No fewer than 149 North American bird species named after people may soon acquire new names.
As part of an effort to “make ornithology and birding more diverse and inclusive” the leadership of the American Ornithology Union (AOU) now supports changing the names of North American bird species that are named for people (eponymous names) to different names that reflect something unique about each species.
The reasoning behind such a change is complex, nuanced and controversial so it’s creating quite a stir in the birding community. It isn’t within the scope of this blog post to cover all of the history and the logic motivating such a drastic makeover but for those interested I’ll post links at the bottom of this post covering both sides of the controversy.
But it sure threw me for a loop, at least at first. It’s especially hard for me to imagine calling Cooper’s Hawks and Swainson’s Hawks something else but there’s a long list of other birds that I see and photograph regularly or occasionally whose eponymous names would be changed, including the following:
- Bullock’s Oriole
- Cassein’s Finch
- Clark’s Grebe
- Clark’s Nutcracker
- Lincoln’s Sparrow
- MacGillivray’s Warbler
- Say’s Phoebe
- Steller’s Jay
- Swainson’s Hawk
- Townsend’s Solitaire
- Williamson’s Sapsucker
- Wilson’s Phalarope
- Wilson’s Snipe
- Wilson’s Warbler
- Woodhouse’s Scrub Jay
If you live and bird in another area of North America your list would be different from mine and it could be longer or shorter. And you may be more flexible than I am. I’m more of a creature of habit than most folks so for me this would be a sea change that I’d have a very difficult time adapting to. My initial reaction, weeks ago, was skeptical at best. At worst I wondered if “woke birding” was going too far and too quickly.
But then I settled down and thought about it, including asking myself the following questions. Should a person who didn’t necessarily have anything to do with the bird named after him (or her) be memorialized in the common name of that bird? Should a person who fought for slavery in the Civil War and/or supported racist policies have a bird named after him – a name that all of us are forced to use, effectively honoring that person?
We’ve already changed the name of McCown’s Longspur to Thick-billed Longspur because McCown fought to defend slavery as a Confederate general and went to war against native tribes. Since we’ve changed McCown’s how can we defend not changing Townsend’s Warbler for example – after all, it’s well documented that Townsend robbed the graves of North American tribes. And then there’s Audubon who trafficked in human remains by decapitating dead Mexican soldiers during the Texas revolution and sent the heads to Samuel George Morton, a notorious practitioner of phrenology – the pseudoscience that attempted to use skull dimensions to prove the superiority of White Europeans to other races.
Beyond memorializing folks who many believe don’t deserve the honor, what’s the value of continuing with the name of a bird that doesn’t tell us anything about the bird itself. The name Kirtland’s Warbler for example tells us absolutely nothing about the bird but the proposed name, Jack Pine Warbler, tells us that they rely on jack pine woodland habitats.
I’ll admit that such a massive change would be hard on me in the short run. And as a history buff I’ll miss the romanticism (for lack of a better word) of bird names like Lewis’s Woodpecker (Merriweather Lewis) and Clark’s Nutcracker (William Clark). But it seems to me that rather than cherry picking names of birds named after bad apples and changing just those bird names it would be best to have a hard and fast rule – no eponymous common names, none at all. And the benefits to both birds and humans of making birding more inclusive can’t be overstated.
That’s just one bird photographers opinion. If you have thoughts on the matter, either way, I’d be interested in hearing about them and I’ll bet other followers of Feathered Photography would be too.
I’ve had my say so from this point on it’s my intention to stay out of it. Mostly. We’ll see how that goes…
Ron
Links to relevant and related information on both sides of the controversy: If you read only one, please read the first.
- Head of AOS commits to ‘changing exclusionary or harmful bird names’
- A Bird Named For A Confederate Soldier Sparks Calls For A Change
- More On Woke Birding
- Let’s Give Some Birds Their Dignity Back
One last thought. Back in the late 60’s when I really began to develop my interest in birds the most common raptor in our marshes was the Marsh Hawk. I was fascinated by that species, and still am, so I knew and recognized it better than any other raptor and better than than most songbirds or shorebirds. A few years later the ‘powers that be’ changed the name of the Marsh Hawk to Northern Harrier and at the time I was far from happy about it. But now I almost never even think of the name Marsh Hawk.
That gives me some comfort – even I can adapt to name changes. But it might take me a while, especially with so many species involved.
One more “last thought””
Facebook friend and wildlife artist Carel brest Van Kempen made the following comment on the link to this post. I liked it so much I had to share. “My favorite story about eponymous naming was a South American catfish described forty years or so ago. While the ichthyologists were preparing their description of the new species, its collector lobbied obnoxiously for them to name it after him. They eventually relented, and today the fish is known as Corydoras narcissus.”
This is a stupid idea. Renaming the birds will not change the history, but it will make it easier to ignore it.
We know that there was racism in the past, and that we have worked and are working to eliminate it. But to remove all traces of the past, and references to it, is to pretend it never existed. The civilization that has no past has no future.
I think that this idea is terrible.
First, it is obvious that physically descriptive names such as “Sharp-shinned Hawk” or “Ring-necked Duck” are superior to others, in that any birder can easily identify these physical attributes and use them to properly identify the species.
However the suggestion to replace only “Honorific” names is also not enough. The entire concept of using Western Imperialist Culture to define bird’s names is clearly a vestige of bygone, shameful and exploitative eras, and we must also replace them with the Indigenous names, which were in use long before the Western Imperialist concept of naming began. This may present a bit of a problem for birders visiting New Guinea, for instance, where there are about 800 Indigenous languages (not dialects, actual languages), but that is a small price to pay for showing some respect for these cultures.
Finally, why should we be so Speciesist as to assume that we H. Sapiens have the right to name birds at all!! They certainly have their own names for themselves, and for their friends and neighbors, which we must take the time to learn. Perhaps the Sparrow-hawk that just flew by has the True Name of Ged, and his mother is called Ursula.
While this may result in the complete destruction of the hobby/sport of Bird Watching, and that of the Science of Taxonomy, I feel that it is worth it. After all, nothing is stable. You can never set foot in the same river twice, and you can never be too Politically Correct.
As a longtime Audubon member, this subject breaks my heart, but “the times, they are a-changin’…”
I highly recommend this article in the most recent issue of Audubon magazine:
https://www.audubon.org/magazine/spring-2021/what-do-we-do-about-john-james-audubon
Wow, that’s quite the article, Chris.
That is a powerful and thought provoking article. Many thanks.
Wow indeed!
Thanks for sharing, good article.
I never thought I would read about decapitated Mexican soldiers and phrenology on a bird blog.
I support changing names, although I suspect a lot of greenhouse gas (indirectly and directly by humans) is going to be emitted in the process, especially if the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature gets in on the act and tackles latin names, e.g., Accipiter cooperii.
I’m down with the change (or does that usage date me? LOL) I think we need to be very aware of how we honor those that do not deserve to be honored. I did not know that about Audobon and it makes me angry to learn it. Angry that I am 60 years old and only now learning of that crap. The same goes for my enthusiasm for the writings of HP Lovecraft. I won’t ever forget what I’ve learned about his heinous racism. If we could simply cancel racism by renaming a few species, I think we could do that. And, grin, why not just use Latin for them all. Then we can revive a so-called dead language and cancel racism.
Simultaneously it makes sense to me – despite knowing that I would struggle.
And woke culture, like PCness, also makes sense to me. Sometimes both of them go too far, but are steps in the right (in my eyes) directions.
I’m all for it. It will hard to deal with so many changes all at once but I think the idea is a good one. I agree that we shouldn’t honor disreputable people but it goes beyond that. I doubt that Thomas Bewick (of Bewick’s Wren fame) who was a British engraver, ever saw the wren Audubon named for him. And there are many other similar examples. As for Cooper’s Hawk, I have a suggestion. How about calling it a “Barrel-headed Hawk”. I tell people that you can tell it in flight from a Sharp-shinned Hawk by the protruding barrel-shaped head. And that’s easy to remember because a cooper is a barrel-maker.
“And that’s easy to remember because a cooper is a barrel-maker”
For me that’s the clincher, Dan.
Well heck.
I guess I had my head buried in the sand until recently, as that’s when I started learning that we have many non-human living things named after folks whose behavior is not currently socially acceptable (and probably was not any more acceptable when they were alive).
So, after starting to learn about the bad-old-days and the bad-old-actors, I guess it makes sense to give non-human beings names that better reflect their characteristics and/or their common abodes.
So, can we PLEASE name the Cooper’s Hawk to something that helps me to be able to VERY QUICKLY tell whether a Hawk is a Cooper’s versus a Sharp-shinned? Maybe Curved-tailed versus Square-tailed for the respective member of the Hawk community?
I do love the suggestions of other commenters in this blog.
As Fred Flintstone says to Barney Rubble, “You’re Smart Barn”. Lot’s of Smart Barnies commenting on this blog.
This Fred is just happy to be able to read Ron’s wonderful blog on a daily basis.
Life is Good. Good Life is Wonderful!
I love the ‘one more ‘last comment”.’ What a perfectly apt story. According to Google, there are 961 or more eponymous names of organisms. Certain older biologists of various types may have a harder lift than older birders. I agree the change is a good one to discourage naricissists from trying to be honored, to make bird names help new birders learn about them more efficiently, and to make birders a bit more of everyoone’s sport/citizen science. I did not know about Audubon’s skull collecting activities… and wonder how many other Audubon members do. One last thought: Do we need to rename the laws of physics?
Maybe it is better to have them named for their habitat etc, but this old dog hates name changes, makes all my field guides out of date, plus I will never remember them. A Yellow-rumped will always be a Myrtle Warbler to me. Or as my grandmother called them “Mert” Who was Myrtle anyway?
“Who was Myrtle anyway?”
Jo, the name originated from their tendency to feast on energy-rich wax myrtle berries.
I was just wondering who Myrtle was too, lol, because it’s the first bird I knew that had a name change.
But Yellow-rumpled Warblers is a better descriptive name, since we don’t have myrtles around here.
Does that mean that will go back from calling Wilson’s warbler back to calling it a pileated warbler?
Did NOT know that about Audubon; I thought he was just busy killing all the birds he saw. Sigh…
Stephanie and Porcupine have summed up my feelings on the topic. The more we know, the better we are and when we know better, we do better.
Interesting post!! I think it’s a good idea to change the names. As a person who has studied in the Medical field and has had to memorize lots of info to pass exams I have always thought the naming of diseases, syndromes or tumors after a person ridiculous. Much better to give the condition a descriptive Latin and common name – however long it may be!
That sure makes sense, Joanne.
The “experts” continue to change names and identities just because they can, to put “their” label on the change. Can we have the Planet Pluto back?
Could be a very controversial discussion, but very interesting as well, Your fellow biologist Charles Lucien Bonaparte who named the hawk for his friend and fellow ornithologist William Cooper would be disappointed, but since he is no longer with us maybe not too much.
I am very much opposed to the cancel culture unless renaming something is really appropriate as in removing the name if that person was a strong proponent and supporter of slavery or something of equal wrong.
If a change was to be made I would suggest the new names give no credit to humans and instead go with something of nature or location or color appropriate to the particular bird.
If we start to replace the human names with other human names who are we to decide who is an appropriate person and who is not?
I doubt very much if the birds could care less what they’re called. And, if the birds don’t care, why should I become exercised about changing their “official” names.
I think it’s all rather silly, myself. Did McCown or his legacy benefit in any way by having a longspur bear his name? Were his misdeeds remedied in any way by renaming the bird? Are we as a society apt to behave better in the future now that we call that bird “Thick-billed?” I don’t see any tangible benefit to erasing reminders of problematic aspects of our history. If the AOU wants to initiate a policy of stopping future eponymous names, that’s fine, but in this age of widespread taxonomical reassessment, I can live without a lot of new common names to relearn.
I like Porcupine’s thoughts about honoring creatures by naming them according
to their appearance, or even their customary behavior– reflecting their
essential being, rather than the never-ending way we humans have anthropocentrized the rest of the universe !
Yep, difficult in some ways but important to make these changes! Thanks for the amazing photos and good ideas.
Mary
I was backpacking in the Wind River Range in 1978 and while taking a short siesta in an open meadow, with my heavy boots removed, a Clark’s nutcracker hopped over and tentatively pecked at my big toe. First time I had ever seen such a bird and once I learned it’s name I also learned to always look for it. I like the name. I am a fan but not a true birder so that’s all I have to say about naming.
Just when we learn something, it gets changed. Such is life and progress. When I graduated, genotyping in the Wildlife Biology department was essentially a brand new thing. Eventually, it would necessitate the reordering of quite a bit of taxonomy. Essentially throwing quite a bit of my book-learned knowledge in the old round file. I still know a lot of the now obsolete names. At this point in my life, I simply don’t care about such things enough to make the effort to learn the new names. Besides, I can always Google if I need to reference something, I no longer need the scientific names committed to memory. I imagine if the common names are changed, a lot of us will still think of them by the old names, but we can always look up the new names when we need to. I think it makes sense to change the names, so the fact that change is a bit harder for me is just my tough luck.
First of all, I am just an old birder who has taken the trouble to be able to recognize and name hundreds of birds. Many names have already changed over the years for taxonomic or behavioral reasons, Where is the Myrtle Warbler or Baltimore Oriole? Gone? But this is wholesale change! Perhaps they could do it in two steps, first changing all the bird’s names who were named after bad guys, then a few years later changing the names of birds named after good guys. Of course, we’ll have to change the names in history books as well …
OK, let the taxonomists have their fun and stand behind scientific reasoning or for that matter behind current social reasoning. I’m too old not to remember Yellow-shafted Flicker renamed to Northern Flicker or Slate-colored Junco to Dark-eyed Junco. They will always be in my mind what I learned way back when. Names are just names anyways, we learn what we learn and have to make adjustments as we grow older. I think it is a state of mind anyway as we age!
I’m in favor or re-naming. It may be tough for us for a while, but better in the long run. Bird names may seem like small and insignificant things, but they’re part of a much larger and pernicious system that perpetuates privilege and basically claims that the end justifies the means.
Thanks for being willing to examine your own thinking and post about this topic.
Sighhhhhhh. I “get it” BUT, personally, the first name I knew something by is the one that “sticks”……..😖 😉
The Chinese cultural revolution dedicated itself to eliminating the “Four Olds” — old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas. Might as well throw old ornithological labels on the pile.
If you would like to make this issue even more chaotic, think about eliminating people names from the latin binomial labels we have slapped on so many creatures. That is too complicated for me. I am, however, vaguely offended by sticking the name of an invasive white person on any animal or plant. It is arrogant in the extreme. Especially since that invasive white person probably killed, cut down, or dug up the first found specimen. We are part of this ecosystem. Not outsiders looking in. We should honor each of our fellow travelers in their own right. Not label them with names that reflect our narrow perceptions.
Well put, Porcupine. We are part of the ecosystem, not outsiders looking in. In fact we are the stewards of the ecosystem and responsible for its health and safety. I’ve always thought that the human need to understand, categorize and name plants, animals and geography was just that: a “human” need. The bird doesn’t care that we have planted a name on its head. If this human need is used to memorialize a person with intentions not positively memorable, time to cast it off. Since it would be difficult to discern the bad actors I say out with all eponymous names.
I approve in theory. But a Cooper’s Hawk will be, in my head, a Cooper’s Hawk forever, I’m afraid.
Sure going to be tough on this older photographer who is already nominally challenged. Probably a good move in the longer term…