I think it’s best to remove the common name from this subspecies also–unless someone can find that the subspecies has a vernacular name in common usage (beyond it’s “archaic” usage in the first half of the 20th century). Although, it’s certainly not wrong to include that as a common name for the subspecies because it has been used so by numerous authors.
3 Likes
Thank you, that’s the best decision!
1 Like
Looks like somebody renamed it to European House Sparrow recently.
Very happy with this because it preserves the goofy observations of any House Sparrows in houses, which makes more sense than English Sparrows in houses (see: Geralds of the World)
On a more serious note, why not Common House Sparrow for the subspecies? I know it’s a point of contention in If you could rename an existing species, but maybe it makes sense here?
1 Like
Here in Wisconsin, I hear the name “English Sparrow” for House Sparrows all the time - mostly among older folk and farmers. Personally, I’m not sure it should apply to any subspecies specifically and would probably be a better common name for species level.
3 Likes
I’m starting to take my botany professor’s approach and use the names I learned as a boy for birds. I only see Yellow-shafted Flickers and Slate-colored Juncos. I’ll let the pros sort the details out; they know what the want to call things. It is interesting that House/English Sparrows have changed color forms with light ones in the US deserts and dark ones in the forests of the east. Reality is simple; names are what works and sometimes the details (subspecies, color forms, etc.) are best left to others. The fact is, we build on the work of past biologists. Without them, I’d have to create my own names for everything. So, use what works for you and let others decide what they like. Of course, the software here is going to have problems because different people call the same thing by different names, and the software tries to give it only one name. In reality, for many species, the names will still change in the future. So, I stick with what I know. Aster in the US will always be Aster to me, not Symfitosomethingum.
2 Likes
Well if that’s the case, then it is erroneus to call Passer domesticus ssp domesticus the “English” sparrow, and erroneous to ID observations in North America as Passer domesticus ssp. domesticus. Hence, the scenario described in the original post is doubly wrong.
1 Like
Unless P. d. hostilis is now a junior synonym of the nominotypical subspecies which was described from Sweden by Linnaeus. But it’s still a bad idea, in my opinion, to be applying subspecies to introduced populations. Although apparently there have been proposals to name the New World populations as new subspecies.
Most observations of introduced birds in Australia are ided with ssp., just an interesting fact of dedication of many observers/iders.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.