Read on Twitter
One of the problems with the approach of @AmOrnith towards #BirdNamesForBirds is that, despite their statements about the importance of diversity and inclusion to them, they are not treating diversity and science as being equivalent.
Their classification committee, NACC, reviews scientific material each year as it relates to avian taxonomy and makes the appropriate taxonomic changes.
This is done using the best available information. There is no waiting period to see similar changes among other stakeholders.
This is done using the best available information. There is no waiting period to see similar changes among other stakeholders.
Although "stability" has been one of the committee's guiding principles, good scientific evidence overrides that. If, down the road, the science changes, the check-list will reflect that.
And, of course, this is how it should be. That's how science works.
And, of course, this is how it should be. That's how science works.
But when it comes to diversity, the NACC has been slow to act, citing the need for "stability" despite good evidence that many English bird names do not reflect the kind of community @AmOrnith says they want to see.
https://osf.io/5yhzj/
https://osf.io/5yhzj/
In this context, @AmOrnith is showing that taxonomy carries more weight and receives more consideration than truly striving "to mirror the diversity and inclusivity we observe in the natural world", as they have said in a previous statement. https://americanornithology.org/whats-in-a-name-more-than-you-might-think/
Changing names takes time. Making prudent decisions requires thoughtfulness, which takes time.
So acknowledge that. Be transparent about your progress. Take the time that you need to do a good job.
But don't use "stability" as a way to write off or delay inclusion.
So acknowledge that. Be transparent about your progress. Take the time that you need to do a good job.
But don't use "stability" as a way to write off or delay inclusion.
