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... “