ajohn

I agree with GeoffC and others that it makes sense to adopt an internationally-recognised authority, and that in doing so you should adopt the taxonomy and nomenclature wholesale. Personally I actually think that almost all of the names in the IOC list are reasonable, and as others have said, you are free to use whatever name you prefer.

A couple of comments on species names previously discussed:
Swift Tern - I don't know for sure, but I suspect this is used because Greater Crested Tern would imply this is the closest relative of Lesser Crested Tern (which it almost certainly isn't!)
Brown Waterhen/Bush-hen - I think Bush-hen is proposed for the new name because this is consistent with the other species of Amaurornis (which don't occur in HK), and White-breasted Waterhen is the odd-one-out for this genus.
Silky/Red-billed Starling - I actually dislike the name silky for this species, especially when you see them kicking around in the revolting stinky channels they use in HK, when they certainly don't look like silk! Like Dave, I have routinely called these Red-billed since I arrived in Hong Kong and will probably continue to do so. Mike mentions other starlings with red bills - off the top of my head I can't think of any.

The only name I really dislike among them is Light-vented Bulbul, as discussed by others this stikes me as vague and non-descriptive, whereas Chinese fits with the scientific name and the centre of distribution in China.  This does not stop me supporting the adoption of IOC names.

Given the ongoing advances in bird taxonomy, it is inevitable that the list will keep changing whatever approach the RC adopts. Following a recognised international list would ensure the HK list keeps up-to-date with scientific opinion and would make it easier on HK bird watchers to follow the taxonomic decisions adopted by the RC.

ajohn

Regarding Rufous-rumped Grassbird: I understand Mike's concern that using the name GRassbird implies a relationship to other Grassbirds. Contrary to Paul's post (unless I misunderstood!), Graminicola is not considered closely related to Megalurus or Chaetornis and is placed in a different family. Use of a name such as this across families is not without precedent, however - in Hong Kong (based on the IOC list), we have at least:
Snipe in 2 families (no-one seems to have commented that Painted-snipe is now Painted Snipe again!)
Flycatchers in 3 families (Monarchidae, Muscicapidae and Stenostiridae)
Tits in 2 families (Paridae and Remizidae)
Warblers in 4 families (Cettidae, Phylloscopidae, Acrocephalidae and Megaluridae) - would be 6 if Graminicola and Cisticola retained the old 'warbler' name!
and even Tailorbirds in 2 families (Cettidae and Cisticolidae)
Are we destined to have similar arguments about these?
Elsewhere in the world there are also issues with Vultures, Sparrows, Blackbirds, Robins, Wrens, Grosbeaks, etc., etc.

I would also expect Timaliidae to be subject to a large degree of splitting in future, leaving a mess with Babbler as a name. Rather than coining a new name for Graminicola benghalensis now, I suggest that it is more sensible to wait until the species is split and adopt the name used in that paper.

[ Last edited by ajohn at 26/02/2010 13:45 ]