Kirk Roth
Rarely to be taken seriously
I'm not trying to pile on, but others have replied/expanded on this apparent "its not such a big deal" point and this statement is extremely reductive - to the point that I wonder if its facetious.
I think it is a subjective matter that the current proposal of name changes is so different from the "original" or "prior" names that the situation is only marginally comparable. The fact that we have 37 pages of discussion on this shows that its a problematic issue. The outcry and hand-wringing on this is not experienced with the IOC name changes that have taken place over the years, any other taxonomic arrangements, and not when these taxa were first named. The arguments that "well, its not a big deal when names change in other circumstances" undermines (or underlines??) the point - this IS a big deal because this IS different.
It needs to be understood that what is proposed is more than simply swapping one name for another. That has happened before. Improvements on names (whether they be more descriptive, removing an honorary, taxonomic, less offensive, whatever) has happened before. What has not happened before is a wholesale overhaul of the commonly used vocabulary of birding - certainly not to this degree and certainly not for baldly ideological reasons. Any amount of nitpicking and getting into the weeds, while loads of fun, does not change that and should not pretend to be a seminal argument.
To be more specific, the potentially "worse" things about the new names would be the following:
- a major, ideological or identity-based reason for many not to accept the new names
- competing bird names, at least on a larger scale
- a major wholesale change all at once (I recognize there is debate whether this would be "better" or "worse" and that is valid. It is certainly worse from a logistical standpoint at least)
- an ideological or political basis to how we even communicate about birds - (e.g. do you use the "liberal" or "conservative" bird names? which would your audience prefer)
- an undermining of authority for major birding organizations (and I must point out -not really based on expertise, but based on opinions and ideology; let's keep it real here!)
- an undermining of acceptance of avian common names in general or the idea of a single authoritative common name (admittedly, I am in the probable vast minority that does not view this as "worse!")
These are all emergent properties deriving from a wholesale name change as opposed to the unsteady drip that has been occurring for well over a century in modern ornithology. That, plus the disorganized nature of the rollout so far, as some have already mentioned. In other words, there are big differences which are worth paying attention to - regardless of any position on the merits of the names themselves. I would expect these issues to be of great concern to the so-called "Bird Names for Birds" advocates - even more so than to the opposition - because these are some major, even existential, hurdles to their goals.
To be clear, I'm not trying to argue; but every once in awhile I feel the need to distinguish the "big picture" from the "small things." Carry on!
!
