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

[kb57]

One thing in reference to the article: I don't yet know whether I will use the new names or not, but calling Lincoln's Sparrow "tsook’all" is a line I won't cross (not that I expect such a name change to happen).

One thing that struck me about that article was the fact she then went on to give a number of examples where indigenous names like Ani had been incorporated into both English and scientific names, thereby diminishing what I think was the main thrust of her argument.

 

[Xenospiza]

The predominance of white people is not just a natural history thing, when I go hill walking in Snowdonia, the Lakes or Scotland it is a very similar picture. I don't think there is an easy answer for the reasons but I think any possible ways to make people of colour feel that they would feel at home in the birding community should be considered calmly and logically without keen-jerk reactions from either side.

Really "low level" access to nature (such as identifying phone apps), more attention to nature in education, someone relatable on social media?

 

[Paul Chapman]

All about getting the right role models & influences as well as ensuring access to nature & reducing any cost associated with that access either in travel or equipment. That said, barriers may be increasing & there are suggestions that this is not simply a diversity issue... This study looks at knowledge of nature within students & a perceived deterioration:-

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10265

All the best

Paul

 

[qwerty5]

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10265

"only 55.7% named them at species level, many giving folk generics such as ‘duck’ or ‘seagull’ instead."
EXCEPT NO SUCH BIRDS EVEN EXIST

 

[Andy Adcock]

The freedom to explore thing is indeed highly relevant in a British context at least, but the highly constrained school curricula I think play a part too - I used to work loosely in The other thing that anyone who took up birding at a young age has in common of course is the big barrier of being perceived as deeply uncool by your peers, something that was surprising and a little disappointing to learn had affected her just as it affected me 50 years ago - I'd kind've thought that kids were more environmentally aware, less racist and more accepting of difference now.

I strongly, suggest that this, rather than any, perceived, historical wrong or other, imaginary barrier, is a substantial reason that kids don't get involved, peer pressure.

We live in another age, I remember growing up and Shell, petrol stations, were giving away posters of things like British Snails or caterpillars, can you imagine the response that would illicit from todays youth!

 

[Andy Adcock]

"only 55.7% named them at species level, many giving folk generics such as ‘duck’ or ‘seagull’ instead."
EXCEPT NO SUCH BIRDS EVEN EXIST

In the context of the forum debate, a racial, breakdown of the participants of this study, may have proven insightful?

 

[Paul Chapman]

"only 55.7% named them at species level, many giving folk generics such as ‘duck’ or ‘seagull’ instead."
EXCEPT NO SUCH BIRDS EVEN EXIST

These are the new accessible names for Steller's Eider and Franklin's Gull. The future is bright. The future lacks eponyms. 😀

 

[Richard D]

"only 55.7% named them at species level, many giving folk generics such as ‘duck’ or ‘seagull’ instead."
EXCEPT NO SUCH BIRDS EVEN EXIST

Birders getting pedantic about colloquial groupings in common usage is a great way to alienate those who might have a developing interest in the natural world.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Birders getting pedantic about colloquial groupings in common usage is a great way to alienate those who might have a developing interest in the natural world.

Within the context of the study, the acceptance of such terms from undergraduates studying related degrees to do with nature is surprising. It is slightly different from discussions with occasional walkers or schoolchildren when we all engage at a suitable level to match their knowledge to engender and foster interest on broader and more accurate biodiversity.....

However, birders obsessing about minutiae and complexity and the latest expensive optics is a barrier to entry to the hobby. The manner in which we engage and communicate is important. For those that oppose this change, the majority in my view feel that the breadth of the change is unnecessary and we have no faith that it will work. We agree with looking at ways positively to engage and increase diversity. The energy and money could be better spent to produce a more positive outcome.

All the best

Paul

 

[kb57]

All about getting the right role models & influences as well as ensuring access to nature & reducing any cost associated with that access either in travel or equipment. That said, barriers may be increasing & there are suggestions that this is not simply a diversity issue... This study looks at knowledge of nature within students & a perceived deterioration:-

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pan3.10265

All the best

Paul

Not just any students - biology students, a self-selected group who you might presume would have a basic interest in the natural world, even if they went on to be microbiologists.
This unfortunately translates to a real dearth of taxonomic expertise available in the environmental sector.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Not just any students - biology students, a self-selected group who you might presume would have a basic interest in the natural world, even if they went on to be microbiologists.
This unfortunately translates to a real dearth of taxonomic expertise available in the environmental sector.

And at a time when materials for free on the Internet have never been more available to learn about different orders and biodiversity...

 

[wheatearlp]

Birders getting pedantic about colloquial groupings in common usage is a great way to alienate those who might have a developing interest in the natural world.

Whether or not you get upset about 'seagull' doesn't change the fact that neither 'seagull' nor gull (or duck) are species. Naming species was the question being asked at that point.
I'm seen by friends as being very pedantic in all matters, however I do take the point being made above. It's very easy to pick up on other people's 'mistakes' in an area in which you are experienced or passionate, but there does need to be some leeway given to the inexperienced or dispassionate.
I am fully aware that the average person in the street has no idea that there are multiple duck and gull species. I have many times heard the 'they all look the same to me' comment - possibly true in some cases, especially for gulls and many female ducks. But does that not reflect the lack of interest in the subject, which is the real issue - if you're not interested, why would it be worth identifying, and ultimately conserving?
Is identifying wildlife perceived as too difficult? Do some think they 'shouldn't' be interested (too nerdy, too niche, not for people 'like me') in such things? Are there too many other distractions preventing people taking an interest? How do you engage, or even identify, people who might be interested?
I'm aware all of the above is well off the thread topic, but it does relate to the quoted post.

 

[kb57]

Whether or not you get upset about 'seagull' doesn't change the fact that neither 'seagull' nor gull (or duck) are species. Naming species was the question being asked at that point.
I'm seen by friends as being very pedantic in all matters, however I do take the point being made above. It's very easy to pick up on other people's 'mistakes' in an area in which you are experienced or passionate, but there does need to be some leeway given to the inexperienced or dispassionate.
I am fully aware that the average person in the street has no idea that there are multiple duck and gull species. I have many times heard the 'they all look the same to me' comment - possibly true in some cases, especially for gulls and many female ducks. But does that not reflect the lack of interest in the subject, which is the real issue - if you're not interested, why would it be worth identifying, and ultimately conserving?
Is identifying wildlife perceived as too difficult? Do some think they 'shouldn't' be interested (too nerdy, too niche, not for people 'like me') in such things? Are there too many other distractions preventing people taking an interest? How do you engage, or even identify, people who might be interested?
I'm aware all of the above is well off the thread topic, but it does relate to the quoted post.

It's not off-topic at all - a stated aim of the AOSs action is to remove barriers to engagement with birds. If the removal of eponyms fulfilled that aim, then I might well be in favour of their actions.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Birders getting pedantic about colloquial groupings in common usage is a great way to alienate those who might have a developing interest in the natural world.

That depends upon the individual and how receptive they are to learning, it also depends upon how such knowledge is imparted.

 

[Andy Adcock]

However, birders obsessing about minutiae and complexity and the latest expensive optics is a barrier to entry to the hobby. The manner in which we engage and communicate is important. For those that oppose this change, the majority in my view feel that the breadth of the change is unnecessary and we have no faith that it will work. We agree with looking at ways positively to engage and increase diversity. The energy and money could be better spent to produce a more positive outcome.

All the best

Paul

What kind of barrier?

Technical speak may be daunting to some at entry level but it's hardly a 'barrier' in any real sense?

 

[Andy Adcock]

How do you engage, or even identify, people who might be interested?

I believe that a love of nature is like ones sexuality, you're born with it, it's in you from a very early age IMHO.

 

[kb57]

I believe that a love of nature is like ones sexuality, you're born with it, it's in you from a very early age IMHO.

I'm not sure about that - my family didn't have any great interest in the natural world, whereas I was apparently fascinated by spiders and garden wildlife from a really young age so it might be true in my own case. I think a bigger distinction is between people who are interested in aspects of the environment around them, and those who just focus on their immediate surroundings (people and / or their material possessions) and might as well be anywhere in the world for all the notice they take of it.
Those who take a bit more notice of their surroundings might not focus on the natural environment, but they would most likely notice birds and animals, and be receptive to anyone pointing out their differences.
That's not so say people with no innate interest in nature wouldn't be capable of getting into birding - Phoebe Snetsinger I think fell into this category, and her 'gateway drug' was (topically) a Blackburnian warbler.
Smartphones, while in theory a fantastic tool for learning anything about everything, don't help at all, as they actively remove people from their immediate surroundings. And I fear for children growing up with parents glued to their phones whilst taking their kids for a walk, with no attempt to engage with them or share what is around them in the natural world.

 

[Farnboro John]

I'm not sure about that - my family didn't have any great interest in the natural world, whereas I was apparently fascinated by spiders and garden wildlife from a really young age so it might be true in my own case. I think a bigger distinction is between people who are interested in aspects of the environment around them, and those who just focus on their immediate surroundings (people and / or their material possessions) and might as well be anywhere in the world for all the notice they take of it.
Those who take a bit more notice of their surroundings might not focus on the natural environment, but they would most likely notice birds and animals, and be receptive to anyone pointing out their differences.
That's not so say people with no innate interest in nature wouldn't be capable of getting into birding - Phoebe Snetsinger I think fell into this category, and her 'gateway drug' was (topically) a Blackburnian warbler.
Smartphones, while in theory a fantastic tool for learning anything about everything, don't help at all, as they actively remove people from their immediate surroundings. And I fear for children growing up with parents glued to their phones whilst taking their kids for a walk, with no attempt to engage with them or share what is around them in the natural world.

I'm closer to your view than Andy's on this but there are a lot of factors at work. People are different and some of that is based on their environment - hard to be engaged by local nature in an inner city, David Lindo notwithstanding - and some on the company they keep. Force doesn't work to get people into birding (e.g. most normal people being pushed into something by parents will simply push back) but peer pressure against being weird does stop it; obsession with people stuff gets in the way; sport/culture/sex/business/drugs/breeding - all mitigate against birding. Look at the people who drop out of twitching at weekends to do really strange stuff like going to Wycombe Wanderers away games....

The thing about birders is they are all volunteers. Which means the cultural shape of birding is the right one and always will be, however it varies in ethnic makeup, size or anything else.

John

 

[qwerty5]

And I fear for children growing up with parents glued to their phones whilst taking their kids for a walk, with no attempt to engage with them or share what is around them in the natural world.

What's even worse is the young kids glued to their own phones, their brain development being impeded while addicted to moving pixels. Then they have no need to be curious about nature, they can see everything on a screen.

 

[qwerty5]

Birders getting pedantic about colloquial groupings in common usage is a great way to alienate those who might have a developing interest in the natural world.

I agree, my comment was intended to be a joke, given how annoyed we can get about such things 😀