rockfowl
Mark Andrews
You did.
Of interest perhaps , see the bottom of this post via info on FB - http://200birds.blogspot.com/2011/12/bogota-sunangel-rediscovered.html
-
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.
Bogota Sunangel (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Daniel Philippe
- Start date
You did.
Of interest perhaps , see the bottom of this post via info on FB - http://200birds.blogspot.com/2011/12/bogota-sunangel-rediscovered.html
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Some amazing photos and more information
http://www.colombiabirding.com/Rogitama_Hummingbird.htm
... and these photos definitely don't look like a Royal Sunangel or Thornbill!
http://www.colombiabirding.com/Rogitama_Hummingbird.htm
... and these photos definitely don't look like a Royal Sunangel or Thornbill!
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
More developments on the other thread today.
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Jorge L. Perez-Eman, Jhoniel Perdigon Ferreira, Natalia Gutierrez-Pinto, Andres M. Cuervo, Laura N. Cespedes, Christopher C. Witt, Carlos Daniel Cadena. An extinct hummingbird species that never was: a cautionary tale about sampling issues in molecular phylogenetics.
bioRxiv 149898; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/149898
[pdf]
With thanks to Tom Schulenberg.
bioRxiv 149898; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/149898
[pdf]
With thanks to Tom Schulenberg.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
And concerning the status of Taphrolesbia griseiventris, valid species or not?
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Great to see that one finally resolved: well done to the team involved. One less bogus bird to look out for.
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I wonder if the male is a Ramphomicron?
Unnecessary remark : No one has commented on the paraphyly of Taphrolesbia with Aglaiocercus. :-C
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
It's hard to comment, except to say that this is but an mtDNA tree and the basal nodes are apparently all poorly supported.
Note also that this tree (Aglaiocercus coelestis sister to Taphrolesbia) is strongly contradicted by those of Kirchman et al 2010 ([pdf here]) and McGuire et al 2014 ([pdf with supplemental figures], see the "Coquettes" tree on 12th page), who both recovered Aglaiocercus coelestis sister to an Aglaiocercus kingii sample from Pasco Departamento in central Peru (presumably the "Peruvian Andes" clade of A. kingii in the recent study?), with very strong support, while Taphrolesbia (and Heliangelus zusii) fell outside of this pair.
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
The sampling of Aglaiocercus is much denser in this latest study, and the authors imply that previous phylogenies result from inappropriately sparse sampling. Another implication of the trees is that kingi requires separation into multiple species, given that the closely related, sympatric species coelestis is embedded in one small part of the kingi phylogeny. It looks like a broader revision of this group is in order.
l_raty
laurent raty
It's not. The only thing you can say for sure with this tree, is that there is a good deal of structure in what is currently called A. kingii, with at least three main haplogroups, showing divergence levels comparable to that with A. coelestis and Taphrolesbia. But the relationships between these three A. kingii haplogroups, A. coelestis, and Taphrolesbia are poorly resolved (no black dots on the nodes in the tree); A. coelestis is neither embedded in one of the A. kingii groups, nor inferred to be sister to one of them.
A revision is certainly desirable, but it should obviously be based on much longer sequences.
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Their tree on p6 has kingii (Venezuela) sister to [coelestis (+Taphrolesbia)] + other kingii]. Under that arrangement what we currently call "kingii" has coelestis embedded in it. Thanks for flagging the lack of support for relevant nodes, however.
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
BTW does anyone know why and when kingi became kingii? Both are used widely in literature.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
mb1848
Well-known member
"...does anyone know why and when kingi became kingii?" 1832?
H&M CORRIGENDA 8 in 2008 Aglaiocercus kingi : correct (all names) to kingii [OD checked by Colin Jones].
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/182896#page/202/mode/1up .
H&M CORRIGENDA 8 in 2008 Aglaiocercus kingi : correct (all names) to kingii [OD checked by Colin Jones].
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/182896#page/202/mode/1up .
l_raty
laurent raty
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
It's clear now
l_raty
laurent raty
Taphrolesbia Simon 1918
Simon E. 1918. Notice sur les travaux scientifiques de M. Eugène Simon.; p.39; I couldn't find this online.
Type species, by original designation (fide Peters 1945 [here]): Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.
(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p. 72; [OD].)
Note: This name is not listed by Neave, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918; Neave only lists Tephrolesbia Simon 1919.
Tephrolesbia Simon 1919
Simon E. 1919. Note critique sur les Trochilidés. Rev. Fr. Ornithol. 6:52-54.; p.54; [OD].
Type species, by original designation if deemed available as a new genus from this source: Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.
(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p. 72; [OD].)
Note: Called an 'emendation' of Taphrolesbia Simon 1918 by Peters 1945 [here], but modification of spelling not demonstrably intentional, hence could only be an unavailable incorrect subsequent spelling. It is flagged as a new genus, however. Neave lists the present name, but not Taphrolesbia Simon 1918, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918.
Aglaiocercus Zimmer 1930
Zimmer JT. 1930. Birds of the Marshall Field Peruvian expedition, 1922-1923. Field Mus. Pub. Zool., 17(7):233-480.; p.290; [OD].
Type species, by original designation: Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.
(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [OD].)
Should the two genera be merged, Taphrolesbia has precedence. There is a complication, however, which is:
Lesbia Lesson 1832
Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.xvii; [OD].
No original type fixation; originally included nominal species Ornismya sapho Lesson 1829, Ornismya nuna Lesson 1832, Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832; type by (indirect) subsequent designation (Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London.; p.14; [here]): "L. forficatus, (Lath.) n. O. Kingii, Less." = Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.
(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [OD].)
Note: This name is currently in use for another goup, based on a type designation made more than half a century later, by Salvin 1892 [here], who designated O. nuna. This designation was accepted by Zimmer 1930 [here], who argued that Gray "designated Trochilus forficatus Linnaeus as type species under the mistaken notion that kingii was a synonym, but since forficatus was not among the original species, these designations are invalid." This is not tenable under the present Code. ("69.2.2. If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus.") Gray cited the originally included nominal species Ornismya kingii Lesson as a synonym of the species he designated, there is no question that his 1840 designation is valid.
Incidentally, there was another, earlier designation of nuna by Elliot 1878 [here].
Simon E. 1918. Notice sur les travaux scientifiques de M. Eugène Simon.; p.39; I couldn't find this online.
Type species, by original designation (fide Peters 1945 [here]): Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.
(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p. 72; [OD].)
Note: This name is not listed by Neave, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918; Neave only lists Tephrolesbia Simon 1919.
Tephrolesbia Simon 1919
Simon E. 1919. Note critique sur les Trochilidés. Rev. Fr. Ornithol. 6:52-54.; p.54; [OD].
Type species, by original designation if deemed available as a new genus from this source: Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.
(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p. 72; [OD].)
Note: Called an 'emendation' of Taphrolesbia Simon 1918 by Peters 1945 [here], but modification of spelling not demonstrably intentional, hence could only be an unavailable incorrect subsequent spelling. It is flagged as a new genus, however. Neave lists the present name, but not Taphrolesbia Simon 1918, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918.
Aglaiocercus Zimmer 1930
Zimmer JT. 1930. Birds of the Marshall Field Peruvian expedition, 1922-1923. Field Mus. Pub. Zool., 17(7):233-480.; p.290; [OD].
Type species, by original designation: Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.
(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [OD].)
Should the two genera be merged, Taphrolesbia has precedence. There is a complication, however, which is:
Lesbia Lesson 1832
Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.xvii; [OD].
No original type fixation; originally included nominal species Ornismya sapho Lesson 1829, Ornismya nuna Lesson 1832, Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832; type by (indirect) subsequent designation (Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London.; p.14; [here]): "L. forficatus, (Lath.) n. O. Kingii, Less." = Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.
(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [OD].)
Note: This name is currently in use for another goup, based on a type designation made more than half a century later, by Salvin 1892 [here], who designated O. nuna. This designation was accepted by Zimmer 1930 [here], who argued that Gray "designated Trochilus forficatus Linnaeus as type species under the mistaken notion that kingii was a synonym, but since forficatus was not among the original species, these designations are invalid." This is not tenable under the present Code. ("69.2.2. If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus.") Gray cited the originally included nominal species Ornismya kingii Lesson as a synonym of the species he designated, there is no question that his 1840 designation is valid.
Incidentally, there was another, earlier designation of nuna by Elliot 1878 [here].
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Despite sharing uniquely long tails and appearing next to one another in many field guides... it seems from the molecular studies linked above that Lesbia and Aglaiocercus are not closely related to one another at all, so it looks like a switch of Aglaiocercus to Lesbia and a new genus for Lesbia are needed. Unless perhaps ICZN could be asked to intervene and fix a new type genus for Lesbia, which would probably be the best outcome.
Similar threads
