[Tweeters] re Historical Perspective on Re-naming Birds

[J Christian Kessler]

Mark --

thank you for the explanation.  However, in my experience many people in
any discipline (I've been an amateur birder for 65 years, my profession was
outside biology altogether) make proposals without thinking them through.
But some do involve serious thought.

The AOS proposal - as circulated here by Steve Hampton - addresses concerns
such as yours.  One can agree or disagree with that proposal, which is from
an organization that has responsibility for such matters.  But the basic
premise (and the details of its implementation) are legitimate subjects for
disagreement.

For my own part, I am very fond of Georg Steller, but his name doesn't give
me any useful information about either the Jay or the Sea-eagle.

Chris Kessler





On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 7:59 PM Mark Egger <m.egger at comcast.net> wrote:


> Replying to Chris — by “intellectually lazy”, I meant that, rather than

> assembling a rational basis and a clear set of criteria to justify the

> renaming of honorific names (eponyms), an admittedly challenging but far

> from impossible task, many/most of those in favor of mass renamings propose

> what I consider to be completely unjustified blanket proposals affecting

> entire classes of names, rather than expending the effort to form

> committees with a more nuanced approach.

>

> And, just as an example of the radical proposals for changing ALL

> scientific names containing eponyms, here is one example: “Eponyms have no

> place in 21st-century biological nomenclature”, (multiple authors), Nature,

> Ecology and Evolution 7: 1157-1160, 13 March 2023. The paper is behind a

> paywall, so the journal must be accessed directly, rather than linked, in

> order to read it. In sharing this reference, I stress that I in no way

> agree with the authors and find their proposal deeply objectionable for

> many reasons. There ARE more thoughtful proposals under discussion in the

> biological-nomenclatural community, and many of those are worthy of

> consideration. What I object to are the one-class-fits-all rules that

> somehow conflate modern scientific nomenclature with cultural imperialism,

> as if all people honored by having organisms named after them are somehow

> guilty of being cultural imperialists or racists themselves. THAT’S what I

> mean by “intellectually lazy.”

>

> Mark

>

>

> On Nov 24, 2023, at 5:48 PM, J Christian Kessler <1northraven at gmail.com>

> wrote:

> icy the

>  Dennis --

>

> first, I think the ornithological proposal under consideration is with

> respect to North American birds English language names. The proposals to

> change Linnean binomials is certainly being made by some, but is not

> necessarily of a piece with the English names proposal,  And to my

> understanding that would be a very different process and not subject to the

> same issues or considerations (tho much as I'm fond of Georg Steller, to me

> using his surname for the species specific part of the binomial tells me

> nothing characteristic of the bird itself.  It's just a cultural-bound

> historical artifact.  And I doubt it leads many to learn more about the man

> himself, sad as that happens to be.)

>

> second, if you are right as to t what Eggers has in mind regarding

> intellectually lazy, that may be valid for some, but it is not the argument

> being made by many others.  (It does not represent my own thinking.)  In

> that respect the accusation itself appears to lump different proposals,

> which feels to be intellectually lazy.

>

> third,  the renaming of geographic features (natural or manmade) is hardly

> new.  And will continue independent of this debate however it turns out.

> Denali became Mt. McKinley, became Mt. Denali, until Pres. Trump made it

> Mt. McKinley again, and in 2016 the Park Service changed it back to

> Denali.  And the introduction of Zip Codes in 1963 led to renumbering of

> every house in the neighborhood I grew up in as though the streets formed a

> grid when they form more of a web,  mail delivery has been screwed up for

> the last 60 years.  We cope.

>

> Chris Kessler

>

>

>

>

>

> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 3:34 PM Dennis Paulson <dennispaulson at comcast.net>

> wrote:

>

>> Chris, here’s my take on it.

>>

>> Like several people who have written in, I see this movement to erase

>> honorific names of dead people who we would consider unkind as having

>> limited merit. It won’t change anything about the various -isms that are

>> still common in our society, and good grief, why can’t all that energy and

>> enthusiasm be directed where it should be? And I think the thing most wrong

>> about it is not having any idea where it will stop. McCown was a

>> Confederate general, yes, but I read that he had renounced slavery some

>> time thereafter. That in itself is interesting and will be lost now that

>> McCown is lost. Why not learn from history rather than erase it?

>>

>> I think the ‘intellectual laziness’ referred mostly to the decision made

>> that because we can’t really draw the line between bad dead people and good

>> dead people, let’s make it easy on ourselves and cancel them all. I

>> wouldn’t concern myself with it too much if it stopped with the common

>> names of North American birds (although I do strongly object to that), but

>> that very thing happening and being presented in an “official" way will

>> encourage people to go even further.

>>

>> Many of our states, counties, cities, streets, rivers, mountain peaks,

>> etc., etc., will be proposed for renaming, won't they? Won’t this be a

>> nightmare for map makers, book writers, historians of any kind—and the rest

>> of the people who will be confused by all of this in the future? If I lived

>> on Audubon Avenue, some day I might not be able to find my house . . .

>>

>> The fact that people are even talking about changing *scientific names*

>> is appalling to those of us who have named species and worked on their

>> relationships. Such an activity certainly deserves all the resistance that

>> can be generated against it. People with ideas such as that are at the

>> forefront of making this a much more divisive than inclusive activity, as

>> far as I can see.

>>

>> Dennis Paulsn

>> Seattle

>>

>> On Nov 24, 2023, at 2:39 PM, J Christian Kessler <1northraven at gmail.com>

>> wrote:

>>

>> Mr. Egger --

>>

>> I can only speak for myself. While I don't entirely agree with Dennis or

>> Diane, I understand their point of view, and agree on some elements of it.

>> Your argument is fundamentally different than theirs:  you accuse all who

>> advocate for "bird names for birds" in any form of being "intellectually

>> lazy", and then proceed to conflat any proposal (beyond renaming McGown's

>> Longspur and it appears a few others) with the most extreme sorts of

>> proposals (some of which I have not heard being advocated by anyone, or

>> even referred to seriously, prior to your note).

>>

>> Perhaps you could explain (1) how any/any proposal at renaming birds

>> (again, beyond the renaming of McGown's Longspur and a few similar cases)

>> is "intellectually lazy," and (2) how your your conflating virtually all

>> imaginable proposals for change as being essentially the same is not itself

>> "intellectually lazy".

>>

>> Chris Kessler

>>

>>

>>

>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 12:52 PM Mark Egger <m.egger at comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Agree completely with Diane and Dennis. This trendy name-changing

>>> obsession lacks any sort of nuance or reason and suggests the efforts of

>>> lazy people who want simplistic solutions to complex questions. As a

>>> life-long birder AND a dedicated botanist, this issue is one involving all

>>> naturalist pursuits. There are current purposals to not only alter common

>>> names but to ban all scientific names memorializing people AND to re-name

>>> all existing names of that sort. I find these proposals to be deeply flawed

>>> and absurd. There is absolutely no reason why these re-namings, some (e.g.

>>> McGown) that are quite justified, but in most cases blanket re-naming seems

>>> both intellectually lazy but a deep insult to an enormous number of

>>> biologists and naturalists who were very fine human beings and who devoted

>>> their lives to enriching our knowledge of the natural world and

>>> biodiversity.

>>>

>>> On Nov 24, 2023, at 12:01 PM,

>>> tweeters-request at mailman11.u.washington.edu wrote:

>>>

>>> Historical Perspective on Re-naming Birds (Diann MacRae)

>>>

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> Tweeters mailing list

>>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>>> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> "moderation in everything, including moderation"

>> Rustin Thompson

>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

>> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>>

>>

>>

>

> --

> "moderation in everything, including moderation"

> Rustin Thompson

>

>

>


-- 
"moderation in everything, including moderation"
Rustin Thompson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20231125/9ff30c35/attachment.html>