Proposal (1076) to South American Classification Committee

Revise English names in Tunchiornis

After the 4-way split of Tawny-crowned Greenlet (Tunchiornis ochraceiceps), SACC voted to adopt the following English names; see SACC 1036.

Tunchiornis ochraceiceps Northern Tawny-crowned Greenlet

Tunchiornis ferrugineifrons Western Tawny-crowned Greenlet

Tunchiornis luteifrons Guianan Tawny-crowned Greenlet

Tunchiornis rubrifrons Para Tawny-crowned Greenlet

However, it was clear from the comments in that proposal that the idea of using Brownlet as a group name for species in Tunchiornis gained popularity. See the extensive comments in SACC 1036 for the pros of switching to Brownlet, which would include (a) having a separate group name for Tunchiornis, which are phylogenetically distant from, and vocally and ecologically different from, other genera called Greenlets, (b) Tunchiornis are more brown than green, and (c) avoiding the use of compound names that some consider cumbersome. The big disadvantage is the instability caused by introduction of a novel English name.

The following proposal consists of two parts.

Part 1: Change the group name from Greenlet to Brownlet. YES or NO.

If Part 1 passes, then the group name “Tawny-crowned” is superfluous and is dropped. That is implicit in the rationale for voting YES on Part 1.

Part 2. If Part 1 passes, continue to use the 4 geographic modifiers chosen in 1036. YES or NO. The reason for this part is that if Brownlet passes, then that makes the use of descriptive modifiers a viable option (because one couldn’t have an “Ochre-crowned Tawny-crowned Greenlet”). Even if you vote NO on Brownlet, make your voice heard on this one in case Brownlet passes so we can make some initial progress on the next steps.

Mario Cohn-Haft, June 2026

Vote tracking chart:

https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart1044+.htm

Comments from Rasmussen (who has Robbins’ vote):

“Part 1: I vote YES for Brownlet. There will likely be some pushback, but these facts convince me: 

a) it has proven impossible to find satisfactory names for these quite similar, drab taxa that don't overstate differences or misrepresent distributions;

b) because of the nice convergence with Brownbul and Greenbul;

c) because there is essentially no green on any of these birds, but plenty of brownish;

d) because its usage would presumably allow for shorter, less complicated names;

e) should there be other splits among greenlets (almost assured!), it will make finding names for them easier and clearer; and

e) because it is a monophyletic group.

“I've probably missed something but the above provides reason enough, I think.”

“Part 2: YES. If we do adopt Brownlet, I'd be happy with Northern Brownlet, Western Brownlet, Guianan Brownlet, and Para Brownlet.

Comments from Cohn-Haft (voting for Claramunt):

“pt. 1 — YES to changing to Brownlet.

“pt. 2 — NO to keeping the current (geographical) species modifiers; as you know, i have a proposal for different modifiers already waiting in the wings.”

Comments from Andrew Spencer (voting for Naka):

“pt. 1 –– YES. Quick and easy yes from me for brownlet! If Africa can have Greenbuls and Brownbuls, the Americas can have their versions.”

“pt. 2 –– YES. I favor geographic based names over colors. I feel that, while imperfect and possibly bland, are more useful than names based on color. Also, I think that by using the newly coined "brownlet" we're keeping the names from being overly bland and can settle for a less than exciting "Northern" or "Western" in the mix.

Comments from Remsen:

“Part 1. YES, but with trepidation about concocting a novel name and the consequent contortions that this will create for navigating from, say, Tawny-crowned Greenlet to Northern Brownlet without any connectors. But the advantages, outlined by Pam above, win the day for me. I think the instability is actually a positive in this case because it forces users to realize that Tunchiornis are really different from other Greenlets – the shared group name masks this difference and thus obstructs learning.

“Part 2. NO, vehemently. Other than “Common”, no modifiers are more insipid than those using the cardinal directions in the opinion of the many people who consider them duller than dirt. We can do better, in my opinion. I would be amenable to keeping Para Brownlet because that one is a good fit and forces users to know some Brazilian political boundaries. Guianan Brownlet is OK, but don’t we have enough Guianan Somethings? So tiresome. Otherwise, the plumage-based names have the advantage of potentially providing a link to the scientific names, which is helpful, and they also emphasize the main, albeit subtle, differences among them. Having handled a couple of hundred specimens of all these taxa when preparing SACC 1036, the frons differences are quite apparent even if not easy to ascertain through binoculars, and they emphasize the main axis of plumage differentiation in the genus – the frons is where the evolutionary action seems to be. Finally, although distinguishing the colors of frons through binoculars is pretty hopeless, the ‘-fronted’ part helps eliminate perhaps the biggest confusion species in the field: female antwrens that can be in the same flocks. Regardless, I point out, predictably, that English name usefulness is not the exclusive domain of those looking at them through binoculars.”

Comments from Areta:

“Part 1.––YES, let´s go brownlet!

“Part 2.––As for the modifiers, the geographic ones make sense if coupled to brownlet. My only fear is the complete disconnection with the former names based on coloration. Maybe we can just go rogue on this one. I cannot decide on what would be more useful from the perspective of users, but I guess that keeping some connection to the old names will be useful (even if they are not great, and lack the useful geographic reference).”

Comments from Gary Rosenberg (voting for Lane):

“Part 1. YES on adopting Brownlet.

“Part 2. YES. I would be ok with 

Northern Brownlet

Western Brownlet

Guianan Brownlet

Para Brownlet

“As for the modifiers - I would prefer the geographical modifiers - The geographic modifiers may be boring, but they will be easier to learn and associate with each species. Maybe we can do better than Northern and Western - although they are the most accurate. I would prefer boring to difficult - and I believe using subtle color differences that birders won’t be able to see or even understand would be a mistake. I guess I am more inclined to use a boring easy name, than coming up with cool, fancy names that may appeal to some, but would be tricky to learn?”

Comments from Josh Beck (guest voter)”

Part 1.–– An easy and strong YES for Brownlet. The analogies with Brownbuls are crystal clear and also just want to recognize Pam’s summary of the advantages. It’s excellent and I think the point about making naming easier in a future with further Greenlet taxonomy shakeup likely is a really good point.

Part 2.––Though we are not there yet, if it helps fast track the process I am strongly in favor of geographic descriptors and strongly against names that involve colors of crowns in a group of birds that are almost never seen well enough to distinguish such details but can be ID’d by range.”

Additional comments from Remsen: “The field identification problem of Brownlets versus female antwrens is mentioned by Ridgely & Tudor (Ecuador guide) and versus female Dysithamnus mentalis in Schulenberg et al. (Peru guide). Hilty (Venezuela guide) mentions problems versus female antwrens and antvireos, and he specifically mentions that the presence of a contrasting forehead is something to look for. Further, for inexperienced birders not immediately aware that any greenlet would be extremely unusual in the forest interior, calling attention to the forehead is potentially useful. Thus, for all those reasons I disagree that the descriptive names based on the frons are not useful in the field despite not being able to ascertain the exact color shade.”

Additional comments from Cohn-Haft: “Well everybody, I’d like to make a plea for continued thought about part 2, i.e., sticking with the previous modifiers we voted for when we treated the whole genus as "Tawny-crowned Greenlets” versus voting on other modifiers.

What we came up earlier, has now turned into:

Northern Brownlet, Western Brownlet, Guianan Brownlet, Para Brownlet.

I remember that I was one of the strong defenders of geographic modifiers, because I do like how paying attention to interfluve in general in the Amazon leads to correct identifications. But I came around to seeing how that’s actually a kind of map-nerd view that not many people out there share with me. In fact, calling Central America “north” is just downright weird for many people. And now that we took the bold leap of giving this genus its own, simple one-word group name, i’m impressed at how unimpressive our final result looks, when we could now get creative and give these guys more interesting names and even mix up geographic and descriptive names as we see fit, while engaging our audience in a livelier way. Just because they’re dull to look at doesn’t mean these aren’t really cool birds, right?

“As Van and others have pointed out, noticing a forehead color (whatever name you give it) on these birds is an important clue as to what they are (i.e. not other LBJs, like female antwrens). As others have pointed out, we now no longer have any connection to the previous long-standing common name before the split, which is a little disconcerting. As many have pointed out, the geographic names are correct but boring. There are solutions to these problems, and i suggest we give it a little more effort before throwing in the towel. I actually put together a proposal to evaluate a variety of modifier options, including of course all the ones we’ve voted on in the past, but recognizing that it’s not obligatory that all 4 spp. have either geographic names or frons descriptors. It’s possible to mix it up however we’d like! This in fact gives us the chance to have more interesting names, keep geographic references where especially useful, use a reference to frons in at least one group member to remind folks of the overall relevance of the mark, and also incorporate in at least one name some connection to the previous common name everybody was used to.

“Aren’t y’all dying to look at the proposal and vote on the names you really want in the context of a broader selection? The gang of Northern, Western, Guianan, Para will still be an option you can vote for if you find it survives comparison with other options.”

Comments from Areta: “My view is compatible, to some extent, with those of Van and Mario: I am fine with marrying "Brownlet" to the descriptive names that we discussed in the past (xxx fronted and/or yyyy crowned) so as to have some traceability of the formerly used names. The geographic names do work even if imperfectly, but in addition to their lack of grace (which does not worry me too much), they lose connection to the historical names (which might be considered a more relevant problem by users: is this the case? If not, geography shall prevail!). I confess that I want this torture to end soon. It seems that we are wasting an inordinate amount of energy to reach a solution that will, in retrospect, be reasonable yet not fantastic. The geographic names of brownlets are exactly that. I prefer not to mix geographic and descriptive names for the brownlets. So, if we go on another iteration, my plumage-based name choices are clear in previous votes and I won´t vote in favour of any option mixing descriptive and geographic names. If the geographic names are the majority vote here, I can live with them (I have a hard time living with the absurd Pantanal Snipe, and will say so forever). I just hope this is my last email on this issue!

Comments from David Donsker (who has Bonaccorso vote):

“Part 1. I strongly support the use of the proposed English name "Brownlet" for all of the species within the recently split genus Tunchiornis. It's simple, completely fitting and more appropriate for this genus than the traditional name ‘greenlet’.

“Part 2. Further, if the new English name for the group "brownlet" is adopted, the additional modifier "tawny-crowned" is unnecessary and should be dropped from all the species names but retaining the geographic modifiers already accepted.”