Proposal (971) to South American Classification Committee

English names for Pachyramphus albogriseus and P. salvini

Proposal 955A (https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop955.htm) to split Pachyramphus salvini from P. albogriseus passed with 7 votes in favor and 0 vote against.

The English names suggested for the two species (Proposal 955B, C and D) were not liked by the reviewers, but only one reviewer suggested alternatives.

It should be noted that some of the arguments given for not accepting the proposed names were weak, misleading, or wrong. So, as this is a separate proposal, we here give the voters a second chance to rethink their votes after reading the discussions. If no majority can be reached, we suggest the split is effectuated using the already published names, with a note that they need new English names.

The names proposed were:

955B: Use the name Cryptic Becard for P. salvini.

955C: Use the name Slender-billed Becard for P. salvini.

955D: Use the name Broad-banded Becard for P. albogriseus [sensu stricto].

Voting alternatives for present proposal:

A. (ex-955B): Cryptic Becard (for P. salvini) immediately indicates that the species has been confused with another species. The prefix Cryptic may have been overused in the literature over the last two decades, but the exciting ring to it has survived. It is a name that sticks, and it is informative. One argument given against it was that albogriseus and salvini do not occur together, which is not true, at least for much of the year, when both may be encountered on the east slope (they seemingly also occur in close proximity near Jaen in the Marañón drainage), and that there are now so many known differences, that the two species are not really cryptic, which is also not true; in fact, the two look as similar as any other species named Cryptic does to its look-alike.

From a field perspective, P. salvini and P. albogriseus are quite cryptic, unless one can see and assess the few distinguishing yet subtle characters. These include size, the richness of the crown and wing edgings in females, and the black loral spot of P. albogriseus versus the gray or smudgy loral spot of P. salvini; all of these are difficult to assess in the field. The key distinguishing character for P. salvini – pale edging on the alula – is likely impossible to assess in the field.

“Slender-billed & Broad-banded becards”: these options highlight the diagnostic features of each taxon: slender-billed is also slender-banded, and broad-banded is also broad-billed, and they also avoid the usage of the annoyingly long and inaccurate “black-and-white” (see below).

B. (ex-955C): Slender-billed Becard (for P. salvini) highlights an important field character distinguishing salvini from albogriseus. Arguments against the name were that there are other becards with an even slenderer bill. In fact, there is only one species with a slenderer bill: Barred Becard, which is also the smallest member of the genus. In relation to body size, it is possible that P. salvini has the relatively most slender bill among Pachyramphus.

C. (ex-955D): ”Broad-banded Becard” (for P. albogriseus) highlights a key field character distinguishing albogriseus and salvini. Lane and Stiles questioned which band is referred to, which is odd, as the diagnosis of P. albogriseus [sensu stricto] (Musher et al. 2023 p.15) states “the upper wing-bar is considerably broader than the lower”; additionally, Fig. 4 in the same paper shows that the only character with no overlap between salvini and nominate albogriseus is the width of the tips of the median coverts, i.e. the upper wingbar; also, in the supplemental table 5 (S5) the widths of both median [coverts] and greater [coverts] wingbars are given. Objections to using band instead of bar, because bands usually refer to the bands on the underparts are rather weakly founded. Nearly a quarter (11) of the 48 English bird names that include -banded refer to bands in the wing. The name Broad-banded Becard refers to the only character that shows no overlap whatsoever between salvini and nominate albogriseus. All other measurements (except vocal) show range overlap.

“Greater Pied and Lesser Pied becards” (as proposed by Lane): these options focus on a Lesser/Greater yellowlegs analogy and in keeping the “historical connection” to the erroneous name Black-and-white Becard.

D: “Lesser Pied Becard” (for P. salvini)

E: “Greater Pied Becard” (for P. albogriseus)

Dan has a good point in that the tediously long Black-and-white in principle could be replaced by Pied, which is shorter and approximately synonymous. In fact, it would work for all the 13 other bird species named black-and-white (except that there is already a Pied Triller). All 13 are bicolored. The becards, however, are extensively tricolored, so it was a mistake to call albogriseus “Black-and-white” in the first place (note also that its scientific name means gray-and-white). To call them Greater Pied Becard and Lesser Pied Becard, as suggested by Dan, just repeats this mistake. It also perpetuates the erroneous idea that one can accurately assess size under field conditions, except in exceptional situations. Although this case is similar to the Lesser and Greater yellowlegs, the becards will seldom (if ever) be seen perched on the same branch to make the names useful in the field. The prefix Pied is used in over 40 bird names, also nearly exclusively for bicolored species (the Lapwing and Triller are tricolored, but the gray is far from as extensive as in the becard). The pied part of the becard plumage is mainly in the wing; yet four other becards have wings as pied. We are not swayed by the need to keep the historical connection through “pied” to the ill-informed name “black-and-white”, and also think that Lesser and Greater are misleading, as these features are not observable in the field.

F: Being species more often heard than seen, another option would be to name them after their different vocalizations. P. salvini invariably sings a rapid three-noted phrase, the last note short. P. albogriseus sings a song of a variable number of notes, but always slower and terminating with a long, mainly rising note. We leave it up to voters to consult gifted linguists to coin and suggest onomatopoetic or song-describing names for the two.

To recap, vote YES or NO on each of the following:

A: Call P. salvini Cryptic Becard

B: Call P. salvini Slender-billed Becard

C: Call P. albogriseus Broad-banded Becard

D: Call P. salvini Lesser Pied Becard

E: Call P. albogriseus Greater Pied Becard

F: Split with present names with a note that new English names are to be coined

[G. Call P. albogriseus Broad-barred Becard] – added subsequent to original proposal

[H. Retain Black-and-white Becard for P. albogriseus] -- added subsequent to original proposal

Recommendations: We favor A and C or B and C

Niels K. Krabbe, J. Ignacio Areta and Lukas J. Musher. April 2023

Vote tabulation: https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart864+.htm

Comments from Gary Rosenberg (voting for Remsen): “The arguments for A and C seem sound to me.

“A: Call P. salvini Cryptic Becard - YES

B: Call P. salvini Slender-billed Becard - NO

C: Call P. albogriseus Broad-banded Becard - YES

D: Call P. salvini Lesser Pied Becard - NO

E: Call P. albogriseus Greater Pied Becard - NO

F: Split with present names with a note that new English names are to be coined – NO”

Comments from Schulenberg (voting for Robbins): “I'm perfectly fine with 'Cryptic Becard' for salvini. this is a classic example of a cryptic species, not in the sense of being skulking, but in the widely used sense of a species that is so similar to a different species that it was overlooked for a (very) long time.

“For albogriseus, I am fine with a simple 'Pied Becard'. many species of becard could be called 'Pied', but then the same could have been said of 'Black-and-white'. as I've said many times before (but apparently to little effect), descriptive names are good, but holding out for a uniquely descriptive name too often leads to options that I consider to be 'trying too hard'. I would consider 'Slender-billed' and 'Broad-banded' to be examples of what I would hope to avoid. and I really, really, really don't like using some form of 'Pied Becard' for both species, for two reasons. the first is that these two are not sisters. we have a similar case with the yellowlegs, of course, but those two were assumed to be sisters until this was demonstrated, only recently, to be incorrect. despite that, 'Greater' and 'Lesser' still work for the yellowlegs because they are descriptive in a helpful way, and roll off the tongue pretty well (and also, of course, are well-entrenched by now). On the other hand, 'Greater Pied Becard' and 'Lesser Pied Becard' just are not euphonious. let's not clutter this up.”

Comments from Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “I am persuaded by the points made by Krabbe, Areta. and Lucas in their re-written proposal. Their choices of English names are well defended, well argued, and convincing. Initially, some of us thought that better English names for these species could be provided, but I think that our failure to do so has been demonstrated. I say that we give deference to the authors' choices for the appropriate English names for these two species.

“My votes;

B: Call P. salvini Slender-billed Becard

C: Call P. albogriseus Broad-banded Becard”

Comments from Stiles: “A most complicated case ... given the great similarity of two species of birds usually seen from below by a ground-based observer, finding good field marks to distinguish them is a tall order. I think that Niels et al. have helped to sort out the possibilities, and I agree with most of their suggestions. for salvini, "cryptic" is not without some merit, although all it really accomplishes is to point out that it looks like something else - not overly helpful, especially if one is not familiar with which "something else" is being referred to. I agree that "Pied", while conveniently brief, is really a misnomer for the birds in question, and the difference in size is pretty much useless to distinguish them unless the two are together on a perch. The only features that appear to distinguish the two species (at least in the hand) are the more slender bill of salvini and the broader white "band" of the lesser coverts of albogriseus. Here, I think that the argument for "broad-banded" for the latter rather ignores the usual association of the terms "bar" and "band” in the minds of those observing birds. Consider "band": most people would connect this term with a more or less broad stripe crossing the breast, nape or rump (and albogriseus does have a conspicuous breast-band). This also applies for the tail, although less strictly, but even here, on the spread tails (e.g., of raptors), one more often sees "narrow tail-band" than "tail-bar". When combined with wing as "wing-band", the usual feature is such a stripe crossing several feathers (as in the primaries of various nightjars) or as a contrasting stripe along the spread wing (as in many shorebirds, among others). For "bar" (in the singular or for two), by far the usual association with wing: wing-bars are by far the most common feature called to mind (whether or not it appears in the E-name). Because the feature that is broader in albogriseus is the anterior wing-BAR, most easily seen on the closed wing, I would suggest replacing "broad-banded" with "broad-barred" for albogriseus, as being less ambiguous as to the feature in question. If this suggestion flies, I'll vote for Slender-billed and Broad-barred for salvini and albogriseus, respectively. (Otherwise, I'm grounded!)”

Additional comments from Donsker: “I have just a couple of reactions the newest comments:

“As the authors have clearly explained in their newest proposal, I don't believe that substituting "pied" as a synonym for "black-and-white" properly applies to the coloration or color pattern of either of these two species.

“But I think that Gary has articulated well the issue with the problematic "banded" as it applies to P. albogriseus. Using his modification "broad-barred" preserves the intent of the original authors to call attention to this distinguishing feature of P. albogriseus.

“So, I'll gladly change my vote to reflect that of Gary's:

Use Slender-billed Becard for P. salvini

Use Broad-barred Becard for P. albogriseus.”

Comments from Remsen (not voting): “As noted by Tom, the search for the “perfect” name is usually futile, and in cases like this one, when data reveal new species limits in phenotypically similar taxa, we’re often left with choosing the ‘lesser of evils.’ A corollary of that is that it’s usually easy to find problems with names, but far more difficult find to create better alternatives.

“Just to satisfy my own curiosity, I searched on “banded” in the SACC list. Although a plurality of the uses refers to the ventral pattern, there are three other categories of usage – my tally is below, basically presented as a ‘public service announcement’. Within the ‘wing bar’ group, 2 of 9 are ‘Wing-banded’ to prevent confusion, and none of the remaining 7 refer to subtle differences between close relatives as in the current case.”

Ventral band(s)

Banded Ground-Cuckoo

Black-banded Crake

Two-banded Plover

Black-banded Owl

Rufous-banded Owl

Brown-banded Puffbird

Scarlet-banded Barbet

Blue-banded Toucanet

Many-banded Aracari

Black-banded Woodcreeper

Red-banded Fruiteater

Banded Cotinga

Brown-banded Antpitta

White-banded Swallow

Prominent wing band

Rufous-banded Miner

Wing-banded Hornero

White-banded Mockingbird

Wing bar(s)

Banded Antbird

Wing-banded Antbird

Double-banded Graytail

Double-banded Pygmy-Tyrant

Orange-banded Flycatcher

Buff-banded Tyrannulet

White-banded Tyrannulet

Wing-banded Wren

White-banded Tanager

Head stripes

Two-banded Warbler

Three-banded Warbler”

“Also, as for ‘Broad-barred’, the same problem (ventral barring vs. wingbars) remains; I suspect that the average user of English names will think first that “Barred” applies to ventral pattern, as in Barred Antshrike, Barred Owl, etc.

“In general, for those who think these laborious exercises on English names represent wasted time, my response is that because by far more English-speakers working with birds will use the English name rather than the scientific name, in my opinion it’s important to make the effort through these exercises to attempt to find the best name, even though the outcome might best be described as ‘least problematic’ name.”

“One final general comment. We field people tend to think that the only clientele we have for English names is other field people. Indeed, this is the clientele of primary concern, but not the only clientele. Artists, conservationists, and the general public all use common names yet never see the birds in the field or try to distinguish them for close relatives. My point is that just because names are not useful for field identification shouldn’t eliminate them completely from consideration if they are useful in another context.”

Comments from Mark Pearman (voting for Areta):

“A. Cryptic Becard. (YES) I find this name to be more informative than other options. It tells us that it’s a look-a-like species which was confused with another species, and this is something that is helpful in the field. I disagree that Cryptic has been overused, and it is applicable here.

“B. Slender-billed Becard. (NO) I totally get that this might be useful to distinguish salvini from albogriseus in the limited area of overlap. But, for most of the time, the confusion, of males at least, is going to be with White-winged Becard, Black-capped Becard and Cinereous Becard. Looking, or trying to look, at the bill width is not going to help with distinguishing salvini from these species.

“C. Broad-banded Becard (NO) I agree with Gary’s point about “banded” being much more typically attributed to a breast band or tail band amongst other examples than to wing markings. Then there is the question of just where the “band” is located on the wing because the proposed E-name does not provide this information. The birder in the field needs to know a lot of extra information to make a correct identification.

“As for Gary’s “Broad-barred Becard”, I am not sold on it either. We already have the Barred Becard P. versicolor, and its bars refer to fine bars on the underparts. With a “Broad-barred Becard” I am already sensing the confusion, especially in a becard. Usage of “barred”, in my mind, is just as often or more often used to refer to body barring e.g. Barred Fruiteater, Barred Hawk, Barred Owl. Furthermore, if it is known that “Broad-barred” refers to the wings then this does not help with identifying the species from syntopic congeners, in particular Black-capped Becard and White-winged Becard which also have multiple bars and fringing. It confuses the issue with what to look for when making an identification.

“D. Lesser Pied Becard (NO)]

“E. Greater Pied Becard (NO)

“Replacing “Black-and-white” with “Pied” doesn’t do enough for me, because they also have a lot of grey, beyond the fact that females are olive, yellow, chestnut and grey. The Greater and Lesser modifiers are useful however, if we all knew what species they applied to; meaning that we have to remember that Black-and-white was changed to Pied.

“F. It seems that most species of becard have been poorly named in that their names are not useful for identification from congeners. But we live with these names and don’t question them. It’s the same for a very high percentage of bird species anyway. We have also lived with Black-and-white Becard all our lives. If we start calling Black-and-white Becard the Broad-barred Becard, that’s not enough to identify it from congeners and it all boils down to knowing that it was previously called Black-and-white Becard, the diagnostic features of which are known to many, but under that name. Broad-barred Becard lends more confusion than retaining Black-and-white Becard.

“I don’t have a novel name for albogriseus, and a geographical name seems out of the question given its unusual distribution. I personally would prefer to retain Black-and-white Becard P. albogriseus and use Cryptic Becard P. salvini. This is also the best combo when using Cryptic Becard for salvini.”

Additional comments from Niels Krabbe: “Evidently Broad-banded Becard and Broad-barred Becard would both work. To my ear Broad-banded Becard is the most euphonious. It also does not associate to Barred Becard.”

Additional comments from Remsen (not-voting): “After thinking about this some more and reading Mark’s comments, I’m going to add another option to the list and alert all of you who have voted so far, namely retain Black-and-white for albogriseus. Although that name is not very good, it has a big advantage in terms of stability. Also, note that we’re having a difficult time finding anything appealing for albogriseus, which is also considered grounds for an exception in AOS-NACC guidelines, upon which we are still voting – see SACC 857. Note that AOS-NACC guidelines are for two new daughter names in cases of a split of phylogenetic sisters to avoid perpetual confusion, but those same guidelines also make it clear that this guideline does not necessarily apply to other kinds of splits, e.g. extraction of a non-sister taxon incorrectly included within a previously broadly defined species:

2. Other species splits. In the case of a change in species limits due to incorrect previous assessment of relationships, then the parental English name may be retained for the appropriate species, especially if no other suitable name is available. This differs from 1 above in that the changes do not involve true parent-daughter splits in the phylogenetic sense but rather a correction of previous taxonomy. For example, when Galapagos Shearwater was split from Audubon’s Shearwater, the name Audubon’s was not changed because new data revealed that Galapagos was not its sister and should never have been considered conspecific with Audubon’s in the first place; therefore, the original classification, with both species treated as separate species with their original separate names, was restored.

“A side benefit of invoking this is that it increases the value, in my opinion, of the name Cryptic for salvini by emphasizing that it was taxonomically cryptic.”

Comments from Zimmer: “I’ve grappled with this one for a while, and couldn’t bring myself to support Slender-billed for P. salvini, or Broad-banded or Broad-barred for P. albogriseus, for all of the reasons already discussed — none of these three names strike me as helpful in the field, and all seem like overly tortured attempts to satisfy the descriptive names crowd. Similarly, the various suggested iterations of Pied Becard strike me as clunky, and inaccurate — neither of these birds is truly “Pied” in the usual sense (black-and-white) of the word, and neither is any more “Pied” than any of the other gray, black and white becards. Hence, I think this latest suggestion, of retaining the long-established (albeit, equally misleading) name of Black-and-white Becard for the familiar P. albogriseus, and deploying Cryptic Becard for P. salvini, makes the most sense, and is the most elegant solution. As Van and Mark Pearman both allude to, retention of Black-and-white for albogriseus, actually makes the name Cryptic more attractive for salvini. I seem to recall from the original proposal to split, that the authors had suggested the name of Cryptic Becard for salvini, but that the reviewers rejected that name. So, this option would actually be a partial return to the wishes of the authors, which I also view as a positive. This case would seem similar to that of Cryptic versus Lined Forest-Falcon. So, my votes are: retain Black-and-white Becard for albogriseus, and use Cryptic Becard for salvini.”

New comments from Lane: “Mark Pearman’s observation about retaining Black-and-white Becard for P. albogriseus (sensu stricto) as the “split” does not involve sister taxa works for me. Given that name retention, I think I too would be fine with adopting Cryptic Becard for P. salvini. The quandary that these two forms were in for so long does make “cryptic” seem an appropriate term here.”

New comments from Donsker: “I think that this latest suggestion may finally cut the Gordian knot! I would fully support staying with Black-and-white Becard for P. albogriseus, and adopting the original authors' first choice for P. salvini, Cryptic Becard.”

Comments from Areta, Krabbe, and Musher: “Niels, Luke and I, all agree with Mark´s viewpoint that retaining Black-and-white for albogriseus is the best thing to do. At this point, it seems that Cryptic has been well taken by you, and this was indeed our original name suggestion that was extirpated along the review process.”

Comments from Josh Beck (voting for Claramunt): ““I agree with others in terms of Slender-billed and Broad-banded being a bit too far in terms of seeking descriptive names and as Mark points out, they really are not particularly helpful in the field without more context. If you have that extra context, you don’t need the names to ID the birds then, but you do have more body-part-based names to try to keep straight.. I had initially favored Greater and Lesser Pied as they were at least more succinct, even if problematic. However I particularly like the combo of Cryptic and Black-and-white, largely for the reasons others have given. It preserves stability which is particularly useful in a group that is so hard to name well. Additionally, in this case the name Cryptic is pretty informative - it tells you this bird was overlooked and is a subtle ID - even if the name does not help field ID. Barring other options, or a pendulum swing towards some geographic identifier for salvini, I favor Black-and-white and Cryptic.”

Additional comments from Gary Rosenberg: “In reading through all the comments, I also agree that retaining Black-and-white Becard for albogriseus is a good idea - previously, this was not an option, but if it is, then that would be my preference - I believe it is always best to try and retain one of the original names on a split - unless it totally breaks the rules. Furthermore, Broad-banded is really not a good name, as discussed by others. The term “banded” is confusing, used mostly to describe bands on the breast, and only infrequently for on the wings - or for wing bars - I know every time I see “Orange-banded Flycatcher, I have to remember (and often tell members of my group) that the bands are really wing bars - so probably best to avoid that in the name if possible. As for salvini, using Cryptic seems fine - and pretty-well describes the situation going on. So in summary, I would change my vote to retaining Black-and-white for albogriseus, and using Cryptic for salvini.”

Comments from Schulenberg (voting for Robbins): “I want to push back on the idea that retaining 'Black-and-white' for albogriseus is a good idea.

“It's true that it's often just fine to retain the parent name in the case of a split when the daughter species has a much smaller range. but that really only works when the two species are allopatric or parapatric. In the present case, I don't know that we fully understand the distributions of the two taxa, but they are locally sympatric. I was shocked to see recently that the collection at Louisiana State University has no - zero - specimens of albogriseus from Peru at all. they don't have that many specimens of the complex from the east side of the Andes, but of those they do, every single one is salvini, from northern Peru (Amazonas/San Martin) south to central Peru (Pasco). do both species overlap in this region? Actually, the LSU specimen material is consistent with Figure 2C in Musher et al. in suggesting that salvini completely replaces albogriseus on the east side of the Andes in northern Peru. Is that really what's going on? Or is there some wild sampling bias going on here? Note that farther north in Ecuador there is evidence of sympatry, although as noted in Musher et al., it's not clear if this is a year-round phenomenon or seasonal. Anyway, my point is that one can't assume that the default identification for a bird on the east side of the Andes in Ecuador or northern Peru is albogriseus, indeed the default in a large part of that region could turn out to be salvini.

“All prior records from this region that are not documented by a specimen, audio recording, or high quality image are worthless - these could refer to either species. going forward, sorting out sight records is going to be an enormous challenge. continuing to use 'Black-and-white' for albogriseus, however, serves to steer observers towards the familiar name - even when the evidence clearly suggests that this could well be in error in heavily birded eastern Ecuador and northern Peru. changing the name of albogriseus of course will not make this problem go away. but I propose that the least we can do is not make this even more of a problem. changing the name causes friction, it signals to the observer that something has happened here. Making them slow down and ponder what's going on doesn't guarantee that they'll get it right, but the chances are greater than if the split is less obvious. I see retaining 'Black-and-white' for albogriseus as an invitation to mass confusion.”

Additional comments from Stiles: “Given the general drift of comments, I´m willing to go along: retain B&W for albogriseus does simplify life as regards references to previous literature (mostly Middle American in any case), and I can live with Cryptic for salvini. So, change my votes accordingly.”