Rasmus Boegh
BF member
This perhaps falls under "The thread is not intended to serve for discussion of what could have, and should have been included in the volume in the way of updated taxonomy."... but the below examples have bugged me for some time! So, here goes:
Patagioenas plumbea/subvinacea
There are still the old problems with the subspecies of Patagioenas plumbea/subvinacea (formerly in genus Columba). The type specimen for bogotensis, by Peters considered a subspecies of C. [P.] subvinacea, was examined by Hellmayr a few years after Peters publication. He found that it, based on back colour and bill-length, clearly was a C. [P.] plumbea. This is described on page 472 in his “Catalogue of Birds of the Americas”, part. I, no. 1 (1942), but was evidently missed by most following publications that continued using the Peters check list (which essentially formed the basis for the various World check lists available today). As bogotensis (Berlepsch & Leverkühn, 1890) predate delicata (Berlepsch & Stoltzmann, 1902), the latter become a junior synonym. The next available name for the population previously labelled as the bogotensis subspecies of P. subvinacea is ogilviegranti (Chubb, 1917). The first generally available and recently published book to get this right was The Birds of Ecuador, Volume 1: Status, Distribution and Taxonomy by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Anyhow, a correct version would be (disregarding the additional issues that may be in terms of the validity and distributions of various subspecies):
Patagioenas plumbea with subspecies:
* bogotensis (the population previously labelled as delicata).
* chapmani.
* pallescens.
* baeri.
* plumbea.
Patagioenas subvinacea with subspecies:
* subvinacea.
* berlepschi.
* zuliae.
* peninsularis.
* pupureotincta.
* ogilviegranti (the population previously labelled as bogotensis).
Hemitriccus zosterops/griseipectus
The taxon naumburgae of the Hemitriccus zosterops/griseipectus complex belong in the latter, not the former. This mistake clearly originates from Handbook of the Birds of the World vol. 9, where they, despite even mentioning that vocal characters suggests naumburgae belong in H. griseipectus, place it, seemingly without reasons, in H. zosterops. The split of H. zosterops and H. griseipectus is relatively recent, and this is presumably what confused, as earlier publications (e.g. Birds of South America by Ridgely & Greenfield, 1994) specifically mention that naumburgae, if H. zosterops and H. griseipectus were split, clearly belong under the latter: It has a whitish belly as H. griseipectus, but unlike the yellow belly of H. zosterops and it is vocally extremely similar to H. griseipectus, but strickingly different than H. zosterops (in terms of biogeography it also would be somewhat strange if it had belonged under H. zosterops). Indeed, you don’t need to be a specialist in Neotropical birds to hear this; just check the various recordings on Xeno-Canto:
H. zosterops:
http://www.xeno-canto.org/browse.php?query=White-eyed+Tody-Tyrant
H. griseipectus:
http://www.xeno-canto.org/browse.php?query=White-bellied+Tody-Tyrant
(all recording from Alagoas and Pernambuco are naumburgae).
It is further worth mentioning that the very studies which were the basis for the split of H. zosterops and H. griseipectus, mention that naumburgae likely would belong in the latter.
I’ll refrain from commenting on additional more recent issues that easily can be found by checking the issues of various major ornithological papers (Bull. B.O.C, The Auk, Wilson Journal of Ornithology, etc) published within the last few years.
Patagioenas plumbea/subvinacea
There are still the old problems with the subspecies of Patagioenas plumbea/subvinacea (formerly in genus Columba). The type specimen for bogotensis, by Peters considered a subspecies of C. [P.] subvinacea, was examined by Hellmayr a few years after Peters publication. He found that it, based on back colour and bill-length, clearly was a C. [P.] plumbea. This is described on page 472 in his “Catalogue of Birds of the Americas”, part. I, no. 1 (1942), but was evidently missed by most following publications that continued using the Peters check list (which essentially formed the basis for the various World check lists available today). As bogotensis (Berlepsch & Leverkühn, 1890) predate delicata (Berlepsch & Stoltzmann, 1902), the latter become a junior synonym. The next available name for the population previously labelled as the bogotensis subspecies of P. subvinacea is ogilviegranti (Chubb, 1917). The first generally available and recently published book to get this right was The Birds of Ecuador, Volume 1: Status, Distribution and Taxonomy by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Anyhow, a correct version would be (disregarding the additional issues that may be in terms of the validity and distributions of various subspecies):
Patagioenas plumbea with subspecies:
* bogotensis (the population previously labelled as delicata).
* chapmani.
* pallescens.
* baeri.
* plumbea.
Patagioenas subvinacea with subspecies:
* subvinacea.
* berlepschi.
* zuliae.
* peninsularis.
* pupureotincta.
* ogilviegranti (the population previously labelled as bogotensis).
Hemitriccus zosterops/griseipectus
The taxon naumburgae of the Hemitriccus zosterops/griseipectus complex belong in the latter, not the former. This mistake clearly originates from Handbook of the Birds of the World vol. 9, where they, despite even mentioning that vocal characters suggests naumburgae belong in H. griseipectus, place it, seemingly without reasons, in H. zosterops. The split of H. zosterops and H. griseipectus is relatively recent, and this is presumably what confused, as earlier publications (e.g. Birds of South America by Ridgely & Greenfield, 1994) specifically mention that naumburgae, if H. zosterops and H. griseipectus were split, clearly belong under the latter: It has a whitish belly as H. griseipectus, but unlike the yellow belly of H. zosterops and it is vocally extremely similar to H. griseipectus, but strickingly different than H. zosterops (in terms of biogeography it also would be somewhat strange if it had belonged under H. zosterops). Indeed, you don’t need to be a specialist in Neotropical birds to hear this; just check the various recordings on Xeno-Canto:
H. zosterops:
http://www.xeno-canto.org/browse.php?query=White-eyed+Tody-Tyrant
H. griseipectus:
http://www.xeno-canto.org/browse.php?query=White-bellied+Tody-Tyrant
(all recording from Alagoas and Pernambuco are naumburgae).
It is further worth mentioning that the very studies which were the basis for the split of H. zosterops and H. griseipectus, mention that naumburgae likely would belong in the latter.
I’ll refrain from commenting on additional more recent issues that easily can be found by checking the issues of various major ornithological papers (Bull. B.O.C, The Auk, Wilson Journal of Ornithology, etc) published within the last few years.
Last edited:
