• 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.

Siberian Chiffchaff (1 Viewer)

About splitting of only tristis (and forgetting for a while other Chiffchaff complexities).

There has been lots of splitting activity on leaf warblers of Asia. Studies of vocalisation and genetics have been the leading factors. The genetic distance of tristis (1.7-2% in cyt-b) is low compared to most of Asian splits, for example affinis - occisinensis split (over 10%), splits of proregulus (chloronotus, forresti, kansuensis - 3.1-4.5%) and Arctic Warbler (examinandus, xanthodryas - 4-5.2%). On the other hand, both visually and, especially, in vocalisations, tristis is more distinct than any of the above mentioned Asian taxa. In good light it is possible to identify even in field, and both call and songs are so different that everybody with normal hearing ability can learn to separate them.

Contact zones are also important. We know something about the contact zone of tristis and abietinus, but little about those in Asia, so these cannot be compared.
 
France

Dubois 2015. Identification, taxonomie, statut en France du Pouillot de Sibérie Phylloscopus collybita tristis. Siberian Chiffchaff in France: identification, taxonomy and status. Ornithos 22(1): 16–38.

[With thanks to Alain Fossé for reporting on AvianReferences.]
 
With a ''dynamic'' species like Chiff Chaff across it's range supporting a ''number'' of races, to include ''Classic'' tristis as being markedly different from P.abietnus/collybita e.g. not just cosmetically, but also in ''song'', however still retaining the very similar overlapping ''contact'' calls.

Might this suggest that tristis (if it hasn't already?) reached ''virtual'' independence from the other races (in as much as being a different species), but as of yet...by virtue of it's usage regarding the ''same'' contact calls, demonstrates a ''still on-going ability'' to reproduce with it's racial congeners, until it evolves a different ''contact call'', whereby it would have made the ''full'' biological split?
 
With a ''dynamic'' species like Chiff Chaff across it's range supporting a ''number'' of races, to include ''Classic'' tristis as being markedly different from P.abietnus/collybita e.g. not just cosmetically, but also in ''song'', however still retaining the very similar overlapping ''contact'' calls.

Might this suggest that tristis (if it hasn't already?) reached ''virtual'' independence from the other races (in as much as being a different species), but as of yet...by virtue of it's usage regarding the ''same'' contact calls, demonstrates a ''still on-going ability'' to reproduce with it's racial congeners, until it evolves a different ''contact call'', whereby it would have made the ''full'' biological split?

Or maybe some Chiffchaffs, like Mallards and some humans, will shag anything?

John
 
Raković M, Neto JM, Lopes RJ, Koblik EA, Fadeev IV, Lohman YV, et al. (2019) Geographic patterns of mtDNA and Z-linked sequence variation in the Common Chiffchaff and the ‘chiffchaff complex’. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0210268. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0210268

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a...8hIy4XUrWA3rTMWzi2TJZCtjx-Qh-crAXBGdGhD9U7Afc

The Common Chiffchaff Phylloscopus collybita is an abundant, polytypic Palearctic bird. Validity of some of its subspecies is controversial and birds from some parts of the species range remain unclassified taxonomically. The relationships among populations from different geographic areas have not been sufficiently explored with molecular data. In this study we analyzed the relationships among the four species in the ‘chiffchaff complex’ (Common Chiffchaff, Iberian Chiffchaff P. ibericus, Canary Islands Chiffchaff P. canariensis and Mountain Chiffchaff P. sindianus), and the patterns of intraspecific geographic variation in the mtDNA ND2 gene and intron 9 of the Z-linked aconitase gene (ACO1I9) across the Common Chiffchaff range, including a recently discovered population breeding on Mt. Hermon (Anti-Lebanon mountains). Our data supported the monophyly of the chiffchaff complex and its current systematics at the species level. Within the Common Chiffchaff, the Siberian race P. c. tristis was the most differentiated subspecies and may represent a separate or incipient species. Other Common Chiffchaff subspecies also were differentiated in their mtDNA, however, lineages of neighboring subspecies formed wide zones of introgression. The Mt. Hermon population was of mixed genetic origin but contained some birds with novel unique lineage that could not be assigned to known subspecies. All Common Chiffchaff lineages diverged at the end of the Ionian stage of Pleistocene. Lineage sorting of ACO1I9 alleles was not as complete as that of mtDNA. Chiffchaff species were mostly distinct at ACO1I9, except the Common and Canary Islands Chiffchaffs that shared multiple alleles. An AMOVA identified geographic structure in Common Chiffchaff ACO1I9 variation that was broadly consistent with that of mtDNA ND2 gene. The genetic and other data suggest the chiffchaff complex to be a group of evolutionarily young taxa that represent a paradigm of ‘species evolution in action’ from intergrading subspecies through to apparently complete biological speciation
 
There was a Siberian Chiffchaff singing on my local patch this morning. It seems quite odd that tristis is still included in collybita in 2021, given the dramatically different song and current vogue for splitting. I wonder if there there any other Palearctic species with comparably distinct vocalisations among subspecies?
 
There was a Siberian Chiffchaff singing on my local patch this morning. It seems quite odd that tristis is still included in collybita in 2021, given the dramatically different song and current vogue for splitting. I wonder if there there any other Palearctic species with comparably distinct vocalisations among subspecies?
Redwing?
 
We'd both have several new species then I reckon...when is a dialect a new species indicator...?
When the dialect is determined by a genetic factor rather than learned from parents? It seems to be reasonably certain the genetic factors determine voice in Owls but not necessarily in passerines.

An interesting case is Darwin's finches where voice and bill size and shape are closely correlated and there seems to be assortative mating based on the voice. (this last based on my memory, so there may be errors in my understanding).

Niels
 
Of course, my question reflects a somewhat unsophisticated way of looking at passerine taxonomy, and a cheeky answer would have been to refer to species which are prolific mimics such as Marsh Warbler. However, it does seem notable that, with the exception of Iberian Chiff, all the Chiffchaffs that have been split retain the basic "chiff-chaff" song, while tristis doesn't. Perhaps this is a mistaken view, but I'm not sure such simple repetitive songs as this are directly comparable to more complex songs. Even though genetic differentiation may be quite weak, it seems anomalous that it hasn't been split.
 
It's very hard to say exactly what traits of the song (or any other sexually selected trait for that matter) are most important in mate choice though. To our ears, they sound distinctive. To a female Chiffchaff, those differences might not be as important as (say) tempo, duration, pitch. IIRC, playback experiments (with the usual caveats applied to these) elicited similar responses, regardless of subspecies. Furthermore, there is extensive an ongoing introgression between "Common" and "Siberian" populations and vocal and plumage differences do not match well in this broad hybrid zone. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of ongoing introgression between sympatric populations of Common/Iberian or Common/Mountain Chiffchaffs.
 
It's very hard to say exactly what traits of the song (or any other sexually selected trait for that matter) are most important in mate choice though. To our ears, they sound distinctive. To a female Chiffchaff, those differences might not be as important as (say) tempo, duration, pitch. IIRC, playback experiments (with the usual caveats applied to these) elicited similar responses, regardless of subspecies. Furthermore, there is extensive an ongoing introgression between "Common" and "Siberian" populations and vocal and plumage differences do not match well in this broad hybrid zone. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much evidence of ongoing introgression between sympatric populations of Common/Iberian or Common/Mountain Chiffchaffs.
Well I can't argue against any of these points! However, regarding human v bird perception of distinctiveness of traits, isn't that applicable to the entire discipline of taxonomy?! We judge differences in morphology, plumage and vocalisations through human eyes and ears.

I'm not sure how to interpret introgression from a species-level taxonomic perspective. Presumably it represents two distinct and previously disjunct species lineages that have expanded in range and are in the process of merging into a single species? If so, how does one treat the birds outside the contact zone? Is this comparable to Pine Bunting v Yellowhammer?
 
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