly helpful.
How many great guitarists can't read music? Probably quite a lot.
How many experienced birders dont know their phylloscs, from their hippos, sylvias etc? I suspect very few.

[Mike Feely]

2. Has anyone attempted to popularise any abbreviations for Locustella ? I've yet to hear anyone mention a Locu , Locus , or 'stella in the field (or pub), and it's blessed with the same number of syllables as Phylloscopus or Hippolais.

Good point, most just say Gropper ,Savi's, Lancy etc!

Or another reason could be that the word Locustella looks easier to pronounce and not as daunting as Phylloscopus or Hippolais (which are actually as easy to say, but look worse!)

Mike

[dantheman]

Time elapsed since this thread started x days. Posts from Bernard; xx, say xxx words per post. Don't know how accomplished a typist you are but say a generous xx wpm (??) Time spent musing and cogitating x.x hours. Therefore time spent complaining (sorry, reasoning ;) on issue of use of latin/ abbrevs. of latin = x hours at least (sorry don't have the time to calculate, you get the drift!!)

Sorry, but you could be halfway through the central european 'peckers (???) by now, having memorised the whole of those extremely important warblers, with a few Larids and petrels along the way. ;)

The other problem is that you probably do know what an acro is by now, maybe even a mipit, having discussed it all on here. You won't be able to go back- you are on the slow and insidious path to gaining 'the knowledge' , picking up the vocab, getting the 'gen' or whatever. Aaaargh!!!!;)

Grus grus? - that was useful in France talking to the neighbours who spoke no English, as the french sounds very similar. (We were on a main migration route). Even Vulpes vulpes and Natrix natrix, what's the problem?? Once you know it, you know it. (Although I do see how a B-ufo b-ufo could alien-ate you.)
Viz mig- sounds exotic, why not, once you know what it means?

What does BMW stand for?

[Larry Wheatland]

What does BMW stand for?

Balearic/Marmora's Warbler ?

[Vectis Birder]

With all this debate and in reply to Bernard the Cat (sorry Bernard, this isn't a go mate!) I am not quite 'up' on the 'gen' regarding 'Phylloscs' and 'Hippos' and so forth BUT I do not feel marginalised by it and am happy to hear other birders use these terms because I'd like to learn more because it's part of the hobby and the more knowledge the better. Nothing to do with elitism.

[JWN Andrewes]

What does BMW stand for?

This answer your question?

http://skylands.ibmwr.org/tom/what.is.bmw.html

James

[Drumming Sniper]

[QUOTE=Bernard the cat]I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

A few years ago I was down at Portland Bill. A Barred Warbler had been reported and I clearly remember a guy dashing up and exclaiming "I've just had a large Sylvia in those bushes"! The expression didn't irritate me but did conjure up an amusing mental image.

[pcurpb]

[QUOTE=Bernard the cat]I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

A few years ago I was down at Portland Bill. A Barred Warbler had been reported and I clearly remember a guy dashing up and exclaiming "I've just had a large Sylvia in those bushes"! The expression didn't irritate me but did conjure up an amusing mental image.

It wasn't me, but I know who he was talking about...

And what about more realistic names for birds? My own signature is one... another might be 'The Indeterminate Warbler' (had lots of those) or the 'Another Bloody Wood Pigeon' (had even more of those...)

[Drumming Sniper]

It wasn't me, but I know who he was talking about...

And what about more realistic names for birds? My own signature is one... another might be 'The Indeterminate Warbler' (had lots of those) or the 'Another Bloody Wood Pigeon' (had even more of those...)

Never mind the birds, what about suitably descriptive names for birders. I like to think of myself as being "mobile and elusive".

Probably should have started a whole new thread for this one...

[dantheman]

sprawk, mipit

Those abbreviations sound more like noises a bird would be making if it were being strangled...I agree they're absurd. 'Vis mig' is another term I'm not that fond of.

ok I'm probably guilty of using them in inappropriate circumstances. I know when I used to visit Portland Bird Obs, the open daily logbook on the table used to contain these and far more abbreviated terms for bird species. Using them is just a carry-over from the written form. And the whole point of abbreviating is to save space and time. In my notebook, at the end of the day, you could find, for example,;

GSW 2
Green Woodie 1
Mipit 3N
BH Gull 30
LBBG c.50 over


Maybe somebody needs to start a thread (make it a sticky?) listing birding terms and abbrevs., so that no-one has any excuse for feeling excluded. Transatlantic differences (banding for example) may make it more interesting, we could even have a committee to determine proper usage. . . . .

[pcurpb]

Never mind the birds, what about suitably descriptive names for birders. I like to think of myself as being "mobile and elusive".

Probably should have started a whole new thread for this one...


Bet you inhabit 'montane plateau', too...

[Drumming Sniper]

Bet you inhabit 'montane plateau', too...

Montane plateau and small remote lochans mostly.

[pcurpb]

Montane plateau and small remote lochans mostly.

Had you down as an ancient Caledonian forest type, myself...

Should we stop this now?

[Drumming Sniper]

Had you down as an ancient Caledonian forest type, myself...

Should we stop this now?

Yes we should.

[Bernard the cat]

Bernard,

I bet if you have just found an interesting bird, and you see someone else approaching that you think might be interested in it, you make a snap almost subconcious decision as to say 1:"look at this interesting bird", or 2:"look at this (insert English name of bird that most of the general public won't have heard of). This may depend on what the passerby looks like.

This decision is probably subconciously made by a birder keen to alert the attention of a passerby to an as yet unidentified, potentially unusual warbler. The finder may say to enlist aid 1:"Have a look at this Acro", or 2: "I've got an interesting warbler here" depending on an assumption of the approaching passerby.

So Bernard, if people are alerting you to Phylloscs, it's probably not so that they can appear elitist, it's probably because you must look the part !

My tongue appears to be stuck in my cheek

Fair point, I'll take that as a compliment! Although I am quite glad that I've got a pretty inocuous stay-on case for my Swaro scope, and that just by looking other birders probably wouldn't know its a Swaro scope - otherwise they might assume that I actually know what I'm talking about! (Swaro = Swarovski, one of the 'top scopes', in case anyone feels marginalised by my use of optical jargon!)

[Bernard the cat]

I have followed this thread from the beginning, and am a little confused at some of the comments from Bernard the cat.
Dan Pointon, Mike Feely, Gavin Haig and others have all made some excellent and well-reasoned points as to why it makes sense to learn Latin names of birds, along with their ‘English names’. Yet despite their patience and time spent replying in a non-patronising manner, Bernard has replied with comments such as,
‘Yes, I most certainly don’t care that I don’t have a clue, because it’s not necessary!’ and;
‘Learning the English names for a bird, + its salient diagnostic features, is surely the building blocks of birdwatching, whereas learning genus names is like the birding equivalent of advanced calculus for us mere mortals!’
I have to say, I couldn’t disagree more with the second comment (the former proves that he obviously does care enough about it that he has bothered to write at such length in the first place).
Bernard, I have a question for you. On what basis do you claim that learning English names is one of the building blocks of birdwatching, and that it’s not necessary to learn even some latin names?
I suppose, if I’m honest, when I started out birding, I felt the same. But now I realise there’s virtually no logic at all in ‘English names’. In fact they are exactly that; English names. Names that we, the English gave to our sole representative of that genus (eg. Swallow, Blackbird, Puffin, Jay etc) Of course, we are all aware now that there are many species of swallow around the world, and quite a few variations on the others too!
Furthermore, some English names do nothing but cause further confusion, in an already difficult area. Some examples;
Bearded Tit-not actually a tit at all, but more closely related to Babblers and Parrotbills
Long-tailed Tit- doesn’t belong to the genus ‘Paridae’ as most other British tits do
Black-eared Kite-doesn’t belong to the same genus as Red or Black Kites. In fact it’s probably only lumped with the other two as, superficially, it also has a forked tail. Otherwise it’s obviously a very different bird indeed!
Hedge Sparrow-need I say more!
I certainly don’t mean to imply that learning all latin names is necessary, but being aware of at least some of the trickier/more commonly used ones, makes life a lot easier. Many birders refer to ‘Auks’, ‘Corvids’, ‘Aythya’ ducks and so on, when it’s not always possible to assign a species name, and I really can’t see a problem with that. For the life of me I can’t see a reason why this makes anyone who uses such names a ‘nerdy geek’. If that is the case, then Bernard, the whole of the scientific community are ‘nerdy geeks’, because they all follow the same Linnaean system for classification (eg Passer Domesticus = House Sparrow), and that includes all animals and plants, not just birds!
Actually Bernard, when all is said and done, getting to know more about, and gaining a deeper understanding of your subject is anything but geeky. Afterall, what is wrong with picking up a book, reading it, and learning more about birds? We are fortunate today in that we are living through an information revolution. Books, magazines, the internet are all much more freely available, and to the benefit of birders and the wider scientific community alike. If you feel marginalised by people using scientific language, when discussing a scientific subject, then perhaps you have marginalised yourself!!

One final question Bernard, if you really feel that you’ve managed quite well without using genus names, and without the onus being on you to progress your birding
knowledge, just how far have you managed to get? Are you still at the level of discussing LBJ’s (little brown jobs)? Sorry if this sounds patronising, but if you feel marginalised by your own lack of knowledge, then surely the onus is on you to do something about it. Very few things in life that are worth knowing or achieving come easily!
If you honestly feel that the birders have an elitist and clannish mentality, find yourself a new birding crowd to mix with. I’ve been birding over twenty years, and still meet people who want to belittle me and others. Every walk of life has individuals like that. We all know they’re out there, but they are in a minority, so ignore them and let them get on with it. In my experience, there are far more who will happily take the time to explain and share their knowledge, if you’re prepared to make a little effort yourself.

The basis of my claim that learning English species names is one of the basic building blocks of birding, and that its not necessary to learn scientific names is quite simple: I don't go birding in foreign countries, and my experience of birding within this country has demonstrated to me that its not necessary for me to learn scientific names. If there is no logic in English names then so be it, but it serves me fine because I'm English and I go birding in England (If English birders abroad want to dispense with English bird names in favour of Latin names then that’s fine, as long as the birders they interact with are all ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’). I'm really not interested in whether Bearded Tits are tits in the true sense of the word, or whether Long-tailed Tit belong to the genus 'Paridae'. It makes no difference to me, as long as I can put a (English) name to the bird, enjoy it and then tick it off on my list. If learning scientific names serves you then that's fine, but it neither serves nor interests me. (I'd also like to point out that I've already acknowledged that, in the case of an unidentified species, it may sometimes be useful to log it as an 'unidentified Phyllosc warbler' e.g. in a submission to Birdguides etc).

I have NOT said that birders who use scientific names are 'nerdy geeks'. My point is that when birders use these names unnecessarily e.g. by referring to a 'Hippo warbler' rather than saying "there's an interesting warbler over there", it can compound the already prevalent stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks. I have also NOT implied (or even come to close to implying) that scientists are 'nerdy geeks' because they use scientific names - you are taking my comments significantly out of context and making links that I myself have not made. You're assertion that birding is a scientific subject is an entirely subjective assumption - it may be a scientific subject for you, but it certainly isn't for me, nor for likely thousands of others out there. Ornithology is the scientific study of birds; birding is a hobby which involves watching/enjoying/ticking off birds - if individual birders choose to make this scientific then that's up to them, but my point is that the unnecessary and unthinking use of scientific jargon can serve to marginalise a significant proportion of less experienced and less knowledgeable birders.

You ask ‘how far I have got’, and whether I am still ‘at the level’ of discussing ‘little brown jobs’. With respect, I find this line of questioning patronising in the extreme, and it illustrates quite succinctly the kind of arrogance and elitist mentality that I’m talking about. I have no interest in ‘how far I’ve got’ compared to other birders, and I will acquire knowledge at my own pace, in my own way, and of a depth and at a ‘level’ that serves my enjoyment of birds and nature. I’ve worked in professions that are rife with technical jargon and acronyms, and the use of such in informal conversation is fine when all are at the same level of knowledge and understanding. But I’m also acutely aware of how marginalized this can make people feel who, for whatever reason, are not ‘in the know’, and in such circumstances I feel that we all have a responsibility to minimise our use of such ‘exclusive’ language when it is not necessary.

Birding often takes place in a social context, and there is frequently interaction between different birders with differing levels of knowledge and experience. By its very nature, the use of exclusive language serves to exclude certain members of a group, and this is the point I’m making. Your entire line of argument appears to be based on the assumption that the more experienced & knowledgeable birders define the parameters of social interaction, and that its then up to the less experienced birders to keep up with them – by its very nature, this can serve to exclude and marginalize less experienced and less knowledgeable birders.

[Bernard the cat]

And why do others find it so hard to accept that some birders find it useful and interesting to learn scientific names of birds? It's not nearly as arcane as you are making it out to be.

E

I don't find this hard to accept and have no problem with birders using scientific names in the appropriate context. But when its thrown into everyday interactions and a significant proportion of the audience have no idea what it means, then it can serve to make less experienced and less knowledgeable birders feel marginalised.

[Bernard the cat]

Also, I'm a little baffled as to why anyone who doesn't know what a 'hippo' is, would be so upset at missing one.

Getting excited about seeing rare/new birds is not conditional upon knowing their genus names.

[Bernard the cat]

Hello Bernard - I'd just like to rebut your rebuttal of my rebuttal for a moment. Point by point, of course. ;)

1. Whether or not it is necessary to be familiar with the Latin names of birds is a matter of opinion, of course. What I (and several other posters on here) are trying to get across is that you will not lose, but only gain from doing so. Equally daunting could be the prospect of learning the names of various feather tracts etc. Also - how many casual 'birdwatchers' see only 'gulls', and cannot be bothered to differentiate between Mediterranean and Black-headed, for example? Getting to grips with any of these things is a matter of desire and choice, and the extent to which we do so is up to us.

Whether any of these things is 'necessary' or not is purely subjective.

2. Warblers in the UK can be grouped in just 5 genera (excluding Cetti's and Fan-tailed). Hardly a big deal learning 5 names, is it?

3. Fine. However, if your passion for identifying and ticking should ever stray into the realm of hoverflies or spiders, say, you'll only have to learn a handful of English names....but trillions of Latin ones!

4. Actually, as I am 6'8", built like a Sherman tank, with the rugged good looks of Brad Pitt, 'nerdy geek' is never on anyone's lips........until I put my bins on, when they all point and laugh. You too!

5. Fair point. As a guitar player who cannot read music (well, I can, slowly, but cannot translate it to a fretboard) I would guess that most GREAT guitarists probably can read music, and would doubtless strongly advise any budding guitar hero to learn, perhaps saying something like:

"A fundamental attribute of anyone who wants to call himself a musician is the ability to read music. If you don't bother you'll ultimately regret it, and frequently feel marginalised!" ;) ;) ;)

I rest my case.................... |=)|

Yo Haigy, I knew you wouldn't let me down! Tempted as I am to attempt a rebuttal of your rebuttal of my rebuttal of your rebuttal (etc etc), I do have to concede that you do make some good points. Perhaps I will just learn the warbler genuses (genera??), though my only concern is that it would only be a matter of time before I'm bamboozled by other names that I've never heard of e.g. 'Aythya ducks' (what the..??). I don't have a problem with anything you're saying really, but you have to admit that birders can be a bit 'exclusive' at times in the language they use. I used to be a probation officer (unfortunately), and I'm aware that I used to marginalise some of my friends by whinging about how long it takes to complete an OASys and how many PSRs I have to do per week.

(OASys = Offender Assessment System; PSR = Pre-Sentence Report)

[Bernard the cat]

I don't find the music analogy particularly helpful.
How many great guitarists can't read music? Probably quite a lot.
How many experienced birders dont know their phylloscs, from their hippos, sylvias etc? I suspect very few.

Based on what evidence?? And what do you mean by 'experienced birders'?? I'm not exactly a beginner, but I certainly don't know my warbler genuses/genera. And I still maintain that it's not strictly necessary to learn them either, apart from of course to know what the hell other birders are talking about.

[Bernard the cat]

Time elapsed since this thread started x days. Posts from Bernard; xx, say xxx words per post. Don't know how accomplished a typist you are but say a generous xx wpm (??) Time spent musing and cogitating x.x hours. Therefore time spent complaining (sorry, reasoning ;) on issue of use of latin/ abbrevs. of latin = x hours at least (sorry don't have the time to calculate, you get the drift!!)

Sorry, but you could be halfway through the central european 'peckers (???) by now, having memorised the whole of those extremely important warblers, with a few Larids and petrels along the way. ;)

The other problem is that you probably do know what an acro is by now, maybe even a mipit, having discussed it all on here. You won't be able to go back- you are on the slow and insidious path to gaining 'the knowledge' , picking up the vocab, getting the 'gen' or whatever. Aaaargh!!!!;)

Grus grus? - that was useful in France talking to the neighbours who spoke no English, as the french sounds very similar. (We were on a main migration route). Even Vulpes vulpes and Natrix natrix, what's the problem?? Once you know it, you know it. (Although I do see how a B-ufo b-ufo could alien-ate you.)
Viz mig- sounds exotic, why not, once you know what it means?

What does BMW stand for?

Nah - why would I want to memorise all the Latin names - boring! (as Homer Simpson would say).

I know what Mipit means, but I really don't know what an 'acro' is - I think I know that Dartford Warbler is a 'sylvia' & that 'phyllosc' might refer to Pallas's etc.

P.s BMW stands for Bob Marley and the Wailers

[dantheman]

Bernard the Cat- I get it now!!

Anyone else getting the idea we're all being used for the latest Warner Bros. Looney Tunes show???

I think a Sylvester and Tweetie-pie situation is developing here. . .

. . .unfortunately the rest of us are all Tweety-pie.

Someone get Granny quick. . . .

[Bernard the cat]

Bernard the Cat- I get it now!!

Anyone else getting the idea we're all being used for the latest Warner Bros. Looney Tunes show???

I think a Sylvester and Tweetie-pie situation is developing here. . .

. . .unfortunately the rest of us are all Tweety-pie.

Someone get Granny quick. . . .

Just an exchange of views - admittedly I can be a bit blunt at times, & I do regret if the way I phrased certain things in my original 'critique' of birders using warbler genus names has caused any offence to anyone. Having said that though, I do think the points I'm making are entirely valid. If people don't agree then that's fine. One thing I've learnt is that its possible to have 5 differing perspectives on the same issue, each of which can be just as valid.

[Vectis Birder]

A few years ago I was down at Portland Bill. A Barred Warbler had been reported and I clearly remember a guy dashing up and exclaiming "I've just had a large Sylvia in those bushes"! The expression didn't irritate me but did conjure up an amusing mental image.

Yeah, like a Beryl Cook painting meets one of those saucy seaside postcards. ;)

[Steven Astley]

It's each to own this thread as with others highlights our different motives for birding and hence can cause conflict.
Also I have caught onto a few scientific names through being involved in the id forum, never use them out in the field to strangers only my mate who I know understands.
The opposite problem occurs which is equally embarrassing is underestimating somebodies knowledge.
At the end of the day most people or just out there to enjoy the birds not for out there for one upmanship.

[Steven Astley]

Also I agree Bernard you don't have to learn scientific names to enjoy or to understand birds. Each to their own and happy birding!

[Pete Mella]

Would it be mean of me to get a pedantic hat on re Steve Clifton's post and say Paridae's a family not a genus?

It would?

OK, I won't then.

[SteveClifton]

NaturePete, that point’s already been made, but thanks for pointing out my mistake. I stand corrected! Did you miss that I also referred to ‘Auks’ in the same context as ‘Corvids’ and ‘Aythya’ ducks, when I really meant ‘Alcids’. Perhaps I’m being pedantic now?

Bernard, it’s very rare that I feel provoked sufficiently by a topic, that I bother to write at such length, but yesterday I did, and largely because of the tone and flippant nature of your replies, to several others who had responded to some of your posts.
That may in part explain why my post was a little patronising. If any offence was caused to you, then I apologise. However (and it looks like we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this), I still disagree with a lot of the points you make.
In true BF tradition, here’s why.

As you do most/all of your birding in England, it might seem reasonable to you, to only use English names. But has it not occurred to you that many birders from other countries also visit England, and could well find themselves in the same crowd as you, even on your local patch? Calling a Wood warbler, Redstart, Blackbird or Goldfinch could have an entirely different meaning to an American birder than to an English one. Also, we are all writing on an International forum, read by and contributed to by birders from all corners of the globe? Surely your exclusive use of English names could marginalise some of them? Perhaps you don’t care?

Secondly, I acknowledge that you didn’t say that birders who use scientific names are 'nerdy geeks', but you did say this;

‘I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".’

because;

‘it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks’ ,

and this;

‘My point is that when birders use these names unnecessarily e.g. by referring to a 'Hippo warbler' rather than saying "there's an interesting warbler over there", it can compound the already prevalent stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks.’

Saying that the use of the word ‘Hippo’ (or even ‘Hippolais’ to use the proper word ) is not necessary, is surely a very subjective point. If I was birding in England, and somebody thought they had found a ‘Hippo’ warbler, then that would instantly narrow the field down to around 2-3 possible species. Drawing everyone’s attention to an ‘interesting warbler’ would still leave the field open to perhaps 20-30 different species. Maybe more? And yes, many of us still find Chiff-Chaffs and Willow Warblers ‘interesting’.

The use of ‘interesting’ itself can be very confusing and subjective.
Is it interesting because;
It might be rare?
It’s behaving in an interesting way?
It’s an unusual example of its species?
Or just because you don’t know what it is? and perhaps if you did then it might be another ‘tick’ on your English list.

Bernard, the reason that many birders use Latin names is because it is very specific, and because it is part of a common international language used throughout the whole world. It is absolutely not intended to alienate or marginalise anyone. That’s exactly the point. Latin names are used to include a much wider audience than just we English, and to maintain as much clarity as possible. I can honestly say I don’t know of any birders who would use Latin names to deliberately confuse anyone, or exclude anyone either, though I can see how it might be perceived that way by others.

Finally, I think I can appreciate birds from a scientific, artistic, aesthetic or even philosophical point of view. And often a combination of all four! However, I didn’t say that birding was a scientific subject. Though I do still maintain that the business of naming birds (or even plants, fish etc for that matter) is rooted in science. As I have already said, the Linnaean system for classifying all living-things, is the standard one that underpins all of the natural sciences.
In no way would I call myself an ornithologist, but I do still see the need to be clear and specific when referring to any living creature. To say that,
‘the unnecessary and unthinking use of scientific jargon can serve to marginalise a significant proportion of less experienced and less knowledgeable birders’

just proves that you haven’t listened to any of the other posters that have responded to your comments on this subject.

I would agree with you that today we put up with far too much technical jargon and acronyms, which can exclude those not in the know. But I strongly disagree that scientific language is ‘jargon.’
Also, I can’t see anything wrong at all with my,
‘assumption that the more experienced & knowledgeable birders define the parameters of social interaction, and that its then up to the less experienced birders to keep up with them’.
That’s true in so many areas of life, but most people respond by aspiring to improve their own knowledge, if only so that they can all communicate on a ‘level playing field’ or ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’. Surely you can’t really expect birders, who are engaged in what are, after all, essentially private conversations with one-another, to change their way of communicating to such a level that would lead to a far less specific and clear understanding of what they are discussing? Live and let live, and if others feel excluded by that, they do have choices about what to do about it. No-one forces anyone not to want to learn more, that is an entirely personal choice.

[Pete Mella]

Steve - apologies, it's a very wordy thread so didn't read every single reply properly! Also my last post should have had a ;) after it...

I have no problem with technical words, if you learn them and the people around you tend to know them, it would be against instinct not to use them. Sometimes people throw them around for the sake of it, but I can see situations where genus names are better than anything English - you know it's a bloody warbler, you know it's a Phylloscopus one, you just don't know which one! To not say Phylloscopus when you're talking to someone who you know knows what Phylloscopus means would be just as daft as swanning around insisting on calling blackbirds Turdus merula for the sake of it just to piss people off (or should that be Cygnusing around? ;) ).

I'd tend to say crow rather than corvid, auk than alcid, etc, but will say passerine, for example. I don't really have any rules there, I think if there was a perfectly good English word that would do I'd use it, if the English word doesn't quite fit I'd use the Latin name if I knew it.

All I have problems with is silly in-jokes like calling sparrowhawks "Sprawks", because that just sounds like cliquey weirdos talking in a horribly twee special secret code. [EDIT - I appreciate this comes from notebook abbreviations, but that doesn't mean you always have to say it/type it!]

I think the bottom line is some people enjoy birds without knowing any of the taxonomy and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with people that do, as long as they don't sneer at people that don't, and don't come across like they're forever having a long word competition. ;)

[Steven Astley]

I don't think people say sprawk as some silly in joke or to be cliquey it just rolls of the tongue quicker, like Manchester United is Man Utd. or Man U or in texting see you is c u. I like sprawk! its befitting the flashing glancing views you often get. Try saying Sparrowhawk and finishing the sentence before the bird disappears.

I understand your views Pete I made a post similar 2 years ago on BF. Since then saying sprawk has become a habit. So if you ever hear a bloke in a hide shout sprawk!, please go easy as it could just be 'weirdo cliquey' me shouting in excitement instinctively with no offence meant.

[Pete Mella]

Actually I'd start using it if I always said it in a loud, bird-like SPRAAWK!, no matter what the context...

[SteveClifton]

Steve and NaturePete, I can't find anything in both of your last couple of posts that I disagree with. Its good that there is at least some agreement on this forum!!

I didn't wish to imply that I always use scientific names when there is a suitable English alternative. That would be pompous and pretty pointless. In fact the occasions when I really do need to are few and far between, but then I don't get offended by others that do either. Nor do I dislike particularly, the use of names like Sprossers, Oiks, Groppers, Casps and Greater/Lesser Peckers. For me, they're not that dissimilar to names like Bonxie, which have become widely acceptable now, often in favour of a bird's 'proper' name, and just add to the richness, colour and diversity of our language.

In an attempt to steer this debate back to what it started about, namely, things that annoy us about birding/other birders, there are far more deserving subjects than the language some of us use.

I usually avoid large groups of birders and twitchers if I can (though like many, I enjoy the odd twitch when the mood takes me), as I often find that it brings out the worst in people. Some examples;
Standing in front of your scope, or worse, knocking it over whilst you're viewing through it!
Trespassing, and pushing past everyone else in an attempt to see the bird at all costs!
Speaking loudly, pointing out of windows, and leaving litter in hides.
Hogging most of the space in hides.
Parking inconsiderately
Infact, just the plain ignorance and bad manners that some people show, which gives the rest of us a bad name.

[Gavin Haig]

Infact, just the plain ignorance and bad manners that some people show, which gives the rest of us a bad name.
Welcome to the human race - a fair cross-section of which goes birding ;)

Please let this thread NOT take the downward spiral into twitcher bashing. They certainly do not have a monopoly on selfishness and lack of self-control! Often, in fact, twitchers are all generosity and restraint - especially when the bird is under the belt....... |=)|

[SteveClifton]

Agree Gavin, I don't have a problem with twitchers at all. Most follow accepted codes of conduct and are a credit to themselves. It's just that tiny minority that often stick out like a sore thumb that I was referring to!

[dantheman]

Maybe somebody needs to start a thread (make it a sticky?) listing birding terms and abbrevs., so that no-one has any excuse for feeling excluded. Transatlantic differences (banding for example) may make it more interesting, we could even have a committee to determine proper usage. . . . .

I've started said thread here:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=806761#post806761

Isn't that exciting? Please contribute. ;)

[dantheman]

Steve and NaturePete, I can't find anything in both of your last couple of posts that I disagree with. Its good that there is at least some agreement on this forum!!

I think there's a lot of agreement on this thread. Bernard the Cat agrees with Bernard the Cat agrees with Bernard the Cat. And most of the rest of us agree with each other. (= ie disagree with Bernard the Cat) :brains: ;)

Slightly less flippantly, some of the points which Bernard makes are pretty valid, which is why I started the thread above. I suffered minor embarassment in the past on one occasion through not knowing what a white-winged gull was, for example. But afterwards I knew what they were, and it was never an issue again.

I think most would agree that to advance (assuming that's what you want to do and that it's a good thing), you have to be in with certain of the linguistics and latin names (you don't have to fully embrace every contraction, all the latin names, and the latest buzz word/birding slang however.)

[dantheman]

Grus grus? - that was useful in France talking to the neighbours who spoke no English, as the french sounds very similar. (We were on a main migration route).
Even Vulpes vulpes and Natrix natrix, what's the problem?? Once you know it, you know it. (Although I do see how a B-ufo b-ufo could alien-ate you.)


Latin- I think it's already been said, but some latin names sound almost poetic. They really don't have to be that scary!

But I will admit that whilst i've joined in and put my oar in, I don't actually use words like acro and hippo myself anyway (partly because I do most of my birding on my own.)

To clear up a few things on the latin front:

Grus grus- Common Crane
Vulpes vulpes- Red Fox
Natrix natrix- Grass Snake
Bufo bufo- Common Toad

These last 3 were on some PGtips WWF cards we had when I was about 10, they just stuck with me!!

To anyone who doesn't think it is useful to know the genera of eg warblers, I think it is obvious that it can only help your birding knowledge and id skills. Different genera are by their nature made up of closely related species, knowledge of which can help you identify, study or just plain watch the birds. I just remembered the 'New' Collins book, (for all its faults of being 'too complete' and with its tiny print) has introductions to all the bird families. See page 280. The 4 Warbler genera are briefly outlined with useful info on habits and habitats. Surely this is only good?

[StuartReeves]

These last 3 were on some PGtips WWF cards we had when I was about 10, they just stuck with me!!

Nice inversion of the use of abbreviations there! Jargon-ridden, elitist birders like myself would tend to interpret 'PGtips' as a reference to Pallas's Grasshopper Warbler (Locustella certhiola) rather than a brand of tea favoured by chimps. And I didn't know that the World Wrestling Foundation issued wildlife cards.

Stuart

[Jane Turner]

I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".

I hate this for the following reasons:

1, I don't have a clue what people are talking about when they use these words (and I don't care either)
2, these names sound really awkward & cumbersome, not to mention making the birds themselves (some of which can be really beautiful) seem like nothing more than a scientific specimin to be analysed & gawped at
3, its really cliquey & marginalises all but the most knowledgable & experienced birders, & is surely just another way of saying "look at me, I'm REALLY knowledgable!"
4, it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks
5, unless you are a bona fide ornithologist or biologist, its totally unnecessary - why not just say "there's a warbler in the bush"??

I'm going to defend this one. When you see a warbler and you have no idea what it is...you say there is a warbler.. when you know its a Phylloscopus warbler but not which one, you say there's a Phyllosc in that bush, just as you would say there is a Hippolais in the Bush if you weren't sure which one!

[Jane Turner]

Whoops - should have read the rest of the thread first I see!

[Larry Wheatland]

[QUOTE=Gavin Haig]Welcome to the human race - a fair cross-section of which goes birding ;)

Species Gav
;) ;) ;)

[Bernard the cat]

Bernard, it’s very rare that I feel provoked sufficiently by a topic, that I bother to write at such length, but yesterday I did, and largely because of the tone and flippant nature of your replies, to several others who had responded to some of your posts.
That may in part explain why my post was a little patronising. If any offence was caused to you, then I apologise. However (and it looks like we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this), I still disagree with a lot of the points you make.
In true BF tradition, here’s why.

As you do most/all of your birding in England, it might seem reasonable to you, to only use English names. But has it not occurred to you that many birders from other countries also visit England, and could well find themselves in the same crowd as you, even on your local patch? Calling a Wood warbler, Redstart, Blackbird or Goldfinch could have an entirely different meaning to an American birder than to an English one. Also, we are all writing on an International forum, read by and contributed to by birders from all corners of the globe? Surely your exclusive use of English names could marginalise some of them? Perhaps you don’t care?

Secondly, I acknowledge that you didn’t say that birders who use scientific names are 'nerdy geeks', but you did say this;

‘I hate it when birders refer to warblers by their genus name, the word sometimes being shortened in the process e.g. as in "Phyllosc. warbler in the bush over there!".’

because;

‘it adds to the stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks’ ,

and this;

‘My point is that when birders use these names unnecessarily e.g. by referring to a 'Hippo warbler' rather than saying "there's an interesting warbler over there", it can compound the already prevalent stereotype of birders being nerdy geeks.’

Saying that the use of the word ‘Hippo’ (or even ‘Hippolais’ to use the proper word ) is not necessary, is surely a very subjective point. If I was birding in England, and somebody thought they had found a ‘Hippo’ warbler, then that would instantly narrow the field down to around 2-3 possible species. Drawing everyone’s attention to an ‘interesting warbler’ would still leave the field open to perhaps 20-30 different species. Maybe more? And yes, many of us still find Chiff-Chaffs and Willow Warblers ‘interesting’.

The use of ‘interesting’ itself can be very confusing and subjective.
Is it interesting because;
It might be rare?
It’s behaving in an interesting way?
It’s an unusual example of its species?
Or just because you don’t know what it is? and perhaps if you did then it might be another ‘tick’ on your English list.

Bernard, the reason that many birders use Latin names is because it is very specific, and because it is part of a common international language used throughout the whole world. It is absolutely not intended to alienate or marginalise anyone. That’s exactly the point. Latin names are used to include a much wider audience than just we English, and to maintain as much clarity as possible. I can honestly say I don’t know of any birders who would use Latin names to deliberately confuse anyone, or exclude anyone either, though I can see how it might be perceived that way by others.

Finally, I think I can appreciate birds from a scientific, artistic, aesthetic or even philosophical point of view. And often a combination of all four! However, I didn’t say that birding was a scientific subject. Though I do still maintain that the business of naming birds (or even plants, fish etc for that matter) is rooted in science. As I have already said, the Linnaean system for classifying all living-things, is the standard one that underpins all of the natural sciences.
In no way would I call myself an ornithologist, but I do still see the need to be clear and specific when referring to any living creature. To say that,
‘the unnecessary and unthinking use of scientific jargon can serve to marginalise a significant proportion of less experienced and less knowledgeable birders’

just proves that you haven’t listened to any of the other posters that have responded to your comments on this subject.

I would agree with you that today we put up with far too much technical jargon and acronyms, which can exclude those not in the know. But I strongly disagree that scientific language is ‘jargon.’
Also, I can’t see anything wrong at all with my,
‘assumption that the more experienced & knowledgeable birders define the parameters of social interaction, and that its then up to the less experienced birders to keep up with them’.
That’s true in so many areas of life, but most people respond by aspiring to improve their own knowledge, if only so that they can all communicate on a ‘level playing field’ or ‘sing from the same hymn sheet’. Surely you can’t really expect birders, who are engaged in what are, after all, essentially private conversations with one-another, to change their way of communicating to such a level that would lead to a far less specific and clear understanding of what they are discussing? Live and let live, and if others feel excluded by that, they do have choices about what to do about it. No-one forces anyone not to want to learn more, that is an entirely personal choice.

You clearly have no intention of actually listening to what I’m saying and acknowledging that perhaps we both may have a point, and every intention of arguing point-by-point with every word I’ve said. That’s fine by me:

I apologise if some of my posts have been a bit flippant, and I apologise if offence has been caused to anyone. On one post in particular I stated that what I was about to say was 'tongue-in-cheek', and I would point out that my posts have not been any more flippant than some of the other posts I've read on Birdforum ('dudes' in particular seem to routinely be fair game for the most flippant and potentially offensive comments on Birdforum). Not that that makes it OK, and I do apologise for any offence caused.

Foreign birders birding in England: as a native English speaker living in England, I do not see that I have a responsibility to change the way I speak in case there are birders from other countries around. If I went to the States then, as a non-national, the responsibility would very much be upon me to ‘learn the language’ so that I broadly fit in with the US birding community and am not confused at every turn (‘when in Rome…’). This undoubtedly leads to the person doing the 'fitting in' feeling marginalized, though if I was birding in the States then I would expect to feel marginalized, and I would not expect US birders to change the way they talk in their own country.

I did not raise the issue of scientific names being used on Birdforum or similar website – I’m only referring to the unnecessary use of jargon and scientific names in ‘the field’ when there are clearly other birders of mixed ability present, and also to a lesser extent through media like books that are aimed at a general birdwatching audience/those with an interest in birds and wildlife.

I know exactly what I said re: the issue of birders being stereotyped as nerdy geeks, and I stand by this. I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that the routine use of language (in a non-scientific context) that can be considered to be exclusive and jargonised - including words such as 'phyllosc', 'hippo' etc - does anything to counter the nerdy/geeky stereotype of birders in the public eye (I once got caned by a non-birder for using the word 'scope'!)

You say that it’s a subjective decision as to whether it’s necessary to refer to a bird’s genus - I totally agree! Clearly there are times when referring to a bird’s genus is both necessary and appropriate, though I would argue (subjectively of course) that there are also times when it is not, and that reference to genus etc can sometimes be unnecessarily cliquey and serve to make less experienced/less knowledgeable birders feel a bit marginalized.

Yes I agree: referring to a ‘Hippo’ warbler rather than an ‘interesting’ warbler can in some circumstances save some confusion – for people who know what a ‘Hippo’ warbler is! I’m not saying that people should never refer to a bird by its genus name, and I acknowledge that in certain circumstances some birders may feel that to do so would be entirely necessary and appropriate – fair enough! My only problem is when people use genus names when it can be seen to be not strictly necessary/appropriate, and in social situations in which large numbers of other birders who comprise the ‘audience’ will not know what they are talking about. All I’m saying is that I don’t like it when people use jargon – scientific or otherwise – unnecessarily, simply because they assume that everybody else must know what they are talking about, and that isn't always the case.

I think it’s unnecessarily pedantic to enter into a debate about what the term ‘interesting’ means with reference to birds, and I’ve acknowledged that there will be situations in which birders feel it to be entirely necessary and appropriate to refer to genus names.

I did not make the accusation that birders use scientific names intentionally to marginalize others. This does not however detract from my point that, in some situations, the unnecessary and inappropriate use of scientific names/jargon in the presence of an audience of mixed birding ability can have the effect of making some less experienced/less knowledgeable birders feel marginalized.

With respect, you did very strongly imply that birding is a scientific subject with the following statement: “If you feel marginalised by people using scientific language, when discussing a scientific subject, then perhaps you have marginalised yourself!!”.

Nothing I’ve said ‘proves’ that I haven’t listened to any of the other posts. In fact I have read them all very carefully, and I acknowledge that the use of scientific names serves a significant proportion of the birding community. My only problem is, as I’ve already said, when scientific names are bandied about in a context in which a significant proportion of the audience will not understand what they mean, and when it could be argued that the use of such language is not strictly necessary given the situation. I agree that scientific names are an essential basis for any form of biological taxonomy, and I have not said or implied otherwise (perhaps you should listen more carefully to what I’ve said!).

I agree that the use of scientific language does not automatically render it as jargon, and I have not said or implied otherwise. What makes a certain word/phrase jargon is the specific context in which it is used. There is a clear difference between a couple of BTO ringers logging the numbers of a certain genus of warbler that they’ve caught, and then after 'work' referring to ‘phylloscs’, ‘hippos’, ‘acros’ etc down the pub with their non-ringer mates who won’t have a clue what they're talking about.

I’m not expecting birders to change the nature of their private conversations, and I'm not saying that genus names should never be referred to. As I’ve said, my point is that if there’s a crowd of birders of mixed ability and there’s an interesting/rare/unusual warbler, then to publicly refer to it simply as a ‘phyllosc’ without explanation may not always be the most appropriate and considerate thing to do. It’s the same if a birding book – aimed at an audience of mixed birding ability - continuously refers to genus names and uses birding jargon (and you can't deny there's lots of it about) without explanation. I don’t really see what’s so controversial about what I'm saying, and I don't really think its useful to pursue this debate any further. I think I've explained my point as thoroughly as I can in order to clarify anything that I didn't previously make clear - If people still disagree then fine, we'll agree to disagree!

[Bernard the cat]

Also I agree Bernard you don't have to learn scientific names to enjoy or to understand birds. Each to their own and happy birding!

Here here!! :clap:

[Bernard the cat]

Steve - apologies, it's a very wordy thread so didn't read every single reply properly! Also my last post should have had a ;) after it...

I have no problem with technical words, if you learn them and the people around you tend to know them, it would be against instinct not to use them. Sometimes people throw them around for the sake of it, but I can see situations where genus names are better than anything English - you know it's a bloody warbler, you know it's a Phylloscopus one, you just don't know which one! To not say Phylloscopus when you're talking to someone who you know knows what Phylloscopus means would be just as daft as swanning around insisting on calling blackbirds Turdus merula for the sake of it just to piss people off (or should that be Cygnusing around? ;) ).

I'd tend to say crow rather than corvid, auk than alcid, etc, but will say passerine, for example. I don't really have any rules there, I think if there was a perfectly good English word that would do I'd use it, if the English word doesn't quite fit I'd use the Latin name if I knew it.

All I have problems with is silly in-jokes like calling sparrowhawks "Sprawks", because that just sounds like cliquey weirdos talking in a horribly twee special secret code. [EDIT - I appreciate this comes from notebook abbreviations, but that doesn't mean you always have to say it/type it!]

I think the bottom line is some people enjoy birds without knowing any of the taxonomy and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. And there's nothing wrong with people that do, as long as they don't sneer at people that don't, and don't come across like they're forever having a long word competition. ;)

I couldnt agree more! My only problem is when birders throw these words around unecessarily, assuming that everyone alse knows what they're talking about.

[James Lowther]

can we end this now?
the lesson to be learned is
use whatever terminology you're happy with,
and if someone else don't like it stuff 'em

[Gavin Haig]

Righto folks. Here are some quotes from Birdguides. For your amusement (and at the risk of copyright infringement) the object is to correctly identify the species which did, or did not, give themselves up to the masses.....

1. 'It's amazing what a lack of yellow, more white, and rarity away from its difficult-to-reach Palearctic breeding areas can do for the perception of a species by the masses.'

2. 'After the excitement of last week, when the first ******* for Britain entertained the masses at.......'

3. 'An apparent wintering bird in London in early 2006 did not present itself to the masses......'

4. '.....but unfortunately for the masses and unlike the last one it stayed for just one day.'

[Xenospiza]

1. Azure Tit?
2. Pacific Diver (tempted to say Long-billed Murrelet)
3. Obviously American Robin
4. No idea!

— don't you agree that masses should be replaced by tick-hungry hordes?

[Gavin Haig]

1. Azure Tit?
2. Pacific Diver (tempted to say Long-billed Murrelet)
3. Obviously American Robin
4. No idea!

— don't you agree that masses should be replaced by tick-hungry hordes?
Correct so far - no.4 is a bird from last autumn.....

If 'masses' were actually replaced by any one of, er, masses of synonyms (or useful phrases like your suggestion ;) ), I'm afraid Birdguides would never be the same again for me. Whenever there has been a bit of a mega, I find myself eagerly scouring the 'Review of the Week' for that hackneyed cliche. Probably I need to get out more, meet people...........

[Xenospiza]

Maybe I should delete my post before they steal the idea, hahaha!

[Larry Wheatland]

Is number 4 a pain-inducing species kown as Pied Wheatear ?

[dantheman]

Righto folks. Here are some quotes from Birdguides. For your amusement (and at the risk of copyright infringement) the object is to correctly identify the species which did, or did not, give themselves up to the masses.....

1. 'It's amazing what a lack of yellow, more white, and rarity away from its difficult-to-reach Palearctic breeding areas can do for the perception of a species by the masses.'

2. 'After the excitement of last week, when the first ******* for Britain entertained the masses at.......'

3. 'An apparent wintering bird in London in early 2006 did not present itself to the masses......'

4. '.....but unfortunately for the masses and unlike the last one it stayed for just one day.'

Phillipine 'Monk'ey eating Eagle.
Northern Cardinal?
Carrion Crow- they're pretty catholic in their tastes?
An itinerant Red Bishop?

[dantheman]

don't you agree that masses should be replaced by tick-hungry hordes?

Or the seemingly more polite version, oxpeckers. As in 'The little bustard surrendered itself to the ravaging oxpeckers.'



.

[Vectis Birder]

Often, in fact, twitchers are all generosity and restraint - especially when the bird is under the belt....... |=)|

Don't you mean 'safely UTB' (as Richard Millington said in his book?) ;)

[Bernard the cat]

can we end this now?
the lesson to be learned is
use whatever terminology you're happy with,
and if someone else don't like it stuff 'em

Very insightful and sensitive of you - I do find the "I'll do what I want and b*lls to everyone else" attitude very touching. If we all followed that maxim then the world would be such a better place in which to live. Well done. I really don't understand this playground gang mentality that simply exudes from certain sections of the birding community.

[martin kitching]

Very insightful and sensitive of you - I do find the "I'll do what I want and b*lls to everyone else" attitude very touching. If we all followed that maxim then the world would be such a better place in which to live. Well done. I really don't understand this playground gang mentality that simply exudes from certain sections of the birding community.

I think James was saying 'Each to his own'.

The inverted snobbery being turned against birders who simply want to use correct (or more specific) terminology is as bad, if not worse, than what you are accusing others of.

Back to annoying cliched phrases (that was the point of this thread wasn't it?); 'Political correctness' is one that boils my p*ss on so many levels, right up there alongside 'positive discrimination', 'another great goal from Ronaldo' and 'it's out of sight at the moment, but don't worry.....'.

martin

[dantheman]

Crumbs! that was one person saying they were getting fed-up with the long-winded turn this discussion was taking. Others aplenty have said that each can follow their own way, its up to the individual.

You are the one calling yourself a 'dude' on this thread. Most of the rest of us enjoy our birding in our own way, whether or not we get too wrapped up in it and the semantics thereof. If some want to use terms which are slangy or technical then that's fine by them. You seem to think we all have to change to be like you. It has been repeated many times that use of these terms is not meant to be 'exclusive'. You seem to have the fatalistic desire to be in a much maligned minority. In reality I don't think you are, although gaining popularity is another thing altogether.

Many agree with you that use of these terms can exclude, but equally, with a minimum effort, you can include yourself by taking the trouble to get involved, if you want to. Otherwise you should just do your own thing and not imagine everyone is 'ganging' up on you!!

Rant over. (Where did that come from?- I'm usually so calm!)

Relax. Deep breaths.

EDIT: ok I see you seem to have edited out most of the highly negative comments you made about the birding community in your most recent post. But I still feel it may be worth taking on board some of the ideas and sentiments expressed on this thread.

[Larry Wheatland]

Wow how many topics is this thread covering ?

Veering very slightly off-topic into another already covered one... PG tips has got to be my most despised nerdybirdyword... but how do the masses feel about Yankstart and Doublebill as names of UK rarities ? I've heard these bandied about on a few occasions.

[dantheman]

Wow how many topics is this thread covering ?

Veering very slightly off-topic into another already covered one... PG tips has got to be my most despised nerdybirdyword... but how do the masses feel about Yankstart and Doublebill as names of UK rarities ? I've heard these bandied about on a few occasions.

Never heard of them- does this prove I'm no twitcher?! Although I'd guess American Redstart for the first.

My h'apenny'worth- if you want to play around with bird names, within your peer group, contracting, abbreviating or inventing, then fine, it's a free country! A little bit of harmless fun.
On the issue of the beauty of said names, The word 'Yank' isn't the most melifluous word you can encounter, and I suppose these words do come across as a bit ugly. . .

I've never seen either I guess in this country.

So you could say that I'm 'Totally gripped off'- and if you don't like that phrase, remember it's just another term used in specific circumstances by a specific group of the birding community, and as we all agree (!), that's fine, and it's not worth discussing whether that really annoys anyone or not!!

[dantheman]

Never heard of them



Although of course, I am now beginning to feel quite excluded. . . . .



;)

[SteveClifton]

Me too!! Don't Know about Doublebill Larry, but a double bill of either American Redstart or Pallas's Gropper would be a fine thing indeed now wouldn't it?
Perhaps you could enlighten us on that one?

[SteveClifton]

dantheman, in respense to your comment,

'if you want to play around with bird names, within your peer group, contracting, abbreviating or inventing, then fine, it's a free country!'

Are you so sure it's a free country? I had the most horrendous dream last night. On arriving at the next big UK twitch, I was directed by stewards to join the crowd of onlookers. I can still see it now, they were holding signs that said, 'English speaking beginners only' at one end, and another with, 'Jargon obsessed nerdy geeks only' at the other. Patrolling the unrully masses were more, stern looking stewards, dressed in military style uniforms, ensuring that everyone was kept in their proper place! Heading up this team of stewards was, yes, you've guessed it, none other than Bernard the cat!
Sorry Bernard (my tongue is very firmly in my cheek), but there is really no easy answer to this one. Perhaps we should put this subject to bed and spend our time on more constructive things? No offence intended about the nightmare, I was just trying to lighten the mood. I will seek professional help with the dreams if they persist!

[Gavin Haig]

Doublebill.......Two-barred Crossbill??

Having started this thread in order to enjoy a gentle poke at some of the cliched writing that birding is blessed with, I've been surprised (and entertained) with the twists and turns that it has subsequently taken.

'PGtips' is one of my personal favourites, cos I think it's quite clever (am I sad, or what?) along with 'fawn yawn'. I also like 'Hudwit', where I feel INcluded and comfortable, but dislike 'Yankstart', where I feel EXcluded and a need to change the subject..........

[speckled wood]

I mostly use english names, but I have no problem with people using scientific names, there are actually some people who do only know the scientific names you just use what suits you. In the case of insects there are many species of very common insects that do not have a common or english name. I don't think that there is any reason to think that a person is "nerdy" if they use scientific names or binoculars for birding ... perhaps if they go to bed with the binoculars around their necks or reciting scientific names to get to sleep there might some reason and justification to think that they are somewhat odd but using things for what they are intended is perfectly normal.

SW

[SteveClifton]

Gavin, could no.4 be Masked Shrike?

[dddiver]

Time elapsed since this thread started x days. Posts from Bernard; xx, say xxx words per post. Don't know how accomplished a typist you are but say a generous xx wpm (??) Time spent musing and cogitating x.x hours. Therefore time spent complaining (sorry, reasoning ;) on issue of use of latin/ abbrevs. of latin = x hours at least (sorry don't have the time to calculate, you get the drift!!)

Sorry, but you could be halfway through the central european 'peckers (???) by now, having memorised the whole of those extremely important warblers, with a few Larids and petrels along the way. ;)

The other problem is that you probably do know what an acro is by now, maybe even a mipit, having discussed it all on here. You won't be able to go back- you are on the slow and insidious path to gaining 'the knowledge' , picking up the vocab, getting the 'gen' or whatever. Aaaargh!!!!;)

Grus grus? - that was useful in France talking to the neighbours who spoke no English, as the french sounds very similar. (We were on a main migration route). Even Vulpes vulpes and Natrix natrix, what's the problem?? Once you know it, you know it. (Although I do see how a B-ufo b-ufo could alien-ate you.)
Viz mig- sounds exotic, why not, once you know what it means?

What does BMW stand for?
Bob Marley and the Wailers

[dddiver]

Bob Marley and the Wailers
BatMan and Wobbin

[podgecast]

Also, I'm a little baffled as to why anyone who doesn't know what a 'hippo' is, would be so upset at missing one.

I'm definitely missing something here - as far as i'm concerned a hippo is a big grey thing that lives in african rivers - i would be most suprised to find one at minsmere or titchwell etc but even i would find it difficult to miss ;)

[scampo]

I'm definitely missing something here - as far as i'm concerned a hippo is a big grey thing that lives in african rivers - i would be most suprised to find one at minsmere or titchwell etc but even i would find it difficult to miss ;)But they swim under the water, silly!

(-;

[Vectis Birder]

What does BMW stand for?

Bayerische Motoren Werke (Bavarian Motor Works) ;)

[Gavin Haig]

Gavin, could no.4 be Masked Shrike?
Yep, it could. Well done. I'm almost tempted to winkle out some more 'masses' quotes from Birdguides so we can have round 2. Almost.......

[Mike Feely]

Please, it must be ovbious, but what's a fawn yawn?!

Mike

[Vectis Birder]

Please, it must be ovbious, but what's a fawn yawn?!

Mike

Is it like a technicolour yawn? Yuck.

[matt green]

Having only read the last few posts I'm very confused

I used to know what a hudwit was but I've forgotten?,and since when could you see hippos in suffolk.They must be bluddy good swimmers.

Matt

[Mike Feely]

I used to know what a hudwit was but I've forgotten?
Matt


See Danthemans thread in the Tips for New Birders forum - i've just added it to the glossary!

[matt green]

See Danthemans thread in the Tips for New Birders forum - i've just added it to the glossary!

Excellent thread..should be made a sticky

Matt

[Vectis Birder]

Hudwit = Hudsonian Godwit (I think!)

[Larry Wheatland]

I'm guessing that Fawn yawn"s a young Pink stink (Rose-coloured Starling ) ? If so I like and prefer it ! (no offence to juv Rosy Starlings though as I happen to really like them.)

You were right about the Doublebill Gavin.

I'm really looking forward to the next time "the masses" appears in the birding press now. At least then all of us that have enjoyed this thread can have a laugh.

[Gavin Haig]

Please, it must be ovbious, but what's a fawn yawn?!

Mike
No, it's not obvious, and it's rather elitist - juvenile Rose-coloured Starling - which used to be (maybe still is?) an autumn fixture on Scilly, hence the dismissive familiarity.

And yes, Hudwit=Hudsonian Godwit

EDIT - oops, crossed posts with you Larry

[Gavin Haig]

I'm really looking forward to the next time "the masses" appears in the birding press now. At least then all of us that have enjoyed this thread can have a laugh.
Wait for the next mega, then read the Birdguides 'Review of the Week'. I guarantee that the masses will have been out in force, and 'surrendered to' or 'avoided'! I hope the writer of said review doesn't read this thread and decide to mend his ways - I'm looking forward to it too, now!

[Mike Feely]

No, it's not obvious, and it's rather elitist - juvenile Rose-coloured Starling

Well, it is quite obvious really: yawn - Starling; fawn - juv Rose Coloured

(Actually, maybe not obvious, but it makes sense!)

Mike

Edit - just read the posts above Gavins and i prefer Pink Stink!

[dantheman]

— don't you agree that masses should be replaced by tick-hungry hordes?In this months Birdwatch we have, from the regional reports section:

'Not that the lack of official status would ever deter any of the nation's tick-hungry listers.'

Close enough? ;)

And the bird in question is a . . . . .?

[dantheman]

'Not that the lack of official status would ever deter any of the nation's tick-hungry listers.'

Surprised no-one's sussed this one. I guess they must be two a penny these days. . . .

[Cillana]

I can't think of anything I've heard that bothers me, but then I haven't been around a lot of birders. I like the term "jizz" (from GISS). What's wrong with "pishing"? I'd say that's an accurate description of what you're doing: "pish"ing. I only know the complete scientific name of a few species, but I do find it useful to know what family and genus species are in. Besides my general interest in taxonomy, if I don't know the specific species (and common name) for a bird/butterfly/flower/whatever, I may recognize it's genus or family by characteristics shared by other members of the genus or family, and use that term to describe it. Sometimes there is a common name to encompass a group of related species, but not always. For example: peeps, jays, blackbirds.