I'd like to look at this discussion from a slightly different perspective, taking a stance that I've applied more to debates that get bogged down (bogged, get it? 
) on plant or animal species ID rather than on habitat labeling, but I think it applies here as well. One of my fellow naturalists, now retired and who was more of a birder than I was, would correct me when I would point out a Baltimore Oriole. This was after that point in time when ornithologists decided that the Bullock's Oriole and the Baltimore Oriole were actually the same species due to hybridizing where their ranges overlapped. So for several decades they were both lumped into a new species, the Northern Oriole. And birders like myself were corrected by others who had purchased the most up to date field guide (which I am too cheap to do!). Then it was decided that the hybridization was limited to certain localities and in most areas of overlap the two types maintained their specific forms. So now we have the Baltimore Oriole officially back again, and those who adapted to the Northern Oriole name can accept being corrected once again. Now during all of this the orioles were not informed or consulted. They did not know or care what they were and went happily along doing what they do, not having undergone any physical changes to warrant the seesawing of classification.
I maintain, and feel that it's important to periodically remind one's self, that in nature, and I emphasize in nature, there is no such thing as a Baltimore Oriole. For that matter, there is also no such thing as a species, genus, family, or a bog, fen, swamp or marsh. The classification systems we use and the labels we place on the species and environments is an artificial system that exists solely in the minds and writings of man, to fulfill our need to create order in a disorderly world around us. There is no disputing the need to do this, for matters of both science and amateur passion. But the natural world feels no obligation to neatly fit into the categories we've created for it. I've also agonized over the correct term for a specific habitat I was observing or pointing out, due to variations in species makeup or other factors that did not fit 100% into one of the recognized categories. Not doing the type of work where that kind of accuracy mattered, I simply started to worry less and simply let things be what they were, not what I tried to classify them as. I would still use a more general and accepted descriptive term, but stopped trying to be so specific. Or perhaps I'll even use a term such as beautiful or fascinating. But then again, that is much easier to do as a naturalist, as opposed to an ornithologist, soil scientist or some other more specialized professional. As for me, "a rose by any other name............, well, you know how it goes
.
) on plant or animal species ID rather than on habitat labeling, but I think it applies here as well. One of my fellow naturalists, now retired and who was more of a birder than I was, would correct me when I would point out a Baltimore Oriole. This was after that point in time when ornithologists decided that the Bullock's Oriole and the Baltimore Oriole were actually the same species due to hybridizing where their ranges overlapped. So for several decades they were both lumped into a new species, the Northern Oriole. And birders like myself were corrected by others who had purchased the most up to date field guide (which I am too cheap to do!). Then it was decided that the hybridization was limited to certain localities and in most areas of overlap the two types maintained their specific forms. So now we have the Baltimore Oriole officially back again, and those who adapted to the Northern Oriole name can accept being corrected once again. Now during all of this the orioles were not informed or consulted. They did not know or care what they were and went happily along doing what they do, not having undergone any physical changes to warrant the seesawing of classification.I maintain, and feel that it's important to periodically remind one's self, that in nature, and I emphasize in nature, there is no such thing as a Baltimore Oriole. For that matter, there is also no such thing as a species, genus, family, or a bog, fen, swamp or marsh. The classification systems we use and the labels we place on the species and environments is an artificial system that exists solely in the minds and writings of man, to fulfill our need to create order in a disorderly world around us. There is no disputing the need to do this, for matters of both science and amateur passion. But the natural world feels no obligation to neatly fit into the categories we've created for it. I've also agonized over the correct term for a specific habitat I was observing or pointing out, due to variations in species makeup or other factors that did not fit 100% into one of the recognized categories. Not doing the type of work where that kind of accuracy mattered, I simply started to worry less and simply let things be what they were, not what I tried to classify them as. I would still use a more general and accepted descriptive term, but stopped trying to be so specific. Or perhaps I'll even use a term such as beautiful or fascinating. But then again, that is much easier to do as a naturalist, as opposed to an ornithologist, soil scientist or some other more specialized professional. As for me, "a rose by any other name............, well, you know how it goes
.
Last edited:
