andrew147
Well-known member
Yes, it was a link (reply #10 on this very thread) to a World Bird Info page. The link no longer works
-
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.
Thraupidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Yes, it was a link (reply #10 on this very thread) to a World Bird Info page. The link no longer works
l_raty
laurent raty
This seems correct, indeed.
Pyrrhulagra Bonaparte 1850 [OD]: originally included nominal species Loxia portoricensis Daudin, Loxia violacea Linn., Tanagra ruficollis Gmelin, Fringilla noctis Linn.; no original type fixation; Fringilla noctis Linn. was designated as the type by Bonaparte & Schlegel 1850.
Burns et al. 2016 cite as type "Loxia portoricensis Daudin, 1800, currently Loxigilla portoricensis", without explaining. They may (?) have accepted a type fixation by designation by Gray 1855; but of course, if another type species was already fixed at the date of publication of Gray's work, his designation is invalid.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I found the same :
Pyrrhulagra Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., 1, (2), p. 492, 1850, type species, subsequent designation (Gray) Loxia portoricensis Daudin.
Pyrrhulagra Bonaparte, Consp. Gen. Av., 1, (2), p. 492, 1850, type species, subsequent designation (Gray) Loxia portoricensis Daudin.
andrew147
Well-known member
Yes, the approach taken by Burns et al (2016) seems to be focussed on retaining (most of) the traditional Thraupis rather than consistently representing the diversity of the whole Thraupis-Tangara group.
The whole complex has a primary divergence (c. 10 mya) into a Tangara-group and a Thraupis-group (including ex-Tangara represented by the newly resurrected Ixothraupis and newly coined Chalcothraupis, Poecilostreptus & Stilpnia). However, the remaining Tangara group involves older lineages than the Thraupis-group and the oldest branch, c. 9 million years old, is without the two names it requires.
To make the Tangara-group consistent with the Thraupis-group, a total of at least seven genera (each older than 5 million years) is required.
- New genus for cyanotis
- New genus for rufigenis & labradorides
- Procnopis for vassorii, nigroviridis, fucosa & dowii
- Chrysothraupis for chrysotis, xanthocephala, parzudakii, arthus, florida, icterocephala, schrankii & johannae
- Gyrola for lavinia & gyrola
- Tangara for velia, callophrys & chilensis and also inornata and mexicana (which could justifiably be separated as Eupepriste).
- Calliste for fastuosa, seledon, cyanoventris, desmaresti & cyanocephala
Acanthis
Well-known member
Jon Boyd uses Melopyrrha for this little clade. http://jboyd.net/Taxo/Dacninae3.pdf
Surely there's no issues with that is there?
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
It's not worth to split Tangara stricto sensu into more genera. Let like this.
Acanthis
Well-known member
Yes, there is some sense in desisting from further dismantling but like Andrew I also noticed the great age of the remaining clades. Leaving things as they are would be inconsistent with the way the rest of Tangara/Thraupis is treated
l_raty
laurent raty
The various works by Gray (1840, 1841, 1855) on the genera of birds are a primary source of subsequent type-species designations. (He was the first author to produce extensive lists of genera, with a type cited for every genus he treated as valid; most authors before him did not apply the type concept at all, and many genera had no fixed type species yet; as a result, in many instances, when Gray listed a type, he produced a new type fixation.) So, if looking for a type designation for a generic name proposed around this time, Gray's works are among the first ones which it is logical to check.
But this doesn't make Gray's writings God's word: if there is an earlier explicit type designation that conflicts with Gray's, this earlier type designation stands.
It's quite hard to deny that
...is a statement that Fringilla noctis L. is the type of the new genus Pyrrhulagra "Schiff" Bonaparte 1850...
Melopyrrha is the name that Burns et al. 2014 recommended using (which John Boyd followed, presumably). But, in the recent paper, they changed their mind, and write that "Pyrrhulagra Bonaparte, 1850, has priority over Melopyrrha Bonaparte, 1853 (type = Loxia nigra Linnaeus, 1758, currently Melopyrrha nigra), and cannot be considered a nomen oblitum"... This is all correct except that, if the type of Pyrrhulagra is noctis, the name doesn't apply to the group in question at all. (This makes it an objective synonym of Loxigilla Lesson 1831 [OD]; type designated as Fringilla noctis Linn. by Gray 1855 -- who amazingly also listed Pyrrhulagra as a synonym here, in addition to treating it as valid with another type species on the next page... -- ; as Lesson's name is in use, older, and not preoccupied, Pyrrhulagra is objectively invalid.)
Melopyrrha Bonaparte 1853 [OD]: this is extremely close to be a nomen nudum (no included nominal species, "je crée le genre Melopyrrha pour les soi-disant Bouvreuils noirs d'Amérique non encore déterminés d'une manière satisfaisante." is the only "indication" provided). But Gray 1855 accepted it and designated Loxia nigra Linn. as its type.
This name has also been attributed directly to Gray 1855, which presumably wouldn't have much effect on its treatment as valid.
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
This remark should be applied to many other genera: Psilopogon / Megalaima, Setophaga /Parula. Nevertheless....
Acanthis
Well-known member
Beautifully explained Laurent, thank you :t:
Acanthis
Well-known member
Yes indeed! Part of the fun aspect of this subject
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Yes, Laurent is the best.
#bg
#bg
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Yes indeed! Part of the fun aspect of this subject
Ok, cool, let's talk. In another topic.
Last edited:
Hi everyone,
I've enjoyed reading all of your comments and reactions in response to our proposed genus-level classification. I just wanted to say that if anyone is still looking for a copy of the manuscript and have been unable to secure one so far, they can email me at [email protected] and I'd be happy to provide a pdf.
All the best,
Nick
I've enjoyed reading all of your comments and reactions in response to our proposed genus-level classification. I just wanted to say that if anyone is still looking for a copy of the manuscript and have been unable to secure one so far, they can email me at [email protected] and I'd be happy to provide a pdf.
All the best,
Nick
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Burns et al 2016
Alternative 2 (broadly-defined genera) now included...
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Burns et al 2016
It's kind of you to offer.
PS. The checklist committees are going to be busy...
Many thanks, Nick. :t:
It's kind of you to offer.
PS. The checklist committees are going to be busy...
Last edited:
My pleasure!
I received requests from James Jobling and Steven Gregory, but my replies to them keep getting kicked back by their servers as spam. If anyone happens to be in email contact with them and has a copy of the pdf, could they pass it along for me? Thanks!
Last edited:
andrew147
Well-known member
Definitely to splitting up Psilopogon! At the moment, a broadly defined Psilopogon is completely at odds with the way the members of Lybiidae are treated. It gives the wrong impression that African barbets are vastly more diverse than Asian barbets; further, names are available for all the main Asian barbet lineages.
Conversely, Setophaga is a young radiation and can justifiably be kept broad.
I'm not simply enthusing about splitting, I would just prefer an attempt at consistency. If the Thraupis-group is treated as four genera then the Tangara-group, with older lineages, should also be split... or they could be treated as two large genera, alongside large Lanio, Geospiza, Quiscalus etc... the Galapagos finches are a very recent, very uniform radiation, often barely differentiated at the species level, yet they are almost universally treated in five genera!
Having some less diverse groups treated in multiple genera and other very diverse groups lumped is inconsistent and obfuscates an understanding of evolutionary relationships.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Available names for Asian Barbets : Mesobucco, Xantholaema, Psilopogon, Megalaima and Chotorea (or Cyanops).
And I thought , in my mind, keep Parula and merge all species of ex Dendroica into Parula. Keep a monotypic Setophaga and a monotypic Wilsonia. And create a new generic name, something like, i don't know, "Dryothlypis", for plumbea, angelae and pharetra. That's all.
Unfortunately, it's not my décision.
And I thought , in my mind, keep Parula and merge all species of ex Dendroica into Parula. Keep a monotypic Setophaga and a monotypic Wilsonia. And create a new generic name, something like, i don't know, "Dryothlypis", for plumbea, angelae and pharetra. That's all.
Unfortunately, it's not my décision.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
"Available names for Asian Barbets : Xantholaema"
The genus name Xantholoema Bonaparte is one month older than Xantholaema.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/48136#page/140/mode/1up .
Page 12 of Conspectus volucrum zygodactylorum is May 1854.
https://books.google.com/books?id=T...Volucrum+Zygodactylorum&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Also in this publication is Megaloema not Megalaima and Chotorea and Cyanops. Actually the June 1854 Annales looks like Xantholoema??
As I just found out today Laurent believes that time only moves in one direction and 1850 is older than 1851?
Does #BG stand for boy genius, or baby gangster? Also from a North American viewpoint your motto should be Gotta check-list' hem all!
The genus name Xantholoema Bonaparte is one month older than Xantholaema.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/48136#page/140/mode/1up .
Page 12 of Conspectus volucrum zygodactylorum is May 1854.
https://books.google.com/books?id=T...Volucrum+Zygodactylorum&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Also in this publication is Megaloema not Megalaima and Chotorea and Cyanops. Actually the June 1854 Annales looks like Xantholoema??
As I just found out today Laurent believes that time only moves in one direction and 1850 is older than 1851?
Does #BG stand for boy genius, or baby gangster? Also from a North American viewpoint your motto should be Gotta check-list' hem all!
Last edited:
Similar threads
