Bogota Sunangel (1 Viewer)

thomasdonegan said:

Despite sharing uniquely long tails and appearing next to one another in many field guides... it seems from the molecular studies linked above that Lesbia and Aglaiocercus are not closely related to one another at all, so it looks like a switch of Aglaiocercus to Lesbia and a new genus for Lesbia are needed. Unless perhaps ICZN could be asked to intervene and fix a new type genus for Lesbia, which would probably be the best outcome.

Click to expand...

Assuming that kingii is designated as the type species of genus Lesbia, the nomen Psalidoprymna Cabanis & Heine, 1860, type : Trochilus victoriae Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846 (I think), seems to be available for nuna and victoriae.

l_raty said:

Note: Called an 'emendation' of Taphrolesbia Simon 1918 by Peters 1945 ...

Click to expand...

Also by Richmond, 1927; here, (p.34 + footnote)

If of any use?

LeNomenclatoriste said:

If kingii is designated as the type species of genus Lesbia, the nomen Psalidoprymna Cabanis & Heine, 1860, type : Trochilus victoriae Bourcier (I think), seems to be available.

Click to expand...

Psalidoprymna Cabanis & Heine 1860
Cabanis J, Heine F. 1860. Museum Heineanum. Verzeichniss der ornithologischen Sammlung des Oberamtmann Ferdinand Heine auf Gut St. Burchard vor Halberstadt. III. Theil, die Schrillvögel. R Frantz, Halberstadt.; p.52; [OD].
No original type fixation. originally included nominal species Trochilus victoriae Bourcier & Mulsant 1846, Cynanthus bifurcatus Swainson 1827 (with Ornismya nuna Lesson cited as a synonym), Trochilus amaryllis Bourcier & Mulsant 1848; type species (I think), by subsequent designation (Elliot DG. 1878. A classification and synopsis of the Trochilidae. Smithson. Contrib. Knowl. 317.; p.145; [here]): Trochilus amaryllis Bourcier 1848 (a subjective synonym of T. victoriae Bourcier & Mulsant 1846).
(Trochilus amaryllis Bourcier & Mulsant 1848: Bourcier J, Mulsant E. 1848. Description de quelques nouvelles espèces d'oiseaux mouches. Rev. Zool., année 1848:269-275.; p.273; [OD].)

This was apparently used for the group before Zimmer 1930, and seems OK so far as I can see.


Possible contender:

Agaclyta Cabanis & Heine 1860
Cabanis J, Heine F. 1860. Museum Heineanum. Verzeichniss der ornithologischen Sammlung des Oberamtmann Ferdinand Heine auf Gut St. Burchard vor Halberstadt. III. Theil, die Schrillvögel. R Frantz, Halberstadt.; p.70; [OD].
Type species, by original monotypy, Trochilus gouldii Loddiges 1832 (currently Lesbia (nuna) gouldii (Loddiges 1832)).
(Trochilus gouldii Loddiges 1832: Loddiges G. 1832. [Four new species of Humming Birds from Popayan, forming part of the collection of Mr. John Gould.] Proc. Comm. Sci. Corr. Zool. Soc. London, 1832:6-7.; p.7; [OD].)

Signature dated 17 April 1860; the signature including Psalidoprymna is dated 30 March 1860; however, should the entire book be deemed published at a single date, as has been suggested, a first-reviser act is needed to give precedence to one of these two names. Hartert 1900 [here] used Psalidoprymna and cited Agaclyta in its synonymy, which might qualify.

"Richmond, 1927; (p.34 + footnote)

If of any use?"
It is of use because Simon says a name was misspelled because of a lapsus. So he misspelled a name from 1910 . And he tried to fix Tephropsilis but not Tephrolesbia. His fix may not be successful because it was in a different publication 1918 work. The 1918 work may have a correction errata page for Tephrolesbia but it is not online.

l_raty said:

This was apparently used for the group before Zimmer 1930, and seems OK so far as I can see.

Click to expand...

That's all I wanted to know 😎 but for now, don't touch the current taxo.

TiF Update July 8, 2017

Bogota Sunangel: Pérez-Emán et al. (2017) found that the Bogota Sunangel was actually a hybrid. Kirchman et al.'s (2010) finding that it was related to Sylphs was incorrect due to only considering mitochondrial DNA, which of course meant they could not notice that the father was a different species than the mother.
[Trochilidae, Apodiformes, 3.08]

We still only have mtDNA, though - in fact Pérez-Emán et al did not produce any additional data from zusii itself, they used (a part of) the data that had been produced by Kirchman et al. (Kirchman et al published sequences of 111 + 64 bp of nd4 and flanking tRNAs [GU166861], 110 + 71 bp of nd2 [GU166851] = 356 bp of mtDNA in total; but Pérez-Emán et al only used the 181 bp of nd2.)
The main reason why zusii is now thought to have been a hybrid is that its mtDNA was found to be identical to that which is present in some populations of sylphs, which suggests that the mother of the 'sunangel' was the same species as these. These particular populations had not been sampled by Kirchman et al, who had concluded that zusii (alt., its mother) was related to, yet distinct from sylphs. It's the "yet distinct from" part of this that was incorrect.

(A very similar problem occurred in the description of Laniarius liberatus: the authors had sequenced a part of the cytochrome b of the holotype, found it to be distinct from other Laniarius spp, and regarded this as a confirmation of its species status. In fact, the mtDNA of L. liberatus is identical to that of L. erlangeri, which the authors regarded a ssp of L. aethiopicus and failed to include in their analysis -- only a nominate L. a. aethiopicus from Ethiopia had been included in the original data set.)

I think Amazilia alfaroana is a similar case. First they say it is a good species than they state it is a hybrid and now they state again it is a good species.

Peter Kovalik said:

Jorge L. Perez-Eman, Jhoniel Perdigon Ferreira, Natalia Gutierrez-Pinto, Andres M. Cuervo, Laura N. Cespedes, Christopher C. Witt, Carlos Daniel Cadena. An extinct hummingbird species that never was: a cautionary tale about sampling issues in molecular phylogenetics.

bioRxiv 149898; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/149898

[pdf]

With thanks to Tom Schulenberg.

Click to expand...

Jorge L. Pérez-Emán, Jhoniel Perdigón Ferreira, Natalia Gutiérrez-Pinto, Andrés M. Cuervo, Laura N. Céspedes, Christopher C. Witt, Carlos Daniel Cadena. An extinct hummingbird species that never was: a cautionary tale about sampling issues in molecular phylogenetics. Zootaxa 4442 (3): 491–497.

Abstract:

The selection of species and individuals for molecular analyses critically affects inferences in various fields of systematic biology including phylogenetics, phylogeography, and species delimitation. Especially in areas like the Neotropical region where molecular analyses have recovered substantial within-species divergence and unexpected affinities of populations (Turchetto-Zolet et al. 2013), biases resulting from incomplete taxonomic or geographic sampling may compromise the understanding of phylogenetic relationships (Avendaño et al. 2017). Here we describe a case in which assessments of the validity of a potentially extinct species of Neotropical bird were likely compromised because within-species variation was not accounted for in phylogenetic analyses evaluating the alternative hypothesis that the only known specimen may represent a hybrid.

With thanks to Tom (again).

Are there differences between the 2017 and 2018 article?

BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums

Bogota Sunangel (Heliangelus zusii): no longer a valid taxon.

Posted on May 23, 2019 by Red List Team (BirdLife International)

Bogota Sunangel (Heliangelus zusii) is currently listed as Data Deficient (BirdLife International 2019). Following a molecular phylogenetic analysis by Pérez-Emán et al. (2019), it was deemed that specimens placed as this species actually more likely represent hybrids between a female Long-tailed Sylph (Aglaiocercus kingii) and a male Heliangelus or Metallura hummingbird. Based on this assessment, Bogota Sunangel is no longer considered to be valid.