-
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.
New Thryophilus wren (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Jacana
Will Jones
THRYOPHILUS SERNAI, sp. nov.
Antioquia Wren
Cucarachero Paisa (Spanish)
Holotype.—Adult male deposited at the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia (ICN) No. 37848; from vereda El Espinal, ca. 3.2 km SSW Santa Fé de Antioquia,
west bank of the Cauca River, Department of Antioquia, Colombia (6°31’55”N, 75°49’54”W;
515 m elevation); collected by C. E. Lara on 15 March 2010 and prepared by W. A. Múnera.
Standard morphometric measurements are shown in Table 1. Hologenetype (Chakrabarty 2010)
sequences of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome-b (cyt-b) deposited in GenBank (accession
number JX013498). Sound recordings of the song of the holotype were recorded by C. E. Lara
and deposited in the Banco de Sonidos Animales, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt (BSA
22001-22002).
Antioquia Wren
Cucarachero Paisa (Spanish)
Holotype.—Adult male deposited at the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia (ICN) No. 37848; from vereda El Espinal, ca. 3.2 km SSW Santa Fé de Antioquia,
west bank of the Cauca River, Department of Antioquia, Colombia (6°31’55”N, 75°49’54”W;
515 m elevation); collected by C. E. Lara on 15 March 2010 and prepared by W. A. Múnera.
Standard morphometric measurements are shown in Table 1. Hologenetype (Chakrabarty 2010)
sequences of the mitochondrial gene cytochrome-b (cyt-b) deposited in GenBank (accession
number JX013498). Sound recordings of the song of the holotype were recorded by C. E. Lara
and deposited in the Banco de Sonidos Animales, Instituto Alexander von Humboldt (BSA
22001-22002).
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Thanks, Will. :t:
mb1848
Well-known member
A holotype a hologenetype and a recording of the voice of the holotype, I would have been just as happy with a photograph and a handful of feathers!
Chakrabarty 2010:
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02632p068.pdf .
Chakrabarty 2010:
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02632p068.pdf .
lewis20126
Well-known member
PM sent; cheers, alan
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
;-)
there you are!!.. is not an uncommon bird in all this area of the Cauca Valley.. loads of people have heard it recently (especially after some sites in the Bolombolo area have become popular stops for endemic Apical Flycatcher and Grayish Piculet, etc) and some that have thought about that noise have even IDed it before as Rufous-and-white Wren that should not occur there (http://www.natureserve.org/imagerep...FMT=gif&RES=600X615&NAME=thryothorus_rufalbus)... I was amazed that no photos or recordings or just trip-reports mentioning this Thryothorus song-like species in the area have been published before...
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
;-)
Richard Klim
-------------------------
IOC World Bird List
Thryophilus sernai Antioquia Wren listed as a candidate for addition to IOC World Bird List:
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits
Thryophilus sernai Antioquia Wren listed as a candidate for addition to IOC World Bird List:
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits
Richard Klim
-------------------------
COLOMBIA Birding
Well-known member
Visited one of the places just 45 minutes from Medellin to see the wren with Carl Downing and Juan D. Ramirez; got amazing views and even recordings of a new type/variant vocalization!!... pretty exciting!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/sets/72157630257413348/
enjoy...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/colombia_birding_diego/sets/72157630257413348/
enjoy...
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Lara et al 2012 pdf
For anyone who hasn't yet seen the full paper, it's now online at LSU. [pdf]
[Thanks to locustella for Mongabay.com news item with link.]
For anyone who hasn't yet seen the full paper, it's now online at LSU. [pdf]
[Thanks to locustella for Mongabay.com news item with link.]
locustella
Well-known member
I didn't notice this topic, sorry.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Much better to have occasional duplication than to miss something. And you found an open access pdf... :t:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
There has indeed been something missing from this thread ...
Generally speaking, if a new taxon like this is found in a complex group, the authors have two options available to them:
1. Describe it as a subspecies and state that more work is needed to resolve species limits in the group.
2. Review the group generally and come up with recommendations as to appropriate species limits including recommendations for the new taxon.
I have attempted both approaches over the years.
This paper seems a hark back to the days before people like Le Croy and Vuilleumier started introducing a bit of rigour and taxonomic peer review to the process of species descriptions. The authors' choice of ranking one of the least vocally, molecular-ly and morphologically diagnostic members of the T. rufalbus group - largely on the basis of its peripheral distribution and dodgy statistical interpretations - as a species is surprising. Valderrama et al previously showed considerable vocal and molecular variation in the group, with greater variation evident among more distinctive taxa which the authors of this description retain as conspecific. If this new taxon was not their sp. nov. and instead an existing taxon, it is doubtful that they would have sought to publish a paper splitting this one but leaving the rest of the group as it was. The same standards should apply to revisions as to new taxon descriptions.
The species limits section reads like an advocacy piece ignoring unfavorable arguments and exaggerating favorable ones rather than a balanced discussion. In a group like wrens, voice is learned and here the authors show substantial deviation but still notable overlap in all vocal paramaters. Their conclusion of vocal diagnosability could only be met once they reduced their vocal sample size down to just a handful of recordings from tens (which is not unexpected given that with a smaller sample size there is a greater chance that sampled measurements cluster around the mean). The authors appeared to want to both have their cake and eat it in describing this new taxon quickly and as a species without revising T. rufalbus. A wish to publish quickly is understandable given how accessible this species' habitat is and recent scandals, but the appropriate cause of action in such a situation is to describe a subspecies and then work in more detail on a revision of the group.
Those involved should be congratulated for this exciting and important find of a new taxon. But probably no other research group working in Colombia except Cuervo-Cadena and colleagues would have got away with publishing this as a species or in Condor. Doubtless, the same interests will now result in this new taxon being approved unanimously by relevant committees ... which are after all largely made up of the authors, members of their research groups and frequent publication collaborators. These authors have the dubious luxury on deciding how good their own advocacy piece was and knowing their research team will lose face for taking a critical view.
Generally speaking, if a new taxon like this is found in a complex group, the authors have two options available to them:
1. Describe it as a subspecies and state that more work is needed to resolve species limits in the group.
2. Review the group generally and come up with recommendations as to appropriate species limits including recommendations for the new taxon.
I have attempted both approaches over the years.
This paper seems a hark back to the days before people like Le Croy and Vuilleumier started introducing a bit of rigour and taxonomic peer review to the process of species descriptions. The authors' choice of ranking one of the least vocally, molecular-ly and morphologically diagnostic members of the T. rufalbus group - largely on the basis of its peripheral distribution and dodgy statistical interpretations - as a species is surprising. Valderrama et al previously showed considerable vocal and molecular variation in the group, with greater variation evident among more distinctive taxa which the authors of this description retain as conspecific. If this new taxon was not their sp. nov. and instead an existing taxon, it is doubtful that they would have sought to publish a paper splitting this one but leaving the rest of the group as it was. The same standards should apply to revisions as to new taxon descriptions.
The species limits section reads like an advocacy piece ignoring unfavorable arguments and exaggerating favorable ones rather than a balanced discussion. In a group like wrens, voice is learned and here the authors show substantial deviation but still notable overlap in all vocal paramaters. Their conclusion of vocal diagnosability could only be met once they reduced their vocal sample size down to just a handful of recordings from tens (which is not unexpected given that with a smaller sample size there is a greater chance that sampled measurements cluster around the mean). The authors appeared to want to both have their cake and eat it in describing this new taxon quickly and as a species without revising T. rufalbus. A wish to publish quickly is understandable given how accessible this species' habitat is and recent scandals, but the appropriate cause of action in such a situation is to describe a subspecies and then work in more detail on a revision of the group.
Those involved should be congratulated for this exciting and important find of a new taxon. But probably no other research group working in Colombia except Cuervo-Cadena and colleagues would have got away with publishing this as a species or in Condor. Doubtless, the same interests will now result in this new taxon being approved unanimously by relevant committees ... which are after all largely made up of the authors, members of their research groups and frequent publication collaborators. These authors have the dubious luxury on deciding how good their own advocacy piece was and knowing their research team will lose face for taking a critical view.
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
The proposal to recognize newly described Thryophilus sernai has passed.
Similar threads
