• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Redpoll Taxonomy (1 Viewer)

Johnny Allan

Johnny Allan

Dip or Glory
Hi there,

at the moment I'm trapped on a UK400Club 'List of lists'. I don't want to be there as I follow the BOU British List but apparently it is compulsory if you twitch birds in Britain and you become subject to their taxonomy.

Anyway, whilst I'm there, I'm looking at the UK400Club taxonomy, at the moment Redpolls. Now the BOU recognise three species of Redpoll, those being:

Lesser Carduelis cabaret
Common Carduelis flammea
Arctic Carduelis hornemanni (exilipes and hornemanni)

The UK400 Club recognise five species, the above three plus:

North Western Carduelis rostrata
Hornemann's Carduels hornemanni (hornemanni)

I am always being told that there's a distinct possibility that C cabaret and flammea are likely to be lumped again so where does Redpoll taxonomy stand at the moment ? Is there any consensus or is it still under investigation ?

I have tried to glean what I can from books and the net but can't find the latest thoughts. I noticed, of course, that the latest Collins Bird Guide has cabaret and flammea together.

I know that there are some knowledgeable guys out there, with some expertise on this subject, who I'm hoping can help me to understand the latest thinking on Redpolls

Many thanks

Johnny Allan
 
A little knowledge and even less expertise but I seem to remember reading (I'll find the link when I get a moment) that the most recent DNA studies suggested that they were all one species or that the divergence was recent or something along those lines.

Edit
Link and associated paper can be purchased here as a PDF (or someone who has already purchased said paper may kindly share free of charge if they can tear themselves from the Soap Opera thread).

The abstract states

We found no structure among redpoll individuals in mtDNA haplotypes or microsatellite allele frequencies, and only marginal differences between redpoll taxa in analyses of molecular variance (AMOVAs) of predefined groups. In contrast, the two twite subspecies constituted two well-supported monophyletic groups. Our study thus strengthens previous indications of low genetic support for current redpoll taxa. Two major alternative interpretations exist. Either redpolls form a single gene pool with geographical polymorphisms possibly explained by Bergmann’s and Gloger’s rules, or there are separate gene pools of recent origin but with too little time elapsed for genetic differentiation to have evolved in the investigated markers. Future studies should therefore examine whether reproductive isolation mechanisms and barriers to gene flow exist in areas with sympatric breeding.
 
Last edited:
This might get more replies if moved to the taxonomy forum (mods?)

For the record, BOU recognizes 3 species, while IOC, Clements, and AOU each recognize two species within the complex. I believe the BOU split the Lesser (A. cabaret) form off based on some preliminary research suggesting this form did not breed with Common in their area of overlap, but since then other research have detected additional hybrid zones.

I know of at least 4 field recognizable forms (I am unfamiliar with the "northwestern" form, probably because of I am ignorant of old world subspecies limits in this group). Whether these all qualify as distinct species is difficult to say, although right now things are leaning toward "no". At any rate certainly an interesting complex.

Incidentally the UK400 is not recognized by any scientific body as a taxonomic authority, and while you should make efforts to see all diagnosable forms in case they are split, you don't have to follow them.
 
Expanding on Morgan's post, the current situation is as follows...

All relevant authorities recognise Carduelis flammea and C hornemanni.

C cabaret is split from C flammea by BOU, CSNA, AOU, Clements, HBW and UK400 Club (following Knox et al 2001: The taxonomic status of Lesser Redpoll); but not by AERC, IOC, BirdLife or H&M3.

See also Ottvall et al 2002 (No evidence of genetic differentiation between lesser redpolls Carduelis flammea cabaret and common redpolls Carduelis f. flammea), and Marthinsen et al 2008 (Low support for separate species within the redpoll complex (Carduelis flammea–hornemanni–cabaret) from analyses of mtDNA and microsatellite markers).

[As Johnny noted, UK400 Club additionally splits C rostrata (incl 'islandica') from C flammea; and C exilipes from C hornemanni.]
 
I would be the first to recommend a relumping of these taxa Richard because I would be the only top lister to benefit - I'm the only one who hasn't seen a Hornemann's Arctic Redpoll. But as the list is not only for me, I have to adhere to what people who steer the AERC say (eg George Sangster) and on current information (and following the PSC cocept which seems to be the popular one at the moment), five redpolls are the recommendations. If you read my many emails of the subject, you will realise that I am all for the ''one'' species of redpoll - I also produced an identification guide on redpolls.

The UK400 Club is not a scientific body - it takes its guidance from elsewhere, much in the same way that the CSNA and Dutch Birding do. It is a listing organisation.
 
Mysticete said:
This might get more replies if moved to the taxonomy forum (mods?)

For the record, BOU recognizes 3 species, while IOC, Clements, and AOU each recognize two species within the complex. I believe the BOU split the Lesser (A. cabaret) form off based on some preliminary research suggesting this form did not breed with Common in their area of overlap, but since then other research have detected additional hybrid zones.

I know of at least 4 field recognizable forms (I am unfamiliar with the "northwestern" form, probably because of I am ignorant of old world subspecies limits in this group). Whether these all qualify as distinct species is difficult to say, although right now things are leaning toward "no". At any rate certainly an interesting complex.

Incidentally the UK400 is not recognized by any scientific body as a taxonomic authority, and while you should make efforts to see all diagnosable forms in case they are split, you don't have to follow them.
Click to expand...

Thanks Mysticete, Mods are you out there ? I don't know how to do this myself
 
Richard Klim said:
Expanding on Morgan's post, the current situation is as follows...

All relevant authorities recognise Carduelis flammea and C hornemanni.

C cabaret is split from C flammea by BOU, CSNA, AOU, Clements, HBW and UK400 Club (following Knox et al 2001: The taxonomic status of Lesser Redpoll); but not by AERC, IOC, BirdLife or H&M3.

See also Ottvall et al 2002 (No evidence of genetic differentiation between lesser redpolls Carduelis flammea cabaret and common redpolls Carduelis f. flammea), and Marthinsen et al 2008 (Low support for separate species within the redpoll complex (Carduelis flammea–hornemanni–cabaret) from analyses of mtDNA and microsatellite markers).

[As Johnny noted, UK400 Club additionally splits C rostrata (incl 'islandica') from C flammea; and C exilipes from C hornemanni.]
Click to expand...

Many thanks for that Richard, I was hoping you would be able to help. Forgive me if I appear obtuse if I've missed this but which authority/ies currently recognises the five species of Redpoll currently recognised by the UK400 Club ?

Kind regards

Johnny Allan
 
Hi Lee,

My reading of the genetic data is that their isn't any phylogenetic structure, which would suggest that on the basis of current evidence, only one species should be recognized.

Although they are still of course worthy to look at, and good to have on a diagnosable form list
 
Johnny Allan said:
Forgive me if I appear obtuse if I've missed this but which authority/ies currently recognises the five species of Redpoll currently recognised by the UK400 Club?
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, only UK400 Club currently recognises C rostrata and C exilipes as species (Dutch Birding lists them as "distinct subspecies").

C cabaret is recognised by BOU, CSNA/Dutch Birding, AOU, Cornell/Clements and HBW.

C hornemanni (and, of course, C flammea) is currently recognised by all relevant authorities - but see Marthinsen et al 2008.
 
Many thanks Richard,

I read a long time ago, in Birding World I think, that these Redpoll were all genetically very similar (if that 's the right term to use).

Kind regards

Johnny Allan

Richard Klim said:
As far as I'm aware, only UK400 Club currently recognises C rostrata and C exilipes as species (Dutch Birding lists them as "distinct subspecies").

C cabaret is recognised by BOU, CSNA/Dutch Birding, AOU, Cornell/Clements and HBW.

C hornemanni (and, of course, C flammea) is currently recognised by all relevant authorities - but see Marthinsen et al 2008.
Click to expand...
 
The reason that the DNA results are so contradicting and suggest such results is that the redpolls have only recently (in comparative terms) diverged and the 'Arctic-type' redpoll cline continues to adapt and become more isolated on a daily basis. DNA can never show this, not for several thousand years. As far as I know, there has never been any proof of intergradation between Lesser, Mealy, Scandinavian Arctic, Hornemann's Arctic and Greenland Redpoll. As for Icelandic and North American Hoary Redpolls, too little work has been done on either to understand the complexities of the situation. I just think if we are giong to split things, it needs to be consistent - and using the same criteria - that is why I lead heavily on George Sangster's recommendations......
 
Lee Evans said:
The reason that the DNA results are so contradicting and suggest such results is that the redpolls have only recently (in comparative terms) diverged and the 'Arctic-type' redpoll cline continues to adapt and become more isolated on a daily basis. DNA can never show this, not for several thousand years. As far as I know, there has never been any proof of intergradation between Lesser, Mealy, Scandinavian Arctic, Hornemann's Arctic and Greenland Redpoll. As for Icelandic and North American Hoary Redpolls, too little work has been done on either to understand the complexities of the situation. I just think if we are giong to split things, it needs to be consistent - and using the same criteria - that is why I lead heavily on George Sangster's recommendations......
Click to expand...

I thought the lack of DNA divergence was thought to be due to secondary contact leading to gene flow between phenotypes?
 
My viewpoint is that we just don't know enough of what is going on between these taxa. I wouldn't lump Hoary and Common Redpolls, but would like to see a lot more work done (genetics, etc) before we split off more taxa.
 
I don't know if his work has been developed or still holds up (and it would be interesting to know), but Troy (1985) recommended lumping Mealy and Hoary Redpolls in North America, and suggested merging the Old World forms too:

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v102n01/p0082-p0096.pdf

Certainly his assertion that each form might be a morph kept partly separate by incomplete assortative mating could be illuminating with further research.

Apparently "females never become as 'hoary' as males", too. Discuss ...

PS - it's always worth remembering just how plastic and recently evolved most finch species are. Just look at what they cross redpolls with in captivity:

http://www.birdinfo.co.uk/sites/Mules_Hybrids/redpoll_crosses.htm
 
David Sibley's blog (http://sibleyguides.blogspot.com/search/label/redpolls) has much cumulative wisdom on this species complex across the Atlantic, including this spot on statement:

"So we need two different approaches to identification. The traditional conservative approach is fine if we acknowledge its limits and we are just trying to be confident about adding Hoary Redpoll to a list. But if we are trying to understand Hoary Redpoll as a species, we need a more inclusive definition that will identify the whole population. In the short term, I think we need to use the "intermediate" label more, calling lots of birds "intermediate" until we get a better understanding of where to draw the line."

You could probably just as easily insert the names of the other forms in that quote, too, as well as the phrase "if there actually is truly a line" at the end ...
 
Thanks for the link to the Declan Troy paper. I spent a fascinating couple of hours in a small area of boreal forest and its ecotone with open tundra, between Nome and Council, on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska, earlier this month, watching redpolls. In an area of c.2 ha I saw just about every phenotype possible, I reckon, at least in males, from pretty much classic exilipes to equally if not even more classic flammea. In such a short period of time, I was of course unable to elucidate whether these birds were mating assortatively or not, or the reason/s for all of the intermediates, which certainly seemed to outnumber ‘classics’ of either named phenotype, and certainly did so with respect to exilipes. But, ‘twas a great spot for someone to really get their teeth into this issue. (I must admit I gave up trying to understand what was going on eventually, and just enjoyed some splendid Pine Grosbeaks instead.)
 
Josh Jones has kindly spent the £2 I was too tight to shell out and bought the Marthinsen paper, sending me a copy in the process and encouraging me to share the love. Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • Marthinsen et al 2008.pdf
    933.6 KB · Views: 329
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

J
Birding Asia Taxonomy
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Andy Adcock
Andy Adcock
J
Messy Taxonomy
Replies
15
Views
3K
James Lowther
J
G
Leica, Zeiss & Swarovski binoculars compared: A personal report
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Paultricounty
P
V
Arctic redpoll male?, Eastern Finland, 28.02.20
Replies
3
Views
493
Jefferson Shank
Jefferson Shank
Taphrospilus
A couple of couesi
Replies
3
Views
646
PScofield
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top