Is toponymy necessary?

Like other areas of linguistic study, toponymy as a domain of analysis does not present itself as being overly reflective of its own assumptions. I ask whether a sub-category or sub-analysis dedicated to toponymy is required at all if we analyse toponyms, landscape terms, and geographical names within the scope of general linguistic analysis (lexical semantics, morphosyntax, and phonology). Or put succinctly: Is toponymy necessary? Data from a longitudinal study of Norfolk Island and Kangaroo Island toponymy indicate there are no marked aberrancies in either sets of data which cannot be accounted for by either more general Norf'k (the Norfolk Island language) or English rules. I conclude by suggesting future studies in landscape terminology should be more mindful of the requirements of the linguistic study of toponymy, especially within lexical, morphosyntactic, and phonological concerns, rather than just within the semantic domain.