What a childish post. . ..
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
S.E. Florida - Odd looking warbler ID needed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Zackiedawg
- Start date
What a childish post. . ..
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Oh really, not childish to label people 'pedants' because they won't fall in to line behind y'all?
Let's just make you all happy and change the name of the language to American.
Last edited:
Fair enough, as I did not intend to limit your right to answer I should not have included this.
Niels
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Fugl, I travel a lot and speak several language, and I notice something. Although we are supposed to be "modern" and evolve towards a better civilisation, I can see that, practically, many aspects of our societies are going the wrong way. Is injustice decreasing ? No, it is increasing. Are conflicts and war decreasing ? Unfortunately not, tensions at all level are more and more common. Is education improving ? Absolutely not, education and even average IQ are both weakening in many countries. I see that, and studies show that as well.
They are complex problems that cannot be solved in simple ways, but one cause is the simplification of language, especially very international ones like English at first, then Spanish and some others, and the less rigorous use of words.
When one is saying something in a approximative way, and others understand approximately, how this can lead to mutual understanding ?
Sure words we are talking about here are not key ones, but it is a mentality. It is not at all limited to scientific aspects.
I think words should be considered as "sacred" and respected, not for themselves actually but for both the one who use them and the one who listen them. That is, in my opinion, a first step towards a more peaceful World.
Last edited:
Valery, that sounds nice but impossible! words have changed their meaning for as long as we have written records. The post by fugl referencing several papers shows that the reaction against partial albinism is a new one and that if usage was sacred we should be using that.
Niels
Niels
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
For me usage is not sacred, what is most important is to have words that makes sense and can carry proper information.
The fact and individual cannot produce melanin and the fact it is not able (momentary) to deliver that melanin in the right place of the plumage are two different thing. As Tom said, first cannot be partial. If new usage make the new meaning losing that information, that let's fight against new usage to keep the richness of the words.
If a new usage improve the communication with more information, more details then, yeah, let's evolve !
Usage is that most "gulls" are called sea gulls ; shall we lump all Laridae to respect usage ?
In opposite, we used to call Gallinula chloropus "Moorhen" in UK and "Gallinule" the other side of the pond. Now that science split the species in two, it is nice to use those words, created by usage indeed.
I don’t see the substitution (for example) of “partial albino” for “leucistic” (or whatever) in the common speech as “simplification” so much as “clarification”, with the former (unlike the latter) wearing its meaning on its sleeve. It’s not as if the scientific lexicon is all that stable—or even pronounceable—after all. As I’ve said, scientific jargon and the common speech are in 2 different realms.
How far do you want to take this? What about, for example, “brontosaurus”? Do you think the general public should be bullied into abandoning this long- established and much-loved name for the “scientifically” “correct” (for the nonce) “Apatosaurus” (initial cap and all)? I don’t, that’s for sure!
Last edited:
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
You claimed that "As I’ve said, scientific jargon and the common speech are in 2 different realms. ", I prefer to consider that every word has its meaning whatever who is using it.
"How far do you want to take this? What about, for example, “brontosaurus”? Do you think the general public should be bullied into abandoning this long- established and much-loved name for the “scientifically” “correct” (for the nonce) “Apatosaurus” (initial cap and all)?"
I want we change for the more scientifically correct, and to be psychologically ready to change again if needed. Well, if you look and the biggest problems we face today, in the World, one of the solution will necessarily be to change some of our habits, right ? I don't make a list about wasting, energy, etc, I guess you understand me. Changing the habits of human beings is a very difficult and that might be the main problem that prevent us to find global solution(s). So I suggest to start training with the words : let's prefer precision, detailed communication, scientific accuracy before our "habits".
Look. The name Bearded Tit has been changed to Bearded Reedling some 20 years ago or more. It is not at all a tit, calling it Bearded Skylark wouldn't be less correct.
Some people still use Bearded Tit, right ? So, if we cannot change a wrong word to name a bird in 20 years, how do you expect humans to change their food habits, for example, to save the World (I mean it) in 5 or 10 years ?
https://www.peacefuldumpling.com/me...rA5UEW-yOb0Y45CRPyqZeEPMk9O6HDB0rU2xmOYo-F0aQ
Excellent suggestion which I adopt forthwith!
“You all”, by the way, is confined to the dialects of American spoken in the southeastern states. Nobody outside that region uses it. Last time I looked, the American spoken in the British Isles was absolutely riddled with barely mutually intelligible regional dialects and long may they wave!
Last edited:
Found this on the Cornell University website. Seems clear enough to me. Anybody have a problem with it?
ALBINISM AND LEUCISM
Albinism is a genetic mutation that prevents the production of melanin (but not other pigments). Some colors come from pigments other than melanin, such as carotenoids. Albinism only applies to an absence of melanin; consequently, it is possible for a bird to be albinistic and still have color, although most consider true albinism to be an absence of all pigment.
Leucism refers to an abnormality in the deposition of pigment in feathers. There is some disagreement as to whether the condition is genetic or caused by pigment cells that were damaged during development. Whatever the cause, the condition can result in a reduction in all types of pigment, causing pale or muted colors on the entire bird. Or the condition can cause irregular patches of white, and birds with these white patches are sometimes described as “pied” or “piebald."
Albinistic birds have pink eyes because without melanin in the body, the only color in the eyes comes from the blood vessels behind the eyes. It is possible for a bird to be completely white and still have melanin in the body, as when a white bird has dark eyes. In this case the bird would be considered leucistic because the mutation only applies to depositing melanin in the feathers, not the absence of melanin in the body.
A third type of mutation that results in pied birds--birds that have white patches--is called partial albinism by some and leucism by others. The white patches are caused by an absence of pigment in some feathers.
To further confuse things, occasionally a bird will lose feathers in a close call with a predator. When this happens the new feathers sometimes grow in white and then change back to the normal color at the next regular molt. This kind of white coloring looks like leucism but is not and most frequently happens in the tail, causing a bird that lost its tail feathers to a predator to have an all white tail
ALBINISM AND LEUCISM
Albinism is a genetic mutation that prevents the production of melanin (but not other pigments). Some colors come from pigments other than melanin, such as carotenoids. Albinism only applies to an absence of melanin; consequently, it is possible for a bird to be albinistic and still have color, although most consider true albinism to be an absence of all pigment.
Leucism refers to an abnormality in the deposition of pigment in feathers. There is some disagreement as to whether the condition is genetic or caused by pigment cells that were damaged during development. Whatever the cause, the condition can result in a reduction in all types of pigment, causing pale or muted colors on the entire bird. Or the condition can cause irregular patches of white, and birds with these white patches are sometimes described as “pied” or “piebald."
Albinistic birds have pink eyes because without melanin in the body, the only color in the eyes comes from the blood vessels behind the eyes. It is possible for a bird to be completely white and still have melanin in the body, as when a white bird has dark eyes. In this case the bird would be considered leucistic because the mutation only applies to depositing melanin in the feathers, not the absence of melanin in the body.
A third type of mutation that results in pied birds--birds that have white patches--is called partial albinism by some and leucism by others. The white patches are caused by an absence of pigment in some feathers.
To further confuse things, occasionally a bird will lose feathers in a close call with a predator. When this happens the new feathers sometimes grow in white and then change back to the normal color at the next regular molt. This kind of white coloring looks like leucism but is not and most frequently happens in the tail, causing a bird that lost its tail feathers to a predator to have an all white tail
Actually, more like a Möbius strip or spiral than a simple straightforward circle.
Imposed linguistic change as “practice” for changes in other spheres, that’s a new one on me and one that I find totally unconvincing. Words are mere labels, you know, little malleable things which can take-up all sorts of meanings in different places, times and contexts, not Platonic archetypes, each with one true unchangeable meaning.
But I’m pretty sure we’re never going to agree on any of this. . ..
I think that the ability to produce melanin probably can be partial. If a somatic mutation occurred in a gene needed to make melanin during development, than some parts of the bird might be able to make melanin and some would not. You would get a bird with white patches. Partial albino seems like a perfectly good term for such cases. Since birders are unlikely to know for sure what genetic or developmental mechanism produced an abnormally piebald bird, I think "partial albino" is as good a term as any for birds with white patches. (Actually, I think "piebald albino" would be better, but I doubt it will catch on.) Using "leucistic" to refer only to birds that have an abnormally pale coloration over the entire body, which surely comes about by different mechanisms and produces quite different looking animals, is more clear than using the same term for birds that look different for different reasons.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
(Quote) RKJ;'I think that the ability to produce melanin probably can be partial. If a somatic mutation occurred in a gene needed to make melanin during development, than some parts of the bird might be able to make melanin and some would not. You would get a bird with white patches. Partial albino seems like a perfectly good term for such cases. Since birders are unlikely to know for sure what genetic or developmental mechanism produced an abnormally piebald bird, I think "partial albino" is as good a term as any for birds with white patches. (Actually, I think "piebald albino" would be better, but I doubt it will catch on.) Using "leucistic" to refer only to birds that have an abnormally pale coloration over the entire body, which surely comes about by different mechanisms and produces quite different looking animals, is more clear than using the same term for birds that look different for different reasons.'(Quote)............
It's actually even simpler, if the animal is pure white with red eyes it's albino, any other presentation is leucistic.
Most of us learn new bird names regularly, often daily in my case, why are people up in arms over this one word?
As I said before, it's quite a small word, consider e.g Ocellated Tapaculo by comparison and it's hardly 'jargon'. I've been aware of and using this word for almost thirty years so it's hardly new either.
Standardised bird names., fat chance.......
It's actually even simpler, if the animal is pure white with red eyes it's albino, any other presentation is leucistic.
Most of us learn new bird names regularly, often daily in my case, why are people up in arms over this one word?
As I said before, it's quite a small word, consider e.g Ocellated Tapaculo by comparison and it's hardly 'jargon'. I've been aware of and using this word for almost thirty years so it's hardly new either.
Standardised bird names., fat chance.......
Last edited:
May I just do a little summary to close the debate
# partial albinism historically used by scientists in ornithology in 20th century
# partial albinism still widely in use in birdwatching community, maybe more in the States than in Europe
# partial leucism correct scientific term used nowadays by leading institutes (Cornell lab for ornithology, museums in Europe etc.)
let's now move to the morph versus phase debate ...
# partial albinism historically used by scientists in ornithology in 20th century
# partial albinism still widely in use in birdwatching community, maybe more in the States than in Europe
# partial leucism correct scientific term used nowadays by leading institutes (Cornell lab for ornithology, museums in Europe etc.)
let's now move to the morph versus phase debate ...
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Imposed linguistic change as “practice” for changes in other spheres, that’s a new one on me and one that I find totally unconvincing. Words are mere labels, you know, little malleable things which can take-up all sorts of meanings in different places, times and contexts, not Platonic archetypes, each with one true unchangeable meaning.
But I’m pretty sure we’re never going to agree on any of this. . ..
I've experienced it, and it works. Not just an opinion or a belief, I tried with my numerous students and I can see a difference. Avoiding them to be stuck in one way of speaking but constantly looking for the best speech, to improve daily, to be accurate as much as possible... make them more open minded.
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
tconzemi let's now move to the morph versus phase debate ...[/QUOTE said:I prefer 'form'.......
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
I prefer 'form'.......
Can we add "version" as an option ? :king:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
As a linguist Valerie, do you agree with me that 'form' is the most suitable term though I suppose 'version' fits too?
Phase implies a non permanent state.
Morph implies being able to change, maybe at will.
Form is a solid meaning without ambiguity?
Anyway, 'Vive la difference'.....or not......
Similar threads
