American Ornithological Society to Re-Name Birds

[15399]

As I am sure many are aware, the American Ornithological Society has recently decided to change the English names of all North American bird species with honorific names. While this is inevitably a controversial subject, I felt it would be beneficial to have a thread to report news about these decisions, and to discuss the new names of species once announced.

Here's a news article on the change: Bird renaming aims to stop honoring racism, birding group announces

Here's the site for "Bird Names for Birds", a group that helped spearhead this change: Bird Names For Birds

 

[birdsandbats]

I've already gone into this a lot on some other sites and would prefer not to be dragged back in here, as discussing this is not good for my mental health, but I strongly believe this to be generally an awful decision and ultimately harmful to the study of birds and their conservation.

 

[15399]

I've already gone into this a lot on some other sites and would prefer not to be dragged back in here, as discussing this is not good for my mental health, but I strongly believe this to be generally an awful decision and ultimately harmful to the study of birds and their conservation.

This is certainly a controversial subject, and truthfully I mean this thread less as a means to argue over whether this is the right or wrong decision, but to document news on the topic, as it does have rather big implications to discussing animals. For example, when new names are announced they could be posted here, information about the species being re-named, etc. Whether any of us like it or not, this change is happening, so it'll be beneficial to have this information easily accessible.

 

[birdsandbats]

This is certainly a controversial subject, and truthfully I mean this thread less as a means to argue over whether this is the right or wrong decision, but to document news on the topic, as it does have rather big implications to discussing animals. For example, when new names are announced they could be posted here, information about the species being re-named, etc. Whether any of us like it or not, this change is happening, so it'll be beneficial to have this information easily accessible.

Well I wish you luck. I've seen this topic come up in a lot of places and I think it will be impossible to maintain a thread like this without sparking a big debate (as the topic frankly SHOULD!).

 

[TinoPup]

IMO this is a much needed move and will make birding accessible to more people. I have yet to see a legit reason to oppose it.

I've already gone into this a lot on some other sites and would prefer not to be dragged back in here, as discussing this is not good for my mental health, but I strongly believe this to be generally an awful decision and ultimately harmful to the study of birds and their conservation.

So don't read the thread?? How on earth does this harm conservation?

 

[15399]

IMO this is a much needed move and will make birding accessible to more people. I have yet to see a legit reason to oppose it.

I think a lot of the criticisms over this is simply that people won't want to re-learn a large number of bird names and/or general resistance to change.

Personally the biggest reservation I have towards this change (although I'm generally in favor of it), is concern over whether or not the new names will make things easier or more difficult to understand. I saw a post on zoochat recently complaining about confusion over the name blue crowned pigeon, as the description in the name could just as easily apply to the Victorian crowned pigeon. Personally, I find it fairly confusing that there's a yellow-billed duck, yellow-billed pintail, and yellow-billed teal (not to mention other duck species that also have yellow bills). I hope whatever names end up being chosen are distinct enough to not lead to further confusion between species.

 

[birdsandbats]

IMO this is a much needed move and will make birding accessible to more people. I have yet to see a legit reason to oppose it.



So don't read the thread?? How on earth does this harm conservation?

*sigh*

English common names are how people communicate about birds. In basically all circles. In ornithology right now, binomials are maintained only as a formality. The standardized English common names have essentially replaced the scientific names, largely because of the high number of amateurs interested in birds. So this change is essentially changing the scientific names of birds, as it is changing the names used internationally for scientific purposes. And this is also not on a small scale. In the AOS' jurisdiction, there are over 260 bird species with eponymous names, plus a few others that the Common Name Committee has said they would like to change that are not eponyms, such as Flesh-footed Shearwater and Inca Dove. This alone is enough to cause a major disruption of ornithological scientific literature. These names have had a huge degree of stability over the last century and have changed far less often than the binomials, meaning they are basically more useful in ever respect. Is this something we want to throw away?

It also makes communication a massive headache for the layperson too. And communication with the public. When it has taken so long for an endangered bird like Kirtland's Warbler to get good public relations, what happens when it becomes a Jackpine Bird? The vast majority of birders will not hear of the decisions, either, and many will continue to use the old name for a very, very long time. Where I live, most people still call harriers Marsh Hawks, a name that hasn't appeared on any official checklist since 1956. And we are supposed to believe these names will change overnight and clear up all the confusion right away?

--

The main argument for these changes is to increase inclusion in birding. A noble goal for sure, and one I fully support. But I believe that this actually hurts inclusion. The confusion caused by the name change, suddenly useless field guides creates a knowledge gap, making birding less accessible. And if this change happens, how much will inclusion really increase. Are there any people who have thought: "I love birds, but I can't be interested in them because this hummingbird is named after someone named Anna"? No, and if there are, it's a tiny, tiny amount of people. If we wish to increase inclusion in birding, reaching out to minority communities, making birding areas more accessible, ect., would be a far better use of our time. This will only hurt accessibility and inclusion (and by extension, conservation, since more birders is positive for conservation).

--

This whole situation is also deeply unpopular with birders themselves, as evidenced here: https://osf.io/tnzya/.

--

I agree that we should not create new eponyms during taxonomic splits, and I would personally support renaming a small handful of birds on a case-by-case basis (Scott's Oriole, Bachman's Sparrow, perhaps others), but this radical and ridiculous proposal has massive repercussions that will harm the birding community and conservation for many decades to come.

I honestly have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'd really prefer not to discuss it anymore.

 

[Hyak_II]

IMO this is a much needed move and will make birding accessible to more people.

I'm genuinely curious how changing the common names of birds will make birding "more accessible" to people? I'm not being snarky with this at all, by the way. But very much interested to hear your take!

 

[snowleopard]

I agree with @TinoPup and think that it's about time that a number of bird names were changed. Much like some old North American sports teams names (e.g.: Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Edmonton Eskimos), some bird names have been offensive for decades. As that article points out, "Eskimo Curlew" and "Oldsquaw Duck" are horrible choices and at least the latter name was already altered in 2000.

For example, if a bird was named after a racist, genocidal bastard, then I fully support the idea of changing the name to something else. I don't fully understand why anyone would even want to keep the old name. Plenty of mountains, lakes, rivers and other elements of nature used to have names reflecting an older, bygone time when casual racism was unfortunately accepted. If a bird evokes even slight memories of awful events and beliefs, then absolutely the name should be changed. Also, I much prefer a name that is descriptive, like "Blue-footed Booby" rather than a bird named after a person. "Cooper's Hawk" tells me nothing.

 

[TinoPup]

I'm genuinely curious how changing the common names of birds will make birding "more accessible" to people? I'm not being snarky with this at all, by the way. But very much interested to hear your take!

For one, it will eliminate all birds named after problematic people. For a hobby that is trying to attract diversity, it's not very welcoming to those who aren't white males to have animals named after horrible people. We're not just talking slaveholders, which is bad enough - a lot of these guys believed Africans were literally a different species, well below white people. James Sligo Jameson (Jameson's Antpecker, Firefinch, and Wattle-eye) literally bought a 10-year-old girl and gave her to cannibals so he could sketch it. Bird Names For Birds has biographies on some of the people who really shouldn't have things named after them: Bios, A-Z

The plan is to rename birds after their characteristics. Traits that make it easier for people to ID species, or at least narrow down the possibilities. To go with an example that people aren't going to see but is very easy to explain, say someone sees a Spix's macaw and doesn't know what it is. They're going to start trying to ID it by looking up something like "blue parrot". "Spix" tells you nothing about the animal and makes it harder for an ID to pop up.

As a personal example, years ago (when I knew basically nothing about birds) I took a few photos of a flock next to a river feeding on fish. I didn't know what they were, but they looked like vultures and they were black, without the red heads I knew TVs have. I felt a little silly googling "black vulture" and finding out that they, in fact, were called black vultures, but it was super easy to find out and confirm.

 

[TinoPup]

*sigh*

English common names are how people communicate about birds. In basically all circles. In ornithology right now, binomials are maintained only as a formality. The standardized English common names have essentially replaced the scientific names, largely because of the high number of amateurs interested in birds. So this change is essentially changing the scientific names of birds, as it is changing the names used internationally for scientific purposes. And this is also not on a small scale. In the AOS' jurisdiction, there are over 260 bird species with eponymous names, plus a few others that the Common Name Committee has said they would like to change that are not eponyms, such as Flesh-footed Shearwater and Inca Dove. This alone is enough to cause a major disruption of ornithological scientific literature. These names have had a huge degree of stability over the last century and have changed far less often than the binomials, meaning they are basically more useful in ever respect. Is this something we want to throw away?

It also makes communication a massive headache for the layperson too. And communication with the public. When it has taken so long for an endangered bird like Kirtland's Warbler to get good public relations, what happens when it becomes a Jackpine Bird? The vast majority of birders will not hear of the decisions, either, and many will continue to use the old name for a very, very long time. Where I live, most people still call harriers Marsh Hawks, a name that hasn't appeared on any official checklist since 1956. And we are supposed to believe these names will change overnight and clear up all the confusion right away?

--

The main argument for these changes is to increase inclusion in birding. A noble goal for sure, and one I fully support. But I believe that this actually hurts inclusion. The confusion caused by the name change, suddenly useless field guides creates a knowledge gap, making birding less accessible. And if this change happens, how much will inclusion really increase. Are there any people who have thought: "I love birds, but I can't be interested in them because this hummingbird is named after someone named Anna"? No, and if there are, it's a tiny, tiny amount of people. If we wish to increase inclusion in birding, reaching out to minority communities, making birding areas more accessible, ect., would be a far better use of our time. This will only hurt accessibility and inclusion (and by extension, conservation, since more birders is positive for conservation).

--

This whole situation is also deeply unpopular with birders themselves, as evidenced here: https://osf.io/tnzya/.

--

I agree that we should not create new eponyms during taxonomic splits, and I would personally support renaming a small handful of birds on a case-by-case basis (Scott's Oriole, Bachman's Sparrow, perhaps others), but this radical and ridiculous proposal has massive repercussions that will harm the birding community and conservation for many decades to come.

I honestly have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'd really prefer not to discuss it anymore.

Stop being so dramatic. No one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to open the thread, you are choosing to engage.

They're doing 70-80 birds at a time. This is to make the transition happen faster (vs dragging it out over decades), and will help with changes for guides and other things birders hold so precious, for those that don't want to write in theirs. A lot of birds already have multiple names, anyway. I disagree that "the vast majority of birders" won't hear about these changes. Most birders use things like ebird these days, where they will see the changes. Birders know names change, species get split, etc. They use the internet to find hot spots and locate vagrants. We're not in some time where people only learn about things through books.

People who still call harriers by the name marsh hawk are stubborn (and probably opposed to the "politics" of these changes, to put it in zc-friendlier terms, anyway). Some name changes aren't going to make a difference to that. Should we not progress with science because some old guys are too lazy to learn new things?

I'm actually friends with, in facebook groups, follow on twitter, etc. a lot of birders who fit into the "diverse" label. They fully support the name changes, across the board, and have been ones trying to make this happen. They welcome names that help them ID birds instead of being about awful people who actively abused their ancestors.

For all of that typing, you never actually answered my question of how it hurts conservation. It doesn't. Anyone who is going to be less supportive of conservation because of a name change isn't someone who actually cared about conservation to begin with.

 

[15399]

While this has started in birds, I will be interested to see if this spreads to other groups as well. I know personally after learning how problematic and racist Linneaus was, I started using the Northern/Southern distinction for the two-toed sloths, rather than the Hoffmann's/Linneaus' distinction (both of which are considered valid).

Currently for college I'm taking a primatology course, and we've talked a lot about some of the colonial issues in primatology, both in terms of conservation efforts that don't fully consider indigenous peoples, but also the fact much of the field research published on primates is done by scientists not in primate field-range countries (i.e., Europe, United States, and Canada). While these issues wouldn't be solved if primatologists decided to rename the Coquerel's sifaka, Geoffroy's spider monkey, and Kloss' gibbon, at the same time it would be a nice gesture to give more recognition to either the local names of these species and/or names that are primarily descriptive. Granted, the challenges with birds are different than that of primates (for starters there are a whole lot more eponymous bird names than primate names), but recognizing a field's problematic past, even if through a measure that could be argued as mainly "symbolic", is the first step towards progressing towards more substantive changes.

While I will honestly admit it would certainly take a lot of adjustment to get used to new names for species I regularly refer to (most of whom aren't under the jurisdiction of AOS), and can sympathize with those who don't want to relearn large quantities of names, looking at this from the long-term picture there do seem to be more benefits than drawbacks, provided that the new names are thoughtfully created and avoid names that are too similar to each other (I already confuse the semipalmated sandpiper and semipalmated plover enough!), or too vague (how many duck species have yellow bills, for instance).

 

[TinoPup]

While this has started in birds, I will be interested to see if this spreads to other groups as well. I know personally after learning how problematic and racist Linneaus was, I started using the Northern/Southern distinction for the two-toed sloths, rather than the Hoffmann's/Linneaus' distinction (both of which are considered valid).

Currently for college I'm taking a primatology course, and we've talked a lot about some of the colonial issues in primatology, both in terms of conservation efforts that don't fully consider indigenous peoples, but also the fact much of the field research published on primates is done by scientists not in primate field-range countries (i.e., Europe, United States, and Canada). While these issues wouldn't be solved if primatologists decided to rename the Coquerel's sifaka, Geoffroy's spider monkey, and Kloss' gibbon, at the same time it would be a nice gesture to give more recognition to either the local names of these species and/or names that are primarily descriptive. Granted, the challenges with birds are different than that of primates (for starters there are a whole lot more eponymous bird names than primate names), but recognizing a field's problematic past, even if through a measure that could be argued as mainly "symbolic", is the first step towards progressing towards more substantive changes.

While I will honestly admit it would certainly take a lot of adjustment to get used to new names for species I regularly refer to (most of whom aren't under the jurisdiction of AOS), and can sympathize with those who don't want to relearn large quantities of names, looking at this from the long-term picture there do seem to be more benefits than drawbacks, provided that the new names are thoughtfully created and avoid names that are too similar to each other (I already confuse the semipalmated sandpiper and semipalmated plover enough!), or too vague (how many duck species have yellow bills, for instance).

It would be nice to see, but I'm not sure it's going to happen. People really don't go looking for wild mammals like they do birds, given how few there are in comparison/they travel a lot less. There's also less of a central organization that governs mammal names like they have with birds.

I suck at relearning things - it's hard enough for me to learn and remember them in the first place - but ultimately relearning things just means I have to try a little harder again and probably make a few more lists/powerpoints to practice. We already have to remember so many that go by 2+ different names in zoos (and then remember which name we chose for our yearly species lists...)

 

[Sheather]

I think it would make 100 times more sense to focus on making the latin names more familiar than to replace all birds named after people with new names. It feels like rewriting an old book because it doesn't appeal to modern values. The birds should be viewed as their own thing rather than a direct reflection of people who are very, very dead.

Especially coming from the Audobon Organization which is not changing their name!

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

The birds should be viewed as their own thing rather than a direct reflection of people who are very, very dead.

I mean you can say it like that, but it isn't all too feasible? Like once you look into people behind some of the names (eg. Przewalski ), saying the full name of the animal it becomes a lot harder to divorce the concept of the person behind that name and the animal itself and I agree with the concept that rather than going through a list of who's good and who's bad just to simply remove all eponymous names, so rather than 'rewriting an old book with modern values', it's more like throwing out the whole old book, good or flawed (thus not having it change in later times due to different perceptions of whats 'good' and whats 'bad'), and simply having bird names for birds (which I'd also like to see apply to different groups, but I don't think any of those have 'standardised/official' common names [Which I also sort of agree with, or at least the concept of a 'name thesaurus', ergo this article: Bird Names for the 21st Century - American Birding Association ]).

Also how would you go about familiarising latin names? I think the stability of those make sense, a scientific name should try and be as static as possible (Won't always due to splits and reshuffles, but otherwise should stay the same), as so a common point of reference can always be drawn upon, with the common name allowing for more deviation/change, as spoken languages usually do.

Also can't really be calling out the Audubon Society considering that's a different organistion to the AOS...

 

[Sheather]

Many birds' species name is still based on people like Cyanocitta stelleri as one example. At what point will the movement extent to try and rename the birds Latin names too because they're offensive? It's no less absurd than a movement to change what people call every bird in North America so as not to offend people because people living a century or more ago were sh*tty people.

Common names should be just that - whatever people refer to the bird as in passing. Forcing a change of common names does not make any logical sense. Just have people use the Latin name, if they are being made to learn another name anyway. That one will at least be consistent (for now...)

Audodon has spoken out in support of this movement but also defended their own name - hypocrisy.

In practice, it will be like when the Sears tower got bought out and renamed Willis tower. No one in Chicago calls it Willis Tower in passing reference. The birds old names won't disappear.

 

[lintworm]

I think this is a difficult subject, but I do have an issue with the current decision. It is being approached as a black-and-white problem (no pun intended) while the reality looks more like Elmer the Elephant.

That there are bird names that have to change such as ones like Hottentot and Eskimo or names given to highly controversial figures is common decency to me. Though I am always reminded to the discussion I had with a local black bird guide in Kakamega Forest, Kenya, who was perplexed that the negrofinches were renamed nigritas. He didn't see any value in that and I was arguing as a white male that it was a good change.

That birding in general (just like so many other outdoor activities) is overly dominated by white people (in birding often males) is also true. But I have yet to see any evidence that changing all honorific bird names is doing an iota to make birding more inclusive.

That common names change over time is normal, but I think such a decision should be based on a broader survey with involvement of all stakeholders, not just decided by a single small committee.

People in favour of this change often seem to prefer more descriptive bird names (like yellow-bellied) instead of birds named after people. I do however like that animal names in general can honour people as well. It is Natural History after all and these names give an extra name of complexity to the topic which makes it a lot more interesting to find out who these people were. Changing these names doesn't change the course of history and it is easy to blame people for living the way they did ages ago when we know so much better today.

But apparently some people are incapable of seeing complex things as complex and it is much easier to just ban something alltogether. Should racist slurs and other highly problematic names go, yes. But why are we incapable of seeing history as a complex thing in which we can appreciate and honour the important contribution some people have made to science, while still acknowledging that a part of their behaviour or families ties were problematic. Apparently making the calls on which names are too problematic is too difficult, so it is easier to throw out all the fine names too.... Not a great call....

 

[Sheather]

IApparently making the calls on which names are too problematic is too difficult, so it is easier to throw out all the fine names too.... Not a great call....

Just like in school when one misbehaving child meant everyone got no recess!

 

[birdsandbats]

Stop being so dramatic. No one is forcing you to reply. You are choosing to open the thread, you are choosing to engage.

They're doing 70-80 birds at a time. This is to make the transition happen faster (vs dragging it out over decades), and will help with changes for guides and other things birders hold so precious, for those that don't want to write in theirs. A lot of birds already have multiple names, anyway. I disagree that "the vast majority of birders" won't hear about these changes. Most birders use things like ebird these days, where they will see the changes. Birders know names change, species get split, etc. They use the internet to find hot spots and locate vagrants. We're not in some time where people only learn about things through books.

People who still call harriers by the name marsh hawk are stubborn (and probably opposed to the "politics" of these changes, to put it in zc-friendlier terms, anyway). Some name changes aren't going to make a difference to that. Should we not progress with science because some old guys are too lazy to learn new things?

I'm actually friends with, in facebook groups, follow on twitter, etc. a lot of birders who fit into the "diverse" label. They fully support the name changes, across the board, and have been ones trying to make this happen. They welcome names that help them ID birds instead of being about awful people who actively abused their ancestors.

For all of that typing, you never actually answered my question of how it hurts conservation. It doesn't. Anyone who is going to be less supportive of conservation because of a name change isn't someone who actually cared about conservation to begin with.

You think 70-80 birds at a time is a small amount? That still has massive ramifications for all forms of bird communication.

My point about Marsh Hawks was not that people are stubborn and lazy. These people are in many cases not ever aware the names have changed at all. When I was birding in Arizona, almost no birders I talked to knew what a Rivoli's Hummingbird was (and were only aware of the old name, Magnificent Hummingbird). What I was saying is whether we like it or not, the old names will remain around. We aren't giving birds new names, we're just adding to the number of names they have. This will especially be the case since IOC is retaining the names. That just increases confusion and makes it more difficult to communicate about birds. (And, if you're insulting people who use the old names for their own reasons, perhaps you don't have the right motivations for wanting these changes...)

Think about the timing we are doing this. More and more birds are in need of conservation action. More and more people are drifting away from nature. Is this really a time when we want to suddenly make communication about some of our most widespread, accessible, and charismatic organisms way more difficult? It seems like just about the worst time you could do it.

Believe me, I know a lot of birders from a lot of backgrounds. There are some people who are positive, but reactions are generally negative or ambivalent.

I'm not concerned people who are already about conservation will stop supporting it. But we are decreasing the number of people who will become interested, by making birding less accessible for newcomers.

 

[birdsandbats]

Many birds' species name is still based on people like Cyanocitta stelleri as one example. At what point will the movement extent to try and rename the birds Latin names too because they're offensive? It's no less absurd than a movement to change what people call every bird in North America so as not to offend people because people living a century or more ago were sh*tty people.

The Bird Names For Birds website heavily implies that they wish to change Latin names as well. It also implies the goal to change eponyms that come from place names (ex. American Robin), and the page generally has a touch of racism here and there.