More on mountain beavers & NW English

[Mike Cleven]

Dave Robertson wrote:
>
> ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
>  In-Reply-To:  <200104270217.f3R2H1I02111 at e3g1.home.nyu.edu>
>  Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>  On Thu, 26 Apr 2001, Gregory {Greg} Downing wrote:
>
>  > But note that she has suggested the possibility that the name "mountain
>  > boomer," when used of a type of beaver in the Pacific Northwest, may have
>  > something to do with the act of making booms (i.e., structures made of
>  > floating logs), whereas the etymology in DARE appears to assert that
>
>  The name "mountain beaver" is a misnomer. They are not beavers but a type
>  of borrowing rodent (Aplodontia rufa). They don't necessarily live near
>  water, nor do they build anything from logs like true beavers. They look
>  sort of like gophers but apparently have their own taxonomic line. See:
>
> http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/aplodontia/a._rufa$media.html
>
>  And, from the above site:
>
>  "Mountain beavers are not very social animals. Rarely do they go farther
>  than a few meters from their burrows. Their home ranges overlap and each
>  beaver defends its nest site. The sight and the hearing of the mountain
>  beaver are very poor but their senses of smell and touch are well
>  developed. Mountain beavers vocalize in the form of whistles and booming
>  sounds. They also squeal while fighting and make a grinding noise with
>  their teeth (Carraway, 1993)."
>
>  So, "mountain boomer" might be a reasonable characterization of them, but
>  I have never heard them called anything but mountain beavers.

Marmots?  Pikas?  Siffleurs?  I'm not sure what critter it is you guys
are talking about here.  Does the 49th (Parallel) really make that much
difference?