• 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.

Robins are flycatchers? (1 Viewer)

andrew147 said:
Sericolius Bonaparte, 1855 (type = Muscicapa pallida) predates Haganopsornis... is this name valid?
Click to expand...
[OD], type Muscicapa pallida of Müller.
Somewhat strangely introduced (the genus is claimed to be an Ampelidae related to Hypocolius) but, yes, it looks like it is, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Voelker, Huntley, Peñalba & Bowie (in press). Resolving taxonomic uncertainty and historical biogeographic patterns in Muscicapa flycatchers and their allies. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]
  • Chapinia gen nov
  • Ripleyia gen nov
PS. Doesn't seem to have been published online by ScienceDirect, yet...
Click to expand...

John Boyd (TiF):
http://www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [23 Oct 2015]
http://www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List26.html#muscicapidae

I checked the site 20 minutes ago and Haganopsornis was being used; this has now been switched to Sericolius, so the info being discussed on this thread isn't going unnoticed!

Cheers
Liam
 
What is a nomen protecum?
Wikipedia says...for nomen protectum, which is specifically a conserved name that is either a junior synonym or homonym that is in use because the senior synonym or homonym has been made a nomen oblitum ("forgotten name").
 
Last edited:
thyoloalethe said:
I checked the site 20 minutes ago and Haganopsornis was being used; this has now been switched to Sericolius, so the info being discussed on this thread isn't going unnoticed!
Click to expand...
But "Muscicapa" ruficauda is still in Muscicapini, without even a reference to Price et al. 2014... This paper is on researchgate [pdf]; for the trees, scroll down to "Supplementary resources" (or see the attached screen capture). The species is in a group that otherwise includes only Ficedula and Muscicapella hodgsoni (BPP=1) and, within this group, it is sister to Ficedula subrubra (BPP=1; note the absence of F. parva, F. albicilla, and all taxa of the F. hypoleuca complex in this data set). Again, if the only outgroups that were used by Voelker et al. were Copsichini, there's absolutely nothing in their results that conflicts with this position.
 

Attachments

  • Muscicapa_ruficauda_Price+al.jpg
    Muscicapa_ruficauda_Price+al.jpg
    45.4 KB · Views: 107
Last edited:
Nomenclatorist said:
What's a Nomen protectum in taxonomy ?
Click to expand...
Since 2000, when a name in almost universal use is found to be threatened by a name that nobody has used for a very long time, authors are allowed to revert the relative precedence of these two names. The conditions are: the widely used name must have been treated as a presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years; and the unused name cannot have been used a single time as a presumed valid name in any publication after 1899. For the reversal to take place, an act must be published (in the sense of the Code): nothing happens 'automatically', just as a consequence of the conditions being fulfilled. Someone must publish a statement that the conditions are fulfilled, and provide evidence that the 25 works where the widely used name is treated as valid do exist. That statement must be true at the date of publication of the act. If it is, from that date of publication, the junior name takes precedence over the unused senior name. The name that earns precedence due to such an act is termed nomen protectum, the one that looses precedence is termed nomen oblitum. The precedence of both names relative to all other names remains unchanged.

The words "nomen protectum" did not occur in pre-2000 editions of the Code.

Haganopsornis is definitely not in almost universal use, hence it can definitely not be a nomen protectum.
 
l_raty said:
The recent description as far as I can judge is nomenclaturally valid. The previous ones, indeed, were not valid due to a lack of type fixation.

The only published genetic data are cytochrome-b sequences from the paper linked by Richard above. (Albeit if you want a more or less "normal" quality pdf, you can download the whole issue of Avian Science [here].) These data suggest that the dominant Gran Canaria haplogroup is basal, while the dominant Tenerife haplogroup is sister to (but still quite deeply divergent from) the nominate haplogroup. The support for these relationships was not terribly high, however; one bird from Tenerife was found to have a "Gran Canaria-like" haplotype; and of course mtDNA never shows more than a part of the "truth".
Bergmann & Schottler 2001 [here] have suggested vocal differences between superbus and rubecula, but they did not consider the possibility that superbus might be more than one taxon; and so far as can be judged, they used only material from Tenerife.
For what it's worth, there are also data from the Canaries in BOLD (cox1, genetic barcodes), that also show two deeply divergent clades, but these are not (yet) public, so you can't see any detail. Somewhat more intriguingly, BOLD also has a single barcode, from [a bird from Krasnodar], NE of the Black sea in Russia, that is deeply divergent from all other sequences too.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much Laurent, very helpful once more.

While superbus has a strikingly different voice, I found marionae somehow intermediate between superbus and rubecula. Plumage are not saying much here (unlike Blue Chaffinches case) I think, so I'm looking forward to read more studies on that case.

For fun, here is a marionae and a superbus photos.

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • erithacus_rubecula_marionae_esp1.jpg
    erithacus_rubecula_marionae_esp1.jpg
    215.4 KB · Views: 125
  • erithacus_superbus_esp1.jpg
    erithacus_superbus_esp1.jpg
    176 KB · Views: 128
Muscicapini

andrew147 said:
Sericolius Bonaparte, 1855 (type = Muscicapa pallida) predates Haganopsornis... is this name valid?
Click to expand...
After digging deeper (Vaurie 1953 is a very good source of information), Sericolius, although correctly introduced, still doesn't appear to have precedence for this group. The name that was first proposed seems to be:
Agricola Bonaparte 1854 (ex Verreaux):
Notes sur les collections rapportées en 1853, par M. A. Delattre, de son voyage en Californie et dans le Nicaragua. Quatrième communication. C. R. Hebd. Séan. Acad. Sci. Paris 38:1-11.
p.6.
Originally included nominal species Saxicola infuscata Smith 1839 (currently Bradornis infuscatus) and Saxicola baroica "Smith" (ID unclear, seems likely to have been a Cercomela-type chat). NO original type designation (contra Vaurie 1953). Saxicola baroica is certainly not available from Smith (who just cited it in a nude list of bird names) and most often simply treated as a nomen nudum; alternatively, as the Prince also offered a descriptive statement (albeit admittedly a very basic one), Saxicola baroica might be regarded as available from Bonaparte 1854. Either way, the type of Agricola is Saxicola infuscata Smith 1839 (currently Bradornis infuscatus) -- by original monotypy if Saxicola baroica is unavailable; by subsequent designation by Gray 1855 if it is available.​

Cichlomyia doesn't appear to have precedence for its group either. The oldest name seems to be:
Hypodes Cassin 1859:
Cassin J. 1859. Catalogue of birds collected on the rivers Camma and Ogobai, Western Africa, by Mr. P. B. Duchaillu in 1858, with notes and descriptions of new species. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 11:30-55.
p.52.
Type by original designation Eopsaltria cinerea Cassin 1856, a senior subjective synonym of Muscicapa brevicauda Ogilvie-Grant 1907 (currently Muscicapa caerulescens brevicauda, see Mayr & Cottrell 1986).​


l_raty said:
The species is in a group that otherwise includes only Ficedula and Muscicapella hodgsoni (BPP=1) and, within this group, it is sister to Ficedula subrubra (BPP=1; note the absence of F. parva, F. albicilla, and all taxa of the F. hypoleuca complex in this data set).
Click to expand...
Using the dataset below (full alignment a bit over 6000bp, but rather gappy matrix; for some of the outgroups I combined sequences from congeneric but not conspecific specimens; this does not include sequences from Voelker et al. 2015, which are not publicly available yet), applying maximum likelihood, with the data set partitioned by gene and by position for the mitochondrial coding genes, 500 bootstrap replicates, I get the attached tree. Assuming the Price et al. 2014 sequences indeed belong to this species (I see nothing that would point to problems, but of course data problems do occur and sometimes cannot be detected just by looking at the sequences), ruficauda seems sister to the clade formed by the F. (parva) and the F. (hypoleuca) complexes.


||||||||||||||||||||||||| ND2|||||||||| ND3|||||||||| Cytb||||||||| Cox1||||||||| GAPDH|||||||| Myo|||||||||| ODC|||||||||| PEPCK|||||||| LDH|||||
>Ficedula albicilla|||||| KJ909987||||| KJ930520||||| KJ930547||||| GQ481890||||| --------||||| KJ931266||||| KJ931293||||| KJ931240||||| HM633443
>Ficedula albicollis||||| KF293721||||| KF293721||||| KF293721||||| KF293721||||| NC021671||||| NC021672||||| NC021674||||| NC021691||||| NC021672
>Ficedula basilanica||||| KJ909988||||| KJ930521||||| KJ930548||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ931267||||| KJ931294||||| KJ931241||||| --------
>Ficedula buruensis|||||| GU358797||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| GU358994||||| GU358729||||| GU358859||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula crypta||||||||| KJ909989||||| KJ930522||||| KJ930549||||| CMCPB029-10|| --------||||| KJ931268||||| KJ931295||||| KJ931242||||| --------
>Ficedula disposita|||||| KJ909990||||| KJ930523||||| KJ930550||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ931269||||| KJ931296||||| KJ931243||||| --------
>Ficedula dumetoria|||||| KJ909991||||| KJ930524||||| KJ930551||||| BBIND169-08|| --------||||| KJ931270||||| KJ931297||||| KJ931244||||| --------
>Ficedula elisae||||||||| KJ952170||||| KJ952064||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ952101||||| KJ952135||||| KJ952033||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula erithacus|||||| --------||||| DQ674511||||| EF081346||||| EF422238||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula harterti||||||| DQ674461||||| DQ674514||||| DQ674488||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ994348||||| --------||||| KJ994351||||| --------
>Ficedula hodgsoni||||||| KJ909986||||| KJ930519||||| KJ930546||||| --------||||| KJ455089||||| KJ931265||||| KJ931292||||| KJ931239||||| KJ454713
>Ficedula hyperythra||||| KJ455431||||| KJ930538||||| KJ456275||||| JQ174840||||| KJ455039||||| KJ931271||||| KJ931298||||| KJ931245||||| HM633444
>Ficedula hypoleuca|||||| KJ909993||||| KJ930526||||| KJ930552||||| GU571396||||| AF454200||||| KJ931272||||| KJ931299||||| KJ931246||||| HM633445
>Ficedula luzonensis||||| FJ173408||||| --------||||| KJ930562||||| KC354912||||| --------||||| KJ931286||||| KJ931312||||| KJ931260||||| --------
>Ficedula mugimaki||||||| KJ909994||||| KJ930527||||| KJ930553||||| GQ481903||||| --------||||| KJ931273||||| KJ931300||||| KJ931247||||| HM633447
>Ficedula narcissina||||| KJ909995||||| KJ930528||||| KJ930554||||| AB842777||||| --------||||| KJ931274||||| KJ931301||||| KJ931248||||| --------
>Ficedula owstoni|||||||| KJ952191||||| KJ952083||||| --------||||| --------||||| AB842775||||| KJ952148||||| KJ952040||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula parva|||||||||| GU358799||||| --------||||| AJ299689||||| GQ481911||||| GU358996||||| GU358731||||| GU358861||||| GU358932||||| --------
>Ficedula platenae||||||| KJ909996||||| KJ930529||||| KJ930555||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ931275||||| KJ931302||||| KJ931249||||| HM633448
>Ficedula riedeli|||||||| DQ674463||||| KJ930535||||| KJ930561||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ931281||||| --------||||| KJ931255||||| --------
>'Muscicapa' ruficauda||| KJ455514||||| --------||||| KJ456351||||| --------||||| KJ455087||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula rufigula||||||| KJ909997||||| KJ930530||||| KJ930556||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ931276||||| KJ931303||||| KJ931250||||| --------
>Ficedula sapphira||||||| GU358800||||| --------||||| KJ456276||||| --------||||| GU358997||||| GU358732||||| GU358862||||| GU358933||||| --------
>Ficedula semitorquata||| DQ674470||||| DQ674522||||| DQ674497||||| GQ481913||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula strophiata||||| KJ909998||||| KJ930531||||| KJ930557||||| JQ174845||||| --------||||| KJ931277||||| KJ931304||||| KJ931251||||| HM633450
>Ficedula subrubra||||||| KJ455433||||| --------||||| KJ456278||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ454804||||| KJ455791||||| --------||||| --------
>Ficedula superciliaris|| KJ455434||||| DQ674528||||| KJ456279||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ454805||||| KJ455792||||| --------||||| HM633449
>Ficedula timorensis||||| DQ674460||||| DQ674513||||| DQ674487||||| --------||||| --------||||| KJ994349||||| --------||||| KJ994350||||| --------
>Ficedula tricolor||||||| KJ909999||||| KJ930532||||| KJ930558||||| EF422237||||| KJ455040||||| KJ931278||||| KJ931305||||| KJ931252||||| HM633451
>Ficedula westermanni|||| KJ910000||||| KJ930533||||| KJ930559||||| BBIND852-08|| GU358998||||| GU358733||||| GU358863||||| KJ931253||||| --------
>Ficedula zanthopygia|||| KJ910001||||| KJ930534||||| KJ930560||||| GQ481920||||| --------||||| KJ931280||||| KJ931307||||| KJ931254||||| --------

>Anthipes monileger|||||| KJ455321||||| --------||||| KJ456192||||| JQ174844||||| GU358995||||| GU358730||||| HM633724||||| GU358931||||| HM633446
>Cyanoptila cyanomelana|| GU358791||||| --------||||| DQ365019||||| AB842699||||| GU358987||||| GU358723||||| GU358852||||| GU358924||||| HM633430
>Enicurus schistaceus|||| GU358795||||| AY878257||||| KJ456269||||| ||||||||||||| GQ369625||||| GU358727||||| GU358856||||| GU358927||||| ||||||||
>Enicurus immaculatus|||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| JQ174785||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||
>Enicurus scouleri||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| HM633437
>Monticola solitarius|||| GU358808||||| JX256154||||| KJ456346||||| AB842943||||| GU359007||||| GU358742||||| GU358872||||| GU358942||||| HM633472
>Myiophonus caeruleus|||| GU358813||||| --------||||| HM633345||||| BBIND178-08|| GU359014||||| GU358749||||| GU358879||||| GU358949||||| HM633486
>Oenanthe deserti|||||||| GU237121||||| JX256127||||| GU237095||||| GQ482260||||| GU359019||||| GU358754||||| GU358884||||| GU358952||||| ||||||||
>Oenanthe oenanthe||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| HM633502
>Phoenicurus phoenicurus| KP173651||||| JX256150||||| KP184829||||| JX970728||||| GU359022||||| GU358757||||| GU358887||||| GU358953||||| HM633505
>Saxicola rubetra|||||||| GU237123||||| JX256151||||| GU237097||||| GU571612||||| GU359028||||| GU358763||||| GU358893||||| GU358958||||| ||||||||
>Saxixola torquatus|||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| ||||||||||||| HM633517
>Tarsiger cyanurus||||||| GU358827||||| KF997864||||| KF997864||||| KF997864||||| GU359033||||| GU358768||||| GU358898||||| GU358963||||| HM633529
 

Attachments

  • Ficedula+Muscicapa_ruficauda.nd2-nd3-cytb-cox1-gapdh-myo-odc-pepck-ldh.pdf
    4.4 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:
Nomenclatorist said:
Agricola is a "basic " latin name no doubt already using in other zoologic group.
Click to expand...
Not as far as I can see.
It was used by Blasius in 1857 for what we now know as Microtus agrestis, but Bonaparte's version has precedence.
No earlier occurrences are listed by Neave (here or here -- the former is better, but often down unfortunately), nor anywhere else I checked.
You'll have to give a reference in support to this claim. ;)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

W
SLC 8x42: Keep or Sell?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
w.travis
W
A
Are my Leicas defective?
Replies
12
Views
1K
jafritten
jafritten
lgonz1008
Jamaica: Birding the Land of Wood and Water
Replies
13
Views
572
lgonz1008
lgonz1008
M
Bird ID in Japan
Replies
5
Views
735
01101001
01101001
JoeGBirder
List of bird facts I had wrong for a while
Replies
13
Views
2K
Derbyfella
D

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top