Gruiformes and Charadriiformes (1 Viewer)

[Xenospiza]

The "Chevalier rouge" of Belon looks like the Spotted Redshank (Tringa erythropus)

L'histoire de la nature des oyseaux, avec leurs descriptions, et naïfs portraicts retirez du naturel / escrite en sept livres. Par Pierre Belon : Belon, Pierre : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(fol.). 12[16] l., 381 p. : woodcut port. & ill.

archive.org

Do we know if any author has described this species from the "Chevalier rouge" of Belon, because its appearance intrigues me ? I did not find in the Systema Naturae by searching in the genus Tringa

I think they had all been eaten by then!
I expect it is just a different plumage of T. erythropus, which according to Belon always has black legs (if I read the 16th century French correctly).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I think they had all been eaten by then!
I expect it is just a different plumage of T. erythropus, which according to Belon always has black legs (if I read the 16th century French correctly).

The species he describes in the following page is called the "Chevalier noir" which has black legs it seems to me. It must be the same species as the "rouge". On the other hand, what surprises me is that for several authors of the 18th and 19th centuries (in particular Buffon) associated the name "Chevalier", properly speaking, with the taxon Tringa equestris (= pugnax) and that there was a confusion about the specimens gathered under this name "Chevalier"

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Morever, in the different editions of Systema naturae, whether written by Linnaeus or Gmelin, there are references to earlier authors in the bibliographies, Aldrovandi, Gessner, or even Belon. And regarding the latter, I have the impression that there are inconsistencies in the referencing.

For example, the description of Tringa vanellus (currently Vanellus vanellus) on page 148 refers to Belon with this reference: Bell. av. 49. Except that in Belon's book, the description of the "Vanneau" (Lapwing in English) is in chapter 17 page 209. So I would like to know what "49" corresponds to in "Bell. av. 49" ?

 

[l_raty]

Morever, in the different editions of Systema naturae, whether written by Linnaeus or Gmelin, there are references to earlier authors in the bibliographies, Aldrovandi, Gessner, or even Belon. And regarding the latter, I have the impression that there are inconsistencies in the referencing.

For example, the description of Tringa vanellus (currently Vanellus vanellus) on page 148 refers to Belon with this reference: Bell. av. 49. Except that in Belon's book, the description of the "Vanneau" (Lapwing in English) is in chapter 17 page 209. So I would like to know what "49" corresponds to in "Bell. av. 49" ?

Most of Linnaeus' "Bell. av." references were not to Belon's Histoire de la nature des oyseaux, published in 1555, but to his Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpents, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie et d'Egypte, published in 1557.
This is an illustrated volume, in which sheets are printed on both sides, but paged on the front side only. Linnaeus usually cited illustrations appearing on the front side of a sheet by the number of the sheet with an added "a.", those appearing on the back side of a sheet by the number of the sheet with an added "b."
E.g., under Anas cygnus, he cited "Bell. av. 30. a.", which is this : Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpens, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie & Egypte, obseruez par P. Belon du Mans ...
(Sometimes Linnaeus also cited this work as "Bell. ic." instead of "Bell. av." -- see, for example, the lapwing reference in Fauna svecica.)

Some of these references contain errors, however, which seems to be the case here -- "49. a." should have been "47. a." : Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpens, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie & Egypte, obseruez par P. Belon du Mans ...

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Most of Linnaeus' "Bell. av." references were not to Belon's Histoire de la nature des oyseaux, published in 1555, but to his Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpents, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie et d'Egypte, published in 1557.
This is an illustrated volume, in which sheets are printed on both sides, but paged on the front side only. Linnaeus usually cited illustrations appearing on the front side of a sheet by the number of the sheet with an added "a.", those appearing on the back side of a sheet by the number of the sheet with an added "b."
E.g., under Anas cygnus, he cited "Bell. av. 30. a.", which is this : Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpens, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie & Egypte, obseruez par P. Belon du Mans ...
(Sometimes Linnaeus also cited this work as "Bell. ic." instead of "Bell. av." -- see, for example, the lapwing reference in Fauna svecica.)

Some of these references contain errors, however, which seems to be the case here -- "49. a." should have been "47. a." : Portraits d'oiseaux, animaux, serpens, herbes, arbres, hommes et femmes d'Arabie & Egypte, obseruez par P. Belon du Mans ...

Ok, thanks, I know this book too, I "read" it (I downloaded these two books in Gallica as well as "Les Observations et plusieurs singularitez").


I seek if there are any references to "la Bécassine, ou Bécasseau", "l'autre Bécassine" and "la plus petite espèce de Bécassine" in the works of classic authors like Aldrovandi, Gesner or more recent authors.

In fact, I remain intrigued by the use of the name Bécasseau by Buffon, Bonnaterre, Brisson, Gerardin, Vieillot, for Tringa ochropus (see my previous comments), they tended to quote each other, however they were the references at that time but if their works contain errors.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (979) to SACC

Revise the taxonomy of the Charadriidae (in 8 parts, A-H)

 

[Mysticete]

I wonder if there are any plans to make WGAC comments public, since clearly the SACC folks have access to them. Would make for fascinating reading.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Proposal (979) to SACC

Revise the taxonomy of the Charadriidae (in 8 parts, A-H)

Recognize the subfamily Pluvialinae for the species in Pluvialis, and the subfamily Charadriinae for the remaining species in Charadriidae

Clearly not, 2 families (Charadriidae and Pluvialidae) and 4 subfamilies within Charadriidae (Oreopholinae [very distinctive, not described], Charadriinae, Vanellinae & Anarhynchinae).

 

[Paul Clapham]

Clearly not, 2 families (Charadriidae and Pluvialidae) and 4 subfamilies within Charadriidae (Oreopholinae [very distinctive, not described], Charadriinae, Vanellinae & Anarhynchinae).

You could contact Remsen and put a comment on that proposal.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

You could contact Remsen and put a comment on that proposal.

They just have to register and read

 

[mb1848]

"They just have to register and read"
I tried it today I did not have to register but simply accept all Birdforum's cookies. And all but rare birds was available. Or you could reach out? Maybe? Most USA types would see red wheatear as Marxist related so be sure to mention Bird Forum membership!

 

[JustinJansen]

Took a few years, but finally it is published today: Megafaunal extinctions, not climate change, may explain Holocene genetic diversity declines in Numenius shorebirds

 

[mb1848]

Megafaunal extinctions, not climate change, probably explain Holocene genetic diversity declines in Numenius shorebirds. Congratulations Justin! Your link provides a backstage look at the production of a zoological research paper in 2023. I thought peer review meant you bought a round at a bar for your peers and talked about the paper. No. A tremendous amount of work. As a small child I saw a Little Curlew in California and the old coots called it a Little Whimbrel. Your figure shows they were right. With Bartramia kept seperate by checklists perhaps readers of this website could come up with a new genus for the whimbrel clade?

 

[l_raty]

With Bartramia kept seperate by checklists perhaps readers of this website could come up with a new genus for the whimbrel clade?

This would have to be called Phaeopus Cuvier 1816, I believe.

t.1 (1817) - Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[mb1848]

Thank you Laurent. So quick. I am having trouble getting the BHL page to load?? Everything necessary is on The Key:
The Key to Scientific Names - Birds of the World .
A Nov. 23 2022 paper agrees that N. minutus and N. phaeopus are sister.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23802359.2022.2148488 .
Let us start using Cuvier's name.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Took a few years, but finally it is published today: Megafaunal extinctions, not climate change, may explain Holocene genetic diversity declines in Numenius shorebirds

Their result is very different from that of Cerny and Natale.

 

[mb1848]

"Their result is very different from that of Cerny and Natale."
I notice SACC has a recent proposal concerning Cerny and Natale 2022.
Revise the taxonomy of the Charadriidae (in 8 parts, A-H) .
Recognize new genus Hesperoburhinus .

 

[l_raty]

Their result is very different from that of Cerny and Natale.

Until now, there was no genetic material available for N. borealis; this species in Černý & Natale's tree is sister to N. minutus based on morphological similarity only. The position of this pair, on the other hand, is presumably mainly a result of genetic data -- i.e., borealis presumably follows minutus where the genetic data are placing it.

For the rest, the topology in the new tree is very much the same as in cox1 ("barcode") trees (see p. 98 in the supplementary material of Černý & Natale's paper, which is here). Cox1 data are generally rather safe to use, because in most cases this locus has been sequenced for several (or even many) individuals, and problematic sequences (contaminations, misidentifications, etc.) are therefore generally easy to find. A very general issue with supertrees is that, of course, they can only be as good as the data that is included in the matrix. Unfortunately, when you don't have several sequences of a gene for a species, problematic sequences can be very hard to detect.

The basal position of minutus (+ borealis) in Černý & Natale's tree seems to be largely driven by 12s-rRNA sequences (see the tree on p. 92 of the suppl. mat.). For many species, 12s has been sequenced only once, and some of these sequences could be wrong. The N. minutus cytochrome b sequence in Černý & Natale's data set is also quite clearly a N. arquata sequence (see p. 101 of the suppl. mat.). I would expect this to have affected their tree, but not to have spuriously attracted N. minutus to a basal position. (A long time ago (here), I built a tree based in part on the same data; at this time, I excluded this minutus cyt b sequence, as it appeared obviously spurious to me; I recovered minutus in a basal position as well.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Until now, there was no genetic material available for N. borealis; this species in Černý & Natale's tree is sister to N. minutus based on morphological similarity only.

Are there other species included in Cerny & Natale's tree for which we don't have genetic material and whose position is based solely on morphology?

 

[mb1848]

Congratulations to whoever got the borealis DNA. That is not readily available on the shelf. In 1984 when I saw minutus birders suggested it was an Eskimo, wrongly. So Laurent your tree has minutus basal in the curlews? And there is no whimbrel clade? In your tree is minutus so different that it should be called Mesoscolopax minutus?
Vol 24 (1896) - Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library .