Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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 Rating: Thread Rating: 4 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Tuesday 27th July 2010, 21:16   #26
MichaelRetter
Michael L. P. Retter
 
MichaelRetter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 67
I would just note that there is a population of what appear to be Pacific Wrens breeding in the Black Hills of South Dakota. At least, there has been since the early part of the last decade. The birds are quite rusty in coloration, respond to recordings of Pacific Wren, and ignore recordings of Winter Wren (sensu stricto).
__________________
Michael L. P. Retter
W. Lafayette, IN
mlretter AT yahoo.com
http://xenospiza.com/
MichaelRetter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th July 2010, 21:39   #27
Snapdragyn
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 202
"If we, as researchers, don't trust our data gatherers to correctly name our datapoints, we have two options. 1) educate the participants in our study, 2) laboriously correct the data ourselves or 3) get different workers. I prefer the first and find that most reporters are far better than they're given credit here."

I agree with you. I think changing the name is a wonderful way to educate our participants. I do not think that leaving the same name and putting up an announcement will prove as effective. My experience playing an online game over the past 11 years (ha! linked my two main hobbies at LAST! :p ) is that a) update notes are not read by everyone (EVERY update sees someone surprised to find something different, even though it was clearly announced in the notes), & b) some people may be away for long enough to have missed notes by the time they use the system again. It's much harder to miss a name that is consistently different than what it used to be, & everyone would become aware of the change as soon as they attempted to enter a record for either of the newly split species.

I also certainly don't intend to disparage any data reporters for not following discussions on nomenclature such as this, nor do I see advocating for common names which provide greater clarity as doing so in any way. I'm not faulting any reporters here, I'm disagreeing with the name & pointing out my reasoning.
Snapdragyn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 01:09   #28
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
 
jmorlan's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pacifica, California
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
All proposals in 2009-B/C/D/E are still shown as pending - the AOU website clearly hasn't been updated yet.

Hiemalis has been elevated as per proposal 2009-E-1, and the adopted names were one of the options in supplementary proposal 2009-E-1 supp.

But if there's enough adverse reaction...

Richard
Wouldn't that be nice!

I just took a look at the supplemental proposal on common names and I think I see what the problem was. They considered only sets of bad choices. What was wrong with Boreal Wren / Pacific Wren conserving "Winter Wren" for the species pair?

I think I've finally got Polioptilidae and Calcariidae correctly placed, but this placement seems to differ from the original proposals. Originally the Gnatcatchers were to go before the Wrens instead of after; and the Longspurs were to take the entire Fringillidae with them when moved up before the American Wood Warblers. I must say, having the longspurs and Snow Bunting by themselves in front of the warblers seems truly odd.
__________________
"It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt
jmorlan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 07:47   #29
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Summary

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRetter View Post
I would just note...
For any without full access to the supplement yet, I see that Michael has very usefully summarised the changes on his website:
http://xenospiza.com

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 09:53.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 09:57   #30
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,494
yes...the arrangement of the Calcariidae is odd; They should be before the Parulidae however. My guess is a second proposal is probably needed to move the Passeridae and the Fringillidae to a more accurate position (Fringillidae in front of Calcariidae)

The order of families is also off from the original proposal for the Old world warbler split and the order the checklist update adopted. Probably again, because another proposal is needed
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 11:24   #31
Jim Mountjoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galesburg IL USA
Posts: 17
sequence of Polioptilidae and Calcariidae

Yes, the original proposal for Polioptilidae suggested that they go before the wrens rather than after, but I am not sure how significant this is. The basic fact being reflected is that the gnatcatchers and wrens are sister groups. I am not sure whether the AOU has adopted the rule of thumb that some checklists have of placing the taxon with the fewest species first in the sequence (at a branching point), or have they?

The position of the Calcariidae seems accurate to me with respect to recent data (eg Alstrom et al. 2008 having them as the sister group to the 'Parulidae') and with the initial wording of the recommendation in the proposal ("This new family should be placed in the linear sequence after the Peucedramidae, but before the Parulidae and the remaining New World nine-primaried oscines"). However, the proposal then goes on to present a recommended sequence in list form that lists Fringillidae before Calcariidae. I suspect that this is just an error, and perhaps Peucedramidae was intended to be there instead of Fringillidae? Really, the Fringillidae isn't very relevant to the discussion.

The position of the Calcariidae may seem odd, but that is what makes it interesting. Another striking example of convergent evolution (on a finch-like morphology in this case) and a reminder that superficial morphology doesn't necessarily tell you much about relationships.
Jim Mountjoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 13:00   #32
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,494
I believe fringillidae is often (usually?) recovered as the sister group to a Emberizoidae clade, which includes New World Warblers, longspurs, tanagers, cardinals, etc. So fringillidae should be moved (but again this will probably need a separate proposal).

It's interesting how with birders the taxonomic changes don't result in much hair pulling, but common names do. Herpers often suffer hysteria at both :P
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 13:27   #33
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysticete View Post
It's interesting how with birders the taxonomic changes don't result in much hair pulling...
Most birders have minimal interest in taxonomy...
...until it messes up the sequence in their next field guide.

Richard
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 14:51   #34
Kirk Roth
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 209
"Oreothlypis" has me pulling my hair - I can barely pronounce it!

I much prefer "Parkesia;" there's a warbler genus that rolls well off the tongue...
Kirk Roth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 16:42   #35
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
 
jmorlan's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pacifica, California
Posts: 907
Anybody know how to pronounce "Peucaea?"
__________________
"It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt
jmorlan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 16:53   #36
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Peucaea

Pay-oo-k'eye-ah ?

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 17:28.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 17:11   #37
Jim Mountjoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galesburg IL USA
Posts: 17
passerine ordering, and names

The current position of the Fringillidae, directly following the 'nine-primaried' passerines, is compatible with a sister group relationship (if that is correct), again assuming that the AOU is not following a rule of larger taxon last for the order of sister groups. A bigger issue is why the accentors and wagtails/pipits are still sandwiched between Sturnidae and Bombycillidae when I think it is clear that they belong somewhere among the Fringillidae/Passeridae/nine-primaried passerines (the Passerida). Perhaps they are waiting for a 'definitive' answer as to where exactly they fit, or perhaps it is simply ' so many proposals, so little time'.

My main problem with Oreothlypis is the inappropriate association with cookies. Parkesia is an appropriate tribute to Kenneth Parkes, and I assume it should be pronounced 'Parks-ee-ah', though a part of me wants to call it 'Par-kee-shya'.
Jim Mountjoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 18:34   #38
MichaelRetter
Michael L. P. Retter
 
MichaelRetter's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmorlan View Post
Anybody know how to pronounce "Peucaea?"
As with any scientific name, however you want! There is no incorrect way. I'd be inclined to say "pyoo-SEE-uh", for whatever it's worth. Meanwhile, I still have no idea how even attempt saying Patagioenas.
__________________
Michael L. P. Retter
W. Lafayette, IN
mlretter AT yahoo.com
http://xenospiza.com/

Last edited by MichaelRetter : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 18:37.
MichaelRetter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 19:00   #39
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Patagioenas

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRetter View Post
Meanwhile, I still have no idea how even attempt saying Patagioenas.
I'll risk: Pah-tah-gee-oy-nahss ?
[hard G]

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 19:05.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 19:07   #40
jmorlan
Hmm... That's funny.
 
jmorlan's Avatar

 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pacifica, California
Posts: 907
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRetter View Post
I still have no idea how even attempt saying Patagioenas.
\pə-ˈtā-jē-ō-ˈēn-əs\
__________________
"It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt
jmorlan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 19:10   #41
Kirk Roth
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 209
Peucaea = "Pyoo-say-uh"

Patagioenas = "Pat-uh-gee-oy-nus"

Here is my favorite cheatsheet to latin pronunciation -
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf

The last page has a nifty chart. Northern Continental style is (supposed to be!) the one used in biology.

Note that the chart is only so helpful, as scientific names do not specify long or short vowels. For example, with Patagioenas, one must know that pigeons have a large patagium ("Pat-ay-gee-um" in original Latin!) and/or that there is no such Latin word "Pat-uh-guy-um"



Peter - Great minds think alike.

Last edited by Kirk Roth : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 20:29.
Kirk Roth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 19:21   #42
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
I'll risk: Pah-tah-gee-oy-nahss ?
[hard G]

Richard
Is this useful?
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf

P. S. I didn't see Kirk Roth' item. Mea culpa.

Last edited by Peter Kovalik : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 19:28.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 20:36   #43
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Peucaea

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Roth View Post
Peucaea = "Pyoo-say-uh"
Here is my favorite cheatsheet to latin pronunciation -
http://www.ai.uga.edu/mc/latinpro.pdf
The last page has a nifty chart. Northern Continental style is (supposed to be!) the one used in biology.
I'm probably in a distinct minority in the English-speaking world, but I still prefer classical Latin (hard C/G etc), as advocated for pronunciation of scientific names by A.G. Blunt recently in British Birds. Perhaps it's just the fond but distant memories of Latin classes at school (mostly long forgotten), or a reaction against strangulated Anglicised Latin where, eg, vowel and dipthong sounds seem to be randomly transposed from those used in Latin-based languages, limiting the use of scientific names as a basis for common communication.

But at least in the case of Peucaea, the derivation from Greek peuke (Jobling 2010) is surely further reason to use a hard C.

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 28th July 2010 at 20:57.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 21:15   #44
Xenospiza
Undescribed
 
Xenospiza's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a drawer
Posts: 10,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
But at least in the case of Peucaea, the derivation from Greek peuke (Jobling 2010) is surely further reason to use a hard C.

Richard
Which the English would then pretty much pronounce as "Puke here" (so I'd choose "Pyusia")!

(as a Dutchman, I'd say P[UI]saya (although I know the K is better!), with the Dutch [ui] that no-one can pronounce (but it's remarkably close to the one in the London tube station of Ruislip)).
Xenospiza is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 21:19   #45
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,238
I have not read the text linked above, but remember reading that the Romans at the time of Julius Caesar did not ever pronounce "C" softly: he was Julius Kaesar. As Richard states above, the same for "G" (as in give).

However, has this thread not gone far enough out on this tangent? Any more comments about the taxonomy in the 51st supplement?

Cheers
Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 22:14   #46
ptoomeyjr
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 1
Here is a copy of the 51st supplement that I posted, should anyone wnat to read the entire release.

Patrick

http://ptoomey.com/MOB_Montana/AOU%2...Supplement.pdf
ptoomeyjr is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 23:24   #47
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
IOC World Bird List

Many of the changes have been provisionally adopted for IOC World Bird List v2.6:
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-tax.html
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-spp.html
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-en.html

Richard
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th July 2010, 23:42   #48
Jim Mountjoy
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galesburg IL USA
Posts: 17
how conservative is the AOU checklist?

It seems to me that the NACC is really quite conservative, and sometimes I appreciate that. I happen to agree that such species level splits as the Herring Gulls are not sufficiently supported to accept at this time. However, their higher level taxonomy seems to be lagging behind current knowledge so much that it could be seen as quite misleading as regards what we know about the evolutionary history of birds.

Case in point is the decision to separate the falcons and the 'other raptors' into distinct orders, but then leave them side-by-side in checklist sequence. The proposal for this relies heavily on genetic studies by Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008) that are in agreement that the falcons belong in a larger group with the Passeriformes, Psittaciformes & Cariamidae (which should be in the Cariamiformes, of course). So why, if they accept these studies as evidence to split the orders, have they not placed these groups (including the parrots) in the appropriate sequence in the checklist? Are they really not convinced, or are they just trying to avoid upsetting people who are comfortable with the old (albeit incorrect) sequence?
Jim Mountjoy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 29th July 2010, 00:41   #49
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,494
SACC already has split out the Cariamidae as it's own order (They don't occur in AOU area so AOU of course hasn't/won't make a decision regarding them).

I think they decided to split the falconiformes the way they are split because it's a pretty safe bet that they are not embedded within the rest of the birds of prey, and are probably a fairly old divergence. I don't think (and I agree with AOU on this) that their position within birds is nailed down enough to warrant moving at this time.
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 29th July 2010, 03:31   #50
Xenospiza
Undescribed
 
Xenospiza's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In a drawer
Posts: 10,087
I've just reorganised my own list completely to reflect those order changes (although I smuggled a bit to keep e.g. Turacos, Cuckoos and Hoatzin together, which I think is warranted by lack of support).
In a similar vein, it's possible to keep the falcons with the other raptors.
In fact (in case you have Hackett's tree in front of you): with some clever switching of the position of the Accipitriformes and the Coraciiformes/Piciformes/Coliiformes/Strigiformes branch, all raptors (owls, hawks, condors, seriemas and falcons) come in linear order!
Xenospiza is offline  
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
48th Supplement to the AOU Check-List of North American Birds Marek12 Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 5 Saturday 15th September 2007 02:20
51st Garden Tick pstraughan Birds & Birding 6 Wednesday 8th August 2007 00:32
New AOU Supplement KC Foggin Birds & Birding 1 Saturday 8th July 2006 06:35
Digiscoping Supplement. Andrew The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 9 Monday 28th March 2005 00:17

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.26326799 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:54.