• 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.

Picidae (1 Viewer)

Would you by chance know the details of the type fixations of these two names?


Callolophus Salvadori 1874
Salvadori T. 1874. Catalogo sistematico degli uccelli di Borneo. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 5:v-lii,1-431.
p.49: [OD].
Originally included nominal species: Picus puniceus Horsfield, Picus mentalis Temminck (syn. Picus gularis Temminck), Picus malaccensis Latham (syn. "Picus miniatus" Vigors nec Fortser).
No original type fixation.

On a quick search:
  • Blanford WT. 1895. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. Vol. III. Taylor & Francis, London.
    p.29 [here]: this text implies that P. malaccensis is the type (Bl. says three species were originally included but no type designated, he then places two of the three in other genera and uses the genus as valid for malaccensis), but doesn't actually designate it explicitly.
  • Stresemann E. 1921. Die Spechte der Insel Sumatra. Arch. Naturgesch., 87(7):64-120.
    p.81 [here]: the type is said to be P. malaccensis Latham by subsequent designation of Blanford 1895:29.
Like Stresemann, Peters 1948 [here] accepted Blanford's text as a type designation, albeit this is probably disputable; should it not be valid, Streseman's text certainly is.
P. malaccensis Latham = Chrysophlegma miniaceum malaccense (Latham).
On which base can this name be used for puniceus & chlorolophus?


Chloropicoides is problematic because it can be taken from two different works, I have no idea which one was issued first, and this affects the type species directly.
  • Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
    Malherbe A. 1849. Note sur quelques nouvelles espèces de pics. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Départ. Moselle 5:14-30.
    p.26: [OD].
    Originally included nominal species: Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson).
    Type species Picus rafflesii Vigors by original monotypy. (No designation.)

  • Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
    Malherbe A. 1849. Nouvelle classification des Picinées, devant servir de base à une monographie de ces oiseaux grimpeurs, accompagnée de planches peintes. Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz, 30:313-367.
    p.345: [OD].
    Originally included nominal species: Picus shorii Vigors (syn. Picus abnormis Hodgson), Picus tiga (Horsfield) (syn. Picus javanensis Ljung, Chrysonotus tridactylus Swainson, Tiga tridactyla Blyth), Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson), Picus grantia McClelland.
    No original type fixation.

    The [Richmond index card] claims a type designation by Strickland 1851, which I presume is:
    Strickland HE. 1851. Ornithological notes. Contrib. Ornithol., 4:15-20.
    p.19 [here]: "12. Chloropicoides, Malh. = Tiga, Kaup, 1836. Type, T. tridactyla (Swains.)"
    But this is a misinterpretation -- the types "designated" in this note are not those of Malherbe's names, they are only those of the names Strickland regarded as their valid synonyms (here Tiga Kaup); see, p.18: "the Malherbian genus includes the type-species of the previous author, whose generic name must therefore be regarded as synonymous with it, and be retained accordingly."

    On a quick search, the earliest type designation I found was:
    Hargitt E. 1890. Catalogue of the Picariae in the collections of the British Museum. British Museum, London.
    p.411 [here]: the type is "Tiga shorii" = Picus shorii Vigors. = Dinopium shorii (Vigors).

(The problem with type designation is always the same, though: no list of valid type designations for avian generic names exists, and overlooking/missing relatively obscure designations is extremely easy...)

Shame on me, I based myself on this :

https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinopium

Then, are these following names available?

Cirropicus Stresemann, 1921
Gauropicoides Malherbe, 1861
Mesospilus Sundevall, 1866
 
Last edited:
These ones are much easier.
Cirropicus Stresemann, 1921
Stresemann E. 1921. Die Spechte der Insel Sumatra. Arch. Naturgesch., 87(7):64-120.
p.71: [OD].
Type Picus chlorolophus Vieillot by original designation.
Gauropicoides Malherbe, 1861
Malherbe A. 1861. Monographie des picidées ou Histoire naturelle des picidés, picumninés, yuncinés ou torcols. Vol. I. Société d'Histoire Naturelle de la Moselle, Metz.
p.LIII: [OD].
Type [Gauropicoides] rafflesii = Picus rafflesii Vigors, by original monotypy.
Mesospilus Sundevall, 1866
Sundevall CJ. 1866. Conspectus avium picinarum. Samson & Wallin, Stockholm.
p.116: [OD].
Type [Picus (Mesospilus)] rafflesii = Picus rafflesii Vigors, by original monotypy.


But for rafflesii, the Chloropicoides conundrum should ideally be solved: this name would have precedence, should the publication that makes it apply to this species have precedence over the one that does not.
 
Last edited:
But for rafflesii, the Chloropicoides conundrum should ideally be solved: this name would have precedence, should the publication that makes it apply to this species have precedence over the one that does not.
I found the answer, I think. Stresemann 1921 [here]:
Chloropicoides Malherbe, Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. du Dep. de la Moselle, 5. cahier, 1849, p. 26, Typus durch Monotypie Picus Rafflesii Vigors.¹)
----------
¹) Malherbe's Artikel "Nouvelle Classification des Picinées ou Pics" (Mem. de l'Acad. nat. de Metz 30, 1849, p. 311-367), in der die Gattung auf p. 346 polytypisch erscheint, wurde später veröffentlicht als das 5. Heft obiger Zeitschrift. Dies geht klar aus dem Umstand hervor, daß auf p. 519 und 520 des (geschlossen erschienenen) 30. Bandes der Memoires de l'Acad. de Metz der Einlauf sowohl des Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. du Dep. de la Moselle 1848/49, wie der darin enthaltenen Arbeit Malherbe's bestätigt wird.
In English: on [p.520] of the vol. 30 of Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz (which included the work where the genus appeared as polytypic), the reception by the Academy of the 5th cahier of the Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Départ. Moselle (which included the work where only rafflesii was cited) is reported. Stresemann says the volume appeared as a whole which, if correct, means indeed that the publication of the genus as monotypic must have been first. (And thus that Chloropicoides can be used for rafflesii.)

(Malherbe himself [in 1862] cited the two publications in the opposite order.)
 
Last edited:
I found the answer, I think. Stresemann 1921 [here]:

In English: on [p.520] of the vol. 30 of Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz (which included the work where the genus appeared as polytypic, the reception by the Academy of the 5th cahier of the Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Départ. Moselle (which included the work where only rafflesii was cited) is reported. Stresemann says the volume appeared as a whole which, if correct, means indeed that the publication of the genus as monotypic must have been first. (And thus that Chloropicoides can be used for rafflesii.)

(Malherbe himself [in 1862] cited the two publications in the opposite order.)

Good news.

Now, I would like to know if, from a phylogenetic point of view, I could split Picus into Picus and Cirropicus.
 
Last edited:
I have a question to Gorman's book Woodpeckers of the World:

Is Campephilus splendens treated as distinct species or as subspecies?
 
I have a question to Gorman's book Woodpeckers of the World:

Is Campephilus splendens treated as distinct species or as subspecies?
I don't have the book at hand, but (assuming this is the one you mean -- "Woodpeckers of the World - The complete guide", not "Woodpeckers of the World - A photographic guide" by the same author) it's a ssp in the index in the Google Books preview [here].
 
Last edited:
I don't have the book at hand, but (assuming this is the one you mean -- "Woodpeckers of the World - The complete guide", not "Woodpeckers of the World - A photographic guide" by the same author) it's a ssp in the index in the Google Books preview [here].

Yes, I mean the complete guide. I am curious how the Splendid woodpecker will be treat in the future.
 
Meredith C. Miles, Eric R. Schuppe, R. Miller Ligon IV and Matthew J. Fuxjager, 2018

Macroevolutionary patterning of woodpecker drums reveals how sexual selection elaborates signals under constraint

Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B

Abstract:

Sexual selection drives elaboration in animal displays used for competition and courtship, but this process is opposed by morphological constraints on signal design. Howdo interactions between selection and constraint shape display evolution? One possibility is that sexual selection continues exaggeration under constraint by operating differentially on each signal component in complex, modular displays. This is seldom studied on a phylogenetic scale, but we address the issue herein by studying macroevolutionary patterning of woodpecker drum displays. These territorial displays are produced when an individual rapidly hits its bill on a hard surface, and drums vary across species in the number of beats included (length) and the rate of drumbeat production (speed). We report that species body size limits drum speed, but not drum length. As a result of this biomechanical constraint, there is less standing variation in speed than length. We also uncover a positive relationship between sexual size dimorphism and the unconstrained trait (length), but with no effect on speed. This suggests that when morphology limits the exaggeration of one component, sexual selection instead exaggerates the unconstrained trait. Modular displays therefore provide the basis for selection to find novel routes to phenotypic elaboration after previous ones are closed.

Free pdf: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/285/1873/20172628.full.pdf

Enjoy,

Fred
 
Miller, Leighton, Freeman, Lees, Ligon. 2018. Climate, habitat, and geographic range overlap drive plumage evolution. [BioRxiv preprint]

Abstract
Organismal appearances are shaped by selection from both abiotic and biotic drivers. For example, Gloger's rule describes the pervasive pattern that more pigmented populations are found in more humid areas, and substrate matching as a form of camouflage to reduce predation is widespread across the tree of life. Sexual selection is a potent driver of plumage elaboration, and species may also converge on nearly identical colours and patterns in sympatry, often to avoid predation by mimicking noxious species. To date, no study has taken an integrative approach to understand how these factors determine the evolution of colour and pattern across a large clade of organisms. Here we show that both habitat and climate profoundly shape avian plumage. However, we also find a strong signal that many species exhibit remarkable convergence not explained by these factors nor by shared ancestry. Instead, this convergence is associated with geographic overlap between species, suggesting strong, albeit occasional, selection for interspecific mimicry. Consequently, both abiotic and biotic factors, including interspecific interactions, are potent drivers of phenotypic evolution.

(The analyzed group is 'woodpeckers', i.e., Picinae. [As the abstract does not indicate.])
 
Dendrocopos major x D. syriacus

Gurgul, A., Miksza-Cybulska, A., Szmatoła, T. et al. Evaluation of genotyping by sequencing for population genetics of sibling and hybridizing birds: an example using Syrian and Great Spotted Woodpeckers. J Ornithol (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-018-1601-9

Abstract:

Recent high-throughput genotyping technologies allow for comprehensive genomic analyses on an unprecedented scale. However the advantages of the most commonly used tools are strongly limited in non-model organisms, including wild birds. In this study we attempt to test the utility of genotyping by sequencing (GBS) without relying on the reference genome sequence in selected pairs of sibling bird species that are known to hybridize (Syrian and Great Spotted Woodpeckers). We found that GBS is able to produce a satisfying number of polymorphisms and can be successfully applied to the population genetics of these species. The results also suggest that urban populations of these woodpeckers, especially phenotypic Syrian Woodpeckers, consist of individuals that harbor genotypes assigned to Great Spotted Woodpeckers, which suggests intensive hybridization and introgression.
 
Kamp L., Pasinelli G., Milanesi P., Drovetski S.V., Kosiński Z., Kossenko S. Robles H. & Schweizer M. 2018. Significant Asia‐Europe divergence in the middle spotted woodpecker (Aves, Picidae). Zoologica Scripta. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12320

Could someone with access please confirm where the geographical split is exactly? Is there really that deep of a divergence just a cross the Bosphorus? o_0
 
Could someone with access please confirm where the geographical split is exactly? Is there really that deep of a divergence just a cross the Bosphorus? o_0

The division runs through the Bosphorous northeast to the gap (bridged this year) between Crimea and Krasnodar region, swinging southeast to include the northern slopes of the Trans-Caucasus and reach the Caspian (caucasicus). There is a broad habitat gap north of Krasnodar and the Caucasus, but the narrow gaps near Istanbul and the Dardanelles do appear to have acted as effective barriers. However, a wider gap to Lesvos clearly has been crossed by anatoliae of the eastern group...
MJB
 
another issue with Dendropicos

Malherbe's work in Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz is regarded as having precedence over his Rev. Mag. Zool. publication.
Funny that I did not notice this earlier but, if the Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz was first, its seems we also have a significant problem with the type fixation of Dendropicos.

The currently accepted fixation is explained on Zoonomen: http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/type/typed.html#D.fuscescens
If the Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz paper was indeed before the Rev. Mag. Zool. paper, the currently accepted type species (D. lafresnayi), although included in the genus in the OD, was a mere nomen nudum at that point.
As a consequence, it never was eligible to be made the type of the genus...

(Note that the currently accepted type fixation (cf. Zoonomen link) is also objectionable for another reason: Sclater 1921 [here] rejected the earlier designation, by Hargitt 1890 [here], of cardinalis (not an originally included nominal species indeed); however, Hargitt had simultaneously placed D. hartlaubii (included in the genus in the OD) in the synonymy of cardinalis [here]; should hartlaubii have been eligible, this action would in principle have fixed it validly as the type (under ICZN 69.2.2), well before Sclater's designation of lafresnayi. hartlaubii suffers from the same problem as lafresnayi, however -- it was unavailable before the Rev. Mag. Zool. publication.)
 
Last edited:
TiF Update August 9:

Piculets: The Latin American piculets have been rearranged based on Shakya et al. (2017). Their results suggest that some adjustment of species limits will be needed, but that awaits further studies. A hybrid piculet I saw in Minas Gerais (Brazil) earlier this year suggests the issues go beyond found by Shakya et al.

Surprisingly, they found that the Olive-backed Woodpecker, Dinopium rafflesii, is sister to Gecinulus. As a result, I've placed it in the monotypic genus Chloropicoides (Malherbe 1848-49).

Other changes prompted by Shakya et al., include rearranging Piculus and Yungipicus and adjusting the position of the Red-headed Flameback, Chrysocolaptes erythrocephalus and of the Helmeted Woodpecker, Celeus galeatus. Even though Shakya et al. (2017) and Dufort et al. (2016) have differences in the overall arrangement of the woodpeckers, I continue to follow Dufort et al. (2016) which seems to use more data.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top