• 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.

New official Checklist of the birds of Germany sparks debate (1 Viewer)

And to be fair, I can see the rationale in your wanting common names to make "taxonomic sense". You are arguing from a point of logic, I am arguing from a point of view of emotional attachment to the familiar. My take is that the binomial is the one that needs to be rational, and the vernacular is the one that should reflect real world usage even where it makes no sense.
Taxonomical logic isn't the only logical way of looking at the issue. Considering factors like mass appeal, practicality (cool and memorable names will be better than long and awkward ones) and cultural heritage is entirely logical, too. Emotional attachment can aid in conservation, too. It is logical to include that in one's analysis.
 
Why on earth would you ever get rid of a name like Dunnock - it's concise, easy to pronounce, actually a traditional name yet accurate at the same time. And still worse, replace it with a monstrosity like "European Accentor"?
FWIW, the most recent Dunnock I've seen was moving in and around a hedge.

I saw a couple from my Nottingham window, dwelling in the shade they were, so European Shade Dweller .......;)
 
Hi,

Taxonomical logic isn't the only logical way of looking at the issue. Considering factors like mass appeal, practicality (cool and memorable names will be better than long and awkward ones) and cultural heritage is entirely logical, too. Emotional attachment can aid in conservation, too. It is logical to include that in one's analysis.

Very good point.

I'd even argue that with modern methods speeding up progress, taxonomical consensus will change more rapidly than in the past, and while it's necessary to track this by changing scientific names, it's neither necessary nor beneficial to do so with traditional names.

And maybe "traditional" is a better word here than "common", as I'm thinking about the common names for native birds that have been in popular use for centuries ... Bornean birds are a different issue altogether in my opinion.

Regards,

Henning
 
I actually like the idea that there are often more than one name for the same bird, sometimes these can be colloquialisms or simply names that have derived from folklore or description (lapwing, Peewit being great examples for the bird that nobody actually refers to as Green Plover). Whilst I can understand that some might want the names to be reflective of their true taxonomy, that would all be rather dull and boring. It is the historical and often much more evocative descriptive/local names that win for me every time. Bearded tit does what it says on the tin. OK so it has a moustache not a beard and its not a tit either but it does make sense. A flighty little thing with a high pitched call that clings to things and has "facial hair". I don't think however moustachiod reed climber will ever catch on?

Descriptive names are meant to convey an image not necessarily an exact description of the finer points of plumage etc. The fact that the Americans call buntings sparrows makes total sense to me. If you were pointing out a small mainly brown seed eating bird to a non scientific/non birder (eg a young child) "sparrow" conjures the right image every time. Sparrowhawks do not survive on a diet of nothing but sparrows. The name does tell us that they prey mainly on small birds and therefore makes sense. Whilst on the subject of American birds, the fact that many hawks over there are actually Buteos and not accipitors matters not a jot. The word hawk tells us all we need to know about their position in the food chain. The rest is semantics.
 
PS I grew up with House, Tree and Hedge sparrows but I always knew that the latter was not a true sparrow but was actually an accentor and more correctly referred to as a Dunnock. It will never be a hedge accentor as far as I am concerned
 
Here's a somewhat related conundrum for you, though: what about Madanga? I doubt many people mourned the loss of "Rufous-throated White-eye" because Madanga is cool and highly memorable, and - again - was derived from an existing genus name. However, I believe it is now considered to be well-nested within the genus Anthus, so "Madanga" presumably now makes absolutely no sense. Buru Pipit? |:S| Personally, I suspect Madanga will remain in common usage.
How about Madanga Pipit?


Does perhaps make one think it is a pipit from Madanga though . . . anyone know where Madanga is? 3:)
 
Taxonomical logic isn't the only logical way of looking at the issue. Considering factors like mass appeal, practicality (cool and memorable names will be better than long and awkward ones) and cultural heritage is entirely logical, too. Emotional attachment can aid in conservation, too. It is logical to include that in one's analysis.

Indeed, very good points. I believe the name Sidamo Lark was changed to Liben Lark at the request of local people, in the hope that they would become more invested in its conservation. Hard to argue with that.

Anyway, apologies for taking a thread about German vernacular names off on the tangent of English names, although I guess the themes are similar!
 
I'm not advocating any particular name for the Prunella, just interesting name over history English names have regularly changed without much fan-fair. Another good one - Long-tailed Bushtit I suspect is one that would struggle to catch on, despite it being an Aegithalos.
For the Prunella, if I had it my way, or wrote about that species or Genus in particular, I'd probably prefer European/Eurasian Accentor - or something a bit different like Scrub Accentor or even something slightly more evocative like Hawthorn Accentor (do they like Hawthorns elsewhere? I know only know them from UK and Iran!).

I find it fascinating how people are so keen and determined to cling on to old names, even if they are wrong, when we all know in generations time they will be in the past (like Goat-sucker and Hedge Sparrow, I'm sure there are many other examples too).

Another bug-bearer of mine - Willie Wagtail - just call it what it is, a fantail!

James

That's "fanfare" not "fan-fair", which is one good reason why people should learn names properly and not mess about with them improperly.

Another thing - nobody gains from someone putting "Common" or "European" in front of something else just because other birds with the same main noun have a qualifier. A Robin is a Robin is a Robin, and never mind the fact that there's an American Robin (which isn't a Robin, but good luck with changing it) and about 120 others - even including Bush Robin and a couple of other groups as one each. European Accentor is a godless invention of a chronic tinkerer.

Which seems to be the problem all over. I see a lot of this at work: with people doing a tour of a couple of years in post, they feel the need to make their mark, so as soon as they arrive they feel they have to change something.... nobody ever made their name by saying the last person had it exactly right! Change for the sake of change. Invalidation of what you've always known and for that matter all written references, guides, common understandings, for no good reason.

Add that to James's expressed feeling that "Dunnock" - a perfectly good Middle English vernacular name that antedates everything else he wants to put in its place and is still in common use - is "wrong" and you get a chronic tinkerer with an over-inflated sense of the importance of what he thinks. It's not wrong, its been tried, tested and stuck with for centuries. James is wrong. He just can't see it, even when he's told to his face. He still wants to change stuff that's perfectly all right.

The same applies to the German committee, which has allowed the fact of its existence to go to its collective head. They aren't there to generate change. they are there to minimise and manage it when it is unavoidable. They should examine their terms of reference (and so should German birders, to make sure they aren't already exceeding them).

To finish, I've quoted this before but it bears repeating because its a Freudian slip of pure delight. In my copy of Collins (1st edition, never bothered upgrading) the entry for what is, sadly, labelled Bearded Reedling includes the following:

"A small, light yellowish-brown bird with long pale yellow-brown tail glimpsed among the dense jungle of reeds should always be a Bearded Tit."

The author's own hand, when writing his piece, was so revolted by his adulteration of centuries of tradition, that it betrayed him and stuck up for the Bearded Tit: and all the pre-publication proof-readers missed it because they saw what their own minds told them was right.

Here endeth the lesson. o:D

John
 
To finish, I've quoted this before but it bears repeating because its a Freudian slip of pure delight. In my copy of Collins (1st edition, never bothered upgrading) the entry for what is, sadly, labelled Bearded Reedling includes the following:

"A small, light yellowish-brown bird with long pale yellow-brown tail glimpsed among the dense jungle of reeds should always be a Bearded Tit."

The author's own hand, when writing his piece, was so revolted by his adulteration of centuries of tradition, that it betrayed him and stuck up for the Bearded Tit: and all the pre-publication proof-readers missed it because they saw what their own minds told them was right.
Reedling in the 2nd edition o:D
 
That's "fanfare" not "fan-fair", which is one good reason why people should learn names properly and not mess about with them improperly.

Another thing - nobody gains from someone putting "Common" or "European" in front of something else just because other birds with the same main noun have a qualifier. A Robin is a Robin is a Robin, and never mind the fact that there's an American Robin (which isn't a Robin, but good luck with changing it) and about 120 others - even including Bush Robin and a couple of other groups as one each. European Accentor is a godless invention of a chronic tinkerer.

Which seems to be the problem all over. I see a lot of this at work: with people doing a tour of a couple of years in post, they feel the need to make their mark, so as soon as they arrive they feel they have to change something.... nobody ever made their name by saying the last person had it exactly right! Change for the sake of change. Invalidation of what you've always known and for that matter all written references, guides, common understandings, for no good reason.

Add that to James's expressed feeling that "Dunnock" - a perfectly good Middle English vernacular name that antedates everything else he wants to put in its place and is still in common use - is "wrong" and you get a chronic tinkerer with an over-inflated sense of the importance of what he thinks. It's not wrong, its been tried, tested and stuck with for centuries. James is wrong. He just can't see it, even when he's told to his face. He still wants to change stuff that's perfectly all right.

The same applies to the German committee, which has allowed the fact of its existence to go to its collective head. They aren't there to generate change. they are there to minimise and manage it when it is unavoidable. They should examine their terms of reference (and so should German birders, to make sure they aren't already exceeding them).

To finish, I've quoted this before but it bears repeating because its a Freudian slip of pure delight. In my copy of Collins (1st edition, never bothered upgrading) the entry for what is, sadly, labelled Bearded Reedling includes the following:

"A small, light yellowish-brown bird with long pale yellow-brown tail glimpsed among the dense jungle of reeds should always be a Bearded Tit."

The author's own hand, when writing his piece, was so revolted by his adulteration of centuries of tradition, that it betrayed him and stuck up for the Bearded Tit: and all the pre-publication proof-readers missed it because they saw what their own minds told them was right.

Here endeth the lesson. o:D

John

A lesson in common sense.......
 
That's "fanfare" not "fan-fair", which is one good reason why people should learn names properly and not mess about with them improperly.

Another thing - nobody gains from someone putting "Common" or "European" in front of something else just because other birds with the same main noun have a qualifier. A Robin is a Robin is a Robin, and never mind the fact that there's an American Robin (which isn't a Robin, but good luck with changing it) and about 120 others - even including Bush Robin and a couple of other groups as one each. European Accentor is a godless invention of a chronic tinkerer.

Which seems to be the problem all over. I see a lot of this at work: with people doing a tour of a couple of years in post, they feel the need to make their mark, so as soon as they arrive they feel they have to change something.... nobody ever made their name by saying the last person had it exactly right! Change for the sake of change. Invalidation of what you've always known and for that matter all written references, guides, common understandings, for no good reason.

Add that to James's expressed feeling that "Dunnock" - a perfectly good Middle English vernacular name that antedates everything else he wants to put in its place and is still in common use - is "wrong" and you get a chronic tinkerer with an over-inflated sense of the importance of what he thinks. It's not wrong, its been tried, tested and stuck with for centuries. James is wrong. He just can't see it, even when he's told to his face. He still wants to change stuff that's perfectly all right.

The same applies to the German committee, which has allowed the fact of its existence to go to its collective head. They aren't there to generate change. they are there to minimise and manage it when it is unavoidable. They should examine their terms of reference (and so should German birders, to make sure they aren't already exceeding them).

To finish, I've quoted this before but it bears repeating because its a Freudian slip of pure delight. In my copy of Collins (1st edition, never bothered upgrading) the entry for what is, sadly, labelled Bearded Reedling includes the following:

"A small, light yellowish-brown bird with long pale yellow-brown tail glimpsed among the dense jungle of reeds should always be a Bearded Tit."

The author's own hand, when writing his piece, was so revolted by his adulteration of centuries of tradition, that it betrayed him and stuck up for the Bearded Tit: and all the pre-publication proof-readers missed it because they saw what their own minds told them was right.

Here endeth the lesson. o:D

John

Hey, John. Can you do us all a favour and nip up to Westminster and sort out this Brexit mess for us. I'm sure you could have it all done and dusted in a morning and back in time for tea. :t:
 
Back to German names: for Bullfinch, the locals here say "Dompfaff" where I will use the official "Gimpel", yet we know what we mean. Anything better than the nonsensical Dutch name (which means "Goldfinch").

I have an old East-German fieldguide which used different names for the phalaropes, which are called (approximately) "Odin's little hen" and "Thor's little hen" in the west! Obviously these names could not be used in the country of truly existing socialism. I could never remember which is which, so I'd favour a change, haha (this only changed after I found a Red-necked Phalarope on my local patch)!
They also used "Willow Warbler" instead of "Fitis": no idea why they did this.

The name for Barnacle Goose has been switched from "Nun Goose" to "White-cheeked Goose" (some people still use the old name). Most people will (still) say "Fish Heron" instead of the official "Grey Heron"

I can deal with the gulls, even though the meanings of the Dutch names are different from both the English and the German names (where the Dutch are usually, but not always, closer to the English names).
It's bad enough that a Brandgans (NL) is not a Brandgans (D) is not a Brent Goose (UK)...

I'm not against getting rid of names which could be seen as offensive, although there's no need to become oversensitive and the new name should be easy. Did they change "Moorente" too? (Weißaugenente would suit me!)
 
Back to German names: for Bullfinch, the locals here say "Dompfaff" where I will use the official "Gimpel", yet we know what we mean.
As in Danish "Dompap" :t:
I have an old East-German fieldguide which used different names for the phalaropes, which are called (approximately) "Odin's little hen" and "Thor's little hen" in the west! Obviously these names could not be used in the country of truly existing socialism. I could never remember which is which, so I'd favour a change, haha (this only changed after I found a Red-necked Phalarope on my local patch)!


Again, Danish Odinshane & Thorshane (except 'hane' is a male term, so more 'Odin's Cock' and 'Thor's Cock')

They also used "Willow Warbler" instead of "Fitis": no idea why they did this.
An English name in a German book? :eek!: :eek!: :eek!: Or the German translation of that?

Did they change "Moorente" too? (Weißaugenente would suit me!)
Why would that be changed? Surely Moor (marsh) isn't offensive in any way?
 
Hi,

Back to German names: for Bullfinch, the locals here say "Dompfaff" where I will use the official "Gimpel", yet we know what we mean.

I believe "Dompfaff" and "Nonnengans" fell out of favour because of their religious connotations. However, my impression was that "Dompfaff" was a Protestant name poking fun at the ornate of catholic priests, so it might not have been as popular in Catholic parts of Germany.

Personally, I like both of these better than the (new) standard names.

"Weißwangengans" really is clumsy and uninspiring, and borderline confusing as the Canada goose has prominent white streaks on the cheeks as well.

I should look up the etymology of "Gimpel" one day, it's a bit of a weird word I can't place. (Oh well - "Die Namen der Vögel Europas" states it from Middle High German "gimpel-gempel", which means "to hop". Kluge's "Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache" considers that unconvincing and suggests a possible connection to the Old French "Guimple", which seems to be a term for some kind of veil or headdress. Still weird.)

I'm not against getting rid of names which could be seen as offensive, although there's no need to become oversensitive and the new name should be easy. Did they change "Moorente" too? (Weißaugenente would suit me!)

"Moorente" means "Bog Duck", so I don't think it will need to be changed. What was changed was the "Mohrenlerche", phonetically similar but etymologically derived from Latin "Maurus", and probably equivalent to the British "Moor". However, the German "Mohr" had taken the meaning "black person", and while my impression is that it was already obsolescent in the 19th century, I can see why ornithologists would want to get rid of it today.

The new name "Schwarzsteppenlerche" seems strange at first because according to German linguistic habits, that would mean "lark of the black steppe". However, I was surprsied to read that the lark seems to be a great fan of a terrain type properly known as "Schwarzsteppe" in German, so the name probably is better chosen than I initially thought.

Regards,

Henning
 
Names can change, but it should be a gradual process, or agreed, rather than imposed ... +1

Out of interest ...

Waldrapp and Sprosser were two that were used in the previous English Collins book (Heinzel, Fitter and Parslow)... but not any more. What's the story behind those two?
 
Names can change, but it should be a gradual process, or agreed, rather than imposed ... +1

Out of interest ...

Waldrapp and Sprosser were two that were used in the previous English Collins book (Heinzel, Fitter and Parslow)... but not any more. What's the story behind those two?
I don't know about the etymology other than what wikipedia suggests (Sprosser being probably related to [Sommersprosse, i.e. "freckle", referring to the chest pattern. Sprosse itself means "plant shoot/seedling"), but these names are still officially used for those two species.
 
After reading the OP, I was worried that this will devolve into a discussion on vernacular names. Seroously people, those do not matter, people will still call birds what they want and if they seriously need to sort a confusion, they always have the Latin system to check, where is the problem? Can we rather return to the real issue at hand, namely:

Can people please stop ******* up WP listing on an annual basis?

As if it weren't difficult as it is already! Some 60-odd countries are in question and each of them has its own private list with no real overarching authority, so figuring out whether a rarity/cat. C bird I have seen oitside of my countries counts is already a detective work! I can understand changes due to new knowledge or established populations, but changes because someone just got a new opinion are outrageously disrespectful to any foreign birders who simply can't follow your current local whims (which often aren't even properly explained in English anywhere).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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