Proposal
(128) to South
American Classification Committee
Change
English name of Cinnycerthia olivascens from "Sharpe's
Wren" to "Sepia-brown Wren"
Effect on South American CL: This
proposal would change the English name of a species on our list from a
"Dickinson" name ("Sharpe's Wren") to a
"Ridgely-Greenfield" name ("Sepia-brown Wren").
Background: Cinnycerthia
peruana was long known as "Sepia-brown Wren" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990).
Brumfield & Remsen (1996)
provided evidence and rationale for splitting C. peruana into three
species, C. olivascens (northern taxon that extends in northern
Peru), C. peruana (northern to southern Peru), and C. fulva (southern
Peru to northern Bolivia. They proposed "Sharpe's Wren" as the
English name for olivascens in honor of the describer of the taxon
(and in the absence of good alternatives, historical or descriptive). This was
followed by Brewer (2001) and Dickinson (2003), and thus was the name SACC used
in baseline list.
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
used "Sepia-brown Wren" for olivascens with the
following statement: "however, we
favor continuing to call this best known [member] of the complex the
Sepia-brown Wren."
Analysis: Sharpe's
Wren might not be a winning charismatic name, but it does honor a well-known
British Ornithologist, Richard Bowdler Sharpe, who, I think, has no other New
World bird named for him (other than Terenura sharpei).
Regardless, common practice in
English names for species that have been split into two or more component taxa
is NOT to use the former name for the broadly defined species as a name for one
of the components (e.g. "Rufous-sided Towhee" was not used for either
of the daughter species, now called "Spotted" and
"Eastern"). The exceptions are when one of the daughters dwarfs the
other in terms of geographic range (e.g., when Cuban Agelaius phoeniceus
assimilis was split from widespread Red-winged Blackbird, the latter
name was retained for the widespread species and "Red-shouldered" was
invented for the Cuban fragment. Of course, there is a continuum within these
examples in terms of "equality" of daughters (e.g., Canada Goose
retained for Branta canadensis and Cackling restored for B.
hutchinsii) as well as extenuating circumstances (as in existence of prior
historical names for the species, as in the goose example above).
Nonetheless, Bob's debatable
statement above (olivascens = "best known") notwithstanding,
in this case the three daughters are roughly equivalent in range size.
Furthermore, potential confusion exists in that Sepia-brown was formerly
applied to C. peruana, as the oldest name, not to olivascens;
in other words, "Sepia-brown" might be acceptable for the peruana daughter
but, in my opinion, not olivascens.
Recommendation: I vote NO
on this proposal. "Sharpe's" may not be the best name, but
"Sepia-brown" is worse, in my opinion.
Literature Cited:
BREWER, D.
2001. Wrens, dippers, and thrashers. Yale University Press, New Haven.
BRUMFIELD,
R. T., AND J. V. REMSEN, JR. 1996. Geographic variation and species limits
in Cinnycerthia wrens of the Andes. Wilson Bull 108: 205-227.
FJELDSÅ,
J., AND N. KRABBE. 1990. Birds of the High Andes. Zoological Museum, Univ.
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
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. Cornell
University Press, Ithaca, New York.
RIDGELY, R.
S., AND G. TUDOR. 1989. The birds of South America, vol. 1. Univ. Texas Press,
Austin.
Van Remsen,
August 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles: "[NO].
I agree that the long-standing association of "Sepia-brown"
with peruana (sensu lato) would lead to confusion in that the
two names would now go with different taxa - a real headache for anyone trying
to work back through the older literature using common names. Also, I don´t
think that adding another slightly better English name to the mix (say, Sepia
Wren or Olive-brown Wren) would do anything but muddy the waters still further,
as there would always be the possibility of a still better one later on...
Sharpe´s Wren is published, it's not great but it is distinctive and not
misleading, so let´s stick with it in the interest of preserving what stability
there is."
Comments from Robbins:
"[NO]. Although I'm not enamored with the name Sharpe (tells us nothing),
I do vote "no" based on Sepia-brown formerly being applied to peruana and
not olivascens."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Me parece innecesario cambiar un nombre correcto en
honor a su descubridor, por un nombre ya usado para otra especie (C. peruana),
que combina dos colores similares para denominar una especie que es
prácticamente de un solo color."
Comments from Zimmer: "I
vote "NO". I much prefer patronyms to another so-called
"descriptive" name that doesn't really do a good job of describing the
bird or at least of separating it from a morphologically similar species. Also,
as pointed out by others, the retention of the old, inclusive name for one of
the component splits just creates more confusion for those trying to sort
through the literature. Best to give each of the splits a new name.
"Sharpe's Wren" is just fine with me."
Comments from Stotz: "NO.
Although I don't really like Sharpe's Wren (and think Sepia-Brown Wren is a
nice English name), I think it is a mistake in general to take the English name
that was associated with one scientific name and use it for a differently named
taxon, especially when the first name still represents a recognized
species-level taxon. This is especially true in a case like this where there is
no history of associating Sepia-brown Wren with olivascens. Ridgely and
Greenfield's statement that olivascens is the best known of
the complex" is a purely Ecuador-centric statement. It is the only one of
the complex I haven't seen, and anybody with extensive experience in Peru might
call either of the other two the "best-known." Although I will miss the name Sepia -brown
Wren, with three common widely distributed species being split out from that
species, I think clearly the best practice is new names for everybody.
"So why did Brumfield and
Remsen create a new name "Sharpe's" instead of resurrecting
"Salmon's" used by Hellmayr?"
Comments from Pacheco:
"[NO] Ridgely &
Greenfield não apresentaram uma justificativa aceitável para reverter o nome em
inglês proposto por Brumfield & Remsen, responsáveis pelo desmembramento do
então 'Sepia-brown Wren'. Lamento apenas, tal qual
Stotz, que estes últimos autores não tenham resgatado o nome de Hellmayr
(1934), que preferira homenagear o coletor do táxon, o naturalista
colombiano Thomas K. Salmon."
[Additional comments from Remsen:
"Concerning Doug and Fernando's comments on "Salmon's Wren," for
better or worse, we decided not to use it because it was applied by Hellmayr
only to C. p. olivascens as "Salmon's Brown Wren", with C.
p. bogotensis called "Bogotá Brown Wren." A frequent principle is
revising English names is to avoid using the previously applied to only one
taxon in a polytypic species (unless the component taxa are dramatically
asymmetrical in their distributions), and so we thought that creating a new
name was the best course. I do like "Salmon's Wren," so if someone
wants to propose a change, please do so."]
Comments from Jaramillo:
"NO. I realize this has already
been defeated, but agree with the others for the same reasons."