In the absence of towns, countries, states, buildings, mammals, reptiles, earwigs, fish, amphibians, moths, lakes, waterfalls, etc, etc, etc being named after people? Or on the basis of nothing ever being named after a person? Why would birds be any different? People decided to do it once. They would decide to do it again. There is an element here where I think most people like things whether living or not being named after other people. It provides some degree of personal connection and indeed comfort generally when we all realise deep down that our time is fleeting and in reality, we are all overwhelmingly insignificant.
It struck me last night that the AOS sub-committee and AOS Council meetings were probably like the scene in Notting Hill where they were all convincing themselves that William Thacker's decision to ignore Anna Scott was the right decision. It was just that Spike never came into the room and delivered the momentous line 'you daft pr@ck'....
More seriously, for me, notwithstanding my best efforts to convince myself otherwise and despite not being attached to the logic of eponyms, I remain of the view that this is group think. That is illustrated by a refusal actually to analyse and isolate offensive eponyms. It is illustrated by a failure to engage internationally and to plan a more far-reaching approach. It is illustrated by the lack of convincing output or example new names or convincing ideas or guidelines.
But they currently have their fingers in their ears and are now probably convincing themselves that they are the victims. I have seen many organisations behave similarly in similar situations.
All the best
Paul