I think it's basically the equivalent of BOU, and it's BOURC that keeps the official list - including English names - for the UK, right?Many thanks. I would still consider it a small organisation but it does explain why through past efforts and work, it would be respected. Almost a privileged position of influence. There are parallels to be drawn here in all sorts of ways....
I was at university with some friends who are now leading ornithological scientists. Good people. Very bright. There are lots of things on ornithological and taxonomic matters on which I would listen to them above all others. I would listen to them on matters on which they had specialist knowledge. I went down a different route.
AOS has clearly done well from its past connections and is sitting on a healthy asset balance.
The membership benefits look very good:-
Membership - American Ornithological Society (AOS)
AOS membership connects you to a network of thousands of dedicated ornithologists from academia, government, and nonprofit organizations.americanornithology.org
All the best
Paul
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter rahopko
- Start date
That's something that I always have a bit of an issue with. They're taxonomists, and the vast majority of us birders are not. I like getting new ticks as much as the next person, but I'm much more interested in the reasoning behind taxonomic decisions. SACC and NACC provide that, often in great detail, as does HBW albeit much more superficially. I really get the sense that "losing faith" boils down to the committee not adopting splits at the rate birders would like it to.
Since I'm now on this tangent, I don't know if anyone has suggested using the approach that HBW adopted in its one-volume Birds of the World and applying it to listing. Basically, any taxon that's listed as a full species in one of the four major checklists can count on your list as such. It think it would instantly solve all the gnashing of teeth after taxonomic updates.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
Thank you.
In the sense that it is an equivalent scientific body & maintains a list, then absolutely.
In respect of vernacular names, however, formally BOU follow IOC and whilst they recognise that those may differ at times from our normal names, it is the current common usage within Britain that dictates those as a separate element.
Bird names - British Ornithologists' Union
As outlined in the BOURC's 35th report, the BOU will continue to follow the <a ">International Ornithological Congress's recommendations for English bird names at the international level. BOURC's adoption of Gill & Wright (2006) (now updated, see Gill & Donsker, 2012) is part
bou.org.uk
"The BOU agrees that having a set of agreed English names for international use is important, especially as the understanding of scientific names continues to diminish and scientific names themselves are no more stable than English names."
"However, vernacular names remain the most familiar identifier for British birds for British birders, so BOURC will continue to publish the English vernacular name in current usage within Britain in updates to the British List and in reports and other Committee publications."
In general terms, they appear to be subjecting themselves to international consensus in the use of English which betrays a sad lack of colonialism. 😀
I can imagine how the birding public in Britain would respond if BOU decided that a wholesale set of changes were required because a sub-committee had responded to a petition of 2,500 people.
All the best
Paul
Last edited:
I think with eponymous names forming such a tiny percentage of commonly seen birds most birders wouldn't be that bothered either way. People will carry on calling them what they want anyway.
temmie
Well-known member
I found this anonymous rebuttal of Gary’s 21 points. It's anonymous as the name under the rebuttal is of no importance 
The rebuttal is in bold. Gary's 'very long post' is copy-pasted from his FB post.
Rebuttal - why eponymous bird names aren't a good idea, in general.
All of it is my personal view, and that view is based on my very own personal feeling that living creatures (= whole species, not even individuals) shouldn’t never be named after individuals of our own species as there are better options. Disclaimer: I like Gary as a person, and I hope he’s not mad at me for writing this 🙈
[VERY LONG POST] There has been a lot of spirited discussion on Facebook recently regarding the AOS decision to change the English bird names of 150+ species that are named after people (Eponyms). I find it astounding that there is so much misinformation, and so many misconceptions that are repeated over and over - like “Alternative Facts” - Here are a few in no particular order (I am sure I am missing some):
1) Most (or sometimes all) of the people who had birds named after them were slave owners, grave robbers, or otherwise horrible people. Not true. Very few out of the more than 100 fall into this category. Most were actually ornithologists, naturalists, explorers, soldiers, etc… and several were actually founders of the AOS, or received prestigious awards, or worked in museums, and were responsible for an incredible wealth of information furthering the understanding of birds in North America and around the world.
→ I will start saying that the discussion about the merits of people who got eponyms is what makes this (too) emotional for some people. Once you step away from the need or urge to preserve eponyms, it doesn’t even matter if someone is a hero or a slave owner, as this discussion would never be there if eponyms weren’t there. Removing eponyms shouldn’t be about good people and bad people, and the good being kept, the bad being punished. It should be about what on earth we were thinking of giving such importance to one of billions of our own species to name a whole species, that’s been on this Earth for 100.000ths of years.
2) Similarly, the people who had birds named after them did not do anything to deserve this honor. I find this one particularly mis-informed and subjective. See above, but also consider ornithologists such as Wilson, Baird, Ridgway, Bendire, Cassin - all ornithological giants - and responsible for so many discoveries, as well as sorting out the mess that North American bird taxonomy was in at the time.
→ We can all agree that Baird, Ridway, Bendire, Cassin,… were ornithological giants. But let’s take a look at e.g. Ridgway: he has more than 10(!) species named after him. Some great ornithologists have none. From https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2021/05/30/honorific-bird-names-facts-and-figures/ :
Out of a list of 80, John James Audubon provided fifteen of the eponymous names, Spencer Baird and John Cassin each provided seven, and Rene Lesson four. Together, these four ornithologists were responsible for 41% (33/80) of the honorific names in this analysis. The majority of the namers were connected to each other, with many naming birds after colleagues, who in turn named species after other colleagues. Lesson described Audubon’s Shearwater and Oriole; Audubon described Baird’s Sparrow; Baird described Woodhouse’s Scrub-Jay; Woodhouse described Cassin’s Sparrow; Cassin described Lawrence’s Goldfinch; Lawrence described LeConte’s Thrasher.
So in that short interval of less than 150 years, eponyms were created among a select club of ornithologists. If someone finds the birdnames for birds movement a minority and not very democratic, what to say about the select club who chose the eponyms, honoring their homies?
3) People have no right naming birds after themselves. This suggests that this is a thing - which it is NOT. None of the eponymous bird names were actually named by the person. This shows a misunderstanding of how birds got their English names. Most were created long after the birds were described to science - most given by ornithologists working in museums. The idea that the birds are “owned” by the people is incorrect - yes there is the use of an apostrophe, but in this case it just means that the person is honored.
→ See above at #2/ . And remember most eponyms are honorifics, in a way they aren’t even named after the discoverer, but after another ornithologist.
4) Birds will appreciate the new names. David Sibley said this in his video supporting the AOS decision. Perhaps he didn’t REALLY mean this (giving him the benefit of the doubt) - but it is repeated. Needless to say, the birds do not know their names, and this is purely anthropomorphic.
→ As even Gary isn’t sure about the exact quote, I can’t comment on the above. If Sibley said that birds will benefit (and get more appreciation) with the new names, I would personally agree. I’d rather have a Black-capped yellow Warbler than a Wilson’s Warbler (Wilson didn’t even discover, nor describe that Warbler, but Peale did. Nothwithstanding Peale’s objection, Wilson pushed through and started a wave of eponyms in the 1800s. We could say that it was as much fashion to name birds after people in the 1800s as people suggesting it’s fashion to change eponyms…
5) Most people are in favor of this decision. Well, that is an opinion not really supported by fact. Thousands of birders and ornithologists have signed a counter petition, so I would say the jury is out on that one. Furthermore, Of those who signed our counter petition, they have produced (cumulatively) MORE THAN 20,000 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS!!!
→ the jury may be out, and a broad, community-based approach is the best. But naming birds has never been democratic, and while a majority is desirable, since when has the majority been a good criterium to decide on such things? Sometimes, it seems to me that proponents vs opponents reflect a power struggle in US birding circles, more than anything. A small but wise committee is probably the best bet to evaluate bird names, as a wider petition / vote looks all too similar to politics where extreme viewpoints and popularity are in the way of a good discussion. Whatever the outcome, I honestly don’t think that the number of likes or votes in a petition is the way to go. It creates division where there doesn’t have to be one, as long as the grown-ups / leaders in the birding world / ornithology can sit around one table and discuss it there.
6) Those of us who like eponyms are insensitive and/or racist. Not true. Everyone who has signed our petition is all for inclusiveness and in big favor of increasing diversity within birding and ornithology (or all sciences). Many many many of us have worked our entire careers promoting birding around the world, either through sponsoring students, or through ecotourism in developing countries, or any number of other endeavors. To be labeled a racist because we like ornithological history is sad indeed.
→ I never thought of those who like eponyms as insensitive / racist, so I’m not going to make counterarguments to a straw-man’s argument.
7) There are many eponyms. I think it is important to point out that only 150+ species on the North American list are eponymous. That is 5% - which means that 95% of the birds are NOT eponym, yet the proponents of changing all of them seem to be intolerant to the views of thousands - supposedly in the name of promoting inclusiveness. Seems pretty exclusionary to me.
→ you could argue (see 2.) that eponyms are so rare and arbitrary, we better give up on all of them at once: as mentioned, there aren’t many so changing won’t take much time, and doesn’t exclude anyone more than anyone else. See also 18.
8) It is too difficult to evaluate the people on a case by case basis. This is what the North American Checklist Committee was doing - and wanted to continue - and all members voted to maintain this methodology. Their views were ignored or dismissed (semantics) - and the process of coming up with English names was totally taken away from the committee, and given to a newly formed committee - the English Bird Names Committee. This prompted the resignation of some members of the NACC.
→ As a proponent for removing all eponyms, I find a case-by-case evaluation a pretty good (pragmatic) way to deal with bird names, but if you do it case by case, you end up with the slippery slope / discussions we all see now, and those discussions inevitably lead to a lot of emotions involved in those discussions. Doing the process this way will be an eternal discussion rather than solving the ‘crux’ by simply removing all eponyms.
9) Some people were upset at the renaming (both the process and the actual name) of McCown’s Longspur as Thick-billed Longspur. The entire process is available to read online - including the justification for naming it Thick-billed Longspur - which, ironically, is exactly the type of descriptive bird name that so many are desiring. The idea that the NACC was not anything but professional during the entire process is not true - and totally insulting to the members of the committee. That some don’t like the name is pure evidence that any new bird name is not going to have unanimous approval.
→ renaming the longspur shows perfectly why the process, described in 8) is theoretically an OK compromise / solution, but in practice, it would be a long, hard slog through the eternal marsh of changing eponyms on a case-by-case basis.
10) The International Ornithologists Union (the IOU, or IOC) who maintain a list of English bird names for all the birds in the world will follow the AOS decision. Not true. They are not in favor of removing eponyms, and this has prompted the South American Checklist Committee - who all but one member were against the AOS decision - to disassociate themselves from the AOS and move to be associated with the IOC. There are thousands of eponymous bird names - represented by English names, genera, species, or subspecies around the world - and no one has any intention of changing them.
→ while they are strictly not in favor of removing eponyms, they are slowly weeding them out. IOC 14.1 has removed 3 eponyms, and while IOC remains neutral, they already have removed many eponyms (slowly but steadily) before (think e.g. Przevalski’s Parrotbill à Rusty-throated Parrotbill).
11) The AOS is changing the names of our birds. Of the 150+ species slated to have their names changed, only about 89 actually breed in the United States or Canada - and many of those are neotropical migrants that spend 8-9 months of the year on wintering grounds in other countries. The remaining 60 or so are either birds that are mainly found in other countries and occur in the U.S. or Canada as rarities, or are actually species found exclusively in countries in Latin America or the Caribbean. The idea that the AOS can just change the English names of these species without consultation of ornithological bodies in the other countries is audacious.
→ It is, and it is not. English names are originally given by people speaking English (USA, Canada). So logic dictates that any bird occurring in the USA gets an English name by people speaking English. If Mexicans want to name a bird, they can do it in Spanish, in agreement with other Spanish-speaking countries where Mexican birds occur. You could say the AOS is imposing English names on birds mainly occurring in e.g. C-America, and those changed names have an impact on science and English field guides. True. But those guides, and the English-published science, is a choice by Spanish speaking countries. They can still publish in their own language.
12) Changing the English names will create more inclusiveness for birders and ornithologists from Latin America. Where is the proof of this? Many many Latin Americans have signed onto the counter petition and feel that “Americans” dictating this type of radical change is another form of Colonialism.
→ maybe there isn’t any proof. But does changing eponyms create less inclusiveness? If so, I would be curious how.
13) People don’t like the change in English Bird names because we don’t like “change”, or will find it too difficult to relearn new bird names. Please! I don’t think I really need to explain the absurdity of this notion.
→ Like 6), this is another straw-man’s argument. Ofcourse there will be people who don’t like change (and nobody likes change just for the sake of changing), and ofcourse there will be people who are insensitive or racist, but those generalizations, trying to suggest / create division, are not helping the debate, especially not among those that are nuanced / undecided in their opinion.
14) Changing the English names is NOT cancelling anyone. Not true. I have seen the argument that the scientific names will not change, so the people are not really canceled. I believe the removal of all eponymous bird names will associate the good with the bad - even though a very small percentage of people will fall into the category of deserving to have their name removed, all of the others will be guilty by association. Once the English eponyms are removed, what is to stop the movement of continuing on to scientific names (other than the International rules that govern this process)?
→ This is a case of perception. You could say as well that keeping some eponyms suggests that some people are more worthy than others. You honour a very select group of people, who happened to live in exactly the right time (of many discoveries) way too much. There aren’t that many new species to be discovered, so how will you honour the excellent ornithologists of the 21st century? Why is someone in the 1850s worth more a bird name than someone in 2024? Latin names are a different thing: those are really a piece of history: you can only describe a bird once, and you cannot neglect the description. It’s a fixed process (compared to English / French /… bird names that are an agreement, mostly through bird committees) and while I don’t like eponyms in Latin names either, you can keep them. Isn’t that enough?
15) Eponyms are exclusionary to minorities in birding. Some names may be offensive to some - and everyone is willing to compromise and change the truly offensive ones - yet show me proof that ANYONE refused to become a birder, or go into ornithology purely on the basis that there were some offensive bird names.
→ I don’t think eponyms would be any reason for anyone to refuse to become a birder… But I do believe that the current set of eponyms is reflecting the rapid evolution of Western science, combined with the era of exploration and exploitation that started somewhere in the 15th century and largely ended with the end of colonialism after WWII. A question I often ask myself: if Westerners didn’t ‘discover’ the Americas, or if they discovered it but didn’t introduce (inadvertently) all kinds of diseases, and science as we know it reached the people of the Americas intact (without them having been subdued / colonized / decimated), would they have at one point in time picked up on ornithology? A lot of ornithology in poorer countries is still carried out by foreign researchers (most often with local support crews and sometimes local researchers, but not always). Is naming things a Western thing?
16) Choosing eponyms is common today. Not true. Virtually all of the species with eponyms were described in the 1700s and 1800s - but many of the English names were given much later by ornithologists in museums - often using the English name to correspond with the scientific name, Very few new species (relatively) are described today - yet there are lumps and splits where “new” English names are occasionally needed - sometimes a form already had a name (when originally described) - yet the general practice TODAY is to give birds descriptive names, relating to either plumage, habitat, range, vocalizations etc… So the practice of giving birds new eponyms is NOT widespread today - this was mostly a historical practice.
→ as it’s not common and practice is to give birds descriptive names, erasing eponyms is simply a consequence of this trend, no? And in spite of eponyms being uncommon (well, there aren’t many birds that don’t bear names yes, so of course it’s not common!), someone like (yes, I know, I dared to say it like it’s a complete random birder) Ted Parker already got 6 latin eponyms and 2 English ones…! Why does Ted Parker get all the eponyms, is the question: why doesn’t he get just one and the next ornithologist in line gets the next one? Would Ted Parker have wanted all of those names? I reckon he was humble enough to politely decline. He didn’t need the level of idolatry he’s getting now, and sorry to say, but this seems to be an American thing: Yes he was a very talented ornithologist and he died way too young while doing what he loved to do, but to give him 8 eponyms is overcompensation to say the least.
17) Descriptive names are better. English names are for communication purposes - solely! Whether one learns the name “Yellow-throated Warbler”, or Wilson’s Warbler, it is just memorization - and the use is purely communicative. No on seems to mind the more than 100 North American species that have non-eponymous names, yet are NOT at all descriptive - there are many many that fall into this category. A few examples are Palm Warbler (not found in palms), Prairie Warbler (not found in the prairies), Connecticut Warbler (very rare in Connecticut), and odd names like Verdin, Phainopepla, Pyrrhuloxia, or Sharp-shinned Hawk - and on and on. Humans can learn these names just as easily as more descriptive names - and eponyms are the same. When one learns Cooper’s Hawk - the name Cooper’s is easily distinguished from the name Sharp-shinned - neither of which is descriptive - of course actually identifying the birds correctly is a different matter 🙂
→ I don’t agree that Wilson’s warbler vs. Yellow-throated warbler is just memorization. I memorize much better with descriptive bird names. For an experienced birder, it’s easy to have a visual image of Wilson’s warbler so no need for a descriptive name. But for a beginner birder / birder coming from another part of the world, Black-capped yellow Warbler (I know, that self-invented name is atrocious 😉 ) is a lot better to get that visual image / to have some reference point when we would be talking about that bird. If you see 5 birds in a tree and someone says there’s a Wilson’s warbler in that tree, you wouldn’t know where to look at if you were a beginner / birder from another continent.
Next, the fact that many birds don’t have descriptive names and are thus no good either, isn’t a good argument for eponyms, rather an argument to change some of those non-descriptive names as well! I don't agree humans can learn these names just as easily as more descriptive names. The whole advantage of descriptive names is within the fact they describe a bird in a way that you have a mnemonic you can use while ID-ing a bird.
18) Bird names change all the time. This is a very common argument in favor of changing English names - as if it just isn’t a big deal. Yes, taxonomy is always changing - this is the nature of the science (also poorly understood by the lay person) - new genetic techniques are always leading to lumps and splits - and new names. Most of these changes involve reassignment to a different genus - or elevation to a new genus or species - YET the English name is the stable name - and often used by scientists in publications - so over the years, everyone will KNOW what form is being referred to - even if the scientific name changes. Bird name stability is one of the objectives mentioned by the AOS - especially when it comes to the NACC. At not time in history has such a large number of names been changed at the same time - with will be very destabilizing to say the least.
→ the English name is not THAT stable. When a species is split, often one name is kept and e.g. if it’s a 2-way split, another name is invented. One example:
Tawny-crowned Pygmy Tyrant Euscarthmus meloryphus Fulvous-crowned Scrub Tyrant
Rufous-sided Pygmy Tyrant Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Scrub Tyrant
So what’s stable about Tawny-crowned or Rufous-sided Pygmy Tyrant? Nothing, it seems, because both names are erased.
Every IOC update sees easily 30-40 changes in taxonomy, the last change had 33 English name changes among 3 that had their English eponym removed. Since January 2022 (2 years and 5 revisions), around 150 (!) English names have been revised, that’s about the same as there would be eponyms removed (!). Of those 150 odd English names, the following eponyms have been removed:
Stejneger's Stonechat Saxicola stejnegeri Amur Stonechat
Kessler's Thrush Turdus kessleri White-backed Thrush
Biddulph's Ground Jay Podoces biddulphi Xinjiang Ground Jay
Pander's Ground Jay Podoces panderi Turkestan Ground Jay
Pleske's Ground Jay Podoces pleskei Iranian Ground Jay
Henderson's Ground Jay Podoces hendersoni Mongolian Ground Jay
De Filippi's Petrel Pterodroma defilippiana Masatierra Petrel
Hornby's Storm Petrel Hydrobates hornbyi Ringed Storm Petrel
Doubleday's Hummingbird Cynanthus doubledayi Turquoise-crowned Hummingbird
Blyth's Shrike-babbler Pteruthius aeralatus White-browed Shrike-babbler
Zimmer's Flatbill Tolmomyias assimilis Yellow-margined Flatbill
Hunstein's Mannikin Lonchura hunsteini Mottled Mannikin
Major Mitchell's Cockatoo Cacatua (Lophochroa) leadbeateri Pink Cockatoo
Cabinis's Seedeater Amaurospiza concolor Blue Seedeater
Cockerell’s Fantail Rhipidura cockerelli White-winged Fantail
Worcester's Buttonquail Turnix worcesteri Luzon Buttonquail
That’s 16 eponyms less in IOC, in merely 2 years. At this pace there won’t be any eponyms in the IOC list in some decades…
In a lot of those cases, the reason for changing was the following and I quote IOC:
“Change English name from eponym to non-eponym to align with Clements/eBird”. There wasn’t any fuss about all of those IOC updates, compared to the fuss about the current proposed changes I wonder why?
It must be said that species like Sillem’s Mountain Finch → Sillem’s Rosefinch and Woodward’s Batis (changed to Woodwards’ Batis) kept their eponym. No idea what’s the reasoning behind all of that.
There are also changes like:
Japanese Wood Pigeon Columba janthina Black Wood Pigeon Change English name of Columba janthina from Japanese Wood Pigeon to more descriptive Black Wood Pigeon.
I can only applaud this, unless someone finds ‘black’ offensive 😃.
So to say that there wasn’t a time in history such a large number has been changed at the same time, and suggesting it will be very destabilizing, is ignoring the fact that the IOC is doing just that. And I reckon the AOS has decided they want to get rid of eponyms to catch up with this evolution, because if not, the current US eponyms will be destabilizing / the only ones left.
19) Cost of the change is not appreciated. No one even mentions what the monetary cost of such a wholesale change in bird names will be. Government agencies will need to reproduce all their materials, and places like national parks and wildlife refuges will need to change all their interpretive signage - or just keep “outdated” names (which many people say they will do anyway). I suspect there will be a very large unintended and unrealized monetary cost - not to mention perhaps the need to purchase new field guides. Plus think of the shear number of existing books - and all the ornithological literature - that will become outdated or obsolete. Yes - some will actually profit from this endeavor - such as those who produce the new field guides.
→ I refer to 18. Again. Birdnames change constantly, books I bought 5 years ago already have outdated names, and my illustrated handbook of the birds of the world, printed some years ago, already has 150+ outdated names given the constant revisions. The slow but constant change in taxonomy and subsequent change in English (and latin) bird names is a bigger factor than one sudden change of 150 eponyms, just to put it in perspective. Yes, a sudden change brings some different nuisances and costs, but it’s clear that there is already a constant change that forces all of us to update books, materials,… every 5-odd years to keep up with things.
20) Birds should not be named after people. Eponyms are part of our everyday life and lexicon. Everywhere we look they are used. Obvious ones are in names of cities and states - are we going to really change the name of Washington D.C. because Washington had slaves. A very large African American population lives in D.C. - are they advocating for the change of the name? Is this preventing anyone from moving there? Eponyms are everywhere in our language - in temperature, weights and measure, electricity, roads, buildings, monuments, airports, EVERYWHERE. If there is a very offensive name, we change it, but we don’t remove ALL of them because we say it is too hard to figure out the bad ones.
→ a city is manmade. It’s only logic manmade things get manmade names. Of course you can give a city the name of a bird (that would be even better). But naming a natural living thing after (one, only one) mere mortal? That’s a concept that I don’t support. To quote from an inspiring (i.e.: I don’t agree with all of it, but it sure gives food for thought) essay by Matthew Walley: “ As early as 1799, almost a decade before his friend Alexander Wilson (1766–1813) published a single page of ornithological science, Peale explained in an essay distributed in his Museum, that naming birds after people should be avoided because it “feeds the vanity of some Naturalists without enlightening the science”. The recipients of eponyms may be living, in which case both parties are “fed” (i.e., recipient and describer), or, as is often the case, recently deceased, in which case the vanity-related benefit (see below) is conferred to the describer alone.”
Link: https://matthewhalley.wordpress.com/2022/03/29/eponymous-bird-names-feed-ornithologists-vanity-without-enlightening-the-science/
The question remains: even if we can name birds after people, is that the best we can come up with? We have streets, cities, mountains named after people, often long forgotten even if they have given their name to those markers in the landscape. Can’t we come up with something more original, less human-centric?
21) Finally, just a word about inclusiveness. The AOS decisions is the opposite of inclusiveness. I realize that their intent may have been noble, and by removing eponyms, they thought they were moving in the direction of inclusiveness and increased diversity, but they misjudged how important eponyms and ornithological history is to so many. This decision has truly divided the birding community - and now it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion, as everyone seems dug into their positions. This was so unnecessary, and although the “Ad Hoc” committee claims to have thought all this through, I really don’t think they anticipated such a backlash. People like me like eponyms. They remind me of ornithological history - and the giants in ornithology who built what birding is today. This is important, and can’t just be swept under the rug or canceled. That is how we view this decision - and it is unfair to the thousands (countless) of us who view this as important
→ I realize eponyms are important for many. For me, they aren’t (and I know that, even if I was an ornithologist ‘worth’ an eponym, I wouldn’t want it), but I won’t underestimate the value some (many) people give to them. I know Gary went on expeditions that discovered new species, and some of those species were named after people that have contributed greatly to ornithology and were personal friends. But that’s exactly the reason why I think it’s better not to name birds after people, because there is too much emotional involvement once you go that road, imho.
I also think that, simply said, this is a power struggle between the AOS and some well-established centers of ornithology in the USA (e.g. LSU having a tradition of exploration / discovering new species and rewarding (often outstanding) scientific work in ornithology), and I feel defenders of eponyms don’t want to give up easily on this as they are (rightly) proud of their achievements / having pushed the boundaries of ornithology and they see the erasing of eponyms as erasing the accomplishments of those people.
I agree the AOS decisions have caused more division than inclusion, but the question is: what is the base / root of the division: people / institutes that want to keep eponyms, or the AOS pushing ‘their’ agenda without consulting all stakeholders? I think both the defenders of eponyms and those that are against it, have good intentions, but the debate is often kept hostage by some on either side that want to emphasize the bad intentions (e.g. pro eponym people are insensitive, contra eponym people are woke). I hope both sides don’t allow any of these negative thoughts / forces / intentions to prevail, and look at it in a more constructive way.
In conclusion, passions run deep in this discussion. It is my opinion that the AOS could please almost everyone (NOTHING pleases everyone) by sticking to their case by case methodology that had already been established, and remove the truly offensive eponyms if necessary. In this way, ornithological giants - many of whom were founders of the AOS - will not be dishonored by “guilt by association” - and the public could have an input on any new bird name that needs to be devised.
Please share this if you agree."
→ as argued / mentioned, while I don’t mind a case by case methodology, it would be slow (slower than IOC is moving), leads to discussions about morality (a very deep marsh to wade through, very very easy to get stuck) and keeps the status-quo of selected (mostly 19th century) ornithologists having (sometimes many) eponyms, while others who deserve eponyms as much, didn’t get any, so that status quo of ‘good’ eponyms isn’t even fair towards the whole ornithological community, let alone any of the (sometimes, admittedly, overly wild) claims that it’s not fair towards minorities etc.
The rebuttal is in bold. Gary's 'very long post' is copy-pasted from his FB post.
Rebuttal - why eponymous bird names aren't a good idea, in general.
All of it is my personal view, and that view is based on my very own personal feeling that living creatures (= whole species, not even individuals) shouldn’t never be named after individuals of our own species as there are better options. Disclaimer: I like Gary as a person, and I hope he’s not mad at me for writing this 🙈
[VERY LONG POST] There has been a lot of spirited discussion on Facebook recently regarding the AOS decision to change the English bird names of 150+ species that are named after people (Eponyms). I find it astounding that there is so much misinformation, and so many misconceptions that are repeated over and over - like “Alternative Facts” - Here are a few in no particular order (I am sure I am missing some):
1) Most (or sometimes all) of the people who had birds named after them were slave owners, grave robbers, or otherwise horrible people. Not true. Very few out of the more than 100 fall into this category. Most were actually ornithologists, naturalists, explorers, soldiers, etc… and several were actually founders of the AOS, or received prestigious awards, or worked in museums, and were responsible for an incredible wealth of information furthering the understanding of birds in North America and around the world.
→ I will start saying that the discussion about the merits of people who got eponyms is what makes this (too) emotional for some people. Once you step away from the need or urge to preserve eponyms, it doesn’t even matter if someone is a hero or a slave owner, as this discussion would never be there if eponyms weren’t there. Removing eponyms shouldn’t be about good people and bad people, and the good being kept, the bad being punished. It should be about what on earth we were thinking of giving such importance to one of billions of our own species to name a whole species, that’s been on this Earth for 100.000ths of years.
2) Similarly, the people who had birds named after them did not do anything to deserve this honor. I find this one particularly mis-informed and subjective. See above, but also consider ornithologists such as Wilson, Baird, Ridgway, Bendire, Cassin - all ornithological giants - and responsible for so many discoveries, as well as sorting out the mess that North American bird taxonomy was in at the time.
→ We can all agree that Baird, Ridway, Bendire, Cassin,… were ornithological giants. But let’s take a look at e.g. Ridgway: he has more than 10(!) species named after him. Some great ornithologists have none. From https://thecottonwoodpost.net/2021/05/30/honorific-bird-names-facts-and-figures/ :
Out of a list of 80, John James Audubon provided fifteen of the eponymous names, Spencer Baird and John Cassin each provided seven, and Rene Lesson four. Together, these four ornithologists were responsible for 41% (33/80) of the honorific names in this analysis. The majority of the namers were connected to each other, with many naming birds after colleagues, who in turn named species after other colleagues. Lesson described Audubon’s Shearwater and Oriole; Audubon described Baird’s Sparrow; Baird described Woodhouse’s Scrub-Jay; Woodhouse described Cassin’s Sparrow; Cassin described Lawrence’s Goldfinch; Lawrence described LeConte’s Thrasher.
So in that short interval of less than 150 years, eponyms were created among a select club of ornithologists. If someone finds the birdnames for birds movement a minority and not very democratic, what to say about the select club who chose the eponyms, honoring their homies?
3) People have no right naming birds after themselves. This suggests that this is a thing - which it is NOT. None of the eponymous bird names were actually named by the person. This shows a misunderstanding of how birds got their English names. Most were created long after the birds were described to science - most given by ornithologists working in museums. The idea that the birds are “owned” by the people is incorrect - yes there is the use of an apostrophe, but in this case it just means that the person is honored.
→ See above at #2/ . And remember most eponyms are honorifics, in a way they aren’t even named after the discoverer, but after another ornithologist.
4) Birds will appreciate the new names. David Sibley said this in his video supporting the AOS decision. Perhaps he didn’t REALLY mean this (giving him the benefit of the doubt) - but it is repeated. Needless to say, the birds do not know their names, and this is purely anthropomorphic.
→ As even Gary isn’t sure about the exact quote, I can’t comment on the above. If Sibley said that birds will benefit (and get more appreciation) with the new names, I would personally agree. I’d rather have a Black-capped yellow Warbler than a Wilson’s Warbler (Wilson didn’t even discover, nor describe that Warbler, but Peale did. Nothwithstanding Peale’s objection, Wilson pushed through and started a wave of eponyms in the 1800s. We could say that it was as much fashion to name birds after people in the 1800s as people suggesting it’s fashion to change eponyms…
5) Most people are in favor of this decision. Well, that is an opinion not really supported by fact. Thousands of birders and ornithologists have signed a counter petition, so I would say the jury is out on that one. Furthermore, Of those who signed our counter petition, they have produced (cumulatively) MORE THAN 20,000 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS!!!
→ the jury may be out, and a broad, community-based approach is the best. But naming birds has never been democratic, and while a majority is desirable, since when has the majority been a good criterium to decide on such things? Sometimes, it seems to me that proponents vs opponents reflect a power struggle in US birding circles, more than anything. A small but wise committee is probably the best bet to evaluate bird names, as a wider petition / vote looks all too similar to politics where extreme viewpoints and popularity are in the way of a good discussion. Whatever the outcome, I honestly don’t think that the number of likes or votes in a petition is the way to go. It creates division where there doesn’t have to be one, as long as the grown-ups / leaders in the birding world / ornithology can sit around one table and discuss it there.
6) Those of us who like eponyms are insensitive and/or racist. Not true. Everyone who has signed our petition is all for inclusiveness and in big favor of increasing diversity within birding and ornithology (or all sciences). Many many many of us have worked our entire careers promoting birding around the world, either through sponsoring students, or through ecotourism in developing countries, or any number of other endeavors. To be labeled a racist because we like ornithological history is sad indeed.
→ I never thought of those who like eponyms as insensitive / racist, so I’m not going to make counterarguments to a straw-man’s argument.
7) There are many eponyms. I think it is important to point out that only 150+ species on the North American list are eponymous. That is 5% - which means that 95% of the birds are NOT eponym, yet the proponents of changing all of them seem to be intolerant to the views of thousands - supposedly in the name of promoting inclusiveness. Seems pretty exclusionary to me.
→ you could argue (see 2.) that eponyms are so rare and arbitrary, we better give up on all of them at once: as mentioned, there aren’t many so changing won’t take much time, and doesn’t exclude anyone more than anyone else. See also 18.
8) It is too difficult to evaluate the people on a case by case basis. This is what the North American Checklist Committee was doing - and wanted to continue - and all members voted to maintain this methodology. Their views were ignored or dismissed (semantics) - and the process of coming up with English names was totally taken away from the committee, and given to a newly formed committee - the English Bird Names Committee. This prompted the resignation of some members of the NACC.
→ As a proponent for removing all eponyms, I find a case-by-case evaluation a pretty good (pragmatic) way to deal with bird names, but if you do it case by case, you end up with the slippery slope / discussions we all see now, and those discussions inevitably lead to a lot of emotions involved in those discussions. Doing the process this way will be an eternal discussion rather than solving the ‘crux’ by simply removing all eponyms.
9) Some people were upset at the renaming (both the process and the actual name) of McCown’s Longspur as Thick-billed Longspur. The entire process is available to read online - including the justification for naming it Thick-billed Longspur - which, ironically, is exactly the type of descriptive bird name that so many are desiring. The idea that the NACC was not anything but professional during the entire process is not true - and totally insulting to the members of the committee. That some don’t like the name is pure evidence that any new bird name is not going to have unanimous approval.
→ renaming the longspur shows perfectly why the process, described in 8) is theoretically an OK compromise / solution, but in practice, it would be a long, hard slog through the eternal marsh of changing eponyms on a case-by-case basis.
10) The International Ornithologists Union (the IOU, or IOC) who maintain a list of English bird names for all the birds in the world will follow the AOS decision. Not true. They are not in favor of removing eponyms, and this has prompted the South American Checklist Committee - who all but one member were against the AOS decision - to disassociate themselves from the AOS and move to be associated with the IOC. There are thousands of eponymous bird names - represented by English names, genera, species, or subspecies around the world - and no one has any intention of changing them.
→ while they are strictly not in favor of removing eponyms, they are slowly weeding them out. IOC 14.1 has removed 3 eponyms, and while IOC remains neutral, they already have removed many eponyms (slowly but steadily) before (think e.g. Przevalski’s Parrotbill à Rusty-throated Parrotbill).
11) The AOS is changing the names of our birds. Of the 150+ species slated to have their names changed, only about 89 actually breed in the United States or Canada - and many of those are neotropical migrants that spend 8-9 months of the year on wintering grounds in other countries. The remaining 60 or so are either birds that are mainly found in other countries and occur in the U.S. or Canada as rarities, or are actually species found exclusively in countries in Latin America or the Caribbean. The idea that the AOS can just change the English names of these species without consultation of ornithological bodies in the other countries is audacious.
→ It is, and it is not. English names are originally given by people speaking English (USA, Canada). So logic dictates that any bird occurring in the USA gets an English name by people speaking English. If Mexicans want to name a bird, they can do it in Spanish, in agreement with other Spanish-speaking countries where Mexican birds occur. You could say the AOS is imposing English names on birds mainly occurring in e.g. C-America, and those changed names have an impact on science and English field guides. True. But those guides, and the English-published science, is a choice by Spanish speaking countries. They can still publish in their own language.
12) Changing the English names will create more inclusiveness for birders and ornithologists from Latin America. Where is the proof of this? Many many Latin Americans have signed onto the counter petition and feel that “Americans” dictating this type of radical change is another form of Colonialism.
→ maybe there isn’t any proof. But does changing eponyms create less inclusiveness? If so, I would be curious how.
13) People don’t like the change in English Bird names because we don’t like “change”, or will find it too difficult to relearn new bird names. Please! I don’t think I really need to explain the absurdity of this notion.
→ Like 6), this is another straw-man’s argument. Ofcourse there will be people who don’t like change (and nobody likes change just for the sake of changing), and ofcourse there will be people who are insensitive or racist, but those generalizations, trying to suggest / create division, are not helping the debate, especially not among those that are nuanced / undecided in their opinion.
14) Changing the English names is NOT cancelling anyone. Not true. I have seen the argument that the scientific names will not change, so the people are not really canceled. I believe the removal of all eponymous bird names will associate the good with the bad - even though a very small percentage of people will fall into the category of deserving to have their name removed, all of the others will be guilty by association. Once the English eponyms are removed, what is to stop the movement of continuing on to scientific names (other than the International rules that govern this process)?
→ This is a case of perception. You could say as well that keeping some eponyms suggests that some people are more worthy than others. You honour a very select group of people, who happened to live in exactly the right time (of many discoveries) way too much. There aren’t that many new species to be discovered, so how will you honour the excellent ornithologists of the 21st century? Why is someone in the 1850s worth more a bird name than someone in 2024? Latin names are a different thing: those are really a piece of history: you can only describe a bird once, and you cannot neglect the description. It’s a fixed process (compared to English / French /… bird names that are an agreement, mostly through bird committees) and while I don’t like eponyms in Latin names either, you can keep them. Isn’t that enough?
15) Eponyms are exclusionary to minorities in birding. Some names may be offensive to some - and everyone is willing to compromise and change the truly offensive ones - yet show me proof that ANYONE refused to become a birder, or go into ornithology purely on the basis that there were some offensive bird names.
→ I don’t think eponyms would be any reason for anyone to refuse to become a birder… But I do believe that the current set of eponyms is reflecting the rapid evolution of Western science, combined with the era of exploration and exploitation that started somewhere in the 15th century and largely ended with the end of colonialism after WWII. A question I often ask myself: if Westerners didn’t ‘discover’ the Americas, or if they discovered it but didn’t introduce (inadvertently) all kinds of diseases, and science as we know it reached the people of the Americas intact (without them having been subdued / colonized / decimated), would they have at one point in time picked up on ornithology? A lot of ornithology in poorer countries is still carried out by foreign researchers (most often with local support crews and sometimes local researchers, but not always). Is naming things a Western thing?
16) Choosing eponyms is common today. Not true. Virtually all of the species with eponyms were described in the 1700s and 1800s - but many of the English names were given much later by ornithologists in museums - often using the English name to correspond with the scientific name, Very few new species (relatively) are described today - yet there are lumps and splits where “new” English names are occasionally needed - sometimes a form already had a name (when originally described) - yet the general practice TODAY is to give birds descriptive names, relating to either plumage, habitat, range, vocalizations etc… So the practice of giving birds new eponyms is NOT widespread today - this was mostly a historical practice.
→ as it’s not common and practice is to give birds descriptive names, erasing eponyms is simply a consequence of this trend, no? And in spite of eponyms being uncommon (well, there aren’t many birds that don’t bear names yes, so of course it’s not common!), someone like (yes, I know, I dared to say it like it’s a complete random birder) Ted Parker already got 6 latin eponyms and 2 English ones…! Why does Ted Parker get all the eponyms, is the question: why doesn’t he get just one and the next ornithologist in line gets the next one? Would Ted Parker have wanted all of those names? I reckon he was humble enough to politely decline. He didn’t need the level of idolatry he’s getting now, and sorry to say, but this seems to be an American thing: Yes he was a very talented ornithologist and he died way too young while doing what he loved to do, but to give him 8 eponyms is overcompensation to say the least.
17) Descriptive names are better. English names are for communication purposes - solely! Whether one learns the name “Yellow-throated Warbler”, or Wilson’s Warbler, it is just memorization - and the use is purely communicative. No on seems to mind the more than 100 North American species that have non-eponymous names, yet are NOT at all descriptive - there are many many that fall into this category. A few examples are Palm Warbler (not found in palms), Prairie Warbler (not found in the prairies), Connecticut Warbler (very rare in Connecticut), and odd names like Verdin, Phainopepla, Pyrrhuloxia, or Sharp-shinned Hawk - and on and on. Humans can learn these names just as easily as more descriptive names - and eponyms are the same. When one learns Cooper’s Hawk - the name Cooper’s is easily distinguished from the name Sharp-shinned - neither of which is descriptive - of course actually identifying the birds correctly is a different matter 🙂
→ I don’t agree that Wilson’s warbler vs. Yellow-throated warbler is just memorization. I memorize much better with descriptive bird names. For an experienced birder, it’s easy to have a visual image of Wilson’s warbler so no need for a descriptive name. But for a beginner birder / birder coming from another part of the world, Black-capped yellow Warbler (I know, that self-invented name is atrocious 😉 ) is a lot better to get that visual image / to have some reference point when we would be talking about that bird. If you see 5 birds in a tree and someone says there’s a Wilson’s warbler in that tree, you wouldn’t know where to look at if you were a beginner / birder from another continent.
Next, the fact that many birds don’t have descriptive names and are thus no good either, isn’t a good argument for eponyms, rather an argument to change some of those non-descriptive names as well! I don't agree humans can learn these names just as easily as more descriptive names. The whole advantage of descriptive names is within the fact they describe a bird in a way that you have a mnemonic you can use while ID-ing a bird.
18) Bird names change all the time. This is a very common argument in favor of changing English names - as if it just isn’t a big deal. Yes, taxonomy is always changing - this is the nature of the science (also poorly understood by the lay person) - new genetic techniques are always leading to lumps and splits - and new names. Most of these changes involve reassignment to a different genus - or elevation to a new genus or species - YET the English name is the stable name - and often used by scientists in publications - so over the years, everyone will KNOW what form is being referred to - even if the scientific name changes. Bird name stability is one of the objectives mentioned by the AOS - especially when it comes to the NACC. At not time in history has such a large number of names been changed at the same time - with will be very destabilizing to say the least.
→ the English name is not THAT stable. When a species is split, often one name is kept and e.g. if it’s a 2-way split, another name is invented. One example:
Tawny-crowned Pygmy Tyrant Euscarthmus meloryphus Fulvous-crowned Scrub Tyrant
Rufous-sided Pygmy Tyrant Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Scrub Tyrant
So what’s stable about Tawny-crowned or Rufous-sided Pygmy Tyrant? Nothing, it seems, because both names are erased.
Every IOC update sees easily 30-40 changes in taxonomy, the last change had 33 English name changes among 3 that had their English eponym removed. Since January 2022 (2 years and 5 revisions), around 150 (!) English names have been revised, that’s about the same as there would be eponyms removed (!). Of those 150 odd English names, the following eponyms have been removed:
Stejneger's Stonechat Saxicola stejnegeri Amur Stonechat
Kessler's Thrush Turdus kessleri White-backed Thrush
Biddulph's Ground Jay Podoces biddulphi Xinjiang Ground Jay
Pander's Ground Jay Podoces panderi Turkestan Ground Jay
Pleske's Ground Jay Podoces pleskei Iranian Ground Jay
Henderson's Ground Jay Podoces hendersoni Mongolian Ground Jay
De Filippi's Petrel Pterodroma defilippiana Masatierra Petrel
Hornby's Storm Petrel Hydrobates hornbyi Ringed Storm Petrel
Doubleday's Hummingbird Cynanthus doubledayi Turquoise-crowned Hummingbird
Blyth's Shrike-babbler Pteruthius aeralatus White-browed Shrike-babbler
Zimmer's Flatbill Tolmomyias assimilis Yellow-margined Flatbill
Hunstein's Mannikin Lonchura hunsteini Mottled Mannikin
Major Mitchell's Cockatoo Cacatua (Lophochroa) leadbeateri Pink Cockatoo
Cabinis's Seedeater Amaurospiza concolor Blue Seedeater
Cockerell’s Fantail Rhipidura cockerelli White-winged Fantail
Worcester's Buttonquail Turnix worcesteri Luzon Buttonquail
That’s 16 eponyms less in IOC, in merely 2 years. At this pace there won’t be any eponyms in the IOC list in some decades…
In a lot of those cases, the reason for changing was the following and I quote IOC:
“Change English name from eponym to non-eponym to align with Clements/eBird”. There wasn’t any fuss about all of those IOC updates, compared to the fuss about the current proposed changes I wonder why?
It must be said that species like Sillem’s Mountain Finch → Sillem’s Rosefinch and Woodward’s Batis (changed to Woodwards’ Batis) kept their eponym. No idea what’s the reasoning behind all of that.
There are also changes like:
Japanese Wood Pigeon Columba janthina Black Wood Pigeon Change English name of Columba janthina from Japanese Wood Pigeon to more descriptive Black Wood Pigeon.
I can only applaud this, unless someone finds ‘black’ offensive 😃.
So to say that there wasn’t a time in history such a large number has been changed at the same time, and suggesting it will be very destabilizing, is ignoring the fact that the IOC is doing just that. And I reckon the AOS has decided they want to get rid of eponyms to catch up with this evolution, because if not, the current US eponyms will be destabilizing / the only ones left.
19) Cost of the change is not appreciated. No one even mentions what the monetary cost of such a wholesale change in bird names will be. Government agencies will need to reproduce all their materials, and places like national parks and wildlife refuges will need to change all their interpretive signage - or just keep “outdated” names (which many people say they will do anyway). I suspect there will be a very large unintended and unrealized monetary cost - not to mention perhaps the need to purchase new field guides. Plus think of the shear number of existing books - and all the ornithological literature - that will become outdated or obsolete. Yes - some will actually profit from this endeavor - such as those who produce the new field guides.
→ I refer to 18. Again. Birdnames change constantly, books I bought 5 years ago already have outdated names, and my illustrated handbook of the birds of the world, printed some years ago, already has 150+ outdated names given the constant revisions. The slow but constant change in taxonomy and subsequent change in English (and latin) bird names is a bigger factor than one sudden change of 150 eponyms, just to put it in perspective. Yes, a sudden change brings some different nuisances and costs, but it’s clear that there is already a constant change that forces all of us to update books, materials,… every 5-odd years to keep up with things.
20) Birds should not be named after people. Eponyms are part of our everyday life and lexicon. Everywhere we look they are used. Obvious ones are in names of cities and states - are we going to really change the name of Washington D.C. because Washington had slaves. A very large African American population lives in D.C. - are they advocating for the change of the name? Is this preventing anyone from moving there? Eponyms are everywhere in our language - in temperature, weights and measure, electricity, roads, buildings, monuments, airports, EVERYWHERE. If there is a very offensive name, we change it, but we don’t remove ALL of them because we say it is too hard to figure out the bad ones.
→ a city is manmade. It’s only logic manmade things get manmade names. Of course you can give a city the name of a bird (that would be even better). But naming a natural living thing after (one, only one) mere mortal? That’s a concept that I don’t support. To quote from an inspiring (i.e.: I don’t agree with all of it, but it sure gives food for thought) essay by Matthew Walley: “ As early as 1799, almost a decade before his friend Alexander Wilson (1766–1813) published a single page of ornithological science, Peale explained in an essay distributed in his Museum, that naming birds after people should be avoided because it “feeds the vanity of some Naturalists without enlightening the science”. The recipients of eponyms may be living, in which case both parties are “fed” (i.e., recipient and describer), or, as is often the case, recently deceased, in which case the vanity-related benefit (see below) is conferred to the describer alone.”
Link: https://matthewhalley.wordpress.com/2022/03/29/eponymous-bird-names-feed-ornithologists-vanity-without-enlightening-the-science/
The question remains: even if we can name birds after people, is that the best we can come up with? We have streets, cities, mountains named after people, often long forgotten even if they have given their name to those markers in the landscape. Can’t we come up with something more original, less human-centric?
21) Finally, just a word about inclusiveness. The AOS decisions is the opposite of inclusiveness. I realize that their intent may have been noble, and by removing eponyms, they thought they were moving in the direction of inclusiveness and increased diversity, but they misjudged how important eponyms and ornithological history is to so many. This decision has truly divided the birding community - and now it is almost impossible to have a rational discussion, as everyone seems dug into their positions. This was so unnecessary, and although the “Ad Hoc” committee claims to have thought all this through, I really don’t think they anticipated such a backlash. People like me like eponyms. They remind me of ornithological history - and the giants in ornithology who built what birding is today. This is important, and can’t just be swept under the rug or canceled. That is how we view this decision - and it is unfair to the thousands (countless) of us who view this as important
→ I realize eponyms are important for many. For me, they aren’t (and I know that, even if I was an ornithologist ‘worth’ an eponym, I wouldn’t want it), but I won’t underestimate the value some (many) people give to them. I know Gary went on expeditions that discovered new species, and some of those species were named after people that have contributed greatly to ornithology and were personal friends. But that’s exactly the reason why I think it’s better not to name birds after people, because there is too much emotional involvement once you go that road, imho.
I also think that, simply said, this is a power struggle between the AOS and some well-established centers of ornithology in the USA (e.g. LSU having a tradition of exploration / discovering new species and rewarding (often outstanding) scientific work in ornithology), and I feel defenders of eponyms don’t want to give up easily on this as they are (rightly) proud of their achievements / having pushed the boundaries of ornithology and they see the erasing of eponyms as erasing the accomplishments of those people.
I agree the AOS decisions have caused more division than inclusion, but the question is: what is the base / root of the division: people / institutes that want to keep eponyms, or the AOS pushing ‘their’ agenda without consulting all stakeholders? I think both the defenders of eponyms and those that are against it, have good intentions, but the debate is often kept hostage by some on either side that want to emphasize the bad intentions (e.g. pro eponym people are insensitive, contra eponym people are woke). I hope both sides don’t allow any of these negative thoughts / forces / intentions to prevail, and look at it in a more constructive way.
In conclusion, passions run deep in this discussion. It is my opinion that the AOS could please almost everyone (NOTHING pleases everyone) by sticking to their case by case methodology that had already been established, and remove the truly offensive eponyms if necessary. In this way, ornithological giants - many of whom were founders of the AOS - will not be dishonored by “guilt by association” - and the public could have an input on any new bird name that needs to be devised.
Please share this if you agree."
→ as argued / mentioned, while I don’t mind a case by case methodology, it would be slow (slower than IOC is moving), leads to discussions about morality (a very deep marsh to wade through, very very easy to get stuck) and keeps the status-quo of selected (mostly 19th century) ornithologists having (sometimes many) eponyms, while others who deserve eponyms as much, didn’t get any, so that status quo of ‘good’ eponyms isn’t even fair towards the whole ornithological community, let alone any of the (sometimes, admittedly, overly wild) claims that it’s not fair towards minorities etc.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
"It creates division where there doesn’t have to be one, as long as the grown-ups / leaders in the birding world / ornithology can sit around one table and discuss it there."
Such a lovely attitude of superiority. Present a lot in birding....
All the best
Paul
Such a lovely attitude of superiority. Present a lot in birding....
All the best
Paul
Kirk Roth
Rarely to be taken seriously
And yet the entire organization is only 2800 people - that's a lot of trust put in them.
For what it's worth, I've seen estimates of the ABA at 15,000, eBird has hundreds of thousands of U.S. users (not all are active accounts though), and the National Audubon Society has roughly 600,000 members.
Mysticete
Well-known member
and if you are talking about taxonomy, that is what...8 people on that committee? and I don't think there are term limits and members get to decide on replacements.
Not that I want taxonomy decided by the masses of course.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
I just saw a statistic that eBird has 100,000 monthly users. That will be global but I thought it was an interesting number to know.
temmie
Well-known member
The AOS (you know, the ones that are professionally involved and mandated with decisions on bird names) is proposing the change of 150 eponyms and there is outrage and a petition, claiming those changes are too hard, too costly, erasing history, disrespecting honorifics and above all, there are more important things to do to save the birds.
If the AOS isn't bad enough, enter the IOC:
Every 6 months, the IOC committee erases 3-5 eponyms, the equivalent of 6-7 per year.
They change, by average, around 60 birdnames per year. In 2.5 years time, they change as many names as the AOS is proprosing.
In 20 years they will have erased as many as 140-160 eponyms (the number the AOS want to change)...
Death by a thousand cuts...
The IOC is continuously surfing the wave of erasing eponyms and nobody blinks an eye.
Ask yourself, when the main governing body worldwide is changing names and taxonomy every 6 months, where the outrage comes from when the AOS wants to do the same in one move what the IOC is doing continuously without protest for the last decade?
You mention 'superiority' and I'm not 100% sure but you seem to suggest that bypassing petitions is an undesirable act by people who think they know better. Well, in this case, I honestly think a petition isn't leading to any good, and I truly think that a small committee is a better way to decide on bird names than the big crowd.
Petitions are great to pressurize opponents / external forces / politicians into changing their plans, actions, decisions. But a petition within a community of like-minded people (I consider birdwatchers as such) has the effect that it weakens the community, creates division and doesn't lead to more debate, as opinions get entrenched.
That's why we have professional committees where opinions can be expressed in a much more nuanced way, and as usual, those committees announce their plans long in advance so everybody can have a say in this. Just take this AOS talk, including people from the IOC, ABA, Ebird/Cornell, several field guide authors, and other relevant stake-holders, and be aware it's almost 3 years old:
So while the AOS viewpoints were already shaping up years ago, it's only recently, when the opposition assembled forces and are honestly not getting much further than straw man's / reactionary and even conflicting arguments, that everybody has shaped their strong opinions while they seem oblivious for the modern-day trend in all taxonomies to remove the 150 year-old fashion using eponyms. A popularity vote through a petition isn't going to solve anything, except inviting loud / extreme voices without content, and increasing the chance this ends up in a deadlock. Any 'win' in this petition will be a phyrric victory for the birding community. Am I suggesting you cannot oppose the erase of eponyms? No, but you'd better come up with good arguments: I personally gave a lot, and while I have been very open and willing to listen to any given that were pro-eponym, I honestly haven't found many (any?) convincing and sound arguments.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
The language in that quotation stands alone.
Grown-ups. Leaders.
You do not convince anyone by telling them that they are not a grown up. You do not convince anyone by telling them that they have non-elected leaders. (Indeed, even if they were elected leaders, you need to win people's hearts and minds for them to follow. I have made decisions that I wanted 100s of people to follow and back with their money. Once I had made a decision as to the best approach that was the easiest bit, I then needed to engage and persuade people to act or adopt. They tested my opinion and decision and sometimes it changed at least partly as a result.)
All you actually do by that language is show that you hold them in contempt. It shows that you do not consider that this is a change that needs to be adopted but a decision you can make because you know better. In fact, the decision-maker here needs to persuade people to change 100 years of literature and dozens of books on their shelves. This is not a blank piece of paper. I know no one who likes or prefers eponyms to good descriptive names but for me, that is not compelling enough to change neutral eponyms in use for a hundred years with consequent cost and disruption.
I am expressing a view as to how you interact with people to persuade them and educate them towards your position. What works. And what doesn't.
The lack of progress in the last three years should be seen as a sign of failure by those proposing the changes which is why there is a petition for them to change their decision - now with 4,485 signatures.
I'll give the link a watch.
All the best
Paul
Last edited:
ghrosenberg
Member
I would like to say a couple of things about the degree to which the IOC (or AOS) change English names. I suspect, although I haven't checked each one, that the list of "recent" changes by the IOC mentioned above "mostly" are the result of scientific/taxonomic changes - that is certainly the case with the AOS changes that many refer to. Here is a short analysis prepared by Van Remsen on this issue :
"Concerning the proposed purge of all eponymous bird names …. a frequent claim by the pro-purge people is that it’s no big deal to change the ca. 80 names of the regular birds in the USA and Canada because “names change all the time”. On the surface, that is technically correct. However, it has the same degree of substance as the Climate Deniers who chant that “climate changes all the time”, as if that also means that climate change is no big deal. The similarity is kind of eerie.
It’s all about how you define “all the time.” It’s about the rate of change. So, here are some data on that rate.
I analyzed changes in English names between the 1998 hard-copy “AOU Checklist, 7th edition” and 2023. That’s ca. 25 year timespan. I sampled 785 species of regular occurrence in the USA and Canada, i.e. no vagrants, even those as regular as Ruff. I also excluded almost all introduced species, including all those in Hawaii. Where to draw the line was subjective in some cases, but I don’t think it biased the results.
So, here are the results: out of these 785 species, only 25 (3%) have changed names in 25 years, i.e. 1/year. Of those 25, 17 (68%) of the changes were required by changes in species limits (e.g. Sage Grouse, Blue Grouse, Common Snipe, etc.). Four more were changed to conform to global usage (Rock Pigeon to Rock Dove, Greater Shearwater to Great Shearwater, Blue-throated Hummingbird to Blue-throated Mountain-gem, Clay-colored Robin to Clay-colored Thrush); in all four cases, a direct connection was retained to the original name to minimize confusion.
That leaves 4 of 785 names changed for other reasons. McCown’s Longspur (canceled), Gray Jay (to Canada Jay; actually correcting a mistake in AOU procedure made sometime in the 1950s), and removing the “Sharp-tailed” group name from Nelson’s and Saltmarsh sparrow but retaining the connection between old and new).
So, when you encounter the chant “names change all the time”, keep in mind the contrast between 1 per year over the last 25 years versus 80 or whatever within whatever time span the new EBNC acts.
If anyone wants a copy of my spreadsheets on this, send me an email at najames at lsu dot edu. Having whipped out this analysis in a few hours, there have to be mistakes, and I would like these ferreted out before I publish a little article on this. I may also do a similar analysis from the 6th (1983) to 7th editions out of curiosity and OCD tendencies."
Our main point is that, although there may be name changes, even frequently, they are generally because of taxonomic revisions and not just the desire to change names (for whatever reason - but not for scientific reasons). Another point is that 30, or 40, or even 100 changes out of a world list of more than 10,000 is pretty insignificant - where as changing 150+ in North America alone is a relatively high percentage. Furthermore, even the NACC and SACC have become sensitive over the years to the use of eponyms, which is why most new names are descriptive in nature. I also think it is better for experienced ornithologists with decades of experience working with issues of taxonomy and nomenclature to be responsible for any potential name changes - as opposed to a new committee set up exclusively for English names comprised of young, inexperienced members, with input from the public. Having personally been a voting member on the SACC for establishing new English names (filling in for other permanent members), I can assure you that even getting a committee of 10 or 12 to agree on a new name is virtually impossible - and the McCown's Longspur/Thick-billed Longspur episode with the NACC is an excellent example of how any new name is going to be highly criticized by some out there - and in this case unfairly (the new name is actually a good "descriptive" name that so many are pining for, and relates to a feature on the bird that the genus is actually named for - but this isn't good enough for some). Adding even more people to the naming process is a recipe for chaos.
"Concerning the proposed purge of all eponymous bird names …. a frequent claim by the pro-purge people is that it’s no big deal to change the ca. 80 names of the regular birds in the USA and Canada because “names change all the time”. On the surface, that is technically correct. However, it has the same degree of substance as the Climate Deniers who chant that “climate changes all the time”, as if that also means that climate change is no big deal. The similarity is kind of eerie.
It’s all about how you define “all the time.” It’s about the rate of change. So, here are some data on that rate.
I analyzed changes in English names between the 1998 hard-copy “AOU Checklist, 7th edition” and 2023. That’s ca. 25 year timespan. I sampled 785 species of regular occurrence in the USA and Canada, i.e. no vagrants, even those as regular as Ruff. I also excluded almost all introduced species, including all those in Hawaii. Where to draw the line was subjective in some cases, but I don’t think it biased the results.
So, here are the results: out of these 785 species, only 25 (3%) have changed names in 25 years, i.e. 1/year. Of those 25, 17 (68%) of the changes were required by changes in species limits (e.g. Sage Grouse, Blue Grouse, Common Snipe, etc.). Four more were changed to conform to global usage (Rock Pigeon to Rock Dove, Greater Shearwater to Great Shearwater, Blue-throated Hummingbird to Blue-throated Mountain-gem, Clay-colored Robin to Clay-colored Thrush); in all four cases, a direct connection was retained to the original name to minimize confusion.
That leaves 4 of 785 names changed for other reasons. McCown’s Longspur (canceled), Gray Jay (to Canada Jay; actually correcting a mistake in AOU procedure made sometime in the 1950s), and removing the “Sharp-tailed” group name from Nelson’s and Saltmarsh sparrow but retaining the connection between old and new).
So, when you encounter the chant “names change all the time”, keep in mind the contrast between 1 per year over the last 25 years versus 80 or whatever within whatever time span the new EBNC acts.
If anyone wants a copy of my spreadsheets on this, send me an email at najames at lsu dot edu. Having whipped out this analysis in a few hours, there have to be mistakes, and I would like these ferreted out before I publish a little article on this. I may also do a similar analysis from the 6th (1983) to 7th editions out of curiosity and OCD tendencies."
Our main point is that, although there may be name changes, even frequently, they are generally because of taxonomic revisions and not just the desire to change names (for whatever reason - but not for scientific reasons). Another point is that 30, or 40, or even 100 changes out of a world list of more than 10,000 is pretty insignificant - where as changing 150+ in North America alone is a relatively high percentage. Furthermore, even the NACC and SACC have become sensitive over the years to the use of eponyms, which is why most new names are descriptive in nature. I also think it is better for experienced ornithologists with decades of experience working with issues of taxonomy and nomenclature to be responsible for any potential name changes - as opposed to a new committee set up exclusively for English names comprised of young, inexperienced members, with input from the public. Having personally been a voting member on the SACC for establishing new English names (filling in for other permanent members), I can assure you that even getting a committee of 10 or 12 to agree on a new name is virtually impossible - and the McCown's Longspur/Thick-billed Longspur episode with the NACC is an excellent example of how any new name is going to be highly criticized by some out there - and in this case unfairly (the new name is actually a good "descriptive" name that so many are pining for, and relates to a feature on the bird that the genus is actually named for - but this isn't good enough for some). Adding even more people to the naming process is a recipe for chaos.
Last edited:
ghrosenberg
Member
5) Most people are in favor of this decision. Well, that is an opinion not really supported by fact. Thousands of birders and ornithologists have signed a counter petition, so I would say the jury is out on that one. Furthermore, Of those who signed our counter petition, they have produced (cumulatively) MORE THAN 20,000 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS!!!
→ the jury may be out, and a broad, community-based approach is the best. But naming birds has never been democratic, and while a majority is desirable, since when has the majority been a good criterium to decide on such things? Sometimes, it seems to me that proponents vs opponents reflect a power struggle in US birding circles, more than anything. A small but wise committee is probably the best bet to evaluate bird names, as a wider petition / vote looks all too similar to politics where extreme viewpoints and popularity are in the way of a good discussion. Whatever the outcome, I honestly don’t think that the number of likes or votes in a petition is the way to go. It creates division where there doesn’t have to be one, as long as the grown-ups / leaders in the birding world / ornithology can sit around one table and discuss it there.
I think my point was missed here, with all due respect. There have been Facebook posts, and commentary by a number of respected bird people that a "majority" of birders/ornithologists out there are actually in favor of the wholesale removal of eponyms. My point - in citing the the number of people who have signed the petition (almost 4500 now), and the number of people who signed who have scientific publications (more than 500 so far with almost 21,000 pubs) - was that there is strong opposition to the move. I think we are in agreement that a petition has limited value - just like the BN4B petition that showed there was good support for the removal of eponyms, our petition shows there is just as strong a view out there to not remove all the eponyms. Sadly, the AOS only looked at only one side of this. Yes, they set up what they perceived as a diverse Ad Hoc committee, but to be honest, this committee was stacked with proponents of full removal from the start - and would not entertain opposing views - such as a 12-0 vote against full removal by the NACC. One really has to wonder WHY the AOS would not trust their premier checklist committee - and I think the only conclusion is that there was a desire from the start (by at least some on the AOS Council) to remove all eponyms - and it looks like (from my outside view) that they drove this decision. I also agree that a small, but wise committee is best for evaluating bird names - such was the case with the NACC - but their role in establishing English names will be taken away from them - and given to the new EBNC - and it is they who plan on involving the public.
→ the jury may be out, and a broad, community-based approach is the best. But naming birds has never been democratic, and while a majority is desirable, since when has the majority been a good criterium to decide on such things? Sometimes, it seems to me that proponents vs opponents reflect a power struggle in US birding circles, more than anything. A small but wise committee is probably the best bet to evaluate bird names, as a wider petition / vote looks all too similar to politics where extreme viewpoints and popularity are in the way of a good discussion. Whatever the outcome, I honestly don’t think that the number of likes or votes in a petition is the way to go. It creates division where there doesn’t have to be one, as long as the grown-ups / leaders in the birding world / ornithology can sit around one table and discuss it there.
I think my point was missed here, with all due respect. There have been Facebook posts, and commentary by a number of respected bird people that a "majority" of birders/ornithologists out there are actually in favor of the wholesale removal of eponyms. My point - in citing the the number of people who have signed the petition (almost 4500 now), and the number of people who signed who have scientific publications (more than 500 so far with almost 21,000 pubs) - was that there is strong opposition to the move. I think we are in agreement that a petition has limited value - just like the BN4B petition that showed there was good support for the removal of eponyms, our petition shows there is just as strong a view out there to not remove all the eponyms. Sadly, the AOS only looked at only one side of this. Yes, they set up what they perceived as a diverse Ad Hoc committee, but to be honest, this committee was stacked with proponents of full removal from the start - and would not entertain opposing views - such as a 12-0 vote against full removal by the NACC. One really has to wonder WHY the AOS would not trust their premier checklist committee - and I think the only conclusion is that there was a desire from the start (by at least some on the AOS Council) to remove all eponyms - and it looks like (from my outside view) that they drove this decision. I also agree that a small, but wise committee is best for evaluating bird names - such was the case with the NACC - but their role in establishing English names will be taken away from them - and given to the new EBNC - and it is they who plan on involving the public.
Mysticete
Well-known member
I don't know if the number of scientific publications each side can claim really matters. Being an expert on phylogenetic analysis and other aspects of the "science" part taxonomy (which is really the important part of taxonomy) is irrelevant when it comes to what you name something, which I have mentioned before is more about usability and aesthetics.
Hell, some scientific taxonomic committees don't even evaluate common names, and just go with whatever is being used, and if a new species is described just go with whatever the authors pick out. This is the stance of the Marine Mammal taxonomic committee, which is part of the marine mammal society. Maybe the way forward out of this mess is to just not demand a "single" name for every bird species in the world. That is what WGAC is apparently going to do
Hell, some scientific taxonomic committees don't even evaluate common names, and just go with whatever is being used, and if a new species is described just go with whatever the authors pick out. This is the stance of the Marine Mammal taxonomic committee, which is part of the marine mammal society. Maybe the way forward out of this mess is to just not demand a "single" name for every bird species in the world. That is what WGAC is apparently going to do
I have been told this only applies to scientific names, WGAC is not concerned with common names...
Edit: I think I may have overlooked a NOT in your post ....
Niels
ghrosenberg
Member
→ I realize eponyms are important for many. For me, they aren’t (and I know that, even if I was an ornithologist ‘worth’ an eponym, I wouldn’t want it), but I won’t underestimate the value some (many) people give to them. I know Gary went on expeditions that discovered new species, and some of those species were named after people that have contributed greatly to ornithology and were personal friends. But that’s exactly the reason why I think it’s better not to name birds after people, because there is too much emotional involvement once you go that road, imho.
I also think that, simply said, this is a power struggle between the AOS and some well-established centers of ornithology in the USA (e.g. LSU having a tradition of exploration / discovering new species and rewarding (often outstanding) scientific work in ornithology), and I feel defenders of eponyms don’t want to give up easily on this as they are (rightly) proud of their achievements / having pushed the boundaries of ornithology and they see the erasing of eponyms as erasing the accomplishments of those people.
I agree the AOS decisions have caused more division than inclusion, but the question is: what is the base / root of the division: people / institutes that want to keep eponyms, or the AOS pushing ‘their’ agenda without consulting all stakeholders? I think both the defenders of eponyms and those that are against it, have good intentions, but the debate is often kept hostage by some on either side that want to emphasize the bad intentions (e.g. pro eponym people are insensitive, contra eponym people are woke). I hope both sides don’t allow any of these negative thoughts / forces / intentions to prevail, and look at it in a more constructive way.
I think this dialogue is the best summary I have seen - and I really appreciate it. I only wish that others could be so level-headed and understand these points, and not so judgmental and self-righteous. I believe the author is correct is suggesting that retaining eponyms is a bit personal and emotional for me (and many others). I totally understand that eponyms may not be important to many - especially younger birders who, in no fault of their own, have not yet had their opportunity to experience certain aspects to ornithology - hopefully, given time, many of them will, and maybe they will develop a keen interest in ornithological history. I know for myself, from the time I was about 20 years of age, I was lucky enough to have some fantastic mentors, got to meet amazing ornithologists such as Gale Monson (who was one of the authors of Birds of Arizona), and pioneering birders in Arizona and California like Kenn Kaufman, Doug Stotz, Scott Terrill, Guy McCaskie, Jon Dunn, Kimball Garrett, and Paul Lehman, just to name a few. At LSU, I got to work with greats like Van Remsen and John O'Neill, and the amazing Ted Parker, and later, doing some work for Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, I got to work with Bob Ridgely and Mark Robbins. They all instilled in me a love of ornithology, and an appreciation of ornithological history - so when I see a movement driven by a younger generation, and I see comments that insinuate that many of the historical ornithologists did nothing to deserve having a bird named after them, yes, I do get emotional and take it a bit personally.
I feel that I, and essentially everyone I know who signed the petition, are not so set in OUR ways that we can't see that some of the people who had birds named after them did questionable things in life that were bad enough to warrant having the honor of an eponym removed. There is room here for compromise - and that is all we are really asking for. As is evident from the point by point discussion and counter discussion above, many of the items I mentioned and were then critiqued, show that there are multiple viewpoints about many of the issues. That birdnames change frequently can be true, yet at the same time be viewed as "infrequent", depending on the scale of time looked at - and the geographical area in question. Yes, many of the eponymous bird names (and really most bird names) were named during a relatively short time period by a relatively small number of ortnithologists. I don't really view this as a negative - it is just history. That they were all white males naming birds after white males, was just a fact of the times. That practice has certainly evolved - eponyms are rarely used today for new bird names (at least in North America). That some of the historical figures, like Baird, has multiple birds named after them is something I don't defend, but it is history, and I don't view it as harmful - would I have done that, no, but maybe multiple people wanted to honor Baird or Cassin - and given my experience with colleagues such as O'Neill and Parker, I suppose I could understand that.
I totally agree that this has divided the birding and ornithological community - and I do believe that however good the intentions of some in the AOS were, it was wrong to push an agenda that they KNEW would be so divisive - especially given that they were warned ahead of time. In my mind the solution is right there - but involves compromise. The pro-eponym people have been willing to selectively remove offensive names - but we feel that the criteria should to be reasonable for all - not just that they were white and living during colonial times. And we don't think it is fair to use the idea that people don't like eponyms as a reason - given that (in North America) 95% of the bird names are NOT eponyms. In that way, the AOS will show that they are sensitive to BOTH sides of this issue, and sensitive to rmoving offensive names in the name of inclusiveness. Yes this issue has been brewing for a few years, but we feel that this all or nothing approach was dropped on us out of nowhere - and seems both unnecessary and unreasonable. I also hope that the AOS will look at what is transpiring in the birding community - friendships are being destroyed, and it will be the birds, and the study and conservation of them that will really suffer!
I also think that, simply said, this is a power struggle between the AOS and some well-established centers of ornithology in the USA (e.g. LSU having a tradition of exploration / discovering new species and rewarding (often outstanding) scientific work in ornithology), and I feel defenders of eponyms don’t want to give up easily on this as they are (rightly) proud of their achievements / having pushed the boundaries of ornithology and they see the erasing of eponyms as erasing the accomplishments of those people.
I agree the AOS decisions have caused more division than inclusion, but the question is: what is the base / root of the division: people / institutes that want to keep eponyms, or the AOS pushing ‘their’ agenda without consulting all stakeholders? I think both the defenders of eponyms and those that are against it, have good intentions, but the debate is often kept hostage by some on either side that want to emphasize the bad intentions (e.g. pro eponym people are insensitive, contra eponym people are woke). I hope both sides don’t allow any of these negative thoughts / forces / intentions to prevail, and look at it in a more constructive way.
I think this dialogue is the best summary I have seen - and I really appreciate it. I only wish that others could be so level-headed and understand these points, and not so judgmental and self-righteous. I believe the author is correct is suggesting that retaining eponyms is a bit personal and emotional for me (and many others). I totally understand that eponyms may not be important to many - especially younger birders who, in no fault of their own, have not yet had their opportunity to experience certain aspects to ornithology - hopefully, given time, many of them will, and maybe they will develop a keen interest in ornithological history. I know for myself, from the time I was about 20 years of age, I was lucky enough to have some fantastic mentors, got to meet amazing ornithologists such as Gale Monson (who was one of the authors of Birds of Arizona), and pioneering birders in Arizona and California like Kenn Kaufman, Doug Stotz, Scott Terrill, Guy McCaskie, Jon Dunn, Kimball Garrett, and Paul Lehman, just to name a few. At LSU, I got to work with greats like Van Remsen and John O'Neill, and the amazing Ted Parker, and later, doing some work for Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, I got to work with Bob Ridgely and Mark Robbins. They all instilled in me a love of ornithology, and an appreciation of ornithological history - so when I see a movement driven by a younger generation, and I see comments that insinuate that many of the historical ornithologists did nothing to deserve having a bird named after them, yes, I do get emotional and take it a bit personally.
I feel that I, and essentially everyone I know who signed the petition, are not so set in OUR ways that we can't see that some of the people who had birds named after them did questionable things in life that were bad enough to warrant having the honor of an eponym removed. There is room here for compromise - and that is all we are really asking for. As is evident from the point by point discussion and counter discussion above, many of the items I mentioned and were then critiqued, show that there are multiple viewpoints about many of the issues. That birdnames change frequently can be true, yet at the same time be viewed as "infrequent", depending on the scale of time looked at - and the geographical area in question. Yes, many of the eponymous bird names (and really most bird names) were named during a relatively short time period by a relatively small number of ortnithologists. I don't really view this as a negative - it is just history. That they were all white males naming birds after white males, was just a fact of the times. That practice has certainly evolved - eponyms are rarely used today for new bird names (at least in North America). That some of the historical figures, like Baird, has multiple birds named after them is something I don't defend, but it is history, and I don't view it as harmful - would I have done that, no, but maybe multiple people wanted to honor Baird or Cassin - and given my experience with colleagues such as O'Neill and Parker, I suppose I could understand that.
I totally agree that this has divided the birding and ornithological community - and I do believe that however good the intentions of some in the AOS were, it was wrong to push an agenda that they KNEW would be so divisive - especially given that they were warned ahead of time. In my mind the solution is right there - but involves compromise. The pro-eponym people have been willing to selectively remove offensive names - but we feel that the criteria should to be reasonable for all - not just that they were white and living during colonial times. And we don't think it is fair to use the idea that people don't like eponyms as a reason - given that (in North America) 95% of the bird names are NOT eponyms. In that way, the AOS will show that they are sensitive to BOTH sides of this issue, and sensitive to rmoving offensive names in the name of inclusiveness. Yes this issue has been brewing for a few years, but we feel that this all or nothing approach was dropped on us out of nowhere - and seems both unnecessary and unreasonable. I also hope that the AOS will look at what is transpiring in the birding community - friendships are being destroyed, and it will be the birds, and the study and conservation of them that will really suffer!
ghrosenberg
Member
My point about publications is that the AOS is a "Science" organization for scientists - so the criticism of "birders" out there is one thing, but it is also coming from the very people who are members of the organization, and are contributing to science. I would think that the AOS would want to reflect their membership - and at least listen to them.
temmie
Well-known member
I think you read that opinion totally the wrong way.
Grown-ups and leaders = about people like Gary, David Sibley, etc. The ornithologists, bookwriters, museum curators, scientists. Those that are and should be in the know. People like in the AOS but also out of the AOS. Or in other words: a group of people that should know better.
This kind of decision-making is better done without the non-grown ups, like those who call others racists, or those who call others woke. The extremes at both sides.
You seem to read grown-ups as a a function of what your opinion on the matter is, but this isn't about opinions nor outcomes, more about the process. If it turns out that nothing will change after they (the grown-ups, the ones in charge currently) had a good discussion, 100% fine.
But now, the discussion isn't between grown-ups, it's a popularity poll and people at both sides have a following.
From grown-ups, you expect them to manage what they are responsible for, in a way they show they can handle the responsability. The fact this isn't happening here, and the feeling that the USA birding having more and more resemblance of US politics with two camps, is not exactly how grown-ups should act.
The only thing I see is that those people who are supposed to be the grown-ups, are having the debate in the public space because they themselves do not agree. So they aren't actually that grown-up. You interprete this as I would want a bunch of superior people decide and take away the democratic voice. Except, those people are clearly not good enough to act 'superior', and they got us where we are now which isn't (imo) a solution either.
Last edited:
Mysticete
Well-known member
But can we say that the petition represents the majority of the AOS membership? Just based on the numbers, It seems like a vast majority is coming from the general public. There of course is also the squeaky wheel issue. Researchers that are for the change are not likely to defend the change in online forums. They don't need to create and sign petitions.
From everything I have heard whether someone supports or doesn't support the eponymous name removal strongly correlates with age. And of course age is going to be correlated with research output, for obvious (30+ years to do research versus 10 or 15 or whatever) and non-obvious (increased difficulty getting grants, greater teaching expectations, etc)
Similar threads
- Poll
