AOU-NACC Proposals 2023 (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kovalik]

AOU-NACC Proposals 2023

Proposals 2023-A​

2023-A-1a: Separate Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus into as many as four species: Split the culicivorus group from all South American populations

2023-A-1b: Separate Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus into as many as four species: Split the cabanisi group from auricapillus and hypoleucus

2023-A-1c: Separate Golden-crowned Warbler Basileuterus culicivorus into as many as four species: Split auricapillus from hypoleucus

2023-A-2: Treat Greater Antillean Nightjar Antrostomus cubanensis as two species

2023-A-3a: Treat Olive-crowned Yellowthroat Geothlypis semiflava as two or three species: Elevate chiriquensis to species rank

2023-A-3b: Treat Olive-crowned Yellowthroat Geothlypis semiflava as two or three species: Elevate bairdi to species rank

2023-A-3c: Treat Olive-crowned Yellowthroat Geothlypis semiflava as two or three species: Treat a combined chiriquensis and bairdi as a separate species from semiflava

2023-A-4: Treat Setophaga graysoni as a separate species from Tropical Parula S. pitiayumi

2023-A-5: Separate Hepatic Tanager Piranga flava into as many as five species

2023-A-6: Treat Antillean Tanager Stilpnia cucullata as two species

2023-A-7: Treat Flame-rumped Tanager Ramphocelus flammigerus as two species

2023-A-8: Treat Scarlet-rumped Cacique Cacicus uropygialis as two or three species

2023-A-9: Treat Sporophila ophthalmica as a separate species from Variable Seedeater S. corvina

2023-A-10: Treat Molothrus armenti as a separate species from Bronzed Cowbird M. aeneus

2023-A-11: Treat Icterus fuertesi as a separate species from Orchard Oriole I. spurius

2023-A-12: Treat Chlorothraupis frenata as a separate species from Carmiol’s Tanager C. carmioli

2023-A-13: Treat Melopyrrha taylori as a separate species from Cuban Bullfinch M. nigra

2023-A-14a: Revise the taxonomy of Green Parakeet Psittacara holochlorus: Split Red-throated Parakeet P. rubritorquis from P. holochlorus

2023-A-14b: Revise the taxonomy of Green Parakeet Psittacara holochlorus: Lump Pacific Parakeet P. strenuus with P. holochlorus

2023-A-14c: Revise the taxonomy of Green Parakeet Psittacara holochlorus: Reconsider the split of Socorro Parakeet P. brevipes

2023-A-15: Treat Eupsittula astec as a separate species from Olive-throated Parakeet E. nana

2023-A-16: Treat Amazona guatemalae as a separate species from Mealy Parrot A. farinosa

2023-A-17: Treat Amazona tresmariae as a separate species from Yellow-headed Parrot A. oratrix

Proposals 2023-B​

2023-B-1: Transfer White-bellied Mountain-gem Lampornis hemileucus to the monotypic genus Prodosia

2023-B-2: Transfer subspecies minor (and extralimital subspecies cinerascens) from Myiodynastes chrysocephalus to M. hemichrysus, thereby removing M. chrysocephalus from the Checklist

2023-B-3a: Modify the classification of the Rallidae: Transfer Micropygia schomburgkii to Rufirallus

2023-B-3b: Modify the classification of the Rallidae: Transfer Neocrex erythrops and N. colombianus to Mustelirallus

2023-B-3c: Modify the classification of the Rallidae: Transfer Cyanolimnas cerverai to Mustelirallus or Neocrex

2023-B-3d: Modify the classification of the Rallidae: Slightly alter the linear sequence

2023-B-4: Treat Poliocrania maculifer as a separate species from Chestnut-backed Antbird P. exsul

2023-B-5a: Treat Xiphorhynchus aequatorialis as a separate species from Spotted Woodcreeper X. erythropygius: Elevate aequatorialis (with punctigula and insolitus) to species rank (BirdLife treatment)

2023-B-5b: Treat Xiphorhynchus aequatorialis as a separate species from Spotted Woodcreeper X. erythropygius: Elevate both punctigula (with insolitus) and aequatorialis to species rank

2023-B-6a: Revise the taxonomy of Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus: Treat it as a subspecies of Black-winged Stilt H. himantopus

2023-B-6b: Revise the taxonomy of Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus: Treat current subspecies (i) melanurus and (ii) knudseni as separate species

2023-B-7a: Treat Chlorophonia sclateri, C. flavifrons, or both as separate species from Antillean Euphonia C. musica: Treat C. sclateri as a separate species from C. musica, retaining flavifrons as a subspecies of C. musica (two-species treatment, version 1)

2023-B-7b: Treat Chlorophonia sclateri, C. flavifrons, or both as separate species from Antillean Euphonia C. musica: Treat C. flavifrons as a separate species from C. musica, retaining sclateri as a subspecies of C. musica (two-species treatment, version 2)

2023-B-7c: Treat Chlorophonia sclateri, C. flavifrons, or both as separate species from Antillean Euphonia C. musica: Treat both C. sclateri and C. flavifrons as separate species (three-species treatment)

2023-B-8: Treat Corvus minutus as a separate species from Palm Crow C. palmarum

2023-B-9: Treat Cyanocorax luxuosus as a separate species from Green Jay C. yncas

2023-B-10: Transfer Tiny Hawk Accipiter superciliosus to the newly described genus Microspizias

2023-B-11: Treat Accipiter gentilis as a separate species from Northern Goshawk A. atricapillus

2023-B-12: Treat Aphelocoma sumichrasti as a separate species from Woodhouse’s Scrub-Jay A. woodhouseii

2023-B-13: Treat Delichon lagopodum as a separate species from House Martin D. urbicum

Proposals 2023-C​

2023-C-1a: Treat Lepidothrix velutina as a separate species from Blue-crowned Manakin L. coronata

2023-C-1b: Adopt the English name Velvety Manakin for L. velutina

2023-C-2: Transfer Thicket Antpitta Hylopezus dives to Myrmothera

2023-C-3: Treat American Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides dorsalis as a subspecies group of P. tridactylus

2024-C-4: Treat Colaptes aeruginosus as a separate species from Golden-olive Woodpecker C. rubiginosus

2023-C-5: Treat Melanerpes santacruzi as a separate species from Golden-fronted Woodpecker M. aurifrons

2023-C-6a: Treat Sclerurus obscurior as a separate species from Tawny-throated Leaftosser S. mexicanus

2023-C-6b: Treat S. pullus as a separate species from Tawny-throated Leaftosser S. mexicanus

2023-C-7a: Revise the taxonomy of Amaurospiza seedeaters: split Amaurospiza relicta from Blue Seedeater A. concolor

2023-C-7b: Revise the taxonomy of Amaurospiza seedeaters: lump A. concolor and A. carrizalensis with A. moesta

2023-C-7c: Revise the taxonomy of Amaurospiza seedeaters: split A. aequatorialis from A. concolor

2023-C-7d: Revise the taxonomy of Amaurospiza seedeaters: lump the five taxa as subspecies of A. moesta

2023-C-8: Treat Pipilo socorroensis as a separate species from Spotted Towhee P. maculatus

2023-C-9a: Revise generic limits among Rhodothraupis, Periporphyrus, and Caryothraustes: Adopt the following linear sequence: celaeno, erythromelas (extralimital), poliogaster, canadensis

2023-C-9b: Revise generic limits among Rhodothraupis, Periporphyrus, and Caryothraustes: Transfer Rhodothraupis celaeno to Periporphyrus

2023-C-9c: Revise generic limits among Rhodothraupis, Periporphyrus, and Caryothraustes: Transfer Rhodothraupis celaeno and Periporphyrus erythromelas to Caryothraustes

2023-C-10: Treat Pachyramphus uropygialis as a separate species from Gray-collared Becard P. major

2023-C-11: Treat Chlorospingus hypophaeus as a separate species from Yellow-throated Chlorospingus C. flavigularis

2023-C-12: Treat Melozone occipitalis as a separate species from White-eared Ground-Sparrow M. leucotis

2023-C-13: Treat Granatellus francescae as a separate species from Red-breasted Chat G. venustus

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Many splits recommended by IOC are not accepted by AOS, how do you expect a common global list ?

 

[Xenospiza]

Quite a few of these have a no from SACC or even IOC, so that must be what they are aiming for?

 

[Mysticete]

Many splits recommended by IOC are not accepted by AOS, how do you expect a common global list ?

Still going through these, but this was always going to happen. Most of the splits I have seen so far in Proposal A are from HBW/Birdlife International, which is the most liberal of the four major bird checklists. Any sort of reconciliation process would probably end up rejecting a lot of their splits, just like with the last ebird update we saw a lot of splits in the Clements checklist, one of the most conservative lists. If they are hitting a middle ground between those two that is probably a good thing.

 

[mb1848]

Set A 11 August 2022, revised 1 March 2023

Set B 23 December 2022, revised 9 March 2023

It is so much more fun to pick out mistakes in the original proposals! I am reliably informed that there is a fourth proposal D in preparation. I was looking at 2023 Proposal C-1 and they mentioned SACC proposal 943,. But when I looked for that online the internet told me “this site can’t be reached”

Recognize Lepidothrix velutina as a separate species from Lepidothrix coronata .

Could this be some personality weakness of mine? Or I have not cleared some cache somewhere???

I hope it is not a reaction to :

https://academic.oup.com/condor/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ornithapp/duac046/7026133?searchresult=1 ..

Still very happy to see these proposals put online.

 

[Paul Clapham]

It is so much more fun to pick out mistakes in the original proposals! I am reliably informed that there is a fourth proposal D in preparation. I was looking at 2023 Proposal C-1 and they mentioned SACC proposal 943,. But when I looked for that online the internet told me “this site can’t be reached”

https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop943.htm .

The SACC site has been down for about a week now. I don't know why that is.

 

[Peter Boesman]

Last year I spent some time analyzing a single 2022 proposal (Spot-crowned Woodcreeper) to prove that all arguments that were provided against a split were either incorrect or very subjective. This was sent to the NACC team. Judging from the comments of the team members which were published later, it is doubtful that my inputs were considered seriously or even read.
One may then wonder if it is worth spending time...

I nevertheless started looking at the very first proposal: 2023-A1.
A number of arguments are given against my brief 2016 vocal analysis of Golden-crowned Warbler:
* Although the vocalizations of the culicivorus group seem reasonably consistent, those of the cabanisi group are much more variable than indicated. For example, this song from Boyacá, Colombia (ML 260191), presumably of subspecies austerus, sounds much closer to the songs of the culicivorus group than to those of the cabanisi group depicted above, having variable note shapes at a relatively low frequency and ending with an
emphasized note of higher frequency (although not as high as in the samples of culicivorus above).
This is so different from the cabanisi songs above that one might question the species ID, but the recordist was Mauricio Álvarez, the well-known ornithologist who established the sound collection at the Humboldt Institute, so this seems unlikely.
-> ML260191 is simply misidentified and is actually Russet-crowned Warbler Myiothlypis coronata !! Anyone with a bit of experience in birdsounds of the Andean region will recognize that...

* Songs of some other individuals from the cabanisi group, although sounding less similar to those of the culicivorus group, also contain variable note shapes and notes of differing frequency, contrasting with the uniformity in note shape and frequency proposed in Boesman (2016). For example, here’s a recording from Meta, Colombia (ML437387871), also presumably of austerus.
-> If one wants to compare sonograms, please use the same time scale (!). Note shapes greatly differ depending on the scale used, but in any case all notes of the example are high-pitched down-slurred whistles reaching more than 10kHz ! That's close to the description I gave... (and admittedly, it seems like in Colombia song phrases have more tendency to rise in pitch than in Venezuela, but whistles are equally thin)

The Golden-crowned Warbler group is obviously a very complex case with many subspecies and a scattered distribution pattern.
I have no problem with the fact that NACC considers there is not enough evidence for a taxonomic change, but the decision should be based on objective and correct inputs. A proposal that provides a few poor examples or exceptions to contradict what 99% of the available sound recordings indicate seems a bit biased or subjective...

Not sure if I should continue reading more proposals...

 

[thomasdonegan]

Hello Peter. I wrote lots of proposals to SACC and some to NACC about 10-20 years ago. I concluded it was a total waste of time. You seem to have come to the same conclusion, but I believe I could have or did tell you so.

The point of these committees seems not to be to develop more rational taxonomies, but to reinforce 1960s taxonomies and say more research is needed. We see alive and kicking in 2023 the same attitude of the church to Galileo and Copernicus: a committee of (mostly) old white men, naysaying on sensible conclusions backed up with data and often publications, that some species should be split. They reject these with reference and deference to the contents of old books, whose authors had a fraction of the data available today, and insufficient evidence. Equally, there was apparently insufficient evidence for heliocentricity... Two or three SACC committee members in particular seem regularly to use their role as an opportunity to grandstand, commenting on how terrible and insufficient everyone else's work is and rejecting esssentially everything except their own recommendations, showing an extraordinary level of contempt for colleagues in the field. There are a few good men (and at least one woman) on these committees, but the 7/10 supermajority rules gives the $#!+s too much power, and makes me wonder why the enlightened members of these committees bother to associate with the other ones, or waste their time issuing dissents.

TD

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Hello Peter. I wrote lots of proposals to SACC and some to NACC about 10-20 years ago. I concluded it was a total waste of time. You seem to have come to the same conclusion, but I believe I could have or did tell you so.

The point of these committees seems not to be to develop more rational taxonomies, but to reinforce 1960s taxonomies and say more research is needed. We see alive and kicking in 2023 the same attitude of the church to Galileo and Copernicus: a committee of old white men, naysaying on sensible conclusions backed up with data and often publications, that some species should be split. They reject these with reference and deference to the contents old books, whose authors had a fraction of the data available today, and an assertion of insufficient evidence. Two or three SACC committee members in particular regularly use their role as an opportunity to grandstand, commenting on how terrible and insufficient everyone else's work is and rejecting esssentially everything except their own research products, showing an extraordinary level of contempt for colleagues in the field. There are a few good men (and at least one woman) on these committees, but the 7/10 supermajority rules gives the $#!+s too much power, and makes me wonder why the enlightened members of these committee bother to associate with the other ones, or waste their time issuing dissents.

TD

If you are so critical of this committee and their decision, should I take their recommendation into account, I don't know what to think?

 

[thomasdonegan]

If you are so critical of this committee and their decision, should I take their recommendation into account, I don't know what to think?

I think you should take it into account. But we should not get too hung up about whether a split or lump is "accepted" by someone. There is currently a political backdrop that AOS do not like the BirdLife checklist initiative, which (a) contradicts their taxonomies (how dare they!) and (b) is a product of "someone else". So there is now something of a turf war, an exercise in self-justification, an exercise in discrediting and an attempt to get ahead of the IOC group. This is played out via this and other gluts of NACC and SACC proposals, most of which are written or co-authored by the established committee members, trashing BirdLife proposals.

Of course not all BirdLife proposals are perfect or even necessarily right. But calling out a clearly misidentified recording as a basis to reject this particular proposal is an extraordinary foot fault and must be pretty embarrassing. For the most part, the way in which BirdLife proposals are trashed is more subtle, e.g. raising doubt and highlighting where more studies could be done. Of course, more data, more studies are all good and lead to better decisions. However, that can be an infinite game. The question is or should be, do we or do we not have better data than last time this was considered requiring a reconsideration of that decision, and does the more recent proposal make more sense than the current treatment? Those sorts of questions are not being asked, just whether or not more data might be helpful, and are not the contents of all those old books not really great?

 

[Xenospiza]

I hope it is not a reaction to :

https://academic.oup.com/condor/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ornithapp/duac046/7026133?searchresult=1 ..

A thumbs up from me for that article, even if I think that the language used will not be conducive to the people they are trying to convince.

 

[Mysticete]

Last year I spent some time analyzing a single 2022 proposal (Spot-crowned Woodcreeper) to prove that all arguments that were provided against a split were either incorrect or very subjective. This was sent to the NACC team. Judging from the comments of the team members which were published later, it is doubtful that my inputs were considered seriously or even read.
One may then wonder if it is worth spending time...

I nevertheless started looking at the very first proposal: 2023-A1.
A number of arguments are given against my brief 2016 vocal analysis of Golden-crowned Warbler:
* Although the vocalizations of the culicivorus group seem reasonably consistent, those of the cabanisi group are much more variable than indicated. For example, this song from Boyacá, Colombia (ML 260191), presumably of subspecies austerus, sounds much closer to the songs of the culicivorus group than to those of the cabanisi group depicted above, having variable note shapes at a relatively low frequency and ending with an
emphasized note of higher frequency (although not as high as in the samples of culicivorus above).
This is so different from the cabanisi songs above that one might question the species ID, but the recordist was Mauricio Álvarez, the well-known ornithologist who established the sound collection at the Humboldt Institute, so this seems unlikely.
-> ML260191 is simply misidentified and is actually Russet-crowned Warbler Myiothlypis coronata !! Anyone with a bit of experience in birdsounds of the Andean region will recognize that...

* Songs of some other individuals from the cabanisi group, although sounding less similar to those of the culicivorus group, also contain variable note shapes and notes of differing frequency, contrasting with the uniformity in note shape and frequency proposed in Boesman (2016). For example, here’s a recording from Meta, Colombia (ML437387871), also presumably of austerus.
-> If one wants to compare sonograms, please use the same time scale (!). Note shapes greatly differ depending on the scale used, but in any case all notes of the example are high-pitched down-slurred whistles reaching more than 10kHz ! That's close to the description I gave... (and admittedly, it seems like in Colombia song phrases have more tendency to rise in pitch than in Venezuela, but whistles are equally thin)

The Golden-crowned Warbler group is obviously a very complex case with many subspecies and a scattered distribution pattern.
I have no problem with the fact that NACC considers there is not enough evidence for a taxonomic change, but the decision should be based on objective and correct inputs. A proposal that provides a few poor examples or exceptions to contradict what 99% of the available sound recordings indicate seems a bit biased or subjective...

Not sure if I should continue reading more proposals...

If you are concerned that your words might fall on deaf ears, I would suggest sending comments directly to someone on the WGAC committee. MOST of these proposals for 2023 are a result of the reconciliation process, and the committee in theory should be operating independently to NACC/SACC. At the very least, most of the members are different from those of the two committees (I think there is one person from SACC and at least 1 person from NACC, last I checked.

 

[mb1848]

The SACC site has been down for about a week now. I don't know why that is.

Thanks Paul.
It is back online! Glad it was not because of a personality weakness of mine.
South American Classification Committee
This website is ful of information and I check it more than I realize. I was hoping there would be an update to the look of the website. I was thinking Alpaca stylee!
See at minute 3 of video, not for epileptics.

.

 

[mb1848]

Peter:
You were cited 26 times in the 2023 A proposals, 13 in the 2023 B proposals and 9 in the 2023 C proposals. And in all 45 citations they spelled your name right. In my quick survey, most proposals simply cited Boesman 2016 as a source of reliable informtion useful for their proposal. I think a 2023 update authored by Peter Dias y Boesman could help.

 

[Peter Boesman]

And in all 45 citations they spelled your name right.

That's indeed an achievement in itself 😄

Nowadays, I regularly write accounts about voice of particular species for Cornell's 'Birds of the World' database. I am not particularly focusing on implications for taxonomy, but in 'Geographic variation' I do touch the topic. I think to date I have updated some 350 species (some of which are still in queue for publication)...
I didn't change my name though, but species accounts are typically multi-authored, so there is room for diversification

 

[Mysticete]

I've heard that Proposal set D contains proposal to lump Cordilleran and Pacific-Slope Flycatchers (Presumably as Western Flycatcher, it's old name), which is likely to pass. Not a huge surprise there, given that pairing usually ranks high on "most likely ABA birds to get lumped/relumped" lists

 

[Kirk Roth]

I've heard that Proposal set D contains proposal to lump Cordilleran and Pacific-Slope Flycatchers (Presumably as Western Flycatcher, it's old name), which is likely to pass. Not a huge surprise there, given that pairing usually ranks high on "most likely ABA birds to get lumped/relumped" lists

Where/how did you hear this?

 

[Mysticete]

Where/how did you hear this?

Someone associated with committee work via a facebook post. Since it's not published i am not sure I should give the specific name of the person here.

 

[pbjosh]

I've heard that Proposal set D contains proposal to lump Cordilleran and Pacific-Slope Flycatchers (Presumably as Western Flycatcher, it's old name), which is likely to pass. Not a huge surprise there, given that pairing usually ranks high on "most likely ABA birds to get lumped/relumped" lists

Taking Redpolls as a proxy would suggest it wouldn’t have a chance of passing 😜

 

[Mysticete]

Taking Redpolls as a proxy would suggest it wouldn’t have a chance of passing 😜

I don't look for logic anymore in NACC decisions...