I earlier mentioned the proposal by the American Ornithologist’s Union (AOU) to vary the widespread names of birds named after individuals. Let me add just a little extra right here. Will this result in a change in scientific names as nicely?

The AOU modified McCown’s Longspur to the Thick-billed Longspur due to McCown’s help of slavery as a Accomplice normal however the scientific title Rhynchophanes mccownii nonetheless contains his title. Isn’t that also honoring him? There are different American birds that pose this identical concern equivalent to. Myadestes townsendii for the Townsend’s Solitaire. There are lots of extra within the U.S. and worldwide. Do you know that the genus Attila was named after Attila the Hun? How about Cacicus montezuma, after the Aztec ruler? Or Calamotropha dagamae, named after Vasco de Gama, Portuguese explorer and colonizer? And a very odd one, the Pygmy batis, Batis perkeo, named after a well-known German dwarf? Are these offensive? If we begin altering widespread names as a result of they’re offensive or don’t add to the outline of the chicken, the following logical step is to vary scientific names as a result of scientific names have the identical drawback. It makes little sense to use these standards to widespread names and ignore scientific names with the identical concern.

Why go away the scientific names of Baird’s Sandpiper and Baird’s Sparrow.as Calidris bairdii and Centronyx bairdii if Baird is faraway from the widespread title? Calidris, from the Greek, refers to a gray-colored waterbird first talked about by Aristotle. Centronyx means “spur claw.” The genus names are descriptive, however the species title shouldn’t be. Ought to bairdii be modified? Ought to we even delete Baird’s title? Was Baird a nasty man? Not that I can inform from  his biography on Wikipedia. He was really a reasonably spectacular biologist, environmentalist, and, amongst many different accomplishments the primary curator on the Smithsonian Establishment and a founding member of the American Ornithologist’s Union. He appears to be an ideal instance of somebody after whom a chicken should be named. Eradicating his title could be quite insulting, I believe. And what about William Cooper (Cooper’s Hawk, Accipter cooperii) one of many founders of the American Museum of Pure Historical past in New York Metropolis and who first described the Night Grosbeak? And plenty of others. I believe it will be a disgrace to rid chicken names of people that mirror the historical past of ornithology, even when their private historical past could be odious by at present’s requirements.

Altering scientific names, due to the voluminous guidelines established in by the 306-page code e-book of Worldwide Fee Zoological Nomenclature (IUCN), could be a terrific mess. Because the ICZN is utilized by the worldwide scientific neighborhood, native adjustments, that’s, those who could be proposed by the U.S., won’t be acknowledged.

The Audubon Society opted to not change its title, not due to John James Audubon’s historical past however due to the society’s historical past. The Audubon title is synonymous with chicken safety; altering it will solely weaken that status. Altering chicken names ignores ornithological historical past. Like the continuing controversy surrounding textbooks, if historical past is disagreeable, ought to we ignore it?