'Himalayan Buzzard' (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

Rasmussen & Anderton 2005 split Buteo burmanicus (Hume 1875) as Himalayan Buzzard. IOC World Bird List V2.0 has accepted this split, but as B refectus (Portenko 1935). Every other source that I've been able to check also uses refectus for this population, and Lepage (Avibase) notes that burmanicus is usually considered invalid. Is there a good reason for Rasmussen to have used burmanicus?

Richard

 

[Daniel Philippe]

Is there a good reason for Rasmussen to have used burmanicus?

Yes, this one:

PENHALLURICK, J. & DICKINSON, E. C. 2008
The correct name of the ‘Himalayan Buzzard’ is Buteo (buteo) burmanicus
B.O.C. 128-2 (June 2008): 131-132.

"... We agree with Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) that Buteo japonicus refectus Portenko, 1935, although accepted as valid by Orta (1994), should be placed in synonymy of Buteo burmanicus, as it is "indistinguishable in plumage and size from Chinese burmanicus" whilst in term of DNA (Riesing et al. 2003, Kruckenhauser et al. 2004), refectus [=burmanicus] clustered with Upland Buzzard Buteo hemilasius Temminck & Schlegel, 1844, rather than B. buteo, suggesting that B. burmanicus is specifically distinct from B. Buteo."

 

[Richard Klim]

Thanks Daniel. I won't change my list just yet!

Richard

 

[l_raty]

Yes, this one:
PENHALLURICK, J. & DICKINSON, E. C. 2008

...I guess they must have addressed this issue, given Edward was a coauthor in both cases, but Dickinson & Walters (2006) instead suggested that:
"Buteo plumipes (Parbattiah = Hodgson, 1836) must be used in place of Buteo burmanicus Hume, 1875."
...?
L -

 

[Richard Klim]

And whenever the anarchy of vernacular names is discussed, most people happily believe that at least the scientific name will always be a common denominator... B

Richard

 

[Daniel Philippe]

...I guess they must have addressed this issue, given Edward was a coauthor in both cases

They did:

The note starts thus:

"Recently, Dickinson & Walters (2006:157-158) stated that the earliest name applicable to what is either considered a race of Eurasian Buzzard Buteo buteo (Linaeus, 1758) or, by others (e.g. Rasmussen & Anderton 2005: 102), a valid species, is Buteo plumipes, based on Circus plumipes 'Parbattiah' [=Hodgson], 1836 (central hills of Nepal) rather than Buteo burmanicus Hume, 1875. Dickinson & Walters (2006) remarked that plumipes was used by La Touche (1907) and Ogilvie-Grant & La Touche (1907), thus satisfying ICZN (1999) Art. 23.9.1.1. However, Hartert (1914: 1127) considered Buteo burmanicus 'Oates' [=Hume], 1875, to be the valid name for an upper Burmese population of Buteo buteo, but Hodgson's name to be preoccupied in the genus Buteo by Falco plumipes Daudin, 1800, which is cited by Hartert (1914: 1128) in the synonymy of Buteo lagopus lagopus (Brünnich, 1764). In terms of the current Code, this is a case of secondary homonymy (Art. 53.3).
The earliest available name for the 'Himalayan Buzzard' is Buteo burmanicus Hume, 1875, as correctly used by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005). ..."

 

[l_raty]

Thank you Daniel. Seems a valid argument, indeed.

 

[mb1848]

Collin and Hartert (Nov. Zool., 34, 1927, p. 51) have pointed out
that on account of preoccupation of Falco buteo japonicus Temminck
and Schlegel, Buteo burmanicus, the next earliest name, must
come into use. They refer this name to Oates. Mr. Peters, how-
ever, tells me that there is no evidence that Oates wrote the article
(Stray Feathers, 3, 1875, p. 30) in which the name appears, and that
undoubtedly it was written by Hume himself, who just now and
then includes notes of Feilden and Oates.

Oates in 1883 wrote the Birds of Burmah and in it, he says:
“I have not ventured to investigate the difficult group of the Buzzards and I therefore gladly avail myself of Mr. Sharpe’s description of Mr. Hodgson’s type of B. plumipes, the species with which Mr. Hume identifies Buzzards procured in Burmah.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hH...X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA185,M1 . A Harrier Buzzard was procured at Thayetmyo by Capt. Feilden.

In vol. XXVII of the Journal fur ornithology they list Hume and Oates as authors of "A first list of the birds of Upper Pegu, with a Map of a portion of Upper Pegu and a coloured plate of Anthocincla Phayrei--".

To quote Stray Feathers: (Mr. Hume was preparing a paper based upon a collection of birds shot by Capt. Feilden then he found out Oates was also) “I therefore proposed to Mr. Oates …we should prepare a joint paper on the birds of Upper Pegu.” On page 30, Hume states that “It is certainly not ferox in an stage, neither is it, I think desertorum; and if not japonicus, (it is far too small for vulgaris) it must be a new species, and if so, might well stand as burmanicus. I myself am inclined to believe that it is japonicus.”
This is how it is listed:
45 bis.—Buteo japanicus, Schlegel.
Hume, does then include a note on the killing of the specimen by Capt. Feilden and says that Oates never appears to have met the species. Earlier on page 2 Hume states that he had never been in upper Burma before.
Looking at the code and Art. 50 & 51, including recommendation 50 A and 51E: The article is joint by Hume and Oates, but the naming is done (half heartedly) by Hume. So burmanicus’s author should be cited Hume in Hume & Oates, 1875 Stray Feather 3 (1-3) p.1-194.

In 1881 Oates published in Calcutta a pamphlet entitled “List of the Birds of Pegu” which is not the same title as the Stray Feather article. (A first list of the birds of Upper Pegu)

Jerdon in 1877 says that Hodgson’s plumipes is “not unlikely the adult female of Blyth’s pygmaeus J.A. S. XIV from Tenasserim” (Tenasserim is lower Burma) Blyth, 1845.— Mus.

Buteo pygmaeus, Blyth, Journ. As. Soc. Beng. xiv. p. 177 ; xv.
p. 3 ; xix. p. 339.

Habitat. — S. Asia. Tenasserim.
Blyth, E., 1845b. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds.— J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal, XIV (159): 173-212. The date on the article is July 12, 1845 but Dickerson says September 1845. Does not this have priority over burmanicus? The type was certainly from Burma. Hodgson's plumipes was from earlier in 1845 than pygmaeus but it was from Thibet so Blyth did not intentionally publish pygmaeus as a synonym, I think. Art. 11.6?

 

[l_raty]

I can't comment on the validity of this, but WorlBirdInfo has Buteo pygmaeus Blyth in synonymy with Butastur indicus.
"Publication as a synonym" as per Art. 11.6 refers to a name that its author would himself present as a synonym. This would not apply here.

 

[mb1848]

Thanks, Laurent:
Here is Blyth’s description:
“B. pygmaeus, nobis. This is the smallest species of true Buzzard with which I am acquainted. Length eighteen inches or perhaps rather more; of wing thirteen inches and tail eight inches: bill to forehead (including cere) fifteenth-sixteenth of an inch in a straight line, and an inch and a quarter from point of upper mandible to gape: tarse two inches, and feathered for nearly its upper third. Colour of the beak blackish, the cere and base of both mandibles appearing to have been yellow: legs and toes also yellowish, and talons black. General hue of the upper parts uniform hair-brown, the scapularies and coverts slightly edged laterally with rufous, which colour increases on the sides of the neck and tinges the wings, the greater feathers of which have their outer webs uniform brown and the inner rufescent near the shaft and white towards the margin, being barred with the same brown as that colouring the outer web; the coverts are slightly edged and more largely tipped with whitish; and the tail is nearly of the same brown with the back, but rather paler and more greysh, its middle feathers having four broad dusky bars, the last subterminal, and a rudiment of a fifth which becomes gradually more obscure to the outermost: over and beyond the eye is a conspicuous whitish streak: the under parts are a rufescent-whitish, palest on the throat and lower tail coverts, which are without markings, excepting a slightly dusky mesial line along the throat; the breast has a broad mesial dusky streak to each feather, assuming on the bell and flanks more or less the appearance of transverse bands, which are united along the shafts of the feathers leaving oval intervals of white, and the feathers being externally margined with pale fulvous: tibial plumes very buff, or with rufous central markings; and fore part of the under surface of the wings similarly coloured, the quills albescent underneath and obscurely barred, but dusk towards the tips.
The other Indian species of true Buzzard are B. canescens, Hodgson, upon the Himalaya and spreading generally over the Upper Provinces. –B. longipes, Jerdon found chiefly to the west, but also in southern India—and B. rufiventer, Jerdon, peculiar (so far as known) to the south. Mr. G.R. Gray, in his catalogue of the Raptores n the British Museum, evidently mistakes B. canescens for B. longipes. From the description in the Dict. Class., I suspect that the latter species is the Circus pectoralis, Vieillot, (placed, however, among the ‘Buses’ or Buzzards, not among the ‘Busards’ or Harriers) in which case it must rank as Buteo pectoralis; but Mr. Jerdon, judging from another description of the latter, is of the opinion that it cannot be identified with either of his species.
The Circus teesa, Franklin, v. Astur hyder, Sykes assigned to Buteo by Gray and others, must now be referred to Poliornis of Kaup; Butastur, Hodgson, J.A.S. xii, 311, sinking to the rank of a synonym.”
Blyth is always so well read. He was aligned with Strickland and fought Gray I believe. It is apparent to me first that Blyth is aware of the differences between Buzzards and Harriers and what are now considered sub-Buteos (Lerner et al 2008), the Butasturs. The type of Butastur is Butastur indicus Hodgson. So I think someone is confused by what is going on in this page. The description of pygmeaus is nothing like the plumages of the Grey-faced Buzzard. Also that bird is known from northern Burma but not Tenasserim or lower Burma . Although 46 cm = 18 inches so it is the right size. Although B. burmanicus is ~ 51 cm so? Also what is a Buteo refectus???

 

[l_raty]

An immature? Grey-faced Buzzard can also look like this: http://orientalbirdimages.org/searc...D=915&Bird_Image_ID=13569&Bird_Family_ID=&p=9
"Four broad dusky bars" in the tail does not sound like any taxon of the B. buteo / B. rufinus complex to me. I am also unaware of any bird of this complex showing yellow legs with black talons (but check the pic above...). A "dusky mesial line along the throat" would also point to Butastur, I think, and the "conspicuous whitish streak", "over and beyond the eye" sounds quite typical of indicus.
Note also that if there is a type specimen, its actual ID would prevail over any inconsistency in the description.

L -

 

[mb1848]

Thanks, Laurent for doing the heavy lifting here! This makes complete sense. I believe people have been trying to see if Blyth's types in India are still extant. I believe that during WWII they were sent to a castle and flooded?? Also he sent skins to the Museum of the East India Company in England which were scattered?

 

[Richard Klim]

Hodgsoni

Dickinson & Svensson 2012. A new name for a buzzard from the Himalayas. Bull BOC 132(3): 221.

Buteo (buteo) hodgsoni nom. nov.
(as a replacement name for Circus plumipes Parbattiah [= Hodgson], 1836.)

[Burmanicus/refectus is believed to be a migrant from a northern breeding range including Manchuria.]

 

[Daniel Philippe]

Buteo (buteo) hodgsoni nom. nov.
(as a replacement name for Circus plumipes Parbattiah [= Hodgson], 1836.)

[Burmanicus/refectus is believed to be a migrant from a northern breeding range including Manchuria.]

Still confused. According to Pamela's criteria, which one is supposed to be specifically distinct then: hodgsoni or burmanicus, ... or both ?

 

[Richard Klim]

Daniel, my understanding (possibly wrong!) is that Edward and Lars have concluded that burmanicus (Pegu, Myanmar) and synonym refectus (Qinghai, China) are consistent with individuals from within the range of japonicus rather than with the Himalayan breeding population. So Pamela's Himalayan Buzzard should be Buteo (buteo) hodgsoni.

 

[Daniel Philippe]

Daniel, my understanding (possibly wrong!) is that Edward and Lars have concluded that burmanicus (Pegu, Myanmar) and synonym refectus (Qinghai, China) are consistent with individuals from within the range of japonicus rather than with the Himalayan breeding population. So Pamela's Himalayan Buzzard should be Buteo (buteo) hodgsoni.

Thank you Richard. IOW refectus is a synonym of burmanicus and burmanicus is a synonym of japonicus ... right ?

Did you say "democracy" ?

 

[Richard Klim]

Thank you Richard. IOW refectus is a synonym of burmanicus and burmanicus is a synonym of japonicus ... right ?

That's my assumption. Although not clearly stated, I doubt that Edward/Lars would propose that burmanicus should be maintained as a subspecies distinct from japonicus given that its suspected breeding range is so vague ("a northern breeding range including Manchuria").

Did you say "democracy" ?

 

[TimInskipp]

Daniel, my understanding (possibly wrong!) is that Edward and Lars have concluded that burmanicus (Pegu, Myanmar) and synonym refectus (Qinghai, China) are consistent with individuals from within the range of japonicus rather than with the Himalayan breeding population. So Pamela's Himalayan Buzzard should be Buteo (buteo) hodgsoni.

There is ongoing research on this but I will try and clarify a few points.

I think it is an incorrect assumption that Edward and Lars concluded that burmanicus and synonym refectus) are consistent with japonicus. In fact the text makes clear that the synonymy of refectus was based on a section of the paper inserted by Penhallurick without consultation. There is no mention of japonicus in the paper (other than a specimen labelled B. buteo japonicus, which was identified as B. refectus from its mtDNA profile) so there is no indication that this taxon, which Rasmussen & Anderton treat as a separate species from burmanicus, is 'consistent with' (= synonymous?) with burmanicus. The paper notes that R&A's depiction of a 'Himalayan Buzzard' is a good likeness of the type specimen of burmanicus but this does not necessarily mean that the Himalayan breeding birds are burmanicus. There are few relevant specimens available but descriptions of western Himalayan breeding birds indicate that they are very rufous, more akin to vulpinus than burmanicus.

The main aim of the paper was to provide a replacement name for Hodgson's plumipes, a dark-morph form from the eastern Himalayas, and it is suggested that this is not conspecific with refectus. No description of hodgsoni (= plumipes) is given and it is quite different from R&A's 'Himalayan Buzzard' (i.e. burmanicus), which they describe as 'almost monomorphic'. I think it is useful to quote from Hodgson's original description ['Parbattiah' (1836) Summary description of some new species of birds of prey. Bengal Sporting Magazine 8: 177-183]:

Genus Circus, or Harriers. Species new, Plumipes nobis.
Form, typical, or as in circus aeruginosus; save that the tarsi are rather shorter and are almost half plumed to the front. Hence the specific name, for the distinction is material.
Colour and size, wholly of a dull, deep brown; the space between the eye and nostrils blanched; and the tail rayed with several paler and imperfect bands; wings, barred internally; cere and legs, greenish yellow; bill, blue; its hook and the talons, black. Size, 18 inches by 38 to 40, and weight, 1lb.; tarsi, three inches; central toe, 1½; sexes alike.
Remark. This species is so extremely like the moor buzzard, that any and all casual observers would identify them. The lower and nearly half plumed tarsi constitute, however, a very distinct mark of separation. The species is found in all parts of Nepal, but is rare in all

.

So, there are a few distinct buzzards in south and east Asia, including hodgsoni, the Western Himalayan breeding bird, burmanicus (which may or may not include refectus) and japonicus. The relationships of all of these are confused and need clarification.

 

[l_raty]

Genus Circus, or Harriers. Species new, Plumipes nobis.
Form, typical, or as in circus aeruginosus; save that the tarsi are rather shorter and are almost half plumed to the front. Hence the specific name, for the distinction is material.
Colour and size, wholly of a dull, deep brown; the space between the eye and nostrils blanched; and the tail rayed with several paler and imperfect bands; wings, barred internally; cere and legs, greenish yellow; bill, blue; its hook and the talons, black. Size, 18 inches by 38 to 40, and weight, 1lb.; tarsi, three inches; central toe, 1½; sexes alike.
Remark. This species is so extremely like the moor buzzard, that any and all casual observers would identify them. The lower and nearly half plumed tarsi constitute, however, a very distinct mark of separation. The species is found in all parts of Nepal, but is rare in all

Maybe I'm missing something here, but is there any good reason not to call this a dark morph hemilasius?

 

[Richard Klim]

I think it is an incorrect assumption that Edward and Lars concluded that burmanicus (and synonym refectus) are consistent with japonicus.

Thanks for the clarification, Tim. It's true that the paper doesn't state such a conclusion. I incorrectly formed that impression on the basis that the presumed range of burmanicus (a northern breeding range including Manchuria, migrating to S/E Asia), is consistent with the usually accepted range of japonicus.