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

[Dennis Paulson via Tweeters]

Thanks for your thoughts, Ed, so important to consider. And thanks to you, Teresa, as of course you’re right about learning something about a species from its name. I have given common names to well over 800 dragonfly and damselfly species of the Americas, many of them coined with the help of colleagues. I have always tried to choose names that were descriptive, not always easy, as many species are extremely similar and differ obviously only in genitalic structure. No one has suggested a name such as “Branched-hamuled Meadowhawk." I had to use geography to differentiate very similar species with different ranges, just as we’ve done with meadowlarks and wood-pewees and waterthrushes.

However, some people have made major contributions to what we know about Odonata, and I felt obligated to recognize them in some of the common names, to bring forward a bit of the history of dragonfly study. All of these were given to species that already had one of these contributor's names in their scientific name, e.g., Williamson’s Emerald, Somatochlora williamsoni. Of a list of 847 species known from all of North America, including the West Indies, 163 of them (19%) were named after people (eponyms), and 70 of those species (8%) also have eponymic common names. Common-name eponyms were given only to those species that were already named after the person. I don’t recall the percent of North American (=Canada & US) birds that have eponymic common names, but that would be an interesting figure. Same with mammals, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, insects, plants, etc.

I’m just presenting these figures to explain how the common names of these dragonflies came about, as these name were coined in the last decade, not a century or two ago. While thinking about common names, I purposefully chose to honor the “heroes” of North American odonatology, the people who went into the field, collected specimens, brought them back to museums, and described them. We would know little or nothing about the species if it weren’t for these people, and it’s exactly the same for bird names. Not all of these people did all these things; some of them wrote books about the fauna that introduced professionals and amateurs alike to that fauna. A much smaller number were people who were very close (a spouse or a teacher or mentor, for example) to the person who described the species, and the describer wanted to honor them, even though they weren’t contributors to odonatology. It’s the same with birds.

I’ve been active in collecting and preserving specimens and writing about them, and I’ve had five dragonfly species named after me. One of them has the common name “Paulson’s,” but I made sure that my name was used in no other common name. I have named six species of Odonata, including three eponyms. Those names honor the three people who discovered these species and knew enough to bring them to the attention of the world. I repeat—we would know nothing about those dragonflies if it weren’t for such people all through history. Yes, the people who lived where the dragonflies were "discovered" may have known about them, but I have never found an Indigenous person who knew them as anything but “dragonfly.” As many as 187 species of Odonata are known from a single locality in Peru, and no one but a caring and careful dragonfly specialist of today would know that. The individual species have to be made known through publication, and I believe it is exactly the same for birds.

This is in part background to (hopefully) permanently eliminate a bad misconception that has been making its way through this discussion. Teresa wrote “ I don’t get much from a bird (or any other species) named after the person who first described it for western science”  And from some of the messages, it’s apparent that that is a common belief. However, each of the eponymous scientific names was NOT the name of the person who described the species, although a very few common names do refer to such a person (usually when the describer was also the discoverer). No, these were the names of the person being honored by the describer.

So these eponyms have nothing to do with self-aggrandizement (oh, boy, I can discover a species and name it after myself) and everything to do with respect and admiration and even love. Please bear this in mind, anyone who has thoughts about this issue. And please bear in mind that we would know very little about birds or any other organisms if specimens had not been collected and deposited in natural history museums. Please don’t use this talk about “killing birds” as your rationale for cancelling the pioneer ornithologists. You are cancelling most of the people who have brought us our knowledge of the natural world, including me and so many of my friends and colleagues.

Dennis Paulson
Seattle


> On Jun 26, 2024, at 10:15 AM, Teresa Michelsen via Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:

> 

> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/b6d8f66f/attachment.html>