I first heard somebody say that the use of the word seagull was wrong in the early 90s but had largely forgotten about it until this week when somebody corrected me for use of the word and the next day I happened across a letter to the Metro complaining about usage of the word (see image below).
I cannot understand why anybody would get so upset at the use of this actually perfectly real word which is in fact just a common synonym for the word gull. If you don’t believe me, just Google ‘seagull definition’ and you’ll get a list of dictionaries all defining the word seagull as a gull and perhaps with the added detail especially one that lives near the sea, or words to that effect (I also learnt an interesting piece of contemporary schoolboy slang from this particular search).
Since the two words mean the same thing, if there is no such bird as a seagull, there is also no such bird as a gull and the comment from the disgruntled reader above therefore becomes rather meaningless.
My point is that it doesn’t matter if there is no such bird as a seagull, it is simply a common term for a marine species of gull so there’s no need to criticize anybody for using it (unless they happen to be a biologist in which case a bit of specificity ought to be expected) and certainly no need to get upset on hearing or reading the word (unless in the schoolboy sense perhaps).
Incidentally, a painting of mine that was exhibited in Bath Abbey was informally titled ‘Seagull’ by the staff running the exhibition.