• 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.

São Paulo Marsh Antwren (1 Viewer)

C

Cadu Agne

Member
Buzzetti, Belmonte-Lopes, Reinert, Silveira & Bornschein, 2013. A new species of Formicivora Swainson, 1824 (Thamnophilidae) from the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia. 21: 269-291

ABSTRACT: Formicivora paludicola sp. nov. (São Paulo Marsh Antwren) is described from 13 specimens (nine males and four females) collected in the municipalities of Mogi das Cruzes, Salesópolis, and São José dos Campos, near the city of São Paulo, in the east of the state of São Paulo, southeastern Brazil. Males of the new species are distinct from those of F. acutirostris (Marsh Antwren), its sister species, by their black underparts and thighs, very dark grayish brown upperparts, and smaller exposed culmen. Females can be distinguished from those of F. acutirostris by the color of the pperparts and flanks, which are also very dark grayish brown, and by the smaller exposed culmen. Mitochondrial DNA sequences also distinguish these two species and the analysis of their vocalizations also showed differences, mainly in the frequency in which certain phrases of the vocal repertoire are used. São Paulo Marsh Antwren inhabits marshes where the vegetation is high (ca. 60–250 cm). The species was found in 15 small and isolated areas, at the headwaters of the rivers Tietê and Paraíba do Sul, at altitudes between 600 and 760 m a.s.l. One of these areas was later flooded by the construction of a dam. Most of the marshes where the new species was found are heavily degraded by sand mining, housing developments, fish farming, drainage for cattle raise and agricultural activities, invasion by exotic plants and fire. We propose urgent measures for the protection of this new species.

download: http://www.sendspace.com/file/4jz3eo

http://ibc.lynxeds.com/species/sao-paulo-antwren-stymphalornis-sp-nova
 
Last edited:
I don't understand it this. As far as I know "Formicivora" acutirostris was described by Bornstein, Reinert & Teixera in 1995 as Stymphalornis acutirostris. It is, of course nice that it gets a sister taxon, but should the name of that sister taxon not be Stymphalornis paludicolus?

Fred Ruhe
 
Fred Ruhe said:
As far as I know "Formicivora" acutirostris was described by Bornstein, Reinert & Teixera in 1995 as Stymphalornis acutirostris. It is, of course nice that it gets a sister taxon, but should the name of that sister taxon not be Stymphalornis paludicolus?
Click to expand...

Only if you recognize Stymphalornis as a valid genus separate from Formicivora. The authors don't
 
I have made precisely this point to some of the editors of RBO. It was already made rather clear in Dickinson et al. (2011: 178–179, Priority!) that dating of Ararajuba / RBO “has not been taken seriously” in the past, and it seems this problem continues. There is nothing within this present issue that I can see to suggest that the date of 21(4) should be cited as anything other than December 2013, yet it seems obvious that it wasn't actually published until February 2014, which automatically affects the dating of Formicivora paludicola.
 
GMK said:
I have made precisely this point to some of the editors of RBO. It was already made rather clear in Dickinson et al. (2011: 178–179, Priority!) that dating of Ararajuba / RBO “has not been taken seriously” in the past, and it seems this problem continues. There is nothing within this present issue that I can see to suggest that the date of 21(4) should be cited as anything other than December 2013, yet it seems obvious that it wasn't actually published until February 2014, which automatically affects the dating of Formicivora paludicola.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks.
Liam
 
Cadu Agne said:
ABSTRACT: Formicivora paludicola sp. nov. (São Paulo Marsh Antwren) is described from 13 specimens ...... found in 15 small and isolated areas, ..... One of these areas was later flooded by the construction of a dam. Most of the marshes where the new species was found are heavily degraded by sand mining, housing developments, fish farming, drainage for cattle raise and agricultural activities, invasion by exotic plants and fire. We propose urgent measures for the protection of this new species.
Click to expand...
No doubt this topic has been raised before, but they appear to have neglected gross over-collecting as another cause of the species' parlous state :storm:

If they killed 13 in 15 areas, are there just 2 left??
 
Good question.

If we can all take a neutral stance on the issue of collecting because it has been done to death so many times before. What is the reasoning behind taking so many specimens rather than 5 (lets say). I guess if you want to sequence the whole genome it is necessary to have several specimens. Any other reasons?
 
One should be enough for a holotype, perhaps two if sexually dimorphic. A single non-lethal tissue sample is enough for a whole genome sequence - the first whole genome sequence of any species (Homo sapiens) was done from a single individual, and non-lethally too. The rest could be done just as effectively with photos and small non-lethal tissue samples.
 
George Sangster is working on a publication with regards to how many specimens are required to give a statistically sound backing to descriptions. If I understood him correctly!

I agree that thirteen specimens is excessive, but hey! it's almost extinct anyway...
 
Nutcracker said:
No doubt this topic has been raised before, but they appear to have neglected gross over-collecting as another cause of the species' parlous state :storm:

If they killed 13 in 15 areas, are there just 2 left??
Click to expand...

jacana said:
What is the reasoning behind taking so many specimens rather than 5 (lets say). I guess if you want to sequence the whole genome it is necessary to have several specimens. Any other reasons?
Click to expand...

Xenospiza said:
I agree that thirteen specimens is excessive, but hey! it's almost extinct anyway...
Click to expand...

So you're suggesting that each area held only one individual. Interesting idea. Could it be true? Let's see... if you read the paper it says the following:

"LFS, learning (through Luiz Pedreira Gonzaga) of
the discovery of the Formicivora at Mogi das Cruzes,
made visits to an area at Biritiba-Mirim in February 2005
and found there another population of this Formicivora.
Since this area was to be flooded by a dam (Barragem do
Paraitinga 2), LFS invited BLR to help in an evaluation of
the size of the population which would be affected by the
dam. On obtaining an estimate of about 100 individuals
in the area, a project was developed by a group, which
included MRB, RB-L and other ornithologists to capture
and transfer the antwrens to other areas. After capturing
the first individuals, MRB recognized the antwren as
different from F. acutirostris, and collected and prepared
specimens for further studies."

So, instead of allowing these individuals to be killed by a dam flooding their habitat (in other words, a total loss of about 100 individuals... Note: more than 15!), the researchers captured some to move them, and collected others when they realized these birds could be a new taxon. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

Of course, this new form of antbird is pretty darned similar to Formicivora acutirostris, so a series of several individuals that could be compared side-by-side with a series of F. acutirostris would be necessary to see if they were different, and if those differences were or were not due to individual variation. And, to top it all off, these birds weren't all collected in the same year. You do know what birds of this size tend to do each year, don't you? They breed. So, even collecting a few individuals doesn't mean that the population is permanently reduced by the numbers that have been removed by collecting.

In the "Conservation" section of the paper (again, assuming you bothered to read it), the authors censused the potential marsh habitat remaining around Sao Paulo (one of the largest, most sprawling cities in the Americas, which, much like any other city, has seriously degraded habitats around it... particularly wetlands), and calculated that the population was between 250-300 individuals.

But no, it's better to think that the collection of 13 specimens--which brought this bird to the world's attention, provided the authors with enough information to describe it as a species, and will be available in museums for future study while conservation efforts to save the remaining scraps of habitat are underway--left only 2 alive. Because it's easier to build straw men than bother to read an interesting paper, I guess.

Nutcracker said:
One should be enough for a holotype, perhaps two if sexually dimorphic.
Click to expand...

<Facepalm> By definition, one is enough for a holotype. And in response to Jacana's quote above, no, it's not necessary to have several specimens to sequence the whole genome. Each individual organism has a complete genome, and from one sample from one individual, we can sequence it. However, you do need to collect additional specimens to know what variation there is within a population both in morphology and genetics. Consider: if we sequenced Jacana's complete genome, what could we say about the variability of genes of the other 6,999,999,999 (give or take) people on this planet? There is variation in each species. One individual simply can't account for it. That's why we collect series.

If I may: I realize that collecting is a difficult topic to discuss with any level-headedness with some people, but I still think it's necessary to try to educate those who demonize it, even if it is in vain. To think that collecting is done strictly by bloodthirsty madmen who hate birds and have no interest in conservation is entirely moronic. Collectors are no such people. Conservation benefits greatly from scientific collecting, and don't think otherwise. The conservation of Sao Paulo wetlands (for which there had never been a flagship species... or much local interest, for that matter) will be because of the collection of these birds.

Trust me, if you tried to do taxonomy and systematics, you'd find yourself in museum collections frequently, and you'd be very, very thankful that someone took the time to prepare those skins and voucher tissue samples with specimens so you could do your work properly. To someone who probably has never considered what goes into all those "splits" and "lumps," collecting may seem "so 19th century" but I assure you, it is not. Modern technology hasn't made it archaic, either. Cameras can't replace specimens (I tried to make this point on the Omani Owl thread). The people taking genetic samples from living birds and then releasing them can easily misidentify them, but their mistakes will likely go uncorrected because we may never be able to re-examine the individual bird. I don't mean to start another collecting-anticollecting discussion on BirdForum, but I am tired of people who condemn the collectors only to enjoy the spoils of their work... Do you also hate taxes but enjoy state-funded programs?
 
Crisley de Camargo, Mariellen C. Costa, Glaucia C. Del Rio, H. Lisle Gibbs, Travis C. Glenn, Ujwal Bagal, Luís F. Silveira, Adriane P. Wasko, Mercival R. Francisco, 2014. Novel and cross-amplified microsatellite loci for the critically endangered São Paulo marsh antwren Formicivora paludicola (Aves: Thamnophilidae). Conservation Genetics Resources.

[Abstract]
 
Del-Rio et al 2015

Del-Rio, Rêgo & Silveira 2015. A multiscale approach indicates a severe reduction in Atlantic Forest wetlands and highlights that São Paulo Marsh Antwren is on the brink of extinction. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0121315. [article] [pdf]

PS. AOU-SACC...
37. Buzzetti et al. (2013) described a new species, Formicivora paludicola, that is sister to this species [Stymphalornis acutirostris]. Proposal badly needed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Camargo et al 2015

Camargo, Gibbs, Costa, Del-Rio, Silveira, Wasko & Francisco 2015. Marshes as a "mountain top": genetic analyses of the critically endangered São Paulo Marsh Antwren (Aves: Thamnophilidae). PLoS ONE 10(10): e0140145. [article] [pdf]
 
Last edited:
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.

Similar threads

S
Sao Paulo Antwren
Replies
0
Views
746
Steve Keen
S
Rick and Elis
  • Article
Finally the Sao Paulo Marsh Antwren has a proper name!
Replies
0
Views
1K
Rick and Elis
Rick and Elis
T
Brazil Trip Report
Replies
4
Views
11K
arthurgrosset
A

Users who are viewing this thread

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