Current fuss in North America about eponymous English bird names (3 Viewers)

[Lerxst]

I have published a part II on bird names and barriers:

More Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Physics, Birding and Blindness

Edit: Please sign the petition here: https://chng.it/srvVNZ5mSZ The image above pictures Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman. He was a brilliant physicist whose work helps us understand how blue feathers get their color, among many other things. His name is attached to concepts such as Raman...

legallyblindbirding.net

Let it not be said that I'm not trying to be a peacemaker.

I remain,
your humble servant,
etc.

 

[Xenospiza]

I still think many eponyms take away the urge to look at what makes a bird different. That's what I found when I looked at the American sparrows: they are a lot more "unique" than I thought.
An exception was Brewer's Sparrow. But a sparrow named after Thomas Mayo Brewer is (unintentionally) funny: look at the end of the wikipedia article. It gets my stamp of approval.

 

[Lerxst]

I still think many eponyms take away the urge to look at what makes a bird different. That's what I found when I looked at the American sparrows: they are a lot more "unique" than I thought.
An exception was Brewer's Sparrow. But a sparrow named after Thomas Mayo Brewer is (unintentionally) funny: look at the end of the wikipedia article. It gets my stamp of approval.

What makes the approximately 23,487 identical Phylloscopus warbler species "look different" from each other?

If I wanted to follow a certain logic to its inevitable conclusion (and I certainly do not), I would be forced to point out that naming a bird for its visual appearance is exclusionary to blind birders.

 

[DMW]

I was browsing Cornell's Bird of the World site this evening, and looking at the Leach's Petrel entry, was somewhat wryly amused to read the following above the Introduction:
"This species account is dedicated in honor of Chuck Huntington, director of the Bowdoin Scientific Station on Kent Island (1953–1989), and Bill Ellison, a member of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Administrative Board."

 

[Andy Adcock]

I have published a part II on bird names and barriers:

More Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Physics, Birding and Blindness

Edit: Please sign the petition here: https://chng.it/srvVNZ5mSZ The image above pictures Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Raman. He was a brilliant physicist whose work helps us understand how blue feathers get their color, among many other things. His name is attached to concepts such as Raman...

legallyblindbirding.net

Let it not be said that I'm not trying to be a peacemaker.

I remain,
your humble servant,
etc.

I think that's great Michael!

 

[Lerxst]

According to professor Remsen, who here is referring to what I proposed at the end of my part II... and I quote:

The solution he proposed is exactly what the North American Classification Committee voted unanimously to follow.

I guess for some people this... has to do with more than just.... renaming a few dozen birds.

 

[Mysticete]

I still think many eponyms take away the urge to look at what makes a bird different. That's what I found when I looked at the American sparrows: they are a lot more "unique" than I thought.
An exception was Brewer's Sparrow. But a sparrow named after Thomas Mayo Brewer is (unintentionally) funny: look at the end of the wikipedia article. It gets my stamp of approval.

For those too lazy

"In his last decade of life, Brewer sparred with Elliott Coues over the fate of the House Sparrow, a recently introduced bird that was multiplying far faster than expected. While Coues and most ornithologists were in favor of killing many of them off, Brewer tried to defend them. This ornithological event is known as "The Sparrow War."[6]

Brewer died in Boston on January 24, 1880, while the fate of the sparrow was still being debated."

Talk about being on the wrong side of a war!

 

[Xenospiza]

What makes the approximately 23,487 identical Phylloscopus warbler species "look different" from each other?

If I wanted to follow a certain logic to its inevitable conclusion (and I certainly do not), I would be forced to point out that naming a bird for its visual appearance is exclusionary to blind birders.

Doesn't "bird names for birds" not already exclude every birder? How about the deaf, dumb and blind birders that play a mean pinball?

 

[Xenospiza]

"In his last decade of life, Brewer sparred with Elliott Coues over the fate of the House Sparrow, a recently introduced bird that was multiplying far faster than expected. While Coues and most ornithologists were in favor of killing many of them off, Brewer tried to defend them. This ornithological event is known as "The Sparrow War."[6]

Talk about being on the wrong side of a war!

Watch out now: I have actually been called a fascist for expressing such views about feral Egyptian Geese.

That's your credibility down the drain: the Diversity and Inclusion Committee will be noting down your details, haha!

 

[jts1882]

Not sure if this point has been brought up much (not going to read the thread again, sorry ;-) )

IF this were to go through, would that not mean that all other groups of animals (and then plants) would have to follow suit eventually? That would be fairly ridiculous*, surely?

What is so special about birds that isn't about eg frogs, mammals or plants that it is wrong for them to be named after people (either the discoverer or someone memorialised?)

To not have all creatures eponymous names removed would end up being a grave inconsistency ...


(*Using the term ridiculous in terms of perhaps crazy, but also a ridiculous amount of work as mentioned above, and in these other groups especially a great many suitable and memorable alternative names would have to be manufactured.)

As people have pointed out, birds are unique in having four checklists which give formal verncacular names. Mammals have one recent and active checklist and there was a 15 year gap between the MSW3 and this list.

Another difference is also unique to North American birds, as pointed out in the AOS reasoning. Most of the patronyms were name in the mid-19th century, a particularly difficult part of US history. Even explorers with primarily scientific interests were part of the expansion over the lands of indigenous people.

Ad Hoc English Bird Names Committee Recommendations for Council of the American Ornithological Society (AOS) - American Ornithological Society

The American Ornithological Society (AOS) maintains a list of scientific and English names for bird species throughout the American continents and associated islands. These names are widely used by ornithologists, the public, and government agencies.

americanornithology.org

A disproportionate number of eponyms were coined in the American West in the mid-1800s. One member of the committee found that, of the 78 eponyms in Tier 1, 62% are from the West, primarily the Southwest; 77% of these were named between 1825 and 1875. Prior to that time and place, eponyms were relatively rare: Only 9 of the potentially 78 eponyms in Tier 1 were named before 1825. The eponyms from the American West largely honor and were conferred by “soldier scientists” traveling with the U.S. Army during the Mexican-American War and various Indian wars.

 

[Mysticete]

Leadership of the organization is decided by a vote of the membership of the society, IIRC

 

[Mono]

"Nominations for the 2024 AOS Council are currently open."

AOS Council - American Ornithological Society

The Council is the governing body of AOS. The Council’s focus is on strategic direction, policy, budget, and effective organizational planning.

americanornithology.org

If folk care about this, then take steps to change it, that's what others have done.

 

[Lerxst]

"Nominations for the 2024 AOS Council are currently open."

AOS Council - American Ornithological Society

The Council is the governing body of AOS. The Council’s focus is on strategic direction, policy, budget, and effective organizational planning.

americanornithology.org

If folk care about this, then take steps to change it, that's what others have done.

Thanks for this.

Nominations for the 2024 AOS Council are currently open. Any Member in good standing may nominate persons for President-Elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and Elective Councilors. Nominations should be submitted through the AOS Member Portal by 15 December 2023.

 

[Mysticete]

"Nominations for the 2024 AOS Council are currently open."

AOS Council - American Ornithological Society

The Council is the governing body of AOS. The Council’s focus is on strategic direction, policy, budget, and effective organizational planning.

americanornithology.org

If folk care about this, then take steps to change it, that's what others have done.

Keep in mind that the only people open for election are current senior AOS members and that voting requires membership (which entails joining the society, which isn't free). I would imagine that the majority of people in these threads do not have membership.

 

[dantheman]

As people have pointed out, birds are unique in having four checklists which give formal verncacular names. Mammals have one recent and active checklist and there was a 15 year gap between the MSW3 and this list.

Another difference is also unique to North American birds, as pointed out in the AOS reasoning. Most of the patronyms were name in the mid-19th century, a particularly difficult part of US history. Even explorers with primarily scientific interests were part of the expansion over the lands of indigenous people.

Ad Hoc English Bird Names Committee Recommendations for Council of the American Ornithological Society (AOS) - American Ornithological Society

The American Ornithological Society (AOS) maintains a list of scientific and English names for bird species throughout the American continents and associated islands. These names are widely used by ornithologists, the public, and government agencies.

americanornithology.org

Are you inferring that having 4 checklists make a difference to the situation? How so? I imagine that it would make sense to just have 1 for other reasons ... if there were to remain 4 but one was completely different to the others that would seem fairly pointless to me ... or is it proposed that this becomes The One?

I (along with probably others), don't have a problem per se with some name changes as a compromise if shown to be quite offensive - some may also be rather pointless as already mentioned and there are better historical names out there for some.

Thanks for the link. I couldn't find it, but do recall reading in this thread (or another one) some of the justifications for some of the names being inappropriate - are you aware of where that is located (along with a full list of the proposed changes?) ... cheers (bit late to the party)

 

[etudiant]

I asked a few days ago about the process through which these people get the position, don't recall getting an answer but nobody suggested that they were 'elected' positions?

It is not a members poll here at the NYC Audubon either, rather an administrative process done by the appointed board members.
Perhaps birders should revolt on the issue.
However, considering the paltry (if any) compensation involved, I'd not think too many would volunteer to stand for election.

 

[jurek]

I don't have to be the person sitting as judge over the actions of people who have been dead for a century or more.

In an ideal world, somebody would point to the activists the same. And that that they should first achieve something remarkable before judging historical persons.

In an ideal world, too, AOC would admit that it was a bad idea trying to create and enforce bird names in the first place. And the role of the taxonomic committee would not be trying to create names - which makes it target to criticism, but report existing names used in the community of ornithologists and birdwatchers. This is surprisingly easy in the age of the internet, when a simple internet search will report you how often people use actual names. This would let the AOC avoid criticism. They would also not interfere with the normal evolution of language and trying to construct an artificial language which may not be used. And would probably lead to some surprises, for example that some colloquial names are now the actual dominant names used by majority of people.

If activists think that Amerigo Vespucci, Emperor Montezuma II, Attila the Hun and others were mass murderers whose names should not be honored, it is a valid opinion. But they would need to make an effort to reach to the actual community and gain support so that people stop using names voluntarily.

 

[Lerxst]

In an ideal world, somebody would point to the activists the same. And that that they should have first achieved something remarkable of a similar level before judging historical persons.

What an intellectually forlorn and utterly pointless activity it is to even bother passing judgement on dead people. How easy is it? Very. What does it achieve? Nothing. How well can the dead defend themselves? Not well at all. How does it make one look? Petty.

 

[Mysticete]

It is not a members poll here at the NYC Audubon either, rather an administrative process done by the appointed board members.
Perhaps birders should revolt on the issue.
However, considering the paltry (if any) compensation involved, I'd not think too many would volunteer to stand for election.

For most societies, there is absolutely no compensation for work done. It's all just expected service you complete as your job of being a scientist (All of these uncompensated service expectations are fueling a lot of issues in academia, IMHO). And the president doesn't have any sort of "greater" power than most of the other officers. They all vote, so it's not like the President just decides things and delegates.

And as you rightfully mention, that job comes with a lot of responsibilities that I doubt many people would want, from brown-nosing politicians to advocate for causes dear to the organization to schmoozing potential donors to help fund scholarship programs.

 

[Mysticete]

Are you inferring that having 4 checklists make a difference to the situation? How so? I imagine that it would make sense to just have 1 for other reasons ... if there were to remain 4 but one was completely different to the others that would seem fairly pointless to me ... or is it proposed that this becomes The One?

I (along with probably others), don't have a problem per se with some name changes as a compromise if shown to be quite offensive - some may also be rather pointless as already mentioned and there are better historical names out there for some.

Thanks for the link. I couldn't find it, but do recall reading in this thread (or another one) some of the justifications for some of the names being inappropriate - are you aware of where that is located (along with a full list of the proposed changes?) ... cheers (bit late to the party)

There are four global checklists because different groups of people become dissatisfied over existing checklists, and create new ones, each having a somewhat different goal. Birdlife is more concerned about conservation implications of taxonomy, IOC was initially formed to create s a single set of universal common names, Clements shifted over time to be the official checklist of Ebird, and Howard and Moore are more focused on the science side of things. Because many species have multiple names, or because different lists have had to create NEW names for new splits, different lists have adopted different names. The WGAC is trying to create a new list that will reconcile at least three of these lists, although Howard and Moore will continue to do there thing so to speak

There is far far less concern over these things among other groups of organisms, because the checklist stuff is left to science for the most part to concern itself with. It doesn't have a huge body of amateur naturalists arguing with each other over what common names should be used, nor a giant market of field guides to incorporate all of these things. That birders exist is what in part fuels the obsession with common names and almost certainly the demand for new global taxonomies. If the American Society of Mammalogy or the SSAR (which manages Herp lists for the USA/Canada) were to announce this sort of change, I doubt it would make the news in the same manner

Obsession over a unified single set of common names is honestly what landed us in this predicament. If there hadn't been the move to standardize this information to the extent bird folks have, getting rid of patronyms would never have been a big deal. The AOS could simply adopt a new set of names and folks could choose what ones they want to use.