Annoy naturalists with these other animal names too: Jellyfish, crawfish, starfish, Killer Whale, Canadian Geese, and American Buffalo.
Comment on #notaseagull
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
If 90% of the population call them seagulls, and 99% of the population understand what you mean when you say “seagull”, then yes, they are actually called seagulls
IMongoose@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
azi@mander.xyz 4 weeks ago
The buffalo thing pisses me off the most. Entire cultures are defined by that animal and it’s incredibly significant to the history of the prairies and the continent as a whole. So it’s pretty disrespectful to go to these people and go “um actually what you’ve been calling this animal for centuries is wrong actually because Linnaeus or whatever”
Bertuccio@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Canada Goose
olafurp@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Killer whale is orca which is a predatory whale.
TriflingToad@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
wtf who’s beefing with starfish
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 4 weeks ago
Me
Brainless idjuts
Nikls94@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Typical customer service annoyant?
Machinist@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Crawdads. Tasty with some hot sauce.
RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Should we add an exception when it comes to technical discussions?
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
If you’re an ornithologist writing a scientific paper, you’d presumably be using a genus + species in Latin rather than any colloquial name anyway, while still acknowledging that they fall under the umbrella term “seagull” for most people. But I’m a descriptive linguist, rather than prescriptive, and that’s really what this meme is about (it’s not about seagulls)
IMongoose@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Birds actually have scientific common names and it’s completely acceptable to refer to them with those names. They even have standardized bird abbreviations using those names, like Red-tailed Hawk is RTHA. They of course use the latin names too, and those have their own abbreviations (Buteo jamaicensis is BUTJAM) but the common names are handier.
Klear@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Here’s the thing. You said a “jackdaw is a crow.”
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one’s arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be “specific” like you said, then you shouldn’t either. They’re not the same thing.
If you’re saying “crow family” you’re referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people “call the black ones crows?” Let’s get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It’s not one or the other, that’s not how taxonomy works. They’re both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that’s not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you’re okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you’d call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don’t.
It’s okay to just admit you’re wrong, you know?
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 weeks ago
mmmm, buttjam
Rooskie91@discuss.online 4 weeks ago
Noooo then how are we going to get memes like this?
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 4 weeks ago
I enjoy having semi-serious discussions about nonsense like this, so I appreciate RubberElectron’s reply calling me out
brown567@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
It’s like what I say to bother botanists:
Klear@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Pretty sure botanists are aware that the same word can have different meaning outside of their scientific field. The people actually bothered by this are pedants who read about it on the internet, not people who studied botany.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
A slight distinction:
The people actually bothered by this are the friends of pedants who read about it on the internet, not people who studied botany.
The pedants aren’t bothered, they’re elated they get to display faux superiority, I’m the one annoyed by them!
Lol
JackbyDev@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
Well, no, there’s nothing wrong with the definition of berry, but there would be something wrong about a botanist being annoyed with someone using the colloquial definition of berry.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
What if I told you that words can have different meanings in different contexts? Just because the same word can be used to refer to different things depending on whether its used in everyday or scientific speech doesn’t mean either usage is “wrong”.
BallsandBayonets@lemmings.world 4 weeks ago
Context specific definitions are the bane of my autistic existence. Figuring out context is a waste of brainpower that could be better used having anxiety over situations that aren’t going to happen.
/Completely serious, but not quite as strongly as worded here.
groknull@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
So I take it no one should mention that in astrophysics anything heavier than helium is a metal
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yeah well, people aren’t computers and language always had multiple levels of ambiguity. I understand if that is difficult to grasp if you can’t understand it on an intuitive level like most people. On the other hand it’s not that hard to understand on an intellectual level.
Comment105@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
Doesn’t change that it was a bad idea to borrow a generic term for small sweet fruits to refer to a specific botanical feature. Not just bad, but completely unnecessary and inarguably a bit stupid.