Dennis,
First, you chose to lead with a rebuttal of an ancillary point in my
statement. I plainly stated that eponyms derived from the names of powerful
and/or influential people (e.g., Lewis, Clark) was NOT my primary beef. I
mentioned it in a footnote. (Note the asterisk in my original post.) Again,
I object to naming wild things or wild places after humans -- of any social
status.
Second, I never suggested that bird eponyms were assigned to "gain
notoriety" or as an ego trip. That was not in my posting. Maybe you've
confused me with someone else.
Third, I respectfully decline to go down the "cancel culture" rabbit hole.
The AOU nor anyone else has suggested that those people be wiped from
history, text books and other reference works.
I have read all of the Tweeters postings on this subject matter. I
appreciate the thoughtful offerings of you and others, but I remain unmoved
from my belief that wild things and wild places should not be named after
individual humans.
Steve Loitz
Ellensburg
On Sat, Nov 25, 2023 at 2:45 PM Dennis Paulson <
dennispaulson at comcast.net>
wrote:
>
Steve, I can appreciate your viewpoint entirely, but honestly, the term
>
"powerful and/or influential" isn't appropriate. These are the people who
>
discovered these organisms and made them known to the public through the
>
science that was being practiced at the time. Sure, a few presidents and
>
kings have their names involved, but look into the honorific names of North
>
American birds, and you will find the ornithologists who made them known to
>
all of us, none of them particularly powerful and/or influential. Names of
>
people who weren't ornithologists refer to people loved and honored by the
>
ornithologists who named the species.
>
>
I really don't believe that most of the people who described these birds
>
did so to gain notoriety. They did so for the same sorts of reasons that
>
most scientists publish their discoveries, to advance the state of
>
knowledge of the world. Again, note that I used the term "most," as of
>
course I realize that gaining notoriety is a driver of some human behavior.
>
And there are other more selfish reasons at present. Having been in
>
academia, I know about them, but getting tenure and research grants weren't
>
options in the period we are discussing.
>
>
And it is a total fallacy that this was a "person who wanted to
>
memorialize themselves," as people don't name animals and plants after
>
themselves! They name them to honor other people who they think deserve the
>
honor because of who they are and/or what they have done.
>
>
There are 10 species or subspecies of animals named after me: five
>
dragonflies and damselflies, a frog, a lizard, a rabbit, a bat, and a
>
snail. All were so named to acknowledge the important work I had done, in
>
most cases discovering the animal and collecting and preserving the first
>
specimens of it, but also to acknowledge my contributions to the field. I
>
would say the vast majority of the names we are discussing here have
>
exactly the same rationale, and I still don't see that there is a more
>
compelling rationale for taking the names away.
>
>
Of course the use of my name is entirely in scientific names; none of them
>
is named "Paulsons's . . . . ." In my giving common names to dragonfly
>
species, including a couple of those *paulsoni* species, I stayed
>
strictly away from creating any additional eponyms. But I did create common
>
names honoring some of the most important people in the history of
>
dragonfly studies (Selys, Hagen, Calvert, Williamson, Walker, Needham,
>
Westfall) when the species had been described using their name, and I would
>
consider it a real shame if dragonfly enthusiasts in the next decades were
>
robbed of any mention of these important people.
>
>
We are losing much by cancelling all of these explorers and scientists,
>
and I have the impression that the proponents for doing so are not doing
>
much to take that into account. The ad hoc committee states: " . . . .
>
there are other, better opportunities to commemorate historical or living
>
figures who have made important contributions to ornithology; . . . " But
>
nowhere do they make it clear that they have considered these
>
opportunities. At the very least, how about a published list of all the
>
people who are to be cancelled and what their contributions have been?
>
>
Dennis Paulson
>
Seattle
>
>
On Nov 25, 2023, at 9:19 AM, Steve Loitz <steveloitz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
A non-anthropocentric view: I have long thought that wild things and wild
>
places ought not be named for a small group of humans* who happen to have
>
lived during a 200-year long naming spree. More than any other birder I
>
know, I spend much of my time in wilderness, i.e., places outside the reach
>
of, and alteration by, human development, where modern humans are mere
>
visitors. I applauded the McKinley>Denali name change, advocate replacing
>
"Rainier" with "Tahoma," and, although I deeply respect the man, objected
>
to renaming the Olympic Wilderness Area for Dan Evans.
>
>
*That the small group of humans for which NA birds were named is comprised
>
of powerful and/or influential (now dead) white guys is not my primary
>
beef, although I respect that basis for objection.
>
>
Sure, the name changes will be a PITA, but nature is so much bigger than
>
us. And, now more than ever, we need to be reminded of that.
>
>
--
>
Steve Loitz
>
Ellensburg, WA
>
steveloitz at gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
>
Tweeters mailing list
>
Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>
http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters
>
>
>
--
Steve Loitz
Ellensburg, WA
steveloitz at gmail.com