Jeff Hopkins
Just another...observer
Vacuous Toffee-nosed Malodorous Saltator.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Saltators (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Planning on recommending Non-Inspiring Saltator as the English Name...
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
PASSED
So if I understand correctly from also this:https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop913.htm
It is three species with names of
S. grandis. Cinnamon-belled Saltator; S. olivascens Olive-gray Saltator; S. coerulescens: Bluish-gray Saltator.?
Niels
It is three species with names of
S. grandis. Cinnamon-belled Saltator; S. olivascens Olive-gray Saltator; S. coerulescens: Bluish-gray Saltator.?
Niels
Paul Clapham
Well-known member
Mostly yes, although since grandis isn't found in South America that name doesn't appear in the SACC checklist. It's really up to the NACC to pronounce upon that, although I strongly expect they will go along with it when their supplement comes out in June.
Neomorphus
Active member
Not sure I understand the need to change the vernacular name of coerulescens from Grayish Saltator. Now many would have to check what Bluish-gray Saltator refers to.
If there was no change, would a greyish saltator listed in Central America mean a vagrant from where coerulescens lives or is it someone who does not know the taxonomic update? It becomes a lot cleaner when the old name only is used for the pre-split form.
Niels
Neomorphus
Active member
Agree with part of what you are saying.... but if there was no change to the name Grayish Saltator it would still now only refer to the coerulescens group which has always been called Grayish/Greyish Saltator. It is non migratory so could not occur in Central America as a vagrant. Central American birds are now split and called Cinnamon-bellied (i.e. grandis), even though all three taxa have cinnamon bellies to varying degrees, which makes that a tricky name. OK its more cinnamon than the others, but Buff-throated Sataltor in C. Am. also has some cinnamon down there doesn't it! I've noticed that the name Cinnamon-bellied is already on eBird and IOC for example... so if you don't use those lists and just use a field guide then you could get confused, but that's taxonomy for you. No way out of that.
What I was questioning was the need to change Grayish to Bluish-gray Saltator because that is the confusing and unnecessary part imo. It doesn't even look blue-gray... it's just gray. Grayish Saltator was fine. Now we have confusion. Just compare photos of Blue-gray Tanager with Grayish Saltator for example. So, I'm not only questioning the fact that it wasn't neccessary to change the name since it was the nominate form of the species complex, but now we have a poorer and inaccurate name. We can of course ignore it, and carry on calling it Grayish Saltator. Why not?
What I was questioning was the need to change Grayish to Bluish-gray Saltator because that is the confusing and unnecessary part imo. It doesn't even look blue-gray... it's just gray. Grayish Saltator was fine. Now we have confusion. Just compare photos of Blue-gray Tanager with Grayish Saltator for example. So, I'm not only questioning the fact that it wasn't neccessary to change the name since it was the nominate form of the species complex, but now we have a poorer and inaccurate name. We can of course ignore it, and carry on calling it Grayish Saltator. Why not?
As I was told by a guide when we visited Galapagos, a name (scientific or common) does not have to make sense and does not need to confer how the bird looks. It just has to be unequivocal in what it means. If keeping greyish saltator as the name, then you are not unequivocal.
My example was probably exaggerated, but could you have S. olivascens Olive-gray Saltator and S. coerulescens: Bluish-gray Saltator near each other (I think you can but not positive, and don't have time to check the ranges just now); if so, that is a better example where sensu lato vs sensu strictu usage of greyish saltator would become a problem.
Niels
My example was probably exaggerated, but could you have S. olivascens Olive-gray Saltator and S. coerulescens: Bluish-gray Saltator near each other (I think you can but not positive, and don't have time to check the ranges just now); if so, that is a better example where sensu lato vs sensu strictu usage of greyish saltator would become a problem.
Niels
Neomorphus
Active member
It's not a rule set in stone that the nominate taxon/taxa/group name has to change.... sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I have noticed that SACC keeps changing its mind on this. In this particular case, the new name is worse than the well known name Grayish Saltator which is the most widespread group of taxa by far. If you don't know the new name Bluish-gray Saltator, then you will have to look it up on-line because you won't find it in any book.
No, olivascens is the "Caribbean group", while the coerulescens group is found from Bogota and central Amazonia southwards to northern Argentina. There is no chance that they occur "near one another".
So, following your logic, if two birds are split and they occur "near one another" then the name of the nominate taxon or taxa should change? But if they occur far from one another then you would retain the original species name for the nominate form/s??? Please clarify.
Also, I have just found that the newly coined name "Bluish-gray Saltator" has already been entered as "Blue-gray Saltator" on eBird. So, it's a mess already. Admitedly Blue-gray rolls off the tongue better than Bluish-gray... shame it isn't blue though.
Neomorphus
Active member
Exactly.... the daughter taxa in this case are S. grandis and S. olivascens. They could be sister taxa even.
But Grayish Saltator S. coerulescens is not daughter... you have contradicted yourself !
Paul Clapham
Well-known member
This is correct. And there are no organizations which follow that rule, despite what they might say.
For example consider the potential split of "San Lucas Robin" (found in a small area in Baja California) from American Robin (one of the commonest birds all over North America). If this split takes place then we are not going to have to educate ourselves to remember that "American Robin" is now called... something else which I couldn't predict. It makes no sense to change that.
On the other hand if the split is closer to 50-50, for example (staying in North America for now) the western and eastern forms of Warbling Vireo, then we aren't going to end up with Warbling Vireo in the east and Tootling Vireo in the west. There's going to be discussion and we might end up with Western and Eastern Warbling Vireos, or (less likely) two completely new names.
I disagree, they are all three daughter species in the sense of the word I used it in.
Niels
Neomorphus
Active member
Agreed, two good examples that show important criteria for their nomenclature. Changing the name of the nominate taxon or group should have a very special cause and reason. In the case of Grayish Saltator it doesn't.
You'll have to explain why you think all three are daughters.... daughters of which taxon ? I have now checked the phylogeny and it turns out that coerulescens and olivascens are sister taxa, and daughters to grandis. That shouldn't affect English names because then you would have to expect every user to know the divergence of each taxon. So what considerations should be considered when changing a long established vernacular name. That is the main question here.
Let's take another quick example Northern Harrier Circus [c] hudsonius split from Hen Harrier C. cyanus. Hen Harrier maintains its original name. Both names are pretty useless but they maintain stability. Is anyone complaining.... no !
Under your logic, you would have changed Hen Harrier to something else Niels... or not !?
This is just one example... just trying to understand.
Last edited:
In this example, Hen Harrier was not in use for the north American species and Northern Harrier was not in use for the Eurasian species. Keeping both made sense.
In SACC, they have stated that when one daughter species (no matter if it is the nominate subspecies or not) is found in the overwhelming majority of the range, that daughter species inherits the common name. However, when more than one daughter species are occupying significant parts of the range of the parent species (parent equal to the combination of all subspecies including nominate and others), then all daughter species, including the one that includes the nominate, should get new common name. This makes sense to me.
The first sentence of the above paragraph explains why American Robin will not be renamed as a result of a split of "San Lucas Robin". Additionally, there has been several examples where the common name has been reused but it was another daughter species that ended up inheriting it, not the nominate subspecies. That the common name of the nominate subspecies should be especially protected makes no sense to me.
Niels
Mysticete
Well-known member
I think the Harrier is a poor example. Hen Harrier was never in use in North America, it was always Northern Harrier. When the two were split, it just resolved a case of dueling common names in birds. Both species also are allopatric and not likely to be a source of confusion.
Neomorphus
Active member
That's true... and there was never an issue... it's just that I am trying to understand Niels.
Neomorphus
Active member
It doesn't matter what they state, because they chop and change their own rules as they see fit.... didn't you know?
So, here is an example directly from NACC/SACC that refutes what you have just written.
Link- A. Split extralimital Aramides albiventris from Aramides cajaneus B. Change English name of Aramides cajaneus from Gray-necked Wood-Rail to Gray-cowled Wood-Rail
One. small-ranging, subspecies group (albiventris, along with a few other small ranging taxa) of the mega widespread Neotropical species Grey-necked Wood-Rail Aramides cajanea gets split. Which species gets to keep the name Grey-necked WR... the very wide-ranging and nominate one that ranges from Costa Rica to Argentina OR the small-ranging split, that occurs in parts of Central America that gets into the NACC domain? Well, neither through an absurd series of uninteligible fast-tracked events. The well established Grey-necked Wood-Rail gets changed to Grey-cowled Wood-Rail and albiventris becomes Russet-naped Wood-Rail, yet much (or even most) posterior literature continues to use Grey-necked Wood-Rail for either species. This is a prime example of how NACC and SACC destabilized the nomenclature.
This really sucks but it happened and not the first time. So, if you now look at internet entries for these Aramides you will easily get very confused as to what is going on, or what happened. You need to know the full history just to understand how they messed it up.
Now, ..... with S. coerulescens, the nominate group also has the overwhelmingly largest range of the three taxonomic groups and by a massive margin, so what is there to not like about the name Grayish Saltator. Why does it need to changed and which box hasn't been ticked ? It also contradicts that SACC statement of yours Niels. They do it all the time.
The saltator is just another example... there are so many more.
