On November 1st, 2023, the American Ornithological Society, or AOS, made a statement, vowing to change 263 common bird names of species that live in the United States and Canada, which is 5.5% the English bird names overseen by the AOS. Their goal, quoted online, states their intent is to “remove exclusionary barriers to participation in the enjoyment of birds and, through the renaming process, to educate the public about the birds themselves, their recent population declines, and their dire need for conservation.” In a nutshell, the decision will remove any bird name with eponyms – meaning that they are named after a person, or any name that is deemed to possibly be offensive or exclusionary.
The decision came after an 11 person committee from the AOS recommended the change in August. Colleen Handel, president of the society stated that “we’ve come to understand that there are certain names that have offensive or derogatory connotations that cause pain to people, and that it is important to change those, to remove those as barriers to their participation in the world of birds”.
The group will initially start with 70-80 species, and then move forward from there. This decision came as a surprise to many birders, and obviously opinions on this decision have been extremely mixed. Popular birds such as Gambel’s Quail, Anna’s Hummingbird, and Townsend’s Solitaire are all on the docket for a new name, and there is risk that birders may feel alienated as the bird names they grew up with and learned over time are set to be put to rest forever.
Although changing the names of certain species has occurred in the past, something of this scale is a massive undertaking. About 20 years ago, birders may remember the changing of the name for the Long-tailed Duck, which used to be referred to as “Oldsquaw”. This name was changed in 2000, on the grounds of it being offensive to Indigenous people. At the time, it’s worth noting that there were critiques to this name change and what the future might hold. During the decision to change the name, Phyllis Faber, co-director of a natural history series for UC-Press said “our nation is headed for blandness. There is tremendous drive for uniformity and loss of local color”. “I like the richness of having the old names; it does give a sense of the history”. More recently, the McCown’s Longspur underwent a name change in 2020. This Longspur, named after John McCown, who first collected the species in 1851 was a US Soldier who later went to serve as a confederate General in the Civil War. The bird’s name was changed to “Thick-billed Longpsur” after the classification committee altered it’s guidelines for changing species names to including those that create what they called “ongoing harm”.
Later on, the AOS created a forum called the Community Congress on Bird Names, which included birders, ornithologists, and leaders of conservation groups who supported changing the names of common birds. Well-known author David Sibley stated ““As I’ve learned more about eponymous bird names over the last year, it’s become clear that these names carry a lot of baggage”. “The hardest part will probably be convincing the birding community that this is worth the trouble… but I think it’s important and definitely worth doing”.
After the congress, the AOS English Bird Names committee was formed, and considered only trying to rename bird names that had, and I quote “the most hurtful ties to racism, oppression, and violence.” In the end, they ultimately decided it would be difficult to make judgements on the lives of those in the past, and citing the idea that the new names could be better descriptive of a bird’s habits, physical characterizes, or behaviors, decided to remove all eponyms, which means names that are given after people, regardless of their reputation.
The committee states that they will be opening up the naming effort to include diverse groups of people, which will include public input. Pam Rasmussen, who is the lead taxonomist for the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s Birds of the World database understands that the changes aren’t likely to come without difficulties. She stated that “a lot of people are going to be thinking that it’s an overreaction. There are going to be people who are sad to see the names that they’ve grown up with, or the names that they’ve learned and used for many years, be changed.” She also stated that the group tried “to come up with a process that is going to be best for the long term—best for ornithology, best for ornithologists, and best for the birds” and that “whether one agrees with all the aspects of the decision or not, the best thing for ornithology, for ornithologists, and for birds is to be as positive and non-divisive as possible.”
The group doesn’t expect change immediately, but rather that it will start months in the future. Those opposed to this decision cite that it will create a lack of historical context, disconnecting birders from the history of a species, and seemingly erasing the contributions of ornithologists in the past. Those in favor, argue that those contributions still exist but will not be present in the bird’s common name. As of now, the AOS has decided they will not be attempting to change the bird’s scientific names, which include many of the same eponyms, but in a Latin context. It does however, seem like it is something they will look into for the future.
Additionally, opponents of the change presume that changing the names of so many birds will cause confusion and make it difficult to communicate about particular species, let alone keeping field guides and online databases current, as these changes roll out slowly over time. Furthermore, there is also fear of a slippery slope. Who has a right to decide what should be changed and what is considered offensive? The committee states that although they will remove all bird names with eponyms, they will not be changing those with secondary eponyms, meaning a bird named after a place that was named after a person. Those that support the name changes suggest that getting the community involved in the name-changing process can help everyone feel a connection to these species that they had a part in naming. Additionally, they believe that it will help modernize the language and structure of the bird naming process and match global trends of naming birds after their own characteristics, rather than people.
Those opposed also question the value and resources involved with the change, suggesting that the time and money involved with this process could be spent on more pressing conservation efforts. Obviously this decision is extremely polarizing, even just looking at online chats, or comments sections of articles, but we would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below. Please be respectful and considerate.
