2019-E-1: (a) Adopt Velvet Scoter for Melanitta fusca; (b) Keep the name White-winged Scoter but transfer it from M. fusca to M. deglandi; (c) Adopt Stejneger’s Scoter or Siberian Scoter for M. stejnegeri

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter, although I would have been equally enthusiastic about Hook-nosed Scoter, the translation of the Russian name and the one detailing the best field mark, one that is diagnostic on flying birds (from photos). And the great majority of the breeding range lies within Russia.

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter. This is what I have always heard this taxon called. 

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES, maintains established name; (b) YES, maintains established name; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES, maintain long used name. (b) YES, maintain name used by North America. Note though we’ve used it for a different conception of White-winged Scoter. I am okay with maintaining it, because It has always been sort of for New World birds, because Velvet Scoter was always used in Europe. (c) I prefer Stejneger’s Scoter.

(a) YES; (b) YES; (c) Stejneger’s Scoter.

2019-E-2: (a) Adopt Blue-vented Hummingbird for Amazilia hoffmanni; (b) Retain Steely-vented Hummingbird for the extralimital species A. saucerottei

(a) YES; (b) YES. 6 without comment.

(a) YES, although it is sure hard to detect the “blue” in the field’ (b) YES.

(a) YES; (b) YES, for now; SACC will deliberate on whether to retain Steely-vented Hummingbird or coin a new name for A. saucerottei.

(a) YES; (b) YES, but revisit if SACC comes up with different name.

2019-E-3: (a) Adopt Choco Screech-Owl for Megascops centralis; (b) Retain Vermiculated Screech-Owl or adopt a new name (e.g., Middle American Screech-Owl) for M. guatemalae

(a) YES; (b) Middle American Screech-Owl. 7 without comment.

(a) YES; (b) Unclear about what to call what’s left within Central America M. guatemalae (Central American or Middle American Screech-Owl).

(a) YES, following SACC; (b) “Middle American Screech-Owl,” with considerable reluctance. I would strongly object to using the parental name Vermiculated for a daughter species from a split; to retain it for guatemalae would cause perpetual confusion in a group that is already confusing. Ridgway (1914) used “Vermiculated Screech Owl” only for vermiculatus (Costa Rica to W Ecuador) and “Guatemalan Screech Owl” for guatemalae sensu stricto (SE Mexico to N Nicaragua). A considerable body of historical literature follows this; thus using Vermiculated for M. guatemalae would really compound an already confusing situation in that it essentially was associated with anything BUT guatemalae for a half-century at least. However, “Middle American” seems like a poor choice, given that most screech-owls are Middle American; it makes sense only in reference to the other components of this complex. Nonetheless, I suspect that the sensible Clements team could find no other palatable name and were desperate; so for the meantime, OK. Trying to find a pinpoint accurate geographic name is a worthy endeavor but not easily achieved — do we just deal with it or seek a more appropriate name?

2019-E-4: (a) Retain Collared Trogon as the English name for Trogon collaris sensu lato; (b) Change the English group name of T. puella from Bar-tailed Trogon (e.g., to Jalapa/Xalapa Trogon)

(a) YES; (b) YES to Jalapa/Xalapa Trogon. 4 without comment.

(a) YES. The Orange-bellied Trogon (aurantiventris) doesn’t really fit the definition of a subspecies well, it’s more like a color morph, but the elevational difference is odd no matter what it is. Changing a widespread and well-established English name (Collared Trogon) because of the uncertainty of a more restricted “taxon” seems unwise. (b) YES to Jalapa/Xalapa.

a) YES; (b) YES. HBW has Northern Collared Trogon (and Southern Collared Trogon for collaris ss). Another name is Narrow-barred Trogon. I favor Jalapa/Xalapa Trogon.

(a) YES for now. The form aurantiiventris is so local and so dubious taxonomically that changing the established name for the widespread form is unwise.  Also, we will likely have to deal with choosing new English names for splits within this complex, so for now, Collared is fine. (b) YES to Jalapa/Xalapa Trogon.

(a) YES; (b) NO. 2 without comment.

2019-E-5: (a) Adopt Socorro Parakeet for Psittacara brevipes; (b) Retain Green Parakeet for P. holochlorus

(a) YES; (b) YES. 8 without comment.

(a) YES, no-brainer; (b) YES, because dramatic asymmetry in distributions of the two daughters and because Green Parakeet was the English name for Pholochlorus sensu stricto before Socorro was lumped into it.  In other words, had Green Parakeet been coined with the merger of the two, then there would be reason to find a new name, hopefully returning to the pre-lump name; that, however, is not the case.

2019-E-6: (a) Adopt Yucatan Gnatcatcher for Polioptila albiventris; (b) Retain White-lored Gnatcatcher for P. albiloris

(a) YES; (b) YES. 7 without comment.

(a) YES, restores former, traditional, sensible name; (b) YES, because this was the historical name for P. albiloris sensu stricto before albiventris was unwisely was considered conspecific with it. In other words, had White-lored Gnatcatcher been coined with the merger of the two, then there would be reason to find a new name, hopefully returning to the pre-lump name; that, however, is not the case.

(a) YES, good name for this species; (b) YES. I think albiloris has had other restricted range taxa added and subtracted from it before without a name change. To a large degree this has been true in Polioptila. Despite a recent bout of splitting, the widespread taxa have retained their names although losing narrowly distributed pieces of them. If we placed albiventris in plumbea, similarly I would not favor changing that species from Plumbeous Gnatcatcher.

2019-E-7: (a) Adopt Amazonian Grosbeak for Cyanoloxia rothschildii; (b) Retain Blue-black Grosbeak for C. cyanoides

(a) YES; (b) YES. 7 without comment.

(a) YES, following SACC; (b) YES, following SACC. Blue-black Grosbeak was the historical name for C. cyanoides, so we are returning to a pre-lump traditional name (for an unjustified lump). See SACC proposal 789.

(a) YES, we should follow SACC; (b) YES. Because this is more of a 50-50 split, normally we would go to a new name for the daughter species. However, Blue-black has always been associated with cyanoides. I think a new name would be confusing.

2019-E-8: Change Yellow-thighed Finch and Yellow-green Finch to Yellow-thighed Brushfinch and Yellow-green Brushfinch

YES. 7 without comment.

YES. For what it is worth the Yellow-thighed Brushfinches I saw in the highlands of Costa Rica were all in brush piles. I agree fully with comments about the word finch, but are there any concerns that the five species of “tanagers” that are found in the U.S. and Canada aren’t in that family, and the five species of Thraupidae that have occurred in the U.S. aren’t called tanagers? I favor educating the wider birding public like changing Blue-throated Hummingbird to Blue-throated Mountaingem. Surely we can do better with “tanagers.”