• 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.

Thraupidae (1 Viewer)

Acanthis said:
Hmm, I had Pseudochloris in the back of my mind for this species. There must be an issue with that name.
Click to expand...
I checked it, but I see no serious issue with the name.
Pseudochloris Sharpe 1888, [OD]. This appears to be intended as a remplacement name for Orospina Cabanis 1883, nec Kaup 1829.
Orospina Cabanis 1883, [OD]: originally included nominal species Orospina pratensis Cabanis 1883 [OD] and Sycalis citrina Pelzeln 1870 [OD]. I'm never sure if this type of wording is to be interpreted as an original type designation or not. (The word "type" is not used, nor anything equivalent; but the genus is introduced expressly "for" the bird that is being described, then named O. pratensis; and then, citrina is added. Any Code-based suggestion would be welcome.) In the present case, this matters little, however, as:
  1. if the original text is not interpretable as including a type species designation, the type species is most likely still O. pratensis, by subsequent designation of Sharpe 1888 (loc. cit.), and
  2. these two names (pratensis Cabanis and citrina Pelzeln) are nowadays treated as synonyms (cf. Hellmayr 1938): the two nominal species that would be eligible to be the type denote the same taxonomic species.
(Orospina Kaup 1829, [OD]: type species by original monotypy Emberiza provincialis Gmelin 1889. This is certainly available too.)

The argument in the paper not to move this species is that the data do not contradict the monophyly of Sicalis convincingly enough.
 
Last edited:
Boyd use Orospina but as synonym of Emberiza (Schoeniclus).

And the type species of genus Pyrrhulagra seems to be Loxigilla noctis.
 
Last edited:
Nomenclatorist said:
But why create a new generic name for Diuca speculifera since speculifera is the type species of genus Diuca ?
Click to expand...
Based on what?
Diuca Reichenbach 1850 [OD]: this was made available by an illustration, without a description and without any originally included nominal species. Note that the illustration lacks the "white tear" (infraocular crescent) of Diuca speculifera.
The first author to include nominal species was Bonaparte 1850, who included Fringilla diuca Molina, Diuca minor Bonaparte and Emberiza speculifera d'Orbigny. These are to be treated as the originally included nominal species.
The type should be Fringilla diuca Molina by tautonymy. (And this is also the species that Reichenbach illustrated.)
 
Last edited:
It's weird because I found that :

Diuca Reichenbach 1850, Av. Syst. Nat. P.78, type, by subsequent designation (Gray, 1855, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Bird, p. 79 ), Emberiza speculifera Lafresnaye and d'Orbigny.
 
Nomenclatorist said:
But why create a new generic name for Diuca speculifera since speculifera is the type species of genus Diuca ?
Click to expand...

Very pleased to at last have a name for Rufous-bellied Saltator!

Most suggestions are very welcome but there are definitely a few issues:

3. Merge Saltatricula Burmeister, 1861 into Saltator Vieillot, 1816

Seems an odd suggestion when the diversity within other genera is finally being recognised. Divergence time estimates suggest that diversity within Saltator is much older than many other recognised genera and it should be split into at least three genera. Saltatricula would be retained for S. multicolor and Saltator atricollis.

8. Islerothraupis, new genus - Islerothraupis cristata, I. luctuosa and I. rufiventer

As already discussed, this an unnecessary new genus as Loriotus, Jarocki 1821 [type = cristatus] already exists.

17. Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, new name
Thought this had already been remedied by the recognition of the name Thlypopsis castaneiceps

23. Chionodacryon, new genus - Chionodacryon speculiferum
I also thought it had been established that speculifera was the type of Diuca with the genus Hedyglossa, Cabanis, 1851 available for 'D'. diuca.

32. Stilpnia, new genus - Stilpnia larvata, S. nigrocincta, S. cyanicollis, S. preciosa, S. peruviana, S. meyerdeschauenseei, S. vitriolina, S. cucullata, S. cayana, S. cyanoptera, S. viridicollis, S. phillipsi, S. argyrofenges and S. heinei

Another unnecessary new genus as name Euschemon, Sclater, 1851 [type = Tangara cayana flava] already exists.
 
Euschemon, Sclater, 1851 is preoccuped by Euschemon Doubleday, 1846 (Lepidoptera), so Stilpnia is correct.

Euuh ! Maybe Loriotus has been create for Habia cristata ?
 
Last edited:
andrew147 said:
Very pleased to at last have a name for Rufous-bellied Saltator!
Click to expand...

Indeed!


andrew147 said:
3. Merge Saltatricula Burmeister, 1861 into Saltator Vieillot, 1816

Seems an odd suggestion when the diversity within other genera is finally being recognised. Divergence time estimates suggest that diversity within Saltator is much older than many other recognised genera and it should be split into at least three genera. Saltatricula would be retained for S. multicolor and Saltator atricollis.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting a resurrected, larger Pitylus?


andrew147 said:
8. Islerothraupis, new genus - Islerothraupis cristata, I. luctuosa and I. rufiventer

As already discussed, this an unnecessary new genus as Loriotus, Jarocki 1821 [type = cristatus] already exists.
Click to expand...


New name for me. Nice one!
 
Acanthis said:
Are you suggesting a resurrected, larger Pitylus?
Click to expand...

No, Pitylus doesn’t represent one of the older groups.

Primary divergence between Saltatricula (including Saltator atricollis) and the remaining Saltator is c. 10 million years old (i.e. older than some recently recognised West Indian 9-primaried "families"). The latter group diverged again (c. 6 million years ago) into 'true' Saltator and an un-named 'grey' group including the divergent orenocensis and the closer-knit similis, coerulescens, striatipectus and albicollis.

The remaining 'true' Saltator spp would need to be split into four genera (which diverged > 4 million years ago) in order to retain Pitylus *(and this could be argued favourably in the light of many other geologically young genera within the thraupid group - as a point of comparison, ALL Galapagos finch genera diverged less than 2.5 million years ago!).

*Or two genera if Pitylus was extended to include maxillosus, aurantiirostris, cinctus & nigriceps.
 
Last edited:
andrew147 said:
17. Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, new name
Thought this had already been remedied by the recognition of the name Thlypopsis castaneiceps
Click to expand...
I'm unclear what "Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, new name" means exactly. New name for what?
Another unnecessary new genus as name Euschemon, Sclater, 1851 [type = Tangara cayana flava] already exists.
Click to expand...
To keep up with original descriptions:
Euschemon Sclater 1851 [OD]: type species by original monotypy Tanagra flava Gmelin 1789 [OD].
But, indeed, this seems preoccupied by Euschemon Doubleday (in Stokes) 1846 [OD]: type species by original monotypy Hesperia rafflesia Mac Leay (in King) 1827 [OD].
 
l_raty said:
I'm unclear what "Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, new name" means exactly. New name for what?

But, indeed, this seems preoccupied by Euschemon Doubleday (in Stokes) 1846
Click to expand...

There is already a Thlypopsis ruficeps (the Rust-and-yellow Tanager) so subsuming Pyrrocoma into Thlypopsis means a new specific name is required. I believe that T. castaneiceps has already been proposed however.

Shame about Euschemon. Stilpnia is not an attractive name!
 
Thanks Guys, re. the very complete replies around the Pitylus issues :)
Only a personal opinion but divergencies that deep should probably be reflected in at least three more genera - lol
 
Looking at the way Tangara has been sliced up the genus has been left with the possibility of further division involving and I must admit I don't how valid these names are, Procnopis, Chrysothraupis, Gyrola, Calospiza, Calliste, & Euprepiste.
And perhaps (another!) new genus for T. cyanotis, rufigenis & labradorides.
Any thoughts?
 
l_raty said:
The first author to include nominal species was Bonaparte 1850, who included Fringilla diuca Molina, Diuca minor Bonaparte and Emberiza speculifera d'Orbigny. These are to be treated as the originally included nominal species.
The type should be Fringilla diuca Molina by tautonymy. (And this is also the species that Reichenbach illustrated.)
Click to expand...
In the paper (with thanks to Peter |:d|), they attribute the first inclusion of nominal species to Cabanis 1851 (who included only diuca, which they then treat as the type by subsequent monotypy; and who at the same time renamed the genus Hedyglossa -- the latter being obviously just a replacement name introduced for reasons of purism: its type species must be the same as that of Diuca; thus Duica can certainly not be used for speculifera, and Hedyglossa for duica).
I contend that 1850 is before 1851, though ;).

andrew147 said:
There is already a Thlypopsis ruficeps (the Rust-and-yellow Tanager) so subsuming Pyrrocoma into Thlypopsis means a new specific name is required. I believe that T. castaneiceps has already been proposed however.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks, Andrew. The paper makes Pyrrhocoma ruficeps Strickland, 1844 the "type" of Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, new name -- which is indeed presumably an unconventional way to say that the latter is a replacement for the former.
The Rust-and-yellow Tanager was described as Sylvia ruficeps d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 [OD]; the Chestnut-headed Tanager as Tachyphonus ruficeps Strickland 1844 [OD]. If they are made congeneric, obviously the latter needs a substitute name.

But, at first sight, I don't find any castaneiceps either. Hellmayr 1936 doesn't cite it, so it would most likely really have to be a recent name. Google only finds the Worldbirdinfo website and BirdForum threads when I search on "Thlypopsis castaneiceps". Do you have any idea of the source? (...Couldn't John have introduced this name himself informally on his website...? I don't remember the details, but I know I saw him applying changes on the website that would in principle have required a published act on a few occasions. Usually it was pretty clear, back then -- but, given what the website has become, I'm not sure it would still be that clear today. Note that on the Thlypopsis castaneiceps page, the authority cited is Strickland 1844 - the author of ruficeps, which is somewhat odd. [But, of course, Hemispingus trifasciatus being cited as a synonym is still much odder.])
 
Last edited:
Malacothraupis casteneiceps Chapman 1901 is a synonym of Creurgops dentatus (Sclater & Salvin 1876), the Slaty Tanager (see Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1947).
Thus this can certainly not be used as a substitute name for the Chestnut-headed Tanager.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Peter Kovalik
Back in black: melanin-rich skin colour
Replies
0
Views
563
Peter Kovalik
Peter Kovalik
Fred Ruhe
A juvenile bird with possible crown-group affinities from a dinosaur-rich Cretaceous ecosystem in North America
Replies
1
Views
413
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Genomes, fossils, and the concurrent rise of modern birds and flowering plants in the Late Cretaceous
Replies
5
Views
579
THE_FERN
T
Fred Ruhe
Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study case
Replies
0
Views
297
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fossil evidence sheds light on sexual selection during the early evolution of birds
Replies
1
Views
434
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

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