The Vanishing Mew Gull (1 Viewer)

[Mike Earp]

The Vanishing Mew Gull: A Guide to the Bird Names of the Western Palaearctic (Ray Reedman April 2024) - details here.

 

[l_raty]

Preview : The Vanishing Mew Gull

("I had always felt that the previous imposition of Mew Gull as the world name had not been a wise decision : it was, after all, the name of the American subspecies"...
Even not taking into account its etymological origin -- of course, no, it never was: Check-list of North American birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library )

 

[Andy Adcock]

The Vanishing Mew Gull: A Guide to the Bird Names of the Western Palaearctic (Ray Reedman April 2024) - details here.

I posted this in the book section already Mike, along with another title which seems to politicise birding.

Bird names

Here's a topical tome. https://www.nhbs.com/the-vanishing-mew-gull-book?bkfno=262829&ad_id=4836&mc_cid=6f4bca9a1a&mc_eid=7d80fd0c35

www.birdforum.net

 

[Mike Earp]

I posted this in the book section already Mike, along with another title which seems to politicise birding.

Andy, does "already" mean "subsequently to your posting it here"?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Andy, does "already" mean "subsequently to your posting it here"?

Sorry yes, I did think I'd posted it first as I only looked in the book section.

 

[pbjosh]

Preview : The Vanishing Mew Gull

("I had always felt that the previous imposition of Mew Gull as the world name had not been a wise decision : it was, after all, the name of the American subspecies"...
Even not taking into account its etymological origin -- of course, no, it never was: Check-list of North American birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library )

Sorry, can you explain this a bit? I don't see anything about the quote of yours on the link to the Preview of the book. And your link to the CL of NA Birds won't load for me unfortunately. So I can't tell what you're quoting from the author and what is your statement.

Sorry for the struggle to follow this

In relevant to birders / recent history, my understanding of this is that Mew Gull was the past couple of decades at least the NA taxon and Common Gull or Common Gull + Kamchatka Gull the old world taxon/taxa. But by not recognizing the split of old world and new world forms, the AOS/NACC essentially tried to tell the rest of the world to call Common Gull by the name Mew Gull because they didn't recognize the difference. The rest of the world ignored this and carried on using the names Common and Mew. American birders who were keen on gulls did the same, using the names Mew and Common. Birders who don't care much about gulls were wholly unaware of this and remain so. But when NACC/AOS finally caught up with the split, they declared that everyone would be massively confused by calling Mew Gull Mew Gull so they reverted to a name that most living birders have never used, leaving 98% of the folks who were familiar with the birds shaking their heads.

My "hot take" on the situation is that the NACC was the only group of people confused in the naming of these birds.

But I am genuinely curious about your comment...

 

[l_raty]

My "hot take" on the situation is that the NACC was the only group of people confused in the naming of these birds.

Prior to the original lump, the AOU was using "Short-billed Gull" for brachyrhynchus and "Mew Gull" for canus. The link is to a BHL scan of the 3rd ed of the AOU check-list -- if it keeps not loading, the AOU treatment in 1910 was :



...Then the two forms were lumped and "Mew Gull" -- a name originally attached to the nominate race -- was retained for the broad species.
Meanwhile, in Britain, the change of name never caught up. This is not overly surprising, as the names traditionally used on the BOU check-list for common British birds have always been plain vernacular names: they are the names used by British (lay) people for the birds occurring in their country -- not names artificially 'set' by a committee. Of course, real vernacular names have no reasons to change when a local bird gets lumped with a foreign form: the name in use post-lump, there, remained exactly the same as pre-lump, which was "Common Gull". As a result, "Mew Gull" ended up being used primarily in North America. But the reason for its use there, including for West Coast birds, has always been the fact that these birds were regarded as conspecific with the "Mew Gull", i.e., canus.

(For the record, I think the first time I explained this was in a mail to ID-Frontiers in Jan 2001: my take on this issue is completely unrelated to anything the NACC did in the last couple of years. But I, for one, would most definitely have been left shaking my head if they had not acted the way they did.)

 

[pbjosh]

Prior to the original lump, the AOU was using "Short-billed Gull" for brachyrhynchus and "Mew Gull" for canus. The link is to a BHL scan of the 3rd ed of the AOU check-list -- if it keeps not loading, the AOU treatment in 1910 was :

Ok that was exactly as I had understood it as well, I had just misunderstood your first comment above - sorry

(For the record, I think the first time I explained this was in a mail to ID-Frontiers in Jan 2001: my take on this issue is completely unrelated to anything the NACC did in the last couple of years. But I, for one, would most definitely have been left shaking my head if they had not acted the way they did.)

I think this is a good illustration of the difference between common name opinions held by those who are intimately aware with the long term history of usage and common name opinions held by people who don't study etymological / ornithological history. Outside of ornithologists, my impression is that very few people knew of the name Short-billed Gull and its prior use. Whereas essentially all birders and others with more than a passing interest in gulls were familiar with Common Gull vs Mew Gull and the fact that the AOS / NACC had not split them when the IOC / everyone in the old world had. I agree that using Mew Gull for the combined global form was a poor precedent, but it was no secret that many disagreed that it was required to rename Mew Gull when AOS / NACC finally caught up taxonomically. It was also confusing when AOS / NACC called Hen Harrier by the name Northern Harrier. And then inconsistent when Northern Harrier was not renamed. Also inconsistent that Winter Wren was not renamed.

I'm basically a layperson here, but do follow naming issues quite closely. I know ONE person who's not actually an ornithologist who liked the name change to Short-billed Gull and felt it was necessary. On the other hand every birder / guller / DFG (Dept of Fish and Game) / conservation employee and a LOT of ornithologists that I know all think the name change was not ultimately warranted and a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, in addition to being an inconsistent application of standards.

Personally I liked the name Mew Gull better, but it's not a big deal. This is a tempest in a teapot compared to other things going on in the world of both bird taxonomy and bird conservation of course, much less the world at large. But it's an interesting case to have watched the evolution of. I do think it's interesting to see how that naming decision and the choice of Thick-billed Longspur perhaps tipped the balance in terms of NACC losing authority over English names. At some point a committee that appoints itself, determines its own bylaws and applies them (arguably inconsistently) by itself doesn't have an ultimate mandate and to some degree popular opinion appears to have won the war if not the battle. I don't personally view this as a triumph of the "dumb public" over the "valid opinion of the experts" in a populist sort of way, but rather a demonstration that perhaps english names rules should evolve and that english names users should have more say in english names.

 

[l_raty]

I agree that using Mew Gull for the combined global form was a poor precedent, but it was no secret that many disagreed that it was required to rename Mew Gull when AOS / NACC finally caught up taxonomically. It was also confusing when AOS / NACC called Hen Harrier by the name Northern Harrier. And then inconsistent when Northern Harrier was not renamed. Also inconsistent that Winter Wren was not renamed.

Using Mew Gull for the combined species was because this was the name of the nominate form; this is probably not what would be done nowadays, but has been a very widely accepted practice in the past, and cannot in any way be seen as having established a precedent.
I can see nothing inconsistent in what the NACC did. The cases you cite are in no way comparable -- there had not been decades of history during which "Northern Harrier" or "Winter Wren" had been used in a restricted sense as the official name of the other, non-American taxon, as had been the case for "Mew Gull".

But then, yes, now we appear to have broad support in some quarters to use a name clearly attached to an Odontophorus for a Tetraophasis... 😬 🙄

I do think it's interesting to see how that naming decision and the choice of Thick-billed Longspur perhaps tipped the balance in terms of NACC losing authority over English names.

That's one narrative, but I don't find it convincing.
Again, I think NACC did great with Short-billed Gull.
Re. them loosing authority over English names -- this was evidently the agenda of "BN4B" from the start. I am very much unconvinced that the fact that the name they came up with to replace McCown's Longspur was perceived as poor by some, affected the output. They opened a gate, which triggered the next assault, when they finally accepted to change the name. This assault would have taken place even if the substitute name had been great.

 

[pbjosh]

The cases you cite are in no way comparable -- there had not been decades of history during which "Northern Harrier" or "Winter Wren" had been used in a restricted sense as the official name of the other, non-American taxon, as had been the case for "Mew Gull".

I don't recall the timing on the Wren splits, perhaps it was only a year or two before AOS caught up on that.

But IOC / BOU recognized the Harrier split for as long as I can recall (I believe IOC since inception). AOS / Clements recognized it in 2017. Prior to that, from a US/Canada english names viewpoint, old world birds were called Northern Harriers and this use is still in print all over the place in the US/Canada and can still be found on government websites, for example. When the AOS "caught up" on taxonomy they declined to rename Northern Harrier (sensu stricto) despite having used Northern Harrier (sensu lato) to refer to the parent species. Yet when they renamed Mew Gull (sensu stricto), they decided it was necessary to distinguish from Mew Gull (sensu lato), their view of the name of the parent species. Yes there are more details to the two cases, but I present it like this as that is how it is widely viewed. At some point we're discussing pedantics but my impression is that the repeated explanation of the details has done absolutely nothing to convince anyone of the merits of the name and (again just my impression) it seems that if anything has convinced those who are more upset about it that the "rules should be modified" rather than "oh ok now I get it yeah good job on that naming decision."

Re. them loosing authority over English names -- this was evidently the agenda of "BN4B" from the start. I am very much unconvinced that the fact that the name they came up with to replace McCown's Longspur was perceived as poor by some, affected the output. They opened a gate, which triggered the next assault, when they finally accepted to change the name. This assault would have taken place even if the substitute name had been great.

While BN4B undoubtedly prompted / provoked some of the changes that are being proposed / implemented, I also think that it's a bit of a scapegoat and attributing the changes to just that group is about as useful as calling the eponym purge woke. It seems to me that most people sit somewhere in the middle in terms of viewpoint and there are a lot more nuanced opinions than the various heated debates perhaps reflect. I have never opened the BN4B website. I don't agree with all of the english name decisions. I respect the knowledge of the NACC committee but from a philosophical standpoint reject the idea that a taxonomic committee should de facto be a naming committee.

Also, you make a good point about the Longspur name really being inconsequential. The separation of the committees was likely to occur in any case, though my impression is also that Thick-billed Longspur is not exactly a beloved name even among the folks who would prefer to keep most/all eponyms.

 

[l_raty]

Yet when they renamed Mew Gull (sensu stricto), they decided it was necessary to distinguish from Mew Gull (sensu lato), their view of the name of the parent species.

No. The issue here is not one of sensu stricto vs. sensu lato at all. The issue is to distinguish between Mew Gull (sensu stricto), pre-split, which is a species that breeds in Eurasia only and occurs in North America only as a vagrant, and the completely distinct taxon that some would like to call Mew Gull (sensu stricto) too, but post-re-split, which is a species that breeds in NW America only.
These are two wholly non-overlapping, mutually exclusive taxonomic concept. Not merely a taxon understood in a broader vs. more restricted sense.

 

[pbjosh]

I will merely agree to disagree with you. The usage precedents being cited to disrupt the prevailing usage were effectively so old that very very few birders or other users of the English names knew about them before this case came along.

Languages evolve, usage changes. Each time this discussion arises it furthers my support for the idea that English names be determined by English names committees that are able to be more pragmatic and consider the living users of the language.

 

[l_raty]

Languages evolve, usage changes. Each time this discussion arises it furthers my support for the idea that English names be determined by English names committees that are able to be more pragmatic and consider the living users of the language.

The whole point in having English names determined by a committee is that these names thereby become "enshrined" on the checklist, which turns them into stable anchors that will allow to retrieve the information scattered in the published record, now and in the future.
If what you want is English bird names that evolve in the way common language does, then you should either not have any committee at all; or, if you really want one, its duty should be limited to observing and recording the evolution.

 

[pbjosh]

Again that is the point from an ornithological / scientific perspective and the current debate centers around the fact that there should perhaps be other “whole points” to English names and the committees that assign them.

Do you think that the resurrection of Short-billed Gull has genuinely aided stability? It’s already a quagmire and this was merely another stirring of the pot that outmoded millions of printed books in order to revert to a usage that had since been swamped out by more modern precedent.

But anyways we both know both sides of this argument plenty well and neither you nor I is going to suffer now nor in the future to look things up about these birds or to understand what is what in terms of their current taxonomy. You might be one of the few who has a chance to know the history of both the taxonomy and the name assignation off the top of your head

 

[Farnboro John]

I'm interested to see the discussion on Hen Harrier, which as far as I know has in Britain (the bit of the Old World that counts for English names) always been a Hen Harrier, whereas when I started birding Mr W E Oddie was referring to the Nearctic variant as a Marsh Hawk, not a Northern Harrier: the last being AFAIK a more recent invention?

Notwithstanding which Hen Harrier and the rather boring and misleading (in that Hen Harriers are also Northern) Northern Harrier seem to be a workable outcome.

John

 

[pbjosh]

I believe the name change from Marsh Hawk to Northern Harrier was in the early 80’s. I actually don’t know if the US/CA powers that be ever considered the two species separate prior to 2017.

One could chuckle at the idea that the same logic that demands renaming daughters in splits should have mandated the renaming of N Harrier (sensu stricto). And there is a historical name available so rename it Marsh Hawk. But Hawk is taxonomically incongruent so call it Marsh Harrier 🤷🏻

In this case I think the pragmatic choice to retain Northern Harrier was apt.

 

[Mysticete]

Common names should be about what, well...commoners use. We shouldn't be enforcing some sort of principle of priority over names, if in doing so it causes more confusion. I am with PbJosh on this, and this is one of the reasons why, eponym controversy aside, I think it was a good idea to have a separate naming committee.

I think a better example of this would be the recent failed proposal to split Whimbrel. When IOC followed through on this, they split this species into Eurasian Whimbrel and Hudsonian Whimbrel. Hudsonian comes from the "old" pre-lump name for this bird, Hudsonian Curlew. So Hudsonian Whimbrel would be a new combination, but one that clearly links the bird name with the old concept of "Whimbrel", but is distinct enough that birders who don't follow taxonomy can figure out what the new names refer to. A birder in Texas is probably not going to record in his ebird checklist that he saw a bunch of Eurasian Whimbrels.

IIRC, NACC if they were to split this bird were going to go with "Whimbrel" for the Eurasian form and Hudsonian Curlew for the new world form. There is nothing at all to link the new name with the old one, and no doubt many many birders would keep using whimbrel and getting flagged on ebird or just plain confusing other birders (especially in places like AK where both forms are possible!). Yes, Hudsonian Curlew is an existing name in the literature, but bringing it back would cause more confusion for folks than reviving a name in the literature that hasn't seen wide usage since before I was born.

 

[l_raty]

I believe the name change from Marsh Hawk to Northern Harrier was in the early 80’s. I actually don’t know if the US/CA powers that be ever considered the two species separate prior to 2017.

One could chuckle at the idea that the same logic that demands renaming daughters in splits should have mandated the renaming of N Harrier (sensu stricto). And there is a historical name available so rename it Marsh Hawk. But Hawk is taxonomically incongruent so call it Marsh Harrier 🤷🏻

In this case I think the pragmatic choice to retain Northern Harrier was apt.

I think it was apt too.

A small website that can conveniently be used to answer this type of question is this : Ornithology -- AOU Menu
It records the names used in each of the main editions of the AOU check-list (although not the changes introduced in individual supplements).

The species was called Circus hudsonius, hence split from C. cyaneus in the 4 first editions of the check-list (1886, 1895, 1910 and 1931). It was lumped as C. cyaneus in the three next editions (1957, 1983, 1998 ). (And it was re-split in the 58th supplement, in 2017.)
The English name was "Marsh Hawk" in the 5 first editions of the check-list (1886, 1895, 1910, 1931 and 1957), then was switched to "Northern Harrier". (And it remained "Northern Harrier" after being re-split.)

 

[l_raty]

IIRC, NACC if they were to split this bird were going to go with "Whimbrel" for the Eurasian form and Hudsonian Curlew for the new world form. There is nothing at all to link the new name with the old one, and no doubt many many birders would keep using whimbrel and getting flagged on ebird or just plain confusing other birders (especially in places like AK where both forms are possible!). Yes, Hudsonian Curlew is an existing name in the literature, but bringing it back would cause more confusion for folks than reviving a name in the literature that hasn't seen wide usage since before I was born.

You may also recall that, although 5 NACC members voted in favour of the split, the vote to revive the name "Hudsonian Curlew" was unanimously negative...

Again, nobody here is suggesting that bringing such forgotten and confusing names back into use should be mandatory. The only thing that I would regard as seriously bad practice, is the transfer of a name from a taxon, to another one.

If the Mew Gull case is not clear enough... Thayer's Gull has now been re-lumped into Iceland Gull, thus "Iceland Gull", as a name, will now presumably start being used more and more on the West Coast. Should them be re-split some decades in the future, I don't think it would be advisable to start using "Iceland Gull" for the dark-winged form wintering on the West Coast... Even if, for some reason (e.g., a very strong decline of the white-winged populations) the use of this name in the range of the dark-winged form has grown bigger than its use in the range of the white-winged form. And even if most of the birders who were active before the lump are dead.

 

[jurek]

Internet search engines give everybody an easy way to check which bird names are really used in society.

There is no value anymore in some committee or institution declaring which bird name is 'standard' or 'should' be used by the general public. Especially that practically all such attempts in the past met with resistance and failed.

Besides, existence of one official name and taxonomy largely lost importance too. Checking in case of confusion became very easy, and existence of several alternative names and taxonomies in the past did not prevent mutual understanding.