[Marek12]

Phylloscopus occisinensis nov. sp.
Ph. affinis perflavus nov. ssp.

Martens, J., Sun, Yue-Hua & M. Päckert. 2008. Intraspecific differentiation of Sino-Himalayan bush-dwelling Phylloscopus leaf warblers, with description of two new taxa. (P. fuscatus, P. fuligiventer, P. affinis, P. armandii, P. subaffinis). Verterbrate Zoology 58 (2): 233-265.

[l_raty]

http://globiz.sachsen.de/snsd/publik...06_Martens.pdf

[Richard Klim]

That's nice - 2 unexpected armchair ticks! P fuligiventer (ssp weigoldi), and P occisinensis.

Richard

[Richard Klim]

Jesper Hornskov posted the following comments on the OrientalBirding mailing list earlier today:

"Nothing like a whiff of rat to keep a man awake at night!

The article to which we were helpfully forwarded a link yesterday may be asking us to take a Collarian 'leap of faith' - but without making this clear.

As measured out on Plate 23 in The Times Atlas of The World (comprehensive edition) the type locality of WEIGOLDI is no more than 300 kms from the type locality of ROBUSTUS and from the latter it is no more than 350 kms to where genetics show that ROBUSTUS and nominate FUSCATUS breed alongside each other in Qinling Shan, S Shaanxi.

To me it seems inconsistent to stand by the poorly differentiated ROBUSTUS (by some previous authors not deemed worthy of recognition) while linking the similar-looking and, let's face it, vocally not THAT different WEIGOLDI to a taxon which is morphologically very different WITHOUT any vocal evidence to back the conclusion.

Put another way, in the case of ROBUSTUS vs FUSCATUS we are asked to lend great significance to small morphological differences whilst in the case of WEIGOLDI vs FULIGIVENTER we are asked to ignore that the authors' conclusion (or in their parlance 'recommendation') is counterindicated by morphology!

It is also unfortunate that the authors are not at pains to demonstrate that the song of ROBUSTUS clearly differs from WEIGOLDI. A look at the sonograms suggest that the songs, while variable, are NOT convincingly different but in the scatterplot analysis, songs of ROBUSTUS and FUSCATUS are unhelpfully pooled against that of WEIGOLDI... why?

One wonders if playback experiments would lead to a less clearcut or altogether different 'conclusion'? Why, indeed, have the authors not engaged in a bit of playback (or if they have, why don't they tell us about it)?

The cards, in other words, are on the table - we are asked to accept subtle taxonomic decisions based exclusively on genetics.

Well, do we?

Or have the authors merely helped us identify areas worthy of further study? What happens in the field in the area where the taxa approach each other most closely, or actually meet?

Good birding!

Jesper Hornskov
Beidaihe / Beijing."

Richard