When I hear that a new species has been discovered, I think of a creature unknown to science has been contacted for the first time. The kind of creature that if a specimen was brought to an expert, they would be like "whoa". But the vast majority of the time this phrase is used, the discovery is not the bird, but the fact that the bird (which appears similar and indeed has been seen many times before) should be split. A split is common, and depending on where the thresholds are set, may become extremely common in the population genomics era. But a real new discovery has been a rare thing for the past century and may never happen again.

I pride the researchers who made this discovery. I just wish the article title would phrase it in a way that the reader would understand that the bird was already known to science, and that the discovery is the speciation, not the bird itself. Because when they do that, the initial surge of hope that it's something truly new leads to a slight letdown ('it's just another split') instead of what it should be ('that's really cool how this subspecies budded off--wonder how the Venezuelan population and this one were initially connected?').