Accipitridae (1 Viewer)

LeNomenclatoriste said:

Now that Astur (Astur) atricapillus has been raised to species rank, how are the subspecies distributed between A. gentilis and A. atricapillus ?

Click to expand...

Nutcracker said:

Astur?? Still Accipiter here, the genus may be in need of splitting, but it hasn't been split yet


From IOC:

Northern GoshawkAccipiter gentilis(Linnaeus, 1758)NA, MA, EU : widespread

Palaearctic:
A. g. buteoides(Menzbier, 1882)n Eurasia
A. g. albidus(Menzbier, 1882)ne Siberia
A. g. schvedowi(Menzbier, 1882)ne Asia to c China
A. g. fujiyamae(Swann & Hartert, 1923)Japan
A. g. gentilis(Linnaeus, 1758)c and n Europe
A. g. marginatus(Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783)Italy and the Balkans to Caucasus and n Iran
A. g. arrigonii(Kleinschmidt, O, 1903)Corsica, Sardinia

Nearctic:
A. g. atricapillus(Wilson, A, 1812)North America (except sw Canada, sw USA and nw Mexico)
A. g. laingi(Taverner, 1940)islands of British Columbia (sw Canada)
A. g. apachevan Rossem, 1938sw USA, nw Mexico

Click to expand...

LeNomenclatoriste said:

I follow my forward-thinking taxonomy, which is regularly modified and updated. I have already split Accipiter in several genera following Boyd and some phylogenetic studies . I don't care about current taxo, honestly


Thanks

Click to expand...

Mysticete said:

Do realize however that when you are communicating on a public forum, you are likely to confuse people when you make comments about Astur being split without any reference that this is a personal opinion...

Click to expand...

LeNomenclatoriste said:

True. I should always point out that this is a personal opinion. Let's say that, like Boyd, I propose and anticipate even it's not yet current.

Click to expand...

The Changeable Hawk-Eagle Nisaetus cirrhatus complex is represented by two taxa in mainland India: N. c. cirrhatus in the northern plains and peninsula and N. c. limnaeetus in the Himalayan foothills. Traditionally these taxa have been regarded as subspecies of one species, but recently they have been proposed to be different species. Here, we use an integrative taxonomic approach based on considerations of plumage, biometrics, genetics and vocalizations. Several plumage characters are significantly different between the two taxa, but crest length was the only one of 56 characters that was diagnostically different, with no overlap. About 30% of the birds had intermediate crest lengths, suggesting that they are hybrids or backcrosses, as also supported by the microsatellite results. PCAs of adult plumage show many intermediate individuals, irrespective of whether these birds were collected near a putative contact zone. There is restricted gene flow between the two taxa, presumably as a result of their largely allopatric distributions. On current knowledge, reproductive isolation appears to be weak at best, and we therefore recommend continuing to regard limnaeetus and cirrhatus as conspecific.

Click to expand...

albertonykus said:

Chelictinia riocourii

Click to expand...

In his treatise on the avifauna of the western Pripjet Marsh, Journ. f. Orn. 1920 p. 355, Count Zedlitz, following an unsubstantiated process of Dr. Stresemann, applied the name vulpinus Gloger (ex Lichtenstein M. S.) to the North Russian steppe buzzard and linked lengthy discussions to it.

Click to expand...

From this it follows quite clearly that Gloger did not want to introduce the species name vulpinus for the one he described, the African modification of the common buzzard, but the name Falco vulpinus Lcht. was cited only as a synonym for F. tachardus Daud., moreover as a questionable one.

Click to expand...

Norbert R. said:

According to Art. 11.6.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999), if a name published as a younger synonym has been used before 1961, either accepted as an available name for a taxon or treated as an older synonym, it is thereby made available. As Stresemann and von Zedlitz used Gloger's synonym vulpinus for the Eastern European Common Buzzard, which is wintering in southern Africa, they made that name available.

Click to expand...

l_raty said:

I do not read Art. 11.6.1 as having the power to make a name available if it fails to meet some other requirement of availability, not related to the validity of the name in the OD. (Even though the article may, admittedly, give that impression when read in isolation.) Art. 12 tells us that "every new name" published before 1931 must, in addition to satisfying the provisions of Art. 11, be accompanied by a description or indication; short of this, the name is a nomen nudum. "Every new name" is "every new name": this also includes names that fall under Art. 11.6.1. Being merely cited as an invalid junior synonym does not qualify as an indication under Art. 12.2. (A name first used in synonymy is not automatically made an objective synonym of the name then used as its valid synonym.) As a consequence, I don't believe that we can dismiss the content of an OD on the simple account that "a name published as a younger synonym has been used before 1961".

I have always had a hard time with question marks in nomenclaturally significant statements, and this one makes no exception... Here, Gloger gives us a single-sentence descriptive statement associated to Falco buteo L. from 'the South' (incl., but not clearly limited to, African birds); but his association of the name 'vulpinus' to this descriptive statement (which is what makes the name available) is queried, hence comes through as not positively affirmed -- "Falco vulpinus Licht. is perhaps the bird described above -- albeit, in truth, I'm not really sure of it". Can something like this really make a name available ?

Click to expand...