44 
THE CONDOR 
Vol. XI 
fisher, Chip Sparrow, Horn Grebe, West Gull or North Phalarope. Dropping of 
capitals has already been tried and we are left to wonder what may be lucy warbler, 
ross goose or brewster booby, and to dread the possibility of “simplified” spelling 
which might give us Blak-bild Kuku, Red-id Vireo, or Blak-capt Chikady. Once 
we begin with “reform” and there is no telling where it may end. 
English grammar and usage are, however, not to be lightly set aside, and it is 
well not to be beguiled by “reform” that offers no adequate advantages. Granted 
that we may say, for instance, either “Wilson's Thrush occurs” or “the Wilson 
Thrush occurs,” we certainly gain nothing in brevity by using the adjectival form. 
And after all, the noun used as an adjective is somewhat of a grammatical upstart 
and his social standing is as yet none too sure. Custom has sanctioned his use 
chiefly for places, while the possessive has prevailed for persons. So it has been 
the rule among ornithologists to say “the Labrador Duck,” or “the California 
Jay” when places are concerned, but “Cassin’s Bullfinch” or “Smith’s Longspur” 
when persons are honored. This is the way popular names have evolved, and we 
have merely to stick to what has been customary. Uniformity should be sought, 
but not at the expense of meaning. The ruling of postoffice authorities and of 
geographic boards (the chief offenders in “reform”) is not the final criterion of 
language. 
The distinction between person and place is an aspect of the subject worth 
considering, and by preserving in our lists the possessive form for birds or beasts 
named after persons we shall avoid much ambiguity. For instance, the apostrophe 
and “s” of “Virginia’s Warbler” apprize everybody that the bird is not named 
after the State of Virginia, whereas the “Virginia Rail” is. In the same way we 
should know that “Olive Warbler” and “Myrtle Warbler” are not named after 
girls. But we must look farther than the narrow limits of our North American 
list to realize the importance and convenience of such a distinction. Contrast 
names like Stone Curlew with Stone’s Caribou, Brown Creeper with Brown’s Song 
Sparrow, Gray Kingbird with Gray’s Tanager or White Ibis with White’s Thrush 
and the ambiguity that would follow the loss of the possessive form becomes very 
evident. Or take such names as Wood Thrush, Field Sparrow, King Eider-, Little 
Gull, Winter Wren, or Marsh Hawk, where the birds might well be named after 
Messrs. Wood, Field, King, Little, Winter or Marsh. Perhaps these examples are 
quite familiar to us, but how about such names as Gila Woodpecker, Costa Hum- 
mingbird, Lomita Wren, Alma Thrush, Grinda Bush-Tit, Lazuli Bunting, Floresi 
Hummingbird, Rivoli Hummingbird, Cetti Warbler, Brewer Blackbird, Couch 
Kingbird, Derby Flycatcher, Sandwich Sparrow, Bell Sparrow, Wall Creeper, Bean 
Goose, Crissal Thrasher, Ray Wagtail, Scops Owl, Green Tody, Black Petrel, or a 
host of others that might be cited? Would not an occasional apostrophe and “s” 
be extremely convenient to distinguish at once the birds that are named after 
persons ? 
To sum the matter up, then, no reform is needed and educated people will 
continue to use either the possessive or the adjectival form or both as occasion 
requires. It is well to be a little conservative in this era of rapidity and there is 
certainly no overwhelming demand for reform in vernacular names. There has 
been some previous discussion of the subject and what Mr. Dawson (Condor, 
July-August, 1907, 112) has to say may be read to advantage, although some of his 
conclusions are rather forced and he has used the word “pronominal” when he 
means adjectival. It is no difference of opinion between the Fast and West, as he 
suggests, but merely the activity of a few individuals who are trying to re-form 
familiar words under the plea of uniformity. One is reminded of the fable of the 
