Proposal (152) to South American
Classification Committee
Change English Name of Chamaeza
meruloides to "Cryptic Antthrush"
Effect
on South American Check-list: This proposal is the first of three that
will attempt to stabilize the English names of three species of Chamaez antthrushes
that share an intertwined taxonomic and nomenclatural history. This proposal
would change the English name of a species on our list, Chamaeza
meruloides, from "Such's Antthrush", to "Cryptic
Antthrush".
Background: Chamaeza
meruloides has a convoluted taxonomic history. Endemic to middle
elevations of the Atlantic Forest of eastern Brazil, it was completely
overlooked until 1971, when Paul Schwartz tape-recorded two distinctly
different song types from what was presumably a single taxon, Chamaeza
ruficauda ruficauda. He noted that one of these
song types resembled that of the highly disjunct Venezuelan population of C.
r. chionogaster (Willis 1992). Helmut Sick (1985) noted that although
there were only two recognized species of Chamaeza inhabiting
the Atlantic Forest of Brazil (C. ruficauda, C. campanisona), there were
three different song types to be found there. Ed Willis sorted out the
confusion by showing that there were in fact, three species-level taxa of Chamaeza that
replaced one another elevationally in eastern Brazil: C. campanisona of
the lowlands and foothills; an unrecognized, mid-elevation population whose
song resembled that of Venezuelan C. r. chionogaster (and of
Colombian C. r. turdina); and nominate C. ruficauda of
the highlands (Willis 1992). Willis showed that the unrecognized, mid-elevation
form was locally sympatric with both C. campanisona and C.
ruficauda, and was vocally and morphologically distinct from both, and
therefore deserving of separate species status. Although he noted the vocal
similarity of this population to Venezuelan C. r. chionogaster and
Colombian C. r. turdina, he argued that plumage differences,
coupled with a hugely disjunct distribution, were ample reason for not treating
these three forms as conspecific. Willis further argued that nominate ruficauda
of southeast Brazil and northern Argentina was vocally and morphologically
distinct from chionogaster and turdina of Venezuela and
Colombia, and that it should be treated as a separate species.
Willis
proposed splitting off Colombian C. r. turdina and Venezuelan C. r.
chionogaster (turdina has priority) from Brazilian/Argentine
nominate C. ruficauda. He suggested the English name of
"Schwartz's Antthrush" for C. turdina. This left C.
ruficauda as a monotypic species endemic to the Atlantic Forest.
Willis did not propose a change in the English name of nominate ruficauda,
presumably with the intention of leaving it as "Rufous-tailed
Antthrush". These names are the ones employed by Krabbe and Schulenberg
(2003) in HBW, and by the SACC in our current list. Hilty (2003) also uses
"Schwartz's Antthrush" for turdina, as does Clements (2000)
and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) use "Rufous-tailed Antthrush" for ruficauda.
Conversely, Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) used
"Scalloped Antthrush" for turdina, and Sibley &
Monroe (1990), Sick (1993) and Clements (2000) employed "Brazilian
Antthrush" for nominate ruficauda.
Naming
the previously unrecognized mid-elevation population proved difficult, and the
process of stabilizing an English name has been equally contentious. The
earliest available name that Willis could find was Chamaeza meruloides Vigors
1825, based on two specimens collected in Brazil by George Such. Unfortunately,
the two specimens were sold at an auction in 1886, and have not been reported
since. This left the original description, plus a subsequent more detailed
published description and color plate for Willis to anchor his C. meruloides
to (Willis 1992). Willis proposed the English name "Such's
Antthrush" for C. meruloides, to honor the original collector.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) had this to say regarding the English name for the
(then) recently recognized C. meruloides:
"Although we would normally endorse
such a proposed patronym [= Such's Antthrush] with enthusiasm, in English the
name "Such's" seems so likely to be misunderstood that we hesitate to
employ it. We thus highlight the species' highly cryptic nature; it was long
confused with not just one but two species!"
Accordingly,
the English name employed for C. meruloides by Ridgely &
Tudor (1994) was "Cryptic Antthrush". Krabbe and Schulenberg (2003)
in HBW also use this name. Howard & Moore (and by extension, the SACC) and
Clements (2000) have stuck with "Such's Antthrush". Sick (1993) still
did not recognize meruloides as a separate species, no doubt because the
text for that volume was written largely prior to the description of meruloides
in 1992. The latest edition of Ornitologia Brasileira (Sick and Pacheco
1997) does recognize meruloides but does not employ English names.
Analysis: Although the
published vocal analysis upon which Willis based his split of these antthrushes
was weak, subsequent work has confirmed his conclusions regarding the
relationships of the Atlantic Forest populations to one another. C. campanisona, C. ruficauda, and C.
meruloides clearly behave as good biological species that largely
replace one another altitudinally, but with some overlap. They are vocally and
morphologically distinct from one another. Nominate ruficauda is
also clearly distinct from C. turdina of Colombia/Venezuela, differing
markedly in morphological characters and having a dramatically different song
and calls. There is less documented justification for the separation of meruloides
from turdina, which have somewhat similar songs, but I think that
Willis's conclusions regarding the morphological differences and huge range
disjunction are correct, and that maintaining all of these as separate species
is the proper course. The species-level taxonomic changes proposed by Willis
have been universally adopted.
Conversely,
the application of English names has been a free-for-all. I will make arguments
regarding the English names of turdina and ruficauda in
subsequent proposals. This proposal will focus on C. meruloides.
One the one hand, we have "Such's Antthrush" which has the dual
advantage of honoring the original collector (we think!), and, of being the
name suggested by the person that worked this whole mess out (Willis). On the
other hand, we have "Cryptic Antthrush", which is a clever name that
conveys something of the nomenclatural and taxonomic confusion surrounding the
history of the species, while being easier to say and more pleasing to the ear.
Recommendation: Although I generally
do not like to go against the describer of a species on name choices, and I
have nothing against patronyms (and actually find them preferable to
hair-splitting "descriptive" names), I have to cast my lot with
Ridgely's "Cryptic Antthrush". I agree with Bob that the English
translation of "Such's" is exceedingly awkward (perhaps one step
behind trying to say "Sick's Swift" for Chaetura meruloides
what is it about birds named meruloides? and not having to
explain yourself), and (I could easily be wrong on this) my understanding is
that the correct pronunciation of "Such's" comes out sounding more
like "Suck's" or "Suke's", either
of which would be a disaster (similar to the problem with the English
pronunciation of "Fokker"). For those who would argue against
meddling with established names no matter how bad, I would suggest that
"Such's Antthrush" never got established, given that the species
description appeared in 1992, and Ridgely & Tudor, with a much wider
audience, introduced the name "Cryptic Antthrush" in 1994. By the
time that most of the world was even aware of meruloides, the name
"Cryptic Antthrush" was already out there. Besides being easier on
the tongue, "Cryptic Antthrush" is a clever name that invites people
to delve into the interesting taxonomic mystery resolved so nicely by Willis. I
would also submit that "Cryptic Antthrush" has firmly taken hold
among the birding community, something that is unlikely to change given that
HBW is also using the name. Accordingly, I recommend a "YES" vote on
changing the English name of Chamaeza meruloides from "Such's
Antthrush" to "Cryptic Antthrush".
Literature
Cited
CLEMENTS, J. F. 2000.
Birds of the world: a checklist. Fifth Edition. Ibis Publishing Company, Vista,
California.
HILTY, S. L. 2003.
Birds of Venezuela. Second Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
Jersey.
KRABBE, N. K., AND T.
S. SCHULENBERG. 2003. Family Formicariidae (Ground Antbirds). In DEL
HOYO, J., A. ELLIOTT AND D. CHRISTIE (eds.). Handbook of Birds of the World:
Volume 8. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain.
RIDGELY, R. S., AND G.
TUDOR. 1994. Birds of South America, Volume II: the suboscine passerines.
University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
SIBLEY, C. G., AND B.
L. MONROE, JR. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale
University Press, New Haven and London.
SICK, H. 1985.
Ornitologia Brasileira, uma introdçao.
Editora Univ. Brasília, Brasília.
SICK, H. 1993. Birds in
Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
SICK, H., AND J. F.
PACHECO. 1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Editora Nova Fronteira, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil.
WILLIS, E. 1992. Three Chamaeza Antthrushes
in eastern Brazil (Formicariidae). Condor 94:110-116.
Kevin J. Zimmer,
December 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Robbins:
"YES. I fully concur with Ridgely and Tudor's suggestion of using Cryptic
Antthrush for Chamaeza meruloides. Kevin does a good job of
summarizing the convoluted taxonomic issues and why "Such's
Antthrush" is less appropriate."
Comments
from Jaramillo:
"YES. What a mess! I agree that the original name, well, sucks, and that
it did not have a well-entrenched use. The new name, Cryptic Antthrush, is in
wider use and could be said to be the status quo right now. I say we go with Cryptic
and pay our apologies to poor ol' Such."
Comments
from Stiles:
"YES. Given the chaotic state of affairs and the fact that the species
went unrecognized until recently in spite of having specimens available for
many years, "Cryptic" seems appropriate; its use in standard sources
like HBW gives it a status at least equal to the uneuphonious
(to say the least) ‘Such's’."
Comments
from Nores:
"SI; las razones dadas por Zimmer son muy convincente."
Comments
from Remsen:
"NO. Whether someone's last name is difficult or awkward to pronounce
should not be a deciding factor, in my opinion. Maybe it will force us all to
learn something. [Although Willis evidently thought Such's contributions
merited a patronym, I also would appreciate comments from Fernando and Jose
Maria on Such's contributions -- if very minimal, I could be convinced to
change my vote.] Furthermore, although I appreciate the cleverness of
"cryptic" in the taxonomic sense, most people will assume that it refers
to behavior, for which "cryptic" does not distinguish this species
from any other in the family, much less the genus. My only reservation is the
use of "Cryptic" in HBW, but I'll stick to my NO, at least until
Fernando and Jose Maria weigh in. The CBRO uses "Such's," and the
species is endemic to Brazil."
Comments
from Pacheco:
"NO. Neste caso, estou inclinado a concordar com
as colocações de Remsen. As principais contribuições de George Such - chamado de Dr. Such (um
médico) por seus colegas britânicos (Swainson, Leach, Vigors) do início do Séc.
XIX - foram sumarizadas por Pacheco & Whitney (Auk
114:303-305). Pessoalmente, eu prefiro que o uso do patronímico seja mantido
como única homenagem "possível" a este naturalista."
Comments
from Silva:
"NO. I cannot see any reason to replace the English name of this species.
The name cryptic does not add anything to help people to identify or understand
a bit the history of this species. I would prefer to maintain the name proposed
by Willis."