• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    4310 hours 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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      63 hours 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

    • @IMongoose
      link
      English
      117 hours ago

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

    • @RubberElectrons
      link
      English
      59 hours ago

      Should we add an exception when it comes to technical discussions?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 hours 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
          link
          English
          26 hours 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          27 hours ago

          I enjoy having semi-serious discussions about nonsense like this, so I appreciate RubberElectron’s reply calling me out