This is all well and good until you look at Neotropical birds and find that they all have descriptive names that are honestly unhelpful. Zeledon's Antbird is memorable precisely because it isn't another "Black-whatevered Antbird".
American Ornithological Society to Re-Name Birds
- Thread starter 15399
- Start date
iloveyourzoos
Well-Known Member
I took some time to read the report from AOS in its entirety. (Can be found here: https://americanornithology.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1-AOS-EBNC_recommendations_23_10_19.pdf ), and a few things stuck out to me that hadn't been obvious from some of the other news articles and discussions. (or at least, that I was too daft to pick up on in my earlier reading).
The first was the creation of a new committee with expanded expertise from multiple fields, and the extensive discussion of wanting to engage the public at multiple stages of the process, from suggesting names all the way through to education afterward. I'm not familiar with how naming has been done in the past, but the document gives the impression that they are hoping for a process that actually includes a lot more stakeholders than in the past.
That will obviously depend upon effective implementation, but it sounds like they have a goal and intention of making the renaming process itself an educational process for the public (presumably with conservation in mind). This process point is one I hadn't seen reflected elsewhere: The idea is not simply a question of whether the final results (ie. a list of new names) will help with diversity and inclusion, but if implemented correctly, that the process itself is supposed to be part of supporting that too. I think that process and education and publicity part often gets lost (or at least it did for me), if we think of this primarily as a list of new names.
Another thing that I noticed was a discussion of how "the use of honorifics itself reflects exclusion in scientific participation", and "alternative methods of naming nature that do not imply ownership should be used." To me, these build upon -- and are perhaps even more important than -- the "bad vs.good actors" arguments and the "names are poor descriptors" arguments. It's not merely that names are less descriptive, but that the ownership implications are themselves a problem for how we approach conservation. And it's not merely a question of individual actors, but whether the practice of using human names at all is itself part of the problem.
I realize that each of those are more structural arguments about our relationship with science and with nature (and thus, with conservation!), but I found them highly compelling. [And oddly, made me want to go further than the report did and convinced me that we really should be changing the scientific names too, because not doing so leaves those biases in our science!]
Finally, there was an underdeveloped phrase that I found interesting: "Collaborative and transparent action can be its own form of stability". This was an interesting concept to me because it is a little different than the idea of stability as simply "keeping things the same". Because ultimately we have to ask what, exactly, it is that we are really "stabilizing", and what is being "stabilized". Are we essentially just stabilizing the ability to do google searches (or their verbal and paper equivalents), even in the age where redirects and quick explanatory notes could accomplish the same thing? Are we stabilizing and perpetuating (perhaps unknowingly and unwittingly) those traditional hierarchies that carry with them historical practices of ownership and exclusion? Or is our goal to work proactively to stabilize (and create and empower!) a diverse and inclusive community that is better able to meet our conservation imperatives in the future?
The first was the creation of a new committee with expanded expertise from multiple fields, and the extensive discussion of wanting to engage the public at multiple stages of the process, from suggesting names all the way through to education afterward. I'm not familiar with how naming has been done in the past, but the document gives the impression that they are hoping for a process that actually includes a lot more stakeholders than in the past.
That will obviously depend upon effective implementation, but it sounds like they have a goal and intention of making the renaming process itself an educational process for the public (presumably with conservation in mind). This process point is one I hadn't seen reflected elsewhere: The idea is not simply a question of whether the final results (ie. a list of new names) will help with diversity and inclusion, but if implemented correctly, that the process itself is supposed to be part of supporting that too. I think that process and education and publicity part often gets lost (or at least it did for me), if we think of this primarily as a list of new names.
Another thing that I noticed was a discussion of how "the use of honorifics itself reflects exclusion in scientific participation", and "alternative methods of naming nature that do not imply ownership should be used." To me, these build upon -- and are perhaps even more important than -- the "bad vs.good actors" arguments and the "names are poor descriptors" arguments. It's not merely that names are less descriptive, but that the ownership implications are themselves a problem for how we approach conservation. And it's not merely a question of individual actors, but whether the practice of using human names at all is itself part of the problem.
I realize that each of those are more structural arguments about our relationship with science and with nature (and thus, with conservation!), but I found them highly compelling. [And oddly, made me want to go further than the report did and convinced me that we really should be changing the scientific names too, because not doing so leaves those biases in our science!]
Finally, there was an underdeveloped phrase that I found interesting: "Collaborative and transparent action can be its own form of stability". This was an interesting concept to me because it is a little different than the idea of stability as simply "keeping things the same". Because ultimately we have to ask what, exactly, it is that we are really "stabilizing", and what is being "stabilized". Are we essentially just stabilizing the ability to do google searches (or their verbal and paper equivalents), even in the age where redirects and quick explanatory notes could accomplish the same thing? Are we stabilizing and perpetuating (perhaps unknowingly and unwittingly) those traditional hierarchies that carry with them historical practices of ownership and exclusion? Or is our goal to work proactively to stabilize (and create and empower!) a diverse and inclusive community that is better able to meet our conservation imperatives in the future?
It is nice that they plan to do that, but in the decision making process of getting to the current point, consultation wasn't really done, so that is a big flaw. It sounds like "we have decided from our ivory tower that this is the goal & we will work together to achieve this goal". It would have been far preferable to work together to set the goals in the first place.
This is only 1 strain of thought. There are enough papers that dispute this, including ones written by scientists from the global south. This position paper only reflects 1 part of the current scientific debate and reasons very much towards their preferred outcome.
Maybe I shouldn’t really have a say in this since I don’t know much about birds and I don’t do bird watching. I do think naming birds after physical features is a nice idea. I just hope this won’t result in something silly like renaming the Major Mitchel cockatoo to pink cockatoo while there is another cockatoo that is also pink.
However, as others brought up this should be approached with nuance and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
Why do I have a superstitious feeling that this campaign is starting to feel like a power move?
Also can you elaborate on the touch of racism?
However, as others brought up this should be approached with nuance and decisions should be made on a case by case basis.
Why do I have a superstitious feeling that this campaign is starting to feel like a power move?
Also can you elaborate on the touch of racism?
Changing scientific names would be a lot more difficult, and a lot more problematic, than changing common names. I was talking about the changes to bird names with one of my professors, who has done a lot of historical ecology work (albeit not with birds), and her opinion was basically that she was in favor of the common name changes for a few reasons (increased accessibility of names being a big one), but that it's important not to change scientific names because that would cause a lot of communication issues between scientific papers. It's already difficult enough to read an old scientific paper on animals because splits and lumps have changed the scientific names (I'm running into this issue in some gibbon research for primatology), but decisions to change a scientific name shouldn't be done lightly or to keep up with the times in the same way common names are able to.
In birds, common names are generally more important than scientific names. Changing them would honestly cause less disruption.
Bird Names for Birds Website said:
In the scientific literature, this is not the case. Scientific names still remain the important standard in understanding what species are being referenced in scientific literature, especially since common names oftentimes aren't the same in every region of the world, or in every language. I have no doubt birders use common names frequently to reference birds, but in the academic discipline scientific names are still the primary way to identify a species.
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.
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.
Last edited:
BovidBabe
Well-Known Member
What I think I am struggling to understand is why this is having time and effort put into it when there are so many other more pressing issues that could use this attention. The world is on fire, why not have these people who are reviewing species and discussing name changes tackle issues on public education on conserving these birds? Or lobbying governments to protect endangered habitats? Once we are on a little more stable ground, sure, go ahead and try. But what's the point of renaming a bird that is going to go extinct in 10 years?
I think some name changes now are good, like the outdated racial terms. But to claim that having people's names who did bad things attached to birds is "exclusionary" seems a little disingenuous to me. Yes, these naturalists were terrible people that believed in and did bad things. But unless you are already aware of the person a bird is named after, it's not ...exclusionary. It gives a chance to learn about naturalist history, too.
To poke the bear a little bit, the city of Winnipeg recently renamed two roads that were named after colonizers, and changed them to Indigenous names. This costs the city way too much money, while the roads are falling apart. People are upset about the roads falling apart, so they are much more disinterested in accepting the new name, despite the public awareness campaigns that also cost way too much money. Not quite the same situation as the birds, but this is a trend I have been noticing more are more. Changing names isn't changing the world here, but some people seem to act like it is.
I think some name changes now are good, like the outdated racial terms. But to claim that having people's names who did bad things attached to birds is "exclusionary" seems a little disingenuous to me. Yes, these naturalists were terrible people that believed in and did bad things. But unless you are already aware of the person a bird is named after, it's not ...exclusionary. It gives a chance to learn about naturalist history, too.
To poke the bear a little bit, the city of Winnipeg recently renamed two roads that were named after colonizers, and changed them to Indigenous names. This costs the city way too much money, while the roads are falling apart. People are upset about the roads falling apart, so they are much more disinterested in accepting the new name, despite the public awareness campaigns that also cost way too much money. Not quite the same situation as the birds, but this is a trend I have been noticing more are more. Changing names isn't changing the world here, but some people seem to act like it is.
Pantheraman
Well-Known Member
In my honest opinion, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen.
Of the actual challenges facing North American Bird Conservation, this is not one of them.
More to the point, instead of getting worked up over several bird names, wouldn't it be better to use that energy to actually conserve bird species? Sure you can rename something as many times as you want, but renaming animals doesn't conserve them, reintroduce them, etc. When it comes to diversifying the birding community, which is absolutely a good thing, I don't think this will bring in more birdwatchers. If anything it'll probably discourage people from joining the birding community because this kind of topic is very divisive, and nowadays people will do or not do something based on a group or company's political stance when they take one. It brings in one side of the playing field, but it alienates the other half.
Of the actual challenges facing North American Bird Conservation, this is not one of them.
More to the point, instead of getting worked up over several bird names, wouldn't it be better to use that energy to actually conserve bird species? Sure you can rename something as many times as you want, but renaming animals doesn't conserve them, reintroduce them, etc. When it comes to diversifying the birding community, which is absolutely a good thing, I don't think this will bring in more birdwatchers. If anything it'll probably discourage people from joining the birding community because this kind of topic is very divisive, and nowadays people will do or not do something based on a group or company's political stance when they take one. It brings in one side of the playing field, but it alienates the other half.
Last edited:
I recall my thoughts on this were -
I feel that with the proposed changes to American bird names are somewhat extreme. I recall when I was younger I didn't have much knowledge about taxonomy... so the alphabet presented itself a pleasant way to arrange the world of animals as I saw it. So naturally ibex, quetzal, umbrellabird and xenopus were animals that elicited excitement. These days the alphabet isn't quite as exciting in this regard... after all common names are malleable by nature. They arise by culture - what is a 'moose' here is an 'elk' over there and all that. And so it is that I don't think common names should be policed as they are with birds. If a person calls it an 'Anna's Hummingbird'... does that mean that they are flying in the face [ahem] of the way of science? Some people don't see a Southern Ocean. Some people call Pluto a planet. And so will some birders still call the birds by the names they have grown well to use over many, many decades. And that's okay...
I have said that I think a suitable compromise would be for official organisations to use whatever name they'd like to use... but use the scientific name alongside so that they can speak the universal language of biology!
But I do find it a bit America-first... if you don't have intent to do much with other continents, then you expose it as America-centric. And is that what you [the organisations] really want? For birding to be looked at as 'American as Apple Pie'?
I feel that with the proposed changes to American bird names are somewhat extreme. I recall when I was younger I didn't have much knowledge about taxonomy... so the alphabet presented itself a pleasant way to arrange the world of animals as I saw it. So naturally ibex, quetzal, umbrellabird and xenopus were animals that elicited excitement. These days the alphabet isn't quite as exciting in this regard... after all common names are malleable by nature. They arise by culture - what is a 'moose' here is an 'elk' over there and all that. And so it is that I don't think common names should be policed as they are with birds. If a person calls it an 'Anna's Hummingbird'... does that mean that they are flying in the face [ahem] of the way of science? Some people don't see a Southern Ocean. Some people call Pluto a planet. And so will some birders still call the birds by the names they have grown well to use over many, many decades. And that's okay...
I have said that I think a suitable compromise would be for official organisations to use whatever name they'd like to use... but use the scientific name alongside so that they can speak the universal language of biology!
But I do find it a bit America-first... if you don't have intent to do much with other continents, then you expose it as America-centric. And is that what you [the organisations] really want? For birding to be looked at as 'American as Apple Pie'?
Read the thread. Being concerned about species names doesn't mean people stop caring about conservation, we can care about more than one thing at a time. Better names absolutely WILL bring in new birders, and will make others feel safer. The other half deserves to be alienated if they're going to quit caring about wildlife because they have different names.
It's an American organization starting with American species. No one is saying that others won't be looked at in the future, you have to start somewhere.
Completely missing the entire point, cool
Maybe that name wasn't keeping anyone away, but some animal names are way more problematic than whoever Anna was. While I know this wasn't a bird, I've started referring to Choeloepus didactylus as the 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. In some cases, these are the kinds of people animals are named after and they absolutely deserve to be renamed. There's even a beetle that's named after Adolf Hitler. While I agree many names aren't problematic on their own, it's a lot simpler (and I'd say less controversial) to rename every eponymous name, rather than individually weigh the merits of every single name there is.
Unfortunately, what I would argue is the most problematic name in ornithology isn't one that will be touched by this AOS initiative- and that's the name of the Audubon society.
This is an American organization, they have no say over what the organizations in other parts of the world do. Furthermore, I'd say it'd be a lot more problematic if this organization (or any Western organization) were to dictate name changes in other regions as well, as it feeds into the colonialist attitudes the name changes are trying to reduce. The American Ornithological Society has made their decision. Now let the African ornithology organization (sorry, I don't know what it's name is) decide for themselves whether or not to rename birds, and likewise with the organizations from other continents.
I think that this decision goes 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
All common names for birds should be cancelled, and every single bird species should be renamed Bob.
All common names for birds should be cancelled, and every single bird species should be renamed Bob.
I for one call what people otherwise call a “woodpecker” a koala bird because of the way how it looks like it is hanging on the side of a tree.
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.