A lot of folk's initial gut reaction is disagreement, because it is such a major change and because it paints all patronyms as equally problematic. I think in the next few weeks you will see at least some folks mellow out over it, like Kaufman did and like I did.
I am sure you are right, and that we will all mellow regarding the proposed name changes with time. In fact to be honest we already have to accept name changes (which I think are generally unnecessary), which already creep in to most revision of taxonomic lists.
I just think that Academia should take a breath and consider the ramifications of all changes (good and bad).
In my view the benefits of change are generally outweighed by the benefits of maintaining the status quo. As a tiny example, yesterday my wife was trying to submit her sightings from Yunnan into EBird, but was confused why Streak-throated Fulvetta (as named in her 2020 field guide) was not in EBird - I had to refer to the internet to understand that Streak-throated is now Manipur Fulvetta (a name change implemented this year by Clements and EBird). This is a tiny example, where a name change causes confusion (and in this case IOC and BirdLife were already using Manipur, and the change was not to do with a patronym, so perhaps not the greatest example). But if we magnify every name change by the number of individuals 'inconvenienced' or potentially 'confused', then the impact is huge - every time a learned society imposes a change we are impacting authors of forthcoming books, compilers of regional reports, publishers of local news-letters, administrators of databases, administrators of online media collections, and all the birdwatchers who use any of these. We are also making existing (hard copy) reference libraries harder to use - and what birder doesn't eventually fill there shelves with field guides and other birdwatching books? Am I to scribble the new names into all the books in my library?
In the worst case. I remember reading that for some early observations (by Westerners) in China, we no longer know for certainty the species they are referring to, as the name they used has fallen into disuse, and the historic use of the name cannot be traced through history to a current taxa. If only we hadn't changed things, it would be simple!
Then we have the benefit - if AOS make a decision, will every copy of Peterson's Field Guide change overnight, or will they be pulled off the shelves and replaced by reprints with the names corrected? My earliest memories of bird watching were pouring over the 'AA Book of British Birds' - OK the Internet didn't exist, but I doubt I would have been so excited about dry papers on taxonomic and name changes. I suspect that most newcomers will buy a copy of Peterson's Field Guide, rather than delve into the AOC pronouncements on name changes.
I must confess that I now look forward to yearly taxonomic updates, but for many (including my wife), the whole 'can't stop meddling' vibe is rather a turn-off. By changing things (including taxonomy and nomenclature) we come across as a bit of a bunch of nerdy, obsessive-compulsive pedants! Hardly great for encouraging people into the fold. When a young birder says he has just seen a Wilson's Warbler, are we going to turn round and say 'don't you mean a Black-capped Yellow Warbler (or whatever we decide)' - that will inspire the young boy or girl (....I don't think).
And as I say, aren't there bigger fish to fry? For starters the USA doesn't have a greatest record for conservation - how many species went extinct in USA territory in the 20th and 21st century? [My rough count is over twenty]. Perhaps the AOS could be a greater champion of conservation, and perhaps even be an advocate for the importance of minimizing climate change. Surely this would be a better use of valuable time.
Stepping into incredibly dangerous ground, but If the BTO or RSPB etc followed suit and proposed name changes, I would suggest that perhaps their first priority should be to stop sitting on the fence regarding dogs and cats. The dog issue seems a very British problem, as in many other countries I have visited, the owners seem happy to keep dogs on leads to protect nature. My local heathland birds are tormented by the huge number of dogs allowed to run off lead, so this is a particular bug-bear for me (but to be honest research has shown the presence of a dog on a lead causes higher levels of alertness and stress in birds). As I say, I think all societies and organisations, could think of more worthy and important things to do than change bird names.
I suspect that the problem is that societies feel that it is important to be 'seen to be doing the right thing', but in this case I would also argue its is flim-flam and rather insincere.
digest.sialia.com
