• 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.

Society islands - phylogeography (1 Viewer)

l_raty

l_raty

laurent raty
Hembry DH, Balukjian B. 2016. Molecular phylogeography of the Society Islands (Tahiti; South Pacific) reveals departures from hotspot archipelago models. (Synthesis.) J. Biogeogr. 43:1372–1387.
[abstract]

(In part based on birds: Prosobonia, Ptilinopus purpuratus, Todiramphus tutus, Todiramphus veneratus, Pomarea, Acrocephalus.)
 
l_raty said:
Hembry DH, Balukjian B. 2016. Molecular phylogeography of the Society Islands (Tahiti; South Pacific) reveals departures from hotspot archipelago models. (Synthesis.) J. Biogeogr. 43:1372–1387.
[abstract]

(In part based on birds: Prosobonia, Ptilinopus purpuratus, Todiramphus tutus, Todiramphus veneratus, Pomarea, Acrocephalus.)
Click to expand...

PDF
 
Last edited:
Todiramphus tutus

Michael Lee & David T. Holyoak. ‘The chequered history of Chatering Kingfsher Todiramphus tutus on Tahiti’: a response. Bull. B.O.C. 2017 137(3).

[pdf]

Roland E. van der Vliet & Justin J. F. J. Jansen. Reply to Lee & Holyoak: how definite are 20th-century reports of Chatering Kingfsher Todiramphus tutus from Tahiti? Bull. B.O.C. 2017 137(3).

[pdf]
 
Pomarea

Edward C. Dickinson, Michael Lee, Alice Cibois, Patrick Boussès, Jérôme Fuchs. Clarifying the nomenclature of Pomarea species (Monarchidae) from the Society Islands. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 139(1):65-74 (2019). https://doi.org/10.25226/bboc.v139i1.2019.a5

Abstract:

We re-examine evidence from the voyage of the corvette La Coquille in respect of the Pomarea monarch flycatchers from Tahiti and Maupiti, and conclude that Pomarea maupitiensisGarnot, 1829, should be recognised as a distinct but extinct species for which we designate a lectotype, necessarily represented by the image in a colour plate.

[pdf]
 
Maupiti Monarch - Pomarea maupitiensis

Peter Kovalik said:
Edward C. Dickinson, Michael Lee, Alice Cibois, Patrick Boussès, Jérôme Fuchs. Clarifying the nomenclature of Pomarea species (Monarchidae) from the Society Islands. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 139(1):65-74 (2019). https://doi.org/10.25226/bboc.v139i1.2019.a5

Abstract:

We re-examine evidence from the voyage of the corvette La Coquille in respect of the Pomarea monarch flycatchers from Tahiti and Maupiti, and conclude that Pomarea maupitiensisGarnot, 1829, should be recognised as a distinct but extinct species for which we designate a lectotype, necessarily represented by the image in a colour plate.

[pdf]
Click to expand...

IOC Version 9.2 Taxonomic Updates [Maupiti Monarch]

Formerly assigned the scientific name P. pomarea which is now treated as as junior synonym of P. nigra as the all black specimen in the originally composite type series of upon which P. pomarea was based can be attributed to Tahiti, not Maupiti. P. maupitiensis is based on the pied male of the original composite series which was collected on Maupiti and which is designated as the lectotype for that sexually dichromic species. Dickinson et al 2019.
Click to expand...
 
Melanie said:
Garnot 1829 or Lesson & Garnot 1828?
Click to expand...
The work is by Lesson & Garnot and the title page bears the date 1828: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38661297

But this name is attributed to Garnot alone: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38661530 ; and the page it appeared on was in livraison 13, dated Nov 21, 1829, fide Zimmer 1926 (citing work published by Sherborn & Woodward 1901, and Mathews 1913): https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36194835
The plate was published earlier (livr. 7, June 21, 1828, fide Zimmer), but the only name that appeared on it was Muscicapa pomarea: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/38768556

Thus Garnot 1829 seems correct, at first sight.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top