Why Stelle r's Jay is wrong. It should be Steller J ay.=?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=8F?=

[Ted Floyd-3]

Hello, Birders.
 
Consider all of the following:
 
1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
2. Curtis Institute of Music
3. Turner Field
 
4. Obama administration
5. Messersmith case
6. Burger court
 
7. Johnny Carson show
8. Aunt Jemima syrup
9. Disney Channel
 
10. Erlenmeyer flask
11. Doppler effect
12. Fourier transform
 
13. Heimlich maneuver
14. Golgi apparatus
15. Salk vaccine
 
16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
17. Roberto Clemente Drive
18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
 
19. Lincoln County
20. Jefferson Township
21. Washington Borough
 
All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
 
22. Dall sheep
23. Douglas squirrel
24. Weddell seal
 
And now for the kicker:
 
25. Steller's Jay
 
Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.
 
The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
 
In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that those things have been named after Steller.
 
Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
 
My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in English.
 
Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding, April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English possessive.
 
A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original. Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point across in a different language.
 
Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very general way to denote association. The best English translation is "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John." But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering, "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
 
And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
 
To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously, and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's, and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write) "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's, 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
 
Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
 
Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the Cooper Hawk is still around!
 
-------------------------------
 
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
 
Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
 
-------------------------------    
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/

[Canyon Wren]

Hi  Birding Friends,
I'd like to elaborate on my take on this topic.

I like that the birds are named for those who discovered them.  It adds
history to birding.  I do not find the way these are named to be incorrect.
If Wilson found the warbler, then why shouldn't he have possession?  It is
"His" warbler from a historical point of view.  He should have the credit
for it's discovery.  I do not believe that the apostrophe is intended to
show that Wilson owns the warbler.  I believe it is intended to honor the
man who found and described it into science.  It lets birders know about
ornithologists who have made great contributions to the science.

Maybe I miss your point, but I am not convinced that this method of naming
is incorrect.  You English grammar PhDs out there, what do you have to say
about this matter?

I Googled Wilson's and found dozens and dozens of names with apostrophes
including Wilson's Warbler so obviously many things are named for many
different Wilsons.  If it is wrong, then it appears that this error is more
universal than Ted Floyd might think.

Then I looked at Wikipedia, and found the following that I've placed into
quotation marks below to indicated that I am quoting Wikipedia.

(List Owner's - If I'm out of order by pasting the following into a BirdChat
Post, PLEASE let me know. I was unable to paste a link to just this specific
info.  It would have required a link to the entire page.)

"Taxonomy and etymology
The Wilson's Warbler was first described in 1811 by the American
ornithologist Alexander Wilson, who placed it in the genus Muscicapa. The
species was moved to its current genus, Wilsonia, by the French naturalist
and ornithologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte in 1838. However, it did not
remain there for long; zoologist Thomas Nuttall moved it to the now-defunct
genus Sylvania in 1840, and by 1845, many authors included it in the
now-defunct genus Myiodioctes. In 1899, the American Ornithological Union
returned the species to Wilsonia, where it has remained since.[3]

Its genus name, Wilsonia, is a Latinization of its describer's surname, and
its species name, pusilla, is derived from the Latin word pusillus, meaning
very small.[4]

There are three recognized subspecies:

  a.. W. p. pusilla was first described by Alexander Wilson in 1811.
  b.. W. p. pileolata was first described by German naturalist Peter Simon
Pallas in 1811, based on a specimen collected on Alaska's Kodiak Island, in
what was then Russian territory.
  c.. W. p. chryseola was first described by American ornithologist Robert
Ridgway in 1902."

Happy Valentine's Day to all - note the apostrophe in Valentine's Day.  Does
that mean that St. Valentine owns this day?  Just more food for thought.

Lynea


Lynea Hinchman
Michigan City, Indiana
Heart of the Indiana Dunes
CanyonWrenatComcastdotnet
http://www.flickr.com/photos/canyon_wren

"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived though its first
material expression be destroyed.  A vanished harmony may yet again inspire
the composer, but when the last individual of a race of living beings
breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a
one can be again."  William Beebe

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Kenn Kaufman]

You might be interested to know that this was discussed at length in The
Condor, the journal of the Cooper Ornithological Club (now the Cooper
Ornithological Society), more than a century ago.  The first few issues of
Condor followed the American Ornithologists' Union in using the apostrophe-S
construction for possessives, but then several writers questioned this
usage.  By 1906, Joseph Grinnell, who was editing the Condor, decided that
it was time to break with the AOU; he wrote an essay about "Better
Vernacular Names" which you can read at this link:

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v008n06/p0154-p0155.pdf

Thereafter the Cooper Ornithological Society used its own version of names
for several decades.  If you look at old issues of the Condor from 1906 at
least into the early 1960s, you'll find references to Lincoln Sparrow,
Brewer Sparrow, Audubon Warbler, etc.  And the Condor was not alone in this
usage.  Even in the 1970s, some publications on birds of New Mexico were
writing possessives without the S, because John Hubbard, the state
ornithologist at the time, preferred Grinnell's approach.

Of course the question has been discussed more recently than 1906.  I don't
have time to run down the reference at the moment, but I seem to recall that
Ken Parkes wrote about this; I do remember seeing mention of "White's
Thrush" as an example of a bird name that would become very misleading with
the removal of the apostrophe-S.

Kenn Kaufman
Oak Harbor, Ohio

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Roger-116]

All but #25 are incorrect. There, enough said. :>)

Roger Craik
Maple Ridge BC

On 2010-02-14 6:52 AM, Ted Floyd wrote:

> Hello, Birders.
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
> 3. Turner Field
>
> 4. Obama administration
> 5. Messersmith case
> 6. Burger court
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
> 9. Disney Channel
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
> 11. Doppler effect
> 12. Fourier transform
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
> 14. Golgi apparatus
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
> 19. Lincoln County
> 20. Jefferson Township
> 21. Washington Borough
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
>
> 22. Dall sheep
> 23. Douglas squirrel
> 24. Weddell seal
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
>

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[David M. Gascoigne]

What Ted suggests is probably defensible from a pedagogical standpoint, but how about Mrs Gould's Sunbird? I would sure hate to see it changed to Mrs Gould Sunbird, which even seems cumbersome to say.

English language and usage is full of inconsistencies but perhaps that adds a certain charm.

 

David M. Gascoigne, 606 Osprey Drive, Waterloo, ON Canada N2V 2A5 519 725-0866, Fax [phone], blog: www.travelswithbirds.blogspot.com
 

> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:52:41 -0800
> From: tedfloyd57@...
> Subject: [BIRDCHAT] Why Stelle r's Jay is wrong. It should be Steller J ay.‏
> To: BIRDCHAT@...
>
>
> Hello, Birders.
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
> 3. Turner Field
>
> 4. Obama administration
> 5. Messersmith case
> 6. Burger court
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
> 9. Disney Channel
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
> 11. Doppler effect
> 12. Fourier transform
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
> 14. Golgi apparatus
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
> 19. Lincoln County
> 20. Jefferson Township
> 21. Washington Borough
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
>
> 22. Dall sheep
> 23. Douglas squirrel
> 24. Weddell seal
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.
>
> The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
>
> In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that those things have been named after Steller.
>
> Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
>
> My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in English.
>
> Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding, April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English possessive.
>
> A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original. Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point across in a different language.
>
> Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very general way to denote association. The best English translation is "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John." But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering, "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
>
> To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously, and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's, and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write) "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's, 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
>
> Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
>
> Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the Cooper Hawk is still around!
>
> -------------------------------
>
> Ted Floyd
> Editor, Birding
>
> Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
>
> -------------------------------
> _________________________________________________________________
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/

     
_________________________________________________________________

[David M Mark]

Hi.

I think that many of the birds are named for their (European) discoverer.
So I think the possessive in "Steller's Jay" means "the jay that Steller found".

I might agree with Ted on the birds that are named after someone other than
the discoverer... unless it is conceptualized as having been given to the
named person...

David

On Sun 02/14/10  9:52 AM , Ted Floyd tedfloyd57@... sent:

>
>
> Hello, Birders.
>
>
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
>
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
>
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
>
> 3. Turner Field
>
>
>
> 4. Obama administration
>
> 5. Messersmith case
>
> 6. Burger court
>
>
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
>
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
>
> 9. Disney Channel
>
>
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
>
> 11. Doppler effect
>
> 12. Fourier transform
>
>
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
>
> 14. Golgi apparatus
>
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
>
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
>
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
>
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
>
>
> 19. Lincoln County
>
> 20. Jefferson Township
>
> 21. Washington Borough
>
>
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the
> preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the
> following:
>
>
> 22. Dall sheep
>
> 23. Douglas squirrel
>
> 24. Weddell seal
>
>
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
>
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
>
>
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an
> apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say
> Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the
> reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union
> (AOU) says so.
>
>
> The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to
> write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But
> why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
>
>
> In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in
> Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something
> *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is
> *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or
> "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those
> things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that
> those things have been named after Steller.
>
>
> Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question
> remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
>
>
> My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to
> "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the
> genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in
> Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in
> English.
>
>
> Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine
> Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding,
> April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing
> good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an
> error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English
> possessive.
>
>
> A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original.
> Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point
> across in a different language.
>
>
> Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very
> general way to denote association. The best English translation is
> "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio
> de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in
> translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John."
> But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator
> would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering,
> "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about
> "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an
> eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal
> "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator
> would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of
> Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
>
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations
> such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is
> "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's
> simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as
> "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should
> be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
>
>
> To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously,
> and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few
> thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's,
> and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write)
> "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And
> here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's,
> 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a
> Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
>
>
> Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are
> affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and
> properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We
> want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't
> we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be
> heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it
> in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
>
>
> Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the
> Cooper Hawk is still around!
>
>
> -------------------------------
>
>
>
> Ted Floyd
>
> Editor, Birding
>
>
>
> Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
>
>
> -------------------------------                                        
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
>
> http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
>

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Michael Feighner]

I have never questioned this, but I have questioned the frequent misrepresentation of the name as  "Stellar Jay" or "Stellers Jay" or even "Vermillion Flycatcher" for "Vermilion Flycatcher".

In analyzing the reason behind the difference behind the examples below and in general all bird names:

Only  birds are named in honor of their discoverer and therefore the bird is name in the honor of its discoverer.  But then there is "General Custer's Last Stand", not "General Custer Last Stand", and "Uncle Tom's Cabin". And not "Uncle Tom Cabin.  The explanation here in these is that the stand belonged to General Custer and the cabin belonged to Uncle Tom.  The show did not belong to Johnny Carson.  The show belonged to the television network.  Johnny Carson was the lead personality in the show.

Maybe this is the reason why the AOU decided to stop naming new species and splits with someone's name for a while.  This practice has apparently re-appeared with the re-naming of the Nelson's Sparrow.

--
Mike Feighner, Livermore, CA (Alameda County)

-----Original Message-----
From: National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line) [mailto:BIRDCHAT@...] On Behalf Of Ted Floyd
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 6:53 AM
To: BIRDCHAT@...
Subject: [BIRDCHAT] Why Stelle r's Jay is wrong. It should be Steller J ay.‏


Hello, Birders.
 
Consider all of the following:
 
1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
2. Curtis Institute of Music
3. Turner Field
 
4. Obama administration
5. Messersmith case
6. Burger court
 
7. Johnny Carson show
8. Aunt Jemima syrup
9. Disney Channel
 
10. Erlenmeyer flask
11. Doppler effect
12. Fourier transform
 
13. Heimlich maneuver
14. Golgi apparatus
15. Salk vaccine
 
16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
17. Roberto Clemente Drive
18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
 
19. Lincoln County
20. Jefferson Township
21. Washington Borough
 
All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
 
22. Dall sheep
23. Douglas squirrel
24. Weddell seal
 
And now for the kicker:
 
25. Steller's Jay
 
Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.
 
The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
 
In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that those things have been named after Steller.
 
Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
 
My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in English.
 
Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding, April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English possessive.
 
A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original. Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point across in a different language.
 
Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very general way to denote association. The best English translation is "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John." But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering, "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
 
And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
 
To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously, and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's, and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write) "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's, 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
 
Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
 
Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the Cooper Hawk is still around!
 
-------------------------------
 
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
 
Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
 
-------------------------------                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Wayne Weber]

Ted,

Your tirade against the AOU, and your attempt to blame them for our long-established tradition of using the possessive form for birds named after people, is seriously flawed.

The possessive form (e.g. Steller's) is used not only by the AOU for birds of North America, but by the following:

-- The B.O.U. for birds occurring in Britain
-- Clements for birds of the world
-- most authorities for reptiles and amphibians (e.g. Blanding's turtle, Dunn's
        salamander, Gilbert's skink)
-- at least some authorities for mammals (e.g. in the Princeton Field Guide to
        Mammals of North America)
-- the great majority of authorities for plants

You conveniently left out this information in your arguments.

The fact is that, in English at least, the overwhelming tradition is to use the possessive form for patronyms (animals and plants that are named after people). If some mammalogists do not do that, it's the mammalogists who are out of step.

One matter of style where the AOU does differ with most similar organizations is in capitalizing English names of birds. Botanists, herpetologists, and mammalogists do not insist on capitalizing English names of species. In this situation, as well, I support the AOU. The English names of birds are proper names, and as such, should be capitalized. In many cases, it helps to avoid confusion about which species is being discussed (e.g. Yellow Warbler versus any yellow warbler).

Whether or not the use of the possessive form for bird species names is "correct" can be debated until one is blue in the face by linguists and other nit-pickers. However, this tradition started long before the AOU was founded.

Any lexicographer will tell you that correct word usage is determined as much by current usage as it is by historical origins or grammatical "correctness". The use of the possessive form for bird names has been in practice for centuries, and to most of us, it seems right and proper. Ted, good luck with your campaign to get rid of the possessive form of bird names, but yours is a minority viewpoint, and it is highly likely to remain so.

Wayne C. Weber
Delta, BC
contopus@...
 


-----Original Message-----
From: National Birding Hotline Cooperative (Chat Line) [mailto:BIRDCHAT@...] On Behalf Of Ted Floyd
Sent: February-14-10 6:53 AM
To: BIRDCHAT@...
Subject: [BIRDCHAT] Why Steller's Jay is wrong. It should be Steller Jay.‏


Hello, Birders.
 
Consider all of the following:
 
1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
2. Curtis Institute of Music
3. Turner Field
 
4. Obama administration
5. Messersmith case
6. Burger court
 
7. Johnny Carson show
8. Aunt Jemima syrup
9. Disney Channel
 
10. Erlenmeyer flask
11. Doppler effect
12. Fourier transform
 
13. Heimlich maneuver
14. Golgi apparatus
15. Salk vaccine
 
16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
17. Roberto Clemente Drive
18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
 
19. Lincoln County
20. Jefferson Township
21. Washington Borough
 
All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
 
22. Dall sheep
23. Douglas squirrel
24. Weddell seal
 
And now for the kicker:
 
25. Steller's Jay
 
Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.
 
The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century, has told us to write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler, Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But why? How come? Why has the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?
 
In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote possession, as in Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or Salk's notebook. If something *belongs to* someone, then you use the apostrophe-s. But if something is *named for* someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or "Steller's horse," to denote Steller's possession of those things. But it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote that those things have been named after Steller.
 
Okay, the AOU is "wrong." It always has been. But the question remains: Why? Why does the AOU do it that way?
 
My hypothesis is it has to do with the noble old tradition of trying to "Latinize" English. In Latin, one commemorates someone with the genitive, or possessive, case. That's totally fine. That's how you do it in Latin. But, and this is the critical point, That's *not* how you do it in English.
 
Those 19th-century (and 18th-century) taxonomists may well have been fine Latinists. (See Rick Wright's fascinating analysis and commentary, Birding, April 2003 issue, pp. 116-117.) But the problem here isn't one of knowing good Latin. The problem is one of translation. I submit that it is an error, in the present case, to translate the Latin genitive into an English possessive.
 
A key fallacy in translation is that one ought to preserve the original. Wrong! The essential goal of a skilled translator is to get the point across in a different language.
 
Consider the Spanish preposition "de," which is used in a very general way to denote association. The best English translation is "of." For example: Canto de la Tierra (Song of the Earth) or Rio de Luz (River of Light). Fine. That works. Also, you'd be okay in translating "Evangelio de Juan" as "Gospel of John." But let's say you have "el libro de Juan." A competent translator would render that as "Juan's book"; a more-literal rendering, "the book of Juan," just isn't good English. Or how about "una muchacha de ocho años"? I'd say "an eight-year-old girl" is a better translation than the more-literal "girl of eight years." And only a truly incompetent translator would render "Salida de Emergencia" as "Exit of Emergency"; of course, it should be "Emergency Exit."
 
And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe, with formulations such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin name of the species is "stelleri." But it's not necessarily correct--and I submit it's simply wrong--to "translate" that into English as "Steller's." The proper, and properly understood, English should be Steller, as in Steller Jay.
 
To some extent, we birders already know these things. We unselfconsciously, and quite logically, say and write things like, "I heard a few thrushes migrating last night...a half dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's, and a late Veery." We certainly don't say (or write) "Swainson'ses." (As in, "keeping up with the Joneses.) And here's a more telling example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's, 2 Roughies, 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
 
Formulations like Cooper's Hawk, Swainson's Thrush, and Steller's Jay are affected and antiquated. They're also wrong. Let's employ proper, and properly understood, English when we're writing and talking about birds. We want to share our passion for birding with as many folks as possible, don't we? We want to reach out to beginners, don't we? We want our voice to be heard, don't we? We want to make a difference, don't we? Then let's do it in a way that makes us look smart and relevant, not fussy and antiquated.
 
Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local patch. I hope the Cooper Hawk is still around!
 
-------------------------------
 
Ted Floyd
Editor, Birding
 
Follow Birding magazine on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BirdingMagazine
 
-------------------------------                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Jerry Friedman]

--- On Sun, 2/14/10, Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@...> wrote:
> Hello, Birders.
[snip examples of things named after people with no
apostrophe-s]

> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess
> is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you.

Yep.

> Now, how about the following:
>  
> 22. Dall sheep
> 23. Douglas squirrel
> 24. Weddell seal

Nope.  Until now, I didn't know whether the Dall sheep
and the Weddell seal were named after a place or a
person.
 

> And now for the kicker:
>  
> 25. Steller's Jay
>  
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with
> an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we
> don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or
> Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is
> because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.
>  
> The AOU, right from the get-go, in the late 19th century,
> has told us to write Steller's Jay, Wilson's Warbler,
> Botteri's Sparrow, and so forth. But why? How come? Why has
> the AOU always insisted on an apostrophe-s?

The names existed well before the AOU.  For instance,
Townsend named Audubon's Warbler in 1834.  The first
hit I can find for "Audubon Warbler" at Google Books
is from Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway, /A History of North
American Birds/ (1874), and there's nothing after that
till the apostrophe-s-less form starts an undeserved
period of popularity in 1895.
 
> In modern English, the apostrope-s is used to denote
> possession, as in Obama's shoes, or Erlenmeyer's house, or
> Salk's notebook. If something *belongs to* someone, then you
> use the apostrophe-s.

And many other times, too, as in "St. Valentine's Day",
as Lynea Hinchman noted, or "my country", or "Ashley's
favorite teacher", or "Ted Floyd's counterpart at
another organization".

> But if something is *named for*
> someone, you do not. Thus: "Steller's shotgun" or "Steller's
> horse," to denote Steller's possession of those things. But
> it should be Steller Jay and Steller Sea-Eagle, to denote
> that those things have been named after Steller.
...

There are a few exceptions even for geographic names,
as in the names of some of the taller mountains in
Colorado.

But we use possessives to name things after people
all the time.  Newton's method, Bernoulli's equation
(but Bernoulli polynomials), Cox's orange pippin,
Wood's metal, Broca's area, Barnard's star, etc.

> And that, in a nutshell, is what has happened, I believe,
> with formulations such as "Steller's Jay." Yes, the Latin
> name of the species is "stelleri." But it's not necessarily
> correct--and I submit it's simply wrong--to "translate" that
> into English as "Steller's." The proper, and properly
> understood, English should be Steller, as in Steller Jay.

I find it totally natural to name something after its
discoverer with an apostrophe-s.  And, of course, it
keeps people who hear the name from thinking the jay
is like a star, as others have said.

The oldest examples I can think of in English of
thing's named after "people" are Tiw's Day, Woden's
Day, Thor's Day, Frigga's Day, and Saturn(s'?) Day.
(Skeat gives forms for the Anglo-Saxon origiinals of
Saturday both with and without "s", so I don't know
whether they were all genitives.  According to various
Web references, the others were genitives.)  So this
has been going on for a long time.

Of course, there might be Latin influence--"Tiwes
daeg" was a "translation" of "dies Martis", Mars's
Day.  But if so, I think it's firmly a part of
English now.

> To some extent, we birders already know these things. We
> unselfconsciously, and quite logically, say and write things
> like, "I heard a few thrushes migrating last night...a half
> dozen Hermits, a dozen Swainson's, and a late Veery." We
> certainly don't say (or write) "Swainson'ses." (As in,
> "keeping up with the Joneses.) And here's a more telling
> example: "We saw some nice raptors...2 Harlan's, 2 Roughies,
> 3 Coops, and a Sharpie." Note: The bird is a Coop. Not a
> Coop's. And the plural is Coops. Not Coop's or Coop'ses.
...

I actually do a problem there.  However, the fact
that we also saw two Gray-cheeks, or a Gray-cheek,
doesn't mean we have to change the name to Gray-cheek
Thrush.  (Not that I've ever seen one.)  So I'm
happy to write either "Swainson's" or "Swainsons" for
the plural of "Swainson's", in the informal contexts
where these abbreviations are used.

There's also another problem, exemplified by Lynea
Hinchman's quotation from Wikipedia: "a Wilson's
Warbler" and especially "the Wilson's Warbler" sound
odd because we normally don't use "the" and "a"
before before possessives.  (For more information,
look up "determiner".)  I think we can handle this.

> Alright, I'm outta here, for a stroll around my local
> patch. I hope the Cooper Hawk is still around!

/Your/ patch?  Does it belong to you? :-)

I think we could solve the whole thing with "Stellerian
Jay", like "Blackburnian Warbler".

Jerry Friedman




BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Joseph Morlan-2]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:52:41 -0800, Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@...>
wrote:

>22. Dall sheep
>23. Douglas squirrel
>24. Weddell seal

...and these:

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)

Steller's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas)
Steller's sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA        jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu
SF Birding Classes start Feb.9     http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee  http://www.californiabirds.org/
Western Field Ornithologists       http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Dr Ronald Orenstein]

Also, does the "weddell" in Weddell Seal refer to the person or to the Sea (I always thought the latter)?

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Joseph Morlan <jmorlan@...> wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:52:41 -0800, Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@...>
wrote:

22. Dall sheep
23. Douglas squirrel
24. Weddell seal

...and these:

Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli)

Steller's sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas)
Steller's sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus)

--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA        jmorlan (at) ccsf.edu
SF Birding Classes start Feb.9     http://fog.ccsf.edu/jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee  http://www.californiabirds.org/
Western Field Ornithologists       http://www.westernfieldornithologists.org/

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html


BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Eric DeFonso-2]

I'm going to risk making a fool of myself here, but it seems to me
that all the examples Ted listed 1 through 21 are inanimate objects
named after people. 22-24 are animals, although my Mammals of North
America guidebook lists it as Dall's Sheep and Douglas's Squirrel, not
Dall Sheep or Douglas Squirrel. The Weddell Seal...well, who knows
what's going on there.

It just seems to me that there may be an additional rule at work here,
that animate things named after people use the apostrophe'd form
preferentially, while inanimate things preferentially do not. That may
seem a bit cumbersome, but it is by no means inconsistent or unusual.
Many languages have special usage rules that apply differently to
living things than they do to non-living things, so I'm not sure why
English needs to differ from that standard.

FWIW, my Mammal guide routinely lists animals named after people using
the apostrophe'd form, so the convention surely predates the AOU's
adoption of it.

Eric

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@...> wrote:

>
> Hello, Birders.
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
> 3. Turner Field
>
> 4. Obama administration
> 5. Messersmith case
> 6. Burger court
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
> 9. Disney Channel
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
> 11. Doppler effect
> 12. Fourier transform
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
> 14. Golgi apparatus
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
> 19. Lincoln County
> 20. Jefferson Township
> 21. Washington Borough
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
>
> 22. Dall sheep
> 23. Douglas squirrel
> 24. Weddell seal
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.

--
Eric DeFonso
Fort Collins, CO

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html

[Dr Ronald Orenstein]

I should note that the Intewrnational Ornithological Congress rules on English names has established as one of its rules that patronymic names are to be used in the possessive (see Gill, F. and M. Wright (2006), Birds of hte World: Recommended English Names, Princeton UP).

 Ronald Orenstein
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, ON L5L 3W2
Canada



----- Original Message ----
From: Eric DeFonso <bay.wren@...>
To: BIRDCHAT@...
Sent: Sun, February 14, 2010 8:51:00 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDCHAT] Why Stelle r's Jay is wrong. It shoul d be Steller J ay.‏

I'm going to risk making a fool of myself here, but it seems to me
that all the examples Ted listed 1 through 21 are inanimate objects
named after people. 22-24 are animals, although my Mammals of North
America guidebook lists it as Dall's Sheep and Douglas's Squirrel, not
Dall Sheep or Douglas Squirrel. The Weddell Seal...well, who knows
what's going on there.

It just seems to me that there may be an additional rule at work here,
that animate things named after people use the apostrophe'd form
preferentially, while inanimate things preferentially do not. That may
seem a bit cumbersome, but it is by no means inconsistent or unusual.
Many languages have special usage rules that apply differently to
living things than they do to non-living things, so I'm not sure why
English needs to differ from that standard.

FWIW, my Mammal guide routinely lists animals named after people using
the apostrophe'd form, so the convention surely predates the AOU's
adoption of it.

Eric

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Ted Floyd <tedfloyd57@...> wrote:

>
> Hello, Birders.
>
> Consider all of the following:
>
> 1. Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
> 2. Curtis Institute of Music
> 3. Turner Field
>
> 4. Obama administration
> 5. Messersmith case
> 6. Burger court
>
> 7. Johnny Carson show
> 8. Aunt Jemima syrup
> 9. Disney Channel
>
> 10. Erlenmeyer flask
> 11. Doppler effect
> 12. Fourier transform
>
> 13. Heimlich maneuver
> 14. Golgi apparatus
> 15. Salk vaccine
>
> 16. Martin Luther King Boulevard
> 17. Roberto Clemente Drive
> 18. Jerry Tarkanian Way
>
> 19. Lincoln County
> 20. Jefferson Township
> 21. Washington Borough
>
> All of the preceding are named for some person. My guess is, all of the preceding look basically "normal" to you. Now, how about the following:
>
> 22. Dall sheep
> 23. Douglas squirrel
> 24. Weddell seal
>
> And now for the kicker:
>
> 25. Steller's Jay
>
> Why? Why do we do that? Why do we write Steller's Jay, with an apostrophe-s? Why isn't it Steller Jay? After all, we don't write or say Turner's Field, or Doppler's effect, or Jefferson's Township. Well, the reason--the only reason--is because the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) says so.

--
Eric DeFonso
Fort Collins, CO

BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html


BirdChat Guidelines: http://www.ksu.edu/audubon/chatguidelines.html
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdchat.html