152 Birds Named After People Will Be Renamed - But How? (slate.com) 258
An anonymous reader shared this report from Slate:
Last November, the American Ornithological Society, or AOS, announced that it would change the common names of all American birds named after people. There are 152 such "eponymic" names (that is, birds that are named after a specific person, like Bicknell's Thrush) on the AOS' official checklist, and the group is planning to start with between 70 and 80 species predominantly found in the U.S. and Canada. In the coming years, birds like Cooper's Hawk, Wilson's Snipe, and Lincoln's Sparrow will be stripped of their eponyms and given new common English names.
The eponymic naming issue has been heating up in the bird world for a few years now. Birds got their English names when they were "discovered" by Western scientists, or otherwise identified as a new species. This meant ornithologists had the honor of coming up with whatever moniker they wanted, and frequently named birds in honor of a benefactor, a friend, or the person who shot the first known specimen. But a growing number of ornithologists and nonscientist birders are questioning why we're stuck with names decided on a whim hundreds of years ago, especially when the names aren't very good...
Rather than attempt the impossible task of reviewing the people with birds named after them one by one, the AOS said it would just scrap them all and start from scratch. But that's where the real challenge comes in — because lots of bird names are pretty bad. Not offensive bad, like named after a Confederate general, but just unsatisfactory bad. There was never any standardization for how common bird names were granted, which means those names are all over the place and provide little guidance for what renaming should look like.
Birds are named after their identifying features, size, habitat, the sound they make, or where they were first discovered. So the American Ornithological Society announced it will "conduct an open, inclusive, and scientifically rigorous pilot program in 2024 to develop its new approach to English bird names in the U.S. and Canada." [T]here are few specifics yet, and no easy way to organize the public and whittle down suggestions in the lawless and nonsensical world of bird names. But the AOS has committed to change: Unlike the closed-door decisions of the past, this will be a public process. The plan is to take suggestions — from field marks, Indigenous names, colloquialisms ... from anywhere — narrow it down, somehow, to a few options, and let people decide... Our new bird names won't be ideal — none of them are — but, for the first time, they will belong to us.
The eponymic naming issue has been heating up in the bird world for a few years now. Birds got their English names when they were "discovered" by Western scientists, or otherwise identified as a new species. This meant ornithologists had the honor of coming up with whatever moniker they wanted, and frequently named birds in honor of a benefactor, a friend, or the person who shot the first known specimen. But a growing number of ornithologists and nonscientist birders are questioning why we're stuck with names decided on a whim hundreds of years ago, especially when the names aren't very good...
Rather than attempt the impossible task of reviewing the people with birds named after them one by one, the AOS said it would just scrap them all and start from scratch. But that's where the real challenge comes in — because lots of bird names are pretty bad. Not offensive bad, like named after a Confederate general, but just unsatisfactory bad. There was never any standardization for how common bird names were granted, which means those names are all over the place and provide little guidance for what renaming should look like.
Birds are named after their identifying features, size, habitat, the sound they make, or where they were first discovered. So the American Ornithological Society announced it will "conduct an open, inclusive, and scientifically rigorous pilot program in 2024 to develop its new approach to English bird names in the U.S. and Canada." [T]here are few specifics yet, and no easy way to organize the public and whittle down suggestions in the lawless and nonsensical world of bird names. But the AOS has committed to change: Unlike the closed-door decisions of the past, this will be a public process. The plan is to take suggestions — from field marks, Indigenous names, colloquialisms ... from anywhere — narrow it down, somehow, to a few options, and let people decide... Our new bird names won't be ideal — none of them are — but, for the first time, they will belong to us.
Wingspan (Score:2)
They're breaking the game -- for nothing
Re:Wingspan (Score:5, Insightful)
They are virtue signalling. An act so stupid, it is hard to surpass in stupidity. And actual scientists in this should strongly reject it.
Re:Wingspan (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wingspan (Score:5, Informative)
Rather, naming nature after people is unscientific and egocentric.
Which is why scientists use taxonomic names that aren't even in English. Everything else is just a common name that the general public uses, and they aren't even named the same everywhere. Blattella germanica is referred to simply as the 'german roach' in most of the world in their native language, except in Germany they call it the 'french roach' in their native language.
Re:Wingspan (Score:5, Funny)
Hell why not take this all the way? Why name scientific principals, mathematical proofs, or medical procedures (or diseases) after people rather than their identifiable features? Isn't it easier to say the abc-triangle law than the Pythagorean theorem?
We should also stop naming people after....people. Children need to be named for their features. Wrinkly Red Smith has a certain ring to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should birds be special in this regard? Everything else is still to this day named the same way.
Re: (Score:3)
They've got money looking for a problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They've got money looking for a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
They ran out of real things to do. Now they're inventing things to do that just don't matter.
For the American Ornithological Society, probably very important. For your average consumer, they do not care what birds are named much less be able to identify them. But this is a site for news for nerds and there is probably more than one nerd here who cares about birds.
It would have been perfectly fine to assess 152 birds to identify which ones are good or bad.
And how would you assess birds with the dichotomy of "good" or "bad" traits?
Aren't there a whole bunch beetles waiting to be found?
I would guess that ornithologists do not discover beetles is the main reason why they are not concerned with finding new beetles. They would be concerned with birds.
Why is this important?
Again to American Ornithological Society this is important. To you, maybe not so much.
Re:They've got money looking for a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
From their own website:
'a diverse, global network of empowered professionals' and 'advances the understanding and conservation of birds'
You know changing the historic name does not conserve the understanding of a species since they are essentially throwing out history. Maybe the first name they should change is dropping 'American' from their name because I don't like it being there. See how that works?
Re:They've got money looking for a problem. (Score:4, Informative)
As a common 'consumer' whatever the hell that means, this is very important to me since it essentially rewrites my own history with birds. I know many by name and many more I don't know - but changing for the sake of change is just stupid. If they want to adjust the Latin name sure but the common name is important to me.
The American Ornithological Society is not telling you to do anything. For their field, they are renaming things. If you want to refer to a bird as "Cooper's Hawk" the rest of your life, no one at AOS is going to put you into a torture chamber to change that.
You know changing the historic name does not conserve the understanding of a species since they are essentially throwing out history
1) You do know that the website description is about the ENTIRE society, right? You have picked one initiative of theirs and trying to apply to everything they do is like straw manning. 2) Is the AOS going into the libraries and burning books on the history of birds? So how are they throwing out history again? Cooper's Hawk will have another name. But you do know that bird alone already has multiple names: big blue darter, chicken hawk, flying cross, hen hawk, quail hawk, striker, and swift hawk. But another name is a bridge too far for you.
Maybe the first name they should change is dropping 'American' from their name because I don't like it being there. See how that works?
Considering it is their own name, they can do what they want. Again no one is asking you to follow their name but you seem quite offended that someone would use different names than you.
Re:They've got money looking for a problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
The general hope is that by changing the common name in books etc. that the old common names will fall out of use after people that know them die off.
So no they are not coming after you in your house, but they are coming after the writers and publishers of birding guides that any number of Americans have bought over the years to identify the birds they have in their back yards or nearby at a local park.
Re: (Score:3)
In this case it doesn't really increase accessibility for anyone in any meaningful fashion.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You know changing the historic name does not conserve the understanding of a species since they are essentially throwing out history. Maybe the first name they should change is dropping 'American' from their name because I don't like it being there. See how that works?
History is a weak argument when the species would have had local names for hundreds of years before Europeans arrived yet you're perfectly fine with that history being thrown out.
Re: (Score:3)
For your average consumer, they do not care what birds are named much less be able to identify them.
Since we're talking about consumers, if they're going to buy some of it at their local deli, they need to know how to tell the butcher what they want for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least the season dates and allowable methods of take....
what the fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Not offensive bad, like named after a Confederate general,
these people are certifiably fucking insane.
Re:what the fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. If that confederate general did some successful ornithology, then that part of his life should be remembered. People are complex. Attempting to cancel them because of one of their aspects is foolish, ignorant and destructive.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right! We didn't rename the German Roach after they started and lost two world wars, after all.
This worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
"conduct an open, inclusive, and scientifically rigorous"
Do they really need to mention "inclusive"?
"Open" and "scientifically rigorous" should also cover "inclusive", right? Right?
Re: This worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: This worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
"Open" means anyone could contribute. Hence "Open Tennis Championship", rather than "Inclusive Tennis Championship"
"Transparent" means anyone can witness. Hence "Transparent process" in business.
"Inclusive" means something else, at least nowadays.
Re: This worries me (Score:4, Insightful)
Open just means people can see what happens. Inclusive means they can contribute. No "wokeness" needed to write a sentence like that.
In today's world that is not a given. It must be explicitly stated and defended against those who would want to make it "woke".
Re: This worries me (Score:5, Funny)
I doubt they REALLY mean inclusive, otherwise people that know nothing about birds (like me) would be able to have their say in this.
This is how we get Birdie McBirdFace as an official name...
Lay persons could be useful (Score:2)
I doubt they REALLY mean inclusive, otherwise people that know nothing about birds (like me) would be able to have their say in this..
Knowing nothing scientific about birds is not necessarily a problem. If a lay person were to comment that in their region this bird is named [xxxx] and the English translation is [yyyy], which describes a common trait or behavior of the bird, we may have a perfectly good name.
Re: This worries me (Score:2)
I doubt they REALLY mean inclusive, otherwise people that know nothing about birds (like me) would be able to have their say in this.
Exactly - inclusive naming processes are how you wind up with a boat named "Boaty McBoatface" [wikipedia.org]
Re:This worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
"Inclusive" has no place in Science. "Open" has only a place as "open to experts" and that is pretty much already the case. Scientific advancement is done by a few and others do not have what it takes. Even if many a lot of Science is done by teams these days, these are teams of the select few with the skills and insights to do it.
Any attempt to be "inclusive" will destroy everything and cause stagnation. Regular people (most people) need to accept that they cannot do it and stay out.
Re: This worries me (Score:2)
Re: This worries me (Score:4, Insightful)
Nonsense. Science education is not teaching Science, it is teaching basic scientific results. Stopping people from being able to contribute to Science is _essential_, or the scientific process stops working. It is called "peer review" and should only take the merits of the contribution into account. Of course, peer review is not working well these days, if it ever has. But not having it is far worse.
Re: (Score:2)
You just asserted value. Waved your hands. And soon, while defending this, you will be preaching.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets not get all colonialist :-) (Score:3)
"conduct an open, inclusive, and scientifically rigorous" Do they really need to mention "inclusive"? "Open" and "scientifically rigorous" should also cover "inclusive", right? Right?
It does not, because that "inclusive" is political. Note you are attempting to speak in a scientific manner, which is by the standards of this "inclusion" is colonialist behavior. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, let them come to the arsehole of Eastern Europe and ask me about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine, let them come to the arsehole of Eastern Europe and ask me about it.
You really think you'd get a chance to talk? Their opining dialog/apology for all you have suffered at the hands of capitalists and imperialists would likely be lengthy?
Re:This worries me (Score:4, Funny)
"conduct an open, inclusive, and scientifically rigorous" Do they really need to mention "inclusive"? "Open" and "scientifically rigorous" should also cover "inclusive", right? Right?
I don't know, a couple of years ago a bunch of very significant changes to microbial taxonomy came into effect off the back of a vote of 22-odd people, to the surprise of many microbiologists who had no idea this was even being discussed. Hopefully "inclusive" means "we are actually going to include opinions from across the community, starting by announcing this clearly ahead of time", as just because something is open doesn't necessarily mean people know it is going on and can ask to be included in it.
As Douglas Adams said:
"But the plans were on display”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard'".
Re: (Score:2)
"Open" and "scientifically rigorous" should also cover "inclusive", right? Right?
No, there is no reason to assume that. Why would you think so?
Re:This worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm worried, not fragile.
Re: (Score:2)
Worried that they won't include you?
Re: (Score:2)
Worried the declared "bad" bird names will be replaced by equally bad or worse bird names, all in the name of "inclusion".
"for the first time, they will belong to us" (Score:2)
They belong to you now, you stupid woke moron.
Dicking around with them won't help anyone.
But you know that. And you don't care, as long as you are sending the right signals.
"We've done no useful science in our lives, so..." (Score:4, Insightful)
"...let's change the names of well-known things and pretend we did."
Everyone associated with this sort of thing needs to be ostracized by the scientific community.
And yes, that includes the people who "redefined" Pluto.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. What a destructive thing to do.
Re:"We've done no useful science in our lives, so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone associated with this sort of thing needs to be ostracized by the scientific community.
The people discussing it appear to be ornithologists--the scientists who study birds.
And yes, that includes the people who "redefined" Pluto.
Pluto was never redefined for the simple reason that term "planet" was never formally defined in the first place. Some guy a hundred years ago merely declared Pluto a planet. The problem for astronomers today is that if Pluto is a planet, there could be dozens of objects that are also "planets" if they did not agree to a formal definition. And who defined the current term for planet: astronomers--the people who work in the field.
This is not the first time things have been redefined in the scientific community. For example, Robert Boyle in 1661 was one of the first to propose the definition of "element" in chemistry. He however argued against the inclusion of gold and mercury because he considered them "mixt bodies" because science at the time thought they were compounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the classification system is to provide meaningful delineations between things to make them easier to refer to and look for commonalities and differences.
It is more usefully descriptive to call Pluto a trans-Neptunian object (TNO) than to call it a planet. It is more useful to us to have a class of objects in hydro-static equilibrium that have cleared their orbits and another class that hasn't.
We could just name everything 'matter' and be done with it, but we decided to be a bit more granular
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing which dozen planets to use becomes the problem.
Its depends upon context. (Score:2)
Astronomer wanted distinctions between planets and what they consider dwarf planets. If you want to call Pluto a planet, go ahead. If you work into the field of astronomy they do not consider it a planet. Just like you can call ethanol "hooch" if you want in your normal life. If you work in the field of chemistry, the name that would be used is ethanol.
No. Its depends upon context.
Colonel: "What have you got their Corporal?"
Corporal: "Sir, its a still making ethanol for the medics/corpman."
Lieutenant: "What have you got their Corporal?"
Corporal: "Sir, it's a still making hooch for the platoon. Would you like a taste sir?"
Lieutenant: "Make sure Doc gets all he wants for his supplies first."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It depends upon context. (Score:2)
I do not consider your example of conversation between members of the military to be in the "field of chemistry"? In a chemistry lab, the name "hooch" would not be on the label of a bottle of ethanol.
Fine. Chemistry student walks into party with an unlabeled bottle. When asked what he has there he answers "hooch". It depends upon context.
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Chemistry student walks into party with an unlabeled bottle. When asked what he has there he answers "hooch". It depends upon context.
And you missed the point. He would not call it "hooch" in the lab. He would not label the bottle "hooch" as other lab colleagues may not know what that means. When writing a paper where he used ethanol in a chemical reaction, he would not use "hooch". My point again is that in the field of chemistry he would use the term "ethanol". He can use the term "hooch" whenever he wants but for a field, he would use terminology specific to the field.
This is the same with these new names. If people are going into or
Re: (Score:2)
Fine. Chemistry student walks into party with an unlabeled bottle. When asked what he has there he answers "hooch". It depends upon context.
And you missed the point.
Not really. As shown below.
He would not call it "hooch" in the lab.
As subject above and body of text say, " It depends upon context". Who is missing the point?
He would not label the bottle "hooch" as other lab colleagues may not know what that means.
Did you miss the context of "party" above?
When writing a paper where he used ethanol in a chemical reaction, he would not use "hooch".
Did you miss the context of "party" above?
My point again is that in the field of chemistry he would use the term "ethanol". He can use the term "hooch" whenever he wants but for a field, he would use terminology specific to the field.
And as I point out, despite be a professional member of a scientific field, whether he uses "ethanol" or "hooch" would depend upon context. Not upon field to which the person belongs.
This is the same with these new names. If people are going into ornithology, they will need to know the new names. If affects practically no one else.
Until they recommend expunging the name from documentation outside the professional society. Better to have something like in
Re: (Score:2)
As subject above and body of text say, " It depends upon context". Who is missing the point?
You keep inventing contexts. For what reason do you feel you need to continue to do so?
Did you miss the context of "party" above?
What part of I am talking about in the field of chemistry is not clear. I am not talking about a party. I was never talking about a party.
Did you miss the context of "party" above?
I was never talking about a party. You keep bringing new contexts.
And as I point out, despite be a professional member of a scientific field, whether he uses "ethanol" or "hooch" would depend upon context. Not upon field to which the person belongs.
Again I was referring to the field of chemistry. Why you keep bringing up other things is not clear?
Until they recommend expunging the name from documentation outside the professional society. Better to have something like in guide books and similar public materials:
Please cite anywhere where they are proposing to "expunge" anything. Again you keep inventing scenarios.
And an ornithologist might want to mention the local common name when speaking with the locals. Again, context.
And what part of
Re: (Score:2)
Astronomer wanted distinctions between planets and what they consider dwarf planets.
And then the dwarfs get tossed
out of the text books.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: "We've done no useful science in our lives, so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they're excluding people's names (Score:5, Funny)
They mentioned Wilson's Snipe - it'd be funny to rename it to Wesley's Snipe.
And Lincoln's Sparrow could be renamed Jack's Sparrow.
Cooper's Hawk could be renamed Kitty Hawk, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Itâ(TM)s a gesture (Score:2)
Re:Itâ(TM)s a gesture (Score:5, Insightful)
People have called these birds by these names for a long time and they wonâ(TM)t stop doing so because some group tells them not to.
But that is the problem; people asserting the American Ornithological Society is somehow taking away people's freedom. For their own purposes for their own field, they are renaming things. I doubt they are raiding every bird watching meeting with fast-roping special forces soldiers when someone uses "Cooper's Hawk". If anything you are denying them the freedom to rename things the way they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they'd be interested in the reduction of an internationally renowned major corpus of reference to "well, that's just what _he_ called them", particularly as it's their field too.
But why is the first assertion is that they are removing names? They are assigning new names; the old name is probably going under "Other names" category as many birds currently have multiple names. The history of how the bird was originally name is not being deleted.
Another STEM field going down the drains (Score:5, Insightful)
The naming of discovery after people is to honor them and make people aware of the history of a science. If a scientific field stops doing that, it stops respecting those that built it up. Any scientific field that does not honor its past has no future.
Probably another instance of the "woke" doing damage because they do not understand how things work. Science is done by _people_. Even if you do not like some aspects of those people, trying to cancel them just destroys the whole and we end up with nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
The naming of discovery after people is to honor them and make people aware of the history of a science. If a scientific field stops doing that, it stops respecting those that built it up. Any scientific field that does not honor its past has no future.
It would be if someone was burning and destroying all references to the history of science. This is not the first time science has renamed things. For example the preferred naming of chemicals is the IUPAC standard. Can anyone use a historical name? Yes. But in a lab setting, the name on scientific literature should be the IUPAC name.
Re: (Score:2)
That is obviously different as "lab settings" are special-purpose settings only a few people who are already experts are exposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
That is obviously different as "lab settings" are special-purpose settings only a few people who are already experts are exposed to.
And this is story is about the American Ornithological Society changing names for themselves. They are not asking you to change what you call things. There is zero consequence in your life yet your first reaction is as if they held a public book burning with books on the history of birds and deleted all online literature. They want to rename Cooper's Hawk going forward for themselves. So what? I personally do not care what new name they add to the existing seven or so names.
Re: (Score:2)
This is different and you know it. Stop pushing your lie.
Re: (Score:2)
This is different and you know it. Stop pushing your lie.
What is the lie again? Please be specific in your libel. Please cite where in the world the AOS told you to stop using the old name. They have not. Please cite anywhere they will beat you if you keep using the old name. Nowhere that I can see. Please cite where the AOS has gone into libraries and burned all the books on the history of birds on who and how birds were originally named. They have not. So you have nothing to present other than your knee jerk reaction that this is "woke". Seems like the problem
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Names are arbitrary ... (Score:5, Insightful)
what matters is that they do not change -- so people know what the name refers to. So what it if is named after some pompous old git or beautiful lady ?
What next: how about food, should we rename the Peach Melba [wikipedia.org], the Sandwich [wikipedia.org] or Garibaldi biscuit [wikipedia.org] ? Then start on drinks Earl Grey tea [wikipedia.org], Tom Collins [wikipedia.org] or Incredible Hulk [wikipedia.org]!
Have some people not got better things to do ?
Why don't we let ChatGPT do a batch rename? (Score:2)
Seems like a great usage for a LLM - they are great at inventing things that are inspired from facts. I tried:
- Come up with a new name for the bird species "Bicknell's Thrush"
Certainly! How about calling it the "Mountain Melody Thrush"? This name reflects its habitat in mountainous regions and captures the idea of its delightful song.
- Come up with names for Cooper's Hawk, Wilson's Snipe, and Lincoln's Sparrow as well.
Certainly! Here are new names for each:
Cooper's Hawk: "Sylvan Skyhawk"
Wilson's Snipe: "Meadow Whisperer"
Lincoln's Sparrow: "Copper Crest Sparrow"
They sound fine to me! (I am not an ornithologist if this was not obvious).
Re: (Score:2)
Those are actually some pretty decent names.
I mostly think about how to destroy AI, because I'm pretty sick of the automated scam phone calls that use an obviously synthetic voice and mostly hangs up if I even breath into the microphone.
Offensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Why is this something bad? The articles doesn't touch on this.
Quite frankly this is stupid. (Score:2, Insightful)
The only reason this is happening is because those in power want to abuse said power.
Next they will want to rename the Eastern and Western Songbird/Insert Species here because it isn't to their personal liking or favoritisms. Wait until they find out there is an English Holly, American Holly and Chinese Holly ; what are they going to do rename them 'Holl
Re:Quite frankly this is stupid. (Score:4, Funny)
"What is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
"What do you mean, an unprivileged minority swallow, or a white male swallow, you insensitive clod? Are you implying one of them is inferior?"
"..."
"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"
It's more woke BS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all: how do you explain that the cock retains its totally phallic name? If that's not proof that this is not a woke agenda, I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is just the first step to set a precedent after which everything is fair game, no more black birds, cardinals, or Tufted TITmouses because it hurt someone's feelings.
*of course not, you are probably a metric bully.
Re: (Score:2)
allegedly "white supremacy" (Score:3)
That includes Jameson's firefinch, named for a British naturalist who bought a young girl while in Africa "as a joke" and then drew pictures of her being brutally killed. In a new story this week, Washington Post reporter Darryl Fears breaks down the horrific history of ornithology that has managed to be scrubbed clean in many history books.
Fears also writes about the names these birds already had, given to them by Indigenous peoples who understood the animals long before white settlers supposedly "discovered" the creatures. There's a push now to return to some of those names or use new ones in local languages, which continue to be mocked by a cadre of birding elite that is still largely white. Just last year the American Ornithological Society apologized for "inappropriate comments" its members made nearly 10 years ago about a proposal to rename the Maui parrotbill to the Hawaiian name Kiwikiu.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/3... [slashdot.org]
This is a bad, bad, horrible, no good idea (Score:2)
All of the old names still exist in thousands of books. People will need a table of translation to be able to cross reference between old and new. The old names will live on, simply causing confusion
Next on the list: quarks (Score:2)
Then they can change the names of quarks from, according to this chart [quarked.org]: Ushi, Ujana, Harold, Danny, Derek, and Deena -- to something way more scientific like: Up, Charm, Top, Down, Strange and Bottom. :-)
Indigenous names (Score:2)
Choktaw name for endangered bird translates to "tastes good on a kebab skewer".
Lets rename cities,foods,diseases,roads,buildings. (Score:2)
Lets rename cities,foods,diseases,roads,buildings, craters on the moon, mountains on Mars, animals, plants, trees and flowers, species, cell types and hand tools because you know... using people names is "racist" now.. well, actually for diseases its probably ok if its a white person, because diseases are bad and that's white people's fault anyways.. :-)
I am starting to wonder, if it is due to crazy like this that caused the Roman Empire to finally fall (was "Rome" named after someone too? Maybe we need to
Public vote (Score:2)
Stellar's jay? (Score:2)
Where I live the Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri) is seen quite often. It ranges outside of the US but I think it still falls in the geographical jurisdiction of the AOS. I wonder what the new name will be, I wasn't able to figure out from the English Bird Names Project website how this will work or which birds are under review.
Resist! (Score:2)
Fight for Bob's Bird!
SHA256 (Score:2)
Just use a crypto-hash to generate a new name from the old one. Simple.
The expurgated version (Score:2)
The one without the Gannet
Indigenous names? Which Indigenous name? (Score:2)
Using Indigenous names won't solve the problem either because most animals will have many different Indigenous names based on the language groups that cover the territory of that animal. So which word gets used? Which group gets ignored? The Cree dialect was one of the most widely spoken dialects of the Algonquian language group but its nouns differ far more within the group than the nouns of the Sioux language groups because those speakers had greater trade. The groups slightly west traveled even more
Could be fun (Score:2)
Suggestions:
Birdy McBirdface
Rapist Swan
The Donald Duck
The Spotify Owl
What a waste of time (Score:2)
solving a non-existent problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:5, Funny)
I have an idea. Let's get your account banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of America sucking at names, you realize that the other countries in America are incredibly annoyed at the United States appropriating the name of the entire continent for themselves, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... there's a continent named simply "America"?
Ignorant people sucks at names. (Score:2)
There are 2 states named Washington, one of which he never visited. According to wikipedia there are 91 other places named Washington in the US, 31 of the 50 United States are home to a Washington County and there are 7 Towns of Washington (and one Town of Port Washington) in the State of Wisconsin. These places all need a new name. When I say I live in Washington County it is completely meaningless. We should only allow things to be named after something relevant to the thing, like somebody whose actually been in the place or done something there, and the first person who discovered a bird isn't relevant, its just pointless trivia.
Each of those locale's are named after something relevant to them. They have a form of government given to them in large part due to Washington.
That said, a common name is not a problem locally. My home town has a famous name, when referring to it by this common name people from my state have no problem despite a different state having a far more famous version and another country having a really really globally well known version. When outside my state or country I simply using both town name and state
Re: (Score:2)
For most of the US, Las Vegas is a city in Nevada. In New Mexico and Colorado, it's a city in New Mexico, and the one i
Re: Ignorant people sucks at names. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)