cgeoff

Dear All,

Those of you who follow these issues will know that the HK List as it currently stands is somewhat out of date in terms of the taxonomy and nomenclature of a number of species. The Records Committee has for some time been considering what to do about this, and in particular which of the alternative lists available should be followed. The three most widely-respected appear to be the lists produced by Howard and Moore, the IOC and Clements; the IOC List, however, closely matches the Howard and Moore list.

It appears to us that the IOC/Howard & Moore list is the most respected internationally, and is also most relevant to the birds of this part of the world. Consequently, we are considering revising the HK List in accordance with this.

Before doing this though, we would like to invite the opinions of members regarding this change, in order that we can take these into consideration during deliberations at the next meeting. A link to the List is provided below:

Click Here

If you have any comments, please post them here before the end of February.

In the file, brown indicates that any change is driven by a name change, while green indicates any change is driven by taxonomic treatment.

Please note that Chinese names are not covered by these lists, though obviously some changes will need to be made to these once an updated HK List is adopted.

Regards,

Geoff Carey

cgeoff

Thanks, Gary. The answers are:

1. Oversight. Should be Rose-ringed Parakeet, for which English and scientific names are the same.

2. These species are Category E. So far, we have only prepared the main A-D list, on the basis that what happens to Category E species is not so relevant. We will do Category E when we have more time.

Geoff

cgeoff

Thanks, Ho Fai.

HK bird names have broadly remained the same for some time now; certainly there have been very few changes since the publication of the Avifauna. I agree stability in this respect is good, but we have to balance that against keeping up with taxonomic changes in particular. Our intent is to follow a well-researched and respected World List, in order that we in HK can keep up with latest, scientifically-accepted developments. Consequently, if the IOC amends taxonomic treatment and publishes this, we will too.

I don't believe this will result in many changes, certainly not at vernacular name level. However, I don't think there is much to be gained from not keeping up with developments simply to remain 'stable'.

We are planning to review the English names, although I personally hope we follow the IOC List as much as possible. The Bluetail/Bush Robin issue is something we will consider for this and other species.

Finally, I certainly welcome your input on Chinese names. As soon as the taxonomic approach has been agreed, I'll let you know.

Geoff

cgeoff

Thanks for your comments, Geoff.

With regard to taxonomy, I think we need to tread carefully. This list is based on peer-reviewed, published research, and no matter what we personally may think about the taxonomic status of a particular species occurring in HK, if we haven't done the research and published the results, then our case is less strong.

Obviously, this list does involve some amount of personal interpretation by the compilers of species limits and assessment of the strength of particular taxonomic arguments. With regard to Heuglin's Gull, I realise that Olsen and Larsson, for example, treat this as a full species; however, they are not taxonomists, and are basing this on morphological characters, which is but one element of those generally considered (vocalisations, DNA and habitat preferences being others). Given that, broadly speaking, there is a gradual change in certain morphological characters and moult strategies in large gulls from Heuglin's east to Vega, there is at least some argument for treating them as fewer species rather than more.

As for Swift Tern, what's wrong with that name? I say this not to get into a debate about the name of this species, but just to highlight the fact that one man's feast is another man's poison. When it comes to certain names, it really is simply a matter of personal preference. I fully accept that there may be regional and/or historical reasons why a particular name might be better suited for use in Hong Kong, but for many others there is not. As a related point, on the issue of Red-flanked Bluetail and Orange-flanked Bush Robin, it may be that in favouring the latter, a person is not aware of the huge cultural preference for the name Bluetail that developed in the formative years of mass birding in Europe, when this species was a very rare and charismatic waif from the East !

So, the English name issue is one that is both complex and emotional. My own personal view (and I assure you this is not shared by all my colleagues on the RC), is that to cut through all of this we should simply adopt the IOC List wholesale. However, one reason why we have posted it here is to get feedback on these issues. If you have strong feelings about particular names, please let us know.

Geoff

cgeoff

I shudder at the thought of a meeting to decide on the names of the 498 species on the HK List. Even if just 20 of these proved controversial, based on my previous experience of thinking about and discussing English names, it would simply result in people expressing fairly entrenched positions with little common agreement. And the result for those 20 species? Probably 10 species whose names an individual is not too happy with, and 10 that are acceptable. Which is more or less what we would get by adopting the IOC list as it is now.

Does this also mean that for each species we add to the HK List there has to be a poll to decide the English name? What about Chinese names? Shouldn't there also be a similar democratic process? My point is that we need to be careful about making what should be a fairly straightforward process into something cumbersome and bureaucratic.

In terms of taxonomy, the RC believes that the Howard & Moore list, on which the IOC list is based, is sufficiently forward-thinking but also sufficiently grounded in research-driven taxonomic positions. It also displays real knowledge about Oriental birds, and for these reasons we do believe it has an advantage over others.

If we look at the revised list, we can see that it does not lump any species currently on the HK List, and it adds only two: Naumann's Thrush and Dusky Thrush are split, as are 'Western' and 'Eastern' Water Rails, into Water Rail and Brown-cheeked Rail. So, in actual fact, there is very little difference taxonomically.

Sure we can say that we will follow IOC except in certain cases, but realistically, what can most of us say apart from "I think it's a different species because it looks different"? Is this sufficient to gainsay research work carried out by scientists whose peer-reviewed publication supports a particular taxonomic approach? They won't get it right all the time, but they are more likely to than we are.

Geoff

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 10/02/2010 16:05 ]

cgeoff

Certainly I don't want to arrogate the right of deciding English bird names to the Records Committee - far from it. However, I'm also wary of it going to what I believe will be a small number of people (in HK) who happen to care whether Sturnus sericeus is called Red-billed or Silky Starling. I think we need to remember that for the vast majority of birders in HK, the vernacular names are Chinese, and the English name is probably of little real interest.

While I applaud any attempts at inclusiveness, my feeling that very few people would actually be sufficiently bothered to attend a meeting to discuss and/or vote on these things. Indeed, the number of people who get to decide a name in these circumstances may be as undemocratically small as it would be if it was the Records Committee deciding! If there are other people out there who are sufficiently concerned to contribute to this debate, please take part. Are you happy to accept the IOC List of English names, warts and all, for the sake of consistency? Or is it important to you that certain changes are adopted?

My feeling is that, ultimately, the English name is not that important. If Mike calls Sturnus sericeus Silky Starling and I call it Red-billed, so what? We both understand each other. What its English name is in the HKBR or the Bulletin is not as important as what its scientific name is. I am more concerned about the taxonomy. For these reasons, I am happy to leave names to a respected, international body that makes a serious attempt at a rational taxonomic and nomenclatural system.

Geoff

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 12/02/2010 09:11 ]

cgeoff

Thanks, Gary for your contribution. You do have a point, and I accept I may have underestimated the influence of changing bird names. I was not aware the Avifauna and the Photo Guide used different names. I just assumed that the Photo Guide, as an official publication of the HKBWS that came out after the Avifauna, would have used the same names. But, I must confess I didn't check. As for the field guide to the birds of HK and South China, that was really one man's interpretation of bird names, and as much as I respect his choice, I don't think it particularly has a claim to authority. I also agree with Gary that whatever name list is chosen, all HKBWS publications should follow it.

However, we have to be careful about not changing names for this reason. If there are real taxonomic reasons for changing the vernacular name, then it should be changed. No point in leaving people unaware of these. By the same token, we have to be wary of introducing completely new names just because we think they are more apposite. Furthermore, environmental education materials are reprinted, and there's no reason any changes should not be adopted then. I don't think it will cause much confusion in the interim to the average visitor to the Wetland Park, for example!

If only there were a 'standard', as Gary suggests. If there was, it would make things easier. Taxonomy and nomenclature is not really a 'scientists' prerogative alone, though. I don't consider myself a scientist, yet I am interested in the issue. If only because when, for example, I see an Upland Pipit, it doesn't really strike me as a typical Anthus pipit, and I wonder why it's included with that family. I'm sure that as birdwatching becomes more popular in HK, others will also pick up this interest, and many I'm sure already have.

I guess that if English names don't really matter to me personally, then I shouldn't really be bothered whether it's Chinese or Light-vented Bulbul. And ultimately, I'm not. However, my feeling is that if we adopt (preferable to 'slavishly follow', I think!) the IOC List, then it makes life somewhat easier. Firstly, we won't need to debate English names in this way, should (when) species occur in HK for which there are options for the English name. Secondly, we remove the right to decide from any particular group of people, including the RC, instead transferring it to a reasonable and serious, though admittedly not perfect, body.

Regarding Mike's query about the scope for the Society to make suggestions to the IOC, that's something I don't know about. Presumably there is, but the Society will need to look into it.

As Mike says, it would be good to hear from others regarding this issue. At the moment, anybody reading this thread may think it's only Mike who cares! Is it? Please let us know what you think, even if it is to say 'I don't care'!

Geoff

P.S. As an unrelated aside, can we have a much smaller space below so that we don't have to scroll down so far when referring back to others' posts? If the space is needed for those onions on the left, can they not be converted to a drop-down menu?

cgeoff

Although the IOC List is regularly updated, given that the HK List comprises a mere 5% of the World List, I doubt very much there will frequent changes. I really don't think this will be an issue. The Chinese/Green-backed Flycatcher back-tracking change is possible, of course, but really, how many of these is there likely to be. One, two? (Having checked the IOC website, I see that in the draft for forthcoming changes, Northern Boobook is proposed for insertion after Brown Hawk Owl, which, given we assume birds occurring in HK are Northern Boobook, would have resulted in such a situation. We can, however, forestall that now). I checked the most recent five updates and the draft latest, and only came up with one change that affected the HK List (the one above, not the flycatcher, Geoff, which I can't seem to find).

In June 2008 there were a few relevant changes, but most were straightforward: Cattle Egret to Eastern Cattle Egret, Osprey to Eastern Osprey, Great Egret to Eastern Great Egret; one wasn't though: Brown-cheeked Rail. The latter is a good example, though. We simply wouldn't be able to retain the original name for birds occurring in HK (Water Rail), as that name refers to the nominate subspecies. Brown-cheeked Rail is not particularly euphonious, I realise, but I think it's preferable to the alternative, creating new a new name.

If we accept the taxonomy of the IOC List, we also must accept the taxonomy-driven changes that result. We then have to be very careful about which names we choose, should we want to go it alone on some.

For those interested in looking at the IOC website, you can find it at:

http://www.worldbirdnames.org/

GeoffC

cgeoff

Bob,

I hope that the List can be finalised in March. I have asked for comments to be added to this Forum before the end of February.

However, just because the official HK List uses one or two different names, I don't think it makes your videos 'out-dated'.

GeoffC

cgeoff

Thanks MikeT for explaining your position.

My stance is very much as Mike says. Philosophically I would vote to accept the IOC List in its entirety (or nearly so...), even though there are a number of names I don't particularly like. And I will continue to use the names I prefer or know in normal speech.

Having considered Chinese Bulbul further, I can see that might be an issue given its abundance in China and ubiquity in HK, and the symbolic importance it has here.

As for the other proposals of MikeK above, I have the following responses:

1) Swinhoe's Egret from Chinese Egret (to honour Swinhoe, it occurs beyond China, breeding and wintering). Chinese Bulbul and Chinese Goshawk occur beyond China also, so I think that element of the argument is weak. Honouring of Swinhoe I can accept, however.
2) Brown Waterhen from Brown Bush Hen. Bush is a strange choice given that, in my experience, it's a wetland species. Given also shared scientific name, agreed.
3) Pacific Swift (nothing wrong with this name, other swifts have forked tails). Agreed.
5) Whipcrack Bush Warbler from Brown-flanked Bush Warbler. As far as I'm aware, this is a newly-created name, which I don't think we should be doing. There are already two names for this species - why introduce a third? And actually, I don't think 'whipcrack' describes particularly well the song.
6) Goodson's Leaf Warbler from Hartert's Leaf Warbler. Hartert's appears to be gaining currency. There are many names where the scientific name is not reflected in the English name, so why focus on this?
7) Streaked Grass Babbler from Rufous-rumped Grassbird. As far as I'm aware, this is a newly-created name, which I don't think we should be doing.
8) Silky Starling from Red-billed Starling. The merit to this argument is not strong enough to warrant choice of a different name.

Finally, to answer MikeT's question, yes, because we still can't be sure whether the non-goodsoni birds are fohkiensis or claudiae, we cannot do anything about this.

GeoffC

cgeoff

I fully agree with Richard that: "In cases where two common names are in use, can we say that one is correct and the other is incorrect?"

Of course, we can't. I don't think the IOC List, or any other list, is necessarily saying this is correct and that isn't. All it is doing is providing a set of labels to facilitate intercourse. I also agree with Richard that in one sense this List is 'doomed to failure'. It will not result in a standardised set of names being applied internationally. That's what scientific names are for. The English names are just not that important, ultimately.

As for the proposal to "restore common English names of long usage in the region", I am slightly wary of this. What does this actually mean? And who decides which names should be restored? What is the process?

While I certainly understand Richard's points regarding Eagle-owl and Wood Owl, and other examples, I think they are best addressed directly to the IOC. The website is very upfront about welcoming comments such as these.

As for “Claudia’s Leaf Warbler”, what about Mrs Gould's Sunbird? If not wife, why not daughter? No Thick-knee? No problem, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, I point these out not to have a debate about names specifically, but to illustrate that it's often a matter of personal opinion. My feeling is that for many, though not all, names for which there are differences of opinion, these differences will never be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Which brings me back to my point that this List, in bulk if not entirety, should simply be swallowed. We can all use whatever names we wish in the field or in discussion.

Incidentally, the Records Committee will be discussing adoption of the IOC List at its next meeting on 1st March. Those who wish to comment, please do so by then.

Thanks.

GeoffC

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 23/02/2010 13:52 ]

cgeoff

Thanks for your comment, Ruy.

I take your point about the local and cultural relevance of English names, and certainly you are better qualified to comment on this aspect than anybody else I know. However, if you, or indeed anybody else reading this, have particular concerns about individual names, please let us know which ones. We are more than happy to consider these alternatives. But we do need guidance as to which names people are concerned about.

Ruy, what are the 'old names' that you wish to retain? Is it just the names that have been highlighted in previous posts above?

As I mentioned above, we are meeting on 1st March, when we hope to reach an agreement. Please could people respond by then, either on this Forum or direct to me.

GeoffC

cgeoff

I am posting the following comments from Martin Hale on his behalf:

"Personally I never learnt the most recent name changes and never (wittingly) used them, although of course was aware of what species was under discussion. I will continue to use the names I know regardless of any formal changes. I don't feel strongly either way about most of them, with the exception of Bush hen, which will induce me to vomit every time I see it in print (if accepted). On balance I think that we should retain the more traditional names. Since, in print, these will usually be accompanied by the Latin name, it shouldn't matter too much if we go our own way on the English names. Most of the bird literature that originates in Hong Kong is for our own consumption (although no doubt we would like to think otherwise), so why worry about what the outside world thinks of our names? But, as a I say, I can't get too excited about it."

cgeoff

It's good to see others getting involved in this debate.

With regard to Mike's Point 1, this has effectively been done already via this discussion. We now have a list of bird names, and the closing date is, as stated before, 28th February. Despite this, I am very happy to receive other submissions on the 1st.

With regard to point 2, the role for interested members is to comment on this Forum. I believe the RC is sufficiently open-minded to take into consideration the opinions of those who are concerned. Mike's own particular concerns broadly match those of Richard, and I would suggest can be adequately represented by the latter at the committee meeting. Personally-speaking, I can see there are strong opinions about certain names, and I have no problem with not adopting this List in its entirety.

With regard to Point 3, on behalf of the RC I have done all I can to encourage participation. I placed the initial posting early, and gave approximately 3 weeks for comments to be submitted. I have emailed individually other native English-speaking birders that I know in order to stimulate participation. I have encouraged Mike and Richard both to prepare a list of proposed departures from the IOC List in terms of English names for discussion at the RC meeting on 1st. For this reason, I do not consider it necessary to convene a meeting for open discussion. I believe that sufficient consultation has been carried out by the Records Committee through this Forum.

With regard to Point 4, I think we need to gain some perspective. I feel certain that 95% of the membership of the HKBWS does not really care. That's because 95% of the membership is Chinese-speaking or lives overseas, and has little stake in the issue. It may not be exactly 95%, as I don't know the exact membership number, but I believe it is a very small minority. To represent as the HKBWS official position the views of the tiny minority who actually care is, to my mind, not entirely accurate.

I think Paul's post graphically illustrates the potential complexities of deciding English bird names. I think Richard's last post equally graphically illustrates that the issue is often one of opinion, not fact. His first point and that with regard to the laughingthrush name are simply personal points of view.

I think one of my concerns is that we update the HK List as soon as we can, and to not let this get held up by debating at length ultimately irreconcilable positions regarding a very small number of English names.

Regards,

GeoffC

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 26/02/2010 13:08 ]

cgeoff

As Mike says, this has been a very worthwhile exercise.

In terms of taxonomy, it seems to me that there is a broad consensus that we are best to accept the deliberations of a respected authority, one that is based on peer-reviewed research. I don't think Mike, or anyone, is unqualified to comment on taxonomy, but it's just that there are fortunate people out there who get to do this as a job, and we have to accept in many cases they probably have a better claim to authority.

Certainly we can post the reasons for adopting or not adopting the changes suggested on the website. I look forward to receiving further suggestions for changes, with reasons, if possible.

Certain is it also that the RC does not want to get involved in the list of English names of birds on the China list - we have quite enough on our plate as it is!

Regards,

GeoffC

cgeoff

This from Chris Campion:

My feeling is that we should broadlyadopt the IOC list.  It makes sense to me to standardiseEnglish names given that birders and birding are becomingincreasingly global.  Scientific names are for scientists and mostbirders (with a few exceptions) don't tend to remember these ordiscuss them over a beer.  But we shouldn't feel obliged tofollow the standard-setters when they get it wrong, after all they have10,000 species to worry about so will tend to make a fewmistakes.   The trend seems to be for a general adoption of the IOClist, but with each field guide author reserving the right to make a fewchanges of their own.  Thus, we wouldn't be creating a precedent ifwe did the same with our checklist.  In particular, names with localheritage or those commemorating explorers should in my view bekept, though it seems we don't have too many of these to worry about inHK, China is another matter.  The "Blyth's" Leaf Warbler complexis an exception, but since we don't know which ones occur in HK we candefer the debate on these for now.  From Paul'ssummary, most of the changes are fairly innocuous with only a fewthat rankle, namely

Brown Bush Hen
Swift Tern
Common Pigeon
Rufous Hawk Cuckoo
Light-vented Bulbul

I could live with theTern, Pigeon (who cares) and Cuckoo, but not the other two, in common with manyin this forum.  I don't think we should be creating any new names, asthat would only exacerbate the problem, except in the one caseof our new South China endemic Babbler, as we are better placedthan most to propose a name for this.  We shouldn't adopt any AmericanEnglish and the use of hyphens should be consistent.

Some of the changes actuallyrestore a bit of heritage, I'm also pleased to see the return of White'sThrush.  I'll continue to call Great Black-headed Gull justthat whatever it's called in the checklist, but Pallas' Gull isn't abad name for the next generation of birders, though we shouldn't inflictLight-vented Bulbul on anyone.  The IOC might take note if enough authorsreject their proposals, I agree that the HKBWS should write to them onthis.

The idea of a species "brand" isvery compelling, the example of the Kinabalu Friendly Warbler is spot on,but who'd cross the road to see a Brown Bush Hen, or should that beChicken, a name that is something of an own goal for conservation

cgeoff

Interestingly, the editorial committee of the China Bird Report have just announced the release of a China bird list based on the IOC List. See:

https://sites.google.com/site/cbrchinabirdlist/

As the RC has now adopted the IOC List, we now have broad uniformity in taxonomic approach, at least.

Geoff

cgeoff

I should perhaps point out that the adoption of a revised taxonomy for the HK List also went through a lengthy period of discussion among RC members and other birdwatchers. This was certainly not a spur of the moment decision.

I would suggest that both committees' having reached the same conclusion is a validation of the work carried out.

GeoffC

cgeoff

Apologies for taking so long to post the following.

The following decision was made at the RC meeting of 1st March:

"It was unanimously agreed to adopt the taxonomic approach of the IOC List, which is itself based on that of Howard and Moore, on the basis that it adopts areasonable and consistent approach based on a scientific assessment of peer-reviewed literature. The list of names and updates can be found at www.worldbirdnames.org.

The English names were discussed at some length, and it was unanimously agreed not to accept these in their entirety."

The following attachment provides a list of names that differ in the IOC List, and lists species for which the RC recommends adoption of a name different to that in the IOC List, together with a summary of reasons.
HK List name changes.pdf (96.91 KB)

HK List name changes.pdf (96.91 KB)
Downloaded count: 830

26/04/2010 10:07

We are happy to take further comments before final confirmation at our next meeting. Please post these here before the end of April.