• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

59th Supplement AOS checklist pdf (1 Viewer)

Then how would anyone know that a Wilson's Southern-Storm-Petrel is unrelated to a Leach's Northern-Storm-Petrel?

3:)

I did notice the smiley but for good measure: if you are even interested in those things you would look at the scientific name 8-P

Niels
 
Using common names to indicate taxonomy is, at the very best, redundant.
Disagree, strongly - there's a frighteningly high proportion of people who have a mental block against scientific names. Ask them if a shared group common name means two birds are related, they'll very likely believe they are.
 
So what? ;)

And (in the great majority of cases) not a mental block but just laziness or indifference.

Indeed - I'll concede that names can at times add to confusion for lay-people, sometimes to a ridiculous degree (panda, anyone?) but the root problem in these cases is not names (in English, Latin, or whatever language), but one of awareness. As a case in point, a great many of my fellow countrymen will refer to Cathartes aura as a "buzzard," and there is nothing the AOU can do to either improve or confuse the issue of their taxonomic understanding.

All that said, the AOU "naming system" seems baffling no matter which degree of taxonomic propriety one believes is important in common names. We have Common Gallinule as the sister to Common Moorhen, yet its important that Storm-petrels are not Storm Petrels and Rock Pigeons are not Rock-Pigeons.
 
In Sweden we had an infected case; when the older, traditional, extremely well-known name tornsvala (meaning "Tower Swallow"), known in; litterature, folk songs, sayings, legends, poetry etc., etc., för the Common/Eurasian Swift Apus apus, was changed (in 1978) into tornseglare ("Tower Swift") following modern Taxonomy (in Apodidae) ... a change that caused an awful row, that went on for years, especially among history interested ornithologist, and culture-historians in general. Today everything is calm, serenity rules, and the "new" name is widely accepted, used by just about everyone (except maybe some reluctant Poets, a few Purists, and people who couldn´t care less).

But nobody dares, wise of this unpleasant experience (totally incomprehensible, or simply fun, to the unitiated), to even think of suggesting a similar alteration for the bird we call spillkråka [meaning something like "Split/Splitting Crow" (as in 'split wood', not taxonomic dittos ;))] for the Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius. Everybody (who cares) does understand it´s not a Crow.

In my view (if transferable to an AOS view?) stability of Common names is preferable to taxonomic perfection (except in cases where Common names can be regarded as offensive, of course). It´s hard enough to keep up with the changes of Scientific names.
--
 
Last edited:
In Sweden we had an infected case; when the older, traditional, extremely well-known name tornsvala (meaning "Tower Swallow"), known in; litterature, folk songs, sayings, legends, poetry etc., etc., för the Common/Eurasian Swift Apus apus, was changed (in 1978) into tornseglare ("Tower Swift") following modern Taxonomy (in Apodidae) ... a change that caused an awful row, that went on for years, especially among history interested ornithologist, and culture-historians in general. Today everything is calm, serenity rules, and the "new" name is widely accepted, used by just about everyone (except maybe some reluctant Poets, a few Purists, and people who couldn´t care less).

But nobody dares, wise of this unpleasant experience (totally incomprehensible, or simply fun, to the unitiated), to even think of suggesting a similar alteration for the bird we call spillkråka [meaning something like "Split/Splitting Crow" (as in 'split wood', not taxonomic dittos ;))] for the Black Woodpecker Dryocopus martius. Everybody (who cares) does understand it´s not a Crow.

In my view (if transferable to an AOS view?) stability of Common names is preferable to taxonomic perfection (except in cases where Common names can be regarded as offensive, of course). It´s hard enough to keep up with the changes of Scientific names.
--

Thank you for this fun ornitho-linguistic history! I am curious - in your estimation, how long do you feel it took for tornseglare to be generally accepted, and were there any other contributing factors (major field guide publications, etc.) that helped it along to acceptance, or is it simply that time is the key?
 
From experience in Denmark: the most common field guide is key to what the younger people call the bird. Once a name is ingrained it is difficult to change until a new generation comes along.

Niels
 
Thank you for this fun ornitho-linguistic history! I am curious - in your estimation, how long do you feel it took for tornseglare to be generally accepted, and were there any other contributing factors (major field guide publications, etc.) that helped it along to acceptance, or is it simply that time is the key?
Kirk, glad you liked my little story, I would say that, among (most) ornitholgists, the change was accepted quite quickly, in a few years, as SOF (Sveriges ornitologiska föreing), the Swedish Ornithological Society (today's Birdlife Sverige) is The Bird Society here in Sweden (at that time; the only "Bird organization", with no competion), and all field-guides published post-78 (most of them translated from English) was edited, or if Swedish written, done by ornithlogist close to SOF. In all (serious) Swedish bird guides tornsvala simply vanished after that decision.

And, as I'm writing this, I can hear the shrilling voices of a group of tornseglare outside the window ...
 
In my view (if transferable to an AOS view?) stability of Common names is preferable to taxonomic perfection (except in cases where Common names can be regarded as offensive, of course). It´s hard enough to keep up with the changes of Scientific names.
--
The Hottentot Teal (Spatula hottentota) contains a purportedly offensive epithet, although none the various English language bird name authorities have suggested changing it.
 
The Hottentot Teal (Spatula hottentota) contains a purportedly offensive epithet, although none the various English language bird name authorities have suggested changing it.

So am I right in thinking that tot is the offensive part?

Online definitions
1. a very young child.
"dancing classes for tiny tots"
synonyms: baby, babe, infant, toddler, newborn, tiny tot, child, little one, mite;

2. BRITISH a small amount of a strong alcoholic drink such as whisky or brandy.
"a tot of brandy"
synonyms: dram, small measure, drink, nip, slug, drop, draught, swallow, swig;

Or were you thinking of totty? :-O
 
So am I right in thinking that tot is the offensive part?

Online definitions
1. a very young child.
"dancing classes for tiny tots"
synonyms: baby, babe, infant, toddler, newborn, tiny tot, child, little one, mite;

2. BRITISH a small amount of a strong alcoholic drink such as whisky or brandy.
"a tot of brandy"
synonyms: dram, small measure, drink, nip, slug, drop, draught, swallow, swig;

Or were you thinking of totty? :-O

No, it's the term "hottentot" itself that is considered offensive:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hottentot_(racial_term)
 
Thread drift...One post referred to offensive names, and the Hottentot Teal was then cited as an example in a subsequent post.
 
From Wiki

'Hottentot (racial term), both an ethnic term and a term of abuse'.

Hottentot (British and South African English /ˈhɒtənˌtɒt/) is a term historically used of the Khoikhoi, the non-Bantu indigenous nomadic pastoralists of South Africa.

'The term has also been used to refer to the non-Bantu indigenous population as a whole, now collectively known as the Khoisan.[2] Use of the term is now deprecated and considered offensive, the preferred name for the non-Bantu indigenous people of the Western Cape area being Khoi, Khoikhoi, or Khoisan.[3]'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hottentot_(racial_term)

Negro Finch was changed to Nigrita, probably for the same reason?


A
 
Last edited:
Thread drift...One post referred to offensive names, and the Hottentot Teal was then cited as an example in a subsequent post.
Fair enough Jeff, so I thought, I was just surprised as you (North Americans) had a fairly recent, more local example, in today's Long-tailed Duck (Harelda) Clangula hyemalis, which for long was (and still is, by some) called Old-squaw alt. Oldsquaw or old squaw.

A (today dated) Common name that AOU altered in July 2000, simply not to cause offence.

Björn
 
Fair enough Jeff, so I thought, I was just surprised as you (North Americans) had a fairly recent, more local example, in today's Long-tailed Duck (Harelda) Clangula hyemalis, which for long was (and still is, by some) called Old-squaw alt. Oldsquaw or old squaw.

A (today dated) Common name that AOU altered in July 2000, simply not to cause offence.

Björn

It was more compicted than that. USFWS and Canadian WS petitioned the NACC to change the name because most breeding areas are on Native American land, and the agencies thought it would be difficult to persuade them to adopt conservation practices when using a pejorative term.
Andy
 
Not entirely surprising that the Mexican Duck and Barn Owl splits were not accepted, I guess, though the Mexican Duck is kind of like Yellow-rumped Warbler, you sort of wonder how much evidence will finally have to be accumulated to tip the balance.

Confusingly, one of the latest of the eBird news items, entitled “Annual eBird taxonomy update coming” and dated July 27, states in part: “...but if you have also seen Mexican Duck Anas diazi, this taxonomic update will give you a new lifer!”

Since the eBird taxonomy follows Clements, and Clements has traditionally followed the AOS, could this mean that Clements is now making its own decisions with respect to New World taxonomy?

Dave
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top