Proposal (1025.2) to South
American Classification Committee
Establish English names
for species in the Long-tailed Woodcreeper Deconychura longicauda
complex, part 2
The
original proposal (included below) was rejected by the narrowest of margins,
6-4. The comments contained many useful
comments about potential names for these species, about woodcreeper names in
general, and English names in general.
Given the close vote, the next iteration is a ranked-choice vote that
attempts to incorporate the proposed combinations of names. Rank each from 1 to 5 in terms of
preference. Barring a tie, the option
with fewest points will be implemented.
It is clear that none of the choices is ideal, with valid criticisms of
each presented by commenters.
I
have one general comment. Much of the
discussion centers around what the best name would be for field birders. Although these may be our primary audience,
they are not the only ones who use and care about English names. Banders, artists, and scientists who study
specimens are not necessarily concerned about the utility of a name in with
respect to identification through binoculars.
Option
A:
(original proposal’s names based on voice):
D. typica: Piping Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Woodcreeper
Option
B:
(original proposal’s names based on voice but with Long-tailed group name
added):
D. typica: Piping Long-tailed Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Long-tailed
Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Long-tailed Woodcreeper
Option C: (original proposal’s
name but Woodcreeper replaced by “Clawtail” (the apt translation of Deconychura)
D. typica: Piping Clawtail
D. longicauda: Whistling Clawtail
D. pallida: Mournful Clawtail
Option
D
(from Mark Pearman; keeps vocal names and removes “long-tailed” from typica,
because although a am member of the group, it does not have a particularly long
tail):
D. typica: Little Piping Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Long-tailed Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Long-tailed Mourning Woodcreeper
Option E (names in
use by HBW/BirdLife):
D. typica: Little Long-tailed
Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Northern Long-tailed
Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Southern Long-tailed
Woodcreeper
Option F (new
candidate proposed by Dan to emphasize the exceptional sexual dimorphism in
size, to a degree unique in woodcreepers)
D. typica: Little Dimorphic
Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Northern Dimorphic
Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Southern Dimorphic
Woodcreeper
Van Remsen,
February 2025
________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Remsen:
“First choice (1): Option B. I like the vocal names, and I also like the
idea of retaining “Long-tailed” as a marker for the clade because group
membership has important implications not just for field ID but also for every
aspect of woodcreeper biology, and it also breaks up the long run of ‘Something
Woodcreeper’ names in the family. I
don’t mind long compound names – their clunkiness is offset by their empirical
value, including maintaining a connection to the name of the parental species,
which will be helpful to anyone trying to navigate previous literature. Besides, no one ever uses the complete
compound name except in print – they are almost always abbreviated in
conversation. Also, the name
“Long-tailed” is a good name for morphological reasons – there is a valid
reason why the species was named ‘longicauda’.
“Second choice (2): Option E (BLI
names). Although Northern and Southern are insipid, Little is an apt name for
that species, and I like the compound names.
A minor benefit would be retaining names already in use, albeit limited. That Northern’s distribution is south of
Little’s distribution is a flaw, however.
“Third choice: (3) Option F
(Dimorphic): I like the idea of emphasizing the remarkable dimorphism, but I
think retaining the “Long-tailed” connection to the split species is more
important.
“Fourth choice (4): Option A (as in
the proposal). I like the idea of using
vocal names but not without the context of a group name.
“Fifth choice (5): Option D (Mark’s
names): I like Mark’s idea of a slight break-up of the group plus retaining the
vocal names.
“Sixth choice (6): Option C
(Clawtails): This is the only one I do not like. I like the creativity using the translation,
but not the idea of giving them a separate group name, which implies that they
are outliers from other species called ‘Woodcreeper’ (most of which have tails
that are just as “clawed”); this is misleading when more divergent birds like
Wedge-billed, Olivaceous, Long-tailed, Strong-billed, and Scimitar-billed
remain as ‘Something Woodcreeper’.
Currently, all we have in Dendrocolaptinae is ‘Woodcreeper’ and
‘Scythebill’, which I think is reasonably appropriate given the relative
homogeneity in plumage and morphology in the group (e.g., compared to
Trochilidae and Furnariinae). The lack
of diversity appropriately conveys the relative homogeneity.”
Comments from Gary Rosenberg
(voting for Del-Rio):
“First choice is still Option B - I
still both like the original name choices, but also like the idea of retaining
“Long-tailed” in the name - even though they are not very long tailed in
comparison to other woodcreepers. And even though it is a long name - some
dislike that - some don’t mind it, and I don’t think we are going to please
everyone. Even though our main emphasis isn’t necessarily “birders”, we
do owe some responsibility to them - if they are going to follow the SACC and
respect us - so ignoring them is not wise. I also think this is a good
compromise - follows the original proposal (which should be important) - yet
allows people to make the connection that this is a split of Long-tailed
Woodcreeper - without "Long-tailed” in the name - some will make the
connection, yet many others - particularly new birders and scientists, may not
make that connection and understand the history.
“Second Choice is Option A - I have
always like these names - and I also think the original proposal should be
given deference - they took the time to make the proposal and come up with the
names. One can nit-pick about the definition of the terms - and have opinions
about what is “piping” versus “whistling” - but they are unique choices - and I
like them. So if “Long-tailed” is dropped, I think just going with these is the
right option.]
“I don’t really care for the other
four options - but if I am forced to rank them, I would go Option E as number
3, Option D as number 4, Option F - the new one as number 5, and Option C as
number 6 .
“Option E is OK - but so many birds
are named Northern and Southern - I just think given the chance to pick
something different, and more unique, we should - at least it retains
“Long-tailed” in the name to allows a better understanding of the change in taxonomy.
“Option D - I really don’t see how
this helps anything - it does separate out the form that is not “long-tailed”,
but I think it will be confusing to some and they won’t make the connection
back to the historic group. It also suggests that there is a “big” Piping out
there. I also don’t see why changing Mournful to Mourning is necessary.
“Option F - As much as it is
tempting to drop the “Long-tailed” from the names (I think it should be
retained - see above), I don’t think we should just come up with a replacement
- in addition to the modifiers at the beginning. I understand Dan’s point about
the sexual dimorphism - and it may even be a more reliable character than the
length of the tail - although some of the Long-tailed Woodcreepers do appear
rather long tailed) and yes, I realize some don’t) - this might also be the
case with the size dimorphism - and it may not always be obvious in the field -
so in my opinion, it is just switching one semi-useful name for another - and I
believe precedence should rule the day here.
“Option C - I see no point in
singling out this group of woodcreepers and dropping the name “woodcreeper” - I
think this will be more confusing to everyone. I don’t think we should be in
the business of coming up with totally unique names for birds that have been
called something else forever (like BNFB want to do) - while “Clawtail” is a
cool sounding name, MOST woodcreepers have a similar feature - so if you change
this genus, why not change them all? Strange that when the genus was named,
they picked that feature to single out - is it any more “claw-tailed” than
other woodcreepers? Several of the other woodcreepers have a unique feature -
Like "Long-billed” - I suppose we can call that Amazonian Longbill -
although there would be confusion with the Longbills in Asia :-) Although maybe
if we drop “woodcreeper” from all of them, people might stop referring to them
as “creepers”.
Comments from Areta: “My
ranked votes are CABDEF.”
Comments
from Zimmer [needs revision]: “Having already commented extensively on this in my
recent 2nd round of comments on the original Proposal, I will only
offer my ranked choices, with the barest of justifications.
“1. Option C.
“2. Option B. I’m
totally fine with this one, but given the clunkiness of the long, compound
names, and the fact that the group name doesn’t apply as well to typica,
I prefer to think outside the box a little and go with Option C as #1. Everything after these two choices is far
inferior in my opinion.
“3. Option A. Nice descriptors, but only meaningful within
the genus, not when looking at woodcreepers as a whole.
“4. Option D. I see the logic behind this, given that typica
differs markedly from the other two species, but we are now presented with no
group name to tie them all together.
“5. Option E. Here, we have the group name and historical
connection, but the geographic modifier of “Northern” for longicauda
doesn’t make sense given that typica is the most northern of the 3 in
distribution.”
Comments from Donsker (voting for
Bonaccorso): “Here is my revised vote for Deconychura English names in
rank order:
“1 Option B
2. Option E
3 Option F
4 Option A
5 Option D
6. Option C”
Comments
from Louis Bevier (voting for Jaramillo):
“Short
answer: B, A, E, F, C, D
“1st:
B
Path
of least resistance? Clunky and long but group name helpfully retained. Long
name is not a huge burden, especially when the vocal descriptor is likely to be
the word most used in the field. Please see my alternative to this compound
group name as well to both “Clawtail” and “Dimorphic” below.
“2nd:
A
Already
adopted by Clements/eBird; hence another path of limited resistance? My dislike
of this vocalization-based naming scheme is the same as others in that it only
pertains to the three species unless grouped. It is not helpful in the broad
context of woodcreepers. As one example, Hilty describes the vocalization of Nasica
as a ‘lamenting’ whistle; so as pointed out, ‘Mournful’ does not distinguish D.
pallida from another woodcreeper that broadly overlaps its range. Also, if
one listens to Curtis Marantz’s long cut of D. longicauda, the beginning
is clearly of an agitated bird, and it is close to “piping” in that context
before the whistles are heard. Confusion seems probable with these names, good
as they are.
“3rd:
E
Here
one detects my inclination to not rock the boat and use names that are in use
already. But as pointed out by others, these HBW/BirdLife names are really poor
because Northern and Southern are misleading with respect to typica.
These geographic descriptors are, moreover, inconsistent with names applied to
geographic splits over the same region, e.g. Xenops genibarbis splits of
Northern, Amazonian, and Atlantic.
“4th:
F
Dimorphic
was a good proposal as a group name to highlight the marked sexual size
dimorphism. I don’t like dimorphic, however, because among birds the word “dimorphic”
commonly connotes plumage coloration morphs. This is the only use I find among
bird names and is surely to be what is expected to be seen in these
woodcreepers. Here are examples: Dimorphic Egret/Little Egret (Egretta
dimorpha/E. garzetta dimorpha), Dimorphic Dwarf-Kingfisher (Ceyx
margarethae) [dark and pale morphs], Dimorphic Jewel-babbler (Ptilorrhoa
geislerorum) [sexual dimorphism in plumage coloration, males blue and
females brown], and Dimorphic Fantail (Rhipidura brachyrhyncha) [tail
color]. While none of these are group names, they still set the pattern for the
word “dimorphic” as one involving coloration.
“5th:
C
I
tend to like using translations of the Latin names, but clawtail applies to
most woodcreepers, and is especially true for genera like Sittasomus and
Glyphorynchus. I suspect Cherrie erected the name in part because he was
comparing his specimens to Dendrocincla, which do have less curved and
short-spined rectrices. The Greek root at the head of the name Deconychura,
is from ‘deca’ (ten), which is how many rectrices Cherrie mistakenly thought
these possessed (Hellmayr set this straight in 1904, “Types of five
South-American birds” BBOC 14:51–55 on page 52).
“6th:
D
A
potentially helpful suggestion but one that is not consistent with naming
conventions and could lead to confusion. Plus, these are a mouthful that might
not lead to the shortening that Option B offers.
“Alternatives
“With
apologies given the several attempts at forming a group name, I offer an
alternative.
“Ridgway
used the group name Deconychura for D. typica (Cherrie’s Deconychura). Eponym debates
aside, I like this. Hellmayr (1925) continued this, using Long-tailed
Deconychura for D. longicuada. So why can’t we adopt Deconychura? After
all, Xenops, among furnariids, works well and has been adopted by the birding
public readily, and this genus-made-English name was usefully applied in
compound form as “Plain-Xenops” when X. genibarbis was split. There are
many examples of using an existing genus as a group name; so, this should not
be too strange.
“My
alternatives then call these species Deconychuras. I favor geographic
descriptors, but here are potential arrangements. Hopefully this does not
create even more rounds, but I felt compelled to offer some versions. Although
voting to use the vocal names as my top choices above, I would prefer not to
use them for the reasons outlined. But if applied to Deconychura as a group
name, then those clarify that the sounds apply to the three species and not
other, similar sounding woodcreepers.
D. longicauda: Guianan Shield Deconychura
D. pallida: Amazonian Deconychura
D. typica: Northern Deconychura
D. longicauda: Long-tailed Deconychura (keeps an old
name in use)
D. pallida: Amazonian Deconychura
D. typica: Little Deconychura (or Cherrie’s D,
which might be a losing battle)
D. longicauda: Whistling Deconychura
D. pallida: Mournful Deconychura
D. typica: Piping Deconychura”
Comments from Zimmer:
“1. Option B. These names check 2
boxes for me: 1) they utilize the originally suggested modifiers based on
voice; and 2) they employ a group name exclusive to the genus, which has the
added benefit of tying in the pre-split species name of “Long-tailed
Woodcreeper”.
“2. Option C. I still like Nacho’s “thinking
outside of the box” suggestion of using “Clawtail” as a group name (see my
earlier extensive comments and attempts to rebut the criticisms of it) but
concede that I seem to be nearly alone in that sentiment, so I am demoting it a
slot in the ranked voting. I don’t think
this current iteration of the Proposal is set up to accommodate Louis’s
suggestion of using Deconychura as a group name, but that would be my
replacement choice for Clawtail as the group name, and I would still favor
using the voice-based modifiers as my first choice, and Guianan, Amazonian,
Northern as my 2nd choice from among his options.
“3. Option F. I think “Dimorphic" as a group
modifier has some appeal, but I agree with Louis’s argument that it implies 2
different color morphs (as in Dimorphic Egret) rather than a sexual dimorphism
(If it was meant to suggest sexual dimorphism, then half of the birds in the
world could be called “Dimorphic something”, which would be pretty meaningless.
And yes, I understand, that sexual dimorphism is unusual (but not unique)
among woodcreepers, but some species in both Dendrocincla and Dendrocolaptes
seem to have consistent sexual dimorphism in apparent head shape, with respect
to the crown looking “bushy” or not.). Aside
from this, I still don’t like the suggested modifiers of Little (descriptive),
Northern (geographic), and Southern (geographic), for reasons discussed below.
“4. Option E. I don’t like these names, because, as
previously discussed, “Northern” and “Southern” as modifiers here are
misleading, and it seems strange to have a descriptive modifier for typica,
while employing geographic modifiers for the other 2 species.
“5. Option A. I still like the
vocal-inspired names, but agree that, in the absence of a group name specific
to Deconychura, they aren’t helpful.
“6. Option D. This is my least favorite option, because,
although it uses the vocalization-based names, which I favor, it doesn’t employ
a group-name (other than woodcreeper) that binds them all together.
As we’ve already discussed, the vocal modifiers don’t make much sense in
the absence of a group name for Deconychura. Worse yet, this
suggested construction implies (even without the hyphen) that there is more
than one Piping Woodcreeper, Whistling Woodcreeper and Mourning Woodcreeper.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Proposal (1025.1) to South American Classification Committee
Establish English names for species in the
Long-tailed Woodcreeper Deconychura longicauda complex
In proposal 997, SACC voted to separate Deconychura typica (including
minor and darienensis) and Deconychura pallida (including connectens)
from Deconychura longicauda.
The three have been
treated as separate species by HBW and BLI, which used the names:
D. typica: Little Long-tailed Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Northern Long-tailed Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Southern Long-tailed Woodcreeper
IOC followed suit in
v13.2 (August 2023), as did Hilty in the recent Birds of Colombia, for the two
taxa found there. Otherwise, there isn’t much historical precedence for these
names.
While many splits in
recent years have made use of compound names (see for example proposals 921e-x.2 and 983), others have instead introduced novel names (see for
example proposal 912). Woodcreepers are no exception: Barred-Woodcreepers
retained compound names, whereas the more recent split of Lepidocolaptes
albolineatus introduced non-compound options. Arguments could be made for
either approach in the case of Deconychura.
Compound names:
The primary argument
for compound names in Deconychura would be to indicate the close
relationship of the three newly split species. Additionally, it would provide a
link to the previously used name that predominates all published field guides,
potentially providing a better link for birders trying to learn more about the
bird they are searching for (and with these species, “searching for” happens a lot
more than “looking at”).
Arguments against
compound names are, in my opinion, many. First and foremost among them is that
Long-tailed Woodcreeper was just a lousy name to being with. The tail of the
species is not exceptionally long either in the absolute sense or the relative
sense, when considering woodcreepers as a whole. Added to that, compound names
take already relatively long names and makes them even longer and more clunky.
Also, the modifiers used by BLI aren’t particularly appropriate in two cases.
“Little Long-tailed Woodcreeper” adds an additionally unhelpful descriptor in
that these birds are barely smaller than the other Deconychura, and
small size is not a useful ID feature of this bird in the field. And “Northern
Long-tailed Woodcreeper” is the name I’d expect for the Central American
species rather than the one in northern South America, which occurs further
south than much of the range of D. typica.
Novel names:
The alternative to
compound names would be to attempt to coin new ones. Woodcreepers however are
clearly not the easiest birds to come up with compelling common names for. Deconychura
is perhaps the epitome of that – there is, so far as I can tell, simply no
plumage, structure, habitat, or geographic-based names that work well for any
of the species. At least not that don’t apply as well or better to any number
of other woodcreepers.
With that in mind, Deconychura
seems like an opportunity to adopt common names based on their vocalizations.
As everyone here well knows, most woodcreepers are more easily identified by
sound than by sight. Some are nearly indistinguishable by anything other than
sound. So it is somewhat surprising that no current woodcreeper common name
references the sound of the bird!
For Deconychura
species specifically, these are birds that are rare to uncommon, and rather
infrequently just stumbled upon – one usually either hears the bird first, or
finds it using speculative playback. Additionally, the two southern taxa are
somewhat distinctive in their range for having songs (when unagitated) that
consist primarily of long, clear whistles, with fewer fast, more complex or
trilled notes than most other related species. D. typica is a bit less
distinctive vocally though, and presents the largest challenge to this scheme.
That said, I would propose the following common names:
D. typica: Piping Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Woodcreeper
“Piping” in this
sense applies to some versions of the song of typica, e.g. https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/31184. What makes these notes “piping” in my mind is
their narrow bandwidth and relatively flat shape, which imparts a different
tone than a trill or a rattle. Other versions of the song could be better
described as trilled or rattling, but then again so can the songs of many other
woodcreepers in range, whereas piping is a less common motif.
The other two names
aptly describe the sounds of their primary songs, particularly in comparison to
other sympatric woodcreeper species. For your listening pleasure:
D. longicauda: https://xeno-canto.org/519473
D. pallida: https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/295057
Recommendation
I would recommend the
vocalization-based names I list above. To keep things simple, a YES vote on
this proposal would be for these names; a NO vote would be for the BLI compound
names listed at the beginning of the proposal, or another option (please list
if so).
Andrew Spencer and Josh Beck,
July 2024
Comments from Remsen: “YES. Clever, appropriate names, especially given
extremely limited options on descriptive names, and they draw immediate
attention to the importance of vocal characters.”
Comments from Peter
Kaestner (voting for Claramunt): “YES to the proposed vocally inspired names.”
Comments from
Jaramillo: “YES on the new
names. I should mention that I do not think it is necessary to retain the
"Long-tailed" part of the name. We often in splits lament the fact
that information on relationship is lost when we create novel names, but that
information is useful if it does not detract from the name otherwise. When the
"phylogenetically informative" version of a new name is too long,
cumbersome, or not all that inspiring I do not think that is useful. My
personal opinion on this topic. The suggested names based on aspects of the
vocalizations are superb.”
Comments from Stiles: “YES, I like these names - and I agree, it´s a good way to bring out the
importance of vocalizations in woodcreepers.”
Comments from Zimmer: “YES vote on these 3 suggested
vocalization-based English names:
Piping, Whistling & Mournful woodcreepers, without the group name,
which, as mentioned in the Proposal, is not a particularly good group name to
begin with. The suggested audio-based
names are not only descriptive, but they also highlight the most distinctive
features that separate the 3 species from one another in the field.”
Comments from Donsker
(voting for Bonaccorso):
“YES. Shortened names for these three
species would be more desirable than
“Something” Long-tailed Woodcreeper. These vocalization-based names are
brilliantly conceived.”
Comments from
Rasmussen (voting for Robbins): “YES to the vocalization-based names recommended in the
proposal. Initially I did not think Piping worked well for the short notes of typica,
but that name has long been used for several other taxa that have rather
disparate songs, like the Piping Cisticola (which does give short notes) vs.
Piping Hornbill and Piping Crow (with longer notes), so now I am OK with it.”
Comments from Mario
Cohn-Haft: “YES, more or
less. Although I'm pleased to see the
split, I'm not very motivated by the name discussion. The voice descriptions are pretty appropriate
and even somewhat inspired. But as is often the case with these splits, the
names really only resonate in the context of the (now split) species complex.
In other words, there are other woodcreepers that pipe, whistle, and mourn, so
not sure how useful the names will be once the notion of comparison among
species in a complex is lost. My experience with the Amazonian forms is that
they are actually pretty distinctive looking. They show a sort of shaggy back
of the small head and a notable shortage of feathers on the neck, looking
almost bare-necked. But i can't see whistling and mourning pin-headed
pencil-necked woodcreeper really taking off.
So, the easy answer is "oh well" or "so what?". The
proposed names are good 'nough for gov'mt.”
Comments from Lane: “NO. I think Mario makes a very good point,
and one that occurred to me the moment I read through the proposed names. These
names are not being used simply to distinguish among the members of genus Deconychura,
but among ALL woodcreepers, and as such, they are hardly very good definers of
the species they are meant to label. Yes, “mourning” describes the song of D.
pallida well, but… Nasica is about as “mourning” as a woodcreeper
can sound, and the same goes for whistling and puttering within the greater
subfamily. Further, “puttering” is a rather subjective descriptor of D.
typica, and in my mind, not a very good one. These voice-descriptive names
would be helpful if we used them to modify some other unifying name such as
“Long-tailed Woodcreeper” but that’s exactly what the authors of the proposal
are trying to escape here, isn’t it? Contrary to the comments in the proposal,
the members of Deconychura are indeed noticeably long-tailed in my
opinion, if one were to measure the overall body length in comparison to the
tail length and compare these measurements within the greater “woodcreeper
morphospace,” I think you’d find that the name lives up to expectation. Maybe
it's because of the small headed look (that Mario very astutely labeled
"pin-headed")? I would actually advocate for the retention of
“Long-tailed Woodcreeper” here as it would be useful to distinguish these
species from the rest of the subfamily, and then add some additional modifier
to that name, whether it be voice-related or geographic. Personally, I’d argue
that geographic is far more useful, since these species are allopatric and
since the voices are so variable within one population, thanks to the effects
of motivation, that the voice-based names would be of very limited in value to
help actually identify the species. Given that I am generally of a mind that
voice-based names are helpful and should be used more as we split up
(suboscine) groups with limited other characters of note, I hope my
reservations here will be especially noted.”
Comment from Remsen: “Dan’s point on tail length is a good
one. This is obvious in specimens and
may represent some sort of ecomorphological difference important to foraging
behavior. By the way, and perhaps of
significance … Deconychura is “Greek” for “claw tail” (fide Jobling).”
Comments from Areta: “What holds us from thinking beyond
"woodcreeper"? It is remarkable that out of 52 species in our current
SACC list, 47 are woodcreepers (despite their drastic differences), and 5 are
scythebills (4 Campylorhamphus,
but also Drymotoxeres, that is
more related to Drymornis, which
is a woodcreeper that spends most of the time on the ground, you know...). Your
mention of claw tail (which sounds nice to me), made me think that maybe
someday people will move away from the monotonous "woodcreeper" and
start finding more useful names to tease apart the distinctive groups of
dendrocolaptids (or dendrocolaptines). Especially because many splits are
pending in the family, and finding names for some, say, 20 more woodcreepers,
sounds tough. I imagine that names such as Mournful Clawtail could be in place
(although it may also be opening a can of worms). Otherwise, beware of the
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Long-tailed Woodcreeper above your
head!"
Comments from Gary
Rosenberg (who has Del-Rio vote): “I vote YES on the proposal
D. typica: Piping Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Woodcreeper
“I am pleased that
this group has finally been split up - being most familiar with the forms in
Costa Rica and western Amazonia (Peru and Ecuador), I always pointed out to
tour participants how different the vocalizations were between the two - so I
definitely think it is appropriate that if we are not going to go with a
“geographic” designation, then using a vocal description is a great idea. Yes,
Long-tailed Woodcreepers are a bit visually more long tailed but unless one is
looking at specimens in a tray, and comparing it with, say, Wedge-billed
Woodcreeper - the species I feel is most similar, I don’t think birders would
key into tail length differences. It has been a while, but I remember there
being significant sexual dimorphism in Amazonian Long-tailed - and the
similarities between (females?) and Wedge-billed are a definite pitfall.
“Regarding calling
this group something like “Claw-tails” sounds cool, but in reality, all
woodcreepers have “claw tails” - and I really don’t think that feature would
distinguish this group for any other group of woodcreepers. A bit like the
situation of spiderhunters and longbills in Australasia.
“Vocalizations are so
key in woodcreeper identification, so I am very in favor of renaming these with
names that describe the vocalizations. One might argue that one is slightly
more mournful that another - but in my opinion, this is not important - each
name is unique, and like eponyms, it will just be a matter of memorizing which
one is which.”
Additional comments
from Josh Beck: “Regarding Dan's
comments on the Long-tailed WC proposal, I would say his logic is sound, but
kind of arrives at what I think a lot of people would view as not great names.
Almost no Woodcreeper is uniquely identified by its name. Using compound names
like Northern, Guianan, Amazonian, and Foothill Long-tailed Woodcreeper would
retain the link to the parent, which is certainly a benefit, but I strongly
disagree that the name Long-tailed is useful. The average birder who goes to
the Neotropics does not see these birds with any regularity, and does not ID
them via tail length. I have spent perhaps 1000+ days birding in the Neotropics
and have perhaps 10-20 encounters with Long-tailed Woodcreeper (sensu lato),
mostly heard only. I've never once been able to ID a seen-only bird as
Long-tailed with certainty. Certainly Dan is a more experienced and talented
birder than I am, but I am left feeling that common names should serve the
public rather than the handful of people who know the bird that well.”
Comments from Mark
Pearman: “This is a tough
challenge, and I am giving a YES vote but with modifications. While I fully
appreciate the effort by Andrew Spencer and Josh Beck to name these birds in
reflection of their principal songs, the main problem here is that we have
another fifty-odd species of woodcreepers that are not named in this manner.
“At a minimum, I
calculate that D. typica overlaps with 11 species of woodcreeper, longicauda
with 19 species of woodcreeper, and pallida with 16 species of
woodcreeper, none of which have a sound moniker in the vernacular name. Without
going into laborious detail, two woodcreepers in the range of typica
also sound piping, and several woodcreepers in the range of longicauda and
pallida sound either mournful, produce whistled songs or both.
“Then, I agree with
Dan Lane that longicauda and pallida do look noticeably
long-tailed in the field. This is not as striking or apparent, in my opinion,
in D. typica judging from photographs and a video. Yet it is “Little”.
Therefore, I agree that retaining Long-tailed is useful for two of the species.
Mario Cohn-Haft makes a good point about birds being pin-headed and
pencil-necked, and again I believe he is talking about longicauda and pallida,
but not typica. Incorporating all this information becomes a difficult
task of course.
“My suggestions would
be to combine names with some shuffling.
D. typica: Little Piping
Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Long-tailed
Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Long-tailed
Mourning Woodcreeper
“Each of these names
combines additional, helpful information for the field observer.
“As I mentioned, I
don’t see the need to incorporate “Long-tailed” for typica because it
doesn’t help. I also think that it is best to use Mourning instead of Mournful
because it has a similar meaning, rolls off the tongue easier and is already
used in six other bird species.
“I do like Nacho’s
“Clawtail” idea because the tail spines do look claw-like in all Deconychura.
However, changing one genus to a group name opens up a huge can of worms for
other woodcreeper genera if one intended to be consistent.”
Additional comments
from Lane: “In response to
Josh Beck’s comments about English names, I think I need to elaborate in an
effort to show that I have indeed considered the needs of “the Birding Public,”
perhaps considerably more than he has. First of all, as a professional tour
guide, I spend A LOT of time with “the Birding Public” and so I think I
understand its needs quite a bit! Most birders--assuming Josh's
definition of the Birding Public is "a novice who is trying to learn the
birds" rather than "someone who already knows a lot about the birds,
their voices, how to identify them" —
don't recognize a woodcreeper by voice alone.
If they did, I probably wouldn't have a job! The Birding Public tends to find
woodcreepers a particularly difficult group to identify, and few are adept at
using voice for identification, but rather the Birding Public looks almost
entirely at visual characters. Thus, the use of names based on vocalizations is
not the most helpful to the Birding Public. Further, as I stated above, there
are many other species of woodcreeper that overlap with the members of Deconychura
that have “mourning” or “whistling” voices so that these descriptors are not
particularly helpful within a region… they are ONLY helpful in separating the
members of Deconychura from one another, which is exactly what Josh
argues is unhelpful in a name! Josh states that he hears these birds far more
often than he sees them, but that suggests he has an extensive knowledge of the
voices of birds in the region... which is not typical of the Birding Public,
and he therefore is suddenly in the Elite Class of field observers that already
knows they are dealing with a woodcreeper, and likely that it is a Deconychura.
A name that helps the Birding Public distinguish among woodcreepers within a
locality would use some morphological character that is easily visible to the
observer—such as the exaggeratedly long tail—to narrow down a Deconychura
to genus (making it much easier to pin a name on the bird by sight by sorting
it into a smaller category, such as Xiphorhynchus or Lepidocolaptes
or Dendrocincla, as birders learn to do in the Neotropics). Thus, to
suggest that eliminating “Long-tailed” from the name of the daughter species of
this complex is somehow helping the Birding Public is open to question. Or
perhaps better put: elite birders might be the ones a bit out of touch of the
needs of the Birding Public! Sorry if this sounds irked, but... honestly, it
is. Coming up with a good English Name for a Neotropical species is not easy,
and to suggest that this committee —
with several professional tour guides who know the birds well, and also
interact extensively with a broad cross-section of birders from students to
local guides to beginner and advanced birders from all around the world—and yet
is somehow out of touch with the needs of the Birding Public... well, that irks
me!
“In answer to Nacho’s
idea of doing away with “Woodcreeper” in the name, I have also considered that
one. But there is almost no character about the genus Deconychura that
lends itself to a unique name. “Longtail” is hardly a useful name with taken
within the context of the larger World of Birds. There are so many other groups
with long-tailed birds, some very much longer-tailed than Deconychura
(Jaegers, Sylphs, Mousebirds, Tropicbirds, etc., etc.), that it is rendered
meaningless as a group name here. Woodcreepers are, by nature, very conserved
in morphology, so the genus simply does not lend itself well to a separate
group name such as “Scythebill” or something else catchy. As noted above, ALL
standard woodcreepers have “claw tails,” so that name seems poorly considered.
“Pinhead” would be one idea, but it is, of course, a bit derogatory and
unpleasant. So, after having already considered such options, I return to “XXX
Long-tailed Woodcreeper” as the best set of choices we have for now, but I am
open to considering other names.”
Response from Andrew
Spencer: “Lots of great comments on this proposal, and it has been a lot of fun to
read them all! I wanted to write in with my response to some of the points
raised by others. In response to Dan's two comments, I have to pretty strongly
disagree with him that the long tail is a useful ID in the field feature for
anyone other than the most experienced of Neotropical birders. I say this both
in the sense of having seen a decent number of Deconychura myself, and
having guided birders of varying skill levels and shown the birds to them.
“Conversely, I would also argue that
"Mournful" and "Whistling" DO distinguish those respective
members of the genus from ALMOST all other woodcreepers in range. I completely
agree that Nasica is more mournful sounding. And maybe even more
whistling. But other than that species, no other in range woodcreeper I listen
to really comes close to matching those particular characteristics. Granted,
this may be due to differing definitions of "mournful" and
"whistling". But on how I define those sounds, they are distinctive.
And I fully admit that "piping" is a less useful descriptor. But
still perfectly adequate to describe the sound, even if not completely
diagnostic. All that said, I could point out problems with almost every bird
name on the planet - the perfect bird name is a rare thing indeed. Especially
so among woodcreepers.
“Now at the point we all admit that there isn't
a slam dunk name for these birds, we do have to pick a less than ideal option.
I stand by my point that vocalization-based names are a better option for these
species that are almost always found by said vocalizations. And I still believe
that picking names that describe these sounds well - even if not 100%
diagnostically - do the best job of serving as large a share of the birding
public as is possible given the less than perfect naming options available.
“In response to Nacho's idea of a new group
name for Deconychura, in my mind woodcreepers aren't a great group to go
down this route. It's hard to find something about the genus that readily
distinguishes them from other woodcreepers, and it would stick out somewhat if
we carved one genus out of the larger whole over such slim differences.
Scythebills, as Dan says, work well because of how distinctive they are. The
best I could think of for Deconychura would be "Pinhead",
going on Mario's observations on their shape. But "Whistling Pinhead"
isn't a name I'd want to saddle any living thing with!”
Comments from Areta: “YES.
Woodcreepers are quite conserved in overall morphology, but yet we
recognize several genera with different proportions, and still call them all
"woodcreepers". The point of calling the Deconychura"
claw-tails" is not that they are immediately distinguished by that
feature, but rather to emphasize that they form a distinct group (this is what
names are for, calling them all woodcreepers is not better). It is also a
literal translation of the scientific name, and if we use it without losing our
temper about what it means, I do not see how using it as a common name could be
a bad thing on its own. Although I do not pretend a 100% match between genus
names and common names, it is nice when they go hand in hand. Scythebill is
quite coherent, but there are other woodcreepers that could be called
scythebills, and yet they are called woodcreepers. Then all the brutal, heavy
billed Xiphocolaptes are called woodcreepers, as are the minute,
slender, and short billed Sittasomus. Anyway, I do not pretend to
explain the differences between different genera of woodcreepers here, but if,
for example, we recognize the Cinclodes as cinclodes and the Upucerthia
as earthcreepers, then it seems that the time to move beyond "woodcreeper
for all" has come. Maybe a historical lack of field studies in the group
has resulted in all just being called woodcreepers (yes, pretty obvious that
most do "creep woods"). I am happy to begin to add some distinctive
names to the (sub)family (or at least to begin a discussion on the topic). I
think that it will soon be untenable to call the vast majority of the members
of this brown group as "woodcreepers" without creating massive
confusion and/or terribly uninspiring names, and I think that we should start
thinking on how to come up with better names for birds in which plumage is of
little help, shapes are tough to describe, and vocalization-based names are
doomed if all have to modify just the name "woodcreeper". So yes, I
am ready to open this can of worms and see what we can fish. I will give two votes here, following the
vocalization based names by Andrew and Josh:
“Preferred option
(that will surely fall in disgrace at present):
D. typica Piping Clawtail
D. longicauda: Whistling Clawtail
D. pallida: Mournful Clawtail
“YES to my second
option:
D. typica: Piping Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Woodcreeper”
Additional comments
from Donsker: “NO. As this
discussion develops, I have lost my initial enthusiasm for the use English
names based solely on vocalizations. Further, I am increasing persuaded by
Dan’s comments.
“So, why not combine
the essential components of Dan’s discussion with the very thing that attracted
many of us to the vocalization-based names in the first place and use the
following:
D. typica: Piping Long-tailed Woodcreeper
D. longicauda: Whistling Long-tailed Woodcreeper
D. pallida: Mournful Long-tailed Woodcreeper.
“I am perfectly aware
that many of us will likely balk at the perceived length of these names, but at
seven syllables, they aren’t any longer (and in some cases, shorter) than the
names we have already accepted for the Black-throated Trogons, and we have
managed to live with those names. Further, in the field I would bet that no one
is actually rattling off the full English names of these trogons when we
encounter them, and merely refer to them all as “Black-throated Trogon”.
“As a second option,
I would favor simply retaining the English names already in place, insipid as
they may seem to be.”
Additional comments
from Remsen: “I’m changing my
vote to NO following the reasoning of Mario and Dan.”
Additional comments from Peter Kaestner: “It has been interesting reading the
evolution of this topic through the comments of the team. All the suggestions have merit, and I
especially appreciate Dan’s comments about the “Birding Public.” Someday, it would be nice to find separate
names for the many diverse genera, but I can’t image the tsunami of discussion
that would elicit.
“I am struck with a
couple of thoughts. First is that we are
spending an inordinate amount of brainpower dealing with a relatively simple
issue. I definitely feel that we are
overthinking this. Additionally, I feel that we are trying to find a perfect
solution for an imperfect problem.
“The original names
are insipid, and the clawtails are too cute. The combo names using both tail
length and vocalizations are clumsy, and the strictly vocal monickers are not
always useful.
“So, I do not change
my vote. I prefer the vocal-description names for the following
reasons:
1. They are OK.
2. They are relatively short.
3. They will be no more or less appropriate than
the dozens of other OK names in the sub-family.
4. They will be useful for the Josh Becks and Dan
Lanes of the world who can point out to their clients why the bird they are
looking at or listening to is of the species that makes that vocalization.
5. Finally, they just might stimulate the
"Birding Public" to focus more on vocalizations and their role in
field identification. (With the ubiquitous use of Merlin, voice identification
will become even more widespread and important.)"
Comments from
Rasmussen (voting for Robbins): “Although I take everyone's points and objections to
these names, I agree most with both Andrew and Peter on this case. The
vocalization names, without the Long-tailed (which isn't very helpful, and may
in fact be misleading; I imagine someone looking for an obviously long tail and
deciding that can't be it), are pretty good in that they do distinguish them
from most other sympatric woodcreepers. They also tie the genus together, and
they almost certainly will stimulate people to pay more attention to songs.
Most bird names are pretty poor, really—for example, after being told that
Red-winged Blackbird is the kind of perfect name we should strive for, I made a
list of a dozen or so reasons why it's quite imperfect. What woodcreepers have
better or more helpful names than these vocalization-based names? The
scythebills, certainly, although there are sicklebills (in two unrelated
families) and scimitarbills to confuse the issue... I'm sticking with the
simple vocalization-based names I voted for the first time around.”
Comments from Zimmer: “NO.
Before diving too deeply into this, I would like to highlight a
couple of comments from Peter Kaestner: ‘ First
is that we are spending an inordinate amount of brainpower dealing with a
relatively simple issue. I definitely feel that we are overthinking this.
Additionally, I feel that we are trying to find a perfect solution for an
imperfect problem.’ ‘The original names
are insipid, and the clawtails are too cute. The combo names using both tail
length and vocalizations are clumsy, and the strictly vocal monickers are not
always useful.’
“That pretty much
sums up the problem in my mind – doing nothing is not an option, because we
have already adopted the split, and we need new names, and there are NO perfect
names to be had. I really do think that,
imperfect as they may be, the vocalization-inspired names suggested by Andrew
& Josh are better than attempts at morphologically descriptive names. That having been said, I also agree with
Dan’s point that these vocal descriptors only really make sense if they are
being used to differentiate between the various species of Deconychura,
NOT so much when being used to distinguish between all woodcreepers. We’ve run into this problem already with
English names for all of the trogon splits – pithy names like Amazonian Trogon
or Guianan Trogon really don’t make sense when considering the entire
family. They need to be paired with a
group name that narrows the field. For
that reason, I would be okay with retaining “Long-tailed Woodcreeper” as a
group name, paired with the vocal modifiers suggested by Andrew & Josh
(Piping, Whistling, Mourning). However,
that is a mouthful to use in the field.
Which then brings me to something first hinted at by Van, and then
greatly expanded upon by Nacho – how about employing a new group name of
“Clawtail” for Deconychura? The
more I consider this option, the more enthused I am about it. As Nacho pointed out, using “Clawtail” does
not imply that this tail morphology automatically distinguishes all Deconychura
species from all other woodcreepers. The
fact that it does not, should not disqualify us from using it as a group name,
any more than the fact that having a scythe-shaped bill fails to distinguish
the various species of Campylorhamphus from Drymornis bridgesii,
should disqualify our use of the group name “Scythebill” for Campylorhamphus. When all is said and done, “Clawtail” is just
a group name (and, in this case, a direct translation of the genus name), as is
“Woodcreeper” – no better perhaps, but also, I would argue, no worse, in terms
of descriptiveness, utility, or accuracy.
Sure, other woodcreepers have clawed tails, just as many other
non-Dendrocolaptids creep on wood! Dan
had this to say regarding Nacho’s idea: ‘In response to Nacho's idea of a new group name for Deconychura, in my mind woodcreepers aren't a great group to go down
this route. It's hard to find something about the genus that readily
distinguishes them from other woodcreepers, and it would stick out somewhat if
we carved one genus out of the larger whole over such slim differences.’
“I would argue that
woodcreepers are exactly the kind of group in which employing some novel
group names to carve out certain genera would work well. We
need some way to make sense out of naming options in speciose families in which
morphology is conserved. Look at Tyrant
flycatchers as an example. Having 300+
species of mostly drab-plumaged birds all have the group name of “Flycatcher”
or “Tyrannulet” presents an obvious quagmire.
So, we have Tody-Tyrants, Chat-Tyrants, Water-Tyrants, Spadebills, Flatbills,
Tody-Flycatchers, Royal-Flycatchers, Monjitas, Ground-Tyrants, Kingbirds,
Kiskadees, Pewees, etc, etc. The same
arguments against “Clawtail” as not being appropriately unique in
discriminating Deconychura from other woodcreepers, could also be
leveled against each of these tyrannid group names. But they help make sense out of the
inevitable clutter and confusion of dealing with so many species. As a committee, we have recently approved
moving to the group name of “Flatbill” (instead of Flycatcher) for the various Tolmomyias,
“Amazon” (instead of Parrot) for all of the members of Amazonus, and,
not too long ago, the completely novel “Stipplethroat” (instead of Antwren) for
the newly erected genus Epinecrophylla.
Such an approach even helps with speciose groups in which plumage is not
conserved, but wherein the overall diversity of color combinations lends its
own kind of naming confusion. Think
Trochilidae. Instead of 300 some species
with a descriptive modifier, followed by “Hummingbird” as a group name, we have
Starthroats, Starfrontlets, Emeralds, Sapphires, Mountain-gems, Sylphs,
Thorntails, Coquettes, Trainbearers, Sabrewings, Comets, etc, etc, and yes,
some of those group names are both appropriately descriptive and exclusive, but
many others are not. As for the argument
that carving out a novel group name for Deconychura might confuse
beginning birders as to why the various species are Clawtails instead of
Woodcreepers, I concede that many relative beginners will no doubt be confused
at first. But that is no different from
what is already happening, with many of my tour participants being confused
about Scythebills being Woodcreepers, or Kittiwakes being Gulls, or Fire-eyes
being Antbirds – it just takes getting used to.
I’ve made the same argument before about resistance to using the Genus
name as an English group name – a lot of people are very resistant to the idea
but think nothing of using Generic names such as Vireo, Junco, Pyrrhuloxia
or Phainopepla as English names, simply because they were already
entrenched as such when they first began birding.
“So, to sum up, here
is my vote:
1)
NO to the
simple vocal-descriptive names as laid out by Andrew & Josh in the
Proposal, but YES to pairing those same names with a group name.
2)
My clear preference would be to go with Nacho’s preferred
option (with the minor modification of Mourning rather than Mournful for pallida): D. typica = Piping Clawtail; D.
longicauda = Whistling Clawtail; and D. pallida = Mourning Clawtail.
3)
My second option would be to use the same
vocalization-based modifiers, paired with the clunky “Long-tailed Woodcreeper”
as the shared group name, as per David’s most recent comments”
Additional comments
from Josh Beck: “Although I think Clawtail is an
inspired name it’s not really describing the Long-tailed WCs more than other
WCs so I don’t feel like it’s a useful change. At this point I think the
compounded Piping, Mourning, and Whistling Long-tailed Woodcreeper is the best
choice - people can use either the voice based name or stick with Long-tailed
or use the whole mouthful as they like, there is no confusion, it just uses a
bit more ink in the guides.”
Comments from Andrew
Spencer: “My vote would be:
“1. Option A
2. Option B
3. Option E
4. Option C
5. Option D”
Comments from Lane: “Here are my opinions on the options provided
in the proposal. A) NO. These names, as I outlined in my responses to the
original proposal, simply are not helpful as they don’t distinguish the species
in question from the voices of other woodcreepers, including species often
occurring in the same area as the Deconychura. B) If I had to vote for any of these options,
this or E would be the ones I’d go for, I think. C) Sorry to Nacho and Kevin
and anyone else who thinks Clawtail is a good group name for Deconychura.
I simply don’t think it is, particularly in a family where there are either
"Woodcreeper" or "Scythebill" and not a wide variety of
other names. That would infer that the "Clawtail" name means
something useful in comparison to these other two names, which it simply
doesn't. D) This also seems to be a very weird answer to the issue (much like
Cinnamon Manakin-Tyrant, which still doesn’t sit well with me). I don’t like
putting “Long-tailed” ahead of the vocalization-related name, as it is a
strange combination I’m not sure has ever been attempted before (at least where
the penultimate name is not meant to be a group name, but the starting
descriptor is!). E) This would tie Option B for me.
“Now, let me throw
out another alternative that hasn’t been discussed. Trying to come up with
another feature of Deconychura that doesn’t allude to the tail and isn’t
a two-worded, hyphenated phrase, I realized that they are far and away the most
sexually dimorphic genus of woodcreeper in body size! Why not use “XX Dimorphic
Woodcreeper"? This removes the apparently hated “Long-tailed’ yet keeps
them as a group. I would even suggest that the long-tailedness is exaggerated
in the small-billed females because of the size dimorphism, and if you see a
male Deconychura, you may not be impressed by the long tail because the
bill and head seem so much more normal in proportion, and thus the tail doesn’t
seem so long. I think this may even explain why D. typica doesn’t look
“long-tailed’ to the folks who have spoken up about it… maybe they have largely
been seeing males? I was hoping to visit the LSU collection to photograph
specimens and show this exaggerated size difference, but alas the cabinets are
all being fumigated! Anyway, interested to see if anyone else thinks this has
legs?”
Comments from Stiles: “Looking over the general picture of these
names, I'll agree on three points: a) keeping "long-tailed"
(hereafter LT)as part of the E-name is appropriate for noting that this is
a split of the former species with this name, and so tying with all the
previous literature (which more than justifies its clunkiness; b) the best set
of characters devised for distinguishing the three species is voice; and c) the
invention of new group names seems so far to have shown little justification
(and generally causes mor confusion than it resolves.
“This said, my rating
of the six options is as follows, from best to worst:
“B: the best combination of voice and retaining
the LT.
E: retains the LT but the supposed
distinguishing features of the three are very inferior.
D: better for use of voice but dropping the LT
from the name of one weakens its continuity.
A: Voice-only names without LT could cause
total confusion with various sympatric species in other genera having
more-or-less similar vocalizations.
C: "clawtail" is cute but seems of at
best marginal use in woodcreepers, most of which have more or less
"clawed" tails.
F: "dimorphic" is also of marginal
use, first, because these species are nearly always seen as single individuals
and not pairs; and second, using it as a group name either means dropping the
LT and thus cutting off any connection with the literature (or by retaining the
vocal differences plus adding in LT would produce a monumentally clunky name
for each species).”