PROCESS

The following guidelines governed the work of the committees:

  • The committee operated almost exclusively through its six regional subcommittees. The members of each subcommittee were experts on the birds of that region.
  • The committee adopted at the outset a set of basic rules or principles that would be applied in the selection and spelling of names.
  • The project was not to be a vehicle for the wholesale changing of the names of birds but rather an effort to standardize names.
  • The subcommittees would strive for consistency, an important aspect of standardization, but if long usage and common sense required inconsistencies the project would accept them.
  • No special consideration would be given to the names on the Sibley-Monroe list.
  • The project was to standardize the names of full species and would not include subspecies.This decision was made to give the project a manageable scope.
  • The committee decided early on that as a general rule it was not within its province to make taxonomic decisions, but as the project progressed it became necessary to do so to some extent.
  • Each committee was free to decide whether to add taxa to the list under the basic principles adopted. Potential and pending splits were deliberately included to recommend an English name if and when they were accepted by major regional checklist committees. Looking ahead, we expect this process to continue for new species (either discovered or split off from existing species).

The actual work process was as follows:

  • The initial world list of names was divided among the six subcommittees, each of which took the initiative with respect to the names assigned to it. Two or more committees shared an interest in some widespread species. In most cases, however, it was clear which subcommittee had precedence.
  • Each subcommittee came up with its list of names, which often involved compromises and sometimes non-unanimous decisions within the subcommittee.
  • Through their chairs, each subcommittee was given the opportunity to comment on the names submitted by the others, but each subcommittee had the final say as to most of the names on its list. In those cases where a taxon is substantially present in two or more regions, a general consensus was sought.
  • The lists were reviewed by the co-chairs to determine compliance with the basic principles that had been adopted.
  • Finally, the co-chairs had the responsibility of ensuring that the six lists were consistent not only with the basic principles but with one another, and of resolving any differences that remained.