Miscellaneous desk
< December 18	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 19[edit]

"No such thing as a seagull"[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a meme going around that "There is no such thing as a seagull". The argument seems to take one of two forms, both of which seem utterly spurious to me:

a) "The correct name is "gull", therefor it is wrong to call them seagulls" (which ignores that fact that many creatures are known by multiple names, and language is defined by usage); or

b) "there are many species of gulls, each with its own name, none of which is "seagull"" (which seems to be a straw man argument based on the assumption that people are using "seagull" to refer to a specific species rather than as an equivalent for "gull").

My question: does anyone know where this meme originated, and why so many wiseacres seem to think they are being clever by claiming it? Iapetus (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "no such thing as a seagull" indicates (1) it goes back a good number of years; and (2) technically it's true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have found a good source through googling, I encourage you to share such references when you've already done the search and are also posting on the reference desk. Here [1] is an appearance of the idea in 1992 NYT, one of the earlier hits I found at a glance. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

side discussion on references desks, and what our volunteers here are called upon to do.

The OP, or any reader, can google the subject and decide which entries are interesting enough to pursue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, yet somehow most of us at the reference desk succeed at posting references, despite the fact that google exists. Likewise, people ask us questions every day, despite the fact that google exists. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, maybe, but in this case it is not my place to tell the OP which particular google references to look at. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is PRECISELY OUR PLACE TO SUGGEST REFERENCES TO OP. Forgive my emphasis, but this is our fundamental remit, and it is important. I am shocked to think that you might not have grasped that fact after all these years. This is a reference desk, what we are supposed to do here is provide references. I have collapsed this bit so as to not distract from the other replies, if you'd like to discuss further, feel free to move this whole thread to the talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Googling provides a whole raft of references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not reliable ones. Again, virtually 100% of our questioners are aware of google, and virtually 100% of our regulars know how to provide good references. If you're so sure that "google it" is the only answer people need, then please save us some space and just stop typing here- by your own logic, it is useless. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did Google before asking here. Most of what came up looked unreliable, and was generally making exactly the sort of spurious arguments I and others have mentioned. Iapetus (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is sophistry, and people seem to like it because it makes them feel clever. There are absolutely seagulls; I've seen some this year. If anyone tells me there is no such thing, I'd find a conversation partner who is not so facile, and disingenuous. No True Scotsman is tangentially related, as is bad faith. See also cooperative principle, which this argument blatantly violates. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main objection seems to be that there is no unique seagull species. The word Gull refers to a shore bird, so a seagull would be a sea shore bird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unique crow species either, but crows exist, nonetheless. Same for robin or dove. Yet somehow most of us are able to talk about these things, pick one out of a line up. It's really quite common. Would you say that cars don't exist because there is more than one type of car? What about houses? Hopefully these illustrate the utter inanity of the "argument" OP outlines. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This source [[2]] says that a Black-headed gull is, "definitely not a 'seagull'"; which suggests to me that some gulls are seagulls. The same source [[3]] also says that some gulls are, "strictly marine". It doesn't name them but I do know that Kittiwakes only come ashore to breed.--Ykraps (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term seagull was used by John Milton, Charles Dickens and Thomas Gray, and appears in the OED, but I don't know what restrictions some people read into the prefix. I suspect that each region calls its most common gull a seagull, even if it is hundreds of miles from the sea, but there may be exceptions to that guess. Dbfirs 21:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps, the comma before such quoted phrases is not necessary, and could be misleading in some sentences. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis, I hope you don't mind what I did to your links. —Tamfang (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This idea seems to have been at least locally common as far back as 1938. One Louis Joseph Halle, in his Birds Against Men, says:

The initial step in mastering the subject of gulls, I found, was to learn never to call them "seagulls." To do so betrayed one's ornithological illiteracy and violated the canons of good form. There is no such thing as a landgull, though gulls occur inland; consequently there is no such thing as a seagull. One might as well talk about sea-albatrosses, or landsparrows.

Unluckily Google Books only gives a snippet view, so I don't know the context. Who has been teaching the author such things? --Antiquary (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Laridae#List of species. None of the individual species of gull has the recognised common name "seagull". As that article says, ""seagull" is a layperson's term that is not used by most ornithologists and biologists". Regarding earlier examples, there are many species known as "crow", "dove" or "robin". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Seagull" is just as much of a common name as "robin". That's the whole point of common names - all that matters is usage. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: Is this claim comparable to saying "there is no such thing as humans, only homo sapiens sapiens"? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Quixotic Potato: sort of... it depends in part on which specific line of "reasoning" is used to get to the resulting "no such thing as 'seagull'". Some of them do seem to be analogous to your example. But I don't think that matches well with NYT bit I linked above. That one is especially silly, because what they are claiming as evidence is not: the quoted bit clearly explains how forty some bird species are called seagulls, even if the individuals in question do not live near the sea (I'm not sure, but I think every species of Laridae can be found near the sea, that is, there are no purely freshwater/terrestrial gull species.). That is why I made the analogy to robins -it would be silly to say there is no such thing as a 'robin' due to the fact that there is more than one species to which the common name can apply. So the headline "Sea Gull? There's No Such Bird as That" is quite incorrect, or at best, intentionally obtuse and misleading. But "Seagull? That could mean any of a few different species of birds!" is perhaps not very compelling. Those that focus on "sometimes some seagulls can be found very far from the sea" are perhaps more analogous to: "Many animals known as anteaters don't eat many ants, they in fact eat mostly termites. Therefore, there's NO SUCH THING as an anteater!1@#$ZOMG$WTF*BBQ" Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SemanticMantis: Thank you. Yeah, that is a bit silly. The meme is probably more about feeling clever (based on misinformation/faulty reasoning) than it is about actually spreading useful information (like so many are). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]