• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Yet another thread on eponyms... But this one might actually be fun! (1 Viewer)

Given that threads normally get derailed the first time eponyms are mentioned and head off into basically the same argument that's broken out on a dozen other threads, we did pretty well surviving almost 3 weeks on this one. It would be nice not to have to wade through lots of discussion of whether French names should be changed when there seems to be no evidence that anyone is actively trying to change them, but realistically someone was going to blow the thread up at some point. Some things are inescapable.

Back to the topic, I do like the idea of trying to establish consistent names for different families rather than just "warbler", but I assume that would mean that names would have to change in future if there was a sufficiently major taxonomic reshuffle that the names no longer lined up consistently.
my apologies - but to be fair I was asking clarification on whether that evidence existed. Longspur aside, you may have known that was not the case, but I didn't.
 
Last edited:
I was talking about meaningfulness.

IMO common names should convey meaning to anyone with at least partial fluency in the relevant language. The word Cetti's doesn't mean anything to most speakers of English. Indeed, of honorifics, I would say only Darwin and Aududon (and maybe a few others) have transcended enough into the public sphere to be meaningfully used in common names.

I'm happy to disagree but it's certainly not the same as names given to 'any other species'. Qualifiers like Black-footed, Red-necked, Noisy, Multi-coloured are all immediately explicable to the majority of English speakers.

Again - I'm not certain that you're saying here what you exactly mean and I'm not sure I understand.

Qualifiers like Prothonotary, Aplomado, Fulvous, Pomarine, and on and on are not immediately explicable to the majority of English speakers - certainly not to the degree that an eponym is. It's common knowledge that a word like "Cooper's" very likely refers some person named Cooper and indeed I don't need to know much about that person to understand that.

We on this forum may understand "Cetti's" a little better than the general public due to our exposure to ornithology, in the same way that my nonbirder friends struggle with words like rufous, ruddy, tawny, and all the words we have for "reddish brown." If a person doesn't know what a word is, then by definition it is meaningless - but nobody, including yourself, is arguing about paraque and murre and verdin and etc.

If someone doesn't like eponyms because they don't like eponyms then that is a valid and consistent argument, whether or not anyone else agrees. But if other reasons for name changes are introduced, then that is an entirely different sort of argument and if it suffers from uniformity problems then it comes off as inauthentic argument form instead of discussion. I think we could sift through these eight pages of forum and find lots of proposals which have reduced meaning for fluent English speakers or which are a far stretch for natural attachment to the organism (such is the nature of naming things). I'm just not certain that is the point of the exercise.

With recognition that I certainly have strayed far from the point myself.
 
Again - I'm not certain that you're saying here what you exactly mean and I'm not sure I understand.

Qualifiers like Prothonotary, Aplomado, Fulvous, Pomarine, and on and on are not immediately explicable to the majority of English speakers - certainly not to the degree that an eponym is. It's common knowledge that a word like "Cooper's" very likely refers some person named Cooper and indeed I don't need to know much about that person to understand that.

We on this forum may understand "Cetti's" a little better than the general public due to our exposure to ornithology, in the same way that my nonbirder friends struggle with words like rufous, ruddy, tawny, and all the words we have for "reddish brown." If a person doesn't know what a word is, then by definition it is meaningless - but nobody, including yourself, is arguing about paraque and murre and verdin and etc.

If someone doesn't like eponyms because they don't like eponyms then that is a valid and consistent argument, whether or not anyone else agrees. But if other reasons for name changes are introduced, then that is an entirely different sort of argument and if it suffers from uniformity problems then it comes off as inauthentic argument form instead of discussion. I think we could sift through these eight pages of forum and find lots of proposals which have reduced meaning for fluent English speakers or which are a far stretch for natural attachment to the organism (such is the nature of naming things). I'm just not certain that is the point of the exercise.

With recognition that I certainly have strayed far from the point myself.
Much better put than I was managing in my response, so I've binned my response 😀
 
Much better put than I was managing in my response, so I've binned my response 😀
However, I would just say that whilst @Maffong just doesn't like eponyms, I have a strong dislike for generalised geographic locations. American this, African that, Eurasian the other.
Whilst such names may tell you where you might find something, they still don't tell you anything about the appearance of the bird, e.g. American and Eurasian/European Wigeon.
Therefore, if there is an appetite for change (even if only for the sake of change 😉) I'd be more invested in changing these broad geographic names to something a little more inventive.
Perhaps White-fronted & Yellow-fronted respectively for the above Wigeon?

Hopefully, this is vaguely on topic 🤔😀
 
Again - I'm not certain that you're saying here what you exactly mean and I'm not sure I understand.

Qualifiers like Prothonotary, Aplomado, Fulvous, Pomarine, and on and on are not immediately explicable to the majority of English speakers - certainly not to the degree that an eponym is. It's common knowledge that a word like "Cooper's" very likely refers some person named Cooper and indeed I don't need to know much about that person to understand that.

We on this forum may understand "Cetti's" a little better than the general public due to our exposure to ornithology, in the same way that my nonbirder friends struggle with words like rufous, ruddy, tawny, and all the words we have for "reddish brown." If a person doesn't know what a word is, then by definition it is meaningless - but nobody, including yourself, is arguing about paraque and murre and verdin and etc.

If someone doesn't like eponyms because they don't like eponyms then that is a valid and consistent argument, whether or not anyone else agrees. But if other reasons for name changes are introduced, then that is an entirely different sort of argument and if it suffers from uniformity problems then it comes off as inauthentic argument form instead of discussion. I think we could sift through these eight pages of forum and find lots of proposals which have reduced meaning for fluent English speakers or which are a far stretch for natural attachment to the organism (such is the nature of naming things). I'm just not certain that is the point of the exercise.

With recognition that I certainly have strayed far from the point myself.
Happy to carry on chatting about this but let's do it off the thread - people are understandably vexed by the digression.
 
However, I would just say that whilst @Maffong just doesn't like eponyms, I have a strong dislike for generalised geographic locations. American this, African that, Eurasian the other.
Whilst such names may tell you where you might find something, they still don't tell you anything about the appearance of the bird, e.g. American and Eurasian/European Wigeon.
Therefore, if there is an appetite for change (even if only for the sake of change 😉) I'd be more invested in changing these broad geographic names to something a little more inventive.
Perhaps White-fronted & Yellow-fronted respectively for the above Wigeon?

Hopefully, this is vaguely on topic 🤔😀
I think this broader point has been undercurrent in the discussion, but not necessarily highlighted. There are lots of reasons for believing there are "bad" English bird names out there and examples of these have been expressed for longer than I've been on Bird Forum. The eponym issue is the one which has most recently been very strong, but one could certainly start a similar thread to this one focusing on geographic names (or inaccurate or boring or non-English influenced or "Americentric" or whatever the gripe of the day might be).

On the wigeon:
  • If we're lumping Green-winged and Common Teal, we may as well just call them both "Wigeon" and be done with it
  • In American hunting vernacular, the American variety is also known as the "Cotton Top." The other I suppose could be a "Buff Top"
  • Or Wigeon and Widgeon - wouldn't that be fun?
  • The body color on the males are colors associated with some beautiful, quirky names. For example, a Bisque Wigeon and a Heather Wigeon. And as a bonus, they provide interesting suggestions on meal preparation after the hunt.
 
Qualifiers like Prothonotary, Aplomado, Fulvous, Pomarine, and on and on are not immediately explicable to the majority of English speakers - certainly not to the degree that an eponym is. It's common knowledge that a word like "Cooper's" very likely refers some person named Cooper and indeed I don't need to know much about that person to understand that.
The thing with words like Aplomado, Fulvous and Pomarine is that their meaning can be learned. They basically mean Plumbeous, brownish and nostril-lid. Nevertheless they’re confusing and meaningless for the beginner and a point gor changing them could be made (I'm not making it however!).
With qualifiers like Rüppell’s, the only information conveyed is that Rüppell had something to do with the bird. It remains unclear if he was the first to see it, to describe it, if he funded some kind of expedition and even if he was indeed a 'he'. Rüppell’s Warbler has nothing in common with Rüppell’s Weaver nor with Rüppell’s Vulture. Ross's Goose and Ross's Gull are apparently not even named after the same Ross...
 
The thing with words like Aplomado, Fulvous and Pomarine is that their meaning can be learned. They basically mean Plumbeous, brownish and nostril-lid. Nevertheless they’re confusing and meaningless for the beginner and a point gor changing them could be made (I'm not making it however!).
With qualifiers like Rüppell’s, the only information conveyed is that Rüppell had something to do with the bird. It remains unclear if he was the first to see it, to describe it, if he funded some kind of expedition and even if he was indeed a 'he'. Rüppell’s Warbler has nothing in common with Rüppell’s Weaver nor with Rüppell’s Vulture. Ross's Goose and Ross's Gull are apparently not even named after the same Ross...
This is my point though - the information conveyed by the word Ruppell and its relevance to the bird can be learned just as easily as learning the definition of Pomarine.

Is that relevance biological or physical in nature? No.
Is its purpose to glorify or document a person's deeds? Sure.
Are there good options that don't rely on moniker? Absolutely.
Those are all valid and defensible reasons for opposing eponyms, if one is inclined to find them of more importance than the "downsides."

But opposing eponyms because they require learning... or are unfamiliar to some... or believing/acting as if their meaning is divorced from the bird... those are arguments about a much broader class of names than eponyms, and I feel its unfair to the discussion to proceed as if an eponym is any different in those categories.
 
I can agree with that. Let's start a thread after this one is done and brainstorm for other bird names that are misleading, somewhat meaningless or bland and look if we can find more evocative ones. No calls for official name changes, just a thread for our own enjoyment.
 
The thing with words like Aplomado, Fulvous and Pomarine is that their meaning can be learned. They basically mean Plumbeous, brownish and nostril-lid. Nevertheless they’re confusing and meaningless for the beginner and a point gor changing them could be made (I'm not making it however!).
It's true, it never occurred to me to wonder what the Spanish word "aplomado" meant in English. My unfocused guess was "featherless" but obviously "plumbeous" is correct. But there aren't too many names like this. I never knew what "falcated" meant either but I just looked it up and that's because I didn't have a proper education where I learned Latin.
 
This is my point though - the information conveyed by the word Ruppell and its relevance to the bird can be learned just as easily as learning the definition of Pomarine.

Is that relevance biological or physical in nature? No.
Is its purpose to glorify or document a person's deeds? Sure.
Are there good options that don't rely on moniker? Absolutely.
Those are all valid and defensible reasons for opposing eponyms, if one is inclined to find them of more importance than the "downsides."

But opposing eponyms because they require learning... or are unfamiliar to some... or believing/acting as if their meaning is divorced from the bird... those are arguments about a much broader class of names than eponyms, and I feel its unfair to the discussion to proceed as if an eponym is any different in those categories.
Thank you for stating this so clearly, these points are spot on. And if I may humbly attempt to broaden that first sentence a bit, there are times when just as much learning is needed to understand the reasoning behind the use of common words that sometimes, unfortunately, are just as unhelpful as obscure ones. For example, calling a certain tanager "Summer" or a grosbeak "Evening." Certainly some interesting history in those monikers, but they don't help describe anything any more than an honorific would, or a little-known word would, and some extra digging must be done to understand the origin in any case.
 
Last edited:
I can agree with that. Let's start a thread after this one is done and brainstorm for other bird names that are misleading, somewhat meaningless or bland and look if we can find more evocative ones. No calls for official name changes, just a thread for our own enjoyment.
I can never spell Feru ... Ferruge... Fudge Duck, so we should definitely change that one.
 
December 19th:
Last batch of warblers...

Moltoni’s Warbler (Curruca subalpina)
Edgardo Moltoni (1896 -1980), Italian ornithologist who worked in the Natural History Museum at Milan.

Alternative names: Liguria (Subalpine) Warbler, Salmon-breasted Warbler, Buzzing (Subalpine) Warbler, Churring (Subalpine) Warbler

A little confusing that Curruca subalpina is not Subalpine Warbler, so maybe we could put that bit back into the name?

Marmora’s Warbler (Curruca sarda)
Alberto Ferrero La Marmora (or Della Marmora; 1789 –1863), Italian soldier and naturalist.

Alternative names: Slate-grey Warbler, Bluish Warbler, Tyrrhenian Warbler, Corsican Warbler

Sardinian Warbler is unfortunately already taken by a species that occurs through much of the Mediterranean region, but other fitting names can be thought of for what is currently Marmora’s Warbler.
 
Moltoni’s Warbler (Curruca subalpina)
Edgardo Moltoni (1896 -1980), Italian ornithologist who worked in the Natural History Museum at Milan.
I replaced "Fauvette de Moltoni" by "Fauvette subalpine" because this is the historic name (by Temminck). "de Moltoni", I don't know who suggested it but it's useless
 
A little confusing that Curruca subalpina is not Subalpine Warbler, so maybe we could put that bit back into the name?
I remember that split happening - subalpine warbler was split into three species, two of which got the word "subalpine" in their English names, the third got the Latin. Very confusing.

How about "Central Subalpine Warbler", given that its range is pretty much in the middle of Western and Eastern?
 
Alternative names: Liguria (Subalpine) Warbler, Salmon-breasted Warbler, Buzzing (Subalpine) Warbler, Churring (Subalpine) Warbler

Alternative names: Slate-grey Warbler, Bluish Warbler, Tyrrhenian Warbler, Corsican Warbler
Something I have found valuable in this thread is a growing awareness of just how many alternative names many species have collected.
 
I remember that split happening - subalpine warbler was split into three species, two of which got the word "subalpine" in their English names, the third got the Latin. Very confusing.

How about "Central Subalpine Warbler", given that its range is pretty much in the middle of Western and Eastern?
Please no, not more vague geographical epithets!
 
I remember that split happening - subalpine warbler was split into three species, two of which got the word "subalpine" in their English names, the third got the Latin. Very confusing.

Initially, actually, Subalpine was split into two species only, Subalpine & Moltoni's; and back then the latter was thought to breed on the islands only, thus did not deserve the name "Subalpine".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top