Re: SEA GULLs & SEAGULLs
- To: Multiple recipients of list <i*@rt66.com>
- Subject: Re: SEA GULLs & SEAGULLs
- From: "* F* L* <c*@pacbell.net>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 11:44:18 -0600 (MDT)
Sharon McAllister wrote:
>
> Hang onto your hats. =
>
> This one's such a doozy I was
> hoping Mike Lowe would chime in.
>
> The saga starts before the AIS
> Registration System was adopted.
>
> SEA GULL -- Japanese introduced by
> Hallock about 1885. Listed as obsolete
> & superceded in the 1939 CL.
>
> SEA GULL -- DB by Van Fleet-Lovett,
> no date. Name indicated as unapproved
> duplicate in '39 CL.
>
> SEA GULL -- TB registered by Graves in
> 1937, not introduced. Noted as obsolete
> and released in the '49 CL.
>
> SEA GULL -- TB registered by Smith in 1946,
> noted as not introduced in the '49 CL but
> may have been introduced in the late '40s
> but not reported, or introduced later. =
>
> SEAGULL. TB introduced by Farr in
> 1922. Name noted as REGISTERED
> and APPROVED in '39 CL, but superceded.
>
> SEAGULL -- TB introduced by Nellis in
> 1947. Name noted as NOT approved
> in the '49 CL.
>
> To those accustomed to working with
> recent checklists, the earlier ones use
> type styleand symbols to convey information:
>
> Registered and approved names
> are presented in CAPITALS.
>
> Obsolete registered and approved names
> are presented in small capitals preceded
> by an asterisk.
>
> Duplicate and unapproved names are
> presented with initial capitals and the rest
> of each word in lower case.
>
> Synonyms are treated as duplicates, but
> in bold lower case.
>
> An asterisk in front of a name meant it
> was considered obsolete -- probably no
> longer in existence.
>
> A darkened circle in front of a name meant
> that it was considered nearly obsolete.
>
> Perhaps more than you wanted to know, but
> in this case condensing the story destroys
> a lot of information.
>
> The proverbial "Bottom Line":
>
> Any in commerce today "should" be
> SEA GULL -- two words -- the white self
> that Smith registered in 1946, which =
>
> superceded both Graves' 1946 SEA
> GULL (two words) and Farr's 1922
> SEAGULL (one word).
>
> Doesn't mean that it is, of course....
>
> Sharon McAllister
> 73372.1745@compuserve.com
Good Grief! And I thought federal law was complex. Need a Philadelphia
taxonomist to decipher this.
Al Limberg
Concord, CA
