Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 30th April 2014, 21:07   #1
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 9,670
Passerellidae

Klicka, Barker, Burns, Lanyon, Lovette, Chaves & Bryson (in press). A comprehensive multilocus assessment of sparrow (Aves: Passerellidae) relationships. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]
Quote:
5. Conclusion
Modern taxonomies need be altered to include the 128 species shown in Fig. 1 as these represent all known extant species within the avian family Passerellidae (Barker et al. 2013). Importantly, this assemblage now includes the two traditionally thraupid genera Chlorospingus and Oreothraupis (although the former is polyphyletic, with C. flavovirens remaining placed among the tanagers). It no longer includes Emberiza and its allies (Urocynchramus, Melophus, Latoucheornis, Miliaria), nor does it include any of the taxa currently recognized as "tanager finches" (see Remsen et al., 2013). The latter includes 15 genera (Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus, Melopyrrha, Tiaris, Loxipasser, Loxigilla, Euneornis, Melanospiza, Pinaroloxias, Haplospiza, Acanthidops, Diglossa, Sicalis, Emberizoides) still recognized as sparrows in some current taxonomies (e.g. AOU, 1998).
Given the subjective nature of higher-level taxonomy, we focus only on those recommended changes that would eliminate para- or polyphyly within the group as it is currently configured. Ammodramus is polyphyletic; it is our recommendation that Ammospiza (Oberholser, 1905) be resurrected for the leconteii-maritimus-nelsoni-caudacutus clade and Passerherbulus (Stone 1907) for bairdii-henslowi. Pselliophorus (two species) is embedded within an otherwise monophyletic Atlapetes and should be subsumed within the latter genus. Spizella is also polyphyletic. The most efficient and appropriate solution to this problem is to erect a new genus for Spizella arborea.
[See also: Emberizoidea.]

Last edited by Richard Klim : Thursday 1st May 2014 at 08:06. Reason: Barker et al 2013.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 01:13   #2
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wyoming, USA
Posts: 2,740
Someone really should go back in time and get the authors of Passerherbulus to pick a different generic name...
__________________
World: 1184, ABA: 617
Last Lifer: Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Last ABA:Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Mammal: 228 Herp: 172
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 06:53   #3
gusasp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 44
C. flavovirens: that's a shocker! Can't be that many examples of congeneric species turning out to belong to completely different families. The American Tree, is it sister to Passerella as in previous studies? And the different parts of Ammodramus, do they still belong to the same clade?
gusasp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 07:27   #4
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysticete View Post
Someone really should go back in time and get the authors of Passerherbulus to pick a different generic name...
"Likely, some taxonomists would favor merging Xenospiza and Melospiza, resurrecting the genus Passerherbulus (Stone 1907) for henslowii and bairdii, and retaining Passerculus as a monotypic form. Such a taxonomy would be consistent with the relationships depicted in Figure 1. However, Figure 2B indicates that precise relationships within the group remain equivocal. A henslowii–bairdii sister relationship is not certain, nor is the relationship of this putative pair with either Melospiza or Passerculus. To accommodate this uncertainty and reflect the known evolutionary pattern, we advocate merging all these taxa (Fig. 2B) into a single genus. Among the genera listed, Passerculus (Bonaparte 1838) has priority and should be used."
(Klicka & Spellman 2007 [pdf])

This solution is still perfectly valid.
The group is oversplit, so why split it still more?
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 07:42   #5
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusasp View Post
C. flavovirens: that's a shocker! Can't be that many examples of congeneric species turning out to belong to completely different families. The American Tree, is it sister to Passerella as in previous studies?
Spizella abrorea is sister to Passerella in the mtDNA tree (BS=90, PP=.99); but this node is unresolved in the nDNA tree and in the combined mt+nDNA analysis. The combined tree has a "tetrachotomy" (if I dare ) [Spizella abrorea; Passerella; Zonotrichia; Junco].

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 1st May 2014 at 07:45. Reason: missing word
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 08:30   #6
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 9,670
Passerherbulus

Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
The group is oversplit, so why split it still more?
Klicka et al (in press)...
Quote:
As a more conservative alternative, bairdii-henslowi may be placed into a more inclusive new genus that includes all additional elements of the subclade (Passerculus, Melospiza, and Xenospiza). From among these genera, Passerculus (Bonaparte 1838) has priority and would be most appropriate.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 09:22   #7
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
And, as a still more conservative alternative, if you accept the combined analysis, leconteii-maritimus-nelsoni-caudacutus can go into Passerculus as well...
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 09:48   #8
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,114
Couple of pretty shocking errors in this paper, hope they can correct them before going to print:

Quote:
Passerellidae .... no longer includes Emberiza and its allies (Urocynchramus, Melophus, Latoucheornis, Miliaria)
Passerellidae never has included any of those genera; they were, are, and always have been, in Emberizidae. A better wording would be:
Quote:
Passerellidae .... genera have been split out from their former inclusion in Emberizidae (Emberiza and its allies Urocynchramus, Melophus, Latoucheornis, Miliaria)
And the title
Quote:
A comprehensive multilocus assessment of sparrow (Aves: Passerellidae) relationships
is also inaccurate and very misleading; sparrows are of course Passeridae, not Passerellidae. Some title editing is badly needed!

- - - -

Quote:
Originally Posted by gusasp View Post
C. flavovirens: that's a shocker! Can't be that many examples of congeneric species turning out to belong to completely different families.
Just last month, Spelaeornis formosus split out from Spelaeornis to Elachura formosa and placed in monotypic Elachuridae.
Nutcracker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 10:19   #9
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutcracker View Post
Passerellidae never has included any of those genera; they were, are, and always have been, in Emberizidae.
Agreed that the formulation is poor (even if it is "this assemblage", by which they presumably mean the clade formed by these species, that was though to include Emberiza--the claim is nomenclaturally incorrect, but phylogenetically it may be more defendable).
Btw, Urocynchramus seems quite unlikely to be allied to Emberiza (Gebauer et al. 2006 [1st page], Yang et al. 2006 [pdf]).

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 1st May 2014 at 10:22.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 22:12   #10
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wyoming, USA
Posts: 2,740
The authors are US-based. "Sparrow" is a perfectly okay name to use to refer to members of Passerellidae: Most members of the clade uses sparrow in the common name. I suppose they could use a more exact name like "New World Sparrows", but I don't see an issue. As long as the latin is correct, target readers shouldn't be confused.
__________________
World: 1184, ABA: 617
Last Lifer: Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Last ABA:Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Mammal: 228 Herp: 172
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 1st May 2014, 22:24   #11
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysticete View Post
The authors are US-based. "Sparrow" is a perfectly okay name to use to refer to members of Passerellidae: Most members of the clade uses sparrow in the common name. I suppose they could use a more exact name like "New World Sparrows", but I don't see an issue. As long as the latin is correct, target readers shouldn't be confused.
The authors are US-based, but the journal (Mol. Phyl. Evol., published by Elsevier) is a Dutch multinational with a global readership; to make the assumption that 'sparrow' can only refer to Passerellidae is something where I definitely do see an issue.
Nutcracker is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd May 2014, 05:32   #12
andrew147
Registered User
 
andrew147's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 74
"C. flavovirens remaining placed among the tanagers"

They don't elaborate on this further in the paper. Any idea where amongst the tanagers?
__________________
Mammals: 252 (Montane Squirrel)
Birds: 2081 (Volcano Hummingbird)
Reptiles: 82 (Olive Ridley)
andrew147 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd May 2014, 13:11   #13
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wyoming, USA
Posts: 2,740
They include Passerellidae in parantheses...I don't see the source of confusion...
__________________
World: 1184, ABA: 617
Last Lifer: Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Last ABA:Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Mammal: 228 Herp: 172
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd May 2014, 16:07   #14
Xenospiza
Digging for fire
 
Xenospiza's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Münsterland’s collapsing coal fields
Posts: 8,671
I am all in favour of merging Melospiza and Xenospiza with Passerculus if that can save us from Passerherbulus!
Xenospiza is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 2nd May 2014, 16:55   #15
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 9,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenospiza View Post
I am all in favour of merging Melospiza and Xenospiza with Passerculus if that can save us from Passerherbulus!
That's very generous, J-H. Anyway, 'Little sparrow' is cuter than 'Strange finch'.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 07:00   #16
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 9,670
Passerherbulus

Klicka et al...
Quote:
...it is our recommendation that... Passerherbulus (Stone 1907) [be resurrected] for bairdii-henslowi.
John Boyd has noted that the type of Passerherbulus is lecontei, and that Centronyx (Baird, 1858) applies to bairdii-henslowi – as used in TiF for some time.
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List30.html#passerellidae
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 11:53   #17
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
John Boyd has noted that the type of Passerherbulus is lecontei, and that Centronyx (Baird, 1858) applies to bairdii-henslowi – as used in TiF for some time.
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List30.html#passerellidae
- Centronyx Baird, 1858. [OD]. Type species Emberiza bairdii Audubon, by monotypy.

This one seems easy, indeed. It also seems clear that Passerherbulus applies to the group including leconteii. Which name is valid for this group, though, may be rather less clear...

- Passerherbulus Maynard, 1895. [Richmond Index card]. Type species, fide Richmond, Emberiza leconteii Audubon, by original designation. I don't seem to be able to find the OD on the web right now. (I find the work, but not the right edition, and the name is not there.)
- Ammospiza Oberholser, 1905. [OD]. Type species Oriolus caudacutus Gmelin, by original designation.
- Passerherbulus Stone, 1907. ["OD"].

Oberholser introduced Ammospiza in 1905. Richmond then noted that Passerherbulus Maynard, 1895, already applied to the same group. Stone (1907) published this finding, attributing Passerherbulus to Maynard, 1895, and giving it priority over Ammospiza. Later, Oberholser (1917) argued that Passerherbulus was not available from Maynard (1895) and had to be dated from Stone (1907)--thereby giving priority to the name he had himself proposed. The reasons he cited are however somewhat disputable under the present rules, and Richmond clearly thought the name was available from the original work.

Who was correct...?

Last edited by l_raty : Saturday 3rd May 2014 at 13:26.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 15:04   #18
l_raty
laurent raty

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: belgium
Posts: 830
It is here: Maynard (1896):
Quote:
I do not include Leconte's Bunting under this head, for I think that it should be placed in a separate genus, for which I propose the name, Passerherbulus; for generic characters of which see the forthcoming appendix.
There is apparently no "forthcoming appendix", hence we are stuck with the above. Oberholser (1917) commented:
Quote:
[...] the only indication of type is the citation of the name "LeConte's Bunting" without authority or other statement of origin; furthermore, this name does not occur elsewhere in Maynard's book, for on a previous page where the bird is described it is called LeConte's Sparrow.
The absence of included available nominal species does not make a name unavailable--a description or an illustration of the taxon denoted by the name would be enough. In the book, we are given both a description and an illustration of Leconte's Sparrow. Where there is a problem, however, is that what is included in the new genus is not called "Leconte's Sparrow", but "Leconte's Bunting", thus the link between the description or illustration, and the genus name appears broken.

Well, almost broken, actually... In fact, contra Oberholser (1917), "Leconte's Bunting" does occur elsewhere in this book: in the index, pointing to p.507, ie., the description of Leconte's Sparrow.

(Making this name unavailable seems, in any case, a rather subjective decision.)

Last edited by l_raty : Saturday 3rd May 2014 at 18:10.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 18:09   #19
Acanthis
Finchnut
 
Acanthis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: East Lothian, Scotland
Posts: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
"C. flavovirens remaining placed among the tanagers"

They don't elaborate on this further in the paper. Any idea where amongst the tanagers?
Good question! Will we need a another new genus for flavovirens?
__________________
SANDY
Lifelist (IOC): 750
Latest Lifer: Blue-winged Teal
Latest Fringillid: Scarlet Rosefinch
Acanthis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 19:13   #20
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 1,246
TiF Update May 3:
The recent paper by Klicka et al. (2014) has led to some changes in the Passerellidae...
...The Yellow-green Chlorospingus, Chlorospingus flavovirens, returns to the tanagers.

Thraupidae: Incertae sedis: "Chlorospingus" flavovirens
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 3rd May 2014, 19:30   #21
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 1,246
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acanthis View Post
Good question! Will we need a another new genus for flavovirens?
Sergio Córdoba-Córdoba, 2014. Contrasting Phylogeography and Speciation History of Birds in The Northern Andes: a comparative phylogeographic approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University:

...To construct the relationships in the Chlorospingus clade, we included most taxa of the genus (except C. flavovirens)...

...For each group I obtained sequences for all the species in the genus (except for one species considered sometimes a subspecies in the hummingbird genus Aglaiocercus (A. berlepschi) and one species in the genus Chlorospingus (C. flavovirens) for which no samples could be obtained)...

Abstract and PDF here

Last edited by Peter Kovalik : Saturday 3rd May 2014 at 19:48.
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 4th May 2014, 00:05   #22
johnallcock
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 406
Quote:
Originally Posted by gusasp View Post
C. flavovirens: that's a shocker! Can't be that many examples of congeneric species turning out to belong to completely different families.
Fulvettas were split from Alcippe and are now often listed in multiple families (depending on the way you treat babbler taxonomy). TiF includes them in three different families - Paradoxornithidae, Pellorneidae and Leiothrichidae (http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List23.html#sylviidae)
johnallcock is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th May 2014, 21:43   #23
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 1,246
Junco

Borja Mila, Guillermo T Friis, Pau Aleixandre. Cryptic divergence and evolutionary convergence in the diversification of the songbird genus Junco (Aves: Emberizidae). XIV Congress of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology. Lisbon, 2013.

Summary:
The rate and magnitude of phenotypic evolution can vary greatly among traits and taxa, and cases of convergent evolution and mutation-order divergence can further confound lineage history and the inference of speciation processes. We use molecular genetic tools and patterns of phenotypic variation to reconstruct the evolutionary history of the songbird genus Junco in order to understand the factors, mechanisms and timing of their diversification across North America. Analysis of mtDNA sequence and AFLPs revealed that plumage diversity in the dark-eyed junco, which has puzzled ornithologists for over a century, evolved recently as the yellow-eyed junco colonized the North American continent from southern Mexico following the Last Glacial Maximum. A new analysis of all known junco forms using a multilocus dataset reveals that junco populations at the tip of Baja California, Guadalupe Island in the Pacific, and the highlands of Guatemala, represent divergent lineages that have been isolated for hundreds of thousands of years, yet have differentiated relatively little in most traits. A phylogeny of the group reveals that the yellow-eyed and dark-eyed juncos are paraphyletic taxa. The Guadalupe junco is an old evolutionary lineage whose similarity to mainland dark-eyed juncos in plumage and eye color is due to convergence. Some phenotypic traits (eye and several plumage color traits) are not phylogenetically informative in juncos, whereas bill color or song characters are more consistent with neutral genetic markers. Drift or mutation-order divergence in long-term geographic isolation likely explains the differentiation of Guatemala and Baja juncos. In contrast, a role for sexual selection must be invoked to explain the rapid diversification of continental dark-eyed junco taxa. New genomic markers are being developed in order to clarify phylogenetic relationships among incipient lineages, identify “divergence islands”, and detect specific regions under selection.
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 30th May 2014, 04:12   #24
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 1,246
Proposal (633) to SACC:

Modify linear sequence of genera and species in Emberizidae
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Search the net with ask.com
Help support BirdForum
Ask.com and get

Page generated in 0.24975610 seconds with 34 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13.