• 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.

Owls (1 Viewer)

Barn Owl

These statements (p582) are a little curious:

"The Eurasian Barn Owl Tyto alba has been divided into several subspecies, of which a number have already been converted into true and distinct species. Whereas the subspecies T. alba and T. guttata can hardly be distinguished genetically, T. erlangeri (from the eastern Mediterranean) and T. affinis (from Africa) form distinct but not highly diverged lineages within the T. alba complex."​

The second sentence refers to subspecies, but the taxa are then named as species (T. affinis etc, rather than T. a. affinis). Taken in the context of the first sentence, which refers to conversion to 'true and distinct species', is it possible that Wink et al indeed regard some/all of these taxa as species (despite limited divergence)?

Richard
 
or they consider subspecies as not really that different from species, a viewpoint which from my reading seems to be more prevalent than one would think...
 
Wink 2014. Molekulare Phylogenie der Eulen (Strigiformes). Molecular Phylogeny of Owls (Strigiformes). DO-G 147th Annual Meeting, Oct 2014, Bielefeld. Vogelwarte 52(4): 325–326.

(Abstract & phylogeny.)
 
One thing that is interesting to me is the deep structure within the Barn Owl complex.

Niels
 
Indian subcontinent

Rawankar A.S., Wagh G.A. & Wadatkar J.S., 2015. DNA barcoding and phylogenetic analysis of Tyto alba, Otus bakkamoena and Athene brama from Indian subcontinent. Int. J. Zool. Res. 5 (5): 7-14.

PDF there
 
Cyprus scops owl

Cyprus scops owl might be a distinct species

Zootaxa 4040 (3): 301–316 (11 Nov. 2015)
Reprising the taxonomy of Cyprus Scops Owl Otus (scops) cyprius, a neglected island endemic
PETER FLINT, DAVID WHALEY, GUY M. KIRWAN, MELIS CHARALAMBIDES, MANUEL SCHWEIZER & MICHAEL WINK


Abstract
 
Cyprus Scops Owl

Zootaxa 4040 (3): 301–316 (11 Nov. 2015)
Reprising the taxonomy of Cyprus Scops Owl Otus (scops) cyprius, a neglected island endemic
PETER FLINT, DAVID WHALEY, GUY M. KIRWAN, MELIS CHARALAMBIDES, MANUEL SCHWEIZER & MICHAEL WINK
Treated as a distinct species by Robb et al 2015 (Undiscovered owls) (and van den Berg 2015 (Dutch Birding bird names))...
Cyprus Scops Owl challenges many of our ideas about what constitutes a species. Two important vocalisations differ from Eurasian Scops Owl, and yet its mtDNA hardly differs at all. Its plumage is subtly distinct but its structure is not. Large numbers of Eurasian Scops migrate through Cyprus, and yet it remains distinct. Clearly, this taxon represents something more interesting than the various subspecies of Eurasian Scops. It certainly deserves much closer attention than it has received up to now.
 
Last edited:
Cyprus Scops Owl

Zootaxa 4040 (3): 301–316 (11 Nov. 2015)
Reprising the taxonomy of Cyprus Scops Owl Otus (scops) cyprius, a neglected island endemic
PETER FLINT, DAVID WHALEY, GUY M. KIRWAN, MELIS CHARALAMBIDES, MANUEL SCHWEIZER & MICHAEL WINK
Flint et al 2015. [pdf]
 
I wish they will include Galapagos samples in the further studies. At least the SOE gives impression of being something different than those I have seen elsewhere.

Niels
 
Wink mistakes Otus cyprius as Athene cyprius (page 14).

Perhaps there is a different interpretation?

"Die Steinkäuze auf Zypern konnten kürzlich auch als eigenständiges Taxon A. cyprius beschrieben werden,da es sich genetisch und durch seine Lautäußerungen differenzieren lässt (Flint et al. 2015). "

From the context, perhaps the mistake is that he intended A. (n.) lilith?

There appear to be two altitude-separated Athene populations in Cyprus, one apparently in the coastal region, one inland. Whether they are different taxa or are merely different in plumage, open-country birds being generally paler than bird from wooded areas, I have no data.
MJB
 
Last edited:
"Die Steinkäuze auf Zypern konnten kürzlich auch als eigenständiges Taxon A. cyprius beschrieben werden,da es sich genetisch und durch seine Lautäußerungen differenzieren lässt (Flint et al. 2015)."
From the context, perhaps the mistake is that he intended A. (n.) lilith?
"The Little Owls in Cyprus can be described recently as an independent taxon A. cyprius because it can be differentiated genetically and through its vocalisations (Flint et al. 2015)."
  • Flint et al 2015. Reprising the taxonomy of Cyprus Scops Owl Otus (scops) cyprius, a neglected island endemic. Zootaxa 4040(3): 301–316.
I think Wink is definitely confused here...

PS. But Wink et al 2008 (Molecular phylogeny and systematics of owls (Strigiformes) in König & Weick 2008 (Owls of the World, 2nd ed)) recognised Athene (noctua) lilith (including the Cyprus population) as a distinct species.
 
Last edited:
It's me or they "suggest" to separate Macabra from Otus (or Megascops) ?
Macabra is problematic.

Macabra Bonaparte 1854 [OD]. (The name was apparently used first [here], where it is nude.)
Originally included nominal species:
  • "hylophila Temm." = Strix hylophila Temminck 1825 - [OD] - now in use as Strix hylophila Temminck 1825
  • "fasciata Vieill." = Strix fasciata Vieillot 1817 - [OD]
  • "suinda Vieill." = Strix suinda Vieillot 1817 - [OD] - now in use as Asio flammeus suinda (Vieillot 1817)
  • "melanonota Vieill." - Vieillot did not publish such a name; has been presumed to be Noctua melanota Tschudi 1844 [OD], emended to N. melanonota by Tschudi 1845 [here] - now in use as Pulsatrix melanota (Tschudi 1844)
  • "cayanensis Gm." = Strix cayennensis Gmelin 1788 [OD]
  • "albigularis Cassin" = Syrnium albo-gularis Cassin 1849 [OD] - now in use as Megascops albogularis (Cassin 1849)
Gray 1855 [here] designated "Strix cayanensis, Gm." as the type. Strix cayennensis Gmelin is based on Buffon's "Chat-huant de Cayenne" [description] [plate] (and on Latham's "Cayenne Owl" [description], which itself is based on Buffon's bird). It is not known what this bird was.

The next subsequent type designation was apparently by Sharpe 1875 [here], who designated Syrnium hylophilum.

The name has also been used for Megascops albogularis alone (implying this is the type) by several workers, the first one possibly Wolters in Vogelarten der Erde, but I'm unclear on which base.

Penhallurick & Gregory 2001 [here] rejected Gray's designation, arguing that the bird being unidentifiable made it "invalid"; they accepted Sharpe's designation and placed the name in the synonymy of Strix. I'm unclear which provision of the Code can be used to support this interpretation, however. In my reading, as long as the designated nominal species was originally included and is denoted by an available name, the designation should be valid. If the designated type species cannot be identified, then the generic name itself cannot be identified either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top