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/publicaciones/Cientifica/Bonaccorso et al (2008) - Chlorospingus.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/londono/pdf/Cadenaetal2007.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.c...ics/bios/biostownpeterson/Setal_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/publications/PDFs/2008_Weir_etalwBermingham.pdf
