Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names? (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Strikes me that, for those wanting to get rid of eponyms, it would make more sense to work on a consensus to stop naming new species with eponyms ... then look at changing already existing ones.

I thought that had already happened?

 

[Andy Adcock]

In the absence of towns, countries, states, buildings, mammals, reptiles, earwigs, fish, amphibians, moths, lakes, waterfalls, etc, etc, etc being named after people? Or on the basis of nothing ever being named after a person? Why would birds be any different? People decided to do it once. They would decide to do it again. There is an element here where I think most people like things whether living or not being named after other people. It provides some degree of personal connection and indeed comfort generally when we all realise deep down that our time is fleeting and in reality, we are all overwhelmingly insignificant.

It struck me last night that the AOS sub-committee and AOS Council meetings were probably like the scene in Notting Hill where they were all convincing themselves that William Thacker's decision to ignore Anna Scott was the right decision. It was just that Spike never came into the room and delivered the momentous line 'you daft pr@ck'....

More seriously, for me, notwithstanding my best efforts to convince myself otherwise and despite not being attached to the logic of eponyms, I remain of the view that this is group think. That is illustrated by a refusal actually to analyse and isolate offensive eponyms. It is illustrated by a failure to engage internationally and to plan a more far-reaching approach. It is illustrated by the lack of convincing output or example new names or convincing ideas or guidelines.

But they currently have their fingers in their ears and are now probably convincing themselves that they are the victims. I have seen many organisations behave similarly in similar situations.

All the best

Paul

I have still given up & remain disinterested. Honest.

Clearly

 

[Andy Adcock]

More seriously, for me, notwithstanding my best efforts to convince myself otherwise and despite not being attached to the logic of eponyms, I remain of the view that this is group think. That is illustrated by a refusal actually to analyse and isolate offensive eponyms. It is illustrated by a failure to engage internationally and to plan a more far-reaching approach. It is illustrated by the lack of convincing output or example new names or convincing ideas or guidelines.

But they currently have their fingers in their ears and are now probably convincing themselves that they are the victims. I have seen many organisations behave similarly in similar situations.

All the best

Paul

I'm sure that's in the back of their minds, they're arrogant enough.

 

[raymie]

I thought that had already happened?

Not officially, but in practice it has.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Not officially, but in practice it has.

To be straight, I have no issue with the discontinuation of the practice.

 

[raymie]

To be straight, I have no issue with the discontinuation of the practice.

Agreed.

 

[Paul Chapman]

A couple of recurring themes on here have been that changes of vernacular names are no big deal & eponyms are not memorable.

Unprompted today, against both points, a Thai eBird reviewer told me that since the Brown Hornbills stopped being referred to as Austen's Brown Hornbill & Tickell's Brown Hornbill - now Brown Hornbill & Rusty-cheeked Hornbill - he is seeing erroneous data entries of Brown Hornbill for Rusty-cheeked Hornbill.

All the best

Paul

 

[Mysticete]

A couple of recurring themes on here have been that changes of vernacular names are no big deal & eponyms are not memorable.

Unprompted today, against both points, a Thai eBird reviewer told me that since the Brown Hornbills stopped being referred to as Austen's Brown Hornbill & Tickell's Brown Hornbill - now Brown Hornbill & Rusty-cheeked Hornbill - he is seeing erroneous data entries of Brown Hornbill for Rusty-cheeked Hornbill.

All the best

Paul

The problem there lies with retaining Brown Hornbill as one name, rather than the removal of eponyms. I mean the same thing happens in the states with Common and Wilson's Snipe. The problem isn't the lack of an eponym its the retention of a older name alongisde a new one. Had the old names been Greater and Lesser Brown Hornbill and they changed it to Brown Hornbill and Rusty-cheeked, there would be no difference.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The problem there lies with retaining Brown Hornbill as one name, rather than the removal of eponyms. I mean the same thing happens in the states with Common and Wilson's Snipe. The problem isn't the lack of an eponym its the retention of a older name alongisde a new one. Had the old names been Greater and Lesser Brown Hornbill and they changed it to Brown Hornbill and Rusty-cheeked, there would be no difference.

Eponyms can be memorable.

Change causes disruption and has negatives.

That was the simple premise of my post. Your response appears to be to an alternative post albeit accepting the second point.

All the best

Paul

 

[Mysticete]

With the caveat that this thread, without actual news, is kind of pointless since we have all backed into our corners and are just talking past each other at this point...

One, I fail to see how Austen's and Tickell's make "memorable" eponyms. I'll grant you they exist (Lady Amherst's!), but these are not it. A someone who has yet to see ANY hornbill (Malaysia in 2025 hopefully!) I know nothing of these birds, but presumably Rusty-cheeked is actually named for a useful feature for ID, and someone preparing for a future trip is far more likely to be able to ID the latter without an eponym.

Two, change is happening and will continue to happen. In the next decade or two we could very well see a further thousand species added to the checklist through splits alone. Those are going to cause name changes, not to mention changes in linear order, scientific names, and higher level classification. Birders have weathered those changes just fine when it meant they could add a species to their lifelist, and I have yet to be convinced that removal of eponyms is really going to cause that much increased difficulty.

 

[raymie]

With the caveat that this thread, without actual news, is kind of pointless since we have all backed into our corners and are just talking past each other at this point...

One, I fail to see how Austen's and Tickell's make "memorable" eponyms. I'll grant you they exist (Lady Amherst's!), but these are not it. A someone who has yet to see ANY hornbill (Malaysia in 2025 hopefully!) I know nothing of these birds, but presumably Rusty-cheeked is actually named for a useful feature for ID, and someone preparing for a future trip is far more likely to be able to ID the latter without an eponym.

Two, change is happening and will continue to happen. In the next decade or two we could very well see a further thousand species added to the checklist through splits alone. Those are going to cause name changes, not to mention changes in linear order, scientific names, and higher level classification. Birders have weathered those changes just fine when it meant they could add a species to their lifelist, and I have yet to be convinced that removal of eponyms is really going to cause that much increased difficulty.

Splits and lumps don't actually change a bird's common name. Sure, that's how it seems to a casual birder, but in fact, a split or lump creates a new taxonomic entity that requires a brand new name. It's totally different than a common name change.

 

[Mysticete]

It's still a change that causes confusion, as most birders don't really follow taxonomy as closely as folks who might be hanging out here are.

 

[raymie]

It's still a change that causes confusion, as most birders don't really follow taxonomy as closely as folks who might be hanging out here are.

Oh, agreed. But it's a necessary change, as it reflects a change in our understanding of the bird itself.

 

[Paul Chapman]

With the caveat that this thread, without actual news, is kind of pointless since we have all backed into our corners and are just talking past each other at this point...

One, I fail to see how Austen's and Tickell's make "memorable" eponyms. I'll grant you they exist (Lady Amherst's!), but these are not it. A someone who has yet to see ANY hornbill (Malaysia in 2025 hopefully!) I know nothing of these birds, but presumably Rusty-cheeked is actually named for a useful feature for ID, and someone preparing for a future trip is far more likely to be able to ID the latter without an eponym.

Two, change is happening and will continue to happen. In the next decade or two we could very well see a further thousand species added to the checklist through splits alone. Those are going to cause name changes, not to mention changes in linear order, scientific names, and higher level classification. Birders have weathered those changes just fine when it meant they could add a species to their lifelist, and I have yet to be convinced that removal of eponyms is really going to cause that much increased difficulty.

Mysticete

You can tell from the contributions who is backed into a corner and will simply look to construct any argument to make a point.

Your point is noted. It seems nonsensical to me. Changing 150+ names will undoubtedly have the negatives of increased difficulty and confusion. It seems absurd to me to suggest otherwise.

Reframing that to world birders and taxonomic changes rather than considering the practical effects on US birders with a more limited outlook on a higher proportion of their species is part of that 'construct any argument'. This issue is about grass roots participation.

Whilst the negatives are not a reason to refrain, it does raise the bar for the positive case. It needs really to become something that clearly will have a positive effect - increased participation and the removal of genuine offence.

Personally, I do not think people who wish to see the change would be arguing against the common sense of the impact and belittling that impact if they really had a compelling case.

I remain of the view that if I saw any compelling evidence - not just claims - of the case for positive change, I would say change away.

There are people against this change because no evidence has been put forward. It is more difficult for them to resist because of the negative connotations associated with resistance. They are individuals who would want to fall square behind any proposal to increase diversity in the hobby. If this proposal was supported by a credible case, they would support it.

(Middle of the night here but I have a football game to keep an eye on. Some people seem to treat this subject in the same way as arguing about football and your team. You can normally distinguish those from those whose contributions are more nuanced.)

All the best

Paul

 

[Andy Adcock]

Eponyms can be memorable.

Change causes disruption and has negatives.

That was the simple premise of my post. Your response appears to be to an alternative post albeit accepting the second point.

All the best

Paul

Tell me that Puvel's Illadopsis is not memorable!

 

[Andy Adcock]

Two, change is happening and will continue to happen. In the next decade or two we could very well see a further thousand species added to the checklist through splits alone. Those are going to cause name changes, not to mention changes in linear order, scientific names, and higher level classification. Birders have weathered those changes just fine when it meant they could add a species to their lifelist, and I have yet to be convinced that removal of eponyms is really going to cause that much increased difficulty.

Many of the proponents of this move, continue to use the above statement, to support it, you need a different argument. The issue for most opponents, is the reason for the change, the shifty way it was pushed through and the way that BN4B et al, have taken it upon themslelves to moralise on our behalf. The fact that their reason, is pure fantasy, should also be noted though I'm sure that if they canvassed, far and wide enough, they may find someone who sees this imagined 'barrier'.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know.

 

[Farnboro John]

Tell me that Puvel's Illadopsis is not memorable!

Isn't that part of the name groups that I really detest: the totally lazy use of a scientific genus name as the basis for a "common/English" name (like Euphonia for instance)?

John

 

[Kirk Roth]

Eponyms can be memorable.

In my opinion, the memorability or utility of a name (eponym or not) is not a strong argument for either so-called side of this debate. This argument is not about a movement to make bird names more useful for identification or more memorable - if so, it wouldn't be focused on eponyms at all.

Likewise, as others have already pointed out, the "change is inevitable/already happening/has happened forever" arguments are of limited use because nobody is disputing those things and we're getting into straw-man argument territory. While yes, this is a type of change, change itself isn't the issue here - once again if it were we wouldn't be discussing eponyms.

Its okay to debate these things of course, but if we're pretending they're reasons for or against eponyms then I think we need to concede they are weak or peripheral reasons at best. They work far better as considerations or consequences of any potential actions - e.g I think a discussion such as "if we are going to change bird names, how do we make them memorable" is an absolutely utilitarian thing to do. But again, that is true whether or not eponyms are involved...

 

[Phil Andrews]

In the of the current chatter re the rating of Mary Poppins, I see that Blue-billed Teal is now the favoured name rather than Hottentot Teal.

 

[Mysticete]

Isn't the main most repeated argument that changing a bunch of eponyms at once will cause confusion and instability? I fail to see how that isn't related to change?