Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
So, canariensis is elevated to species rank :h?:
So, canariensis is elevated to species rank :h?:
There is a lil' mistake in the abstract, it's not Fringilla canariensis bakeri ssp. nov., but Fringilla coelebs bakeri ssp. nov.
Thus, the Macaronesian chaffinches should be named as follows: Fringilla moreletti (Pucheran, 1859) on the Azores, Fringilla maderensis (Sharpe, 1888) on Madeira and Fringilla canariensis (Vieillot, 1917) on the Canary Islands.
Oh oh Vieillot, 1817 (not 1917)I don’t think it’s a mistake, but most likely done on purpose. In the text, the authors followed the most widely used taxonomic treatment (i.e. canariensis – and thus also bakeri – as subspecies of the Common Chaffinch). In the abstract, they referred to the Canary Chaffinch as a distinct species, probably to underscore their preferred treatment of the group. We will see if gets changed or not in the final paper.
Quote from Illera et al. 2016 (Ardeola 63: 15-33):
Re:Tyler S Imfeld, F Keith Barker, Robb T Brumfield, Mitochondrial genomes and thousands of ultraconserved elements resolve the taxonomy and historical biogeography of the Euphonia and Chlorophonia finches (Passeriformes: Fringillidae), The Auk, , ukaa016, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa016
Bonaparte 1851 included the nominal species Pipra musica Gmelin 1789 and Tanagra aureata [nec 'aurita'] Vieillot 1822, the latter with Tanagra nigricollis Vieillot 1819 and Euphonia caeruleocephala Swainson 1837 cited as (subjective) synonyms. These four nominal species (and no other) were eligible to become the type by subsequent designation. (I.e., there is absolutely no way that "cyanocephala (1819)" or "elegantissima (1838)" could have been made the type, as neither is an originally included nominal species of Cyanophonia.)Despite the description of this genus in 1851, to our knowledge, a type species has never been formally designated for the genus Cyanophonia. Of the 3 recognized species in this genus, musica was described by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in part 2 of the 13th edition of Systema Naturae (1789) and is older than both cyanocephala (1819) and elegantissima (1838). Therefore, we designate the Antillean Euphonia, Cyanophonia musica (Linnaeus and Gmelin 1789), as the type species for the genus.
Tyler S Imfeld, F Keith Barker, Robb T Brumfield, Mitochondrial genomes and thousands of ultraconserved elements resolve the taxonomy and historical biogeography of the Euphonia and Chlorophonia finches (Passeriformes: Fringillidae), The Auk, , ukaa016, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa016
Abstract:
Relationships of the Neotropical finches in the genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia (Fringillidae: Euphoniinae) have been clarified by recent molecular studies, but species-level relationships within this group have not been thoroughly addressed. In this study, we sampled specimens representing every recognized species of these genera, in addition to 2 outgroup taxa, and used target enrichment to sequence thousands of ultraconserved element (UCE) loci, as well as mitochondrial DNA reconstructed from off-target reads, from each specimen to infer these relationships. We constructed both concatenation and coalescent-based estimates of phylogeny from this dataset using matrices of varying levels of completeness, and we generated a time-scaled ultrametric tree using a recently published fossil-based external calibration. We found uniformly strong support for a monophyletic subfamily Euphoniinae and genus Chlorophonia, but a paraphyletic Euphonia across UCEs and mitochondrial genomes. Otherwise, our inferred relationships were largely concordant with previous studies. Our time-tree indicated a stem divergence time of 13.8 million years ago for this lineage, followed by a relatively young crown age of only 7.1 myr. Reconstructions of biogeographic history based on this tree suggest a South American origin for crown Euphoniinae, possibly resulting from a transoceanic dispersal event from the Eastern Hemisphere, followed by 2 dispersal events into the Caribbean and as many as 6 invasions of North America coinciding with recent estimates of the age at which the Isthmus of Panama had completely formed. We recommend splitting Euphonia and resurrecting the genus Cyanophonia for the 3 blue-hooded species more closely related to Chlorophonia. Based on our results, we suspect that there is undescribed species-level diversity in at least one, possibly many, widespread and phenotypically diverse species.
With thanks to Tom Schulenberg for bringing this article to our attention.
So they would split the blue-hooded taxa in a separate genus rather than lumping with Chlorophonia, all the while maintaining the more deeply divergent Euphonia as a single genus.
I swear, if a taxonomist were to analyze a human family, they'd insist a blue-eyed, blond-haired child be ranked as a separate family from its own brown-eyed, brown-haired parents. *sigh*
My point entirely is that, in my view, there SHOULD be equivalence across taxonomic ranks.
...same degrees of morphological divergence.
But a family of 900+ species is useless from an organizational standpoint, so it's better to break them down further.
Tyler S Imfeld, F Keith Barker, Robb T Brumfield, Mitochondrial genomes and thousands of ultraconserved elements resolve the taxonomy and historical biogeography of the Euphonia and Chlorophonia finches (Passeriformes: Fringillidae), The Auk, , ukaa016, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa016
Lovely work Laurent and it took you less than 3 hours! The strange lack of Auk requiring zoo bank registration is not boring. I was wondering if you agree with Sclater from may 1851 that if you seperate the blue hooded birds the genus needs to be Euphonia since musica is the type of that genus?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Tyler S Imfeld, F Keith Barker, Robb T Brumfield, Mitochondrial genomes and thousands of ultraconserved elements resolve the taxonomy and historical biogeography of the Euphonia and Chlorophonia finches (Passeriformes: Fringillidae), The Auk, , ukaa016, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa016
Re:
Quote:
Despite the description of this genus in 1851, to our knowledge, a type species has never been formally designated for the genus Cyanophonia. Of the 3 recognized species in this genus, musica was described by Johann Friedrich Gmelin in part 2 of the 13th edition of Systema Naturae (1789) and is older than both cyanocephala (1819) and elegantissima (1838). Therefore, we designate the Antillean Euphonia, Cyanophonia musica (Linnaeus and Gmelin 1789), as the type species for the genus.
Bonaparte 1851 included the nominal species Pipra musica Gmelin 1789 and Tanagra aureata [nec 'aurita'] Vieillot 1822, the latter with Tanagra nigricollis Vieillot 1819 and Euphonia caeruleocephala Swainson 1837 cited as (subjective) synonyms. These four nominal species (and no other) were eligible to become the type by subsequent designation. (I.e., there is absolutely no way that "cyanocephala (1819)" or "elegantissima (1838)" could have been made the type, as neither is an originally included nominal species of Cyanophonia.)
The type is Pipra musica Gmelin 1789 by designation in: Sclater PL. 1886. Catalogue of the Passeriformes or perching birds in the collection of the British Museum. Fringilliformes: part II. Containing the families Coerebidae, Tanagridae, and Icteridae. Catalogue of the birds in the Britsh Museum. Volume XI. British Museum, London.; p. 58; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8326328.
(Note also that a type designation in the present work could not be valid anyway, because the work is not published in the sense of the Code. Auk is online only: the work should include evidence that it was registered in ZooBank to be published, and it doesn't. A nomenclatural act which is not published in the sense of the Code, does not exist -- this is as true for a type designation, as it is for the description of a new taxon.)
ICZN 1968 must be the Bulletin you cited?7. The genus Euphonia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943a, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) known as Tanagra, but see ICZN (1968).