Proposal (912) to South
American Classification Committee
Establish
English names for members of the Grallaria rufula complex
Background: For many years, Rufous
Antpitta Grallaria rufula stood alone. In 1987, however, Graves
described a second species, Chestnut Antpitta Grallaria blakei, which
was cryptically similar to Grallaria rufula (Graves 1987). Graves (1987)
hinted at a third taxon, which he suggested "may represent an undescribed
subspecies of G. rufula or G. blakei, or an undescribed third
species", but did not undertake a more comprehensive review. Later Krabbe
and Schulenberg (2003) noted that "Considerable vocal differences between
most subspecies and also within rufula
(and obscura?) suggest that several
species are involved, and the relationship of these forms with G. blakei needs to be determined".
del Hoyo and Collar (2016) recognized Grallaria rufula saltuensis as a
separate species and reiterated that a "major revision of species limits
is needed".
New information: The major revision of species recently arrived, in the form of
comprehensive assessments of phylogenetic relationships (Chesser et al. 2020)
and a detailed evaluation of vocalizations, plumage, and morphometrics across
all taxa (Isler et al. 2020). The result was recognition of 16 species in the 'Grallaria
rufula complex', including a species not previously recognized as a member
of this group (Grallaria rufocinerea Bicolored Antpitta); the elevation
of all subspecies of Grallaria rufula to species rank (including one
taxon that long had been in synonymy); and the description of no fewer than six
new species (Isler et al. 2020). SACC recently voted to accept these splits and
to recognize the newly described species (AOS-SACC Proposal 883). This major revision
has not yet been implemented, however, pending endorsement by SACC of English
names for each species.
Analysis: Isler et al. (2020) suggested English names for all members of the Grallaria
rufula complex; and to their credit, they suggested new, 'simple' names for
each species (rather than burdening us with many permutations of 'Xxx Rufous
Antpitta'). We propose to largely follow their suggestions, with a few (but
only a few) proposed changes. For convenience, we follow the sequence of
species adopted by Isler et al. (2020):
Grallaria saltuensis
Isler et al. accepted 'Perija Antpitta', a name
first proposed (at the subspecies level) by Meyer de Schauensee (1950), and
later adopted by del Hoyo and Collar (2016), Hilty (2021), and the forthcoming
eBird/Clements Checklist of Birds of the World (v2021, to be released in
mid-August 2021). The name is very appropriate, as the species is restricted to
the Sierra de Perijá.
Grallaria spatiator
This species is endemic to the Sierra Nevada de
Santa Marta, but there already is a Santa Marta Antpitta (Grallaria bangsi).
Isler et al. adopted the name 'Sierra Nevada Antpitta', which apparently first
was proposed (at the subspecies level) by del Hoyo and Collar (2016), and also
has been adopted by Hilty (2021) and the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
The only other alternative of which we are aware is 'Wandering Antpitta' (Cory
and Hellmayr 1924, Meyer de Schauensee 1950), a name that we cannot recommend.
Grallaria rufula
Isler et al. proposed the name 'Muisca Antpitta',
which "honors the Muisca civilization that occupied the altiplano and
slopes of the Eastern Andes. Muisca culture survives in the contemporary
Colombian society of this region". Coining a new English name for Grallaria
rufula sensu stricto is, of course, much preferred over retaining 'Rufous
Antpitta' (as was done by del Hoyo and Collar 2016). Muisca Antpitta has been
adopted by Hilty (2021) and the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria alvarezi
This is a newly described species, for which Isler
et al. proposed the name 'Chami Antpitta', which "honors the 'people of
the mountains,' the Emberá-Chamí indigenous community inhabiting the slopes of
northern Western Andes of Colombia. Chamí means mountain ... in Emberá
language". Chami Antpitta has been
adopted by Hilty (2021) and the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria saturata
This is a taxon that previously was regarded as a
junior synonym of Grallaria rufula (e.g., Cory and Hellmayr 1924). Isler
et al. proposed the name 'Equatorial Antpitta', a name that "reflects the
geographic location of the range of this species, which straddles the
Equator". This name has been adopted by Hilty (2021) and the forthcoming
eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria cajamarcae
Isler et al. accepted the name 'Cajamarca Antpitta'
(which "reflects the scientific name and the geographic range of this
species, which is primarily confined to Cajamarca, Peru"), first proposed
(at the subspecies level) by del Hoyo and Collar (2016), and also adopted by
the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria blakei
Named 'Chestnut Antpitta' by Graves (1987), and this
name has been in widespread use ever since. Although the southern portion of
the range previously attributed to blakei now is represented by a newly
described species (Grallaria centralis), Isler et al. retained the name
Chestnut Antpitta. We see no problems with this approach; Chestnut Antpitta
also is retained in the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria gravesi
This is a newly described species, for which Isler
et al. propose the name 'Graves's Antpitta'. Here we part ways with Isler et
al. We recognize that all members of this complex are unpatterned and dull in
color, and that coining novel names is a challenge. Nonetheless, Gary Graves
already is honored in the species epithet, and so it seems unimaginative and
redundant to rely on the eponym for the English name as well. We recommend the
name 'Chachapoyas Antpitta'. This name refers not to the modern town of
Chachapoyas, but to the pre-Incan Chachapoyas civilization, the distribution of
which overlaps broadly with the range of this species (see the map at http://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/chachapoya-indians/ ). Chachapoyas Antpitta has been adopted by the forthcoming
eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria oneilli
This is another newly described species, for which
Isler et al. proposed the name 'O'Neill's Antpitta'. Our objections to this
name are the same as for Grallaria gravesi. We propose the name 'Panao
Antpitta', after the city closest to the type locality; this is similar to the
approach taken by Isler et al. with respect to the name of Grallaria
centralis (see below). Panao Antpitta has been adopted by the forthcoming
eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria obscura
Isler et al. suggested the name 'Junin Antpitta',
which "reflects the limited distribution of this species", and which
has been available at least since Cory and Hellmayr (1924). This name has been
adopted by the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria centralis
This is a newly described species, for which Isler
et al. propose the name 'Oxapampa Antpitta', which "reflects the Province
of Oxapampa, Pasco, Peru", where this species first was discovered. This
name has been adopted by the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria ayacuchensis
This is yet another newly described species, for
which Isler et al. propose the name 'Ayacucho Antpitta', which reflects
"its restricted known distribution on the humid eastern slopes of the
Department of Ayacucho, Peru". This name has been adopted by the
forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria occabambae
Isler et al. suggested adopting the name 'Urubamba
Antpitta', a name used for this taxon (as a subspecies) by Cory and Hellmayr
(1924). This name has been adopted by the forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria sinaensis
This is the final newly described species, for which
Isler et al. proposed the name 'Puno Antpitta'. The distribution of the species
extends into adjacent Bolivia, but Puno encompasses at least half of its known
range, and this English name "reflects the Peruvian department in which
the type locality is located". Puno Antpitta has been adopted by the
forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Grallaria cochabambae
Isler et al. suggested adopting the name 'Bolivian
Antpitta', first proposed by del Hoyo and Collar (2016). This species endemic
to Bolivia, and so the name is very appropriate; it has been adopted by the
forthcoming eBird/Clements Checklist.
Recommendation: In terms of voting, we propose the following options:
Part A, Grallaria saltuensis
Option 1: Perija Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part B, Grallaria spatiator
Option 1: Sierra Nevada Antpitta
Option 2: Wandering Antpitta
Option 3: some other name, not yet identified.
Part C, Grallaria rufula
Option 1: Muisca Antpitta
Option 2: Rufous Antpitta
Option 3: some other name, not yet identified.
Part D, Grallaria alvarezi
Option 1: Chami Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part E, Grallaria saturata
Option 1: Equatorial Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part F, Grallaria cajamarcae
Option 1: Cajamarca Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part G, Grallaria blakei
Option 1: Chestnut Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part H, Grallaria gravesi
Option 1: Chachapoyas Antpitta
Option 2: Graves's Antpitta
Option 3: some other name, not yet identified.
Part I, Grallaria oneilli
Option 1: Panao Antpitta
Option 2: O'Neill's Antpitta
Option 3: some other name, not yet identified.
Part J, Grallaria obscura
Option 1: Junin Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part K, Grallaria centralis
Option 1: Oxapampa Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part L, Grallaria ayacuchensis
Option 1: Ayacucho Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part M, Grallaria occabambae
Option 1: Urubamba Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part N, Grallaria sinaensis
Option 1: Puno Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
Part O, Grallaria cochabambae
Option 1: Bolivian Antpitta
Option 2: some other name, not yet identified.
In
all cases, we recommend Option 1.
Literature Cited:
Chesser, R.T., M.L.
Isler, A.M. Cuervo, C.D. Cadena, S.C. Galen, L.M. Bergner, R.C. Fleischer, G.A.
Bravo, D.F. Lane, and P.A. Hosner (2020) Conservative plumage masks
extraordinary genetic diversity in the Grallaria rufula (Rufous
Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes. Auk 137: ukaa009. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa009
Cory, C.B., and C.E.
Hellmayr (1924) Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Part
III.
Field Museum of Natural History Zoological Series volume 13, part 3.
Graves, G.R. (1987) A cryptic new species of antpitta (Formicariidae: Grallaria) from
the Peruvian Andes. Wilson Bulletin 99: 313-321.
Hilty, S.L. (2021) Birds of Colombia. Lynx Edicions,
Barcelona.
del
Hoyo, J., and N.J. Collar. 2016. HBW and BirdLife International illustrated
checklist of the birds of the world. Volume 2. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Isler,
M.L., R.T. Chesser, M.B. Robbins, A.M. Cuervo, C.D. Cadena, and P.A. Hosner
(2020) Taxonomic evaluation of the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta)
complex (Aves: Passeriformes: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species.
Zootaxa 4817: 1–74. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4817.1.1
Krabbe,
N., and T.S. Schulenberg (2003) Family Formicariidae (ground-antbirds). Pages
682-731 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and D.A. Christie (editors), Handbook of
the birds of the world. Volume 8. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1950. The birds of the Republic of
Colombia. Part III. Caldasia 5: 645-871.
Tom Schulenberg, Dan
Lane, and David Donsker, June 2021
Note from Remsen: For the mechanics of tallying votes, a “YES” on each item means yes for
Option 1 in each case, and a “NO” means any other option.
Comments
solicited from Barry Walker:
“As always naming things
especially when finding a suitable common English name and specific epithets
but here are some thoughts that may, I fear, not be very helpful and in some
cases contentious - I am not a trained biologist but 40 years in the field
in South America I have had the fortune to have seen 16 of the
17 proposed taxa and their geographical environment and in most
cases the cultural setting they live amongst. Running down the list in
the sequence of species adopted by Isler et al. (2020) I have the
following comments. Choosing names for new taxa is challenging, English names
more-so. For the birdwatcher putting names to the bird you see may seem
like a simple matter and for the most part it is as traditional English names
rarely change for reasons of stability. New names pop up when there are good
taxonomic reasons for doing so or a species is found to be not one, but
multiple species or someone finds a new bird for science. Maintaining stability
of English names is a strong emotion for most of us, but it is not always so
simple as in this case of finding names for multiple species.
Running down the list in the sequence of
species adopted by Isler et al. (2020) I find some surprising choices.
here is my two-pennies worth.
Grallaria saltuensis Perija Antpitta - I see no issue with this - type
locality and the geographical isolated area it inhabits.
Grallaria spatiator Sierra Nevada Antpitta - specific name meaning pedestrian but frankly Sierra Nevada Antpitta would be
a gross error - which Sierra Nevada? WE all know which Sierra Nevada it refers
to - but as Gary Graves points out "99%
of birders couldn't tell you the scientific names of any of the five most
common bird species in their yards. Many of those same birders are quite
conversant with English common names. I wonder how many bird tour clients in
Peru know who John O'Neill is and what he did”. Equally any non-scientist
birder could not tell you which of the dozens of Sierra Nevadas this bird lives
in. Does it refer to the Sierra Nevada of Andalusia or the western United
States or the dozens of others scattered over the Spanish speaking world? It's not
adequate. However, what are the alternatives? Certainly not Pedestrian or
Wandering Antpitta. So, if we are going down the slippery path of celebrating
pre-Colombian cultures the only thing that occurs to me is name it after the indigenous
people of the Sierra Madre de Santa Marta - the Kogi. OK the Kogi are descendants
of the Tairona culture, which were coastal and moved to the highlands under
pressure from other cultures, but that’s where they live. Sierra Nevada is redundant way redundant
it would be a tragedy to use it.
Grallaria rufula Muisca Antpitta - again I can say that birders
will not know why this bird got its name but that’s not relevant and it may
stimulate interest in Colombian culture.
Grallaria alvarezi Chami Antpitta - Specific name honors a
researcher the English name a cultural group and comments for the above species
apply - these names are relevant, sexy and stimulate interest - as opposed to
Rufous Antpitta.
Grallaria saturata Equatorial Antpitta - good choice of English name
it describes its geographical distribution well.
Grallaria cajamarcae Cajamarca
Antpitta - this has been used by birders for 20 years or more, and it lives
mostly if not entirely in the region/department of Cajamarca, so it’s a logical
choice.
Grallaria blakei Chestnut Antpitta - I see no problem in
maintaining the status quo and stability here.
Grallaria gravesi Grave’s Antpitta - the proposal states "This is a
newly described species, for which Isler et al. propose the name 'Graves's
Antpitta'. Here we part ways with Isler et al. We recognize that all members of
this complex are unpatterned and dull in color, and that coining novel names is
a challenge. Nonetheless, Gary Graves already is honored in the species epithet,
and so it seems unimaginative and redundant to rely on the eponym for the
English name as well. We recommend the name 'Chachapoyas Antpitta'. This name
refers not to the modern town of Chachapoyas, but to the pre-Incan Chachapoyas
civilization, the distribution of which overlaps broadly with the range of this
species. "The key phrase "it seems unimaginative and redundant
to rely on the eponym for the English name as well”- this could also be
said of Grallaria cajamarcae Cajamarca Antpitta as well, but in this
case, we are talking of a person who merits recognition. I have always been
partial to names like Mrs. Gould’s Sunbird or Lady Amherst’s Pheasant rather
than names such as Plain Pigeon but also believe in letting the scientific name
do the taxonomic work but, in this case, merit is recognized no matter what.
Given the Colombian initiative of celebrating cultures where relevant, I can
certainly live with Chachapoya Antpitta BUT NOT Chachapoyas
Antpitta, which is a town and not a culture; actually, its full name is -San
Juan de la Frontera de los Chachapoyas - perhaps I am biased living in Peru?
Naming a species after a non-memorable town is not the same as naming it after
a culture. The bottom line is I could live with Grave’s or Chachapoya Antpitta.
BUT DROP THE S FROM CHACAPOYAS.
Grallaria oneilli O'Neill's Antpitta’. The same general comments
for the above species I could certainly live with O’Neill’s Antpitta and would
raise my glass to it, but the proposal of Panao Antpitta is not appropriate -
it is not a city, barely a town and perhaps the name of the wider province
would be better - Pachitea - which matches its distribution better, not exactly
but Panao no. So, call it O’Neill’s or Pachitea Antpitta.
Grallaria obscura Junin Antpitta, reflects the limited distribution
so I have ho issues with this.
Grallaria centralis Oxapampa Antpitta’ reflects the Province of
Oxapampa, Pasco but is too narrow a definition given that it is in the regions/departments
of Huánuco, Pasco and Junín, but in light
of the fact Oxapampa is the type locality and “centralis” is descriptive
- this seems good.
Grallaria ayacuchensis Ayacucho Antpitta - reflects the limited distribution in the
region/departamento of Ayacucho so I have no issues with this.
Grallaria occabambae Urubamba Antpitta - a contentious one – occabambae is fine;
obviously named for the river and not the town of Occabamba, which is too low
to harbor this species. Chapman collected the holotype at. 2775 m. The river is an affluent of the
Yanatile/Paucartambo River which is the geographical barrier of the two vocal
types. The Urubamba Mountain range extends
in a northwesterly direction between 13°08' and 13°17'S and 71°58' and 72°16'W
for about 30 km. but I am not aware of any records of the species here nor does
the species occur along the Urubamba River. However, it was
collected in the Province of Urubamba so the name is just about accurate, and I
can live with it. If the ssp. marcapatensis proves to
merit species status, then its southern limit in the Cordillera Carabaya needs
to be defined. Once an impenetrable area, an ornithological unknown, recently
roads have been punched into once remote areas which need to be explored and
work out where this taxon stops and the below begins. In short yes to Urubamba
Antpitta.
Grallaria sinaensis Puno Antpitta - as the proposal says, “The distribution of
the species extends into adjacent Bolivia, but Puno encompasses at least half
of its known range, and this English name "reflects the Peruvian
department in which the type locality is located”. It can be seen and heard
within sight of Sina town in Puno; the Bolivians might get upset, but I believe
Puno Antpitta is the best option.
Grallaria cochabambae Bolivian Antpitta - no brainer - it’s a Bolivian
endemic.”
Comments from Schulenberg: “I'm pleased to see that our
proposal on English names for members of the Grallaria rufula complex is
generating some reaction, shows that people are paying attention. here are a
few thoughts - strictly my own - in reaction to Barry's comments.
“Grallaria spatiator - yes, there is more than one
"Sierra Nevada' in the world. in a North American context, Sierra Nevada
would refer to the mountain range in California. but are there * that * many
other Sierra Nevadas? in any event, my assumption is that the combination with
'antpitta’ would pin things down pretty quickly. in other words, anyone who
could confuse 'Sierra Nevada Antpitta' with something to do with California or
Andalusia or wherever isn't a member of our target audience; and so I'd be inclined
not to worry too much about them. will be interested to hear what others think,
of course. otherwise, we're at a delicate moment here. often in the case of a
recent split we can aim to arrive at the 'best' name possible. in this case,
however, a name - Sierra Nevada Antpitta - already is in use in what I imagine
will be the go-to field guide for Colombian birds. so, I'd be most interested
in hearing Steve Hilty's thoughts on the 'best' name for this species.
“Grallaria gravesi - Barry makes a good point that the
English and scientific names are basically the same in some cases here
(Cajamarca Antpitta Grallaria cajamarcae, Ayacucho Antpitta Grallaria
ayacuchensis). but in both of those cases, the English name is informative
in a way that 'Graves's' or 'O'Neill's' is not; and since the epithets gravesi
and oneilli aren't going anywhere, I'm still inclined to offer an
alternative to Graves's or O'Neill's. The more substantive comment is only
hinted at, but not quite made explicit - that the appropriate name for the
pre-Inca civilization or culture is Chachapoya, not Chachapoyas. if the correct
name indeed is Chachapoya, then sure, I'm all for it. Wikipedia - which of
course may not be the best source - is quite liberal in its use of Chachapoyas
to refer to the culture, but the link that we submitted to document the
geographic extent of this culture does use Chachapoya. happy to stand corrected
here.
“Grallaria oneilli - I concede that 'Panao' is not a great
name, but I am very much opposed to 'Pachitea Antpitta'. for one thing, I don't
understand why the fact that Panao is a town is an obstacle; Leymebamba is a
town as well, but as far as I am aware we don't have any trouble with
Leymebamba Antpitta. beyond that, in the history of Peruvian ornithology, 'Pachitea'
is much better known in connection with the lowland Rio Pachitea, a region
visited by a succession of collectors over the years. against that background,
to me it would seem quite odd to associate the name 'Pachitea' with an Andean
species.
Comments
from Hilty:
“1)
Dropping the "s" on Chachapoyas doesn't seem to make a great deal of
difference (to me). Maybe bringing a little attention to the little town of
30,000 or so people in Chachapoyas would be a nice thing to do and even
stimulate a little local interest. As far as the original civilization, the
"s" at the end seems to denote plural (at least as I interpret it in
Wikipedia), versus dropping the "s". Either way seems fine.
“2) Sierra
Nevada. Here we go again! I'm fine as Sierra Nevada, but if the committee wants
to change it to Tairona (Tayrona) or Kogi, that is fine too. Tairona sounds more lyrical to
"English-speaker ears" and as far as distribution they were more
lowland, the Kogi, much more at very high elevation, so either name ok
(antpitta distribution about mid-way between). Some of the Kogi bloodlines are
mixed with Tairona anyway because, as Walker noted, the Tairona got pushed up
into the highlands with arrival of Spanish. I don 't see that one group is
preferable over the other in this little conversation. Might be good to draw
attention to the Tairona, actually, as they were incredibly skilled goldsmiths
and once upon a time "the" dominant Amerindian group in the Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta.”
I vote as
the committee currently proposes, but if the above two species are changed to
follow Walker, I'd vote for that too. Count me as a vote either way.
Comments from Remsen: “YES to all except as follows:
“B. NO. Barry’s points are technically OK, although we’ve already
committed to a Sierra Nevada Brushfinch for Arremon basilicus; thus,
there is precedent. With three
Colombianos on the paper byline, I assume that the name is sufficiently
associated with the Santa Martas to avoid confusion. There being no antpittas or brushfinches in
the Sierra Nevadas of the USA, I think possibilities of real confusion are
small. So, I’m ok with Sierra Nevada. However, I actually like Barry’s suggestion of
Kogi or Steve’s of Tairona better. In
apparent contrast to some opinions, I like names that I’m not familiar with –
they make me learn new things. I also
like the parallel theme with two other new names, Muisca and Chami.”
“H. NO. I confess lack of objectivity on this one because I am
good friends with Gary Graves, a former student. Nonetheless, I vote NO for the following
reasons:
1. Precedent. I don’t like changing a name that is already
in print that was the careful choice of a multinational author team in a peer-reviewed
journal unless there is really good reason to do so, and in this case, in my
opinion, good reasons are lacking. Of
course, we all know that a segment of the bird-name-using population out there
is categorically opposed to eponyms.
That’s a viewpoint worthy of consideration, but does not necessarily
dictate, in my opinion, dumping an original name choice. Why does that viewpoint trump the opinions of
those who like eponyms? Do we even know
what the majority opinion is? Even if a
majority, we should all be cognizant of standard “tyranny of the majority”
concerns, especially since the vast majority of the English names of bird
species that breed in the SACC area are not eponyms (ca. 96%). Why should those who see the value in eponyms
be discriminated against given that eponyms comprise less than 4% of our
names? Why should there be no room for inclusivity
and diversity of opinions in something as subjective as English names?
2. Merit. Gary Graves deserves this honor. Yes, he is also honored in the immutable
scientific name, but why not also honor him in the English name? English-first birders and even ornithologists
are seldom aware of scientific names, unfortunately, so the redundancy issue I
consider to be minor at best. Gary’s
insights on Grallaria blakei and his ideas in that paper were
foundational to this new Grallaria monograph. More broadly, Gary’s example of careful
analysis of plumage details was a landmark paper at the time, certainly for me,
and a lesson on overlooked biodiversity and how critically we must examine
plumages. Also, Gary’s many
contributions to the study of Andean birds, from synthesis of patterns (e.g. Auk 1988) to
remarkable discoveries (e.g. Xenoglaux loweryi etc.),
place him among the leading contributors to the field. An English eponym would serve an educational
as well as honorific purpose -- anyone unaware of Gary’s contributions should
be encouraged to learn about them. The
authors of the paper had good reasons to name the taxon for him.
3. Insulting. Put yourself in the position of someone for
whom a bird species has been named honorifically by a multinational author team
and not just in a prominent peer-reviewed journal but in the premier journal of
the AOS. You have no clue that the
description and name is being published, and you are then moved when an author
team loaded with people you admire surprises you with this honor. You see how touched your family is when you
show them the big surprise. Then, a year
later you learn that there is a movement to ditch that name. Why is this happening? It’s because SACC is intimidated by a highly
vocal group of people who are clearly intolerant of differing views on a
subjective matter, and who are leading a crusade to dump all eponyms and
shaming anyone who disagrees with them.
Taking back a gift from someone after it’s just been given is just bad
form. Did Gary do something wrong? It’s really a cold-hearted slap in the face
for SACC to do this, in my opinion.
“Also, if
Chachapoyas wins out, as Barry noted, it should be Chachapoya. We have Inca Tern not “Incas Tern.”
“I.
NO. All of the general comments on
Graves’s Antpitta apply here also, including John also being a good friend:
1. Precedent: see “H” above.
2. Merit:
In addition to the general points, specifically on John … I’m not sure
how widely recognized is John’s foundational role in the LSUMNS program in
South America. Without John, it wouldn’t
have existed -- he single-handedly launched it.
He made my career possible. Every
student, including several current SACC members, who has ever gone through the
LSUMNS program should be aware of his critical role, from leading exploratory
fieldwork to funding it. I wonder what
percentage of research papers on South American bird phylogeny, classification,
geographic variation, and biogeography used specimens or DNA samples that would
not have existed without John. If not
for health issues, he would be out there right now somewhere gathering more
data and contributing directly to the infrastructure of South American
ornithology. His amazing discoveries are
legendary and a product of astute knowledge of biogeography and detailed
planning. His initial burst of discoveries
of Wetmorethraupis, Conioptilon, Cacicus koepckeae, and Grallaria
eludens exploded the view that the days of discovery were over and inspired
a generation of new fieldworkers to see what other new genera and species had
gone undetected. His discoveries also
inspired a book that spread the excitement to the general public (“A Parrot Without a Name: The Search for the
Last Unknown Birds on Earth”). Also,
John has done more for Peruvian ornithology and ornithologists than anyone I
know of, including using his own money to sponsor Peruvian students and to
purchase equipment for them and their institutions. John has devoted his life to South American
ornithology, and all of us have benefitted from his commitment. An English name in his honor seems the least
we can do to repay what we all owe him.
Existing Oneillornis and oneilli target sufficiently the
technical audience – now it’s time the non-technical audience is made aware of
his contributions.
3. Insulting: see details in “H above” and put
yourself in the place of someone who has an overdue honor revoked. Delightfully surprised at the initial honor,
but now it is withdrawn in what can only be described as cold-hearted blow by
SACC. What does that accomplish? Is that social justice?
Comments
from Stiles:
“YES to all of the original recommendations on
E-names by Isler et al. except that I agree with Steve's recommendation of
Tairona Antpitta for spatiator. I agree with Van's opinion regarding the
E-names for oneilli and gravesi.
They both deserve the recognition, and these names have already been
accepted by other checklists.”
Comments from Robbins: “Although I am no longer involved
in dealing with English names, I can't help but weigh-in on what Van has stated
concerning the English names of Grallaria oneilli and G. gravesi.
I concur with everything that Van has
stated, i.e., the English name for those should be O'Neill's and Graves's
antpittas, respectively. As I stated in
an email to the committee on 16 May, they both deserved that recognition and I
feel it would be highly insensitive to do otherwise.”
Additional
comments from Hilty:
“YES to all except I have no problem retaining the
suggestions of the original authors. thus O'Neill's Antpitta; Graves’s
Antpitta, as well as the slight change to Chachapoya Antpitta; and for the
northernmost population, Sierra Nevada (or Tairona) Antpitta. Of course,
choosing "Tairona" means the name in my recent book is already
out-of-date, but this will just be the first of many that will eventually change
anyway.”
Additional comments from Barry
Walker: “I just wanted to clarify a couple of things on
this fascinating discussion which as Tom points out is generating some reaction
and here is a final comment from me, and then I leave it to the committee to
vote and decide. We have parts A through O, but it looks like there might be
some kind of consensus on all but parts B, H, and I.
“Part
B. Grallaria spatiator:
Yes,
there are many Sierra Nevada’s in the Neotropics (and one not) and to name some
here is a list - this was just a quick internet search so there may be more.
Sierra
Nevada (Argentina), alineación montañosa en la parte sur de Argentina.
La Sierra
Nevada de Lagunas Bravas*, complejo volcánico en la cordillera de los Andes,
entre Argentina y Chile.
El Sierra
Nevada (Araucanía), volcán Sierra Nevada, en la IX Región de La Araucanía
(Chile).
La Sierra
Nevada (España), macizo montañoso perteneciente a las cordilleras Béticas,
entre Granada y Almería (España).
La Sierra
Nevada (Estados Unidos), cordillera en California (Estados Unidos).
“All
the above do not have antpittas or brushfinches – we know that, but many people
do not, but the ones below do have antpittas and brushfinches – we know that,
but many do not, so when we say Sierra Nevada this or that it could refer to
either of the two below. Steve as author of a Venezuela bird guide knows this.
La Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta, relieve montañoso en la parte norte de Colombia.
La Sierra
Nevada de Mérida, cadena montañosa perteneciente a la cordillera de los Andes,
en la parte occidental de Venezuela.
“So,
you are left with sticking with previous precedent Proposal
(487) (Sierra Nevada Brushfinch for Arremon basilicus) which is
not entirely correctly descriptive but there again we have how many Santa
Marta’s? If we can live with Connecticut Warbler and Kentish Plover, I suppose
it can be argued we can live with inaccuracy to maintain stability or choosing
something novel so …
Option 1: Sierra Nevada
Antpitta (bearing in mind we have a La Sierra Nevada de Mérida). It’s true that
“anyone in Colombia except a few mountaineers would inevitably associate
"Sierra Nevada" with the Santa Marta range. However, names are being
created for the planet not just Colombia.
Option 2: Tairona
Antpitta (connection with coast e.g. Tairona National Park)
Option 3: Kogi Antpitta
(note a Colombian guide told me the Kogi were in fact forced into the Sierra
Nevada de Santa Marta by the Carib nation in pre-Colombian times)
Option 4: some other
name, not yet identified.
“Part
H, Grallaria gravesi:
Yes,
it’s a choice of honoring someone on merit in both scientific name and the
English name or just the scientific name, so ….
Option 1: Chachapoya Antpitta
Option 2: Graves's Antpitta
“Part
I, Grallaria oneilli:
Again,
it’s a choice of honoring someone on merit in both scientific name and the
English name or just the scientific name. When I came to Peru there was an
O’Neill’s Pardusco -- now it’s just Pardusco. Tom says, “Leymebamba is a town as
well, but as far as I am aware we don't have any trouble with Leymebamba
Antpitta. Beyond that, in the history of
Peruvian ornithology, 'Pachitea' is much better known in connection with the
lowland Rio Pachitea, a region visited by a succession of collectors over the
years. against that background, to me it would seem quite odd to associate the
name 'Pachitea' with an Andean species”. Tom has a valid point, but most of the Pachitea province is
Andean. Leymebamba, or as it is officially named Leimebamba, is a town and a
province, Panao is just a town, and I would be very sad to see this species
named for it – I have nothing against the town – it just does not feel right to
me but as the holotype was collected 14 km W Panao, Huánuco, I suppose that
gives us”
Option 1: Panao Antpitta
Option 2: O'Neill's Antpitta
Option 3: Pachitea Antpitta
Option 4: some other name, not yet identified.
“Good
luck – the names you choose will outlive us all so it’s imperative to make the
right choice.”
Comments
from Whitney:
““I am not inclined to erect justifications for
accepting the authors’ suggested names beyond recognizing that they
would have spent considerable time pondering what names to publish. We should default to respecting the choices of
such an experienced team of authors. To
put it another way, why should we take it up to question the English names they
thoughtfully chose? In fact, I will go
so far as to suggest that the default should always be to adopt English names
for novel taxa of birds as they are properly presented (i.e., correctly spelled
and in the correct case) and published in peer-reviewed journals, while doing
our best to preserve stability of the nomenclature. Thus, I am happy to accept the authors’
proposed English names for the G. rufula-complex taxa they
described. That means a YES vote on all except H and I, which would be NO,
because I vote to stick with Isler et al. (Option 2) in each of these cases. I am not bothered in the slightest about
employing eponyms.”
Comments
from Zimmer:
“YES to all of the English names as
originally suggested by the multi-national, highly experienced team of
authors of this monumental paper. The
only one that I would waver on at all is to say that while I would prefer to
stick with Sierra Nevada Antpitta for G.
spatiator, I could easily go along
with Steve’s suggestion of “Tairona” or Barry’s suggestion of “Kogi”. I would also like to make a particular point
of firmly agreeing with everything Van has said (and others have echoed) with
respect to sticking with Graves’s Antpitta for G. gravesi and O’Neill’s Antpitta for G. oneilli – these names are not only wholly appropriate, they are
well-deserved.”
Comments
from Peter Kaestner: “I have been watching the committee tie
itself up in knots again over English names for the new “rufous” antpitta
species and splits with some interest. I
would like to make a couple of points. I
heartily endorse those who are now emphasizing that the SACC should accept the
peer-reviewed, published, names suggested in the paper. I find it more than ironic that the SACC will
not accept obvious taxonomic changes absent a peer-reviewed paper, but then
ignores the peer-reviewed results when considering English names! Second, on the matter of Sierra Nevada
Antpitta, there is not a great solution.
Kogi is fine, but why would you disrespect the other three indigenous
groups who live on the slopes of the mountains.
(I saw G. spatiator only 200 m from an Arhuaco village in
April…) The name Tairona, which is
reflected in a national park along the coast, is also not appropriate because
the bird does not live along the coast, but rather in the higher reaches of the
massif. Sierra Nevadan is not perfect,
but we’ll get used to it. It is just
such a shame that the area has so many endemics!!!”
Comments
from Stiles:
“YES. In general, I agree with Van, Mark, Bret, and Kevin that the E-names
proposed by an international team and published in a peer-reviewed and
influential journal should be respected. There is much current interest in
having E-names that reflect current standards regarding avoidance of gender- or
racial-based biases. However, I think that such standards should be agreed upon
with respect to the coining of new E-names to reflect future taxonomic changes
(which are bound to continue as new evidence continues to accumulate). However,
I am extremely suspicious of proposals for wholesale changing of stable E-names
produced in past periods with differing standards. Introducing more “correct”
names by current standards, in effect rewriting history, seems at best a
superficial way to right the wrongs of the past, especially as the deluge of
self-righteous renaming that could occur might divert attention from much more
pressing issues of bird conservation.
“Specifically,
for the proposal at hand, I see no particular advantages to attempting changes
to some or all: I have no problems with eponyms honoring very deserving people,
and consider that objecting to names like “Sierra Nevada” for spatiator because
there are other Sierras Nevadas is something of a pseudoproblem. Given the
richness of the Neotropical avifauna, most good field guides are national in
scope, such that worrying about similar names in other countries simply muddies
their usefulness in the context of the guides themselves. So- for Van´s original voting proposal, I
vote YES to 1 for all.”
Additional
comments from Lane:
"Clearly the English name theme is cause for some
surprisingly fierce disagreement, but at the risk of poking up the embers of
one of our recent cases, I feel I must speak up: that of the Rufous Antpitta
split and subsequent English names. Tom and I proposed that we not accept two
of the English names that were offered by Isler et al in the paper describing
the new taxa of the complex, and this has received some push back form
committee members. I would like to clarify my stance and make some points that
I hope all will keep in mind when voting on this case.
"1) "We should honor the names recommended by the
describers." This is a statement that many SACC members have made in
rejecting the new names Tom and I suggested. Yet SACC has flouted this before
in spectacular fashion when renaming Lulu's Tody-Tyrant to Johnson's
Tody-Tyrant! There has been a lot of reluctance by the birding public to follow
suit in that case, and I must confess I really dislike that change myself (and
call the bird "Lulu's"), yet the committee felt it was reasonable. If
that change was acceptable, then I cannot see how SACC members can argue that
choosing new names besides those offered by Isler et al is any different?
"2) Isler et al have the bad luck of having written the
descriptions and choosing names just before the 2020 cultural event of putting
eponyms in the crosshairs, and this event has placed the AOS committees on new
ground whether we like it or not. I suspect that Mort and company would have taken
this issue into consideration had they still been writing as this cultural
event was taking place. This public perception of English names does seem
exaggerated, and has created pushback by many who think the grounds for the
criticism are overstated... but why not concede that we have the opportunity
not to add to the issue with some newly-described species? Both of the eponyms
involved still honor the people (who very much deserve it!) in the scientific
names--and let's face it: those are the names that really matter to us anyway,
right?--so no honor is being stripped from Gary and John, as some have stated,
it is simply less "in-your-face" by not being mirrored in the English
name. Indeed, Gary did this with Grallaria blakei (Chestnut Antpitta).
"3) For better or worse, Peruvians have noticed that there
was no Peruvian coauthor on Isler et al. So, whereas the Colombian authors had
a hand in English name formulation of the new Colombian taxa (including
scientific names using an eponym), no Peruvians were offered a similar
opportunity for the taxa described from their country. Putting myself in the
shoes of Peruvians, this is a striking contrast when looking over the slate of
English and scientific names proposed by Isler et al. It seems, again, that we are
in a position to smooth over this potential sticking point before English names
are generally adopted by the birding public. I will point out here that
Peruvians often use the English names, rather than Spanish or scientific
names, when conversing about birds due to eBird, the comparative stability
of English names, and ease of pronunciation (compared to scientific names), so
despite the potential language barrier, these names WILL be the common names
used in Peru! Therefore, rather than using English eponyms, why not use names
that honor an indigenous culture in Peru (and the Chachapoyas culture is a big
one!) in a trend that follows that started by the Colombian coauthors? As we
state in our proposal, G. oneilli doesn't have quite as satisfying an
alternative, but "Panao Antpitta" does honor the type locality and
thus offers more information than an eponym-based English name would. If
someone can come up with another satisfactory alternative, I'm willing to hear
it.
"4) Again, for better or worse, eBird/Clements had to choose
names for these taxa in their 2021 update, and Tom opted to go with those he
championed in the proposal. Clearly SACC is not obliged to follow suit, but I
feel the eBird release will make for a complicated scenario should SACC choose
not to go with the names now available in eBird and which will be used by most
of the birding public for the near future. This could be viewed as exactly the
situation that someone commented to Van about "lots of people are sick of
SACC changing names for no real reason!" WE know that in this case it was
simply poor timing and Tom making an executive decision on a gamble, but the
birding public will not understand that and likely will perceive it as
SACC being "ornery." So again, we have an opportunity to lessen
criticism directed towards the committee here.
"So, before we finalize our votes on Proposal 912, I hope
that folks will bear these thoughts in mind."
Additional
comments from Remsen:
“Dan makes many good points, and I respect his point of view. Some additional points in response:
“1.
Precedent and “Lulu’s Tody-Tyrant”: As explained in previous intra-SACC emails,
this is a special case, one that I know well from the inside. Ned Johnson did not like English names,
period. His name choice here was aimed
at making fun of English names. He was
also quite taken with the name “Lulu” and how funny it sounded, to him, as a bird
name (and even the scientific name). The
bird was named for a donor, Lulu May Von Hagen, who was deceased by the time
the description was published (2001) and long after Johnson collected the first
specimens (1970). That Ned used “Lulu’s”
in both the English and scientific name instead of “Von Hagen’s” shows how peculiarly
smitten he was by the name Lulu, and frankly in my opinion, this came off as
somewhat disrespectful of Ms. Von Hagen.
I can still see that smirk on Ned’s face when he would say “LULU’s
Tody-Tyrant”. If as Dan says some
birders like “Lulu’s Tody-Tyrant”, I worry that some of that same snickering
attitude is involved; and I predict that not one of them knows the full name of
the person honored, unfortunately. When
Ned died, I proposed the new name “Johnson’s” not only to honor
Ned’s discovery of the species but also to squelch Ned’s little joke on the
world. I very much appreciated Ned’s
sardonic and irreverent sense of humor, but not in that case.
“Although Dan is technically correct that this N=1
change from 18 years ago provides a precedent for SACC for not following the
published English name, Lulu’s differs from the current situation in critical
ways. Lulu Von Hagen wrote a check. John and Gary have risked their lives and
their health for extended periods doing fieldwork in remote, unexplored regions
and have published extensively on the birds of Peru. Von Hagen and Johnson were dead when SACC
changed the English name in 2003. John
O’Neill and Gary Graves are alive, and since the paper was published in July
2020, they have been able to proudly show their friends and family that a
bird’s English name honors them. The
authors of that paper (Isler, Chesser, Robbins, Cuervo, Cadena, Hosner) are all
still alive, too. Therefore, there is no
precedent for what I would consider a rotten move on our part: removing
previously published honorific names, to the embarrassment of the honorees and
those who honored them.
“2.
As for the point that O’Neill and Graves are still honored in the scientific
name – of course, technically correct.
But let’s be honest: the English name is a much bigger deal. Most birders and many ornithologists don’t
know or don’t even pay attention to the scientific species name. The names of many newly described species
honor wives, donors, and politicians that even the describers themselves would
not propose as the formal English name for the species because they really
didn’t have anything to do with the birds, ornithologically speaking. When an eponym is proposed for the English
name, that really means something in terms of impact of the honoree on
ornithology, and in this respect O’Neill and Graves certainly qualify: see the
Etymology sections of the OD’s as well as additional material herein. This makes the retraction doubly bad. Since July 2020, they joined company with a
select few (e.g. Coopmans, Koepcke, Olrog, Parker, Sick, Schwartz, Stiles,
Willis) who had been honored with eponymous English names since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970), but now SACC would take that honor away?
“3.
Concerning Dan’s second point, that “bad luck” timing can be viewed both
ways. A lot has changed since that paper
was published. In my view, changing
their proposed names at this point can be viewed as unfairly shaming them for
their choice, although they had no advance warning of the sudden controversy
that was about to explode.
“4.
As for eBird vs. SACC … for the record, it was eBird that changed the published
names, not SACC, and without consulting SACC.
As Tom and Marshall can attest, SACC fast-tracks English name proposals
to help eBird whenever there is time-mandated deadline. Regardless, the longevity of the eBird names
“Chachapoyas Antpitta” (which would have been corrected to “Chachapoya” had
SACC been involved and voted for that name) and “Panao Antpitta” is minimal at
this point (4 months, max). If some of
the birding public views SACC as “ornery”, as Dan says, for not using the
concocted Clements names, then there is another segment of the birding public
who will welcome restoration of the original names, which are in use in
Wikidata, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and many popular
articles. Although birders are the
clientele by far the most passionate about bird names, I think we need to
remind ourselves that they are not the only clientele that uses them and that
eBird usage is not synonymous with universal usage. By the way, eBird also went with Blue-gray
Saltator before SACC settled on Bluish-gray Saltator. Are we retreat from our decision because
eBird has been using Blue-gray for 4 months?
Because eBird’s annual update will occasionally but inevitably coincide
with taxonomic SACC proposals having passed but English names still pending,
these situations will continue to arise as long as eBird is unwilling to wait
for a SACC decision (understandable in those few cases that have taken more
than a year to resolve), but we cannot be bound to follow the name chosen by
eBird.
“As for Panao Antpitta, I suspect that the
total number of people who find this a useful name is closer to 1 than to
20. See Barry Walker’s comments on this
above (and I prefer Pachitea over Panao).
As someone who personally finds type locality names useful because of my
work in taxonomy, I recognize that these usually provide no information about
the bird that is of any significance to the general birding public or even most
ornithologists. If the type locality
were the name of a river or cordillera or some useful topographic feature, that
would be different. Likewise, if it were
the jump-off point for ecotourists wishing to see a local endemic, then that
would be different also. If we go for Panao
Antpitta, I share Dan’s lack of enthusiasm for it and hope we can do better,
whether or not it disrupts recent eBird usage.
“5.
I’m all for using names that honor indigenous groups. For example, see my strong defense of and advocacy for “Potiguara
Woodcreeper” (which was voted down, unfortunately in my view). With species limits being revised in almost
every widespread Andean and Amazonian bird group, I think we will have plenty
of opportunities to honor the Chachapoya and others.
“6.
No Peruvians on the byline. If none were
involved directly in the research, that might be because most of the samples
were collected before Peruvians were routinely involved in almost every field
research project there. Knowing all the
authors as I do, I’m absolutely sure that this was not an oversight, and I suspect
that if there were any Peruvians that deserved a co-authorship, they would have
been included, as they were, for example, in the description of Cnipodectes superrufus,
Myrmoderus eowilsoni, and others. More recently, Heliothraupis oneilli
did not include a Peruvian co-author but did have a Bolivian co-author and key
contributor, but Machaeropterus eckelberryi did not. So, it just depends on the situation.
“I would also be interested to know how many
Peruvian ornithologists would favor Chachapoya Antpitta over Grave’s Antpitta,
given his remarkable contributions to the of ornithology of northern Peru (e.g.
Xenoglaux loweryi, Metallura odomae, Metallura theresiae parkeri,
Grallaricula ochraceifrons, Siptornis striaticollis nortoni, Tangara
phillipsi, Heliangelus regalis johnsoni, and “in reverse” Cranioleuca
“furcata”, not to mention several highly cited, synthetic studies of
geographic variation and biogeography of Andean birds).
“7.
Grallaria blakei Graves 1987: Chestnut Antpitta. The chestnut plumage made this species stand
out so much from others in the rufula complex that it was a perfect
name. O’Neill’s Antpitta has no such
obvious plumage feature (actually a major theme of the paper was lack of
phenotypic differentiation in the complex), thus leaving the authors options
that included only toponyms or eponyms. And
just for the record: Cercomacra parkeri Graves 1997: Parker’s Antibrd.
“8.
Moving forward. I suspect this will be
the last time this issue (eponyms for new species) ever comes up on SACC. Those who like eponyms for the information
they provide about the history of a bird and the honors bestowed are currently
cowed into silence for fear of being labeled as racists or colonialists or
whatever. However, there is indeed widespread
underground support for eponyms. Nonetheless,
eponyms distress many people, and so an easy prediction is that we have seen
the last of them for English names in new species descriptions. Sensitive to the anti-eponym view and
understanding the rationale behind that view, I for one will no longer support
any new eponymous English bird names unless the case is strong and included in
the original description. Now, if only
the other side would show some tolerance for an opinion that does not match
their own.”
Additional
comments from Barry Walker: “I believe that the trend to change historical, well
established English names based on some historical skeleton in someone’s
historical cupboard is unwanted and unwarranted and I have talked to many
people in both the scientific, bird tour leader and contemporary birder
communities who feel the same. As Gary says let’s stop trying to change history
based on North America’s British-fueled original sin of slavery. The rest of
the world does not feel this way, and South America certainly not. Correct by
whose standards? Paraguay’s.? History is history - let it be. I do not want to
add wood to the prickly “correctness” issue bonfire, and let’s focus on
conservation and research. John James Audubon was a slaver - what to do about
that – nothing, so why correctness for others. Probably out of line and off
topic if so I am sorry.
“I liked Lulu’s
Tody-Tyrant as I like Lady Amherst’s Pheasant and Mrs. Gould’s Sunbird. I knew
it was named for Ms. Von Hagen but not the aspect of ridiculing English names
outlined by Van. I never smirked when using it and know no-one that did - it
was a great name, and I was dismayed when it was downgraded to Johnson’s (No
disrespect to Mr. Johnson, but he should have thought about it some more). So
changing to better English names should not be an issue for SACC should it not?
“I have heard the
arguments on Sierra Nevada and reluctantly accept that stance – it’s hard to
argue against it.
“The two eponyms
in question still give all the credit that is well deserved to the people named
it seems pointless to duplicate them in English - we all like names that are descriptive
or tell you something about the bird or have an eye-catching name that wants
you to find out more, e.g. Inti Tanager.”
“On Dan’s comment
about Peruvians - I am biased because I live there but surely it’s OK to celebrate
the Chachapoyan culture.
“Panao Antpitta
is not perfect but works - my suggestion of Pachitea Antpitta - the province of
the holotype was not well received despite it being a mostly Andean province.
“eBird/Clements
has already made the choice - - bad luck , bad timing, it seems to accept what
eBird/Clements has dictated would make sense for stability though I do not here
try to undermine the autonomy of SACC - it would be messy, but if SACC did
change names is eBird/Clements obliged to follow suit???
“As to Van’s
statement that he would like to know how many Peruvian ornithologist’s would
prefer Grave’s over Chachapoya, I do not know, but a quick survey would be easy
to do. However, I do know the growing non-ornithologist birding community would
be in favor of honoring Gary in the scientific name and the Chachapoya in the vernacular
name.”
“I like and grew
up with eponyms and had to learn scientific names at Explorer’s Inn in the 80’s
- I like them - my views are clear, and I will not, nor will most South
Americans, be cowed into silence because of contentious name issues in the
north of the Americas. I stand up for Audubon and others and their names should
not be changed unless it needs to be reviewed if the political climate IN SOUTH
AMERICA mirrors North America, which at present it does not.”
Redux
by Remsen:
The proposal is officially rejected 4-5, and it’s obvious from the comments
that a resubmission using the eponyms would only result in a 5-4 majority, the
barest of margins, and acceptable only by virtue of using a simple majority as
the last resort. Broadening the voting
base could change the results one way or another depending on who is
chosen. I see no point in carrying on
this process endlessly. Further, I think
the cost of delaying implementation of this major new taxonomic revision (13
newly recognized species, 6 of them newly described; some of conservation
concern because of their small geographic ranges) is not worth the turmoil and
strife that further rounds of voting would cause. We’ve already delayed implementation of this
classification by more than a year.
Therefore, I’m making an executive
decision to go with the voting results (simple majority) to use the names
published in the major, original research papers upon which our taxonomy is
based. Those who decry the use of
eponyms may direct their wrath at me, rather than SACC as a whole. It is no secret that I am fine with eponyms
in general and particularly these two because they honor two worthy colleagues
and friends who have had a direct association with the discovery of
biodiversity in this group and the genus as a whole. Those who oppose eponyms need to recognize
that their opinions are not the only ones, nor do they carry moral
authority. Tolerance of different
viewpoints is the way to proceed, in my opinion, in the spirit of a welcoming society [GG1] with shared interests
in birds rather than vilification of those with a different view on an entirely
subjective matter such as eponyms. In
practice, only a tiny percentage of SACC names are eponyms, almost certainly
vastly smaller than the percentage of active users of English names who favor
their continued use. In general, I
support the use of eponyms in English common names only in cases such as this
one where there is a strong association of the person with the species and when
the name was published in the original description.