Proposal (899) to South
American Classification Committee
Establish English names
for Catharus dryas and Catharus maculatus
Background: Based on multiple
lines of evidence provided by Halley et al. (2017) Catharus dryas
Spotted Nightingale-Thrush recently has been split by SACC (Proposal 865,
ttps://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop865.htm) into two allopatric species,
Central American Catharus dryas and South American Catharus maculatus.
However, English names for the two split species have not yet been established.
This proposal is to establish English names for these two species.
Discussion: The initial SACC
proposal included the recommendation that the current English name for C.
dryas (sensu lato) should be discontinued as the need to do so is
“well-justified by Halley et al. (2017) because at least five other species in
the genus are spotted in adult plumage (and all juveniles indeed are spotted)”.
That proposal further pointed out that the name Sclater’s Nightingale-Thrush
has been used for South American C. maculatus (e.g., Hellmayr 1934; HBW/Birdlife
Taxonomic Checklist v. 5; IOC World Bird List v. 10.2) and that Gould’s
Nightingale-thrush has been used in connection with the split Central American
species, C. dryas (e.g., Ridgway 1907; HBW/Birdlife Taxonomic
Checklist v. 5; IOC World Bird List v. 10.2).
However,
it is becoming increasing customary within the AOS community and elsewhere to
try to avoid imposing any new American or European eponyms to newly described
forms and; therefore, these two English names are not desirable.
For
this reason, we would recommend that the AOS Classification Committees consider
other options. The species epithet for C. dryas is a toponym that
translates as “oak”, which really doesn’t adequately describe its favored
habitat. However, the morphonym C. maculatus,
which translates as “maculated”, “spotted”, or “speckled”, is very appropriate
for that species, especially amongst the other South American Catharus
species, given the degree of its heavily spotted underparts. To retain a
certain symmetry between the names of the two sister species we recommend that
similarly constructed morphonyms be used for both of
the newly split forms as follows:
Catharus
dryas:
Option 1a: Yellow-throated Nightingale-Thrush
Option 1b: Yellow-breasted Nightingale-Thrush
Option 1c: Yellow-chested Nightingale-Thrush
Catharus
maculatus:
Option 2a: Spot-throated Nightingale-Thrush
Option 2b: Speckle-throated Nightingale-Thrush
Option 2c: Speckled
Nightingale-Thrush
The
name “Yellow-breasted” or “Yellow-chested” for C. dryas is a direct
translation of the vernacular Spanish name for this species, Zorzalito Pechiamarillo
(Howell & Webb 1995). In the absence of an established English name, the
adoption of the Spanish vernacular name would seem appropriate. However, no
other Catharus thrush has a clear yellow throat, and the clear yellow
throat distinguishes C. dryas from C. maculatus, which has a
dark, or heavily spotted throat. The intent of using “Yellow-throated,”
therefore, is to focus on the one plumage characteristic that best
distinguishes C. dryas from the very similar C. maculatus, rather
than attempt to describe the full extent of the yellowish underparts of this
species.
Similarly,
we favor the use of “Spot-throated” or “Speckle-throated” Nightingale-Thrush
for C. maculatus over “Speckled” Nightingale-Thrush because it’s the
heavily spotted throat that best distinguishes this species from its sister
species. The alternative, Speckled Nightingale-Thrush, does not do so since
both species have spotted/speckled breasts.
Catharus dryas:
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/70482851
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/118117251
Catharus maculatus:
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/44486871
We
recommend that the committees adopt Option 1a for C. dryas and Option 2a
or Option 2b for C. maculatus.
References:
Halley, M. R., J. C
Klicka, P. R. S Clee, and J. D. Weckstein. 2017.
Restoring the species status of Catharus maculatus (Aves: Turdidae), a
secretive Andean thrush, with a critique of the yardstick approach to species
delimitation. Zootaxa 4276: 387-404. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4276.3.4
HBW
and Birdlife Taxonomic Checklist. v 5. http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/taxonomy
(Downloaded
1/10/2021). Birdlife International.
Hellmayr, C. E. 1934.
Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands. Field Museum of
Natural History, Zoological Series, 13 (7). Chicago.
Howell, S. N. G. and S.
Webb. 1995. A Field Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America.
Oxford University Press.
IOC
World Bird List. Version 10.2. https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/
(Downloaded 1/10/21).
Ridgway, R. 1907. The
Birds of North and Middle America. Bulletin of the United States National
Museum. No. 50. Part IV. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC.
David B. Donsker and
Thomas Schulenberg. January 2021
Note
on voting from Remsen:
SACC 865B, the original English name part of the taxonomic proposal, did not
pass (3-3). This is our first experiment
in ranked-choice voting. Therefore,
voting members should rank each option 1-2-3, 1 being the favored option. Also, our vote on Central American C.
dryas, go ahead and do the same, but this is only advisory to NACC.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Lane:
“For C. maculatus, my ranking from first
choice to 3rd choice of the provided names is Speckled N-T, Spot-throated N-T,
Speckle-throated N-T.
“Again, I am not enamored of the names that refer to the throat
here, although I understand the rationale, given that the bird is not best
identified by its throat pattern within its range, and it is such a
dramatically appearing bird that drawing attention to its throat seems rather
strange. Really, the only use of names invoking the throat is if one is
presented with a photograph or specimen without knowledge of its origin.
Otherwise, it seems we are missing the forest for the trees of this birds'
glory. But rather than getting too flowery, I think paralleling the scientific
name and using "Speckled" is appropriate.
“For C. dryas, I would vote for Yellow-breasted or
Yellow-chested over Yellow-throated, but again, "Yellow" is too blasé
for the color, and it actually is more washed with orange in life (fading to
yellow, then white, shortly after being prepared as a specimen). I would
consider "Saffron" or "Peach"... The bird is, again, so
dramatic in appearance, it seems fitting to find a name that does this justice.
Hence my searching for other descriptors in my last set of comments on English
names. "Glowing" or "Sunset" would better capture the image
the eye receives, in my opinion, but it will be up to NACC to decide in the
end.”
Comments from Steve Hilty: “Option 2a (Spot-throated
Nightingale-thrush) sounds good to me.”
Comments from Schulenberg: “With
regard to Catharus maculatus, I would be quite satisfied with any of
these three proposed names. Ranking them actually is difficult, precisely
because the differences between them are so small. Of course I originally was
on the side of 'Speckle/Spot-throated', but since have come around to just
'Speckled Nightingale-Thrush': this is shorter and more to the point, and of
course parallels the old 'Spotted'. as a side note, my preference would be for
an unmodified 'Speckled' to be reserved for species that speckled or spotted
all over (as with Speckled
Rail and Speckled Tanager). but there's obviously no point now in trying to make such
a distinction. (At least this thrush is speckled or spotted: I don't
understand how Colius striatus came to
be called Speckled
Mousebird). So, to
complete this exercise, I rank the options as 1) Speckled; 2) Speckle-throated;
and 3) Spot-throated. again, however, any of these will do.
“As for Catharus dryas, I
rank 'Yellow-breasted' (1) over 'Yellow-throated' (2) because the yellow indeed
extends well beyond the throat. 'Yellow-chested' (3) is a very distant third
choice; 'Xxx-chested' is most often used for species in which the color of the
breast contrasts with colors of the throat and belly (as with Tawny-chested Flycatcher). Substituting a more specific shade for 'Yellow' would be
fine, but should be done with care; for example, the yellow of the throat and
breast of this thrush doesn't seem to me to match that of, say, Saffron Finch. but maybe others see this differently, or can conjure up
another shade of yellow that works better. I'm not fond of 'Apricot' either,
since this is a species name that already is laden with plenty of syllables.
there must be other shades of yellow that I'm not thinking of, however. I know
where Dan Lane is coming from on this, but I'd still be very leery of a name
like 'Glowing'. For example, in the case of Rudolf (an individual reindeer, not
a taxon), it was reported that the nose was 'very shiny' and that one could
even say it glows; but Rudolf's well-known moniker referred to the color
of the tip of the muzzle, not to any other attribute, no matter how striking or
historically important. my view is that 'Glowing' just wouldn't be sufficiently
explanatory to get the job done.”
Comments
from Zimmer:
1. Speckled Nightingale-thrush
2. Spot-throated Nightingale-thrush
3. Speckle-throated
Nightingale-thrush
“I appreciate the previously made points that “Speckled” does not
distinguish maculatus from dryas, but I would agree with Dan that
taken in isolation, focusing on the spotting on the throat, when the breast is
so heavily and extensively speckled, does seem bizarre. Using “Speckled” as the sole modifier would be
appropriate and pithy, although clearly not exclusive. However, there are tons of examples of birds
with appropriate but non-exclusive descriptive names, so I don’t see this as
much of a problem.
“As regards C. dryas:
“My understanding is that we don’t actually have a vote on this
one, as it falls strictly within the purview of NACC, so I’m not going to
bother to rank the choices presented. However,
I did want to second Dan’s comments that “Yellow-throated” “Yellow-breasted”
and “Yellow-chested” fail to capture the color of this bird in life. Saffron-breasted”,
as suggested by Dan, would be an improvement in my opinion, although I
personally feel that “Apricot-breasted” would be even better. I was interested to see that illustrations of
“Spotted Nightingale-thrush” in HBW (and the subsequent illustrated checklist)
show a bird that is only marginally yellowish below at all (more whitish than
anything) – I’m guessing that these illustrations were based upon specimens
that had lost their apricot color post-mortem, and that the artist had no actual
field experience with these striking (in life) thrushes. Dan alludes to this post-mortem fading in his
remarks, and I would note that the somewhat orange-yellow breast color of C.
dryas can also be found in some Polioptila lactea in life
– another case where the color fades rapidly to white post-mortem.
“Okay, in that case here are my rankings in order, including 2
that weren’t on the official list:
1.
Apricot-breasted Nightingale-Thrush
2. Saffron-breasted Nightingale-Thrush
3. Yellow-breasted Nightingale-Thrush =
Option 1b
4. Yellow-chested Nightingale-Thrush =
Option 1c
5. Yellow-throated Nightingale-Thrush =
Option 1a”
Comments
from Hilty:
“Here are my rankings:
1. Speckled Nightingale-Thrush
2. Spot-throated Nightingale-Thrush
3. Speckle-throated Nightingale-Thrush
Comments
from Pearman:
“1b and 1c also apply to C. maculatus though
as the bird is washed yellow, so not a distinguishing feature between the
species, albeit obscure. One is brighter yellow than the other.
“Then, in maculatus, the first two options Spot-throated
and Speckle-throated are at odds with the fact that the throat is unspotted.
And the final option Speckled N-T is valid for both species. So, this is all
very, very confusing to me.... what am I missing here. C. maculatus is a
bird I see every year. I would definitely go with Hellmayr's names.”
Comments from Stiles: “As for dryas-1b>1c>1a.
I don't like "Yellow-chested”
because it implies a contrast between the chest and the rest of the underparts,
and "Yellow-throated” is only useful to contrast dryas with maculatus,
which seems unlikely to be used given the great distance between their ranges.
Not having experience with dryas (it doesn't occur in Costa Rica, but
given the photos, I could well go with Saffron-breasted").
“As for maculatus, 2b>2c>2a - although were 2a to be
given as "Spotted-throated", I'd place it first - it is more accurate
in that there are lots of spots, not just one on its throat (and it's no longer
or harder to pronounce than "Speckle(d)-throated!”
Comments
from Remsen:
“C.
maculatus:
1. Speckled
Nightingale-Thrush. I like Dan’s point that
focusing on the throat seems odd when the breast markings are so much more
conspicuous. Also, the markings on the
throat are difficult to see, even in photos (see below). Further, with allopatric taxa, noting
diagnostic differences between the two is not as important to me. Tom’s point about Speckled empirically often referring
to the entire bird is good, but we have counter-examples Speckled Spinetail, Speckled
Chachalaca, and Speckled Hummingbird that are speckled only ventrally
2. Speckle-throated
Nightingale-Thrush (the markings on the throat indeed look more like what I
would consider speckles than spots, which I think of as more rounded; see
photos below)
3. Spot-throated
Nightingale-Thrush
Here
are screen shots of 3 C. maculatus photos from Macaulay:
By
Nick Athanas (Ecuador):
By
Alex Mesquita (Argentina):
By
Oscar Johnson (Bolivia):