Accipitridae (2 Viewers)

[Maffong]

I was quite surprised that I had seen no mentions of Goshawk (and others) requiring new genuses (Astur, Tachyspiza, Aerospiza, Microspizias). However, I notice the paper is still only in preprint and has not been mentioned here (albeit having been posted last July already). So here we go:

Catanach, T. A., M. R. Halley, S. Piro (Manuscript 2023)
Enigmas no longer: using Ultraconserved Elements to place several hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
bioRxiv

Abstract:
Hawks, eagles, and their relatives (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) are a diverse and charismatic clade of modern birds, with many members that are instantly recognized by the general public. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationships among genera within Accipitridae, and several studies have suggested that some genera (in particular, the megadiverse genus Accipiter) are not monophyletic. Here, we combine a new large dataset obtained from Ultraconserved Elements (UCEs), generated from whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 120 species, with publicly available legacy markers (i.e., a suite of commonly sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear genes) to infer a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny of 236 extant or recently extinct species. Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I was quite surprised that I had seen no mentions of Goshawk (and others) requiring new genuses (Astur, Tachyspiza, Aerospiza, Microspizias). However, I notice the paper is still only in preprint and has not been mentioned here (albeit having been posted last July already). So here we go:

Catanach, T. A., M. R. Halley, S. Piro (Manuscript 2023)
Enigmas no longer: using Ultraconserved Elements to place several hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
bioRxiv

Abstract:
Hawks, eagles, and their relatives (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) are a diverse and charismatic clade of modern birds, with many members that are instantly recognized by the general public. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationships among genera within Accipitridae, and several studies have suggested that some genera (in particular, the megadiverse genus Accipiter) are not monophyletic. Here, we combine a new large dataset obtained from Ultraconserved Elements (UCEs), generated from whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 120 species, with publicly available legacy markers (i.e., a suite of commonly sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear genes) to infer a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny of 236 extant or recently extinct species. Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.

Post in thread 'Accipitriformes' Accipitriformes

 

[jts1882]

I was quite surprised that I had seen no mentions of Goshawk (and others) requiring new genuses (Astur, Tachyspiza, Aerospiza, Microspizias). However, I notice the paper is still only in preprint and has not been mentioned here (albeit having been posted last July already). So here we go:

Catanach, T. A., M. R. Halley, S. Piro (Manuscript 2023)
Enigmas no longer: using Ultraconserved Elements to place several hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
bioRxiv

Abstract:
Hawks, eagles, and their relatives (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) are a diverse and charismatic clade of modern birds, with many members that are instantly recognized by the general public. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationships among genera within Accipitridae, and several studies have suggested that some genera (in particular, the megadiverse genus Accipiter) are not monophyletic. Here, we combine a new large dataset obtained from Ultraconserved Elements (UCEs), generated from whole genome sequencing (WGS) of 120 species, with publicly available legacy markers (i.e., a suite of commonly sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear genes) to infer a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny of 236 extant or recently extinct species. Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.

Also Lophospiza for “Accipiter” trivirgatus and “Accipiter” griseiceps [not sampled]. They also suggest subfamily Lophospizinae.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

S.M.S. Gregory, G. Sangster, T.H. Worthy & R.P Scofield, 2024 (February 29): II. Falling through the cracks: a family-group name for a clade of hawks and eagles (Accipitridae) including Morphnus Dumont, 1816, Harpia Vieillot, 1816, Harpyopsis Salvadori, 1875 and Macheiramphus Bonaparte, 1850. Pp. N5-N17.

https://www.aviansystematics.org/uploads/texteditor/AS_2_N2_PDFA.pdf

 

[l_raty]

S.M.S. Gregory, G. Sangster, T.H. Worthy & R.P Scofield, 2024 (February 29): II. Falling through the cracks: a family-group name for a clade of hawks and eagles (Accipitridae) including Morphnus Dumont, 1816, Harpia Vieillot, 1816, Harpyopsis Salvadori, 1875 and Macheiramphus Bonaparte, 1850. Pp. N5-N17.

https://www.aviansystematics.org/uploads/texteditor/AS_2_N2_PDFA.pdf

The central argument here conflicts with my reading of the Code.

(1) Verheyen did not present his Harpiini as a nomen novum for Thrasaetinae Blyth 1850 at all : I see nothing that looks like "the proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name" in the sense of ICZN 12.2.3 in his writings. Indeed, Verheyen did not cite Thrasaetinae (or even Thrasaetos) -- and I strongly doubt that he was aware of the existence of the name, and might have felt any urge to replace it nomenclaturally.

(2) Nomina nova in the family-group are generally problematic, because, on one hand, "A nominal taxon denoted by a new replacement name (nomen novum) has the same name-bearing type as the nominal taxon denoted by the replaced name" (ICZN Glossary); and, on the other, "A family-group name is formed by adding to the stem of the name [Art. 29.3] of the type genus, or to the entire name of the type genus [see Article 29.6], a suffix as specified in Article 29.2." (ICZN 29.1). From the first of these provisions, it follows that the type of any nomen novum proposed for Thrasaetinae Blyth 1850 must be the nominal genus Thraseatos Bonaparte; from the second it follows that any such name must also start with "Thrasaet-" (and thus "Harpiini" does not qualify).

If Harpiini Verheyen 1959 was not a nomen novum, it could only be available if "accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or [...] accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement (ICZN 13.1), which is was not, or, being a family-group name published before 1961, "if it was used as valid before 2000, and also was not rejected by an author who, after 1960 and before 2000, expressly applied Article 13 of the then current editions of the Code" (ICZN 13.2.1). This last requirement is generally understood as meaning that the name must have been used as valid again before 2000, and, if so, it is not met either to my knowledge ("Harpiinae" in Lerner & Mindell 2005 is the first subsequent use of the name I have seen). If neither ICZN 13.1 nor ICZN 13.2.1 is met, Verheyen's name is a nomen nudum.


As an aside, Macheiramphinae (spelled "Machoeramphinae") was made available by Johnston in 1884, certainly not by Verheyen three quarters of a century later.

 

[l_raty]

Dumont 1816 (published 12 Oct 1816, see here, thus indeed demonstrably before Cuvier "1817" = 2 Dec 1816, see here):

L'Amérique possède d'autres aigles pêcheurs qui ont les ailes plus courtes que la queue, et parmi lesquels on établit encore des sous-divisions: les uns ayant les tarses très-gros, très-courts, réticulés, à moitié emplumés comme les aigles pêcheurs proprement dits; et les autres ayant les tarses élevés et grêles, et les doigts foibles. Ce sont les aigles-autours, morphnus, Cuv.; et parmi ceux-ci il y en a dont les tarses sont écussonnés, et d'autres qui les ont emplumés dans toute leur longueur. La grande harpie d'Amérique, ou l'aigle destructeur de Daudin, que M. Cuvier regarde comme le caracara de Marcgrave, et l'yzquauthli de Fernandez, appartient à la première division; l'aigle-autour huppé de la Guiane, falco guyannensis, Daud., l'urubitinga, falco urubitinga, Linn., et probablement le falco Novae-Zelandiae, Lath., Synops. 1. 1, pl. 4, à la seconde ; le huppart de Levaillant, falco occipitalis, Daud., l'épervier patu d'Azara, falco ornatus, Daud., et falco superbus et coronatus, Sh., à la troisième.

Gregory et al :

During most of the 19th century Morphnus was credited to Cuvier, and it was for Cuvier’s ‘Morphnus’ that G.R. Gray (Gray, 1840: 2) designated ‘M[orphnus]. Urubitinga (L.)’ as type species, now Buteogallus urubitinga (J.F. Gmelin, 1788). Thus, an unrelated junior homonym was created. The type species of Morphnus Dumont, 1816, was not properly designated until Chubb (Chubb, 1916: 252) designated the first of Dumont’s originally included nominal species, Falco guianensis Daudin, 1800, now Morphnus guianensis (Daudin, 1800).

Is this defensible under the current Code ?

Note ICZN 67.7 :

67.7. Status of incorrect citations
If, in fixing the type species for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author wrongly attributes the name of the type species, or of the genus or subgenus, to an author or date other than that denoting its first establishment, or cites wrongly the first express inclusion of nominal species in that genus or subgenus, he or she is nevertheless to be considered, if the nominal species was otherwise eligible, to have validly fixed the type species. For previous misidentifications deliberately employed when fixing a type species, see Articles 11.10 and 67.13.
Example. Aus Dupont, 1790, established without a type species, is best known from the work of a later author, Smith (1810). If subsequently Bus xus is designated as the type species of "Aus Smith, 1810", that designation is to be accepted as a designation of the type species for Aus Dupont, 1790, providing Bus xus was eligible for designation as type species of the latter. Errors in attributing the authorship or date of Bus xus would also be immaterial.

The nominal species designated by Gray for Morphnus 'Cuvier' was unquestionably eligible to be the type of Dumont's Morphnus. What makes Gray's designation invalid ?

I see only one Morphnus, authored by Dumont and subsequently used by Cuvier (to whom Dumont had originally attributed it). Under current rules, the type of this nominal genus should in principle be seen as having been fixed in 1840 by Gray (who attributed it to Cuvier as well -- this being "immaterial", to use the same term as in the example accompanying 67.7). (And, yes, I'm aware that this is problematic.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The nominal species designated by Gray for Morphnus 'Cuvier' was unquestionably eligible to be the type of Dumont's Morphnus. What makes Gray's designation invalid ?

I see only one Morphnus, authored by Dumont and subsequently used by Cuvier (to whom Dumont had originally attributed it).

Which is ?

 

[l_raty]

Which is ?

Falco urubitinga Gmelin 1788, I'm afraid.
Designation here.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Falco urubitinga Gmelin 1788, I'm afraid.
Designation here.

Indeed. The Key of Jobling is wrong when it says « Cuv.” Gray, 1840, List Genera Birds, p. 2 (not of Cuvier, i.e. Dumont, 1816). »

 

[l_raty]

(Note - There is also an earlier wannabe designation (of the same species) in :

Jardine W, Selby PJ. 1826-1835. Illustrations of ornithology. Vol. II. WH Lizard, Edinburg.​

text to pl. 66.​

This was published in July 1829 fide Zimmer 1926 (based in part on Sherborn 1894).
The wording here is somewhat muddy : “M[orphnus] Urubitinga may be taken as a type” -- “a” type is not fully equivalent to “the” type ; this may conceivably have been intended in the sense of "may be taken as an example".)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

(Note - There is also an earlier wannabe designation (of the same species) in :

Jardine W, Selby PJ. 1826-1835. Illustrations of ornithology. Vol. II. WH Lizard, Edinburg.​

text to pl. 66.​

This was published in July 1829 fide Zimmer 1926 (based in part on Sherborn 1894).
The wording here is somewhat muddy : “M[orphnus] Urubitinga may be taken as a type” -- “a” type is not fully equivalent to “the” type ; this may conceivably have been intended in the sense of "may be taken as an example".)

https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/M/m00944a.jpg

That's exactly what I was going to tell you

Where is the OD of Morphnus Cuvier 1816 ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Other problematic, Buteogallus will become a junior synonym of Morphnus 🤷

 

[l_raty]

Where is the OD of Morphnus Cuvier 1816 ?

Cuvier G. "1817" (=1816). Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation, pour servir de base à l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction à l'anatomie comparée. Tome I, contenant l'introduction, les mammifères et les oiseaux. Deterville, Paris.
p. 318.
The included nominal species here were :

Falco guiannensis​

F. urubitinga​

[F. novaezeelandiae – “probablement”]​

F. occipitalis​

F. ornatus (syn. F. superbus et coronatus)​

F. albescens​

Aquila maculosa.​

The originally included nominal species in Dumont 1816 were :

Falco guyanensis​

F. urubitinga​

[F. novaezelandiae – “probablement”]​

F. occipitalis​

F. ornatus (syn. F. superbus, F. coronatus)​

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Cuvier G. "1817" (=1816). Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation, pour servir de base à l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction à l'anatomie comparée. Tome I, contenant l'introduction, les mammifères et les oiseaux. Deterville, Paris.
p. 318.
The included nominal species here were :

Falco guiannensis​

F. urubitinga​

[F. novaezeelandiae – “probablement”]​

F. occipitalis​

F. ornatus (syn. F. superbus et coronatus)​

F. albescens​

Aquila maculosa.​

The originally included nominal species in Dumont 1816 were :

Falco guyanensis​

F. urubitinga​

[F. novaezelandiae – “probablement”]​

F. occipitalis​

F. ornatus (syn. F. superbus, F. coronatus)​

How many species designated by Gray as the type have not been retained today?

 

[l_raty]

How many species designated by Gray as the type have not been retained today?

I don't know, and finding the answer to such a question would take a huge amount of time. Not many.

Anyway, this is not really an issue, as there is no provision in the Code allowing individual authors to discard an otherwise valid type designation based on considerations of usage. Even if all the type designations in Gray had been ignored so far (which is certainly not the case), all those that would be the earliest designation of the type of a nominal genus which didn't have its type fixed originally, would have to be either accepted as valid, or referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary powers.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't know, and finding the answer to such a question would take a huge amount of time. Not many.

Anyway, this is not really an issue, as there is no provision in the Code allowing individual authors to discard an otherwise valid type designation based on considerations of usage. Even if all the type designations in Gray had been ignored so far (which is certainly not the case), all those that would be the earliest designation of the type of a nominal genus which didn't have its type fixed originally, would have to be either accepted as valid, or referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary powers.

In 1855, Gray changed the type species of Morphnus, but I guess that doesn't change anything

 

[l_raty]

In 1855, Gray changed the type species of Morphnus, but I guess that doesn't change anything

No, as usual, it's the first action that counts...

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No, as usual, it's the first action that counts...

Should we write Morphnus Cuvier, 1816; Morphnus Dumont, ex Cuvier, 1816; or Morphnus Cuvier in Dumont, 1816; or another wording?

 

[l_raty]

Should we write Morphnus Cuvier, 1816; Morphnus Dumont, ex Cuvier, 1816; or Morphnus Cuvier in Dumont, 1816; or another wording?

"Morphnus Dumont 1816" is correct.
"Morphnus Cuvier 1816" or "Morphnus Cuvier in Dumont 1816" are not, because these imply that Cuvier authored the name, which is not true.
I guess something like "Morphnus 'Cuvier' Dumont 1816" would be OK as well.

(And one might perhaps even argue in favour of "Morphnus Dumont in Cuvier 1816" -- but this would then be another Cuvier. Not Georges, but Frédéric, who directed the publication of the Levrault Dictionnaire.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

"Morphnus Dumont 1816" is correct.
"Morphnus Cuvier 1816" or "Morphnus Cuvier in Dumont 1816" are not, because these imply that Cuvier authored the name, which is not true.
I guess something like "Morphnus 'Cuvier' Dumont 1816" would be OK as well.

(And one might perhaps even argue in favour of "Morphnus Dumont in Cuvier 1816" -- but this would then be another Cuvier. Not Georges, but Frédéric, who directed the publication of the Levrault Dictionnaire.)

If Dumont remains the author, does that not call into question the typification made by Gray?