What’s in a name?

Icould not quite believe Lucy McRobert’s column about North American bird names. Perhaps there is some sort of divide in birding, age, area or experience, but without exception every birder I know thinks it is a bad idea. I cannot disagree with the sentiments of the article, especially with regard to some of the Americans whose names have been given to bird species, but such an initiative is pointless in the UK. One or two names possibly, but the majority of people ‘commemorated’ on the British list are not hiding a damning history. My own surname has a distant connection to the slave trade through a well-known sugar company, but neither I nor the company are about to change it – and nor are the art galleries, for that matter. While many US eponyms are ‘guilty’ because of which side they fought on during the civil war, count the Confederate flags you see when you next go birding in Texas.

There are enough divisions in birding without creating more, but I have been birding for longer than Lucy has been alive, and know many birders of all ages and experience levels. The vast majority are ‘hardcore’ birders, but their interest is birds or conservation, and often other wildlife. They may have an interest in politics, history and so on, but only very rarely is it revealed when birding. Eponyms should only be changed for a good reason, not en masse, and despite White’s Thrush having been split from Scaly Thrush, whatever the committees do I am sure that Gilbert White’s name will continue to be commemorated. Alan Tate