Proposal (1032) to South
American Classification Committee
Change current taxonomy
of the genus Gygis: A) recognize subfamilies Gyginae and Anoinae within
Laridae; B) split White Tern (Gygis alba) into three species; and C)
revise English names for Gyginae
FOREWORD
Pratt's
(2020) paper, which is the primary basis for this proposal, was to have been coauthored
by Storrs L. Olson but the Covid-19 pandemic and resultant lockdown of the
research divisions of the Smithsonian Institution prevented him from retrieving
his notes on Gygis in time, and Pratt's paper was published only with
some information cited as pers. comm. from Olson. Not long afterwards, Olson
unfortunately fell ill and died (not from Covid). In June 2022, with the
invitation and assistance of Helen James, Pratt located Olson's Gygis
file in the Bird Division of the USNM, and took custody of it at the
institution's request. Surprisingly (Olson had not mentioned it), the folder
contained not only the expected data forms and correspondence, but also a
nearly finished 6-page typed draft, prepared in April 1994, of a paper about
species limits in Gygis. In an accompanying letter to the late Claudia Wilds,
Olson stated his intention to submit the paper as soon as possible but for
unknown reasons he never did so. The manuscript includes handwritten notations
in red made by Wilds along with a letter from her with additional relevant
comments. Copies of the MS plus Wilds's letter are attached herewith (following
Lit. Cit., pp. 12-18). Combined, they provide two pre-molecular "voices
from the grave" in support of the taxonomy proposed herein. Although we
cite Olson's (MS) findings where they supplement other results, we urge the
committee to read his entire original manuscript for the insights it contains,
including a summary of Olson's detailed analysis of specimens in the American Museum
of Natural History (from the Whitney South Sea Expedition) and the Smithsonian Institution
(from the Pacific Ocean Biological Survey, POSB). The actual handwritten measurements
that accompanied the Olson MS and can be supplied on request. Olson was quite prescient
of genetic research that later confirmed his suggestions regarding the
classification of Gygis and Anous.
This
proposal consists of three parts, which can be voted on separately.
A)
Recognize subfamilies Anoinae and Gyginae within the family Laridae.
Background: The SACC currently
classifies Gygis and Anous among the terns (Laridae: Sterninae).
New
information:
Although fine branching details may differ, nearly all recent studies (Bridge
et al. 2005, Pons et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2007, Cracraft 2013, Thibault and
Cibois 2017, Černý and Natale 2022) and world checklists (HBW and Birdlife
International 2022, Boyd 2024) recognize Gyginae and Anoinae as co-equal
subfamilies with Larinae, and Sterninae within Laridae. (These authors also include
Rhynchopinae which SACC regards as a separate family.) Olson (MS) anticipated
this arrangement based on osteological and other morphological criteria.
Thibault and Cibois (2017:246) produced a unified phylogeny based on four
studies that produced identical basal branching patterns (a remarkable fact in
and of itself):
Černý
and Natale (2022) differed in showing Rhynchopinae in the most basal position
and Gyginae and Anoinae as sister groups (but with a divergence well before
that of the other subfamilies) and regard the five lineages as of equal
subfamilial rank. Gill et al. (2024) place the noddies and Gygis in a
basal position among typical terns but do not designate subfamilies. Boyd (2024)
uniquely recognized Sternidae (terns including Sterninae and Gyginae) and
Laridae (gulls including Larinae and Anoinae). Clearly, Howell and Zufelt's
(2019) and Harrison et al.'s (2021) use of the term "white noddies"
for Gygis is no longer acceptable.
Recommendation:
We
recommend that the SACC bring its classification into line with the majority of
those that recognize subfamilies by recognizing Anoinae and Gyginae as basal to
other subfamilies within Laridae.
Note
from Remsen:
If this part of the proposal passes, then the Rynchopidae must also be ranked
as a subfamily.
B)
Split Gygis alba into three species.
Background: American
Ornithologists' Union (1998 and Supplements) lists the genus Gygis as
comprising a single species G. alba with three subspecies groups, alba,
candida, and microrhyncha (extralimital for SACC). The
differences of the form leucopes (Holyoak and Thibault 1974) were considered
"minor" by Thibault and Cibois (2017), and they disregarded it, as do
we. Subsequent authors have variously recognized one (Harrison et al. 2021),
two (Pratt et al. 1987, del Hoyo and Collar 2014, Boyd 2024) or three (Olson
2005, Steadman 2006, Howell and Zufelt 2019, Pratt 2020, HBW and Birdlife
International 2022) biological species within Gygis. Yeung et al. (2009),
supplemented by Thibault and Cibois (2017), used mitochondrial genes to
conclude that only one undifferentiated taxon of Gygis occurs in the
Pacific Ocean, but Thomas et al. (2004) and Černý and Natale (2022) split G.
microrhyncha (neither study included alba). For a discussion of
discordance among molecular findings and between molecular and phenotypic data see
Pratt (2020).
New
Information:
ARCHAEOLOGY.
Subfossil bones reveal that candida and microrhyncha were
sympatric in prehuman times over a ca. 9,000 km swath of the tropical Pacific
from Tinian in the Marianas to Easter Island. Here is the relevant text from
Steadman (2006:400):
This
alone establishes that these two taxa are separate species under the BSC. Thibault and Cibois (2017) suggested that
Steadman (2006) merely divided a continuum of size at some arbitrary point and
called larger specimens candida and smaller ones microrhyncha,
but that idea either overlooks or ignores qualitative differences of which
Steadman (2006) was clearly aware (Pratt 2020).
MORPHOLOGY
AND COLORATION. The genus Gygis exhibits two strikingly different bill shapes,
one resembling that of other small terns (Sterninae) and the other quite
distinctive. Those of alba and microrhyncha are of the former
type, with the loral feathering extending forward toward the nostrils and the
malar feathering also extending forward into the mandible. The bill of alba
is somewhat thicker at the base and the gonydeal angle somewhat more anterior,
but otherwise the two are similar in shape and both are black throughout. The
bill of alba is significantly larger than that of aptly named microrhyncha.
The bill of the more familiar candida is intermediate in size and
dagger-like or long triangular, with a basal insertion that forms a nearly
straight line in profile. The anterior half is black but from the nostrils and
gonydeal angle back, it is deep cobalt blue. These different bill shapes
produce somewhat different head profiles. A picture being worth 10K words, here
is Pratt's (2020) illustration:
The
three forms of Gygis also differ in tail shape, with candida
showing a more deeply forked tail than microrhyncha and alba
intermediate (although closer to candida); and in the amount of
pigmentation in the shafts of the outer primaries, with distinctly black shafts
in candida but alba and microrhyncha showing less
pigmentation that ranges from white to golden brown and occasionally to black
(Wilds, in litt., pers. obs.).
VOCALIZATIONS.
Pratt (2020) made the first detailed study of vocalizations, archived in Macaulay
Library (ML;www.macaulaylibrary.org) and Xeno-canto (XC; www.xeno-canto.org), in
Gygis. The voice of candida is well documented, but recordings of
microrhyncha and alba are scarce and therefore must be used with
caution in making comparisons. Nevertheless, Pratt (2020:204) concluded that
each taxon in the genus has "a unique vocal repertoire easily
distinguishable from the other two". The vocalizations of alba are
particularly distinctive in being "strikingly lower pitched" than those of candida
or microrhyncha with few obvious homologies. One vocalization (XC431354)
appears to have no equivalent in either Pacific form. Although further research
on vocalizations of alba and microrhyncha is needed, current knowledge
suggests that vocal differences may well serve as isolating mechanisms among
three species.
STATUS
OF ALBA: The question of whether alba is a third species or
conspecific with microrhyncha was addressed by Olson (MS), who concluded
that the striking difference in size warranted species status. Pratt's (2020)
observations on vocalizations add further evidence that alba is
distinct. To date, no published genetic studies have included alba, but
unpublished preliminary data from N. Yeung (pers. comm.) suggest that alba is
genetically "very different". Obviously, this is fertile ground for
further research.
Recommendation: Split Gygis alba
into three species: G. alba (South Atlantic islands of Ascension, St. Helena, Fernando de Noronha,
and Trindade); G. candida (tropical Indian and Pacific oceans);
and G. microrhyncha (extralimital in Marquesas Islands south of
Hatutaa, with historical occurrence in Kiribati). With this split, add G.
candida to the South American Checklist.
C)
Revise English names within Gyginae:
Background: As a single iconic
species, G. alba has long been, and continues to be, called "fairy
tern" by the lay public (Wilds, in litt.). That name has now been
restricted by various "official" lists, including AOS, to Sternula
nereis of southern Australia and New Zealand, but its use persists elsewhere
for G. alba especially where the birds are conspicuous to large
English-speaking populations. Even among those who use "White Tern",
that name is often, perhaps usually, followed by some phrase such as "also
known as fairy tern." In Honolulu, where the bird is an official city
icon, the hybrid name "White Fairy Tern" has gained popularity as an
informal way to get around the problem (see Pratt 2020 for references,
especially Floyd 2019). Note that if we recognize 3 species of Gygis,
the unmodified name White Tern should be reserved for the original unsplit
species.
New
information:
All
other Larid subfamilies, Anoinae (noddies), Larinae (gulls), Rhynchopinae
(skimmers), and Sterninae (terns), have single-word group-names with their own
separate listings in indexes. Use of "white terns" as a group-name,
even if hyphenated, in our opinion fails to distinguish the Gyginae adequately
from the Sterninae and will surely obfuscate. Pratt (2020) proposed the novel
single word group-name "fairyterns", for the
Gyginae to emphasize that they are NOT terns in the traditional sense, and
leaving Fairy Tern (sometimes Austral Fairy Tern) for Sternula nereis.
Note that "fairytern" has a subtly different pronunciation from
"fairy tern". We are aware that this committee would ordinarily
prefer the construct "fairy-tern" as did Pratt et al. (1987), but
experience has taught us that indexers can be stubborn and idiosyncratic in
such matters and may index the three species of Gygis among the true
terns, hyphen notwithstanding. Thus "fairy-tern" is invested with the
same problems as "white-tern". " Fairytern" allows no
indexing option. This exception for Gygis is only necessary if the
subfamily Gyginae is recognized (Part A). As Pratt (2020:206) observed, using
"fairytern" will "allow non-professionals to maintain a beloved
and widely used name without being scolded by pedants." Pratt (2020)
proposed the English names Common Fairytern (G. candida), Little
Fairytern (G. microrhyncha), and Atlantic Fairytern (G. alba) for
the three species. We acknowledge that "Common" as an adjective in
English bird names has met with some recent disfavor, but we believe it is
particularly appropriate in this case because it is the fairytern most people
will see, being vastly more widespread and common than the other two species,
and the name has a long history of use in the Pacific (at least since Pratt et
al. 1987). AOU (1998) uses "Pacific" for candida but that is
geographically too restrictive. Howell and Zufelt (2019) suggested the epithet
Indo-Pacific for G. candida, but, while accurate, it is something of a
mouthful and unfamiliar to most potential users.
Recommendation: Assuming Part A is
approved, adopt the English single word group-name "fairyterns" for the
Gyginae, and the English names Atlantic Fairytern (G. alba), Common
Fairytern (G. candida), and Little Fairytern (G. microrhyncha)
for the subfamily's three species.
Literature
Cited:
American
Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th. Edition American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.
Baker, A. J., S. L.
Pereira, and T. A. Paton. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times
of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of at
least 14 clades of shorebirds. Biology Letters 3: 205-210.
Boyd, J. H., III. 2024.
Taxonomy in flux: Version 3.49, June 19, 2024 (February 21, 2024). Accessed 4
August 2024.
Bridge, E. S., A. W.
Jones, and A. J. Baker. 2005. A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini)
inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage coloration.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35:459-469.
Černý, D., and R.
Natale. 2022. Comprehensive taxon sampling and vetted fossils help clarify the time
tree for shorebirds (Aves, Charadriiformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 177: 107620.
Cracraft, J., 2013.
Avian higher-level relationships and classification: Nonpasseriforms. In: Dickinson,
E.C., Remsen, J.V. (Eds.), The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds
of the World, Volume 1: Non-passerines (4th edition). Aves Press, Eastbourne,
UK, pp. xxi– xliii.
Del Hoyo, J., and N. J.
Collar. 2014. HBW and BirdLife International checklist of the birds of the world.
Vol. 1: Non-passerines. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Gill F., D. Donsker
& P. Rasmussen (Eds). 2024. IOC World Bird List (v14.1). doi:
10.14344/IOC.ML.14.1.
Floyd, T. 2019. How to
know the birds: no. 20, Alien fairies in the big city. https://blog.aba.org/2019/11/how-to-know-the-birds-no-20-alien
fairies-in-the-big-city.html. American Birding Association, Delaware City.
Harrison, P., M.
Perrow, and H. Larsson. 2021. Seabirds: The new identification guide. Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona.
HBW and BirdLife
International. 2022. Handbook of the Birds of the World and BirdLife International
digital checklist of the birds of the world. Version 7. Available at: http://datazone.birdlife.org/userfiles/file/Species/Taxonomy/HBW
- BirdLife_Checklist_v7_Dec22.zip
Holyoak, D. T., and J.
C. Thibault. 1976. La variation geographique de Gygis alba. Alauda 44:457-473.
Howell, S. N. G., and
K. Zufelt. 2019. Oceanic Birds of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton
and Oxford.
Pons, J.-M., A.
Hassanin, and P.-A. Crochet. 2005. Phylogenetic relationships within the
Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:686-699.
Pratt, H. D. 2020.
Species limits and English names in the genus Gygis (Laridae). Bulletin
of the British Ornithologists' Club 140:195-208.
Pratt, H. D., P. L.
Bruner, and D. G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical
Pacific. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Steadman, D. W. 2006.
Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific birds. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Thibault, J.-C., and A.
Cibois. 2017. Birds of Eastern Polynesia: a Biogeographic Atlas. Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona.
Yeung, N. W., D. B.
Carlon, and S. Conant. 2009. Testing subspecies hypotheses with molecular markers
and morphometrics in the Pacific White Tern complex. Biological Journal of the Linnean
Society 98:586-595.
Storrs
Olson’s original MS with comments from Claudia Wilds:
Letter
from Claudia Wilds to Storrs Olson:
H. Douglas Pratt and Eric
A. VanderWerf (and Storrs L. Olson, posthumous contributor)
September 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles: “B. Gygis:
Yes to recognizing the three species mentioned – and I found both Olson’s and Steadman’s comments
exceptionally interesting.”
Comments
from David Donsker (who has Bonaccorso vote on C):
“C. NO. Although
I am very sympathetic with Doug’s efforts to invent a new English name for
these ethereal species which incorporates the delightful “Fairy Tern” in its construction,
the compound word “fairytern”, in my opinion, smacks
as an artificial and unnecessary neologism.
“The
Australians have justifiably strong claims to use “Fairy Tern” for Sternula
nereis, so it is best to remove that name from use for Gygis species.
“White
Tern” is now firmly established for Gygis, and perhaps though not as
evocative nor as romantic as a name that includes “fairy”, is perfectly
descriptive of these essentially pure white species.
“I am not
as concerned about the “indexing issues” as Doug writes.
“So, I
vote NO to adopting “fairytern” for this group.
Instead, I would prefer “white tern” or, if we must, “white-tern”. I would follow Doug’s recommended adjectives
per his discussion (but I would certainly accept “Pacific” or “Indo-Pacific”
White Tern for G. candida, if
either of these two names were preferred over “Common” by the majority):
Gygis alba Atlantic White Tern
(White-Tern)
Gygis candida Common White Tern
(White-Tern)
Gygis microrhyncha Little
White Tern (White-Tern).”
Comments
from Remsen:
“A. YES. I’m in favor of recognizing deep
splits within families by applying taxon ranks such as subfamilies and tribes.
“B. YES to three species, which all
differ from one another by a suite of phenotypic characters, including
voice. I think burden-of-proof falls on
treating them as a single species, especially given that only minor phenotypic
differences are used to delimit several species of terns and gulls. For example, Least Tern (Sternula
antillarum) and Little Tern (S. albifrons) are arguably more
similar, phenotypically, than are the three Gygis taxa.
“C. NO.
“Fairy Tern” is too well-established for S. nereis, which is too
bad because as noted in the proposal, I think it is more apt for Gygis. Further, one word ‘Fairytern’
is a fairly unusual construction, although we do already have the single word
‘fairytale’, which is a parallel construction.
This dislike of Fairytern” is simply a matter
of taste on my part (and if it were up to me, it would be ‘fairy-tale’ just
because it think “ryt” is an ugly combination). So, I agree with David and think we should go
with Something White-Tern for each one, but dredging the depths for a
replacement for ‘Common.’”
Comments from Areta:
“B. I vote NO to any
split. The fossil evidence is not so straightforward to interpret:
variation in size could mean many things, especially when dealing with fossils,
which themselves could have been from slightly different times (I find the
argument of strict sympatry/syntopy without interbreeding based on fossils very
hard to buy) or could have represented former variation (and looking at the PCA
in Thibault & Cibois 2017, a diagnosability/effect size test is called for,
as several ‘microrhynchus’ bridge the gap). I am not happy with
considering the fossil data as evidence of the ‘gold standard’ of syntopy
without hybridization.
“The fact that Pratt (2020) himself
finds evidence of "genetic swamping", and that candida and microrhynchus
seem to hybridize extensively in Hatutaa is in agreement with considering the forms here as a single
species. Based on the available evidence, it seems that just not enough time
has passed to grant the somewhat distinctive microrhynchus enough time
to speciate and stay separate from candida.
“As for the split of alba from candida/microrhynchus,
it might be correct and to me more easily digestible than the split of candida from
microrhynchus, but where are the data?
“The case is interesting for a full
genomic study, given the morphological features that Pratt points out. I prefer
not to discard the mtDNA similarity as some kind of aberration or simply a
product of historical hybridization events, but I would rather take the
opposite view: someone must show the extent of genomic differentiation between
the hybridising taxa in order to have a firm grasp of
what is going on. This is especially relevant in light of the wild variation in
size of birds from the Atlantic islands (Fernando de Noronha, Ascension,
Trindade, St. Helena) reported by Olson in his manuscript (although the
measurements are not shown).
“Vocalizations need to be properly analysed. Until then, the vocal evidence (pitch differences
only, perhaps, which could be simply a biomechanical byproduct of size) seems
inconclusive.
“I see with kind eyes the 3-way
split, but I think that there is not enough evidence to fully support this
treatment, and there are many populations that seem to be telling different
stories here (e.g., leucopes seems quite
distinctive!). If any different population is called a species, it seems that
we should have many more Gygis species, not just 3. Meanwhile, although
the single-species is not very appealing, the 3-species option is also
problematic.”
Comments from Rasmussen (voting for
Robbins on C.):
“C. I'm not sold on fairytern, given the potential for confusion with THE Fairy
Tern (or Australian Fairy Tern, as Clements has it). Really Gygis are
more fairy-like than Sternula nereis in appearance, though they don't
sound like anyone's idea of what a fairy should sound like. White tern is
awfully blah for these ethereal creatures, but it is deeply ingrained. One
option might be to use Gygis as a group common name, but then, does anyone
really know how it should be pronounced (without googling it)? Combined, there
are four different ways to pronounce the gs... So,
assuming SACC splits them (as WGAC/AviList has voted to do), I'm voting for
Atlantic White-Tern, Little White-Tern, and Indo-Pacific White-Tern. These are
the Howell/Zufelt names except using Tern instead of
the misleading Noddy.”
Comments from Bonaccorso: “A. YES.
The “summary phylogeny” shows deep splits that may help understand differences
among taxa in these different lineages when ranked as subfamilies.”
Comments from Robbins:
“A: YES to recognition of the
subfamilies.
“B: YES. Based on morphology and
what current vocal data indicate coupled with what Steadman determined from
subfossil bones (very cool!) it appears that three species of Gygis
should be recognized.”
Comments from Lane:
“A) YES.
“B) YES. I think Pratt has made a
strong case for recognition of three species here. “C) NO to the suggested name
“Fairytern” as per comments from other committee
members above. As lovely as it would be to use “Fairy Tern” or some similar
construction for Gygis, I think we’re best off avoiding the inevitable
confusion by adopting “White Tern” or “White-Tern.” Using “Atlantic,”
“Indo-Pacific,” and “Little” would probably be best.”
Comments
from Zimmer:
“
“A)
YES. These deep splits should be
recognized at equal levels across the family.
“B)
“YES to the 3-species treatment. As
stated in the Proposal, the fossil evidence presented in Steadman (2006)
showing prehistoric sympatry of candida and microrhyncha provides
an argument for treating those two taxa as separate under the BSC, and the
other morphological distinctions, particularly those of bill shape and
coloration are enough to convince me that all 3 should be treated as separate
species, and that’s not even taking into account the vocal differences
suggested by Pratt (2020). Also, going
back to morphological distinctions, along with the bill differences between candida
and alba/microrhyncha, the included illustration from Pratt (2020)
suggests that alba has eyes that are not only larger in actual size, but
also relatively larger, and differently placed, compared to those of the other
two taxa. If this is consistent as
illustrated, it suggests some ecological distinction that could be every bit as
significant as are the bill shape/structure distinctions. And, going back to the bill differences, I
would have to think that the contrasting, cobalt blue bill base of candida, versus
the entirely black bills of microrhyncha and alba would also
have some significance to mate choice & conspecific recognition in a group
in which neither plumage nor other bare parts differ in color. I think Van’s point about the minor
phenotypic differences used to delimit several species of terns and gulls is
also pertinent to this discussion and places the burden of proof firmly onto
those who would advocate for maintaining a single species.
“C)
NO to the suggested group name of “Fairyterns”,
primarily for the possible confusion it could engender with Sternula nereis. I must say that I don’t share the same
negative reaction to the construction of the name as others – after all, we
have Fairywrens, which I haven’t heard any complaints about. So, I would go with White Tern (with or
without the hyphen, although I suspect our guidelines might require it) as the
group name and then, Atlantic (alba), Blue-billed (1st
choice, with Indo-Pacific as my 2nd choice) (candida), and
Little (microrhyncha) as the modifiers.
Yes, I know, only the base of the bill is blue in candida, but it
is an obvious field mark in a group of 3 otherwise similar taxa, and it rolls
off the tongue more readily than Indo-Pacific (and “Common” is just really
objectionable to me).”
Comments
from Mark Pearman (voting for Claramunt on C):
“C.
NO. Like others, I agree that “Fairytern” is a
confusing group name which should not be used. As for vernacular names, I agree
with using Atlantic White Tern G. alba (preferably without a
hyphen) and Little White Tern G. microrhyncha. I am also fully sold
on Kevin Zimmer’s Blue-billed White Tern G. candida which I think
is a great solution. When using “common” in a vernacular name, what we usually
mean to say or imply is “widespread”, but we just can’t step over the line and
call a bird Widespread Suchandsuch. Kevin’s
solution points to a unique feature of candida within the genus Gygis
and that is all that is needed, assuming that the split goes through.”
Comments
from Claramunt:
“A. YES. Subfamily
ranks will highlight the basal divergence of Gygis and Anous.
And, to be consistent, we need to bring in skimmers as a subfamily too, as I
proposed a while ago (Proposal 810).
“B. NO. There are
definitely very interesting morphological variations in body size, bill anatomy,
and tail morphology (and voice), but a more explicit quantitative analysis of
geographic variation is needed, in my opinion. Those who have analyzed
variation in detail (Storrs, Doug, and the cited papers) have found intergrades
between candida and microrhyncha(See another example of a bill
morphology intermediate between candida and microrhyncha from Hatutu: https://ebird.org/checklist/S64822306). And the genetic data
so far suggest a single, well-mixed population across the Pacific. The
morphological variation alone does suggest that more than one species is
involved, but the evidence for the split is still unclear to me, in the face of
the evidence of intergradation. Both genetics and morphology indicate gene flow
and intergradation. The case for separating alba from the other may be
stronger but a quantitative analysis is needed.”
Comments from Stiles:
“A. treat
Gyginae as a subfamily of Laridae (ditto Anouinae):
YES. As Van noted, phylogenetic consistency would also favor demoting
Rynchopidae to a subfamily (a separate proposal?).
“B.
recognize alba, candida and microrhyncha as species: YES -
morphology, vocalizations and distribution all fit -but the sticking point
could be the existence of apparent hybrids between candida and microrhyncha
some islands. As far as I can determine, these represent a small subset of the
many islands where the two both occur, acting as distinct species (am I correct?)
“C. NO. The
group name "Fairyterns" doesn´t convince
me: it seems too polysyllabic with the accent falling on "fairy", not
"terns" I prefer White Terns (best without hyphenation) for the
group; the species epithets suggested (Atlantic, Indo-Paific,
and Little) are OK by me.”
Comments from Kimball Garrett (voting for
Del-Rio):
“A. YES to the
recognition of subfamilies Anoinae, Gyginae, and Rynchopinae.
“B. YES to the
three-way split of alba, candida, and microrhyncha. Note,
however, that the NACC is adjudicating this issue at the same time, and I hope
both committees reach the same decision.
“C. NO to the use of “fairytern” as a group name. I do like “Fairy Tern” as a
group name, but its use for an Australasian species of Sternula
essentially makes it unavailable, and I doubt we are open to lobbying
Australian ornithologists to change that name to something like “Wee
Tern.” Therefore, I would go with “White
Tern” or “White-Tern” for the group name. As for modifiers for the three
proposed species, I think Little White Tern for microrhyncha and
Atlantic White Tern for alba make sense. As for candida, I am
fine with “Indo-Pacific White Tern,” and I note that “Indo-Pacific” is a very
common modifier in English names of non-avian marine species (though,
surprisingly, not used for any species of bird). Having said that, this is a
case where I would also be happy with “Common” as a modifier, since candida is
overwhelmingly the most common Gygis species, both in absolute numbers
(perhaps two orders of magnitude more numerous than the other two species) and
in breadth of geographic range.”
Comments from A. W. Diamond (voting
for Jaramillo):
“I am not a systematist, nor a
geneticist, but have extensive experience of Gygis in the Indian Ocean
(which seems to be somewhat neglected by most in this field). I also have
strong opinions on the English nomenclature of this fascinating bird! I have
read through most of what you sent and offer the following response:
A: There
seems to be an impressive amount of genetic evidence supporting this case, so I
am happy to answer YES.
B: I had been
unaware of Steadman's evidence for coexistence of candida and microrhyncha
in the Pacific prior to human colonisation; this
seems to clinch the case for responding YES.
C: This is
where things get difficult! I see that most respondents prefer some version of
White Tern because Sternula nereis has co-opted Fairy Tern, but
throughout the Indian Ocean (and I think
in Hawaii too?) the common name among both local people and visitors unaware of
the existence of S. nereis is Fairy Tern, and since they are so numerous
there, more weight should be given to local usage and acceptance. The arcane
'rules' of English bird nomenclature are irrelevant to most people who live
among the birds. Also 'White Tern' is as bland and unappealing as 'Black Tern'
- surely we can do better?
“So here again I vote YES for
some version of Fairytern though 'Common' should
always be avoided and I would go for Indopacific by
preference.”