The first thing that needs saying is that dismissing anyone on the forum by asking how they even function is obnoxious.
The second thing that needs saying is that whatever the AOS decides, its impact will be slight in any context and invisible in society at large. What fraction of any society is even aware that something called a Smith’s longspur even exists? Effectively zero.
Changing its name in field guides and publications under the control or influence of the AOS is not something I care about. Except in instances where the name honours somebody obnoxious I will probably not bother trying to keep up with changes, in part because of the attitude that attends these debates ((cf the silencing of opposing viewpoints and debating points like “How do you even function?” which I am frankly astonished has not been removed at the time I write this).
Will AOS go ahead with this? Clearly. Will it make any discernible difference to any any aspect of social relations in any part of society. Clearly not. Will this be taken as an important victory by some people. Yes. Will this be taken as a significant loss by some people? Also, yes. Could this have been handled differently? Well, yes, but that would mean everybody getting over themselves, acknowledging that diverse viewpoints are normal not sinister and having actual conversations in actual good faith instead of working to silence those who think differently. That doesn’t seem to be the way things work now, does it?
Relevant to this topic, here is a newly published Canadian article (open-source) with a big-picture look at scientific naming and some of its impacts. (Though the study addresses scientific names, it’s probably statistically comparable to the common names that are too often derived directly therefrom…)
Please flag inappropriate posts for moderator attention.
Or the individual who posted it could just remove it. It would be nice to think that calling the cops isn’t necessary in a conversation about bird names.
I feel like it is a bad thing as it will limit nature and naturalism to certain groups of people with a certain poltical mindset, if you know what I mean. Or I might be just wrong, and taking this a bit too deep.
My Newcomb’s Wildflower Guide for northeastern and north-central North America is from 1977, when I was 24 (and it’s hardcover!). There are MANY name changes scribbled into it, both common and scientific. The book lists three species of jacks-in-the-pulpit. I was quite happy when the taxonomists lumped them all into one, but quite recently the jacks are back to two (or is it three?) species. I still use the book all the time. My first bird guide is now gone, but was also from that time. Also many, many name changes. If using iNat has taught me anything, it’s that names are always changing and I’d better get used to it. At least I’m not much into fungi, since the experts’ understanding of what are different species in that group is so very much in flux, much less common and scientific names.
The AOS is only changing the common name at this time. However, in ornithology, these standardized common names are actually more important than the binominals, which are pretty much just a formality. For all intents and purposes they are changing the scientific names, as they are changing the names used for science.
The Bird Names for Birds websites heavily implies that changing the scientific names is their ultimate goal. This will actually cause far less disruption of literature and communication issue if it ever happens.
Again, the current system already does this. During my undergrad, I said birds were the one taxa I would never work with, not because I dislike birds, but because “bird people” are often so cliquish and elitist. Thankfully, I have since found groups that are much more open to diversity, both of thought and of demographic, and I have been an avian researcher and avid recreational birder ever since.
I say diversity of thought because I am close with many people on both sides of this issue, both for and against the change. However, of those people, the ones against will at least consider and acknowledge there are pros and cons to both sides. They don’t a) purposely mischaracterized what someone says, and b) agree this is a sticky issue where the current system promotes disparity (even if they disagree regarding the severity or the cost/benefit balance of certain progression).
Unfortunately, naturalists groups, particularly the birding community, largely remain elitist. This is something I’ve experienced myself and heard countless times from my otherwise naturalist-minded friends on why they aren’t interested in birds. And this is something I think can be seen very clearly reading some of the posts in this group, where people have a) denied all possibility that birds named after known racists and enslavers could possibly make some people feel uncomfortable, and b) repeatedly twisted arguments making it seem as if you are saying it’s a bad thing to have more Westerners involved in bird interests/conservation even though that’s clearly not what you are saying and you have clarified multiple times for them.
I assume you are referring to me here in that last part, so I suppose I should clarify things.
I agree there are a few problems with the current system, but I don’t agree this course of action is the correct one. I would have much preferred taking a few names on a case-by-case basis and left the vast majority alone. If it was fully up to me, I probably would have changed Bachman’s Sparrow and Scott’s Oriole and left the rest as is, but I certainly would have been willing to evaluate a few others.
As for “twisting your arguments”. if that’s not what you were trying to say then I legitimately don’t understand what you were trying to say.
This I would strongly oppose. Fiddle with the common names if that is desirable to some but leave the scientific names alone (unless you’re a taxonomist and have valid reasons for revising names according to the ICZN code). Thankfully, there actually is no mechanism to allow scientific names to be replaced just because the genus or specific epithet is somehow deemed undesirable or inaccurate … and that’s a good thing.
Common names are more important than binomials in ornithology in this day and age. Essentially, they are already changing the scientific names - they are changing the names used for science.
I get that for ornithology, but the revisions for bird common names are probably going to happen over time regardless of any opposition. And no doubt the names committees for other major taxonomic groups will be dragged kicking and screaming into doing something similar in the future. But I definitely draw the line at expunging eponyms from scientific names for any group of organisms. That would be chaos.
Charlie, I’d argue anyone is free to make their own conclusions and priorities on an issue, and the cause or justification of an issue. If for you (and others, I know this is not an isolated opinion) the general philosophy of having anything named after a human is the core issue, then that’s fine.
I’m just speaking for the course of the AOS decision and from a fundamental side of things.
Is there any reason to believe that the AOS won’t eventually try anyway? No. They have made it clear in the past that while they have not done so, they do fully believe they have the power to do so. All that matters is if the WGAC would be willing to follow along.
It’s not in their authority. I suppose they can try whatever they want but why would any ornithologist follow it if it doesn’t comply with ICZN rules regarding taxonomic priority? I think it would undermine AOS’s position as a science-based organization. I just don’t see it. But then I’ve seen stranger things…
Folks, let’s keep this about the changes proposed in the AOS announcement, and what names you think might be good replacements for the ones. Let’s have a constructive conversation where we can understand each others’ points of view in a civil way, even if we strongly disagree with them. We’re all here because we enjoy birds and other organisms, let’s focus on those shared passions rather than let this be fodder for more division on the internet. I don’t think anyone here has malign intent, we’re all just dealing, in different ways, with a change that affects something near and dear to us.
I do also want to stress that this announcment is a few days old and that nothing else has changed as far as I know. If you have direct feedback for AOS, it sounds like they will be making efforts to solicit it, and I’m sure you can write them now via email.
@raymie answered this, but I want to link again to AOS’s announcement and their FAQs, which have more info, if you’re interested.