Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
-
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.
Bucconidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
Very interested in this one if anyone has a copy.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Posso, S. R., Donatelli, R. J., Piacentini, V., & Guzzi, A. (2020). Phylogeny and classification of the Bucconidae (Aves, Galbuliformes) based on osteological characters. Papéis Avulsos De Zoologia, 60, e20206027. https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2020.60.27
Abstract:
The puffbirds (Bucconidae) are relatively poorly studied birds whose intrafamilial relationships have not yet been explored within a phylogenetic framework in a published study. Here, we performed a parsimony analysis of osteological data obtained following the examination of all the genera and 32 out of the 36 species recognized in Bucconidae currently. The analysis yielded eight equally parsimonious trees (426 minimum steps). Ambiguous relationships were observed only in Notharcus ordii, Malacoptila fusca, and Nonnula rubecula. Notably, Bucco was polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of Cyphos and Tamatia. In addition, the osteological data provided a well-resolved phylogeny (topological dichotomies) and the support indices indicated that most of the nodes were robust at all hierarchical levels. We thus propose the first revised classification of the Bucconidae.
[pdf]
Abstract:
The puffbirds (Bucconidae) are relatively poorly studied birds whose intrafamilial relationships have not yet been explored within a phylogenetic framework in a published study. Here, we performed a parsimony analysis of osteological data obtained following the examination of all the genera and 32 out of the 36 species recognized in Bucconidae currently. The analysis yielded eight equally parsimonious trees (426 minimum steps). Ambiguous relationships were observed only in Notharcus ordii, Malacoptila fusca, and Nonnula rubecula. Notably, Bucco was polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of Cyphos and Tamatia. In addition, the osteological data provided a well-resolved phylogeny (topological dichotomies) and the support indices indicated that most of the nodes were robust at all hierarchical levels. We thus propose the first revised classification of the Bucconidae.
[pdf]
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Their results contradict those obtained by Mateus & al. in their unpublished study, especially the paraphyly of Hypnelus and Tamatia with Notharchus (Mateus & al.). I had restored Nothriscus for tectus and subtectus but, I have a doubt now.
l_raty
laurent raty
It's a bit strange that this paper was apparently not registered with ZooBank, while the website of the journal states it should have been. ("The editorial team of Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia is going to register articles that contain nomenclatural acts in ZooBank. Such articles will receive a Life Sciences Identifier (LSID) that is going to be included in the published version." -- http://www.revistas.usp.br/paz/about. Five new family-group taxa are described and named in this article.)
I also see there that "Museu de Zoologia maintains exchange agreements with several national and foreign institutions, libraries and museums which receive the print version of the journal." Is the print version still "obtainable" by the public too ? When is it published ?
Last edited:
James Jobling
Well-known member
I note that some modern authors use Nystactes Gloger, 1827, who considered Tamatia Cuvier, 1817, barbarous. Tamatia is based on a Tupi name for the Boat-billed Heron Cochlearius.
l_raty
laurent raty
Gloger introduced Nystactes as a new name for Capito Vieillot 1816.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13026389 -
Like almost all new names in this paper, this was a pure nomenclatural replacement, the only aim being to provide a “better” name for the group named Capito, "bighead", this name being judged inappropriate; the new name was justified by Gloger’s perception of these birds as being of a sleepy nature; the fact that one of them was named “Bucco somnolentus” being merely cited as an example illustrating this nature. The name is in use under the assumption that the latter species would be the type by monotypy. That this cannot be done was rightly noted, as early as 1841 by GR Gray https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14050244.
The type of Nystactes is that of Capito.
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Anyway, I am not super convinced by the relevance of this phylogeny based only on osteological characters
Last edited:
ramphocelus
Vitor Q. Piacentini
Dear Laurent,
Yes, every article published in PAZ is also made available in print. I don't have the exact dates, but it should be in the same week. One can either get it (usually for free) at the Museum's library or access in one of the receiving institutions. It's been quite a few years since I left the Museum, but I can try to find how many are printed.
ramphocelus
Vitor Q. Piacentini
Just in case anyone else may be worried, I've just talked to the head of the library at MZUSP and she confirmed that 300 copies are printed for every paper, 250 of them for exchange with other institutions wordwide (including Belgium
).Norbert R. B.
Member
Norbert R. B.
Member
Sorry for coming back on an old thread, but some of nomenclatural things are not yet clear for me.
When introducing Tamatia, Cuvier (1817 = 1816) included two species in his new genus. As G. R. Gray chose T. macrorhyncha Gmel. as the type species (already in 1840 I think), which is now usually accepted as Notharchus macrorhynchus, Tamatia should be the correct name for current Notharchus. But perhaps there is an earlier designation of Bucco tamatia Gmelin as the type species of Tamatia that would make Gray's action unnecessary? If Gloger's Nystactes is not available, then Chaunornis G. R. Gray, 1841 would be the next available name, I assume.
When introducing Tamatia, Cuvier (1817 = 1816) included two species in his new genus. As G. R. Gray chose T. macrorhyncha Gmel. as the type species (already in 1840 I think), which is now usually accepted as Notharchus macrorhynchus, Tamatia should be the correct name for current Notharchus. But perhaps there is an earlier designation of Bucco tamatia Gmelin as the type species of Tamatia that would make Gray's action unnecessary? If Gloger's Nystactes is not available, then Chaunornis G. R. Gray, 1841 would be the next available name, I assume.
l_raty
laurent raty
Cuvier "1817" = 1816 : https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1844939
In the text (where he merely described the group), Cuvier only used "Les Tamatias" (an obvious pural French vernacular). At the end of the description, he added a footnote, which read:
Thus he included four (not two) taxonomic species, each of them associated to an illustration in the Martinet's Planches enluminées. One of these species was denoted by a species-group name identical to the new genus-group name : Bucco tamatia, which Cuvier renamed Tamatia maculata (evidently to avoid a tautonymous Tamatia tamatia), a species that was described by Gmelin 1788, and originally based in part on the "Barbu à ventre tacheté de Cayenne. Buff. pl. enlum. n. 746." (which was, however, fig. 1 on this plate -- Cuvier's indication of fig. 2 was obviously a lapsus).
The case may be a bit ambiguous, with two possible readings. On one hand, the only place where a scientific genus-group name Tamatia actually appeared in Cuvier's work was in the binomen "Tamatia maculata", and the nominal species denoted by this name might thus arguably be regarded as the type by monotypy. On the other hand, if you accept the inclusion of the four taxonomic species (which was unquestionably strongly implied, but not positively stated by Cuvier), the type is Bucco tamatia Gmelin 1788 by absolute tautonymy. Usually, I stick to the species positively included, but I have seen similar cases interpreted differently. In the particular case of Tamatia, however, it's not really important which way you choose to follow, as Bucco tamatia Gmelin 1788 and Tamatia maculata Cuvier 1816 are of course objective synonyms, the latter being merely a new name for the former.
As the type was fixed in the OD, subsequent designations are irrelevant.
Norbert R. B.
Member
Oh, yes, I see. Unfortunately, I looked for Cuvier's book in Gallica, which led me to another (later) edition of Le Règne Animal. I couldn't open BHL yesterday, and I was misled by Gallica without noticing it. Sorry for once again putting things into question that have long been clarified.
ramphocelus
Vitor Q. Piacentini
As a minor complement to Laurent's excellent explanation:
Tamatia as a genus name was first published as a (subjective) synonym by Cuvier in 1817. Nonetheless, this is not a problem since it was subsequently used as valid before 1961, which makes Tamatia Cuvier, 1817 available per article 11.6.1.
Examples of Tamatia used as valid before 1961: Hahn 1819, Ranzani 1821, Gray 1841...
As for its type species, in fact only one species was directly associated with the genus name (= Laurent's "first reading"), as Article 67.12 (and its example) make explicit: in Cuvier's work, the only species treated in Tamatia is "Tamatia maculata Nob" = Bucco Tamatia Gmelin. Given that there are two possible ways for the type fixation of Tamatia Cuvier in the original publication (i.e., monotypy and absolute tautonymy [the tautonymous name being cited as a synonym of the (single) originally included species; art. 68.4]), article 68.1 defines that monotypy is the one to be accepted.
In short, Tamatia Cuvier, 1817 is available (art. 11.6.1), and its type species, by monotypy (arts. 67.12, 68.1), is Tamatia maculata Cuvier = Bucco tamatia Gmelin, 1788.
Tamatia as a genus name was first published as a (subjective) synonym by Cuvier in 1817. Nonetheless, this is not a problem since it was subsequently used as valid before 1961, which makes Tamatia Cuvier, 1817 available per article 11.6.1.
Examples of Tamatia used as valid before 1961: Hahn 1819, Ranzani 1821, Gray 1841...
As for its type species, in fact only one species was directly associated with the genus name (= Laurent's "first reading"), as Article 67.12 (and its example) make explicit: in Cuvier's work, the only species treated in Tamatia is "Tamatia maculata Nob" = Bucco Tamatia Gmelin. Given that there are two possible ways for the type fixation of Tamatia Cuvier in the original publication (i.e., monotypy and absolute tautonymy [the tautonymous name being cited as a synonym of the (single) originally included species; art. 68.4]), article 68.1 defines that monotypy is the one to be accepted.
In short, Tamatia Cuvier, 1817 is available (art. 11.6.1), and its type species, by monotypy (arts. 67.12, 68.1), is Tamatia maculata Cuvier = Bucco tamatia Gmelin, 1788.
l_raty
laurent raty
Thanks, Vitor.
Cuvier's work was really published in 1816, though.
(The four volumes of the work were presented to the Académie in Paris on 02 Dec 1816 : Procès-verbaux des séances de l'Académie tenues depuis la fondation de l'Institut jusqu'au mois d'août 1835 : publiés conformément à une décision de l'Académie par MM. les secrétaires perpétuels / Institut de France, Académie des sciences | 1816 | Gallica ; they were listed as published in Bibliographie de la France on 07 Dec 1816 : Bibliographie de la France .)
PS -
I had never actually thought of this name as having been introduced in synonymy; I guess I'll have to give this more thought.
The problem, as I see it, is that the combinations that Cuvier cited in his footnotes did not at all necessarily coincide with his own classification system. E.g., if you look at the species cited in the footnote associated to Barita here, he cited species names in combinations with three different generic names (Gracula, Coracias, and Corvus; in the text also included a species which he cited in combination with Paradisaea). From this, it follows that the names that appear in these footnotes cannot really be understood as having been "used as valid" by him.
My inclination would be to understand "Nob. Tamatia maculata." as a statement that Tamatia maculata was, for him, the valid name of this species.
Last edited:
