• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

"American Scoter" vs. "Black Scoter" (1 Viewer)

J

Jim M.

Member since 2007
Supporter
United States
AOU recently split Black Scoter into two species: Black Scoter (occurring in N. America) and Common Scoter (UK & Europe). The new Stokes Field Guide to the Birds of North America, however, claims to follow the latest nomenclature and taxonomy but refers to the former as "American Scoter". The guide says it is following ABA Checklist (which follows AOU now). But current ABA Checklist now says Black Scoter.

My question is is the Stokes guide simply in error, or is there some basis for using "American Scoter" I'm not aware of? If it is in error, is there some reasonable explanation or excuse?

Jim
 
Thanks Richard! I recall that now; that's certainly a good excuse for the Guide using the wrong name!

Cheers,
Jim
 
On a related note, the new Crossley guide has Nelson's Sparrow (correct) and Sharp-tailed Sparrow (not so correct).
 
Richard Klim said:
The Stokes guide presumably followed the AOU 51st Supplement, which erroneously used the name American Scoter for Melanitta americana:
www.aou.org/checklist/suppl/AOU_checklist_suppl_51.pdf

AOU subsequently corrected the name to Black Scoter:
www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1886083&postcount=9
www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=1886317&postcount=22
www.aou.org/checklist/north/suppl/51.php#errors [see Errors 1]

Richard
Click to expand...

It could be argued that since all male Scoters are black (or nearly so), retaining the name 'Black Scoter' after a split is the only wrong option...
MJB
 
Mysticete said:
I suspect there are plenty of names on both sides of the pond which are not exactly the most useful names.
Click to expand...

Indeed there are, and long may they wave. I remember being told by a psychiatrist once that extreme literal mindedness is often a symptom of schizophrenia. ;)
 
Last edited:
fugl said:
Indeed there are, and long may they wave. I remember being told by a psychiatrist once that extreme literal mindedness is sometimes a sympton of schizophrenia. ;)
Click to expand...

I certainly don't wish to change existing names because they are less than useful, but when a change in taxonomy offers the chance of adopting names that might be a tad more helpful, to turn down that chance is perverse. As Fugl says, retaining 'Black Scoter' because it literally describes the taxon at hand without considering whether it might be confused with all the other scoter tax, certainly is extreme literal-mindedness. However, I don't think it's possible to attribute schizophrenic symptoms to the group that made the decision!
MJB
 
If Common Scoter was a regular bird to the US I would probably agree with renaming it, but it isn't, and I don't think retaining the bird will cause much in the way of confusion for birders.

Besides, "American" is also a poor name for the bird, since there are at least two other scoters species in the US, and from personal experience I would argue that Surf is more common than Black, and more "worthy" of that moniker.
 
[EDIT: posting at the same time as Mysticete, with whom I largely agree]

MJB said:
It could be argued that since all male Scoters are black (or nearly so), retaining the name 'Black Scoter' after a split is the only wrong option...
MJB
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of the naming question, the adult male Black Scoter is blacker than adult male Surf Scoter (no white on the head) and adult male White-winged Scoter (no white on wings or around eye), so you could also argue it is appropriate.

But I agree that a change in taxonomy is a good time to consider whether a name change might be in order, for whatever reason. All names don't have to be useful or accurate, but their good points should outweigh the bad.

Best,
Jim
 
Last edited:
J. Moore said:
[EDIT: posting at the same time as Mysticete, with whom I largely agree]

Well, regardless of the naming question, the adult male Black Scoter is blacker than adult male Surf Scoter (no white on the head) and adult male White-winged Scoter (no white on wings or around eye), so you could also argue it is appropriate.

But I agree that a change in taxonomy is a good time to consider whether a name change might be in order, for whatever reason. All names don't have to be useful or accurate, but their good points should outweigh the bad.

Best,
Jim
Click to expand...

Jim and everyone, good discussion: thanks!
MJB
 
Mysticete said:
If Common Scoter was a regular bird to the US I would probably agree with renaming it, but it isn't, and I don't think retaining the bird will cause much in the way of confusion for birders.

Besides, "American" is also a poor name for the bird, since there are at least two other scoters species in the US, and from personal experience I would argue that Surf is more common than Black, and more "worthy" of that moniker.
Click to expand...

The fact is that none of the candidates--Black, Common, American--passes muster as a “useful” label for either species. But so what? From where I sit, the “far east” is a lot closer than the “near (or “middle”) east" & I’ve yet to meet anyone who loses any sleep over that (at least outside the fluffier reaches of academe).
 
Last edited:
To avoid confusion, and focussing on the most obviously visible differences between the adult males of the two taxa, how about:

Swollen-knobbed Scoter Melanitta americana
Weeny-knobbed Scoter Melanitta nigra

?
 
;) ...

Which is exactly why the 'english' bit of bird names shouldn't be messed with too much IMO, we've got the latin bit for accuracy ... bring back the Crested Coot.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

mb1848
ABA podcast with Peter Pyle
Replies
1
Views
1K
JustinJansen
JustinJansen
J
Convergence of IOC, Clements and BirdLife Taxonomies?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
awiner
awiner
T
AOS NACC/SACC taxonomic committee governance and structures (no discussions on patronyms)
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Mike Earp
M
J
Messy Taxonomy
Replies
15
Views
3K
James Lowther
J
S
Ecuador, Mindo & Antisana - August 2023
Replies
3
Views
1K
Shumi
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top