[RaMa]

Hi,

does anybody know why the name of the Common Bush Tanager is Chlorospingus ophthalmicus (Du Bus de Gisignies, 1847) and not Chlorospingus flavopectus (Lafresnaye, 1840), despite the latter name having 7 years priority? Is it conceivable that this has escaped the attention of all previous workers?
Neither Sibley & Monroe (1990), nor Howard & Moore (2003), nor HBW, nor Zoonomen, nor SACC give an explanation why they all prefer the junior name. The first who suggested lumping the two was Zimmer (1947), but he didn`t mention publication dates.

Rainer

[Richard Klim]

There seems to be no disagreement concerning the respective dates. Presumably a remarkable example of collective oversight! Well spotted, Rainer.

PS. Also Paynter & Storer 1970 (Peters).

[Sally Conyne]

What an interesting puzzle!

David Donsker dug into it a bit today and says the following: "Maybe the problem originates with Zimmer. Below is a link to his 1947 paper which lumps C. flavopectus with C. ophthalmicus. Zimmer subsumed the former into the latter without considering dates of description. It would appear that subsequent authors may merely have followed suit without question. Very
interesting.

http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspac...pdf?sequence=1

Perhaps this helps.

Sally

[thomasdonegan]

This one is probably not worth panicking about. The two names do not apply to taxa which should be regarded as conspecific. Eventually, the relevant committees should get round to sorting this out but more research on the Andean populations is needed (and underway).

There have been a few PSC-based studies of the Mexican populations which show massive differentiation in this species, e.g.:
http://specify5.specifysoftware.org/..._BBOC_2007.pdf

http://specify5.specifysoftware.org/...l_JAB_2008.pdf

However, these authors have to date not fully taken into account the variation in the Andes, where a variety of differing vocal behaviours are shown even within Colombia and more sampling is required, e.g.:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/l...naetal2007.pdf

C. "o." flavopectus of the Colombian East Andes and nominate ophthalmicus of Central America will certainly not fall out in the same species once further studies of the S American populations are completed.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by thomasdonegan

There have been a few PSC-based studies of the Mexican populations which show massive differentiation in this species, e.g.:
http://specify5.specifysoftware.org/..._BBOC_2007.pdf
C. "o." flavopectus of the Colombian East Andes and nominate ophthalmicus of Central America will certainly not fall out in the same species once further studies of the S American populations are completed.

Interestingly, Sánchez-González et al 2007 (above) explicitly states "the available name for southern Central and South American populations with priority is C. flavopectus (Lafresnaye, 1840)", and yet doesn't notice or suggest that this name anyway has priority for the entire complex.

[RaMa]

Edward Dickinson sent me an email, saying

This does look like a simple case of everyone, including me, following Storer in Peters Checklist (1970). He included the taxon flavopectus (Lafresnaye, 1840) in 'his' broad species C. ophthalmicus.

I see no justification for that and by copy of this e-mail to Van remsen suggest that he ask you to submit a brief not to SACC so that they can make the necessary correction (and investigate further if need be).

Email to Van Remsen already sent!

[Roy'N]

Originally Posted by thomasdonegan

This one is probably not worth panicking about. The two names do not apply to taxa which should be regarded as conspecific. Eventually, the relevant committees should get round to sorting this out but more research on the Andean populations is needed (and underway).

There have been a few PSC-based studies of the Mexican populations which show massive differentiation in this species, e.g.:
http://specify5.specifysoftware.org/..._BBOC_2007.pdf

http://specify5.specifysoftware.org/...l_JAB_2008.pdf

However, these authors have to date not fully taken into account the variation in the Andes, where a variety of differing vocal behaviours are shown even within Colombia and more sampling is required, e.g.:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/l...naetal2007.pdf

C. "o." flavopectus of the Colombian East Andes and nominate ophthalmicus of Central America will certainly not fall out in the same species once further studies of the S American populations are completed.

http://www.stri.si.edu/sites/publica...Bermingham.pdf

[thomasdonegan]

Note the distinct lack of Colombian samples in this or the other studies, which is one of the regions where the vocal variation in this group gets most interesting and complex.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by RaMa

Email to Van Remsen already sent!

AOU-SACC Proposal #521 (Massmann, Apr 2012): Change the scientific name of the Common Bush-Tanager from Chlorospingus ophthalmicus to C. flavopectus.

Impressively efficient!

[cuckooroller]

Richard,
This will go down as the least controversial decision yet. I am already amending my list.

[mb1848]

OD of ophthalmicus:

C. ophthalmicus.
Habite le Mexique.
Cet oiseau les plus grands rapports de taille, de forme et de coloration avec l’A. flavo-pectus, De Lafr. Mais il appartient evidemment a une autre espece, caracteriseeprincipalement par les paupieres et la tache oculaire blanches.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/i...e/752/mode/1up .

This bird reports the largest size, shape and color with the A.flavo-pectus, De LAFR. But it obviously belongs to another species, mainly characterized by the eyelids and the white eyespot.

C. flavopectus.
DESCRIPTION de quelques nouvelles espèces d'oiseaux , par M. F. DE LA FRESNAYE..

3. Arremon flavo-pectus, de La Fr. — Supra olivaceus , capite shistaceo, subtus cinereo-albescens, pectore toto, hypochondriis anoque olivaceo-flavis; roslro nigro; pedibus plumbeis. — Hab. Santa-Fé de Bogota.

Page 227 of:
http://books.google.com/books?id=zqE...gbs_navlinks_s .

Harvard still has the type from the LaFresnaye collection original # 3125;
http://ids.lib.harvard.edu/ids/view/15341222?buttons=y .

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

AOU-SACC Proposal #521 (Massmann, Apr 2012): Change the scientific name of the Common Bush-Tanager from Chlorospingus ophthalmicus to C. flavopectus.

Impressively efficient!

And according to this page now passed but not yet implemented: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SA...Chart427+.html

Niels

PS: a couple of comments that at least a two way split is waiting for completion of some analyses and publication of same

[thomasdonegan]

All due respect for Rainer for spotting this but ... I do think this is a really unwelcome change and would have been better overlooked or punted into a wider review.

Although obviously it is correct as a technical matter, the proposal seems inappropriately timed in light of the uncertain state of the taxonomy of this genus more generally. That one name is senior to another is one relevant fact of many that will require changes to current SACC and NACC treatments. The effect of this proposal, if it passes (or has passed), will be that a very common and widespread bird which for several decades has been known as C. ophthalmicus in an abundance of literature will - probably for a period of no more than a few months or years - be known universally as C. flavopectus; before later being split out into other names. [For Colombia, this is not a big issue because in the end many populations will bear this same name flavopectus.] However, for Central American populations which when split will be called ophthalmicus, the name will change to flavopectus and then back again. This would be a strange outcome with no obvious policy or communication benefit. Some other populations will have a long history as ophthalmicus, a few months or years as flavopectus, and then a new name. It's just pointless, destabilising and, frankly, mad to make this change at present.

A series of recent papers have demonstrated that this genus is in need of taxonomic re-arrangement, largely involving splitting of some parts of the widespread, morphologically diverse "ophthalmicus" (the subject of this proposal). Molecular studies show deep structural divisions within Chlorospingus ophthalmicus populations on different mountain ranges which frequently track the morphological and vocal differences alluded to in other papers (Sanchez-Gonzalez et al. 2006, Bonnarsco et al. 2008, Weir et al. 2008: linked below). Some South American populations of ophthalmicus are more closely related to other species than to conspecifics. There are further vocal and behavioural differences between unsampled populations (Cadena et al. 2006). There has been no sampling in published molecular work as regards Colombia in particular, where this group gets really interesting, but the study Gary Stiles mentions will remedy this gap. Species limits seem likely soon to result in restricting ophthalmicus so as not to be conspecific with flavopectus, and making this proposal redundant. Priority is only an issue to the extent that ophthalmicus and flavopectus are considered conspecific.

I'd like to encourage widespread prevarication in adopting this change in the interim!

Bonnarsco, E., Navarro-Siguenza, A.G., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. & Peterson, T & Garcia-Moreno, 2008 J. Genetic differentiation of the Chlorospingus ophthalmicus complex in Mexico and Central America. J Avian Biol. 39: 311-321.
http://200.31.31.2/Recursos/publicac...orospingus.pdf

Cadena, D.C., Cordoba-Cordoba, S., Londono, G.A., Calderon-F., D., Martin, T.E. & Baptiste, M. P. 2007. Nesting and singing behaviour of Common Bush-Tanagers (Chlorospingus ophthalmicus) in South America. Orn. Col. 5: 54-63. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/l...naetal2007.pdf

Sanchez-Gonzalez, L. A., Navarro-Siguenza, A. G., Peterson, T.. & Garcia-Moreno, J. 2007. Taxonomy of Chlorospingus ophthalmicus in Mexico and northern Central America. Bull BOC 127(1): 34-48
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co..._BBOC_2007.pdf

Weir, J.T., Bermingham, E., Miller, M., Klicka, J. & gonzalez, M. A. 2008. Phylogeography of a morphologically diverse Neotroipical montane species, the Common Bush-Tanager (Chlorospingus opthalmicus). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 650-664.
http://www.stri.si.edu/sites/publica...Bermingham.pdf

[MichaelRetter]

Originally Posted by thomasdonegan

nominate ophthalmicus of Central America...

The nominate subspecies is not found in Central America. It is endemic to Mexico.

[thomasdonegan]

It may depend on who your geography teacher was? There are no tectonic plates in the region and cultural definitions may be different from ornithological committee points of reference.

[njlarsen]

Howell and Web in their Mexico book make the separation in the Isthmus of Mexico, and this also is followed in the bird listing program that I use. Therefore, the eastern end of Mexico would be Central America and the rest of Mexico North America according to that definition.

Obviously AOU really do not separate like that, their checklist committees are only two, one for Central + North, one for South America.

Niels

[thyoloalethe]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Howell and Web in their Mexico book make the separation in the Isthmus of Mexico, and this also is followed in the bird listing program that I use. Therefore, the eastern end of Mexico would be Central America and the rest of Mexico North America according to that definition.


Niels

ophthalmicus would still be in North America under this definition. Isn't "Middle America" the term used for Mexico + Central America? Easy to confuse the two.

Liam

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by thyoloalethe

ophthalmicus would still be in North America under this definition. Isn't "Middle America" the term used for Mexico + Central America? Easy to confuse the two.

Liam

I thought that "Middle America" was a colloquial term without a firm definition. Not that Central America necessarily has a much more firm definition.

Niels

[MichaelRetter]

Originally Posted by thomasdonegan

It may depend on who your geography teacher was? There are no tectonic plates in the region and cultural definitions may be different from ornithological committee points of reference.

I hope not, or you had a substandard geography teacher!

No tectonic plates in the region? I've been there, and I can assure you it's more than just liquid mantle. ;-) But seriously, tectonic plates have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Much of California is not on the North American Plate, for instance, but only a fool would argue it's not part of North America.

Geopolitically, Mexico is in North America. Physiographically, it's in both North America and Middle America. Biogeographically, a good argument can be made for Mexico "south" of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to be part of Central America, but the area to the "north"--88% of Mexico--is not.

The subspecies in question is endemic to the Sierra Madre Oriental, which is completely "north" of the Isthmus of Tehanutepec. Therefore, it is not found in Central America by any commonly-accepted definition.

In case anyone was wondering, here's what the Introduction of Howell and Webb says: "This guide treats...Mexico and Central America...We find it important to recognize biogeographical divisions rather than political boundaries, especially in so complex a region as Middle America (Mexico and Central America)..." And think about this: if Mexico were part of Central America, why is the book called "A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America"? If Mexico were part of Central America, surely it would just be called "A Guide to the Birds of Northern Central America".

For more, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas_(terminology)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_America_(Americas)

[MichaelRetter]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

I thought that "Middle America" was a colloquial term without a firm definition. Not that Central America necessarily has a much more firm definition.

Niels

Geopolitically, Central America has a very firm definition. It is Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama.

Middle America is more wishy washy, but it always includes Mexico and Central America. The Caribbean is sometimes included. Colombia and Venezuela are rarely included.

[MichaelRetter]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Howell and Web in their Mexico book make the separation in the Isthmus of Mexico, and this also is followed in the bird listing program that I use. Therefore, the eastern end of Mexico would be Central America and the rest of Mexico North America according to that definition.

Obviously AOU really do not separate like that, their checklist committees are only two, one for Central + North, one for South America.

Niels

By "Isthmus of Mexico" do you mean the Isthmus of Tehuantepec? The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is indeed sometimes used by biogeographers to delineate the northern end of Central America. I don't see this mentioned in Howell and Webb, though. Can you point me to where you see that?

Central America is part of North America. That's why it's called, simply, the "North American Checklist Committee". I am aware of no widely-accepted definitions of North America which do not include Central America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

AOU-SACC Proposal #521 (Massmann, Apr 2012): Change the scientific name of the Common Bush-Tanager from Chlorospingus ophthalmicus to C. flavopectus.

Proposal #521 passed, 7 Aug 2012: RECENT CHANGES.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by MichaelRetter

By "Isthmus of Mexico" do you mean the Isthmus of Tehuantepec? The Isthmus of Tehuantepec is indeed sometimes used by biogeographers to delineate the northern end of Central America. I don't see this mentioned in Howell and Webb, though. Can you point me to where you see that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America

Sorry it took so long to get back. It has been many years since last I read the introduction of H&W, and you are right: Even though the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is mentioned repeatedly as an important biogeographic boundary, they actually do not explicitly state that as a limit of North versus Central America. My bad.

Niels

[Richard Klim]

Chlorospingus ophthalmicus revised to C flavopectus in v3.2 (Draft).
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/taxonomy

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by thomasdonegan

A series of recent papers have demonstrated that this genus is in need of taxonomic re-arrangement, largely involving splitting of some parts of the widespread, morphologically diverse "ophthalmicus" (the subject of this proposal). Molecular studies show deep structural divisions within Chlorospingus ophthalmicus populations on different mountain ranges which frequently track the morphological and vocal differences alluded to in other papers (Sanchez-Gonzalez et al. 2006, Bonnarsco et al. 2008, Weir et al. 2008: linked below). Some South American populations of ophthalmicus are more closely related to other species than to conspecifics. There are further vocal and behavioural differences between unsampled populations (Cadena et al. 2006). There has been no sampling in published molecular work as regards Colombia in particular, where this group gets really interesting, but the study Gary Stiles mentions will remedy this gap. Species limits seem likely soon to result in restricting ophthalmicus so as not to be conspecific with flavopectus, and making this proposal redundant. Priority is only an issue to the extent that ophthalmicus and flavopectus are considered conspecific.
I'd like to encourage widespread prevarication in adopting this change in the interim!

Bonnarsco, E., Navarro-Siguenza, A.G., Sanchez-Gonzalez, A. & Peterson, T & Garcia-Moreno, 2008 J. Genetic differentiation of the Chlorospingus ophthalmicus complex in Mexico and Central America. J Avian Biol. 39: 311-321. http://200.31.31.2/Recursos/publicac...orospingus.pdf

Cadena, D.C., Cordoba-Cordoba, S., Londono, G.A., Calderon-F., D., Martin, T.E. & Baptiste, M. P. 2007. Nesting and singing behaviour of Common Bush-Tanagers (Chlorospingus ophthalmicus) in South America. Orn. Col. 5: 54-63. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/l...naetal2007.pdf

Sanchez-Gonzalez, L. A., Navarro-Siguenza, A. G., Peterson, T.. & Garcia-Moreno, J. 2007. Taxonomy of Chlorospingus ophthalmicus in Mexico and northern Central America. Bull BOC 127(1): 34-48

Weir, J.T., Bermingham, E., Miller, M., Klicka, J. & gonzalez, M. A. 2008. Phylogeography of a morphologically diverse Neotroipical montane species, the Common Bush-Tanager (Chlorospingus opthalmicus). Mol. Phyl. Evol. 650-664. http://www.stri.si.edu/sites/publica...Bermingham.pdf

Sosa-López, González & Navarro-Sigüenza 2013. Vocal geographic variation in Mesoamerican Common Bush Tanagers (Chlorospingus ophthalmicus). Wilson J Ornithol 125(1): 24–33. [abstract]

Sánchez-González et al 2007:

• Chlorospingus (ophthalmicus) ophthalmicus - Brown-headed Bush Tanager
• Chlorospingus (ophthalmicus) wetmorei - Wetmore's Bush Tanager
• Chlorospingus (ophthalmicus) albifrons - White-fronted Bush Tanager (incl 'persimilis')
• Chlorospingus (ophthalmicus) dwighti - Dwight's Bush Tanager
• Chlorospingus (ophthalmicus) postocularis - Dusky-headed Bush Tanager (incl honduratius)

Bonaccorso et al 2008 additionally suggests the treatment of C (o) honduratius and C (o) novicius (incl regionalis?) as evolutionary species.

Hilty 2011 (HBW 16).