Record autumn roost at Cavenham Heath.........................Mike Taylor

calling it. The thing is, when you are referring to the bird on a regular basis, Canary Islands Stonechat is just too much of a mouthful. Twenty-seven years later I find myself preferring the name Fuerteventura Chat, which is not too different from what now appears to be the ‘ standardised’ English common name of Fuerteventura Stonechat in Collins.

Spoilt for choice! Fuerteventuran Chat, Fuerteventura Chat, Fuerteventura Stonechat, Canarian Chat or Canary Islands Chat? The variations seem to be endless.

An inconclusive conclusion All of which, I think, shows nicely how impossible it is for vernacular names to ever be entirely standardised. And of course there

Tim Inskipp

The case for standardisation

David Collins asked me to comment on a draft of the article that preceded this and, since our take on the subject was clearly quite different, it occurred to us that another point of view might be of interest to Harrier readers.

One of the main points made by David was his suggestion that Voous ’ view as a scientist meant that “it didn ’t matter to him what the vernacular name was because he was able to refer to a scientific name that everybody understands. ” First of all ‘ vernacular ’ is not the right word here. Its dictionary meaning is, ‘ of one ’ s native country, native, indigenous, not of foreign origin or of learned formation. ’ And this is the crux of the matter – the process of standardisation of English common names of birds is not trying to suppress vernacular names such as Peewit. Within a particular region every birder uses the names that are most familiar to them, in the knowledge that these will be readily understood by their peers. Thus Bonxie (a Shetland name) is widely used by British birders for the Great Skua Stercorarius skua, but you may well get a blank look if you use the name in other English speaking countries.

is no need to do so because the scientific names are fully standardised anyway. I’ m with Dr Voous!

It was probably inevitable that, subsequent to worldwide travel becoming easy, an attempt would be made to standardise English names. And to be honest some of the changes that have subsequently been made are for the better. It makes no great sense, for example, for Swainson ’ s Thrush to be called Olivebacked Thrush when it is a vagrant to the UK. But surely the reality is that language evolves and cannot be standardised (though maybe the French would disagree!). I grew up with Pallas ’ s Warbler, and both you and I know it’ s not the same as Pallas ’ s Grasshopper Warbler (or Pallas ’ s Sandgrouse for that matter). So long live the Fuerteventura Chat!

Only one question then remains: do I win that pint of bitter Phil?

Editor: Possibly.

The objective – unambiguous communication in English What the standardisation process is trying to