Page:Condor11(2).djvu/10

 44 THE CONDOR VOL. XI fisher, Chip Sparrow, Horn Grebe, West Gull or North Phalarope. Dropping of capitals has already been tried and we are left to wonder what may be lucy warbler, ross goose or brewster booby, and to dread the possibility of "simplified" spelling which might give us Blak-bild Kuku, Red-id Vireo, or Blak-capt Chikady. Once we begin with "reform" and there is no telling where it may end. English grammar and usage are, however, not to be lightly set aside, and it is well not to be beguiled by "reform" that offers no adequate advantages. Granted that we may say, for instance, either "Wilson's Thrush occurs" or "the Wilson Thrush occurs," we certainly gain nothing in brevity by using the adjectival form. And after all, the noun used as an adjective is somewhat of a grammatical upstart and his social standing is as yet none too sure. Custom has sanctioned his use chiefly for places, while the possessive has prevailed for persons. So it has been the rule among ornithologists to say "the Labrador Duck," or "the California Jay" when places are concerned, but "Cassin's Bullfinch" or "Smith's Longspur" when persons are honored. This is the way popular names have evolved, and we have merely to stick to what has been customary. Uniformity should be sought, but not at the expense of meaning. The ruling of postoffice authorities and of geographic boards (the chief offenders in "reform") is not the final criterion of language. The distinction between person and place is an aspect of the subject worth considering, and by preserving in our lists the possessive' form for birds or beasts named after persons we shall avoid much ambiguity. For instance, the apostrophe and "s" of "Virginia's Warbler" apprize everybody that the bird is not named after the State of rirginia, whereas the "Virginia Rail" is. In the same way we should know that "Olive Warbler" and "Myrtle Warbler" are not named after girls. But we must look farther than the narrow limits of our North American list to realize the importance and convenience of such a distinction. Contrast names like Stone Curlew with Stone's Caribou, Brown Creeper with Brown's Song Sparrow, Gray Kingbird with Gray's Tanager or White Ibis with White's Thrush and the ambiguity that would follow the loss of the possessive form becomes very evident. Or take such names as Wood Thrush, Field Sparrow, King Eider, Little Gull, Winter Wren, or Marsh Hawk, where the birds might well be named after Messrs. Wood, Field, King, Little, Winter or Marsh. Perhaps these examples are quite familiar to us, but how about such names as Gila Woodpecker, Costa Hum- mingbird, Lomita Wren, Alma Thrush, Grinda Bush-Tit, Lazuli Bunting, Floresi Hummingbird, Rivoli Hummingbird, Cetti Warbler, Brewer Blackbird, Couch Kingbird, Derby Flycatcher, Sandwich Sparrow, Bell Sparrow, Wall Creeper, Bean Goose, Crissal Thrasher, Ray Wagtail, Stops Owl, Green Tody, Black Petrel, or a host of others that might be cited? Would not an occasional apostrophe and "s" be extremely convenient to distinguish at once the birds that are named after persons ? To sum the matter up, then, no reform is needed and educated people will continue to use either the possessive or the adjectival form or both as occasion requires. It is well to be a little conservative in this era of rapidity and there is certainly no overwhelming demand for reform in vernacular names. There has been some previous discussion of the subject and what Mr. Dawson (CONDOR, July-August, 1907, 112) has to say may be read to advantage, although some of his conclusions are rather forced and he has used the word "pronominal" when he means adjectival. It is no difference of opinion between the East and West, as he suggests, but merely the activity of a few individuals who are trying to re-form familiar words under the plea of uniformity. One is reminded of the fable of the