Snarge (pronounced snn-arj)
(1) In military
& civil aviation, slang, the remains of a bird after it has collided with
an airplane (ie bird strike), originally of impacts with turbine engines but
latterly applied also to residue left on wings, fuselages etc.
(2) By
adoption, the remains of birds and insects left on the windscreens of trains,
cars, motorcycle fairings etc,
Early 2000s
(probably): A portmanteau word, a blend of sn(ot) + (g)ar(ba)ge. Snot (used here in the usual sense of “mucus,
especially that from the nose”) was from the Middle English snot & snotte, from the Old English ġesnot
& snott, from the Proto-West
Germanic snott & snutt, from the Proto-Germanic snuttuz (nasal mucus), from the same
base as snout and related to snite. It was cognate with the North Frisian snot (snot), the Saterland Frisian Snotte (snot), the West Frisian snotte (snot), the Dutch snot (snot), the German Low German Snött (snot), the dialectal German Schnutz (snot), the Danish snot (snot) and the Norwegian snott (snot). Trans-linguistically, “snot” is commendably
consistent and its other uses (a misbehaving (often as “snotty”) child; a
disreputable man; the flamed-out wick of a candle all reference something
unwanted or undesirable). That said,
snot (mucus) is essential for human life, being a natural, protective, and
lubricating substance produced by mucous membranes throughout the body to keep
tissues moist and act as a barrier against pathogens and irritants like dust
and allergens, working to trap foreign particles; it also contains
antimicrobial agents to fight infection.
So, when “out-of-sight & out-of-mind”
it’s helpful mucus but when oozing (or worse) from the nostrils, it’s
disgusting snot.
Garbage
(waste material) was from the late Middle English garbage (the offal of a fowl, giblets, kitchen waste (though in
earlier use “refuse, that which is purged away”), from the Anglo-Norman, from the
Old French garber (to refine, make
neat or clean), of Germanic origin, from the Frankish garwijan (to make ready). It
was akin to the Old High German garawan
(to prepare, make ready) and the Old English ġearwian (to make ready, adorn).
The alternative spelling was garbidge
(obsolete or eye dialect). Garbage can
be used of physical waste or figuratively (ideas, concepts texts, music etc) judged
to be of poor quality and became popular in computing, used variously to mean
(1) output judged nonsensical (for whatever reason), (2) corrupted data, (3) memory
which although allocated was no longer in use and awaiting de-allocation) or
(4) valid data misinterpreted as another kind of data. Synonyms include junk, refuse, rubbish, trash
& waste. Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977)
used “Herr Garbage” as the name of the character who in The Great Dictator (1940) represented Dr Joseph Goebbels
(1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945). Snarge is a noun and no derived forms have
ever been listed but a creature which has become snarge would have been snarged and the process (ie point of
impact) would have been the act of snarging. Snarge is inherent the result of a fatality so
an adjective like snargish is
presumably superfluous but traces of an impact which may not have been fatal
presumably could be described as snargelike
or snargesque.
The patronymic Dr Carla Dove (b 1962) is manager of the Feather Identification Laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC where she heads a team identifying the types or species of birds that collide with military and civil aircraft. She calls snarge “a term of art” (clearly she’s of the “eye of the beholder” school) and notes that although the scientific discipline of using snarge to determine the species involved in bird strikes began at the Smithsonian in 1960, the term doesn’t seem to have been coined there and its origin, like much slang with a military connection, is murky. Although a 2003 article in Flying Safety magazine is sometimes cited as the source of the claim the word was “invented at the Feather Identification Laboratory”, Dr Dove is emphatic the staff there “borrowed it” from preparators (the technicians who prepare bird specimens for display or other uses by museums). It certainly seems to have been in general use (in its specialized niche in military & aviation and wildlife safety circles) by at least the early-to-mid 2000s and the zeitgeisters at Wired magazine were in 2005 printing it without elaboration, suggesting at least in their editorial team it was already establish slang. So, it may long have been colloquial jargon in museums or among those working in military or civil aviation long before it appeared in print but there no documentary evidence seems to exist.
The origin of the scientific discipline is however uncontested and the world’s first forensic ornithologist was the Smithsonian’s Roxie Laybourne (1910–2003). In October, 1960, a Lockheed L-188 Electra flying as Eastern Airlines Flight 375 out of Boston Logan Airport had cleared the runway by only a few hundred feet when it flew into a flock of birds, the most unfortunate of which damaged all four engines, resulting in a catastrophic loss of power, causing the craft to nosedive into Boston Harbor, killing 62 of the 72 aboard. Although the engines were turbo-props rather than jets, they too are highly susceptible to bird-strike damage. At the time, this was the greatest loss of life attributed to a bird-strike and the FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) ordered all avian remains be sent to the Smithsonian Institution for examination. There, Ms Laybourne received the box of mangled bone, blood & feathers and began her investigation, her career taking a trajectory which would include not only the development of protocols designed to reduce the likelihood of bird strikes damaging airliners but also involvement with the USAF (US Air Force) & NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Additionally, her work with the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and various police forces proved forensic ornithology could be of use a diagnostic tool in crime-solving; her evidence helping to convict murderers, kidnappers and poachers. In 2025, journalist Chris Sweeney published The Feather Detective: Mystery, Mayhem, and the Magnificent Life of Roxie Laybourne, a vivid telling of the tale of a woman succeeding in a world where feminism had not yet wrought its changes.
The study
of aviation bird strikes is obviously a specialized field but snarge has come
also to be used in the matter of insect deaths, specifically what has come to
be called the “windscreen phenomenon”
(also as “windshield phenomenon”
depending on linguistic tradition). What
that refers to is the increasingly common instances of people reporting they
are seeing far fewer dead insects on the windscreens of their cars, many dating
the onset of the decline to the late 1990s and the most common explanations offered
for this are (1) climate change, (2) habitat loss and (3) the increasing use (or
potency) of pesticides. Individual
observations of one’s windscreen now tending to accumulate less snarge than in
years gone by is of course impressionistic and caution must be taken not to
extrapolate the existence of a global trend from one piece of glass in one tiny
part of the planet: what needs to be avoided is a gaboso (the acronym for Generalized Association Based On
Single-Observation (also as the derived noun & verb) which is the act
of taking one identifiable feature of someone or something and using it as the
definitional reference for a group (it ties in with logical fallacies). However, the reports of increasingly snargeless
windscreens were widespread and numerous so while that didn’t explain why it
was happening, it did suggest that happening it was.
There was
also the matter of social media platforms which have meant the volume of
messages about a particular topic in the twenty-first century is not comparable
with years gone by. It’s simply
impossible to calculate the extent to which these mass-market (free) platforms
have operated as an accelerant (ie a force-multiplier of messaging) but few doubt
it’s a considerable effect. Still, it is
striking the same observations were being made in the northern & southern
hemispheres and the reference to the decline beginning in the late 1990s was
also consistent and a number of studies in Europe and the US have found a precipitous
drop in insect populations over the last three decades. One interesting “quasi theory” was the
improved aerodynamic efficiency of the modern automobile meant the entomological
slaughter was reduced but quickly aeronautical engineers debunked that,
pointing out a slippery shape has a “buffer zone” very close to the surface
which means "bugs" have a greater chance of being sucked-in towards the speeding
surface because of the differential between negative & positive pressure. However, on most older vehicles, the “buffer
zone” could be as much as 3 feet (close to a metre) from the body. A bug heading straight for the glass would still
be doomed but the disturbed air all around would have deflected a few
Herbie was a 1963 Volkswagen
Type 1 (Beetle, 1938-2003) and despite the curves which made it look streamlined,
its measured Cd (drag coefficient) was typically around 0.48-0.50, some 8%
worse than contemporary vehicles of comparable frontal area. What that meant was its buffer zone would
extend somewhat further than the “New Beetle” (1997-2011) which had a Cd between
0.38-0.41, again not as good as the competition because it was compromised by
the need to maintain a visual link with the way things were done in 1938. On the 1963 models (like Herbie) the flat,
upright windscreen created significant drag and was obviously a good device for
“snarge harvesting” but the later curved screen (introduced in 1973 with the
1303) probably didn’t spare many insects.
Dr Manu Saunders is a Senior Lecturer in Ecology and Biology and the School of Environmental and Rural Science in Australia’s UNE (University of New England) and she pointed out that “anecdata is not scientific evidence” and just because anecdotes are commonly presented as “evidence of global insect decline” (the so-called “insectageddon”), that doesn’t of necessity make locally described conditions globally relevant. The problem she identified was that although there have been well-conducted longitudinal studies of snarge on windscreens using sound statistical methods, all have used data taken from a relatively small geographical area while around the planet, there are more than 21 million km (13 million miles, (ie more than 80 round trips to the Moon) of “roads”). Dr Saunders does not deny the aggregate number of insects is in decline but cautions against the use of one data set being used to assess the extent of a phenomenon with a number of causal factors.
Fortunately for Porsche, in 1969, although the decline in global insect numbers may already have begun, they were still buzzing around in sufficient numbers to produce the snarge which provided the necessary clue required to resolve the problem of chronic (and potentially lethal) instability which was afflicting the first 917s to be tested at speed. In great haste, the 917 had been developed after the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (the FIA; the International Automobile Federation and world sport's dopiest regulatory body) “relaxed” the rules which previously had set a threshold of 50 identical units for cars classified as Group 4 (5 litre (305 cubic inch)) sports cars, reducing this to a minimum of 25. What that meant was Porsche needed to develop both a car and a twelve cylinder engine, both items bigger and more complex than anything they’d before attempted, things perhaps not overly challenging had the typical two years been available but the factory needed something which would be ready for final testing in less than half the time. Remarkably, they accomplished the task in ten months.
The brief gestation period was impressive but there were teething problems. The fundamentals, the 908-based space-frame and the 4.5 (275 cubic inch) litre air-cooled flat-12 engine (essentially, two of Porsche’s 2.25 (137 cubic inch) litre flat-sixes joined together) were robust and reliable from the start but, the sudden jump in horsepower (HP) meant much higher speeds and it took some time to tame the problems of the car’s behaviour at high-speed. Aerodynamics was then still an inexact science and the maximum speed the 917 was able to attain on Porsche’s test track was around 180 mph (290 km/h) but when unleashed on the circuits with long straights where over 210 mph (338 km/h) was possible the early 917s proved highly unstable, the tail “wandering from side-to-side” which, at around 200 mph (320 km/h), drivers found disconcerting. The solution was delivered serendipitously: after one alarming high speed run, noticed that while the front and central sections of the bodywork were plastered with snarge, the fibreglass of the rear sections was a pristine white, the obvious conclusion drawn that while the airflow was inducing the desired degree of down-force on the front wheels, it was passing over the rear of body, thus the lift which induced the wandering. Some improvisation with pieces of aluminium and much duct tape to create an ad-hoc, shorter, upswept tail transformed the behaviour and was the basis for what emerged from more extensive wind-tunnel testing by the factory as the 917K for Kurzheck (short-tail). The rest is history.
What happened to the 917 wasn’t novel. In 1966, Dodge had found the slippery shape of its new fastback Charger had delivered the expected speed on the NASCAR ovals but it came at the cost of dangerous lift at the rear, drivers’ graphically describing the experience at speed as something like “driving on ice”. The solution was exactly what Porsche three years later would improvise, a spoiler on the lip of the trunk (boot) lid which, although only 1½ inches (38 mm) high, at some 150 mph (240 km/h) the fluid dynamics of the air-flow meant sufficient down-force was generated to tame the instability. Of course, being NASCAR, things didn’t end there and to counter the objection the spoiler was a “non-stock” modification and thus not within the rules, Dodge cited the “safety measure” clause, noting an unstable car on a racetrack was a danger to all. NASCAR agreed and allowed the device which upset the other competitors who cited the “equalization formula clause” and demanded they too be allowed to fit spoilers. NASCAR agreed but set the height at maximum height at 1½ inches and specified they could be no wider than the trunk lid. That left Dodge disgruntled because, in a quirk of the styling, the Charger had a narrower trunk lid than the rest of the field so everybody else’s spoilers worked better which seemed unfair given it was Dodge which had come up with the idea. NASCAR ignored that objection so for 1967 the factory added to the catalogue two small “quarter panel extensions” each with its own part number (left & right); once installed, the Charger gained a full-width spoiler.