The controversy of avian common name changes has generated heated debate. Many talk of the futility of such an exercise as there are scientific names to clarify what species of bird is being referred to. Some cite the antiquity, history and tradition of these names for preserving them. Admittedly, the whole genesis of our year long exercise on this subject (see Buceros Vol. 2, No.4), evolved due to these reasons - we felt alarmed at its implications. But alas, after a study of the matter, we have turned partial ‘converts’!

If one looks at the bird books of the Indian subcontinent through the ages, one realises that there was no real uniformity in avian common names. Changes took place from Jerdon (1862-64) to Oates & Blanford (1889-98), Baker (1922-30), Ali & Ripley (1968-75, 1983) and Ripley (1982). Ali & Ripley’s later edition of the Pictorial Guide (1995) had even adopted some of the new names! Bird publications of the different countries of the Indian subcontinent (e.g. Henry 1971, Inskipp & Inskipp 1985, Roberts 1991, 1992, Kotagama & Fernando 1994 and Wijesinghe 1994) have also been using different names for their birds. Another problem was that Ali & Ripley’s Handbook had names for the races and not species – following the pattern of the earlier books – and it was only in Ripley’s Synopsis that the names of species were given. The second edition of the Handbook (Vol 6-10, but not Vol. 1-5) has ideally omitted the racial names, as in the Synopsis.

In the past few years, enormous changes have taken place in the taxonomy of birds, turning the classification topsy-turvy. Though the DNA technique of classifying birds (Sibley, Ahlquist & Monroe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990, 1993 and Sibley 1994) is not beyond criticism, many agree that what is necessary is adoption of more modern methods in that field - thus, it appears that the old classification technique is now history. Any further changes that may occur will be based on improvements and further work on the DNA technique alone. Thus, we have adopted this classification order.

These developments necessitate changes in the common names of birds. Additionally, many of the names which were apt during the earlier days are unsuitable now, due to new records of the species from other areas (in the case of regionally based names) or where new races or populations were discovered that did not have the prominent feature of the race it was named after (e.g. absence of crest or colour in a certain part of the body). Now that English is becoming more and more the lingua franca of the world of science and since there are only a manageable number of 10,000 odd species of birds in the world, standardisation of common bird names becomes useful for ornithologists, especially birdwatchers, wildlife officers and policy makers, who are ill at ease with scientific terminology. Citing the existence of scientific names as a reason for resisting change is illogical.

We have received more brickbats (many of them most deservedly!) than bouquets for our Buceros issue on bird name changes, but we accept all equally in true scientific spirit. The objectives of this exercise were to analyse the name changes suggested, look into possible reasons for these and judge if they are valid. And, as a follow-up, get responses from those concerned with Indian ornithology on our draft and incorporate them into the final document. All these objectives have been achieved. We have to initiate steps to see that the views of the Indian (read Indian subcontinent) ornithologists are considered for the standardization of avian common names being undertaken by a committee of the International Ornithological Congress. This document is thus being sent to the IOC committee - let us hope for the best!