wgeoff

I think we should be pragmatic here, in particular respecting our own historical decisions unless they are seen to be obviously out-of-date by more than one authority.

For instance, on taxonomy. We may accept the IOC taxonomy for thrushes but does this approach mean we have to return Heuglin's Gull to being a subspecies of either Herring Gull or Lesser Black-backed Gull, which I think is what following IOC would mean? Do other authorities agree with this?

Some of the IOC names are horrendous (e.g. Swift Tern for Greater Crested Tern) and I hope we will avoid these. As others have suggested, I think we should retain our historical names unless there is a good reason to change or the alternate name is already well established. Perhaps on the question of names, where it is not so important to be taxonomically correct, we should give members a vote.

[ Last edited by wgeoff at 10/02/2010 10:13 ]

wgeoff

Whilst there may be benefits in adopting an individual body’s approach wholesale, I’m not sure this outweighs the disadvantages.

On the question of taxonomy, it seems even experts disagree, so unless IOC has some overwhelming advantage over the others, I’m not sure the benefit of employing their taxonomy without question. This particularly applies to undoing past decisions of the Committee. Any such changes need to be explained carefully to members on a taxonomic basis, otherwise it may be seen as a retrograde step. Perhaps it would be better to say ‘We will normally adopt the taxonomic status used by IOC, but reserve the right to decide for ourselves in certain cases’. I appreciate you may consider this a fudge, but I think it’s better than making retrograde decisions.

On the question of names, if it really is ‘simply a matter of personal preference’, I suggest we allow members to choose between two or three names selected by the Committee. If necessary, a very brief note can be made recommending each option, or at a meeting as Mike suggests. But let the members decide. I am quite happy to call a ‘Greater Crested Tern’ a ‘Swift Tern’ if that is what members decide. I put my faith in the commonsense of our membership.

I should add, I think it is a commendable move for the Committee to ask member’s opinions before taking a decision on this. I have now made my last comment and leave it to others to make theirs.

[ Last edited by wgeoff at 10/02/2010 14:17 ]

wgeoff

I think Gary makes an excellent point. Both stability and the official HKBWS name are important.

I think adopting the IOC list without question will lead to less stability in the names. To take an example, Asian Drongo-cuckoo was the name on the IOC list until this was split by IOC into two species, Fork-tailed Drongo-cuckoo and Square-tailed Drongo-cuckoo. Fork-tailed Drongo-cuckoo is an Indian bird and hardly likely to be seen in Hong Kong. IOC is an international list, so they need to use two names. But there is really no need for us to adopt a name change to Square-tailed Drongo-cuckoo for this species.

The IOC list is updated every 3-4 months, so a name change is possible regularly. Last December 2009, IOC renamed Chinese Flycatcher as Green-backed Flycatcher, a name we have been using since at least Avifauna. If we had adopted the IOC list in 2009, we would have changed Green-backed Flycatcher to Chinese Flycatcher and then changed it back again.

Swift Tern, a particular bug-bear of mine, is so called I believe because that is the common name in Africa. But not in the Pacific, where a different subspecies is known as Greater Crested Tern. Why do we need to change a well-established name? And if this species is split in future, no doubt we would go back again to Greater Crested Tern.

I stick by my point. Use the IOC list as a guideline, but reserve the right to our own independence where necessary, and particularly to avoid unnecessary changes to our past decisions. Or even, we adopt the taxonomy (the scientific names) but not necessarily the English names. I am quite happy to allow RC to choose English names, it seems they have done a good job so far.

[ Last edited by wgeoff at 14/02/2010 01:22 ]