Back on topic.
This is interesting, I wasn't aware of it, written by Jon Dunne below his signing of the petition 'against' the renaming.
'The AOS intended to go after the eponymous names for South American names too, over 100 which are eponyms. The South American checklist committee within weeks, voted to withdraw their association with the AOS so this probablly will not happen, unless a new committee of eponym opposed collaborators is formed'.
Jon Dunne's comments in full
docs.google.com
Also, the thoughts of
JV Remsen and other, notable opponents of the move.
docs.google.com
Paul Lehman
We all, of course, agree that we need more people interested in birds who then can speak for birds and conservation. Do folks really think that it is the names of birds that is keeping groups of people from becoming birders?? Really?? Making ornithology and birding more welcoming, diverse, and inclusionary means that birders should be welcoming to anyone showing potential interest--and aren't 95% of birders a pretty welcoming lot? If certain groups of people are under-represented, let's look at things like socio-economics. But that isn't as easy to change as are bird names!! And if you really want to get more diverse folks interested in birding, then go into classrooms and give talks or lead walks, or try directly mentoring one, two, or three individuals. But wait, that actually takes a lot more time and effort than changing a bird name!
It does rub me the wrong way to see folks happy to just change the names of ALL birds with eponyms, many of which were named by the folks who did all the work, effort, and sweat in studying the species, and thus had the honor of naming them how they would like and in some cases for people who were giants in the fields of ornithology and conservation. But we have plenty of folks who haven't contributed much to ornithology, who have little sense of ornithological and birding history, and for whom all birding history and knowledge started with the dawn of eBird, who are now happy to minimize or ignore this past work and a lot of birding history. Perhaps it's the "I know better" syndrome. As others have said, it does smack of dishonor and disrespect.
Steve N G Howell
As is so often the case with divisive issues—and yes, English bird names have become such an issue—it is too easy to fall into a knee-jerk reaction one way or the other. So, let’s take a moment and think about this rationally, something the name change proponents seem not to have done.
On 1 November 2023, the American Ornithological Society (
The American Ornithological Society Will Change the English Names of Bird Species Named After People) stated “in an effort to address past wrongs and engage far more people in the enjoyment, protection, and study of birds, it [AOS] will change all English bird names currently named after people within its geographic jurisdiction.” AOS President Colleen Handel goes on to say ““Everyone who loves and cares about birds should be able to enjoy and study them freely—and birds need our help now more than ever.”
I sincerely hope that all of us who watch, and study birds want these avocations and professions to be equally open to anyone, anywhere; and we would also agree that birds need our help now more than ever. But the question here is: Are English bird names a real barrier to this goal? (In this regard, check out an eloquent blog post about genuine barriers:
Some Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Michael Hurben, PhD.)
Will all of the disruption caused to stability and communication—in everyday birding, not to mention conservation and science—by changing the names of more than 10% of North American birds actually help birds? Might the time, energy, and funds spent mass debating this issue not be better spent protecting and studying the actual birds themselves? Might the proposal to remove eponyms be simply a self-serving, virtue-signaling gimmick by people who wish to leave their own mark (some would say stain) on history and who don’t see, or choose not to see, the bigger picture?
I have to admit, it is difficult for me to believe that the AOS council really, truly believes that somebody would notice a bright yellow and green bird in their yard and say: “Ooh, that’s pretty, I wonder what it’s called?” They look in a field guide and: “Oh, it’s called a Townsend’s Warbler, neat, I see the dark cheek patch that’s distinctive.” Then: “I wonder who Townsend was, maybe I’ll look that up… Oh, he was a racist bigot [I’m not suggesting he was, by the way] so because of that I’m not going to look at any more birds, ever.”
Why is an apple called an apple or a dog called a dog? And how about Pink Ladies and Granny Smiths? Or King Charles Spaniels and Dobermans? If people wish to find offense, they can find it anywhere they choose. But offense can only be taken, not given—if you choose to take offense and manufacture (often vicarious) outrage, then that’s your own choice. Bird names are simply handles, license plates if you will, that serve the purposes of recognition and communication. And, as Tom Lehrer once said: “If a person can’t communicate, the very least they can do is to shut up.” We are all victims of history and there is no such thing as an innocent bystander, so perhaps we can move forward rather than become mired in things that happened long in the past, things we cannot change. As a T-shirt I saw recently said: “When you’re perfect, then judge me.”
It is also rather surprising to hear the AOS sentiment about bird names as a putative exclusionary barrier being voiced from an AOS council that appears to be predominantly of women. Why? Well, think Scarlet Tanager, Black-throated Gray Warbler, Black Scoter, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Redhead, Red Crossbill, Black-throated Blue Warbler, Northern Cardinal, and countless others—all named for the male of the species. Yet somehow female birders and ornithologists have overcome this ‘nomenclatural barrier.’
Indeed, at least among birdwatchers and field biologists in North America, females often represent the majority (excepting perhaps a relatively small subset of younger birders who are obsessive listers). Thus, is it not patronizing to suggest that eponyms are a barrier to people of color and other minorities given that females have overcome an equally daunting hurdle? (Not to mention that many scientific names honor past humans, yet the AOS implicitly considers that the minorities they wish to bring into the fold are so ignorant they won’t realize this—so I won’t mention it...)
Looking at this from another angle, if the AOS council wants to mix politics with science, then let’s apply their one-size-fits-all ‘logic’ to some similar situations. Cornell University was named after Ezra Cornell, a Republican businessman. Therefore, by extension, all Republican businessmen are supportive of birds, intellectual study, and the environment—people such as Donald Trump, for example, another Republican businessman... One doesn’t need to be a mental giant to appreciate that this might be a flawed premise. Yet everyone for whom a bird was named is now by default deemed ‘bad’ by AOS and must be extinguished from history?
Cornell (still named for a dead white male as far as I know) also has the Macaulay Library, named after a rich white American woman who gave them a lot of money. But to name a small bird ‘Godman’s Euphonia’ in honor of a rich Englishman who funded and co-created the greatest natural history treatise ever produced for the New World (the legendary Biologia Centrali-Americana, a 63-volume encyclopedia on the flora and fauna of Mexico and Central America)—oh no, I’m sorry, that can’t be allowed.
Let’s face it, it is human nature to honor persons who have made contributions to a field: think, for example, of the Peterson Field Guides (named in honor of a dead white male, and thus clearly in need of rebranding); or of the Kaufman Field Guides or the Sibley Guides. These books were all written by white males, and presumably, by AOS logic, this very fact has discouraged countless minority persons from buying these books and embracing an interest in birds and other aspects of nature. Really?
If birdwatchers, biologists, and others can’t see the sheer, abundant hypocrisy of the parties embracing the AOS name change directive, then there really is no hope for both humanity or for birds. As The Jam once sang: “The public wants what the public gets.” And who suffers in the end? Well, just the birds and the environment—which myopic humans also live in, by the way.
Meanwhile, actual real-world problems that genuinely do affect birds—primarily human overpopulation, the elephant in the room—are being conveniently ignored. And while birders argue over important stuff like English bird names, other inconsequential things continue—such as the Arctic Wildlife Refuge being opened to drilling or the oceans being used as a universal dumping ground, and last time I checked the global climate was not getting any cooler. Hmm, does the phrase ‘misplaced priorities’ ring a bell?
Lastly, and ignoring the fact that rewriting history (as attempted by such luminaries as Chairman Mao and Joseph Stalin) is generally a poor idea, and that trying to whitewash our human past erases the memory of mistakes from which we might learn, the sweeping, wholesale nature of this proclamation (or as some would say, pogrom—the systematic massacre of historical figures) should be a red flag to any thinking, reasonable person.
If one reads—and I mean reads carefully—the recent petition to AOS (
Sign the Petition) then I fail to see how any sentient person can object to it.
And yet, many supposedly rational biologists and birders I know in California seem too afraid to sign this petition in case they are viewed as racists or get ‘canceled.’ (This fear, or peer pressure, was also touched upon in Chris Gooddie’s comments from the UK; Chris Gooddie). To my mind this scenario mirrors all of the many basically decent, honest Germans who in the 1930s did nothing simply out of fear and thus went along for the ride—and that all worked out well, didn’t it? (Younger readers: Look up Second World War.) As the famous quote goes: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” (attributed to Edmund Burke).
So, if you prefer to do nothing, don’t complain of the chaos that may follow, while bird populations continue to plummet even more quickly, helped merrily along by the AOS council’s sanctimonious and divisive diversion of time, energy, and funds away from true conservation measures. You too can be part of the AOS council’s virtue-signaling drive to promote biopaucity. Or you can take a moment, think rationally, and accept some responsibility for breathing oxygen.
Kevin Zimmer
docs.google.com
www.change.org
