Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names

[UngulateNerd92]

I know that this is from mid-2020, but I still felt it was worth sharing here.

"Amid protests over racism and inequality over the last months, Confederate statues and similar markers across the U.S. have been removed — some quietly, in the middle of the night, and some toppled by crowds. A similar reckoning is happening in the bird world when it comes to eponymous and honorific English common bird names — human names placed on birds, either to honor or memorialize someone.

“They’re essentially verbal statues for birds and the bird community, because these mostly white men were part of a really dark time in our history,” said Jordan Rutter, who is helping lead an initiative with co-founder Gabriel Foley and others in the birding community, called Bird Names for Birds. Rutter has a Master’s degree in ornithology, and has been birding as long as she can remember."

Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names - The Allegheny Front

 

[MRJ]

I know that this is from mid-2020, but I still felt it was worth sharing here.

"Amid protests over racism and inequality over the last months, Confederate statues and similar markers across the U.S. have been removed — some quietly, in the middle of the night, and some toppled by crowds. A similar reckoning is happening in the bird world when it comes to eponymous and honorific English common bird names — human names placed on birds, either to honor or memorialize someone.

“They’re essentially verbal statues for birds and the bird community, because these mostly white men were part of a really dark time in our history,” said Jordan Rutter, who is helping lead an initiative with co-founder Gabriel Foley and others in the birding community, called Bird Names for Birds. Rutter has a Master’s degree in ornithology, and has been birding as long as she can remember."

Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names - The Allegheny Front

I'm of the view that common names should assist people in easily understanding what they are talking about, ie be descriptive or show the animal's relationship to other taxa. On the other hand where the common name is widely recognised I dislike changing it, as it seems to me this does not help ordinary people. I do recognised there are individuals who are problematic, and Confederate generals come in that category.

It does seem to me that there is a form of elitism demonstrated here, in that the assumption is that the English name is the common name, whereby common names are found in all languages, and are often different (not mere translations) from the English name.

Scientific names should never be changed,

 

[UngulateNerd92]

I'm of the view that common names should assist people in easily understanding what they are talking about, ie be descriptive or show the animal's relationship to other taxa. On the other hand where the common name is widely recognised I dislike changing it, as it seems to me this does not help ordinary people. I do recognised there are individuals who are problematic, and Confederate generals come in that category.

It does seem to me that there is a form of elitism demonstrated here, in that the assumption is that the English name is the common name, whereby common names are found in all languages, and are often different (not mere translations) from the English name.

Scientific names should never be changed,

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment!

 

[FBBird]

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment!

I’ll play devil’s advocate here:
Bartlett’s Bleedingheart Pigeon is named for a Victorian head of London Zoo. A great man, who did no harm and contributed a great deal. Why should his name be commemorated via this lovely bird, as the English name? It’s also known after its native island, and I’m happy to use either name depending what company I’m in

 

[Vision]

I wholeheartedly agree with the Bird names for birds initiative, and think it's great that we're finally straying away from honorifics. It actually seems to be having a big effect, as well: the recently-split Oenanthe seebohmi has been named "Black-throated wheatear" by the IOC, instead of the honorific "Seebohm's wheatear" the subspecies always went by pre-split.

Scientific names should never be changed.

Aren't those rules set by the ICZN regarding scientific name changes a bit outdated? Scientific names aren't supposed to change, in theory, but in reality they do all the time. Splits, lumps, species moving to other genera all mean that scientific names are practically as dynamic as "official" common names nowadays. Even the species name often doesn't stay consistent because of gender changes. For example, recently Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora was moved to another genus, and because that other genus had a different gender that changed the name completely to Synoicus ypsilophorus.
If name changes like this are possible, then surely we can also find some loophole to at least get rid of some atrocities like that one Anophthalmus beetle far right extremists love to collect, which is actively being driven to extinction because of its name...

 

[gentle lemur]

There are a few creatures which used to have common names that are now thought to be distinctly racist: I think of Puntius nigrofasciatus, 60 years ago English fishkeepers used to use a contraction of the specific name and call it the 'n-word barb' (quite innocently), but I think it was rechristened in America at about that time, so we now call it the 'black ruby barb' - quite right too. But what about Acanthophthalmus kuhli? It's common name in English 'Kuhli loach', but of course that sounds just like 'coolie loach' (with my apologies to anyone who finds that offensive), so that mispelling of the name started to appear on aquarium labels in petshops and on the printed page. How can you stop people making mistakes like this?
However this sort of thing might get very silly very quickly.
You might argue that it is patronising and imperialist to use a word from an indigenous language as an English name, or of course you might argue the converse, that you are honouring the people who share its home. Imagine a world where only Maori speakers could use the word kiwi and only the Welsh could say pengwern out loud (provided that they were talking about the great auk). Deaf people might object to onomatapeoic names like kittiwake and a colour-blind person of restricted growth might be entitled to rename the small blue butterfly.
I disagree completely with @Vision about scientific names. The fudamental principle of science is Occam's Razor - allowing names to be changed for any reason except the avoidance of confusion would be multiplying entities without necessity.

 

[birdsandbats]

I am generally against changing frequently used common names for any reason, especially on a mass scale like this.

 

[PossumRoach]

I am not sure if a mass change of bird names will solve any race tensions. It sounds as effective as getting mad at a cereal using a monkey as a mascot.

 

[Maguari]

I am not sure if a mass change of bird names will solve any race tensions.

No, it clearly won't, but it's nice to be nice sometimes, isn't it?

I'm in the camp of being against changing scientific names for these reasons (as @gentle lemur says, that way chaos lies) but not against 'changing' common names carefully and maybe even selectively where there is a perceived issue. Common names in any language shift over time anyway - that's in their nature - you're not even really 'changing' it because there's no official source for them. Just promoting an alternative. As noted above, the English name is hardly the definitive name in any way - and many species already have more than one anyway.

 

[birdsandbats]

No, it clearly won't, but it's nice to be nice sometimes, isn't it?

I'm in the camp of being against changing scientific names for these reasons (as @gentle lemur says, that way chaos lies) but not against 'changing' common names carefully and maybe even selectively where there is a perceived issue. Common names in any language shift over time anyway - that's in their nature - you're not even really 'changing' it because there's no official source for them. Just promoting an alternative. As noted above, the English name is hardly the definitive name in any way - and many species already have more than one anyway.

With the standardization of bird common names, the common names are actually more stable then the scientific ones nowadays. This is why I object to their changing.

 

[birdsandbats]

Another huge issue is that change one name here and name here and there isn't too bad - I don't like it but I can live with it. But changing hundreds of bird names at once? It will confusing and difficult for nearly everyone, especially new birders. If I was a new birder right now and all the names on eBird suddenly didn't match the ones in the field guide, I would be super confused and maybe even quit birding - or at least quit interacting with the birding community.

 

[nczoofan]

With the standardization of bird common names, the common names are actually more stable then the scientific ones nowadays. This is why I object to their changing.

Half the zoos I have visited and basically any birder over 40 didn't get the memo on this standardization. Bird common names evolve and change over time, just like language. They are also regionally specific as I have often observed in the United States and on this site.

Some names are grounded in colonialism and racism. Why should we now decide that this is the point in history where we do not suggest new names, that actually relate to what the species is or looks like? To me this just seems like an excuse.

 

[15399]

I’ll play devil’s advocate here:
Bartlett’s Bleedingheart Pigeon is named for a Victorian head of London Zoo. A great man, who did no harm and contributed a great deal. Why should his name be commemorated via this lovely bird, as the English name? It’s also known after its native island, and I’m happy to use either name depending what company I’m in

My local zoo keeps this species, and the Rainforest building used to sign it as "Bartlett's Bleeding Heart Dove". A few years back the zoo renovated the Rainforest building, and all the signage was replaced as part of this. The new sign reads "Mindadao Bleeding Heart Dove". At first I thought they replaced the bleeding heart dove without me realising, but turned out they just used the other name on the sign!

 

[MRJ]

Aren't those rules set by the ICZN regarding scientific name changes a bit outdated? Scientific names aren't supposed to change, in theory, but in reality they do all the time. Splits, lumps, species moving to other genera all mean that scientific names are practically as dynamic as "official" common names nowadays. Even the species name often doesn't stay consistent because of gender changes. For example, recently Brown Quail Coturnix ypsilophora was moved to another genus, and because that other genus had a different gender that changed the name completely to Synoicus ypsilophorus.
If name changes like this are possible, then surely we can also find some loophole to at least get rid of some atrocities like that one Anophthalmus beetle far right extremists love to collect, which is actively being driven to extinction because of its name...

The original reason for scientific names, that is a name that could be understood by any educated European which then implied a knowledge of Latin and Ancient Greek, is of course obsolete. For that reason changing the gender of a name is also obsolete. It is a bad practice that should be stopped. The scientific name is now a code that is as unintelligible as a row of numbers to most people. For the same reason there is little point in changing names that are now in some way offensive, as people likely to take offence are very unlikely to ever be aware of it. That particular beetle is an obvious and difficult exception. Splits, lumps, species moving to other genera don't affect this. Scientific names can only ever apply to one taxa, if that taxa is lumped then the name cannot be otherwise used. Likewise synonymies are reserved. Maybe it would have been better if a numeric code had been used from the beginning (such systems exist) but that is of course history.

 

[Maguari]

The whole gender in the name issue is one I struggle with because my strong instinct towards pragmatism conflicts with my strong instinct towards pedantry!

And just to diverge even further from the topic...

Maybe it would have been better if a numeric code had been used from the beginning (such systems exist) but that is of course history.

I've seen this suggested before - but I think there would be two major issues with it.

One is that humans typically can remember a lot more words than they can numbers. Years ago I kept a rather pretty species of cockroach called Neostylopyga rhombifolia, and that unwieldy name is still embedded in my mind - a series of numbers certainly wouldn't be.

The other (probably more serious) is that the potential for errors is higher - if I mistype the cockroach as Neostylapyga rhombifolia, just substituting one letter, it's very unlikely to change the reader's understanding (or lack of!) of what I'm saying. But mistyping (say) 1.2.456.2006.10000457 as 1.2.456.2005.10000457, it might end up pointing at an entirely different family (or worse) and it would often not be at all obvious it was an error.

Plus, for me, a series of numbers is just a bit clinical for a living thing, that may not have any other name to us than the one science gives it.

Words are king, for me.

 

[MRJ]

The whole gender in the name issue is one I struggle with because my strong instinct towards pragmatism conflicts with my strong instinct towards pedantry!

And just to diverge even further from the topic...



I've seen this suggested before - but I think there would be two major issues with it.

One is that humans typically can remember a lot more words than they can numbers. Years ago I kept a rather pretty species of cockroach called Neostylopyga rhombifolia, and that unwieldy name is still embedded in my mind - a series of numbers certainly wouldn't be.

The other (probably more serious) is that the potential for errors is higher - if I mistype the cockroach as Neostylapyga rhombifolia, just substituting one letter, it's very unlikely to change the reader's understanding (or lack of!) of what I'm saying. But mistyping (say) 1.2.456.2006.10000457 as 1.2.456.2005.10000457, it might end up pointing at an entirely different family (or worse) and it would often not be at all obvious it was an error.

Plus, for me, a series of numbers is just a bit clinical for a living thing, that may not have any other name to us than the one science gives it.

Words are king, for me.

I think they are fair comments Also years ago computer programs had trouble ordering letters as values so there was some move for a numerical system to aid cataloguing. This is no an issue.

 

[Ned]

Whilst I'm not against name changes, I do wonder if at some point feminist will take issue with the fact that many birds are named after the (often) more colourful male.

 

[birdsandbats]

Whilst I'm not against name changes, I do wonder if at some point feminist will take issue with the fact that many birds are named after the (often) more colourful male.

It's already begun - in the UK recently people got mad at RSPB for illustrating female ducks as "smaller and more drab".

 

[Junklekitteb]

Whilst I'm not against name changes, I do wonder if at some point feminist will take issue with the fact that many birds are named after the (often) more colourful male.

Except, there are species like the Greater Painted-Snipe and, to a lesser extent, the Red-necked Phalarope, where the species is named after the female, which is more colourful in these species, so I would say it is more a case of simply picking the more colourful sex, which more often happens to be the male.

 

[Simon Hampel]

I am not sure if a mass change of bird names will solve any race tensions. It sounds as effective as getting mad at a cereal using a monkey as a mascot.

It won't solve anything.

But that's not the point of these changes or any other such changes we make to the language we use. It's about cumulative small steps that we can all take to try to redress the inequity of the past.

All forms of casual racism / sexism / etc are insidious in that while they might not directly target anyone specifically, they act to normalise such language and attitudes, which can have a very real impact on individuals.