CLOSE
Original image
ThinkStock

Dog Naming Trends Through the Ages

Original image
ThinkStock

2012: Bye Bye, Max. Hello, Bella!

According to the yearly roundup of popular pet names in the database of Veterinary Pet Insurance, the 10 most popular dog names for 2012 were Bella, Bailey, Max, Lucy, Molly, Buddy, Daisy, Maggie, Charlie, and Sophie. It was the third straight year Bella came in at number 1, after unseating Max in 2009. A company spokesman thought the ascendancy of Bella might have had to do with "the name of the heroine in a certain vampire book/film series that’s pretty popular these days."

2008: Sorry, Jake and Rocky—Here come Chloe and Sophie.

The year before Max lost the top spot, Jake and Rocky dropped of the top 10, replaced by newcomers Chloe and Sophie. Is there an "end of men" situation happening in the canine world too? Someone get the trend piece writers on that!

1985: Nipper is now George.

In 1985, New York Times columnist William Safire asked readers to submit stories of how they named their dogs, and in return got a list of over 12,000 dog names from all over the country. He noted a few trends. People tended to name their dogs after food (Cookie, Candy, Taffy, Peaches), disposition (Rascal, Bandit, Crab), color (Blackie, Amber, Midnight), and owner occupation ("Lawyers like Shyster and Escrow; doctors prefer Bones.") But the most noticeable trend was that people were using human names for their dogs more than they used to: "Instead of turning verbs and adjectives into proper nouns (for example, by calling a puppy that likes to nip your finger Nipper), we are using proper nouns directly, calling the little nipper George, Daisy or Charley."

1960s-1980s: Getting gender specific.

Anthropologist Stanley Brandes published a 2009 study of pet name trends as revealed by the gravestones at Hartsdale, America's first pet cemetery. He noticed the trend toward human names for pets develop slowly from the 1960s to the 1980s when names like Riko, Ginny, Francois, Samantha, Daniel and Venus started to pop up among names like Freckles, Snowy, Clover, Spaghetti, Champ, Happy, Rusty and Taka. One consequence of this shift was that names started to entail information about the sex of the animal. This was not merely a consequence of a switch to human naming, though. Even non-human names started to show sex distinctions. Note, for example, the graves of Cha Cha Man, Candy Girl, Mr. Cat, and Dot-Z-Girl.

1896-WWII: Hobo, Jaba, Boogles.

Hartsdale Pet Cemetery, just outside of New York City, was established in 1896. Brandes notes that in the earliest monuments, the names of the pets might not even appear at all. Many of the early graves leave it at "Pets" or "My Pet." The family name of the owner is sometimes the only identifier. A well-known dancer of the time, Irene Castle, buried five dogs and a pet monkey under a monument engraved simply "Castle." Most of the graves do show pet names, but before WWII, they are almost never human names. The first half century at Hartsdale is represented by the likes of Brownie, Laddie, Hobo, Trixie, Rags, Jaba, Bunty, Boogles, Teko, Dicksie, Snap, Punch, Bébé and Pippy.

1800s: Semper Fido.

Abraham Lincoln had a dog named Fido, and this is often cited as the reason the name became the quintessential dog's name, but Fido was popular before Lincoln even became president. A favorite children's book of 1845 was called "Fido or the Faithful Friend," and told of the quintessential adventures of the quintessential boy and his dog. It's rather too bad presidents' dogs aren't the source of lasting naming fashions. We could be calling our dogs Sweetlips, Scentwell, Vulcan, Drunkard, Taster, Tipler and Tipsy like George Washington did!

Medieval: Mopsus and Mopsulus

Kathleen Walker-Meikle's book Medieval Pets shows that people gave a wide range of creative names to their pets then, despite the general objection that indulging pets was "an extravagance and a distraction from one's duties and obligations, in particular charity to the poor." Just as in Safire's 1985 survey, dogs were named for characteristics (Sturdy, Whitefoot, Hardy) and owner occupation – Stosel (Pestle) for an apothecary, Hemmerli (Little Hammer) for a locksmith, Speichli (Little Spoke) for a wagoner. They could even have human names like Jakke and Parceval. However, the most popular human names given to dogs were not the same as the most popular names given to babies, as they are today. For dog owners looking to buck the trends (or for that matter, baby-havers looking to buck the trends), here's a list of awesome medieval dog names: Blawnche, Nosewise, Smylfeste, Bragge, Holdfast, Zaphyro, Zalbot, Mopsus and Mopsulus.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Animals
Owning a Dog May Add Years to Your Life, Study Shows
Original image
iStock

We've said that having a furry friend can reduce depression, promote better sleep, and encourage more exercise. Now, research has indicated that caring for a canine might actually extend your lifespan.

Previous studies have shown that dog owners have an innate sense of comfort and increased well-being. A new paper published in Scientific Reports and conducted by Uppsala University in Sweden looked at the health records of 3.4 million of the country's residents. These records typically include personal data like marital status and whether the individual owns a pet. Researchers got additional insight from a national dog registry providing ownership information. According to the study, those with a dog for a housemate were less likely to die from cardiovascular disease or any other cause during the study's 12-year duration.

The study included adults 40 to 80 years old, with a mean age of 57. Researchers found that dogs were a positive predictor in health, particularly among singles. Those who had one were 33 percent less likely to die early than those who did not. Authors didn't conclude the exact reason behind the correlation: It could be active people are more likely to own dogs, that dogs promoted more activity, or that psychological factors like lowered incidences of depression might bolster overall well-being. Either way, having a pooch in your life could mean living a longer one.

[h/t Bloomberg]

Original image
iStock
arrow
Big Questions
Why Don't We Eat Turkey Tails?
Original image
iStock

Turkey sandwiches. Turkey soup. Roasted turkey. This year, Americans will consume roughly 245 million birds, with 46 million being prepared and presented on Thanksgiving. What we don’t eat will be repurposed into leftovers.

But there’s one part of the turkey that virtually no family will have on their table: the tail.

Despite our country’s obsession with fattening, dissecting, and searing turkeys, we almost inevitably pass up the fat-infused rear portion. According to Michael Carolan, professor of sociology and associate dean for research at the College for Liberal Arts at Colorado State University, that may have something to do with how Americans have traditionally perceived turkeys. Consumption was rare prior to World War II. When the birds were readily available, there was no demand for the tail because it had never been offered in the first place.

"Tails did and do not fit into what has become our culinary fascination with white meat," Carolan tells Mental Floss. "But also from a marketing [and] processor standpoint, if the consumer was just going to throw the tail away, or will not miss it if it was omitted, [suppliers] saw an opportunity to make additional money."

Indeed, the fact that Americans didn't have a taste for tail didn't prevent the poultry industry from moving on. Tails were being routed to Pacific Island consumers in the 1950s. Rich in protein and fat—a turkey tail is really a gland that produces oil used for grooming—suppliers were able to make use of the unwanted portion. And once consumers were exposed to it, they couldn't get enough.

“By 2007,” according to Carolan, “the average Samoan was consuming more than 44 pounds of turkey tails every year.” Perhaps not coincidentally, Samoans also have alarmingly high obesity rates of 75 percent. In an effort to stave off contributing factors, importing tails to the Islands was banned from 2007 until 2013, when it was argued that doing so violated World Trade Organization rules.

With tradition going hand-in-hand with commerce, poultry suppliers don’t really have a reason to try and change domestic consumer appetites for the tails. In preparing his research into the missing treat, Carolan says he had to search high and low before finally finding a source of tails at a Whole Foods that was about to discard them. "[You] can't expect the food to be accepted if people can't even find the piece!"

Unless the meat industry mounts a major campaign to shift American tastes, Thanksgiving will once again be filled with turkeys missing one of their juicier body parts.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios