Proposal (1076.2)
to South American Classification Committee
Revise
English names in Tunchiornis, part 2
In the first iteration of this proposal, the change from Greenlet
to Brownlet passed unanimously (and automatically means deletion of group-name
“Tawny-crowned”. However, the proposal to continue with the existing
directional and geographic modifiers did not, but barely. Mario’s first version
of the proposal is included below (gray shaded), along with all your previous comments
At great risk of exacerbating your Tunchiornis Name Fatigue
Syndrome, let’s hope a final iteration using ranked-choice voting produces a
winner. In my opinion, the extra effort
is worth long-term it in arriving at the “best” name (i.e., the name that
outrages the fewest people).
From the voter comments, I think there are three viable choices:
(1) all geographic, (2) all “frons”, and (3) a mix. Send me your ranks, 1-2-3
for each of the three.
A. All geographic, continuing with the current names: Northern,
Western, Guianan, and Para.
B. All descriptive, based on previous ranked-choice voting:
Ochre-crowned (ochraceiceps), Rufous-fronted (ferrugineifrons),
Olive-crowned (luteifrons), Reddish-fronted (rubrifrons).
C. A mix, using results of previous ranked-choice voting: Guianan,
and Para.
Obviously, many other combinations are possible, but from your
comments, these three seem to be the favorites.
There are pros and cons for each of them, depending largely on
individual subjective tastes. Let’s see how this goes.
I put my recommendations in my Comments below, which are
summarized from my comments on the original.
Van Remsen,
June 2026
__________________________________________________________
Vote tracking chart:
https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart1044+.htm
Comments
from Remsen:
“My rankings are”
#1 - B. All descriptive
#2 - C. A mix
#3 - A. All geographic
“My
reasons for ranking B as #1 are:
a. They emphasize a
fieldmark, regardless of exact color, that helps distinguish them from most antwrens
in the same mixed-species flocks, as emphasized by field guide authors, and
from most sympatric greenlets as well.
b. They focus on
differences that are useful in the hand (think banders, artists, researchers
using specimens). I will always take the opportunity that English names are not
the exclusive domain of field birders. Further, the majority of English-first
birders will never have the opportunity to use the name in the field, but
always have the opportunity to look at illustrations and photos.
c. They help link the
new English names to the scientific names.
d. They emphasize the
main axis of evolutionary divergence in plumage in Brownlets. The frons is
where the action is. That’s interesting, to me.
e. NACC has already
voted on “their” species ochraceiceps and has gone with Ochre-crowned
(Terry Chesser, pers. com.), and this provides a slight help for the transition
from Tawny-crowned. NACC should be calling the shots on ochraceiceps.
“My
reasons for ranking C as #2 are that Para is a nice geographic modifier, and
Guianan is useful, albeit over-used.
“My
reasons for ranking A last are that although a fan of geographic names, I don’t
like directional ones. “Northern” and
“Western” are just plain boring. AIso, for a strictly Neotropical bird, a naked
“Northern Brownlet” just doesn’t seem quite right. A minor point, of course, and I recognize we
have our Northern Screamer and so on as precedents in the Neotropics. But with the responsibility for creating a
new name, names like Northern and Western barely rank above “Common” in terms
of inspiration. As for Guianan, I’ve
acquired a bit of Guianan Fatigue Syndrome.
Yes, it’s useful and accurate but we already have by my count 11 Guianan
Somethings, most of which are the result of relatively new splits. Para is the
best of the four in my opinion, but looking at range maps, Amazonas might have
more than half of the species’ distribution. No name is perfect, obviously, so
this is really just nitpicking.”
Comments
from Andrew Spencer (voting for Naka):
“My
vote, in order, is for A-B-C. Being boring doesn't bother me too much with
these birds, and I like using uniform naming criteria across the genera.
“I
personally think the geographic names are more useful when considering the
genus holistically, given how difficult minor variations in color can be to see
in the dark understory. The vast majority of people identifying these birds
will be doing so by location. I totally get Van's point about English names not
being solely for field birders, but I do still think that they are far and away
the majority user base. I also have to say that I find how oft-used
"Guianan" is to be a feature, not a bug - by being so consistently
used, it is an especially useful geographic name.
“In
the event that geographic names don't pass, option B (plumage-based names)
barely ekes out above mixed names for me.”
Comments
from Areta:
“I vote B-A-C. Consistency on the naming of these very similar birds is to me
even more important than whether we use descriptive or geographic modifiers. I
prefer the descriptive ones.”
Comments
from Donsker (who has Bonaccorso vote): “Although it was my first vote, I am
persuaded by the arguments that the proposed geographical names for the Tunchiornis
splits are boring at their best. I don’t like the idea of mixing geographical
and descriptive names for this species group. If descriptive names are adopted,
birders and ornithologists will soon learn which species is associated with a
given distribution. No one is likely to be trying to actually observe the color
of the front or crown, they’ll just know which species applies to the site of
their encounter. Besides, descriptive names continue the tradition of linking a
morphonym with the parent species. So, my vote is now revised to the
following order:
“1.
B. All descriptive based on previous ranked-choice voting.
2.
A. All geographic (Northern, Western, Guiana, Para).
3.
C. A mix.”
Comments
from Rasmussen (who has Robbins vote): “In general, I too would prefer all of one
type of name, but here I just don't think it works that well. I don't think we
can count on people remembering a bunch of similar-sounding plumage-based
names; I know I would have trouble remembering them, especially when the differences
are barely discernible. And I think that Guiana Fatigue Syndrome is more likely
a feature of SACC committee members, and not so much for most English name
users, as it really is such a helpful name. So, I'm voting for the mix, but I
think any of the options would be reasonable.
“1.
C. Mix
2.
A. All geographic
3.
B. All descriptive.”
Comments
from Zimmer:
“In general, I’m a big fan of geographic modifiers, particularly when they
pinpoint a region of endemism or accurately describe a particular region that
circumscribes the range, or at least the stronghold of a particular species. I’m much less a fan of cardinal direction
modifiers, which, in addition to being incredibly bland/boring, are also so
generalized as to be either meaningless or misleading without additional
context provided (e.g. Mario’s example of calling Central American “north”
striking many people as weird). I
also don’t view this as an all or none proposition — great to have modifier symmetry for all members of the group when it
works organically, but I see no need to force it when it doesn’t. If we had 4 different taxa, each with a
dramatically different forehead color (black, white, red, green), then it would
be a no-brainer to use “blank-fronted” Brownlet for all four species. Similarly, if each species was restricted to a
well-defined geographic region or country, then yes, by all means, use
geographic modifiers for each. In the
absence of such tidy conditions, I see no reason to force one convention on all
4 species. Accordingly, I would be cool with using Guianan Brownlet for T.
luteifrons and Para Brownlet for T. rubrifons, but going with
descriptive modifiers based upon contrasting forehead colors (for all the
reasons cited by others) for T. ochraceiceps & T. ferrugineifrons. Use of Brownlet as a group name is going to
tie all of these together (and any additional splits that might arise in the
future) anyway, so I don’t see the imperative to stick to a single type of
modifier as a way to reinforce the idea that these are all daughter species
resulting from the same split.
“Therefore,
my ranked choices on this are:
“1. C. Mix (Para,
Guianan, Ochre-crowned & Rufous-fronted)
2. B. All descriptive
(keeping in mind that NACC has already voted to use Ochre-crowned for T. ochraceiceps)
3. A. All geographic
(Northern, Western, Guianan, Para)
Comments
from Gary Rosenberg (guest voter): “Normally, I am in favor of uniformity
(either all geographic, or all descriptive), but I agree with Kevin in this
case, that the four Tunchiornis may not be conducive to either method. I
like the idea of a mixed approach in this case - and seems like a decent
compromise - pleasing both camps. I don’t really mind boring - but I understand
the complaints with using Northern and Southern being very boring - and I agree
that using Brownlet ties the group together.
“So,
my Vote is C-A-B:
“1.
C being a mix (Para, Guianan, Ochre-crowned, and Rufous-fronted). I don’t mind
using Guianan when it is the most accurate option.
“2.
A - I prefer using all geographic modifiers as opposed to all descriptive -
using descriptive for two of them seems less confusing than using subtle
different descriptive modifiers for all four.
“3.
B - I still think using descriptive modifies for all four will be the most
confusing option.”
Comments
from Cohn-Haf (voting for Claramunt): “I vote C - B - A. And frankly, I barely
prefer B over A. I think both “pure” criteria are boring and not uniformly
useful. I don’t see any real advantage in being true to a theme as if
most users of these names are going to deal with the genus as a complex. In
practice, i think most people will deal with each of these species separately
in the context of the avian community where they occur, so the name needs to
stand on its own. In that context, Northern and Western are as boring as Olive-crowned
and Reddish-fronted (slightly better) are useless in the field.
Comments
from Stiles:
“Regarding the Tunchiornis namesis (pardon the spelling) ..In general, I
prefer the use of consistent criteria for names of all of a small and
distinctive group such as this. So, for a first choice I strongly prefer B (all
descriptive names) - I agree with Van´s points for this. Regarding decidedly
secondary choices, I´m rather on the fence: although in principle I'd prefer A
(all geographic), I agree that "northern" and "western"
fail to evoke any strong reaction beyond a spot of boredom. Alternative C
(mixed) at least ends up with a good name for each species but restricts the
comparisons between them. I´d be equally unsatisfied with either and only if B
failed to gain a majority, I'd go along with whichever of these were to gain a
majority simply to close the debate.
Additional
comments from Donsker:
“I
concede. Mixed names first. So;
“C.
Mixed
B.
All Descriptive
A.
All geographical “
Additional
comments from Remsen:
“After more thought and following Nacho’s reasoning, I rank C last. I think
that indeed users of all kinds are going to view Tunchiornis as a unit;
they are classic allospecies in a superspecies, and so I think it’s useful to
have symmetry in names among the group members to help tie them all together.”
Comments
from Lane:
“I am not troubled by a mix of names, and I also feel we will not achieve
perfection here (or in a vast number of these multi-species splits of formerly
widespread Neotropical groups) because this is a field where perfection is
fairly impossible. So, I will vote in ranked order: C (a mix), A (all
geographic), and B (descriptive only).”
Comments
from Josh Beck:
“I do
like the idea of something that points out that you should look at the forehead
of the bird as an ID cue, to be clear. So, I’m quite open to descriptive name
in principle but the longer this goes on, the less I like the four descriptive
names we ended up with. The reason being: I already struggle to remember the
newly coined names of Fulvous-something Scrub-Tyrant and Fulvous-somethingelse
Scrub-Tyrant but at least remember Fulvous. Maybe this is a problem with my
mental capacity, but I will never remember which Brownlet is fronted vs crowned
and which is rufous vs reddish vs ochre vs olive. I think I might like them
better if they were at least all fronted or all crowned. And there is still the
issue that while you might see a bit of contrast on the frons when a bird goes
by in the understory, I don’t think it will be easy to tell whether it was
more ochre or olive, but rather you’ll ID it by where you are on the map and
then try to remember which name goes with where you are.
“So, I continue to prefer all geographic names despite them being dull
and uninspired. And if not all geographic, then mixed, just to help break up
the name soup. So, I vote:
“A all geographic
“C mixed
“B all descriptive
“And I don’t mean to necessarily open yet another can of worms but if we
end with mixed or all descriptive names I think being open to settling on all
fronted or all crowned would provide greater symmetry and make the names easier
to learn and recall for those who don’t know the Latin names off the top of
their head, which is honestly most people out there who aren’t Neotropical
ornithologists.”
___________________________________________________________________________
Proposal (1076.1) 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.”
Comments from Kevin Zimmer:
“Part I.
YES. I’ve been an enthusiastic
proponent of using “Brownlet” as a group name for Tunchiornis ever since Mario
first proposed it, and pretty certain that I’ve expressed my reasons in support
of it (particularly drawing on my Africa connection to greenbuls and brownbuls)
in my previous comments, so won’t bother to reiterate those here.
“Part 2. NO.
I’m with Van and Mario on this. In general, I’m a big fan of geographic
modifiers, particularly when they pinpoint a region of endemism or accurately
describe a particular region that circumscribes the range, or at least the
stronghold of a particular species. I’m much less a fan of cardinal direction
modifiers, which, in addition to being incredibly bland/boring, are also so
generalized as to be either meaningless or misleading without additional context
provided (e.g. Mario’s example of calling Central American “north” striking
many people as weird). I also don’t view
this as an all or none proposition — great to have modifier symmetry for all
members of the group when it works organically, but I see no need to force it
when it doesn’t. If we had 4 different
taxa, each with a dramatically different forehead color (black, white, red,
green), then it would be a no-brainer to use “blank-fronted” Brownlet for all
four species. Similarly, if each species
was restricted to a well-defined geographic region or country, then yes, by all
means, use geographic modifiers for each.
In the absence of such tidy conditions, I see no reason to force one
convention on all 4 species.
Accordingly, I would be cool with using Guianan Brownlet for T.
luteifrons and Para Brownlet for T. rubrifrons but going with
descriptive modifiers based upon contrasting forehead colors (for all the
reasons cited by others) for T. ochraceiceps & T. ferrugineifrons.”