[Richard Klim]

A new version (Feb 2010) of Dutch birding bird names has been posted:
http://www.dutchbirding.nl/content/p...vdBfeb2010.pdf

It gives a preview of the annual update which will presumably be published in Dutch Birding 32(1).

Taxonomic changes (wrt the preceding version, Sep 2009) include:

• Bonasa bonasia to Tetrastes
• Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross split from D exulans
• Ardea monicae Mauritanian Heron split from A cinerea
• Cyclorrhynchus psittacula to Aethia (as AOU)
• revised taxonomic sequence for passerines (as BOURC-TSC6)
• Lanius elegans aucheri transferred to L excubitor
• Sylvia subalpina (as Baccetti et al 2007) reverts to S moltonii
• Acrocephalus pallidus, opacus, caligatus, rama, aedon to Iduna pallida, opaca, caligata, rama, aedon
• Hedydipna metallica to Anthodiaeta (which has precedence)
• Serinus citrinella, corsicanus to Carduelis

Richard

[Xenospiza]

Why change Hedydipna when once all the sunbirds have been sequenced (I can't wait), the whole Speke nomenclature will be left behind anyway...? (just check the article on Malagasy sunbirds from a couple of years back!)

[Richard Klim]

I'm a little surprised that Dutch Birding hasn't recognised Sterna acuflavida.

Richard

[screaming piha]

Could anyone please enlighten me about Ardea monicae?

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

[*]Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross split from D exulans

Isn't that a bit out of step with the latest thinking? Or are they working on some ESU / PSC criteria?

Thanks, alan

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by screaming piha

Could anyone please enlighten me about Ardea monicae?

I don't know why DB has decided to split A monicae right now - presumably it'll be justified in DB 32(1).

It was listed by Monroe & Sibley 1993 as a taxon "treated as species by others or displaying characteristics that suggest possible species status".

Isenmann 2006 (Birds of the Banc d'Arguin) recognised it as a species ('Pallid Heron'): "Erard et al. (1986) argued that it was a separate species because of its pale plumage and its geographical isolation from the Grey Heron, which breeds north and south of Mauritania (Morocco and Senegal). The Pallid Heron thus became a species in its own right, and an endemic of the Banc d'Arguin". (Although distinctive, they didn't seem very geographically isolated when I visited the Banc d'Arguin!)

Richard

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross split from D exulans

Originally Posted by lewis20126

Isn't that a bit out of step with the latest thinking? Or are they working on some ESU / PSC criteria?

Well, DB (and CSNA) lean heavily towards the PSC...

[D dabbenena is also split by IOC & BLI.]

Richard

[screaming piha]

Thanks Richard.

Fruitless web searches a few years made me wonder if it even existed. I see there is now a photo here: http://www.travellingbirder.com/trip...ort.php?id=220

I have visited Mauritania (briefly and not as far north as Banc d'Arguin) and northern Senegal (a couple of times). Grey Herons around the river Senegal were pale with indistinct head stripes and I also saw a very pale sandy coloured bird near St Louis that had black blobs instead of streaks on the neck. I wonder if monicae is more widespread than just Banc d'Arguin (as you hinted?). Maybe it wanders (I saw balsaci spoonbill in N Senegal). Or perhaps the cut-off between taxa is not well defined.

John

[l_raty]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Anthodiaeta (which has precedence)

On which grounds...?
(I think that Alan Peterson, on Zoonomen, is most likely right in that Wolters 1977 acted as first reviser, giving precedence to Hedydipna.)

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by screaming piha

I wonder if monicae is more widespread than just Banc d'Arguin (as you hinted?).

John, my flippant comment about geographic isolation was just alluding to the fact that cinerea is also common at Banc d'Arguin (although admittedly not in the breeding season) - Isenmann refers to 1,500-3,000 individuals mingling with monicae on the Banc d'Arguin's mudflats and lagoons in winter.

Richard

PS. A couple of other photos: Birding World 20(9), p393 (Julien Renoult); Dutch Birding 30(1), p48 (Jochen Dierschke).

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Anthodiaeta (which has precedence)

Originally Posted by l_raty

On which grounds...?
(I think that Alan Peterson, on Zoonomen, is most likely right in that Wolters 1977 acted as first reviser, giving precedence to Hedydipna.)

I just guessed that DB was following Cheke & Mann 2008 (HBW13), which states "...the genus Hedydipna has been replaced by Anthodiaeta, which has been shown to have precedence over the former name", and "recently this species and its three congeners were placed in a genus Hedydipna, but this name is invalid, current genus name [Anthodiaeta] having priority".

Richard

[l_raty]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

I just guessed that DB was following Cheke & Mann 2008 (HBW13), which states "...the genus Hedydipna has been replaced by Anthodiaeta, which has been shown to have precedence over the former name", and "recently this species and its three congeners were placed in a genus Hedydipna, but this name is invalid, current genus name [Anthodiaeta] having priority".

The two names were published by the same author on two consecutive pages of the same book.
In 2006, in BBOC 126, Mann & Cheke argued that Anthodiaeta had precedence because it appeared on the first of these two pages, hence that the use of Hedydipna was wrong and had to be abandoned.
This is not a valid reason.
If two names are published at the same date and at the same rank, the relative position of the names in the work where they appear doesn't affect the precedence between them in any way. This precedence requires a first reviser act to be fixed.

L -

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by l_raty

The two names were published by the same author on two consecutive pages of the same book.
In 2006, in BBOC 126, Mann & Cheke argued that Anthodiaeta had precedence because it appeared on the first of these two pages, hence that the use of Hedydipna was wrong and had to be abandoned.
This is not a valid reason.
If two names are published at the same date and at the same rank, the relative position of the names in the work where they appear doesn't affect the precedence between them in any way. This precedence requires a first reviser act to be fixed.

Thanks, Laurent - I'll go with Hedydipna then.

Richard

[Richard Klim]

One taxonomic change that I'd missed...

Milvus fasciicauda Cape Verde Kite (almost certainly extinct) has been re-split from M milvus.

[M fasciicauda was split by CSNA (Sangster et al 2003, following Hazevout 1995), and recognised by Dutch Birding with effect from Jan 2004. But it had been quietly re-lumped with effect from the Feb 2009 version of Dutch birding bird names.]

Richard

[Richard Klim]

...and another that slipped through the net:

• Ketupa zeylonensis to Bubo

Richard

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

I don't know why DB has decided to split A monicae right now - presumably it'll be justified in DB 32(1).
It was listed by Monroe & Sibley 1993 as a taxon "treated as species by others or displaying characteristics that suggest possible species status".
Isenmann 2006 (Birds of the Banc d'Arguin) recognised it as a species ('Pallid Heron'): "Erard et al. (1986) argued that it was a separate species because of its pale plumage and its geographical isolation from the Grey Heron, which breeds north and south of Mauritania (Morocco and Senegal). The Pallid Heron thus became a species in its own right, and an endemic of the Banc d'Arguin".

Just received DB 32(1), which as expected includes the annual 'Taxa names in Dutch Birding'.

No new evidence is cited to support the splitting of Ardea monicae – it's in concordance with the earlier decision to recognise A bournei (following Hazevout 1995).

Richard

[Richard Klim]

http://www.dutchbirding.nl/content/p...rg20100203.pdf

Taxonomic changes include:

• Alectoris whitakeri Sicilian Partridge split from A graeca
• Francolinus bicalcaratus to Pternistis [IOC, TIF, Svensson et al 2009]
• Malaconotidae split from Laniidae (!)
• Lanius borealis Northern Grey Shrike (incl sibiricus) split from L excubitor [Olsson et al 2009, Svensson et al 2009]
• Lanius lahtora Asian Grey Shrike (incl aucheri, pallidirostris) split from L excubitor [Olsson et al 2009]
• Lanius pallidirostris lumped with L lahtora [Olsson et al 2009]
• Cercomela melanura to Oenanthe [Outlaw et al 2009, TIF]

Richard

[chris butterworth]

I'm surprised that they havn't split Buteo buteo, although it's nice to see the Cape Verde taxa of Eur. Kestrel and Purple Heron recieving recognition. I'd like to know what distributional parameters they use for Lanius borealis, as some of the East Asian taxa could very well be included!
Chris

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by chris butterworth

I'd like to know what distributional parameters they use for Lanius borealis, as some of the East Asian taxa could very well be included!

I assume that the L excubitor splits are based upon Olsson et al 2009, which supports the following possible treatment:

• L lahtora - Asian Grey Shrike (including aucheri, theresae, buryi, pallidirostris)
• L excubitor - Great Grey Shrike (including homeyeri, 'leucopterus')
• L elegans - Desert Grey Shrike (including koenigi, algeriensis, leucopygos, 'jebelmarrae')
• L uncinatus - Socotra Grey Shrike (monotypic)
• L borealis - Northern Grey Shrike (including invictus, sibiricus, bianchii, mollis, funereus)
• L meridionalis - Iberian Grey Shrike (monotypic)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...db2495dbab43ff

[Svensson et al 2009 (Collins Bird Guide) also recognises/includes L borealis on the basis of records in Finland & Norway (sibiricus).]

Richard

[Microtus]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

[Svensson et al 2009 (Collins Bird Guide) also recognises/includes L borealis on the basis of records in Finland & Norway (sibiricus).]

Richard

How does borealis differ from excubitor?

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Microtus

How does borealis differ from excubitor?

Tryjanowski 2008 (HBW13):

"borealis is similar to nominate [excubitor], but rump and uppertail-coverts paler, supercilium more prominent, white in wing always restricted to primaries, greyer underparts extensively vermiculated dark, juvenile much darker and browner all over and more strongly barred below than juvenile nominate;
[sibiricus is tinged ochre above, lightly vermiculated below]."

Richard

[Microtus]

Thanks!

[JustinJansen]

Various Grey Herons like those I observed at The Maldive Islands are paler then northern populations. Strangely those pale Maldivian birds are still listed as nominate. Should therefore maybe rectirostris be reinstalled?

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by JustinJansen

Various Grey Herons like those I observed at The Maldive Islands are paler then northern populations. Strangely those pale Maldivian birds are still listed as nominate. Should therefore maybe rectirostris be reinstalled?

No personal experience, but Rasmussen & Anderton 2005 describes nominate cinerea (in NW) as darker above (especially on neck) with heavier streaks on neck than 'rectirostris' (widespread elsewhere in subcontinent) – but could this variation be clinal...?

Richard

[JustinJansen]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

No personal experience, but Rasmussen & Anderton 2005 describes nominate cinerea (in NW) as darker above (especially on neck) with heavier streaks on neck than 'rectirostris' (widespread elsewhere in subcontinent) – but could this variation be clinal...?

Richard

Hi Richard, indeed could be true, but most of all, I found these birds striking. Sadly no usuable photographs made of Grey Heron at this visit, maybe Chas Andersson could shed a light. I'll sent him an e-mail. Cheers, Justin