New official Checklist of the birds of Germany sparks debate (2 Viewers)

Farnboro John · Jan 24, 2019

James Eaton said:
I'm British, and I use the term Bearded Reedling. It's not a tit, so just invites confusion for non-native English speakers new to birding, I've had this discussion on many occasions from young, keen new birders asking why older generations can't deal with in advancements in taxonomy and changing English names to move with the times. Didn't British birders use to call Hedge Accentor/Dunnock, Hedge Sparrow? At some point that changed.

James

Other birds that are not what their names say, and nobody cares, include Egyptian Goose and all the New World sparrows. It absolutely doesn't matter that Bearded Tit is not a tit.

BTW Dunnock is Middle English in origin, and is a vernacular name which having triumphed over Hedge Sparrow already, will now proceed to grind the appalling Hedge Accentor into the dust. Maybe I'll start using Siberian Dunnock and Alpine Dunnock :t:

And snowflake millennials need to get with the programme and learn proper names, because us oldies are not getting out of the way. Give them an inch and they will be texting hedg axnter.

John

Jos Stratford · Jan 24, 2019

James Eaton said:
I'm British, and I use the term Bearded Reedling. It's not a tit, so just invites confusion for non-native English speakers new to birding.

Didn't British birders use to call Hedge Accentor/Dunnock, Hedge Sparrow? At some point that changed.

So the long-standing name 'Bearded Tit' could cause confusion among new birders because it is not a tit, but the new basically unused name 'Hedge Accentor' would not cause confusion among non-native English speakers?

After checking the word 'hedge' in their dictionary, they might then be a little confused as to why we are labelling it 'Hedge' Accentor, no? Across much of its range, and certainly in this part of the world, it is a bird of woodland, not hedges. Thinking about it, I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a Dunnock (oops Hedge Accentor) in a hedge over here.

Even worse, Dunnocks are also really quite secretive in these countries and many a new birder struggles to find one ... maybe armed with the new name, 'Hedge Accentor', our new birder understands the 'error' of their ways and so starts searching hedges ...ah yes, but that is the wrong habitat here, poor new birder, doomed forever. Seeking some clarity from a native speaker birder, they then get even more confused when they discover that actually nobody really uses that name anyhow.

So to summarize your post, would it be fair to say you are arguing that Bearded Tit is a daft name and not okay, but Hedge Accentor is a daft name, but okay?

DMW · Jan 24, 2019

James Eaton said:
why so much less grumbling with a genus name change?)

This is an interesting question. I'll answer for myself.

First, trust me I do grumble - at least to myself - in particular where not only is the English vernacular name changed, but also the genus, leaving the specific latin name as the sole anchor to the historical body of literature.

Second, I suspect I am like most birders in that I can't even wing-it when it comes to nomenclatural rules, and rather out of my depth when it comes to understanding why genus names spontaneously change or are "erected" - seemingly it involves discovering precedence in ancient Sanskrit texts and declension of the nominative neuter third person in latin... think I've got that right. In other words, I don't want to pipe-up with something more stupid than usual, and look like a complete reedling.

However, even a grumpy old fart like me can recognise that it is necessary to have a universally-accepted set of rules when it comes to scientific names, and when the genetics show that a genus is polygeneric (if that's the right word), there really isn't much option but to introduce a new name for at least one genus.

And this is the point. The scientific name is the one that has to be "right", that has to follow the rules. It's the one that actually matters. And because of this, vernacular names don't. They can be quirky and nonsensical and meaningless and random.

I have to say that I don't really buy the "somebody might be confused" argument. To quote Yossarian, "Who's they"? Who actually gets genuinely confused by the fact that at least six different families use the word "tit" (which I believe is simply an old word for any small bird).

I've never met anybody who was confused by the fact that English vernacular names aren't as rigid and rule-bound as latin names, and often make no sense. And if I ever do, I will take the 30 seconds it requires to explain the above to them, and we can both laugh about how stupid the English language is.

In fact, I might even use it as a "teachable moment" to explain why scientific names actually matter, and how modern work on genetics has shown that some previously understood relationships between birds turned out to be convergent evolution, or just plain wrong.

So, while I am an admirer of your Indonesia field guide, I hope personally never to have to blurt out "Bloodhead!" or "Shade-dweller" in the field

lest I sound like a complete chickadee.

Hauksen · Jan 24, 2019

Hi Jos,

Jos Stratford said:
So the long-standing name 'Bearded Tit' could cause confusion among new birders because it is not a tit, but the new basically unused name 'Hedge Accentor' would not cause confusion among non-native English speakers?

To be honest, the vast majority of English bird names are quite confusing to me as a non-native speaker.

"Bearded Tit" is one of the few exceptions because it happens to be a good translation of its German name.

"Hedge Accentor" is a bit of an etymological monster to me because it combines Germanic and Latin elements.

Beats me why anyone would want to freshly introduce a Latin name for a bird that differs from its scientific Latin name.

Regards,

Henning

Andy Adcock · Jan 24, 2019

DMW said:
This is an interesting question. I'll answer for myself.

First, trust me I do grumble - at least to myself - in particular where not only is the English vernacular name changed, but also the genus, leaving the specific latin name as the sole anchor to the historical body of literature.

Second, I suspect I am like most birders in that I can't even wing-it when it comes to nomenclatural rules, and rather out of my depth when it comes to understanding why genus names spontaneously change or are "erected" - seemingly it involves discovering precedence in ancient Sanskrit texts and declension of the nominative neuter third person in latin... think I've got that right. In other words, I don't want to pipe-up with something more stupid than usual, and look like a complete reedling.

However, even a grumpy old fart like me can recognise that it is necessary to have a universally-accepted set of rules when it comes to scientific names, and when the genetics show that a genus is polygeneric (if that's the right word), there really isn't much option but to introduce a new name for at least one genus.

And this is the point. The scientific name is the one that has to be "right", that has to follow the rules. It's the one that actually matters. And because of this, vernacular names don't. They can be quirky and nonsensical and meaningless and random.

I have to say that I don't really buy the "somebody might be confused" argument. To quote Yossarian, "Who's they"? Who actually gets genuinely confused by the fact that at least six different families use the word "tit" (which I believe is simply an old word for any small bird).

I've never met anybody who was confused by the fact that English vernacular names aren't as rigid and rule-bound as latin names, and often make no sense. And if I ever do, I will take the 30 seconds it requires to explain the above to them, and we can both laugh about how stupid the English language is.

In fact, I might even use it as a "teachable moment" to explain why scientific names actually matter, and how modern work on genetics has shown that some previously understood relationships between birds turned out to be convergent evolution, or just plain wrong.

So, while I am an admirer of your Indonesia field guide, I hope personally never to have to blurt out "Bloodhead!" or "Shade-dweller" in the field lest I sound like a complete chickadee.

.

Excellent post,
I think the creator of some of these names, should have spent more time in the shade themselves.

dalat · Jan 24, 2019

If someone is at it, could you please rename some of these gulls, so that German and English names are aligned?

So that Lachmöwe is actually Laughing Gull (not Black-headed), Schwarzkopfmöwe is Black-headed Gull (not Mediterranean), Mittelmeermöwe is Mediterranean (not Yellow-legged Gull), Heringsmöwe is Hering Gull (not Lesser Black-backed) etc. Or just lump them all to whatever name you fancy. Thanks!

Nutcracker · Jan 24, 2019

Farnboro John said:
BTW Dunnock is Middle English in origin, and is a vernacular name which having triumphed over Hedge Sparrow already, will now proceed to grind the appalling Hedge Accentor into the dust. Maybe I'll start using Siberian Dunnock and Alpine Dunnock :t:

Excellent idea! And already done by Harrison's An Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palaearctic :t:

As an aside, 'dunnock' ('dun', brown, + 'ock', small bird) means 'little brown bird'. So it's the original LBJ 8-P

Nutcracker · Jan 24, 2019

Hauksen said:
"Hedge Accentor" is a bit of an etymological monster to me because it combines Germanic and Latin elements.

It's also awful because of its meaning - a conductor is one who conducts, so an accentor is one who accents.

Have you ever seen a hedge that has been accented by a Hedge Accentor? :eek!:

Nutcracker · Jan 24, 2019

dalat said:
If someone is at it, could you please rename some of these gulls, so that German and English names are alinged?

So that Lachmöwe is actually Laughing Gull (not Black-headed), Schwarzkopfmöwe is Black-headed Gull (not Mediterranean), Mittelmeermöwe is Mediterranean (not Yellow-legged Gull), Heringsmöwe is Hering Gull (not Lesser Black-backed) etc. Or just lump them all to whatever name you fancy. Thanks!

Seagull 3

dalat · Jan 24, 2019

:t: Yes, that will do...

MJB · Jan 24, 2019

Nutcracker said:
Seagull 3

JL Seagull, if you please...!

MJB

Hauksen · Jan 24, 2019

Hi,

dalat said:
If someone is at it, could you please rename some of these gulls, so that German and English names are alinged?

Seeing you stated a Swiss location, what's the deal with the Weidenlaubsänger anyway?

It would align nicely with the English "Chiffchaff" ;-)

Regards,

Henning

James Eaton · Jan 25, 2019

Jos Stratford said:
So to summarize your post, would it be fair to say you are arguing that Bearded Tit is a daft name and not okay, but Hedge Accentor is a daft name, but okay?

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

Jos Stratford · Jan 25, 2019

James Eaton said:
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!).

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

Scrub Accentor equally poor in much of its range, and I don't recall any association with Hawthorns here - usually occurs in damp, often coniferous, forest in my area. The weakness with your suggestions for Dunnock highlight the weakness of numerous names that exist, so why not just enjoy the wierd and wonderful names that do exist, rather than seek to create a blandness across the board. Scientific names exist to reflect the taxonomy, vernicular names do not need to duplicate the role. Bearded Tit and Dunnock fine by me.

Regarding Willie Wagtail, people do call it what it is, it is a Willie Wagtail. I remember my first time doing butterflies in South Africa and encountering the names - first impression, and remaining impression, was admiration at the amazing names. Not a reflection of taxonomy, but evocative nanes that had clearly been inspired.

James Eaton · Jan 25, 2019

DMW said:
However, even a grumpy old fart like me can recognise that it is necessary to have a universally-accepted set of rules when it comes to scientific names, and when the genetics show that a genus is polygeneric (if that's the right word), there really isn't much option but to introduce a new name for at least one genus.

And this is the point. The scientific name is the one that has to be "right", that has to follow the rules. It's the one that actually matters. And because of this, vernacular names don't. They can be quirky and nonsensical and meaningless and random.

I also find this so fascinating, in that as you say, the English name is not the one that should matter, yet it's one that really irks birders, yet a genus change raises barely a quibble. These advancements in taxonomy, especially those using Next-gen sequencing I find absolutely fascinating, showing us the true relationship of species and groups (how long before we start calling Black Laughingthrush, Black Scimitar Babbler - which it clearly has been more closely related to for those that have really watched them in the field, rather than a quick tick). As a birder living in a region where these evolutions are so apparent, it is what drives me to want to observe even the common birds more-and-more.

DMW said:
I have to say that I don't really buy the "somebody might be confused" argument. To quote Yossarian, "Who's they"? Who actually gets genuinely confused by the fact that at least six different families use the word "tit" (which I believe is simply an old word for any small bird).

I've never met anybody who was confused by the fact that English vernacular names aren't as rigid and rule-bound as latin names, and often make no sense. And if I ever do, I will take the 30 seconds it requires to explain the above to them, and we can both laugh about how stupid the English language is.

I've had this discussion with local birders, in Indonesia and China in particular, on multiple occasions over the past several years. In Indonesia, it's usually about why Willie Fantail is called a wagtail, when it clearly isn't a wagtail and it's a different genus.

DMW said:
I hope personally never to have to blurt out "Bloodhead!" or "Shade-dweller" in the field lest I sound like a complete chickadee.

I'm yet to yell out Bloodhead myself (I'm having to continually correct myself in the field!), though Shade-dweller I've enjoyed using on multiple occasions now, and leaf-toiler is well intrenched with many local birders already, which gives us great satisfaction hearing that one randomly!
I good example of this - remember Olive-flanked Whistler? I haven't heard that English name for years and years since it changed to Hylocitrea ;-)

It makes for a healthy, humourous debate in the field, I've been finding!

James

johnallcock · Jan 25, 2019

Personally I really like the name Bornean Shade-dweller. I'm quite tempted to go to Borneo and look for that, much more than I would be Eyebrowed Jungle-Flycatcher.

Leaf-toiler is a name that I haven't yet caught onto, but I don't like calling them tailorbirds so I need to get to grips with the new name. I'm finally starting to get to grips with cupwing now.

dalat · Jan 25, 2019

James Eaton said:
I also find this so fascinating, in that as you say, the English name is not the one that should matter, yet it's one that really irks birders, yet a genus change raises barely a quibble. These advancements in taxonomy, especially those using Next-gen sequencing I find absolutely fascinating, showing us the true relationship of species and groups

I can see the point, but I think this is really for the very nerdy of birders. The ordinary birder cares about the species name and often doesn't even know the genus. (Talking about myself here obviously)

Andy Adcock · Jan 25, 2019

dalat said:
I can see the point, but I think this is really for the very nerdy of birders. The ordinary birder cares about the species name and often doesn't even know the genus. (Talking about myself here obviously)

Spot on.

Sangahyando · Jan 25, 2019

James Eaton said:
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!).

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.

DMW · Jan 25, 2019

James Eaton said:
I good example of this - remember Olive-flanked Whistler? I haven't heard that English name for years and years since it changed to Hylocitrea ;-)

It makes for a healthy, humourous debate in the field, I've been finding!

James

Hylocitrea is indeed an interesting one, and to prove your point it probably is the name I would use in the field. All I can say is that it is not a completely made-up name - it's simply the name of its monotypic genus, so it already exists in the body of historical literature - but perhaps more importantly, it actually sounds quite nice. It is far catchier than yet-another-forgettable-whistler-name!

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.

Having said all this, I'm not blind to reality. When a seminal field guide is published, the names used therein will inevitably become the new normal. People new to birding will simply use the name in the field guide, without necessarily knowing anything about "old" names, let alone caring about them.

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.

New official Checklist of the birds of Germany sparks debate (2 Viewers)

Well-known member

Eastern Exile

Well-known member

Forum member

Worst person on Birdforum

...

Stop Brexit!

Stop Brexit!

Stop Brexit!

...

Well-known member

Forum member

Trent Valley Crew

Eastern Exile

Trent Valley Crew

Well-known member

...

Worst person on Birdforum

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread