• Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
    73·
    2 months ago

    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).

    • bisby@lemmy.worldEnglish
      72·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • topz@beehaw.orgEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      In Swedish Larus Marinus is called “Havstrut” which would translate to Seagull but I guess that doesn’t count.

      • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
        1·
        2 months ago

        It counts for me! But we need something objective, this is SCIENCE after all. A question, when the Swedish Larus marinus, a.k.a. Havstrut walks, what does it look like? I think you see where I’m going with this, is there a bit of a swagger? Does L. marinus have strut?

    • BluesF@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      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?

      • Slatlun@lemmy.mlEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • BluesF@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • Slatlun@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            I absolutely agree that there should be a official name. My problem with birds is that there are 2 official names. The American Ornithological Society approves both of them (kind of). One is Latin/Greek/whatever in Genus species format - that is the one for science literature and taxonomy. The other is in English and silly in my opinion because that’s where people will use it to say nonsense like there is no such thing as a seagull.

      • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
        1·
        2 months ago

        My whole point of posting was to point out how inane, and pedantic the distinction between Gull and Seagull actually is, which is the distinction that OP made. And of course on the Fediverse that generated a whole lot of conversation, including this sentence.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.netEnglish
      18·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • BluesF@lemmy.worldEnglish
    25·
    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.

      • BluesF@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        2 months ago

        Yeah but like, my dog is a dog but it’s also a Labrador and also has a name. The great black-backed gull is also known as Larus marinus which means sea gull, and is also commonly referred to as a seagull. By what notion is that not a seagull?

  • Xenny@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    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

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.eeEnglish
    201·
    2 months ago

    Achkchually, a pineapple is neither a pine, nor an apple.

    It’s actually an ananananas.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    No one actually loves seagulls, but that’s got nothing to do with the fact there is no seagull.