It's always bothered me that most media outlets don't capitalize the common names of birds. I've just never understood why. It's unnecessarily confusing - does "I saw a yellow warbler" mean you saw the species Setophaga petechia or that you saw a warbler of the color yellow, like a Prothonotary or Pine Warbler?
It also strikes me - as a birder - as disrespectful. Birders are a species-centric bunch. Field guides are divided into species, each one seeming to be its own separate brick - distinct but accommodating - in the birdlife structure. Our lists are built by species one-by-one; the Carolina Chickadee only counts once no matter how many individuals you've seen. To us, the combination of words creating a species' common name is the carrier of meaning, it's the it, it creates - quite literally - a proper noun. (Sometimes even capital letters at the start of the words aren't enough, and we distinguish species in bold or in all-caps.)
To cast that combination of words back among the unwashed lower-case, then, is to rob it of its magic. To a birder it seems undignified. To a scientist, though, treating species not as icons but as data (or, more likely, with a much better understanding of the muddy fluidity that is the "species" concept), or to a layperson, who couldn't give a crap either way, the common name is meaningless, unworthy of extra typeface.
An English professor would explain that the difference is common vs. proper nouns. The argument is that, basically, the common name of a bird species is not capitalized because there are lots of individuals of that bird. So, while the words Eastern Bluebird refer to a unique species, they don't refer to a unique bird, and it should be just eastern bluebird.
I think this is garbage. Say what you will about common nouns, but there's nothing common about Common Goldeneye: the uncommon combination of those words means the author wasn't referring to some common goldeneye but a Common Goldeneye, an uncommon bird among all birds but one distinct from - and more common than - the uncommon Barrow's Goldeneye. The "common-ness" of a common noun falls away when it refers to something specific.
The academic distinction erodes further when talking about brand names. Under most style guides, Jeep Golden Eagles and Plymouth Road Runners get the royal treatment but golden eagles and greater roadrunners don't. Why is that? Like a bird's common name, saying "Plymouth Road Runner" doesn't refer to a single car but a group of alike cars that are somehow distinguishable from others. You're telling me that some stupid marketer's focus-grouped baloney gets capital letters but living creatures that have literally reshaped their own bodies over thousands of years to better survive harsh and changing environments are "common"?
Look, just capitalize your common species names, OK? Show a little respect.
Birding the Slopes of Turrialba Volcano
18 hours ago
25 comments:
Capitalization of common names seems to be a birder quirk. In scientific literature, it's standard to use lowercase for comm names, and capitalization for scientific names. See, for example, this article on Great Tits. It's not clear to me that journalists should follow the birding usage rather than the scientific one. An interesting question would be why the birding and scientific usages diverged in the first place.
John's right: birders do this and hardly anyone else.
All the talk about bird names' being "proper" really doesn't make sense; it's just typographic convention to make scanning English prose easier, and like all convention purely arbitrary. I do it on my b-log and whenever I'm publishing in a place whose style sheet demands it, but I'm aware all the time that it's odd to the point of incorrectness.
Would you ever write
I though I saw a free-roaming pack of Domestic Dogs, but then I saw that they were accompanied by two Humans walking across my Kentucky Bluegrass
?
Didn't think so.
Gonna have to completely disagree with you, Rick! I believe that species names should be capitalized because they are proper in the sense that they're distinct (in the way that a car brand is distinct). In your example from above, "Domestic Dog" would not be capitalized because it's the general term (and I know that dog breeds are complicated and probably the exception, but for dogs I would equate breeds with species for other animals), "Humans" would not be capitalized because it's also the general, but Kentucky Bluegrass would be capitalized. I am not advocating for the word "bird" to be capitalized, or "warbler" or "hawk" in the general usage, but when someone writes "Chestnut-sided Warbler" they mean that specific brand of warbler, and capital letters are due.
In the fisheries scientific world common names are now officially capitalized.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03632415.2013.767244#preview
It's not a "birder quirk". Butterfly watchers do it, too. But we get better names: nothing in the world of birds beats the Great Spangled Fritillary, the Mourning Cloak, the Question Mark, or the Whirlabout.
Capitalizing species names is a bad idea. It makes documents harder to read. Each capital letter is like a little hill that your eye has to climb.
It's not routinely done in botany or forestry; why do it in some disciplines and not others?
I think there are times when capitalization of species names is appropriate and times when it's not.
It is appropriate when a species name or a few species names are repeated relatively infrequently, or frequently in a paper or article of which that or those species are the focus.
Capitalization can becomes an annoyance or a bunch of "hill[s] that your eye has to climb" when many species are frequently mentioned or listed. A good example of this is Scott Weidensaul's book 'Of a Feather.' This book routinely mentions many species by common name, often many in one sentence or paragraph. In this instance, capitalizing every common name would give the text a cluttered look and would, in my opinion, strain the eye and slow the rate at which the text is read. It also makes the tone inappropriate for the audience: people curling up with a good book read for leisure. Capitalization of common names in an academic paper, even when many are listed or mentioned in a sentence or paragraph, would, obviously, make for a tone that fits the writing's purpose.
It all comes down to style. For some fiction writers, capitalizing a species name would be abhorrent to their style. A good writer, though, will know that writing "a yellow warbler" might better be written "a warbler yellow in color" or "a warbler with yellow plumage." But if "a yellow warbler" is written, we can give both the author and the reader the benefit of the doubt in deciding which is meant.
It's a Gray Area.
I think there are times when capitalization of species names is appropriate and times when it's not.
It is appropriate when a species name or a few species names are repeated relatively infrequently, or frequently in a paper or article of which that or those species are the focus.
Capitalization can becomes an annoyance or a bunch of "hill[s] that your eye has to climb" when many species are frequently mentioned or listed. A good example of this is Scott Weidensaul's book 'Of a Feather.' This book routinely mentions many species by common name, often many in one sentence or paragraph. In this instance, capitalizing every common name would give the text a cluttered look and would, in my opinion, strain the eye and slow the rate at which the text is read. It also makes the tone inappropriate for the audience: people curling up with a good book read for leisure. Capitalization of common names in an academic paper, even when many are listed or mentioned in a sentence or paragraph, would, obviously, make for a tone that fits the writing's purpose.
It all comes down to style. For some fiction writers, capitalizing a species name would be abhorrent to their style. A good writer, though, will know that writing "a yellow warbler" might better be written "a warbler yellow in color" or "a warbler with yellow plumage." But if "a yellow warbler" is written, we can give both the author and the reader the benefit of the doubt in deciding which is meant.
It's a Gray Area.
Hi folks-
I understand your points about texts looking cluttered or having to "climb the hill" of a capital letter, but I think the few instances of clutter are overwhelmed in importance by the confusion avoided by capitalization of species names. In my view, there's simply great benefit to being able to express whether you're talking about a yellow warbler or a Yellow Warbler - especially when the reader may not be familiar with species names and would have a hard time picking up the name in context.
-Nick
I have to say I agree with your sentiments about why bird names should OFTEN be capitalized (but not ALWAYS, depending).
It seems criminal to denote proper bird names to common nouns fullstop, but even more so when stupid brands or football teams get caps. Makes no logical sense at all. It's just wrong. I abhor the whole concept of common nouns in that capitalist ventures are, well, capitalized – as if important – but nature is not because it's not important. Screw that. Who makes those decisions anyway?! Is there a corporate boardroom round table on use of the noun?
Generally most respected bird resources capitalize names like, for instance, 'Gang-gang' because well – it's an individual name. There aren't any other kinds of Gang-gang cockatoos whereas there are lots of species of cockatoo.
Who says we always have to follow convention because something is traditionally "done a certain way", especially when it's clearly idiotic? And in this case I'd like to help along that change so I shall be capitalizing in my books.
Just want to say that many scientific papers on birds actually do capitalize the common names, especially when discussing birds in the Americas. So--using lower case is not necessarily a scientific convention as one of the commentators suggested.
Being a scientist (birdist or any other type of freaks) required professional academic writing to summarize all the data you collected about birds (or dogs, cats, etc)
I'm curious whether ornithologists adopted the Common Name approach at some point or whether capitalizing Common Names is the archaic, default style for common names in Olde English [sic]. In the latter scenario, all but birds lost their capitalizations.
One of the frustrating things about democracy is that your Average Joe and Josephine think their opinions are equal to those of specialists. Ornithologists are wonderful people to consult if you want to know about birds, but the matter of whether to capitalize the first letters of common names of bird species is not a scientific matter, but one of grammar. So, it is appropriate to follow, say, IOU or AOU taxonomic conventions. On the finer points of grammar, though, these bodies' recommendations may safely be disregarded. Consult, instead, a grammarian or style manual.
And grammarians and style manuals are unanimous on the point: proper names pertain ("belong to" or "are proper to") only single, individual things, and not to classes of things. A species is, by definition, a class of things that includes (one hopes) many individuals. Therefore, the names of species are common nouns--the modifier "common" tells us as much: species names are "common" nouns because they're shared by ("common to") many individuals in class of things.
Any argument to the contrary is pure sophistry. For example, Jon S. Greenlaw writes, "My unabridged dictionary defines a 'proper noun' as (1) a word that is not necessarily preceded by an article (e.g., 'the,' 'a') and (2) denotes a particular person, place, or thing. A species is a particular thing or biological entity." (https://www.worldbirdnames.org/english-names/spelling-rules/capitalization/). Well, no. A species is a general thing comprising many biological entities. That's what makes it a species: it's many individuals who have enough in common (ability to reproduce, etc.) to belong to the same group. Again, common noun, not a proper one.
All other, non-grammatical arguments about the usefulness or desirability of initial caps are utterly beside the point. Some have argued that capitalization distinguishes between taxonomic names and common descriptions (White-Throated Sparrow vs. white-throated sparrow); others, that it facilitates communication by highlighting the species being discussed; and still others, that it accords birds their true ontological due rather than relegating them to "second-hand citizenship" with lower-case letters. One could easily make any number of counterarguments: capitalization detracts from readability because overcapitalizing creates visual "noise" and distracts readers; one perspicacious reader above compares capitals to "little hills" readers must climb every time they see one. (Read any Trump tweet to see how horrible initial caps look.) Birds' importance doesn't require the artificial inflation that capitals purportedly lend.
The only logical point that the "capitalists" make, distinguishing between species names and descriptions of birds, can easily be handled with careful writing: "yellow warbler" for the species, "yellow-colored warbler" for an unidentified warbler with some yellow on it; "great egret" for the species, "wonderful" or "marvelous egret" for an especially inspiring egret (but is there any egret that isn't wonderful?).
In short, do whatever you like. But if you capitalize, know that you're transgressing grammatical convention.
Thanks dcuervo for your comment. I am fully aware that capitalizing species names is a transgression of grammatical convention, but the point is that I think those conventions are wrong and I don't care about them. English language changes all the time, and I think this is a change for the better.
“Dr. Barbara Helm during fieldwork -- in this case with great tits. Credit: Barbara Helm / University of Groningen”. https://phys.org/news/2019-10-evolution-resetting-annual-clock-migratory.amp
Case closed.
Could you explain the reason for capitalization of apple varieties?
The purpose of grammar rules and conventions is for clarity of communication. If rules and conventions create confusion they should be changed or at minimum disregarded by those trying to communicate.
As has been said...there is nothing 'clear' about I saw a white-throated sparrow because there are many sparrows with white throats. Most bats in North America are little and brown so...little brown bat describes most of them. Little Brown Bat, however, clarifies that you are referring to a specific form of creature with that name. If the argument is that we should do away with common names altogether and simply use scientific names in common parlance, well...I don't think that is realistic or practical whatsoever.
I have no issue transgressing the notions and small-mindedness of grammatical elites in pursuit of clear communication.
Yours,
PCK
That comment about the Great Tits says all that needs to be said about the value of clarifying a bird reference!
I was just doing an entry on eBird.org and ran into my own confusion about capitalization. So, there are situations when one can choose to avoid confusion by using unconventional style, including capitalization. It's much friendlier to the reader than being ambiguous. There are some times when it is practically unkind of the writer to avoid clarity by sticking to "rules" or Common Convention. Sometimes, adding additional text is an even worse option, so it is easier and simply kinder to the reader to use a form of visual emphasis. Asterisks are *NOT* part of standard grammar, neither is writing with all-caps. Still, the writer has a choice and if non-standard writing helps make the point more clear (helping the reader) without tripping them up (impeding the reader), than any critic of such writing can go stuff it. Writing style serves humans, *NOT* the other way around!
Rick Wright takes a rude approach to discourse by telling people what they would choose for themselves. Who is he to decide what people choose for themselves? Were I writing an article distinguishing various species or types of dogs, I would be likely to use capital letters for Domestic Dogs if that referred to their species type, rather than if they had received a form of domesticating upbringing. If such a choice hurts Rick so badly, he should go talk to his therapist about his disproportionate emotions rather than presumptuously telling people what they would choose for themselves.
Loewen referenced an article on phys.org which has since been modified so that the feature mentioned is no longer present. To see the original, go to the URL.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191024201626/https://phys.org/news/2019-10-evolution-resetting-annual-clock-migratory.amp
For me as a writer who writes for the general public, it seems pretentious to use capital letters for bird species when I don't use capitals for mammal species like coyote or red fox or fish like walleye or amphibians like wood frog or . . . I get your points about the yellow warbler and the great tits, but as stated by lots of folks earlier, these worries can be easily avoided. I've written for 33 years about wildlife and never used capitals for bird species, not that that means I'm right, but rather it's customary in most writing for the general public. I don't think there's a right or wrong here - the circumstance may be the final arbiter.
Post a Comment