Zosteropidae (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Carl H. Oliveros, Michael J. Andersen, Robert G. Moyle. A phylogeny of white-eyes based on ultraconserved elements. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution,
In Press, Journal Pre-proof, Available online 29 July 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2021.107273

Abstract:

White-eyes are an iconic radiation of passerine birds that have been the subject of studies in evolutionary biology, biogeography, and speciation theory. Zosterops white-eyes in particular are thought to have radiated rapidly across continental and insular regions of the Afro- and Indo-Pacific tropics, yet, their phylogenetic history remains equivocal. Here, we sampled 77% of the genera and 47% of known white-eye species and sequenced thousands of ultraconserved elements to infer the phylogeny of the avian family Zosteropidae. We used concatenated maximum likelihood and species tree methods and found strong support for seven clades of white-eyes and three clades within the species-rich Zosterops radiation.

The type species of Dasycrotapha, speciosa, is lacking on this study. A previous study shows that D. plateni and pygmaea were close to Sterrhoptilus rather than Dasycrotapha speciosa (but I don't know the support).
Anyway, these three species are morphologically very different; I do not understand that they can be placed in the same genus. plateni and pygmaea deserve their own genus, which could be called Stictocerthia

 

[pbjosh]

Curious if there is any new information out there on the White-eyes that occur in the hills/mountains of Sumatra that are called "sumatranus" Sangkar White-eye (ie, v2 of James Eaton et al's Indonesia guide), or that alternatively Birds of the World posits to potentially be part of Hume's White-eye?

 

[Jacana]

Irham, M., Prawiradilaga, D.M., Menner, J.K., O’Connell, D.P., Kelly, D.J., Analuddin, K., Karya, A., Meads, M., Marples, N.M. and Rheindt, F.E. (2022), A distinct new species of Zosterops White-eye from the Sulawesi Region, Indonesia. Ibis. Accepted Author Manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.13148

We here describe a new species of Zosterops white-eye, which is restricted to Wangi-wangi, a single island of roughly 155 km2 in the Wakatobi Archipelago, Indonesia. Informally known as the Wangi-wangi White-eye, the new species is highly distinct both morphologically and genetically. It is considerably larger in body and bill size compared to other regional Zosterops species. The Wangi-wangi White-eye remains locally common but its habitat is dwindling. Given its minute area of occupancy and the threat from the bird trade, we recommend the IUCN status Endangered.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Irham, M., Prawiradilaga, D.M., Menner, J.K., O’Connell, D.P., Kelly, D.J., Analuddin, K., Karya, A., Meads, M., Marples, N.M. and Rheindt, F.E. (2022), A distinct new species of Zosterops White-eye from the Sulawesi Region, Indonesia. Ibis. Accepted Author Manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1111/ibi.13148

We here describe a new species of Zosterops white-eye, which is restricted to Wangi-wangi, a single island of roughly 155 km2 in the Wakatobi Archipelago, Indonesia. Informally known as the Wangi-wangi White-eye, the new species is highly distinct both morphologically and genetically. It is considerably larger in body and bill size compared to other regional Zosterops species. The Wangi-wangi White-eye remains locally common but its habitat is dwindling. Given its minute area of occupancy and the threat from the bird trade, we recommend the IUCN status Endangered.

Zosterops paruhbesar sp. nov.

 

[Melanie]

Great to see that it got finally a scientific name

 

[l_raty]

paruhbesar

From Indonesian paruh = bill; besar = large ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

From Indonesian paruh = bill; besar = large ?

I don't know

 

[l_raty]

I don't know

Google Translate seems to know. "Indonesian" or Malay (the former being a standardized version of the latter).
Gagak paruh besar is Corvus macrorhynchos in Malay.

 

[Jacana]

From the paper:

Etymology
Zosterops paruhbesar exhibits a prominent massive bill unique among white-eyes in the region. The species epithet is based on the word “massive bill” in Bahasa Indonesia (“paruh besar”) and is used as an inalienable noun in apposition.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

From the paper:

Etymology
Zosterops paruhbesar exhibits a prominent massive bill unique among white-eyes in the region. The species epithet is based on the word “massive bill” in Bahasa Indonesia (“paruh besar”) and is used as an inalienable noun in apposition.

Can you send me please?

 

[l_raty]

[...] is used as an inalienable noun in apposition.

Is this an admissible use of the word in English ?

I have seen invariable, unchangeable, indeclinable, and uninflectable being used in the intended sense. (I don't really like any of these, though.) The only other place where I can remember having seen unalienable in this sense was in the recent description of Copsychus malabaricus ngae -- see the quoted text in this post -- but the senior author is the same, hence both uses cannot be seen as independent.
I understand inalienable as denoting something which cannot be taken from its possessor.

 

[Jacana]

It's a slightly melodramatic word, but perfectly acceptable in this case.

 

[l_raty]

I do not believe it is.

Scientific names (all of them) may arguably be said to be "inalienable", in the sense that their typification makes it impossible to transfer them to another taxon. But this is not limited to names that are nouns in apposition, and is clearly not what was intended here. The phrase "an inalienable noun in apposition", OTOH, suggests a noun that cannot be taken away from what it was originally apposed to. But this would amount to a statement that the taxon cannot be moved to another genus, which is obviously not acceptable either.

Inalienable simply does NOT mean "which cannot be given another form".

That being said, it's of course only a detail and does not harm the value of the description.

 

[njlarsen]

I do not believe it is.

Scientific names (all of them) may arguably be said to be "inalienable", in the sense that their typification makes it impossible to transfer them to another taxon. But this is not limited to names that are nouns in apposition, and is clearly not what was intended here. The phrase "an inalienable noun in apposition", OTOH, suggests a noun that cannot be taken away from what it was originally apposed to. But this would amount to a statement that the taxon cannot be moved to another genus, which is obviously not acceptable either.

Inalienable simply does NOT mean "which cannot be given another form".

That being said, it's of course only a detail and does not harm the value of the description.

Is there a verbiage you actually like for that?
Niels

 

[Paul Clapham]

Howard and Moore's recent checklist used the term "invariable". I see that the ICZN (article 34.2.1) doesn't have a specific term for this but I think "invariable" ought to be the standard if the ICZN wanted one.

 

[l_raty]

Is there a verbiage you actually like for that?

I prefer "not subject to gender agreement".

"Indeclinable", "invariable", and the likes are certainly better than "inalienable". Still, they apply exclusively as a consequence of the fact that nomenclature uses species names in the nominative singular only -- which leaves me a bit uncomfortable. Outside of nomenclature, there is nothing that makes nouns indeclinable. In Latin, a noun in apposition will usually agree in case and number (even if not in gender) with the noun it is apposed to.
The Code requires that a name published in a Latin text in a case different than the nominative singular, be corrected to the nominative singular : such a correction would be impossible for a species-group name that is a noun in apposition if the concerned name was "indeclinable".

 

[Melanie]

I am curious when the Obi white-eye will got it's scientific description.

 

[MJB]

I am curious when the Obi white-eye will got it's scientific description.

Wan-Kenobi...?
MJB

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Wan-Kenobi...?
MJB

 

[DMW]

I do not believe it is.

Scientific names (all of them) may arguably be said to be "inalienable", in the sense that their typification makes it impossible to transfer them to another taxon. But this is not limited to names that are nouns in apposition, and is clearly not what was intended here. The phrase "an inalienable noun in apposition", OTOH, suggests a noun that cannot be taken away from what it was originally apposed to. But this would amount to a statement that the taxon cannot be moved to another genus, which is obviously not acceptable either.

Inalienable simply does NOT mean "which cannot be given another form".

That being said, it's of course only a detail and does not harm the value of the description.

It's absolute word salad to me, but is the author perhaps referring to the fact that he is combining the two words "paruh" and "besar" into a single word "paruhbesar"?