• 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)

December 4th

Often I hear the argument that eponyms aren't the only bad bird names, as if that would be an argument to keep the status quo. Personally, I would be open to change for particularly misleading or boring names. I know many won't agree, as stability is also an important issue, but splits and lumps have always forced us to change some names, so it's not like change is unprecedented.
I particularly dislike bland monikers like Common, Lesser, Western or features that are mostly invisible in the field such as Short-billed or Short-toed. Somehow these names feel inferior and don't do the birds justice. I invite you to come up with cooler names for birds that have a strong discrepancy between awesomeness of bird and boringness of name.
Obviously, names such as Common Swift or Northern Cardinal are mich more engrained into the collective memory than some range-restricted, rare and hard to identify species, meaning than a name change would be harder to justify. But this is a place to think outside the box and not one to start ornitho-political campaigns...
Now to todays birds.

Ross’s Gull (Rhodostethia rosea)
Rear-Adm. Sir James Clark Ross (1800-1862), Royal Navy, polar explorer, collector (not the same Ross as for the Goose).

Alternative names: Rosy Gull, Ring-necked Gull, Collared Gull, Wedge-tailed Gull, Pin-tailed Gull, Arctic Gull

While Rosy Gull seems like the least disruptive choice for this handsome, small gull of the high arctic, quite a few more names seem possible.

Sabine’s Gull (Xema sabini)
Gen. Sir Edward Sabine (1788-1883), British Army, astronomer, physicist, Arctic explorer 1818-1820, President of the Royal Society 1861-1871. First discovered by him at Melville Bay, Greenland in 1818.

Alternative names: Swallow Gull, Fork-tailed Gull, Handsome Gull, Pelagic Gull

The first two are direct translations from various languages, but I like Handsome Gull the most, because look at that spectacular bird!

Saunders’s Tern (Sternula saundersi)
Howard Saunders (1835-1907), British banker, traveller, ornithologist (authority on the Laridae).

Alternative names: Oriental Little Tern, Arabian Tern, Black-fingered Tern, Trapeze-fronted Tern, Coral Tern

None of the names sticks out as perfect to me, but despite being the most complicated of names I kind of like Trapeze-fronted Tern, for this Little Tern look-alike from the western Indian Ocean.
 
We do not always have the choice of the set of names that is used to communicate. In particular, "communication" includes written communication from people from the past, in which we are merely the recipient and the set of names is that which the originator had elected to use. You may not realize it, but every single time you "invent bird names", you add your inventions to the set of names that have been used for a bird, without removing anything from this set. Trans-generational communication thereby, inevitably, becomes a bit harder, less straightforward, less efficient. The effect may be small in most cases, but the direction is always the same -- it is always harmful; it is never an improvement.
Even if I can agree that it is harmful (let that be clear or you'll use the 2 wrongs / a right against me :) ), name changing is, and has been, going on continuously due to splits, advances and updates in taxonomy, uniformisation amongst different taxonomies, etc. In that process, the on-purpose change of eponyms is only a small fraction of the total changes.
Again, I don't want to say that changing eponyms is not without negatives, but eponyms already change by 'nature' more towards non-eponyms in the IOC updates (and nobody cares when that happens, it seems), and as well as eponyms, non-eponyms also change from time to time to get in line with taxonomy etc. Just think Rufous-bellied Mountain-tanager, an odd tanager that was once considered a Rufous-bellied Mountain-saltator but the beak shape is off for a saltator, and thus it has been found it's a tanager. Searching for that bird without the latin Pseudosaltator included in the text will be a bit harder, but it is what it is. If anything, it's a good reminder to always mention latin names in text (even though those can change as well...!)

While it's never easier to find written communication after name changes, your search for old literature will always be a struggle due to names that have changed for the reasons I stated above. Changing eponyms doesn't help in that search, but it isn't a significant / major factor (it is a minor issue), and while searching old literature you're searching on synonyms anyway: you won't confine your search about nigritas and you will include negrofinch. But you are OK with nigritas as we move on.
It is important to me that the name I use for, e.g., Steller's Eider, keeps making it possible to discover notes like this one :
The recent developments, including what is being done here, are a threat to that.
curious: how did you find the note now?
ps: you wouldn't have found the same article if searching for the (mentioned) McCown's Longspur... But you would find articles like this one:

if searching for McCown (so searching for both McCown's and Mccowni, as McCown covers both), as the author included the latin name. So part of the 'responsability' is with the author.
 
Last edited:
Surely you can understand that, if one change is bad, two changes are worse, Mathieu ?
This is based on the assumption that change is bad, whereas I believe that change can be good.

You have good reasons to argue for stability. I believe that I have good reasons to argue for descriptive and evocative names. I believe that people will more likely engage with something called Shining Sunbeam or Powerful Owl than with a Szechenyi's Monal-Partridge or Verreaux’s Eagle, where people will already stumble when trying to write those names. I don’t think it's coincidence that amateur naturalists keep writing about Stellar Jay/Sea-Eagle/Eider instead of referring to Steller who they have no idea who that was.
 
Can we at least agree that what consitutues a "good" or "bad" name is almost entirely down to subjective, individual preference? And that individual preferences vary widely? I personally find Steller's Eider to be a much more evocative and memorable name for a bird of the remote Bering Sea than any desciptive alternative. Others will disagree. I had followed some discussions on potential name changes for North American eponymous bird names, and I thought that the suggested Crow Woodpecker was a truly awesome and inspired alternative to Lewis's Woodpecker, on many levels. Others thought it was awful. And while I think Tiger-backed Sparrow is a cool alternative for LeConte's, most people will find it silly.

So I fear that advocating for wholesale name changes (or "improvements") is just going to have us going round and round (which admittedly can be fun), ultimately upsetting just about everyone, all to the detriment of stability and communication.
 
Can we at least agree that what consitutues a "good" or "bad" name is almost entirely down to subjective, individual preference? And that individual preferences vary widely? I personally find Steller's Eider to be a much more evocative and memorable name for a bird of the remote Bering Sea than any desciptive alternative. Others will disagree. I had followed some discussions on potential name changes for North American eponymous bird names, and I thought that the suggested Crow Woodpecker was a truly awesome and inspired alternative to Lewis's Woodpecker, on many levels. Others thought it was awful. And while I think Tiger-backed Sparrow is a cool alternative for LeConte's, most people will find it silly.

So I fear that advocating for wholesale name changes (or "improvements") is just going to have us going round and round (which admittedly can be fun), ultimately upsetting just about everyone, all to the detriment of stability and communication.
I can certainly agree that the perfect name doesn't exist and subjectivity will always be an issue. Nothing is ever black and white (except Mniotilta varia or Spizaetus melanoleucus).

Perhaps people can manage to think about new and fitting names for the mentioned species even if in general they don't want the changes to go through.

Imagine that some (theoretical) institution decides that all eponyms must go and will go through with it, but they are completely unimaginative and we end up with Lesser Short-billed This and Western Short-toed That. You'd hope that they were creative at least and looked into the species' ecology or helpful ID characteristics.
 
Can we at least agree that what consitutues a "good" or "bad" name is almost entirely down to subjective, individual preference? And that individual preferences vary widely? I personally find Steller's Eider to be a much more evocative and memorable name for a bird of the remote Bering Sea than any desciptive alternative.
I agree, for Steller's eider. You can not NOT think about Steller's expedition when cruising the Bering (he was not the most pleasant guy I heard) sea looking for that duck. In fact, I have been thinking about alternative bird names for the ones posted above, and for about half of them, I can think of a non-eponymous name I am excited about, which means that in the other half of cases, I cannot come up with a 'better' name and thus a name change would leave me totally indifferent (or even disappointed).
I still like the tendency to drift away from eponymous names, but for sure I'm not a Machiavellist in the anti-eponymous war ;) .
 
curious: how did you find the note now?
ps: you wouldn't have found the same article if searching for the (mentioned) McCown's Longspur... But you would find articles like this one:
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/...ngspur in Massachusetts_Wayne R. Petersen.pdf
if searching for McCown (so searching for both McCown's and Mccowni, as McCown covers both), as the author included the latin name. So part of the 'responsability' is with the author.
I merely searched for "Steller's Eider" using the search engine of Sora.
The absence of a scientific name is not exceptional in short notes in the North American literature. (Including in high-profile journals like Auk and the likes: the English names of the AOU Checklist were simply perceived as trustworthy.) Anyway, this note is what it is, it cannot be changed, and it doesn't really matter who the 'responsibility' for this state of affairs lies with. The only 'responsibility' that really matters now lies with those who must find a way not to overlook it.

(Incidentally: scientific names are usually italicized, and in publication up to the early 20th C, they regularly included ligatures (æ, œ), which are causing problems to some OCR programs. Thus, scientific names end up corrupted in the text layer of a scanned paper much more often than vernaculars, and a significant number of scanned papers 'out there' cannot be easily discovered by searching on a scientific name even though they do cite one. This problem was much worse 10 years ago than it is now, though.)
 
Today we'll look at three large gulls. As always I'll be happy to hear your opinions.

Pallas’s Gull (Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus)
Peter Simon Pallas FRS FRSE (1741 – 1811), was a Prussian zoologist, botanist, ethnographer, explorer, geographer, geologist, natural historian, and taxonomist.
Alternative names: Great Black-headed Gull, Fish Gull, Plains Gull
Great Black-headed Gull is already in use, so seems like an obvious choice, with Fish Gull being a translation from e.g. German and referring to its surprisingly strong preference of fishy food.

Audouin’s Gull (Ichthyaetus audouinii)
Prof. Jean Victor Audouin (1797-1841), French entomologist, ornithologist.
Alternative names: Pearly Gull, Coral Gull, Coral-billed Gull, Black-eyed Gull, Beach Gull
While the first three options are probably the better ones, I had to add Beach Gull, as I strongly associate the species with beautiful, sandy beaches along the Mediterranean Sea. Unfortunately, the most fitting name - Mediterranean Gull - is already taken.

Heuglin’s Gull (Larus fuscus heuglini)
Martin Theodor von Heuglin (1824-1876), German mining engineer, ornithologist, explorer in the Sudan, Abyssinia, Eritrea and Somaliland 1851-1864, and the Arctic 1870-1871.
Alternative names: Tundra Gull, Siberian Gull, Russian Gull, Intermediate Gull
I believe Tundra and Siberian Gull are equally strong contenders and already in use in other languages. However, I can’t help but feel like this is one of the most intermediate gulls out there, somewhat resembling almost every other Larus-gull species in the Palaearctic.
 
GBH Gull (which gives Grevious Bodily Harm Gull as my personal nickname for the bird) means that “Ordinary” Black-headed Gull needs a revised name. I also agree Mediterranean Gull is remarkably poorly named, and wish this name had been given to Audouin’s; as it hadn’t then I quite like Coral-billed. As for Heuglin’s; I confess to not really understanding what enables one to recognise it; what about simply “Gull”? More sensibly, if forced to pick, I would choose Tundra Gull.
 
Does it? Why?

This is part of the principles adopted by the IOC for English bird names : Principles – IOC World Bird List -
A related rule is that the full name of one species should not be included in the longer name of another species. This rule prohibited a pair of names like Black-headed Gull and Great Black-headed Gull, forcing the initial adoption of Common Black-headed Gull. Adoption of Pallas’s Gull for I. ichthyaetus in response to good feedback allowed us to drop “Common” and return to the preferred traditional English name.

Nothing forces you to accept it, of course.
The "English vernacular names" of the two species on the British List are "Black-headed Gull" and "Great Black-headed Gull".
 
OK, but I'd still say why?

It's presented as a corollary of the principle that names must be unique.

"Pallas's Gull" as applying to ichthyaetus is a late 20th C invention. In the 19th C North American literature, the very same name is used for "Larus cachinnans Pallas 1811", which was then understood as encompassing what we now call L. vegae, and was believed to reach California in winter. E.g. :
...etc. A poor name choice, IMO.

(I use Great Black-headed, which is what I grew up with.)

"Mediterranean Gull" was a very reasonably fitting name 50 or 60 years ago ;).
 
Last edited:
Today we'll look at three large gulls. As always I'll be happy to hear your opinions.

Pallas’s Gull (Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus)

Audouin’s Gull (Ichthyaetus audouinii)

Heuglin’s Gull (Larus fuscus heuglini)
In my personal list, I try and use alternative names that have already been in use at some point (or in some place) - so for these three I have:

Great Black-headed Gull
Coral-billed Gull
Siberian Gull

...but for Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus, such an impressive beast in life, I would prefer something along the lines of Magnificent/Imperial/Superb Gull
 
It's presented as a corollary of the principle that names must be unique.

"Pallas's Gull" as applying to ichthyaetus is a late 20th C invention. In the 19th C North American literature, the very same name is used for "Larus cachinnans Pallas 1811", which was then understood as encompassing what we now call L. vegae, and was believed to reach California in winter. E.g. :
...etc. A poor name choice, IMO.

(I use Great Black-headed, which is what I grew up with.)

"Mediterranean Gull" was a very reasonably fitting name 50 or 60 years ago ;).
I hadn't before come across Pallas's Gull being used for L.cachinnans!
I also follow the "What I've always known" line in terms of the name, so Great Black-headed for me too, although the point is largely moot as 99% of my birding is done in Britain so I'm unlikely to see one!!
 
In my personal list, I try and use alternative names that have already been in use at some point (or in some place) - so for these three I have:

Great Black-headed Gull
Coral-billed Gull
Siberian Gull

...but for Ichthyaetus ichthyaetus, such an impressive beast in life, I would prefer something along the lines of Magnificent/Imperial/Superb Gull

I think Tundra Gull is a much better name for heuglini, since a large part of its distribution is outside Siberia, in the European part of Russia (compared to e.g. vegae which has its full breeding range within Siberia).
 
I think Tundra Gull is a much better name for heuglini, since a large part of its distribution is outside Siberia, in the European part of Russia (compared to e.g. vegae which has its full breeding range within Siberia).

I tend to associate "Siberian Gull" to heuglini + vegae. (Not a grouping frequently seen those days, but which I still think had some merits.)
"Tundra Gull" might fit northern heuglini alone, but would be much less apt for a concept that would also include barabensis.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top