Xenospiza
Distracted
Yes: ventralis and especially erythronemius look "safe" according to the article, so there is no need for proposals on those.
-
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.
Accipitridae (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
And the paper can be viewed on bioxriv here: Enigmas no longer: using Ultraconserved Elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I wait for a complete phylogeny of Aviceda
Some branches in the tree are in bold, others not. What does that mean ?
Xenospiza
Distracted
Figure 2 in the article: thick branches show the topology of the Ultraconserved Elements phylogeny, thin branches show placement through "legacy markers".
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
There are so many methods that you wonder which is the most "reliable".
In the preview they assign Melierax, Micronisus, and Urotriorchis to subfamily Melieraxinae, with the spelling used by Lerner and Mindell (2005). In the published paper they assign those genera to tribe Melieracini, with a "c" instead of an "x". Is this the correct Latin (I think it is) and is the changed spelling allowable for family group names?
They also changed the circumscription of Acciptrinae from the preview version. It's now broader, inclusive of Melieracini, as well as two new tribes,
Kaupifalcini (for Kaupifalco) and Aerospizini (for the new genera Aerospiza and Tachyspiza). I note that Boyd's Taxonomy in Flux started using these latter two genera in 2021.
One potential change they mention is removing Polyboroides from Gypaetinae and placing it in Polyboroidinae (as in Lerner and Mindell, 2005). They don't formally make that recommendation as they don't have UCE data for 'true' Gypaetinae. I wonder if there is a case for a broader subfamily Gypaetinae (as H&M4) with tribes Gypaetini, Polyboroidini and Pernini, possibly also with Eutriorchini. This would be consistent with their treatment of Acciptrinae, reducing the number of subfamilies but adding more structure using tribes.
They also changed the circumscription of Acciptrinae from the preview version. It's now broader, inclusive of Melieracini, as well as two new tribes,
Kaupifalcini (for Kaupifalco) and Aerospizini (for the new genera Aerospiza and Tachyspiza). I note that Boyd's Taxonomy in Flux started using these latter two genera in 2021.
One potential change they mention is removing Polyboroides from Gypaetinae and placing it in Polyboroidinae (as in Lerner and Mindell, 2005). They don't formally make that recommendation as they don't have UCE data for 'true' Gypaetinae. I wonder if there is a case for a broader subfamily Gypaetinae (as H&M4) with tribes Gypaetini, Polyboroidini and Pernini, possibly also with Eutriorchini. This would be consistent with their treatment of Acciptrinae, reducing the number of subfamilies but adding more structure using tribes.
l_raty
laurent raty
Under the present Code, "Melieraxinae" (using the entire generic name as the stem) would be acceptable, and should not be changed if the name had been made available in this form after 1999. OTOH, if the name had been used previously without being made available, the author who makes it available retains the right to choose the stem -- either a "classical" stem, i.e, indeed, Melierac-, or anything else, provided that it would have been acceptable as a stem if Melierax had not been of Greek or Latin derivation.
(The Code has a couple of problems here, though. It allows using the entire genus name, the genus name with its ending elided, or, either the entire genus name with one or more linking letters added to it (if you read the English text), or the entire genus name with its ending elided and one or more linking letters added to it (if you read the French text -- the two texts have, in theory, equal force). Another thing that is a bit problematic, is that the Code does not fix any limit to what constitutes an acceptable "ending", that can be elided as part of the process.)
For Melieraxinae to be available from Lerner & Mindell 2005, you have to accept that flagging a name as “This study” indicates an intention to establish it as new in said study (i.e., is functionally equivalent to "subf. nov." or "new taxon"; one question here might arguably be: What else, exactly, might be intended with this flag ?), and that “Forest accipiters, larger than Accipiter species” is acceptable as a statement of characters differentiating the taxon.
Last edited:
As for intent, they refer to there being 14 subfamilies in the abstract and introduction and then list Melieraxinae as one of the 14 subfamilies where they say "This study" while using similar footnotes to attribute the other subfamilies to earlier authors.
P.S. Anyone know who first separated serpent eagles from other eagles? Peters had Circaetinae for serpent eagles and included other eagles (booted, harpy, sea) in his Buteoninae.
P.S. Anyone know who first separated serpent eagles from other eagles? Peters had Circaetinae for serpent eagles and included other eagles (booted, harpy, sea) in his Buteoninae.
l_raty
laurent raty
Blyth 1850, when he introduced 'Circaetinae' (in which he included some odd things, though), also placed the booted eagles and Buteo in the same subfamily -- which he named Aquilinae, not Buteoninae. He separated harpy and see eagles in Thrasaetinae and Haliaetinae repectively, but retained these next to the Aquilinae in his classification, while placing Circaetinae farther away.
l_raty
laurent raty
Just for the sake of clarity :
I assume that some might also insist that, in 2005, Melierax should have been designated as the type of Melieraxinae to make the name available, which was not done. I do not read the Code as requiring this, however. The Code (Art 16.2) merely requires that, for new family-group names proposed after 1999, the name of the type genus be cited when the family-group name is established.
If Art. 16.2 had been intended to require a designation, this (and not "citation") is the word that would have been used.
There is no question that Lerner & Mindell cited the name of Melierax when they introduced Melieraxinae.
Last edited:
