I posted this in the book section already Mike, along with another title which seems to politicise birding.The Vanishing Mew Gull: A Guide to the Bird Names of the Western Palaearctic (Ray Reedman April 2024) - details here.
Andy, does "already" mean "subsequently to your posting it here"?I posted this in the book section already Mike, along with another title which seems to politicise birding.
Sorry yes, I did think I'd posted it first as I only looked in the book section.Andy, does "already" mean "subsequently to your posting it here"?
Preview : The Vanishing Mew Gull
("I had always felt that the previous imposition of Mew Gull as the world name had not been a wise decision : it was, after all, the name of the American subspecies"...
Even not taking into account its etymological origin -- of course, no, it never was: Check-list of North American birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library )
My "hot take" on the situation is that the NACC was the only group of people confused in the naming of these birds.
Prior to the original lump, the AOU was using "Short-billed Gull" for brachyrhynchus and "Mew Gull" for canus. The link is to a BHL scan of the 3rd ed of the AOU check-list -- if it keeps not loading, the AOU treatment in 1910 was :
(For the record, I think the first time I explained this was in a mail to ID-Frontiers in Jan 2001: my take on this issue is completely unrelated to anything the NACC did in the last couple of years. But I, for one, would most definitely have been left shaking my head if they had not acted the way they did.)
I agree that using Mew Gull for the combined global form was a poor precedent, but it was no secret that many disagreed that it was required to rename Mew Gull when AOS / NACC finally caught up taxonomically. It was also confusing when AOS / NACC called Hen Harrier by the name Northern Harrier. And then inconsistent when Northern Harrier was not renamed. Also inconsistent that Winter Wren was not renamed.
I do think it's interesting to see how that naming decision and the choice of Thick-billed Longspur perhaps tipped the balance in terms of NACC losing authority over English names.
The cases you cite are in no way comparable -- there had not been decades of history during which "Northern Harrier" or "Winter Wren" had been used in a restricted sense as the official name of the other, non-American taxon, as had been the case for "Mew Gull".
Re. them loosing authority over English names -- this was evidently the agenda of "BN4B" from the start. I am very much unconvinced that the fact that the name they came up with to replace McCown's Longspur was perceived as poor by some, affected the output. They opened a gate, which triggered the next assault, when they finally accepted to change the name. This assault would have taken place even if the substitute name had been great.
Yet when they renamed Mew Gull (sensu stricto), they decided it was necessary to distinguish from Mew Gull (sensu lato), their view of the name of the parent species.
Languages evolve, usage changes. Each time this discussion arises it furthers my support for the idea that English names be determined by English names committees that are able to be more pragmatic and consider the living users of the language.
I believe the name change from Marsh Hawk to Northern Harrier was in the early 80’s. I actually don’t know if the US/CA powers that be ever considered the two species separate prior to 2017.
One could chuckle at the idea that the same logic that demands renaming daughters in splits should have mandated the renaming of N Harrier (sensu stricto). And there is a historical name available so rename it Marsh Hawk. But Hawk is taxonomically incongruent so call it Marsh Harrier 🤷🏻
In this case I think the pragmatic choice to retain Northern Harrier was apt.
IIRC, NACC if they were to split this bird were going to go with "Whimbrel" for the Eurasian form and Hudsonian Curlew for the new world form. There is nothing at all to link the new name with the old one, and no doubt many many birders would keep using whimbrel and getting flagged on ebird or just plain confusing other birders (especially in places like AK where both forms are possible!). Yes, Hudsonian Curlew is an existing name in the literature, but bringing it back would cause more confusion for folks than reviving a name in the literature that hasn't seen wide usage since before I was born.