Talk:Urrao antpitta

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move July 2010[edit]

Fenwick's Antpitta → Grallaria fenwickorum — WP:Birds' policy is to use the English names at Worldbirdnames.org for titles, but this new species doesn't have a name there yet, and I expect that the English name will be controversial. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English name[edit]

There was a claim made that since the bird was named after Mr & Mrs Fenwick (and family), that it should be named "Fenwicks' Antpitta" - does anyone know the IOC stand on this ? Shyamal (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Kirwan, editor of Cotinga and Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club posted the following on a forum discussing the antpitta (when a similar question arose):
The authors of the paper state "The epithet honors the Fenwick family; George, Rita, Cyrus, Sarah and Rachael Fenwick of The Plains, Virginia, USA." As such the bird is named for all of the immediate members of the Fenwick family; therefore the bird is the family Fenwick's Antpitta. If it was just Mr & Mrs, then Fenwicks' or Fenwicks's would indeed be correct. MeegsC | Talk 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Shyamal (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that it is possible that the IOC could name it something completely different, perhaps "Grey-breasted Antpitta". Snowman (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: already moved —innotata 01:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by Rabo3, I suggest moving this page to Grallaria fenwickorum temporarily, at least until the IOC comes up with a common name at the relevant page of Worldbirdnames.org, and maybe till a consensus develops.

The policy says, "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." However, in this case there's no consensus yet. The two main sources used in the article disagree (Fenwick's Antpitta versus Urrao Antpitta). The scientific name, however, seems to be clear.

Furthermore, the English name is controversial because of the controversy described in the article. The only two people who expressed a preference in this discussion preferred "Urrao Antpitta", one of them strongly. It seems NPOV to use the scientific name.

At the WP:Birds talk page, Snowmanradio suggested "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia". This too is NPOV, but I think it's better and closer to the policy to use a name than to use such a description.

It's possible we could actually influence the naming one way or the other. The IOC has quoted us to show support for their project, and they could quote us to support their choice of a common name as reflecting common usage. (I'll bet they're sweating bullets.) I think we should do that only as the result of a real consensus here, so if people want to support one common name or the other or Snowmanradio's proposal, I trust they'll feel free. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me (the move to the scientific name, that is)! MeegsC | Talk 02:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsurprisingly I strongly support a move to scient. name; for reasons noted in my earlier comment @WP:BIRD talk and well summarized by JerryFriedman. • Rabo³ • 12:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that there is a need to move, as I do not see the two points of view as put forward in the two editorials as being symmetrical or having equal weight. However, that is my own POV and I understand the need to be perceived as squeakily cleanly neutral. If it is moved it should be to the scientific name. Maias (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above; only indirecly related to move discussion
It is no coincidence several major Neotropical authorities, incl. one closely associated with ProAves, have voice their discontent with the first article: It provides less hard science, arguably violates the ICZN code of ethics, makes accusations that, if true, belong in the court (not in a note attached to a serious scientific article), makes the big NO-NO in ornithology by taking the honours from the people actually making the discovery + most of the science (uniquely in the scientific world, species authority stands, regardless of who made the discovery and science to back it up), and finally they ended up providing an English name that is of no real use for separating this from any other antpitta, even when they knew an English name that does just that (by highlighting its small distribution) was available. Despite my view that Urrao Antpitta clearly is superior, I support neither a move to that name nor the equally POV Fenwick's Antpitta unless supported by IOC, SACC or similar authority. • Rabo³ • 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't be long till the IOC releases its latest updates, why not just wait till then? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the current page name is inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My proposal on the WP Birds talk page was to temporarily name this page "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia", which I think is a much clearer name for this page. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My opinion is that since the bird has an unequivocal name, we should use it (until it has a reasonably unequivocal common name, in line with our policy). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what are you supporting here? "use it" could be anything. I think that the current names are unequivocal (the names are not confused with another species), but the IOC has not opted for a species name yet. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one is seriously questioning which scientific name is valid. The people initially describing it as Grallaria fenwickorum clearly support it, and the authors of the second article acknowledge the validity too, as is clear from the editorial note. The English name is what remains in serious doubt, and for us to choose one over the other would be clear POV. People keeping a close eye on updates:candidates by IOC will also note that they took the complete NPOV road and have listed both scientific and English names, either awaiting their own decision or perhaps a decision by the SACC, which they often follow when it involves the taxonomy with South American species. Some might use this an as argument against the scientific name(s) too, but that cannot be directly compared, as IOC is our quote: "preferred standard for common bird names" (not taxonomy), the people involved in both articles acknowledge the validity of the scientific name, and the ICZN code is clear on that matter. I understand that some might suggest "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia" and would have supported it, if it had not been for the antpitta situation in Colombia, in which that name really could cover more than the single taxon from this article: When compared to several other taxa (Grallaria milleri gilesi in 2009 & Grallaricula nana hallsi in 2008), it is not really much more newly described/discovered. Some might suggest that this could be avoided by adding species to the title (seeing that the other examples are subspecies), i.e. "Newly discovered antpitta species in Colombia", but I would argue that this title is too long when the shorter, more accurate scientific name is available. More significant, even the longer name would not be completely limited to Grallaria fenwickorum, as reviews of several complexes are in progress. As already has been mentioned elsewhere, we'll get more "new" antpittas through this. • Rabo³ • 23:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Uncontroversial name" probably would have been better. I'm suggesting that we use the one uncontroversial name, Grallaria fenwickorum, rather than either controversial English name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I would go along with making the scientific name the temporary page name. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, since there was support and no strong objections. By the way, if the IOC does wait for the SACC as Rabo3 suggested they might, it could be some months before they choose a common name. There's not even a proposal at the SACC yet. That should be interesting. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More salvos[edit]

I'm wondering whether we need something like this, with the sources filled out:

Further actions in the controversy include a response by ProAves to Cadena and Stiles's editorial,[1] a rejoinder by Cadena[2], a petition by the National Network of Bird Observers (RNOA) in Colombia in support of Carantón and the Asociación Colombiana de la Ornitología,[3] a statement by Carantón,[4] and comments and suggestions by Bartels.[5]

  1. ^ Fundación ProAves (2011)
  2. ^ Cadena (2011)
  3. ^ RNOA (2011)
  4. ^ Carantón (2011)
  5. ^ Bartels (2011)

Or maybe these should be external links? Or is this getting too trivial? I think at least the links to Carantón and Bartels would be interesting. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"uncontroversial name"[edit]

By the way, the IOC's candidate names for this species are G. urraoensis, Urrao Antpitta! [1] So much for my arguments above. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In virtually all cases, IOC follows SACC for South American taxonomy. I doubt we'll see any final decision by IOC until SACC has taken a stance on the scientific name, which could take some time with all the controversy; it might even require a note to the ICZN for their ruling (published in Bull. Zoo. Nom.). I admit I hadn't seen this one coming, but some of the info (e.g., uncertainty over where the type was deposited) only became available after the above discussion. The English name is labelled with (even) greater uncertainty, but from a scientific point of view this is also of far less importance. Purely speculative, but I guess BirdLife Int's Antioquia Antpitta could take the prize. • Rabo³ • 14:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Antioquia Antpitta[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to suggested common name. An RM to the more common of the common names: Urrao Antpitta might gain consensus? Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Grallaria fenwickorum → Antioquia Antpitta – Based on the discussion at the WP:BIRD talk page, I think I best propose here formally to move this page to Antioquia Antpitta. The discussion about the proper scientific name, and the corresponding common name has not been resolved yet, and as such, I think we best follow BirdLife Internationals choice of a neutral name for this species. The current title, the oldest scientific name, is disputed far more, especially after the questionable action of the SACC to prefer the other scientific name. Hence my proporal to rename this page to Antioquia Antpitta. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maias (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC) There is already an IOC name: no need to use another one, potentially confusing the matter further.[reply]
  3. —Pvmoutside (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC). Looks like any english name we choose will be controversial. My preference is to then use the english name based on our naming rules (based on the IOC). We can always change it if they do so. Scientific name should also be changed?? due to fenwickorum also being controversial........My preference is to stick with IOC/SACC. Again, we can change if they do. Another alternative is to delete the entire entry until a consensus is reached.......In any event......Thanks Kim for getting the discussion updated........[reply]

Comments[edit]

Thanks for making a proposal, Kim.

I definitely support abandoning the present name, as the scientific names are now the most POV possible choices, and I think an English name is a better choice. However, I think the SACC, the IOC, Avibase, and Boyd suggest that the closest thing to a consensus on the common name is Urrao Antpitta. (The Clements list doesn't include this species yet, though the authors have promised an update in early 2012.) To put it another way, I don't think the controversy is a strong enough reason to make an exception to WP:BIRDS' policy of using the IOC common name, even though the IOC picked a side. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SACC decision was linked to choosing a scientific name, which was obviously tainted by political considerations (just read the arguments) and I doubt very much that their choice will stand once the CODE crunchers get a hold of the case. The IOC and Boyd followed SACC, although IOC indicates that the status is unclear. What do you need more than to know there is a controversy. Avibase does not provide a justification of why they choose that name. Birdlife International states: "When the taxon was assessed and accepted as a species by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group it was understood that G. fenwickorum took priority following the rules of nomenclature and the species has thus been accepted as such by the BTWG: further clarification may result in the species name being changed in future", indicating again to the controversy. Their taxonomic working group is probably the most independent group of experts to date to have provided an opinion about the name, and I give them more weight here than the SACC in which several involved people participated in the vote. And they have chosen G. fenwickorum. So, I think there is definitely a controversy going on and I think we have to stay out of it.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add, using google search, G. fenwickorum is more used than the alternative. Same for the common name.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And "Antioquia Antpitta" is the least-used common name. But I don't think Google numbers are reliable, and even if they were, I think we should be following authorities rather than popular usage. To me, the questions are those raised in your other arguments. Should we ignore our usual authority, the IOC, and others if they're taking a side in a controversy we want to stay out of, or if we believe they're biased? And if the answer to the latter is yes, are they sufficiently biased in this case? My answer to both questions is "no"—I think we should go by acceptance of the name by authorities, regardless of our judgement of their decisions—but I can see that others will disagree with me.
Speaking of which, to save anyone else the trouble, I couldn't find this species at the IUCN, and xeno-canto calls it "Urrao-or-Fenwick's Antpitta Grallaria urraoensis_or_fenwickorum".
As a detail, the SACC decision isn't limited to the scientific name—their list does include the English name "Urrao Antpitta". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, BirdLife International never did discuss G. fenwickorum vs. G. urraoensis because it entered their list before the things some claim (rightly or wrongly) would invalidate the former name became known. How could anyone expect them to make a real choice on that before they knew these facts!? Before they knew anyone disputed the validity of the name fenwickorum. The only real choice you fairly can say they made is their avoidance of the Eng. name controversy by coining their own, Antioquia Antpitta. I will not vote on the English name used as the page name on wiki, but should anyone suggest it is placed on either suggested scientific name you can consider this a strong vote against it. • Rabo³ • 07:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Urrao Antpitta[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Grallaria fenwickorum → Urrao Antpitta – This species' listing as G. fenwickorum violates WP:BIRDS' own rule that we will follow IOC names. Furthermore, Urrao Antpitta is also the English-language name used by the SACC, the regional authority in this area. We have both our worldwide standard and the regional authority agreeing here: this is a no-brainer. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. As above (though "no-brainer" might be going a little too far). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As nominator. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, I suppose so; it does need to be moved. Maias (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The IOC seems to have the most buy-in, so this suggests it would be the most common name in ornithology even if locals call it something different. Alternative names should be mentioned, where reliably sourceable, and sourced. Skimming the above, I see at least two sourceable alts, Antioquia Antpitta and Urrao-or-Fenwick's Antpitta. Redirs from them should exist. Why is the longer alt. hyphenated to death like that? Is that normal? Is it even a name promulgated by anyone or just a sloppy attempt to say "Urrao Antpitta or Fenwick's Antpitta"? Regardless, it suggests Fenwick's Antpitta is another one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: Fenwick's Antpitta is another option. The hyphenated name is indeed an attempt not to take sides (and I personally don't think xeno-canto is an RS for names, though you could probably make a case). If you read the article, you'll see that the common names in use are sourced, and you'll see what a mess this situation is. Incidentally, when the title was changed to Grallaria fenwickorum, this was an example for your request for articles under the scientific name because the common names were non-neutral. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Thanks, Vegaswikian. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of RM[edit]

I think all the RM settled was the title. The article can have only one title, which is why it might have to be non-neutral. But I think we should take sides as little as possible, so we should go back to the neutral way the lead was written, but with "Urrao Antpitta" first. As for the scientific name, the IOC is only our standard on common names. I think that for neutrality we need to present both scientific names in the text and in the taxobox. In particular, I'd say we have no justification for calling G. fenwickorum a synonym unless the ICZN rules that way. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICZN Ruling in 2018[edit]

I just provided a citation and quote to the 2018 ICZN ruling, and I was one of the Commissioners who voted on this case. There are two important things to note here: (1) The Commission decided that the problems and inconsistencies in the original description, while confusing and troubling, were not substantive enough to declare the name unavailable. As far as we are concerned, the valid name for this species is fenwickorum, and urraoensis is a junior synonym. (2) It is abundantly clear, even in the Code itself, that the ICZN has no ability to enforce our decisions if they run counter to the consensus of authorities in a given discipline. Compliance with the Code, and with the Commission is (and always has been) voluntary on the part of the taxonomic community. We arbitrate disputes, but the community has the ability to reject the results of our arbitration. Lepidopterists reject the Code's provisions regarding gender agreement, and herpetologists reject the collected works of one "rogue" self-publishing herpetologist, despite his marginal technical compliance with the Code. Both these decisions are by consensus of the affected taxonomists. The point is that if the world's ornithologists are in consensus that they want to use urraoensis then the ICZN can do nothing to prevent them. While that can't be explained properly in the article itself, I can certainly explain it here on the talk page, for interested parties. Dyanega (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Urrao_antpitta&oldid=1205856260"