Grey-cheeked Thrush Taxonomy

[Ruby]

Hi,

I was trying to find out the taxonomy of the Grey-cheeked Thrush and found its family name quoted as both turdidae and muscicapidae - the sources concerned seemed equally authoratative....

I expect there's a simple explanation......anyone know what it is??


Rgds... Ruby

[cuckooroller]

Ruby,
An explanation there is, I don't know how simple. This is in the realm of higher avian phylogenetics (i.e. taxonomy). Most, if not all, avian taxonomy that filters down to us comes straight out of text copies of world bird lists, e.g., Sibley-Monroe, Clement's, and Howard & Moore. When these books are compiled and according to the intrepretation given to the familial associations (i.e. how closely related various avian genera are one to another) a decision is made by the researchers/redactors compiling the volume as to what is called a sequence of listing bird species. With a certain approximation the first birds listed are those considered to be the most primitive and proceed to the oscine passeriformes that are normally considered to be the most advanced birds evolutionarily speaking. Normally, much of the so-called higher avian phylogenetics is omitted in these volumes (i.e. superfamilies, subfamilies, tribes, etc.) as being generally too abstruse to the normal user of these books and left more to the appanage of the taxonomists if they are so inclined. In the specific case of your question, since these text world lists do include this lower taxonomy (family and genera) you will find that some have intrepreted the Thrushes (Turdidae sensu stretto) to constitute part of Muscicapidae. Others have, however, deemed the Thrushes sufficiently different to warrant their own family, i.e. Turdidae (Thrushes), and separately Muscicapidae (Chats and Old World Flycatchers). So, both views are considered correct, it is just a nuance of intrepretation due to decisions taken by people writing the taxonomic text books.

[Ruby]

Ruby,
An explanation there is, I don't know how simple. This is in the realm of higher avian phylogenetics (i.e. taxonomy). Most, if not all, avian taxonomy that filters down to us comes straight out of text copies of world bird lists, e.g., Sibley-Monroe, Clement's, and Howard & Moore. When these books are compiled and according to the intrepretation given to the familial associations (i.e. how closely related various avian genera are one to another) a decision is made by the researchers/redactors compiling the volume as to what is called a sequence of listing bird species. With a certain approximation the first birds listed are those considered to be the most primitive and proceed to the oscine passeriformes that are normally considered to be the most advanced birds evolutionarily speaking. Normally, much of the so-called higher avian phylogenetics is omitted in these volumes (i.e. superfamilies, subfamilies, tribes, etc.) as being generally too abstruse to the normal user of these books and left more to the appanage of the taxonomists if they are so inclined. In the specific case of your question, since these text world lists do include this lower taxonomy (family and genera) you will find that some have intrepreted the Thrushes (Turdidae sensu stretto) to constitute part of Muscicapidae. Others have, however, deemed the Thrushes sufficiently different to warrant their own family, i.e. Turdidae (Thrushes), and separately Muscicapidae (Chats and Old World Flycatchers). So, both views are considered correct, it is just a nuance of intrepretation due to decisions taken by people writing the taxonomic text books.


Wow! Thanks Steve....

[Jurij Hanžel]

Now that you mentioned it:
What does sensu stretto mean?
What does sensu lato mean?

[cuckooroller]

Jurij,
Sensu stretto aka sensu strictu aka sensu stricto means "in the strict or narrow sense, that and no other". In the case of the response I gave Ruby regarding Turdidae, for example, I meant to restrict Turdidae to the present acception of this group which would include only the following genera - Neocossyphys, Stizorhina, Myophonus, Geomalia, Zoothera, Ixoreus, Ridgwayia, Cataponera, Sialia, Myadestes, Cichlopsis, Catharus, Hylocichla, Entomodestes, Platycichla, Psophocichla, Turdus, Nesocichla, Cichlherminia, Cochoa, Chlamydochaera, Brachypteryx, Heinrichia, and Alethe.

Sensu lato aka Sensu largo (= in the broad sense, or in a broader sense) is usually used along with the former term in some type of discourse where the object has been initially defined. For example, a hypothetical bird considered by some to be monotypic, is considered by others to be lumped with another monotypic closely related bird and is therefore known in both these manners. In this case, having once called attention to this fact, I can later use the terms further down in the body of the text by saying such and such a bird in sensu strictu meaning that I do not consider it as being lumped with the second bird, or sensu largo (lato) to mean that I do.

[Jurij Hanžel]

OK, thanks very much for the explanation, Steve!

[Andy Bright]

We have recently changed the Bird I.D. Q&A forum to encompass taxonomy as well, so we've moved this thread in there.

cheers,
Andy
BF Admin