Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (3 Viewers)

[Swindon Addick]

So what, it was their money, their philanthropy that allowed the scientists to go out on expeditions.

For the Partridges above, the two guys were naturalist and explorer respectivelly.

I just really don't care about all this culture wars stuff. I looked up Verreaux on Wikipedia and TBH I can sympathise with why people might not want to be talking about him, but I don't care if the bird's named after him, or Stalin, or Mother Teresa. I was just pointing out that Facebook Pheasant wouldn't actually be beyond the bounds of acceptability historically. There are more important things in life that whether a bird with a chestnut-coloured throat is called Chestnut-throated Monal-Partridge or Fidel Castro's Monal-Partridge.

 

[l_raty]

The measure, which hasn’t been signed by the governor

HB0382

le.utah.gov

Information

Last Action: 18 Mar 2024, Governor Signed​

​

 

[l_raty]

This is what appears to be the final text (minus the line numbers) :

23A-12-102. Naming conventions for birds.
(1) As used in this section:

(a) "English-language name" means the name:​

(i) assigned to a bird by a naming entity for use by the English-speaking public; and​

(ii) that may differ from the scientific name of the bird.​

(b) "Naming entity" means a nationally recognized entity that maintains a list of official​

English-language names for birds in North America and South America.​

(2)(a) The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a naming

entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name​

while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird.​

(b) Notwithstanding Subsection (2)(a), the division may use an English-language name​

assigned by a naming entity after January 1, 2020, if before January 1, 2020, there​

was no English-language name.​

(3) The division shall:

(a) advocate against the changing of eponymous English-language names for birds; and​

(b) seek the support of national organizations with which the division affiliates to​

advocate against the changing of eponymous English-language names for birds.​

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

What a can of worms! Firstly, may I say how much I regret the time and energy being put in by a legislative body to something so inconsequential as names given to birds. I hope everyone agrees that they would be better advised to use that time on matters of conservation. However, it does lead me to a little pondering. When legislation is drawn up, what happens if the taxonomy changes? If U.K. law refers to Crows, does it automatically apply to Hoodies and Carrion Crows if they are later split? What about a split where the pre-existing forms had recognised names for subspecies; would the former, existing name have to be used as the new specific name? Surely scientific nomenclature with its rules makes a far better fit for labelling legal identities?

 

[l_raty]

They were apparently reviewing the legislation anyway, so all of the procedures (filing, having the bill signed, etc.) had to be done, irrespective of whether this particular amendment was included or not.
I may be wrong, but I doubt it actually took much more than half-an-hour of work to a lawyer to write the text itself.

 

[Andy Adcock]

What a can of worms! Firstly, may I say how much I regret the time and energy being put in by a legislative body to something so inconsequential as names given to birds. I hope everyone agrees that they would be better advised to use that time on matters of conservation. However, it does lead me to a little pondering. When legislation is drawn up, what happens if the taxonomy changes? If U.K. law refers to Crows, does it automatically apply to Hoodies and Carrion Crows if they are later split? What about a split where the pre-existing forms had recognised names for subspecies; would the former, existing name have to be used as the new specific name? Surely scientific nomenclature with its rules makes a far better fit for labelling legal identities?

How dare you trivialise this, do you not realise that people of colour, are being physically, prevented from enjoying birdwatching and the outdoors generally, because of these colonial names!

 

[Jos Stratford]

. When legislation is drawn up, what happens if the taxonomy changes? If U.K. law refers to Crows, does it automatically apply to Hoodies and Carrion Crows if they are later split? What about a split where the pre-existing forms had recognised names for subspecies; would the former, existing name have to be used as the new specific name?

I guess this is covered - it allows for new names where no English name existed, so presumably a new species would be allowed a new name.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Do any of the authorities maintain a list of English names for subspecies?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Do any of the authorities maintain a list of English names for subspecies?

AFAIK, with very few exceptions (e.g Pied Wagtail) virtually, none exist, why would they?

 

[Kirk Roth]

What a can of worms! Firstly, may I say how much I regret the time and energy being put in by a legislative body to something so inconsequential as names given to birds. I hope everyone agrees that they would be better advised to use that time on matters of conservation. However, it does lead me to a little pondering. When legislation is drawn up, what happens if the taxonomy changes? If U.K. law refers to Crows, does it automatically apply to Hoodies and Carrion Crows if they are later split? What about a split where the pre-existing forms had recognised names for subspecies; would the former, existing name have to be used as the new specific name? Surely scientific nomenclature with its rules makes a far better fit for labelling legal identities?

Its important to note that this is a law that only applies to state agencies in Utah - so to be clear there would only be the loosest relevance to birds in the U.K.

That said, to get to the spirit of your question - the law leaves a bit to interpretation. The bit that says "the division may use an English-language name
assigned by a naming entity after January 1, 2020, if before January 1, 2020, there was no English-language name." addresses a future split if there was no name "assigned to a bird by a naming entity for use by the English-speaking public."

However, it is an open question, for example, for birds which did have a name and that name changed due to a split. In Utah the relevant examples are Cordilleran Flycatcher and Northern Goshawk, which were lumped and split respectively after 2020. By the letter of the law, Utah's department of natural resources is obligated to use those names instead of Western Flycatcher and American Goshawk - regardless of taxonomic change, or at the very least that is an interpretation of the language.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

So might Field Guide authors need to produce a Utah edition to include the bird legally known in Utah as Northern Goshawk?

 

[Kirk Roth]

Do any of the authorities maintain a list of English names for subspecies?

The AOS stopped officially naming subspecies decades ago, and while they have stated for years that they want to get back to defining subspecies (not necessarily naming them), they have instead prioritized other matters (if I may be a bit cheeky!)

The short answer is, no - no "nationally recognized entity that maintains a list of official English-language names for birds in North America and South America" keeps a list of English names for subspecies.

And, relevant for Utah, that means that if the Yellow-rumped Warbler is split into Audubon's and Myrtle Warbler, those names are not available for Utah's governmental use because neither is "assigned to a bird by a naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020." Unfortunately, the law does not define what it means if "there was no English-language name" - e.g no English name for a taxon or a species? Technically, both birds had a English-language names in 2020 - Yellow-rumped Warbler and Yellow-rumped Warbler. I think this "no English-language name" is intended to allow for new names in the case of a taxonomic split... but that is not what it actually says.

The law is written rather sloppily, and by that I mean there are lots of things undefined, lots of potential scenarios which go unaddressed, lots of vagueness which could be open to differing interpretations, and above all it is very short without a much detail. I have my own opinions as to why that might be, but not being a legal scholar of Utah's state code, there may be better informed opinions than mine! But I will say that in terms of other states and laws with which I am more familiar; state laws tend to be better crafted than this one, regardless of the topic at hand.

 

[Kirk Roth]

So might Field Guide authors need to produce a Utah edition to include the bird legally known in Utah as Northern Goshawk?

To be clear, the law applies only to "The division" which refers to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. This is not really evident from this snippet of law, but if someone were to read the whole section, then "The division" would be defined as such.

So the law only has jurisdiction over the Utah DWR. No jurisdiction over field guide companies, birding societies, birders out and about in Moab, or even other government entities. It makes for great political fodder, but very little in practical matters (to your point about it being a waste of time and resources...) If Utah DWR were to publish any sort of field guide or reference (which some states do), then it would be obligated to follow these rules.... however they are interpreted.

 

[qwerty5]

And, relevant for Utah, that means that if the Yellow-rumped Warbler is split into Audubon's and Myrtle Warbler, those names are not available for Utah's governmental use because neither is "assigned to a bird by a naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020." Unfortunately, the law does not define what it means if "there was no English-language name" - e.g no English name for a taxon or a species? Technically, both birds had a English-language names in 2020 - Yellow-rumped Warbler and Yellow-rumped Warbler. I think this "no English-language name" is intended to allow for new names in the case of a taxonomic split... but that is not what it actually says.

I see no reason for that provision to exist if it weren't to provide for taxonomic changes. It seems most logical that "no English-language name before 2020" refers to specific taxonomic entities, not individual birds. So, for the purposes of the law, Northern Goshawk no longer exists, and American Goshawk is a new taxon with "no English-language name before 2020". I can't imagine what else the provision would mean. Also, given the bill's sponsor is trained in wildlife biology, I can't imagine why the bill wouldn't include a provision for taxonomic change.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Its important to note that this is a law that only applies to state agencies in Utah - so to be clear there would only be the loosest relevance to birds in the U.K.

That said, to get to the spirit of your question - the law leaves a bit to interpretation. The bit that says "the division may use an English-language name
assigned by a naming entity after January 1, 2020, if before January 1, 2020, there was no English-language name." addresses a future split if there was no name "assigned to a bird by a naming entity for use by the English-speaking public."

However, it is an open question, for example, for birds which did have a name and that name changed due to a split. In Utah the relevant examples are Cordilleran Flycatcher and Northern Goshawk, which were lumped and split respectively after 2020. By the letter of the law, Utah's department of natural resources is obligated to use those names instead of Western Flycatcher and American Goshawk - regardless of taxonomic change, or at the very least that is an interpretation of the language.

Not sure I understand?

American Goshawk is a new name for a split species so should be fine?

Western Flycatcher, the name existed previously, common sense says that reverting to Western Flycatcher, isn't or shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Kirk Roth]

I see no reason for that provision to exist if it weren't to provide for taxonomic changes. It seems most logical that "no English-language name before 2020" refers to specific taxonomic entities, not individual birds. So, for the purposes of the law, Northern Goshawk no longer exists, and American Goshawk is a new taxon with "no English-language name before 2020". I can't imagine what else the provision would mean. Also, given the bill's sponsor is trained in wildlife biology, I can't imagine why the bill wouldn't include a provision for taxonomic change.

I agree that is the likely intent. However, Accipiter (gentilis) atricapillus is not exactly a "new" taxon - it existed before 2020 and its name was Northern Goshawk. The point is taken that Accipiter atricapillus is a current species that had no English name prior to 2020, but again the law specifically states that it refers to a "bird" and not to a "bird species" - so what does that mean? The Northern Goshawk was a "bird" in Utah and had an English-language name. A subspecies is a "bird" as much as a species is. If the bill's sponsor is trained in wildlife biology, I would expect that these very basic concerns could be met in the law with a few simple words. That is, if a meaningful change were the actual point here. Or to look at it from the flip side - why would language like this be used when it would have been so easy to state "bird species" instead of "bird" in the language.

I know this all sounds very inane, and from a common sense perspective it is. But from a legal perspective, lawyers and judges can and do debate the minutia of legal language and the ramifications that lead from them - and I just wonder why space was left in this law for that to occur when it could be prevented with incredible ease. Do understand that my main point here is not hand-wringing about the goshawk name - but that it illustrates the messiness of this law.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Not sure I understand?

American Goshawk is a new name for a split species so should be fine?

Western Flycatcher, the name existed previously, common sense says that reverting to Western Flycatcher, isn't or shouldn't be a problem.

You can see my thoughts above referring to the goshawk.

You do make a good point about Western Flycatcher using one interpretation of the law - and I'll use this as an opportunity to take another potshot at it.

The law says: "The division shall use the English-language name assigned to a bird by a naming entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020, when using an English-language name while engaging in the management of the bird or habitat for the bird."

Splitting apart this sentence, does it mean "The division shall use the English-language name... that was in effect on January 1, 2020?" If so, no Western Flycatcher - it was not in effect on that date and no "bird" was named "Western Flycatcher" by a qualifying entity on that date. And also, of course, no Thick-billed Longspur - it is McCown's just as it was on January 1.

If instead, the sentence means "The division shall use the English-language name assigned... by an entity that was in effect on January 1, 2020," then Western Flycatcher is absolutely valid as a name that was assigned by the qualifying entity, the AOS, which was in effect on the required date - even if the name was not in effect. However, that would also mean that "Thick-billed Longspur" is a valid name, as it is assigned to the bird by the same entity, and also on a different date. You and I both know that this is hardly likely to be the intent of the law... but it is indeed a valid interpretation at the very least until a judge makes and publishes a ruling on the legal intent.

A carefully worded law would have made clear whether the important thing to be in effect on January 1, 2020 is the "name assigned to a bird" or a "naming entity." Now to be fair, the next line 23A-12-102.(2)(b) seems to associate the date with the assignment, so points the law towards the first interpretation even if not explicitly.

The point stands that the rule could have simply stated something to the effect that "the state of Utah does not accept changes in bird names due solely to removing eponyms and won't put such changed names in state publications" - certainly put more elegantly than I did, but I think you can see what I mean. Its difficult for me to believe that the language is accidentally vague when such obviously simple alternatives can be reached.

You may validly be asking why anyone should care. A messy rule like this can develop a life of its own in a litigation-happy country such as the U.S. We also have a very beloved Second Amendment to the Constitution - the freedom of any individual to articulate ideas without threat of retaliation or legal sanction from the government. That freedom extends to employees of Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources. If I were a lawyer who wanted to make a name for myself in Utah, and I could find a UDWR employee who wants to make a statement - this is a ripe rule to make a fuss and potentially a lot of money over. Think of the national and international attention! (but don't think about the effects on birdlife, conservation, or expenditures please, nor the actual topical issues that people are very passionate about!)

 

[Andy Adcock]

The point stands that the rule could have simply stated something to the effect that "the state of Utah does not accept changes in bird names due solely to removing eponyms and won't put such changed names in state publications" - certainly put more elegantly than I did, but I think you can see what I mean. Its difficult for me to believe that the language is accidentally vague when such obviously simple alternatives can be reached.

On the first part, I'd like to think that this is aimed purely, at protecting American history, good or bad, history needs to be available, we learn from history, don't we? What will be gained from taking down a statue or removing a name, I'd argue that if you want to protest the wrongs of the past, erasing them, isn't the way to go.

On the second part, in my days as a law student, part of our learning, was reading statutes, law and deciding how broadly or narrowly, they were intended to be interpreted when written. I'd like to think that there's room for some common sense exceptions in this 'law'.

 

[Mysticete]

I think this page shows that most of the posters here put more thought into the new rule then anyone in the state legislature did.

Incidentally, American Goshawk as a name does seem to have existed before, since according to this page:

Ornithology -- AOU Checklists (2)

It was the name pre-lump it went by under 1885 and 1896.

But the corollary is that Utah would be potentially forced to use whatever old name might be out there in the literature, for future splits, even if a "new" name for the split is better or makes more sense.

 

[DMW]

A lot of the eponyms that people are whining about losing commemorate the person who funded the expedition that discovered the bird, rather than the scientist who wrote the paper that described it. So basically that's exactly where the original names came from.

Doubtless someone will be demanding that the Facebook Partridge be renamed the Buff-throated Partridge, on the ridiculous grounds that it has a buff-coloured throat. And then where will be be?

I think the point you are missing is that it's a personal history for a lot of us. We've grown up with many of these names, and they have emotional attachment. Dismissing this as "whining" says more about your lack of imagination than anything. Disrupting stability in common names for no reason other than political correctness or ego is not a positive step. When taxonomic changes provide a compelling reason to invent a name, that's one thing, but just throwing away a patronym for no reason other than politics is another thing and I will continue to whine about it.