Proposal
(30) to South
American Classification Committee
Change
English name of Poecilotriccus luluae
Effect on South American
CL: This proposal would change the current English name of Poecilotriccus
luluae from "Lulu's Tody-Tyrant" to "Johnson's
Tody-Tyrant."
Background: The
recently described Poecilotriccus luluae is currently given the English
name "Lulu's Tody-Tyrant," following the recommendation of its
describers (Johnson and Jones 2001). However, the Note that I wrote (Tyrannidae
#13) indicates how I feel about that English name:
"Recently
described: Johnson and Jones (2001). Johnson and Jones suggested "Lulu's
Tody-Tyrant", but if it's going to carry anyone's name, it ought to be
"Johnson's Tody-Tyrant." The logical "Rufous-headed " is
sort-of "preoccupied" in Pseudotriccus pygmy-tyrants. Proposal needed."
With the death of Ned K.
Johnson two days ago, I propose that we honor his extensive contributions to
the biology of the Tyrannidae by changing the English name of this species.
Although patronyms are frowned upon by many, I think it is extremely appropriate
in this case because not only did he discover and describe this species, and
publish many important papers on systematics and geographic variation of the
Tyrannidae, but also he died at a relatively young age and "on the
job." Honoring Ned with this name also signals that SACC strongly supports
the principles that Ned embodied, namely intensive and rigorous fieldwork
combined with detailed, meticulous data analysis. I am slightly concerned that
he might have taken offense to our "overturning" his proposed name
("Lulu's"), but, as indicated above, "Lulu's" was already
in my gun sights as perhaps my least favorite English name.
Lit Cit:
JOHNSON, N. K., AND R. E.
JONES. 2001. A new species of tody-tyrant (Tyrannidae: Poecilotriccus)
from northern Peru. Auk 118: 334-341.
Van
Remsen, 17 June 2003
Note from Remsen: With
the passage of some time since Ned’s death, I now feel free to divulge that Ned
told me that luluae was his serious intent for a name to honor a
benefactor, but that he had so little regard for English names that he
considered “Lulu’s” to be somewhat of a joke on the world.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Zimmer: "YES.
I think this is an appropriate name change, in spite of the fact that I
generally like to not mess with a name suggested by the describer. This change
would serve the dual purpose of honoring Ned's enormous contributions while at
the same time eliminating a name that, frankly, sounds more than a little
silly."
Comments from Schulenberg:
"NO. I usually prefer stability over tinkering with respect to English
names, but I'm not doctrinaire on the subject, and in any event this name is
fresh enough not to be well established. And I don't have any particular
problem with patronyms. But I do have a problem with "split"
patronyms, where the English name and scientific name both honor a person, but
do not honor the *same* person. Just strikes me as a stupid (and confusing)
thing to do.
" I don't think I
respect Ned and his work any less for not going along with this proposal.
Actually, what I'd like to see would be for Ned to receive his patronym the old
fashioned way, i.e. "xxxx johnsoni" or "xxx nedjohnsoni".
Response from Remsen: I
suggest that "stupid (and confusing)" may be a little strong.
Although the agreement between scientific and English patronyms is commonplace,
I see no reason why this should be codified or why it is confusing unless there
is another species in same family that might generate it, e.g., hypothetically,
"Empidonax johnsoni" and "Johnson's Flycatcher"
being two separate species. Furthermore, we just accepted "Xiphorhynchus
kienerii Zimmer's Woodcreeper" (and I don't know the etymology, but
isn't "Sporophila zelichi Narosky's Seedeater" in same
category?). [If you want "stupid (and confusing)", or at least
"confusing", how about "Chlorothraupis olivacea (Lemon-spectacled
Tanager)" vs. "C. carmioli (Olive Tanager)' in just about
every classification except 'Howard-Moore' (and SACC). Or Gallinago andina
= "Puna Snipe", but G. jamesoni = "Andean
Snipe".]
Comments from Stotz: "YES.
I am about as doctrinaire about not messing with English names as one gets, but
I am willing to change this one as it has such a short history, is so terrible
(but is it really worse that Parodi's Hemispingus?), and Johnson's is an
appropriate honor. I am less concerned than Tom that we have a bird that honors
two different people with the English name and scientific name. This is not
unprecedented. MacGillivray's Warbler and Audubon's Shearwater are two examples
that come immediately to mind. We seem to have survived that problem with those
species fairly easily."
Comments from Stiles:
"YES. (No strong feelings on this one, "Lulu's" being new and
thus having no history to speak of (its only advantage being mnemonic for the
Latin name), and the tribute to Ned is nice)."
Comments from Jaramillo:
"YES. Change to Johnson's Pygmy-Tyrant. I am not concerned with the 'split
patronym' and Ned Johnson's work on tyrants and birds in general has been far
reaching enough to warrant the honur."