That anon’s name? Steven Seagullible
The very first line of the Wikipedia entry on Gull says: "Gulls, or colloquially seagulls, are seabirds of the family Laridae in the suborder Lari. ". Colloquially speaking all gulls are seagulls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gull
The entry lists 54 species of Gull, and indeed from a pedantic perspective, none of their common names are “seagull”. Nor are any of their binomial names Latin for “seagull”. But there is Larus pacificus, either very calm or associated with the ocean of the same name. Also there is Larus atlanticus, and Larus Marinus (pretty dang close).
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as a Gull, is in fact, Sea/Gull, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, Sea plus Gull. Gull is not an categorization unto itself, but rather another component of a full identity made useful by the kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species components comprising a full identification as defined by its scientific classification.
In Swedish Larus Marinus is called “Havstrut” which would translate to Seagull but I guess that doesn’t count.
I really don’t understand what the point of the distinction is. It’s not like there’s something else which is a seagull but not a gull. Seagull is just another word for the same bird… Or am I missing something?
There are weirdly rigid common names around birds. There is a whole thing about renaming them right now. They are essentially regulated terms that low level pedants respect. They are the same types of people who would correct you for calling Frankenstein’s monster ‘Frankenstein’.
The plant community is better. You could call a “sunflower” a “tall flower” and nobody would care. You might get a “oh, I’ve never heard that one” but never “there’s no such thing as a ‘tall flower.’” They just fall back to the scientific names when clarity is important.
IMO common names should just be useful. I will call any gull a seagull when talking to non-bird people because that is a term that is commonly understood and how effective communication works.
I understand the need for having one particular defined name for a species, honestly. That makes some sense to me. But just because taxonomically a bird is not called a seagull doesn’t mean that it is not a seagull. Otherwise what is a seagull? There is no bird that has the ‘official’ name “seagull”. So what, seagulls don’t exist? It’s a semantic distinction that is meaningless outside of its narrow context.
50 species of gulls and every last one of them is a cunt.
They most certainly are not. Make friends with one and they will bring you presents. https://lemmings.world/post/14253921
I’ve seen a gull eat a dead pigeon in the town square. I don’t think I want their presents any more than the ones my cats think I do.
Fucking love seagulls. Grew up at the beach, gulls everywhere. They used to dig in our trash cans and we had to put heavy weights on the lids. Still fucking love em. They’re awesome, amazing trash birds who give zero fucks. I have seen gulls fully steal food from people’s mouths. I’ve seen them sit on windshields and refuse to move so you can drive, including just allowing the wipers to fwap into them repeatedly.
Seagulls aren’t cunts. Seagulls serve cunt, and I love them for it.
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
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)
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.
Annoy naturalists with these other animal names too: Jellyfish, crawfish, starfish, Killer Whale, Canadian Geese, and American Buffalo.
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”
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
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.
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”.
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.
From my experience, they’re “Hanging around outside the chip shop” gulls.
