• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

My taxonomic predictions (1 Viewer)

Did you have those in reserve or have you literally just coined them?! Amazing.

I'm very good in Greek

Sarothrura ayresi - very distinctive, in some ways more like Madagascan watersi which probably deserves separation as Lemurolimnas (I'd split Sarothrura into 4 genera - the components are really old)
This family needs a phylogenetic analysis

Thinornis cucullatus - multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that traditional Charadrius is very wrong; this is the most divergent member of the Thinornis clade which comprises of 4 ancient and morphologically dissimilar lineages
Why not Caloxyechus

Tyto prigoginei - already shifts between Phodilus and Tyto which are themselves divergent to the level of family imo (my guess is that this represents an ancient relict taxon)
Has it ever been sampled?

Chalcomitra/Cinnyris minulla & chloropygia - Cinnyris is a polyphyletic and paraphyletic mess and these two consistently show up on their own
See the Largest passerine radiation for taxonomic proposal

“Vauriella” goodfellowi - RAG-1 genes place in Muscicapini
Do you have a source?

Cisticola exilis the most divergent member of a genus ripe for splitting; exilis diverged from other Cisticola 10.5 million years ago (and there are 8 other Cisticola lineages over 6 my old, all but one of which have available names)
Indeed, this species is very different.

Agrodyta
 
Has it ever been sampled?

See the Largest passerine radiation for taxonomic proposal

Do you have a source?

Not to my knowledge, but when experts cannot decide which of two dissimilar genera a species belongs to, it probably belongs to neither.

I don't own it - please email a scan/photo of relevant bit.

Unpublished data - I'll email it to you...
 
Last edited:
I can see the room for debate on using divergence dates as lines for setting clades. I personally favor it for a variety of reasons, but understand why some don't.

However, this suggestion bothers me:

"On top of that, different groups have different numbers of species. Classification should strive for chopping up diversity into manageable units."

I don't think that 'manageable units' as a taxonomic goal furthers our understanding of the relatedness of organisms. It also introduces another whole set of issues that complicate taxonomic nomenclature.

Firstly, what is a 'manageable unit'? How many species is that at maximum? at minimum? How is that range derived, & by whom?

Secondly, if the minimum is anything greater than 1, we have some real issues with a number of lineages in many groups. Is the Aardvark to be lumped in with... well, I don't even know what, but hey - it's a single species that's split into its own order due to its great divergence. Lump it with something just because it's the only one in the group?

Further on to the pitfalls of any >1 minimum - what happens when a species goes extinct? If there were 2 species before, does the classification have to change because now there's only 1 left alive?

We can see a similar issue with the idea of a maximum. Let's say it is decided (by someone, somewhere), that the maximum number of species in a genus is X. Genus 'Speciosa' has exactly X species in it. BUT WAIT! New research reveals that one of those species should actually be split! Now the genus has to be split as well, to avoid having X+1 species in it? What if some authorities don't accept the species split? Now we have different generic treatments because of a contested species split.
 
Jim,
Are you a reincarnation of Gregory Mathews?! Here is a new entry in The Key: "Manuscript names. The literature of ornithology is littered with manuscript names, generally identified in texts by the combinations MS / ms (singular) or MSS / mss (plural), but sometimes quoted verbatim without icon or explanation. Frequently appearing on museum labels or in catalogues of museum specimens, many were subsequently adopted for use as valid taxa (e.g. the regularisation of Schiff’s generic names by Bonaparte). More recently Jim Gaudin (BirdForum 2-3 July 2022) has coined over fifty new names, scattered throughout the avian orders, partly as an exercise in semantics but also in response to mooted taxonomic revisions. For the sake of completeness his bare names are here listed, but they will not be defined in The Key until they have been properly introduced into nomenclature; Agrodyta, Amaurasthenes, Arremonoides, Atopotyto, Ayresirallus, Bugralla, Caloxyechus, Cettiopsis, Chrysopipo, Clangocichla, Cnemonastes, Daphoenospiza, Drymolais, Frutexia, Gymnopoga, Haplospingus, Hartlaubina, Leucositta, Limnotriccus, Lophophanoides, Macrositta, Melanorhipis, Microbutor, Myrmozetetes, Nanocitta, Neophylidor, Neospreo, Nesocorys, Nesopneuste, Nothoprymna, Oreoriolus, Pinaromyza, Poecilophoyx, Poliothlypis, Pririt, Prosiptornoides, Prosopothraupis, Pygothlypis, Pyrrhomus, Rufaegotheles, Salvadorillas, Speculauda, Spilostethia, Spodiocara, Stictocerthia, Streptosittaca, Taeniocerca, Thapsinornis, Urotesia, Varzeicola, Vassalius, Wallaceavis, Whitelyia, Xanthillas, Zosteromyias."
 
Jim,
Are you a reincarnation of Gregory Mathews?! Here is a new entry in The Key: "Manuscript names. The literature of ornithology is littered with manuscript names, generally identified in texts by the combinations MS / ms (singular) or MSS / mss (plural), but sometimes quoted verbatim without icon or explanation. Frequently appearing on museum labels or in catalogues of museum specimens, many were subsequently adopted for use as valid taxa (e.g. the regularisation of Schiff’s generic names by Bonaparte). More recently Jim Gaudin (BirdForum 2-3 July 2022) has coined over fifty new names, scattered throughout the avian orders, partly as an exercise in semantics but also in response to mooted taxonomic revisions. For the sake of completeness his bare names are here listed, but they will not be defined in The Key until they have been properly introduced into nomenclature; Agrodyta, Amaurasthenes, Arremonoides, Atopotyto, Ayresirallus, Bugralla, Caloxyechus, Cettiopsis, Chrysopipo, Clangocichla, Cnemonastes, Daphoenospiza, Drymolais, Frutexia, Gymnopoga, Haplospingus, Hartlaubina, Leucositta, Limnotriccus, Lophophanoides, Macrositta, Melanorhipis, Microbutor, Myrmozetetes, Nanocitta, Neophylidor, Neospreo, Nesocorys, Nesopneuste, Nothoprymna, Oreoriolus, Pinaromyza, Poecilophoyx, Poliothlypis, Pririt, Prosiptornoides, Prosopothraupis, Pygothlypis, Pyrrhomus, Rufaegotheles, Salvadorillas, Speculauda, Spilostethia, Spodiocara, Stictocerthia, Streptosittaca, Taeniocerca, Thapsinornis, Urotesia, Varzeicola, Vassalius, Wallaceavis, Whitelyia, Xanthillas, Zosteromyias."
Who? The dude naturalist ?


These names are free to use, taxonomist guys !!
 
I can see the room for debate on using divergence dates as lines for setting clades. I personally favor it for a variety of reasons, but understand why some don't.

However, this suggestion bothers me:

"On top of that, different groups have different numbers of species. Classification should strive for chopping up diversity into manageable units."

I don't think that 'manageable units' as a taxonomic goal furthers our understanding of the relatedness of organisms. It also introduces another whole set of issues that complicate taxonomic nomenclature.

Firstly, what is a 'manageable unit'? How many species is that at maximum? at minimum? How is that range derived, & by whom?

Secondly, if the minimum is anything greater than 1, we have some real issues with a number of lineages in many groups. Is the Aardvark to be lumped in with... well, I don't even know what, but hey - it's a single species that's split into its own order due to its great divergence. Lump it with something just because it's the only one in the group?

Further on to the pitfalls of any >1 minimum - what happens when a species goes extinct? If there were 2 species before, does the classification have to change because now there's only 1 left alive?

We can see a similar issue with the idea of a maximum. Let's say it is decided (by someone, somewhere), that the maximum number of species in a genus is X. Genus 'Speciosa' has exactly X species in it. BUT WAIT! New research reveals that one of those species should actually be split! Now the genus has to be split as well, to avoid having X+1 species in it? What if some authorities don't accept the species split? Now we have different generic treatments because of a contested species split.
I think you are perhaps taking my argument a bit too...literally?

By manageable units, what I really mean is that we should avoid situations where you end up producing families containing a thousand species or more within birds. Because then, the family becomes unmanageable. An example of this would be what has been suggested on the taxonomy.de bird phylogeny site, which is hardcore into making every rank in birds equivalent to a specific time of divergence. To the point that I believe under there current methodology, all songbirds would be separated into something like 6 families. From an organizational standpoint, I just don't see much use in putting all New World Suboscines into a single family. It would also be far more destabilizing, as it would completely toss out the currently defined classification system.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top