Proposal
(702) to South American Classification Committee
Change
hyphenated group-names within the genera Pseudotriccus,
Euscarthmus, Myiornis, Lophotriccus, Oncostoma, Atalotriccus, and Hemitriccus
Effect
on South American CL: SACC
rules governing the use of hyphenated group-names requires that we adopt at
least some of the proposed changes.
Depending on how many of the sub-proposals we ultimately end up
adopting, passage of parts of this proposal would change or eliminate the
hyphenated group-names for a maximum of 38 species of small flycatchers on our
list.
Background: The English hyphenated group-name
“Pygmy-Tyrant” is currently applied to 18 species of tiny to small flycatchers on
our list. Despite the hyphenated
group-name, the Pygmy-Tyrants are not a monophyletic group. In fact, the 18 species are spread across no
less than 6 genera (Pseudotriccus,
Euscarthmus, Myiornis, Lophotriccus, Atalotriccus and Hemitriccus), the first two of which are most often treated as part
of the subfamily Elaeniinae, and the other four of which are recognized as
belonging in the subfamily Platyrinchinae.
Complicating things even further, is that 18 of the currently recognized
22 species occupying the genus Hemitriccus
share the hyphenated group- name of “Tody-Tyrant”, as opposed to the other 4
species of Hemitriccus that are
called “Pygmy-Tyrants”. Furthermore, the
two species of “Bentbills”, long placed in their own genus Oncostoma, occupy a position in our linear sequence that is
sandwiched between two genera bearing the English group name of
“Pygmy-Tyrants”.
The
following list represents our current treatment, broken down by genus and
hyphenated English group-name:
Pseudotriccus “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Pseudotriccus pelzelni Bronze-olive Pygmy-Tyrant
Pseudotriccus simplex Hazel-fronted Pygmy-Tyrant
Pseudotriccus ruficeps Rufous-headed Pygmy-Tyrant
Euscarthmus “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Euscarthmus meloryphus Tawny-crowned Pygmy-Tyrant
Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Myiornis auricularis Eared Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis albiventris White-bellied
Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis atricapillus Black-capped Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis ecaudatus Short-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant
Oncostoma “Bentbills”:
Oncostoma cinereigulare Northern Bentbill
Oncostoma olivaceum Southern Bentbill
Lophotriccus “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Lophotriccus pileatus Scale-crested
Pygmy-Tyrant
Lophotriccus vitiosus Double-banded
Pygmy-Tyrant
Lophotriccus eulophotes Long-crested Pygmy-Tyrant
Lophotriccus galeatus Helmeted Pygmy-Tyrant
Atalotriccus “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Atalotriccus pilaris Pale-eyed Pygmy-Tyrant
Hemitriccus “Pygmy-Tyrants”:
Hemitriccus flammulatus Flammulated
Pygmy-Tyrant
Hemitriccus diops Drab-breasted Pygmy-Tyrant
Hemitriccus obsoletus Brown-breasted Pygmy-Tyrant
Hemitriccus furcatus Fork-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant
Hemitriccus “Tody-Tyrants”:
Hemitriccus minor Snethlage's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus cohnhafti Acre Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus spodiops Yungas Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus josephinae Boat-billed Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus griseipectus White-bellied
Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus orbitatus Eye-ringed Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus iohannis Johannes's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus striaticollis Stripe-necked Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus nidipendulus Hangnest Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer Pearly-vented Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus inornatus Pelzeln's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus minimus Zimmer's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus granadensis Black-throated
Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus cinnamomeipectus Cinnamon-breasted Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus mirandae Buff-breasted
Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus kaempferi Kaempfer's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus rufigularis Buff-throated Tody-Tyrant
Analysis &
Sub-Proposals:
Part of the reason for this
mess is that a number of these birds were previously placed in other genera,
for which one group-name or the other (“Pygmy-Tyrant” or “Tody-Tyrant”) was the
standard used. Thus, most of the species
currently within Hemitriccus were
previously treated within Idioptilon,
whose members were typically called “Tody-Tyrants” whereas the original core
members of Hemitriccus (diops, obsoletus and flammulatus)
were called “Pygmy-Tyrants”. Ridgely
& Tudor (1994) attempted to navigate the confusion by calling the original
core Hemitriccus species
“Bamboo-Tyrants”, using the rationale that simply changing the group-name to
“Tody-Tyrant” for all Hemitriccus
species would result in H. flammulatus
having the English name of “Flammulated Tody-Tyrant”, when it was, in fact,
less flammulated than several other species of tody-tyrants. Although novel, I don’t think this approach
is ultimately helpful, because it still obscures the relationship of the three
species involved to the rest of the genus (as does, currently, use of
“Pygmy-Tyrant”). Also, there are other
species of Hemitriccus, such as furcatus, that are equally tied to
bamboo, and yet, would not be called “Bamboo-Tyrant” under the naming
conventions of Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
Regardless, we are left with a convoluted, confusing
mess that needs to be cleaned up. To
retain the hyphenated group-names for groups that are not monophyletic violates
our own guidelines for the use of hyphens in group-names. One
solution would be to keep the English names for all species involved as they
are now, but simply remove the hyphens from the group-names. I don’t see that as much of a solution, since
I would imagine that most people would quite naturally assume that all birds
called “Pygmy Tyrants” are more closely related to one another than any are to
birds not named “Pygmy Tyrant”, with, or without the hyphen. This would be particularly misleading with
respect to the four species of Hemitriccus
that are still called “Pygmy-Tyrant”. Furthermore, I like the potentially
informative value of the hyphenated group-name.
However, any other solution is going to involve some fairly dramatic
changes to the status quo. I think the
best way to approach this is a piecemeal approach, in which this proposal is
broken down into multiple parts. Here
goes:
Proposal 702a: Keep all English names for
species in the genera Pseudotriccus, Euscarthmus, Myiornis, Oncostoma, Lophotriccus, Atalotriccus and Hemitriccus
as they currently stand, but remove the hyphens from the implied group-names,
so that “Pygmy-Tyrants” become “Pygmy Tyrants” and “Tody-Tyrants” become “Tody
Tyrants”. Note that a vote for this
sub-proposal would imply a “NO” vote on every other sub-proposal.
Proposal 702b:
Change the English group-name of Hemitriccus
flammulatus, H. diops, H. obsoletus and H. furcatus from “Pygmy-Tyrant” to “Tody-Tyrant”, and then, remove
the hyphen from the group name for all Hemitriccus
species. Changing these 4 species from “Pygmy-Tyrants”
to “Tody-Tyrants” would give us across-the-board uniformity for the 22
currently recognized species of Hemitriccus,
all of which would then be known as “Tody-Tyrants”. Unfortunately, looking at the results of Tello
& Bates (2007), it appears that Hemitriccus
is not monophyletic with respect to Myiornis,
because H. margaritaceiventer is more
closely related to Myiornis than it
is to the rest of Hemitriccus. That means that we can’t use the hyphenated
group-name of “Tody-Tyrant” without also including Myiornis, in the mix, along with the other four genera (more on
this later). But, it would still be much
less confusing to have all of the Hemitriccus
species under the same general banner, which we can achieve by making them all
“Tody Tyrant(s)” without the hyphen.
Here is what Hemitriccus would look like with
adoption of this option:
Hemitriccus minor Snethlage's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus cohnhafti Acre Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus spodiops Yungas Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus flammulatus Flammulated Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus diops Drab-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus obsoletus Brown-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus josephinae Boat-billed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus griseipectus White-bellied Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus orbitatus Eye-ringed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus iohannis Johannes's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus striaticollis Stripe-necked Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus nidipendulus Hangnest Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer Pearly-vented Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus inornatus Pelzeln's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus minimus Zimmer's Tody-Tyrant
Hemitriccus granadensis Black-throated Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus cinnamomeipectus Cinnamon-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus mirandae Buff-breasted Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus kaempferi Kaempfer's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus rufigularis Buff-throated Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus furcatus Fork-tailed Tody Tyrant
Proposal 702c: Reserve the hyphenated English
group-name of “Pygmy-Tyrant” for the monophyletic group that truly deserves the
name: the genus Myiornis. The monophyly
of this group of four species, is, as far I can tell, unquestioned. Together, they are the tiniest of the
flycatchers, hands-down. Here is what
the “Pygmy-Tyrants” would look like:
Myiornis auricularis Eared Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis albiventris White-bellied
Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis atricapillus Black-capped Pygmy-Tyrant
Myiornis ecaudatus Short-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant
In other words, adopting
this proposal would not change anything where Myiornis is concerned. But
it would restrict use of the hyphenated group-name “Pygmy-Tyrant” to that
genus.
Proposal 702d: If Proposal 702c is adopted, then
something has to be done with the three species of Pseudotriccus and the two species of Euscarthmus, all of which currently share (inappropriately) the
hyphenated group-name of “Pygmy-Tyrant.”
The two genera are not particularly close to one another, and neither is
at all close to any of the other flycatchers currently called
“Pygmy-Tyrants”. Pseudotriccus and Euscarthmus
are not only currently treated as belonging to a different subfamily, but their
taxonomic past is even more checkered, with Euscarthmus
having, at one time, been variously treated as belonging with either antbirds
or gnateaters, based largely on similarities in tarsal scutellation. One option would be to continue calling
members of the two genera “Pygmy Tyrants” without the hyphen, thereby
stripping away any implied relationship with Myiornis, as well as any suggestion that Pseudotriccus and Euscarthmus
are monophyletic with respect to one another.
Here’s what these two genera would look like:
Pseudotriccus pelzelni Bronze-olive Pygmy Tyrant
Pseudotriccus simplex Hazel-fronted Pygmy Tyrant
Pseudotriccus ruficeps Rufous-headed Pygmy Tyrant
Euscarthmus meloryphus Tawny-crowned
Pygmy Tyrant
Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Pygmy Tyrant
This
course would involve the least amount of disruption to the status quo where
these five species are concerned, but we would still be left with the potential
for confusion regarding the implied relationship of Pseudotriccus and Euscarthmus
to one another, as well as that of both genera to Myiornis and anything else sharing the hyphenated group-name of
“Pygmy-Tyrant”. A YES vote on 702d would mean retaining the current English names for
these five species, but removing the hyphen linking “Pygmy” and “Tyrant”. A NO vote would require a YES vote on either
702e or 702f.
Proposal 702e: In the
event of Proposal 702c passing, 702e would provide an alternative naming
convention than that proposed in 702d.
The simplest alternative would be to remove “Pygmy” from the English
names of the five species of Pseudotriccus
and Euscarthmus, leaving us with:
Pseudotriccus pelzelni Bronze-olive Tyrant
Pseudotriccus simplex Hazel-fronted Tyrant
Pseudotriccus ruficeps Rufous-headed Tyrant
Euscarthmus meloryphus Tawny-crowned Tyrant
Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Tyrant
This option is more
streamlined than the others, and I don’t think there are any conflicts stemming
from these proposed name changes. The
disadvantage is that we are sacrificing any attempt at an informative group-name,
and there are, after all, bunches of things that are just called
“Tyrants”. A YES vote on 702e is a vote
for removing “Pygmy” from the English names of Pseudotriccus and Euscarthmus,
and foregoing any attempt at group names or other modifiers for these two
genera.
Proposal 702f:
Construct new group-names for Pseudotriccus
and Euscarthmus. Still another option would be to construct a new
hyphenated group-name for each of these genera, which may not be worth the
bother, given the small number of species (3 and 2 respectively) involved. I could see calling the two Euscarthmus “Scrub-Tyrants” for example,
although I’m hard-pressed to come up with an appropriate group name for Pseudotriccus. To clarify things as much as possible, let’s
say that a NO vote on this sub-proposal requires a YES vote for either 702d or
702e. A YES vote is a vote to construct
new group-names for Pseudotriccus and
Euscarthmus. Passage of 702f would trigger a separate
proposal to come up with new group names.
Proposal 702g: If sub-proposal 702c passes,
restricting the use of the hyphenated group-name “Pygmy-Tyrant” to the species
in the genus “Myiornis”, then we are
left with the question of needing to do something with the 4 species of Lophotriccus and the 1 species in Atalotriccus, all of which are currently
called “Pygmy-Tyrants”. The least
disruptive choice, as is the case for Pseudotriccus
and Euscarthmus, would be to simply
drop the hyphens linking “Pygmy” and “Tyrant”, leaving us with this:
Lophotriccus pileatus Scale-crested Pygmy
Tyrant
Lophotriccus vitiosus Double-banded Pygmy
Tyrant
Lophotriccus eulophotes Long-crested Pygmy Tyrant
Lophotriccus galeatus Helmeted Pygmy Tyrant
Atalotriccus pilaris Pale-eyed Pygmy Tyrant
Once
again, although less disruptive, this alternative leaves us with the continuing
confusion (with, or without the hyphen) of unrelated birds being called “Pygmy
Tyrant.” A YES vote on 702g is for retaining the English names of the 4 Lophotriccus and 1 Atalotriccus, but removing the hyphen linking “Pygmy” and
“Tyrant.” A NO vote on 702g would
require a YES vote on either 702h or 702i.
Proposal 702h: Change
the English names of the various species of Lophotriccus
and Atalotriccus from “Pygmy-Tyrants”
to “Tody Tyrants”, to align with Hemitriccus,
which currently has a monopoly on the name “Tody-Tyrant”.
SACC
Tyrannidae Note 45a reads as follows:
“The genetic data of Tello & Bates (2007) and Tello et al. (2009)
found that Lophotriccus was
paraphyletic with respect to Oncostoma,
and that Hemitriccus was paraphyletic
with respect to these two genera and Atalotriccus. Although further taxon-sampling is needed, a
case could be made that these five genera [KJZ: the four mentioned plus Myiornis] should be combined (Hemitriccus has priority). SACC proposal needed.”
Setting
aside the larger question of formally subsuming Lophotriccus, Oncostoma
and Atalotriccus into Hemitriccus, the molecular evidence
supports the premise that these genera constitute a monophyletic group, but
only if Myiornis is also included
(Tello & Bates 2007, Tello et al. 2009).
Tello and Bates found that Lophotriccus
was paraphyletic with respect to Oncostoma,
and that Hemitriccus was paraphyletic
with respect to Lophotriccus, Oncostoma and Atalotriccus. Myiornis appears to be monophyletic as
constituted. It would be great if we
could extend the hyphenated group-name “Tody-Tyrant” from Hemitriccus to include Lophotriccus,
Atalotriccus and Oncostoma. Unfortunately,
looking at results of Tello & Bates (2007), it appears that Hemitriccus is not monophyletic with
respect to Myiornis, because H. margaritaceiventer is more closely
related to Myiornis than it is to the
rest of Hemitriccus. That means that not only can we not extend
the hyphenated group-name of “Tody-Tyrant” beyond Hemitriccus, but, as already spelled out in sub-proposal 702b, it
also means that we can’t use that hyphenated group-name at all, without also
including Myiornis in the mix, along
with the other four genera.
I
still think there is value in using a simplified naming scheme that reflects
how closely related all of these little flycatchers are to one another, even if
we can’t use the hyphenated group-name.
So, I would propose that we change the English names of the various species
of Lophotriccus and Atalotriccus (we’ll deal with Oncostoma in
a separate sub-proposal) from “Pygmy Tyrants” to “Tody-Tyrants” and then
drop the hyphen from all things named “Tody-Tyrant” (including all of the Hemitriccus, which currently has a
monopoly on the name “Tody-Tyrant”).
Doing this would allow us to keep Myiornis
as Pygmy-Tyrants while having all of the other species in the group sharing a
similar “implied group name” without violating our own rules of hyphenation as
related to monophyletic groups. Hemitriccus not only has priority as a
genus, but it is by far the most speciose of the four genera in question, which
would mean that the English names of 22 out of 29 species would remain exactly
the same (assuming that subproposal 702b passes), except for the loss of the
hyphen in the “group name”. At the same
time, by expanding the use of “Tody Tyrant” as an “implied group name”, we
would not only be retaining the informative value inherent in the use of a
hyphenated group-name, but expanding it, while indicating just how closely
related the four genera are to one another.
So, although this would involve a big change in some respects, it could
also be viewed as both streamlining and conservative, in the sense that it
provides the simplest course of action that still grants us the use of a
phylogenetically suggestive “implied group name”, while conserving the existing
name (minus the hyphens) of a majority of the species involved. Although not monophyletic in the strict sense
(because of the exclusion of Myiornis)
using “Tody Tyrant” as an informal “implied” group name is much more accurate
phylogenetically than using “Pygmy Tyrant” as an informal “implied” group name
encompassing Myiornis, Lophotriccus,
Atalotriccus, Pseudotriccus, Euscarthmus and 4 species of Hemitriccus, which is what we would be
looking at if 702a and/or 702d were to pass.
Passage
of this sub-proposal would give us the following:
Oncostoma cinereigulare Northern Bentbill*
{See below…}
Oncostoma olivaceum Southern Bentbill *
Lophotriccus pileatus Scale-crested Tody
Tyrant
Lophotriccus vitiosus Double-banded Tody
Tyrant
Lophotriccus eulophotes Long-crested Tody Tyrant
Lophotriccus galeatus Helmeted Tody Tyrant
Atalotriccus pilaris Pale-eyed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus minor Snethlage's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus cohnhafti Acre Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus spodiops Yungas Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus flammulatus Flammulated Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus diops Drab-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus obsoletus Brown-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus josephinae Boat-billed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus zosterops White-eyed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus griseipectus White-bellied Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus orbitatus Eye-ringed Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus iohannis Johannes's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus striaticollis Stripe-necked Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus nidipendulus Hangnest Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer Pearly-vented Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus inornatus Pelzeln's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus minimus Zimmer's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus granadensis Black-throated Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus cinnamomeipectus Cinnamon-breasted Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus mirandae Buff-breasted Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus kaempferi Kaempfer's Tody Tyrant
Hemitriccus rufigularis Buff-throated Tody
Tyrant
Hemitriccus furcatus Fork-tailed Tody Tyrant
Proposal #702i: To reiterate, the work of Tello & Bates
(2007) and Tello et al. (2009) demonstrates that Lophotriccus is paraphyletic with respect to Oncostoma, and Hemitriccus
is paraphyletic with respect to Lophotriccus,
Oncostoma, Atalotriccus and Myiornis,
but Myiornis, by itself, is
monophyletic. All of this means that the
only way that we can use hyphenated group-names within these five genera would
be to lump everything (including Myiornis)
together under the group name of “Tody-Tyrant”, or, to restrict “Pygmy-Tyrant”
to Myiornis, and not use a hyphenated
group-name for anything else. Going with
Option #1 would confer the advantage of having a phylogenetically informative,
hyphenated group-name binding all members of this monophyletic group
together. It would have the disadvantage
of not allowing us to further recognize the distinctiveness of Myiornis, and, I believe it would also
require us to come up with completely new names for the two species of Oncostoma, because they would have to share
the hyphenated group-name, and using the current modifiers of “Northern” and
“Southern” would make zero sense within the context of a greatly expanded set
of “Tody-Tyrants”. So, a YES vote on this sub-proposal is a vote for recognizing all five
genera under discussion as the monophyletic group they appear to represent by
applying the hyphenated group-name of “Tody-Tyrant” to all members of Hemitriccus, Lophotriccus, Atalotriccus,
Oncostoma and Myiornis. It also automatically implies a NO vote to
sub-proposals 702a, 702g, and 702h, and a YES vote on sub-proposal 702b, which
would be a necessary precursor.
Proposal 702j: Change the English names of the two species
of Oncostoma.
Finally,
if neither 702a nor 702i passes, then we still have to address the issue of the
two species of Oncostoma, which are
currently called Northern Bentbill and Southern Bentbill. The molecular work of Tello & Bates and
Tello et al. makes clear that Oncostoma
is closely related to Hemitriccus, Lophotriccus and Atalotriccus, but the only way that we
can use a hyphenated group-name for any of these four genera is to include all
four, plus Myiornis (= adopt Proposal
702i). If we don’t go that route, then
we are not under any constraints to change the names of the two bentbills,
although we could. The two options I see
are either to retain the current English names for the two species of Oncostoma, or, to make them “Tody
Tyrants” to be in line with all of their closest relatives. Personally, given that the absence of a
hyphenated group-name frees us from the constraint of making such a change, I
would prefer to leave the bentbills alone.
The name is novel, clearly links the two species that are almost
certainly closest relatives, and also acts to define a peculiar morphotype
within the clade. So, consider a NO vote
on this sub-proposal a vote to make no change with the English names of the two
Oncostoma species. A YES vote would be to change them both to
“something Tody Tyrant”, and that would trigger a separate proposal to come up
with new modifiers.
Recommendation: Start by acknowledging that we have to do
something. The status quo violates our
own naming conventions concerning the use of hyphenated group-names, and engenders
nothing but confusion. The simplest and
least-disruptive change would be to adopt #702a and vote NO on everything
else. However, to my thinking, that is also the least satisfactory option,
one that perpetuates and codifies the existing confusion only for the sake of
conformity, without adding any informative value to any of the English names.
I
would recommend the following:
702a: NO
702b: YES
702c: YES
702d: NO
702e: YES
702f: NO
702g: NO
702h: YES
702i: NO
702j: NO
Additional
thoughts:
Adoption
of these recommendations would leave us with a streamlined situation involving
only one hyphenated group-name (Pygmy-Tyrant) applied to only four
species. This group-name would actually
apply to a monophyletic group, and, as such, is infinitely more informative
than our current situation, in which unrelated birds from multiple genera and
two subfamilies share the hyphenated group-name of “Pygmy-Tyrant”. It would
also conform to our own English-name conventions.
Passage
of 702b is strongly recommended, to get all of the Hemitriccus species using the same “implied group name” of “Tody
Tyrant”, albeit without the hyphen that can only be applied to monophyletic
groups. To not pass this sub-proposal
would mean sticking with the current, exceptionally misleading status quo, in
which 18 species of Hemitriccus would
be called Tody Tyrants (without the hyphen), and the other 4 would be called
Pygmy Tyrants (without the hyphen)
Finally,
Pseudotriccus and Euscarthmus are outliers in this
conversation, but outliers that, unfortunately, currently (and inappropriately)
share the same hyphenated group-name with four other genera, none of which are
closely related. At the very least, we
have to remove the group hyphen from their names. I would favor dropping any attempt at a group
name for these few species, but I could be persuaded to go in either of the
other two directions mentioned above.
Literature
Cited:
RIDGELY, R. S., AND G. TUDOR. 1994. The
birds of South America, vol. 2. University Texas Press, Austin.
TELLO, J. G., AND J. M. BATES. 2007.
Molecular phylogenetics of the tody-tyrant and flatbill assemblage of tyrant
flycatchers (Tyrannidae). Auk 124: 134-154.
TELLO, J. G., MOYLE, R. G., D. J. MARCHESE,
AND J. CRACRAFT. 2009. Phylogeny and phylogenetic classification of
the tyrant-flycatchers, cotingas, manakins, and their allies (Aves:
Tyrannides). Cladistics 25: 1-39.
Kevin J.
Zimmer, February 2016
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Remsen:
“A. NO. This just
perpetuates the misleading connotation of relatedness among those with shared
“last names” to the exclusion of the others, i.e., the underlying fallacy in
Gill’s (IOC) logic for removal of hyphens.”
B. NO. I oppose any
solution that produces unhyphenated “Tody Tyrant” because “Tody” is the name of
another group of birds, thus creating potential confusion, especially when
English names are rendered without caps.
C. YES. Although this might be a temporary solution if Myiornis found to be non-monophyletic.”
D. YES. Required removal
of hyphens dictated by our policy.
E. NO, as required by YES on D.
This maximizes stability.
F. NO, as required by YES on D.
This maximizes stability.
G. YES. Required removal
of hyphens dictated by our policy.
H. YES. Although I see
that this conflicts somewhat with a yes vote on G and my concern for stability,
I like this solution better because (1)” <to be continued>
Comments from Stiles: “Again, I’m not
fascinated by the hyphen game, but Kevin’s suggestions do help to clean up the
English names appreciably, making them more (if not perfectly, but I can’t come
up with anything better) congruent with the generic nomenclature. So, YES to
b,c,e and h, and NO to the other subproposals. Scrub-tyrant isn´t bad for Euscarthmus, but the plumages of the two
Pseudotriccus, pelzelni and ruficeps, are
so different that no descriptive name
could cover both.”
Comments
from Jaramillo: “A –
YES. Perhaps I am being dense here, but this proposal is very confusing. The
way I read it, if we accept the suggested voting in the proposal we would end
up with some hyphenated and some non-hyphenated group names. This would be very
confusing for use by people out there. You would in essence have to know
relationship to know when to hyphenate, that is a lot to ask. I would rather
just do away with the hyphens, and although ugly and maybe less informative in
this case, it is easier to remember. Is there a way we can vote on a “pass” for
this set of birds, and just leave them hyphenated as they are? Even if it
breaks our rules?
“Note also that
I am very much in favor of retaining “Bentbill” for the two species, which is a
darn good name and useful in the field. Any change to that in order to fit
hyphenation rules would be a problem for me. So on 702J – definitely a double
NO.
Comments from Robbins: “If I were voting
on this proposal, I would either support Kevin’s suggestions (voting “yes” b,
c, e and h, no for all others) or I would propose a modification to his
suggestions. In order to keep the name
“tody tyrant” unique to Lophotriccus,
I would suggest using Hemitriccus for
the English ending for all members of that genus, e.g., Acre Hemitriccus,
Yungas Hemitriccus. This would eliminate
much confusion and would also have the added benefit of conveying that all
those species are part of the same clade.
Finally, like Alvaro, I would vote no for any proposal that changed the
name from the very appropriate “bentbill” to anything else, regardless of Oncostoma relatives.”