In my opinion, the problem with naming a bird after a person is that it is not descriptive. Does that really matter? To me it does. The entire point for giving names to things is so that we can communicate about them. And communication is always aided by simplicity and clarity.
If I refer to a Wilson’s Warbler, and you don’t know anything about birds, the name is mostly meaningless. You would know that it is a bird that warbles and was named after someone named Wilson. But if the bird was called a Black-capped Yellow Warbler, for example, you’d at least have some kind of basic mental picture of it. A descriptive name allows one to use less words to convey the same useful information:
“I saw a Wilson’s Warbler, which is a yellowish warbler with a black cap.”
“I saw a Black-capped Yellow Warbler.”
(yes, I know, this does not help with the female, but 50% is better than 0%)
Knowing that someone named Wilson had this bird named for them is not useful information in the field. And brevity is to be valued, IMO. As Strunk and White said: “Omit needless words. Vigorous writing is concise.” I would amend that and say "Vigourous communication is concise." It may not seem like much to have to remember that “Wilson’s” means “yellow with a black cap” but when faced with learning large numbers of new birds, it starts to add up. For example, when my wife and I lived in Asia, we crossed paths with many of the infamous Phylloscopus warblers – a large genus that presents all kinds of identification challenges. It did not help that this group includes many honorific epithets. Question: What about these names might help you learn how to identify them and set each species apart? Answer: Absolutely Nothing.
Hume’s leaf warbler, Brooks’s leaf warbler, Pallas’s leaf warbler, Tytler’s leaf warbler, Radde’s warbler, Tickell’s leaf warbler, Ijima’s leaf warbler, Laura’s woodland warbler, Whistler’s warbler, Bianchi’s warbler, Alström’s warbler, Martens’s warbler, Blyth’s leaf warbler, Claudia’s leaf warbler, Hartert’s leaf warbler, Kloss’s leaf warbler, Davison’s leaf warbler....Clear as mud.
Bird ID can be daunting enough, both for newcomers, and for experienced birders in new locations learning lots of new species. It can only help birders do their jobs better if the nomenclature is more descriptive. It certainly cannot hurt.
Most, but not all, honorifics reference an ornithologist whose work we wish to celebrate or honor. This is a fine sentiment, and that can still be done, in the latin designation, as is already the case with many birds, such as the Yellow billed Loon (Gavia adamsii). If you are a fan of honorific names, would you prefer that this be called Adams’s Loon? Would it be "better"? If you answer "no, we merely want stability" then how do you feel about the Magnificent Hummingbird 2017 split, when it was felt necessary to dispense with that moniker all together and to honor Rivoli, passing up a chance to have a descriptive name (that referenced the gorget color perhaps)? Granted, "Magnificent" isn't the best descriptor either, even though the bird is pretty damn magnificent - but so are so many others! - but it's an example of where nobody in the honorifi camp apparently cried foul about "instability" or "loss of preservation of tradition."
If one thing is clear, though, it is that my position of wanting illustrative names (and which has nothing to do with anything political at all) is quite the minority.
Thanks for reading. And please, if you can make a compelling argument for why honorifics are a wonderful idea in how we name animals, I am all ears.
