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

[Barry Brugman via Tweeters]

I've stayed out of this and just lurked, but Dennis's last comments make so
much sense to me that I had to weigh in.  Count this wise, old white man on
the side of keeping as many names the same as possible, for the reason's
given by Dennis.

Barry Brugman
Kirkland


On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 2:18 PM Dennis Paulson via Tweeters <
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:


> Carmelo,

>

> I’m not sure why you and all the others who are so adamant about the value

> of the name-changing seem not to be considering the negative outcomes,

> which of course are the only reason for the pushback. I think few if any

> people are pushing back because they are uncaring, racist, old or white. We

> just see the downside of this action, not to mention that we can see much

> better ways to solve societal problems than by changing bird names. Perhaps

> you don’t adhere to the thought that with age comes wisdom. Experience and

> some insight certainly come with age.

>

> Bird names have been changed a few at a time over the decades I’ve been

> doing this, and the changes were infrequent enough that people were able to

> catch up, and new books and apps didn’t have to be produced every year.

> When Pigeon and Sparrow and Marsh Hawk were changed to Merlin and kestrel

> and harrier to reflect their commonality to Old World populations, that was

> logical and generated only a little confusion and grumbling.

>

> Are the revised books and apps and any other places bird names are cited

> going to say Black-cheeked (formerly Townsend’s) Warbler for a few years?

> If not, confusion certainly reigns, and if so, you haven’t got rid of the

> offensive name. I don’t understand how this is going to be accomplished

> without these outcomes.

>

> And renaming birds such as waterthrushes and Red-bellied Woodpeckers

> sounds like such a slippery slope that I sincerely hope you are not

> serious. What if you and one out of ten of your friends all of a sudden

> received a new name that was to be used from that day on?

>

> Dennis Paulson

> Seattle

>

> On Jun 27, 2024, at 5:32 AM, Carmelo Quetell via Tweeters <

> tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:

>

> Greg,

>

> What if the clear intentionality of this round of name changes, along with

> the engagement of members of the public from various backgrounds throughout

> this process, yields common English names that are actually better

> descriptors of the birds? What if this time around, we can do better than

> Northern/Louisiana Waterthrush or Red-Bellied Woodpecker? What if this time

> around the naming is more distinctive than Gray-cheeked/Swainson's Thrush?

> What if you trust the process?

>

> -Carmelo

>

> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

> ------------------------------

> *From:* Tweeters <tweeters-bounces at mailman11.u.washington.edu> on behalf

> of Greg via Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>

> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2024 1:57 AM

> *To:* Preston Mui <prestonmui at gmail.com>

> *Cc:* TWEETERS tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>; Ed Newbold <

> ednewbold1 at yahoo.com>

> *Subject:* Re: [Tweeters] LET'S NOT BREAK UP OVER THIS!

>

> Hi Preston -

> Many of the existing names of birds that describe some aspect of the bird

> are not much help either. As a beginning birder in 1980s Rhode Island, I

> could not distinguish the difference between Northern Waterthrush and

> Louisiana Waterthrush. I needed a seasoned birder to show me the way. Many

> species have descriptive names that are no help at all unless one reads and

> sees pictures, as in the case of Red-bellied Woodpecker. I believe it would

> be the same research no matter the name the species.

>

> While I appreciate what Teresa would “like,” it is just not realistic.

> Compare Gray-cheeked Thrush and Swainson’s Thrush (especially in the

> field). Is the descriptive name of the bird helpful as opposed to the

> eponymous? A tough one for a beginner.

>

> Anyway, I don’t believe the purpose of name changes has anything to do

> with helping out beginning birders.

> Louisiana Waterthrush reminds that a “helpful” descriptor name begs

> changing Nashville, Tennessee, Connecticut, Kentucky, even Canada Warbler.

>

> As yet, I have not seen the in-depth statement or reasoning from the

> “powers that be“ that explains their intent. My sincerest hope is that we

> stop this silliness, nip it in the bud (if we’re still at that stage?), and

> save the wonderful birding community of yet unforeseen consternation all

> around the world.

>

> Generally, I stand with Dennis Paulson.

>

> Greg Pluth

> Sent from my iPhone

>

> On Jun 26, 2024, at 9:29 PM, Preston Mui via Tweeters <

> tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:

>

> 

> Dennis, you seem to have simply missed the core of Teresa's point. The

> sentence immediately following:

>

> 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.

>

>

> I understand that not all eponymous names are the person studying the

> bird. Whether the name is an honorific for the namer or someone the namer

> values is besides the point. Unless I have missed that the letters "ANNA"

> are printed on its tail feathers, "Anna's Hummingbird" tells a beginner

> nothing about how to distinguish an Anna's from another hummingbird.

>

> Preston Mui

> prestonmui at gmail.com

> http://prestonmui.github.io/

> (425) 223-8450

>

>

> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:43 PM Dennis Paulson via Tweeters <

> tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:

>

>> 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> *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

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> Tweeters mailing list

>> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

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

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

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

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20240627/f2f38f63/attachment.html>