• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Poll - Do you agree or disagree with the AOS's recent decision to abandon the use of eponymous bird names? (4 Viewers)

The AOS is proposing to change all English bird names currently named after people. Do you agree?

  • Agree

    Votes: 91 25.6%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 211 59.3%
  • No strong feelings either way.

    Votes: 49 13.8%
  • Don't know, need more information

    Votes: 5 1.4%

  • Total voters
    356
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.
IIRC the South African bird organization (I can't remember the more specific name and I am too lazy to look it up) changed that name 3-4 years ago. There is discussion of it in the bird taxonomy forum from when it happened (or at least when IOC accepted), with some folks again railing against it
 
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?

Any change causes instability and confusion -- ain't you admitting this yourself in post #772 above ? Sometimes change is necessary, in other cases not. The fact that (necessary) "change is happening and will continue to happen" can in no way be regarded as legitimating the addition of still more (unnecessary) change to the pot, thereby creating still more confusion.
Please show that the additional change is necessary, if you want to make it comparable to other necessary change.
 
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.
Where is this?

I've seen the ridiculous article on the BBC but nothing else until you mentioned it, perhaps your chance to shine and start a thread of your own?
 
IIRC the South African bird organization (I can't remember the more specific name and I am too lazy to look it up) changed that name 3-4 years ago. There is discussion of it in the bird taxonomy forum from when it happened (or at least when IOC accepted), with some folks again railing against it
Pygmy has or will go the same way along with Oriental.

Who is pushing this agenda on a global level, someone must be?
 
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?

I view that the main most repeated argument is not THAT change is occurring, but rather WHY change is occurring, followed closely by HOW change is occurring.

Admittedly I view the HOW as more disturbing than the WHY, but I believe my prioritization to be the minority.

And as I will continue to rail on, the consequences specific to this change are not likely shared with the changes as we've seen in the past. I'm not even certain they are comparable - but again that may not be a popular view.
 
The questions to be answered are: Is the change/confusion warranted? And is the negative of confusion outweighed by the positive that the change brings? As we've been over a million times on this thread, the stated rationale of the AOS is unwarranted and brings little/no positive results. They have failed to provide evidence or reasoning to support their premises, and have similarly failed to provide evidence of positive results. So in the end, we have no good reason to introduce confusion. With taxonomic changes we have a factual, scientific reason for change with tangible benefits.
 
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
Not overly fussed by this, they have to be called something in English (apparently 😉). However, I do hate the practice of just sticking a compass point, region or continent in front of an existing name to create a less confusing or less ambiguous name. I accept some of these names are well-established, but I do wish the practice wasn't continued. In these cases I'd rather have a plumage or habit descriptor.
 
Last edited:
From wikipedia - The tail is cocked and pointed towards the head, and the name tapaculo probably derives from Spanish for loincloth. Another possible explanation is that it originates from the Chilean name for the white-throated tapaculo, simply tapaculo, which is an onomatopoeic reference to its commonly heard song.
Not an English name though but It's one of my favourite names so wouldn't change it.
 
Last edited:
Not an English name though but It' one of my favourite names so wouldn't change it.
It's not, strictly speaking: but there's a world of difference between adopting a local name whether indigenous (kangaroo anybody?) or colonial (anything Spanish or Portugese from South America) and just adapting a bit of scrambled Greek or Latin. We've been including foreign words in English for centuries where they help the language.

John
 
The Urban Birder with James Van Remsen Monday 19 February 7pm

Sign up at the link above. Topic: The discussion against the eponymous name changes for North America’s birds

I know this is short notice, but please try and tune in to listen to "The Urban Birder" interview James Van Remsen - this week's topic is: The discussion against the eponymous name changes for North America’s birds. The "Urban Birder" is a weekly podcast out of the U.K. David Lindo, popularly known as The Urban Birder, is a naturalist, writer, broadcaster, speaker, photographer, wildlife tour leader and educator. His mission is to connect the city folk of the world with the wonderful wildlife that is all around them—even in the middle of the Concrete Jungle. He had previously interviewed Kenn Kaufman regarding his support of the AOS decision to change ALL eponymous bird names. A petition asking the AOS to reverse their decision and return to a case by case due process evaluation of people honored with bird names has more than 5400 signatures to date.

This can now be watched on David Lindo's YouTube channel :
 
David Lindo expresses what many of us have said, that he never bothered to look at the the people behind the names, so, again, where is this 'barrier to inclusion', said to be created by eponyms? JvR also states how toxic this has been and that older birders have been generally side-lined, abused and disrespected.

DvR also says something important, that none of this stuff is actually coming from people of colour and that much of the World, could well just ignore this move and that's exactly what should happen.

David provides a very honest, realistic and sensible view and states exactly, what I and others have said for a long time.

An excellent piece.
 
Last edited:
The Utah Legislature has passed a bill that would require the state to use bird names as they appeared on the AOS checklist in January 2020:

 
The Utah Legislature has passed a bill that would require the state to use bird names as they appeared on the AOS checklist in January 2020:

As I said on this thread before I very much dislike the AOS decision, but this is beyond moronic. Having state legislatures intervene and turning into a culture war issue is the last thing this discussion needs. It's a matter for the birding/ornithological community to decide, and I suspect many or most birders who dislike the AOS decision are also very much on the opposite political spectrum that the Utah state legislature.
 
As I said on this thread before I very much dislike the AOS decision, but this is beyond moronic. Having state legislatures intervene and turning into a culture war issue is the last thing this discussion needs. It's a matter for the birding/ornithological community to decide, and I suspect many or most birders who dislike the AOS decision are also very much on the opposite political spectrum that the Utah state legislature.
Do I disagree with the AOS decision? Yes.

Do I think this is a dumb decision on the part of the Utah legislature? Yes.

Do I kind of secretly hope this bill passes because it would be hilarious? Yes.
 
The Utah Legislature has passed a bill that would require the state to use bird names as they appeared on the AOS checklist in January 2020:

Given what I understand to be the polarised nature of US politics at the moment, this was an entirely predictable consequence of the BN4B / AOS decision. The proponents of the change should have foreseen that this was going to be seen as another salvo in the culture wars, this time originating from the left, but likely to result in a predictable response from the other side. If they didn't, they were either really naive, or in such a rarified bubble that they considered their views to be mainstream and unlikely to meet opposition.
It is just such an unnecessary intrusion into birding and bird conservation, where people of quite widely differing political views should be able to find common ground in a shared interest in birds and their continuing welfare.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top