• 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.

Philippine species limits (1 Viewer)

Statius Müller's 1776, Merops americanus, was based on de Buffon's Guêpier de l'Isle de France. He probably forgot that the Île de France (now Mauritius) was in the Indian Ocean, and perhaps thought it was either in the West Indies or in Louisiana (French America), or had come thence via Mauritius. Despite the fact that both de Buffon and Statius Müller were wrong as to the habitat of their bird, the name must still stand, joining such as Numenius madagascariensis, Sakesphorus canadensis, Bucco capensis, Touit batavica, Caryothraustes canadensis and Turnagra capensis. However, they are only labels by which birds or animals can be identified; once we start changing scientific names because they are "wrong" chaos will prevail. Before you know where we are someone will be trying to regulate English bird-names!

If the 'scientific' doesn't have to be be correct then what does!


A
 
Andy, I agree in full with James!

What´s "correct" with (for example) Morus Vieillot 1816, as in Northern Gannet M. bassanus ... ? ;)

B


Could you explain that for me, Morus Bassanus after the fact that something like 75% of the World population breeds on the Bass rock, I see no issue with this?

There is a link at least, the Bee-eater has no place and no connection with the Americas.

Why Vieillot?

James states 'the name must stand'.....for the sake of a layman, why?


A
 
Last edited:
What´s "correct" with (for example) Morus Vieillot 1816, as in Northern Gannet M. bassanus ... ? ;)

Could you explain that for me, Morus Bassanus after the fact that something like 75% of the World population breeds on the Bass rock, I see no issue with this?

That Vieillot used Morus for gannets and Sula for boobies - should have been the other way round (Sula is derived from the Old Norse name for Gannet, Morus is Latin for a fool / booby)
 
That Vieillot used Morus for gannets and Sula for boobies - should have been the other way round (Sula is derived from the Old Norse name for Gannet, Morus is Latin for a fool / booby)
But Vieillot spoke French, and all Sulidae are "fous" in this language. (Fou = fool, silly, lunatic, insane.) Including the gannets.
 
But Vieillot spoke French, and all Sulidae are "fous" in this language. (Fou = fool, silly, lunatic, insane.) Including the gannets.

Names can change obviously, birds are shuffled in to different families all the time. You still didn't explain James' comment 'the name must still stand', if they can change the family, why not the rest if it's wrong?

Please tolerate my ignorance!



A
 
Last edited:
Nomenclature is full of inaccurate or "wrong" names. In times past many purists attempted to cleanse the system of inaccurate names (e.g. calling for the replacement of 'barbarisms' that did not have classical origins, or words that had no apparent meaning, or hybrids incorporating modern and classical languages). However, it is now appreciated that scientific names in zoology are merely arbitrary labels feeding our insatiable appetite for order in the natural world. They do not have to be accurate or "right," but they do have to be valid to be recognised under the current and/or previous rules. Learn the scientific names, as do many of our friends on the Continent, and enjoy your birds.
 
They do not have to be accurate or "right," but they do have to be valid to be recognised under the current and/or previous rules. Learn the scientific names, as do many of our friends on the Continent, and enjoy your birds.

Sorry James, as I said, I find the term 'scientific' for an inaccurate name to be a bit contrary and I can hold my own with most when it comes to scientific names, I don't enjoy my birding any more or less for it.

You still haven't told me why the names 'must stand', what's wrong with correcting an error?

I admit to no scientific training in this but find it a bit absurd and slightly aloof.



A
 
Last edited:
Every time a name changes, it becomes that much more difficult to make searches to include the biological data known about that species. One thing is that taxonomists would have an idea about the change (possibly), but a researcher in behavior or ecology is that much more unlikely to know how to find prior names.

Niels
 
Andy, the scientific name must stand because it´s a code, nothing else, simply to make it possible for us all to tell which bird was the first of its kind. The name itself is not necessarily a description, it can be all wrong, in every meaning, if that´s what the first author (post-1758) decided to call it, or how he/she wrote it. Logic mustn't´t be part of it, not of the (species) name itself. We can wish it was ... but it´s not.
 
Andy, the scientific name must stand because it´s a code, nothing else, simply to make it possible for us all to tell which bird was the first of its kind. The name itself is not necessarily a description, it can be all wrong, in every meaning, if that´s what the first author (post-1758) decided to call it, or how he/she wrote it. Logic mustn't´t be part of it, not of the (species) name itself. We can wish it was ... but it´s not.

That's what I wanted to know, thanks Calalp


A
 
Article 18 of the current ICZN (1999) deals with Inappropriate and tautonymous names, stating: "The availability of a name is not affected by inappropriateness or tautonymy ... Examples. Names such as Polyodon, Apus, albus or sinensis are not to be rejected because of a claim that they denote a character or distribution not possessed by the taxon. Species-group names such as bison in Bison bison and troglodytes in Troglodytes troglodytes are not to be rejected because of tautonymy." Other grounds must be sought to replace a name. I agree that common sense takes a back-seat in the bureaucracy of the ICZN, where priority, not accuracy, is all powerful.
 
Just adding this here to keep it up-to-dateish.
Christopher C. Kyriazis, Bushra Alam, Mark Wjodyla, Shannon Hackett, Peter Hosner, Herman L. Mays Jr.,
Lawrence R. Heaney, Sushma Reddy. Colonization and diversification of the White-browed Shortwing (Aves: Muscicapidae: Brachypteryx montana) in the Philippines. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution . In Press, Accepted Manuscript. Available online 2 January 2018.

Abstract
Molecular phylogenetic approaches have greatly improved our knowledge of the pattern and process of biological diversification across the globe; however, many regions remain poorly documented, even for well-studied vertebrate groups. The Philippine archipelago, one of the least-studied ‘biodiversity hotspots’, is an ideal natural laboratory for investigating the mechanisms driving diversification in an insular and geologically dynamic setting. We investigated the history and geography of diversification of the Philippine populations of a widespread montane bird, the White-browed Shortwing (Brachypteryx montana). Leveraging dense archipelago-wide sampling, we generated a multi-locus genetic dataset (one nuclear and two mtDNA markers), which we analyzed using phylogenetic, population genetic, and coalescent-based methods. Our results demonstrate that Philippine shortwings 1) likely colonized the Philippines from the Sunda Shelf to Mindanao in the late Miocene or Pliocene, 2) diversified across inter-island barriers into three divergent lineages during the Pleistocene, 3) have not diversified within the largest island, Luzon, contrary to patterns observed in other montane taxa, and 4) colonized Palawan from the oceanic Philippines rather than from Borneo, challenging the assumption of Palawan functioning exclusively as a biogeographic extension of the Sunda Shelf. Additionally, our finding that divergent (c. 2.1 mya) lineages are coexisting in secondary sympatry on Mindanao without apparent gene flow suggests that the speciation process is likely complete for these shortwing lineages. Overall, these investigations provide insight into how topography and island boundaries influence diversification within remote oceanic archipelagos and echo the results of many other studies in demonstrating that taxonomic diversity continues to be underestimated in the Philippines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790317304359
 
Fine-scale endemism

Hosner P.A., Campillo L.C., Andersen M.J., Sánchez‑González L.A., Oliveros C.H., Urriza R.C. & Moyle R.G., in press. An integrative species delimitation approach reveals fine-scale endemism and substantial unrecognized avian diversity in the Philippine Archipelago. Conserv. Genet.

Here
 
Lim, B.T.M., Sadanandan, K.R., Dingle, C. et al. Molecular evidence suggests radical revision of species limits in the great speciator white-eye genus Zosterops. J Ornithol (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-018-1583-7

Abstract:

White-eyes (Zosterops spp.) are a group of small passerines distributed across the Eastern Hemisphere that have become a textbook example of rapid speciation. However, traditional taxonomy has relied heavily on conservative plumage features to delimit white-eye species boundaries, resulting in several recent demonstrations of misclassification. Resolution of confused taxonomy is important in order to correctly delimit species and identify taxa which may require conservation, particularly in Asia where the songbird trade is decimating wild populations. In this study, we aim to untangle multiple instances of confused taxonomic treatment in three large, widespread Asian wastebasket species complexes of white-eye (Oriental White-eye Zosterops palpebrosus, Japanese White-eye Zosterops japonicus and Mountain White-eye Zosterops montanus) renowned for their conservative morphology. Using mitochondrial DNA from 173 individuals spanning 42 taxa, we uncovered extensive polyphyly in Z. palpebrosus and Z. japonicus and propose some radically revised species limits under which former members of Z. palpebrosus and Z. japonicus would be reassigned into four and two different species, respectively. The revised taxonomy results in a net loss of two previously recognized species and a net gain of two newly recognized species, leading to significant taxonomic change but a lack of additional species-level diversity. One of the newly elevated species, Zosterops melanurus from Java and Bali, is also the world’s most heavily traded songbird and requires urgent conservation attention.

Relevant conclusions:
In summary, we propose the following taxonomic arrangement for Z. japonicus:
Zosterops japonicus—Mountain White-eye.
Zosterops japonicus japonicus Temminck & Schlegel,
1845—Sakhalin, Japan and coastal Korean Peninsula.
Zosterops japonicus insularis Ogawa, 1905—extreme
northern Ryukyu Islands.
Zosterops japonicus loochooensis Tristram, 1889—main
Ryukyu Islands.
Zosterops japonicus daitoensis Nagamichi Kuroda,
1923—Borodino Island.
Zosterops japonicus stejnegeri Seebohm, 1891—Oshima
(Izu Island) south to Torishima (Nanpo Archipelago).
Zosterops japonicus alani E. J. O. Hartert, 1905—Iwo
(Volcano) Island.
Zosterops japonicus montanus Bonaparte, 1850—moun-
tains in Sumatra, Java, Bali, Lesser Sundas, Sulawesi and
southern Moluccas.
Zosterops japonicus whiteheadi E. J. O. Hartert, 1903—
highlands of Luzon.
Zosterops japonicus halconensis Mearns, 1907—Mind-
oro.
Zosterops japonicus parkesi duPont, 1971—mountains
of Palawan.
Zosterops japonicus pectoralis Mayr, 1945—Negros.
Zosterops japonicus diuatae Salomonsen, 1953—north-
ern Mindanao.
Zosterops japonicus volcani E. J. O. Hartert, 1903—central Mindanao.
Zosterops japonicus difficilis Robinson & Kloss, 1918— Mount Dempo in south Sumatra.
Zosterops japonicus obstinatus E. J. O. Hartert, 1900— Ternate, Tidore, Bacan, Seram.
 
Campbell KK, Braile T, Winker K (2016) Integration of Genetic and Phenotypic Data in 48 Lineages of Philippine Birds Shows Heterogeneous Divergence Processes and Numerous Cryptic Species. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159325. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0159325

This study does not specifically recommend more splits. However, results of measuring genetic distances and Tobias phenotypic scores give support for many splits and subspecies groups recognised by Birdlife/Lynx, as well as others that the latter seem to have overlooked, notably the very distinctive Turquoise Flycatcher group.
 
unlumps in ex-Rhinomyias

Chyi Yin Gwee, James A Eaton, Kritika M Garg, Per Alström, Sebastianus (Bas) Van Balen, Robert O Hutchinson, Dewi M Prawiradilaga, Manh Hung Le & Frank E Rheindt. (2019). Cryptic diversity in Cyornis (Aves: Muscicapidae) jungle-flycatchers flagged by simple bioacoustic approaches. Published: 10 Marsh 2019.

Abstract
Despite the ongoing taxonomic revolution incorporating multiple species delimitation methods, knowledge gaps persist in the taxonomy of comparatively well-studied animal groups such as birds. Morphologically cryptic species risk slipping under the conservation radar, as they get mistakenly united with other species. Here, we employed six to 11 vocal parameters of each population to examine the species delimitation of nine Cyornis jungle-flycatcher species complexes distributed across Asia. We found moderate to strong vocal evidence for the taxonomic elevation of ten cryptic Cyornis species. Additionally, we conducted mitochondrial and genome-wide SNP analyses for two of the Cyornis complexes to examine the effectiveness of bioacoustics as a tool for avian species delineation and found congruent results between vocal and molecular data. Therefore, we propose a taxonomic reclassification of the complicated Cyornis species complexes and recommend routine application of bioacoustics in avian taxonomic classification.

https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean...innean/zlz003/5372980?redirectedFrom=fulltext

proposes unlumping ruficauda (formerly Rufous-tailed Rhinomyias) and ocularis (formerly Chestnut-eyed Rhinomyias)
with thanks to LeNomenclatoriste
• C. ruficauda (Sharpe, 1877) Philippine jungle-flycatcher:
○ C. ruficauda ruficauda (Sharpe, 1877) – Basilan.
○ C. ruficauda samarensis (Steere, 1890) – Samar, Biliran, Leyte, Dinagat, E & C Mindanao.
○ C. ruficauda boholensis (Rand & Rabor, 1957) – Bohol.
○ C. ruficauda zamboanga (Rand & Rabor, 1957) – W Mindanao.
• C. ocularis (Bourns & Worcester, 1894). Sulu jungleflycatcher – Sulu Archipelago.


• C. ruficrissa (Sharpe, 1887) Crocker jungle-flycatcher:
○ C. ruficrissa ruficrissa (Sharpe, 1887) – Mt. Kinabalu (N Borneo).
○ C. ruficrissa isola (Hachisuka, 1932) – Mountains of Borneo (except Mt. Kinabalu).
 
Blue-backed Parrot
The taxonomy of Tanygnathus sumatranus
T. Arndt, N. J. Collar, M. Wink
https://bioone.org/journals/bulleti...-sumatranus/10.25226/bboc.v139i4.2019.a8.full

Abstract
Philippine taxa currently assigned to Blue-backed, Azure-rumped or Müller's Parrot Tanygnathus sumatranus are distinctive both morphologically (larger bill, red vs. pale yellow iris, royal blue vs. glossy turquoise-blue rump, paler green head and duller green underparts; and males having darker green mantles and no blue on the carpals and scapulars) and genetically (as distinct from Indonesian T. sumatranus as T. lucionensis is from T. megalorhynchos). We therefore propose T. everetti (with subspecies burbidgii and freeri; race duponti synonymised with nominate) to be elevated to species rank with the name Blue-backed Parrot, leaving Indonesian T. sumatranus (with subspecies sangirensis) as Azure-rumped Parrot. The taxonomic status of T. e. burbidgii (Sulu Islands) and T. s. sangirensis (Talaud Islands), both notably larger than their respective nominates, deserves study.

(PS yes burbidgii is notably distinct)
 
Subir B. Shakya, M. Irham, Matthew L. Brady, Tri Haryoko, Yuli S. Fitriana, Oscar Johnson, Mustafa Abdul Rahman, Nickson Joseph Robi, Robert G. Moyle, Dewi M. Prawiradilaga & Frederick H. Sheldon (2020) Observations on the relationships of some Sundaic passerine taxa (Aves: Passeriformes) previously unavailable for molecular phylogenetic study. Journal of Ornithology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-020-01766-9

"We compared new D. hottentottus material from Mt. Kinabalu (Sabah), Mt. Mulu (Sarawak), the Kelabit Highlands (Sarawak), Maratua Island (Kalimantan), Mt. Talamau (Sumatra), and Siberut Island (Sumatra) with existing ND2 sequences (Fig. 4b). The tree indicates that D. hottentottus as currently classified is paraphyletic with the Balicassiao D. balicassius (Linnaeus, 1766). To simplify discussion of the tree, we have divided the taxa into four clades based on topology.'

"Clades 3 and 4 comprise several Philippine taxa. Clade 3 includes D. balicassius of the northern Philippines and D. h. samarensis and D. h. striatus of the southern Philippines. The Palawan subspecies D. h. palawanensis constitutes Clade 4. Vaurie (1949) distinguished D. hot- tentottus from D. balicassius based on the appearance and complexity of feather ornaments. Genetic data, however, suggest a close relationship between D. hottentottus subspecies of the southern Philippines and D. balicassius of the northern Philippines. It is possible, however, that this closeness arises as a result of mtDNA introgression. A more extensive set of comparisons using nuclear loci is required to confirm D. hottentottus relationships within the Philippines Islands."

"Based on our comparisons, however, we suggest the following (limited) taxonomic changes:
1. Elevate short-tailed Drongo D. h. striatus (including D. h. samarensis) of the southern Philippines to species status or include it as a subspecies of D. balicassius.
2. Elevate Palawan Drongo D. h. palawanensis (probably including D. menagei and D. h. cuyensis) to species status. Rocamora et al. (2009) present arguments for treating D. menagei as a separate species."
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top