Trochilidae (1 Viewer)

[Taphrospilus]

What's validly used? The name is mentioned e.g. Here.

Other presentations of the type for Chlorostilbon.

• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1892 16:44 C. pucherani
• Cat.BirdsAm. Cory & Hellmayr 2.1:202 Ornismya prasina Lesson
• BirdsMiddleN.AM. Ridgway 5:547 Ornismya prasina Lesson
• Peters CL Birds of the World Peters,JL 1945 5:36 Chlorostilbon prasina Gould, not of authors = Trochilus pucherani Bourcier.

 

[l_raty]

What's validly used? The name is mentioned e.g. Here.

"Used as valid" in the Code means used as the valid name of a taxon -- a species or a subspecies for a species-group names. I.e., not merely cited as a synonym, or cited as a nominal type species.

What is Ornismya prasina Lesson, 1830 here or here and plate a synonym for? Following Zoonomen it could be Chlorostilbon lucidus pucherani (Bourcier & Mulsant, 1848). If correct why no priority for Lesson?

As noted by AP Peterson on Zoonomen, Zimmer 1950 concluded that Ornismya prasina Lesson 1829 is a junior synonym of Trochilus mellisugus Linnaeus 1758.

Chlorostilbon was described by Gould in 1853 here, with a single included taxonomic species that Gould called Chlorostilbon prasinus. (Gould's other Chorostilbon spp were in later parts of the work.)
Note that, in this work, Gould provided systematically a synonymy for any previously established name that he adopted, where he cited earlier uses of this name, the various combinations in which it had occurred in the literature, and any possible synonym. No such thing here, however. The valid name used for the species was treated exactly as if it had never been used before in the literature.
Gould then started his text with:

No state of confusion can be greater than that which exists respecting the small green Humming Birds, and particularly as to which of them the terms prasinus and atala especially belong. The two birds commonly known by those names do not agree with the figures of the birds so called by M. Lesson, and indeed it is impossible to determine with certainty what birds he intended they should represent ; I therefore propose to retain those names for the birds generally known among collectors by these appellations.

In other words, not being able to identify Lesson's bird, Gould deliberately applied the name Chlorostilbon prasinus to a bird that he described expressly as not agreeing with Lesson's figure of O. prasina.
As Gould's action was clearly and explicitly deliberate, it cannot be treated as a mistake: Gould's Chlorostilbon prasinus was NOT intended to be a mere recombination of Ornismya prasina Lesson 1829, and should not be treated as one.
The type of Chlorostilbon Gould 1853 is, by monotypy, Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould 1853.

(Under today's taxonomy, Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould 1853 is a subjective junior synonym of Trochilus lucidus Shaw 1812 at species rank, and a subjective junior synonym of Trochilus pucherani Bourcier & Mulsant 1848 at subspecies rank. This does not, of course, make any of these two nominal species the type of Chlorostilbon.)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

The proposal 926 was changed to: Change linear sequence of species in Epinecrophylla

Proposal (930) to SACC

Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: A. Expand Oxypogon to include Oreonympha and Chalcostigma, and B. Modify linear sequence

930. Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: A. Expand Oxypogon to include Oreonympha DID NOT PASS
930. Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: B. Modify linear sequence (Stiles and Remsen) ) PASSED (6 June 2022)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

The proposal 926 was changed to: Change linear sequence of species in Epinecrophylla

Proposal (930) to SACC

Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: A. Expand Oxypogon to include Oreonympha and Chalcostigma, and B. Modify linear sequence

930. Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: A. Expand Oxypogon to include Oreonympha DID NOT PASS
930. Revise generic limits in the Lesbiini: B. Modify linear sequence (Stiles and Remsen) ) PASSED (6 June 2022)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

The proposal 926 was changed to: Change linear sequence of species in Epinecrophylla

926. Change linear sequence of species in Epinecrophylla (Oscar Johnson) PASSED (6 June 2022)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (923) to SACC

Treat Haplophaedia aurelia and Haplophaedia assimilis as conspecific.

DID NOT PASS

 

[Mysticete]

Treat Metallura primolina (with M. w. atrigularis) as a separate species from M. williami

Treat Metallura primolina (with M. w. atrigularis) as a separate species from M. williami

 

[albertonykus]

García-De León, F.J., R. Rodríguez Estrella, V. Mendoza Portillo, G. Morales-Flores, and C.D. Jiménez Guevara (2022)
Contemporary genetic structure of the Xantus’s Hummingbird (Basilinna xantusii) in the Baja California Peninsula
Ibis (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1111/ibi.13126

Genetic structure and phylogeographic patterns of natural populations are of great importance to assess the conservation status of species. These population properties can be estimated using molecular markers of either mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) or nuclear (nDNA) DNA to understand the historical, ecological, and dispersal patterns that influence genetic exchange within and between populations. Basilinna xantusii is a sexually dimorphic hummingbird endemic to the Baja California Peninsula (BCP); and comprises three ancestral mitochondrial lineages linked to vicariant events, late Pleistocene climate changes, and the geographic distribution of oases. This study aimed to determine and understand the current population genetic structure of this hummingbird. The genotypes of 16 microsatellite loci from 100 individuals collected across the geographic range of this species were compared with mtDNA sequences previously published. Cluster analyses identified five populations, two almost no genetic admixture in the northern part of the BCP and three others with varying levels of admixed ancestry across the BCP. In San José de Magdalena, at the northernmost end of the Xantus’s Hummingbird’s range, 40% of individuals collected belong to one genetic cluster, and the remaining 60% belong to another, both genetic clusters showing very little admixed ancestry. We hypothesize that, despite being in sympatry, these individuals do not interbreed, unlike the other populations where individuals showed ancestry coefficients of the other genetic groups. The philopatric behaviour of males and the long-range dispersal capacity of females likely determine the observed genetic differentiation pattern. The mito-nuclear discordance detected could be due to the molecular markers used and to female-biased dispersal. Gene flow is asymmetric in this species, being greater from north to south than vice versa, which is likely related to differences in the seasonality of precipitation across the BCP and to urbanization of the oases.

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

The missing link in biogeographic reconstruction: Accounting for lineage extinction rewrites history​

Leonel Herrera-Alsina,Adam C. Algar,Lesley T. Lancaster,Juan Francisco Ornelas,Greta Bocedi,Alexander S. T. Papadopulos,Cecile Gubry-Rangin,Owen G. Osborne,Poppy Mynard … See all authors
First published: 19 September 2022

https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.14489

Abstract​

Aim​

In the most widely used family of methods for ancestral range estimation (ARE), dispersal, speciation and extirpation events are estimated from information on extant lineages. However, this approach fails to consider the geographic distribution of extinct species and their position on the phylogenetic tree, an omission that could compromise reconstruction. Here, we present a method that models the geographic distribution of extinct species and we quantify the potential inaccuracy in ancestral range estimation when extinction rates are above zero.

Location​

Global applications, with an example from the Americas.

Taxon​

All taxa, with an example from hummingbirds (Amazilia).

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Mariana Hernández-Soto, Yuyini Licona-Vera, and Juan Francisco Ornelas (2022) Mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellites reveal population genetic structure of the range-restricted hummingbird Phaeoptila sordida in the Balsas Basin. Ornithology, published 16 December 2022.
Mitochondrial DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellites reveal population genetic structure of the range-restricted hummingbird Phaeoptila sordida in the Balsas Basin

Abstract
The Dusky Hummingbird Phaeoptila sordida (= Cynanthus sordidus), occurs in the Balsas Basin, a region with a complex biogeographical history, and in the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley and Valles Centrales in Puebla and Oaxaca, Mexico. However, the biogeographical and evolutionary history of these two regions of Mexico is poorly understood. We aimed to understand the genetic structure and phylogeographic history of Phaeoptila sordida, a range-restricted hummingbird to these two regions, as a proxy to study the evolutionary history of the Balsas Basin, by using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences and nuclear microsatellites. Geographic structure was evident for both markers; however, some discordance was observed between the mitochondrial and nuclear markers. Based on mtDNA, samples from the Balsas Basin form one haplogroup, well separated from the Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley and Valles Centrales samples. In contrast to this, nuclear microsatellites uncovered two slightly different genetic clusters restricted to different habitats: samples from the Western Balsas restricted to the seasonally deciduous tropical dry forest, and samples from the Eastern Balsas-Tehuacán/Cuicatlán-Tehuantepec area in shrub and dry forested habitats. As expected by the interglacial refugia hypothesis, ENM predicted that the distribution of P. sordida was more contracted and fragmented during the Last Inter Glacial and more expanded at the Last Glacial Maximum. Consistent with that observed for other range-restricted hummingbird species, ENM predictions and a strong signal of population expansion indicate that the geographical range and population size are unstable over time, as compared to widespread hummingbird species, and that ecological and climatic factors possibly impacted its diversification. This study contributes to the debate that disputes the integrity of the Balsas Basin as a biogeographical unit and urges for the conservation of endemic species in the Balsas region and interior Oaxaca.

 

[Taphrospilus]

"Used as valid" in the Code means used as the valid name of a taxon -- a species or a subspecies for a species-group names. I.e., not merely cited as a synonym, or cited as a nominal type species.




As noted by AP Peterson on Zoonomen, Zimmer 1950 concluded that Ornismya prasina Lesson 1829 is a junior synonym of Trochilus mellisugus Linnaeus 1758.

Chlorostilbon was described by Gould in 1853 here, with a single included taxonomic species that Gould called Chlorostilbon prasinus. (Gould's other Chorostilbon spp were in later parts of the work.)
Note that, in this work, Gould provided systematically a synonymy for any previously established name that he adopted, where he cited earlier uses of this name, the various combinations in which it had occurred in the literature, and any possible synonym. No such thing here, however. The valid name used for the species was treated exactly as if it had never been used before in the literature.
Gould then started his text with:

In other words, not being able to identify Lesson's bird, Gould deliberately applied the name Chlorostilbon prasinus to a bird that he described expressly as not agreeing with Lesson's figure of O. prasina.
As Gould's action was clearly and explicitly deliberate, it cannot be treated as a mistake: Gould's Chlorostilbon prasinus was NOT intended to be a mere recombination of Ornismya prasina Lesson 1829, and should not be treated as one.
The type of Chlorostilbon Gould 1853 is, by monotypy, Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould 1853.

(Under today's taxonomy, Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould 1853 is a subjective junior synonym of Trochilus lucidus Shaw 1812 at species rank, and a subjective junior synonym of Trochilus pucherani Bourcier & Mulsant 1848 at subspecies rank. This does not, of course, make any of these two nominal species the type of Chlorostilbon.)

Sorry that I come back on this old thread. What I read Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches - Biodiversity Heritage Library is a reference to Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière: Oiseaux and Trochilus viridissimus Gmelin, 1788 Tomus 1 - Caroli a Linné. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae - Biodiversity Heritage Library

So what's than in this case Trochilus viridissimus Gmelin, 1788?

 

[Taphrospilus]

I have a simple question:

Schistes albogularis Gould, 1851 e.g Western Wedge-billed Hummingbird (Schistes albogularis) - BirdLife species factsheet or Schistes albogularis Gould, 1852 e.g Hummingbirds – IOC World Bird List

OD v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library

Some pages later v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library at the bottom of the page

Oxford, October 29, 1851

Avibase is especially inconsistent 1852 Schistes albogularis (White-throated Wedgebill) - Avibase and 1851 Schistes (Schistes sp.) - Avibase

So why is probably 1852 correct?

 

[mb1848]

Back in 2011 (pre-Covid 19) Dickinson et al dates this name as 1852.
v.1:no.2 (2011) - Zoological bibliography, or, Opera zoologica - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Wondering if there has been any new work on Jardine's publication?
Coues 1880 said 1851.
v.5 (1879-1880) - Bulletin of the United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Gould dated the name as 1851 unless 1851 is part of the name of the publication?
v.4 (1857-1860) - A monograph of the Trochilidæ, or family of humming-birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
(It is)
v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[l_raty]

Some pages later v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library at the bottom of the page

Oxford, October 29, 1851

Although this date is indeed at the very bottom of the page, beware that no other pages in this publication appears to bear a signature date in its footer, and that Oxford is not where Jardine's Contributions to ornithology were being published. On the other hand, Sclater's note was complete with this single page, several other papers in the Contributions do bear a date at the end of their text (e.g. v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library, v. 3-4 (1850-1851) - Contributions to ornithology for 1848-1853 - Biodiversity Heritage Library, etc.), and Oxford is a place where Sclater could be expected to have written a paper in 1851.

I would interpret "Oxford, October 29, 1851" as the location and date of writing of the paper.

 

[albertonykus]

Eliason, C.M., J.C. Cooper, S.J. Hackett, E. Zahnle, T.Z. Pequeño Saco, J.D. Maddox, T. Hains, M.E. Hauber, and J.M. Bates (2023)
Interspecific hybridization explains rapid gorget colour divergence in Heliodoxa hummingbirds (Aves: Trochilidae)
Royal Society Open Science 10: 221603
doi: 10.1098/rsos.221603

Hybridization is a known source of morphological, functional and communicative signal novelty in many organisms. Although diverse mechanisms of established novel ornamentation have been identified in natural populations, we lack an understanding of hybridization effects across levels of biological scales and upon phylogenies. Hummingbirds display diverse structural colours resulting from coherent light scattering by feather nanostructures. Given the complex relationship between feather nanostructures and the colours they produce, intermediate coloration does not necessarily imply intermediate nanostructures. Here, we characterize nanostructural, ecological and genetic inputs in a distinctive Heliodoxa hummingbird from the foothills of eastern Peru. Genetically, this individual is closely allied with Heliodoxa branickii and Heliodoxa gularis, but it is not identical to either when nuclear data are assessed. Elevated interspecific heterozygosity further suggests it is a hybrid backcross to H. branickii. Electron microscopy and spectrophotometry of this unique individual reveal key nanostructural differences underlying its distinct gorget colour, confirmed by optical modelling. Phylogenetic comparative analysis suggests that the observed gorget coloration divergence from both parentals to this individual would take 6.6–10 My to evolve at the current rate within a single hummingbird lineage. These results emphasize the mosaic nature of hybridization and suggest that hybridization may contribute to the structural colour diversity found across hummingbirds.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-british-ornithologists-club/volume-143/issue-1/bboc.v143i1.2023.a3/A-new-genus-for-Thalurania-ridgwayi-Trochilidae/10.25226/bboc.v143i1.2023.a3.full

Say hello to Dicranurania gen. nov.

 

[Taphrospilus]

I have an indirect question to authorship of Copper-tailed Hummingbird (Saucerottia cupreicauda (Salvin & Godman, 1884)) OD ser.5:v.2=no.5-8 (1884) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Which date was this plate (1887) [Supplement] - A monograph of the Trochilidae, or family of humming-birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library and corresponding text published? At least this supplement part is not mentioned here The dates of publication of some of the zoological works of the late John Gould, F.R.S - Biodiversity Heritage Library (as it was not from Gould or as 1885 the supplement was not completed). I ask as File:MonographTrochiSupplementGoul 0300.jpg - Wikimedia Commons tells us 1880?

 

[l_raty]

Zimmer 1926 v.16:pt.1 (1926) - Catalogue of the Edward E. Ayer Ornithological Library ... - Biodiversity Heritage Library says that the Supplement appeared in 5 parts, published respectively in 1880, 1881, 1883, 1885 and 1887, and that the plates not listed by Waterhouse were in the fifth part.
Thus, if this plate is not listed by Waterhouse, it should have appeared in 1887.

This plate in indicated as having been drawn and lithographed ("del. et lith.") by W[illiam] Hart (not Gould, indeed); the text is signed "R.B.S.", i.e., Richard Bowdler Sharpe; it refers to an 1885 publication by Salvin, hence could not date from earlier than this year.

 

[albertonykus]

Palacios, C., L. Campagna, J.L. Parra, and C.D. Cadena (2023)
Mito-nuclear discordance in the phenotypically variable Andean hummingbirds Coeligena bonapartei and Coeligena helianthea (Trochilidae)
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/blad013

The interplay among evolutionary mechanisms like gene flow and selection may result in discordant signals between mitochondrial DNA, nuclear markers and phenotypes. The Andean hummingbirds Coeligena bonapartei and Coeligena helianthea showed differentiation in the gene ND2 which is discordant with plumage coloration but consistent with geography. We analysed complete mitochondrial genomes of individuals from Coeligena bonapartei bonapartei, Coeligena bonapartei consita, Coeligena helianthea helianthea, and Coeligena helianthea tamai to inform their evolutionary history. We found genetic structure despite low genetic differentiation among these populations. Phylogenetic and network analyses based on mitogenomes showed a northern vs. southern differentiation pattern which is discordant with the relationships based on nuclear markers and the coloration phenotypes (serving as a basis for taxonomy). Mitogenomes of the two nominate subspecies are indistinguishable, suggesting incomplete lineage sorting or introgression, while those of C. b. consita and C. h. tamai are more similar to each other than they are to their respective nominate subspecies. Our results indicate that various evolutionary mechanisms drove the divergence in phenotypes, and nuclear and mitochondrial genomes of Coeligena hummingbirds, playing out over a complex biogeographic scenario likely involving periods of isolation and secondary contact. We outline hypotheses to be tested with future analyses of genome-wide variation.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Treat Metallura primolina (with M. w. atrigularis) as a separate species from M. williami

Treat Metallura primolina (with M. w. atrigularis) as a separate species from M. williami

DID NOT PASS