StuartReeves
Local rarity
But then, as per previous arguments, it would cease to be an 'English' language list? By this argument, all European, Boreal species should be known by their Viking names.
The, for want of a better word, local names would be used as a starting point, not necessarily directly. They could be used for instance in translation or by adopting an English name that refers to a characteristic recognised in the local name. Also, Bonxie and Tystie could be considered as Viking names that are widely used.
The problematic part here is that, especially if you are dealing with a widely distributed species, which Native American word are you going to use? People seem to forget that Native Americans are actually made of numerous diverse cultures with different languages. And it assumes that there was a distinct name for each bird we recognize as a species today, and that the name wasn't shared with a completely different species by a completely different tribe or cultural group.
I didn't say it was going to be easy! That is partly why you'd need wide consultation and research to compile a full list of names and their translations/interpretations. Although there might be a range of different names for a given species there may well be some common ground e.g. in names based around e.g. the colour, size or habitat of the species. which could be carried forward into the English name. The point about distinct names for birds we recognise as species is a fair one, but if there are distinct names for given species within specific cultures or areas then that's all the more reason for reflecting those in the English name. Of course there are likely to be many species which don't have clearly identifiable names in any Native American language, but it would be good to know that before selecting a name.