Lynx or lynxes?

[KnickerlessParsons]

The BBC reporter keeps saying "three lynxes".
I don't have occasion to use the work lynx very often, but I would have thought it behaves like "fish" in the plural. i.e.
One fish, two fish, lots of fish
One lynx, two lynx, lots of lynx

Who is correct? Me, or the BBC?

Both are acceptable I believe.
I prefer Lynx though.

One lynx, two lnyx

I thought there were three. Is the third lynx missing?

I don’t know, but I’m extremely entertained by the fact that the Latin name of the Northern lynx is Lynx lynx lynx. So nothing is lynxier than a Northern lynx

Lynxes isn't wrong, but it sounds clunky so I wouldn't use it.

Apparently, neither one is wrong. I would say '2 lynx,' as '2 lynxes' sounds weird to me...

I thought there were three. Is the third lynx missing

There were four. One died after it was captured though.

And thank you. I think lynxes sounds wrong too.
Glad it's not just me.

And the Western Lowland Gorilla ( according to Pointless) is a Gorilla Gorilla Gorilla. Thankfully none of those are running loose in the UK.

@KnickerlessParsons
Thanks for posting. The BBC were annoying me earlier calling them lynxes. I'm sure the singular and plural are identical. Same and 'cannon' and 'sheep'.
What is the world coming to when you can't rely on the BBC to get it right?

It was a joke! Missing lynx...

I agree. It really grates on me hearing BBC presenters saying Lynxes. It just sound so wrong.

Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo...

I wondered the same as I would have used lynx for both singular and plural.

Fishes is sometimes right too, at least if you’re a zoologist.

It’s used to refer to multiple species of fish, rather than multiple fish.

A lake containing 300 trout and 300 salmon contains two fishes.

(This is just by way of example. I am not a zoologist so have no idea whether salmon and trout live in lakes together 😅)

I can’t see the term catching on more widely.
Fishes pie?

A lake containing 300 trout and 300 salmon contains two fishes.

I would have said "two types of fish".

But i am not a zoologist.

Yes, I would have said that too, or just two species of fish.

If you check the scientific literature, fishes is quite standard though.
I’m not a zoologist, but work in a different scientific field with a lot of zoologists, as it happens 😁

I'm happy with either. Rare for me, as I'm usually a bit of a stickler.

Not a stickleback then @whaddayawannado ?

I'm team lynxes.

I'm sure it's right that both are acceptable so I'' try not to get all internet furious and polarising about this, but I think that the fact that the word ends in x, and therefore an 's' sound, has created a false impression that it shouldn't be pluralised in the normal way.

The non-pluralisation of some other animal words seem to be connected with the fact that they are hunted, and that in the context of their being hunted it is the undifferentiated mass of them, rather than their aggregated individuality, that is being referred to.

That seems to be the case with fish and with deer. And when you hear hunters talking about other 'game' animals they often use the singular to stand for the plural -- "We are hunting elephant today," etc.

If a hunter was talking about lynxes, s/he might say "lynx" in accordance with that usage. But that would be hunter-speak not a universal practice that we all need to follow

Not this week.