• Worx@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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

    • brown567@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s like what I say to bother botanists:

      If half of the fruits with “berry” in their name don’t fit your definition of berry, you need a new definition

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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 bothered by them!

          Lol

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months 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”.

        • Comment105@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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 frankly, simply, a bit stupid.

    • IMongoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      Annoy naturalists with these other animal names too: Jellyfish, crawfish, starfish, Killer Whale, Canadian Geese, and American Buffalo.

      • azi@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months 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 seems to me 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”

      • Worx@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months 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?

  • BluesF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    Wikipedia on Larus marinus, or the great black-backed gull:

    The scientific name is from Latin. Larus appears to have referred to a gull or other large seabird. The specific name marinus means “marine”, or when taken together, “sea gull”.

    If that’s not a seagull I don’t know what is.

  • Xenny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why does a seagull fly over the sea?

    Because if they flew over the bay they would be bagels!

    This joke echoes in my brain thanks to this one PBS commercial break snippet from my childhood. You’re welcome