Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Rather like the Duke of Edinburgh or the Queen of England ?
Reckoning with the Racist Past of Bird Names
- Thread starter UngulateNerd92
- Start date
- Status
Rather like the Duke of Edinburgh or the Queen of England ?
I think this discussion has gone a bit off track...
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Well you could be forgiven for thinking that but let me explain.
I'm just enquiring because I wonder how your stance of having anti-colonialist / anti-imperialist beliefs squares up with your support for the British Royal family in other threads?
I mean everyone can be a bit contrarian of course but I do see a bit of incongruence there hence why I asked.
Having respect for the Royal Family and in particular the Queen and having anti-colonialist beliefs are not mutually-exclusive - you can still respect people who harbour different views to your own.
Either way, I believe the issue at hand in that particular conversation was not my beliefs but your unnuanced criticism of the man the day he passed away.
Onychorhynchus coronatus
Well-Known Member
Of course you can respect people who have beliefs different to your own.
Well I would say that it's more than a little bit incongruent to hold such beliefs towards an institution that colonized much of the world (which facilitated all of the honorific bestowing on species) and that was involved for several centuries in the Atlantic slave trade.
From what I recall it wasn't an unnuanced discussion or criticism but very pertinent to the day and the subject of the late man's complex relationship to Conservation.
Anyway back to the subject at hand... racist and colonialist bird names and how to change the world...
Last edited:
I know this thread has been dead for a few months, but I there are two thoughts that occurred to me lately that I think are relevant.
First, Andrea Wulf's "The invention of nature", which tells the tale of Alexander von Humboldt and his travels, talks about one honorary name given to Humboldt within his life (the Humboldt Current), and his opinion about it. Page 91, chapter 7 "Chimborazo", reads:
While this is about a current and not a bird, and earlier in the book Humboldt also appeared pleased that someone named a tree after him, I think this is the closest we get to what the person the animals are named after would have thought. Given his well-known praise for people Humboldt's own culture had deemed "savages", his appreciation for freedom, and his disdain for racism, inequality and slavery, I think renaming species named after him for the sake of inclusivity is honoring his legacy in a more fundamental way than preserving the honorary names. And it wouldn't have surprised me that, had he been alive today, he would not have been offended by "bird names for birds".
Second, I think the fact that the birding community being called out on practices that don't really hold up to modern standards, at least in the eyes of some people, for me also is a signal that it is escaping the cultural periphery and thereby is becoming more accepted and more mainstream. While, at least in the Netherlands, big time birding is still something "odd" to many people, I feel it is slowly losing it's image of a nerdy hobby for old men or lonely eccentrics. And any subculture that escapes the border of society is going to interact with other (sub)cultures, such as feminism and social justice. Whether you agree or disagree with the changing of honorary names, the fact that we have this discussion at all may be a sign that birding as a hobby and a community is finally becoming more accepted in wider society.
Excuse me for the boring rant, but these thoughts kept going through my head and I think the readers of this thread may be the only ones even slightly interested to hear it.
First, Andrea Wulf's "The invention of nature", which tells the tale of Alexander von Humboldt and his travels, talks about one honorary name given to Humboldt within his life (the Humboldt Current), and his opinion about it. Page 91, chapter 7 "Chimborazo", reads:
While this is about a current and not a bird, and earlier in the book Humboldt also appeared pleased that someone named a tree after him, I think this is the closest we get to what the person the animals are named after would have thought. Given his well-known praise for people Humboldt's own culture had deemed "savages", his appreciation for freedom, and his disdain for racism, inequality and slavery, I think renaming species named after him for the sake of inclusivity is honoring his legacy in a more fundamental way than preserving the honorary names. And it wouldn't have surprised me that, had he been alive today, he would not have been offended by "bird names for birds".
Second, I think the fact that the birding community being called out on practices that don't really hold up to modern standards, at least in the eyes of some people, for me also is a signal that it is escaping the cultural periphery and thereby is becoming more accepted and more mainstream. While, at least in the Netherlands, big time birding is still something "odd" to many people, I feel it is slowly losing it's image of a nerdy hobby for old men or lonely eccentrics. And any subculture that escapes the border of society is going to interact with other (sub)cultures, such as feminism and social justice. Whether you agree or disagree with the changing of honorary names, the fact that we have this discussion at all may be a sign that birding as a hobby and a community is finally becoming more accepted in wider society.
Excuse me for the boring rant, but these thoughts kept going through my head and I think the readers of this thread may be the only ones even slightly interested to hear it.
I didn't think it was boring at all, really quite insightful. Especially the first part and just strengthens the arguement for why those past names should be changed.
As for eliminating all honorifics; is there any suggestion, in any language of a vernacular name for Cettia cetti that isn’t based on Cetti?
In German the species is known as Seidensänger, which, if I'm not mistaken, means silk singer or silk warbler (the Dutch "zanger" and German "sänger", while literally meaning singer, also is a rough equivalent of the English "warbler").
Good to know there is a possible basis for a new name, but why silk?
Seiden used in a compound word can also mean silky or silken, which could be a description of the song.
ying to
Here is another relevant article.
Help Us Brainstorm New Names for These Six Birds
Momentum is building to replace honorific common bird names with more descriptive monikers. Share your ideas here!
Bewick’s Wren. Forster’s Tern. Gambel’s Quail. Henslow’s Sparrow. Say’s Phoebe. Wilson’s Phalarope. What do these birds have in common? They’re all named for people—for now.
As we explore in a feature story in our Summer issue, there’s growing support in the birding community from hobbyists to professional ornithologists alike to rename these six species and the roughly 145 other birds that bear honorifics. One argument for renaming is that honorific names don't provide any information about the birds themselves or their natural history, and so they are not helpful for identification. There are also ethical and inclusivity issues: Many birds carry the names of long-dead men, some of whom were not even ornithologists and others who were enslavers, supremacists, or grave robbers.
Help Us Brainstorm New Names for These Six Birds
Help Us Brainstorm New Names for These Six Birds
Momentum is building to replace honorific common bird names with more descriptive monikers. Share your ideas here!
Bewick’s Wren. Forster’s Tern. Gambel’s Quail. Henslow’s Sparrow. Say’s Phoebe. Wilson’s Phalarope. What do these birds have in common? They’re all named for people—for now.
As we explore in a feature story in our Summer issue, there’s growing support in the birding community from hobbyists to professional ornithologists alike to rename these six species and the roughly 145 other birds that bear honorifics. One argument for renaming is that honorific names don't provide any information about the birds themselves or their natural history, and so they are not helpful for identification. There are also ethical and inclusivity issues: Many birds carry the names of long-dead men, some of whom were not even ornithologists and others who were enslavers, supremacists, or grave robbers.
Help Us Brainstorm New Names for These Six Birds
Note that the Audubon article reports on the limited official activity:
"Today the English Bird Names Committee of the American Ornithological Society (AOS), which officially determines the common names used by millions of birders and scientists across North and Central America, is in the process of crafting guidelines for defining harmful names. The committee will also determine priorities for settling on new monikers; considerations may include bestowing descriptive names that highlight unique avian attributes, restoring lost names, or referencing Latin names."
"Today the English Bird Names Committee of the American Ornithological Society (AOS), which officially determines the common names used by millions of birders and scientists across North and Central America, is in the process of crafting guidelines for defining harmful names. The committee will also determine priorities for settling on new monikers; considerations may include bestowing descriptive names that highlight unique avian attributes, restoring lost names, or referencing Latin names."
Perhaps an English man shouldn't comment on the way Americans name their birds, but out of curiosity I read the pieces about these 6 species. As far as I know none of the men named were enslavers, supremacists or grave robbers, although I am wary of imposing 21st century values on people who have been dead for hundreds of years (how will future generations judge us? Perhaps they will see us as confused and confusing because we spend so much time and effort on complicating trivialities, while neglecting bigger issues).
I do know a little about 2 of these men. It is true that Rev Henslow was not an ornithologist, but surely it is relevant that Audubon felt him important enough to give his name to that sparrow, and we should still remember him as the man who taught and inspired Charles Darwin at Cambridge, nominating him for HMS Beagle, receiving the specimens and letters he sent back and announcing his first dicoveries to the world. All ornithologists should know about Thomas Bewick, who wrote some of the first books about birds, illustrated with his own woodcuts. I am sure they inspired Audubon, although they were modest in comparison to his works. It is true that most of the birds he wrote about were British, but they did not include Bewick's swan which was named to commemorate him. Of course neither of these men knew anything about the birds named after them and so people are entitled to replace their names. But perhaps it is worth remembering that Amerigo Vespucci knew nothing about North America and he really was a slaver too!
Last edited:
Eliminating honorifics will advance neither science nor conservation, which means in an era that is fast becoming one of the great extinctions it is a silly diversion of resources to the point of fiddling while Rome is burning. If these people so interested in this don't divert their efforts to conservation, the problem will begin to solve itself as the species about which they claim to be concerned simply go extinct, one by one.
There is a commen behavior in humans. That they will try to solve the smal and non existing problems first, while ignoring the real problems. Since they take acctuall work and time.
Perhaps we should not forget that, at it's core, this is neither a scientific nor a conservation issue. It is a social issue. It is about inclusivity and making everyone comfortable with birding and bird conservation. And in my opinion that is a good thing in and off itself. Furthermore, it can be reasonably argued that it may actually serve bird conservation in the long run by making the birding hobby more accessible.
One might say this is only a very small issue, both in terms of bird conservation and social justice. And I am inclined to agree. But this is also an issue that is very easy and simple to fix, and costs very little money, effort or other resources to do so, in contrast to addressing the main problems on both fronts. We can fix this issue, and keep fighting the real battles, at the same time. And again, I am of the opinion that making birding more inclusive is a good thing in and off itself, regardless of whether it serves any greater good.
One might say this is only a very small issue, both in terms of bird conservation and social justice. And I am inclined to agree. But this is also an issue that is very easy and simple to fix, and costs very little money, effort or other resources to do so, in contrast to addressing the main problems on both fronts. We can fix this issue, and keep fighting the real battles, at the same time. And again, I am of the opinion that making birding more inclusive is a good thing in and off itself, regardless of whether it serves any greater good.
I'm not really sure it makes birding more accessible or inclusive. Personally, if I was just starting with birding, and my field guides used one name and everywhere else used other names, I would probably stop birding out of frustration - or at least, stop interacting with the birding community. I have trouble remembering names, so if eBird suddenly changed the names of so many birds I already know, it would make it difficult for me to continue using the platform. Surely I cannot be unique in these respects.
I hope people promoting name-changing already found other interests. I hope, like others, that those new interests will not be words, but real social work.
If birding really would be about inclusion or social responsibility, first things I would worry about is giving lower social class people more contact with wild birds. Especially finding ways how young people growing in inner cities can experience nature. If you have no car and no money, you may grow up never seeing a forest. For example, finding and marking bird spots in inner cities, like urban rivers and waterways. Or clubs caring especially for urban birding.
If birding really would be about inclusion or social responsibility, first things I would worry about is giving lower social class people more contact with wild birds. Especially finding ways how young people growing in inner cities can experience nature. If you have no car and no money, you may grow up never seeing a forest. For example, finding and marking bird spots in inner cities, like urban rivers and waterways. Or clubs caring especially for urban birding.
- Status