Crossbills (1 Viewer)

I can sympathize with Rick's point of view, but... I don't really think it would be mainstream to read Art. 11 that way. I am in any case unaware of any name introduced in a work applying binominal nomenclature that, in modern times, would have been deemed unavailable based on it being grammatically formed in a way that would make it unacceptable.
The easiest interpretation of "sinesciuris" may be that, when written as a single word, it is indeed "barbarous" -- in the original sense of the word, i.e., not Latin; as a non-Latin word, it is simply not concerned by Art. 11.9.1.1-4. It might also be noted that the Code, actually, doesn't say a word about about what being "treated as" a noun may well imply or require. At its introduction, sinesciuris was combined with a generic name (a noun in the nominative) without being made to agree with it in gender or number, and this two-word combination was used to denote a unique entity; as such, it might in fact be argued that it was indeed "treated as" a noun in apposition in the nominative in the OD.

(For a not-too-dissimilar case that tends to pop up recurrently on some taxonomic discussion groups: the Code says --

11.9.4. A species-group name must not consist of words related by a conjunction nor include a sign that cannot be spelled out in the Latin alphabet (see Article 11.2; for the use of the hyphen, see Article 32.5.2.4.3).
Examples. Expressions like "rudis planusque" (in which "-que" is a conjunction) and "?-album" are not admissible as species-group names.

Click to expand...

...but it is widely accepted that this is not to be understood as extending to names that would have a conjunction embedded in them, while being written as a single word; such names do not "consist of words", and as such fall outside of the scope of 11.9.4; no attempt should be made to parse such names into their subcomponents. See, e.g., [this comment] (by an ICZN Commissioner).
There is, actually, a snail named Cycladamsia rudisplanusque (Chitty 1857) (originally written with a hyphen "C[yclotus] rudis-planusque" [OD], but the hyphen is to be removed and the words united as per 32.5.2.3, which makes the correct original spelling "rudisplanusque"). This name is regarded as available. It is treated as invariable (not "rudisplanaque" despite the current combination with a feminine generic name) -- i.e., "as a noun", despite it could only reasonably be parsed as two adjectives and a conjunction.)

There are also some technical weaknesses in the proposal, I believe. In particular:

• It's not fully clear to me that Art. 16.1 is really satisfied. This says: "Every new name published after 1999, including new replacement names (nomina nova), must be explicitly indicated as intentionally new." (Emphasis mine.) The word "new" (or an equivalent of it) is nowhere used to qualify the name in the proposal. There is no question that it is (very) strongly implied, but this is not what the article is asking for. (There is an express statement that the publication of the note is intended to be "a nomenclatural act", but a nomenclatural act is "a published act which affects the nomenclatural status (q.v.) of a scientific name or the typification of a nominal taxon" (Glossary). The establishment of a new name would of course be a nomenclatural act, but the presence of a nomenclatural act does not mean the establishment of any new name. This statement alone cannot be viewed as meeting the requirement of 16.1.)

• There appears to be some creeping confusion between "validity" (or "potential validity" ?) and "availability" in the proposal (which unfortunately is a rather frequent issue, even in the writings of some very experienced taxonomists), with problematic consequences.
  If a name fails to satisfy Art. 11, that does not make it "invalid": that makes it unavailable, i.e., a name that has completely failed to start to exist nomenclaturally. A species can only be "renamed" if it is already named (= already has an available name attached to it); if not, it must be described as new. This does not appear to be what was intended in the case of Loxia sciurinimica, however; and, even with good will, interpreting the intent as having been this cannot be done, because the note does not fulfil the requirements for a new species description after 1999. (No explicit fixation of type in the OD. A description of the new species is also entirely lacking, but a bibliographic reference to a previously published work that includes such a description is present (even if not clearly offered to serve that purpose), and this might be seen as sufficient (cf. 13.1.2). The type fixation, on the contrary, must be "in the original publication" as per 16.4, it cannot be made by reference. And it is not there.) From the moment that Loxia sciurinimica cannot be understood as the name of a newly described species, it can only be available as a nomen novum (new replacement name) proposed to replace the name sinesciuris... The problem is: nomina nova take their availability from that of the name they replace; they can not be proposed to replace a name that is not itself already available.
  IOW, if sinesciuris is really excluded by Art. 11.4, then sciurinimica is automatically unavailable as well.

Martin R., Rochefort J., Mundry R. & Segelbacher G. (2019): Delimitation of call types of Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) in the Western Palearctic. Écoscience, Volume 26, Issue 2, 177-194

[abstract]

Crossbill call types in the western Palearctic – a birder’s perspective
by Julien Rochefort & Ralph Martin

https://avesrares.wordpress.com/2019/03/21/call-types-of-crossbills-in-europe/

Cody K Porter, Julie W Smith, Diversification in trophic morphology and a mating signal are coupled in the early stages of sympatric divergence in crossbills, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, , blz163, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz163

Abstract:

Understanding the mechanisms generating diversity in mating signals is critical to understanding the process of speciation. One mechanism of mating signal diversification occurs when phenotypes that experience divergent ecological selection also affect the production of mating signals, resulting in a coupling between ecological diversification and mating signal diversification. Here, we present evidence that rapid diversification in bill size has resulted in the diversification of some components of song structure in a young adaptive radiation of seed-eating finches (red crossbill, Loxia curvirostra complex). Specifically, we find that larger-billed ecotypes sing songs with lower minimum frequencies, lower syllable repetition rates and greater vocal deviation (i.e. lower performance) than smaller-billed ecotypes for pure tonal syllables. In contrast, bill size was not correlated with maximum frequency or frequency bandwidth, and we found no relationship between bill size and any song parameters in buzzy syllables. Furthermore, we found no evidence for a relationship between the degree of bill size divergence and the potential for song discrimination between sympatric ecotypes. Because bill size is correlated with some features of pure tonal syllables (which appear to be most important for courtship in crossbills) in crossbill song, our results suggest that there was an early-evolving link between ecological and mating signal diversification that may have influenced the rapid evolution of reproductive isolation between sympatric ecotypes.

Summers R. 2020. Calls of crossbills in Scotland: association with bird size and changes over time. Brit. Birds, 113 (3) : 152-164.

(Would anyone by chance have seen this and be able to summarize?)

l_raty said:

Summers R. 2020. Calls of crossbills in Scotland: association with bird size and changes over time. Brit. Birds, 113 (3) : 152-164.

(Would anyone by chance have seen this and be able to summarize?)

Click to expand...

Abstract Crossbills of different size in Scotland give different flight and/or excitement calls. Generally, crossbills that give a particular flight call also give a particular excitement call, thereby defining 'call-types'. Here, different calls and their varieties are described for different sizes of crossbill (i .e. species). Also described are the different call-types of Common Crossbills Loxia curvirostra of varying average size (wing length and bill size). Using calls to identify crossbills is less subjective than trying to discern small differences in bill size, and the results of this study may help observers who record crossbill calls.

Thanks Mike. :t:
I'm not clear what "changes over time" the title refers to...?

Mike Earp said:

Abstract Crossbills of different size in Scotland give different flight and/or excitement calls. Generally, crossbills that give a particular flight call also give a particular excitement call, thereby defining 'call-types'. Here, different calls and their varieties are described for different sizes of crossbill (i .e. species). Also described are the different call-types of Common Crossbills Loxia curvirostra of varying average size (wing length and bill size). Using calls to identify crossbills is less subjective than trying to discern small differences in bill size, and the results of this study may help observers who record crossbill calls.

Click to expand...

Should be subscribed to British Birds I got my copy this morning. Not read it fully yet, but it still fails to grasp the basic fact that the tie between call type '3C' and the taxon Loxia scotica described by Hartert in 1904 without vocal information, is unprovable, and that scientific name is therefore untenable.

Came across this on twitter:

On the relative importance of ecology and geographic isolation as drivers for differentiation of call types of Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) in the Palearctic

Efforts to understand the process of speciation have been central to the research of biologists since the origin of evolutionary biology as a discipline. While it is well established that geographic isolation has played a key role in many speciation events, particularly in birds, there is ongoing debate about how frequent speciation is in the partial or complete absence of geographical isolation. In the Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra), good arguments do exist for sympatric speciation processes. In this species, several classes of calls are clustered in distinct groups, so‐called 'call types', which mate assortatively. Often, several call types can be found at a single site, breeding and feeding next to each other. It has been hypothesized that Red Crossbill call types evolved by specialising in extracting seeds from cones of different conifer species. Alternatively, call types might have evolved in temporal geographic isolation. Within Europe, little is known about the distribution of the various call types and preferences for distinct food resources. In this study, we analysed the temporal and spatial occurrence of Red Crossbill call types in the Palearctic, investigated potential reasons for call‐type composition at a site, and compared the occurrence of call types with the fructification of conifers. Call‐type composition changed with site and season but not with conifer species. With our data, we could localise range areas of twelve different call types, which cannot be explained by conifer species occurrence. Therefore, we suggest that call types evolved in parapatry in most of the northern Palearctic region, and, although contradictory results exist from Iberia, we argue that differentiation might be driven by the same drivers there as well. Additionally, we discuss the potential influence of anthropogenic changes of forest composition and distribution on call types, which offers a unique possibility for future studies. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

From the authors of the paper in the the previous post, a revised blogpost now including distribution maps for each vocal type:

The section on type N15 might be of particular interest to British readers.

Hill, G.E. and Powers, M.J. (2021), Ecomorphs are not species: the case of locally adapted populations of red crossbills. J Avian Biol. https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.02896

The process of speciation remains poorly understood and hence definitions of species continue to be a focus of sharp debate. A key unresolved issue in speciation debates is whether local populations that are somewhat distinct from a parent population in morphology or genotype but that remain connected to the parent population via gene flow should be recognized as species. The species status of the Cassia crossbill Loxia sinesciuris, as well as other distinctive populations in the red crossbill Loxia curvirostra clade including the parrot crossbill L. pytyopsittacus and the Scottish crossbill L. scotica, are test cases for whether the hundreds of other avian ecomorphs should be taxonomically elevated to full species. We argue that these regional populations of red crossbills do not meet stated criteria for species designation under the Biological Species Concept and, regardless of species concept, fail as species simply following logic, parsimony, and consistency. There are no diagnostic morphological characteristics that definitively separate birds in the Cassia crossbill, parrot crossbill, or Scottish crossbill populations from birds in other sympatric crossbill populations. Call type, the behavioral characteristic that is proposed to distinguish Cassia crossbills, parrot crossbills and Scottish crossbills from other populations of crossbills, is learned and can change within the life of an individual. There is evidence of substantial on-going gene flow between Cassia crossbills, parrot crossbills, and Scottish crossbill and other populations of red crossbills, and there is no divergence in mitochondrial genotype. Instead, there exist few fixed genetic differences in nuclear genotype between individuals from these local crossbill populations and individuals from other red crossbill populations. We propose that the recognition of the Cassia crossbill, parrot crossbill and Scottish crossbill as species sets a poor precedent in avian taxonomy and muddles understanding of the process of speciation.

Great. I just went out to Idaho to see Cassia Crossbill. 🤬

So they want to lump not only Cassia but Scottish (not unexpected) and Parrot?

It strikes me that the sensible way forwards is to have just two species of crossbill, one with wingbars and one without.

Ian

Jeff Hopkins said:

Great. I just went out to Idaho to see Cassia Crossbill. 🤬

Click to expand...

I wouldn't fret too much...remember this is a single paper, from a person who endorses a species concept that is essentially a variation of the phylogenetic species concept (Mitonuclear concept) that is not followed by AOS. I strongly doubt a proposal to lump Cassia would pass after just splitting them.

If you are interested, the concept itself is pretty new, and Hill came up with it only in 2017 or so...check out this paper:


Hill has some other papers and layman articles about it: This seems to be a more layman friendly piece: Defending the Mitonuclear Compatibility Species Concept

Since it's new it also doesn't have a lot of papers debating it either, but this piece by Coyne (in part rebutted in the prior link) gives another view on the idea:

Mysticete said:

I wouldn't fret too much...remember this is a single paper, from a person who endorses a species concept that is essentially a variation of the phylogenetic species concept (Mitonuclear concept) that is not followed by AOS. I strongly doubt a proposal to lump Cassia would pass after just splitting them.

Click to expand...

I know. I was just being somewhat facetious.

And having just seen Cassia, I can say it does look and sound noticeably different from other red crossbills in the area.

Ian Lewis said:

It strikes me that the sensible way forwards is to have just two species of crossbill, one with wingbars and one without.

Ian

Click to expand...

I think Hispaniolan Crossbill is possibly a fair argument against that. I don’t propose to know better than anyone else where Crossbills should be divided, but agree with many that Scottish seems dubious and personally think that Hispaniolan seems pretty defensible.

In addition to, or perhaps even more so than, Cassia and Parrot, the isolated birds in Mexico are interesting, regardless of whether they are a separate species or not.

Mysticete said:

I wouldn't fret too much...remember this is a single paper, from a person who endorses a species concept that is essentially a variation of the phylogenetic species concept (Mitonuclear concept) that is not followed by AOS. I strongly doubt a proposal to lump Cassia would pass after just splitting them.

Click to expand...

But isn't the PSC a more holistic concept which is usually more pro-split?

Mysticete said:

I wouldn't fret too much...remember this is a single paper, from a person who endorses a species concept that is essentially a variation of the phylogenetic species concept (Mitonuclear concept) that is not followed by AOS.

Click to expand...

The so-called "mito-nuclear species concept" defines species as groups of reproductively compatible individuals which are reproductively isolated with other such groups, hence (as noted by Coyne in the piece you linked in your next post) it's actually essentially a variation of the BSC.

The main "specificity" of Hill's "theory" is that the only reproductive isolation mechanism he deems significant is post-zygotic isolation associated to mito-nuclear mismatches. Under this premise, differences in mtDNA (or lack thereof) are expected to predict reproductive isolation (or lack thereof), and to trump any other type of evidence. (Under this premise, crossbill species should probably be five -- Common, Red, Two-barred, White-winged and Hispaniolan.)