After Paton et al. 2003 published the final genetic proof that this all time favorite - the "top" shorbird that lives at altitudes of over 4500m - that behaves like a plover, but has a sandpiper bill, is in fact mostly a plover (genetically), some smartass renamers want to deprive the world of the Sandpiper part of the name. In a sense it is logical, but since this plover is so different from all other plovers, is it necessary to change the name?

SACC as we know follow Dickinson's second edition of Howard and Moore's "Checklist of the Birds of the World". Certainly Diademed Plover was an improvement from the first edition, where it was called Mitchell's Plover, and since SACC has still not voted on this one and IOC probably just are reflecting the taxonomic correctnesss, this may not be a lost battle. Place your vote now!

Kapten Kaos says: When for once AOU and SACC are allowed to keep a hyphenated name (combination of two different families or groups, where the first indicates a similarity and the second the true belonging of the bird), they don't take the bait.
There is some history with DSP. De Schauensee, Fjeldså, Clements and GOD all called it the Diademed Sandpiper-Plover. Let´s keep it that way.  I want to keep DSP on my list!!

Calling for violent strikes and people on the streets on May 1st to make your voices heard. Direct democracy on birding peru! Place your vote now!