Parrots (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

My impression is French is one of the languages in which there is the greatest level of taxonomic agreement / alignment with common names and English is one of the languages where names are very broadly applied.

Yes, we have a more taxonomic approach because despite this abuse of language, French binomials names are not vernacular, they are scientific (read some works on molluscs, reptiles and amphibians). I'm working on French names and I have ensured, at least as best as I could, that French genera reflect natural groups while avoiding polyphyletic use. But we also have to trace the history of any name through literature to know which species is the origin of this or that name, and that how I realized that the list of French names contained many errors or questionable choices.

I don't want ornithological vocabulary to become newspeak with a weak lexicon. Rich vocabulary leads to rich thinking and since names are an identity, we cannot bring together under the same identity groups which have nothing to do with each other.

 

[THE_FERN]

But we can use two types of nomenclature, that of the field with a generalist and simple vocabulary and that of the literature with a more precise vocabulary. Is the English language rich in terms of naturalistic lexicon? E.g. I find it hard to believe that "Warbler" is the only name that exists in the English vocabulary to designate all species that look like a warbler.

No. We already have scientific names. We've messed them up right enough---let's not do the same with "common" names. We can use the scientific names where precision is required and we don't think the English name is unambiguous

 

[Mysticete]

No. We already have scientific names. We've messed them up right enough---let's not do the same with "common" names. We can use the scientific names where precision is required and we don't think the English name is unambiguous

I don't mind changing common names in the case where you have a few odd outliers or where it may emphasize the distinctiveness...stuff like giving a new name to the two Pittasoma antpitta species seems a good move. But yeah...the idea of trying to find new "unique" names for all the different warblers is head-ache inducing. A move like that would be hugely destabilizing without much benefit (IMHO).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't mind changing common names in the case where you have a few odd outliers or where it may emphasize the distinctiveness...stuff like giving a new name to the two Pittasoma antpitta species seems a good move. But yeah...the idea of trying to find new "unique" names for all the different warblers is head-ache inducing. A move like that would be hugely destabilizing without much benefit (IMHO).

Reading this, I have a recurring question that often comes to mind: is the English naturalist vocabulary so poor that you have to use the same names under the pretext of stability and simplicity? Among us, I imagine that there are members who are interested in the linguistics and history of local popular names. Doesn't an impoverishment of vocabulary lead to an impoverishment of thought?

 

[njlarsen]

First time I had explained to me the difference in flight mode between Pionus and Amazona parrots, it was a bit of a revelation. Even though I do not have a strong feeling, I am leaning towards being in favor of the change of common name to Amazon for the second group.

Niels

 

[THE_FERN]

Reading this, I have a recurring question that often comes to mind: is the English naturalist vocabulary so poor that you have to use the same names under the pretext of stability and simplicity? Among us, I imagine that there are members who are interested in the linguistics and history of local popular names. Doesn't an impoverishment of vocabulary lead to an impoverishment of thought?

Scientific names act or are intended to act as globally unique identifiers. Therefore, there are rules about them to facilitate global scientific communication. Common names don't perform the same function---the scope over which they operate is smaller and they don't have to be exclusive. If someone says "I have a robin in my garden" and they are in Australia I don't immediately think must be E. rubecula. If my US aunt says she's seen a buzzard I know to check if it was in fact a vulture.

To talk about impoverishment of vocabulary hardly applies to English, the mongrol language---with many more words than most others, and with many of those taken from other languages (such as French)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

. If someone says "I have a robin in my garden" and they are in Australia I don't immediately think must be E. rubecula

Because for you, Robin is a generalist name that designates a bird with a red throat (in principle). But you know what is most curious, it is that the name Robin is used in the French nomenclature for the genus Tarsiger. My opinion is that there were no popular name for this genus and that the name Robin has been applied by default.

The French equivalent of Robin is "Rougegorge" and it is only used as generic name for the genus Erithacus (I don't include some Cossyphine genera which are in fact "Cossyphe" not "Rougegorge") and it will never be misused for other bird even if it has a red throat.