Not sure why trivirgatus
are retained in Accipiter
In Breman et al. 2012, Fig.5, the complete barcode sequence of trivirgatus
clusters with the outgroup, rather than with any subgroup of Accipiter
-- albeit admittedly with poor support.
GenBank has a partial cytb sequence that has a similar signal, so I combined this segment with the cox1 sequences (which produced an alignment of 1192bp in total), and analysed it together with the other accipitrids that have had these two genes sequenced. The tree is attached.
Tachyspiza Kaup, 1844
and Leucospiza Kaup, 1844
seem to have equal priority (same publication, both as subgenus), and may require a First Reviser act.
- "Tachyspiza castanilia": original spelling castanilius. From castanea (chestnut) + ilia (flank) with ending modified into -us. Ends in a Latin noun with modified ending, but no adjectical suffix; I'd treat it as a noun and retain the original ending.
- "Tachyspiza erythropa": OS erythropus. From ἐρυθρός (red) + πούς (foot, genitive ποδός), latinized. This ends in a Latinized Greek noun, I'd retain the original ending. (Cf. Gallinula chloropus; "erythropodus" would have been adjectival.)
- "Tachyspiza henicogrammus". From ἑνικός (single) + γραμμή (line) + variable ending -ος,-ος,-ον, latinised into -us,-a,-um; meaning "single-lined". This is what David & Gosselin call a "latinized adjective derived from Greek", I'd let the ending vary.
- "Tachyspiza francesiae": OS francesii. Another type of problem; my reading of the 4th ed. of the Code is still that this type of correction, that was mandatory under the 3rd ed., is now forbidden. (I don't believe that francesiae is in clear prevailing usage.)
But I know others will disagree with this.
...I also have a small lingering doubt about this one:
- "Tachyspiza minulla": OS minullus. Jobling gives: "minula / minulla / minullum / minullus Med. L. minulus very small (dim. from L. minus less)." I'd be most interested if anybody could show me a Latin dictionary that actually includes this word--it is certainly absent from classical Latin dictionaries, but also, eg., Niermeyer's Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary seems to ignore it. Does it really exist?