In a message dated 03/06/03 09:14:17 GMT Daylight Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
Further to my previous expressions on the subject, i recently added the following to another user's talk page.
The Style Manual for Biological Journals as "Prepared by the Committee on Form and Style of the Conference of Biological Editors of the American Institute of Biological Sciences" states at page 68, "Generic names used as vernacular names are neither italicized nor capitalized" Since an other authoritative source has indicated that capitalization is usually done among ornithologists (though it isnot a rule) I will leave birds alone ... for now.
What exactly does that mean. "Generic names" - doesn't that mean "names of a genus". So, for instance, if you use the generic name Gorilla as the common name, "gorilla", you don't have to capitalize it. It seems to me that while in a normal sentence, the word "gorilla" should not be capitalized, it ought to be capitalized when it is referring to the species as a whole. And that your reference doesn't seem to be referring to what you think it is referring to.
A rereading of the item that I quoted does give some support for your interpretation. The sentence is repeated on the next page with the single change of "vernacular" to "common".(I've since won another much thicker book about writing style in biology, but it might not get to me for another couple weeks.) The Latin species name is never capitalized anyway. Capitals and single quotes are used, however, for cultivars. This may give support for a similar practice for dog breeds, but I'm not yet ready to take a stand on that. A little later the book gives examples and particular rules relating to insects, plants and bacteria. For birds it refers us to the American Ornithologists Union's check-list of North American birds, but gives no examples. It is silent about mammals and othervertebrates.
The Globe and Mail Style Book directs lower case for all animals, including birds, except when what would otherwise be a common name is involved. It is more direct than most general style manuals when dealing with this, and that gives some weight when we are concernedwith a work of general knowledge such as Wikipedia.
The other point that favors lower case is the general rule in titlesto lower case all words unless there is a good reason to the contrary.
The next source is an online one at http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/courses.hp/biol335/Lecture8-9.html Iquote
* capitalization: * unless the common name includes a proper name (e.g., person'sname or place name), most common names are not capitalized * however, there are exceptions for certain groups of organisms. One obvious exception is that the common names of birds are now usually capitalized * e.g. white-tailed deer vs Atlantic salmon vs Richardson's ground squirrel vs Great Horned Owl vs Englemann spruce vs balsam poplar vs Rocky Mountain juniper * for vertebrates and probably other groups of organisms, there are international committees that recommend on common names in each language * e.g. the sparrow hawk is now the American Kestrel
Note the word "usually" in regards to birds. The practice follows the American Ornithologists Union but is by no means universal. I am at least prepared to concede the matter in regards to capitalizingbird names, in the absence of further evidence.
There is no such list for mammals, and apparently none for othervertebrates, but I have not explored these others.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game Writer's Guide at http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/download/adfguide/wrtrguid.pdf supports lower case for all species, including birds where it doesnote that its view is contrary to that of the Ornithological Union.
From the publication The Prairie Naturalist at http://www.fhsu.edu/biology/pn/pnstylerules.htm we have "Common names of organisms are not capitalized except for proper nouns or adjectives that are part of the name, e.g., green-winged teal,American coot, Cooper's hawk."
The Newsletter of the Baltimore Bird Club at http://baltimorebirdclub.org/cn/cn0010.html states, "Many birding publications follow an unofficial convention for capitalization of bird names. I have chosen to follow this convention in Chip Notes because it makes the name stand out and it honors the objects of our devotion. If you would follow these "rules" in your submissions it would save a lot of time. The "rules"run something like this:
* All non-hyphenated parts of a bird's name are capitalized. * The hyphenated parts that are a type of bird are also capitalized. * The hyphenated parts that are NOT themselves a type of bird, such as"-bellied" or "-tailed," are not capitalized.
A good illustration of all these principles is "Yellow-crowned Night-Heron."
Based on all of the above I reach the conclusion that all common names of life forms should be lower cased, with the possible exception of birds.
Eclecticology
A further example of the final para's use of capitalisation is Wilson's Storm-Petrel, where petrel is capitalised because the storm-petrels are a group of birds, and petrel is is not a part of the bird.
I don't know why we are fighting this battle for the at least the fourth time since I started contributing in Feb. I thought that a consensus had been agreed through wide debate on the mailing list and various talk pages. I know that for the fish, some contributors are happy with lower case, which is fine. You must have seen the reasons put forth by eg Tannin and myself for the current capitalisation of bird English names (scientific names I don't think are a problem). I have within reach four books, three on birds, and one on cetaceans. All species are capitalised. On my bookshelves I have bird books (too many), and others on mammals, insects etc. All capitalise species names.
Since there are lower case links to articles, nothing is lost in terms of searches.
In any case, if we must re-open this discussion again, I don't think reverting random articles is particularly constructive or open, nor what would be expected from an experienced contributor.
more in sorrow.... Jim (jimfbleak)
JFrost8401@aol.com wrote:
I don't know why we are fighting this battle for the at least the fourth time since I started contributing in Feb. I thought that a consensus had been agreed through wide debate on the mailing list and various talk pages.
Apparently not, eh? I'm mystified as to why we're spending "millions for edit wars, and not one cent for a naming conventions page" (to mangle a saying :-) ). There's a lengthy but ancient talk page "naming conventions (biology)" but it seems mostly about issues that are long-settled.
I know that for the fish, some contributors are happy with lower case, which is fine. You must have seen the reasons put forth by eg Tannin and myself for the current capitalisation of bird English names (scientific names I don't think are a problem). I have within reach four books, three on birds, and one on cetaceans. All species are capitalised. On my bookshelves I have bird books (too many), and others on mammals, insects etc. All capitalise species names.
It's not really that simple - my personal library is split 50-50 for instance. What I notice is that field guides tend to capitalize, perhaps for easier disambiguation at a glance, but workaday books (encylopedia of plants, organic gardening, obscure tropical ecology tome) tend not to, not even for birds. So to me it's clearly a house style issue, which is fine - we have lots of house style rules already, and their existence forestalls edit wars every day. What I don't think is acceptable is to get all angry if someone doesn't follow a rule that was discussed in various places, but never officially documented in the MoS. People sometimes make ship-related changes that I don't personally care for, but unless it goes against a rule explicitly written out in the naming conventions page or the wikiproject page, I don't consider that I have any valid grounds for criticism.
For instance, in the case of fish, I'm still assessing what is favored practice. When I'm satisfied, I'll write it down in the MoS - people disagreeing with the MoS will have to change it before I'll go along with them changing articles.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote in part:
So to me it's clearly a house style issue, which is fine - we have lots of house style rules already, and their existence forestalls edit wars every day. What I don't think is acceptable is to get all angry if someone doesn't follow a rule that was discussed in various places, but never officially documented in the MoS.
Nor, IMO, is it acceptable to get *angry* if someone doesn't follow a rule that *has* been officially documented in the MoS. (But they must by default lose any edit war, however, before it starts.) I certainly don't intend to check the MoS every time I make a style decision, and even the MoS itself says (or said the last time that I checked) that its prescriptions don't have to be followed by every writer, only that MoS-philes will change things when they get around to them. (Even this way, I think that the MoS has far too much in it, crowding out the few items that are useful, but I can live with it.)
OTOH, the bird names go beyond the MoS -- they're a *naming*convention*. The primary point of Stan's post -- that this needs to be documented -- not only stands, but is even more important in light of this. First, we can't expect people to follow undocumented conventions. But also, naming conventions really do need to be followed, or else navigation through the encyclopaedia will get all messed up.
For instance, in the case of fish, I'm still assessing what is favored practice. When I'm satisfied, I'll write it down in the MoS - people disagreeing with the MoS will have to change it before I'll go along with them changing articles.
If it's a naming convention that you'll be deciding, then please write it down on a naming conventions page too!
-- Toby