-
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.
magpie names (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Frozzbird
- Start date
Hi Froz
Your magpies are in the Family Cracticidae in the Genus Gymnorhina tibicen. On Avibase I can't find anyone who uses Cracticus as the Genus, but I have moved your post to the Taxonomy forum, as I'm sure you'll get a fuller answer there.
D
Your magpies are in the Family Cracticidae in the Genus Gymnorhina tibicen. On Avibase I can't find anyone who uses Cracticus as the Genus, but I have moved your post to the Taxonomy forum, as I'm sure you'll get a fuller answer there.
D
Hi Frozzbird,
Nothing to do with subspecies or locations. Scientific names follow the binomial nomenclature (see here). This means that the first part of the name is the genus name, the second one the species name.
Birds who are closely related are in the same genus. Unfortunately it's not always easy to determine which birds are related to each other and how close. So in this case, most authorities put the Australian Magpie in the genus Gymnorhina (a monotypic genus, meaning that the Australian Magpie is the only member of this genus). Other authorities think that the Australian Magpie is much closer to some other species and belongs in the genus Cracticus, together with the Butcherbirds.
As you notice, the second part of the name (tibicen) remains the same, as it's the species name.
Subspecies are given in a third name (eg. Gymnorhina tibicen longirostris). You can find a list of all subspecies in the relvant Opus article.
André
Nothing to do with subspecies or locations. Scientific names follow the binomial nomenclature (see here). This means that the first part of the name is the genus name, the second one the species name.
Birds who are closely related are in the same genus. Unfortunately it's not always easy to determine which birds are related to each other and how close. So in this case, most authorities put the Australian Magpie in the genus Gymnorhina (a monotypic genus, meaning that the Australian Magpie is the only member of this genus). Other authorities think that the Australian Magpie is much closer to some other species and belongs in the genus Cracticus, together with the Butcherbirds.
As you notice, the second part of the name (tibicen) remains the same, as it's the species name.
Subspecies are given in a third name (eg. Gymnorhina tibicen longirostris). You can find a list of all subspecies in the relvant Opus article.
André
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Christidis, L. & W. E. Boles, 2008. Systematics and taxonomy of Australian birds. p.196:
"Although no new phylogenetic studies have been undertaken on the Artamidae that would alter the generic and species composition followed in Christidis and Boles (1994), some areas require re-evaluation. Johnstone (2001) and Johnstone and Storr (2004) included Gymnorhina in Cracticus – probably a valid action and one previously argued by Storr (1952) and used in Storr (1977, 1984). The reasons given by Schodde and Mason (1999) for maintaining the two as separate are not compelling: most relate to adaptations for terrestrial foraging in Gymnorhina. Increased terrestriality is not in itself reason for generic separation (note the situation relative to Ground Cuckoo-shrike and Coracina versus Pteropodocys; cf. Schodde and Mason 1999). Gymnorhina is here placed in Cracticus following Storr (1952), Johnstone (2001) and Johnstone and Storr (2004) – the Australian Magpie thus becomes Cracticus tibicen."
"Although no new phylogenetic studies have been undertaken on the Artamidae that would alter the generic and species composition followed in Christidis and Boles (1994), some areas require re-evaluation. Johnstone (2001) and Johnstone and Storr (2004) included Gymnorhina in Cracticus – probably a valid action and one previously argued by Storr (1952) and used in Storr (1977, 1984). The reasons given by Schodde and Mason (1999) for maintaining the two as separate are not compelling: most relate to adaptations for terrestrial foraging in Gymnorhina. Increased terrestriality is not in itself reason for generic separation (note the situation relative to Ground Cuckoo-shrike and Coracina versus Pteropodocys; cf. Schodde and Mason 1999). Gymnorhina is here placed in Cracticus following Storr (1952), Johnstone (2001) and Johnstone and Storr (2004) – the Australian Magpie thus becomes Cracticus tibicen."
Similar threads
