American Ornithological Society to Re-Name Birds

[TinoPup]

People keep saying this, but I have a hard time believing that it will be significant in any way.

Quit caring? I doubt anyone will. But I do foresee a future where many of these people leave the birding community over these changes. Also, wanting people to be alienated because they don't want to follow these changes is honestly a disgusting attitude.

They're not going to be coming in droves or anything, especially when there's still so many birders who don't like anyone who supports the name changes. But I follow enough people on social media to know that it will make a difference.

If someone is going to stop birding and stop caring about bird conservation because of some names being changed so birds are no longer named after racists, colonizers, misogynists, etc, then they didn't truly care about the birds to begin with. They're names. They're still the same birds they previously liked. Did anyone quit liking Amur tigers when their name was changed from Siberian?

 

[Pantheraman]

They're not going to be coming in droves or anything, especially when there's still so many birders who don't like anyone who supports the name changes. But I follow enough people on social media to know that it will make a difference.

If someone is going to stop birding and stop caring about bird conservation because of some names being changed so birds are no longer named after racists, colonizers, misogynists, etc, then they didn't truly care about the birds to begin with. They're names. They're still the same birds they previously liked. Did anyone quit liking Amur tigers when their name was changed from Siberian?

And how many people do you actually follow on social media? 10? 5? Regardless, the number of people you follow is pretty irrelevant because, despite the number of people you follow, it's still a small number within the birding community which contains millions of people.

You cannot compare the name change with Amur Tigers with this situation because that had nothing to do with politics. Which leads me to my next point. We're not talking about current birders, but people wanting to get into birding, particularly those who are either sick of political correctness and/or woke politics seeping into everything or simply just want to stay out of the culture war.

They either simply won't want any part of it or are otherwise less likely to join the birding community. It doesn't mean they never cared about the birds to begin with, it just means they're sick of certain political ideas being jammed down their throats.

Think of the birding world as a business selling a product. When you take a political stance you run the risk of alienating half your audience since they disagree with whatever position you take. It's stupid but that's the world we live in and since birding is a force in conservation, there's no sense in doing something like this that'll split the audience in half. Especially since now in North America, literally, the only kind of habitats that are increasing in number are wetland ecosystems.

And when it comes to caring about birds, you say that if someone stops birding or caring about bird conservation when bird names are changed so they aren't named after certain people, they never cared about the birds to begin with. True. However, the exact same thing can and should be said about people who get offended by bird names. If the names of birds need to be changed to get more people into birding, then the people conservationists are trying to please also never cared about the birds to begin with either.

I also find it ironic that this entire thing is to help increase inclusivity which is a good thing, but at the same time, you say the other half deserves to be alienated. Yeah...doesn't sound very inclusive to me. Rather, the complete opposite.

 

[15399]

Think of the birding world as a business selling a product. When you take a political stance you run the risk of alienating half your audience since they disagree with whatever position you take.

This would work if it was a matter of "political stance vs. no political stance", but this is a decision between two political stances. The AOS had the option to:
a. change the names of all eponymous birds.
b. cherry-pick problematic names to change.
c. defend names that are racist, misogynistic, colonialist, or otherwise problematic.

Doing nothing, in this case, *was* a political stance, a stance in favor of keeping problematic names, so I don't think there was a non-alienating choice. At the end of the day, the AOS isn't going around and policing what names birders use either. Yes, it matters as to what names are written in peer-reviewed journals, official publications, etc., but nobody is telling birders that they can't keep calling an animal what they've always been calling it, the rest of the world will just change without them.

 

[Pantheraman]

This would work if it was a matter of "political stance vs. no political stance", but this is a decision between two political stances. The AOS had the option to:
a. change the names of all eponymous birds.
b. cherry-pick problematic names to change.
c. defend names that are racist, misogynistic, colonialist, or otherwise problematic.

Doing nothing, in this case, *was* a political stance, a stance in favor of keeping problematic names, so I don't think there was a non-alienating choice. At the end of the day, the AOS isn't going around and policing what names birders use either. Yes, it matters as to what names are written in peer-reviewed journals, official publications, etc., but nobody is telling birders that they can't keep calling an animal what they've always been calling it, the rest of the world will just change without them.

Actually, doing nothing wasn't taking a political stance. People simply made it political just like everything else and the AOS felt like it had to go down this road and here we are.

 

[birdsandbats]

This would work if it was a matter of "political stance vs. no political stance", but this is a decision between two political stances. The AOS had the option to:
a. change the names of all eponymous birds.
b. cherry-pick problematic names to change.
c. defend names that are racist, misogynistic, colonialist, or otherwise problematic.

Doing nothing, in this case, *was* a political stance, a stance in favor of keeping problematic names, so I don't think there was a non-alienating choice. At the end of the day, the AOS isn't going around and policing what names birders use either. Yes, it matters as to what names are written in peer-reviewed journals, official publications, etc., but nobody is telling birders that they can't keep calling an animal what they've always been calling it, the rest of the world will just change without them.

The NACC (the part of the AOS in charge of North American bird names) actually unanimously voted to go with option b, the far better choice IMO. But the AOS higher ups disagreed and created the situation we have now, which caused the resignation of most of the AOS' ornithologists and the split-off of the SACC into a separate organization.

 

[TinoPup]

And how many people do you actually follow on social media? 10? 5? Regardless, the number of people you follow is pretty irrelevant because, despite the number of people you follow, it's still a small number within the birding community which contains millions of people.

You cannot compare the name change with Amur Tigers with this situation because that had nothing to do with politics. Which leads me to my next point. We're not talking about current birders, but people wanting to get into birding, particularly those who are either sick of political correctness and/or woke politics seeping into everything or simply just want to stay out of the culture war.

They either simply won't want any part of it or are otherwise less likely to join the birding community. It doesn't mean they never cared about the birds to begin with, it just means they're sick of certain political ideas being jammed down their throats.

Think of the birding world as a business selling a product. When you take a political stance you run the risk of alienating half your audience since they disagree with whatever position you take. It's stupid but that's the world we live in and since birding is a force in conservation, there's no sense in doing something like this that'll split the audience in half. Especially since now in North America, literally, the only kind of habitats that are increasing in number are wetland ecosystems.

And when it comes to caring about birds, you say that if someone stops birding or caring about bird conservation when bird names are changed so they aren't named after certain people, they never cared about the birds to begin with. True. However, the exact same thing can and should be said about people who get offended by bird names. If the names of birds need to be changed to get more people into birding, then the people conservationists are trying to please also never cared about the birds to begin with either.

I also find it ironic that this entire thing is to help increase inclusivity which is a good thing, but at the same time, you say the other half deserves to be alienated. Yeah...doesn't sound very inclusive to me. Rather, the complete opposite.

The use of the term "woke" tells me all I need to know. One point, though: "If the names of birds need to be changed to get more people into birding, then the people conservationists are trying to please also never cared about the birds to begin with either." This isn't remotely the same comparison. They DO care about birds and birding, that's why they're pushing for this to begin with. One group doesn't want to learn new names, the other wants to see names that help people learn instead of names that represent awful people.

 

[birdsandbats]

One group doesn't want to learn new names, the other wants to see names that help people learn instead of names that represent awful people.

Maybe some people are looking at it this way? I want what makes birding the most accessible and easy to understand as possible. This act of renaming all of eponymous birds runs counter to that.

 

[TinoPup]

Maybe some people are looking at it this way? I want what makes birding the most accessible and easy to understand as possible. This act of renaming all of eponymous birds runs counter to that.

How does giving birds names that have to do with the actual birds, instead of horrible people, run counter to that?

 

[Pantheraman]

The use of the term "woke" tells me all I need to know. One point, though: "If the names of birds need to be changed to get more people into birding, then the people conservationists are trying to please also never cared about the birds to begin with either." This isn't remotely the same comparison. They DO care about birds and birding, that's why they're pushing for this to begin with. One group doesn't want to learn new names, the other wants to see names that help people learn instead of names that represent awful people.

If that is the case, then don't you think they'd be much more concerned about actual bird conservation issues such as habitat loss. Imagine how much better the birds themselves could be if these people spent this kind of time and energy on a conservation issue that was an actual issue. At the end of the day, these bird names are just that. Names. Things that honestly shouldn't be worth getting worked up over. It's simply that these people let mere names be obstacles or make them out to be because these days people seem to get offended by everything.

And instead of changing names, why not just give each bird a second name? That way those pushing for the changes get different names to call birds and older birders don't have to learn new names. I mean, if the cougar aka puma aka mountain lion aka deer tiger aka catamount etc can have multiple names ( granted that's due to their range overlapping with several different cultures, but I digress), then I don't see why they can't simply give the birds second names.

Then again, that involves compromise, a concept Americans nowadays seem unable to comprehend or don't want to accept.

 

[WalkingAgnatha]

How do you still struggle to comprehend that those are 2 entirely unrelated issues, and focusing on one does in fact not detract from the other issue.

Also I do believe a 'thesaurus' of bird names is a good idea (ala the article I linked in my first post), I see no reason to stick with a single 'codified' name, and of course one will always use the names they're familiar with/want to, it's not like the AOS can ban you from using different names, there'll always be some variation especially considering splits and lumps.

No idea where the last part of your rant came from.

 

[lintworm]

I can write a lot again on this topic, but someone has already done it better in 2 blog posts, which I think are very on point:

Some Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Birding Despite Disability

More Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Birding Despite Disability

What's next: are we going to cancel movies that use Leitmotivs, because their inventor Wagner was a racist and are we going to rename Einsteinium because he made some racist comments?

Reasonableness has never been part of this debate, but I have also not seen any evidence that this is the one thing that makes birding more inclusive. It is not as if anyone will know the biography of the person a bird is named after once he starts birding (or in many cases even if he has been birding for decades).

 

[CMP]

This isn't remotely the same comparison. They DO care about birds and birding, that's why they're pushing for this to begin with.

I feel as though you are overgeneralizing. It's all good and well that the people you follow on various platforms all share your sentiment, but it is somewhat patronizing to say that your specific feed represents all or most 'new/interested minority/underrepresented' NA birders. I've been the only voice from this group in this thread so far (That has been open about it), and in my post, I didn't agree with some of the opinions you shared. I suggest you read my post to see another perspective from the group you are advocating/pandering for.

I am a multiethnic/mixed race male, (And therefore considered non-white and 'diverse' by US racial standards), and I find the pandering completely unnecessary. Yes, the people of the past were problematic, and yes, the field has been mostly Western European male dominated. The common names of birds is NOT something that has been a barrier to entry or has made me felt like an 'outsider' to the field. The truth of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, these honorifics are a part of the history of the formal standardized description of organisms. (Not discovery, though- most birds were already known to various people groups but were not formally described in the international standard spearheaded by Western European naturalists.)

Changing the names to 'appeal' to non-white birders seems like trying to sugarcoat history to me. It seems like people getting offended on others' behalf, when there are more pressing matters at hand. I don't think that reason is valid.

However, I am not fully for or against the name changes. A part of me is excited for it, because name changes mean new names to lean, and I always enjoy learning about new species, which the new common names may feel like at first. However, I can definitely see how this is not something everyone likes, and once someone is used to something like a name, they would not want that changed.

Another reason why I am not decidedly for or against the changes is that honorifics are often implemented in the scientific name. I think it is fine if the person responsible for the creation of a scientific name for a species, if they were the one who formally described the species according to the international standard, were to have the scientific name after them or someone they were connected to. This way, the history, however potentially ugly, can be kept. I would be staunchly against changing scientific names for reasons other than taxonomic updates.

However, I don't see a reason in principle for common names to also be honorifics. Common names should be that- common. Their purpose should provide utility, so I am generally in favor of avoiding honorifics for common names, especially for new splits.

Another point is the language itself. Why should any species be named as if they belong to someone? A scientific name can honor someone who formally developed the scientific name for the species, but as for common names, I don't see the argument as much. Species don't belong to whoever formally described them, so it does not make too much sense for the language of the common names to reflect something like that.

tl;dr, as someone who the changes in part may be potentially trying to appease, I don't really appreciate that notion. However, I think that the general idea behind trending away from honorifics for common names is not a terrible idea, so I am not decidedly for or against the changes.

There is such thing as going too far. Good intentions can lead to bad outcomes. And what someone thinks is best for another may not always be what they think is best for themselves.

 

[JVM]

As someone who is not the best on ornithological matters and has questions on multiple parts of the topic at hand, I was hoping to find some of this thread educational or enlightening, but I want to admit I am finding a lot of this thread deeply uncomfortable. I think a lot of people are making some frankly very bad faith arguments and some of these are people I deeply respect on this site for the contributions they've made, people I want to question gently but don't want to sound like I'm trying to argue in bad faith with in turn.

I think it would help if instead of beating around the bush there was more discussion about specific birds and specific people they are named after, rather than falling back on arguing about a bunch of strawmen.

 

[lintworm]

Southern two-toed sloth, because I was uncomfortable with the idea of an animal being named after someone who developed taxonomy for the specific purpose of proving a biological difference between human races, and arguing for racial superiority

I think you are misrepresenting what Linneaus did. Yes he classified humans in a racist way (at least he classified them as animals), but saying he developed his taxonomy (all his work, or just his work on humans?) to prove biological differences between human races goes very far. When reading on this topic it seems that the American left has taken a quite extreme position in this (and politicised it), but you can't name Linneaus as the founder of scientific racism to quote a Swedish scientist:

much of the debate has some kind of strange inverted “genius-cult” attached to it. And I agree with him: Linnaeus is not the “father” of any these isms, simply because they don’t have any “fathers”. They are results of historical processes where Linnaeus sometimes is one ingredient or factor, but not the sole explanation

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1725818/FULLTEXT02.pdf

I suggest you step out of your bubble and read a bit more on the topic with an open mind. I personally don't think it was his specific purpose, but rather a (flawed) consequence of his aim to classify life on planet earth. Do I agree with him, certainly not, is he free of blame, certainly not. But it would be good take a more nuanced view.

I think it would help if instead of beating around the bush there was more discussion about specific birds and specific people they are named after, rather than falling back on arguing about a bunch of strawmen.

The easy one where most people will agree is McCown's longspur, named after a confederate general. But Audubon who made great contributions to ornithology owned slaves too and was a racist. So do you honour its contributions to science or shun him?

While we are at it, what about renaming America, Amerigo Vespucci traded slaves too. Just to prove how slippery the slope is....

 

[JVM]

The easy one where most people will agree is McCown's longspur, named after a confederate general. But Audubon who made great contributions to ornithology owned slaves too and was a racist. So do you honour its contributions to science or shun him?

While we are at it, what about renaming America, Amerigo Vespucci traded slaves too. Just to prove how slippery the slope is....

One of Audubon's great contributions to ornithology was the Bird of Washington, an animal that not only has science concluded does not exist, but for which there is evidence of outright scientific fraud on his part, plagiarism and falsified evidence and instructed a friend about to cover his fraud to the rest of the scientific community, according to this paper. This is not a black and white question of a scientist who made brilliant, great contributions but may have a personal failing, but someone whose own contributions to the scientific community include fraud. If I've misinterpreted the paper or it has been discredited, that would be welcome information; I am only stating my understanding of the report. I have kept this entire paragraph about Audubon's contributions to science and nothing else of the matter.

I think we can discuss Audubon and McCown fine without the inclusion of a strawman of some imaginary extremist who does not exist yet wants to rename a continent. You suggested earlier that "reasonableness has never been part of this debate" and I don't think that is reasonable to compare renaming animals to renaming continents.

 

[lintworm]

One of Audubon's great contributions to ornithology was the Bird of Washington, an animal that not only has science concluded does not exist, but for which there is evidence of outright scientific fraud on his part, plagiarism and falsified evidence and instructed a friend about to cover his fraud to the rest of the scientific community, according to this paper. This is not a black and white question of a scientist who made brilliant, great contributions but may have a personal failing, but someone whose own contributions to the scientific community include fraud. If I've misinterpreted the paper or it has been discredited, that would be welcome information; I am only stating my understanding of the report. I have kept this entire paragraph about Audubon's contributions to science and nothing else of the matter.

Complicated isn't it . He is (partly) a fraud who didn't shy away from lying/misrepresenting stuff. But still he revolutionized bird art and named a good number of species (though he didn't give his co-workers due credit). So these days nobody would name a society or a bird after him, just as Meinertzhagen isn't exactly a crowd favourite. But is his behaviour bad enough that it outweighs what he did mean for birds in America (even though that was partly a carefully created history) and more importantly what do we really gain from it apart from creating a lot of divisive discussion?

I think we can discuss Audubon and McCown fine without the inclusion of a strawman of some imaginary extremist who does not exist yet wants to rename a continent. You suggested earlier that "reasonableness has never been part of this debate" and I don't think that is reasonable to compare renaming animals to renaming continents.

You would be surprised what exists in the corners of the internet... Anyway I don't think it is a strawman argument because renaming birds is part of a larger movement to rename/erase stuff that are named for problematic historical figures . On a higher/ philosopical level renaming America is not different from renaming a bird. The question is the same and as such it makes sense to look at what precedent one is setting.

 

[Jana]

This theme of changing English names of all bird species that are named after historical figures has come in short discussion in Czech ornitologist community recently. Unanimous consensus was that Americans who try to enforce it are stupid twits separated from reality who have too much free time on their hands.

While we have our own bird names and most our ornitologists know Latin names too, locals that travel abroad for bird watching will need to re-learn English bird names because English is lingua franca in tourism branche in some parts of the world even outside Anglosphere proper.

 

[OkapiJohn]

Actually, doing nothing wasn't taking a political stance. People simply made it political just like everything else and the AOS felt like it had to go down this road and here we are.

Humans are political beings. Everything is political in our human lives. We perceive the world around us based on our own perceptions, beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Saying that something is not political is by itself a political statement.

 

[birdsandbats]

How does giving birds names that have to do with the actual birds, instead of horrible people, run counter to that?

Because doing this ruins the nomenclatural stability we have had around birds, making it suddenly much more difficult to learn about and communicate about birds. We are creating a knowledge barrier, making it more difficult for new birders to learn and more difficult to communicate to the public, and calling it progress. Utter nonsense.

I said this earlier. Have you just been ignoring the arguments of the opposition? I was hoping you were here debating this in good faith.

The easy one where most people will agree is McCown's longspur, named after a confederate general. But Audubon who made great contributions to ornithology owned slaves too and was a racist. So do you honour its contributions to science or shun him?

Re McCown, there is no evidence he owned or traded slaves and there's some evidence he may have been an abolitionist.

 

[amur leopard]

I can write a lot again on this topic, but someone has already done it better in 2 blog posts, which I think are very on point:

Some Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Birding Despite Disability

More Thoughts on Bird Names and Barriers - Birding Despite Disability

What's next: are we going to cancel movies that use Leitmotivs, because their inventor Wagner was a racist and are we going to rename Einsteinium because he made some racist comments?

Reasonableness has never been part of this debate, but I have also not seen any evidence that this is the one thing that makes birding more inclusive. It is not as if anyone will know the biography of the person a bird is named after once he starts birding (or in many cases even if he has been birding for decades).

Found myself nodding in agreement with most of what was written in the articles linked above. I have no idea if it will actually improve inclusivity within the birding community, which I of course fully support, but I object to potentially lumping people like Kirtland in with people like Jameson. I do however recognise the difficulty of distinguishing and drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is not.

The issue is also partly one of precedents. If no nuance is made in this case, it suggests that the issue is black and white in nature. Getting rid of eponyms like Humboldt, for me, would be shameful. As a fervent abolitionist and anti-colonialist while being one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, I'd argue he's contributed more to biology as it is today than any other scientist, yet there is a distinct danger of gradually eliminating him from public conscience in the same breath as the people he resented. That makes no sense to me, and it will likely become a problem in the wider context of these changes.

Having said this I have no problem with the changing of common names of select birds from eponyms for people like Jameson to names that better describe the animal.