Home About Committees North American Classification Committee Current & Prior Proposals 2007 Proposals Comments 2007-C

Comments 2007-C

2007-C-1: Change Colibri from Violet-ear to Violetear (SACC #199)

YES. Violetear seems minimally confusing, and I think we should be consistent in our use of hyphens whenever possible.

YES, for reasons given in the proposal and comments by SACC members, and to promote consistency between the NACC and SACC.

YES. Fewer hyphens the better.

YES.

YES.

YES, and have formal policy of no hyphen for body-part names as suggested by SACC members.

YES. One less annoying hyphen to worry about, and as Donegan notes, removal of hyphen is more consistent with other similar English names. I think the danger of mispronunciation, as “Viole Tear” is minimal, certainly not worth the hyphen.

YES.

YES. This follows our rules regarding hyphenation, Violetear is I think straightforward to pronounce and we would typically only use a hyphen in this case if it was really awkward without it, like White-eye instead of Whiteeye.

YES. Geographic variation in vernacular names will always occur; violet-ear has been established formally (and is more abundant as the proposal shows), and thus stability might be argued to favor retention. However, the proposal is convincing that uniformity in treatment is warranted among “adjective-body part” bird terms whenever a lack of a hyphen does not produce confusion.

2007-C-2: Resurrect Helicolestes for the Slender-billed Kite (SACC #201)

YES. The evidence for the original lumping seems weak

YES. I would like to see genetic data, but there are sufficient differences in morphology, voice, ecology, and behavior to warrant this change, especially since the original basis for merger is weak.

YES.

YES.

YES.

NO. Although I agree that it probably should be in a monotypic genus, Nores makes several good points to the contrary, and I see the (admittedly slim) potential for us to have to change back shortly if Rob’s data show it to be not all that distinct, maybe arguably within the “genus” level (whatever that is). We should either wait for publication or ask him.

YES. Although no new data per se have been published, the Amadon rationale would fall far short of sufficient for a merger of two genera today. Regardless of whether these two birds are really sister taxa, I would rather return to the previous classification than follow Amadon’s weakly supported opinion. After becoming familiar with Helicolestes near Leticia, I was mystified by the post-Meyer de Schauensee merger into Rostrhamus. If genetic data corroborate their sister relationship, I would be tempted to vote to retain both in monotypic genera for the reasons outlined by Tobias unless the genetic distance between them is short.

YES.

YES. I think Tobias is correct that the characters that join hamatus and sociabilis are due to convergence for foraging on snails. These birds seem very different in behavior, with hamatus Buteo-like, soaring often, and sociabilis having a distinctive floppy flight.

NO. I agree that the original merger seems to have been cursory, and appreciate from the proposal that returning to monotypic Helicolestes and Rostrhamus will very likely be warranted. However, genetic data will probably be brought to bear on this soon, providing a solid phylogenetic framework for determining true relationships here. I am comfortable in waiting for those results before advocating a taxonomic change that there is a chance might have to be reversed. Eating snails may be ancestral in this two-species group (stranger things have happened).

2007-C-3: Split Gypopsitta from Pionopsitta (SACC #212)

YES. It’s clear that Pionopsitta as presently constituted is not monophyletic and resurrecting Gypopsitta seems a better course than lumping many genera into Pionopsitta.

YES. This proposal seems clear-cut based on the genetic data.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES, seems clear-cut.

YES, for reasons outlined in proposal.

YES.

YES. The Atlantic Forest species Pionopsitta pileata has always been an outlier in this genus. That the genetic data suggest that it is misplaced in being associated with the other species currently placed in Pionopsitta is not very surprising. Gypopsitta looks at first glance like it might…

YES. Nice corroboration of genetic and morphological evidence.

Note from Dick Banks 14 Nov 2007: “I found a nomenclatural problem that will take some action to resolve.  The genera Pyrilia and Gypopsitta both appear in the same 1856 paper by Bonaparte, and I thought that action as first reviser was necessary under the Code (this being the first time the two type species are placed iin the same genus other than the older Pionopsitta)….However, it turns out that the genus Pyrilia was named in an earlier 1856 Bonaparte paper and must be used instead of Gypopsitta.” A proposal has been submitted to the South American Check-list Committee (SACC #333) with regard to this issue.

2007-C-4: Change English name of Brotogeris versicolurus from White-winged to Canary-winged Parakeet (SACC #224)

NO, on the grounds both of reducing confusion and because of the distinctiveness of the white in the wing. I also agree with Pam that reversing a decision because SACC didn’t go along with it (on a close vote) isn’t a great reason for doing so.

NO, for now. Although I favor consistency between the NACC and SACC, I think we should stick with our previous decision to use White-winged. However, let’s wait until the SACC has voted on its new proposal # 307 to change the name to White-winged Parakeet, then revisit this.

NO. The English names adopted after the split reflect the differences perfectly and to go back to Canary-winged would only cause confusion.

NO. We made the split, selected appropriate new names (required in my view) and we should stick with what we have done. Such inane reversals (because Canary-winged has more “cachet?) make what we do look, at best, irrelevant and capricious. In 20 years, with a new roster of AOU-CLC members, will we then switch back? What about stability?

YES.

NO. I do like Canary-winged better but White-winged is adequate, even better in some ways, and we followed our own rules for a good reason. We shouldn’t reverse our changes unless we made an error or subsequent work shows it to be required. And yes, while it would be best to follow SACC, why should we bother to vote if are bound to do so? Maybe SACC should reconsider this one, since their vote was close.

YES, but a new proposal to go back to White-winged has been submitted to SACC, so I recommend that the proposal be withdrawn until dust settles down south.

YES.

NO. I still like Canary-winged better, but a new proposal to the SACC to switch that to White-winged has convinced me that there are good arguments for going with White-winged. Mainly that is, with the split, maintaining Canary-winged for versicolorus leads to confusion, especially with respect to the introduced North American populations. With the use of White-winged, you are unquestionably referring to the taxon versicolorus and not using the broader Canary-winged for the one time subspecies within it chiriri, which we now split as Yellow-chevroned.

ABSTAIN.

2007-C-5: Sequence of genera and subfamilies in Furnariidae (SACC #272)

YES. This new arrangement is consistent with the conclusions of several studies.

YES. This proposal seems solid, with support from independent molecular data sets using both mtDNA and nuclear markers.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES, for reasons outlined in proposal.

YES.

YES.

YES. The genetic evidence is strong and the subfamily limits make a lot of morphological sense. It will be interesting to see where Xenops eventually falls.

2007-C-6: Recognize the genus Epinecrophylla (Thamnophilidae) (SACC #275)

YES. Another straightforward genus split.

YES. Although it would be nice to see Brumfield’s molecular data published, this proposal is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES, for reasons outlined in proposal.

YES.

YES. This split of Myrmotherula has been in the making for a long-time now and data from a variety of characteristics support the change. A little shorter generic name would have been nice, but nothing we can do about that.

YES. Multiple lines of genetic and morphological evidence make this a strong proposal. I agree, however, with some SACC comments that in some respects this proposal jumps the gun on a more definitive and complete dataset.

2007-C-7: Change linear sequence of forest Tinamidae genera (SACC #237-238)

YES. This change is well supported by both morphological and molecular data.

YES. The proposed sequence makes sense given the available phylogenetic data.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES. Straightforward, minor change that best reflects best phylogenetic hypothesis.

YES.

YES. Morphological data, molecular data and biography all support this change in Tinamou sequence.

YES. Nice corroboration of morphological and genetic evidence.

2007-C-8: Change English names of several Turdus from “Robin” to “Thrush” (SACC #260)

YES. It seems more appropriate for these Neotropical Turdus to be called “thrush” rather than “robin”.

YES.

YES and NO. I favor changing White-throated Robin to White-throated Thrush because of the clear English name conflict with the Irania. Many of the SACC members all seem happy to throw in all of the neotropical Turdus into the Thrush name, but what about Rufous-backed Robin? It’s primarily a neotropical species. More so than Clay-colored Robin which actually breeds sparingly in south Texas. I could be persuaded to change to Clay-colored Thrush, but for now prefer to make the single change based on the conflict with the Middle East species.

Follow-up comment: For clarity, I assume we are keeping Rufous-backed Robin rather than Rufous-backed Thrush for Turdus rufopalliatus. That goes against the spirit of the SACC that wanted to change the names of all of the Neotropical Turdus from Robin to Thrush. But following that logic what would happen if at some point down the road we restored Turdus migratorius confinis, the San Lucas Robin, to full species status again? Would we give it the name of San Lucas Thrush, even though its affinities are close to American Robin? I can just see the enthusiasm for chaning them all to Thrush, thus the American Thrush for T. migratorius!

It was partly for that reason that I chose to limit the change to T. assimilis and change it from White-throated Robin to White-throated Thrush, because of the conflict with the Irania from the Middle East. English names are a pain, certainly, but in general I prefer stability.

YES. Let’s make the change and stick with it.

YES.

NO. I don’t really see how all this helps the situation, especially since we’re granting our own Turdus immunity. Yes, different names have been used in different sources for some species, and that could be stabilized, but here we are messing with things that will require tinkering with other long-established names, e.g. Irania gutturalis. And the world will still be stuck with how many robins in how many other unrelated groups? Even within the chats there is no consistency on what’s called a robin and what a chat (or for that matter robin-chat).

YES, kicking-and-screaming reluctantly.

NEUTRAL. I hate to mess with established common names, if that is what we have here. The word “robin” is widely applied “inappropriately,” and I assume shall “always” be so for T. migratorius.

YES. American Robin will always be a robin, but there is no logic to the almost random use of Thrush and Robin within New World Turdus beyond that. This will fix much of the problem, but Bare-eyed Thrush is an issue that will have to be dealt with.

ABSTAIN.

2007-C-9: Split Icterus icterus into three species (SACC #288)

YES. Sympatry of jamacaii and croconotus without interbreeding is prima facie evidence for species status, and it appears that nominate icterus is at least as different from these as they are from each other

YES, for reasons given in the proposal.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES.

YES. The report of sympatry between jamacaii and croconotus refutes any previous treatment as conspecific, and for consistency, I. icterus should be ranked at the species level until further evidence indicates otherwise.

YES.

YES. Splitting the Troupial up is long overdue. The evidence looks clear.

YES. Evidence of reproductive isolation in sympatry seems conclusive.

2007-C-10: Change name of Chlorothraupis carmioli from “Olive Tanager” to “Carmiol’s Tanager”

YES. This would restore a name with more cachet and minimize confusion at the same time.

YES, for reasons given in the proposal.

YES. And using reasoning can we have Cabanis’s rather than Azure-rumped Tanager back?

YES.

YES.

YES. Olive is not only confusing it is, well, drab. Carmiol’s is memorable.

YES, for reasons outlined in proposal. If we’re willing to make all those Robin>Thrush changes for consistency, this one shouldn’t bother anyone. “Olive” is another Eisenmann name that never should have been adopted.

YES.

NO. I am open to changing my mind on this. If the majority of the committee wants to switch to Carmiol’s Tanager, I would go along with this.

ABSTAIN.

2007-C-11: Change English name of Microbates cinereiventris from “Tawny-faced Gnatwren” to “Half-collared Gnatwren”

NO. Tawny-faced, the current name, is much more appropriate to the plumage of the bird and appears to be in more general usage than the alternate name Half-collared.

YES, for reasons given in proposal and for consistency with SACC.

YES.

YES. I will go with the old name, Half-collared Gnatwren.

NO (but not with any conviction).

NO. It’s not enough of a half-collar to justify changing it back from Tawny-faced.

YES, for reasons outlined in the proposal. Half-collared is the historical name, even Eisenmann didn’t fool with it, and there was never any reason for AOU to switch to Tawny-faced.

YES.

NO. I don’t like monkeying with English names for little reason. This one has been monkeyed with, and there are major sources on both sides that use both options. I am inclined to go with Tawny-faced for two reasons. The fact that AOU checklist has used it in both 1983 and 1998 means that it is the only name we’ve endorsed, so it is the status quo and as such is likely much more used that Half-collared. Secondly, it is a somewhat better name. While SACC currently uses Half-collared, it is a holdover from the Dickinson list that was the baseline for that committee. It has not been specifically endorsed by the committee by voting on a proposal.

ABSTAIN.

2007-C-12: Treat Nonnula frontalis as a separate species from N. ruficapilla

YES. This seems best from the standpoint of morphological and molecular (albeit unpublished) data.

YES, for reasons given in the proposal (although I would like to see Witt’s data published).

YES.

YES.

YES, but I am becoming uncomfortable with what appears to be a mixed standard regarding unpublished information.

YES. When working on HBW I was convinced on the basis of morphology that they were best treated as different species.

YES. Although I noted in the proposal “(Prevalence of current treatment) + (absence of published data to contrary) + (unpublished genetic data that strongly indicate that our N. frontalis is paraphyletic with respect to two other species taxa) = best to change to two species,” the equations comes out the same even without use of unpublished data.

YES.

YES. I would split these two Nonnulas given how different they are morphologically and ecologically, especially compared to some other pairs in Nonnula in South America.

YES. “There are no published studies of vocalizations or any other data that might provide insight into species limits or relationships within the group.” A chilling sentence, on the face of it, but U.S. dissertations are available in full from UMI (or through interlibrary loan, or in this case through the LSU web page). Peer-reviewed publication is of course much preferred, but in some cases it makes no sense to repeat a study just because someone who’s done it once already is not getting around to publishing it more formally. It is for this reason that I require my students to put all their sequence data on GenBank for their theses, so that others can pick up the trail if the student chooses not to pursue it further. We all know of quality work that never gets published in the peer-reviewed literature and of low-quality work that either does or does not get published. We should make relevant quality assessments in both domains (published in the peer-reviewed literature vs not) when necessary, and this is a case where I think Van is right.

2007-C-13: Recognize sister relationship between Podicipediformes and Phoenicopteriformes (SACC #274)

YES. The fact that multiple independent data-sets come to the same conclusion is compelling, despite the obvious morphological and behavioral differences between the groups and the conflicting conclusions of Livezey and Zusi (2007).

YES. I would like to see if this is corroborated by the Avian Tree of Life studies, but I think that there is enough independent data from multiple lines of evidence to support this treatment. The sister relationship between grebe and flamingo lice is also very intriguing.

A weak YES. This does not seem obvious to me, but the genetic data support it.

NO. I am on the fence about this. There is really nothing in the fossil evidence to suggest this relationship. Mayr’s analysis seemed to include many characters likely to produce this result. Without a little better morphological or fossil evidence, I choose to keep the status quo.

YES.

YES. Livezey and Zusi do give one pause, as does the extreme external dissimilarity of the two groups, but it is hard to fathom how all those studies could be wrong.

YES, for reasons outlined in proposal.

YES.

YES. Multiple datasets support this relationship between flamingos and grebes. It seems like we are finally starting to understand the relationships of the small, old waterbird orders.

YES. I like Nores’ comment and paragraph from Livezy & Zusi, but I find the multiple lines of corroborative evidence available to warrant recognition of this association.

2007-C-14: Separate Pionopsitta coccinicollaris from P. haematotis (SACC #212)

NO. I don’t see anything here that would indicate two biological species.

NO. mtDNA distances are not enough to justify a split (i.e., there is no threshhold for recognizing species, despite what the barcoders say), and the phenotypic differences are minor. If an area of sympatry does exist, I would want a more formal analysis to show whether the two forms are reproductively isolated.

NO.

NO. No evidence for reproductive isolation.

ABSTAIN.

NO.

NO. Comparative genetic distances in one gene group are insufficient for changing taxon rank. Further, if the primary difference is presence or absence of red in the foreneck, then note red pigmentation is a notoriously labile character in Neotropical parrots, including individual variation in some species, and as far as I know, not associated with any genetic isolation.

NO? I would happily defer to the views of committee members who know more about molecular systematics than I.

NO. These might be best treated as distinct species, but in the absence of any clear evidence beyond genetic distance, I am inclined not to make this change at this point.

NO. Neither reciprocal monophyly nor threshold mtDNA divergence values (especially in this case with such a low sample size) define species limits.