Article on nomenclature in Africa. (4 Viewers)

[Mysticete]

Getting back on track, seems to me that establishing such a committee could be largely irrelevant if the major listing authorities choose not to work with them.

English bird names in common use: a framework to achieve a stable world list despite ongoing taxonomic changes, and a call to establish a broad-based African Bird Names Committee

On the original question, based on the conditions set out in the paper and without meanderings, does the original statement have broad support here or not, split decision?

It would have been better to get a broader readership of the forum to opine because it looks like all the usual contributors in this section to me and of those, I think a good few are proffesional ornithologists so the view may be skewed here?

Okay back on track.

Yes, I think such an idea is a valid measure, and I also think we might just need to bite the bullet and accept that there will never be a universal single common name for some widely distributed species (Think of all the NA vs Europe common name differences). This assumes of course that the committee has wide representation from different part of the continents. Otherwise you risk one narrow set of people dictating names for everyone, and we are back to square one.

So count me as a yes vote.

 

[Muppit17]

Getting back on track, seems to me that establishing such a committee could be largely irrelevant if the major listing authorities choose not to work with them.

English bird names in common use: a framework to achieve a stable world list despite ongoing taxonomic changes, and a call to establish a broad-based African Bird Names Committee

On the original question, based on the conditions set out in the paper and without meanderings, does the original statement have broad support here or not, split decision?

It would have been better to get a broader readership of the forum to opine because it looks like all the usual contributors in this section to me and of those, I think a good few are proffesional ornithologists so the view may be skewed here?

I do guide both in Europe and in Africa, but I wouldn't call myself a professional ornithologist.

I think that having a representative committee is a good idea for ABC, however they need to understand that no-one is obligated to refer to it, either in Africa or elsewhere. If they show worth and value perhaps it will gain widespread support. Whether the composition of the committee is truly representative I will leave to others.

I cannot understand the matter of stability in names whilst ongoing taxonomic changes. I my opinion there shouldn't need to be wholesale name changes, but the reverse is also true. If something really isn't a finch, weaver, sunbird or what ever, people should be brave enough to propose to change it.

As I pointed out before, the tests from IOC naming committee and ABC are broadly the same, but this does not mean the result is the same.

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

I cannot understand the matter of stability in names whilst ongoing taxonomic changes. I my opinion there shouldn't need to be wholesale name changes, but the reverse is also true. If something reall

I do guide both in Europe and in Africa, but I wouldn't call myself a professional ornithologist.

I think that having a representative committee is a good idea for ABC, however they need to understand that no-one is obligated to refer to it, either in Africa or elsewhere. If they show worth and value perhaps it will gain widespread support. Whether the composition of the committee is truly representative I will leave to others.

I cannot understand the matter of stability in names whilst ongoing taxonomic changes. I my opinion there shouldn't need to be wholesale name changes, but the reverse is also true. If something really isn't a finch, weaver, sunbird or what ever, people should be brave enough to propose to change it.

As I pointed out before, the tests from IOC naming committee and ABC are broadly the same, but this does not mean the result is the same.

Totally agree - both sides have a point. To aspire for every name to be taxonomically correct would require too much changing of names all the time. But in some cases it's very motivated.

There are quite a few English group names that are generic, like "flycatcher" and "finch". I don't see a problem in using these kind of names across multiple genera or families, they are used to describe a specific look or behaviour, rather than a genetic reletionship.

But names like e.g. illadopsis that are are closely tied to a small group of related birds to me also convey relationship. So when one of these are found to be related to modulatixes ("Grey-chested Illadopis") I think it's a good idea to stop calling it an illadopsis.

 

[njlarsen]

While I can see good things in a process that values continuity, some of the proposals (as I have stated before) rub me the wrong way. Count me as a 50:50 - my support depends on the actual implementation.

For the record: I am a person interested in birds but I make $0 from that interest.

Niels

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

"flycatcher" and "finch".

I was wondering something, are there synonyms, even old, for these names in the English vocabulary, from English dialect? Even for warbler or sparrow ?

 

[Andy Adcock]

I was wondering something, are there synonyms, even old, for these names in the English vocabulary, from English dialect? Even for warbler or sparrow ?

Throstle for Thrush is the only one I can think of for a family name, in fact, it's the nickname of West Bromwich Albion football club.

 

[Andy Adcock]

But names like e.g. illadopsis that are are closely tied to a small group of related birds to me also convey relationship. So when one of these are found to be related to modulatixes ("Grey-chested Illadopis") I think it's a good idea to stop calling it an illadopsis.

So in such a case, the scientific name gets changed or not? This is part of the argument of the African group, if you're using the scientific name to impart species relationships, there is no reason to change the common name and if you change both names, it causes great confusion.

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

So in such a case, the scientific name gets changed or not? This is part of the argument of the African group, if you're using the scientific name to impart species relationships, there is no reason to change the common name and if you change both names, it causes great confusion.

The view “if you're using the scientific name to impart species relationships, there is no reason to change the common name” might be the core of where opinions differ. I like common names (not just scientic names) that actually conveys interesting information about the bird, or at least doesn’t cement erroneous, outdated knowledge.

Another similar example: The vast majority, including many very keen birders, won't by just looking at the scientific name of “Elachura formosa” understand that it’s no longer a wren-babbler, if the common name had continued to be Spotted Wren-babbler. By the change of the common name to Spotted Elachura, it immediately stands out as something different, with no close relatives.

Yes, that might cause some initial confusion (with change of both scientific and common name, unlike for Kakamega), but maybe that confusion will lead to an interesting discussion or to having to read up on the bird and in the end learning about it’s fascinating evolutionary history!

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Don't take this as a criticism, I'm just wondering (don't slap on my fingers please)

Isn't it regrettable to limit the ornithological vocabulary with only these popular names: warbler, tit, wren, owl, thrush, robin, finch, eagle, sparrow, bunting, babbler, flycatcher... without counting the associations like tit-tyrant, wren-babbler, plumed-warbler, tit-chickadee, kite-eagle etc ?

It can give the impression of having a very poor ornithological lexicon

If there were authentic synonyms, old or recent, varying by the localities, this would make it possible to enrich the naturalistic vocabulary.

From my point of view, I'm like: "They just have those words to name birds? Don't they have some old authentic English synonyms that could be useful?"

 

[jurek]

enrich the naturalistic vocabulary

Living language is normally enriched by new nicknames and shorthands - ones like Mipit or Carrot which become official names of birds.

Not by necromancy of old, forgotten names. And not by long names from piling parts like 'Southern Blue-eared Glossy-Starling', which do not exist in vocabulary - they are normally not spoken and difficult even to say naturally. They only exist in official texts.

African bird names have several cool local additions - like Brubru, Tractrac or Bokmakerie, which are the African equivalent of Kiskadee or Towhee.

 

[Mysticete]

I would agree with you, the idea to have stable common use names would seem a no-brainer, but I have doubts that the assorted authorities/authors will agree or abide, perhaps with the exception of a Pan-African where the regional players are not so active.

Don't take this as a criticism, I'm just wondering (don't slap on my fingers please)

Isn't it regrettable to limit the ornithological vocabulary with only these popular names: warbler, tit, wren, owl, thrush, robin, finch, eagle, sparrow, bunting, babbler, flycatcher... without counting the associations like tit-tyrant, wren-babbler, plumed-warbler, tit-chickadee, kite-eagle etc ?

It can give the impression of having a very poor ornithological lexicon

If there were authentic synonyms, old or recent, varying by the localities, this would make it possible to enrich the naturalistic vocabulary.

From my point of view, I'm like: "They just have those words to name birds? Don't they have some old authentic English synonyms that could be useful?"

If a name hasn't been used for centuries...well how useful is it? I think changing a few names of oddball species to better fit taxonomy or keep name use consistent within a group is okay (Elachura example for instance), but to decide to limit sparrow to Passeridae or warbler to Sylviidae? That would require a vast number of common name changes. Birders can and do adopt to minor changes all the time, but wholesale changes will probably not be accepted and will be abandoned by the next checklist that comes around.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Living language is normally enriched by new nicknames and shorthands - ones like Mipit or Carrot which become official names of birds.

Not by necromancy of old, forgotten names. And not by long names from piling parts like 'Southern Blue-eared Glossy-Starling', which do not exist in vocabulary - they are normally not spoken and difficult even to say naturally. They only exist in official texts.

I don't know what mipit and carrot are but, in this case, I was talking about typically English popular names or from regional dialects of Anglo-Saxon countries and not names borrowed from other languages (Tetraka, Jacana, Bulbul, Akalat, etc ...)

African bird names have several cool local additions - like Brubru, Tractrac or Bokmakerie, which are the African equivalent of Kiskadee or Towhee.

Yes there are some cool exotic names that we can take et add in our nomenclature.

 

[Xenospiza]

So that's 1 in favour.

My answer in #55 means "mostly in favour".

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

If a name hasn't been used for centuries...well how useful is it? I think changing a few names of oddball species to better fit taxonomy or keep name use consistent within a group is okay (Elachura example for instance),

It could allow future ornithologists to discover ancient names of birds. Who knows, there may be specific ancient names for some known genera of birds. For example, perhaps the genera Acrocephalus or Locustella were known by old terms from a dialect or patois.

but to decide to limit sparrow to Passeridae or warbler to Sylviidae?

Why not ? Except if you consider sparrow as a generalist name which encompasses species with a conical beak

That would require a vast number of common name changes. Birders can and do adopt to minor changes all the time, but wholesale changes will probably not be accepted and will be abandoned by the next checklist that comes around.

None of us use the latin name in common parlance (I don't know anyone who names birds with their scientific names) and yet we get used to the change in taxonomy. Why can't birders get used to the gradual changes (because changes can be done gradually) of common names ?

 

[Kirk Roth]

Okay back on track.

Yes, I think such an idea is a valid measure, and I also think we might just need to bite the bullet and accept that there will never be a universal single common name for some widely distributed species (Think of all the NA vs Europe common name differences). This assumes of course that the committee has wide representation from different part of the continents. Otherwise you risk one narrow set of people dictating names for everyone, and we are back to square one.

So count me as a yes vote.

The truly progressive listing organization will be the one that finally recognizes and accommodates that the idea of one single "right" common name is demonstrably false. Rather than several lists, each with its own "regional authority," wouldn't it be more authoritative to have one list, perhaps even with a primary "worldwide" name and some secondary regional or less commonly used names?

I know this idea has been rejected again and again over 100+ years of ornithology, but "one common name to rule them all" does not reflect the reality of language nor of ornithology/birding and as such, many problems described in this thread just evaporate. I don't know why the culture of ornithology is such that we pretend that common names should so often do the job of scientific names, but here we are.

So to the question of support for this effort or not - I support it given the current climate of the field, but I recognize that there are better ways possible.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I know this idea has been rejected again and again over 100+ years of ornithology, but "one common name to rule them all" does not reflect the reality of language nor of ornithology/birding and as such, many problems described in this thread just evaporate. I don't know why the culture of ornithology is such that we pretend that common names should so often do the job of scientific names, but here we are.

So to the question of support for this effort or not - I support it given the current climate of the field, but I recognize that there are better ways possible.

That is quite beautifully put.

 

[McMadd]

None of us use the latin name in common parlance (I don't know anyone who names birds with their scientific names) and yet we get used to the change in taxonomy. Why can't birders get used to the gradual changes (because changes can be done gradually) of common names ?

Not necessarily so...I regularly speak to Finnish birding friends and strangers on a site if we speak using the scientific name or the regular "3+3" letter abbreviation in regular use here (PHYINO for example thinking about autumn migrants due any day...)

Not read everything but sounds like old, white men wanting a status quo to me...

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Not necessarily so...I regularly speak to Finnish birding friends and strangers on a site if we speak using the scientific name or the regular "3+3" letter abbreviation in regular use here (PHYINO for example thinking about autumn migrants due any day...)

We must think of the uninitiated people who are not necessarily ornithologist.

Concerning the common names, many French names have recently changed. With a little pedagogy and explanation of the reasons for these changes, now people understand, adapt and apply these new names. The recently best-known example is the new French name of Aegithalos caudatus and the family Aegithalidae

 

[Xenospiza]

Not necessarily so...I regularly speak to Finnish birding friends and strangers on a site if we speak using the scientific name or the regular "3+3" letter abbreviation in regular use here (PHYINO for example thinking about autumn migrants due any day...)

Not read everything but sounds like old, white men wanting a status quo to me...

That's how I spoke with a Finnish colleague as well. (My knowledge of Finnish birdnames pretty much ends at pyy and rantakurvi).
At at least two Brazilian sites, the guides only knew the scientific names. Still a challenge to understand those when pronounced with a Brazilian accent.

 

[Xenospiza]

We must think of the uninitiated people who are not necessarily ornithologist.

I can't imagine that their first worry is about evolutionary intricacies. They actually think it makes sense that birds that look alike have similar names.

(I'm waiting for the day that someone starts renaming all the ducks because some of the teals are shovelers, some ducks are wigeons and the pochard isn't a pochard).