Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
Or simply an odd and somewhat curious, maybe self-made, claim or theory?
Here in Sweden we have (or had) a well-known illustrator, Author and Artist; Gunnar Brusewitz (1924–2004), who also was an acknowledged Naturalist [for example, commemorated in the beetle Microteuchestes brusewitzi LANDIN 1974], but even more important here, in this case, an experienced ornithologist and a true scholar in (especially Swedish) Natural History.
According to him, in the Explanatory Text part of Rudbeck's major Plate work Fogelboken*, derives the pilaris in the scientific name of the Fieldfare Turdus pilaris from pilum (hair), hence Fieldfares was a popular catch, a popular dish, captured by snares [in Swedish "Donor"] made out of tagel (hair from horses)!
At least that is, according to Brusewitz (in that book), what the etymology interested Swedish Professor Einar Lönnberg** claimed as the simple reason for this name! And this has long been, and is still today, a popular explanation of its pilaris (at least here in Sweden).
If true, based on what source, I don´t know! I haven´t even been able to find where Lönnberg claimed it, in this I´m simply trusting Brusewitz.
And even if true, if this is the real reason for its pilaris, I doubt that it was only Fieldfares that was caught in such a manner, as most Trushes (as well as other smaller passerines) was hunted in the same way in Sweden (and elsewhere) during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Century.
In any case it´s not an impossible explanation, to my eye they are not particularly "hairy", although also consider the far more accepted explanation of pilaris as in today's HBW Alive Key:
But could this claim be true?! Does any of the references in the OD by Linnaeus 1758 (attached) support Lönnberg's supposed claim? Does Linnaeus's own Fauna Svecia 1746 (here, No. 188***), alt. Gessner 1555 (here, p.753), Aldrovandus 1599 (here, pp.565-566: Etymum; "Ego pilaris nomen non vulgare …") or Willughby 1676 (here, pp.138-139) alt. Ray (Willughby) 1678 (here, pp.188-189) … and so on, mention this possible explanation, or hints in that direction, in any way?
Can anyone of you guys out there, who know Latin, find anything that support Mr. Lönnberg's theory?
If this is well-known nonsense (boloney) theory, long since dismissed and proven wrong, I apologize for once again repeating it.
Björn
--------
* Fogelboken, from 1693+ (wasn´t published until 1985) by Olof Rudbeck d.y. [d.y. = den yngre, the younger] (1660–1740) , Linnaeus tutor at Uppsala University. Not to confuse with his famous father, and namesake; Olof Rudbeck d.ä. [d.ä. = den äldre, the older] (1630–1702).
**As in loennbergi.
*** Note that the Swedish name is given as Kramsfogel, a collective name used for many edible, more or less, tasty passerines.
---
Here in Sweden we have (or had) a well-known illustrator, Author and Artist; Gunnar Brusewitz (1924–2004), who also was an acknowledged Naturalist [for example, commemorated in the beetle Microteuchestes brusewitzi LANDIN 1974], but even more important here, in this case, an experienced ornithologist and a true scholar in (especially Swedish) Natural History.
According to him, in the Explanatory Text part of Rudbeck's major Plate work Fogelboken*, derives the pilaris in the scientific name of the Fieldfare Turdus pilaris from pilum (hair), hence Fieldfares was a popular catch, a popular dish, captured by snares [in Swedish "Donor"] made out of tagel (hair from horses)!
At least that is, according to Brusewitz (in that book), what the etymology interested Swedish Professor Einar Lönnberg** claimed as the simple reason for this name! And this has long been, and is still today, a popular explanation of its pilaris (at least here in Sweden).
If true, based on what source, I don´t know! I haven´t even been able to find where Lönnberg claimed it, in this I´m simply trusting Brusewitz.
And even if true, if this is the real reason for its pilaris, I doubt that it was only Fieldfares that was caught in such a manner, as most Trushes (as well as other smaller passerines) was hunted in the same way in Sweden (and elsewhere) during the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Century.
In any case it´s not an impossible explanation, to my eye they are not particularly "hairy", although also consider the far more accepted explanation of pilaris as in today's HBW Alive Key:
It sure looks very well-researched.
But could this claim be true?! Does any of the references in the OD by Linnaeus 1758 (attached) support Lönnberg's supposed claim? Does Linnaeus's own Fauna Svecia 1746 (here, No. 188***), alt. Gessner 1555 (here, p.753), Aldrovandus 1599 (here, pp.565-566: Etymum; "Ego pilaris nomen non vulgare …") or Willughby 1676 (here, pp.138-139) alt. Ray (Willughby) 1678 (here, pp.188-189) … and so on, mention this possible explanation, or hints in that direction, in any way?
Can anyone of you guys out there, who know Latin, find anything that support Mr. Lönnberg's theory?
If this is well-known nonsense (boloney) theory, long since dismissed and proven wrong, I apologize for once again repeating it.
Björn
--------
* Fogelboken, from 1693+ (wasn´t published until 1985) by Olof Rudbeck d.y. [d.y. = den yngre, the younger] (1660–1740) , Linnaeus tutor at Uppsala University. Not to confuse with his famous father, and namesake; Olof Rudbeck d.ä. [d.ä. = den äldre, the older] (1630–1702).
**As in loennbergi.
*** Note that the Swedish name is given as Kramsfogel, a collective name used for many edible, more or less, tasty passerines.
---
Attachments
Last edited:
