Cercotrichas / Crythropygia (1 Viewer)

[Valéry Schollaert]

Cercotrichas / Erythropygia

Hi all,

I think the use (or not) of Erythropygia for all Cercotrichas (sensus lato) except podobe is a never ending problem... since I'm interest in world lists, I've always found both use.

Do you have any reference or comment about what to choose, at least waiting a definite publication about the case.

Thanks for your help

Cheers

Valéry

 

[Richard Klim]

Hi Valéry,

Erythropygia is recognised by HBW, BLI, IOC and TiF.

Collar 2005 (HBW10) comments:

"The scrub-robin genus Erythropygia is decidedly anomalous. ... The Black Scrub-robin (Cercotrichas podobe) is usually considered congeneric with the other scrub-robins, all then being placed in Cercotrichas. It shares with them white spots on the tail tips, but is exceptional for its larger size and almost all-black plumage, and for various reasons seems best isolated in its own separate genus. Further generic splitting of the scrub-robins may be in order: T. B. Oatley has already taken the step of assigning the Brown Scrub-robin (Erythropygia signata) and its three supposedly closest relatives in the discarded genus Tychaedon, albeit without offering a clear diagnosis, and other changes may be proposed in due course. Song and reclusiveness are both highly developed in these last four species, and their tail movements are less pronounced."​

Richard

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Hi Richard,

Thanks. Actually, I read this in HBW but this would need genetic confirmation, I'd say. This argument is a bit... weak, isn't it?

Howard & Moore keep Cercotrichas, and Clements, coming from Erythropygia, is now with Cercotrichas.

I wondered if any more recent study would give more precise info...

Anyway, thanks for helping

Valéry

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Gary Voelker, Joshua V. Peñalba, Jerry W. Huntley, Rauri C.K. Bowie. Diversification in an Afro-Asian songbird clade (Erythropygia-Copsychus) reveals founder-event speciation via trans-oceanic dispersals and a southern to northern colonization pattern in Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, In Press

[Abstract]

 

[Nutcracker]

Erythropygia is recognised by ... IOC and ....

In IOC v.4.1, Erythropygia has been lumped back into Cercotrichas.

 

[Richard Klim]

Voelker et al

Gary Voelker, Joshua V. Peñalba, Jerry W. Huntley, Rauri C.K. Bowie. Diversification in an Afro-Asian songbird clade (Erythropygia-Copsychus) reveals founder-event speciation via trans-oceanic dispersals and a southern to northern colonization pattern in Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, In Press [Abstract]

Suggests...

• Tychaedon Richmond, 1917: leucosticta, barbata, quadrivirgata, signata, coryphaeus
  
  
• Cercotrichas: podobe, galactotes, leucophrys, hartlaubi, paena

Also, Copsychus, Trichixos and Saxicoloides could be merged to remove the paraphyly of Copsychus (cf Sangster et al 2010), but the authors suggest that Saxicoloides Lesson, 1832 has priority over Copsychus Wagler, 1827. ???

PS. John Boyd (TiF): www.jboyd.net/Taxo/Copsychini.pdf.

 

[mb1848]

"the authors suggest that Saxicoloides Lesson, 1832 has priority over Copsychus Wagler, 1827" Well Zoonomen has a good explanation that Saxicoloides is dated 1831. And the original spelling of Copsychus is Copsychum.
http://books.google.com/books?id=16...rontcover&hl=en#v=snippet&q=Copsychum&f=false . Page 306. I am not sure who emended it to Copsychus and when?

 

[andrew147]

Also, Copsychus, Trichixos and Saxicoloides could be merged to remove the paraphyly of Copsychus

Alternatively, recognition of Kittacincla (Gould,1836) for the shamas (with or without Trichixos) would tick the same box and avoid lumping such an heterogeneous group into a single genus.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Ribeiro ÂM, Lloyd P, Dean WRJ, Brown M, Bowie RCK (2014) The Ecological and Geographic Context of Morphological and Genetic Divergence in an Understorey-Dwelling Bird. PLoS ONE 9(2): e85903. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085903

[here]

 

[Richard Klim]

Kittacincla

Alternatively, recognition of Kittacincla (Gould,1836) for the shamas (with or without Trichixos) would tick the same box and avoid lumping such an heterogeneous group into a single genus.

Yes, Voelker et al note that Lim et al 2010 suggested the recognition of Kittacincla if a multi-genus treatment is preferred.

 

[Richard Klim]

Brown Scrub Robin

Ribeiro ÂM, Lloyd P, Dean WRJ, Brown M, Bowie RCK (2014) The Ecological and Geographic Context of Morphological and Genetic Divergence in an Understorey-Dwelling Bird. PLoS ONE 9(2): e85903. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085903 [here]

Collar 2005 (HBW 10):

Other common names: ... Tonga Scrub-robin (tongensis)
... Race tongensis fairly distinctive in size, plumage and voice; possibly represents a separate species;

 

[Richard Klim]

Brown Scrub Robin

IOC World Bird List...
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/update-diary/
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits/

2014 Feb 15: Post 'Maputaland' Scrub Robin on Updates/PS
PS 4.2 'Maputaland' Scrub Robin Cercotrichas tongensis ... Ribeiro et al 2014; English name under discussion

 

[Richard Klim]

Voelker et al 2014 pdf

Gary Voelker, Joshua V. Peñalba, Jerry W. Huntley, Rauri C.K. Bowie. Diversification in an Afro-Asian songbird clade (Erythropygia-Copsychus) reveals founder-event speciation via trans-oceanic dispersals and a southern to northern colonization pattern in Africa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, In Press [Abstract]

Mol Phylogenet Evol 73: 97–105. [pdf]

 

[l_raty]

And the original spelling of Copsychus is Copsychum.
http://books.google.com/books?id=16...rontcover&hl=en#v=snippet&q=Copsychum&f=false . Page 306. I am not sure who emended it to Copsychus and when?

"Constituo ex hac ave genus distinctum Copsychum (Κοψυχος merula)."
"I constitute from this bird the distinct genus Copsychus (Κοψυχος blackbird)."

"Copsychum" is part of the object in the sentence: it's in the accusative case; changing it to a nominative case is mandatory. Strictly speaking, the nominative cannot be deduced from the accusative here, though: the accusative would be the same if the word is masculine [nominative in -us], or neuter [nominative in -um]. However, the name is indicated as being formed from Κοψυχος [Kopsuchos], a 2nd-declension masculine noun in Greek, so it certainly makes sense to treat it as a 2nd-declension masculine noun in Latin as well.

 

[mb1848]

Thanks Laurent! No Greek and little Latin never stopped me before.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

TiF Update May 21
Copsychini has been rearranged a bit based on Voelker et al. (2014). The genera Saxicoloides, Trichixos, and Kittacincla have been separated from Copsychus. Also, the Maputaland Scrub-Robin Maputaland Scrub Robin, Tychaedon tongensis, has been split from the Brown Scrub-Robin, Tychaedon signata. See Ribeiro et al. (2014).

 

[Richard Klim]

Brown Scrub Robin

Ribeiro ÂM, Lloyd P, Dean WRJ, Brown M, Bowie RCK (2014) The Ecological and Geographic Context of Morphological and Genetic Divergence in an Understorey-Dwelling Bird. PLoS ONE 9(2): e85903. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085903 [here]

IOC World Bird List.
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/update-diary/
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits/

2015 Apr 8: Decline "Maputaland' Scrub Robin

 

[l_raty]

• Tychaedon Richmond, 1917: leucosticta, barbata, quadrivirgata, signata, coryphaeus

Tychaedon Richmond 1917 is a replacement name for Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883, deemed preoccupied by Aedonopsis Rey 1872, an 'emendation' of Aedonops Brehm 1863.
However, Rey 1872 merely cited 'his' Aedonopsis, attributing it to Brehm, without any comment and without citing the actual OS (and without even using it as valid). Under the present rules, Rey's action cannot be interpreted as intentional, and 'Aedonopsis Rey' is a mere incorrect subsequent spelling without nomenclatural availability, not an emendation.
Thus Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883 (which has been in use well into the 20th C and can certainly not be deemed a forgotten name) doesn't appear preoccupied, after all.

Why are we using the replacement name instead of the original one?



_______________
Name: Tychaedon
Author: Richmond
Date: 1917
OD ref: Richmond CW. 1917. Generic names applied to birds during the years 1906 to 1915, inclusive, with additions and corrections to Waterhouse's "Index Generum Avium." Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus., 53:565-636.
Page: 575
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7554053
OINS: Cossypha signata Sundevall
Type: Cossypha signata Sundevall 1850
Syn.? in use
Fixation by: replacement name
Fixation ref: as OD
Page: as OD
Link: as OD
OD of type ref: Sundevall CJ. 1850. Foglar från Södra Afrika. Öfv. Kongl. Vet.-akad. Forhandl., 7:96-111.
Page: 101
Link: https://archive.org/stream/fversigtafkongl05vetegoog#page/n444/mode/1up
Notes: Replacement name for Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883, thought preoccupied by Aedonopsis Rey 1872, an emendation of Aedonops Brehm 1858.
Available: yes
Family: Muscicapidae

Name: Aedonopsis
Author: Sharpe
Date: 1883
OD ref: Sharpe RB. 1883. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or perching birds, in the collection of the British Museum. Cichlomorphae: part IV. Containing the concluding portion of the family Timeliidae (babbling thrushes). Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum. Volume VII. British Museum, London.
Page: 68
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8300780
OINS: Aedonopsis signata
Type: Cossypha signata Sundevall 1850
Syn.? in use
Fixation by: original monotypy
Fixation ref: as OD
Page: as OD
Link: as OD
OD of type ref: Sundevall CJ. 1850. Foglar från Södra Afrika. Öfv. Kongl. Vet.-akad. Forhandl., 7:96-111.
Page: 101
Link: https://archive.org/stream/fversigtafkongl05vetegoog#page/n444/mode/1up
Notes: NOT preoccupied by Aedonopsis Rey 1872, a claimed emendation of Aedonops Brehm 1863. Rey's action is not demonstrably intentional. Used after 1899.
Available: yes
Family: Muscicapidae

Name: Aedonopsis
Author: Rey
Date: 1872
OD ref: Rey E. 1872. Synonomik der europäischen Brutvögel und Gäste: systematisches Verzeichniss nebst Angaben über die geographische Verbreitung der Arten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Brutverhältnisse. G Schwetschke'scher Verlag, Halle.
Page: 164
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14419014
OINS: n/a
Type: n/a
Syn.? n/a
Fixation by: n/a
Fixation ref: n/a
Page: n/a
Link: n/a
OD of type ref: n/a
Page: n/a
Link: n/a
Notes: incorrect subsequent spelling of Aedonops Brehm 1863. Not demonstrably intentional.
Available: no
Family: Locustellidae

Name: Aedonops
Author: Brehm
Date: 1863
OD ref: Bädeker FWJ, Brehm CL, Pässler W. [1855-]1863. Die Eier der europäischen Vögel, nach der Natur gemalt. J. Bädeker, Leipzig & Iserlohn.
Page: text to pl. 19
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51574241
OINS: Aedonops fluviatilis
Type: Sylvia fluviatilis Wolf 1810
Syn.? in use
Fixation by: original monotypy
Fixation ref: as OD
Page: as OD
Link: as OD
OD of type ref: Wolf J. 1810. Erster Theil, welcher die Landvögel enthält. Pp. 1-310 in: Meyer B, Wolf J. Taschenbuch der deutschen Vögelkunde oder kurze Beschreibung aller Vögel Deutschlands. Friedrich Wilmans, Frankfurt am Main.
Page: 229
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42445694
Notes:
Available: yes
Family: Locustellidae

 

[James Jobling]

Aedonopsis v. Tychaedon.
Well reasoned, Laurent. I think you should consider turning your thoughts to a published paper, but in the meantime I have taken the liberty of quoting from your #18 in the Key.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Tychaedon Richmond 1917 is a replacement name for Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883, deemed preoccupied by Aedonopsis Rey 1872, an 'emendation' of Aedonops Brehm 1863.
However, Rey 1872 merely cited 'his' Aedonopsis, attributing it to Brehm, without any comment and without citing the actual OS (and without even using it as valid). Under the present rules, Rey's action cannot be interpreted as intentional, and 'Aedonopsis Rey' is a mere incorrect subsequent spelling without nomenclatural availability, not an emendation.
Thus Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883 (which has been in use well into the 20th C and can certainly not be deemed a forgotten name) doesn't appear preoccupied, after all.

Why are we using the replacement name instead of the original one?

TiF Update June 6

Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883, replaces Tychaedon Richmond 1917 on the grounds that Aedonopsis Sharpe 1883 is not preoccupied by Aedonopsis Rey 1872, which is not available due to the fact that it is merely an incorrect spelling of Aedonops Brehm 1863. See Raty, BirdForum 2018.