Proposal (983) to South American Classification Committee

Add group names to species in the Trogon violaceus (Violaceous Trogon) complex

The ongoing difficulties in creating new English names in the Trogon rufus complex has revealed that many of us struggle to keep all the new names straight in the other trogon complexes that have been subdivided. There are just too many new “Something” Trogons to keep them all straight despite some of these splits being implemented as many as 14 years ago. Although many dislike long compound names, many also favor them in cases in which retaining the connection to the originally broadly defined species is useful. Also, by retaining a group name makes creation of new names easier in each group because the name pertains to the species group, not the genus. For example, see SACC proposal 921e-x for rationale for retaining the originally broadly defined species as a group name “Amazonian Black-throated Trogon” and the obvious problem with our current “Amazonian Trogon” (T. ramonianus).

Long compound names are awkward and normally to be avoided. But when they aid in learning, i.e. signaling that a set of allotaxa form a species group, some of us like them. I point out that in everyday use in the field, these names will be shortened to things like “Amazonian Violaceus” and “Amazonian Black-throated”. The longer names are for formal use in lists and publications

This proposal is a test case for adding the original broadly defined species name as a group name for one formerly broadly defined species, Violaceous Trogon, which has been subdivided into 3 species – see SACC proposals 378 and 430. The current names for the newly recognized species are:

Gartered Trogon (T. caligatus)

Amazonian Trogon (T. ramonianus)

Guianan Trogon (T. violaceus)

What is proposed here is to change these to:

Gartered Violaceous-Trogon (T. caligatus)

Amazonian (or Amazon*) Violaceous-Trogon (T. ramonianus)

Guianan Violaceous-Trogon (T. violaceus)

“Amazonian Trogon” and “Guianan Trogon” were obviously misleading. With, the group name for context, the meaning becomes clear.

Van Remsen, August 2023

* Don Roberson pointed out we could reduce the syllable count on this one by going with just “Amazon”, as in Amazon Kingfisher. I favor that. Indicate in your Comments if you like that option.

Here are Don’s comments: “One reason that I did not vote for "Amazonian Black-throated Trogon" was that it was 10 syllables. All the names I preferred were 8 syllables or fewer. There's got to be an outer limit to the number of syllables in an English compound-name of a bird. Because the word "streaked" is pronounced one-syllable, we got away with Myrmotherula multostriata becoming known as Amazonian Streaked-Antwren in 8 syllables. A bunch of the Old World Scimitar-babblers have jaw-breaker names, but all (I think) within 8 syllables.

“There is Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper [Dendrocolaptes certhia] that stretches the English name to 9 syllables, and so does Amazonian Scrub-Flycatcher [Sublegatus obscurior] and Amazonian Umbrellabird [Cephalopterus ornatus]. Do we really want double-digits?

“Here we have the problem of Violaceous being 4 syllables, "trogon" is two, but Amazonian is 5 syllables. That's 11 syllables. Perhaps there already is a 10-syllable or greater English name somewhere in the world, but I didn't locate it during some searches [even Inaccessible Island Rail is just 8 syllables].

“So, to avoid a 10-syllable English name, why not simply Amazon Violaceous-Trogon for T. ramonianus? It is 9 syllables, not double-digit. It would be the same length as Guianan Violaceus-Trogon.

“We have Amazon Kingfisher -- yes, it is presumably named for the river and not the biotic region -- but still, it is a well-established name for a bird that occurs far, far away from the Amazon River.

“Should there be an effort to limit compound English bird names to fewer than double-digit syllables, when possible? Amazon Violaceous -Trogon would do that. I'm not against creating compound English names for splits for Neotropical trogons (or other similar splits), but can we limit those names to single-digit syllables?”

Comments from David Donsker: “I enthusiastically endorse the addition of "Violaceous" to the English names of these three species as argued in Proposal 983. [On a personal note, about eight months ago I was in Guyana after a many-year hiatus birding that region of South America. On the first day in the field, local guide called out "Guianan Trogon" and pointed to a figure in the mid-canopy. My mind was racing to remember what "Guianan Trogon" actually was (perhaps one of the newly proposed Black-throated Trogon splits?) and was amused and chagrinned when a "Violaceous Trogon" appeared in my binoculars].

“My only hesitation is the necessity for adding the hyphen to the group name. One of the rationales for splitting the old "Violaceous Trogon" in the first place (SACC 378) was that the "T. violaceus" complex may be polyphyletic (it includes T. surrucura) based on the mtDNA analysis of DaCosta & Klicka, 2008.

“If the T. violaceus s.s. is paraphyletic relative to T. caligatus and T. ramonianus, then I believe that the hyphenated form “Violaceous-Trogon” would not be appropriate or required as group name for these three species in order to follow AOS English name rules. As with our choice of English names for the Black-throated Trogon splits, the hyphen could/should be eliminated.”

Comments from Josh Beck (voting for Claramunt): “YES. I am in favor of adding the modifier Violaceous to make the group name either Violaceous Trogon or Violaceous-Trogon. It does make the names a mouthful, and it is additional faffing with names that have already been printed in many places, but it's not really a name change so much as a tweak / addition to existing names, it adds information in this difficult group, and many people don't bother to say the full names in the field, so I guess / suspect it won't matter that much in field use / for guides / etc. I'm mostly ambivalent on Amazon Violaceous Trogon vs Amazonian Violaceous Trogon. I don't see 9 vs 11 syllables as being much of a difference and the change from Amazonian to Amazon is mildly disruptive, so I perhaps lean slightly against Amazon and slightly prefer staying with Amazonian.”

Comments from Don Roberson (voting for Jaramillo): “YES, with the preference for Amazon over Amazonian.”

Comments from Zimmer: “YES. As I’ve stated before when grappling with these types of questions, I think any clunkiness imposed by using a group name, is more than compensated for by the added information and ease of learning conveyed by using a group name with a modifier. The names for many of these trogons are not particularly or at all helpful in the absence of the group name to give context. As David Donsker noted, we should probably avoid the hyphen in using Violaceous Trogon as a group name. Don Roberson’s suggestion of Amazon as opposed to Amazonian is fine with me, if that’s the way the majority wishes to go, although personally, I find that usage somewhat awkward (like saying ‘South America Snipe’ instead of ‘South American Snipe’ – it just sounds a little ‘off’ to me), and it’s the 3-part name (with Violaceous in the middle) that makes the name seem long to me, with, or without the extra 2 syllables at the end of the root ‘Amazon’.”

Comments from Lane: “YES to adding ‘Violaceus’ to the names and with gusto! I would rather stick with "Amazonian" rather than "Amazon" here, as the latter, to me, refers more specifically to the river or the warrior women, but "Amazonian" refers to the region. We're already up to 3 names, so the number of syllables here isn't really my biggest concern. I agree with Kevin, furthermore, in not including a hyphen between "Violaceous" and "Trogon" (or shouldn't we also have to do the same for "Black-throated-Trogon" in proposal 921e?). I simply dislike making exclusionary group names for relatively poorly differentiated clusters of species within a larger, relatively uniform, genus if for no other reason than it screws with the indexing of their names in field guides. If the Violaceous Trogons were a separate genus or even subgenus from the rest of the trogons, I could see the value, but here it is an aesthetic that I simply don't like.”

Comments from Rasmussen: “YES. I agree that group names should help people keep these straight, and should help minimize the ongoing problems over finding names for daughter species. Thus, I agree with the suggested compound names. In general I think keeping them as short as possible is best but in this case, Amazon Violaceous Trogon just doesn't sound as mellifluous as Amazonian Violaceous Trogon, and I prefer to avoid changing the established name Amazonian. However, I do think Amazon Violaceous Trogon would be acceptable. As for the hyphen, I agree that it is problematic in this case, especially given the issue with the parallel case of the "Black-throated-Trogons", but also in case Surucua Trogon should be shown to be part of the group. (But if so, somehow Surucua Violaceous Trogon seems a step too far...).”

Comments from Gary Rosenberg (voting for Bonaccorso): “YES to adding “Violaceous” to the three trogon names. I think this will certainly benefit learning these species and keeping them straight. I admit I always have to stop and think hard trying to remember the new names of the Violaceous trogons - so this will help. I agree with others about the hyphen - especially with Dan’s point about indexing in field guides. So no hyphen. As for Amazon versus Amazonian - I am somewhat agnostic. I think both convey the same thing - e.g.. Amazon Kingfisher. I think the point that the existing name is “Amazonian” Trogon - so there is a good reason to maintain that to reduce confusion. I guess we should be consistent and go with the same designation as we use for the Black-throated Trogon - seems silly to call one “Amazon” and the other “Amazonian” - so whichever we choose, we should use the same for both. I had suggested Amazon for Black-throated to perhaps reduce the confusion with “Amazonian” Trogon - but now that we would add “Violaceous” back into the name, this distinction is less important, in my opinion.”

Commennts from Hilty (voting for Jaramillo): “YES. Regarding ‘Amazon’ or ‘Amazonian’ . . . really makes no difference to me. I'm good with either.”

Comments from Remsen: “YES, and although I like the simplification to Amazon, Gary’s point on Amazonian Black-throated carries the day for me.”