My taxonomic predictions (5 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I am creating this thread which will absolutely not advance the debate. It's just for fun (and also because I am bored).

This is at most an aside discussion in which I imagine possible taxonomic revisions at the genus level. In particular, species that I believe should be placed in their own genus, based on current molecular analyzes as well as their appearance.

Many of us have our own list of the birds of the world and whose taxonomy reflects both recent studies and our opinions.

For each species, I give the genus that would suit them and the etymology. Species are listed in systematic order. Of course, all genera are fictional

‘’Burhinus’’ bistriatus & superciliaris = Bugralla (Bu : Bull, gralla : Stilt, a Burhinus on stilt lol). They are very distant from other Burhinus according to recent analysis. Here, the type would be : B. bistriatus.

‘’Hapalopsittaca’’ melanotis = Streptopsittaca (collared parrot). Look a little bit different from other Hapalopsittaca.

‘’Neopelma’’ chrysolophum = probably in progress, but, Chrysopipo (gold little bird). The genus Neopelma is paraphyletic with Tyranneutes.

‘’Fluvicola’’ pica & albiventer = Limnotriccus (marsh tyrant). Fluvicola nengeta is very distant from them. Type : F. pica.

‘’Muscisaxicola’’ maculirostris = Frutexia (frutex, fruticis : shrubland). Distant and look different from other Muscisaxicola

‘’Myrmotherula’’ behni, grisea, minor, schisticolor, snowi, sunensis & unicolor = Myrmozetetes (ant searcher). It’s an old lineage within the Myrmotherula clade. Type : M. unicolor.

‘’Dysithamnus’’ puncticeps & striaticeps = Cnemonastes (Cnemo : foothill, nastes : inhabit). Dysithamnus seems to be polyphyletic. Type : D. striaticeps.

‘’Drymophila’’ squamata = Taeniocerca (banded tail). Drymophila is probably polyphyletic.

‘’Philydor’’ erythrocercum & fuscipenne = Neophilydor (new Philydor). Philydor is not monophyletic. Type: P. erythrocercum

‘’Asthenes’’ arequipae, baeri, berlepschi, dorbignyi, huancavelicae & usheri = Prosiptornoides (before Siptornoides). Asthenes is an old lineage. Type : A. dorbignyi.

‘’Asthenes’’ luizae = Amaurasthenes (dark Asthenes). Same remark.

‘’Thripophaga’’ gutturata = seems to be in progress, but, Varzeicola (living in Varzea).

‘’Pycnopygius’’ cinereus & ixoides = Pinaromyza (dirty sucker). Pycnopygius is clearly polyphyletic. Type: P. cinereus.

‘’Vireo’’ hypochryseus = Thapsinornis (yellow bird). The phylogenetic position is uncertain.

‘’Hylophilus’’ brunneiceps, flavipes, griseiventris, insularis, olivaceus, pectoralis, semicinereus, thoracicus & viridiflavus = Drymolais (Drymo : forest, lais : kind of warbler). Seem different and distant from the true Hylophilus. Type : H. thoracicus.

‘’Batis’’ erlangeri, ituriensis, minima, minor, minulla, molitor, occulta, orientalis, perkeo, poensis, pririt, senegalensis & soror = Pririt (from the epithet of B. pririt). Batis is not monophyletic. Type : B. senegalensis.

‘’Baeolophus’’ wollweberi = Lophophanoides (similar to Lophophanes). Its plumage is very distinctive.

‘’Chlorocichla’’ simplex = Hartlaubina (from Hartlaub, the descriptor). It’s unclear if Chlorocichla is monophyletic or not.

‘’Chlorocichla’’ laetissima = Xanthillas (yellow thrush). Same remark.

‘’Dasycrotapha’’ plateni & pygmaea = Stictocerthia (striped unknow little bird). Dasycrotapha is paraphyletic with Sterrhoptilus, but these two species look different from Sterrhoptilus. Type : D. plateni.

‘’Lamprotornis’’ hildebrandti & shelleyi = Neospreo (new Spreo). Lamprotornis is an old lineage. Type : L. hildebrandti.

‘’Cryptospiza’’ shelleyi = Daphoenospiza (blooded finch). Seems distant from other Cryptospiza.

‘’Peucaea’’ carpalis & sumichrasti = Pyrrhomus (rufous shoulder). Divergence time. Type : P. sumichrasti.

‘’Tangara’’ cyanotis, labradorides & rufigenis = Prosopothraupis (masked tanager). To be consistent with recent taxonomic revision of the genus Tangara (lato sensu). Type : T. labradorides.

‘’Hemithraupis’’ flavicollis = Pygothlypis (pygo : rump, thlypis : kind of bird, because its yellow rump). Distinctive plumage and long branch.


For you, which species would deserve to be placed in an undescribed genus ?

 

[Mysticete]

I don't futz around much below the tribe level, since my lists would become very confusing to reconcile with other authorities if I changed things much, and I keep my list consistent with IOC (switching over to WGAC I imagine when that is fully available). That said, it's clear from the recent corvoid phylogeny you sent me (Thanks for supplying me with that!), that fantails need to be broken into two genera given the age of the two major clades within that family. Not sure if existing names are available, because again, thats a slippery slope I am not willing to wade down yet.

 

[Mysticete]

My own out there taxonomic prediction: Charadriiformes needs to be broken into 4 major orders given the age of the clades. Furthermore, Scolopacidae should be broken into 5 distinct families for the same reason.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't futz around much below the tribe level, since my lists would become very confusing to reconcile with other authorities if I changed things much, and I keep my list consistent with IOC (switching over to WGAC I imagine when that is fully available). That said, it's clear from the recent corvoid phylogeny you sent me (Thanks for supplying me with that!), that fantails need to be broken into two genera given the age of the two major clades within that family. Not sure if existing names are available, because again, thats a slippery slope I am not willing to wade down yet.

You're welcome. For the Fantails, there are two available names : Leucocirca and, of course, Rhipidura

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

My own out there taxonomic prediction: Charadriiformes needs to be broken into 4 major orders given the age of the clades. Furthermore, Scolopacidae should be broken into 5 distinct families for the same reason.

Do you think there should be Charadriiformes, Chionidiformes, Scolopaciformes and Lariformes?

 

[Mysticete]

Actually, keep the Chionidae within the "Plover order" e.g. the more strict definition of Charadriiformes

Buttonquail would be what I would separate out.

I use a benchmark of about 55 Mya as the cut off time for orders, and according to the most recent time-calibrated trees, Chionidae are a little bit younger than that. Buttonquail in contrast pretty much seem to be about that old of a divergence.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Actually, keep the Chionidae within the "Plover order" e.g. the more strict definition of Charadriiformes

Buttonquail would be what I would separate out.

I use a benchmark of about 55 Mya as the cut off time for orders, and according to the most recent time-calibrated trees, Chionidae are a little bit younger than that. Buttonquail in contrast pretty much seem to be about that old of a divergence.

I see what you mean

 

[Snapdragyn]

I think Columbidae should likewise be broken into multiple families due to the age of some of the divergences.

 

[Snapdragyn]

"‘’Asthenes’’ arequipae, baeri, berlepschi, dorbignyi, huancavelicae & usheri = Prosiptornoides (before Siptornoides). Asthenes is an old lineage. Type : A. dorbignyi."

I'm afraid I don't bother with proper citation (or even much note-taking) in my own list, but I have the name Bathmidura for this clade. No idea where I found it, sorry.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

"‘’Asthenes’’ arequipae, baeri, berlepschi, dorbignyi, huancavelicae & usheri = Prosiptornoides (before Siptornoides). Asthenes is an old lineage. Type : A. dorbignyi."

I'm afraid I don't bother with proper citation (or even much note-taking) in my own list, but I have the name Bathmidura for this clade. No idea where I found it, sorry.

Let see in the keys :

Bathmidura Reichenbach Handb. spec. Orn., cont. x, 1853, Scansoriae A. Sittinae, p. 163. Type, by subsequent designation, Synallaxis setaria Temminck (G. R. Gray, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Bds., 1855, p. 27).

It's a synonym of Leptasthenura

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I think Columbidae should likewise be broken into multiple families due to the age of some of the divergences.

Yeah, at least 3 families: Claravidae, Columbidae and Raphidae

 

[Ian Lewis]

I use a benchmark of about 55 Mya as the cut off time for orders, and according to the most recent time-calibrated trees, Chionidae are a little bit younger than that. Buttonquail in contrast pretty much seem to be about that old of a divergence.

In your opinion what would be the divergence time for the families.

I've heard it said that most families diverged in the Miocene but that covers a period from 23-5 mya.

 

[Mysticete]

Columbidae is a vexing problem. My normal strategy for figuring out equivalent-age clades in my taxonomy for family level is to use some intra-order/intra-superfamily divergence that produces the most "conservative" results that also form discrete identifiable groups. Which obviously is an issue when an order consists of one family, and the closest other orders are also mostly single family. Also the different clades are not really separated by long branches, so the dividing lines are not as obvious for me.

I think the other issue is that I don't have as much faith in the results so far for Columbidae...the only comprehensive time-dated phylogeny I have found is a thesis by Bruxaux not yet published. Their calibration dates are based on the split between sandgrouse and doves, and without internal calibration dates I have this feeling that the other divergences time might be a bit older than they should be. But this is just a gut feeling. So I haven't really done anything

 

[Mysticete]

In your opinion what would be the divergence time for the families.

I've heard it said that most families diverged in the Miocene but that covers a period from 23-5 mya.

With the caveat that I am not an ornithologist and all my bird taxonomy discussion is just for fun and my personal lists...

I don't think there is nor should be a universal divergence date for families, subfamilies, and tribes. To me having a fix date for orders make sense, as they are all basically a result of the explosion radiation after the K-Pg extinction event, and are all roughly comparable to one another.

As birds become specialized for different lifestyles, different climatic events, evolution of new morphologies, and changing faunas is going to effect different clades in different ways, not to mention that stuff happening in one continent might not be happening in another. Plus different groups have different generation times. Songbirds are going to evolve faster than albatrosses.

On top of that, different groups have different numbers of species. Classification should strive for chopping up diversity into manageable units.

So my normal approach is to just judge the divergence dates within an order or between closely related orders, or for songbird superfamilies, finding a cut-off date that is most conservative with modern taxonomy. Than apply that across the target group. The divergence date between terns and gulls is over 30 mya, which is my approximate cut off for Lariformes. But I think the date typically used for many songbirds is 15 mya. You wouldn't want to use 15 Mya for Lariformes, because gulls alone would have to be split into 4 families, while a divergence date of 30 mya for the oscines would collapse everything from sugarbirds through tanagers on the phylogeny into a single family!

Short Answer: Depends on the clade!

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I am creating this thread which will absolutely not advance the debate. It's just for fun (and also because I am bored).

This is at most an aside discussion in which I imagine possible taxonomic revisions at the genus level. In particular, species that I believe should be placed in their own genus, based on current molecular analyzes as well as their appearance.

Many of us have our own list of the birds of the world and whose taxonomy reflects both recent studies and our opinions.

For each species, I give the genus that would suit them and the etymology. Species are listed in systematic order. Of course, all genera are fictional

‘’Burhinus’’ bistriatus & superciliaris = Bugralla (Bu : Bull, gralla : Stilt, a Burhinus on stilt lol). They are very distant from other Burhinus according to recent analysis. Here, the type would be : B. bistriatus.

‘’Hapalopsittaca’’ melanotis = Streptopsittaca (collared parrot). Look a little bit different from other Hapalopsittaca.

‘’Neopelma’’ chrysolophum = probably in progress, but, Chrysopipo (gold little bird). The genus Neopelma is paraphyletic with Tyranneutes.

‘’Fluvicola’’ pica & albiventer = Limnotriccus (marsh tyrant). Fluvicola nengeta is very distant from them. Type : F. pica.

‘’Muscisaxicola’’ maculirostris = Frutexia (frutex, fruticis : shrubland). Distant and look different from other Muscisaxicola

‘’Myrmotherula’’ behni, grisea, minor, schisticolor, snowi, sunensis & unicolor = Myrmozetetes (ant searcher). It’s an old lineage within the Myrmotherula clade. Type : M. unicolor.

‘’Dysithamnus’’ puncticeps & striaticeps = Cnemonastes (Cnemo : foothill, nastes : inhabit). Dysithamnus seems to be polyphyletic. Type : D. striaticeps.

‘’Drymophila’’ squamata = Taeniocerca (banded tail). Drymophila is probably polyphyletic.

‘’Philydor’’ erythrocercum & fuscipenne = Neophilydor (new Philydor). Philydor is not monophyletic. Type: P. erythrocercum

‘’Asthenes’’ arequipae, baeri, berlepschi, dorbignyi, huancavelicae & usheri = Prosiptornoides (before Siptornoides). Asthenes is an old lineage. Type : A. dorbignyi.

‘’Asthenes’’ luizae = Amaurasthenes (dark Asthenes). Same remark.

‘’Thripophaga’’ gutturata = seems to be in progress, but, Varzeicola (living in Varzea).

‘’Pycnopygius’’ cinereus & ixoides = Pinaromyza (dirty sucker). Pycnopygius is clearly polyphyletic. Type: P. cinereus.

‘’Vireo’’ hypochryseus = Thapsinornis (yellow bird). The phylogenetic position is uncertain.

‘’Hylophilus’’ brunneiceps, flavipes, griseiventris, insularis, olivaceus, pectoralis, semicinereus, thoracicus & viridiflavus = Drymolais (Drymo : forest, lais : kind of warbler). Seem different and distant from the true Hylophilus. Type : H. thoracicus.

‘’Batis’’ erlangeri, ituriensis, minima, minor, minulla, molitor, occulta, orientalis, perkeo, poensis, pririt, senegalensis & soror = Pririt (from the epithet of B. pririt). Batis is not monophyletic. Type : B. senegalensis.

‘’Baeolophus’’ wollweberi = Lophophanoides (similar to Lophophanes). Its plumage is very distinctive.

‘’Chlorocichla’’ simplex = Hartlaubina (from Hartlaub, the descriptor). It’s unclear if Chlorocichla is monophyletic or not.

‘’Chlorocichla’’ laetissima = Xanthillas (yellow thrush). Same remark.

‘’Dasycrotapha’’ plateni & pygmaea = Stictocerthia (striped unknow little bird). Dasycrotapha is paraphyletic with Sterrhoptilus, but these two species look different from Sterrhoptilus. Type : D. plateni.

‘’Lamprotornis’’ hildebrandti & shelleyi = Neospreo (new Spreo). Lamprotornis is an old lineage. Type : L. hildebrandti.

‘’Cryptospiza’’ shelleyi = Daphoenospiza (blooded finch). Seems distant from other Cryptospiza.

‘’Peucaea’’ carpalis & sumichrasti = Pyrrhomus (rufous shoulder). Divergence time. Type : P. sumichrasti.

‘’Tangara’’ cyanotis, labradorides & rufigenis = Prosopothraupis (masked tanager). To be consistent with recent taxonomic revision of the genus Tangara (lato sensu). Type : T. labradorides.

‘’Hemithraupis’’ flavicollis = Pygothlypis (pygo : rump, thlypis : kind of bird, because its yellow rump). Distinctive plumage.


For you, which species would deserve to be placed in an undescribed genus ?

If there are taxonomists passing by, I tell them "Serve yourself, these names are all ready to use for free"

 

[Jacana]

The problem with Turnicidae is that their generation times are incredibly rapid (we're talking a couple of months from hatching to maturity). This is by far the fastest for any non-passerine and faster than the majority of passerines. This is further compounded by an apparent lack of discrete breeding seasons for at least some species. I'm not sure how this is factored in when people attempt to place Turnicidae on a tree, let alone come up with an accurate time calibration. They'd be safer placed in "Lariformes" until their true position (and their internal phylogeny) can be properly resolved.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'll add

"Arremon" virenticeps & brunneinucha : Arremonoides (similar to Arremon). Divergence time. Type : A. brunneinucha

 

[andrew147]

For you, which species would deserve to be placed in an undescribed genus ?

I am absolutely going to add your names Jimmy, as informal synonyms.

In addition, the following don't seem to have available names but are either non-monophyletic ("") within their current placement or are (at least) old and divergent:

• "Nothoprocta" cinerascens
• Sarothrura ayresi
• Thinornis cucullatus
• “Ixobrychus” involucris & exilis (1 or 2 genera)
• Tyto prigoginei
• Pachycephala nudigula
• “Oriolus” isabellae (conflicting evidence)
• Pteruthius xanthochlorus (& pallidus)
• Rhipidura atra
• Leucocirca diluta
• Leucocirca threnothorax, leucothorax & maculipectus
• Cyanolyca nanus, mirabilis, argentigula & pumilo
• “Chalcomitra/Cinnyris” minulla & chloropygia
• Setophaga plumbea, pharetra & angelae
• “Vauriella” goodfellowi
• Sitta carolinensis & magna (1 or 2 genera)
• Eremopterix hova
• “Melanocorypha/Alauda” leucoptera
• Cisticola exilis
• “Alophoixus” finschii (recently moved to Iole but divergent)
• Garrulax leucolophus, bicolor, milleti, ferrarius, strepitans, maesi, castanotis & palliatus
• Garrulax/Pterorhinus delesserti, gularis, galbanus, courtoisi & vassali
• “Seicercus/Phylloscopus” cebuensis, olivaceus, coronatus & ijimae

...if, like me, you favour multiple genera for Garrulax & Phylloscopus

• “Oligura/Cettia” major
• Aegotheles insignis & tatei
• “Caprimulgus” prigoginei
• “Setopagis” whitelyi

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'll try to imagine genera

• "Nothoprocta" cinerascens

Nothoprymna

• Sarothrura ayresi

What is the reason?

Ayresirallus

• Thinornis cucullatus

That would force us to create multiple genera, wouldn't it?

• “Ixobrychus” involucris & exilis (1 or 2 genera)

Microbutor & Poecilophoyx

• Tyto prigoginei

Why?

Atopotyto

• Pachycephala nudigula

Gymnopoga

• “Oriolus” isabellae (conflicting evidence)

Oreoriolus

• Pteruthius xanthochlorus (& pallidus)

Spodiocara

• Rhipidura atra

Melanorhipis

• Leucocirca diluta

Wallaceavis

• Leucocirca threnothorax, leucothorax & maculipectus

Spilostethia

• Cyanolyca nanus, mirabilis, argentigula & pumilo

Nanocitta

• “Chalcomitra/Cinnyris” minulla & chloropygia

Included in an enlarged Cinnyris

• Setophaga plumbea, pharetra & angela

Poliothlypis

• “Vauriella” goodfellowi

No reason to isolate it

• Sitta carolinensis & magna (1 or 2 genera)

Leucositta & Macrositta

• Eremopterix hova

if you isolate it, you should place the other species in two other genera

Eremopterix, type : melanocephala ( = leucotis)

Hovacorys (according to the BOW keys), type : probably hova

Coraphites, type : australis

• “Melanocorypha/Alauda” leucoptera

Speculauda

• Cisticola exilis

Why ?

• “Alophoixus” finschii (recently moved to Iole but divergent)

Salvadorillas

• Garrulax leucolophus, bicolor, milleti, ferrarius, strepitans, maesi, castanotis & palliatus

Clangocichla

• Garrulax/Pterorhinus delesserti, gularis, galbanus, courtoisi & vassali

Vassalius

• “Seicercus/Phylloscopus” cebuensis, olivaceus, coronatus & ijimae

Nesopneuste

• “Oligura/Cettia” major

Cettiopsis

• Aegotheles insignis & tatei

Rufaegotheles

• “Caprimulgus” prigoginei

Maybe in progress 🤷

• “Setopagis” whitelyi

Whitelyia

 

[andrew147]

I'll try to imagine genera...

Did you have those in reserve or have you literally just coined them?! Amazing.

I'll try and answer your points quickly:

Sarothrura ayresi - very distinctive, in some ways more like Madagascan watersi which probably deserves separation as Lemurolimnas (I'd split Sarothrura into 4 genera - the components are really old)

Thinornis cucullatus - multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that traditional Charadrius is very wrong; this is the most divergent member of the Thinornis clade which comprises of 4 ancient and morphologically dissimilar lineages

Tyto prigoginei - already shifts between Phodilus and Tyto which are themselves divergent to the level of family imo (my guess is that this represents an ancient relict taxon)

“Chalcomitra/Cinnyris” minulla & chloropygia - Cinnyris is a polyphyletic and paraphyletic mess and these two consistently show up on their own

“Vauriella” goodfellowi - RAG-1 genes place in Muscicapini

Eremopterix hova - yes, divergence times support 3 genera and hova is so different to supposed congeners

Cisticola exilis the most divergent member of a genus ripe for splitting; exilis diverged from other Cisticola 10.5 million years ago (and there are 8 other Cisticola lineages over 6 my old, all but one of which have available names)