kmike

I like Geoff's idea of a vote, or something like it on certain bird names.  We may even set a world first by inviting members to be actively involved in the process rather than leaving it to a committee  and since these are vernacular names - i.e. used by the birders - its seems an enterprising step to take.

How about a  Society event when the scientists who favour uniformity an structure( Orange-flanked Bush Robin, Brownish-flanked Bush Warbler, White-capped Water Redstart) debate against the romantics (Red-flanked Bluetail, Mountain Bush Warbler, Riverchat), and the modernists (Chinese Egret, Little Grebe) take on the traditionalists (Swinhoe's Egret, Dabchick), with the issue being decided by a vote from the floor?

We could even film it and put the debate on the Web to allow more people to vote.

Cheers
Mike K

kmike

I fully agree that we need to select a list as a guiding principle, and the suggestion of the IOC/Howard and Moore list sounds fine to me.

Actually I see a debate on the issue of names as something fun and educational. Many members do not have the experience of the long discussions that have followed adoption of new names and lists which have occurred in the UK  and it would give spice to a debate if it actually led to a name being retained or changed.  It would be an interesting way to explore the different elements within birding - the discoverers, the scientific accuracy, an intro to DNA, the different species concepts, and the principles behind nomenclature and taxonomy.

If we are to accept a measure flexibility then there must be a mechanism. What other alternatives could we have?  Just the records committee on its own? Accepting the chosen list wholesale?

How about this:

1) People identify names they would like to change (with reasons stated very briefly) on the BBS, and others have a chance to disagree (also with brief reasons)
2) A list of names for discussion is compiled (Records Committee reserves the right to review the list)
3) A venue for a debate is booked
4) There is a short timed debate - say 5 minutes for each side with a well-informed Chairman adjudicating and asessing the validiity of the argument, and a fixed time for comment/questions from the floor (also five minutes)
5) Those present vote on each controversial new name.
6) The results are published on the website
7) The Records Committee reserves the right to reverse the decision if it has consensus that there is a compelling reason.


here's my list of names I'd like to adopt that differ from the new list:

1) Swinhoe's Egret from Chinese Egret (to honour Swinhoe, it occurs beyond China, breeding and wintering)
2) Brown Waterhen from Brown Bush hen (Its a waterbird, and same genus as WB Waterhen)
3) Pacific Swift (nothing wrong with this name, other swifts have forked tails)
4) Chinese Bulbul from Light-vented Bulbul (unhelpful scientific name appropriate to any species of bulbul)
5) Whipcrack Bush Warbler from Brown-flanked Bush Warbler (diagnostic song)
6) Goodson's Leaf Warbler from Hartert's Leaf Warbler (reflects scientific name, no value in change)
7) Streaked Grass Babbler from Rufous-rumped Grassbird (already a grassbird of a different genus, rump not distinctive)
8) Silky Starling from Red-billed Starling (reflects scientific name, accurate plumage feature, other starling have red bills)


Even if its just informal discussion I'd welcome others to give their views.

Cheers
Mike K

kmike

It would be good to hear from other members of the Records Committee who do not believe we should slavishly follow the IOC list.

One more question:

If we do accept the IOC list what scope is there for HKBWS to raise its views on the names to IOC - especially where the names are confusing or unhelpful.

Cheers

Mike K

kmike

I agree that there is a need to have a basic framework for a list, and the arguments for the IOC List are fine by me. However I'm strongly opposed to being tied to that list for good or bad.

Given that the IOC invites feedback I think three things need to be decided:
1. Over what names are there conflicting views?
2. Who and how  should we decide on what names should be changed
3. What should we do about it

My suggestion is:

• Build a complete list based on this online discussion with a date set for closure
• There should be a role for interested members and the records committee on deciding the names (perhaps a subcommittee of the records committee with co-opted Society members to increase representation).
• I still there should be an opportunity for a meeting with open discussion.
• Once these are decided upon a list of the alternatives agreed (with explanations) should be forwarded from HKBWS to IOC.

I also think we can propose new names should there be good cause.

It appears that other birders in other parts of the world are able to effect change by using names they prefer. Somehow they  gain currency and acceptance. Hence Taiga Flycatcher and Hartert's Leaf Warbler. Since this is the case  it seems that we in HK have as much ability to influence the list as any others whose alternative names now have currency. And we certainly have as much right (with all due respect) as a visiting bird tour leader with a 30-year old book of names which he decided on his own.


As a result I think HKBWS has every right to propose new names when the current name is so poor. The clear example is Rufous-rumped Grassbird.   Giving the same name to species from two genera cannot possibly be described as sound taxonomy.  I'm perfectly happy to accept that others may prefer a different name to Streaked Grass Babbler (which I'm not sold on myself), but I really don't think we need to accept a plain bad name for the sake of uniformity. Since the bird is due to be split and about to become a south China Endemic I believe we have every right to propose a name.

Finally Paul's list is not exhaustive of all the names discussed so far. The following need to be added

Silky Starling for Red-billed (heritage name)
Mountain Bush Warbler for Brownish-flanked Bush Warbler (pre King name)
something else for Rufous-rumped Grassbird
Someone else disagreed with the new name for Drongo Cuckoo

Cheers
Mike K

kmike

This continues to be a highly stimulating discussion which seems to me to be characterized by a high degree of flexibility and respect for alternative views and I see a broad consensus on accepting the IOC list with the flexibility for discussion on certain names.

I fully accept the complexities of taxonomy and my lack ofqualification to comment, but I still think "grassbird", unless geneticevidence shows a distinctive linkage between the three generamentioned, is a lost opportunity. I also accept that the same name iscommonly applied to different genera, butwhy not, when the rare opportunity arises, go for a really great namealong the lines Martin Williams suggested. How about celebrating thefact it took so long to work out and survives only as a Chineseendemic; Chinese Enigma (scientific name Enigma hongkongensis (since here is the only place it's now seen)) would be my (purely subjective) choice - with Terai Enigma Enigma subcontinentalis for the one in Nepal and N India. This is certainly as justifiable as Doubtful Leiothrix or  Invisible Rail and in the scientific confusus, disturbans and paradoxornis all provide sound precedents!

However, more  important than my views on "Grassbird" particularly, is that there is scope to discuss and adopt locally appropriate names, and that HKBWS has as much right as any author or committee to engage with the IOC. I certainly think it is better for HKBWS to organise and represent the voice of its members than for individual members to do so on their own.

I also do not see why, if the list is being reviewed, we should be constrained only to new names that are contentious. A bad name for 30 (or more) years is just a bad as a bad name for 30 minutes. There equally should be a good reason for keeping an old name if an alternative is preferable.

As for whether the views of HKBWS are accurately represented I think any list of name that comes out of this discussion certainly represents the views of those who care enough to take part. This is the standard method for any democratic system - all have the chance to participate, but the outcome is ultimately decided by the active participation of those who vote. I have no qualms about saying that those who have chosen not to participate can have no complaint that their views are not represented.  

Geoff's opening up of this discussion is certainly warmly welcomed, and the response,  reflecting a diverse range of opinions clearly shows it was an exercise worth doing. Of course there will be a lot of discussion on subjective preference, but equally there are some good justifications for some of the alternatives that have been suggested. Despite some of my wilder suggestions I am more than willing to accept names I don't necessarily like in order to reach a broad consensus.

If the Records committee is to decide on the names It would be greatly appreciated if a list of names for discussion was formally presented and the outcome on each decision made available to the members through the website, along with a simple explanation of the decision-making process ( i.e majority voting, unanimous consensus etc.)

I very much agree with Richard that HK-based birders are at least as well informed as any others to propose English names for Chinese birds. However I accept that is perhaps a different discussion that need not involve the Records Committee at all since it has no authority on those names.  In fact I would love to invite the likes of Viney, King, Beaman, Brazil, De Schauensee (if he's still alive), Hornskov, Holt and of course Chinese birders, OBC members and others interested in the English names to participate in another online discussion. I suspect no-one is in a better position than Richard to lead such a discussion after his work on the China Bird Report and extensive research into the history of Chinese ornithology. Ultimately I suspect the Chinese Ornithogical Society will decide if the issue

Cheers
Mike K