Change the English name of Spizaetus isidori from "Black-and-chestnut Eagle" to "Andean Eagle"

Proposal (1091) to South American Classification Committee

Change the English name of Spizaetus isidori from "Black-and-chestnut Eagle" to "Andean Eagle"

Effect on the South American Checklist” This would alter the official English common name of Spizaetus isidori from "Black-and-chestnut Eagle" to "Andean Eagle."

Background

For decades, Spizaetus isidori has been designated in English literature by the purely descriptive name "Black-and-chestnut Eagle." While anatomically accurate, this name reduces an iconic, apex apex-predator to a dry color palette. Across its entire native range in South America, local communities, park rangers, and regional conservation initiatives exclusively refer to this species as the Águila Andina (Andean Eagle). This proposal seeks to align the international English common name with the established, culturally significant vernacular used on the ground, creating a powerful unified name for conservation.

The Argument for Urgency and Relevance

We live in the 21st century—an era defined by rapid biodiversity loss where conservation relies heavily on public engagement, local pride, and flagship species recognition. Calling the most massive, powerful forest eagle in the Andes "Black-and-chestnut" is a missed opportunity. It treats a majestic apex predator like an anonymous squirrel or a backyard passerine, defined merely by a color pattern rather than its ecological grandeur and geographical identity. The name "Andean Eagle" immediately commands respect. It elevates the bird to its rightful status as a regional icon alongside the Andean Condor. In conversations with local guides, birdwatchers, and community stakeholders in hotspots like Amazonas, Peru, and cloud forest reserves in Colombia and Ecuador, there is unanimous agreement: the current English name feels clinical and detached. Giving the bird its true name fosters local stewardship and enhances its branding as a flagship species for the rapidly disappearing Andean cloud forests.

Addressing Potential Taxonomic Confusion

Historically, some resistance to the name "Andean Eagle" stemmed from its casual, outdated application to the Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle (Geranoaetus melanoleucus). However, this confusion is entirely obsolete in modern ornithology.

1. Geranoaetus melanoleucus is firmly established globally as the "Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle.

2. The genus Geranoaetus translates to "crane-eagle," and the bird behaves ecologically as a soaring Buteo (buzzard), not a true forest eagle.

3. Spizaetus isidori is the only true, massive crest-bearing apex eagle strictly restricted to the Andean montane forest corridor. It is, without competition, the eagle of the Andes.

To bridge the gap between global ornithology and local conservation realities, and to give this endangered raptor a name that matches its monumental ecological status, I strongly urge the committee to retire the literal descriptive name and officially adopt Andean Eagle.

Vanja Puskaric, August 2026

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Vote tracking chart:

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

Comments from Steve Hilty (guest voter): “NO, I would not change this name just for vanity purposes. If it was a misleading name, or for taxonomic issues, maybe (?) yes.

“But in this case:

1) It is a perfectly useful descriptive name.

2) It has a long history in popular and scientific use; it has been used for decades (at least since 1964 in Birds of Colombia by Meyer de Schauensee (although in his 1948-1952 series The Birds of the Republic of Colombia, it is called "Des Murs Crested Eagle").

3) Changing the name to "Andean" (whether you add Hawk, or Hawk-Eagle as is done with other Spizaetus, does not make the name unique because both S. tyrannus, and S. ornatus also occur up to mid-elevations (ca. 2000 m) in the Andes of Colombia. Which is to say, calling it Andean Eagle adds confusion rather than clarity.

“I don't have a lot of patience with people who wander through an area and decide some names need to be "improved." I could probably think of at least 100 birds in Colombia alone where a bird name might be "improved," but that doesn't mean we need to do it. What many people forget—especially those who do not work as professional guides, or author books, or work with long lists of birds, or deal with 1000s of common (English) names regularly, or especially everyday birders who struggle to wade through the morass of old bird names that have been cast aside in the annuals of ornithological history as they try to keep an accurate life list— there is huge value in stability.

“I am going to repeat this. There is huge value in stability. In other words, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." And changing the name of this bird is pure vanity. It just adds one more layer of confusion onto those who might not use this name on a regular basis, or even be aware that it was changed. And besides, it is expensive in time and money to make bird name changes—from government agencies right on down to individual birders. There are plenty of names being changed for taxonomic purposes, and these are mostly necessary and unavoidable. This one is avoidable.

“Finally, it is a "short" name, but short names are most advantageous when the name is creative and memorable, and accurate, and often brief names (in my opinion) are less useful than a longer name because they don't convey much useful information to the user.

“ ‘Águila Andina.’ Well, maybe in some places? In Colombia, the Spanish name that I followed is Águila Crestada (and that was a choice based on a committee of Colombian ornithologists). And as we all know, there is absolutely no uniformity at all regarding Spanish names from country to country or even within countries. It's a shame really, but it's reality.”

Comments from Areta: “NO, I agree with Steve. In Argentina S. isidori is known as Águila Poma. The Solitary Eagle is largely Andean (and might even become “more” Andean if the taxon sheffleri is split at some point time), and other Spizaetus (including ornatus, tyrannus and melanoleucus) co-occur with isidori in vast expanses of the Andes. I don´t see how changing the name from Black-and-chestnut Eagle (which is quite diagnostic) to Andean Eagle can have any meaningful conservation effect. The proposal touches on the Andean Condor as if having the word Andean was a good thing, but people just call it Condor, from Kuntur. I wonder how the name Kuntur made its way to California (there must be better local names!). Yet, having a California Condor and an Andean Condor results in no specific benefits derived from those names. So, I see no compelling reasons to change a well-entrenched name by one that will cause confusion with other eagles seen in the Andes.”

Comments from Dan Lane: “NO. This is an example of an effort to change a perfectly good name for a species to another, arguably worse, name for no obvious reason. "Andean Eagle" is, in my opinion, a less informative name than "Black-and-chestnut Eagle" because there are other eagles in the Andes (the author admits that Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle has been called Andean Eagle, thus providing evidence that confusion is likely. Solitary Eagle could also fit this description); and I am unaware of any prior effort to rename any eagle "Andean Eagle" contra what is reported in the proposal. If the suggested name was "Andean Hawk-Eagle", then that would have been somewhat more palatable idea, but is there really any reason to change this name? The reasoning given in this proposal seems to be "'Black-and-chestnut' is not fierce enough, must change." How does one judge what makes a name more or less respectable? This is entirely a subjective assessment and falls victim to the idea that no name will receive unanimous support. Every point in this proposal is unfounded on basic facts. So, no, I have no interest in upending decades of use of a perfectly good name for another that has no obvious greater benefit.”

Comments from Zimmer: “NO. As others have already stated, ‘Black-and-chestnut Eagle’ is appropriately descriptive and long-established, and I see no compelling reason to change it, particularly in favor of a less informative name. This is not the only eagle found in the Andes (Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle, Solitary Eagle), nor is it the only Spizaetus found in the Andes (Black Hawk-Eagle, Ornate Hawk-Eagle). I think this Proposal overstates the ubiquity of the usage of ‘Andean Eagle’ for S. isidori throughout its range, and the suggestion that retaining a perfectly good descriptive name is a sign of disrespect toward the species itself, is baffling to me. Are Crested Eagle, Black Hawk-Eagle or Black-and-white Hawk-Eagle less respected because they have been saddled with descriptive names that feel “clinical and detached” or “reduced to a dry color palette”? I think not. To quote Steve Hilty, “There is huge value in stability” and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”