Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (19 Viewers)

[Mysticete]

I'm seeing from the press release that this is very AOS-focused - and admittedly its been a few months since I've reviewed the petition so I'm guessing the same could be said about it. I agree that AOS is first and foremost, but they aren't the only stakeholders with naming authority - is there any plan to send similar messages to the ABA and Clements?

Just saying - if this is a marathon, the finish line is still a long way ahead.

Clements is just a part of Cornell (ebird) at this point, right? So you would want to direct the petition to them probably.

I can't imagine ABA taking a different road than both Ebird and AOS. I think those would have to be the minds you change.

 

[rahopko]

I'm seeing from the press release that this is very AOS-focused - and admittedly its been a few months since I've reviewed the petition so I'm guessing the same could be said about it. I agree that AOS is first and foremost, but they aren't the only stakeholders with naming authority - is there any plan to send similar messages to the ABA and Clements?

Just saying - if this is a marathon, the finish line is still a long way ahead.

The ABA and eBird have already stated that they will follow whatever the AOS does (which they have done for years). Those two organizations are not in charge of scientific or English names. The AOS holds the responsibility for bird names within their geographic area, but that certainly does not mean organizations must follow them. The IOC has already stated they will not follow the AOS in removal of eponyms.

The AOS has a web page devoted to their responsibilities in this area, and interestingly, which we point out in the petition, number #1 in their own guidelines is "Stability of English Names." The exact opposite of the proposal they have accepted.

From the AOS website: "The American Ornithological Society’s North American Classification Committee (NACC) has long held responsibility for arbitrating the official names of birds that occur within its area of geographic coverage. Scientific names used are in accordance with the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999); the committee has no discretion to modify scientific names that adhere to ICZN rules. English names for species are developed and maintained in keeping with the following guidelines, which are used when forming English names for new or recently split species and when considering proposals to change established names for previously known species."

To read more about their guidelines for English bird names you can go here: Guidelines for English Bird Names - American Ornithological Society

 

[Kirk Roth]

The ABA and eBird have already stated that they will follow whatever the AOS does (which they have done for years). Those two organizations are not in charge of scientific or English names. The AOS holds the responsibility for bird names within their geographic area, but that certainly does not mean organizations must follow them. The IOC has already stated they will not follow the AOS in removal of eponyms.

It is incorrect to state that the ABA and eBird are not in charge of English names.

As mentioned above, eBird represents the Clements list. Clements differs from AOS currently and has in the past. For example, Clements currently recognizes Western Cattle Egret while AOS does not; there was a disparity in recognition of Mexican Duck as a species for awhile, and there are differences in common names - notably Eurasian/Common Moorhen, Gray-headed/Purple Swamphen, some hyphen differences, and whatnot.

For a number of years, ABA has quietly favored Clements/eBird over AOS taxonomy and nomenclature. Here is the current ABA checklist: ThemeNcode PDF Viewer [Do not Delete] - American Birding Association

There is a note at the top that states "Note that where discrepancies in names occur between Clements/eBird and the AOS, both are listed, that of AOS in parentheses."

It is true that both organizations have stated that they will follow AOS's eponym changes, just as the AOS has stated they will make these changes that you are trying to have them reconsider. The ABA and Clements may also find reason to reconsider. It is certainly a possibility that Clements could decide not to implement or to only partially implement any changes. It is certainly possible that ABA could either choose to align more closely than Clements or to present multiple names instead of wholly adopting AOS. I say "certainly possible" because all of those things are occurring currently - and that needs to be emphasized.

I don't think enough credence is given to the consideration that even if the AOS does propose changes, that does not mean that others will adopt them - and there are consequences and ramifications for that which both "sides" of this argument should be considering. Whether we are talking about IOC, eBird, ABA (either the organization or the membership), ornithological journals, 60% (possibly) of birders, or just people with strong political opinions - there is already precedent for rejection on changes of a much smaller stakes and scale.

 

[raymie]

It is incorrect to state that the ABA and eBird are not in charge of English names.

As mentioned above, eBird represents the Clements list. Clements differs from AOS currently and has in the past. For example, Clements currently recognizes Western Cattle Egret while AOS does not; there was a disparity in recognition of Mexican Duck as a species for awhile, and there are differences in common names - notably Eurasian/Common Moorhen, Gray-headed/Purple Swamphen, some hyphen differences, and whatnot.

For a number of years, ABA has quietly favored Clements/eBird over AOS taxonomy and nomenclature. Here is the current ABA checklist: ThemeNcode PDF Viewer [Do not Delete] - American Birding Association

There is a note at the top that states "Note that where discrepancies in names occur between Clements/eBird and the AOS, both are listed, that of AOS in parentheses."

It is true that both organizations have stated that they will follow AOS's eponym changes, just as the AOS has stated they will make these changes that you are trying to have them reconsider. The ABA and Clements may also find reason to reconsider. It is certainly a possibility that Clements could decide not to implement or to only partially implement any changes. It is certainly possible that ABA could either choose to align more closely than Clements or to present multiple names instead of wholly adopting AOS. I say "certainly possible" because all of those things are occurring currently - and that needs to be emphasized.

I don't think enough credence is given to the consideration that even if the AOS does propose changes, that does not mean that others will adopt them - and there are consequences and ramifications for that which both "sides" of this argument should be considering. Whether we are talking about IOC, eBird, ABA (either the organization or the membership), ornithological journals, 60% (possibly) of birders, or just people with strong political opinions - there is already precedent for rejection on changes of a much smaller stakes and scale.

Yes, but in this specific case of relating to this proposal, eBird said they are deferring to AOS for English names.

 

[rahopko]

Yes, but in this specific case of relating to this proposal, eBird said they are deferring to AOS for English names.

It is incorrect to state that the ABA and eBird are not in charge of English names.

As mentioned above, eBird represents the Clements list. Clements differs from AOS currently and has in the past. For example, Clements currently recognizes Western Cattle Egret while AOS does not; there was a disparity in recognition of Mexican Duck as a species for awhile, and there are differences in common names - notably Eurasian/Common Moorhen, Gray-headed/Purple Swamphen, some hyphen differences, and whatnot.

For a number of years, ABA has quietly favored Clements/eBird over AOS taxonomy and nomenclature. Here is the current ABA checklist: ThemeNcode PDF Viewer [Do not Delete] - American Birding Association

There is a note at the top that states "Note that where discrepancies in names occur between Clements/eBird and the AOS, both are listed, that of AOS in parentheses."

It is true that both organizations have stated that they will follow AOS's eponym changes, just as the AOS has stated they will make these changes that you are trying to have them reconsider. The ABA and Clements may also find reason to reconsider. It is certainly a possibility that Clements could decide not to implement or to only partially implement any changes. It is certainly possible that ABA could either choose to align more closely than Clements or to present multiple names instead of wholly adopting AOS. I say "certainly possible" because all of those things are occurring currently - and that needs to be emphasized.

I don't think enough credence is given to the consideration that even if the AOS does propose changes, that does not mean that others will adopt them - and there are consequences and ramifications for that which both "sides" of this argument should be considering. Whether we are talking about IOC, eBird, ABA (either the organization or the membership), ornithological journals, 60% (possibly) of birders, or just people with strong political opinions - there is already precedent for rejection on changes of a much smaller stakes and scale.

Thanks. You are of course, correct in your explanation above. Statements from eBird and the ABA have both said they will follow the AOS. How that will be implemented (in terms of multiple names being offered or not) no one knows at this point. The petition was aimed at the AOS because they started this mess. If they continue with this project and the ABA and eBird follow suit, I would think ABA members would have to pressure their organization (if the majority disagree) as well as eBird users pressuring Cornell. Of course none of these 3 organizations polled their own memberships or users about these changes to see what the actual sentiment really is. The people in favor of this change throw around the term "the majority" but there is no actual data to support this claim. We have never stated we are in the majority, but we have asked for polling to take place so that can be determined. The difficulties and roadblocks we encountered in even getting this petition publicized were enormous. I cannot even fathom taking on another 2 petitions at this point. If the AOS proceeds then I think we will have to think about differing strategies to continue the fight.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Thanks. You are of course, correct in your explanation above. Statements from eBird and the ABA have both said they will follow the AOS. How that will be implemented (in terms of multiple names being offered or not) no one knows at this point. The petition was aimed at the AOS because they started this mess. If they continue with this project and the ABA and eBird follow suit, I would think ABA members would have to pressure their organization (if the majority disagree) as well as eBird users pressuring Cornell. Of course none of these 3 organizations polled their own memberships or users about these changes to see what the actual sentiment really is. The people in favor of this change throw around the term "the majority" but there is no actual data to support this claim. We have never stated we are in the majority, but we have asked for polling to take place so that can be determined. The difficulties and roadblocks we encountered in even getting this petition publicized were enormous. I cannot even fathom taking on another 2 petitions at this point. If the AOS proceeds then I think we will have to think about differing strategies to continue the fight.

I certainly understand - and I don't think the entirety of the "opposition efforts" should fall on your shoulders. But I do think that if this issue is as important as both sides claim it is, then multiple efforts from multiple angles should be pursued... and for a multitude of reasons that should not be done by even a single organization.

I agree with your position on the polling, but also wonder as to its importance - as the AOS does not have much track record on using polling or popularity in their decisions. Up until their eponym announcement I saw little precedent among the organization for public opinion to crop up in their decision-making, (and of course when they did so it was in a manor very ironic for a scientific organization... but I digress). The ABA on the other hand took a vote for the inclusion of Hawaii - no small or uncontroversial matter. I again agree with you that AOS deserves to be in the "crosshairs" first as the organization that "started this mess" as you say (I'll not quibble here just yet). But the ABA has shown itself to be more concerned with popular opinion matters such as this. Tactically, it makes sense for someone to build on your work in that direction - but just my opinion I suppose.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Yes, but in this specific case of relating to this proposal, eBird said they are deferring to AOS for English names.

Correct, just as in this specific case that the AOS says they are adopting name changes. Why try to reverse one and pretend the other is set in stone?

 

[njlarsen]

One thing someone could do: provide Ebird and ABA a copy of the package provided to AOS, saying it is for their information but also asking them to not make premature changes until your petition has had a chance to have effects.
Niels

 

[rahopko]

One thing someone could do: provide Ebird and ABA a copy of the package provided to AOS, saying it is for their information but also asking them to not make premature changes until your petition has had a chance to have effects.
Niels

Excellent idea & I will do that today. Thanks.

 

[rahopko]

I certainly understand - and I don't think the entirety of the "opposition efforts" should fall on your shoulders. But I do think that if this issue is as important as both sides claim it is, then multiple efforts from multiple angles should be pursued... and for a multitude of reasons that should not be done by even a single organization.

I agree with your position on the polling, but also wonder as to its importance - as the AOS does not have much track record on using polling or popularity in their decisions. Up until their eponym announcement I saw little precedent among the organization for public opinion to crop up in their decision-making, (and of course when they did so it was in a manor very ironic for a scientific organization... but I digress). The ABA on the other hand took a vote for the inclusion of Hawaii - no small or uncontroversial matter. I again agree with you that AOS deserves to be in the "crosshairs" first as the organization that "started this mess" as you say (I'll not quibble here just yet). But the ABA has shown itself to be more concerned with popular opinion matters such as this. Tactically, it makes sense for someone to build on your work in that direction - but just my opinion I suppose.

I certainly understand - and I don't think the entirety of the "opposition efforts" should fall on your shoulders. But I do think that if this issue is as important as both sides claim it is, then multiple efforts from multiple angles should be pursued... and for a multitude of reasons that should not be done by even a single organization.

I agree with your position on the polling, but also wonder as to its importance - as the AOS does not have much track record on using polling or popularity in their decisions. Up until their eponym announcement I saw little precedent among the organization for public opinion to crop up in their decision-making, (and of course when they did so it was in a manor very ironic for a scientific organization... but I digress). The ABA on the other hand took a vote for the inclusion of Hawaii - no small or uncontroversial matter. I again agree with you that AOS deserves to be in the "crosshairs" first as the organization that "started this mess" as you say (I'll not quibble here just yet). But the ABA has shown itself to be more concerned with popular opinion matters such as this. Tactically, it makes sense for someone to build on your work in that direction - but just my opinion I suppose.

I would be interested to hear more about what you are thinking when you say “multiple efforts from multiple angles should be pursued.” I am not at all against coordinating more efforts, but ideas are welcome & appreciated.

 

[Mysticete]

It is incorrect to state that the ABA and eBird are not in charge of English names.

As mentioned above, eBird represents the Clements list. Clements differs from AOS currently and has in the past. For example, Clements currently recognizes Western Cattle Egret while AOS does not; there was a disparity in recognition of Mexican Duck as a species for awhile, and there are differences in common names - notably Eurasian/Common Moorhen, Gray-headed/Purple Swamphen, some hyphen differences, and whatnot.

For a number of years, ABA has quietly favored Clements/eBird over AOS taxonomy and nomenclature. Here is the current ABA checklist: ThemeNcode PDF Viewer [Do not Delete] - American Birding Association

There is a note at the top that states "Note that where discrepancies in names occur between Clements/eBird and the AOS, both are listed, that of AOS in parentheses."

It is true that both organizations have stated that they will follow AOS's eponym changes, just as the AOS has stated they will make these changes that you are trying to have them reconsider. The ABA and Clements may also find reason to reconsider. It is certainly a possibility that Clements could decide not to implement or to only partially implement any changes. It is certainly possible that ABA could either choose to align more closely than Clements or to present multiple names instead of wholly adopting AOS. I say "certainly possible" because all of those things are occurring currently - and that needs to be emphasized.

I don't think enough credence is given to the consideration that even if the AOS does propose changes, that does not mean that others will adopt them - and there are consequences and ramifications for that which both "sides" of this argument should be considering. Whether we are talking about IOC, eBird, ABA (either the organization or the membership), ornithological journals, 60% (possibly) of birders, or just people with strong political opinions - there is already precedent for rejection on changes of a much smaller stakes and scale.

Kirk brings up some good stuff.

Ebird has signed onto the WGAC initiative which almost certainly means its taxonomy is going to start differing even more so from the AOS baseline. Ebird really is the public face of birding in North America, and has more influence than ABA or AOS. I am very very skeptical of the petition being able to change the mind of AOS, but I could see ebird being convinced to add a IOC or something equivalent filter/mode, in the same way that you can set up British names instead of US names in ebird currently.

 

[awiner]

Kirk brings up some good stuff.

Ebird has signed onto the WGAC initiative which almost certainly means its taxonomy is going to start differing even more so from the AOS baseline. Ebird really is the public face of birding in North America, and has more influence than ABA or AOS. I am very very skeptical of the petition being able to change the mind of AOS, but I could see ebird being convinced to add a IOC or something equivalent filter/mode, in the same way that you can set up British names instead of US names in ebird currently.

eBird already has an IOC mode! (See screenshot below.) It's slightly funky in that it just translates the names, which leads to somewhat odd results when there's taxonomic differences - you don't get a different total species count.

 

[Mysticete]

eBird already has an IOC mode! (See screenshot below.) It's slightly funky in that it just translates the names, which leads to somewhat odd results when there's taxonomic differences - you don't get a different total species count.

View attachment 1562852

That's because at the present they use different taxonomies, with different scientific names and splits recognized (plus no subspecies groups for IOC). Presumably once the WGAC list is published, all of this will be identical...your choice of global checklist will have no impact on taxonomy, but probably still on favored common names.

 

[raymie]

The Utah Legislature apparently doesn't like the AOS decision, either. Maybe this will put some additional pressure on them to reverse the decision, especially if some other states decide to follow suit:

Politically correct bird names? That doesn’t fly with Utah Legislature.

The American Ornithological Society has launched an effort to change the names of bird species that are named after people, the reason being that all the people are white men and some of them have racist histories. But this doesn't sit well with the Utah Legislature, which included language in a...

redirect.viglink.com

 

[Mysticete]

I doubt anyone cares what a group of Utah politicians think, especially given how performative and culture-war oriented politics on the right are at this moment.

 

[Jim M.]

The Utah Legislature apparently doesn't like the AOS decision, either. Maybe this will put some additional pressure on them to reverse the decision, especially if some other states decide to follow suit:

This is far to the right of what your petition says. It proposes to freeze bird names as of 2020--even with arguably offensive eponyms; not consider them on a case-by-case basis.

 

[rahopko]

I doubt anyone cares what a group of Utah politicians think, especially given how performative and culture-war oriented politics on the right are at this moment.

I think you may be underestimating the power of state legislatures…

The bill specifically states they are going to work with other states & national organizations. This is a very interesting development.

 

[raymie]

This is far to the right of what your petition says. It proposes to freeze bird names as of 2020--even with arguably offensive eponyms; not consider them on a case-by-case basis.

I understand that. I don't really agree with this bill, either. But its existence does put additional pressure on the AOS to not change hundreds of birds names, which I think is ultimately a good thing.

 

[rahopko]

I understand that. I don't really agree with this bill, either. But its existence does put additional pressure on the AOS to not change hundreds of birds names, which I think is ultimately a good thing.

The bill could use some modification. I just talked to the Utah rep who sponsored it. He is coordinating with other western states. He emphasized to me that this was not about politics but about stability in English names & was science oriented.

 

[Jim M.]

The bill could use some modification. I just talked to the Utah rep who sponsored it. He is coordinating with other western states. He emphasized to me that this was not about politics but about stability in English names & was science oriented.

It's arguably about racism; akin to not wanting to remove confederate statues. (Yeah, they said that was just about preserving history--ha, ha.) Aligning yourselves with it will just fuel the notion that your opposition to the AOS proposal is racist.