Proposal (1036.2) to South American Classification Committee

Establish English names for Tunchiornis ochraceiceps complex, 2.0

In the first iteration of the proposal, only one part passed (10-0) for Ochre-crowned Greenlet. The other three options failed 0-10, 6-4, and 6-4. So, let’s do a round of ranked choice voting to determine the final names.

Although Ochre-crowned was unanimous in the first round, I’ve added Mario’s and Josh’s additional suggestions for this round, just for the sake of completeness. I have included all the suggested names that I could find in the first round of comments, with the original proposal’s proposed name listed first. If you see something I’ve missed or have had a light-bulb new idea, let me ASAP. I have not included the possible group names Tunchiornis, Tawnycrown, Sprite, or Bosquino because not more than one person voiced support for these. If someone wants to do a separate proposal on whether to abandon Greenlet as the group name, then please do.

I have not included any of the discussion of the names here, just the bare-bones names. See Comments on 1.0 for discussions of specific names.

Sorry for the complexity, but I see no simpler way to proceed. The code following the name refers to the line on the voting chart – they will come in handy for me if you use them in your rankings.

1. Tunchiornis ochraceiceps

a. Ochre-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1a)

b. Rusty-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1b)

c. Tawny-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1c)

d. Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1d)

2. Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons

a. Rufous-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2a)

b. Rusty-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2b)

c. Ferruginous-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2c)

d. Rusty-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2d)

e. Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2e)

3. Tunchiornis luteifrons

a. Olive-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3a)

b. Buff-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3b)

c. Dull-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3c)

d. Saffron-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3d)

e. Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3e)

4. Tunchiornis rubrifrons

a. Reddish-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4a)

b. Red-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4b)

c. Reddish-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4c)

d. Red-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4d)

e. Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4e)

Please send me your rankings for each of the 4 species, with “1” being best and so on.

Van Remsen, February 2025

Vote tracking chart: https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart968-1043.htm

Comments from Mario Cohn-Haft (voting for Claramunt):

“T. ochraceiceps

1. Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1d)

2. Tawny-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1c)

3. Rusty-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1b)

4. Ochre-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1a)

T. ferrugineifrons

1. Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2e)

2. Rusty-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2b)

3. Ferruginous-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2c)

4. Rusty-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2d)

5. Rufous-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2a)

“T. luteifrons

1. Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3e)

2. Dull-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3c)

3. Saffron-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3d)

4. Buff-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3b)

5. Olive-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3a)

“T. rubrifrons:

1. Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4e)

2. Reddish-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4a)

3. Red-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4b)

4. Reddish-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4c)

5. Red-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4d)

“Wow, I hadn’t seen all the great points raised more recently in the first round of voting! I agree with practically everything everybody said. In the end, I think I really do like the geographic modifiers best, because they’re short and sweet and also diagnostic (within the species complex). So, my first choice for each of the 4 spp. is the geographic one. My second choice is the back or crown for the NWesternmost spp. and front for the SEasterlies. I could’ve stopped there but ranked the rest anyway just to follow what I understood to be the rules.

“As for the group (genus) name, it might be worth a separate vote. Tawny-crowned Greenlet (especially with the geographic modifiers) seems to work fine and has the great advantage of keeping the familiar name that had been applied to the whole complex when treated as one species. However, it is long and cumbersome, and just Greenlet also works fine, including for the geographic names (see below)and has the advantage of keeping it short while the geo-modifiers (not used for other greenlets) maintain the notion of a coherent group for the four spp. Also, Tunchiornis has started to grow on me (and who cares if there’ll be different pronunciations?). I’m tempted to make up other cute new names (in the spirit of Treelet, Sprite, etc.) and thought of Brownlet, Vireolet, and some others. But in the end I’m not really strongly attracted to any of them.

“So, if we do vote on the group name separately, then I’d propose these names (already ordered by my voting preference):

1. Tunchiornis

2. Greenlet

3. Tawny-crowned Greenlet (only in combination with the geographic modifiers)

4. other novelties and cute or poetic names…

“In other words, my overall top choices, taking into account different possible group names from those proposed in combination with the names offered for voting this round, would be:

“T. ochraceiceps

1. Northern Tunchiornis

2. Tawny-backed Tunchiornis

3. Northern Greenlet

“T. ferrugineifrons

1. Western Tunchiornis

2. Rusty-crowned Tunchiornis

3. Western Greenlet

“T. luteifrons

1. Guianan Tunchiornis

2. Dull-fronted Tunchiornis

3. Guianan Greenlet

“T. rubrifrons

1. Southern Tunchiornis

2. Reddish-fronted Tunchiornis

3. Southern Greenlet

Additional comment from Remsen: “Although a different group name might change preferences for the modifiers, for now let’s stick to the current sent of choices with respect to Greenlet. That name no longer has any phylogenetic significance within the Vireonidae given that Pachysylvia species are also called Greenlets in addition to the original Hylophilus. Like so many group names, Greenlet now refers to small, mostly greenish and grayish vireonids, and in that sense is useful. Once the current proposal runs its course, if someone wants to follow that up quickly with a proposal to use Tunchiornis as a group name, that’s the way we should proceed.”

Comments from Areta: “Here are my ranked votes (if I understood correctly what to do: 1-most preferred, 4-5: least preferred):

“1. Tunchiornis ochraceiceps

a. Ochre-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1a) 1

b. Rusty-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1b) 3

c. Tawny-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1c) 4

d. Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1d) 2

“2. Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons

a. Rufous-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2a) 2

b. Rusty-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2b) 1

c. Ferruginous-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2c) 3

d. Rusty-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2d) 4

e. Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2e) 5

“3. Tunchiornis luteifrons

a. Olive-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3a) 5

b. Buff-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3b) 1

c. Dull-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3c) 3

d. Saffron-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3d) 2

e. Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet  (1036.2.3e) 4

“4. Tunchiornis rubrifrons

a. Reddish-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4a) 2

b. Red-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4b) 1

c. Reddish-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4c) 5

d. Red-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4d) 4

e. Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4e) 3”

Comments from David Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “What a complex case. Although I think that Mario’s suggestion to use geographic modifiers actually makes a lot of sense, I’d prefer to stick with morphologic adjectives despite their limitations, if only to keep the names shorter.

“Further, it helps me to try to keep the English name as close to the scientific name as possible to further reduce the confusion.

“So, here is my best shot:

“Tunchiornis ochraceiceps
1. Ochre-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1a)
2. Rusty-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1b)
3. Tawny-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1c)
4. Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1d)

Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons
1. Rufous-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2a)
2. Rusty-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2d)
3. Rusty-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2b)
4. Ferruginous-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2c)
5. Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2e)

Tunchiornis luteifrons
1. Buff-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3b)
2. Olive-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3a)
3. Dull-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3c)
4. Saffron-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3d)
5. Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3e)

Tunchiornis rubrifrons
1. Reddish-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4a)
2. Red-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4b)
3. Reddish-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4c)
4. Red-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4d)
5. Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4e)”

Comments from Josh Beck (voting for Jaramillo): “I will actually vote for D/E/E/E and abstain from choosing between the other names. To me the longer this discussion has gone on, it is increasingly just color/body part soup (and I hope that doesn't offend anyone else who has put a lot of effort into the naming process, that isn't my intent). I really don't think that the destabilization of names is worth it. Rereading this proposal and the proposed names I can no longer remember all the logic to get to any decision between the names and I am unfortunately pretty certain I will not remember the names very well so it's hard to express any preference.

“The more I think about it, I also disagree with using Tunchiornis. I think that there are not a lot of cases where using generic names for group names is actually helpful. English / common names should actually express some meaning to the people who are likely to encounter them. People know what a Greenlet is, for better or worse, and I would argue that though it isn't phylogenetically neatly packaged it is a very useful name that concisely identifies the small neotropical vireos, everyone knows what to expect when reading the name Greenlet. 

“Simplifying to Greenlet will lose the (valuable) group binding between these birds and will sacrifice stability. The existing name of Tawny-crowned Greenlet is very concisely understood and as it stands now has never been a controversial name or one that invites confusion as far as I am aware. Though new guide books will print the names a little bit longer if they are Northern, Western, Guianan, and Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet, we would not be changing both parts of the name at the same time, would not be inviting any confusion or requiring anyone to memorize new color/body part based names, and anyone that wants to can just keep calling them Tawny-crowned Greenlets given the lack of any known overlap in range. I see this as similar to the Black-throated Trogon case. The compound names are long. and no one loves that, but I cannot convince myself that the alternative names are better or that the destabilization is worthwhile. In this case I just don't think we should toss out what are the readily available, least disruptive, least confusing names available over a few syllables."

Comments from Rasmussen (who has Robbins’ vote):

“1. Tunchiornis ochraceiceps

d. Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1d): 1

I am voting for regional and geographic names in most cases. This one is almost completely unambiguous (except for the farthest southwestern population).

c. Tawny-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1c): 2

“Tawny” ties it in with the previous name and is descriptive of this taxon, as opposed to the others.

b. Rusty-backed Greenlet (1036.2.1b): 3

“Rusty” makes one expect a stronger rusty tinge.

a. Ochre-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.1a): 4

“Ochre” comes in various colors and so I think means very little.

2. Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons

e. Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2e): 1

Geographic names are best in this group, if preceding Tawny-crowned.

c. Ferruginous-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2c): 2

OK but Ferruginous-fronted would be more accurate and would better reflect the scientific name and plumage.

d. Rusty-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2d): 3

Accurate and at least mirrors the scientific name.

b. Rusty-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.2b): 4

Less accurate and less similar to scientific name.

a. Rufous-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.2a): 5

This sounds too generic, even if not wrong.

3. Tunchiornis luteifrons

e. Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3e): 1

Good name, the most useful one of these choices by far.

a. Olive-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.3a): 2

Although “olive” would imply a more greenish tone than what I see in photos, it nevertheless has the drabbest crown color and thus it works.

b. Buff-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3b); 3

I guess the front is sort of buffy.

c. Dull-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3c): 4

I think “Dull” always sounds insulting even when true. “Drab” would be slightly better.

d. Saffron-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.3d): 5.

Nice-sounding but makes you expect something that really isn’t there.

4. Tunchiornis rubrifrons

a. Reddish-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4a): 1

Best and most accurate.

e. Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4e): 2

I was going to rank this 1 along with the other geonyms but it’s simply not accurate. Look at the map… I would have preferred Para Tawny-crowned Greenlet, which encompasses the vast majority of the range.

b. Red-fronted Greenlet (1036.2.4b): 3

This is OK, although it’s of course not truly red (as with so many other bird names).

c. Reddish-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4c): 4

From the photos I can see, the crown isn’t reddish, or at least not noticeably so.

d. Red-crowned Greenlet (1036.2.4d): 5

Least accurate.

“All that said, I would have preferred the group name Tunchiornis, but I gather that’s out. I was taken with the coined name “Brownlet”, given that it a) mirrors African bulbuls; b) is more apt than “greenlet” for these birds that don’t have a hint of green as far as I can see; c) distinguishes this lineage from the “true” greenlets, at least most of which have a tinge or more of green; and d) is close enough to the familiar name greenlet that people are not likely to be confused much if at all by it.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Proposal (1036.1) to South American Classification Committee

Establish English names for Tunchiornis ochraceiceps complex

With the passage of SACC 1008, we now recognize 4 species for the species once known as Tawny-crowned Greenlet, as follows:

• Tunchiornis ochraceiceps: s. Mexico through Central America to nw. Colombia and south in Chocó region to nw. Ecuador; includes T. o. bulunensis.

• Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons (Sclater, 1862): w. Amazonia, from W of Rio Branco through s. Venezuela, se. Colombia, e. Ecuador, e. Peru, and ne. Bolivia to w. bank of Rio Madeira in sw. Amazonian Brazil.

• Tunchiornis luteifrons (Sclater, 1891): Guianan Shield east of Rio Branco through the Guianas to n. Pará and Amapá to n. bank of Amazon.

• Tunchiornis rubrifrons (Sclater & Salvin, 1867): s. Amazonia S of the Amazon from Rio Madeira east to Rio Tocantins and se. Pará (?and w. Maranhão), including T. r. lutescens)

With “-frons” being part of the scientific name of 3 of the 4, and the “front” or crown being one of the primary way of distinguishing them in terms of plumage, it seems sensible to have the English names emphasize these features as well, although being allopatric, any utility in comparing them from the same site is unlikely. So, geographic names could also be considered if the proposal is rejected, but other than the over-worked “Guianan” for luteifrons, I don’t see any obvious ones.

Our guidelines make retention of parental Tawny-crowned for one of the daughters, e.g. ochraceiceps, undesirable because of the perpetual confusion it would cause in terms of what taxon it refers to.

Hellmayr (1935) used the following names, albeit affixed to “Hylophilus” (not “Greenlet”), for each:

• “Tawny-crowned” for nominate ochraceiceps

• “Rufous-fronted” for subspecies ferrugineifrons

• “Buff-fronted” for subspecies luteifrons

• “Red-fronted” for subspecies rubrifrons

Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated luteifrons as a separate species from ochraceiceps and called it “Olive-crowned Greenlet.”

EBird/Clements, which doesn’t yet treat them as species, uses the following for the subspecies groups:

• “Tawny-crowned” for ochraceiceps group

• “Rufous-fronted” for ferrugineifrons group

• “Olive-crowned” for luteifrons

• “Red-fronted” for rubrifrons group

The easiest thing to do is to adopt one of these two schemes as is and be done with it. But as long as we’re going to try to establish new names, I think it’s worth spending some time on this to produce what might be the best outcome. So, taking each name one at a time …

1. T. ochraceiceps. See our guidelines for why retaining Tawny-crowned isn’t considered a “best practice” if we can find a suitable replacement. I flirted with “Tawny-topped” and “Tawny-fronted” to retain the connection. The former sounds too contrived to me, and the latter is misleading as to the extent of the color patch. The only solution I have is “Ochre-crowned”, which parallels the scientific name, and ochre is a reasonably accurate description of the color of the crown, at least as accurate as tawny.

2. T. ferrugineifrons: “Perfect” as far as I’m concerned – no further meddling necessary.

3. T. luteifrons: The name luteifrons is derived from Latin luteus, which is “saffron yellow” (fide Jobling). Saffron is a mix of yellow and orange. Olive is actually very different, much darker and greener, as in green olives. So, is the frons saffron or olive? Here are two of the only photos I can find. (Understandably, Tunchiornis are under-photographed.)

Assuming this photo is a good representation, the frons is definitely closer to olive, so that name is superior and has somewhat of a track record. The forehead is actually tinged rufous, but I think we can live with “olive”. It’s definitely not “buff” as in Hellmayr.

4. T. rubrifrons: Red-fronted is pretty good and maintains historical continuity, but “red” is somewhat misleading, even though ornithology often uses “red” to denote any shade of reddish brown, e.g. in the technically incorrect “Red-tailed Hawk.” If Red-fronted was as deeply entrenched as Red-tailed Hawk, then we shouldn’t meddle with it, but I suggest that as long as we’re establish brand new species names that are not yet familiar to almost all users of English names, I suggest a pedantic but more accurate tweak that retains the connection: “Reddish-fronted”.

Let’s break the proposal into 4 parts as per above.

1. YES for Ochre-crowned; NO for something else

2. YES for Rufous-fronted; NO for something else.

3. YES for Olive-crowned; NO for something else

4. YES for Reddish-fronted: NO for Red-fronted … or if not Red-fronted, please elaborate.

Van Remsen, November 2024

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments from Mario Cohn-Haft (voting for Claramunt): I liked Van’s logic and sequence of arguments here, and i think if left as is (yes to all), there certainly will be no harm done. But i found myself sucked into the thinking and the names and came to some slightly different conclusions and suggestions.

“if “front” or “frons” refers just to the forehead, then that’s really what they all have in common, with very little difference in color, and so maybe not even worth mentioning. The main differences between them are 1) color of the top of the head (= “crown”?), 2) iris color, and 3) geographic range. 

“Van’s text already convinced me that geography will lead to boring and perhaps cumbersome names (although i do think it’s the single most relevant character within the complex/genus).  Eye color is basically 2 states for the 4 species: pale for trans-Andean and western Amazonian, and dark for eastern Amazonian (north and south). So, not having a unique state for each species makes eye color too seem not terribly useful.  

“So, we’re back to the colors on the head. I’m inclined to call them all w-, x-, y-, and z-crowned Greenlet. That way at least there’s some unifying characteristic to the names of all of them in the same species complex (although there are other something-crowned greenlets in other genera—more on that in just a sec). Given this approach (and remembering that using “Tawny-crowned” is out), then i suggest the following:

1. Ochre-crowned Greenlet for ochraceiceps group (= YES to van’s 1)

2. Rusty-crowned Greenlet for ferrugineifrons group (= NO to van’s 2) [these have extensive reddish on the top of the head; note that "Rufous-crowned" already exists (Hylophilus poicilotis) and that ferrugem, at least in Portuguese, means rust]

3. Olive-crowned Greenlet for luteifrons (= YES to Van’s 3)

4. Gray (or Grayish)-crowned Greenlet for rubrifrons group (= NO to van’s 4) [this gang has a distinctly grayish crown contrasting with the reddish forehead (which again all of them have), reminiscent in fact of Pachysylvia muscicapina]

“I kind of like calling attention to the differences in the top of the head, although seriously, for field ID purposes, nobody should bother looking for this and just stick to geography. I hope this is helpful.”

Comments from Areta: “Tough job to find names for the Tunchiornises! I think that Mario´s proposal following Van´s first attempt which itself follows Hellmayr´s work does a fair job to provide names for the four species involved. Even if they are not useful from the field perspective (given how brutally unlikely it is that one will be able to clinch the ID looking at their crowns), the prospect of finding good geography-based names seems slim. In re-reading Buainain´s et al. work on Tunchiornis, I don´t see that they recover the forehead colors as a diagnostic feature, which would have made me more eager to follow Hellmayr´s names, which have the advantage of providing reasonable matches between common and scientific names. So, without much conviction, I vote to follow Mario´s proposal, but I am open to reconsideration if Hellmayr´s "fronted" options for the three non-ochraceiceps species gain momentum:

“1. YES. Ochre-crowned Greenlet for ochraceiceps group

“2. NO. Rusty-crowned Greenlet for ferrugineifrons group

“3. YES. Olive-crowned Greenlet for luteifrons

“4. NO. Gray (or Grayish)-crowned Greenlet for rubrifrons group”

Comments from Rasmussen (voting for Robbins): “I think the names Mario and Nacho have suggested are fine. But what about using Tunchiornis as a group common name? Just a thought. [So, 1. YES. 2 NO. 3 YES, 4. NO.]”

Comments from Remsen: After having looked at specimens, I think that the color of the forehead really does differ appreciably among the four species, as per their scientific names. Subtle differences, yes, but real.

“Here are photos of LSUMNS specimens. We don’t have rubrifrons, but we do have lutescens, here used to represent rubrifrons. It would be hard to see the differences in the field, but I think it would be just as difficult to assess crown color, and likely more easily seen. At first, they may all look the same, but ferrugineifrons is slightly more rusty than ochraceiceps, luteifrons is olive-tinged, and rubrifrons is the reddest of the four.

The subtle differences in forehead color are not apparent in this dorsal photo:

“I do think “Rusty-crowned” is better than “Rufous-fronted”/“Rusty-fronted” for ferrugineifrons, as per Mario’s point about difference in the extent of color, but I worry about any appreciable difference in crown color between luteifrons and rubrifrons – they look the same color to me, not olive vs. gray.

“So, pending further discussion, I vote YES for the names in the proposal (written just to open the discussion) except for Rufous-fronted, for which I prefer Mario’s Rusty-crowned. Perhaps a larger series of specimens will confirm consistent differences in crown color between luteifrons and rubrifrons, but for now, it seems to me that the forehead color is a better distinction, and one more easily seen in the field. Another possibility, which I cannot assess because we lack specimens of nominate rubrifrons, is that the latter does indeed have a gray crown, and that the subspecies shown here, lutescens, is more olive on the crown. Those with access to rubrifrons can check that for us.

“A. YES. B. NO C. YES D. NO.”

Comments from Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “Good discussion of a tough subject. I agree that we are essentially limited to using relatively week morphologic differences for these species for reasons already nicely discussed. I can do no better than support the various English names already proposed by Van and Mario.

1. Tunchiornis ochraceiceps. YES for Ochre-crowned Greenlet.

2. Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons. NO for Rufous-fronted Greenlet. I much prefer Mario’s suggestion of Rusty-crowned Greenlet which also reflects the “ferruginei” part of the species epithet, and better describes the more extensive reddish/rusty/rufous coloration of the head which extends beyond the front and onto the crown. Besides, if “fronted” is incorporated into the English name of Tunchiornis rubrifrons, replacing “crown” with “front” for this species would reduce confusion.

3. Tunchiornis luteifrons. YES for Olive-crowned Greenlet.

4. Tunchiornis rubrifrons. YES for Reddish-fronted Greenlet. Although other species in this group do have “reddish” fronts, in none of the others is the reddish tinge as seemingly bright or as discretely limited to the front.”

Additional comments from Cohn-Haft: “Ok, gave the whole story a second thought after looking in the collection and re-examining Buainain et al. 2021. We don’t have rubrifrons either, as delimited geographically prior to this recent paper. But Buainain actually extends the distribution of rubrifrons and diminishes that of lutescens so that the Tapajós separates them in his view (no longer the Tocantins). See the following 2 figures from that paper (before and after):

Based on this new view, i have in front of me plenty of both lutescens and rubrifrons, and can see the subtle plumage traits that distinguish them, but that are not the current issue, whereby we treat the two together as a species requiring one English name. the main point of mentioning all this is just to say that using Van’s photos, in which a lutescens represents rubrifrons, is fine! But it is worth remembering that this rubrifrons group will probably be split further in the future.

Now, back to the job at hand.  

I agree that lutescens and rubrifrons do not really have a gray crown (not sure where i got that idea from, except maybe a combination of seeing lousy digital pictures of wild birds online and a faulty memory) and so naming the species Gray-crowned is definitely not good. In fact, the group's most salient feature is that it actually has only the “frons” distinctively colored, and that frons is quite reddish—more so than any of the others. So maybe Reddish-fronted (or Red-fronted) more or less straight from the Latin is a good name after all. The problem really was with the others!

Then the question becomes, should (Guianan) luteifrons continue to be named using the same criterion (crown color) as ochraceiceps and ferrugineifrons, the latter two of which form a clade? Or should we recognize that 1) luteifrons and rubrifrons also form a clade (see Buainain paper) and especially that 2) both spp are really only distinctive individually and from one another based on their “frons”? i tend now to want to use “-fronted” in luteifrons’s name. It’s a really dull bird, but in the field and even in the hand, the thing that most distinguishes it from females of any number of sympatric Myrmotherula spp. is the subtle hint of color in the frons!  What color is that?  This was discussed and illustrated earlier in the proposal, and now that we’re clear that we’re talking about the front and not the crown, we can drop “olive” and focus on either “Saffron-fronted” as suggested as a translation for luteifrons, or “Buff-fronted” as used earlier by Hellmayr, or maybe just “Dull-fronted” as compared to rubrifrons and as perceived in the field (barely). 

“Also (sorry), i just noticed that the ochraceiceps group (as illustrated in Van’s photo of one representative individual) also has a distinctively reddish back! If it holds for all subsumed taxa, that’s actually kind of a nice feature to use for ochraceiceps and seemingly better than crown color, which doesn’t seem to differ much from that of ferrugineifrons in Van’s great pictures. So, here’s my latest attempt to propose names:

A) ochraceiceps: Rusty-backed, or maybe even Tawny-backed (to keep the old color name for the entire group, without violating the “offspring rule”)

B) ferrugineifrons: Rusty-crowned

C) luteifrons: Dull-fronted, or Saffron-fronted, or Buff-fronted

D) rubrifrons: Reddish-fronted, or Red-fronted

“Where i list options for each taxon, the first is my preferred, but i won’t argue at all if any of the others are more popular.

“Finally, i have genuinely mixed feelings about Pamela’s suggestion of Tunchiornis as a group name in English, instead of greenlet. As a general principal, i really like the idea of preserving the group’s identity in popular perception. On the other hand, Tunchiornis is kind of ugly and maybe hard to pronounce (tchee or kee?). Also, “greenlet” has been in use for a long time, before all this generic splitting that even we have trouble keeping up with, let alone folks who prefer common names. So, i’m tentatively inclined to stick with “Greenlet”, but not strongly wedded to it.”

Additional comments from Areta: “Thanks Mario for your additional thoughts and comments. I always liked the idea of approaching more closely to Hellmayr´s initial names. I think that a) it makes sense to use "crowned" for the sister ochraceiceps and ferrugineifrons (even if the scientific name ends in frons in the latter), and b) likewise, using "fronted" for the sister luteifrons and rubrifrons is useful. So, with this in mind, and given previous developments the solution that seems to make better use of the historical names and current phylogenetic knowledge would be to me:

a) Ochre-crowned ochraceiceps (I would not refer to the colour of the back, even if different, also the -crowned makes phylogenetic sense and retains a closer connection to the former Tawny-crowned)

b) Rusty-crowned ferrugineifrons (second option: Rusty-fronted, as Hellmayr)

c) Buff-fronted luteifrons (as Hellmayr; second option: Saffron-fronted, although it might mean lots of spitting to pronounce this)

d) Red-fronted rubrifrons (as Hellmayr; second option: Reddish-fronted, which is close enough to Red, although more indefinite)

“This also has the advantage of approaching the eBird/Clements names that have been in use for some time. I just hope that we can all try to agree in a simple scheme to name the Tunchiornises! I am not averse to Pam´s suggestion of using "Tunchiornis" as a group name, but we could revisit this later, for the sake of simplifying the discussion here.”

Comments from Lane: “I prefer staying with “Greenlet” over “Tunchiornis” for the “last name” of this group. That said: 1. YES for “Ochre-crowned.” 2. NO, I prefer Mario’s “Rusty-fronted.” 3. YES for “Olive-crowned.” 4. YES for “Reddish-fronted.”’

Comments from Zimmer: “Okay, I’m going to try to stick with the voting scheme that Van attempted in the Proposal, but with all of the suggested modifications from others, I suspect that any one of Van’s choices that gets voted down will then have to go to some sort of ranked choice system. Here goes…

“Although not formally part of the Proposal, let’s start by saying that I would prefer to stick with “Greenlet” over “Tunchiornis” as the group name.

“Now:

1. T. ochraceiceps. YES for Ochre-crowned.

2. T. ferrugineifrons. NO for Rufous-fronted. I much prefer Mario’s suggestion of Rusty-crowned (or Ferruginous-crowned if you wanted a more literal translation of the epithet, and, to lessen the chances of confusion with Rufous-crowned Greenlet of the Atlantic Forest)

3. T. luteifrons. NO for Olive-crowned. I agree with Mario’s line of reasoning in terms of matching modifiers for the species within each clade. For ochraceiceps and ferrugineifrons, that means highlighting the crown color, and since, as Mario points out, the key plumage feature that separates luteifrons from rubrifrons is the forehead coloration, I would go for using the same modifier for each. Accordingly, I would vote for using “Buff-fronted” for luteifrons, with “Dull-fronted” as my second choice. The former has the advantage of precedent as a Hellmayr name, but the latter keys into the fact that the subtle color shift is unlikely to be evident in the field, but that what sets it apart from rubrifrons is the lack of an obviously contrasting forehead patch.

4. T. rubrifrons. YES for Reddish-fronted. (I much prefer using “Reddish” to “Red”. I think using “Red” in this context is more of a British thing, whereas in the Americas, this color is more likely to be referred to as rust or chestnut or rufous. I still remember my daughter, when she was only 3, peering up at a Red-tailed Hawk and correctly identifying it as such, only to follow up with “Except, I call it “Orange-tailed” Hawk!” And she was not wrong!

“I think that going with Mario’s suggestion of different modifiers for each clade could also help down the line, if and when further work results in elevating still more of the subspecies to species status. For instance, there seem to be some vocal differences across the Tapajós, suggesting that lutescens might ultimately prove distinct from rubrifrons.”

Comments from Andrew Whittaker (voting for Del-Rio): “First and foremost I certainly would prefer to stick with Greenlet as the group name.

“Van I will follow your initial voting scheme in the proposal however also incorporating the further suggestions made by my good friend Mario and others. Especially helpful was the extra information presented from closer examinations of museum specimens by Van and Mario. We all know only too well in the field these subtle plumage characteristics are near impossible to discern in the dull understory of the rainforest as they almost never keep still.

“1- T. ochraceiceps. YES for Ochre-crowned.

2- T. ferrugineifrons. NO for Rufous-fronted. My vote is YES for Ferruginous-crowned as I agree with Kevin's idea. This name kills two birds with one stone! Fitting the epithet as well as avoiding any possible confusion with the widespread Atlantic rainforest Rufous-crowned Greenlet.

3- T. luteifrons. NO for Olive-crowned. My vote instead is a YES for Buff-fronted.

4- T. rubrifrons. YES for Reddish-fronted. 

“From my field experience in Amazonian Brazil of the vocalizations of this form I also tend to agree that further work might well prove lutescens to be distinct from rubrifrons. I still remember being puzzled 30 years ago by the odd vocal type in Amazonia National Park.”

Comments from Stiles: “My votes are:

“A. ochraceiceps - YES to Ochre-crowned.

“B. ferrugineifrons – NO. (YES to Rusty-crowned over Rusty-fronted).

“C. luteifrons: NO. This is the tough one.. in the initial rounds, Olive-crowned seemed headed for a majority but in the final rounds, at least 3 switched to Buff-fronted (historical use, clade relations); hence i tallied it at 5 with 4 retaining Olive-crowned plus one Saffron-crowned (also away from Olive-crowned). Although I'm not thrilled with Buff-fronted, the lores are indeed rather buffish, the forecrown being more of a pale, dull, washed-out rufous. While I liked Dull-fronted, that one never took hold, so I'll go with YES for Buff-fronted. Saffron-fronted I reject as I can´t see the slightest orange-yellow tint.

“D. rubrifrons - YES for Reddish-fronted.

Comments from Josh Beck (voting for Jaramillo): “Great discussion, and I’ve read it many times but remain conflicted. I dislike Tunchiornis as a group name. I do think, though, that there is a lot of value in keeping the four species linked and I am concerned that the otherwise well thought out names proposed so far are creating a Trogon or Antbird style name soup when injecting four (and potentially more in the future) new species of something-fronted or something-crowned Greenlets into a group that already has Rufous-crowned, Golden-fronted, and over half the remaining species using shades of gray and rufous along with naped, headed, or capped.

“These are the most distinctive subset of Greenlets and have always been the least like the rest of the group in either appearance or behavior, so they seem to me to be ripe for a new group name. A novel name would make the names of the daughter species much less fraught, would reduce confusion when and if more splits occur, and would retain the grouping of the species. I think that this shouldn’t be a rushed set of names and that we should consider a new group name or fall back to geographic compound names if they are to remain Greenlets.

“For a novel group name, I think Tawnycrown is an easy choice in a similar vein to Stipplethroat but would require the individual descriptors to avoid using crowned of course. If not Tawnycrown then my best thoughts so far are: Treelet, Sprite, Bosquino, or Piper (shame Whistler is occupied). I think Tawnlet or Tawnylet is a pretty ugly invention and wouldn’t be in favor of it. I kind of like Treelet to retain the link to Greenlet. I also like Sprite or Bosquino as these are birds of quality forest, and they tend to appear and disappear with their haunting whistling, so I find the idea of a little magical forest creature to be fitting.

“Getting back to the proposed descriptors: if the preference is strongly for body-part based descriptors, I’m swayed by the evolution of the comments and I think that if the desire is to use descriptive names, then Ochre-crowned, Rusty-crowned, Buff-fronted, and Reddish-fronted is likely the best set, assuming a novel group name is used that is not Tawnycrown.

“And if they are to remain Greenlets, I actually think the boring and run of the mill geographic names and retaining Tawny-crowned is the least confusing option. Northern, Western, Guianan, and Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet might be boring but are far less ambiguous, will be far easier to remember, and will allow people to still just keep using the name Tawny-crowned Greenlet which would be convenient as there is no (known) overlap of ranges.

“The more I have thought about this, the more I dislike the body part descriptors when combined with the group name Greenlet, so I vote NO to all of the presented options and ask others who have voted to reconsider a change of group name or the use of geographic descriptors while retaining Tawny-crowned.

“I suggest one of these solutions:

A1) Ochre-crowned, Rusty-crowned, Buff-fronted, and Reddish-fronted Treelet or Sprite or Bosquino or other novel name

Or

A2) Northern, Western (or Western Amazonian), Guianan, and Southern (or Southern-Amazonian) Treelet or Sprite or Bosquino or other novel name

Or

B1) Northern, Western (or Western Amazonian), Guianan, and Southern (or Southern Amazonian) Tawnycrown

Or

B2) Rusty-backed, Rufous-fronted (or similar), Buff-fronted, and Reddish-fronted Tawnycrown

Or

C) Northern, Western, Guianan, and Southern Tawny-crowned Greenlet

“Option A1 or A2 both work well if a novel group name can be agreed but have the disadvantage of simultaneously changing all parts of the name which causes more confusion for the public trying to link back to the original name.

“Option B1 or B2 retain the link to Tawny-crowned which strikes me as the easy and available novel group name. I personally like the geographic descriptors better and option B1 is my preference at this point as the most succinct and least confusing set of names, though I am keen for feedback from others.

“Option C is the least disruptive, and that has some value, though I prefer the shortened Tawnycrown to the compound Tawny-crowned Greenlet.”