• 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.

HMW Handbook of the Mammals of the World (1 Viewer)

Clymene Dolphin

Perhaps of interest wrt Vol 4...
  • Amaral, Lovewell, Coelho, Amato & Rosenbaum 2014. Hybrid speciation in a marine mammal: the clymene dolphin (Stenella clymene). PLoS ONE 9(1): e83645. [article] [pdf]
 
HMW 2: bovid taxonomy

Heller, Frandsen, Lorenzen & Siegismund (in press). Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought? Syst Biol. [abstract]
[See post #168.]​
Cotterill, Taylor, Gippoliti, Bishop & Groves (in press). Why one century of phenetics is enough: response to 'Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought?'. Syst Biol.
Abstract
The real diversity of the Bovidae is not only underestimated, but holds many surprises in its richness of diversity, especially overlooked and misclassified cryptic species. Our argument refutes the recent paper (Heller et al. 2013) condemning Groves & Grubb's (2011) revised taxonomy of the Bovidae as "taxonomic inflation" that is bad for conservation. The recent collective condemnation of this bovid revision misunderstands taxonomic theory and concept, and disregards how the unprecedented revision of material evidence informs the new bovid taxonomy. Unfortunately, the criticisms are likely to mislead conservation efforts. Contrary to taxonomic conservatives' denigrations of the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC), we explain how evolutionary species - ontological realities - can be discovered and characterized using the PSC, with a minimum of taxonomic error. Taxonomic conservatism weakens conservation policy because it throws a great deal out of biology. It is best understood as a political reaction to taxonomic revisions replacing non-historical characterizations of biodiversity (reliant on the polytypic Biological Species Concept and/or the morphological species concept) with historical ones based on the PSC. Further, accelerating discoveries of cryptic species unnerve conservative traditions in taxonomy and conservation biology. Taxonomic conservatism has no place in modern biology, let alone phylogenetic systematics, because its deficiencies undermine the consilience of comparative biology. Most seriously, taxonomic conservatism ignores the fundamental role of the Individuality Thesis in fostering robust understanding of biodiversity. We argue that rejections of G&G defend an obsolete taxonomy of large mammals, which testifies to the remarkable persistence of a folk taxonomy weakening 21st century science. Our consolidated argument underscores the challenges of improving scientific knowledge of cryptic biodiversity, exemplified in the extant (and historically extinct) Bovidae.
 
Last edited:
Ecotypes = species?

[See post #168.]​
Cotterill, Taylor, Gippoliti, Bishop & Groves (in press). Why one century of phenetics is enough: response to 'Are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought?'. Syst Biol.

Do I get this right that with PSC ecotypes would now be considered species?
 
if an "ecotype" is a diagnosable phylogenetically "distinct" clade, then yes. Bear in mind Ecotype tends to be used differently by different sets of researchers.

As someone who read the ungulate book my issue is not that they use PSC, but rather they use the morphologic species concept and then dress it out as PSC. Most of those taxonomic splits they advocate under PSC don't actually stem from using a phylogeny, and are on the basis that identified morphologic differences are assumed to represent phylogenetic distinctiveness.
 
well for starters that's Phocidae, not Phocoenidae...but I am missing the what your remark about captions means (unless it is the confusion between the above names)
 
Got a mail yesterday from Lynx ref. the last volume of HMW with the information that now are plates and photos online. ......

I have not got such a mail, despite my standing subscription. Maybe they only send it to a select few? :-C Trying to save "postage", maybe? ;)

Anyway, definitely a volume to look very much forward to. :clap:
 
Last edited:
The "calf" captions are positioned rather randomly: one near the scale bar, three others adjacent to adults.

Perhaps the calves moved. ;)

Definitely absurd. I hope they can still correct this. And I'd rather wait a bit longer than having such printing errors gone unnoticed.
 
Got a mail yesterday from Lynx ref. the last volume of HMW with the information that now are plates and photos online. But I wonder if that plate about seals "Phocoenidae (Porpoises)" is the original one which will be in the book. I dislike the captions of the calfs on this plate because a few are out of the correct place! Are they blind?
http://www.lynxeds.com/hmw/plate/family-phocoenidae-porpoises
Received the HMW 4 leaflet from Lynx today, which includes the plate concerned. Thankfully the wayward 'calf' captions are now 'young', and positioned correctly.

And the faulty plate has been removed from the Lynx website.
 
Hrbek, da Silva, Dutra, Gravena, Martin & Farias 2014. A new species of river dolphin from Brazil or: how little do we know our biodiversity. PLoS ONE 9(1): e83623. [article] [pdf]
  • Inia araguaiaensis sp nov - Araguaian Boto - Boto-do-Araguaia
BBC News, 23 Jan 2014: Brazil dolphin is first new river species since 1918.

I guess this won't be the last "new" Boto species. For example, the ones on the Beni in Bolivia are a long way from the Amazon and I'm not sure anyone has done any work on them, maybe Morgan will know.

cheers, alan
 
I read through the paper the other day and wasn't very impressed. The morphologic differences amount to a few mm different in two skull measurements, and no statistical test was applied to see if these differences were significant

ON top of that, their isn't much molecular DNA gathered, nor is the genetic distance very great from "regular" Botos. In general I don't feel like this is a valid new species.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top