[Mysticete]

since it's been slow in here, how about a random rant from Steve Howell on AOU taxonomy

http://birding.typepad.com/youngbird...-howell-3.html

While I can sympathesize, I think the reason the AOU and other checklists committee's maintain such a system is to provide stability to the nomenclature. Using every new study to change the classification or species recognition instantly is not a good approach, and if Steve Howell wants these splits to be accepted, he could actually write a proposal or undertake some of the research necessary to produce such splits

on a more related note, never knew there was consideration of splitting Purple Finches or old vs new world Common Merganser(Goosander).

[njlarsen]

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I think Steve Howell wish he was living 50 years earlier (or whenever it was), when someone named Peters could write a taxonomy that provided his view of the matter without having to argue with any committee, write proposals, etc. It so happens that he wrote at a time when lumping was in vogue, and that we today feel compelled to have the full committee work before any changes be made to his published taxonomy

Less tongue in cheek, I strongly like the process that SACC is using and the visibility it provides, and I wish all taxonomic committees worked in the same way.

Niels

[Daniel Philippe]

He proposes to split the Mexican population of Barred Owl. Is it only Strix varia sartorii ? Whom is it named after ?

[mb1848]

Whom is it named after ?
Bulletin of the Essex Institute, Volumes 5
Syrnium nebulosum var.Sartorii Ridgway,1873,Bulletin of the Essex Institute,5,p.200. (Mirador,Vera Cruz,Mexico.

Syrnium nebulosum, var. Sartorii RIDGWAY .
CH. Larger than the average of var. nebulosum, and the colors much darker and less tawny, being merely blackish sepia and clear white; face without the darker concentric rings of the North American form. Wing, 14-80; tall, 9-00. Hab. Eastern Mexico (Mirador). (Type, No. 43,131, <j1 ad., Mirador; " pine region." Dr. C. Sartorius.) (Dr. Charles Sartorius)
REMARKS.—This form is very different from var. fulvescens (Scl. and Salv. P. Z. S., 1868, 58) from Guatemala. I have seen a specimen of the latter collected by Van Patten, and now in the Museum of the Boston Society. The var. nebulosum stands between the two, being intermediate in nearly all its characters.
Landscapes and Popular Sketches By C. Sartorius 1859, sketches by Moritz Rugendas.
He had a son Florentine Sartorius
Dr. Charles Sartorius was a German by birth.
Google has it as Christian Sartorius:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VTU...gbs_navlinks_s .

[mb1848]

O.K. it was Carl Christian Sartotius and Sartorius is the Latinized version of Schnieder. His grandfather was Ex Mag Theol. u. Phil. Johann Daniel Sartorius (1684-1748). Darmstadt in Hesse. Carl started a german colony at Mirador Vera Cruz. He was involved in german politics and friend of Karl Follen. Carl Christian Wilhelm Sartorius, from the Sartorius family from Darmstadt(cf. note 20), professor in Wetzlar, compromised himself in the popular movements of 1819 in Germany. Put by this fact under surveillance, he left and operated mines in Mirador (state of Veracruz) in Mexico and founded a line there (Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, vol. 30 (1890), pp. 380 and 381,

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

... when someone named Peters could write a taxonomy that provided his view of the matter without having to argue with any committee, write proposals, etc. It so happens that he wrote at a time when lumping was in vogue, and that we today feel compelled to have the full committee work before any changes be made to his published taxonomy

You've hit the nail on the head here. The "original taxonomy" was never peer-reviewed or accepted by comittee so why should a detailed peer-reviewed paper and / or a committee decision be required to overturn any element of that taxonomy?

I would also agree with Howell's point about vocalizations and studies of living birds. Scytalopus taxonomy wouldn't have got far in the mueseum.

cheers, a

[Mysticete]

yeah but we try to hold taxonomy to a higher standard now than we did back then. This is sort of an argument along the lines of "well he got to do it, so why can't I?"

[Daniel Philippe]

Originally Posted by mb1848

O.K. it was Carl Christian Sartotius and Sartorius is the Latinized version of Schnieder.

Thank you mb, the name ending explains the double "i", isn’t it ?

On the other hand Steve Howell suggests to split the Ringed Kingfisher. Which ssp is different ? The nominate, the Antillean or the southern ?

[njlarsen]

I have seen a report stating that Steve Howell have birded Chile, but I don't know that he has been to the Antilles. A three way split may be warranted, I don't know that any of the other subspecies (except the Lesser Antillean one) regularly fish in the sea ...

Niels

[mb1848]

The two original descriptions of the Guadeloupe and the Chili birds:

Page 623 of:
http://books.google.com/books?id=F_8...pennis&f=false . Guadeloupe.

Page 92 of:
http://books.google.com/books?id=_ck...Alcedo&f=false . Chili Provinz San Fernando. Nice drawing!

[Daniel Philippe]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

A three way split may be warranted

Originally Posted by mb1848

The two original descriptions of the Guadeloupe and the Chili birds

OK thank you : 3 way split then ... well why not ?

Eventually do you happen to know more on potential splits regarding Ivory-billed Woodcreepers, Northern Beardless Tyrannulets, Olive-sided Flycatchers … and the "overdue split" between North America and (parts of) Eurasia for Bank swallows ?

[tomjenner]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

if Steve Howell wants these splits to be accepted, he could actually write a proposal or undertake some of the research necessary to produce such splits

To be fair, Steve Howell has actually done quite a lot of research on many of the species where he suggests a split. Many of the splits he suggests in His Mexico guide are from his own published field studies (e.g. the Chlorostilbon hummingbirds). I like the approach he took in this guide, though he has received some negative criticism. Many forms were presented as full species, but in all such cases he made the relationship clear and highlighted controversial splits by inserting the alternative name in brackets - e.g. "White-breasted (Sharp-shinned) Hawk Accipiter chionogaster or A. striatus (in part)". In doing so he is helping to point out where research is required (in this case its one that I have been working on). He also makes comments on little known species that he has not had the opportunity to study and so does not split (for example the two distinct and allopatric subspecies of Blue-tailed Hummingbird). By highlighting possible splits in this way he is opening up opportunities for amateurs or professionals to help fill the gaps.

Tom

[Mysticete]

I would love to know the grounds for splitting Olive-sided Flycatcher. Birds from both coasts sound to me very similar (although I admit vocalizations are not my strong suite), and I am not aware of any significant morphological variation. Unless this is referring to splitting a Mexican population.

[Mysticete]

well I think the issue is that by publishing splits in a field guide, he bypassed any sort of peer review. I don't know the Mexican bird situations well enough to judge, however in my own area of expertise (paleo) you get some very weird ideas published in non peer reviewed work that you can't help but feel would not get published in a major journal.

[tomjenner]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

well I think the issue is that by publishing splits in a field guide, he bypassed any sort of peer review. I don't know the Mexican bird situations well enough to judge, however in my own area of expertise (paleo) you get some very weird ideas published in non peer reviewed work that you can't help but feel would not get published in a major journal.

In many cases he had publishing his work in peer reviewed journals before he published his book. He is not avoiding the peer review process only the AOU review process.

Tom

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by tomjenner

In many cases he had publishing his work in peer reviewed journals before he published his book. He is not avoiding the peer review process only the AOU review process.

Tom

It is not my impression that he is avoiding the committee process as much as complaining about the slowness and bureaucracy of that process.

Niels

[mb1848]

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi. Richardson got the first specimen on the lower Saskatchewan, Swainson called it Tyrrannus borealis. Is the lower Saskatchewan on which side of the rockies? In Reports of Explorations and Surveys, V. IX Birds; Baird, Cassin & Lawrence it says, “In some western birds the third quill is a little longer than the fourth.” Zoonomen does not list any subspecies. But:
"The olive-sided flycatcher is generally considered a monotypic species because it varies relatively little in plumage or size across a broad geographic range (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Currently, two subspecies are recognized. Contopus cooperi marjorinus, which breeds from southern California to northern Baja California, is distinguished by its slightly larger size and darker underparts. Contopus c. cooperi breeds throughout the rest of North America (Altman and Sallabanks 2000)."
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp...flycatcher.pdf

Unitt (2004) (San Diego County Bird Atlas) judged the validity of the distinction between them needed further testing. Although in 2003 Patten & Unitt Birds of the Salton Sea they recognize majorius saying they tend to be more extensively dark ventrally although the difference is slight.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KXY...Penard&f=false

[mb1848]

overdue split" between North America and (parts of) Eurasia for Bank swallows :

Just copying internet research and links. It has been proposed to name the American Sand Martins as maximiliani at least two times: 1885 and 1952

HBW says:
Taxonomy: Hirundo riparia Linnaeus,1758. Europe = Sweden.

Described race kolymensis (E Siberia) merged with nominate and taczanowskii (L Baikal area and C Mongolia E to Ussuriland) with ijimae, but both possibly distinguishable; proposed taxon dolgushini (from SE Kazakhstan) is synonym of innominata. North American populations sometimes considered to represent a separate, supposedly smaller, race maximiliani, but differences from Eurasian birds negligible. Five subspecies recognized.


The Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Japan
Contribution to the Ornis of Saghalin, Vol. XXIII, Article 14, By Professor Dr. Einar Lönnberg, Stockholm.
p.38
45. Clivicola riparia ijimae, n. subsp.
Tretiya Padj: 1 (male), June 20.
The wing of this specimen is very short, measuring only 101 mm., while Swedish specimens have the wing from 105 mm. to 111 mm. long. This fact seemed to indicate a smaller race in Saghalin; but another specimen from the island, taken together with its eggs (but unsexed) has the wing-length of 105 mm. The difference in size is thus not constant. But the Saghalin sand-martin is darker and has more developed whitish margins to the feathers of rump, upper-tail coverts, etc. The scapulars and innermost secondaries are also edged with whitish; especially the tail feathers (except the centra pair) has narrow but very distinct white margin to the outer as well as the inner web.
These characteristics, if proved constant, as I think the are, appear to be sufficient to institute a distinct subspecies upon them. I venture therefore to propose a third name for it and take the pleasure of naming this little sand-martin in honour of Professor Ijima, the leader of the expedition of which the ornithological results are reported upon in this paper.
It scarcely needs to be emphasized that the type specimen is not a young bird; suppose that the time of year when it was collected sufficiently proves this. In Saghalin sand-martins probably do not hatch out earlier than June 20th, since eggs were collected on June 26 and 29th. Moreover, there is no trace of juvenileness in the structure of the bill and the feet, nor in the plumage. The light margins of the feathers are not sandy but pure white. Nikolski has recorded sand-martins from Saghalin. Professor Ijima has communicated to me that he had found large numbers of them nesting on the cliffs along the shore between Tretiya Padj and Soloviyofka.

The 1931 A.O.U. Check-list does not recognize a subspecific difference between the American bank swallow and the bank swallow of Europe. Oberholser (1938), however, points out that "the American bank swallow differs from the European Bank Swallow, Riparia riparia riparia, in shorter wing, relatively larger feet and bill, darker and more sooty (less rufescent) brown underparts. ... It was long ago distinguished from the European bird by Leonhard Stejneger, but his diagnosis has subsequently been overlooked or ignored, although the American bird, is however readily separable as above indicated. Stejneger named the 'American variety' of bank swallow Clivicola riparia maximiliani; and his type, subsequently designated, is an adult male, No. 8325 of the United States National Museum collection, taken at Ipswich, Mass., May 20, 1870, by C. J. Maynard." Oberholser, therefore, proposes the name Riparia riparia maximiliani (Stejneger) for Riparia riparia riparia of the 1931 A.O.U. Check-list. Whether or not the proposal to differentiate, subspecifically, the American and European representatives of the bank swallow is accepted by the A.O.U. Committee on Nomenclature, it seems advisable to limit the present account to the bank swallow in America. Wetmore (1939) does not agree with Oberholser that there is a line of demarcation between the American and European birds.

Clivicola riparia maximiliani has been treated as a simple renaming of Hirundo cinerea Vieillot, 1817, not [Hirundo] cinerea Gmelin, 1789 in which case Stejneger’s types would be identical with Vieillot’s. The latter’s name was given, however to a European form (and was therefore misapplied by Stejneger), while maximiliani was definitely bestowed upon “the American variety.”
Stejneger examined 16 American specimens, each of which must be considered a cotype. There are at this date in the museum 17 skins that certainly formed part of the collection in 1885, and it may be assumed yet others formerly existed. Since seven of these are clearly juveniles it is unlikely that Stejneger would have used their measurements, and I have treated as extant cotypes only the ten adults.

Hirundo riparia americana Wied, 1858, Journ. f. Orn., 6, p. 101

— upper Missouri, ex Audubon, 1840, Birds. Amer., 1, p. 187,
pi. 50.

Clivicola riparia maximiliani Stejneger, 1885, Bull. U. S. Nat.
Mus., no. 29, p. 378, note. New name to replace Hirundo cinerea
Vieillot, 1817, not of Latham, 1790.


Riparia riparia taczanowskii Stegmann, 1925, Compt. Rend. Acad.

Sci. Russie, p. 39 — Sidemi, Ussuri.
Riparia riparia stötzneriana Meise, 1934, Abh. Ber. Mus. Tierk.
Dresden, 18, no. 2, p. 48 — Harbin, Manchuria.
Riparia riparia stoetzneriana [as stötzneriana] Meise,1934,Abhandlungen und Berichte,Dresden Museum für Tierkunde und Volkenkunde,18,no.2,p.48. (Harbin,Manchuria). (= R.r.ijimae)

Riparia riparia stötzneriana MEISE, 1934
Abh. Ber. Mus. Tierk. Völkerk. Dresden XVIII (2): 48.
Holotypus: C28749 P ad., 22.V.1928, Charbin, leg. FARAFONOW.
Paratypen: C28751, P, 24.V.1928, (“Maoerschan” – wohl Charbin); C28752 P,
wohl 24.V.1928 (nicht “16.VIII.”); C28753 P, 24.V.1928; C28755 P, 6.VI.1928;
C28757 P, 10.VI.; C54479 P, 7.VI.1928; C28750 O, 23.V.1928; C28754 O,
25.V.1928; C28756 O, 8.VI.1928; alle: Charbin, leg. STÖTZNER
= Riparia riparia taczanowskii STEGMANN, 1925
Über den Verbleib der restlichen Paratypen (2PP und 1O, denn MEISE führt insgesamt 9PP
und 4OO an) ist nichts bekannt. – Vgl. CHENG (1987: 430), DICKINSON et al. (2001, 2003)


Riparia riparia
R. r. ijimae
Clivicola riparia ijimae Lönnberg 1908 NRM
R. r. innominata
R[iparia]. r[iparia]. innominata2 Zarudny 1916 ? 4.
Riparia riparia dolgushini Gavrilov & Savtchenko 1991 IZKA
R. r. taczanowskii
Riparia riparia taczanowskii Stegmann 1925 ZISP
Riparia riparia stötzneriana Meise 1934 MTD 5.


Results of ornithological explorations in the Commander Islands and in Kamtschatka
By Leonhard Hess Stejneger
P. 267.
The Kamtschatkan specimens collected by me agree very well with birds from Western Europe, although being a shade darker. They also agree with them in the extent of the furcation of the tail, the distance between the tips of the longest and shortest tail-feathers being as great as the length of the hind toe with claw. In all American specimens examined by me (sixteen) the same distance is hardly longer than the hind toe without claw, this being the case even in specimens from Alaska. It will therefore be well not to unite the two races, the American form being Clivicola riparia cinerea (VIEILL.)
P. 378 footnote:
Having since discovered that Hirundo cinerea is preoccupied by Latham in 1790 for another species, I propose to call the American variety Clivicola riparia maximiliani, Prince Max von Wied being the first author to distinguish it. I may add that this form has proportionally longer feet than the European race, while on the other hand the latter has a longer wing than its American representative.

Taxonomic Status of the Bank Swallow of North America
Samuel A. Arny , 356-357
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/...0356-p0357.pdf .

“Secondly, the North American population of Riparia riparia is separable
from that of Europe and Asia on the basis of two mensural characters and should
be recognized. The name R. r. maximiliani (Stejneger) is available for this population.”

[Xenospiza]

I've been listening to Bank Swallow/Sand Martin calls this evening, but it's difficult to compare without a full repertoire. The American sounds on xeno-canto vary from bad to quite likely wrong.
Both American and European birds make a (often repetitive) raspy sound, but do the American birds also make the falling whistles shown in the attached sonagram as two parallel "dropping lines"? (the sound originates from Roché & Chevereau’s CD).

[mb1848]

The audio on the Birds of North America Online has some whistles on it but I thought maybe it was another bird, not Riparia?? The sonogram of those whistles were not double and not shaped like yours. But the Sounds section of BNA does mention a feeding call given by an adult as they fly in to feed young which was sweet fine notes. So???

[njlarsen]

A search on http://macaulaylibrary.org/index.do gave 97 sand martins, some videos and the rest just sound recordings, and as far as a quick look could discern, all from US or Canada.

Niels

[Xenospiza]

I'll have a browse there!

[Xenospiza]

The American birds have a similar call, but I can't really get a good sonagram out of it with Cornell's Raven viewer – not good enough for comparison anyway.

[CAU]

Originally Posted by Xenospiza

The American birds have a similar call, but I can't really get a good sonagram out of it with Cornell's Raven viewer – not good enough for comparison anyway.

Here's a direct link to the file:
http://mlaudio.ornith.cornell.edu/0/8602.mp3
You can try to download it and create a sonogram with the software of your choice (though I don't know if other software will perform better than Cornell's).