[Tweeters] LET'S NOT BREAK UP OVER THIS!

[Teresa Michelsen via Tweeters]

I too enjoy the debate most of the time, except when it gets too personal.

There is something I wanted to add from the perspective of a newer birder (I’m not, but not as experienced as many of those in the debate, or who may be deciding in the end). This concept is one that no-one has mentioned, but to me it’s important as, I guess, more of a naturist.

I really enjoy bird names that tell me something about the bird, like its range, or preferred habitat, or coloration, or habits. I don’t get much from a bird (or any other species) named after the person who first described it for western science, although I do know what an honor that is for the person. Mostly I’d just like the bird names to help teach us something interesting about the bird, or maybe something that would help us distinguish it from another bird. As one example, the cisticolas of Africa, which were a particularly difficult challenge for us North Americans – with names like rattling, piping, whistling, chattering, trilling, bubbling, churring, tinkling, rock-loving, tiny, etc. There are so many of these guys and they all look alike, you can almost imagine they were desperate to find some way to differentiate among them!!

I hope that adds to the conversation in a positive way. I too love this list. I feel it’s impossible to avoid the topic but also very possible for us to consider each others’ opinions without maligning the authors.

Teresa Michelsen
Hoodsport, WA

From: Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu> On Behalf Of Ed Newbold via Tweeters
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:04 PM
To: Tweeters Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>
Subject: [Tweeters] LET'S NOT BREAK UP OVER THIS!


Hi all,



Can we enjoy the wonderful intellectuality and energy of this?  Can we see brilliance in the opinions we disagree with, and erudition and a magnificent opus of work from people on both sides of this debate?

That last includes you, Hal, who I seem to be going against here, and know my hat is off to you for all you have done. But I don’t see putting a lid on all expression and passion by fiat as being good in this or very many situations.
I also have a dog in this fight. I think there are unspoken assumptions that both sides may tacitly accept as true but which are actually in play. Economists, at least those of the Austrian persuasion, see their discipline as the study of things that aren’t apparent to the eye. That new Sports Stadium will certainly be good for the economy, right? But is that statement true?  Does the time spent on name changes really mean there will be less time spent watching or saving Birds? Will the public spend more or less time actually getting to know Steller if his name is not on the Western Blue Jay?  (I'm against that name change). Would a public controversy hurt the image of birders and consequently, birds? We don’t know these things, but we must not assume the “common-sense” position that assumes there will be less time and that the controversy would be damaging, or that Steller will be forgotten, that those things are true or even knowable. I personally believe a robust controversy in birding that spills out into the public domain could be just what the Doctor ordered to break the widespread perception that it would be embarrassing to call oneself a birder and that birding is not an acceptable pastime the way something like watching Football is. (I encounter this perception at my store all the time.)

I may have tipped my hand a little bit but I am not a partisan. I love all of you folks! Thanks to everyone who chimed in!  We don’t need to break up over this!



Thanks all,



Ed Newbold

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20240626/e0b13a99/attachment.html>