Proposal (72) to South American Classification Committee
Change English name of Pheucticus
chrysogaster
Effect on South American CL: This proposal would change
slightly the English name of a species on our list from a "Hellmayr"
name ("Golden-bellied Grosbeak") to a "Ridgely-Tudor" name
("Southern Yellow-Grosbeak")
Background: Hellmayr (1938) used the English name
"Golden-bellied Grosbeak" for chrysogaster, which he considered
a subspecies of P. chrysopeplus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970)
also considered them conspecific and used the English name "Yellow
Grosbeak" for the broadly defined species (as did Meyer de Schauensee
& Phelps 1978, Parker et al. 1982, Hilty & Brown 1986, Fjeldså &
Krabbe 1990). The AOU (1983) treated chrysogaster as a species, using
Hellmayr's English name, and this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990),
AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003).
Ridgely & Tudor (1989) adopted the split of chrysopeplus into three
species and coined the name "Southern Yellow-Grosbeak" for South
American chrysogaster:
"The previously suggested English name for this species
("Golden-bellied Grosbeak") is poor as it implies a difference in
this form which does not exist: its belly is no more "golden" than
that of any of its relatives. We prefer to emphasize the distributional pattern
of the superspecies by calling the S. Am. member the "Southern
Yellow-Grosbeak.'"
This was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty
(2003).
Analysis: This is really just a matter of taste, with a dose of historical
stability.
Recommendation: I vote NO on this, because (1) I do not like
compound names (Stotz and others have expanded on this, and my sense of the
birding public is that they do not like them either), (2) I do not think that
names need to be diagnostic for a species (i.e., separate it from all other
species, which is often impossible without absurd awkwardness; Stiles and
others have expounded on this), and because Bob did not indicate what compound
name would have to be concocted for centrally located tibialis of
Central America, and the symmetrical" candidates are clearly silly (e.g.,
"Central Yellow-Grosbeak" or "Middle Yellow-Grosbeak").
[As an aside, there was no published rationale for AOU (1983) to
alter traditional species limits in this group, and without that change, this
problem would not exist. If anyone wants to do a proposal to return to a broad
"Yellow Grosbeak," please do so (although I don't know of any
evidence that can be brought to bear on the question one way or another).]
Literature Cited:
DICKINSON,
E. C. (ed.). 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the
World, Revised and enlarged 3rd Edition. Christopher Helm, London, 1040 pp.
HELLMAYR,
C. E. 1938. Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ.,
Zool. Ser., vol. 13., pt. 11.
HILTY, S.
L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
HILTY, S.
L., AND W. L. BROWN. 1986. A guide to the birds of Colombia. Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
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.
MEYER DE
SCHAUENSEE, R., AND W. H. PHELPS. 1978. A guide to the birds of Venezuela.
Princeton.
RIDGELY ,
R. S., AND P. J. GREENFIELD. 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Vol. II. Field guide.
Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
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.
Van Remsen, October 2003
________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Jaramillo: "NO -- I truly dislike
Southern Yellow-Grosbeak, it is a compound name and really doesn't tell you a
heck of a lot about the bird. Golden-bellied, with all its flaws would appear
to be the better choice here and preserves historical precedence. "
Comments from Zimmer: "I vote "NO".
There is no compelling reason to change (e.g. the name is not inaccurate), the
proposed alternative is awkward, and, it would create asymmetry with respect to
Black-thighed Grosbeak of Central America."
Comments from Stiles: "NO.. again, the previous
name is not inaccurate, just not exclusive. I might add that I find the effete
and mannered practice of hyphenating group names to avoid having a
three-part name rather absurd. Why is a three-part name, like Southern Yellow
Grosbeak, so horrendous? It´s no longer, it is equally good about calling
attention to the fact that there are other Yellow Grosbeaks without making
the pitch that Yellow-Grosbeak is a taxonomically recognizable group (it is in
this case, and does include the "yellowest" grosbeaks, but how about
Slaty-Antshrike for a group that does not include the "slatiest"
antshrikes?) End of sermon."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Yo considero que el nombre es apropiado a pesar que hay otros congéneres
amarillos. Lo mismo cabe que para la pregunta # 66."