Campaign to standardise the capitalising of English names of species (2 Viewers)

[paranoid numanoid]

If I understand your question correctly, I don't capitalise generic bird names, so for example I would write "Australian robins are not related to European Robin, and American Robin is not a robin but a thrush."

Thank you both, I'm reading the blog now which I probably should have done before reading the thread, but hey! Cheers, that's clear.

 

[antbird53]

And regarding proper nouns always being capitalised in English, I'm not sure they always are.

A quick online search brings up a variety of sites all of which state that a proper noun is always capitalised. I don't know who would be the ultimate authority on this, but it does seem to be a widely accepted principle, and certainly one I've always known since school days.

However that is just the rule, and of course not everyone follows the rules. If they did this thread would be redundant...

 

[James Lowther]

A quick online search brings up a variety of sites all of which state that a proper noun is always capitalised. I don't know who would be the ultimate authority on this, but it does seem to be a widely accepted principle, and certainly one I've always known since school days.

However that is just the rule, and of course not everyone follows the rules. If they did this thread would be redundant...

The debate is not over whether to capitalise proper nouns, but whether names of bird species are proper nouns

The consensus amongst linguists seems to be that they aren’t (and hence it is not correct to capitalise them). The counter argument is that they should be, or at the very least it would improve communication if they were treated as such.

Cheers
James

 

[dantheman]

Probably a large part of the 'problem' is that all, or most identification/field guides* in the last xx years have treated bird species names as proper nouns, or at least capitalised them, so birders and the like are used to capitalising them. Capitalising (or capitalizing) as such was useful, and presumably made it clearer.

Now that some organizations, such as the RSPB, had reverted as a policy to lower case, as fitting in with perceived uniformity/correctness it stands out more, hence the present situation.

Or something along those lines ... ?

*(Collins Field Guide, Collins Bird Songs, Flight Id of European Seabirds, both the macro (Waring, Townsend & Lewington) and micro moth id books, also named vegetable varieties in the Dr D G Hessayon 'The Vegetable Expert', 1985 (eg Black Spanish Round, but not radish). All my other books including older European and US Field Guides in a box or two somewhere).

 

[MJB]

The debate is not over whether to capitalise proper nouns, but whether names of bird species are proper nouns

The consensus amongst linguists seems to be that they aren’t (and hence it is not correct to capitalise them). The counter argument is that they should be, or at the very least it would improve communication if they were treated as such.

Cheers
James

In line with my appreciation for fuzzy logic, which paradoxically tends to improve understanding of detail by 'stepping back' from detail to obtain context, capitalising bird names in English is simply an extremely helpful convention that assigns them the status of proper nouns within the context of such usage. As you say, James, it improves the quality of communication.
MJB

 

[antbird53]

The debate is not over whether to capitalise proper nouns, but whether names of bird species are proper nouns

The consensus amongst linguists seems to be that they aren’t (and hence it is not correct to capitalise them). The counter argument is that they should be, or at the very least it would improve communication if they were treated as such.

Cheers
James

Per Wikipedia "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, or Amazon, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation) and may be used when referring to instances of a specific class (a continent, another planet, these persons, our corporation)".

So in what respect would a bird species name not fulfil the criteria for a proper noun, per this definition?

 

[James Lowther]

Per Wikipedia "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, or Amazon, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation) and may be used when referring to instances of a specific class (a continent, another planet, these persons, our corporation)".

So in what respect would a bird species name not fulfil the criteria for a proper noun, per this definition?

Well, I’m not a linguist but it seems pretty obvious to me that e.g. “mallard” as a noun does not refer to a single entity but a class of entities, no different from “duck”. To argue otherwise you have to make the case that a species is a special type of entity that is simultaneously singular and comprised of multiple different representatives.

Anyway, I’m not really interested in defending this position, i’ve said a couple of times I am pro-capitalisation, however I am fairly certain that what I said is a fair representation of the linguistic (rather than ornithological) consensus.

Cheers

James

 

[dantheman]

Per Wikipedia "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, or Amazon, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation) and may be used when referring to instances of a specific class (a continent, another planet, these persons, our corporation)".

So in what respect would a bird species name not fulfil the criteria for a proper noun, per this definition?

Someone else who is more into grammar or a linguist may comment (it's also in the OPs blog), but my understanding is that eg a Mallard (or mallard ;-) ) is a specific entity in that it's a unique genetically determined thing.

(Maybe it's a bit of a grey area though.)

If named plant varieties or car types are capitalised (eg Golden Delicious, Subaru Legacy) in written articles, then so can birds be.

 

[Farnboro John]

Well, I’m not a linguist but it seems pretty obvious to me that e.g. “mallard” as a noun does not refer to a single entity but a class of entities, no different from “duck”. To argue otherwise you have to make the case that a species is a special type of entity that is simultaneously singular and comprised of multiple different representatives.

Anyway, I’m not really interested in defending this position, i’ve said a couple of times I am pro-capitalisation, however I am fairly certain that what I said is a fair representation of the linguistic (rather than ornithological) consensus.

Cheers

James

No, sorry, in that case you couldn't say "Sarah" needs to be capitalised because there are loads of them. Come to that there are loads of other women and they have different names..... but they are all women. So the rules allow for multiple individuals within a specific entity.

"Mallard" applies only to one type of duck. That's absolutely clear. If anything it's a better case than "Sarah".

John

 

[MJB]

"Mallard" applies only to one type of duck.

John

Ummmmm...
It's also the name of the fastest steam locomotive in the World... (Gresley A4 design)
MJB

 

[dantheman]

Ummmmm...
It's also the name of the fastest steam locomotive in the World... (Gresley A4 design)
MJB

Not a steamer duck though.

Nearly posted earlier but refrained at the time; The Eagles rock band capitalised of course.

 

[Xenospiza]

I think you cannot force such specialist knowledge onto the general public.
The differences between "Herring Gull" and "sea gull" would be lost on them (but they are clear to most birders).
So the status quo (capital use by specialists, lowercase use in non-specialist publications) is fine. It certainly clarifies what the RSPB stands for.

(Claiming that all Sarahs belong to a single entity is nonsense: they are clearly polyphyletic and so can only be single entities by themselves).

 

[antbird53]

"Mallard" applies only to one type of duck. That's absolutely clear. If anything it's a better case than "Sarah".

John

Yup!

 

[l_raty]

Per Wikipedia "A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity, such as Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, or Amazon, as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation) and may be used when referring to instances of a specific class (a continent, another planet, these persons, our corporation)".

So in what respect would a bird species name not fulfil the criteria for a proper noun, per this definition?

Entire books have been written on that subject (are species individuals / classes / something in between / something else), with no universal consensus being reached so far, I'm afraid.

 

[DMW]

I think you cannot force such specialist knowledge onto the general public.
The differences between "Herring Gull" and "sea gull" would be lost on them (but they are clear to most birders).
So the status quo (capital use by specialists, lowercase use in non-specialist publications) is fine. It certainly clarifies what the RSPB stands for.

(Claiming that all Sarahs belong to a single entity is nonsense: they are clearly polyphyletic and so can only be single entities by themselves).

And yet you capitalised "Sarahs"!

 

[Xenospiza]

And yet you capitalised "Sarahs"!

Of course, I do consider them separate unique entities and therefore proper nouns.

 

[dantheman]

Maybe we need to start differentiating on here whether people are Capitalists* or lower-caseins or similar as we would if we were in a Jonathan Swift novel or something ...



*(Unless that term is already taken ... ? )

 

[stevethehydra]

I have noticed that academic zoologists (e.g. Darren Naish of Tetrapod Zoology blog fame) tend to capitalise only the first word of a species name - Red grouse, Blue tit, Yellow-legged gull, Garden warbler, etc. Not sure where the convention comes from, but that's another approach to add to the mix...

 

[Andy Adcock]

No, sorry, in that case you couldn't say "Sarah" needs to be capitalised because there are loads of them. Come to that there are loads of other women and they have different names..... but they are all women. So the rules allow for multiple individuals within a specific entity.

"Mallard" applies only to one type of duck. That's absolutely clear. If anything it's a better case than "Sarah".

John

Precisely what I was thinking and to echo a line from The Big Bang Theory, 'all Mallards are Ducks but all Ducks aren't Mallards'.

 

[DMW]

Entire books have been written on that subject (are species individuals / classes / something in between / something else), with no universal consensus being reached so far, I'm afraid.

Languages evolve, and aren't owned by academics. If the purpose of a language is to communicate ideas, then the most parsimonious way of communicating those ideas should be promoted.

As somebody with a keen interest in birds, it's obvious to me that the convention of capitalising species names is therefore superior to using lower-case. The examples of Yellow Warbler as opposed to yellow warbler, and African Cuckoo rather than African cuckoo demonstrate this point.