thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
This may be correct, but if you read the header "Song Experiments Reveal 21 Possible New Tropical Bird Species" you may think otherwise :eek!: (see here)...
A statement like "Song experiments reveal SACC taxonomy to be seriously outdated" would have been equally correct...(it is in fact almost hilarous that exactly JV Remsen is cited in this note to support the findings...sorry, I couldn't resist |:$| )
The other thing I found quite odd from a SACC bias perspective was to look at the list of examples of good species listed in the paper and to see how they performed under the playback tests. I've grouped these into splits proposed by "SACC members, advisors and their mates" (SACC), splits proposed in my papers with coauthors from back when I was with ProAves ("ProAves") and others.
Dull-mantled Antbird–Magdalena Antbird Myrmeciza laemosticta–M. palliata Suboscine 0.71 (14) SACC
Zeledon’s Antbird–Blue-lored Antbird Hafferia zeledoni–H. immaculata Suboscine 0.91 (11) Proaves
Streak-headed Antbird–East Andean
Antbird Drymophila striaticeps–D. caudata Suboscine 0.3 (10) SACC
Blackish Antbird–Riparian Antbird Cercamacroides nigrescens–C. fuscicauda Suboscine 0.3 (10) SACC
Long-tailed Tapaculo–Rufous-vented
Tapaculo Scytalopus micropterus–S. femoralis Suboscine 0.2 (10) SACC
Paltry Tyrannulet (Central America)–Paltry
Tyrannulet (Venezuelan Andes) Zimmerius vilissimus–Z. improbus Suboscine 0.73 (15) ProAves
Northern Schiffornis–Russet-winged
Schiffornis Schiffornis veraepacis–S. stenorhyncha Suboscine 1 (5) ProAves
Costa Rican Warbler–Three-striped Warbler Basileuterus melanotis–B. tristriatus Oscine 0.56 (9) ProAves
Blue-black Grosbeak (west of the Andes)–
Blue-black Grosbeak (east of the Andes) Cyanocompsa cyanoides–C. rothschildii Oscine 0.71 (14) SACC
On their scale used here, 0 is bad, 1 is good and c.0.6 is a surrogate for species rank. ProAves-related splits scored an average of 0.75 (range: 0.56-1). Of those, 2 were accepted by SACC, one was rejected and one has not been considered yet, one of those which did pass was subject to discussions and adverse comments. SACC-related splits scored an average of 0.44 (0.2-0.91) and despite some of them being very marginal were generally subject to a sycophantic chorus of opprobrium and unanimous positive votes (subject to one comment and vote on Cyanocompsa) . What are not included here are scores for the countless splits proposed by other authors which were rejected by SACC. It would be interesting to see how those measure up. The odd pattern of citation in this paper, which does not include a single one of the ProAves-related papers relating to the splits above, is also noteworthy especially given the prominence given to SACC-authored papers.
[Also, this statement next to the table is an incorrect summary: "We include in this list 2 taxon pairs (Zimmerius and Cyanocompsa) for which proposals to define populations as distinct biological species are currently under consideration by the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society." As above, the Zimmerius split was rejected and is up for reconsideration. The Schiffornis proposal passed only on a second time of asking. And the Basileuterus proposal has been affirmatively considered by NACC but is yet to be considered by SACC.]
I've been banging on for a long time on Birdforum about the corruption in a system whereby "mates' papers" on dubious or borderline situations are lauded and accepted whilst those dealing with more clear-cut cases but published by persons outside of a narrow clique are inventively trashed for elusive reasons (which surely can't include much of a regard for rationality in taxonomy). Reading this paper, at least in the above respect, is something which caused me a sense of validation!
Saludos, Thomas
PS I should say, odd patterns of citation aside, this is one of the best and most useful and interesting papers Auk has published in years, so well done to the authors.
Last edited: