On 1 November 2023, the American Ornithological Society (AOS) announced an unprecedented change in avian nomenclature for their Check-list of North and Middle American Birds. The Check-list had long been the standard for North American bird names (e.g., Winker 2022). The AOS Council stated that they committed “to changing all English-language names of birds within its geographic jurisdiction that are named directly after people (eponyms), along with other names deemed offensive and exclusionary…” They established a permanent committee to make these judgments and to oversee the mandated changes. This was done without surveying the very large stakeholder community or even AOS members.
There have been numerous negative reactions to the AOS decision.* Choosing to cancel many important figures in our history and taking bird names into the culture wars is controversial and unpopular with many. Culturally motivated name changes often produce more strife than gain (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico/America controversy). Although the goals of increasing inclusion and diversity in science are laudable, turning nomenclature into a tool of social activism to accomplish these goals evoked widespread disagreement over whether is an effective means of doing so. In fact, such large-scale name changes instantly degrade scientific communication by making modifications to our widely shared standardized vocabulary. Prioritizing cultural issues over the standardization and stability that a lasting nomenclature requires has historically failed to gain favor among organismal biologists because of such negative effects (Melville 1995).
The AOS decision revealed a fundamental structural flaw in how the Check-list of North American Birds is managed. In the AOS, a committee of experts on taxonomy and nomenclature produced and managed the Check-list, but as this decision shows, ultimately this committee is not in charge of the product—instead, others are, who now have different priorities. The members of this committee (the North American Classification Committee, NACC), were unanimously opposed to this AOS decision. The AOS is exacerbating this flawed structure by establishing a new English names committee, separating out the new social justice responsibilities of nomenclature to be dealt with independently by a group whose majority is likely to be committed to this ideology.
A second flaw of the AOS is that it has not effectively dealt with subspecies since the 5th edition of the Check-list (published in 1957). There are many reasons for this, but it is a problem when the most widely accepted authority on North American avian diversity does not comprehensively include a level of biodiversity that is legally mandated to be managed in Canada and the U.S. and that is so important under, e.g., the U.S. Endangered Species Act.
The American Ornithologists Union (this new AOU) has been created to rectify both of these flaws, inasmuch as possible.
Importantly, however, the establishment of this new organization also enables us to seize opportunities not taken by the AOS. For vernacular names, AOS has restricted itself in the past to English and French names, neglecting the many other languages in North and South America in which birds are studied and enjoyed. Kohl et al. (2020) observed that “language diversity protects biodiversity.” There is a great need for multilingual nomenclature frameworks, and we consider that new scales of inclusion in ornithology can be fostered using nomenclature by expanding participation through addressing these needs. We welcome authors—and users—who wish to bring these relatively neglected areas of avian nomenclature to a larger audience.
More history
By adopting and prioritizing an ideological approach to bird names, AOS has gone against core principles of nomenclature. Further, they made bird names a political topic. This massive name-changing exercise is a very contentious decision. It is divisive and polarizing.* By prioritizing a sociopolitical agenda for bird names over careful, science-based management, AOS has shown that it can no longer be counted on to deliver a relatively stable, scientifically based list of names. The AOS ad hoc English names committee report stated that changes will begin with 152 English names in North America and 111 names in South America. And there is no defined end to these top-down, ideologically driven changes. They have separated bird name issues between two committees, one for scientific names and the other for English names. It is the latter, new committee, that is driving the changes. They will decide upon and manage additional changes beyond these—any name they deem to be “offensive and exclusionary.” Depending on the speed with which these changes occur, this represents a dramatic change in English bird name stability, speeding up by 10-100 times the rate of change occurring over the past century (White 2006, Winker 2022). Until now, English bird names have been more stable than their scientific names—part of the reason why the Check-list has been so successful thus far (e.g., Fig. 1).
The North American Classification Committee (NACC) has been a core part of AOS and its predecessor the American Ornithologists’ Union since the 1880s. NACC members unanimously opposed the scope of this decision when their views were sought by AOS leadership in a confidential process in summer 2023. The South American Classification Committee (SACC) was not founded by AOS, and its disagreement about this proposed change was similar to that of NACC. When the draft report was confidentially circulated among SACC and NACC members in summer 2023, SACC withdrew and is no longer associated with AOS.
Nomenclatural standardization and stability are the two key pillars of an effective taxonomic list (Winker 2024a). In abandoning both principles in favor of an ideological pursuit, AOS created a fork in the road. (In fact, they’ve created an additional fork by decoupling simultaneous consideration of English and scientific names and splitting those between different committees.) Many disagree with giving standardization and stability a lower priority than a sociopolitical agenda in hopes of increasing inclusion. We strongly support the promotion of ornithology and we welcome all to participate. Changing a large number of names based on sociopolitical motivations is not likely to prove an effective way to do that; names are too divisive and disagreements too rampant.
There are also ethically and morally questionable issues associated with the course that AOS has chosen. Large-scale eponym removal (in English and scientific names) has been considered inappropriate for several reasons: it discriminates against individuals because of the groups they belong to (Goska 2020, Winker 2024a); it is a new form of colonialism (Pethiyagoda 2023); it enhances international disparities (Orr et al. 2023); it is discriminatory and harmful to biologists in the global south (Jost et al. 2023, Orr et al. 2023); it diverts scarce resources from making direct progress on more important challenges (Antonelli et al. 2023); it is a form of moral imperialism (Winker 2024a); and it is virtue signaling (Goska 2021, Pethiyagoda 2023, Thiele 2023). Alternatives exist that are far less divisive to enhance inclusion through organismal nomenclature (e.g., Palma & Heath 2021, Jost et al. 2023, Winker 2024a).
Winker (2024a) estimated that the audience of the Check-list is probably over 100 million people. That makes this nomenclature an important, widely shared resource (essential communications infrastructure). A lexicon so widely shared needs the sort of dependable caretaking that the Check-list (and other lists) have historically had.
Many ornithologists spend a great deal of time working with avian diversity and nomenclature, and we want to continue upgrading and maintaining useful lists. We will continue to do so, prioritizing standardization and stability and making modifications based on new, published knowledge and, to a more limited degree, on cultural considerations. In doing so, we hope to avoid excessive churning of names due to cultural issues and to continue to provide widely useful taxonomic lists.
* In addition to the formation of the American Ornithologists Union, there are at least five other negative reactions to the AOS name changes decision. The South American Classification Committee (SACC) removed themselves from AOS when it was clear that social justice issues would be prioritized in bird names. The International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU) will also continue to favor established names. Besides these ornithological taxonomy and nomenclature committees, three additional striking rejections of this AOS decision are noteworthy: 1) The well-supported petition opposing the decision led by birdwatchers (e.g., https://www.change.org/p/petition-to-aos-leadership-on-the-recent-decision-to-change-all-eponymous-bird-names; https://birdnamesforstability.org/). 2) A resolution from within AOS for a moratorium on changing all eponymous names, signed by over 225 prestigious members (e.g., Fellows and major award winners; https://americanornithology.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AOS-Fellows-Resolution-on-Moratorium-on-Changing-Nonharmful-Eponymous-English-Bird-Names-4-4-24.pdf). And 3) Legislation in the state of Utah directing their Division of Wildlife Resources to use English names in effect on 1 January 2020, thus rejecting forthcoming changes (https://le.utah.gov/~2024/bills/hbillint/HB0382S02.htm).
Figure 1. (from Winker 2024b) Changing eponymous English names creates new barriers (an exclusionary effect). We don’t know if it might remove barriers and promote more inclusion. This shows an historic overview of the use of Swainson’s Warbler (blue) as an English bird name relative to the three scientific names the species (as now recognized) has borne from the early 1800s through 2019, Sylvia swainsonii Audubon, 1834 (golden), Helinaia swainsonii (green), and Limnothlypis swainsonii (red), using Google Books Ngram Viewer.
Literature Cited
Antonelli, A., Farooq, H., Colli-Silva, M., Araújo, J. P. M., Freitas, A. V. L., Gardner, E. M., Grace, O., Gu, S., et al. 2023. People-inspired names remain valuable. Nature Ecology and Evolution, online. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02108-7 [accessed on 22 June 2023].
Goska, D. 2021. A bird by any other name is a thought crime: Elite birdwatchers are purging American natural history. Frontpage Mag, 11 June 2021. https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/bird-any-other-name-thought-crime-danusha-goska/ [accessed on 13 June 2022].
Jost, L., Yanez-Muñoz, M. H., Brito, J., Reyes-Puig, C., Reyes-Puig, J. P., Guayasamin, J. M., Ron, S. R., Quintana, C., Iturralde, G., et al. 2023. Eponyms are important tools for biologists in the Global South. Nature Ecology and Evolution, online. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02102-z [accessed on 22 June 2023].
Kohl, K., Dudrah, R., Gosler, A., Graham, S., Maiden, M., Ouyang, W. & Reynolds, M. (Eds.) 2020. Creative Multilingualism, A Manifesto. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.
Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals, A History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895–1995. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London, UK.
Orr, M. C., Hughes, A. C., Carvajal, O. T., Ferrari, R. R., Luo, A., Rajaei, H., Ron, S. R., Warrit, N. et al. 2023. Inclusive and productive ways forward needed for species-naming conventions. Nature Ecology and Evolution, online https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02103-y [accessed on 22 June 2023].
Palma, R. L. & Heath, A. C. G. 2021. Science versus vernacular: should some taxa of animals and plants be renamed according to ‘indigenous’ practices? Bionomina 22: 1–7.
Pethiyagoda, R. 2023. Policing the scientific lexicon: The new colonialism? Megataxa 10: 20–25.
Thiele, K. 2023. Some, but not all, eponyms should be disallowed. Nature Ecology and Evolution, online. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02106-9 [accessed on 22 June 2023].
White, R. 2006. The History of North American Bird Names in the American Ornithologists’ Union Checklists, 1886–2000. http://www.darwiniana.org/zoo/AOUintro.html
Winker, K. 2022. A brief history of English bird names and the American Ornithologists’ Union (now American Ornithological Society). Ornithology 139: ukac019. https://doi.org/10.1093/ornithology/ukac019
Winker, K. 2024a. Bird names as critical communication infrastructure in the contexts of history, language, and culture. Zootaxa 5486:151–181. https://mapress.com/zt/issue/view/zootaxa.5486.2
Winker, K. 2024b. The inordinate unpopularity of changing all eponymous bird and other organismal names. Bionomina 37:059–069. https://mapress.com/bn/article/view/bionomina.37.1.3