Bird names capitalisation (1 Viewer)

[JTweedie]

What's the actual form for writing common bird names? I've tended to use capitals, like this: "Mute Swan", but what way should it really be written? "Mute swan", "mute swan"?

I realise in some cases part of the name will be an actual name, like Cetti's Warbler and so the first part needs to be capitalised, but what about "warbler"?

If we're talking about swans or warblers in general, is there a need to capitalise the words?

Is there an official way, or can you just do your own thing?

Looking in two of my books, including the Collins, they use capital letters for common names, but the Collins only specifically mentions capitalisation when talking about scientific names which I already knew about.

 

[ovenbird43]

I don't think there is an "official" standard- there are some scientific journals that use lower case for common names (except when it includes a proper name, as in your example Cetti's warbler) and others that capitalize all words in a common name (e.g. Mute Swan), although referring to groups of birds more generally they would use "warblers, sparrows" etc. The latter seems to be more common practice among birders, but both are perfectly acceptable.

 

[Steve Lister]

This has been done-to-death in previous threads.

I, and most people, maintain that bird names should be capitalised. But many, including the editor of the RSPB magazine, think differently.

Steve

 

[Richard Klim]

They're only common/vernacular names, so there are no mandatory requirements (as with scientific names, ie ICZN) - so, each to his/her own! In practice, most recent mainstream English-language authors and authorities in ornithology (RSPB being a notable exception) have chosen to use leading capitals. But it's less common in other zoological classes (eg, mammals).

 

[Steve Babbs]

Clearly, the rules of grammar state that you use capital letters to begin proper nouns only . So, bird names should not begin with capitals- unless there is another reason to use a capital. However, I do see the argument that it can be clearer if you do begin them with a capital letter.

Maybe it's just a sign that I'm mellowing, but I can now see both sides of the argument.

 

[LabradorDuck]

Clearly, the rules of grammar state that you use capital letters to begin proper nouns only .

The rules of grammar are not in question. The discussion is whether or not the names of bird species should be considered proper nouns (and thus capitalized). In my experience they usually are, but there are no set rules that apply everywhere.

I find that using them as proper nouns helps to differentiate between a vernacular name that corresponds to a particular scientific name and terms that refer to or describe informal categories. For instance, the Ring-billed Gull is a common gull, but it is not a Common Gull. There are many yellow warblers, but only one Yellow Warbler (pending splits of course ).

 

[Steve Babbs]

The rules of grammar are not in question. The discussion is whether or not the names of bird species should be considered proper nouns (and thus capitalized). In my experience they usually are, but there are no set rules that apply everywhere.

I find that using them as proper nouns helps to differentiate between a vernacular name that corresponds to a particular scientific name and terms that refer to or describe informal categories. For instance, the Ring-billed Gull is a common gull, but it is not a Common Gull. There are many yellow warblers, but only one Yellow Warbler (pending splits of course ).

They are not proper nouns; I would have thought that was not really open for debate. See, for example, Wikipedia:

A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing a unique entity (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota), as distinguished from a common noun, which represents a class of entities (or nonunique instance of that class)—for example, city, planet, person or corporation).[1] In English, proper nouns are not normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier (such as any or some), and are used to denote a particular person, place, or object without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have[2] (for example, a town called "Newtown" may be, but does not necessarily have to be, a new [recently built] town).

But I do take the point about distinguishing between yellow coloured warblers and the species yellow warbler; so there may be a case of bending the rules of English, for clarity.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

 

[Richard Klim]

They are not proper nouns; I would have thought that was not really open for debate...

The common names of bird species can arguably be considered to be compound proper names - analagous to, eg, 'United Nations', 'Royal Air Force' or 'Daily Telegraph' - the individual words are not proper nouns, but in a particular context they collectively form a proper name describing a unique entity.

 

[fugl]

The common names of bird species can arguably be considered to be compound proper names - analagous to, eg, 'United Nations', 'Royal Air Force' or 'Daily Telegraph' - the individual words are not proper nouns, but in a particular context they collectively form a proper name describing a unique entity.

Indeed they can. And whether we do so or not in particular cases is just a matter of convention as you've already pointed out in post #4, this thread (or alternatively, if we want to go the proper noun route & take "this thread" as given, just plain Post #4 ).

 

[Steve Babbs]

To quote Professor David Crystal, proper nouns differ from common nouns in three ways:

Proper nouns can stand alone: Yellow Warbler is here? Surely it's, the yellow warbler is here.
Proper nouns do not usually allow a plural: well I'd say you can easily talk about yellow warblers.
Proper nouns are not usually used with determiners: you can have a yellow warbler, the yellow warbler and some yellow warblers.

 

[fugl]

To quote Professor David Crystal, proper nouns differ from common nouns in three ways:

Proper nouns can stand alone: Yellow Warbler is here? Surely it's, the yellow warbler is here.

Not necessarily: Surely it's "the Dalai Lama" is here, not "Dalai Lama" is here.

 

[redeyedvideo]

To quote Professor David Crystal, proper nouns differ from common nouns in three ways:

Proper nouns can stand alone: Yellow Warbler is here? Surely it's, the yellow warbler is here.
Proper nouns do not usually allow a plural: well I'd say you can easily talk about yellow warblers.
Proper nouns are not usually used with determiners: you can have a yellow warbler, the yellow warbler and some yellow warblers.

Confusing isn't it? I'd prefer Yellow Warbler to distinguish between a warbler which is yellow but not a Yellow Warbler just as a Little Grebe is a grebe which is little and therefore called a Little Grebe. Similarly Grey Partridge, a partridge which happens to be grey amongst other colours or Gray Catbird which happens to be gray as it's an American species and not grey which would indicate a European species. Each new sentence should start with a capital.

Pied-billed Grebe could be pied-billed Grebe in the middle of a sentence which makes no sense, the bill isn't even pied. So where do we go from here? Blackbird is a species, black bird is a description of a bird which is predominantly black but not necessarily a Blackbird which is a type of thrush.

Naumann's Thrush would still be Naumann's as it's named after a person but thrush could be Thrush or thrush depending on how lazy you are, after all it takes a massive effort to hit that caps lock and release it juSt at tHe righT tiMe. Dusky Thrush is a species long overdue for the masses.

 

[Mike Montier]

Blackbirds are black birds, but not all black birds are blackbirds.

 

[redeyedvideo]

Blackbirds are black birds, but not all black birds are blackbirds.

Some Blackbirds are brown. In fact I'd go as far as saying about 50% are not black.

 

[MSA]

They are not proper nouns; I would have thought that was not really open for debate. See, for example, Wikipedia:

A proper noun or proper name is a noun representing a unique entity (such as London, Jupiter, John Hunter, or Toyota)

I think this example suggests that capitalisation is required - Toyota is a brand encompassing various makes and models, so you'd have a Toyota Corolla (of which there are many in existence, but all pretty much the same) just as you'd have a Yellow Warbler, surely?

 

[Steve Babbs]

I'm going to bow out. I teach grammar every working day; I go birding and come to BirdForum, at least partly, to forget the stresses of my job.

But I can't resist a last point: all brand names require capitilisation, hence Toyota etc.

I would recommend Rediscover Grammar with David Crystal as an excellent book for those who want to understand the rules of grammar.

 

[Richard Klim]

Irrespective of grammatical definitions, the reality is that the use of leading capitals for specific (rather than general) 'type' names is common accepted practice in everyday written English.

Aircraft types are an analagous example, eg, Sea King, Harrier/Sea Harrier, Flying Fortress, Phantom, Fighting Falcon, Typhoon etc etc - always spelt with leading capitals, but rarely standing alone (with the curious exception of Concorde), and frequently used in the plural or without a determiner.

PS. Conversely, there seems to be an increasing fashion for brand/company names eschewing leading capitals, eg, easyJet.

 

[htcdude]

I think it should be a mix of lower and upper case, containing at least one number and symbol.

 

[MJB]

I think it should be a mix of lower and upper case, containing at least one number and symbol.

L1ke 1T!!!:t::t::t:
MJB
PS Capitalising initial letters of English names of birds comes in useful when many species are mentioned in a large amount of text - it helps to pick the names out