Proposal (71) to South American Classification Committee
Change English name of Cyanoloxia
glaucocaerulea
Effect on South American CL: This proposal would
change slightly the English name of a species on our list from a "Meyer de
Schauensee" name ("Indigo Grosbeak") to a
"Ridgely-Tudor" name ("Glaucous-blue Grosbeak").
Background: Hudson (1920) and Hellmayr (1938) used
the English name "Glaucous Grosbeak" for Cyanoloxia glaucocaerulea.
Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) evidently was the one who changed this to
"Indigo Grosbeak." This was followed by Olrog (1984), Sibley &
Monroe (1990), Narosky & Yzurieta (1993), Hayes (1995), and Dickinson
(2003).
Ridgely & Tudor (1989) modified Hudson's
name to "Glaucous-blue Grosbeak" for Cyanoloxia glaucocaerulea,
with the following note:
"[Indigo Grosbeak] is poor as it is even less
indigo blue than is the Indigo Bunting of North America, P. cyanea. We
suggest a straight translation of its Latin species name, which is an accurate
description of the male's color ... .'"
This was followed by Sick (1993), de la Peña
and Rumboll (1998), and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
Analysis: Bob's name is probably "better." It
is a partial restoration of a name that predates Meyer de Schauensee/Eisenmann,
and I like the translation from Latin. However, the dictionary meaning of
"glaucous" is "green with a grayish blue cast." The
comparable dictionary description of "indigo" is "deep
violet-blue." We do not have an ad. male here at LSU for me to check, but
Tudor's painting in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) to my non-artist's eye looks
closer to indigo, and I see no "green with a grayish blue cast." To a
North American used to "Glaucous" and "Glaucous-winged" for
basically all white or gray Larus, the use of glaucous, for better or
worse, with a basically blue bird may be confusing.
Recommendation: I tentatively vote NO
on this, pending comments of others. In contrast to several other
"Ridgely-Tudor" names under consideration, historical precedence is
not as much a concern. I would vote YES if other can assure me that this
species is accurately described by "glaucous-blue."
Literature Cited:
DE LA PEÑA, M. R., AND M. RUMBOLL. 1998. Birds
of Southern South America and Antarctica. . Harper Collins.
HAYES, F. E. 1995. Status, Distribution and
Biogeography of the Birds of Paraguay. Monographs in Field Ornithology No. 1,
American Birding Association.
MAZAR BARNETT, J., AND M. PEARMAN. 2001.
Annotated checklist of the birds of Argentina. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
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.
NAROSKY, T., AND D. YZURIETA. 1993. Birds of
Argentina & Uruguay. A Field Guide. Asociación Ornitologica Del Plata,
Buenos Aires.
OLROG, C. C. 1984. Las Aves Argentinas.
Administración Parques Nacionales, Buenos Aires.
RIDGELY, R. S., AND G. TUDOR. 1989. The birds
of South America, vol. 1. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
SIBLEY, C. G., AND B. L. MONROE, JR. 1990.
Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the World. Yale University Press, New
Haven, Connecticut.
SICK, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil. Princeton Univ.
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Van Remsen, October
2003
________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Jaramillo:
"YES. The name Indigo Grosbeak is
relatively new, with the historical name actually being Glaucous Grosbeak. Thus
the creation of the new name Glaucous-blue which is only a bit newer than
Indigo Grosbeak seems appropriate. Partly I find it appropriate because having
an Indigo Grosbeak and Indigo Bunting, as well as a Blue Grosbeak and a Blue
Bunting a bit much! Also I recall seeing skins of glaucocaerulea and
they are a paler blue, with a grayish tone that at least to me seems to make
the use of the descriptive "glaucous-blue" appropriate. In Spanish
this species' colour is described as "celeste" rather than
"azul" so it is a paler blue, more blue-grey."
Comments
from Zimmer: "I
vote "YES". The name "Indigo Grosbeak" isn't really
well-established, in part because this is a bird that most people don't see.
"Glaucous-blue" is not only a throwback to an older name, but it is
much more accurate regarding the color of the bird. As seen in the field, the
bird really is a distinctly paler, grayish-blue with a slight greenish cast,
certainly not approaching "Indigo". I think Bob's addition of
"-blue" after the "Glaucous" also negates any possible
confusion with "Glaucous" as used to refer to northern hemisphere
gulls."
Comments
from Stiles: "NO.
Literally, "glaucous" is a rather pale, rather greyish green -
specifically sea-green in the original Greek - and is so used widely in botany.
In ornithology the picture has been a bit confused, as the word has come to
have more greyish overtones (note Glaucous Gull, I wonder if it was originally
so named for its color or its association with the sea?). In this particular
case, while I have no specimens to guide me, I can find nothing greenish about
any paintings of the male that I have seen - including that by Tudor)."
Comments
from Nores: "YES. El ave
tanto en los museos como en el campo se ve de un color celeste grisáceo y no
índigo como su actual nombre."
New
comments from Stiles:
"Upon reading Manuel Nores's comments regarding C. glaucocaerulea,
I'm willing to change my vote to YES.. I have no first-hand experience with the
bird, nor access to specimens, and am quite willing to defer to someone who
obviously has both.
Comments from Robbins: "[YES] Well, I wasn't aware that the definition of glaucous included a "green sheen or cast". Nonetheless, given what others have said about the color of the adult male I vote "yes" to calling the species Glaucous-blue Grosbeak."