Common names - e.g. Common Gull vs common gull?

[AshLee]

I read with interest an article in the recent LNHS newsletter. In fact, I haven't got past page 5 yet because I'm going round in circles trying to decide on something.

The LNHS have recently adopted the format by which common names are not capitalised. Apparently this has led to a lively exchange of views on their forum. I'm not a member of the forum and I can only read the posts of the main protagonist and antagonist:

KEIR MOTTRAM (for capitalisation):
"Style is important - capitals can look ugly. But meaning is paramount. To put style before content, especially in a scientific context, is to put the cart before the horse. Let's face it, we're trying to tell other people clearly and unambiguously what we've found. We're trying to tell people names of things, not win the Nobel Prize for Literature".

RODNEY BURTON (against capitalisation):
"I quote: "Common names of animals and plants must begin with lower-case initials (except for proper nouns)". Examples of proper nouns in this context are Dartford warbler and Cetti's warbler, a place and a person. Actually the wording is incomplete because it does not allow for adjectives derived from common nouns; I'm sure Keith would not want us to write russion comfrey or himalayan honeysuckle".

Even the instructions to the contributors of the London Naturalist seem to be incomplete on this matter!

I thought this debate was an interesting one. Anyone in the LNHS can vote for their preferred style. I was wondering what members here thought of this issue.

Larus fuscus Linnaeus, 1758:
Lesser Black-Backed Gull,
Lesser Black-backed Gull,
Lesser Black-backed gull,
Lesser black-backed gull or
lesser black-backed gull?

[thunder]

In my view one should use capital letters for vernacular names. There is a world of difference between "I saw a common gull" and "I saw a Common Gull". But of course some journals have their own style, and the editors will make what changes they wish, despite it introducing ambiguities

henrya

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by AshLee

.........
The LNHS have recently adopted the format by which common names are not capitalised. Apparently this has led to a lively exchange of views on their forum. I'm not a member of the forum and I can only read the posts of the main protagonist and antagonist:
..........

This is standard practice in the scientific literature. It hasn't just been adopted by the LNHS but the new Newsletter editor been checking that his usage conforms with the standard practice.

Most people would use the standard, Latin name attaching a common name if one exists. The common name by definition is a common noun and therefore does not take a capital letter unless part of the name is a proper noun (e.g. Dartford warbler). Capitalisation is only applied to proper nouns which, by definition, are ones which apply to something unique or very specific: personal names, geographical and astronomical features, cardinal points etc..

I would, generally, be quite happy without the common name although I realise that birds, most butterflies and many flowers are better known by vernacular names. However, there is no justification for giving the latter capital letters!

[AshLee]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

This is standard practice in the scientific literature. It hasn't just been adopted by the LNHS but the new Newsletter editor been checking that his usage conforms with the standard practice.

Most people would use the standard, Latin name attaching a common name if one exists. The common name by definition is a common noun and therefore does not take a capital letter unless part of the name is a proper noun (e.g. Dartford warbler). Capitalisation is only applied to proper nouns which, by definition, are ones which apply to something unique or very specific: personal names, geographical and astronomical features, cardinal points etc..

I would, generally, be quite happy without the common name although I realise that birds, most butterflies and many flowers are better known by vernacular names. However, there is no justification for giving the latter capital letters!

Oh, sorry Paul, I misunderstood. So it's just the Newsletter that is trying to conform with the rest of the scientific literature.

[Paul mabbott]

There is a world of difference between "I saw a common gull" and "I saw a Common Gull". But of course some journals have their own style, and the editors will make what changes they wish, despite it introducing ambiguities
henrya

... but that is unlikely to happen in the scientific literature and, if it did, then the use of Larus canus would avoid any possible confusion?

Originally Posted by thunder

In my view one should use capital letters for vernacular names.

Don't get me on to vernacular names. I take 'vernacular' to mean of the people, popular, a generally understood term. However, it is commonly applied to mean a name in English (I'm sure the same thing happens in other countries/languages ).
Lots of these names are actually made up (botanists are particularly notorious for this but even coleopterists have started doing it). I doubt that many 'vernacular' plant names are known by anyone outside of a small circle of botanists: how many people know what 'three-nerved sandwort' is? Probably fewer people than know what Moehringia trinervia is but at least the latter would be recognised all over the world and it can be looked up in an index .... many common names cannot.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by AshLee

Oh, sorry Paul, I misunderstood. So it's just the Newsletter that is trying to conform with the rest of the scientific literature.

That's my interpretation - certainly it has been the usage in the London Naturalist for as long as I've been reading it!

[Jason Green]

Morning Ash!

Interesting question, it'll have to be Lesser Black-backed Gull for me though I've never really considered nouns and capitalisation in relation to it before. Oh, and I always bold the vernaculars too! Both just being my style. As Keir Mottram said, we're emphasising what we've found as opposed to applying full rules of literature (but this being the only exception I make - I don't use 'txt spk' in texts either! ).

Take care,

Jason

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Jason Green

........ Oh, and I always bold the vernaculars too! Both just being my style. ......

You have something there. When the likelihood of confusion can occur then using bold or underline will indicate that a common name is being used? That would be perfectly fine for instance in a observation to an e-group.

PS: Most of the examples given in this discussion (e.g. common versus Common gull) tend to be reports of conversations ..... how do we manage to get away without capitals in speech?

[Jason Green]

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

You have something there. When the likelihood of confusion can occur then using bold or underline will indicate that a common name is being used? That would be perfectly fine for instance in a observation to an e-group.

I use this format thoughout my website. When it comes to the italic captions under my images I even break off italics temporarily to insert a vernacular to keep in with my style, and differenciation.

[Jason Green]

I replied to this post as soon as I saw it without reading further responses. I missed this one, which makes a good point:

Originally Posted by thunder

In my view one should use capital letters for vernacular names. There is a world of difference between "I saw a common gull" and "I saw a Common Gull". But of course some journals have their own style, and the editors will make what changes they wish, despite it introducing ambiguities

henrya

I suppose in saying you saw a common gull, some who are unfamiliar with the different gulls (some think seagull is a species in it's own right, I didn't know of the different ones before I got interested in them - a gull was a gull before!) may think you're referring to familiar ones such as Black-headed or Herring species - and not a specific one. How about the Large Red Damselfly? Someone tells someone they saw one by writing 'I saw a large red damselfly today!' Now, are they saying they saw Pyrrhosoma nymphula or a red damselfly that's large in size?

No, I think capitalising vernaculars prevents confusion.