AOU-NACC Proposals 2021 (2 Viewers)

[Peter Kovalik]

AOU-NACC Proposals 2021

Proposals 2021-A​

2021-A-1a: Revise the classification of the Euphoniinae (Fringillidae): transfer Euphonia musica and E. elegantissima to resurrected genus Cyanophonia or to Chlorophonia

2021-A-1b:Revise the classification of the Euphoniinae (Fringillidae): revise the linear sequence of the subfamily

2021-A-2: Split Band-rumped Storm-Petrel Hydrobates castro into three species

2021-A-3: Split Mew Gull Larus canus brachyrhynchus and rename as Short-billed Gull

2021-A-4: Revise generic limits in the Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants)

2021-A-5: Adopt split of Long-billed Gnatwren Ramphocaenus melanurus

2021-A-6: Change the linear sequence of the gnatcatchers (Polioptila spp.)

2021-A-7: Split Tropical Gnatcatcher Polioptila plumbea into two or more species

2021-A-8: Split Fregata rothschildi from Magnificent Frigatebird F. magnificens

2021-A-9: Resurrect Corthylio for Ruby-crowned Kinglet

2021-A-10: Change the linear sequence of species in Chaetura

2021-A-11: Reconsider the case to split Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri from Common Stonechat S. torquatus

2021-A-12: Resurrect Philodice as a separate genus from Calliphlox

2021-A-13: Treat McKay’s Bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus as conspecific with Snow Bunting P. nivalis

 

[Andy Adcock]

Nothing controversial I don't think but what development has there been to support this?

Reconsider the case to split Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri from Common Stonechat S. torquatus

 

[Nutcracker]

2021-A-3: Split Mew Gull Larus canus brachyrhynchus and rename as Short-billed Gull

* Very long overdue! Don't see any need to change the name to 'Short-billed Gull'; Common Gull for canus as it's always been except in the minds of US imperialists, and Mew Gull for brachyrhynchus.

2021-A-9: Resurrect Corthylio for Ruby-crowned Kinglet

* Superfluous in such a small genus.

2021-A-11: Reconsider the case to split Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri from Common Stonechat S. torquatus

* A highly retrograde step; needs throwing out just like Trump's ridiculous court cases. It would leave their Saxicola torquatus s.l. paraphyletic with respect to S. rubicola, S. tectes, S. dacotiae, S. sibilla, and others.

2021-A-13: Treat McKay’s Bunting Plectrophenax hyperboreus as conspecific with Snow Bunting P. nivalis

* Sensible; no evidence it is sister to all other Plectrophenax taxa, and more likely derived from within P. nivalis. Other option would be to split P. nivalis into several species (P. insulae, P. vlasowae, etc.), but can't see that working well.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

2021-A-9: Resurrect Corthylio for Ruby-crowned Kinglet

* Superfluous in such a small genus.

I did not wait for their proposal to isolate this species in its own genus

 

[Nutcracker]

I did not wait for their proposal to isolate this species in its own genus

But what's the point? It isn't necessary to establish monophyly, and just reduces nomenclatural stability. One species in a small genus always has to be basal; continue the process of chipping off the most basal species in a genus to its logical conclusion, and you end up with 6 monotypic genera in Regulidae.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

But what's the point? It isn't necessary to establish monophyly, and just reduces nomenclatural stability. One species in a small genus always has to be basal; continue the process of chipping off the most basal species in a genus to its logical conclusion, and you end up with 6 monotypic genera in Regulidae.

The stability is not affected if the monophyly of each clade is respected. Especially since this species has diverged more than 15 mya. It's over 15 000 000 !!!!

 

[TomDerutter]

2021-A-11: Reconsider the case to split Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri from Common Stonechat S. torquatus

* A highly retrograde step; needs throwing out just like Trump's ridiculous court cases. It would leave their Saxicola torquatus s.l. paraphyletic with respect to S. rubicola, S. tectes, S. dacotiae, S. sibilla, and others.

I don't think Saxicola torquatus will still be on the list, so they simply don't (have to) make a decision on this?

 

[Nutcracker]

The stability is not affected if the monophyly of each clade is respected. Especially since this species has diverged more than 15 mya. It's over 15 000 000 !!!!

It does affect the stability of a name if you change it! Everyone is so used to saying Regulus calendula, now they'll all have to remember to stop using that and start using Corthylio calendula. Then you'll start getting people who get it wrong and think "Oh, they've changed the genus Regulus into the genus Corthylio, so I must remember to call Golden-crowned Corthylio satrapa, too" (yes, this sort of thing happens!). So splitting this genus just creates a lot of work without solving any paraphyly problems.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

It does affect the stability of a name if you change it! Everyone is so used to saying Regulus calendula, now they'll all have to remember to stop using that and start using Corthylio calendula. Then you'll start getting people who get it wrong and think "Oh, they've changed the genus Regulus into the genus Corthylio, so I must remember to call Golden-crowned Corthylio satrapa, too" (yes, this sort of thing happens!). So splitting this genus just creates a lot of work without solving any paraphyly problems.

This is the kind of remark that can apply to Warblers (the true Warbler: Sylviidae) because everyone is familiar with using the only genus Sylvia instead of Sylvia and Curruca

 

[Nutcracker]

This is the kind of remark that can apply to Warblers (the true Warbler: Sylviidae) because everyone is familiar with using the only genus Sylvia instead of Sylvia and Curruca

A split I've not been too keen on! But equally relevant here, the decision to maintain all of the leaf warblers in Phylloscopus, rather than to split it into multiple genera. But in both of these cases, far more species are involved, and large genera are cumbersome; Regulidae is just 6 species.

 

[Nutcracker]

I don't think Saxicola torquatus will still be on the list, so they simply don't (have to) make a decision on this?

Looks like I misunderstood the proposal; I had read

Reconsider the case to split Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri from Common Stonechat S. torquatus

as to mean "lump Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri back into Common Stonechat S. torquatus". But it seems they'd never split them in the first case (i.e., still living in the 1970s!), and the new proposal is to finally catch up with the rest of the world.

@Andy Adcock is that what you'd thought too?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Looks like I misunderstood the proposal; I had read

as to mean "lump Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri back into Common Stonechat S. torquatus". But it seems they'd never split them in the first case (i.e., still living in the 1970s!), and the new proposal is to finally catch up with the rest of the world.

@Andy Adcock is that what you'd thought too?

I simply wondered why this has been resubmitted at all? Stejneger's is split by the IOC and maurus is under Siberian, not Common Stonechat.

 

[Nutcracker]

I simply wondered why this has been resubmitted at all? Stejneger's is split by the IOC and maurus is under Siberian, not Common Stonechat.

There's nothing new that has any effect on the taxonomy used by IOC for several years now; it looks like they're just playing a very belated catch-up.

 

[raymie]

Good to see no common name proposals.

 

[MJB]

Looks like I misunderstood the proposal; I had read

as to mean "lump Saxicola maurus and S. stejnegeri back into Common Stonechat S. torquatus". But it seems they'd never split them in the first case (i.e., still living in the 1970s!), and the new proposal is to finally catch up with the rest of the world.

@Andy Adcock is that what you'd thought too?

I'm wondering if the idea of taxon przewalskii, if transferred from its present group to another, creates problems for the receiving group on nomenclatural priority grounds? That might create a host of changes, which may be related to this proposal...
MJB...

 

[Andy Adcock]

Good to see no common name proposals.

My thoughts exactly!!!

 

[Nutcracker]

I'm wondering if the idea of taxon przewalskii, if transferred from its present group to another, creates problems for the receiving group on nomenclatural priority grounds? That might create a host of changes, which may be related to this proposal...
MJB...

True; at 1889 older than 1908 stejnegeri, if it turned out to be conspecific with that, it would become the species name.

I guess there's also a slight possibility that stejnegeri might prove conspecific with S. leucurus, which is even older (1847).

 

[Nutcracker]

Good to see no common name proposals.

There is for Larus [ex-canus] brachyrhynchus - though I don't think it is necessary.

 

[l_raty]

True; at 1889 older than 1908 stejnegeri, if it turned out to be conspecific with that, it would become the species name.

In the BOLD database, there are "stejnegeri barcodes" (= cox1 sequences identical or nearly identical to these found in stejnegeri; for all sequences, see the BIN: BOLD:AC3194) from Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, China (Hebei, Gansu, Qinghai), Afghanistan, Sweden and Norway.
In China, Hebei is home to stejnegeri, but Gansu and Qinghai should be the range of przewalskii -- the main caveat here being that the details of these sequences have not been publicly released, hence the birds could conceivably have been migrants from further N.
But I would actually be quite surprised if "Saxicola stejnegeri" proved tenable over the long term.

I guess there's also a slight possibility that stejnegeri might prove conspecific with S. leucurus, which is even older (1847).

indicus (same year as leucurus, in an earlier issue of the same journal) may be a more likely candidate.
(One nd2 sequence of leucurus has been published (by Price et al 2014): this seems to make this taxon sister to the stejnegeri sequenced by Zink et al 2009, with a distance of ~ 5%. Not very far, thus, but not identical. But then, see the position of the "torquata_Nepal" sample in [this].)

Of course, Zink et al 2009 also found stejnegeri haplotypes (in admixture with maurus-like haplotypes) in birds which they noted as being morphological variegatus (= hemprichii), from Astrakhan. That is, in a population of birds breeding in the WP...

 

[Nutcracker]

@l_raty - aye, it is a bit of a mix-up, but stejnegeri has shown itself to be a good wanderer (e.g. the several UK records now; Durham bird below); if some of these birds are vagrants which have settled to breed among other Stonechat populations (and ± form small clusters of hybrids), I don't think that need count against species status?