• 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.

Swedish Taxonomic Committee (1 Viewer)

Markus Lagerqvist

Well-known member
Sweden
The Swedish Taxonomic Committee just published their 9th report. The major changes in the are:

Cory’s Shearwater is split into:
• Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris borealis)
• Scopoli’s Shearwater (C. diomedea)

Greenish Warbler is split into:
• Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides)
• Two-barred Warbler (P. plumbeitarsus)

Azure-winged Magpie is split into:
• Azure-winged Magpie (Cyanopica cyanus)
• Iberian Magpie (C. cooki)

Two-barred Crossbill is split into:
• Two-barred Crossbill (Loxia bifasciata)
• White-winged Crossbill (L. leucoptera)
• Hispaniolan Crossbill (L. megaplaga)

Red Crossbill is split into:
• Red Crossbil (Loxia curvirostris)
• Cassia Crossbill (L. sinesciurus)

Dark-eyed Junco is split into:
• Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis)
• Guadalupe Junco (J. insularis)

Yellow-rumped Warbler is split into:
• Myrtle Warbler (Setophaga coronata)
• Audubon’s Warbler (S. auduboni )
• Goldman’s Warbler (S. goldmani)

Full report here:
http://www.birdlife.se/1.0.1.0/1529/download_38081.php
 
I see they've made the same error that the AOS did in its recent checklist update: the Cassia Crossbill should be Loxia sinesciuris, not sinesciurus.
 
Benkman et al (2009):
Loxia sinesciuris Benkman, new species
[...]

ETYMOLOGY
We name this species Loxia sinesciuris because it occurs in an area without tree squirrels, and the absence of tree squirrels is key to its evolution. Sine sciuris is the Latin phrase "without squirrels." ...


[here]
 
Curious, why is the Swedish Taxonomic Committee concerned about Loxia sinesciuris? Have there been some reports of it in Sweden? :eek!:
 
Looking at the list, I see that some widely accepted splits are not accepted here (e.g. African Crimson-winged Finch), while other splits not widely accepted by others are accepted here (e.g. Maghreb Wheatear). The split of the latter species is good, but why the former taxon is not split yet?

Also, the Red-billed Firefinch is marked as ‘not introduced’, is this based on other sightings (that I am not aware of) outside of Algeria, or what?
 
Curious, why is the Swedish Taxonomic Committee concerned about Loxia sinesciuris? Have there been some reports of it in Sweden? :eek!:

Extra-limital splits aren't uncommon in the taxonomic committee world. Sure, the Cassia Crossbill isn't found in Sweden but the "Red Crossbill" taxon which is found there is now a different taxon than the previous "Red Crossbill" taxon because the Cassias are now excluded.
 
It might be worth to add that the "Swedish" list we´re dealing with in this thread is Västpalearktislistan (a k a "VP-listan", version 4), a list covering all of the birds observed in the "Greater Western Palearctic" (map, here).
 
It might be worth to add that the "Swedish" list we´re dealing with in this thread is Västpalearktislistan (a k a "VP-listan", version 4), a list covering all of the birds observed in the "Greater Western Palearctic" (map, here).

The map shown for the Greater Western Palearctic is completely wrong on the African continent ;)
Compare
 
"completely wrong" ... ?!? In my mind that´s an exaggeration.

However; note that the "Swedish" map shows, as it clearly says; "Tk:s definition". Nobody elses ;)
 
I don't know who "Tk" is and don't really understand swedish. However Google translates the text somewhat along the line, that Dominic Mitchell's definition was used and his definition is indeed completely different. His definition makes sense from a biogeographic point of view, while the depicted map does not.

The southern boundary chosen in BENAME lies at 20° N between Mauritania and Chad, in the above map the old boundary at 21° N is chosen.
The southwards extension starts at 16° E, not at the Chadi-Algerian border as suggested with the purple line (and wrongly also in the map, but not the text in BENAME)
The purple line should move back north at 20° E, just like in the old definition, not at the Sudanese border. Basically it lies 2° south from the definition in BENAME from there on, just without the Gebel Elba dent, thus including Afrotropical regions.

So it's off from the definition in BENAME about 95% of its length...
 
Extra-limital splits aren't uncommon in the taxonomic committee world. Sure, the Cassia Crossbill isn't found in Sweden but the "Red Crossbill" taxon which is found there is now a different taxon than the previous "Red Crossbill" taxon because the Cassias are now excluded.

Except it would make more sense to split Red Crossbill Loxia [curvirostra] minor from Common Crossbill L. curvirostra, since L. minor is more closely related to L. sinesciuris, than it is to L. curvirostra :t:
 
I don't know who "Tk" is ...

The southern boundary chosen in BENAME ....
And I don't know what "BENAME" is ... thereby I leave this, for Markus to answer. I just linked to the page/defintion by Tk (Taxonomikommittén/ the Swedish Taxonomic Committee), here. Personally I couldn't care less on either one of the boundaries of any (Greater/Lesser/Whatever) Western Palearctic. ;)

Västpalearktislistan ... over and out (on my part)!
 
Except it would make more sense to split Red Crossbill Loxia [curvirostra] minor from Common Crossbill L. curvirostra, since L. minor is more closely related to L. sinesciuris, than it is to L. curvirostra :t:

are paraphyletic *species* disallowed under whichever species concept the Swedish TSC uses?

If not then no problem with the current arrangement.

James
 
are paraphyletic *species* disallowed under whichever species concept the Swedish TSC uses?

If not then no problem with the current arrangement.

James

No, paraphyletic species are allowed. This is a rough translation from the Swedish Taxonomic Committee's report:

“Since the Red Corssbill isn’t split into more species, and the Cassia Crossbill is nested within in the Red Crossbill complex, it becomes a parafyletic species. A paraphyletic taxon includes a common ancestor and some, but not all, taxa derived from this ancestor. The opposite, where all branches of the "tree" are included, is called monophyletic. Normally you want to avoid paraphyletic taxa. However, at species level, one cannot always be consistent at this point, simply because paraphyletic species occur in nature. It is not entirely unusual that a subpopulation of a species evolves and becomes so different that it becomes reproductively isolated while other populations remain the same species.”
 
No, paraphyletic species are allowed. This is a rough translation from the Swedish Taxonomic Committee's report:

“Since the Red Corssbill isn’t split into more species, and the Cassia Crossbill is nested within in the Red Crossbill complex, it becomes a parafyletic species. A paraphyletic taxon includes a common ancestor and some, but not all, taxa derived from this ancestor. The opposite, where all branches of the "tree" are included, is called monophyletic. Normally you want to avoid paraphyletic taxa. However, at species level, one cannot always be consistent at this point, simply because paraphyletic species occur in nature. It is not entirely unusual that a subpopulation of a species evolves and becomes so different that it becomes reproductively isolated while other populations remain the same species.”

Yet monophyly can easily be restored by splitting Red Crossbill [N. America] from Common Crossbill [Eurasia].
 
Yet monophyly can easily be restored by splitting Red Crossbill [N. America] from Common Crossbill [Eurasia].

The point is there is no need to restore monophyly. Unless there’s evidence nearctic and palearctic crossbills are behaving as different species they stay lumped.

James
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top