• 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.

Furnariidae (1 Viewer)

Proposal (815) to SACC

Generic placement and common names of Cranioleuca sulphurifera and Limnoctites rectirostris


We recommend a NO vote to Option 2. This would result in an expanded, more heterogenous Cranioleuca

But placing C. sulphurifera in Limnoctites risk to create a small heterogeneous genus

The best option for me is the creation of a new genus (such as «Limnocerthia»), sister to Limnoctites. Despite their behavioral similarity, these species are very distinct.
 
Last edited:
Proposal (819) to SACC

Transfer Philydor erythropterum and P. rufum to the genus Ancistrops

Option B. Alternatively, P. erythropterum and P. rufum could be placed in the genus Dendroma Swainson 1837, whose type (by subsequent designation by Gray, 1855) is Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein = Dendrocopos rufum Vieillot. This option will leave A. strigilatus in its own traditional monotypic genus.
 
Alternatively, P. erythropterum and P. rufum could be placed in the genus Dendroma Swainson 1837, whose type (by subsequent designation by Gray, 1855) is Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein = Dendrocopos rufum Vieillot.

I chose this option for the same reason given by Areta (divergence time) . Anyway, Dendroma has priority over Ancistrops
 
Last edited:
Proposal (811) to SACC
Change the specific epithet of Xenops rutilans to rutilus
DID NOT PASS
A quite ambiguous case, I would say.

In Latin, rutilus, -a, -um (=red) is a standard adjective; rutilans (= reddening) is the present participle of the verb rutilare.
Can two perfectly correct distinct Latin words with (even if slightly) different meanings be called two 'spellings' of a single name ?
If rutilus can be a variant spelling of rutilans, does this extent to similar cases where the difference between the stems of the adjective and verb are more pronounced ? rufus and rufescans, ruber and rubricans ? If rutilus can be a variant spelling of rutilans, why not, actually, rufus, or ruber ? Obviously, there must be a limit, but where does it lie...?
 
Last edited:
Thripophagini

Esther Quintero, Utku PERKTAŞ, Phylogeny of Thripophagini ovenbirds (Aves: Synallaxinae: Furnariidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, , blz062, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz062

Abstract:

In this study, we address the evolutionary relationships and discuss the biogeographical history of a complex and diverse group of ovenbirds, the Thripophagini. We reconstruct the phylogeny and estimate the time of divergence of this group, using sequences from two complete mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and NADH subunit 2) from a total of 115 fresh tissue samples. The results provide a better understanding of the phylogenetic relationships of the taxa within this group, some of which require a thorough taxonomic revision. We discuss the biogeographical history of the group, and find parallels with other previously studied Andean birds which may indicate that tectonic and climatic events might, at least in part, be linked to its diversification through the uplift of the Andes, the creation of new montane habitats and barriers, the evolution of Amazonian drainages and landscapes, and the climatic oscillations of the Pleistocene.
 
'Thripophagini'

Thripophagini
...is not an available name, I'm afraid.

([OD here]. The statement "most inclusive crown clade that contains Acrobatornis fonsecai, Xenerpestes singularis, and Thripophaga fusciceps but not Synallaxis albescens" is a phylogenetic definition, not a 'diagnosis' in the sense of the Code; this name was published without any statement of characters purported to differentiate the taxon, and is therefore a nomen nudum.)

Thripophagini Moyle, Chesser, Brumfield, Tello, Marchese & Cracraft 2009 has (at least) two wannabe subjective senior synonyms, Metopothrichinae Wolters 1977 and Xenerpestinae Wolters 1977. But I strongly suspect -- although I have not seen the actual work -- that these would prove to be nude as well, as has been the case every family-group name, cited from Wolter's Vogelarten der Erde by Bock 1994, which have been checked in recent years. (Bock believed that the Code requirement of a description/diagnosis for family-group names was an 'error': he accepted tens of names (from Wolters, the Sibley group, etc.) that lacked one as if they were available. After 1960, in any case, a statement of characters that differentiate the taxon is absolutely necessary.)
 
Last edited:
The Thripophaga/Cranioleuca/Limnoctites clade is very young (between 2,5/5,5 mya), I don't see the point of recognising so many genera (unlike the heterogeneous Asthenes, which is a very old lineage [~10 mya] with three distinct clade, and merit a generic split)
 
The Thripophaga/Cranioleuca/Limnoctites clade is very young (between 2,5/5,5 mya), I don't see the point of recognising so many genera (unlike the heterogeneous Asthenes, which is a very old lineage [~10 mya] with three distinct clade, and merit a generic split)
You should more than likely also include Roraimia in the group, if you want it to be a clade.

(Roraimia is admittedly sister to an apparent Thripophaga/Cranioleuca/Limnoctites clade in the present study, but this clade lacks statistical support; Roraimia was embedded in the group formed by these three genera, with high support, in Moyle et al 2009 (the paper where Thripophagini was introduced, link in my previous post above) and in Derryberry et al 2011 ([here]).
The present study and Derryberry et al 2011 also differ re. the position of Cranioleuca gutturata, by the way -- here, this species is sister to the rest of the focal group (so-so support; 80/.87) and the authors suggest it needs a new genus; in Derryberry et al, it grouped with Tripophaga (cherriei + fusciceps; type species so far unsampled) (so-so support as well; Bayesian PP < .95), and this group then formed a clade with Roraimia (high support; Bayesian PP > .95); gutturata is now included in Thripophaga by various authorities based on the 2011 results.)
 
You should more than likely also include Roraimia in the group, if you want it to be a clade.
Obviously

(Roraimia is admittedly sister to an apparent Thripophaga/Cranioleuca/Limnoctites clade in the present study, but this clade lacks statistical support; Roraimia was embedded in the group formed by these three genera, with high support, in Moyle et al 2009 (the paper where Thripophagini was introduced, link in my previous post above) and in Derryberry et al 2011 ([here]).
The present study and Derryberry et al 2011 also differ re. the position of Cranioleuca gutturata, by the way -- here, this species is sister to the rest of the focal group (so-so support; 80/.87) and the authors suggest it needs a new genus; in Derryberry et al, it grouped with Tripophaga (cherriei + fusciceps; type species so far unsampled) (so-so support as well; Bayesian PP < .95), and this group then formed a clade with Roraimia (high support; Bayesian PP > .95); gutturata is now included in Thripophaga by various authorities based on the 2011 results.)


What defines a genus now, homogeneity, morphological similarity, behaviour, common ancestor, divergence times, degree of relationships?
 
Last edited:
[/ATTACH][/ATTACH]View attachment Wolters3.pdf

QUOTE]Metopothrichinae Wolters 1977 and Xenerpestinae Wolters 1977. But I strongly suspect -- although I have not seen the actual work -- that these would prove to be nude as well, as has been the case every family-group name, cited from Wolter's Vogelarten der Erde by Bock 1994[/QUOTE]
Here are the two mentioned which look nude. And two others that have some words attached.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/40265#page/15/mode/1up
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/126880#page/449/mode/1up .
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top