Proposal (1030) to South
American Classification Committee
Change English name of Masatierra
Petrel (Pterodroma defilippiana) to De Filippi’s Petrel
In
2003, a SACC proposal by Don Roberson to change the English name of this
species to De Filippi’s Petrel narrowly failed,
a 4:3: (https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop61.htm)
At the risk of wasting everyone’s time, I would like to reactivate
Don Roberson’s proposal (link above, which is worth re-reading for background),
and reiterate that most ‘real seabird people’ (still) refer to this as De
Filippi’s Petrel, not the unhelpful name Masatierra. Needless to say, the
recent Oceanic Birds of the World book (Howell & Zufelt 2019) used
De Filippi’s Petrel for this poorly known bird.
However, this takes on another twist, given that Masatierra (or
Mas a Tierra) Island no longer officially exists. In 1966, Chile renamed
Masatierra as Isla Robinson Crusoe, with Masafuera renamed Isla
Alejandro Selkirk, largely I think to promote tourism.
I’m not suggesting Pterodroma defilippiana be renamed
Robinson Crusoe Petrel, although in some ways it would be a fun juxtaposition
with Juan Fernandez Petrel (one of the few—or only?—"double-patronym”
birds using both names of the person). But it would be fitting and appropriate
to call it De Filippi’s Petrel, honoring an important historical figure, and
dissociate it from an island name that has been banished from the maps.
FWIW: Professor Filippo De Filippi (1814–1867), a renowned Italian
natural scientist and professor of zoology at the University of Turin, died
while engaged in scientific exploration on the 1866–1868 voyage of the vessel
Magenta (a la Pterodroma magenta aka Magenta Petrel) the first Italian
ship to circumnavigate the world, captained by Vittorio Arminjon (a la Pterodroma
arminjoniana aka Trindade Petrel)—not a bad voyage, discovering three new
species of gadfly petrels!
In conclusion, like most oceanic birds, Pterodroma defilippiana
doesn’t lend itself to helpful descriptive monikers, and honoring a pioneering
Italian scientist is more appropriate than naming the bird for an island that
the host country has renamed and (per Roberson’s proposal) where the species
may no longer actually breed.
Steve N. G.
Howell, August 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Mark Pearman (voting for Remsen): “NO. The proposal promotes
changing a well-established Spanish name to an eponym that is also well known,
but which is already honored in the scientific name. According to the Chileans
I have just asked, the name Masatierra is used for the island in ornithological
and birding circles as a preference over Robinson Crusoe. Then, the suggestion
that the species no longer breeds at Masatierra is an error. I have personally found active nests on the
satellite islet of Santa Clara, and seen presumed nesting activity on
Masatierra itself.
“Further, there is a spelling issue regarding de Felippi’s Petrel
as discussed by Jaramillo in the previous proposal (61). In sum, I think little
is to be gained by changing the name, and more can be lost. Masatierra is the
only inhabited island in the birds breeding range that anyone can actually
reach. To me, the name Masatierra Petrel is entrenched and significant.”
Comments from David Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “I am
persuaded by Mark’s insights and comments. I vote NO to the proposal to change
the English name of Pterodroma
defilippiana from its
current name Masatierra Petrel.”
Comments from Heraldo V. Norambuena (voting for Claramunt): “NO. The main argument
for changing the English name from Masatierra Petrel to De Filippi’s Petrel is
the recognition of Filippo De Filippi (1814–1867), but the scientific name Pterodroma
defilippiana already recognizes De Filippi (as explained in Giglioli and
Salvadori 1869); therefore, it seems unnecessary to me. The recognition is
already in the most important name. Regarding the use of
the name, the 'birding people' in Chile used the names 'Fardela blanca de
Masatierra' and 'Petrel de Masatierra' (in Spanish) despite the change of the
name of the islands in 1966; evidence of this are several field guides as
Jaramillo (2003, 2005), Martínez and Gonzalez (2017), Martínez (2023). About
this, the most relevant change of common name in Chile occurred with Barros et
al. (2015), who ordered the use of 'Fardelas' only for Puffinus and Ardenna
and 'Petreles' for the rest of Procellariidae, changing the use of 'Fardela
blanca de Masatierra' to 'Petrel de Masatierra'. In the case of Peru,
Schulenberg et al. (2007) used Masatierra Petrel and, in parenthesis, De
Filippi’s Petrel as the second option. De Filippi's Petrel is used only in
global guides like Howell and Zufelt (2019) or Onley and Scofield (2007).
Considering that Pterodroma defilippiana has a breeding distribution restricted
to Chile and that the main users of its common name are birdwatchers from Chile
and Peru (to a lesser extent) and extending the criterion of name stability to
this case (despite being a taxonomic criterion), I suggest keeping the name Masatierra
Petrel over De Filippi's Petrel, to avoid confusion. Finally, the Masatierra
Petrel readily provides information about its breeding distribution, which is
much more informative than an honorific name.”
Comments from Fernando Medrano (voting for Del-Rio): “NO. In Chile, where this species is an endemic
breeder (and almost endemic of Chilean waters, as far as it is known, despite
tracking data being needed), most local names have been chosen to relate the
species name with Masatierra, where this species breed: "Fardela blanca de
Más a Tierra" (Araya and Millie 1986, Martínez and González 2017),
"Fardela blanca de Masatierra" (Johnson 1965, Jaramillo et al. 2005),
"Petrel de Masatierra" (Barros et al. 2015), and "Petrel de Más
a Tierra" (Couve et al. 2016).
“In
English, there is also a long history of the usage of Masatierra: R. Murphy (a
real seabird person?) proposed the name "Mas Atierra Petrel" (Murphy
1929), and "Mas a Tierra Petrel" (Murphy 1936); the same with P.
Harrison: "Masatierra Petrel" (Harrison 1983).
“Regarding
the breeding site, as Steve stated, the species presumably no longer breeds in
Masatierra. However, it breeds in adjacent islets (Hodum 2012).”
“Also,
as M. Pearman mentioned, the proposal is wrong about using the name Masatierra.
Masatierra is largely used by the local community, Chilean birders, and
ornithologists.
“Last
but not least, in my opinion, the SACC should not back-paddle against the
current trend. Even if the current eponyms are not changed for the SACC, I
would not change bird names to eponyms unless the SACC makes an active decision
to allow so. Otherwise, the SACC may change back in only a few years.”
Comments from Jaramillo: “NO. The name Masatierra is
perfectly acceptable, and while not an official name of the island, it is still
used. Santa Clara Is., which is adjacent to Robinson Crusoe, falls under the
mantle of “Masatierra” basically the division was between the near and far
islands/islets. Many who argue that we need to keep honorifics argue that
history can be learned by following up on the names of these guys the birds are
named for. Well, I guess one could argue that history can be learned by
searching for the name Masatierra. If the committee has a great adverse
reaction to Masatierra, well does that not mean we would have to seriously
consider changing the Masafuera Rayadito? I think no one really wants to do
that.
“I asked for outside input from people closely involved in the
Juan Fernandez Archipelago. Folks at Oikonos
Ecosystem Knowledge who do a lot of work on the Juan Fernandez Islands were
asked about the name. The mayor of Juan Fernandez (Pablo Andrés Manríquez Angulo) who previously has worked with shearwater
conservation on the island wanted to make sure we knew that his preference was
Masatierra Petrel. Biologist Ryan Carle mentioned “My sense from working on JFI
is that locals know the names Masatierra and Masafuera well for the islands and
at least for Masafuera those names are still actively used in reference to the
islands.” Peter Hodum, biologist working on the
islands for many years on Pink-footed Shearwaters, noted that Masatierra and
Masafuera are commonly used in the archipelago by the locals currently.”
Comments from Areta: “NO. I
find Masatierra useful and evocative, with a local flavour
for a local breeder, and it seems inconsequential that the name of the island
is formally Robinson Crusoe: people in the islands, geographers, and lay people
will continue to call them Masatierra and Masafuera for obvious historical
reasons and for ease of communication. Also, both roll out of the tongue nicely
and are memorable Spanish contractions of "más a
tierra" (i.e., closer to mainland) and "más
afuera" or "mas a fuera"
(i.e., farther from mainland). In addition to the many historical (and future!)
problems with how to spell De Filippi, our good
Italian traveler has already been honoured in the
scientific name Pterodroma defilippiana, and calling the bird De
Filippi´s Petrel is telling nothing useful about the bird that is not already
being proclaimed in the scientific name. Pterodroma arminjoniana is not
called Arminjon´s Petrel nowadays, but instead
Trindade Petrel. Both provide a nice parallelism: adventurers in the Magenta (Arminjon and De Filippi) were honoured with scientific names of Pterodroma petrels,
and in both cases the common names match those of the main islands where they
breed, whereas the ship has been honoured in the
scientific and in the common name of Magenta Petrel P. magenta. I see no
important reasons to change the name of Masatierra Petrel.”
Comments from Stiles: “NO.
Masatierra is simply more useful, much better known and with a much longer
history of use, and should not be changed.”