How to count birds
Posted on October 28th, 2007 by Mr. Eldridge
Well, this is not really about counting birds, but more about how to name the groups of birds. Since we just reviewed essays that worked with descriptions of birds, I thought this was an interesting tangent.
Below is a list of different group names for birds. My personal favorites are a “murder of crows” and an “unkindness of ravens.” But there are other great ones here. Who knew there were so many amazing terms for naming birds?
- A bevy of quail
- A bouquet of pheasants [when flushed]
- A brood of hens
- A building of rooks
- A cast of hawks [or falcons]
- A charm of finches
- A colony of penguins
- A company of parrots
- A congregation of plovers
- A cover of coots
- A covey of partridges [or grouse or ptarmigans]
- A deceit of lapwings
- A descent of woodpeckers
- A dissimulation of birds
- A dole of doves
- An exaltation of larks
- A fall of woodcocks
- A flight of swallows [or doves, goshawks, or cormorants]
- A gaggle of geese [wild or domesticated]
- A host of sparrows
- A kettle of hawks [riding a thermal]
- A murmuration of starlings
- A murder of crows
- A muster of storks
- A nye of pheasants [on the ground]
- An ostentation of peacocks
- A paddling of ducks [on the water]
- A parliament of owls
- A party of jays
- A peep of chickens
- A pitying of turtledoves
- A raft of ducks
- A rafter of turkeys
- A siege of herons
- A skein of geese [in flight]
- A sord of mallards
- A spring of teal
- A tidings of magpies
- A trip of dotterel
- An unkindness of ravens
- A watch of nightingales
- A wedge of swans [or geese, flying in a "V"]
- A wisp of snipe
Source: www.bcpl.net/~tross/gnlist.html
Filed under: Food for Thought and
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
I like the colony of penguins. It reminds me of the movie Happy Feet when all the little penguins move together during winter, which reminded me of some sort of English Colony that had to stay together during the winter. The colony of penguins also seem more interesting than “a bunch of penguins”.
[Reply to comment]
I like the epic-ness of a Descent of woodpeckers. it kind of ruins the mental image when it says its a woodpecker, i was hoping it would be like ravens or something.
[Reply to comment]
I like the wedge of swans it reminded me of cheese and I am really hungry could one eat a wedge of swans? Would it be tasty?
[Reply to comment]
Parliment of Owls; I can see how owls sitting in trees reminded people of a parliment, particularly one that seems to get nothing done. Owls also appear to be wearing glasses, like middle aged men.
[Reply to comment]
I liked the parliament of owls and the party of jays. To me it sounds political. For example
the owls represent the uniform government of the British. They try to find ways of getting the needed supplies for the nation. They are cunning and sly in the ways that they get their things just like an owl is when it hunts for food. The jays on the other hand represent the American political system. They focus, or try to focus, on what the people want as well. Americans try to find ways of getting the needed items no matter what hoping that it will better the economy and the people of the nation.
[Reply to comment]
An exaltation of larks. Love it…
Listen to Ralph Vaughan Williams’s “The Lark Ascending” and you’ll see why…
[Reply to comment]
I like the company of parrots, myself. It’s almost like it’s saying that parrots are company because you can talk to them.
But I really hate that ‘company of parrots’ that flies around Tustin all the time making that horrible screeching noise.
[Reply to comment]
Haha. I don’t like those parrots either.
I actually don’t like birds at all they scare me. I think they are fine to look at from a distance.
[Reply to comment]
or in a cage…
[Reply to comment]
or at the bird thing at the Aquarium of the Pacific…
[Reply to comment]
a huge cage…
[Reply to comment]
You can sum all of these “names” up with my phrase: fifty chances at dinner.
[Reply to comment]
Aww murder of crows… English is a beautiful language indeed.
[Reply to comment]
Oh, woe onto the savage multiplicity of this scandalous characterizing! But really, names are just a reference title, the actual thing itself requires acute observation before assumptions can be justified by a name. for exaple, while a group of owls might be a Parliament, I don’t parallel that to a government being bloodthirsty! I guess all I am trying to say is one interpretation of a Shakespeare quote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.” Names are simply a reference to a namer’s perspective on the object being named.
[Reply to comment]
That’s interesting Ryan and reflects, appropriately, a modern sensibility. Shakespeare was actually criticizing and Medieval tradition that held that the “Name of the Rose” was its true essence–the body being subject to age and decay. The eternal was the name. And so all that you have is the name.
For a modern person, this is ridiculous–because we view names as labels that can be switched at will. One argument is that we think like this because we think of words as written things, not as spoken things. And yet we still have a strange compulsion to say so-and-so looks like a Ryan or a Ted or a Charlene.
I especially like your turning the naming back on the namer. I think very a propos… and enlightening.
[Reply to comment]