Trochilidae (11 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

So, what is the type species of Ramosomyia?

Cyanomyia viridifrons Elliot, 1871

 

[mb1848]

As for Uranomitra, it is clearly valid and is a senior objective synonym of Coeruleomitra Stiles & Bruce, 2021.
See https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/U/u00026a.jpg .
URANOMITRA Reich . , 1854 ( typus Orn . cyanocephala Less ) . Cyanomyia Bonap . , 1854. – Uranomitra Elliot , 1878 ( ad part.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/233604#page/17/mode/1up .
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13867379#page/606/mode/1up .
Uranomitra Reichenbach. Eliminated, because considered not separable from Amazilia Lesson. (Cf. Ridgway, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part V, November 29, .
Uranomitra Type as fixed by Gray 1855 quadricolor.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/118390#page/438/mode/1up .??

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

As for Uranomitra, it is clearly valid and is a senior objective synonym of Coeruleomitra Stiles & Bruce, 2021.
See https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/U/u00026a.jpg .
URANOMITRA Reich . , 1854 ( typus Orn . cyanocephala Less ) . Cyanomyia Bonap . , 1854. – Uranomitra Elliot , 1878 ( ad part.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/233604#page/17/mode/1up .
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13867379#page/606/mode/1up .
Uranomitra Reichenbach. Eliminated, because considered not separable from Amazilia Lesson. (Cf. Ridgway, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., No. 50, part V, November 29, .
Uranomitra Type as fixed by Gray 1855 quadricolor.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/118390#page/438/mode/1up .??

In the last link, the type of Uranomitra is "quadricolor" = verticalis Reich. the same as Cyanomyia. I'm really confused 🧐🧐

What's once and for all the real type species of Uranomitra ? I'm really confounded

 

[mb1848]

Gray 1855.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/229752#page/291/mode/1up .
Elliot 1878.
https://ia800209.us.archive.org/8/items/cu31924000050777/cu31924000050777.pdf .
315 Leucippus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/229752#page/55/mode/1up .
Elliot strikes Leucolia in 1878 Ibis.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/268978#page/61/mode/1up .

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Gray 1855.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/229752#page/291/mode/1up .
Elliot 1878.
https://ia800209.us.archive.org/8/items/cu31924000050777/cu31924000050777.pdf .
315 Leucippus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/229752#page/55/mode/1up .
Elliot strikes Leucolia in 1878 Ibis.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/268978#page/61/mode/1up .

Admit it's a big m*ss. All these links give different type species for Uranomitra (franciae, quadricolor etc.). my fever is increasing 🤒

 

[James Jobling]

As you know, my abiding interest in The Key is in the meanings of scientific bird names. However, as a service to readers I am gradually adding type citations to all generic names, and will insert these into The Key after I have obtained editorial permissions from Cornell. Heaven forfend that I should add fuel to the flames of Uranomitra, but my Key MS entry currently reads;
Uranomitra (Trochilidae; syn. Amazilia † Andean Emerald A. franciae) Gr. ουρανος ouranos heaven, sky; μιτρα mitra diadem, head-band; "*Agyrtria ... *β. Uranomitra Franciae (Tr. — BOURC. MULS. 1846.) RCHB. — St. Fé de Bog. —— quadricolor (Tr. — VIEILL. 1818) SCHB. — Mexico. —— cyanicollis (Tr. — GOULD 1853?) RCHB. ? —— cyanocephala (Tr. — us MOLINA 1786.)? — Chili." (Reichenbach 1854); "Agyrtria β Uranomitra Reichenbach, 1854, Journ. für Ornith., I, Extraheft, Aufzählung der Colibris, p. 10. Type, by subsequent designation (Elliot, 1879, Smithsonian Contrib. Knowledge, 317, Classif. Synop. Trochilidae, p. 195), Trochilus franciae Bourcier and Mulsant, 1846. For readers concerned with the identities of Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1818, and Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822, G. Gray, 1855, Cat. Genera Subgenera Birds Brit. Mus., p. 139 (Appendix), gives the type of Uranomitra as Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822 = Amazilia quadricolor auct. = Uranomitra ellioti von Berlepsch, 1889." (JAJ 2020).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Agyrtria β Uranomitra Reichenbach, 1854, Journ. für Ornith., I, Extraheft, Aufzählung der Colibris, p. 10. Type, by subsequent designation (Elliot, 1879, Smithsonian Contrib. Knowledge, 317, Classif. Synop. Trochilidae, p. 195), Trochilus franciae Bourcier and Mulsant, 1846. For readers concerned with the identities of Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1818, and Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822, G. Gray, 1855, Cat. Genera Subgenera Birds Brit. Mus., p. 139 (Appendix), gives the type of Uranomitra as Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822 = Amazilia quadricolor auct. = Uranomitra ellioti von Berlepsch, 1889." (JAJ 2020).

So, either Uranomitra is a valid and usable genus for franciae, or Uranomitra is a senior synonym of Ramosomyia (since Uranomitra ellioti is a synonym of "Leucolia" violiceps ellioti). If Gray is the first to fix a type species, his designation should be authoritative, not Elliot's. IMHO.

I'm going to jump off a cliff and come back to tell you if the fall was painful or not

 

[l_raty]

So, either Uranomitra is a valid and usable genus for franciae, or Uranomitra is a senior synonym of Ramosomyia (since Uranomitra ellioti is a synonym of "Leucolia" violiceps ellioti). If Gray is the first to fix a type species, his designation should be authoritative, not Elliot's. IMHO.

To have a type species validly designated, one needs a statement that it is the type of the genus-group name.

The entries in Gray 1855 can be interpreted as including type designations by virtue of the Introduction (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818434), where it was stated that:

The principal object of the present Catalogue is to give a complete List of the Genera and Subgenera of Birds, with their chief Synonyma and Types : much attention has been paid to the date of publication of each name.
[...]
The Genera are marked by an Asterisk, and those left unmarked are to be considered only of subgeneric value.

Gray's entry, in the Appendix of his work and where he cites Uranomitra (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818656 ), reads:

315a. (2272.) CYANOMYIA, Pr. B. 1854. Uranomitra, Reichenb. 1854. (Trochilus quadricolor, Vieill.)

This entry adds Cyanomyia after "315. LEUCIPPUS, Pr. B.", which appeared on p. 21 of the main list (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818373).
The absence of an asterisk before "315a." indicates that Cyanomyia was treated by Gray (like Leucippus) as a subgenus of the immediately preceding full genus in the main list, i.e., "*313. POLYTMUS, Briss.".

As per the introduction, this entry lists, therefore : (1) a subgenus of birds "CYANOMYIA, Pr. B. 1854.", with (2) its chief synonym[on] "Uranomitra, Reichenb. 1854.", and (3) its type "(Trochilus quadricolor, Vieill.)".
...the type of the subgenus; not the type of the synonym. There is nothing in this entry that can be read as an indication of type for Uranomitra.

As a consequence, Gray did not fix a type for Uranomitra; the very first to have done so was Elliot, who designated franciae.

(Please, do not jump off that cliff .)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

To have a type species validly designated, one needs a statement that it is the type of the genus-group name.

The entries in Gray 1855 can be interpreted as including type designations by virtue of the Introduction (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818434), where it was stated that:


Gray's entry, in the Appendix of his work and where he cites Uranomitra (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818656 ), reads:

This entry adds Cyanomyia after "315. LEUCIPPUS, Pr. B.", which appeared on p. 21 of the main list (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53818373).
The absence of an asterisk before "315a." indicates that Cyanomyia was treated by Gray (like Leucippus) as a subgenus of the immediately preceding full genus in the main list, i.e., "*313. POLYTMUS, Briss.".

As per the introduction, this entry lists, therefore : (1) a subgenus of birds "CYANOMYIA, Pr. B. 1854.", with (2) its chief synonym[on] "Uranomitra, Reichenb. 1854.", and (3) its type "(Trochilus quadricolor, Vieill.)".
The type of the subgenus. Not the type of the synonym. There is nothing in this entry that can be read as an indication of type for Uranomitra.

As a consequence, Gray did not fix a type for Uranomitra, and the very first to have done so is Elliot, who designated franciae.

(Please, do not jump off that cliff .)

I climb the cliff

 

[mb1848]

Laurent in California it is considered bad form to read the instructions before building something. Obviously wrong in avian nomenclature! Heine in 1863 talks about Uranomitra's type. I do not understand.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/103973#page/207/mode/1up .
Somewhere on the internets I read that Elliot picked franciae as U. type simply because Reichenbach listed it first when erecting Uranomitra. I know Bonaparte criticized this practice?

 

[GMK]

Deeper resolution as to the systematic placement of Bee Hummingbird recently published by Lawrie et al. (2021) The systematic position of the Bee Hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae) (Aves: Trochilidae) and potential consequences for nomenclature of the Mellisugini. Orn. Neotrop. 32: 45–50.

Mellisuga as currently constituted is non-monophyletic.

(PDF) SYSTEMATIC PLACEMENT OF THE BEE HUMMINGBIRD (MELLISUGA HELENAE) (AVES: TROCHILIDAE) AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR NOMENCLATURE OF THE MELLISUGINI.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Deeper resolution as to the systematic placement of Bee Hummingbird recently published by Lawrie et al. (2021) The systematic position of the Bee Hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae) (Aves: Trochilidae) and potential consequences for nomenclature of the Mellisugini. Orn. Neotrop. 32: 45–50.

Mellisuga as currently constituted is non-monophyletic.

(PDF) SYSTEMATIC PLACEMENT OF THE BEE HUMMINGBIRD (MELLISUGA HELENAE) (AVES: TROCHILIDAE) AND POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES FOR NOMENCLATURE OF THE MELLISUGINI.

So, a new genus is better for helenae rather than a merging

 

[andrew147]

So, a new genus is better for helenae rather than a merging

Please no! The whole woodstar/bee group is already very much oversplit at the genus level.

The primary divergence of Nesophlox, Mellisuga, Archilochus + helenae is less than 3 million years. Lump them all as Mellisuga! I'd happily shove Calypte and Selasphorus in there too.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Please no! The whole woodstar/bee group is already very much oversplit at the genus level.

The primary divergence of Nesophlox, Mellisuga, Archilochus + helenae is less than 3 million years. Lump them all as Mellisuga! I'd happily shove Calypte and Selasphorus in there too

One trillion of genera if necessary !!!!!

In this case, Calypte merge into Selasphorus by priority, of course

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

A pre-published article that would have gone completely unnoticed

Distribution of iridescent colours in hummingbird communities results from the interplay between selection for camouflage and communication

Identification errors between closely related, co-occurring, species may lead to misdirected social interactions such as costly interbreeding or misdirected aggression. This selects for divergence in traits involved in species identification among co-occurring species, resulting from character...

www.biorxiv.org

 

[andrew147]

A pre-published article that would have gone completely unnoticed

Distribution of iridescent colours in hummingbird communities results from the interplay between selection for camouflage and communication

Identification errors between closely related, co-occurring, species may lead to misdirected social interactions such as costly interbreeding or misdirected aggression. This selects for divergence in traits involved in species identification among co-occurring species, resulting from character...

www.biorxiv.org

Thanks Jimmy - very interesting.

Their placement of Loddigesia makes a lot more sense than previous studies (MacGuire et al. 2014) showing it embedded in Eriocnemis.

Also interesting to see Chlorestes back amongst Chlorostilbon and far from Juliamyia ("Damophila").

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Thanks Jimmy - very interesting.

Their placement of Loddigesia makes a lot more sense than previous studies (MacGuire et al. 2014) showing it embedded in Eriocnemis.

Also interesting to see Chlorestes back amongst Chlorostilbon and far from Juliamyia ("Damophila").

Look at the position of Hylonympha end Sternoclyta

 

[andrew147]

Look at the position of Hylonympha end Sternoclyta

Wow, most unexpected!

 

[andrew147]

hmmm... just noticed where Calothorax is positioned. Surely this is implausible?! Certainly contradicts other studies...

 

[Taphrospilus]

In Birds of the High Andes: A Manual to the Birds of the Temperate Zone of the Andes and Patagonia, South America on p. 251 is written about a possible new species of Taphrospilus near Abancay discoved by Piedro Hocking and Jon Fjeldså. Does anyone know what happened with this discovery. The book is from 1990 so enough time to get a description.