My taxonomic predictions (1 Viewer)

[TomDerutter]

I noticed that "Maluropsis Schodde and Christidis, 1987" is not in The Key

 

[l_raty]

I noticed that "Maluropsis Schodde and Christidis, 1987" is not in The Key

OD: http://www.publish.csiro.au/MU/pdf/MU9870188

Amytornis subgenus Maluropsis, subgen. nov.
Type species: Arnytomis barbatus Favaloro & McEvey, 1968.
Diagnosis: Face patterned black and white with broad white superciliary stripe and black stripe from lores through eyes linked to thin black malar line around sides of throat; tail greatly attenuated with tapered rectrices, the centre pair of which extend > 5 mm beyond the adjacent pair; no sexual dimorphism in colour of flanks or belly. Eggs heavily marked.
The name Maluropsis reflects the Malurus-like traits of this species in morphology and behaviour (Schodde 1982a).

(Genus Malurus Vieillot 1816, fairywren; Gr. οψις opsis appearance.)

 

[TomDerutter]

I'm inspired by Jim and going through my list.

Here are some clades that are old enough and I didn't find a name for:

"Circaetus" cinerascens, fasciolatus
"Accipiter" ovampensis, madagascariensis
"Icthyophaga" vocifer, vociferoides

"Ceyx" pusillus, azureus, websteri
"Chloroceryle" amazona
"Actenoides" princeps, monacha

"Drymophila" squamata

"Myzomela" erythromelas
"Myzomela" blasii, rubrotincta, cruentata, erythrina

"Cyanonympha" nigrocinnamomea

"Dicrurus" ludwigii, atripennis, occidentalis, sharpei (square-tailed drongo group)

"Alophoixus" phaeocephalus
"Ixodia" erythropthalmos

"Malacopteron"affine

 

[James Jobling]

Thank you, Tom and Laurent. I have added Maluropsis to The Key.
Tom, I assume we can all join in the game creating MS for your divergent species? I propose Finschiole for Iole finschii, and Nisovampe for Accipiter ovampensis!! The sounds you hear are Sundevall, Illiger, and Cabanis spinning in their graves! When my library comes out of storage I shall review your names more avidly, provided Jim and Andrew don't get there first!

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'm inspired by Jim and going through my list.

Here are some clades that are old enough and I didn't find a name for:

"Circaetus" cinerascens, fasciolatus
"Accipiter" ovampensis, madagascariensis
"Icthyophaga" vocifer, vociferoides

"Ceyx" pusillus, azureus, websteri
"Chloroceryle" amazona
"Actenoides" princeps, monacha

"Drymophila" squamata

"Myzomela" erythromelas
"Myzomela" blasii, rubrotincta, cruentata, erythrina

"Cyanonympha" nigrocinnamomea

"Dicrurus" ludwigii, atripennis, occidentalis, sharpei (square-tailed drongo group)

"Alophoixus" phaeocephalus
"Ixodia" erythropthalmos

"Malacopteron"affine

Read my comments and those of Andrew and you will see that we have proposed names for species that you mentioned 😁😏

 

[TomDerutter]

Ah, upon reread I see I missed Taeniocerca ("Drymophila" squamata) and Zebraquila ("Circaetus" cinerascens, fasciolatus)

 

[andrew147]

"Ceyx" pusillus, azureus, websteri

"Actenoides" princeps, monacha

"Alophoixus" phaeocephalus

There are available names for some spp in your list.

• Alcyone (Swainson, 1837) (type: azureus)
• Micralcyone (Mathews, 1912) (type: pusilla)
• Dacelalcyon (Mathews, 1918) (type: monachus)
• and I think phaeocephalus is the type of Alophoixus, so it is the rest of Alophoixus that could do with a new name

You are right about the others - especially the two fish eagles - are you on it Jim?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

"Accipiter" ovampensis, madagascariensis

Asturospizias (type: A. ovampensis)

"Icthyophaga" vocifer, vociferoides

Halictinia (type: I. vocifer)

"Chloroceryle" amazona

Macroceryle (even if I think that is useless because the genus is relatively homogeneous despite the size difference in each species)

"Cyanonympha" nigrocinnamomea

Compsomyias

"Dicrurus" ludwigii, atripennis, occidentalis, sharpei (square-tailed drongo group)

Ludwigornis (not very inspired) (type: D. atripennis)

"Ixodia" erythropthalmos

Phlogope

"Malacopteron" affine

Necessary?

 

[TomDerutter]

"Malacopteron" affine

Necessary?

Split is over 10 mya for both "Malacopteron" affine and Ophrydornis albogulare from core Malacopteron
If we want albogulare out, then affine has to go as wel.
(I agree it's nitpicking though)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Split is over 10 mya for both "Malacopteron" affine and Ophrydornis albogulare from core Malacopteron
If we want albogulare out, then affine has to go as wel.
(I agree it's nitpicking though)

Split of Sclerurus is over 15 mya and the genus is very homogeneous. Divergence time is not a determining criterion IMHO.

Is Malacopteron affine so different from other Malacopteron?

 

[TomDerutter]

Split of Sclerurus is over 15 mya

I just checked, Harvey et al has it at just over 8mya - seems severely overestimated in d'Horta et al.

I try not to use fixed dates because it's hard to know how good the estimates are - only try to use a consistant, logical point in time for any given family (or subfamily). In Pellorneidae, the split in Malacopteron is older then the Trichastoma or Illadopsis groups. Or: Ophrydornis <> Malacopteron split is about the same age as the Laticilla <> Illadopsis split (which def. should not be in the same genus).

 

[andrew147]

Split of Sclerurus is over 15 mya and the genus is very homogeneous. Divergence time is not a determining criterion IMHO.

Is Malacopteron affine so different from other Malacopteron?

I would argue that what appears "very homogeneous" to human eyes should not be a determining criterion!

We generally have worse eyesight than birds and we're not that great at visual differentiation - and humans being able to tell them apart is not a driving factor in their evolution! Also, features that seem most important to our eyes - e. g. bill shape or plumage pattern/colour - are amongst the things that evolve and differentiate most rapidly.

I find these ancient 'cryptic' lineages fascinating and deserving of acknowledgement on some level. I think they tell us more about actual avian evolution than does the recognition of "families" like Nesospingidae and Spindalidae.

Two more names for divergent lineages that I overlooked before (sorry, James):

• Genus Scotangelus for Heliangelus regalis (separated >9 mya from very different-looking congeners) (edited from Skotioangelus following Jim's suggestion)
• Genus Itombwornis for "Caprimulgus" prigogenei (apparently belongs outside Caprimulgus)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Split of Sclerurus is over 15 mya and the genus is very homogeneous. Divergence time is not a determining criterion IMHO.

Claramunt and al (2012) give the same result. There must be differences depending on the studies or methodologies used, I think

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

• Genus Skotioangelus for Heliangelus regalis (separated >9 mya from very different-looking congeners

Not Cyanangelus ?

 

[James Jobling]

Let the games commence. Jim, I like Phlogope, but sympathise with your comment re Ludwigornis; I propose Tetragonurus for Dicrurus sharpei and other square-tailed Afrotropical drongos.

 

[andrew147]

Not Cyanangelus ?

No, not for me, it doesn't look bright blue in the field.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I would argue that what appears "very homogeneous" to human eyes should not be a determining criterion!

In taxonomy, this is important. You must demonstrate criteria that would differentiate real Sclerurus from others. And here, there's nothing to tell them apart.

 

[andrew147]

Let the games commence. Jim, I like Phlogope, but sympathise with your comment re Ludwigornis; I propose Tetragonurus for Dicrurus sharpei and other square-tailed Afrotropical drongos.

Tetragonurus is great imo but are you sure it is not preoccupied?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Tetragonurus

Tetragonurus is a genus if rish

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No, not for me, it doesn't look bright blue in the field.

Cyano means Dark blue.

Or simplified, Scotangelus