Proposal (154) to South American
Classification Committee
Change English Name of Chamaeza
turdina to "Scalloped Antthrush"
Effect
on South American Check-list: This proposal is the third of three that will
attempt to stabilize the English names of three species of Chamaeza antthrushes
that share an intertwined taxonomic and nomenclatural history. This proposal
would change the English name of a species on our list, Chamaeza
turdina, from "Schwartz's Antthrush", to "Scalloped
Antthrush", a Ridgely name.
Background: See the detailed
history of this complex under Proposal #152.
Analysis: Although the
published vocal analysis upon which Willis based his split of these antthrushes
was weak, subsequent work has confirmed his conclusions regarding the
relationships of the Atlantic Forest populations to one another. C.
campanisona, C. ruficauda, and C. meruloides clearly
behave as good biological species that largely replace one another
altitudinally, but with some overlap. They are vocally and morphologically
distinct from one another. Nominate ruficauda is also clearly
distinct from C. turdina of Colombia/Venezuela, differing markedly
in morphological characters and having a dramatically different song and calls.
There is less documented justification for the separation of meruloides from turdina,
which have somewhat similar songs, but I think that Willis's conclusions
regarding the morphological differences and huge range disjunction are correct,
and that maintaining all of these as separate species is the proper course. The
species-level taxonomic changes proposed by Willis have been universally
adopted.
Conversely,
the application of English names has been a free-for-all. I have made arguments
regarding the English names of ruficauda and meruloides in
separate proposals. This proposal will focus on C. turdina (which
includes chionogaster of Venezuela). The only historic names
for this species are "Colombian Rufous-tailed Antthrush" for turdina,
and "Venezuelan Rufous-tailed Antthrush" for chionogaster;
both from Cory & Hellmayr (1924). Subsequent authors treated these two
forms as conspecific with ruficauda of SE Brazil, lumping them
all under the English name of "Rufous-tailed Antthrush". Willis
(1992) re-split turdina/chionogaster from ruficauda and suggested
the English name of "Schwartz's Antthrush" for the
Colombian/Venezuelan birds, in honor of Paul Schwartz, who arguably knew chionogaster better
than anyone, who probably made the first tape recordings of the species, and
whose observations regarding the different voices of antthrushes in eastern
Brazil led Willis down the path of discovery that resolved the species-limits
that we recognize today.
Ridgely
and Tudor (1994) and Sibley and Monroe (1990) coined the name "Scalloped
Antthrush" for turdina/chionogaster, to "emphasize the
difference in breast pattern from its Brazilian relative" (Ridgely &
Tudor 1994). Most Chamaeza represent minor variations on a
common theme when it comes to plumage differences, and few names that attempt
to be descriptive of plumage differences are really helpful, at least under
field conditions. While "Scalloped Antthrush" may be more descriptive
of turdina/chionogaster relative to ruficauda, it does
not convey especially useful information, and the two species have such hugely
disjunct ranges that confusion between them is not really an issue.
The
SACC uses "Schwartz's Antthrush" on our Base List, as do Krabbe &
Schulenberg (2003) in Volume 8 of HBW, and Hilty (2003) in Birds of Venezuela.
The only other published alternatives (to "Schwartz's" or
"Scalloped") are the old Cory-Hellmayr names of "Colombian
Rufous-tailed Antthrush" and "Venezuelan Rufous-tailed
Antthrush", which are incredibly cumbersome, and inappropriate given that
1) the two forms are currently treated as conspecific, and neither name
adequately speaks to the range of the species as a whole; and 2) the compound
group name is not appropriate, given that vocal characters suggest that ruficauda is
not the closest relative of turdina/chionogaster.
Recommendation: The name of
"Schwartz's Antthrush" was suggested by the person responsible for
its recognition as a separate species, in honor of an ornithologist who in many
ways laid the foundation for that work. This recognition is, in my opinion,
entirely appropriate, and I think there is nothing to be gained by changing to
an arguably "descriptive" name. I recommend a "NO" vote on
this proposal, resulting in the retention of the English name of
"Schwartz's Antthrush" for C. turdina.
Literature
Cited
CLEMENTS, J. F. 2000.
Birds of the world: a checklist. Fifth Edition. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista,
California.
CORY, C. B., AND C. E.
HELLMAYR. 1924. Catalog of birds of the Americas. Publications of the Field
Museum of Natural History (Zoological Series) 13:3 (369 pp.)
HILTY, S. L. 2003.
Birds of Venezuela. Second Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
KRABBE, N. K., AND T.
S. SCHULENBERG. 2003. Family Formicariidae (Ground Antbirds). In DEL
HOYO, J., A. ELLIOTT AND D. CHRISTIE (eds.). Handbook of Birds of the World:
Volume 8. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
RIDGELY, R. S., AND G.
TUDOR. 1994. Birds of South America, Volume II: the suboscine passerines.
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
SIBLEY, C. G., AND B.
L. MONROE, JR. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
SICK, H. 1985.
Ornitologia Brasileira, uma introdçao. Editora Univ. Brasília, Brasília.
SICK, H. 1993. Birds in
Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
SICK, H., AND J. F.
PACHECO. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Editora Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
WILLIS, E. 1992.
Three Chamaeza Antthrushes in eastern Brazil (Formicariidae).
Condor 94:110-116.
Kevin J. Zimmer,
December 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Robbins:
"NO. The name Schwartz's Antthrush is quite appropriate."
Comments
from Jaramillo:
"NO. Sounds good to me, and I do think it is a real benefit to the users
of these English names when ours match those of HBW. So, when there is a viable
option that makes sense and matches HBW, I am likely to go with it."
Comments
from Stiles:
"NO. No reasonable alternative exists, no reason to change."
Comments
from Nores:
"YES. Yo no estoy de acuerdo en denominar vulgarmente a una
especie con el nombre de alguien que la haya estudiado. Cuando el nombre vulgar
hace referencia a la persona que describió la especie o a quien fue dedicada,
la cosa es diferente."
Comments
from Pacheco:
"NO. A manutenção do epônimo dedicado à Paul A.
Schwartz me parece justificável. Como a maioria dos colegas, não vejo razões
para a mudança."