• 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.

Thraupidae (1 Viewer)

The list of junior synonyms or homonyms published in Zootaxa Aves as purported new taxa or alleged emendments in the last few years is truly staggering:

1. Icterus bullockorum sensu Chesser 2015. An incorrect emendation and hence a deemed junior synonym. Now corrected to bullockiorum by the same author.

2. Cassicinae sensu Remsen, Powell, Schodde, Barker & Lanyon 2016. An incorrect emendation and hence a junior synonym of Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853, emend. Ridgway, 1902. Now subject to a correction.

3. Inundicola Bravo, Isler & Brumfield 2013. Recognised as a junior synonym in Isler et al. (2014).

4. Tachurididae Ohlson, Irestedt, Ericson & Fjeldså, 2013. Incorrectly formed, see further Franz 2015, Donegan 2015.

5. Ortalisini David, 2014. "Doubly invalid" as a junior homonym of Ortalisini Acloque 1897 as well as a junior synonym of Ortalidaini Donegan 2012. See Donegan 2015 and "open letter" on researchgate on this topic. Not retracted and response suppressed.

6. Now Remsenornis.

That is not to list other jaw-dropping basic errors of nomenclature, such as a Remsen & Stiles paper which chose between contemporaneous names based on "page priority" when "first reviser" action is instead required.

These publications have all been discussed here on birdforum, and were often spotted here first after peer review and editorial work failed to notice the errors. How many of these sorts of issues have we seen in Bull BOC in the same period? I think none. Yet Zootaxa has a huge rating as a "leading journal" and Bull BOC scores zero in most journal indices. Zootaxa is not living up to that billing for birds.

Zootaxa Aves is rapidly becoming a "joke publication", a by-word for low standards in nomenclature, churning out poorly-researched papers authored and reviewed by a connected group of typically AOU or Smithsonian -linked personalities, a production line for nonsensical papers with clear cause and effect. Sure, a rationale for recognizing a monotypic genus is probably publicable - or could be informally published as an AOU proposal. But careful research or review using sources such as worldbirdinfo, literature searches and additional review from colleagues should avoid situations like this. Maybe this paper was just "one of those things that happens" - but the journal is up to at least 6 synonyms in 4 years and it does not seem reasonable to have such an excuse for all of them. I think the Myiopagis and antbird paper above had some other valid names in them, but the strike rate is pretty low.

Get your act together Zootaxa.
 
Last edited:
Remsenornis has now been made available, albeit as a synonym. Under art 10.6 of the Code: "A name once available remains so irrespective of its invalidity as a junior synonym, a junior homonym, an unjustified emendation, an unnecessary substitute name, or a suppressed name, unless the Commission has ruled otherwise". So if there is some move to undo the embarrassment caused, unfortunately this name could not be recycled for another genus. Any new attempt at honoring this individual (additional to Doliornis remseni) would have to be "Remsenavis" or "Remsenvolucris" or something like that instead.
 
Rauenia ”Type by original designation: Loxia bonariensis Gmelin, 1789"
Here is a fair use quote from Wolters:
Genus Rauenia 1980 IV footnote 1.
Rauenia bonariensis (Gmelin1789) Furchentangare Blue and Yellow Tanager. (Syn stricta) list of where to find the bird in German. Subsp. (incl. darwinii and schulzei)
Footnote 1:
Rauenia gen. nov. , Wolters. Strukteull ahnlich Thraupis Boie 1826 bis auf den dickeren seitlichge schwollenen Schnabel; Charakter der Gefeiderzeichnung jedoch vollig abweichend an Buthraupis, Bangsia usw. Erinnernd: Kopf blau, unterseite goldgelb, Mantel Schwarz oder oliv, Zugelstrief. Typus hier bezeichner, Loxia bonariensis Gmelin Syst. Nat. , 1 (2), p. 850
.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/10286#page/351/mode/1up .
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/105231#page/163/mode/1up .
 
Last edited:
Evidence of hybrid origin for Tachyphonus nattereri Pelzeln, 1870 (Aves: Thraupidae)


LEONARDO ESTEVES LOPES, VITOR DE Q. PIACENTINI

Abstract

Tachyphonus nattereri is one of the three “mystery birds” collected almost 200 years ago by J. Natterer in Brazil whose validity has been disputed in many publications over the last century. Known only from the male holotype and perhaps a female specimen without type status, it is currently treated as either a valid species, a subspecies or a doubtful taxon (an extreme of variation or an aberrant-colored individual). We reviewed the taxonomy of T. nattereri based on fieldwork near the type locality and a careful examination of the holotype and related museum specimens. Our extensive fieldwork revealed that no natural population found in the type locality matches the phenotype of T. nattereri. We found that the holotype is intermediate in plumage, morphometry and body shape between Tachyphonus cristatus and T. luctuosus, two sympatric species locally scarce and at their distributional edge around the type locality. We, therefore, suggest that T. nattereri is a hybrid. On the other hand, the purported female falls within the variation found in Tachyphonus c. madeirae, of which it probably represents an extreme phenotype.


http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4277.3.4
 
Gubernatrix

Domínguez, Tiedemann, Reboreda, Segura, Tittarelli, Mahler. 2017. Genetic structure reveals management units for the yellow cardinal (Gubernatrix cristata), endangered by habitat loss and illegal trapping. Conserv. Genetics 18:1131–1140.
[abstract]

Figures can be seen [here]
 
Donacospiza

L. E. Lopes. Morphological variation of the Long-tailed Reed Finch Donacospiza albifrons (Vieillot, 1817) (Aves: Thraupidae). Zootaxa. Vol 4329, No 3: 5 Oct. 2017.

Abstract:

The Long-tailed Reed Finch Donacospiza albifrons of south-central South America is patchily distributed in a variety of open habitats, usually near water. I present a detailed study of morphological variation based on 141 specimens, describing its plumage sequence and presenting notes on its molt and breeding. The Long-tailed Reed Finch shows no sexual dichromatism, but males average longer-winged than females. The species shows three distinct age-related plumages, which are redescribed here. It also shows marked individual variation in plumage and size, also showing marked plumage variation due to feather wear. Geographic variation is also marked, with birds from dry grasslands in northern highlands typically being larger, paler, and less streaked than birds from wet grasslands in southern lowlands, but there at some exceptions to this geographic pattern. I conclude that there is no solid basis for splitting the species into two or more taxa, and suggest considering the Long-tailed Reed Finch as a single, highly polymorphic species.
 
Ramphocelus

Andrea Morales-Rozo, Elkin A. Tenorio, Matthew D. Carling and Carlos Daniel Cadena. Origin and cross-century dynamics of an avian hybrid zone. BMC Evolutionary Biology, (2017) 17:257.

[pdf]
 
Interesting point by F. Gary Stiles. I am curious whether IOC and HBW will follow.

They have to accept the decision surely, based on the comments from the article at the link?

HBW writes on their site 'Ventania Yellow-finch Sicalis holmbergi

A new species of yellow-finch, Sicalis (Thraupidae), is described from the mountains in the Ventania range, Buenos Aires province, in the central-east region of Argentina. The description is based mainly on comparative analyses of the vocalizations, observations of behaviour and habitat and comparisons of the plumage and bill with other non-sympatric species of the same genus.

Perhaps someone can login here and give us the full view but it seems very odd that HBW can accept it after such a damning rejection by the SACC.

https://www.hbw.com/new-species/ven...er&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter34

Selective quotes from the SACC article

1. There is no reference to an entry in ZooBank of the species name, but the work might (or might not) qualify as being validly published.
2. The morphological diagnosis is problematic and insufficient, and does not suffice to justify full species or subspecies status.
3. The diagnosis based on vocalizations is unconvincing and does not suffice to justify full species status
4. Playback experiments (n=6 experimental subjects) were conducted without rigor. It is not clear whether each individual was subjected to multiple stimuli or not, and there is no indication as to which playback stimuli were used; local stimuli seem to have always been tried last, among many other shortcomings.
5. The presumed display flight of S. holmbergi is so poorly described that it is not clear exactly what this display entails.

Finally at the end of the article

'This description vividly illustrates the problems for bird taxonomy when a manuscript is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. For the large number of reasons stated above we recommend a NO vote.'

Comments from Stiles: "NO. If holmbergi is recognizable at all, it would best be considered a subspecies of cinereiventris.
Comments from Pacheco: "NO. I follow the authors' recommendation of this proposal, based on the inconsistency of the original work of description."
Comments from Robbins: " NO, for many obvious reasons, as pointed out by Nacho and Mark."
Comments from Claramunt: "NO. The evidence is clearly insufficient."


A
 
Last edited:
I don't know anything about these birds, but I will note that there appears to be some sort of inter-personal "issue" between some SACC-associated people and the species author, perhaps related to the situation involving the other more controversial description in the same work that was subject to a competing description by others. This present proposal is a highly unbalanced, critical, unsympathetic, non-peer reviewed hatchet job. The description is as non-peer reviewed as the SACC proposal. We've seen that sort of thing before with SACC, even where voting is unanimous or nearly unanimous, where the outcome has been highly questionable. I am thinking here principally of the Scytalopus petrophilus saga and some of their silliness on past iterations of Zimmerius proposals. The G word cannot be mentioned by those who value their own life or that of their family, as has been noted on this forum before, but the parallels are notable. SACC have a primary interest in "conservatism" - which often looks like an excuse for bashing non-affiliated researchers - and have only a mild interest in producing the most rational possible taxonomies. So the rejection just means that they are being "conservative" and asking for another study - or grandstanding - and not necessarily that the description is bad. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance, as they say; and committee members come and go. Anyway, not knowing a jot about this bird, all I would say is that the manner of proceedings here leave me with a very open mind on whether this description does or does not relate to a valid species.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top