Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Discover the ZEISS Digital Nature Hub

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.

Picidae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 13th February 2013, 11:58   #1
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Picidae

Forthcoming...

Fuchs, Pons, Liu, Ericson, Couloux & Pasquet (in press). A multi-locus phylogeny suggests an ancient hybridization event between Campephilus and melanerpine woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 13th February 2013, 15:09   #2
Larry Lade
Super Moderator
 
Larry Lade's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
Posts: 14,692
Blog Entries: 3
My favorite family of birds, but the abstracts are a little beyond my ken!
__________________

Larry Lade is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 26th February 2013, 06:04   #3
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Forthcoming...

Fuchs, Pons, Liu, Ericson, Couloux & Pasquet (in press). A multi-locus phylogeny suggests an ancient hybridization event between Campephilus and melanerpine woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]
In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 26 February 2013
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th June 2013, 06:48   #4
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
TiF

John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html (25 Jun 2013)
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List11.html#picidae
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 26th June 2013, 17:55   #5
Larry Lade
Super Moderator
 
Larry Lade's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
Posts: 14,692
Blog Entries: 3
Woodpeckers, my favorite family of birds! The references sited above sort of made my head spin. It is rather confusing for me to sort through the changes.

But, I still like woodpeckers!
__________________

Larry Lade is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Monday 23rd September 2013, 12:57   #6
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Winkler 2013

Winkler 2013. Spechte und Flügelform - Was wurde aus den Ideen von Friedrich Alexander Kipp? Woodpeckers and wing shape - what happened with the ideas of Friedrich Alexander Kipp? Vogelwarte 51(3): 192–199.

[in German]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 23rd September 2013, 23:13   #7
Larry Lade
Super Moderator
 
Larry Lade's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
Posts: 14,692
Blog Entries: 3
Richard do you read and understand German? In a "nutshell" what were the ideas of Friedrich Alexander Kipp?
__________________

Larry Lade is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 24th September 2013, 00:06   #8
etudiant
Registered User
BF Supporter 2020

 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Lade View Post
Richard do you read and understand German? In a "nutshell" what were the ideas of Friedrich Alexander Kipp?
The study only suggests the ideas of Kipp, with the punchline that the juveniles often show more advanced evolutionary traits than the adults.
The specific issue was that juvenile woodpeckers were often more brightly colored than the adults.
This study suggests that this reflects the need for the juveniles to be recognized/supported by the adults even post fledging.
More broadly, it seems the authors believe Kipp's ideas verge on 'directed evolution', so they are at pains to dissociate themselves from any such.
etudiant is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 24th September 2013, 09:49   #9
Larry Lade
Super Moderator
 
Larry Lade's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
Posts: 14,692
Blog Entries: 3
Thank you etudiant for your concise synopsis of the article sited.
__________________

Larry Lade is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 08:04   #10
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,031
Winkler, H., A. Gamauf, F. Nittinger & E. Haring, 2013. Relationships of Old World woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae) – new insights and taxonomic implications. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 116: 69-86.

Abstract: The paper presents a phylogeny of Old World woodpeckers based on mitochondrial (cytochrome b, 12S rRNA). It complements published phylogenies of this group in several important aspects. A species that was formerly treated as part of the core group of pied woodpeckers of the genus Dendrocopos, turned out to be the closest relative of the Eurasian lesser spotted woodpecker (Dryobates minor), itself a representative of an American radiation. We identified the brown-fronted woodpecker, a bird of the Himalayan foothills, as the closest relative of the predominantly European middle spotted woodpecker. The latter is a close relative of the yellow-crowned woodpecker, widely distributed over India and other parts of South Asia. We include these three species in the genus Leiopicus (with species medius, auriceps, and mahrattensis). Further taxonomic recommendations resulted from analyses based on a short fragment of the cytochrome b gene. Among these is the inclusion of the genus Mulleripicus into Dryocopus that is represented both in the New and Old World. We present further details of our suggested taxonomy that covers the whole family Picidae in Appendix 2. Open questions concern, among others, the exact phylogenetic relationships of the two African woodpecker clades with Asian woodpeckers, and the phylogeographical and taxonomic structure of the great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and its closest allies.
Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 12:08   #11
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,970
Where are we in the genus wars with Picoides, Dendrocopos and Dryobates for species minor?
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 16:32   #12
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
Where are we in the genus wars with Picoides, Dendrocopos and Dryobates for species minor?
Winkler et al's recommended classification (wrt H&M4):

Mulleripicus > Dryocopus
Reinwardtipicus > Chrysocolaptes
Chloropicus, Mesopicos, Ipophilus > Dendropicos
Dendrocopos dorae > Dendropicos
Dendrocopos auriceps, D mahrattensis, D medius > Leiopicus
Dendrocopos minor, D cathpharius > Dryobates
Dendrocopos temminckii, D maculatus, D moluccensis, D kizuki, D canicapillus > Picoides
Picoides
(except P tridactylus, P dorsalis, P arcticus) > Dryobates
Veniliornis > Dryobates

Last edited by Richard Klim : Friday 17th January 2014 at 07:41. Reason: typo.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 18:03   #13
8669
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 146
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).

How do we solve this? A first reviser would be needed or a descision of ICZN.

Theo
8669 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 18:10   #14
andrew147
Registered User
 
andrew147's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Winkler et al's recommended classification (wrt H&M4):

Dendrocopos dorae > Dendropicos
Fascinating. Is it clear if D. dorae is embedded within Dendropicos? If Chloropicus, Mesopicos & Ipophilus were recognised, would D. dorae belong within one of these groups?

Thanks
__________________
Mammals: 328 (Eurasian Beaver)
Birds: 2428 (Wallcreeper)
Reptiles: 113 (Black Girdled Lizard)
andrew147 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 18:20   #15
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8669 View Post
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).
Interesting. Winkler & Christie 2002 (HBW 7), IOC and eBird/Clements merge Mesopicos with Dendropicos (but any potential problem has been hidden by synonymising centralis with nominate goertae).
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 18:30   #16
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Arabian Woodpecker

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
Is it clear if D. dorae is embedded within Dendropicos? If Chloropicus, Mesopicos & Ipophilus were recognised, would D. dorae belong within one of these groups?
Winkler et al...
Quote:
Our data indicate that Leiopicus and Dendropicos may be sister clades (cf. phylogenies in Fuchs et al. 2013), but this has to be studied in greater detail. An open and interesting question is the position of the Arabian woodpecker (D. dorae) which may link these two groups not only geographically. More studies on the genera Dendropicos and Campethera are clearly needed, and they would have to include D. dorae and another African species that is currently placed in a monotypic genus Ipophilus with species obsoletus (Wolters 1975–1982, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
...
Dendropicos Malherbe, 1849 [15 species]
We keep the genus as in Short (1982). There is no justification so far for the former splits still maintained in the new Howard-Moore list (Dickinson & Remsen 2013). We also include dorae (placed in Picoides by Short 1982) and obsoletus, although their position remains unclear and subject to change.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 16th January 2014, 19:14   #17
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8669 View Post
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).

How do we solve this? A first reviser would be needed or a descision of ICZN.

Theo
Searching for "centralis Neumann" "centralis Reichenow" in Google Books produces a single hit that reads:

Revue de zoologie africaine - Volume 96 - Page 461
books.google.co.uk/books?id=gMOFAAAAIAAJ
1982 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
Hereby we explicitly reject centralis Neumann in the genus Dendropicos and give priority to centralis Reichenow to ensure stability of nomenclature.

So there is most likely a first reviser act there.

(And if the FR act is as written above, the nomenclature of HBW, etc., is wrong, as they use centralis Neumann as valid, in a taxonomy that places centralis Reichenow in the same genus.)

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 16th January 2014 at 22:13.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th January 2014, 12:03   #18
8669
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 146
Yes, the HBW is wrong here, but in this case it's a secundary homonym and I can understand they do not want to correct these (if they saw it).
The double use of intermedia in the genus Coracina is a bigger mistake.

Theo
8669 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th January 2014, 12:41   #19
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8669 View Post
Yes, the HBW is wrong here, but in this case it's a secundary homonym and I can understand they do not want to correct these (if they saw it).
Probably they didn't see it.
I've no access to the journal, but the ref (cited by Louette 1987) would be:

Louette M., Prigogine A. 1982. An appreciation of the distribution of Dendropicos goertae and the description of a new race (Aves: Picidae). Rev. Zool. Afr. 96: 461-92.

Incidentally, this is cited among the references at the end of the D. goertae account in HBW. (But of course given the usual [email protected]*!# non-system of referencing of HBW, it cannot even be assessed whether the author actually used the work when preparing this account.)
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th January 2014, 12:59   #20
Larry Lade
Super Moderator
 
Larry Lade's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saint Joseph, Missouri, USA
Posts: 14,692
Blog Entries: 3
How current is Avibase - the world bird database in regard to the taxonomical nomenclature of PICIFORMES?
__________________

Larry Lade is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 17th January 2014, 15:36   #21
8669
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 146
I would't use Avibase as a taxonomic reference. It hasn't the intention to be one. Use IOC, John Boyds list or H&M instead. And in a few months Zoonomen will be up to date too.

Theo
8669 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 17th January 2014, 17:54   #22
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 23,809
Avibase is up to date for Clements as far as I know. It seems that the last IOC version reflected there is 3.05. Denis is the database guru behind H&M, and I do not know why he has not updated with H&M4 yet.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean

Recently moved to Barbados
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 17th January 2014, 19:44   #23
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,970
My innocent question seems to have opened a 21st-century Pandora's πίθος... I'll stick with IOC 4.next & et seq
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th January 2014, 08:37   #24
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winkler et al. 2014
Dendropicos Malherbe, 1849 [15 species]
We keep the genus as in Short (1982). There is no justification so far for the former splits still maintained in the new Howard-Moore list (Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
Actually the taxonomy adopted in H&M4 is contradicted by published results.
In the H&M4 taxonomy, Mesopicos includes elliotii, goertae, and griseocephalus. But in the trees of Fuchs et al. 2007, elliotii appears closer to fuscescens (in Dendropicos in H&M4) than to griseocephalus, with strong support.

Last edited by l_raty : Sunday 19th January 2014 at 08:40.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 19th January 2014, 09:47   #25
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Actually the taxonomy adopted in H&M4 is contradicted by published results.
In the H&M4 taxonomy, Mesopicos includes elliotii, goertae, and griseocephalus. But in the trees of Fuchs et al. 2007, elliotii appears closer to fuscescens (in Dendropicos in H&M4) than to griseocephalus, with strong support.
Laurent,
You cited "Originally Posted by Winkler et al. 2014". Is this a typo for 'Originally cited in Winkler et al 2013', or is this yet another reference I've missed? (My track record in overlooking references is as bad as ever!)
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB 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 0.18585110 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:15.