• 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.

Trochilidae (1 Viewer)

Colibri thalassinus

Hernández-Soto, M., Licona-Vera, Y., Lara, C. et al. Molecular and climate data reveal expansion and genetic differentiation of Mexican Violet-ear Colibri thalassinus thalassinus (Aves: Trochilidae) populations separated by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. J Ornithol (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-018-1540-5

Abstract:

The present day distribution and spatial genetic diversity of Mesoamerican biota reflect a long history of responses to complex topography, geological history and climate changes. The hummingbird Colibri thalassinus thalassinus is distributed in northern Mesoamerica, with geographically disjunct populations mainly separated by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (IT). Based on sampling across the species range in Mexico, we use mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and distributional projections derived from ecological niche modeling (ENM) to test whether (1) populations are genetically differentiated according to the fragmented distribution of C. thalassinus thalassinus in Mexico, and (2) historical demographic patterns of these hummingbird populations correspond to those of expanded populations during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Analysis of genetic variation revealed two main mtDNA lineages: populations west of the IT along the Sierra Madre Oriental, Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and Sierra Madre del Sur and populations east of the isthmus in Chiapas and Guatemala. A significant signal of genetic differentiation, demographic expansion near the LGM, and contractions/expansions of suitable environmental conditions during the LGM fit a model of lineage divergence west of the isthmus after the LGM, and that the species’ suitable habitat was continuous connecting populations on either side of the isthmus. We conclude that the genetic differentiation of C. thalassinus thalassinus in Mexico resulted from recent geographical isolation of populations separated by the IT. In addition, this scenario is supported by the modeled paleodistribution that suggests that populations expanded during the LGM, and that the spread of the species into the highlands caused habitat fragmentation and population isolation for C. thalassinus thalassinus during the interglacial periods. The findings corroborate the profound effects of Pleistocene climatic fluctuations on the genetic differentiation of C. thalassinus thalassinus in Mexico but challenge the generality of glacial refugia.
 
The surprise in the second group is Thalurania ridgwayi, which has always been included in this genus since its description, based upon its green throat and chest, dark abdomen and bright blue-violet crown. However, the genetic data preclude inclusion of ridgwayi in Thalurania; moreover, a closer examination of its plumage reveals previously overlooked similarities in plumage with Eupherusa. Furthermore, its Pacific slope distribution accords much better with that of Eupherusa than that of Thalurania, which extends northward in the Caribbean lowlands to Guatemala and only occupies the Pacific slope from southwestern Costa Rica southwards into South America. Hence, we advocate inclusion of ridgwayi in the genus Eupherusa. The only other option would require naming a new genus for ridgwayi, which we deem unnecessary given its close genetic relationship to Eupherusa.

Even if "Thalurania" ridgwayi and Eupherusa are very close, for me, they have nothing in common. "T" ridgwayi is distinguished from all Eupherusa species by the lack of red feathers on the secondaries and tertiary and the absence of white external rectrice.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, the phylogenetic position of "Amazilia" boucardi and "A" luciae remains unresolved

B. Lump Aphantochroa into Eupetomena while maintaining a monospecific Taphrospilus.
[...] We favor option B as being most concordant regarding relationships, morphology and distributions, although cirrochloris and macroura differ strongly in plumage; [...]

So, continue to recognize two monotypic genera in this case if they are so different in plumage. tssssssss :-@

(Sorry Mr Remsen, Mr Stiles, Mr Piacentini, that's just me but I'll not follow most of your recommendation, and, fortunately it's not mandatory.)
 
Last edited:
General question IOC World bird list here says Amazilia brevirostris (Lesson, R, 1829). Many other sources (Lesson, 1830). What is correct? Maybe there is a publication about dates from Lessons hummingbirds?
 
General question IOC World bird list here says Amazilia brevirostris (Lesson, R, 1829). Many other sources (Lesson, 1830). What is correct? Maybe there is a publication about dates from Lessons hummingbirds?

The species is described on page xxxv of Lesson’s Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches, which should have been published in 1829 since Anker 1938 (Bird Books and Bird Art: An Outline of the Literary History and Iconography of Descriptive Ornithology) says that this work “appeared in different issues and was published in 17 livraisons, the last seven of which appeared in 1830”.
 
Cristina González-Rubio, Francisco J. García-De León, Ricardo Rodríguez-Estrella. Phylogeography of endemic Xantus’ hummingbird (Hylocharis xantusii) show a different history of vicariance in the Baja California Peninsula. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 31 May 2016.

[abstract]

According

Frank Garfield Stiles III, James Vanderbeek Remsen Jr, Jimmy Adair McGuire: The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): Reconciling taxonomy with phylogeny. In: Zootaxa. Band4353, Nr.3, 2017, S.401–424, doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4353.3.1 here

Group B is also taxonomically polyphyletic (Fig. 1). Sister to the rest of the group (subgroup B1) are “Hylocharis” leucotis (Vieillot) and “H.” xantusii (Lawrence). However, the phylogeny (McGuire et al. 2014) separates the rest of Hylocharis Boie, 1831 including its type species sapphirina (Gmelin,1788) in group D (see below). Ridgway (1911) and Cory (1918) treated leucotis and xantusii in the genus Basilinna Boie, 1831, but Peters (1945) merged it into Hylocharis without comment. More recently, Howell & Webb (1995), Schuchmann (1999) and Hernández et al. (2014) have provided evidence that Basilinna should be restored for leucotis (Vieillot, 1818), its type species, and xantusii, which is supported by the genetic data. Here again, the character used by many authors to diagnose Hylocharis, the expanded red base of the bill in adult males, shows considerable homoplasy and is of little phylogenetic value.

Fine. But my question is about the date of publication for Hylocharis xantusii or Basilinna xantusii. I found 1860 and/or 1861. In OD we can find:

Read April 9, 1860 but the Volume is from 1862. I assume read is not equal to published. Nevertheless is 1861 correct or 1860 as publishing date?
 
Read April 9, 1860 but the Volume is from 1862. I assume read is not equal to published. Nevertheless is 1861 correct or 1860 as publishing date?
The signature is dated April 1860 (at the foot of [p.103]). That should in principle indicate the time of printing.
(Printed is still not equal to published, though; publication requires the distribution of the printed item.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top