Hi everyone... I just asked the same in NEOONR a few days ago without noticing this thread here... here is the full email response list below... MAKE SURE YOU READ ANDRES CUERVO REPLY THAT BASICALLY NAILS IT DOWN... enjoy!
..........................................................................................
NEOORNERS,
it is traditional to use the term Cis-Andean for taxa distributed East of the Andes (Amazonian birds for example) and the term Trans-Andean for those distributed West of the Andes (Central American birds for example). Etymologically, CIS means "on this side of", while TRANS means "across, on the far side, beyond". So I am wondering WHY in biology (or at least ornithology as far as I know) we use those relative terms in such way... were they developed by scientist working on Cis-Andean areas establishing the EAST (of the Andes) as the reference point?
I have not been able to find any reference about it...
thanks for your input,
Diego.
..........................................................................................
My guess is that the use of these terms was probably co-opted from chemistry - where it refers to the molecular chirality (one of the few things I remember from organic chemistry!). I think they are convenient terms that are context dependent. I personally don’t have a problem with using them as long as the meaning is clear.
Jake
..........................................................................................
My guess, for what it’s worth, is simply that the terms were coined from the perspective of the European naturalists and collectors who were the first to be active in South America. Julius Caesar used the terms trans-alpine and cis-alpine to describe Europe outside the Roman Empire.
Cheers
Bill Porteous
..........................................................................................
For Haffer, cis-Andean was the Amazonian side. For Chapman, it was more often the "Pacific/Chocó/Central American" side. Presumably, the greater and more recent work of Haffer for lowland bird biogeography kind of fixed the current usage of cis-Andean for referring to the territory east of the range.
The usage is arbitrary, though, and likely stems from the *generalization* that the lowland avifauna on both sides of the Andes originated from Amazonia (Haffer's view point, perhaps)...
See the various paper by Haffer published in 1967, particularly this one (and a quote):
Haffer, J. (1967). Speciation in Colombian forest birds west of the Andes. American Museum Novitates; no. 2294. p. 1:
<<The tropical lowlands west of the Andes in Colombia and in Central America are designated in this paper as "trans-Andean" or "Pacific," and those east of the Andes as "cis-Andean" or "Amazonian." Geographically and historically (with respect to the evolution of the lowland bird faunas) this usage seems preferable to that of Chapman (1917, 1926) who sometimes referred to "cis-Andean" and "trans-Andean" in the opposite sense>>
Andres Cuervo
..........................................................................................
For what it's worth, my personal opinion about these terms has always been that it's unnecessary jargon. It doesn't really make sense given their definitions in organic chemistry, and it's liable to confuse readers (it continues to confuse me). It seems like it could just as well mean "distributed on only one side of the Andes" vs. "both sides." East of Andes/West of Andes seem a lot clearer to me. If you're wondering from a historical perspective, the answer by Andres is great, and clears things up for me too--thanks! But if you're wondering about it because you're thinking about using it, I vote don't do it.
Eliot Miller
..........................................................................................
Hi Diego, and all,
actually, Bill nailed it down when it comes to etymology. The origin of the terminology has its cause in the perspective of Europeans, predominating during the earlier periods of science, on the world. Cis-Andean = on this/"OUR" side of the Andes, trans-Andean = other side of the Andes. Look at how Portugal and Spain in the early 16th century (ruthlessly) "divided" Latin America between them. The Brazilian frontier roughly follows a circle with its centre in the Old World. Re cis-/trans-Andean, I cannot cite any reference I am afraid - but see below.
Another forum has discussed this as well, and has tentatively come to the same conclusion:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=274763.
Andres is probably right in that Haffer (European!) made the terminology known more widely. However, Haffer didn't invent it - there are plenty of species with epithets "cisandinus", "cisandina", "cisandinum" that are older than Haffer's first works. E.g., Synallaxis cisandina (Cranioleuca curtata cisandina) (Taczanowski, 1882) (Or should it be the other way round? Well, you know what I mean.) Older usages, I think, always use cis-Andean = east of the Andes, trans-Andean = west of the Andes. At some point, it begins to mix up. I suppose Chilean scientists, for example, didn't want to be looked at as being "on the other side". Or terms just began to be confused. At any rate, wherever you are, the things around you are "on your side"!
A different question is whether it seems recommendable to keep using those prefixes ... the historical reason for its origin fortunately is outdated ... but we shouldn't forget Latin terminology was once used as lingua franca (ha!) in science. Whether we want common English to replace it, is worth a discussion of its own.
Fun thread ...
Best wishes
Stefan Kreft
..........................................................................................