Proposal (104) to South American Classification Committee
Change English name of Diglossa glauca
Effect on South American CL: This proposal would change the
English name of a species on our list from a "Meyer de Schauensee"
name ("Deep-blue Flowerpiercer") to a "Ridgely" name
("Golden-eyed Flowerpiercer").
Background: Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) used the
name "Deep-blue Flowerpiercer" for Diglossa glauca, and this
has been followed by essentially all literature, until Ridgely & Greenfield
(2001) changed this to "Golden-eyed Flowerpiercer," with the
following note:
"The species was formerly called the Deep-blue
Flowerpiercer, but it stands out among flowerpiercers not for its deep-blue
coloration (many others are equally blue) but for its conspicuous golden yellow
iris."
This was not followed by Clements and Shany (2001), Hennessey et
al. (2003), or Dickinson (2003).
Analysis: If we were starting from scratch, then I'd vote for
"Golden-eyed," clearly a better name. However, not even Clements
& Shany went along with this one. The "deep-blue" is accurate and
not misleading per se, except that it might imply to some a diagnostic
character that doesn't work.
Recommendation: I vote NO on this proposal. In this case, I
do not think the "improved" name is worth overturning at least 40
years of consistent usage.
Literature Cited:
CLEMENTS,
J. F., AND N. SHANY. 2001. A field guide to the birds of Peru. Ibis Publ. Co.,
Temecula, California.
HENNESSEY,
A. B, S. K. HERZOG, AND F. SAGOT. 2003. Lista anotada de las Aves de Bolivia. Asociación
Armonía/Birdlife International, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
MEYER DE
SCHAUENSEE, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America and their
distribution. Livingston Publishing Co., Narberth, Pennsylvania.
MEYER DE
SCHAUENSEE, R. 1970. A guide to the birds of South America. Livingston
Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
RIDGELY, R.
S., AND P. J. GREENFIELD. 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Vol. II. Field guide.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Van Remsen, February 2004
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Robbins: "NO. The primary reason that
I voted this way is that no one seems to have followed Ridgely and Tudor's
suggestion (although it is an improvement), thus it looks like the status quo
will rule."
Comments from Zimmer: "NO. Clearly a better name,
but the old name is not misleading, just not diagnostic. For continuity I would
stick with the old name."
Comments from Stiles: "NO, again the old name is
not wring, just nondiagnostic, and the improvement in
aptness isn´t worth the sacrifice of stability."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Aunque pienso que Golden-eyed es mejor que
Deep-blue, este último no es erróneo. Coincido con Remsen que si nosotros
estuviéramos comenzando con "scratch" yo elegiría
Golden-eyed."
Comments from Jaramillo: "NO -- my thoughts are in
line with thoughts of others on this."