Also, there is a school of fish if it is composed on only one species. It is a school of fishes if the aggregation is composed of multiple = species! =20 The capitalization issue with common names has come into being through = the confusion between what is a proper nound and a noun. An American = Robin is not a proper nound, if it was Joe the American Robin then Joe = would be a proper nound. Still we have chosen (and I frankly like = common names capitalized) to treat common names of species as proper = noun and capitalize them. =20 =20 At least thats how the story was told to me. Any one heard a different = version, I'ld love to hear! Frankly, I like the capitals because the = names stick out in the text better! :) =20 VISIT HERPETOLOGICAL CONSERVATION AND BIOLOGY www.herpconbio.org = <http://www.herpconbio.org>=20 A New Journal Published in Partnership with Partners in Amphibian and = Reptile Conservation and the World Congress of Herpetology. =20 Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor Department of Biological Sciences Texas A&M University Texarkana 2600 Robison Rd. Texarkana, TX 75501 O: 1-903-223-3134 H: 1-903-791-3843 Homepage: https://www.eagle.tamut.edu/faculty/mmccallum/index.html =20
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of = Warren W. Aney Sent: Mon 7/31/2006 7:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Pluralization (Was: capitalization rules for common names?) Elmer, you've opened another can of worms (or should that be can of = worm?). We usually say a stand of Douglas-fir (not a stand of Douglas-firs), a = herd of elk (not a herd of elks -- unless its Saturday night at the lodge), = but more often than not we say a family of beavers or a pod of orcas. There doesn't seem to be any consistent rules except what sounds right. And = what sounds right on one side of the continent may not sound right on the = other side of the continent. I know of an eastern editor who insisted it = should be "a habitat for Roosevelt elks." Warren W. Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, OR 97223 Warren Aney (503)246-8613 -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Elmer J. Finck Sent: Monday, 31 July, 2006 15:01 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: capitalization rules for common names? Christopher -- There does seem to be a trend towards standardized names for fish, herps, and mammals with some call to use capitalization. However, the method for declaring standardization seems to vary among taxa. In some cases authors have written a standardized common name manuscript or book. In others it seems to go through a committee. One = of my pet peeves is then to see the common name used as a plural noun, when in fact it refers to a species and thus should be singular. mas tarde, EJF Elmer J. Finck Professor and Chair Department of Biological Sciences Fort Hays State University 600 Park Street Hays, KS 67601-4099 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] webpage: http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/finck.shtml phone: (785) 628-4214 fax: (785) 628-4153 In tribute to Elmer C. Birney 1940-2000 "Good data are immortal; our interpretation of those data changes at = least every ten years." Christopher Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" <[email protected]> 07/19/2006 05:16 PM Please respond to Christopher Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To [email protected] cc Subject Re: capitalization rules for common names? I'm all for capitalizing common names IF there is agreement on what they are. Capitalization implies (to me, at least) that they have been determined by some widely-accepted and appropriate process. They've been "certified," so to speak. But, the problem with common names (esp. for plants) as we all know, is that there is no accepted or conventional usage. What is tulip poplar to one person is yellow poplar to another and tulip tree to a third. So, until plant common names are standardized (which will never happen), I'm quite content to use lower case. Christopher Christopher P. Dunn, PhD Executive Director for Research Programs & Smith Family Curator of Native Habitats Chicago Botanic Garden 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, IL 60022 USA Phone: 847.835.6934 Fax: 847.835.5484 http://www.chicagobotanic.org/research/science/_dunn.html http://www.vplants.org/ -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Whitacre Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] capitalization rules for common names? Scott and list, Its true that bird common names are normally capitalized, though this has not been so for at least mammals, and probably many other taxa. A friend and mentor of mine recently gave me a compelling argument that, editorial traditions be damned, we should simply capitalize all common names. Is a pygmy rabbit just a very small rabbit of some unspecified kind, or a species as clearly denoted by Pygmy Rabbit? Is a vagrant shrew an extralimital shrew record of some undesignated species--or is it a Vagrant Shrew? I think my friend is right, and capitalizing all common names is the right way to go and the wave of the future. He gave several examples in which recent field guides etc. have been breaking with the non-capitalization tradition, and editors have been coming around to the idea. I say we should do what makes the most sense to us, and push this envelope. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Ruhren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 1:28 PM Subject: capitalization rules for common names? > Dear List Members: > > > > I have been attempting to find a definitive answer regarding rules and > standards of capitalization for common names of biota. Except when the > common name contains a proper name (ex. Canadian, Wilson's), I follow the > no-capitalization rule. This complies with several writing style guides > often used for journals (ex. CBE, APA) and popular press science > publications. Additionally, popular press sources such as National > Geographic, NY Times, Nature Conservancy magazine etc. do NOT capitalize > common names. Finally, is it my imagination that there seems to be some > disparity between zoological (more caps.) and botanical (less caps.) > publications. Could this be an antique holdover? I have seen more > capitalization in ornithological publications for > fanciers/birders/associations. Field guides seem top overuse > capitalization > for emphasis. > > > > Thank you for your input. > > > > Scott > > > > --- > > Scott Ruhren, Ph.D. > > Senior Director of Conservation > > Audubon Society of Rhode Island > > 12 Sanderson Road > > Smithfield, RI 02917-2600 > > > > 401-949-5454 > > >
