Incorrect Common Names Being Added to Bird Subspecies

And that is what I don’t know, is if it’s all one user or not because I’m a regular user. Which was why I suggested the new feature in first place. However, I think if we touch base with the user we can figure out if these names are valid.

However, I want to bring up another concern of mine. Should we recognize Avibase as a reliable and recommended source to use, to add common names from? I think of this in a way like the taxon framework. If all scientific names/taxon changes to birds must comply with the Clements Checklist, why not have a framework for common names? Perhaps a little more discussion into that topic might help us decide what is an “acceptable” common name or not.

Because Avibase is one of the few sources that attempt to maintain a multilingual listing of species common names.

There are various and quite numerous sources that are region or language specific, but no other ones I am aware of (outside of the Wikispecies/Wikidata/Wikipedia frameworks which have separate issues of their own) which consolidate them.

For example I can point you to the internet site which is the best and most authoritative source of taxa common names in Danish. However, it has a great flaw, it solely captures species found in Denmark, kind of useless if you want to know or validate the Danish name for an Asian Elephant, or American Robin to use a bird example. This is the case for most of such regional/language specific resources.

Otherwise a framework as you suggest would require dozens if not hundreds of sources just for birds alone.

Please flag the taxon, a curator will take a look and they can loop in the user who changed the name to get them into the discussion.

1 Like

Ok, I’ll try to clarify myself. @tiwane said that I should flag the taxon but if you feel that Avibase is…

Do we accept their names? If so, my argument against misleading/incorrect/inappropriate subspecies common names is invalid and there’s nothing to flag, with exceptions being annectens Steller’s Jay would was a misspelling. However if we do accept Avibase names as inappropriate, then there is no reason leave all of them unflagged.

Right now the guideline says are the names used somewhere else, that’s all it says. Avibase is somewhere else.

It doesn’t say commonly used, or used in a lot of places, or used in one of these specified places.

There is clearly a spectrum to be used. If I write a blog post saying the name for B. canadensis is actually “Sparklepony goose”, then that should clearly not be implemented despite it too being “somewhere else”. Avibase is a respected site with a long history.

Unless there is evidence it is wrong, what basis is there to question it? I still see the best solution as adding the scientific name as an English name with a higher priority. That way the added name is still there as a reference, and does not have priority.

I’m not so sure about adding scientific names as English names for a variety of reasons, among other things they aren’t actually in English which may cause translation or other issues…

Denis Lepage, who manages Avibase, is my boss. He’s on vacation right now, but if you compile a list of names in Avibase which you want to know the origin of, I’ll pass them on. I can’t guarantee that he’ll have any answers better than “I don’t remember where that came from”, or that he’ll answer before Christmas, but it’s worth a shot if you really care about the common names of subspecies that much.

2 Likes

I can’t think of another technical solution other than some kind of new validation process that does not hen mean a binary choice then of either blocking all ssp common names or accepting these as they get entered.

I think at this point I just favor coordinating with people as issues come up and fixing issues if that isn’t relevant (such as no longer active users having made odd common names). I could see the potential for it to become a bigger issue but to me it doesn’t seem that big of an issue right now, definitely not enough so to spend limited staff time on anyway. Though that’s just my take.

1 Like

Most of the big ones have already been discussed in this thread; subspecies of Great Horned Owl, Steller’s Jay, Black-capped Chickadee, some Horned Lark ssp, some Song Sparrow ssp, Ruffed Grouse, Dusky Grouse…

But going back to the conversation, it was said…

So perhaps Denis got the names from old manuscripts from pre-1970 and if that’s the case, who knows how many of these names are out of date. But it appears I’m the only one really concerned about this issue and that’s because it will only be a matter of time before someone misidentifies a subarcticus Great Horned Owl for pallescens in like Kansas or something because the common name is misleading and out of date.

Sorry, I’ve been a little busy. I am going to flag at least one of the great horned owl subspecies, because as far as I’m aware of the common name for it is wrong.

1 Like

From what I see, the issue has evolved from is Avibase an appropriate source to add subspecies common names from to which Avibase sourced names are misspelled. Examples shown below show the subspecific scientific name, iNat name and lastly Avibase name in that order. I have now flagged those that are incorrect.

subarcticus Great Horned Owl – Northern Great Horned Owl – Western Great Horned Owl (however because of it’s plumage and range, I believe both names are still inappropriately describing the subspecies)

annectens Steller’s Jay – Black-fronted Steller’s Jay – Black-headed Steller’s Jay

gambelli Mountain Chickadee – Rocky Mountains Mountain Chickadee – Mountaion Chickadee (nominate) however Avibase does call the gambelli Group the Rocky Mountains Group.

I added a couple of flags myself.

1 Like

Denis says that most of the subspecies names in Avibase came from the AOU (now AOS) before it stopped publishing subspecies, so mostly from the 5th edition of the checklist, published in 1957. He considers them to be totally non-standard and non-standardized.

This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.