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

[Paul Chapman]

My sense is that the move to change eponyms has more support now than it did back in the initial BN4B (I know I was against at the time, but I am now in favor of it). It was also I think flying under the radar more as far as movements go...certainly there were more things in the nonworld bird to think about than eponyms. Also you have to take in the factor that I don't think BN4Bs really advertised it as heavily as some folks are doing for this signature. Remsen has practically posted it on every listserve in the USA, a point of irritation for some.

For what it's worth, I gave a talk that was half dedicated to the eponym debate to my local bird club on Saturday. I know there are members who don't agree with it, but they also don't seem too agitated about it. The most resistant folks seem to be more just shrugging and saying they will probably keep using the names they have always used, but birders already do that (I'm still more likely to say Gray Jay and Common Moorhen than Canada Jay or Common Gallinule). Others have a wait and see approach, and others seem perfectly okay with it. People were neither excited about the change, nor particularly angry about it.

I suspect the petition folks and the BN4B folks represent more extreme wings of opinions, rather than either speaking for the majority of the average birder.

Probably fair but what you have summed up here is why I am opposed to it. Lack of excitement. Lack of advocates. No compelling support or reasons. Unlikely to achieve its purpose. We are all familiar with relatively poor ideas with insufficient thought and planning being implemented producing detrimental outcomes even if it is just a general deterioration.

If this was a well-run commercial organisation, those running it would have responded to the Committee requiring a better output and plan to engender support before adopting it. The group described initially circling each other as part of the decision-making process before after several months forming a view without actually apparently producing output for the public to engender support for the decision. I just re-read my initial post on the topic. Two months later my view has not changed. I just feel more weary on the subject and feel that daft people do daft things...

For me, the oddest thing about this is that even if you passionately believed in the proposal from a theoretical perspective, this simply would gain no traction in the commercial world because of the obvious wholesale practical chaos it would cause, the significant damage that will be done to historic information and information gathering and the associated costs to third parties such as bird guide publishers who are unlikely as a result to adopt it or will be very resistant to it.

They are the musings of those who have bright ideas whilst having no real responsibility. Sadly, in the modern world, such people have a platform and the world looks down upon anyone explaining sufficiently bluntly to them that their ideas on balance are stupid because every opinion is now (supposedly) valid....

All the best

Paul

All the best

Paul

 

[Mysticete]

I don't understand the argument about stability & changing names will lead to not being able to find old references, well I do but there's been far more changes in scientific names in my life time, the so-called unchangeable, stable names, than common names - I had a quick look through the British list last night, its years since I lived in the UK but I used to know the scientific names of most species & I reckon of the 550 or so I used to know, 85 species have changed genus, I didn't bother checking how many more have changed specific name.

You don't have to go far in the taxonomy forum to find someone proposing even more genus name changes, or people saying a specific name has to change because its the wrong gender to match the genus name, or somebody raking up some obscure old name that has precedent

I fully understand there's good reasons for all this but it does make a mockery of saying names can't be changed for stability reasons

The only common name change I can think of that's been universally accepted in my lifetime is Scarlet Grosbeak to Common Rosefinch - I'm not sure if this blows my argument out the water but when Rosefinches bred at Spurn we phoned up the BTO about getting a schedule 1 license so we could search for the nests & were told we didn't need one because Rosefnch wasn't on the list. We were a bit surprised but it wasn't until a few months later we realised the Schedule 1 list still had it down as Scarlet Grosbeak

I don't really understand this either. If you are looking for scientific articles, I know as a researcher I start by typing in genus and species names, and then backtracking through the references. Or searching through related topics that are likely to discuss my topic of interest. The idea that a reference can only be found by searching for a common name seems bizarre to me.

At any rate, there are plenty of older unused names in the literature. Some of the eponyms weren't the main name that the bird went by for various periods of time. Illinois Sparrow and Pinewoods Sparrow were two names for Bachman's Sparrow; somehow we survived changing that bird's common name, and that was back in the old pre-internet days, when a search for papers meant sitting in a library and opening up old monographs and journals.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think the forum is better served with fewer threads on the patronym topic and also that our posting behavior as a group indicates that all of this is "naturally" related discussion.

Agree

Can anyone name another example where plant or animal names get changed every 30 years? It just seems ridiculous to me. Orwellian/Huxley-like dystopia trying to control peoples' thoughts somehow. A small group wanting to control millions of other people.

Surprised this didn't get more 'likes' because this is exactly, what is happening across broad swathes of Society.

 

[jts1882]

I don't really understand this either. If you are looking for scientific articles, I know as a researcher I start by typing in genus and species names, and then backtracking through the references. Or searching through related topics that are likely to discuss my topic of interest. The idea that a reference can only be found by searching for a common name seems bizarre to me.

At any rate, there are plenty of older unused names in the literature. Some of the eponyms weren't the main name that the bird went by for various periods of time. Illinois Sparrow and Pinewoods Sparrow were two names for Bachman's Sparrow; somehow we survived changing that bird's common name, and that was back in the old pre-internet days, when a search for papers meant sitting in a library and opening up old monographs and journals.

That part of the discussion was about the Scharpf article for ETYFish Project, which was about changing the scientific names.

 

[l_raty]

At any rate, there are plenty of older unused names in the literature. Some of the eponyms weren't the main name that the bird went by for various periods of time. Illinois Sparrow and Pinewoods Sparrow were two names for Bachman's Sparrow; somehow we survived changing that bird's common name, and that was back in the old pre-internet days, when a search for papers meant sitting in a library and opening up old monographs and journals.

"Pine-woods Sparrow" (for aestivialis) and "Bachman's Sparrow" (for bachmani) coexisted on the AOU checklist from the 1st (1886) through the 4th (1931) eds; in the 5th (1957) ed, the use of English names for subspecies was discontinued and "Bachman's" was chosen to denote the species as a whole (presumably because all the populations don't breed in pine woods ?).

Anyway, this is an exception. As a general rule, very few non-eponymous names were replaced with an eponymous name in modern times, thus the species that nowadays sport an eponymous names have typically been known under this name for ages. The English names of Abert's Towhee, Baird's Sparrow, Leconte's Sparrow, Henslow's Sparrow, Cassin's Sparrow, Brewer's Sparrow, Worthen's Sparrow, Harris's Sparrow and Lincoln's Sparrow have remained untouched since 1886.

 

[Trinovid]

Personally, I do not like borrowing from other languages into normal communication in English.

Totally agree with this and it almost always reeks of posturing when non-English words are brought into an otherwise normal conversation.

 

[Mysticete]

Totally agree with this and it almost always reeks of posturing when non-English words are bright into an otherwise normal conversation.

A good chunk of the "English" words you use/read on a daily basis almost certainly have a foreign origin...it's just that they have been in use so long we don't think about them as "foreign".

 

[Trinovid]

A good chunk of the "English" words you use/read on a daily basis almost certainly have a foreign origin...it's just that they have been in use so long we don't think about them as "foreign".

Which excludes them from being considered non-English words, as everyone knows them. However if I was to say それは別の話 then it would be exactly the kind of situation I was referring to.

 

[opisska]

You did notice that Paul has conspicuously used a handful of foreign phrases in the very post you're quoting, right

 

[Trinovid]

You did notice that Paul has conspicuously used a handful of foreign phrases in the very post you're quoting, right

The first (fait accompli) and last one (schadenfreude) are used so often as to make them defacto English words in common usage, and the last being Latin (res ipsa loquitur) is known by many English speakers as well.

The point of reference being overlooked at the very least in regards to my statement is that of words not known to English speakers.

 

[qwerty5]

The first (fait accompli) and last one (schadenfreude) are used so often as to make them defacto English words in common usage, and the last being Latin (res ipsa loquitur) is known by many English speakers as well.

They were new to English at some point though, which is the point others are making.

The difference I see is that these words and phrases were added in the natural intercourse between cultures and languages, not added as the result of a decree from some authority (like the Hawaiian bird names are).

 

[Trinovid]

They were new to English at some point though, which is the point others are making.

Yet the point is simply as valuable as pointing that it’s lighter during the day than at night, which is to say, having common knowledge pointed out as if to say that I had no idea of the simple facts of the progression of the English language taught in grade school. LoL

 

[Kirk Roth]

The difference I see is that these words and phrases were added in the natural intercourse between cultures and languages, not added as the result of a decree from some authority (like the Hawaiian bird names are).

If these were "decreed" in the 1800s and 1900s, how do you say "Palila," "Iiwi" or "Apapane" in English?

 

[rahopko]

This morning, I submitted the petition to the AOS with 5,788 signatures. There was also a press release today.
You can view the petition packet (minus the signature list for privacy) here: AOS Petition Packet

 

[raymie]

This morning, I submitted the petition to the AOS with 5,788 signatures. There was also a press release today.
You can view the petition packet (minus the signature list for privacy) here: AOS Petition Packet

I am unable to view either of these links. Is there another way you could link them?

 

[rahopko]

I am unable to view either of these links. Is there another way you could link them?

Here is the long link for the press release: Stability for English Bird Names Asks the American Ornithological Society to Reverse the Decision to Change Bird Names
And you can view the PDF packet by going to birdnamesforstability.org and click on "comments" and the link to the PDF is the first one on that page.
Alternately you can try: https://birdnamesforstability.org/Documents/AOS_Petition_Packet.pdf

 

[rahopko]

Here is the long link for the press release: Stability for English Bird Names Asks the American Ornithological Society to Reverse the Decision to Change Bird Names
And you can view the PDF packet by going to birdnamesforstability.org and click on "comments" and the link to the PDF is the first one on that page.
Alternately you can try: https://birdnamesforstability.org/Documents/AOS_Petition_Packet.pdf

You can also see the press release on the website by clicking the press release checkbox.

 

[Lerxst]

Here is the long link for the press release: Stability for English Bird Names Asks the American Ornithological Society to Reverse the Decision to Change Bird Names
And you can view the PDF packet by going to birdnamesforstability.org and click on "comments" and the link to the PDF is the first one on that page.
Alternately you can try: https://birdnamesforstability.org/Documents/AOS_Petition_Packet.pdf

This is excellent. Thank you for all your work and leadership on this.

 

[rahopko]

This is excellent. Thank you for all your work and leadership on this.

Thank-you. I feel like I have run a marathon!

 

[Kirk Roth]

You can also see the press release on the website by clicking the press release checkbox.

I'm seeing from the press release that this is very AOS-focused - and admittedly its been a few months since I've reviewed the petition so I'm guessing the same could be said about it. I agree that AOS is first and foremost, but they aren't the only stakeholders with naming authority - is there any plan to send similar messages to the ABA and Clements?

Just saying - if this is a marathon, the finish line is still a long way ahead.