Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names? (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Western" culture - whether it be states, cities, roads, ordinary terms in things like weights and measures, temperature, electricity, and on and on and on! Are we going to change the name of Washington D.C. because Washington had slaves? Historical figures have been given the honor of having a bird named after them for the positive things they did for ornithology - NOT for any beliefs they may have had. That being said - we are all willing to compromise and perhaps weed out the worst of the worst. The rest of the world, and organizations such as the IOC have no intent of removing eponyms - ornithological history is ornithological history - and English names are for human communication exclusively - so as long as humans understand what the name refers to, striving for stability in names is much more important than appeasing a vocal minority (of birders) who think it benefits anyone by cancelling history! Removing bird names named after giants such as Spencer Baird, or Robert Ridgway, or more recently Ted Parker or David Ainley, would be a travesty, in my opinion. By removing ALL eponyms, these giants will be viewed as guilty by association - which is just wrong!

Totally agree with all this Gary.

Regarding the highlighted statement, are you speaking as someone 'in the know' on this matter because that's what it sounds like? I really hope that what you say is true.

 

[Andy Adcock]

However, none of those reasons is sufficient to outweigh the hurt and offence caused by continuing to use English usage names associated with historical figures with individual acts of violence or abuse to others or associated with the persecution of indigenous peoples, slavery or military campaigns. As a result, we will identify those names for change. That will require judgements and there will be some borderline cases. That may require us to revisit those borderline cases in future. Merely because an individual was privileged, and by its nature privilege in historical and current society is often associated with a degree of exploitation, will be insufficient to change an eponymous name. Perfection is not required nor can perfection be found in any of us."

Massive historic injustices require recognition and discussion. Kirkland's Warbler seems a bizarre irrelevance to me. This seems a tangent. I found the discussion on Kirkland odd and belittling of far more legitimate discussion.

Hi Paul,
regarding the first highlighted section, has anyone actually expressed 'hurt' or 'offence', as far as I can see, it's a bunch of middle class white people, taking offence on someone elses behalf? This argument would carry far more weight if it were spearheaded by a person or group that have actually been offended by these names, it seems to me that the situation is that these names 'could' cause offence, nobody has shown that they have actually been problematic?

Second part, I agree but this is why we have schools, it's their job to impart this kind of education, that burden should not fall on the birding community.

Agree with everything else you said, what's wrong with Scott's Oriole btw, not aware of this one?

Finally, isn't it 'Kirtland's' Warbler?


Best, A

 

[Andy Adcock]

Met a guy this morning who asked if I'd seen a Bearded Reedling. I told him never and never would, but there were some Bearded Tits in the nearby reedbed if he was interested. Recent birdwatchers read recent field guides with meaningless changes like this in and know no better.

John

What's the status of Lapland Longspur ?

 

[Farnboro John]

What's the status of Lapland Longspur ?

Never heard of it....

John

 

[Paul Chapman]

Hi Paul,
regarding the first highlighted section, has anyone actually expressed 'hurt' or 'offence', as far as I can see, it's a bunch of middle class white people, taking offence on someone elses behalf? This argument would carry far more weight if it were spearheaded by a person or group that have actually been offended by these names, it seems to me that the situation is that these names 'could' cause offence, nobody has shown that they have actually been problematic?

Second part, I agree but this is why we have schools, it's their job to impart this kind of education, that burden should not fall on the birding community.

Agree with everything else you said, what's wrong with Scott's Oriole btw, not aware of this one?

Finally, isn't it 'Kirtland's' Warbler?


Best, A

1. No. At least some members of the Committee in the broadcast are not middle aged white people.

2. Schools talk to curriculums. It is a learning opportunity. Opportunities should be taken.

3. As I understand it, Winfield Scott (after whom it was named) was significantly involved in ethnic cleansing of native tribes

4. Yes. Kirtland's Warbler. Daft typos.

All the best

Paul

 

[Andy Adcock]

1. No. At least some members of the Committee in the broadcast are not middle aged white people.

2. Schools talk to curriculums. It is a learning opportunity. Opportunities should be taken.

3. As I understand it, Winfield Scott (after whom it was named) was significantly involved in ethnic cleansing of native tribes

4. Yes. Kirtland's Warbler. Daft typos.

All the best

Paul

I presume you read your legal briefs better that this Paul, I said 'middle class'. Also, I'm referring to the original broadcast from the BN4B group and the make up, of that group who actually instigated all this.

 

[Mysticete]

1. No. At least some members of the Committee in the broadcast are not middle aged white people.

2. Schools talk to curriculums. It is a learning opportunity. Opportunities should be taken.

3. As I understand it, Winfield Scott (after whom it was named) was significantly involved in ethnic cleansing of native tribes

4. Yes. Kirtland's Warbler. Daft typos.

All the best

Paul

Plus Scott had absolutely no connection or interest at all to birds, nor is there any evidence he did anything to benefit them or ornithology as a whole.

 

[Mysticete]

As for the members, here are the co-chairs:

Meet the Leaders of the AOS English Bird Names Committee - American Ornithological Society

As you know, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) is evaluating how to address harmful English bird names, and we are thrilled to announce that Carlos Daniel Cadena, Erica Nol, and Troy Peters have agreed to co-chair these efforts moving forward.

americanornithology.org

Here is the full list of members:
C. Daniel Cadena, Steve Hampton, Marshall Iliff, Tykee James, Alvaro Jaramillo, Irene Liu, Erica Nol, Troy Peters, Pamela Rasmussen, Michael Retter, and Allison Shultz

Off the top of my head, there are only 3 or 4 members that could count as middle/older aged "white" people, two of which are women.

 

[Andy Adcock]

As for the members, here are the co-chairs:

Meet the Leaders of the AOS English Bird Names Committee - American Ornithological Society

As you know, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) is evaluating how to address harmful English bird names, and we are thrilled to announce that Carlos Daniel Cadena, Erica Nol, and Troy Peters have agreed to co-chair these efforts moving forward.

americanornithology.org

Here is the full list of members:
C. Daniel Cadena, Steve Hampton, Marshall Iliff, Tykee James, Alvaro Jaramillo, Irene Liu, Erica Nol, Troy Peters, Pamela Rasmussen, Michael Retter, and Allison Shultz

Off the top of my head, there are only 3 or 4 members that could count as middle/older aged "white" people, two of which are women.

I think you have me blocked, otherwise you would have read my post properly.

 

[raymie]

While I sympathize with the stability argument and the confusion of learning new names, I also don't think people are given enough credit for adapting. Birders for decades have had to juggle multiple common names for widespread species on multiple continents, or accelerating taxonomic changes that have moved birds around field guides, split some species, and lumped others (with all of the attendant name changes associated with those). There will be short-term pain, but in 20 years no one will give a second thought.

None of those changed hundreds of bird names. I would agree with you if we were talking just a handful of species.

 

[Mysticete]

None of those changed hundreds of bird names. I would agree with you if we were talking just a handful of species.

It's not necessarily hundreds either. By my estimate there are about ~80 tier 1 birds; largely neotropical, pelagic, and Old World species will only get names changed at a much further date, and presumably a name change is dependent on if other authorities go along with it. And of those 80 species, only a small proportion are likely to be present in any given geographic area. It seems also likely that these will only be done in batches, the size of which we are not privy to yet. There really isn't a feasible way they can drop 80 new names all at once with the process currently described.

Excluding vagrants or very rare birds, for instance, I count only about ~19 regularly occurring Wisconsin birds in for a name change, some of which are pretty rare for the state anyway. Of those getting renamed, some will probably get descriptive names which will be pretty obvious, or are already birds that birders seldom use the full name of anyway. I never hear anyone say outloud Wilson's Snipe; as the only snipe in the Wisconsin it's kind of redundant.

(Side tangent: Splitting Common Snipe into Common and Wilson's Snipe was stupid. It should have been Eurasian and American. Would have saved a lot of ebird reviewers a lot of grief as well. Also a strong argument on why the NACC might not be the best folks to trust with common names)

So if we assume a multi-year process, a birder who spends most of their time in Wisconsin might have 5 or so new bird names to learn a year. And skimming through the list of Wisconsin birds needing a name change, the only group that is really all that confusing are the sparrows. That doesn't seem all that particularly difficult, and perhaps only slightly greater in scope change wise than a year with a lot of accepted NACC proposals

 

[Xenospiza]

I am pretty sure the individual who needs it is on this forum. Hopefully, he will not read this post....

I have a fair idea who this might be as I need Dull-coloured Grassquit. Point-tailed Palmcreeper is a much more painful omission on my list!

 

[temmie]

I have liked Temmie's post above because I found it very sensible & reasoned but I do disagree.

Back to Temmie's post:-



Neither am I but this is a discussion about change. Indeed, it is not simply about change but a significant change in the numbers of species involved. It is also about a localised change which is divisive & where no attempt has been made to engender broader support. A small number of people have been involved and decided that they know better. (This was typed before qwerty5's post above.)



I am totally baffled by the suggestion that this is so difficult that all eponyms need to be removed. I have thought about this for two minutes so I am sure that it can be improved:-

Hi Paul,

at the one hand it is indeed not that difficult that all eponyms need to be removed... At the other hand, and as Gary Rosenberg said above, if you have a committee of 10-12 people it's already hard to reach a consensus, so how would any committee (or for now, the larger US birding community) agree / have peace with changing some eponyms and leaving others untouched?

As I already said, I am perfectly fine with any 'solution' (even the status quo, but I feel the status quo is, for me, the least desired option). Pragmatically though, I am, as a person, leaning towards the easiest way out (which would be the simple / lazy solution of ditching all English eponyms), because that would, in my opinion, be the quickest and least confrontational solution.
But ofcourse I don't mind a good debate with some confrontation (as long as it's a constructive debate) and the debating itself is very valuable to finally bring some of the old names back to the fore and give them the attention they deserve, and while some eponyms refer to people who haven't really much merit, it's not a bad thing to collect the info on those persons and have some clues why they lend their names to those birds.

 

[Farnboro John]

It's not necessarily hundreds either. By my estimate there are about ~80 tier 1 birds; largely neotropical, pelagic, and Old World species will only get names changed at a much further date, and presumably a name change is dependent on if other authorities go along with it. And of those 80 species, only a small proportion are likely to be present in any given geographic area. It seems also likely that these will only be done in batches, the size of which we are not privy to yet. There really isn't a feasible way they can drop 80 new names all at once with the process currently described.

Excluding vagrants or very rare birds, for instance, I count only about ~19 regularly occurring Wisconsin birds in for a name change, some of which are pretty rare for the state anyway. Of those getting renamed, some will probably get descriptive names which will be pretty obvious, or are already birds that birders seldom use the full name of anyway. I never hear anyone say outloud Wilson's Snipe; as the only snipe in the Wisconsin it's kind of redundant.

(Side tangent: Splitting Common Snipe into Common and Wilson's Snipe was stupid. It should have been Eurasian and American. Would have saved a lot of ebird reviewers a lot of grief as well. Also a strong argument on why the NACC might not be the best folks to trust with common names)

So if we assume a multi-year process, a birder who spends most of their time in Wisconsin might have 5 or so new bird names to learn a year. And skimming through the list of Wisconsin birds needing a name change, the only group that is really all that confusing are the sparrows. That doesn't seem all that particularly difficult, and perhaps only slightly greater in scope change wise than a year with a lot of accepted NACC proposals

I certainly agree about the sparrows. It is more than time they were renamed buntings, but it would aid the transition if the first half of their English names were to be retained.

John

 

[Xenospiza]

Sparrow is fine for the Passerellidae: mostly unremarkable brown seedeaters looking just like sparrows to the general public.
The eponyms worsen the situation: look and listen closely and they are distinctive.
An exception is Brewer's Sparrow, but I support keeping the eponym as it is inherently funny (now here's a task for all you history buffs).
A "bunting" in North America is usually a gaudier type of bird.

If warblers can be in multiple families, so can sparrows (just like buntings, finches, blackbirds, orioles, flycatchers etc.)

 

[pbjosh]

Met a guy this morning who asked if I'd seen a Bearded Reedling. I told him never and never would, but there were some Bearded Tits in the nearby reedbed if he was interested. Recent birdwatchers read recent field guides with meaningless changes like this in and know no better.

John

Interesting that American Robin should be renamed due to taxonomic incongruity but Bearded Reedling should stay a Tit despite not being one:

• #122
• #63
• #27

 

[Farnboro John]

Interesting that American Robin should be renamed due to taxonomic incongruity but Bearded Reedling should stay a Tit despite not being one:

• #122
• #63
• #27

Touche..... however the Beardie is essentially on its own taxonomically whereas Yank Robin is an unequivocal thrush in a group where the same authorities as are currently flailing wildly about them have already renamed the other misnamed birds from robin to thrush, a level of inconsistency that is remarkable in a group that seemingly takes names seriously.

(Incidentally I'm assuming that using Yank for all things US must be acceptable now the Confederacy is being finally cancelled.)

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

But ofcourse I don't mind a good debate with some confrontation (as long as it's a constructive debate) and the debating itself is very valuable to finally bring some of the old names back to the fore and give them the attention they deserve, and while some eponyms refer to people who haven't really much merit, it's not a bad thing to collect the info on those persons and have some clues why they lend their names to those birds.

I remember in one piece which was advocating for change, that it wasn't simply the reputation of a person that bothered them. Another thing they said was that having science, dominated by Western, white, people was also problematic as it reinforces this 'barrier to inclusivity' so no matter how esteemed you are, unless you have e.g an obviously African name, they're not happy.

 

[Farnboro John]

As for the members, here are the co-chairs:

Meet the Leaders of the AOS English Bird Names Committee - American Ornithological Society

As you know, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) is evaluating how to address harmful English bird names, and we are thrilled to announce that Carlos Daniel Cadena, Erica Nol, and Troy Peters have agreed to co-chair these efforts moving forward.

americanornithology.org

Here is the full list of members:
C. Daniel Cadena, Steve Hampton, Marshall Iliff, Tykee James, Alvaro Jaramillo, Irene Liu, Erica Nol, Troy Peters, Pamela Rasmussen, Michael Retter, and Allison Shultz

Off the top of my head, there are only 3 or 4 members that could count as middle/older aged "white" people, two of which are women.

I'm not familiar with the people behind these names but surely Cadena and Jamarillo are names of Spanish origin and the Spanish are white. Unless someone is going to tell me the conquistadores were people of colour, of course. How does that affect what, in the interest of understanding across the pond, I shall call "the math"?

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

I'm not familiar with the people behind these names but surely Cadena and Jamarillo are names of Spanish origin and the Spanish are white. Unless someone is going to tell me the conquistadores were people of colour, of course. How does that affect what, in the interest of understanding across the pond, I shall call "the math"?

John

John, it's Jaramillo, he's author of 'The Birds of Chile' and co author of 'New World Blackbirds', at least I presume it's him? Without being insensitive, none of the three co-chairs 'look' white.