Thraupidae (1 Viewer)

[l_raty]

Haplospiza 'unicolor' Cabanis, 1851 (new name to replace unicolor)

It seems you need a new name here.
(Note 71b in A classification of the bird species of South America is, indeed, wrong.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

.
(Note 71b in A classification of the bird species of South America is, indeed, wrong.)

Mdr, c'est des bons

Do you think it's possible to publish a new name, a name that would be there just in case?

However, the main problem for a single genus treatment is one of nomenclature: in an expanded Haplospiza, Phrygilus unicolor was described (as Emberiza unicolor Lafresnaye & d’Orbigny 1837) before Haplospiza unicolor (1851), and so that mess would have to be sorted out in a separate publication. A new name would be required for Haplospiza unicolor, a name that has been in use for nearly 170 years. Therefore, I recommend a YES vote (resurrect Geospizopsis, retain Haplospiza as currently constituted) just as a temporary solution while nomenclature is sorted out.

Ok, they talk about it here. Let's wait for them to fix this problem

 

[l_raty]

Do you think it's possible to publish a new name, a name that would be there just in case?

Under the present rules, you cannot publish a name "just in case" it might be needed (this would be a conditional proposal, forbidden in any post-1960 publication, see ICZN 15.1). You would have to endorse the validity of the new name when publishing it.
(But, besides this : yes of course it can be done.)

 

[mb1848]

Zoonomen says E. unicolor LaFesnaye is the type of

Geospizopsis Bp. as does SACC. But I cannot see why?​

t.42 (1856) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Phrygilus is a Cabanis name used by Tschudi in 1844.
Jahrg.10:Bd.1-2 (1844) - Archiv für Naturgeschichte - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Phrygilus unicolor Cab. is based on E. unicolor Lafresnaye.
Jahrg.10:Bd.1-2 (1844) - Archiv für Naturgeschichte - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Geospizopsis plebejus Tschudi is on the same page. As well as H. rustica Cab/Ph. rustica based on an MS Lichtenstein Fringilla rustica (not Emb. rustica Pallas)
Jahrg.10:Bd.1-2 (1844) - Archiv für Naturgeschichte - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Some new genera, which meet this sight, pro-
they were placed aDom. J. Cabanis, Assist. Mouse Zool. Berol., who to con-
to establish this enumeration of his observations kindly with me
he shared. Does this note make Cabanis a co-author of the article?

 

[James Jobling]

Mark

Thraupidae; † Plumbeous Sierrafinch G. unicolor geospizopsis ... Nous nommons le genre Geospizopsis, et l'espèce déjà décrite G. typus ... Geospizopsis Bonaparte, 1856, Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris, XLII, p. 955. Type, by original designation, Geospizopsis typus Bonaparte, 1856 = Passerculus geospizopsis Bonaparte, 1853.

The above is from The Key, which is always worth checking for basic citation and type information.

 

[l_raty]

Zoonomen says E. unicolor LaFesnaye is the type of

Geospizopsis Bp. as does SACC. But I cannot see why?​

t.42 (1856) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

As James note, the type is Geospizopsis typus Bonaparte 1856 = Passerculus geospizopsis Bonaparte 1853, by original designation (through its renaming as typus in the OD of the genus, see ICZN 68.2.2).
At species rank, Passerculus geospizopsis Bonaparte 1853 is currently subjectively regarded as being synonymous with Emberiza unicolor d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837. (But, at subspecies rank, it is regarded as taxonomically distinct.)

All the indications of "type species" in Zoonomen are similar, actually -- the taxon that is in bold is always the taxonomic (full) species that is regarded as including the nominal type species; not the type species proper. Although these indications are of course informative and useful, to call "type species" the taxonomic species that includes the actual nominal type species, is poor practice in my opinion. (See ICZN 67.1.2, as well as the accompanying Rec. 67B, and the example that goes with it.)

 

[albertonykus]

Martínez-Gómez, S.C., C.E. Lara, J.V. Remsen, Jr., R.T. Brumfield, and A.M. Cuervo (2023)
Unmasking hidden genetic, vocal, and size variation in the Masked Flowerpiercer along the Andes supports two species separated by Northern Peruvian Low
Ornithology (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/ornithology/ukad028

Genetic divergence among isolated populations is not always reflected in phenotypic differentiation. We investigated the genetic and phenotypic differentiation in Diglossa cyanea (Thraupidae; Masked Flowerpiercer), a widely distributed species in the tropical Andes. We found strong evidence for two main lineages separated by the Marañón River valley in the Northern Peruvian Low (NPL). These two lineages show a deep sequence divergence in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA; ~6.7% uncorrected p-distance, n = 122), spectral frequency and song structure (with exclusive final whistles in southern populations, n = 88), and wing length (the northern populations are smaller, n = 364). The two divergent D. cyanea mitochondrial lineages were not sister to each other, suggesting a possible paraphyly with respect to D. caerulescens (Bluish Flowerpiercer) that remains to be tested with nuclear genomic data. No genetic variation, size difference or song structure was observed within the extensive range of the southern group (from the NPL to central Bolivia) or within all sampled northern populations (from the NPL to Venezuela). These vocal differences appear to have consequences for song discrimination, and species recognition, according to a previously published playback experiment study. We propose that the southern taxon be elevated to species rank as D. melanopis, a monotypic species (with the proposed name Whistling Masked-Flowerpiercer). In turn, we provide a redefinition of D. cyanea (Warbling Masked-Flowerpiercer), which is now restricted to the northern half of the tropical Andes as a polytypic species with 3 subspecies (tovarensis, obscura, and cyanea). Based on our results, the subspecies dispar should be treated as a junior synonym of cyanea. Our study highlights the need to continue amassing complementary datasets from field observations, experiments, and collection-based assessments to better characterize the evolutionary history, biogeography, bioacoustics, and taxonomy of Neotropical montane birds.

 

[cajanuma]

Martínez-Gómez, S.C., C.E. Lara, J.V. Remsen, Jr., R.T. Brumfield, and A.M. Cuervo (2023)
Unmasking hidden genetic, vocal, and size variation in the Masked Flowerpiercer along the Andes supports two species separated by Northern Peruvian Low
Ornithology (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/ornithology/ukad028

Genetic divergence among isolated populations is not always reflected in phenotypic differentiation. We investigated the genetic and phenotypic differentiation in Diglossa cyanea (Thraupidae; Masked Flowerpiercer), a widely distributed species in the tropical Andes. We found strong evidence for two main lineages separated by the Marañón River valley in the Northern Peruvian Low (NPL). These two lineages show a deep sequence divergence in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA; ~6.7% uncorrected p-distance, n = 122), spectral frequency and song structure (with exclusive final whistles in southern populations, n = 88), and wing length (the northern populations are smaller, n = 364). The two divergent D. cyanea mitochondrial lineages were not sister to each other, suggesting a possible paraphyly with respect to D. caerulescens (Bluish Flowerpiercer) that remains to be tested with nuclear genomic data. No genetic variation, size difference or song structure was observed within the extensive range of the southern group (from the NPL to central Bolivia) or within all sampled northern populations (from the NPL to Venezuela). These vocal differences appear to have consequences for song discrimination, and species recognition, according to a previously published playback experiment study. We propose that the southern taxon be elevated to species rank as D. melanopis, a monotypic species (with the proposed name Whistling Masked-Flowerpiercer). In turn, we provide a redefinition of D. cyanea (Warbling Masked-Flowerpiercer), which is now restricted to the northern half of the tropical Andes as a polytypic species with 3 subspecies (tovarensis, obscura, and cyanea). Based on our results, the subspecies dispar should be treated as a junior synonym of cyanea. Our study highlights the need to continue amassing complementary datasets from field observations, experiments, and collection-based assessments to better characterize the evolutionary history, biogeography, bioacoustics, and taxonomy of Neotropical montane birds.

Nicely summarized (with sound recordings) by the first author here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666526753752219648

 

[THE_FERN]

Nicely summarized (with sound recordings) by the first author here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1666526753752219648

Do they show any clear plumage differences?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

When I read some genus diagnosis in Burns & al., 2016, they didn't really rack their brains. Write "This genus is diagnosed by the specific characters of Saltator rufiventris d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837.” is enough to make the genus available? 🧐

 

[Taphrospilus]

I have questions on publication history of Thraupis episcopus cana (Swainson, WJ 1835). As I understood from Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology this plate A selection of the birds of Brazil and Mexico - Biodiversity Heritage Library was part of the original publication, but this is a second enhanced edition.

The original is in

Swainson, W. (1834-1835) The Ornithological Drawings of William Swainson. Series 1. The Birds of Brazil. - Baldwin & Craddock (?), London, U.K.

This book was published in 5 Parts

1) pll. 1-13
2) pll. 14-25
3) pll. 26-38
4) pll. 29-50
5) pll. 51-62

But there seem st o be different opinions when plate 37 was published.

• Nora F. McMillan: William Swainson's Birds of Brazil, Mexican Zoology, and Tropical Ornithology, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1970, 5 (5):366-368 => 10. July, 1834
• M. Ralph Browning, Burt L. Monroe: Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds, Archives of Natural History, 1991, 18 (3): 381-405 => dates plate 37 as 1835

1) Is the original book (not the second edition) somewhere online?
2) How should it be treated according the code? More conservative like 1835 or more progressive like 1834?
3) Or may there newer publications dealing with the topic that I am not aware of?

 

[mb1848]

An advertisment of a bookseller (1843) of Swainson's Ornithological Drawings Birds of Brazil.
Catalogues of books .
Page 64. Says 7 parts.
sec.2:pt.1-4=pp.1-943 [A-Byzos] - Index animalium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Sherborn 1922.
Says 6 parts?
Coues says 1834 to1841!
pt. 2-3 - Ornithological bibliography - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Henry G. Bohn catalogue date unknown says complet in 6 parts with 68 plates. Coues 62 others 78 plates.
The Quarterly Review (London) .
Olsen 1973 says Tanagra cana Swainson . Ornith . Drawings , pt . 3 , pl . 37 , 1836.

 

[Mysticete]

Do they show any clear plumage differences?

Birds of the world has this to say about the southern population (D. melanopsis) compared to to the northern population

"melanopis, described as D.[iglossa] melanopis Tschudi 1844; type locality Peru, restricted to the Junín region (Hellmayr 1935). This subspecies occurs in the Andes of Peru, except for the northwest, and Bolivia, south to Santa Cruz (Storer 1970, Remsen et al. 1987). Subspecies melanopis is slightly larger than the other subspecies, as well as darker and duller than nominate cyanea, with the blue outer margins of the tertial feathers less sharply outlined (Hilty 2011)."

The populations are allopatric as well, so I imagine geography would be really all you need to identify the two forms.

 

[l_raty]

But there seem st o be different opinions when plate 37 was published.

• Nora F. McMillan: William Swainson's Birds of Brazil, Mexican Zoology, and Tropical Ornithology, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1970, 5 (5):366-368 => 10. July, 1834
• M. Ralph Browning, Burt L. Monroe: Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds, Archives of Natural History, 1991, 18 (3): 381-405 => dates plate 37 as 1835

This is what Browning & Monroe wrote:

SWAINSON'S ORNITHOLOGICAL DRAWINGS

The Ornithological drawings was published in 1834-1835 and consisted of 62 plates (see Coues [1879] for list of species) based principally on Swainson's work in Brazil in 1817 and 1818. Before the publication of this work, Swainson distributed his material (specimens ?) to specialists for their use (McMillan, 1976). According to McMillan (1970), Swainson's (1834-1835) work was issued in five parts: part 1 (consisting of plates 1-13) was issued on 15 January 1834; Part 2 (pls. 14-25) was issued 1 April 1834; Part 3 (pls. 26-38) on 10 July 1834; Part 4 (pls. 39-50) on 2 January 1835; and Part 5 (pls. 51-62) on 27 June 1835.

Three of the names originally proposed in the Ornithological drawings are incorrectly cited by the A.O.U. (1983) and in two volumes of the Peters' check-list.
Traylor (1979) cited the date for Ramphotrigon megacephala as "1836 (?)," and he and the A.O.U. (1983) gave the date for Myiopagis caniceps as 1836. Storer (1970) gave the date for Tanagra episcopus cana as 1836. The correct citations of the three taxa proposed by Swainson in the Ornithological drawings should be as follows:

Tyrannula caniceps (2 January) 1835, Pt. 5, pl. 49 (now Myiopagis caniceps caniceps)​

Tyrannula megacephala (2 January) 1835, Pt. 4, pl. 47 (now Ramphotrigon megacephala megacephala)​

T. [anagra] cana (10 July) 1835, Pt. 3, pl. 37 (now Tanagra episcopus cana)​

[...]

​

I see nothing in this text that suggests they did not accept the dates provided by McMillan (which, for Pt. 1-4, were handwritten dates of reception, found in a copy that had belonged to Thomas Hardwicke). "(10 July)" 1834 was the day of publication of Pt. 3 according to McMillan. "(10 July) 1835", in B&M's citation of Tanagra cana, looks like a mere typo to me: I'm not sure the difference in opinion really exists.

(As an aside, "Pt. 5" in their citation of Tyrannula caniceps was also wrong -- pl. 49 was in Pt. 4. But the date they accepted for this name (that of Pt. 4, not Pt. 5) was correct.)

 

[mb1848]

"This is what Browning & Monroe wrote" Thanks Laurent I have no access to that article. I have no argument with McMillan but some of the details in Browning and Monroe are incorrect but this was published prior to the creation of BHL. It appears that from 1835 to 1841 there were 5 parts published. But the 6th part was published in 1841. That work has 78 plates.
A selection of the birds of Brazil and Mexico - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
In a short autobiography Swainson states he was widowed in 1835 and had 5 children. His life hit the skids. In the autobiography he says Ornithological Drawings had 5 parts printed and a 6th and final part nearly finished . This was 1840. He went to New Zeakland that year.
- - Taxidermy - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Henry Bohn republished the work with a new title and a useful 4-page index giving the English and scientific names of the 68 Brazilian and 10 Mexican birds. BHL says Plates 67 and 68 misnumbered 72 and 73. Plates 69-78 unnumbered. (and lack scientific name on plate) The National Library of New Zealand has five parts (62 plates) and plates 63 to 66 uncolored?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Genomic islands of speciation harbor genes underlying coloration differences in a pair of Neotropical seedeaters

Incomplete speciation can be leveraged to associate phenotypes with genotypes, thus providing insights into the traits relevant to the reproductive isolation of diverging taxa. We investigate the genetic underpinnings of the phenotypic differences between Sporophila plumbea and S. beltoni . S...

www.biorxiv.org

Could it be that Sporophila beltoni is not a valid species?

 

[pbjosh]

Could it be that Sporophila beltoni is not a valid species?

And yet the bill color difference is consistent. Songs have differentiated as well. One is migratory and the other (plumbea) I believe resident or is it migratory in the S of its range also? And perhaps some bill size differences- not sure if that’s been measured? I also haven’t listened to / heard plumbea from the zone of contact perhaps they are more similar sounding there?

We know it does not take much for Sporophila to start down different evolutionary pathways.

Tropeiro Seedeater seems, morphological and acoustically, much more of a real species than Dubois’s SE (ardesiaca) which occurs together with and sounds identical to Yellow-bellied SE and the only difference is belly color.

 

[THE_FERN]

Genomic islands of speciation harbor genes underlying coloration differences in a pair of Neotropical seedeaters

Incomplete speciation can be leveraged to associate phenotypes with genotypes, thus providing insights into the traits relevant to the reproductive isolation of diverging taxa. We investigate the genetic underpinnings of the phenotypic differences between Sporophila plumbea and S. beltoni . S...

www.biorxiv.org

Could it be that Sporophila beltoni is not a valid species?

Sounds a bit like redpolls. Is it a species? You decide... (stable, distinct morphological form so at least some genes segregate)

 

[THE_FERN]

And yet the bill color difference is consistent. Songs have differentiated as well. One is migratory and the other (plumbea) I believe resident or is it migratory in the S of its range also? And perhaps some bill size differences- not sure if that’s been measured? I also haven’t listened to / heard plumbea from the zone of contact perhaps they are more similar sounding there?

We know it does not take much for Sporophila to start down different evolutionary pathways.

Tropeiro Seedeater seems, morphological and acoustically, much more of a real species than Dubois’s SE (ardesiaca) which occurs together with and sounds identical to Yellow-bellied SE and the only difference is belly color.

Apparently larger, certainly with different bill morphology. Depending what the vocal differences are they might just be a consequence of this

 

[pbjosh]

Sounds a bit like redpolls. Is it a species? You decide... (stable, distinct morphological form so at least some genes segregate)

It’s a good comparison. Instinctively I would “shit on” Dubois’s SE as a species. I am heavily skeptical of the Redpolls (perhaps not a perfect analogy due to climactic influence on morphological expression). And yet somehow I instinctively feel like Tropeiro is likely a good species… interesting to ponder.