I'm sure that in certain contexts you might even throw in a totally bogus, invented term and a human would be perfectly able to match this with the assumption that you're referring to "a group" just from context. Tell someone you saw a "rowlow of ravens all flying in unison" and they'll just assume you used a neologism, perhaps with some doubt or uncertainly in the back of the mind.

The weird thing about the "murder of crows" or a "parliament of rooks" is the use of such common words, especially slightly shocking ones like "murder". This raises more eyebrows and feels more like a joke for the unaware.

A "wisdom of wombats", a "lamentation of swans"... An "ambush of tigers" would certainly be interpreted as the act of ambushing.

Look at the list here [0] and you'll find it very random.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animal_names

> I'm sure that in certain contexts you might even throw in a totally bogus, invented term and a human would be perfectly able to match this with the assumption that you're referring to "a group"

I'd go as far to venture that in all contexts you could throw in some made up term. It will be understood by the other person, however they may think that you're a bit strange for referring to "an orgy of ants" for instance.

That's the funny thing about language; it's highly contextual, and humans are great at filling in the gaps based on context if there is some part of a communication that is not understood, miscommunicated or not even heard.