Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Trochilidae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 9 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Saturday 26th November 2016, 09:48   #76
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
Was there ever a DNA analysis to clarify the validity of Discosura letitiae?
There are no sequences in GenBank identified as this taxon.
(It stands as a species based on mainly on Graves 1999 [here], which was based on morphology.)
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 28th November 2016, 10:24   #77
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,837
Ocreatus

Biogeography and taxonomy of racket-tail hummingbirds (Aves: Trochilidae: Ocreatus): evidence for species delimitation from morphology and display behavior
KARL-L. SCHUCHMANN, ANDRÉ-A. WELLER, DIETMAR JÜRGENS

Abstract

We analyzed geographic variation, biogeography, and intrageneric relationships of racket-tail hummingbirds Ocreatus (Aves, Trochilidae). Presently, the genus is usually considered monospecific, with O. underwoodii including eight subspecies (polystictus, discifer, underwoodii, incommodus, melanantherus, peruanus, annae, addae), although up to three species have been recognized by some authors. In order to evaluate the current taxonomy we studied geographic variation in coloration, mensural characters, and behavioral data of all Ocreatus taxa. We briefly review the taxonomic history of the genus. Applying the Biological Species Concept, species delimitation was based on a qualitative-quantitative criteria analysis including an evaluation of character states. Our results indicate that the genus should be considered a superspecies with four species, the monotypic Ocreatus addae, O. annae, and O. peruanus, and the polytypic O. underwoodii (including the subspecies underwoodii, discifer, incommodus, melanantherus, polystictus). In this taxonomic treatment, O. annae becomes an endemic species to Peru and O. addae is endemic to Bolivia. We recommend additional sampling of distributional, ethological, and molecular data for an improved resolution of the evolutionary history of Ocreatus.



Keywords

Aves, Andes, biogeography, display behavior, geographic variation, Ocreatus, taxonomy, Trochilidae


http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/...otaxa.4200.1.3
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 27th March 2017, 10:14   #78
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,019
Ocreatus addae, O. peruanus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
Biogeography and taxonomy of racket-tail hummingbirds (Aves: Trochilidae: Ocreatus): evidence for species delimitation from morphology and display behavior
KARL-L. SCHUCHMANN, ANDRÉ-A. WELLER, DIETMAR JÜRGENS

Abstract

We analyzed geographic variation, biogeography, and intrageneric relationships of racket-tail hummingbirds Ocreatus (Aves, Trochilidae). Presently, the genus is usually considered monospecific, with O. underwoodii including eight subspecies (polystictus, discifer, underwoodii, incommodus, melanantherus, peruanus, annae, addae), although up to three species have been recognized by some authors. In order to evaluate the current taxonomy we studied geographic variation in coloration, mensural characters, and behavioral data of all Ocreatus taxa. We briefly review the taxonomic history of the genus. Applying the Biological Species Concept, species delimitation was based on a qualitative-quantitative criteria analysis including an evaluation of character states. Our results indicate that the genus should be considered a superspecies with four species, the monotypic Ocreatus addae, O. annae, and O. peruanus, and the polytypic O. underwoodii (including the subspecies underwoodii, discifer, incommodus, melanantherus, polystictus). In this taxonomic treatment, O. annae becomes an endemic species to Peru and O. addae is endemic to Bolivia. We recommend additional sampling of distributional, ethological, and molecular data for an improved resolution of the evolutionary history of Ocreatus.



Keywords

Aves, Andes, biogeography, display behavior, geographic variation, Ocreatus, taxonomy, Trochilidae


http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/...otaxa.4200.1.3
IOC Updates Diary Mar 22 Accept Peruvian Racket-tail and Rufous-booted Racket-tail (incl ssp annae)
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th May 2017, 07:45   #79
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,837
A cryptic new species of hummingbird of the Campylopterus largipennis complex (Aves: Trochilidae)
LEONARDO ESTEVES LOPES, MARCELO FERREIRA DE VASCONCELOS, LUIZ PEDREIRA GONZAGA

Abstract

A new species of Campylopterus sabrewing is described from eastern Brazilian tropical dry forests occurring below 900 m asl. Its holotype (MZUSP 99024) is an adult female from Sítio Duboca (16°43’19’’S, 43°58’20’’W, elevation 840 m), municipality of Montes Claros, state of Minas Gerais. A taxonomic revision based on more than 1,000 museum specimens revealed that the new taxon, together with C. largipennis, C. diamantinensis and C. obscurus (with C. aequatorialis considered as a subjective junior synonym) should be ranked as species. We provide a key to permit easy identification of the four species. The new species is very similar to the parapatric C. diamantinensis of high altitude “campos rupestres” above 1,000 m asl, differing from it by its smaller size and longer light tail tips, as well as by sternum measurements. Given the several threats faced by the habitat to which the new species is endemic, we propose to consider it as Vulnerable under the IUCN criteria.

Keywords

cryptic biodiversity, Neotropical, Trochilidae, tropical dry forests, Aves

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/...otaxa.4268.1.1


Campylopterus calcirupicola sp. nov
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th May 2017, 07:56   #80
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
Campylopterus calcirupicola sp. nov
danke Melanie
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th May 2017, 08:30   #81
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,837
I am very curious on the SACC proposal. The authors state that it is very similar to C. diamantinensis. So it might be just a new subspecies?
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th May 2017, 09:08   #82
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
They did not provide a phylogenetic analysis?
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 15th May 2017, 14:41   #83
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeNomenclatoriste View Post
They did not provide a phylogenetic analysis?
The article is free available:

https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/arti...4268.1.1/27441
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd May 2017, 06:43   #84
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
A brief history of the generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): the chaos of the past and problems to be resolved


F. GARY STILES, VITOR DE Q. PIACENTINI, J. V. REMSEN, JR.

Abstract

The generic classification of the Trochilidae is unusually complicated because early authors, faced with a deluge of specimens with little or no data, often based species and genus names on superficial plumage characters derived from figured plates of varying artistic quality and reproduction. Working independently and with little knowledge of species distributions and with the fixation of type species for genera inconsistent or ignored, these authors produced a bewildering array of generic synonyms. The generic nomenclature of the largest and most recently derived clade of hummingbirds, the tribe Trochilini or “emeralds”, presents an unusually tangled web. Here we review the history of hummingbird generic nomenclature from Linnaeus to the present, giving detailed attention to two generic names that epitomize this confusion: Amazilia (the variety of spellings, supposed type species and circumscriptions makes for an especially complicated tangle) and Leucippus (for which nearly every successive author has advocated a different circumscription). Through application of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature, this review lays the foundation for a revision of the generic nomenclature of the emeralds to bring it into conformity with recent genetic studies elucidating the phylogeny of this clade.


http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/...otaxa.4269.3.4
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 24th May 2017, 09:25   #85
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,020
Straight-billed Hermit

Araújo-Silva L.E., Miranda L.S., Carneiro L. & Aleixo A., in review. Phylogeography and diversification of an Amazonian understory hummingbird: paraphyly and evidence for widespread cryptic speciation in the Plio-Pleistocene.

Abstract Straight-billed Hermit Phaethornis bourcieri inhabits the understory of upland terra-firme forest throughout most of the Amazon basin. Currently, two allopatric taxa regarded as subspecies are recognised: P. b. bourcieri and P. b. major. However, the validity, inter-specific limits, and evolutionary history of these taxa are not yet fully elucidated. We use molecular characters to propose a phylogenetic hypothesis for populations and taxa grouped under Phaethornis bourcieri. Our results showed that P. bourcieri is part of the 'Ametrornis' clade, along with P. philippii and P. koepckeae, and that the subspecies major is more closely related to the latter two species than to populations grouped under nominate bourcieri. Our phylogenetic hypotheses recovered three main reciprocally monophyletic clades under nominate bourcieri separated by the lower Negro River and the Branco River or the Branco-Negro interfluve (clades B and C) and the upper Amazon (Solimões) or lower Marañon / Ucayali rivers (clades C and D). Based on multi-locus phylogeographic and population genetics approaches, we show that P. b. major is best treated as a separate species, and that P. b. bourcieri probably includes more than one evolutionary species, whose limits remain uncertain. The diversification of the 'Ametrornis' clade (P. bourcieri, P. philippii, and P. koepckeae) is centered in the Amazon and appears to be closely linked to the formation of the modern Amazon drainage during the Plio-Pleistocene.
Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 6th June 2017, 10:49   #86
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
Mellisugini

Licona-Vera, Ornelas. 2017. The conquering of North America: dated phylogenetic and biogeographic inference of migratory behavior in bee hummingbirds. BMC Evol. Biol. 17:126.
[whole paper] [suppl.data(Dryad)]
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 31st August 2017, 19:08   #87
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,019
Mangoes

Quintero & Perktaş. Phylogeny and biogeography of a subclade of mangoes (Aves, Trochilidae). Journal of Ornithology, First Online: 31 August 2017.

Abstract:

In this study we explore the phylogenetic relationships within the hummingbird genera Doryfera, Schistes and Colibri (Family Trochilidae), distributed in the Andes, the Pantepui, the southern Brazilian uplands and the lowlands of South America including the Chocó, the Amazon Basin, the Chaco, the Cerrado, and the southeastern Brazilian coast, as well as Central and Mesoamerica. To do this, we included a comprehensive sampling of the 16 traditionally recognized subspecies within this group. We found that Doryfera, Schistes and Colibri form a well-supported monophyletic group, and that most of the traditionally recognized subspecies are indeed evolutionary lineages. As there is a high likelihood that the ancestors of this clade of hummingbirds were distributed in the lowlands, we ask: what events might account for the diversification of this subclade of mangoes into the Andes with a later potential dispersal episode from the Andes to the lowlands? We found that several phenomena such as the uplift of the Andes, the marine transgressions of the Plio–Pleistocene, the final closure of the Isthmus of Panama and the climatic oscillations of the Pleistocene might be at least, in part, responsible for the diversification of this group in both the lowlands and the highlands of this region of South America.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th September 2017, 06:11   #88
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
A cryptic new species of hummingbird of the Campylopterus largipennis complex (Aves: Trochilidae)
LEONARDO ESTEVES LOPES, MARCELO FERREIRA DE VASCONCELOS, LUIZ PEDREIRA GONZAGA

Campylopterus calcirupicola sp. nov
Proposal (755) to SACC

Split Campylopterus largipennis into four species

Proposal (756) to SACC

Recognize Campylopterus calcirupicola as a valid species
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th October 2017, 19:37   #89
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,019
Campylopterus calcirupicola

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
A cryptic new species of hummingbird of the Campylopterus largipennis complex (Aves: Trochilidae)
LEONARDO ESTEVES LOPES, MARCELO FERREIRA DE VASCONCELOS, LUIZ PEDREIRA GONZAGA

Campylopterus calcirupicola sp. nov
IOC Subspecies Update:

Proposed as a distinct species [Campylopterus calcirupicola]. Tentatively treat as a subspecies of C. largipennis for now. Lopes et al. 2017.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 8th November 2017, 16:01   #90
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
Once again a taxonomic question :
Why Cephallepis Loddiges 1830 (synonym of Stephanoxis) is not accepted?

Last edited by LeNomenclatoriste : Wednesday 8th November 2017 at 16:03.
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 8th November 2017, 16:58   #91
James Jobling
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 728
This is the synonymy of STEPHANOXIS Simon, given in Peters' (1945) Check-list, V, p. 30;

Cephallepis Loddiges, Proc. Comm. Zool. Soc. London, pt. 1, 1830-31 (1831), p. 12. Type, by subsequent designation, Trochilus lalandi Vieillot. Not Cephalepis Rafinesque, 1810. (G. R. Gray, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Bds., 1855, p. 23.)

Cephalolepis Cabanis and Heine, Mus. Hein., Th. 3, 1860, p. 61. Emendation of Cephallepis Loddiges, not Cephalolepis Dumeril and Bibron 1844, nor of Agassiz, 1846.

Stephanoxis Simon, Cat. Trochil., 1897, p. 40. New name for Cephallepis Loddiges and Cephalolepis Cabanis and Heine, both preoccupied.

Cephaloepis M. and W. Bertoni, An. Sci. Paraguayos (1), no. 1, 1901, p. 55. Emendation.
James Jobling is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 8th November 2017, 17:57   #92
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
Okay, thanks. Cephallepis and Cephalepis have, almost, the same spelling and I wonder if this little difference of spelling was a valid reason to consider Cephallepis preoccupied by Cephalepis.
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 00:08   #93
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,116
"I wonder if this little difference of spelling was a valid reason to consider Cephallepis preoccupied by Cephalepis"
I do not think now but it is one letter difference and so was considered preoccupied in 1897??
Here is Simon 1897:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/43/mode/1up .
Here is Rafinesque:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/64/mode/1up .
Gray 1855 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/35/mode/1up .
If this is Loddiges 1831:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/26/mode/1up .
Cephallepis is not really published.
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.

Last edited by mb1848 : Thursday 9th November 2017 at 00:29.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 09:33   #94
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
"I wonder if this little difference of spelling was a valid reason to consider Cephallepis preoccupied by Cephalepis"
I do not think now but it is one letter difference and so was considered preoccupied in 1897??
One-letter difference rule = [Art. 56.2] of current ICZN. The rule was introduced at the Copenhagen Congress of Zoology of 1953 (decision, published 1957: [here]).
In 1945, the rules that were used were those that were introduced in Opinion 147 (1943) [here]: assuming the same origin and meaning, names differing only in the use of a single vs. double consonnant were to be regarded homonyms; thus the nomenclature in the Peters' Check-list was still 'right'. But it's not any more; in principle, Cephallepis should have been reinstated after Copenhagen. (Which it was not, obviously.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
If this is Loddiges 1831:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/26/mode/1up .
Cephallepis is not really published.
This is it. And it's enough to make Cephallepis available. The name appears in a publication, and it has two available specific names unambiguously placed under it (T. lalandei (= lalandi) Vieillot and T. loddigesii Gould), which qualifies as an indication under [Art. 12.2.5]. The originally included nominal species are the nominal species denoted by these two names; the type is the first one, T. lalandi Vieillot, by subsequent designation of Gray 1855 (who spelled it delalandii). The author of the name is Loddiges under [Art. 50.2].
The name has been used as valid during the 20th C, albeit very rarely (example from 1902: [here]), thus it cannot be dealt with by a reversal of precedence under [Art. 23.9]. It must either be reinstated, or be submitted for suppression to the Commission.

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 9th November 2017 at 21:10.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 09:44   #95
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
The name has been used as valid during the 20th C, albeit very rarely (example from 1902: [here]), thus it cannot be protected by a reversal of precedence under [Art. 23.9]. It must either be reinstated, or be submitted for suppression to the Commission.
It means that the art. 23.9 could be applied ?

There is a similar case with Cyphos Spix, 1824 (= replaced , I think, by Argicus Cabanis and Heine, 1863) and Cyphus Schönherr in Germar, 1824, both published in the same year.

Last edited by LeNomenclatoriste : Thursday 9th November 2017 at 09:56.
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 10:14   #96
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeNomenclatoriste View Post
It means that the art. 23.9 could be applied ?
Not 23.9.1; only 23.9.3. (And the end result would depend on the Commission's decision, of course.)

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 9th November 2017 at 10:16.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 9th November 2017, 10:27   #97
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
And, also, if They examine this case :/
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 18:09   #98
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
There is a similar case with Cyphos Spix, 1824 (= replaced , I think, by Argicus Cabanis and Heine, 1863) and Cyphus Schönherr in Germar, 1824, both published in the same year.
Cyphus Germar 1824:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...e/461/mode/1up .
Cyphos Spix 1824:
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/71/mode/1up .
Argicus Cabana 1863
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...e/154/mode/1up .
The SACC says: Bucco macrodactylus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Argicus, but this was merged into Bucco by Peters (1948); this has been followed by most subsequent classifications, except for Rasmussen & Collar (2002), who resurrected Argicus. Penhallurick (2008) noted that Cyphos has priority over Argicus, and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) used Cyphos.
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 18:50   #99
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 746
month of publication please?
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th November 2017, 20:36   #100
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,336
Germar's work was commented in the 5th Heft (out of 12: May?) of the 1824 Jahrgang of Isis (Oken) [here], in a way that suggests publication had already occurred. Note that Cabanis actually dated Cyphus as of 1823, when introducing Argicus.

The date of publication of Spix's work, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be clear even down to the year: Richmond (e.g. [here]) actually suggested it was later than 1824. For nomenclatural purposes, you'd need actual evidence to depart from what the book claims, however (i.e., unambiguously "MDCCCXXIV" [here] -- beware that the first volume of the original edition doesn't seem to be in BHL; Mark's link above is to an 1838 re-edition), and I see no suggestion that such evidence exists. Unless there is additional info, the date should presumably be assumed to be 31 Dec 1824.

But, anyway, under the present rules, these two names do not compete, as they are not homonyms.

Last edited by l_raty : Friday 10th November 2017 at 21:06. Reason: typo
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.30704498 seconds with 36 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:18.