Proposal (973) to South American Classification Committee

 

 

Establish English names for Tolmomyias flavotectus and T. assimilis

 

With the passage of SACC proposal 960, we have to choose an English name for newly recognized Tolmomyias flavotectus.  “Yellow-winged Flycatcher” is already in use by classifications that treat it as a separate species: Clements/eBird (which treated them as separate species despite stated policy to follow or wait for AOS committees), HBW-BLI (as “Yellow-winged Flatbill”; del Hoyo & Collar 2016 and currently), and IOC (as “Yellow-winged Flatbill” in v. 13.1, although in v. 11.1 it was “Yellow-margined Flatbill”).

 

My original version of this proposal was naïve in thinking that “Yellow-winged Flycatcher” was the straightforward, easiest choice.  But thanks to prods by Dale Dyer, Steve Howell, and Mark Pearman, I took a much deeper look into the history of all this and …. this case is the opposite of straightforward.

 

Part of the problem, as noted below, is the unstable nomenclature and species-level in this group that I haven’t fully figured out.  When I do, I will overhaul our current SACC note, or if someone else wants to do this, please do! 

 

Concerning the taxon of Central America and the Chocó, which we have voted to split, here is some history:

 

1. Ridgway (1907) treated it as Rhynchocyclus marginatus Lawrence, 1868, with the English name Yellow-margined Flatbill.  By implication, he treated this as a separate species from what we currently refer to as the assimilis group.  If only we had stuck with Ridgway’s taxonomy and English name, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.

 

2. Cory (1919) treated it as Rhynchocyclus marginatus marginatus Lawrence (no English name given) and extended its distribution to southern Colombia while recognizing R. m. flavotectus Hartert, 1902, for the population in western Ecuador.  He treated assimilis, the only member of the current assimilis group, as a subspecies of sulphurescens.

 

3. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) described a new genus, Tolmomyias, with the following diagnosis: “Similar to Rhynchocyclus, but bill relatively smaller and narrower, subterminal phalanx of middle toe entirely free from outer toe, and edge of outer web of outermost primary not roughened.“ They included in Tolmomyias all the current taxa that we do, but also included Ramphotrigon megacephalum, which at that time was placed in Rhynchocyclus. They also ceased further use of the name marginatus with the following statement: “Rhynchocyclus marginatus LAWRENCE is unfortunately invalidated by Muscicapa marginata PELZELN, a synonym of Tolmomyias flaviventris (WiED).”  Hence, flavotectus Hartert becomes the oldest available name for the Central American-Chocó species,  and they called it “Yellow-margined Flat-bill.”  They continued to treat assimilis under T. sulphurescens, and the only other member of our current assimilis group then described (examinatus Chubb) was treated as a junior synonym of T. sulphurescens cherriei.

 

4. Now along came Zimmer, who ( Zimmer 1939) separated out the assimilis group from T. sulphurescens, which was a big leap forward (more on that later).  However, he also lumped flavotectus with assimilis, and further, he treated flavotectus Hartert 1902 as having priority over assimilis Pelzeln 1868, so all members of what we think of as the assimilis group were called Tolmomyias flavotectus assimilis, etc., in Zimmer’s classification.  Zimmer did not deal with English names.

 

5. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) [thanks Dale] corrected Zimmer’s lapsus on priority and changed the species name to assimilis.  The influential Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treatment of using assimilis as the name for the broadly defined species, and including flavotectus as a subspecies in it, was followed by all subsequent authors that I know of (e.g., Hilty 1986, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Fitzpatrick-HBW 1994, etc.).

 

6. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001; Ecuador book) were evidently the first to treat flavotectus as a separate species, and they named it Yellow-margined Flatbill.  Note the change from Flycatcher to Flatbill, which was followed by the IOC and BLI/HBW.  A switch to Flatbill is something to consider in a separate proposal, so be thinking about the pros and cons.  Note from the history above that these species were known as Flat-bills from at least 1907 until (I assume) Meyer de Schauensee (1966).  Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) coined a new name for the restricted assimilis: Zimmer’s Flatbill, this was followed by Hilty (2003; Venezuela book), and is in use in some current classifications.

 

If anyone has additions or corrections to that history, let me know so it can be changed here.

 

Now, for English names, for which the problems are multitudinous:

 

A. Yellow-margined.  This has been used for three different taxonomic treatments, i.e. (1) for the original Central American-Chocó species alone, as in Ridgway, Cory & Hellmayr, Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and the new Costa Rica book by Dale Dyer and Steve Howell, as well as at least one recent IOC version, which is still being followed by xeno-canto; (2) for the broadly defined species, as in Meyer de Schauensee and many others, and (3) for the narrowly defined assimilis group by Clements and the latest IOC.  Not also that the “-margined” comes from the original marginatus, which was retired in 1927, so we’re closing in on a century of disuse.  Should “Yellow-margined” be disqualified from further use because it has referred to three opposing taxonomic treatments, thus perpetuating much confusion?  In some ways, that’s a shame because it is an apt name in reference to the unusually prominent yellow “margins” in the wing – see the photos below.  Ridgway’s original “Yellow-margined” was a good name.

 

B. Zimmer’s.  I greatly value John Zimmer’s contributions to Neotropical taxonomy, and he was the one who straightened out the assimilis/sulphurescens mess.  However, he was also the one who lumped flavotectus and assimilis (which also set the stage for Meyer de Schauensee to use Yellow-margined for the entire complex) AND also evidently botched up the priority, so it doesn’t make sense to name assimilis sensu stricto after Zimmer when he considered that species to be Tolmomyias flavotectus assimilis, ergo about as distant from our current treatment as one can get, and his mistaken treatment of these birds as conspecifics indirectly caused the loss of Yellow-margined as applied to  flavotectus only.  Why should someone be honored for that?  Also John Zimmer’s landmark contributions have already been recognized in four other English names (Antbird, Tapaculo, Woodcreeper, Tody-Tyrant), not mention a genus (Zimmerius) and two zimmeri species epithets, so I’m not sure we need another Zimmer’s.  Finally, there are those who oppose eponyms, and this would be a new eponym as far as SACC goes.

 

C. Yellow-winged.  As has been noted in our English name proposals for decades, it’s easy to criticize any English name and far more difficult to find one that doesn’t evoke outrage by some portion of English name users.  The problem becomes especially acute in cases in which phenotypic differences are tiny.  In the photos below, you can see that no, the entire wing is not yellow, and yes, it may not be noticeably more yellow than in the wings of flavotectus than assimilis. 

 

Here’s a photo of flavotectus by Javier Fernandez Domingo Trujillo that shows the conspicuous yellow markings in the folded wing, especially the striking yellow edges to the wing coverts that produce a comb-like pattern”

 

 

Here’s another one of flavotectus showing conspicuous yellow in the wing (by Dusan Brinkhuizen/Macaulay)

 

 

Other Tolmomyias have yellow in the wing, but perhaps not quite as much, e.g. T. assimilis (by Dean LaTray; Macaulay):

 

 

It’s not a big difference, and maybe not a real difference, but it does describe the bird. Yellow-winged may not be a great name, but in the crowded universe of a hundred or more small greenish Neotropical flycatchers, it works and it’s already in use.  I don’t see the point in nit-picking on this one.  If someone can coin a name that is better, now is the time to do it.

 

In the interests of due diligence …. flavotectus basically means “hidden yellow” (fide Jobling).

 

Note that this is not a true phylogenetic parent-daughter split: flavotectus and assimilis are not sisters, which is the reason why the split itself is required. See the tree in SACC 960; flavotectus is sister to the ancestor of all the other Tolmomyias.  Therefore, our guideline concerning new names for the daughters of phylogenetic parent-daughter splits does not necessarily apply.

 

So, unless a savior swoops in to save the day, this one is a choice that is essentially, in my view … which option is the least noxious?  As far as I can see, our choices are:

 

A. for flavotectus:

 

Option A1. Yellow-winged, the current Clements/IOC names.

Option A2. Yellow-margined, restoring the Ridgway’s original name for the taxon formerly known as marginatus.

Option A3. Yellow-edged, a novel name suggested by Steve Howell (pers. comm.)

 

B. for assimilis:

 

Option B1. “Yellow-margined”, the current Clements/IOC name

Option B2: “Zimmer’s”, as in Ridgely & Greenfield and several other major books, as well as in an earlier IOC version.

Option B3. “Terra Firme”, a novel name suggested by Dan Lane (pers. comm.)

Option B4. “Yellow-edged”, a novel name suggested by Steve Howell for flavotectus (pers. comm.)

Option B5. “Similar”, a novel name that reflects the species epithet.

 

I’m not voting on this one, but here is what I think of the names.  Note that any name chosen for assimilis will likely be a temporary placeholder until species limits in that group are worked out.

 

1. Yellow-winged:  Pretty good name, and already in use, but a novelty introduced only recently.

2. Yellow-margined: If subsequent authors hadn’t messed with Ridgway’s name, this would be ideal for flavotectus and is consistent with current usage in some sources.  But because it has now been applied to assimilis s.s. by Clements, using it for either species is asking for perpetual confusion; I favor retiring it forever.

3. Zimmer’s: The worst of all the names for reasons I outlined above. Of all the taxa that Zimmer worked on, this is the one that should NOT bear his name,

4. Terra Firme: This one works if and only if we adopt Flatbill as the group name – see SACC 974 – and is itself an example of the advantage of changing Flycatcher to Flatbill.

5. Similar: This one started as a joke with Dale Dyer, but as many of you know, it has grown on me to the point that I think it merits serious consideration.  Adopting it represents the “this is hopeless” problem when faced with a bunch of names choices that are unacceptable or poor alternatives.  It’s a sardonic acknowledgment of the near futility in trying to come up with good English names for all these new species that are so similar phenotypically.  Nothing wrong, in my opinion, in having a little fun with a name.  And it’s actually a handy way to remember that the species name is assimilis.

 

 

Voting: Let me know which option you prefer, or should I say, dislike the least, for each of the two species.

 

Lesson: Robert Ridgway wasn’t always right, but given the limited resources available to him at the time, especially with respect to vocalizations, his instincts were unmatched.  Subsequent changes to his species limits taxonomy were often ill-advised and have often been reversed by modern analyses.  Don’t mess with Ridgway without good reason.

 

 

Van Remsen, May 2023

 

Selected references:

 

Cory, C. B.  1919.  The relationships and geographical distribution of the species and races belonging to the genus Rhynchocyclus.  Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 32: 217-224.

Zimmer, J. T. 1939.  Studies of Peruvian birds No. 33.  The genera Tolmomyias and Rhynchocyclus with further notes on Ramphotrigon.  American Museum Novitates 1045: 1-23.

 

 

 

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

 

Shaded in gray are the comments on the previous version of the proposal before the restructuring of the vote.

 

Comments by Lane: “YES to A1 (Yellow-winged F.) and B3 (Terra Firme F.) or, as an alternate B4 (Yellow-edged F.; funny, I actually coined this myself in my head independent of seeing Steve's suggestion).  Because Yellow-winged already has some use and is not a terrible name, I think we can handle it (may need to double-check it isn't already occupied in the Old World by some other "Flycatcher" should Tolmomyias stay with "Flycatcher" though). As for B3: well, besides the fact that it was my idea, I think it may be the best option until T. assimilis is further split, and isn't inaccurate (assuming we do adopt "Flatbill"). If SACC votes to stay with "Flycatcher" then Yellow-edged seems a fair name for a placeholder until the split.”

 

Comments from Dale Dyer (voting for Remsen):

 

“A) Option A2 for flavotectus: I vote for Yellow-margined (my previous comments still apply).

 

“B) Option B5 for assimilis: I vote for Similar. (It also seems acceptable to go with Zimmer's because it's in some use, and then, when split further we could use Similar and retire Zimmer's, but I'm here just going to go with my preference.)”

 

Comments solicited from Josh Beck: “While this is a really messy and confusing history, very few if any contemporary users of English names are going to know (or perhaps care) much about the details prior to the names introduced by Ridgley + Greenfield (i.e., Yellow-margined and Zimmer’s Flatbills) and the current use in eBird / iGoTerra and field guides. 

 

“On one hand, I agree with the logic that using Yellow-margined for flavotectus and Zimmer’s for assimilis would be a decent solution, and is arguably more true to naming history/precedent than Yellow-winged/Yellow-margined. In this case stability / predominance of names used in the past 30-40-50 years seems more important than the baggage associated with the name Zimmer’s, particularly given the likely future retirement of Zimmer’s with further splits.

 

“However, realistically I don’t think any/most English name users are going to care if Yellow-margined ends up being flavotectus or assimilis but having both “daughters” of this split change names seems unnecessarily destabilizing. Most keen Neotropical birders / armchair taxonomists / etc will know a bit of the (recent) naming history and the pending likelihood of this split and won’t be surprised by a name change of one of the two resultant species. However, I think changing to something like Similar Flycatcher or Terra Firme Flycatcher is stretching too far.

 

“So taking all that into consideration, and giving some priority to stability with the (even only recently established) names in use in IOC / Clements / eBird, I think option A1 and B1 are the best choice. I could also be ok with A2 and B2 if the voting swings that way.”

 

Comments solicited from Steve Howell: “It (marginatus/flavotectus) was originally Yellow-margined Flatbill, and has long been Yellow-margined Flatbill in IOC (until the very recent switch to novel and inaccurate Yellow-winged), and still is Yellow-margined Flatbill in Xeno-canto (who follow IOC but haven’t caught up with an utterly pointless name change occasioned by plain ignorance within the Clements fraternity), Ridgely & Gwynne, Dyer & Howell, and most other recent sources.

 

“So, as Dale Dyer pointed out, Yellow-margined has been used for A, then A+B, and now for B. That really is not helpful. The best course as I see it is to quickly switch back to Yellow-margined for flavotectus  before any more confusion spreads and damage is done) and either stick with Zimmer’s for the taxa east of the Andes (widely used in field guides and until recently by IOC), or find some other name for them (Yellow-edged?), but calling them Yellow-margined really messes things up and should be avoided. And Yellow-winged should be removed from the table, as it is inaccurate and not useful for birds with yellowish edgings to the wings; yes, few English names are perfect, but when confronted with coining a new name some intelligence should be applied to the process, as well as basic knowledge of nomenclatural history.”

 

Comments solicited from Bret Whitney: “I’m sitting in a waiting lounge in Manaus, headed to Porto Velho, so I’ll chime in because these birds are near-and-dear to my heart.  That said, I will be fine with whatever English names they end up with.  Anyway, here goes:

 

“Like Dan, I favor Flatbill for Tolmomyias. The genus is sister to Rhynchocyclus flatbills, this pair of genera constituting a well-supported clade in the Rhynchocyclidae.  That would be an initial, very positive improvement.  [Ramphotrigon is in the Tyrannidae, and probably ought to get a new moniker, think Large-headed Bamboozler.]

 

“I suggest Choco Flatbill for flavotectus, the type of which is from western Ecuador.  This has biogeographic significance, and it’s easy to understand and adopt.  A good number of “Choco” birds extend north into lower Central America.

 

“I kind of like Dan’s Terra Firme Flatbill for the assimilis group east of the Andes, the only points against, that I see, being that both poliocephalus (across Amazonia, in várzea and terra firme), and lower Amazonian populations of the sulphurescens complex (terra firme only), occur widely in terra firme as well.  That will be confusing.  So, in recognition of the fact that the very wide assimilis radiation — from the upper Tropical Zone of the Andes (Colombia to Bolivia) north through the Guianas thence across the big river to the southern rims of Amazonia — has been called Yellow-margined for a very long time (and in many more countries than has flavotectus), I would certainly feel most comfortable with Yellow-margined Flatbill.

 

“I think the only member of this ‘Yellow-margined’ assimilis complex that has been formally proposed as a ‘split’ (= undescribed species) is the vocally highly distinctive T. sucunduri, Sucunduri Yellow-margined Flycatcher.  (It is currently considered a subspecies of T. assimilis simply because I reported identifying a few individuals that I strongly suspect to be hybrids in a zone of less than 10 kilometers; these birds were recorded and collected, but have not been analyzed — and, for some reason, the multiple tissues we have collected of T. sucunduri since about 2008 were not included in the suboscine phylogeny of Harvey et al. 2020!).  So, there is precedent for maintaining “Yellow-margined” in the English name of species in the assimilis complex, and I concur with Dan’s statement that a name like “Rasping” could well be applied to the “raspiest” of the complex when further splitting eventually happens, e.g., "Rasping Yellow-margined Flatbill”.

 

“Zimmer figuring out that he had two very similar groups of tyrannids, in a remarkably complex biogeographic setting, and separating them out pretty darned well into assimilis and sulphurescens, was brilliant, far outweighing his reported lapsus in assigning priority (I have not personally verified that he actually did that).  But yeah, we have a lot of Zimmer’s this and that, and we should leave room for a younger Zimmer to be honored at some point, too.”

 

Comments from Steve Hilty (voting for Claramunt): “It seems likely that few people will remember or much care about all the history (just too convoluted) in this case. Also, name stability is important and helpful, especially when names are already in current use by a significant portion of the birding/ornithological community. It is particularly important in this example, as Peter Kaestner pointed out, with so many people using eBird and Merlin (especially Latin American birders). Imperfect or not, I vote to retain the current Clements/IOC names: For flavotectus, I vote yes for option A1; for assimilis I vote yes for option B1.

 

“[in the interests of full disclosure, these choices were employed in Birds of Colombia, 2021]”

 

Comments from David Donsker (voting for Bonaccorso): “This has certainly become a very messy situation and I fully understand the desire of those who would prefer to  discard “Yellow-margined” as an English name for either taxon. But despite that , I would very much regret it if the venerable name “Yellow-margined” disappeared from the ornithological lexicon altogether. For the reasons expressed by others, and despite some downside to the choice, I would stand by the English names currently adopted by Clements/eBird/IOC: 

 

A.   T. flavotectus: Option A1 “Yellow-winged” 

 

B.   T. assimilis Option B1 “Yellow-margined” 

 

“As for the group name, I strongly favor replacing “flycatcher” with “flatbill” which reflects the sister relationship of Tolmomyias to Rhynchocyclus.”

 

Comments from Gary Rosenberg (voting for Del-Rio): “I vote YES on Option A1 for flavopectus and I vote YES on Option B1 for assimilis. I think the issue is coming up for a name for flavopectus - and it makes more sense to me to NOT use Yellow-margined for flavopectus, even though that has been in use in Central America, and this will lead to some confusion. There will be confusion “somewhere” - and this seems unavoidable - and if, as Bret pointed out, Yellow-margined has been in use for birds east of the Andes in more countries, and longer, then, in my opinion, using “Yellow-margined” as a place holder for assimilis seems the most parsimonious choice - even though it may disappoint those in Costa Rica and Panama - but as has been discussed, you can’t please everyone with common names. Determining a name for flavopectus seems all over the place. I think “Yellow-winged” is as good a name as any - I don’t think “Choco” is really accurate given the status in Central America - if it was restricted to Ecuador and Colombia, maybe, but the distribution extends out of the true Choco region. Given that Yellow-winged is already in use, it makes sense to me to go with that, as opposed to coming up with yet another name that may not be any more accurate.”

 

Comments from Schulenberg (voting for Robbins): “I prefer Yellow-winged for flavotectus and retaining the well-established Yellow-margined for assimilis. I don't think that assimilis is as big as mess as is the sulphurescens complex. but I also don't see any point in messing with its name if there's the slightest chance that it will be split down the line. if changes are to be made to the name for assimilis, I'd recommend waiting for a more comprehensive phylogeny of the genus.”

 

Comments from Peter Kaestner (voting for Areta): “I vote ‘yes’ for option A.  I recognize that this is an imperfect solution, but I believe that stability in eBird matters enough to be the controlling issue for me. In Colombia, as in many Neotropical countries, a huge percentage of the birders use eBird and Merlin. No reason to upset that apple-cart for a matter that is still in flux. I’m agnostic on the use of Flatbill, when and if it becomes a proposal.”

 

Comments from Stiles: “Really a very messy one; however, if the proposal to substitute Flatbill for Flycatcher passes (quite likely) it makes things a bit easier. The main difference between the two in plumage is that assimilis shows wing-bars but flavotectus does not but has prominent yellow borders to the greater secondary coverts.

 

A. flavotectus: the name Yellow-margined dates from Ridgway, whose original name was indeed Yellow-margined Flatbill, but if this is disqualified given the subsequent confusion, "Yellow-edged" would be an acceptable substitution.

 

B. assimilis: ‘Zimmer´s’ to me is unpalatable due to his role in creating the aforementioned confusion, and using "Yellow-margined" only perpetuates it. Other non-starters are Yellow-winged (Inaccurate and misleading for both spp.) and wing-barred (applicable to 100+ small flycatchers and least 2-3 other flatbills). I´m no good at vocalizations, although something like Rough-voiced (based on Ridgely's description) might apply. As a fallback, geography. Because the two species are on opposite sides of the Andes, hence in view of its wide distribution (much as in the case for Trogon r. rufus), "Cisandean" could be applied to assimilis, at least as a temporary stopgap. Were this species to be split up later, more apt species names could be applied as required.”

 

Comments from Peter Kaestner (voting for Areta): “I’ve enjoyed reading all the ins and outs of the convoluted history of these species. In an effort to emphasize stability, I vote for A1 and B1.  Consistent with my earlier vote, I believe that maintaining the eBird/Merlin names is determinant in a group where there is just no obvious answer.”

 

Comments from Jaramillo:

 

“A. for flavotectus:

 

Option A2. Yellow-margined – I don’t think it will actually cause confusion. The margins seem to be brighter and wider to me, they are Zimmerius-type greater coverts rather than wing bars on flavotectus. That is actually a good mark to look at in the field so over time this will decrease any confusion. If it causes confusion it will be with the observers who have been paying attention for the last decade or two and they can figure this out. Going forward this seems like the best name to me. 

 

“B. for assimilis:

 

Option B5. “Similar” – Actually I like this. It is memorable and tells you something. Don’t look for something obvious, look for something similar to its congeners. It is also a unique name that stands out, rather than another olive-yellow, yellowish-green, pale-green or what have you. This takes us out of that loop, and the name has some logical sense in understanding that this is a bird that looks like others, yet it is different. I like it.”

 

Comments from Zimmer: “I really dislike the name “Yellow-winged” – it really doesn’t describe/conjure a wing pattern like that of flavotectus (or any other Tolmomyias for that matter).  If we retain “Yellow-margined” as a name for either species, then I agree with Bret’s reasoning that it would best be retained for assimilis, at least until such time as more splits among the cis-Andean taxa dictate still more changes.  Adopting Flatbill as the group name for Tolmomyias will, as others have pointed out, make this exercise easier, and makes resulting English modifiers to any splits more accurate and helpful (e.g. Sucunduri Flatbill would work just fine.).  With all of this in mind, my votes are as follows:

 

“A) for flavotectus:  Option A3 (Yellow-edged).  This is a far more descriptive & accurate name than Yellow-winged, and is close enough to the original Yellow-margined so as to imply the history of the split.

“B) for assimilis:  Option B1 (retain Yellow-margined for now).”