• 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.

Sulidae (1 Viewer)

Peruvian Booby

Stucchi 2013. The skull of the Peruvian booby Sula variegata (Aves, Sulidae). El cráneo del piquero peruano Sula variegata (Aves, Sulidae). Biologist (Lima) 11(1): 15–32. [pdf] (in Spanish)
 
Brown x Blue-footed Booby

Taylor, Morris-Pocock, Tershy, Castillo-Guerrero & Friesen 2013. Hybridization from possible sexual mis-imprinting: molecular characterization of hybridization between Brown Sula leucogaster and Blue-footed Boobies S. nebouxii. Marine Ornithol 41(2) 113–119. [pdf]

[Related: Sula nebouxii x Sula variegate.]
 
On the topic of Sulidae, something that's long been baffling me - when the genus Sula was split, why were the names applied the wrong way round?

The type of the genus Sula is clearly Sula bassana by name derivation (Old Norse Sula; cf. modern Danish Sule, Faeroese and Icelandic Súla, Norwegian Havsule ["sea sule"], Swedish Havssula [ditto]; also the Scottish gannetries Sula Sgeir, Sule Skerry and Sule Stack, all named by the Vikings after their birds).

So after the split of Sula into three genera, surely the three gannets have to be in Sula, and Morus (Latin, "a fool, foolish" - i.e., a booby) should have been applied (again, name derivation) to the boobies. Who boobed, and why?
 
So after the split of Sula into three genera, surely the three gannets have to be in Sula, and Morus (Latin, "a fool, foolish" - i.e., a booby) should have been applied (again, name derivation) to the boobies. Who boobed, and why?
One (comfortable) answer would be that it doesn't work this way: the type species of a genus is selected among the species included by the author that originally made the name available (after 1758), following rules set up in the Code. Sometimes the type is determined automatically from the original publication; in other cases it must be designated from the available originally included species by a subsequent author. Note that Morus was introduced by Vieillot, and in French the booby/gannet dichotomy does not exist--all are called "fous", which indeed might be translated by "fool".

Now, if we dive a bit deeper in the details, we might actually grow much less comfortable, as many traditional type fixations in bird genera were established under old rules specific to ornithology, and are in fact not compliant with the current Code of Nomenclature.

Peters' Check-list lists the type fixations as follow:
- Morus Vieillot, Analyse, 1816, p. 63. Type, by monotypy, "Fou de Bassan" Buffon = Pelecanus bassanus Linné.
- Sula, Brisson, Orn., 1, 1760, p. 60; 6, 1760, p. 494. Type, by tautonymy, "Sula" = Sula leucogaster Boddaert.

"By monotypy" = because only one species was originally included, thus only this one can be the type.
"By tautonymy" = because one of the originally included species has a specific name that is identical with the generic name.

The main problem: the current Code says that to be awarded the status of "originally included species", and thus be eligible as type species, a species must be cited by an available name in the original publication. (In the Code a type species is a nominal species, not a taxonomic species.) "Fou de Bassan" Buffon and "Sula" Brisson do not qualify.
 
Last edited:
Thanks; unfortunately I don't understand your last paragraph :-(

But surely "Type, by tautonymy", would be Sula sula, not Sula leucogaster?

My point about name derivation is that Brisson, in naming the genus Sula after an Old Norse name for the Northern Gannet, was implicitly stating that the Northern Gannet is the species by which he defines his new genus, i.e., is the type of the genus. And this should take precedence over any subsequent designation by another author.
 
But surely "Type, by tautonymy", would be Sula sula, not Sula leucogaster?
Brisson's nomenclature is not standard and somewhat problematic (only his generic names are considered available). Here, the "tautonymy" would result from a species "Sula" (not binominal) in a genus Sula. But see below.
This case is discussed by Sclater 1915.
Thanks; unfortunately I don't understand your last paragraph :-(
Sorry, trying again...
Ornithology has traditionally considered type species are taxonomic species. Everything that is included by the original author in his genus, and that can be traced to an actual species "that-lives-out-there" is considered eligible as a type species.
The Code considers type species are nominal species, which are nomenclatural concepts, and have to be traceable down to a unique available name and unique type material.

If you read Sclater's text I linked above: he says Brisson's "Sula" is the type, then proceeds to identify the taxonomic species that is behind it ("this bird is, to my mind, the Brown Booby"), and finally assigns the first name that he considers available for this species (Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert) as the type.

Although this is very much representative of what is usual in ornithology, this is absolutely not what the Code says must be done, on at least two accounts.

1) Many taxonomic species have several available names that apply to them, typically all considered synonyms, only the oldest one being used. You can see these various names as taxonomically equivalent (they refer to the same taxonomic species), but nomenclaturally they are distinct (each one has a distinct type material) and you cannot switch between them freely (they refer to distinct nominal species). Identifying an included taxonomic species does not necessarily allow to identify a unique nominal species. The only way to identify a unique nominal species is to see its available name being cited -- hence this is what the Code asks to do: find available names cited in the OD. If there is none (as is the case for Morus: Vieillot only cites "Fou de Bassan Buff.", which is a French vernacular), we should disregard what the original author included in his genus, and proceed to find the first author who included species cited by available names in it: these will be the "originally included species" of the genus.

2) Tautonymy in the current Code exists in two flavors.
- One is "absolute tautonymy" (Art.68.4): "if a valid species-group name, or its cited synonym, originally included in a nominal genus-group taxon is identical with the name of that taxon, the nominal species denoted by that specific name (if available) is the type species." To have this fulfilled, we'd need to find an available name of the type "Aus sula Jones" somewhere in the original publication, and this would be the type species. There is no such name here. Ergo, "Sula" Brisson is not the type of Sula by absolute tautonymy as defined in the ICZN.
- The other is "Linnaean tautonymy" (Art.68.5): "if, in the synonymy of only one of the originally included nominal species in a nominal genus-group taxon established before 1931, there is cited a pre-1758 name of one word identical with the new genus-group name, that nominal species is the type species." To have this fulfilled, we'd need to find a pre-1758 one-word name "Sula" cited as the synonym of one, and only one, of the species included in the genus, and the available name that is attributed by the author to this species would be the type species. Brisson's single-word species name "Sula" is not pre-1758, is not cited as a synonym, and is not available, hence it definitely doesn't fulfil the conditions. Ergo, "Sula" Brisson is not the type of Sula by Linnaean tautonymy as defined in the ICZN. However, there is a single-word "Sula" cited in the synonymy of Sula Bassana on p.504 ("Les habitans de l'Isle Ferroë, SULA. Clus."). Although Brisson's names are not available, his Sula Bassana is probably interpretable as a recombination of Pelecanus bassanus Linnaeus, 1758, that is cited in the synonymy as well, and is available. Thus, actually, Pelecanus bassanus Linnaeus, 1758 could arguably be seen as the type species of Sula by Linnaean tautonymy, as you originally suggested.
 
Last edited:
Thanks! Clear as mud (to me anyway!):h?: :stuck:

Interesting though that Sclater was going against a prior accepted consensus ("... and as I find I am not in agreement with what may be called the recognized authorities ..."). Do you know what the prevailing view was before Sclater? Could that have been right and Sclater's then-new proposals wrong?

And if your last sentence is correct - which I suspect it likely is - how would one go about getting it accepted by the powers-that-be?
 
Red-footed Booby

Morris-Pocock, Anderson, Friesen. [in press] Biogeographical barriers to dispersal and rare gene flow shape population genetic structure in red-footed boobies (Sula sula). J Biogeogr.
[abstract]
 
Abbott's Booby

Caio J Carlos. Reflections on the Phylogenetic Position and Generic Status of Abbott's Booby 'Papasula abbotti' (Aves, Sulidae). Entomol Ornithol Herpetol 2017, Vol 6(4): 4 DOI: 10.4172/2161-0983.1000205

Abstract:

Introduction: I here comment on the phylogenetic position and generic status of the rare and threatened Abbott's Booby Papasula abbotti. I argue that the current genus name of this species was erected from an incorrect interpretation of a phylogenetic hypothesis and a straightforward decision about its generic placement cannot be made, given the conflicts regarding the species' closer phylogenetic relationships.

Methods: I examined three published hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships for Sulidae (one based on phenotypic and two on molecular data), following Hennig’s principle of reciprocal illumination, wherein a given hypothesis is evaluated by the extent to which it agrees with competing hypotheses.

Results and discussion: There is a considerable degree of congruence among the examined cladograms, the main conflict being the position of Abbott's Booby. Therefore, for the time being, I propose that in any cladistic-based classification the name 'Sula abbotti' be placed at the level at which their relationships are more surely determined (i.e., below the family name and above Sula and Morus and labelled as 'incertae sedis') or the name Papasula be considered as a subgenus.
 
Masked Booby

Mahalia R. Kingsley, Jennifer L. Lavers, Tammy E. Steeves & Christopher P. Burridge (2019) Genetic distinctiveness of Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra) on Bedout Island, Western Australia, Emu - Austral Ornithology, DOI: 10.1080/01584197.2019.1663125

Abstract:

The Masked Booby is a highly vagile, pantropical seabird of which up to six subspecies have been recognised: S. d. dactylatra, S. d. californica, S. d. personata, S. d. melanops, S. d. bedouti and S. d. tasmani. The genetic distinction of several S. dactylatra colonies has been previously investigated, but this has not yet been conducted for the Bedout Island population in Western Australia, which has been considered by some to be part of a distinct subspecies. Suspected population decline on Bedout Island has renewed interest in determining the extent to which genetic novelty might be threatened. To answer this question, morphological and mitochondrial control region sequence variation were used to determine the distinction of the Bedout Island population. Whereas the morphological measures were equivocal, six haplotypes were identified from 31 individuals, none of which were shared by individuals previously sampled from the Indo-Pacific. The Bedout Island haplotypes were most closely related to other haplotypes found in a distinct Indian Ocean haplogroup, but haplotype frequencies at Bedout Island differed significantly from all other. This indicates that the Bedout Island population rarely exchanges mitochondrial genes with any of the other Masked Booby colonies presently studied, which may reflect dependence on local recruitment for its persistence.
 
VanderWerf, E. A., M. Frye, J. Gilardi, J. Penniman, M. Rauzon, H. D. Pratt, R. S. Steffy, and J. Plissner (2023) Range expansion, pairing patterns, and taxonomic status of Brewster’s Booby Sula leucogaster brewsteri. Pacific Science 77: 1-12.
Range Expansion, Pairing Patterns, and Taxonomic Status of Brewster's Booby Sula leucogaster brewsteri

Abstract
The Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster) is a pantropical seabird that exhibits geographic variation. Brewster's Booby (S. l. brewsteri) is the most distinctive form morphologically and genetically. Until recently, Brewster's Booby was restricted to the eastern Pacific Ocean, but it is expanding westward, resulting in increasing sympatry with the Indo-Pacific form, S. l. plotus, and greater potential for interbreeding. We compiled observations of Brewster's Booby outside its usual range and we collected data on pairing patterns in the zone of overlap. At least 65 male and 53 female Brewster's Boobies have been observed on 20 islands in the central and western Pacific, with breeding documented on nine islands, mostly since 2000. Pairing by S. l. brewsteri and S. l. plotus was primarily assortative, with only a few instances of hybridization, all but one of which occurred in locations where no female S. l. brewsteri were present. The morphological differences between S. l. plotus and S. l. brewsteri appear to act as behavioral reproductive isolating mechanisms that restrict interbreeding. The morphological, genetic, and behavioral differences between S. l. brewsteri and other forms of the Brown Booby suggest it would be appropriate under all species concepts to consider Brewster's Booby as a distinct species.
 
Yeah I read the proposal and found the preponderance of records of conspecific mate selection pretty convincing, at least as presented/summarized in the proposal!

Certainly at first read it seems far stronger an argument than, ie, two species of Short-tailed Albatross.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top