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.

Sittidae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Friday 4th April 2014, 10:13   #1
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

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

Pasquet, Barker, Martens, Tillier, Cruaud & Cibois (in press). Evolution within the nuthatches (Sittidae: Aves, Passeriformes): molecular phylogeny, biogeography, and ecological perspectives. J Ornithol. [abstract]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 29th April 2014, 06:43   #2
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 (29 Apr 2014)
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List24.html#sittidae
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/Sittidae.pdf

Last edited by Richard Klim : Tuesday 29th April 2014 at 07:15. Reason: tree.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 25th January 2016, 09:10   #3
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Pasquet et al 2014 pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Pasquet, Barker, Martens, Tillier, Cruaud & Cibois (in press). Evolution within the nuthatches (Sittidae: Aves, Passeriformes): molecular phylogeny, biogeography, and ecological perspectives. J Ornithol. [abstract]
Pasquet et al 2014. J Ornithol 155(3): 755–765. [pdf]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 28th November 2018, 17:25   #4
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,239
Sitta nagaensis

Min Zhao, Yongbin Chang, Rebecca T. Kimball, Jian Zhao, Fumin Lei, Yanhua Qu. Pleistocene glaciation explains the disjunct distribution of the Chestnut‐vented Nuthatch (Aves, Sittidae). Zoologica Scripta, First Published: 28 November 2018.

Abstract:

Pleistocene climatic oscillations have played an important role in shaping many species’ current distributions. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in studying the effects of glacial periods on East Asian birds. Integrated approaches allow us to study past distribution range changes due to Pleistocene glaciation, and how these changes have affected current population genetic structure, especially for species with unusual distribution patterns. The Wuyi disjunction is the disjunct distribution of birds between the Wuyi Mountains in south‐eastern China and south‐western China. Although several species exhibit the Wuyi disjunction, the process behind this unusual distribution pattern has remained relatively unstudied. Therefore, we used the Chestnut‐vented Nuthatch Sitta nagaensis as a model species to investigate the possible causes of the Wuyi disjunction. Based on phylogenetic analyses with three mitochondrial and six nuclear regions, the Wuyi population of the Chestnut‐vented Nuthatch was closely related to populations in mid‐Sichuan, from which it diverged approximately 0.1 million years ago, despite the long geographical distance between them (over 1,300 km). In contrast, geographically close populations in mid‐ and southern Sichuan were genetically divergent from each other (more than half a million years). Ecological niche modelling suggested that the Chestnut‐vented Nuthatch has experienced dramatic range expansions from Last Interglacial period to Last Glacial Maximum, with some range retraction following the Last Glacial period. We propose that the Wuyi disjunction of the Chestnut‐vented Nuthatch was most likely due to recent range expansion from south‐western China during the glacial period, followed by postglacial range retraction.
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 07:53   #5
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,031
Palearctic

Päckert M., Bader-Blukott M., Künzelmann B., Sun Y.-H., Hsu Y.-C., Kehlmaier C., Albrecht F., Illera J.C. & Martens J., 2020. A revised phylogeny of nuthatches (Aves, Passeriformes, Sitta) reveals insight in intra- and interspecific diversification patterns in the Palearctic. Vertebr. Zool. 70 (2): 241-262.

There
Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 08:31   #6
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: France
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Philippe View Post
Päckert M., Bader-Blukott M., Künzelmann B., Sun Y.-H., Hsu Y.-C., Kehlmaier C., Albrecht F., Illera J.C. & Martens J., 2020. A revised phylogeny of nuthatches (Aves, Passeriformes, Sitta) reveals insight in intra- and interspecific diversification patterns in the Palearctic. Vertebr. Zool. 70 (2): 241-262.

There
Now I'm reluctant to subdivided Sitta into subgenera because no name is available for the Sitta carolinensis clade
LeNomenclatoriste is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 20:27   #7
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,246
Quote:
I'm reluctant to subdivided Sitta into subgenera because no name is available for the Sitta carolinensis
From the internets "Sitta carolinensis is arranged in subgenus Leptositta" Ive seen Homositta S. A. BUTURLIN, Travaux Soc??
Arctositta (p.4), Cyanositta
(p.11), Homositta (p.16), Leptositta (p.17) .? Mesositta. Micrositta. Poecilositta. Poliositta. Callisitta, Oenositta??
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.

Last edited by mb1848 : Friday 5th June 2020 at 20:42.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 21:24   #8
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,606
Although Buturlin 1916 included Sitta carolinensis in this subgenus, the type of his Leptositta is Sitta leucopsis Gould 1850, thus the name applies to the "Sino-Himalaya 1" group in Päckert et al's phylogeny.
The type of Homositta Buturlin 1916 is Sitta castaneoventris Franklin 1831, which is a synonym of Sitta castanea Lesson 1830 (= "Sino-Himalaya 3" goup in Päckert et al).

Is this work still accessible from the US ? It used to be at: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2957897
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 21:56   #9
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Is this work still accessible from the US ? It used to be at: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2957897
Seems to be. Here's an extract: Extracts from Buturlin's Review of the Nuthatches.pdf
Mike Earp is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 5th June 2020, 21:59   #10
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
From the internets "Sitta carolinensis is arranged in subgenus Leptositta" Ive seen Homositta S. A. BUTURLIN, Travaux Soc??
Arctositta (p.4), Cyanositta
(p.11), Homositta (p.16), Leptositta (p.17) .? Mesositta. Micrositta. Poecilositta. Poliositta. Callisitta, Oenositta??
Presumably from here: Review of Buturlin's Review of the Nuthatches.pdf
Mike Earp is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 07:27   #11
andrew147
Registered User
 
andrew147's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
...Poecilositta. Poliositta. Callisitta, Oenositta??
Divergence times and heterogeneity both too great for all nuthatches to be included in Sitta. New name definitely required for magna/carolinensis group, as the absence of an available name here validates maintaining a broad Sitta.

The position of arctica is fascinating!

Does anyone know what the correct generic name for the blue nuthatches would be? There are several names attached to this group but I'm a bit stumped as to which one has priority.

Dendrophila (Swainson, 1837) type: frontalis -
seems to be narrowly pre-dated by Dendrophila (Hodgson, 1837)

Cyanositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: corallipes

Poecilositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: azurea

Poliositta (Robinson & Kloss, 1918) type: expectata

Oenositta (Wolters, 1979) type: frontalis

I'm assuming that either Cyanositta or Poecilositta would be the correct name but which has priority? And why did Wolters introduce Oenositta when other names existed? (Is there a problem with the closeness of Cyanositta to Cyanocitta?)
__________________
Mammals: 328 (Eurasian Beaver)
Birds: 2428 (Wallcreeper)
Reptiles: 113 (Black Girdled Lizard)
andrew147 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 07:46   #12
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: France
Posts: 917
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
maintaining a broad Sitta.
For now, no other choice
LeNomenclatoriste is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 10:28   #13
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
I'm assuming that either Cyanositta or Poecilositta would be the correct name but which has priority? And why did Wolters introduce Oenositta when other names existed? (Is there a problem with the closeness of Cyanositta to Cyanocitta?)
Wolters used Poecilositta Buturlin 1916 for azurea alone, but did not use Cyanositta Buturlin 1916 -- instead, he replaced “Orthorhynchus Swainson 1820, nec Cuvier 1800 and Dendrophila Swainson 1837 nec Hodgson 1837” with "Oenositta nom. nov.", without further explanations.

The valid name should in principle be Cyanositta or Poecilositta as you say, but these two were introduced on the same date and at the same rank, thus we need a first reviser act to fix their relative precedence.

Note that, under the ICZN, the type of Poliositta Robinson & Kloss is azurea Lesson -- not expectata, which was treated as a mere subspecies of azurea in the OD. (See Art. 68.3.)

Last edited by l_raty : Saturday 6th June 2020 at 11:27. Reason: link to the Code
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 10:39   #14
andrew147
Registered User
 
andrew147's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Thanks for replies, very helpful.

I can't open the attached thumbnails though Björn - I get a message saying 'Invalid Attachment specified'
__________________
Mammals: 328 (Eurasian Beaver)
Birds: 2428 (Wallcreeper)
Reptiles: 113 (Black Girdled Lizard)
andrew147 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 11:09   #15
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,635
If of interest; have a photo copy of page 253 of Wolters's Die Vogelarten der Erde, where Oenositta was introduced (in 1979), also showing his treatment of Fam. Neosittidae, and Fam. Sittidae (at least the first part of it, unfortunately I didn't copy the continuation of it, on p.254).

First I thought of posting it here (and I actually did, for a few minutes), but due to copyright rules I retracted and decided not to. If anyone feel like having a copy of p.253 I can send it to you (if so use the BirdForum's Private Message System).

Björn

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
...
I can't open the attached thumbnails though Björn - I get a message saying 'Invalid Attachment specified'
Andrew, you couldn't/can't open any 'Invalid Attachment specified', simply as I deleted my earlier post, thus there's no longer anything/nothing to open. Sorry, but copyright rules are copyright rules.
-

Last edited by Calalp : Saturday 6th June 2020 at 13:28. Reason: End part/quote + typo
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 14:25   #16
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,246
Quote:
Cyanositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: corallipes

Poecilositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: azurea

Poliositta (Robinson & Kloss, 1918) type: expectata
Quote:
Note that, under the ICZN, the type of Poliositta Robinson & Kloss is azurea Lesson -- not expectata, which was treated as a mere subspecies of azurea in the OD. (See Art. 68.3.)
Richmond says:
Poliositta H. C. Robinson and C. B. Kloss, Journ. Fed. Malay States Mus.,
VIII, Pt. II, Dec, 1918,228.
Type, Callisitta azurea expectata H.\rtert. [Sittidae.]
( Monotypy.
)
(Not indicated as new here; probably =Poecilositta Buturlin.)
Was this a failed first revisor act? I cannot find on BHL
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 15:18   #17
Snapdragyn
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 230
Richmond Index has the type of Callisitta as Sitta formosa.

http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/C/c00139a.jpg
Snapdragyn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 16:37   #18
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
Richmond says:
Poliositta H. C. Robinson and C. B. Kloss, Journ. Fed. Malay States Mus.,
VIII, Pt. II, Dec, 1918,228.
Type, Callisitta azurea expectata H.\rtert. [Sittidae.]
( Monotypy.
)
(Not indicated as new here; probably =Poecilositta Buturlin.)
Was this a failed first revisor act? I cannot find on BHL
Vol. 8 of this journal is lacking on BHL https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/51854; from the US, you may be able to see it at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015047632073.

R&K merely used Poliositta in the trinomen Poliositta azurea inexpectata, without explaining, and without attributing it to an author. It seems quite possible indeed that their Poliositta was a corruption of Poecilositta Buturlin, also based on Sitta azurea Lesson. (Particularly as this bird is not exactly grey, thus calling it 'Poliositta' doesn't even makes sense.)
I know what Richmond wrote about the type ([here]), but this is not in line with the current rules. When a genus-group name is proposed without a type designation and with one single included taxonomic species denoted by an available name, the type is fixed "by monotypy" as the nominal species denoted by the valid name used for the species in the OD. Any name used at subspecies rank in the OD is to be ignored. (The birds that the author may have been studying when he proposed the genus-group name do not play any role in the typification of this name, thus their subspecific ID is in principle irrelevant.)

Last edited by l_raty : Saturday 6th June 2020 at 16:40.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 19:26   #19
thyoloalethe
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew147 View Post
(Is there a problem with the closeness of Cyanositta to Cyanocitta?)
In Latin, the letter c is pronounced as the letter k, and never as the letter s, so these two names are not homonyms. However, given that most English speakers (and likely speakers of various other languages) don't know much Latin and would pronounce these the same, a first reviser would be wise to choose Poecilositta over Cyanositta.
thyoloalethe is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 6th June 2020, 20:26   #20
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,246
Richmond Index has the type of Callisitta as Sitta formosa.
Yes, but Sharpe put frontalis in it.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Scol/scol00992a.jpg . And Hartert in 1914 put azurea.
https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Cacc/cacc00499a.jpg .
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th June 2020, 13:05   #21
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by thyoloalethe View Post
In Latin, the letter c is pronounced as the letter k, and never as the letter s, so these two names are not homonyms. However, given that most English speakers (and likely speakers of various other languages) don't know much Latin and would pronounce these the same, a first reviser would be wise to choose Poecilositta over Cyanositta.
That indeed was the pronunciation rule when I did Latin over 60 years ago, but I understand the current rule is that the pronunciation of 'c' in Latin is now more Italianate; when it precedes 'e' or 'i', it is a soft 'ch' as in 'church' sound (and as in 'Ciao'). I expect that there are many on Bird Forum with greater scholarly expertise who can confirm what the current convention is in greater detail!
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 7th June 2020, 14:44   #22
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Vol. 8 of this journal is lacking on BHL https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/51854; from the US, you may be able to see it at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015047632073.
The relevant material is attached here: Robinson & Kloss (1918).pdf.
Mike Earp is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th June 2020, 15:12   #23
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
That indeed was the pronunciation rule when I did Latin over 60 years ago, but I understand the current rule is that the pronunciation of 'c' in Latin is now more Italianate; when it precedes 'e' or 'i', it is a soft 'ch' as in 'church' sound (and as in 'Ciao'). I expect that there are many on Bird Forum with greater scholarly expertise who can confirm what the current convention is in greater detail!
MJB
So far as I know, it is accepted that, in ancient Latin, the pronunciation of 'c' was always hard (like 'k'), as thyoloalethe suggested above.
But there are other, 'modern' systems of pronunciations. What you describe sounds like 'church Latin' (which may arguably be the only currently spoken version of Latin): 'c' is pronounced like an English 'ch' when it precedes 'e', 'i', but also 'y' (which is pronounced like a Latin 'i'), as well as 'æ' and 'œ' (which are both pronounced like a long Latin 'e' -- i.e., like the 'a' of 'Latin' in English).

(FWIW, pronunciation plays no role in homonymy between generic names under the current Code -- as soon as two generic names differ by one letter, they are not homonyms, even if they are pronounced identically. But fully I agree that, if facing a choice between two valid names that sound clearly different and two valid names that sound the same, it would make sense to choose the first option. )
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th June 2020, 15:28   #24
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Earp View Post
The relevant material is attached here: Attachment 729184.
Thanks Mike.

Just to be complete: the name also appears on 4 other pages in the work, viz.:
  • p. 87: "44. Poliositta azurea expectata" in a list of birds collected in "Zone B. 10,000 feet - 6,000 feet";
  • p. 89: "Poliositta azurea expectata" in a list of three species occuring in this zone, not peculiar to Sumatra but found elsewhere only in the Malay Peninsula;
  • p. 94: "64. Poliositta a. expectata" in a list of birds collected in "Zone D. 4,000 feet - 3,000 feet";
  • p. 257: "156. Poliositta azurea expectata (Hartert)", in a "Table showing distribution and altitute of birds collected according to stations".
'Poecilositta' is not used anywhere.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 7th June 2020, 16:13   #25
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
(FWIW, pronunciation plays no role in homonymy between generic names under the current Code -- as soon as two generic names differ by one letter, they are not homonyms, even if they are pronounced identically. But fully I agree that, if facing a choice between two valid names that sound clearly different and two valid names that sound the same, it would make sense to choose the first option. )
Thanks, Laurent, as always!
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 0.23110700 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:00.