English names for Clapper/King Rail split (1 Viewer)

[Th'Duke]

Whatever the Committee selects, the common name should be copacetic with the existing, recognized subspecies names.

In California, there are three subspecies of "Clapper" Rail (one could potentially question the distinguishability of the subspecies, but the current literature reflects three subsp.), and the common names for them are: California Clapper Rail, Yuma Clapper Rail, and Light-footed Clapper Rail.

If, for example, the name for the new species (located in California and NW Mexico) is the Light-footed Rail, which is one of the proposals, then it follows that the common names for the corresponding Calif. subspecies would be California Light-footed Rail, Yuma Light-footed Rail, and Light-footed Light-footed Rail. This situation leaves much to be desired.

What's more, the "Light-footed" subspecies (levipes) would not be the nominate subspecies, so that choice of common name for the species makes even less sense.

The population that is now the "new" nominate subspecies (obsoletus) has been known by the common name "California Clapper Rail" at least since the first AOU Check-list (1886). Thus it would make more sense to call the new species "California Rail," but that, too, leaves us in the same boat for the subspecies common name (California California Rail).

So, while Ridgway may have described (what would be now [or again]) the nominate subspecies, he didn't name it after himself. And Lord knows that the taxonomy and nomenclature of the larger group has had a very long and very tortured path, a path that Ridgway did a lot to straighten out (to the extent that anyone could've with phenotypic characters). So, now, X-many years and miles farther down that path, technology -- and a lot of work by Maley -- has given us a new path, and looking from this new path to the old one, it makes a lot of sense (especially in light of problems with other potential common names) for us, today, to honor Ridgway's contributions (even if we end up sounding like the immortal Elmer Fudd in uttering the name "Ridgway's Rail").

-Gjon H.

 

[Kirk Roth]

Van Remsen, member opf the NACC and SACC, asked me to post his thoughts:

Enthusiasm for changing English names is typically inversely proportional to the geographic distance from those lobbying for the change to the taxon in question (directly analogous to the NIMBY principle).

Although I agree that it is preferable that daughter species be christened with new names to prevent confusion, this should not be codified as "law" because of asymmetry in usage and range. For example, strict adherence to that policy would have produced "Cuban Red-winged Blackbird" (instead of Red-shouldered Blackbird) and "Common Red-winged Blackbird" for the species that occupies 99+% of the range of this lineage, much to the horror of anyone with any sense of English bird names.

Notice that in this case, the "outrage" is minimal for retaining "King Rail" for the taxon that occupies by far the greatest range and "literature space" . I know of only one minor paper on tenuirostris, and Google Scholar has only 20 hits for this taxon vs. 1,120 for "R. elegans" s.l.). In the case of R. longirostris (s.l.), the ratio of geographic range sizes is not highly asymmetrical -- the Mangrove Rail's range actually might be larger and certainly includes far more countries. However, the "literature space" ratio is even more highly skewed (3 vs. 2,380) than in the King Rail example, and to the best of my knowledge, not one paper has ever been published on the species. In other words, the Mangrove Rail is a fairly obscure bird relative to Clapper Rail (s.s.).

The comments that I see in favor of "Saltmarsh Rail" emphasize the confusion it would cause by retaining Clapper for the North American daughter. Seriously? Would it really be that difficult to grasp? Those who actually care about this sort of esoteria would pick this up in a flash.

In terms of confusion, I suggest that true confusion would be substantially greater if the English name is changed for the North American bird that has remained stable for more than a century, including thousands of mentions in technical and popular literature. The North American bird is also a game bird and a species of conservation concern, so its representation in technical and popular literature is augmented. Many birders and ornithologists aren't even aware that "Clapper Rail" distribution extends to the tropics. Under-appreciated is that standardized NACC English names have a clientele that extends far beyond professional ornithologists and taxonomy-savvy amateurs. That audience dislikes ANY change at all and is often baffled by the seemingly whimsical (in their view) name changes. Changing Clapper Rail to Saltmarsh Rail would be highly disruptive and counter-productive: one of THE main considerations for maintaining a standardized list of names is stability, and changes should be avoided unless truly misleading. Sometimes I worry that discussions of English names take into account only the tiny number of people who use English bird names who also understand the nuances of taxonomy.

At the purely subjective level, I might feel differently if Clapper Rail was a bad or insipid name. Although the same description could be applied to other members of the complex, it is definitely an above-average name in colorfully describing the voice of the species, albeit not uniquely.

J.V. Remsen

In the case of the King Rail, I certainly agree for the reasons stated here. For most English speakers, if they refer to King Rail they mean elegans. Even most (all?) current references and publications to tenuirostris have to specify that they're talking about a "special" population, as opposed to the other taxa. One could argue whether anyone has ever viewed these populations as "just King Rails."

But I do not think such is the case for "Clapper Rails" sensu lato. While publications on longirostris are few, those on the obsoletus complex are extensive, and I suspect rival or exceed the crepitans group.

I advocate California Clapper and Northern Clapper Rails for the same reason that Van states - stability. These are the names already in use for what are currently the subspecies or subspecies groups, by researchers, birders, hunters, and the general public. I see no reason to change this - all that is needed is to "elevate" the commonly used subspecific common names, just as we are doing with the subspecific scientific ones. This is simple, effective, unconfusing, and stable with the literature and common usage. Removing "Clapper" from the name of obsoletus while retaining it for another taxa, adds instability and confusion, while frankly being an unnecessary change. I don't see why any argument for retaining simply "Clapper Rail" for crepitans could not also be made for applying that name exclusively to obsoletus.

In other words, these taxa already have specified names, so why not keep them? Rather than change one or both names, let's just change the status from subspecies to species (which is, after all, what we're doing!)

The arguments against retaining a modifier in front of "Clapper Rail" seem to come in two forms. One is that the name is too long, and I honestly don't view that as a hurdle, or even a true situation in this case. Again, people use these modifiers often, and without any sort of malady involved. The second argument is that the common names imply a phylogenetic relationship that does (or may) not exist. I reject the idea that common names should or do indicate genetic relationship. We have scientific names to do that, and we have common names to give a working "common" description to be understood by the masses, including those with no concern for which rail is the sister species of the other. One need look no further than shorebirds, herons, warblers, gulls, and so on to see that phylogeny and common names are separated entities in our naming convention. I disagree that there is a need for a change here, and further that it only apply to the taxa receiving recent attention in genetic research. Until the common names for Blue Herons and Black-backed Gulls are split, I don't see a good argument that California Clapper and Northern Clapper Rails could not coexist with King Rail.

All that ranting aside, Van Remsen is absolutely correct that no matter the names chosen, users will adapt to them, as they have for hundreds of years of taxonomic nomenclature. Thanks go to him, to Andy Kratter, and the rest of the AOU NACC for soliciting this discussion and for paying attention to what we have to say, despite the fact that they have absolutely no obligation to do so.

 

[njlarsen]

I usually has the utmost respect for what Van writes, but in this case these is one very conspicuous absence in his post. He does not mention the California group of Clappers at all in his text!

To my mind, using a lot of energy on counting references on Mangrove Clapper and omitting the much more interesting comparison to the California group is a level of argumentation that is highly dubious. Except, if this was to indicate that the California group was to not be split anyway, then the omission would be understandable.

Niels

 

[MichaelRetter]

Thanks go to [Van Remsen], to Andy Kratter, and the rest of the AOU NACC for soliciting this discussion and for paying attention to what we have to say, despite the fact that they have absolutely no obligation to do so.

Hear, hear!

 

[njlarsen]

I usually has the utmost respect for what Van writes, but in this case these is one very conspicuous absence in his post. He does not mention the California group of Clappers at all in his text!

To my mind, using a lot of energy on counting references on Mangrove Clapper and omitting the much more interesting comparison to the California group is a level of argumentation that is highly dubious. Except, if this was to indicate that the California group was to not be split anyway, then the omission would be understandable.

Niels

Looking at this again, I think I need to be even sharper in my response. What Van wrote here would be expected in a posting by a politician. However, I expect scientific rigor for work in the taxonomic committees, and I would expect any paper I submitted to a scientific journal or any paper I reviewed for a scientific journal that contained this level of bias to be rejected in the peer review process.

Niels

 

[Kratter]

Looking at this again, I think I need to be even sharper in my response. What Van wrote here would be expected in a posting by a politician. However, I expect scientific rigor for work in the taxonomic committees, and I would expect any paper I submitted to a scientific journal or any paper I reviewed for a scientific journal that contained this level of bias to be rejected in the peer review process.

Niels

Van wasn't writing for a journal. He was writing for a post on Bird Forum. There are probably no more subjective decisions facing our Committee than English names. He has addressed English names for the obsoletus taxon to the Committee, which will eventually be posted on the NACC website.

Andy

 

[Kratter]

More comments from Van Remsen (these were written as a post to BirdForum, not as a submission to a journal):

1. The West Coast obsoletus group has just as much claim to "Saltmarsh" as does the crepitans (Atlantic) group, as pointed out by Kirk Roth.

2. The reason I left out "Clapper" with respect to the California populations' claim to Clapper as a historic name is that the name "Clapper" is not as tightly associated with the Pacific Coast birds. For example, Hellmayr & Conover's (1942) seminal and influential classification did not consider them to be "Clappers" at all, but rather King Rails. So, for example the CA coastal population was "California King Rail, R. elegans obsoletus", and levipes was just "Light-footed Rail", yumanensis was "Yuma King Rail", and beldingi just "Belding's Rail." Further, having spent a fair amount of timein that region, ornithologists, birders, and managers often us "Light-footed" and "Yuma" when referring to those populations, and it was widely understood that these Pacific Coast populations might not be "real" Clappers. It turns out that Hellmayr & Conover were correct NOT to associate the obsoletus group with the crepitans group, which leads to the final point …

3. As for using compound names "California Clapper Rail" and "Saltmarsh Clapper Rail", even without a hyphen, the shared "Clapper" implies that the two are more closely related to each other than to the others, which is now known to be false -- that's one of the big findings in the Maley-Brumfield paper, as anticpated by Hellmayr & Conover and others before and after them, so the last thing that any new choices should do is inadvertently perpetuate the falsified sister relationship.

Thanks for your comments,
Andy

 

[Kirk Roth]

More comments from Van Remsen (these were written as a post to BirdForum, not as a submission to a journal):

1. The West Coast obsoletus group has just as much claim to "Saltmarsh" as does the crepitans (Atlantic) group, as pointed out by Kirk Roth.

2. The reason I left out "Clapper" with respect to the California populations' claim to Clapper as a historic name is that the name "Clapper" is not as tightly associated with the Pacific Coast birds. For example, Hellmayr & Conover's (1942) seminal and influential classification did not consider them to be "Clappers" at all, but rather King Rails. So, for example the CA coastal population was "California King Rail, R. elegans obsoletus", and levipes was just "Light-footed Rail", yumanensis was "Yuma King Rail", and beldingi just "Belding's Rail." Further, having spent a fair amount of timein that region, ornithologists, birders, and managers often us "Light-footed" and "Yuma" when referring to those populations, and it was widely understood that these Pacific Coast populations might not be "real" Clappers. It turns out that Hellmayr & Conover were correct NOT to associate the obsoletus group with the crepitans group, which leads to the final point …

3. As for using compound names "California Clapper Rail" and "Saltmarsh Clapper Rail", even without a hyphen, the shared "Clapper" implies that the two are more closely related to each other than to the others, which is now known to be false -- that's one of the big findings in the Maley-Brumfield paper, as anticpated by Hellmayr & Conover and others before and after them, so the last thing that any new choices should do is inadvertently perpetuate the falsified sister relationship.

Thanks for your comments,
Andy

Point #2 is interesting, and I am more curious about the contemporary usage of "layman's" names for these birds and whether or not Clapper is typically included. I see both systems in use and cannot accurately judge which is the most common or "stable." Interestingly, Bent uses "Clapper" in each subspecies except for the "Light-footed Rail."

Regarding Point #3, I just don't see how the common name/sister relationship implication is valid, consistent, or stable at all. I did not notice the NACC nor anyone else being concerned that the name "Yellowlegs" implies a falsified sister relationship - likely because it is clearly understood that "yellowlegs" is a descriptor of leg color, rather than some sort of English subgenus name. "Willet Yellowlegs," anyone? "Clapper," too, is a phenotypic, not genotypic, descriptor, as are most good common names.

The examples of avian common names defying sister relationships are too innumerable to list, and it is Quixotic to think that implementing a correlative concept now, split by split perhaps, will really change anything. The argument that the name "xxx Clapper Rail" really implies genetic relationhip requires either a wholesale (and destabilizing) change to the names of several major groups, or a compelling argument as two why rails are in need of common names to clarify their phylogeny, while other taxa are not.

Despite my reservations about common name/sister taxa relationship, I can't help but notice that retaining/introducing "xxx Clapper Rail" for all five taxa satisfies both the argument and counterargument, as well as most concerns exhibited throughout this thread.

Respectfully,
Kirk

 

[Kratter]

I have come up with what may be kind of a kooky idea, but it may be more satisfying to lots of people; call all rails in this group "clappers": so

Saltmarsh Clapper R. crepitans
King Clapper R elegans
Aztec Clapper R tenuirostris
Mangrove Clapper R. longoirostris
Ridgway's Clapper R. obsoletus
or another new name I have for the last taxon:
San Andreas Clapper (because the distribution kind of follows the SAn Andreas Fault).

Any thoughts?

Andy

 

[lewis20126]

My two cents:

Rallus elegans Audubon. (eastern North America)
English name options: maintain King Rail

I don't really see a reason to change the name: go with King Rail
Rallus tenuirostris Ridgway. (highland central Mexico)
English name options: *Aztec Rail. Mexican Rail.

I prefer Aztec Rail, as Mexican Rail is kind of boring, if descriptive

Rallus crepitans Gmelin. (eastern North America and Caribbean)
English name options: maintain *Clapper Rail. Saltmarsh Rail

Saltmarsh Rail. I agree with Snapdragon that Clapper Rail being retained for one population would cause confusion. I think the Aztec rail is obscure enough that there really isn't going to be to much trouble with people getting confused.

Rallus obsoletus Ridgway. (northwest Mexico, SW US)
English name options: *Ridgway’s Rail. Light-footed Rail (the old English name for one of the subspecies)

I don't think any of the options are really great. For history purposes I might prefer Light-footed Rail, but that might be better retained in case there are further splits in this complex. I've always thought of them as California Clapper Rail, so maybe Richard Klim's proposal of California Rail?

Rallus longirostris Boddaert. (South America)
English name options: *Mangrove Rail. maintain Clapper Rail.

Mangrove Rail seems fine, although I have no experience with this taxon and would defer to people who know SA bird life better

Overall...I would say that if you are going to keep Clapper Rail, and that is the way the AOU is shifting in opinion, Please Keep Clapper Rail for the other splits, so that there is California Clapper Rail, Eastern Clapper Rail, and Mangrove Clapper Rail. I just really really don't like the idea of retaining Clapper given that geographic scope of the split

The saltmarsh / mangrove distinction seems to make no clear sense in to me, having just seen what I assume is R crepitans in mangroves on Cuba. The geographic descriptors seem more helpful where obvious ones are available, though prefer Aztec Rail to Mexican (too boring as Morgan suggests) and of course it has precedent. Light-footed rail seems plain daft, despite the alignment with the levipes, since it will not be any more light-footed than any of the other taxa!

cheers, alan

PS: wrt "Aztec", Aztec Parakeet - given the extent of the range, would Mayan Parakeet be more appropriate?!

 

[Kirk Roth]

I have come up with what may be kind of a kooky idea, but it may be more satisfying to lots of people; call all rails in this group "clappers": so

Saltmarsh Clapper R. crepitans
King Clapper R elegans
Aztec Clapper R tenuirostris
Mangrove Clapper R. longoirostris
Ridgway's Clapper R. obsoletus
or another new name I have for the last taxon:
San Andreas Clapper (because the distribution kind of follows the SAn Andreas Fault).

Any thoughts?

Andy

I do like this general idea and agree that it is a way walk the line of several "complaints" while remaining stable as well as true to the phylogeny argument. Just as a clarification, it seems here that you are using the term "Clapper" as opposed to "Clapper Rail," so please correct me if I'm wrong. I can envision resistance to the creation of essentially a new animal name (a la "Roughleg" in the older IOC system), but if so, I might point out that people commonly already refer to these birds as "Clappers" in layman's speak. But as a counterargument, I have to ask - is it really a problem to use the whole "Clapper Rail" in this case? Again, if I've misunderstood, just ignore me!

As I've mentioned previously, I'm not convinced that Saltmarsh, Aztec, or Ridgeway's may good descriptors, but San Andreas does seem interesting. Personally I don't see a problem with "California," but "San Andreas" is at least as geographically accurate. I might put forth that there is a stability argument for borrowing "California" from one of the subspecies, however.

 

[Richard Klim]

aba blog

Nate Swick, aba blog, 18 May 2014: When is a Clapper Rail not a Clapper Rail?

[PS. Related thread: new idea: English names for Clapper/King Rail split.]