Latest IOC Diary Updates (8 Viewers)

[Andy Adcock]

It is 'ceruelan' -- English Name Updates – IOC World Bird List

Cerulean - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Derived from Latin 'caeruleus' so you'd think 'Caerulean' should be correct?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The word cerulean is just misspelled ("ceruelan") on IOC

 

[DDonsker]

I have been working through the updates lists and noticed a few blips....

Collared (Dove) written as Collard twice
Cerulean with the wrong spelling
Black-capped Babbler rather than Black-crowned Babbler to be changed to Visayan Babbler

Steve

Thanks!

Collared (Dove) written as Collard twice: Double entry of "Collared" corrected earlier, I believe.

Cerulean with the wrong spelling: Corrected from misspelled "Ceruelan" to Cerulean.

Black-capped Babbler rather than Black-crowned Babbler to be changed to Visayan Babbler: Too many babblers with similar names to keep straight!! Black-capped Babbler changed to Black-crowned Babbler in the Updates....unfortunately, the mistake is repeated in the Comment section following Visayan Babbler in the final spreadsheet. This will have to wait to be corrected in IOC 12.1.

 

[DDonsker]

I have been working through the updates lists and noticed a few blips....

Collared (Dove) written as Collard twice
Cerulean with the wrong spelling
Black-capped Babbler rather than Black-crowned Babbler to be changed to Visayan Babbler

Steve

Thanks.

Collared (Dove) written as Collard twice: Double entry of "Collared" in Collared Dove corrected earlier, I believe.
Cerulean with the wrong spelling: Corrected from misspelled Ceruelan
Black-capped Babbler rather than Black-crowned Babbler to be changed to Visayan Babbler

Cerulean - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Derived from Latin 'caeruleus' so you'd think 'Caerulean' should be correct?

Andy,

It's merely another example of a British usage vs American usage difference. The spellings chosen for the English vernacular names of the IOC World Bird List are based on a set of compromises originally adopted by the IOC Standing Committee on English Names in regards to those differences. Although the IOC List slightly tilts to British usage (e.g. sulphur, moustache, grey), it does in some instances defer to the simpler American usage (color, racket, cerulean). It's good to remember that although these were intended to be the recommended English names for a global audience, in actual practice, we encourage the author or publisher of a work to use the variant spelling that is best suited for their particular audience.

David

 

[DDonsker]

Thanks!

Collared (Dove) written as Collard twice: Double entry of "Collared" corrected earlier, I believe.

Cerulean with the wrong spelling: Corrected from misspelled "Ceruelan" to Cerulean.

Black-capped Babbler rather than Black-crowned Babbler to be changed to Visayan Babbler: Too many babblers with similar names to keep straight!! Black-capped Babbler changed to Black-crowned Babbler in the Updates....unfortunately, the mistake is repeated in the Comment section following Visayan Babbler in the final spreadsheet. This will have to wait to be corrected in IOC 12.1.

 

[DDonsker]

"Black-capped Babbler changed to Black-crowned Babbler in the Updates....unfortunately, the mistake is repeated in the Comment section following Visayan Babbler in the final spreadsheet. This will have to wait to be corrected in IOC 12.1."

We had just enough time to squeeze in this comment in before publication of the spreadsheets:

"Change English name from Black-crowned Babbler to Visayan Babbler with split of S. affinis".


David

 

[Paul Clapham]

Cerulean - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Derived from Latin 'caeruleus' so you'd think 'Caerulean' should be correct?

I looked to see what the Google Ngram viewer had to say about that. I searched Google Books for entries of either "cerulean" or "caerulean" found in books written in British English (as opposed to American English or just "English"). And it told me that the usage of "caerulean" was essentially zero at the present time; there are about 150 times as many entries of "cerulean".

Even in books dating back to 1800, "caerulean" has always been an extremely minority usage. And these numbers are from books, not from random internet sources like Twitter. So "caerulean" may be correct but in practice nobody uses that spelling.

 

[njlarsen]

I looked to see what the Google Ngram viewer had to say about that. I searched Google Books for entries of either "cerulean" or "caerulean" found in books written in British English (as opposed to American English or just "English"). And it told me that the usage of "caerulean" was essentially zero at the present time; there are about 150 times as many entries of "cerulean".

Even in books dating back to 1800, "caerulean" has always been an extremely minority usage. And these numbers are from books, not from random internet sources like Twitter. So "caerulean" may be correct but in practice nobody uses that spelling.

Related: is the word cerulean/caerulean used - for birds - outside the new world? In the Opus we have chosen to use the predominant version of a bird name from the area where it occurs if there is a difference in American/British spelling.

Niels

 

[awiner]

Related: is the word cerulean/caerulean used - for birds - outside the new world? In the Opus we have chosen to use the predominant version of a bird name from the area where it occurs if there is a difference in American/British spelling.

Niels

Cerulean Paradise Flycatcher, which isn't a Paradise Flycatcher at all.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Cerulean Paradise Flycatcher, which isn't a Paradise Flycatcher at all

Which isn't a flycatcher at all 😏

 

[DDonsker]

Which isn't a flycatcher at all 😏

,
From an English name perspective, we consider "flycatcher" to be merely a morphonym, not a taxonomic category, per se. Even if you discount species in which "flycatcher" is modified by an adjective with which it forms a compound noun, with or without a hyphen (e.g. Paradise Flycatcher, Silky-flycatcher), "flycatchers" are found in at least six families.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

,
From an English name perspective, we consider "flycatcher" to be merely a morphonym, not a taxonomic category, per se. Even if you discount species in which "flycatcher" is modified by an adjective with which it forms a compound noun, with or without a hyphen (e.g. Paradise Flycatcher, Silky-flycatcher), "flycatchers" are found in at least six families.

Have there ever been discussions or debates among English-speaking birders to limit a name to a genus or family instead of dispersing a same name for unrelated taxa ? Flycatcher describes an eating behavior sharing by many species. (e.g. Drongos hunt insects in the same way as flycatchers but are not called flycatcher, but drongo). Obviously, I start from my French point of view by telling myself that widespread names could mislead, especially when we want to evoke a specific genus of family. 😅

 

[Joseph Anthony]

Have there ever been discussions or debates among English-speaking birders to limit a name to a genus or family instead of dispersing a same name in unrelated taxa ? Flycatcher describes an eating behavior sharing by many species. (e.g. Drongos hunt insects in the same way as flycatchers but are not called flycatcher, but drongo). Obviously, I start from my French point of view by telling myself that widespread names could mislead, especially when we want to evoke a specific genus of family. 😅

This topic that you bring up is fascinating. I find it very stimulating to create and use specific names for each genus of birds and, where possible, even an individual name per species, for example, as it already happens, Brambling and Chaffinch for Fringilla or Dunlin, Stint, etc ... for Calidris. New names for little-known species can be taken from the local languages that have a term for that species, as is already the case with many bird names, for example Tapaculo, Seriema, Huet-huet ... There are innumerable possibilities and combinations out there . The big problem is the immense opposition and rejection that these proposals receive from much of the ornithological world. In the ornithological field, the same thing happens as in any other field, most do not want the ground to be removed and want to settle on immobile ground. Those who enjoy and promote change are few.
And of course I know very well that by writing this I assume the risk of being shot by firing squad.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This topic that you bring up is fascinating. I find it very stimulating to create and use specific names for each genus of birds and, where possible, even an individual name per species, for example, as it already happens, Brambling and Chaffinch for Fringilla or Dunlin, Stint, etc ... for Calidris. New names for little-known species can be taken from the local languages that have a term for that species, as is already the case with many bird names, for example Tapaculo, Seriema, Huet-huet ... There are innumerable possibilities and combinations out there . The big problem is the immense opposition and rejection that these proposals receive from much of the ornithological world. In the ornithological field, the same thing happens as in any other field, most do not want the ground to be removed and want to settle on immobile ground. Those who enjoy and promote change are few.
And of course I know very well that by writing this I assume the risk of being shot by firing squad.

This is what I said to a member of my facebook group (in a French context of course): ''French (but can be applied for English) ornithological vocabulary is rich with a long linguistic history, but the names used are suitables for species living in our country, but are not necessarily adapted for species living in other regions around the world [...] ''A name should be restricted to the species for which that name was originally given, and for the related species belonging to the same family or subfamily, or genus, as well.''

Many birds share the same behavior or the same morphology, is this sufficient reason to give them the same name or morphonym?

Besides, how does it work for the Germans, the Spaniards, the Japanese or the Italians?

 

[Mysticete]

I think when names are mostly restricted to a specific group with only a few oddballs/exceptions (Pittasoma antpittas and "real" antpittas, for example), I think it's better to give a new name. Or to make a unique family of birds stick out. But when you have something as commonly used as "flycatcher" or "warbler", its far more confusing and destabilizing to change hundreds of names. Common names don't "need" to confer phylogenetic relationships. That is what scientific names are for.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I think when names are mostly restricted to a specific group with only a few oddballs/exceptions (Pittasoma antpittas and "real" antpittas, for example), I think it's better to give a new name. Or to make a unique family of birds stick out. But when you have something as commonly used as "flycatcher" or "warbler", its far more confusing and destabilizing to change hundreds of names. Common names don't "need" to confer phylogenetic relationships. That is what scientific names are for.

Setophaga americana and pitiayumi are named Parula (based on the defunct genus Parula), how it would be destabilizing if the whole Parulidae were named Parula for example, apart from the fact that the current name "Warbler" is well anchored in use ?


You can imagine I'm trying to understand from a foreign point of view

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The big problem is the immense opposition and rejection that these proposals receive from much of the ornithological world.

They are rejected by actual ornithologists I think, but we must think of future and young birders because they will be familiar with these new names. Many of the names that were used by our elders are no longer used by us.

 

[Mysticete]

Setophaga americana and pitiayumi are named Parula (based on the defunct genus Parula), how it would be destabilizing if the whole Parulidae were named Parula for example, apart from the fact that the current name "Warbler" is well anchored in use ?


You can imagine I'm trying to understand from a foreign point of view

Because you would have to change something like 100 or so names. Not to mention the other non-parulid warblers that are also not "warblers"

 

[jurek]

Actually, flycatchers killed even the most hardcore language for bringing taxonomy into local names, Polish.

Animal names in Polish usually follow the scientific convention - they are binominal, with a different first name for every phylogenetic group, ideally a genus. Nevermind, that it duplicates scientific names, which are precisely for bringing taxonomy and stability. In Polish it worked reasonably well 100 years ago with a limited number of native wildlife, but currently resulted in 100s of weird and absolutely uninformative names of birds, other animals and plants. In short, Polish bird names for the last 20 years bird became weirder and weirder, as people incorporated global names and systematic changes.

But they finally signed defeat with flycatchers. They are common birds which have only a single, very well known name in Polish, muchołówka (which is the exact calque of a fly-catcher). But muchołówka szara Muscicapa striata and muchołówka żałobna and allies Ficedula are unrelated offshoots of chats. The Polish name makers left them as it is.

 

[Joseph Anthony]

They are rejected by actual ornithologists I think, but we must think of future and young birders because they will be familiar with these new names. Many of the names that were used by our elders are no longer used by us.

I agree. And it doesn't just benefit future generations. The lexicon would increase and this wealth of terms that would be used would make the ornithological experience more refreshing. In the end it is a matter of adapting to changes. Once done and accepted, in no time no one wants to go back. The problem is starting with so much opposition.