• 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.

AOU-NACC Proposals 2020 (1 Viewer)

mb1848

Well-known member
Re: Proposal 2020 C-6 page 23 of :
https://americanornithology.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-C.pdf .
Does not address Bird Forum's read on this.
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=155985&highlight=Burmeister+1853 .
I was wondering if Bonapart's mentioning pipra Pallas in genus Pipripicus page 123 of:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BR1pAAAAcAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Or what species he placed in Pipra and Dixiphia on page 315 of the same ?? Or page 6 of here:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/181952#page/8/mode/1up . Is helpful?
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
Not sure I like dropping the "Scrub-" portion from Scrub-Jay

Nice to see the White-eye split and Northwestern Crow lump, and I am surprised there is a proposal for Saw-whet Owl split. As far as Pacific Northwest splits, I would have guessed the Spruce or Ruffed Grouse before this.

Agreed on dropping Scrub from Scrub-Jay. They are a taxonomic unit, are well known by that name, and it’s a short and easy to remember name. Seems totally unnecessary and counter to the desire for name stability.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Agreed on dropping Scrub from Scrub-Jay. They are a taxonomic unit, are well known by that name, and it’s a short and easy to remember name. Seems totally unnecessary and counter to the desire for name stability.
They are a taxonomic unit, but not a complete one: calling them 'Scrub-jay' but not calling other Aphelocoma species 'Scrub-jay' as well, suggests that e.g. Mexican 'Non-scrub' Jay and Unicolored 'Non-scrub' Jay, are more closely related to e.g. Steller's 'Non-scrub' Jay, than they are to any of the Scrub-jays. Which is not true. To my mind, 'Scrub-jay' should either be dropped, or it should be used for all the Aphelocoma species.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
They are a taxonomic unit, but not a complete one: calling them 'Scrub-jay' but not calling other Aphelocoma species 'Scrub-jay' as well, suggests that e.g. Mexican 'Non-scrub' Jay and Unicolored 'Non-scrub' Jay, are more closely related to e.g. Steller's 'Non-scrub' Jay, than they are to any of the Scrub-jays. Which is not true. To my mind, 'Scrub-jay' should either be dropped, or it should be used for all the Aphelocoma species.

I understand this logic but disagree with the need to have 1:1 alignment of genera to English group names. Should Hawfinch be a Grosbeak? Should Brambling be Mountain Chaffinch? Should Dunnock be Hedge Accentor? Should group names be dropped from masses of tropical species that get split, losing descriptive information along the way? Shall Northern, Natterer's, Bolivian, Sooretama, and Planalto Slaty-Antshrikes all drop the "Slaty?" Black-crowned Antshrike was already wisely renamed out of the Slaty-Antshrike group when found to not nest with the other Slaty-Antshrikes, so the Slaty-Antshrikes are a monophyletic group. There are likely hundreds of examples along these lines. As long as the Scrub-Jays are a monophyletic group I don't see any harm in having them called Scrub-Jays, denoting their closer relationship to each other.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
I understand this logic but disagree with the need to have 1:1 alignment of genera to English group names. Should Hawfinch be a Grosbeak? Should Brambling be Mountain Chaffinch? Should Dunnock be Hedge Accentor? Should group names be dropped from masses of tropical species that get split, losing descriptive information along the way? Shall Northern, Natterer's, Bolivian, Sooretama, and Planalto Slaty-Antshrikes all drop the "Slaty?" Black-crowned Antshrike was already wisely renamed out of the Slaty-Antshrike group when found to not nest with the other Slaty-Antshrikes, so the Slaty-Antshrikes are a monophyletic group. There are likely hundreds of examples along these lines. As long as the Scrub-Jays are a monophyletic group I don't see any harm in having them called Scrub-Jays, denoting their closer relationship to each other.

With this 100%. Should Chiffchaff be Chiffchaffing Leaf Warbler?* (Although "Eyebrowed Hawfinch" for Evening Grosbeak would be nice. o:D)

John

* No. Or rather, No!!!
 
Last edited:

jurek

Well-known member
Are Europeans not the ones who named the new worlds birds Warblers, Robins, Orioles, etc in the first place? :king:

It was before it was known they are not related. Calling them 'warblers' can confuse people who might think that Parulidae are related to Eurasian warblers Sylvia. Besides, many of these 'wood warblers' do not live in woods and make diverse sounds, many not at all warbling. It would be illogical to change the name of Olive Warbler but not the names of Parulidae warblers.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
It was before it was known they are not related. Calling them 'warblers' can confuse people who might think that Parulidae are related to Eurasian warblers Sylvia. Besides, many of these 'wood warblers' do not live in woods and make diverse sounds, many not at all warbling. It would be illogical to change the name of Olive Warbler but not the names of Parulidae warblers.

Funny how we've managed to date. Never in the course of my birding career did I have a problem understanding that small insectivorous birds from the Old World were not closely related to small insectivorous birds from the New World. Or even that a Wood Warbler was not the same as any of the wood warblers.

I get tired of this nonsensical race to the bottom in assessing people's capacity to not be confused by similarity. Stability in names is a thousand times more important than uniformity. And it's still Bearded Tit. :t:

John
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Funny how we've managed to date. Never in the course of my birding career did I have a problem understanding that small insectivorous birds from the Old World were not closely related to small insectivorous birds from the New World. Or even that a Wood Warbler was not the same as any of the wood warblers.

I get tired of this nonsensical race to the bottom in assessing people's capacity to not be confused by similarity. Stability in names is a thousand times more important than uniformity. And it's still Bearded Tit. :t:

John

Where the hell were you when I needed you John........................;)
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Funny how we've managed to date. Never in the course of my birding career did I have a problem understanding that small insectivorous birds from the Old World were not closely related to small insectivorous birds from the New World. Or even that a Wood Warbler was not the same as any of the wood warblers.

I get tired of this nonsensical race to the bottom in assessing people's capacity to not be confused by similarity. Stability in names is a thousand times more important than uniformity. And it's still Bearded Tit. :t:

John
Actually, you'd be surprised. On wiki commons, I've found (and dealt with, so they're not there any more) several Erithacus rubecula pics put in Category:Turdus migratorius, and vice-versa. And numerous other examples with other cases of incorrect vernacular name sorting. You might know enough not to be confused, but an awful lot of people don't, sadly.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Actually, you'd be surprised. On wiki commons, I've found (and dealt with, so they're not there any more) several Erithacus rubecula pics put in Category:Turdus migratorius, and vice-versa. And numerous other examples with other cases of incorrect vernacular name sorting. You might know enough not to be confused, but an awful lot of people don't, sadly.

I wouldn't be surprised, but I also wouldn't be surprised if half the errors are due to non-birders (a different group than those we are talking about here, who are capable of more and grosser errors than this) and use of insufficient of the name. Only Erithacus rubecula is a Robin: Turdus migratorius is an American Robin and requires the use of its whole name.

You can't legislate for ignorance, so it's not a consideration in creation of names.

John
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
I wouldn't be surprised, but I also wouldn't be surprised if half the errors are due to non-birders (a different group than those we are talking about here, who are capable of more and grosser errors than this) and use of insufficient of the name. Only Erithacus rubecula is a Robin: Turdus migratorius is an American Robin and requires the use of its whole name.

You can't legislate for ignorance, so it's not a consideration in creation of names.

John

You mean it shouldn't be.
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Proposals 2020-D
2020-D-1: Revise the linear sequence of the Trochilini
2020-D-2: Add Graylag Goose Anser anser to the US list
2020-D-3: Add Eurasian Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus to the US list
2020-D-4: Add European Golden-Plover Pluvialis apricaria to the US list
2020-D-5: Add Tahiti Petrel Pseudobulweria rostrata to the US list
2020-D-6: Add Dark-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus melacoryphus to the US list
2020-D-7: Add Red-backed Shrike Lanius collurio to (a) the Main List or (b) the Appendix
2020-D-8: Add Long-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus to the Main List
2020-D-9: Retain the English name Comb Duck for Sarkidiornis sylvicola

[pdf]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top