Popped out for dinner ( in the rib)

[willk]

Originally Posted by jonp

It doesn't bother me what you want to call them, I'm just pointing out what marine scientists identify them as ( as I do ). We've just had the under 18 female New Zealand spearfishing champion stay with us, she calls them lobsters here and back in NZ, so there is one person over there calling them Correctly. Maybe she had a better science teacher, once she starts drinking down the pub they will soon put her right They also call fish "fush" over there so how can you take them seriously.

I'm a marine biologist from Ireland (with a year spent at the University of Melbourne for my sins). They are commonly referred to here as crayfish or crawfish - infrequently caught in pots and generally found down below the 30m contour. Scientists will use their latin name. Bluffers will call people out on the internet for calling them crayfish and then wriggle on the hook until others get bored pointing out the error of their ways. FYI - that's why scientific names exist - to remove the confusion caused by the great unwashed making up names for things...

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

I'm a marine biologist from Ireland (with a year spent at the University of Melbourne for my sins). They are commonly referred to here as crayfish or crawfish - infrequently caught in pots and generally found down below the 30m contour. Scientists will use their latin name. Bluffers will call people out on the internet for calling them crayfish and then wriggle on the hook until others get bored pointing out the error of their ways. FYI - that's why scientific names exist - to remove the confusion caused by the great unwashed making up names for things...

Sheesh! All I said was “that hippoglossus hippoglossus was good enough for Jehovah” [emoji6]

[jonp]

Originally Posted by willk

I'm a marine biologist from Ireland (with a year spent at the University of Melbourne for my sins). They are commonly referred to here as crayfish or crawfish - infrequently caught in pots and generally found down below the 30m contour. Scientists will use their latin name. Bluffers will call people out on the internet for calling them crayfish and then wriggle on the hook until others get bored pointing out the error of their ways. FYI - that's why scientific names exist - to remove the confusion caused by the great unwashed making up names for things...

A marine biologist from Ireland, so working in the industry do you consider the links I supplied where industry calls them lobster wrong. I work with marine scientist, marine biologists, University lectures and the comercial industry who like the majority of the public call them by what they are. Which is why I so obviously now realise I've been getting it wrong.


I'm currently in discussions with a group, including marine biologists from your side of the pond making outrageous accusations on the total collapse of mackerel stocks and worldwide bluefin tuna total collapse and the fact they also claim the oceans will have 0 fish in 20 years. I've provided links to research papers and continual studies into bluefin, as well as my own findings which they choosen to ignore but at least I've now reached discussions with the chair person.

If you were to read a study on women of Ireland and the UK where they were identified as birds, would you take it seriously? Well you should as most people call them birds, so they must be birds, which is why they fly away. Here according to the Poms 99 percent of women have exactly the same name "Sheila " though I've never heard anyone here refer them to that name nor have I ever met a bird with that name!!

As I mentioned in another recent post, I tend to feel reluctant to post on here, it's a bit like a day in court ( not that I've been there) which might be why there are so few reports of people out using their ribs, no rhib, no duck, no zodiac that's the one, they are all called zodiac, which must be true as everyone calls inflatable boats zodiac's.

Administration please feel free to remove this thread and any other I've posted on this site

[Poly]

Originally Posted by jonp

If you were to read a study on women of Ireland and the UK where they were identified as birds, would you take it seriously? Well you should as most people call them birds, so they must be birds, which is why they fly away.

crikey how long ago did you leave the UK? We’ve moved on a bit with the misogyny - you’ll still here it, often ironically, but certainly not “most people”.

Administration please feel free to remove this thread and any other I've posted on this site

I’ve got better things to do with my time than delete threads that people start and then regret.

[willk]

Originally Posted by jonp

A marine biologist from Ireland, so working in the industry do you consider the links I supplied where industry calls them lobster wrong.

TBH, I just thought you were being a bit of a tw@t. Maybe I'm overthinking it.

[Dan Gurney]

Originally Posted by jonp

I'm currently in discussions with a group, including marine biologists from your side of the pond making outrageous accusations on the total collapse of mackerel stocks and worldwide bluefin tuna total collapse and the fact they also claim the oceans will have 0 fish in 20 years. I've provided links to research papers and continual studies into bluefin, as well as my own findings which they choosen to ignore but at least I've now reached discussions with the chair person.

If you were to read a study on women of Ireland and the UK where they were identified as birds, would you take it seriously? Well you should as most people call them birds, so they must be birds, which is why they fly away. Here according to the Poms 99 percent of women have exactly the same name "Sheila " though I've never heard anyone here refer them to that name nor have I ever met a bird with that name!!

As I mentioned in another recent post, I tend to feel reluctant to post on here, it's a bit like a day in court ( not that I've been there) which might be why there are so few reports of people out using their ribs, no rhib, no duck, no zodiac that's the one, they are all called zodiac, which must be true as everyone calls inflatable boats zodiac's.

Administration please feel free to remove this thread and any other I've posted on this site

Strewth mate! Take it easy! It's all part of the rough and tumble of international diplomacy!

I wouldn't dream of speaking for him, but I *think* the gist of willk's original response was that there is no 'right' or 'wrong' regarding the colloquial naming of things, and that the only way to avoid confusion is to use the 'scientific' latin name. Trawlermen working out of Aberdeen and Peterhead will refer to something as a 'prawn' which to me looks more like a 'langostine' but at the end of the day all they really care about is how much it fetches at the quay.

The only part of his post that might be considered 'harsh' is the judgement that anyone pulling up another user about the fact that their colloquialism doesn't match his/hers is being 'a bit of a tw@t'. *I* don't think it's worth taking your bat home about, but, hey, it's your bat.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Dan Gurney

The only part of his post that might be considered 'harsh' is the judgement that anyone pulling up another user about the fact that their colloquialism doesn't match his/hers is being 'a bit of a tw@t'. *I* don't think it's worth taking your bat home about, but, hey, it's your bat.

"Tomayto, tomato - let's call the whole thing off"

I mean, calling someone out for using the "wrong" common name, srsly?

[Dan Gurney]

Originally Posted by willk

"Tomayto, tomato - let's call the whole thing off"

I mean, calling someone out for using the "wrong" common name, srsly?

Originally Posted by Dan Gurney

The only part of his post that might be considered 'harsh' is the judgement that anyone pulling up another user about the fact that their colloquialism doesn't match his/hers is being 'a bit of a tw@t'. *I* don't think it's worth taking your bat home about, but, hey, it's your bat.

"might" is the operative word.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

"Tomayto, tomato - let's call the whole thing off"



I mean, calling someone out for using the "wrong" common name, srsly?

Apparently my cousin in the US has a big fanny............,

[jonp]

Gee', from my first few posts I thought I was simply trying to put a few on the right path to the difference between two different species from a part of the world where we have such a diverse amount of marine species that its quite important to get their names right. The fact we do many types of research studies with different groups from fisheries, Tasmania Uni, Sydney Uts, QLD uni etc who all at least call them by their common name, I just thought some might be interested in what that name is. Obviously not.

As a keen fisherman living most of my life on the UK south coast I never saw a common skate but I did see many species of rays. I regularly saw catches of skate in magazines off the Scottish coast but never fished up there for them. Having recently seen reports of skate in huge numbers in the Thames I must admit I was pretty excited by the fact the species were now doing so well. Unfortunately it turns out they were just thornback rays and not skate at all.

Here we have strict rules and regulations on all the species we target, with minimum and maximum size ranges, total catch allowances, possession limits, off season limits etc, catch methods and different licences to target different species. So from a very early age even in schools children are educated into fish identification and different state regulations. Penalties for taking anything you may not know the regs or deliberately take knowing you shouldn't, end in massive fines as well as total confiscations of all fishing gear, which includes boats, trailers and tow vehicles. So it pays to know what you are catching. We also get free id books, measure stickers and gauges. Lobster gauges have lobster on them where freshwater cray gauges have their name.

It's not being funny or picky it's just how things are done here, it's an industry thing and yes there are some people who still call them crays, usually the kind of people who have never caught them or have anything to do with fishing. If someone wants to call them cray that's fine.

Found a few more crays and a piece of fish bone today!!!

[Dan Gurney]

Originally Posted by jonp

Gee', from my first few posts I thought I was simply trying to put a few on the right path to the difference between two different species from a part of the world where we have such a diverse amount of marine species that its quite important to get their names right.

Except that's not what you were doing was it? You called out someone in the UK for using the term Crayfish to refer to something which in your part of the world would not be referred to as such:

Originally Posted by jonp

Not really confusing, it's just that people hear someone calling something by its wrong title then do the same. Lobsters in salt crays in fresh, now you can outsmart the competition on trivia night

So the person in question makes the point that it's just a question of differing terms for the same species, and after a bit of to-and-fro posts a link to a wiki article on the species which makes clear that it is referred to by various names depending on geographical location. It even deals with the fact that in certain locale the animal in question is referred to as a crawfish and that this description in reserved for freshwater dwellers in certain locales:

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiny_lobster

So then we get into a whole spate of posts where you continue to present evidence to support your contention that 'Crayfish' is 'incorrect' and 'Lobster' is 'correct'; all of which are based on instances of 'common usage' from the southern hemisphere (it's still 'common usage' even if it's a marine biologist doing it).
So then someone points out that it's all 'tom-a-to tom-ah-to' and the only 'right or wrong' is to use the scientific latin.

Originally Posted by willk

They are commonly referred to here as crayfish or crawfish - infrequently caught in pots and generally found down below the 30m contour.
[...] FYI - that's why scientific names exist - to remove the confusion caused by the great unwashed making up names for things...

And in response we get a slightly odd rant about marine biologists from 'our side of the pond' making 'outrageous accusations' about fish stocks, presumably designed to suggest that pommie scientists wouldn't know a Rock Lobster from a Sea Crayfish. Followed by a false equivalence around women being referred to as 'birds'.

By the end of your final post you seem to be ready to accept that the same species can be called different things in different parts of the world, but you're still prepared to die on the hill of 'our way is RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG'. And it's more important here because we have more marine species than anyone else (really?).

I think the moral of the story is don't try and punk other posters in a super-patronising way, then repeatedly double down on it, then whinge when you get called out.

And for what it's worth I can't believe I'm still up re-litigating this either.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Dan Gurney

Except that's not what you were doing was it? You called out someone in the UK for using the term Crayfish to refer to something which in your part of the world would not be referred to as such:



So the person in question makes the point that it's just a question of differing terms for the same species, and after a bit of to-and-fro posts a link to a wiki article on the species which makes clear that it is referred to by various names depending on geographical location. It even deals with the fact that in certain locale the animal in question is referred to as a crawfish and that this description in reserved for freshwater dwellers in certain locales:



So then we get into a whole spate of posts where you continue to present evidence to support your contention that 'Crayfish' is 'incorrect' and 'Lobster' is 'correct'; all of which are based on instances of 'common usage' from the southern hemisphere (it's still 'common usage' even if it's a marine biologist doing it).

So then someone points out that it's all 'tom-a-to tom-ah-to' and the only 'right or wrong' is to use the scientific latin.





And in response we get a slightly odd rant about marine biologists from 'our side of the pond' making 'outrageous accusations' about fish stocks, presumably designed to suggest that pommie scientists wouldn't know a Rock Lobster from a Sea Crayfish. Followed by a false equivalence around women being referred to as 'birds'.



By the end of your final post you seem to be ready to accept that the same species can be called different things in different parts of the world, but you're still prepared to die on the hill of 'our way is RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG'. And it's more important here because we have more marine species than anyone else (really?).



I think the moral of the story is don't try and punk other posters in a super-patronising way, then repeatedly double down on it, then whinge when you get called out.



And for what it's worth I can't believe I'm still up re-litigating this either.

Quick Friday morning quiz. Spot the odd one out:-

Dublin Bay prawn

Langoustine

Scampi

Norwegian Lobster

Prawn

King Prawn

[Bern Hanreck]

Too early for brain teasers for me !

It's quite well known that Scottish fishermen catch prawns but sell langoustines !

[Dan Gurney]

Originally Posted by Bern Hanreck

Too early for brain teasers for me !

It's quite well known that Scottish fishermen catch prawns but sell langoustines !