HBW and BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist v4 (3 Viewers)

[Nutcracker]

There's a proposal (NACC 2020) to change the name of Olive Warbler to Ocotero, which I hear is because it isn't a (New World) warbler, it's in its own monotypic family. Don't know what the odds are of that one passing.

Pretty good I'd think - it harmonises with what it's already called in Mexico. Linguistically another mixed one, from Ocote (Nahuatl for a pine), plus '-ero' (Spanish word ending meaning 'associated with' or similar). So it effectively means 'Pine-dweller'.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Pretty good I'd think - it harmonises with what it's already called in Mexico. Linguistically another mixed one, from Ocote (Nahuatl for a pine), plus '-ero' (Spanish word ending meaning 'associated with' or similar). So it effectively means 'Pine-dweller'.

Why should it harmonise with the local, foreingn language name? I asked above, are we set to have all localised or endemic species, placed on the English language list, in a range of foreign languages because that seems to be where we're heading. It would then cease to be an English language list.

At least Ocotero is slightly easier to remember than the other recently offered abominations.

We should start giving indiginous names to north American birds.

I must admit, when I was last in Venezuela, I did develop a fondness for the Spanish word for telescope.....telescopio :-O

 

[jurek]

I will watch with interest if the system collapses by oversplitting species and changing names into something nobody understands.

Or perhaps the system will wobble between the states 'oversplit' and 'undersplit' and 'lets invent more names' 'lets stick to names everybody actualy uses'?

The underlying system is that bird names and genera are invented, not found. There is no evidence that relations between bird species tend to follow steps called 'genera' 'families' 'orders' etc. So anybody can invent own bird names and genera.

Bird names and taxonomy are in constant danger for becoming useless, because somebody invents useless names for purpose of getting an extra paper published, prominence etc. A person inventing a new name or a new taxonomic shift has potential gain but zero cost (one can gain an extra publication, but one can lose nothing, simply the name is forgotten). Therefore, as more players join in and desire for prominence increases, the system moves towards chaos.

 

[jurek]

I just get a real buzz seeing these new arrangements through genetics, and comparing it to my field observations.
I think because I'm surrounded by all this 24/7, I'm looking at ways to make it more fun - the geek in me can't help it - we've had a few late nights over the years debating just how ridiculous can we actually make some common English names, and it goes way beyond chilappan's and cupwings.

I will put it this way:

Why nobody proposes changing names of robins and flycatchers in Europe, North America and Australia, although it is well known that these robins and flycatchers are not related?

When one answers that, one will also understand why it is better to leave the current names to not related wren-babblers and laughingthrushes.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I will watch with interest if the system collapses by oversplitting species and changing names into something nobody understands.

Or perhaps the system will wobble between the states 'oversplit' and 'undersplit' and 'lets invent more names' 'lets stick to names everybody actualy uses'?

The underlying system is that bird names and genera are invented, not found. There is no evidence that relations between bird species tend to follow steps called 'genera' 'families' 'orders' etc. So anybody can invent own bird names and genera.

Bird names and taxonomy are in constant danger for becoming useless, because somebody invents useless names for purpose of getting an extra paper published, prominence etc. A person inventing a new name or a new taxonomic shift has potential gain but zero cost (one can gain an extra publication, but one can lose nothing, simply the name is forgotten). Therefore, as more players join in and desire for prominence increases, the system moves towards chaos.

Agree with this, a paper or a book usually.

 

[jurek]

Just to be sure - I was not writing it against you, James, or any particular name.

The system is designed so that will produce splitting species and changing names at ever increasing speed. It is a version of so-called 'tragedy of the commons', the commons in this case is ability to communicate easily.

 

[James Eaton]

Bird names and taxonomy are in constant danger for becoming useless, because somebody invents useless names for purpose of getting an extra paper published, prominence etc. A person inventing a new name or a new taxonomic shift has potential gain but zero cost (one can gain an extra publication, but one can lose nothing, simply the name is forgotten). Therefore, as more players join in and desire for prominence increases, the system moves towards chaos.

In your opinion it could useless, but to others it is not (such as myself). People have put a lot of time and effort (and sometimes their own finances) because of their passion for taxonomy, into these manuscripts - it seems some of us are keen enough to adopt the splits, but not the recommended names - up to them, but if I'm going to accept their taxonomy, I'll also happily use their proposed names.

Why nobody proposes changing names of robins and flycatchers in Europe, North America and Australia, although it is well known that these robins and flycatchers are not related?
When one answers that, one will also understand why it is better to leave the current names to not related wren-babblers and laughingthrushes.

If I had an opportunity to revise English names for those birds, I'd readily do it. So I haven't understood why to retain. It's personal opinion at the end of the day, but I wouldn't call it stupid or useless as some have.

James

 

[jurek]

it seems some of us are keen enough to adopt the splits, but not the recommended names

Yes. The two are different: the biological relationships of birds and their common names. The first are objective, scientific facts which are discovered. The other are language constructs which are created.

And the language, including bird names, is not a 'personal opinion'. It is a common pool opinion of people wishing to communicate together. You could call Olive Warbler an Ocotero or apple a Smurf, but expect lack of understanding from others.

By the way, this shows a solution to changing bird names. One should make a poll or trawl the internet, and pick the most commonly used name.

Which could be surprising. Similar things were done by trawling newspapers, and people often used different names than used in dictionaries. Words and phrases were used commonly for decades before being noticed by dictionaries, and were the dominant usage for decades when dictionaries referred them as slang or variants.

 

[Andy Adcock]

In your opinion it could useless, but to others it is not (such as myself). People have put a lot of time and effort (and sometimes their own finances) because of their passion for taxonomy, into these manuscripts - it seems some of us are keen enough to adopt the splits, but not the recommended names - up to them, but if I'm going to accept their taxonomy, I'll also happily use their proposed names.


If I had an opportunity to revise English names for those birds, I'd readily do it. So I haven't understood why to retain. It's personal opinion at the end of the day, but I wouldn't call it stupid or useless as some have.

James

1. In your case James, there's business potential, it's an investment which could yield a nice return in the form of new itineraries and the more 'ticks' you can offer, the more attractive your tours are so let's not pretend you're doing it just for us.

2. In relation to renaming of robins and flycatchers in Europe, North America and Australia, based on past form, I personally hope you never get the chance!

 

[James Eaton]

1. In your case James, there's business potential, it's an investment which could yield a nice return in the form of new itineraries and the more 'ticks' you can offer, the more attractive your tours are so let's not pretend you're doing it just for us.

2. In relation to renaming of robins and flycatchers in Europe, North America and Australia, based on past form, I personally hope you never get the chance!

1 - yawn.

2 - don't tempt me, you know I'd do it just to tease you...

 

[Andy Adcock]

1 - yawn.

2 - don't tempt me, you know I'd do it just to tease you...

1. Why this the response, are you denying that some of your exploratory work is carried out in the hope of constructing a new tour or adding to an existing one?

I know it's a lot of hard work but you try and make it seem as if you do it just for us. It's also good to keep your name prominent when you have a product to sell and you do that well, undeniably.

 

[James Eaton]

1. Why this the response, are you denying that some of your exploratory work is carried out in the hope of constructing a new tour or adding to an existing one?

I know it's a lot of hard work but you try and make it seem as if you do it just for us. It's also good to keep your name prominent when you have a product to sell and you do that well, undeniably.

1. What has exploratory birding, which I do a lot of out of my own enjoyment first-and-foremost, got anything to do with this taxonomic discussion?

I do my own taxonomic work, experiments and investigations for the pure enjoyment and thrill, nothing more, simple as that.

James

 

[Andy Adcock]

1. What has exploratory birding, which I do a lot of out of my own enjoyment first-and-foremost, got anything to do with this taxonomic discussion?

I do my own taxonomic work, experiments and investigations for the pure enjoyment and thrill, nothing more, simple as that.

James

Because you mentioned that some people did it at their own, financial cost, I assumed you were reffering to yourself in this?

'People have put a lot of time and effort (and sometimes their own finances'

 

[McMadd]

By the way, this shows a solution to changing bird names. One should make a poll or trawl the internet, and pick the most commonly used name.

You'd end up with "Birdy McBirdface" or the attached if you let the public loose...

Have a guess why I started this thread...

https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=384106

 

[thomasdonegan]

This is the worst thread ever on birdforum.

Merry Christmas everyone. May the joy and kindness of the festive season enrich your hearts; here wishing kindness and love to you and your families.

 

[Steve Lister]

Definitely not the worst thread ever.

But certainly one that lost the thread a long time ago.

A simple solution to Olive Warbler being renamed because it is not a warbler would be 'Olive-warbler' (actually I would prefer Olive-Warbler) just like Honey-buzzard which is not a buzzard.

Steve

 

[jurek]

Too simple, cannot be.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

Bird names are changing so often now, that I've given up using other people's names for them, and just call them what I like best

 

[temmie]

It’s a bad thread, because a moderator deleted my last post without any notification or message.
Whatever you do dear mods, deleting posts without notification is bad moderator practice.

Anyway, I linked an article in the Guardian I thought was worth reading:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/28/bird-names-origins-blackbird-yellowhammer

 

[jurek]

I think there is a good solution for that. There is this educative story about people who use a language with random words substituted by something unrecognizable, which audience can only understand by context. Following this, a solution which is easy to memorize and pronounce might be:

Sholicola major - Indian Smurf Robin (yes, its small and blue)
Sholicola albiventris - White-bellied Smurf Robin
Montecincla jerdoni - Northern Smurf Thrush
Montecincla cachinnans - Nilgiri Smurf Thrush
Montecincla fairbanki - Eastern Smurf Thrush
Montecincla meridionalis - Southern Smurf Thrush
Peucedramus taeniatus - Olive Smurf Warbler

:-O