Proposal (1042) to South American Classification Committee
Establish
English names for the two species of Cnemoscopus
In
proposal 1016, SACC voted to treat Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster as a separate species from C. rubrirostris. With this
split passing, new English names are needed for at least one of the daughter
species. Following SACC protocol and given that the ranges of the two species
are roughly equal in size, both species should be gifted with new names.
As
far as I can tell, there isn’t a particularly long history of alternative names
for any taxon in Cnemoscopus. HBW and BLI has considered them separate
species in the past, using the names Grey-hooded Tanager for rubrirostris
and Golden-bellied Tanager for chrysogaster. The Clements checklist
currently uses “Red-billed” and “Black-billed” as group names for rubrirostris
and chrysogaster, respectively.
Our
job in choosing new common names for these species has two different
components, one easier and one a bit more complicated. The hard one, in my
opinion, is the group name (more on that below). Easier is what to call each
species. I think we can all agree that “Gray-hooded” and “Golden-bellied” are
both very poor names. The former because it should refer to the complex as a
whole, and because both have gray hoods. The later because both species also
have equally golden bellies.
What
does distinguish each species from the other is the bill color. “Black-billed”
works well for chrysogaster, and I would advocate for that. For rubrirostris,
despite the epithet, the bill isn’t particularly red. The two colors that best
describe it are “pink” and “rosy”. I think I would lean towards “Pink-billed”
as the common name but would also be ok with “Rosy-billed”.
Now
comes the harder part. What do we use as the group name for the two species of Cnemoscopus?
In my comment on proposal 1016, I said I would advocate for using the genus
name as the common name. And for me personally, I still like the way
“Black-billed Cnemoscopus” sounds. But in preparation for this proposal, I
asked a number of my friends and colleagues what they thought and received
generally negative reactions.
Arguments
for using Cnemoscopus as the common name include:
· Gives a distinctive
group name for two relatively unique species, rather than a more general
“tanager” or “bush tanager”
· “Bush Tanager” has a
long and confusing history that at one point included the many species of Chlorospingus,
as well as Bangsia flavovirens, and the three species that currently
bear the name. None of which are particularly closely related
· The two species in Cnemoscopus
aren’t particularly associated with bushes, whereas the sole other “Bush
Tanager”, Urothraupis stolzmanni, is to some extent.
· In my opinion,
“Cnemoscopus” is fun to say and is a cool name
Arguments
against include:
· In the opinion of most
people I’ve asked, “Cnemoscopus” is not fun to say and is a confusing name
· Choosing a common name
that mirrors the genus can be risky if that genus is later subsumed into a
different one (e.g., there are no longer any Hemispingus in a genus called Hemispingus,
and Crag Chilia is now an Ochetorhynchus). When this happens, it can
create unnecessary confusion
· Using the genus as the
common name may tie the two species together, but it also removes the part of
the name that tells a person the birds are tanagers
To
be honest, I find arguments on both sides compelling. When I initially started
to think about writing this proposal, I was pretty set on strongly advocating
for Cnemoscopus as the common name. But now that I’ve chatted with others and
had more time to think about it, I am torn on the issue. I spent some time
trying to think of alternative common names that might apply to the group. One
of the more distinctive features in these two species is that they both
constantly wag their tail as they forage. But “wagtail” is already taken, and
something like “wagtail-tanager” seems both overly contrived and misleading
given that nothing else about these birds is particularly wagtail-like. If
anyone here has other ideas though, I’d love to hear them!
So,
after all that, I’ve written this proposal such that we can vote between the
two competing options for common names:
Option A:
Pink-billed Bush Tanager (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris)
Black-billed Bush Tanager (Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster)
Option B:
Pink-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris)
Black-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster)
And in case there is sentiment for sticking
with “Red-billed”
Option C
Red-billed Bush Tanager (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris)
Black-billed Bush Tanager (Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster)
Option D
Red-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris)
Black-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster)
Recommendation:
As stated above, I’m torn over this choice. But at least today as I write this
proposal, I think I lean slightly towards Option A.
Andrew Spencer,
February 2025
Note
from Remsen on voting:
See Mark Pearman’s comments below for two more options, which we will call
Option E and Option F.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Vote tracking chart:
https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart968-1043.htm
Comments
from Remsen:
“Option B. I am also torn over this
one. The proposal does a great job of
weighing the pros and cons, and regardless of which option we choose, some
people will be outraged. One additional point
in favor of Bush Tanager is that it retains a connection to the original name,
which might make the transition to the 2-species treatment smoother. On the other hand, I think it’s time to
retire “Bush Tanager”. These two species
are not associated with bushes and definitely not phylogenetically close to the
other species currently (Urothraupis) or formerly called “Bush
Tanager”. I suspect that many
Neotropical birders who have been birding for a decade or more retain a primary
association of “Bush Tanager” with Chlorospingus, regardless of the new
English name “Chlorospingus.” As for as
the value of retaining tanager in the name, that can go either way. Some would point out that there are “too
many” different birds in Thraupidae called “Tanager” (119 species in SACC area,
not including compounded names like Mountain-Tanager) and so peeling off a
couple of these is a minor positive.
Others might point out that “Tanager” has lost any phylogenetic
significance because we retain “Tanager” as the name for several species in the
Cardinalidae (13 in SACC area in 3 genera) as well as Rhodinocichla, Mitrospingus,
and some non-thraupid Caribbean taxa like Nesospingus. At least Urothraupis would be the only
surviving “Bush-Tanager”, which has some minor value in emphasizing how unique
that bird is.
“The
‘Cn’ problem Cnemoscopus isn’t that hard to say, at least assuming the “C” is
silent. We already have ‘Hemispingus’
and ‘Chlorospingus’, and the English name-using bird world has not collapsed,
having already survived ‘Pyrrhuloxia’ and ‘Phainopepla’ for more than a
century. Besides, people are capable of
learning and overcoming pronunciation difficulties. The two Cnemoscopus are oddballs, so
giving them their own last name has some merit in making them stand out
further. And what a unique name it would
be!
“By
the way, from Jobling on the meaning of Cnemoscopus:
“Gr.
Κνημος knēmos mountain-slope;
σκοπος skopos searcher, watcher
< σκοπεω skopeō to watch out”
“Not
bad as far as derivation of a genus name.
At least Cnemoscopus is memorable and distinctive (vs. Bush
Tanager). I regard it as the ‘lesser of
evils’ in this case of limited options”.
“As
for the modifiers, the proposal makes a strong case for them, including the
minor change to ‘Pink’. As long as we’re
going to have a new name, we might as well fine-tune it. The bill is pinkish, not red, and we already
have a plethora of Red-billed Somethings and few ‘Pink’ Anythings.”
Comments
from Lane:
“Honestly, I think I’m more inclined to stick with Bush Tanager (Option A) than
use Cnemoscopus just because it’s avoiding using Greek in an English name (for
example, what would be the correct plural form? Cnemoscopes? Cnemoscopuses?
Cnemoscopiglii?). I remember as a kid trying to get my mouth around
“Pyrrhuloxia” (which was my favorite bird at the time, and thus it was a name I
stumbled over a lot!), “Phainopepla”, and others. It’s not necessary since this
pair have a name that, although not perfect, isn’t terrible. The name
“bush-tanager” isn’t really great for any of the species that have been called
it. For example, Chlorospingus (Chlorospingi?) aren’t really “bush tanagers” in
behavior, most are highly arboreal, but that wasn’t the reason we dumped that
name in favor of “Chlorospingus” in the end—It was because they were New World
Sparrows, not tanagers. That’s not the case here. The Cnemoscopus are
solidly Thraupids, and they live in areas where trees can be bush-sized at
forest edges, so the name isn’t wildly off-base. I agree with Andrew that the
bill colors are the obvious choice for species monikers, but I don’t find his
argument for nixing “Red” in favor of “Pink” very satisfying. In the bird name
world, “red” has been used in a veeeeeery broad sense, from anything that is
rufous but called “red” (e.g., Red-backed Sierra Finch, Eurasian Redstart) or
orange but called “red” (e.g., American Redstart) or pinkish (e.g., Red-billed
Tyrannulet), and the examples go on and on. I find the sound of “Red-billed”
much more satisfying in this context, and I would argue it is the better name
than “Pink-billed”. So, I would vote YES to ‘Red-billed; and ‘Black-billed’
Bush tanagers (Option C).”
Response
from Andrew Spencer:
“I'm not hugely against "Red-billed" as the species name, but I do
think that the fact red is so widely interpreted in bird names more of an
indictment of how poorly defined the term is rather than an argument for having
it as the common name in this particular species. It does mirror the scientific
name.”
Response
from Remsen:
“That there are probably a hundred non-red “Red Somethings”, starting with
Redstart and Red-tailed Hawk, doesn’t mean that as long as we’re going to
create a new name, we shouldn’t be more accurate rather than repeat a
misleading use. The bill looks pink to
me, not red:”
Comments
from Josh Beck:
“I prefer Pink-billed to Red-billed for
the reasons mentioned but it's not a terribly strong preference and I don't
think there will be any problem with either of them. However, I have a very
strong preference for avoiding Cnemoscopus as a common name, I think it's
particularly prone to pronunciation difficulties in basically every language of
people who might likely use it and probably more beyond. As far as
Bush-Tanager, I don't find it misleading and given that there are only three of
them left, might as well leave the name to a bird that, as Dan points out, it
more or less fits.”
Comments
from Stiles:
“I too will go with Cnemoscopus for the E-name of these two, and pink-billed
for rubrirostris. I fail to see the insuperable difficulties in
pronouncing it: either you don't pronounce the c - like the k in knapsack
(which presumably would hold for most English speakers) or you pronounce it
like a k and add the n (as most Spanish speakers might do). Either way, I see
no way this could cause international-level confusion in ornithology.”
Comments
from Areta:
“Just to avoid future trouble, I will vote as if this was a ranked choice: B,
D, A, C. I like Cnemoscopus, which has the advantage of bringing common
and scientific names to a common ground (something that I wish could be done
more often). Bush Tanager does not make perfect sense for these birds, as there
are numerous other tanagers that live in proper brushland or bushes. Also,
given how widely it has been used for other non-tanagers (e.g., Chlorospingus),
we can well take the opportunity to get rid of this moniker instead of trying
to save it. Bye-bye bush tanagers!”
Comments
from Mark Pearman:
“The main problem with the proposed names is that we lose the name
“Grey-hooded” which instantly identifies both species. To avoid that, one
possibility would be to name them Pink-billed Greyhood C. rubrirostris and
Black-billed Greyhood C. chrysogaster, if anyone agrees.
“With
the options on the table, how would newcomers or novices know that the bill
colour or generic name was associated with a tanager that was instantly
recognizable by its grey hood. Everyone will now have to learn this connection
although that could be avoided. “Bush-Tanager” works better for remembering
that association, but Black-billed Bush-Tanager gets us into muddy water with Urothraupis
stolzmanni which is a bush-tanager with a black bill. You could also then
recall all sorts of species previously called bush-tanager (now Chlorospingus)
which have black bills. Then, as mentioned in the proposal, this species pair
is highly arboreal and not restricted to bushes.
“I
therefore slightly prefer and unconvincingly vote Option B but suggest that
“Greyhood” would be more helpful. Regarding pronunciation of Cnemoscopus, I
predict that North Americans would pronounce it as Knee_moh_scoh-puss with
variations, whereas Europeans would pronounce it a similar manner as they do Phylloscopus
i.e., a straight Neh_mosskopus, It doesn’t really matter as there are already
many birds that are pronounced in different ways, and it can even be amusing.
“Looking
at the species names, I agree that there is no point in using “Red-billed” for
a species with an obvious pink bill. Then, the other species could be called
anything because you know it won’t have a pink bill. I’m not particularly sold
on “Black-billed” because of the reasons I already mentioned. It is uninspiring
and not a feature that even stands out on this species. I would have preferred
Peruvian Cnemoscopus as it is endemic to Peru and has a large range there, even
though chrysogaster just gets into the extreme north of Peru.
“My
first preference would have been:
Option E
Pink-billed Greyhood C.
rubrirostris
Peruvian Greyhood C.
chrysogaster
“My
second preference would have been:
Option F
Pink-billed Cnemoscopus C. rubrirostris
Peruvian Cnemoscopus C. chrysogaster”
Comments
from Gary Rosenberg (voting for Jaramillo): I have been a bit torn on whether to
retain “Bush-Tanager”, as I have usually felt it important to retain historic
names to try and avoid confusion and to help birders and scientists make the connection
that, in this case, we are talking about the “Bush-Tanagers” - BUT it seems
that the tern “Bush-Tanager” is really an archaic term that has lost its
popularity. With the decision to drop “Bush-Tanager” in favor of Chlorospingus,
it makes sense to me to change these to Cnemoscopus. I agree with others that
the pronunciation issue is really a non-issue - yes some might mis-pronounce
it, but so what? Birders butcher lots of common names now - and it is not our
job to be the language police. Another positive reason to go with Cnemoscopus
is that these species are not really found in bushes. And are more arboreal in
larger trees - at least the ones I see in Ecuador. I also think that calling
them Cnemoscopus will help make them distinguishable for other “historic”
“Bush-Tanagers” I originally learned them as the Cnemoscopus Bush-Tanager to
help distinguish to from the Chlorospingus - and never quite understood why
they were “Bush-Tanagers” in the first place - now having Chlorospinguses and
Cnemoscopuses there shouldn’t be any future confusion.
“I
agree that the bill on rubrirostris is more pink than red - so I prefer Option
A - but it isn’t a dealbreaker for me - either “Pink” or “Red” would be
acceptable to me.
“If
we are going to eventually rank the choices, I will vote for them in this
order:
B-D-A-C
“I
personally don’t like calling them Grayhoods - I think this just adds another
level of confusion and the necessity of learning that Grayhoods are Cnemoscopus
- and I don’t understand how this is better than Cnemoscopus.”
Comments
from Kevin J. Burns (voting for Claramunt): “I agree that the name bush-tanager
has lost its meaning and wouldn’t apply to these species’ habitat
preference. Thus, of the options given, I would vote for Cnemoscopus. However,
I don’t see any reason why we can’t just use “tanager”. These are tanagers
after all, so just using “tanager” to me would be the simplest option. For
the first part of the name, I agree Pink-billed is better than Red-billed. I am open to the idea of Peruvian over
Black-billed, however. Therefore, my preferred names would be Pink-billed Tanager
and Black-billed Tanager. Of the options given, my ranked voting would be B, F,
D, A, C, E.”
Comments
from Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “Of the proposals submitted, there is one
clear choice for me, as discussed by others:
“Option
B:
Pink-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris)
Black-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
chrysogaster)
“That's
my vote. None of the others are nearly as good, in my opinion.”
Additional
comments from Pearman:
“With the popularity of Cnemoscopus as a vernacular name, I now vote for F.
Pink-billed Cnemoscopus C. rubrirostris
Peruvian Cnemoscopus C. chrysogaster
“With
just about every tanager-type out there having a black bill (and there really
are many), chrysogaster can be called anything without mentioning the
bill and we know that it won't have a pink bill by elimination, so why not coin
a name with more information.”
Comments
from Rasmussen:
“First choice: Why not Northern Gray-hooded Tanager and Southern Gray-hooded
Tanager? We would thereby lose the misleading (at least to most English
speakers) term “Bush”. (But note that “bush” can mean forest in Australia, New
Zealand, and Canada.) AND we keep the informative, familiar, and helpful
“Gray-hooded” and “Tanager” parts of the name. Although, on the other hand,
very few of the other taxa in the Poospizinae are also called tanagers, and
none of these are especially closely related to Cnemoscopus… (judging
from Burns et al. 2016). And some (like me!) might confuse Gray-hooded with
Gray-headed (Eucometis).
“I
am also OK with Option B, “Pink-billed Cnemoscopus” and “Black-billed
Cnemoscopus”. I’m not too worried about the genus being sunk into another one,
at least based on the Burns et al. (2016) phylogeny. And I think people will
probably pronounce it correctly or close enough that it won’t be too confusing.
“Option
A (Pink-billed Bush Tanager Cnemoscopus rubrirostris and Black-billed
Bush Tanager Cnemoscopus chrysogaster) would be a distant 3rd
choice for me.
“Personally,
I don’t favor Grayhood as a group name, though it’s hard to think of a good
reason why not. Nor do I favor using Red in new cases where it isn’t accurate.”
Additional
comments from Remsen:
“Concerning some of the late suggestions:
“1.
Mark P. proposed “Peruvian Cnemoscopus” instead of Black-billed because so many
tanagers have black bills, and the name would highlight that chrysogaster
is endemic to Peru. I see the point, but
as long as the group name is Cnemoscopus, then “Black-billed” works fine for me
as the foil to Pink-billed.
“2.
Pam just proposed Northern (and Southern) Gray-hooded Tanager as a way to get
rid of “Bush” and to avoid “Cnemoscopus”, but Pam’s “on the other hand” point
that confusion with Gray-headed Tanager would be inevitable persuades me to
stay with Option B, as does the dislike by many of long compound names. I do like Pam’s point that most Poospizinae
are not called “Tanager” as an additional reason to go with Cnemoscopus.”
Additional
comments from Stiles:
“I favor option B (as before). The ‘C’ in Cnemoscopus would normally be silent
in English (like the "k" in knee or knapsack) - no problem with
pronunciation. And having the same English and Latin group names is a plus (as
in Chlorospingus). Within Cnemoscopus, bill color is the most easily seen difference
between the two species - in one, the bill is clearly pink, not red; in the
other the bill is dark - at least blackish (but for brevity, Black-billed is
easier to say than ‘Blackish-billed’).”
Comments
from Andrew Spencer:
“I've quite enjoyed all the discussion
around these names, and some of the resulting suggestions! A few last comments
from me:
“I still prefer
"Black-billed" over "Peruvian" if Cnemoscopus is the common
name. I think Black-billed is a more useful name than Peruvian, since you can
actually identify it by the black bill, and both species occur in Peru. And if
Tanager is chosen as the common name, Peruvian is definitely a nonstarter.
“As for Northern and Southern
Gray-hooded Tanager, for me those are too close to Gray-headed Tanager. And if
Gray-headed ever gets split there could be even more opportunity for confusion.
“For whatever reason, the
group name "Grayhood" doesn't resonate with me either. Maybe in part
because of the existence of Gray-headed Tanager? Or maybe it just feels a bit
too contrived to me. I realize that is probably a double standard on my part
given some of the other names I've suggested in the past, but it's my gut
reaction this time.”
Comments
from Zimmer:
“I’m with David Donsker on this one, in that I am strongly in favor of Option
B: Pink-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus
rubrirostris) and Black-billed Cnemoscopus (Cnemoscopus chrysogaster),
and don’t really have any appetite for the other choices.
“Taking
the various issues one at a time:
“1) I totally agree
that both “daughters” of the split need new English names, as per our SACC
conventions, and given that their ranges are similar in extent.
“2) Also agree that
"Golden-bellied Tanager" for chrysogaster and “Gray-hooded
Tanager” for rubrirostris are poor choices, given that both species have
golden bellies and gray hoods!
“3) As Andrew stated in
the Proposal, what really distinguishes the two species from one another is the
bill color, and I would agree with Andrew and Van, that the bill of rubrirostris
is pink, not red, and maybe not even “rosy” (more bubblegum pink to my eyes. I would also agree with the sentiment that
using “Pink-billed” as opposed to “Red-billed” (in spite of the epithet rubrirostris),
gets points not only for accuracy, but also for novelty — there aren’t nearly
as many Pink-somethings as Red-somethings in the avian world, so employing
“Pink-billed” would be more memorable.
“4) As for Mark P's
objections to “Black-billed” for chrysogaster: I see his point about most tanagers having
blackish bills, but to me, that’s just another reason to use Cnemoscopus
as the group-name, instead of Bush Tanager or Tanager. “Black-billed” would be
pretty meaningless when paired with Bush Tanager or Tanager, but it is not only
helpful and spot-on in separating chrysogaster from rubrirostris once
you’ve made the generic determination, but it also has nice symmetry with
“Pink-billed”. Conversely, since both species occur in Peru, if you go with
“Peruvian Cnemoscopus” for chrysogaster, it’s not nearly as helpful,
even if the moniker is more appropriately applied to chrysogaster than
to rubrirostris.
“5) Group name: I
find myself increasingly in favor of employing the genus name as the English
group-name, particularly in speciose groups such as tanagers, flycatchers, etc.
In this particular case, I would agree with the arguments already made by
others regarding Bush Tanager as not being particularly accurate, and, as being
associated in most of our minds more with Chlorospingus than Cnemoscopus.
And using just plain Tanager would not
be at all helpful, particularly when paired with the descriptives of
“Black-billed” and “Pink-billed”. I also
think that as Latin/Greek names go, Cnemoscopus does roll of the tongue
rather nicely, and pronunciation difficulties should not be a huge issue
(although I agree with Mark P’s analogy to the cross-Atlantic differences in
common pronunciation with Phylloscopus).
“6) I don’t like the
suggestion of “Grayhood” as a group name. It’s too contrived, and then, what do you do
about obviously gray-hooded but unrelated passerines (some warblers,
flycatchers, attilas, sierra-finches, and, of course, Gray-headed Tanager), all
of which have equally gray hoods as their most eye-catching plumage feature. Using "Gray-hooded Tanager” as a group
name would immediately invite confusion with Eucometis in my opinion,
and Eucometis itself could easily end up being split up, which would
only make the English names even more confusing. I, too, like Pam’s point that most Poospizinae
are not called “Tanager” anyway, which would strengthen the reasons for
employing the more restrictive Cnemoscopus as a group name.
“7) Finally, I
would just harken back to an earlier point that I believe Van made in a
discussion of English names on some other Proposal, and that being that in
establishing English names, we have to remember that beginning birders are not
the ONLY, or even the PRIMARY users of English names. I think too much of the discussion gets
wrapped up in the question of what name is going to be most helpful to
beginning birders, or easiest for beginning birders to remember or pronounce,
as opposed to what is simply the most appropriate or useful name for all users.
In this particular case, I would suggest
that by the time a birder, ornithologist, bander, conservation biologist gets
to the point of dealing with a Cnemoscopus in the field, they are probably no
longer a neophyte, and we don’t have to worry about dumbing-down the names so
they can make sense and be readily learned by the least experienced beginners.”
Comments
from Lane:
“I will concede that everyone has rejected ‘red’ as the bill color, so I will
go with option B: Pink-billed and Black-billed Cnemoscopuseses. I am interested
to hear how that name will be pronounced. I think Mark is right: in my head, I
naturally say ‘nem-oh-SCOPE-us’ but I suspect there will be those (Brits?) who
will say ‘nem-MOHscupus’. So be it... “