I'd go a step further and say that duck typing is more than just structural typing's dynamic counterpart. Because, again, that's confounding two different axes. Dynamic vs static describes when type checking happens and whether types are associated with names or with values. But it doesn't necessarily describe the definition of "type".

The real difference between structural typing and duck typing is that structural typing requires all of a type's declared members to be present for an object to be considered compatible. Duck typing only requires the members that are actually being accessed to be present.

This is definitely more common in dynamic languages, but I'm not aware of any particular reason why that kind of checking couldn't also be done statically.