• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

AOU-NACC Proposals 2019 (1 Viewer)

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Proposals 2019-A [pdf]

2019-A-1: Split Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis into two species
2019-A-2: Elevate Harlan's Hawk Buteo (jamaicensis) harlani to species status
2019-A-3: Change the English name of McCown's Longspur Rhynchophanes mccownii
2019-A-4: Elevate Amazilia saucerottei hoffmanni to species rank
2019-A-5: Add White-winged Snowfinch Montifringilla nivalis to the Appendix
2019-A-6: Add European Storm-Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus to the U.S. list
2019-A-7: Change the English name of Saltmarsh Sparrow Ammospiza caudacuta to Peterson's Sparrow
2019-A-8: Change the linear sequence of species in the genus Charadrius
2019-A-9: Discontinue use of the possessive ("apostrophe-s") in patronymic bird names
2019-A-10: Change the specific/subspecific/morphological group name of the Red-shafted Flicker from cafer to lathami
2019-A-11: Treat Resplendent Quetzal Pharomachrus mocinno as two species
2019-A-12: Remove hyphens from the English names of species currently called "Ground-Dove"
2019-A-13: Revise the linear sequence of species in the Fregatidae
2019-A-14: Revise the linear sequence of subfamilies in the Cuculidae
2019-A-15: Transfer Erckel's Francolin from Francolinus to Pternistis
2019-A-16a: Split White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca into two species
2019-A-16b: Split White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca into three species
2019-A-17: Add Pallas's Rosefinch Carpodacus roseus to the Main List
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
They included 30 of 31 species, plus three additional species probably currently in the wrong genera (they considered a fourth but are still recognizing Eudromias mornellus, which we have considered a Charadrius for decades). The remaining questions of monophyly do not enter into our checklist area (the embedded genera are Thinornis and Anarhynchus), but that of linear sequence does: ours no longer reflects the recent phylogenetic data.

The monophyly of Charadrius (lato sensu) is misleading, especially due to the lack of sampled genera such as Vanellus, Peltohyas, etc... in Dos Remedios . For now, I recognise the following Plover genera : Eudromias, Afroxyechus, Charadrius, Oxyechus, Thinornis, Zonibyx and Oreopholus (Charadriinae); Eupoda , Cirrepidesmus, Peltohyas, Erythrogonys, and Anarhynchus (Anarhynchinae) following Boyd and Barth & al. (2013)
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Proposals 2019-A [pdf]
2019-A-6: Add European Storm-Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus to the U.S. list

2019-A-9: Discontinue use of the possessive ("apostrophe-s") in patronymic bird names
On the first, surely they're supposed to follow BOU over the English names of primarily European taxa? In which case, European Storm Petrel, without that ghastly hypen.

On the second, an absurd and completely unnecessary deviation from the trend towards global standardisation of English names. Needs rejecting.

Not read the pdf yet, but splitting Fulmar seems sensible.
 

James Lowther

Well-known member
They’re hardly going to have “European Storm Petrel” and “Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel” in the same list just as a sop to the Europeans.
As for the second, it does seem fairly pointless but I doubt it will pass. I guess democratisation of the proposals process means the odd wacky one gets through.
Cheers
James
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
They’re hardly going to have “European Storm Petrel” and “Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel” in the same list just as a sop to the Europeans.
As for the second, it does seem fairly pointless but I doubt it will pass. I guess democratisation of the proposals process means the odd wacky one gets through.
Cheers
James

Strangely, there was an agreement reached some years ago that names used as part of genetic disease names must lose their apostrophe-s. So it is no longer Down's syndrome but Down syndrome ...

Niels
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
Actually, I just read the text of that proposal. The arguments in favor are better than what I had expected, at least good enough to give it a serious thought even if it is different from our expectations.

Niels
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
This is by far the weirdest single set of proposals in one bundle I have ever read from AOU. From a proposal to split Harlan's Hawk that includes an equally long counter-proposal not to, to renaming a bird because the collector it was honored for later was a confederate officer, to "hey lets just name something for Peterson because why not," to the let's change the species group name of something due to racist origins even though ICZN will say no. And...arggh that Possessive thing

A record of Snowfinch from Cuba (!!!), also in this proposal, seems practically reasonable.
 

fugl

Well-known member
This is by far the weirdest single set of proposals in one bundle I have ever read from AOU. From a proposal to split Harlan's Hawk that includes an equally long counter-proposal not to, to renaming a bird because the collector it was honored for later was a confederate officer (1.), to "hey lets just name something for Peterson because why not," to the let's change the species group name of something due to racist origins even though ICZN will say no.(2.). And...arggh that Possessive thing(3.)

(1.) Uneffinbelievable!
(2.) Dto
(3.) Well, why not?
 
Last edited:

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Strangely, there was an agreement reached some years ago that names used as part of genetic disease names must lose their apostrophe-s. So it is no longer Down's syndrome but Down syndrome ...

Niels

All this proves is the detachment of scientists from (a) grammar and (b) reality. I assure you that out in the real world no-one has heard of this agreement and it is still Down's Syndrome.

John
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
They’re hardly going to have “European Storm Petrel” and “Fork-tailed Storm-Petrel” in the same list just as a sop to the Europeans.
As for the second, it does seem fairly pointless but I doubt it will pass. I guess democratisation of the proposals process means the odd wacky one gets through.
Cheers
James

I always thought that usage of a hyphen, was dependent on whether or not the second part of the name started with an upper case e.g Storm Petrel or Gull-billed Tern......?

'Discontinue use of the possessive ("apostrophe-s") in patronymic bird names' whilst proposing a name change to 'Peterson's Sparrow'....
 
Last edited:

Farnboro John

Well-known member
I always thought that usage of a hyphen, was dependent on whether or not the second part of the name started with an upper case e.g Storm Petrel or Gull-billed Tern......?

'Discontinue use of the possessive ("apostrophe-s") in patronymic bird names' whilst proposing a name change to 'Peterson's Sparrow'....

No, you're mixing up cause and effect.

Storm Petrel because the two words are separate. Gull-billed because the bill is subject to the descriptor "gull": there is a dependency. Consequently the "b" in "billed" is lower case.

Re the other proposal, remember they are independent proposals so aren't all necessarily coherent with each other. Contradictions are unsurprising - in fact given some of the suggestions I would find very little surprising....

John
 

fugl

Well-known member
Returning to MacCown’s Longspur, there’s also the question of the latin name, macownii. Can’t imagine there’s much chance of that ever being changed. . ..
 
Last edited:

Kratter

Well-known member
On the second, an absurd and completely unnecessary deviation from the trend towards global standardisation of English names. Needs rejecting.

.[/QUOTE]

I am surprised at your outrage given that plants, which you frequently include in your IDs, long ago did away with those apostrophes (e.g., Douglas Fir). As do most other non-biological entities (e.g, Eiffel Tower)
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
On the second, an absurd and completely unnecessary deviation from the trend towards global standardisation of English names. Needs rejecting.

.

I am surprised at your outrage given that plants, which you frequently include in your IDs, long ago did away with those apostrophes (e.g., Douglas Fir). As do most other non-biological entities (e.g, Eiffel Tower)[/QUOTE]

Fingal's Cave.... ;)

John
 

D Halas

Well-known member
One of the advantages of the possessive form in patronymic bird names is that it disambiguates the meaning when the person's name is also an adjective. "White Thrush" is a needlessly confusing name compared to "White's Thrush", for example. And the "Virginia Warbler" of course, has nothing to do with Virginia. (Not that geographic accuracy is widespread among warbler names, of course, but at least we shouldn't compound the issue!)

And if you need another reason to retain the apostrophes, how about the fact that Anna and Allen Hummingbird sound more like a hippie couple than actual birds.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top