The American Ornithological Society’s (AOS) Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Committee hosted a virtual AOS Community Congress on English Bird Names on 16 April 2021 to open a discussion on the complex issues around eponymous English bird names to the wider ornithological and birding communities to promote an even greater awareness of the complexities of name changes for constructive dialogue moving forward.
In this Community Congress, participants learned about the views of various stakeholders regarding name changes, the challenges for specific organizations in implementing change, and the opportunities these stakeholders identify at this moment for our community. The discussion was facilitated by José González of The Avarna Group.
Use the form to the right to stay up-to-date on the Society’s efforts on English bird names by signing up to receive updates from this blog.
Who do you contact to be involved in this project? Or have members already been chosen? From everything I’ve read so far on the AOS website, there is a group of people serving as a committee led by three co-chairs, but there is no way to contact anyone involved in this project. I sent a more detailed email from the general “contact” page, but got a reply saying I probably won’t get a response????? Hoping someone will reach out from this blog.
The webinar raises some insightful points about eponymous bird names. I think it would be helpful to change eponymous bird names to names that describe something about the bird (plumage, geographic range, behavior, etc) because it would give people new to bird identification something more concrete to hold onto rather than a person’s name. It would also be a gesture of respect towards people of marginalized communities to replace names linked to people with harmful legacies.
I think changing the eponyms in the common names of all bird species is a great idea. Eponyms in common names do not describe the bird species and their identifiable characteristics or behaviors. Common names should invoke wonder when a bird species is observed and identified in the wild by novice birders like me. I do not think eponyms should imply individual ownership of any species when it is supposed to be shared by all.
The use of eponymic bird names is an issue because it assigns notability to potentially problematic figures. Additionally, many of these names are racially homogenous which perpetuates a lack of diversity in the ornithological community. These species should be renamed to promote inclusivity and open the Ornithological community to contributions from a wider audience. While the public should be involved in some capacity for transparency, the main arbitration of what the new names will be should be undertaken by experts. The American Ornithological Society should address this issue gradually, considering one subset of species at a time to minimize disruptions to research and conservation efforts.
It is wonderful to see people from many walks of life agree on the fact that birding is meant to be enjoyed by all and should have no barriers to inclusivity. Jordan Rutter said well that bird names don’t need to be an eternal memorial to the moment they were first collected. Bird names should be descriptive, inclusive and invite anyone to want to learn more.
Although I think this is a step in the right direction, I hope there are other ways yours and similar organizations are planning to aid in diversifying birding and ornithology.
Brooke, Thank you for your comment. We are committed to DEIBJ and have been developing resources and initiatives to support these efforts toward diversifying ornithology. You can read more about our work at the links below:
https://americanornithology.org/about/deibj-resources/
https://americanornithology.org/three-professional-societies-unite-on-national-science-foundation-grant-to-increase-access-and-inclusivity-in-ornithology/
https://americanornithology.org/about/deibj-resources/deibj-values-statement/
. One thing that really stuck out to me was that ‘we shouldn’t cringe at the names’. I know I’ve heard bird names that I thought were a joke or inappropriate and had nothing to do with the bird’s physical or behavioral nature at all. Some names when I heard them for the first time, to me it was very obvious what demographic named them. It was mentioned that in the past there were already around 100 bird names changed and we had to keep up with that before we had eBird. Another great thing I heard was about the field of science in general. There are tests, hypotheses, experiments, theories that change or give a new insight in the world of science all the time. With these events it may completely stump the scientific community or be the complete opposite of what we had previously believed. At the end of the day we are to continue to face change and persevere. Changing the names of these birds will not cease birding or create such a disruption that we won’t study birds anymore, this change will just be something new to adapt to.
I admire the work being done by the society to change these common names to be more apt descriptors for the species they are describing. I do think that once this has been done, that the scientific names with eponyms should be reassessed as well. They should be just as apt at describing the species as the common names, and by taking out the names of potentially awful human beings, the likelihood of cementing someone’s name in history who lived an awful life is greatly reduced.
I think it would be a good idea to change all the eponymous names at once in order to limit having to update field guides every couple months. Also, names should be more descriptive so those new to studying birds will be able to easily identify them instead of having to memorize the eponymous names.
I think it’s important to focus on the outreach aspects of the name changes, especially as it relates to groups that have been historically left out of naturalism in the US. Leaving the name suggestions open to the public, focusing on improving the experiences of birders and citizen scientists, and ensuring that diverse groups of people have a say in common name changes were good subjects to focus on in this seminar.
Changing the eponymic names of the birds allows for more descriptive and accurate names for the birds which will be friendlier to newcomers to ornithology and those new to English. Keep up the good work.
If the mission is to make this process global and come to a global consensus, what are the actions that AOS will take to make this happen? I wonder if this process will birth many different grassroots operations around the world that supports changing eponymous bird names and the naming system in general.
The webinar provided many good ideas about how to handle eponym names for birds. I think that the most important part about changing the names is making sure they are an accurate indicator of the bird in question, whether it be its taxonomy or life history. Bird names in general should be something that can be clearly associated with the bird in question, and attributing a persons name to the bird does not help with that.
I enjoyed listening to this panel discussion and I appreciate the views brought by everyone. I think it’s a wise decision to make the name change all at once and to engage with the community on renaming. I agree that changing these names offers opportunities of connection between seasoned and novice birders alike as they relearn names.
I think changing eponyms is a must to make sure birding can be enjoyed by everyone. Making these common names more descriptive will allow new birders to learn names more efficiently. Common name changes can also benefit ornithologists as some may not be familiar with a specific species, but with a more descriptive common name it could help them understand what another ornithologist is referring to. I hope the public will have the opportunity to suggest new common names for each bird. And maybe if the AOS decides on a few potential names a vote can be taken by the public to determine the most fitting descriptive common name. Thank you for the insightful webinar!
I was pleasantly surprised to see that so many influential birders held the same belief that changing all eponymous bird names is beneficial to ornithology. The names should be changed to allow birding to become more accessible to minorities and beginners. However, this is just the first step in making ecological hobbies and careers welcoming to all.
Changing eponymous bird names to those that allow for more descriptive and useful common names is a great start in inclusivity and creating a more open community for birding and ornithology. In my experience, the views expressed in the webinar that eponyms are an impediment to the community aspect of birding and provide no details about the bird in question are incredibly accurate and changing these names will be a huge step in the right direction to improve birding and ornithology as a whole.
7) I think changing eponyms is a must to make sure birding can be enjoyed by everyone. Making these common names more descriptive will allow new birders to learn names more efficiently. Common name changes can also benefit ornithologists as some may not be familiar with a specific species, but with a more descriptive common name it could help them understand what another ornithologist is referring to. I hope the public will have the opportunity to suggest new common names for each bird. And maybe if the AOS decides on a few potential names a vote can be taken by the public to determine the most fitting descriptive common name. Thank you for the insightful webinar!
The desire to critically analyze somewhat ossified scientific traditions is healthy. Science itself is a process, a tool, an activity that is performed to better ascertain the descriptive fundamental components to our reality. Keeping any “traditions” alive, be they sentimental as in they case of the deployment of eponyms or dogmatic as can be the case in some academic institutions (often it has been said “don’t rock the boat” by those in positions of power), is counterintuitive to both the colloquial spirit of science and the very notion of seeking best practices and efficiency. It is going to be a challenge to complete the re-naming of many of these species, both since they lack easy descriptive features and that their eponyms carry immense national and cultural value, but it is a worthwhile endeavor. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this aids novice ornithologists and enthusiasts and sets a precedent for managing future concerns regarding how a scientific body should approach cultural and historical biases in its practices. From a moral standpoint, it is tempting to entertain feelings of loss for the contribution some of these naturalists to human scientific history, however this should be tempered by the understanding that framing many of these naturalist’s lives in this way inevitably overshadows other more sinister aspects which deserve as much recognition if not more than their ornithological studies.
Considering the societal push to revise the sins of colonial past, as well as honoring indigenous culture, the decision to make this reclassification process public is incredibly crucial. Birds affect us all in many instances: pop culture, music, art, technology, and more. By including the millions (if not billions) of those who interact with birds regularly, the conversation becomes more meaningful and personable. I support the decision to carry through the process of changing every eponym all at once and the decision to make this publicly available. Let us undo the “baggage” (as described by David Sibley, well-known Field Guide Author and Illustrator) associated with these names and move toward a more inclusive future.
Changing the English bird name eponyms is a step in the right direction; these modifications will allow for more appropriate names that are relevant to the birding community and that are telling of the actual species (geographical, morphological, ecological, behavioral characteristics). Including the public in these name changes will prove to be a diversifying aspect that i feel is the entire message of these efforts.
Although it is a tricky process, I think changing eponymous bird names is a step in the right direction that would alleviate the barriers that have been created that have potentially excluded and marginalized groups of people. Instead, replacing eponymous bird names with names based on physical characteristics, life histories, or any other notable traits would be more beneficial in the identification of birds, and to help others easily learn bird species to expand ornithology as a whole.
I greatly appreciate the inclusivity introduced by this community as the public is capable of bringing viewpoints and opinions that may be overlooked by such high-level scholars in the field of ornithology. There is always the possibility that this may slow down the process of renaming as the sheer number of opinions would be difficult to sift through, but the payoff of a diverse community could be well worth the wait. I hope that experts in this field will consider the public’s opinions when they make the ultimate decision regarding the revitalization of these previously boringly named birds
Any effort to bring more minds and eyes to the birding community should be championed and supported. I appreciate all the efforts already put forth. In my opinion, the AOS panel is on point. Naming birds more descriptively and removing offensive nomenclature seems like a win/win scenario.
In my opinion, changing eponymous bird names is a great step towards greater diversity and inclusion within ornithology in North America. However, I also encourage the AOS committee to look into other ways of promoting these ideas through community engagement and involvement. I’ve read about a couple of great AOS initiatives that I think are all good steps forward as well, but I think a greater focus on public engagement would help get more non-birders excited about birds. As we see so many effects of climate change and species loss in the bird world, encouraging public interest in bird conservation and overall interest in birds is going to be vastly important going forward. I was telling my friends about the eponymous name changes happening currently and it was exciting to see them take interest in something normally outside their scope!
This is a complicated subject to approach, especially with most of these bird species that have been named for a very long time. I believe this is a great movement! I think it would be a great transition to make the name-changing process slowly over time and this way people from the public can be a part of the votes; they can voice their opinions more. This is a huge future development for the Ornithology Community and I cannot wait to see what these species of birds are named!
I have just watched the webinar regarding the changing of birds names in North America. These birds have had their names since the 1800’s. Named after the people that discovered them has been done since people first discovered any of them. Why should we change their name because someone complained about the person they were named after? This is like tearing down statues of men we no longer think highly of. It is ridiculous to change a birds given name because now you don’t like it. If it was meant to name a bird according to its coloration or distinct features, why wasn’t this done in 1800? I don’t agree with the changing of birds names all together whether the name is offensive or not. The conference in the webinar had some opinions that people will respond better to birds if they have a better name….that is ridiculous.
Science is all about change. Aside from racist and sexist connotations of certain names, the goal of this can be seen to standardize common names to make them more descriptive for the public. In the long run, this can allow for more clarity. I don’t believe this is “ridiculous.”
I agree with your decision to change the eponyms of North American birds and am excited for this process to unfold. I think it’s a big step in the right direction for promoting diversity and inclusion in the ornithological community and bringing attention to the wonderful world of birds. I hope the process brings a lot of attention to each species being renamed to further promote their conservation. Each species is unique and I can’t wait to see how the new names will highlight the distinctive characteristics of each species.
This was a great overview of the considerations and challenges of updating eponymous bird names. I agree that creating a more inclusive birding community is very important, and that we could gain valuable insights by looking into the common names of North American birds in Spanish, French, and Indigenous languages. The science community should always be willing to update our nomenclature to better reflect our scientific and cultural understandings of the world.
I believe that this is generally a step in the right direction for birding and ornithology as a whole. In my opinion, bird names should reflect their attributes as this can give birders something to more easily associate a bird with. However, I think approaching the renaming process on a case by case basis could be beneficial. For instance, if a bird was named after a positive figure, maybe it could act as a source of inspiration for someone who may not feel welcome or represented in Ornithology to get involved. While it is important for names to remain stable, we should be flexible and understand that a bird retaining a name with negative historical baggage isn’t beneficial and does not contribute to the advancement of science or birding as a community and hobby.
I agree with the proposal to change all English eponymous bird names. The names serve no purpose in relating to the identification of these birds; only to mar them with the past of whom they honor. The name changes would allow for better recognition and observation of birds, especially for those new to birding. It can also open up the floor to names of diverse origins that would increase inclusions of groups not often heard from.
Making the change from eponyms to descriptive common names will definitely be a step in the right direction in inclusivity in birding, as said by many who participated in this webinar. Eponymous birds provide a barrier to new birders through not only the meaning behind them but through also the lack of creativity and description. Common names should be easier to learn and describe the bird, and eponyms that have nothing to do with the look of the bird are entirely unhelpful. I hope that more moves can be made to encourage diversity and inclusivity in the bird community in the future.
I support the concept of changing eponyms to better reflect the features of the bird and to improve community engagement. Allowing the voices of minorities to be heard, or at least less deterred, is a great way to get people involved with birding, which will improve citizen science’s help with ornithological research. While changing the names requires identification guides to be updated, changing the names all at once could minimize the need to change identification guides multiple times and also allow enough time for underrepresented individuals to voice their opinions on how to rename birds. Additionally, allowing community input regarding the new names of birds is another great way to increase interest in ornithology to help bridge gaps eponyms may have caused.
This webinar gave a good overview on the issue of changing eponyms and the challenges to doing so. Though this is a challenging subject, I believe it is an important one to address and should be done with great care. By removing controversial eponyms, we can create a more inclusive environment for aspiring ornithologists who might hesitate to participate in the field.
Science is a forever changing, and evolving field, and every year there are discoveries that impact the knowledge we already have. I have no issues and fully support the removal of eponyms names for names that describe the bird using physical or behavioral characteristics. This would make the ornithological field more welcoming, and more inclusive, especially with the public involved in the decision of the new names. A bulk name change would be ideal, instead of a gradual one, to benefit both the experts who have been in the field for decades, and the newcomers.
Eponymous names could be changed efficiently if done all at once, with a diverse committee to rename these birds. Problematic names create a barrier for minorities and indigenous communities who have been affected by the harmful ideology associated with them. Creating a more inclusive field opens the doors to growing the birding community, and in turn, growing conservation efforts for our birds.
Changing a bird’s name is not only for revising scientific discoveries, but for making a statement. Many of the eponyms we see today are from scientists who engaged or had ideals of things that are not acceptable anymore, therefore there needs to be change. Birding should not be a privileged activity, and to implement inclusion and equality this community is taking the effort to step back to think about the impact that history has had on it. I think this is a wonderful thing and I hope that through this process the AOS will take consideration from the community to make it more welcoming, creative, and exciting.
I believe this is a great movement to be able to witness. By changing these common names, the AOS is really setting a tone for the inclusivity that birding, ecology, and society should be headed towards. Names of people, places, and things change all the time (even our quite conservative president is literally trying to rename the Gulf of Mexico) and we people learn and adjust, so why should the subject of birds be considered any different? The more inclusive we are with birding, the more advocacy birds will receive, which would be a major win because it’s no secret that bird populations are declining rapidly. Going forward, I think it would be best to just rename all of them at the same time because it would likely save money and time in the long run. Involving the public in some sort of online poll would also be a great way to advocate for this pressing issue while also getting people excited about the great changes that will be happening.
I think the changing of these bird eponyms is a great idea. I believe that birds should be named after the bird and descriptions that pertain to said bird instead of being named after a person with inhumane views. I’m looking forward to the future of this process and the new bird names that come from it!
I do not agree with the name change of eponymous birds, I believe they should remain the same as they have been throughout history. Erasing history in the name of inclusion is the opposite of including both sides, it just tailors to the minority. Many of the people who call these birds by their common name likely aren’t aware of the history behind the name to begin with, so why change it just to appease a small group of individuals? The majority of ornithological societies globally have not agreed with the process of changing these names and it most definitely should not be implemented as a total removal of all names at once.
After watching the webinar and reading some additional resources, I think it would be best to source funding and time to tangible conservation efforts. Birds are declining day by day due to habitat loss, degradation, widespread use of pesticides, etc. I believe that the birds would benefit more from real changes to their conservation and protection than their names being changed. I believe that it is still possible to spread the word about conservation efforts and just the general practice of bird watching without needing to change their names. Even though there are some special cases, a large majority of the discoverers of these eponymous species made great contributions to ornithology.
I agree that though this is a great undertaking, it is paramount to standardizing common names, promoting diversity, and rooting out racist associations. Many of these birds are named for white men, and their naturalist work can be celebrated in other ways. Furthermore, many eponymous names are not great descriptors of the species. I believe continuing to have an ease of public input and a gradual process will prove this process to be effective. I am excited to see what is to come and more initiatives of inclusivity in the AOS.
After watching the webinar, I agree that the bird renaming process should be done in bulk to get it over with quickly, The public may get fatigued if each renaming process is long and drawn out. Furthermore, all eponymous names should be replaced to prevent any conflicts on how to judge a person’s character. Descriptive names also give new birders an easier time getting into the hobby. It would help many new ornithologists as well, descriptive names would be easier to follow and learn quickly.
I agree with the changing of all eponymous English bird names, but completely removing them would destroy what you guys stand for in terms of diversity and inclusion. With no eponyms at all, ornithologists and other naturalist apart of under-represented groups that haven’t gotten their spotlight will continue to be in the dark as their names will not even be considered when trying to come up with a new name. While the changing of the names of eponyms with offensive backgrounds adheres to the values of the AOS, not giving the people who are barely represented at all does not.
I understand the AOS wants all people to feel included and represented, and are worried that the current names may be an impediment for people to become interested in birds. However I do not think the name would deter newcomers from this hobby. Additionally, the process of renaming hundreds of birds could be quite costly financially, and is better spent on critical priorities like bird conservation and research. In conclusion, I am not opposed to renaming if that’s what a majority of people want. I suggest, that democratically, this is voted for by a fairly represented population.
If we were to gradually change names instead of all at once, the Pyle and field guides would have to be updated and republished constantly, and this is not ideal for both publishers and purchasers. Additionally, inclusivity is about more than race- it is also about accessibility. Birding and studying ornithology are already expensive, so creating more economic barriers can push both prospective and current birders away. I hope these name change conversations continue to gain more media attention so that we can increase the diversity of voices and interest for birds.
I personally do not have a preference between changing all eponymous bird names and conducting a case-by-case approach as advocated by those who signed the petition for a moratorium. I would, however, encourage AOS to consider which approach is more favored by both the AOS membership and fellow ornithological societies.