• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Picidae (3 Viewers)

Adolfo G. Navarro-Sigüenza, Hernán Vázquez-Miranda, Germán Hernández-Alonso, Erick A. García-Trejo, Luis A. Sánchez-González. COMPLEX BIOGEOGRAPHIC SCENARIOS REVEALED IN THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LARGEST WOODPECKER RADIATION IN THE NEW WORLD. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 13 April 2017.

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships and patterns of evolution within Melanerpes, one of the most diverse groups of New World woodpeckers (22-23 lineages), have been complicated due to complex plumages and morphological adaptations. In an attempt to resolve these issues, we obtained sequence data from four nuclear introns and two mitochondrial protein-coding genes for 22 of the 24 currently recognized species in the genus. We performed phylogenetic analyses involving Maximum Likelihood and Bayesian Inference, species-tree divergence dating, and biogeographic reconstructions. Tree topologies from the concatenated and species-tree analyses of the mtDNA and nDNA showed broadly similar patterns, with three relatively well-supported groups apparent: a) the Sphyrapicus clade (four species); b) the typical Melanerpes clade, which includes temperate and subtropical dry forest black-backed species; and c) the mostly barred-backed species, here referred to as the “Centurus” clade. The phylogenetic position of Melanerpes superciliaris regarding the rest of Melanerpes is ambiguous as it is recovered as sister to the rest of Melanerpes or as sister to a group including Sphyrapicus + Melanerpes. Our species tree estimations recovered the same well-delimited highly-supported clades. Geographic range evolution (estimated in BioGeoBEARS) was best explained by a DIVALIKE + j model, which includes vicariance, founder effect speciation, and anagenetic dispersal (range expansion) as important processes involved in the diversification of the largest radiation of woodpeckers in the New World.
 
Peter Kovalik said:
Adolfo G. Navarro-Sigüenza, Hernán Vázquez-Miranda, Germán Hernández-Alonso, Erick A. García-Trejo, Luis A. Sánchez-González. COMPLEX BIOGEOGRAPHIC SCENARIOS REVEALED IN THE DIVERSIFICATION OF THE LARGEST WOODPECKER RADIATION IN THE NEW WORLD. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 13 April 2017.
Click to expand...
[fig. 1] [fig. 2] [fig. 3] [fig. 4] [fig. 5] [fig. 6]

But the suggested use of Zebrapicus for hypopolius only (fig. 6) seems problematic.
(Zebrapicus Malherbe 1849. [OD]. Originally included nominal species: Picus carolinus Linnaeus 1758, Picus hypopolius Wagler 1829, Picus elegans Swainson 1827, Picus superciliaris Temminck 1827. The Richmond Index [here] suggests a subsequent designation of carolinus by Strickland 1851, which is [this]; I think this is very much questionable, though--in this note, Strickland rejected most of Malherbe's generic names as being junior synonyms, and listed for each of them the names he thought had precedence, together with the types of the latters, which do not need to have been those of Malherbe's names. (In a number of cases, he listed two synonyms, applying to different sections of one of Malherbe's genera, each with its type species.) However, subsequent authors--e.g. Baird, Cassin & Lawrence 1858 [here]--concurred in a much less ambiguous way, hence I'm unclear how Zebrapicus could be anything but a junior objective synonym of Centurus Swainson 1837 [OD], the type of which is carolinus Linn. by original monotypy.)
 
LeNomenclatoriste said:
Centurus , p. 310
Tripsurus, p. 311

Amen !
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily... That would affect the precedence only if p. 311 had been published at a later date than p. 310.
If the date is the same, [Art. 24] applies; if the rank at which the names have been proposed differ, the name proposed at a higher rank (whether it appears first in the work or not) takes precedence; if this is not the case, the precedence is not fixed in the original work and a first reviser act is needed to fix it.

If Gray (or any author before him) had used Tripsurus as valid while citing Centurus in its synonymy (instead of the opposite), Tripsurus would now have priority.
 
Last edited:
LeNomenclatoriste said:
Okaayy, I thought that the page numbers were taken into account .
Click to expand...
To be fair, such a rule has indeed existed in zoological nomenclature (albeit not in the ICZN proper), which explains in part that many think it still does.
The 'Canon XVII' of the AOU Code of Nomenclature of 1908 read: "Of names published simultaneously in the same book, that shall be taken which stands first in the book, regardless of other considerations. Of names published simultaneously in different books, that shall be taken which stands on the anterior page."
In the Règles Internationales de Nomenclature Zoologique, which were in use before the first ed. of the ICZN, a principle of page, line, and word precedence was introduced at the 13th International Congress of Zoology (1948, Paris, published [here]), replacing the first-reviser rule that was then in force; however, this decision was reverted five years later at the 14th ICZ (1953, Copenhagen, published [here]).
 
TiF Update April 14, 2017

Melanerpes Woodpeckers: Based on Navarro-Sigüenza et al., I have rearranged the Melanerpini woodpeckers. I have also separated some of Melanerpes into Centurus, as recommended by Navarro-Sigüenza et al.

They recommended some further splitting of Centurus into three genera. The position of the Gray-breasted Woodpecker, Centurus hypopolius, is ambiguous, and whether a two or three genera version works best depends on the position of C.hypopolius. Navarro-Sigüenza et al. think is is most likely the basal taxon in Centurus, and recommended putting it in a monotypic Zebrapicus, dividing the rest between Centurus and Tripsurus. However, Zebrapicus is a junior synonym of Centurus and cannot be used for the Gray-breasted Woodpecker alone. As there is no available name, and although the division they suggest is tempting, it is not all that deep, I have not adopted their division of Centurus into three genera.
[Picidae, Piciformes 3.07]

I would have gone further by splitting Melanerpes stricto sensu into several genera (Melanerpes, Leuconerpes, Trichopicus and Balanosphyra).
 
Last edited:
LeNomenclatoriste said:
if I'm not mistaken, Zebripicus is an emandation of Zebrapicus.
Click to expand...
I'd interpret it that way as well. (Note also, [on p.6], the similar case of "PTILOLEPTIS, Bp. ex. Sw.", an emendation by Bonaparte of Ptiloleptus Swainson 1837 [OD].)


It has most often been understood as such, I think. E.g., [Waterhouse 1889]:
Zebripicus, Bp. C. V. Z. p. 11 (1854). = ZEBRAPICUS, Malherbe.
Click to expand...
...with the notable exception of [Ridgway 1914], who listed it in the synonymy of Tripsurus, making it explicitly distinct from Malherbe's name:
Zebripicus (not Zebrapicus Malherbe) BONAPARTE, Ateneo Italiano, ii, 1854, 126 (Consp. Volucr. Zygod., 1854, 11). (Type, by monotypy, Zebrapicus pucherani Malhebre.)
Click to expand...


The fact that Bonaparte associated the name to pucherani is likely due to him having taken it from Rev. Mag. Zool. ([here]), where Malherbe used it for this species only.
Malherbe's work in Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz is regarded as having precedence over his Rev. Mag. Zool. publication. (This is a rather complex case. The Rev. Mag. Zool. issue is dated 'Novembre 1849', but includes a report about a séance of the Académie from 26 Nov, hence--as was apparently usual for this journal--presumably did not appear before the next month. The Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz volume that includes the work is just dated '1849' and starts with an address from 20 May 1849, hence must presumably have been issued after this date. Unless there is external info 'out there' (?), for priority purposes, both works may have to be dated 31 Dec 1849.)
 
LeNomenclatoriste said:
if I'm not mistaken, Zebripicus is an emandation of Zebrapicus. If that is the case, Zebripicus is unavailable.
Click to expand...
It is available (in the nomenclatural sense of the term) if the change of spelling is demonstrably intentional.
But it is an objective synonym of Zebrapicus--i.e., its type is also carolinus and not pucherani.
 
Last edited:
Shakya, S.B., Fuchs, J., Pons, J-M., Sheldon, F.H., Tapping the Woodpecker Tree for Evolutionary Insight, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2017).

Abstract:

Molecular phylogenetic studies of woodpeckers (Picidae) have generally focused on relationships within specific clades or have sampled sparsely across the family. We compared DNA sequences of six loci from 203 of the 217 recognized species of woodpeckers to construct a comprehensive tree of intrafamilial relationships. We recovered many known, but also numerous unknown, relationships among clades and species. We found, for example, that the three picine tribes are related as follows (Picini, (Campephilini, Melanerpini)) and that the genus Dinopium is paraphyletic. We used the tree to analyze rates of diversification and biogeographic patterns within the family. Diversification rate increased on two occasions during woodpecker history. We also tested diversification rates between temperate and tropical species but found no significant difference. Biogeographic analysis supported an Old World origin of the family and identified at least six independent cases of New World-Old World sister relationships. In light of the tree, we discuss how convergence, mimicry, and potential cases of hybridization have complicated woodpecker taxonomy.
 
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik said:
Shakya, S.B., Fuchs, J., Pons, J-M., Sheldon, F.H., Tapping the Woodpecker Tree for Evolutionary Insight, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2017).

Abstract:

Molecular phylogenetic studies of woodpeckers (Picidae) have generally focused on relationships within specific clades or have sampled sparsely across the family. We compared DNA sequences of six loci from 203 of the 217 recognized species of woodpeckers to construct a comprehensive tree of intrafamilial relationships. We recovered many known, but also numerous unknown, relationships among clades and species. We found, for example, that the three picine tribes are related as follows (Picini, (Campephilini, Melanerpini)) and that the genus Dinopium is paraphyletic. We used the tree to analyze rates of diversification and biogeographic patterns within the family. Diversification rate increased on two occasions during woodpecker history. We also tested diversification rates between temperate and tropical species but found no significant difference. Biogeographic analysis supported an Old World origin of the family and identified at least six independent cases of New World-Old World sister relationships. In light of the tree, we discuss how convergence, mimicry, and potential cases of hybridization have complicated woodpecker taxonomy.
Click to expand...

I say Yes, absolutely yes !!! want to read it!!
 
Last edited:
LeNomenclatoriste said:
I thought to separate Picus puniceus & chlorolophus to genus Callolophus Salvadori, 1874, and Dinopium rafflesii in the genus Chloropicoides Malherbe, 1849
Click to expand...
Would you by chance know the details of the type fixations of these two names?


Callolophus Salvadori 1874
Salvadori T. 1874. Catalogo sistematico degli uccelli di Borneo. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 5:v-lii,1-431.
p.49: [OD].
Originally included nominal species: Picus puniceus Horsfield, Picus mentalis Temminck (syn. Picus gularis Temminck), Picus malaccensis Latham (syn. "Picus miniatus" Vigors nec Fortser).
No original type fixation.

On a quick search:
  • Blanford WT. 1895. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. Vol. III. Taylor & Francis, London.
    p.29 [here]: this text implies that P. malaccensis is the type (Bl. says three species were originally included but no type designated, he then places two of the three in other genera and uses the genus as valid for malaccensis), but doesn't actually designate it explicitly.
  • Stresemann E. 1921. Die Spechte der Insel Sumatra. Arch. Naturgesch., 87(7):64-120.
    p.81 [here]: the type is said to be P. malaccensis Latham by subsequent designation of Blanford 1895:29.
Like Stresemann, Peters 1948 [here] accepted Blanford's text as a type designation, but this is disputable; should it not be valid, Streseman's text certainly is.
P. malaccensis Latham = Chrysophlegma miniaceum malaccense (Latham).
On which base can this name be used for puniceus & chlorolophus?


Chloropicoides is problematic because it can be taken from two different works, I have no idea which one was issued first, and this affects the type species directly.
  • Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
    Malherbe A. 1849. Note sur quelques nouvelles espèces de pics. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Départ. Moselle 5:14-30.
    p.26: [OD].
    Originally included nominal species: Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson).
    Type species Picus rafflesii Vigors by original monotypy. (No designation.)

  • Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
    Malherbe A. 1849. Nouvelle classification des Picinées, devant servir de base à une monographie de ces oiseaux grimpeurs, accompagnée de planches peintes. Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz, 30:313-367.
    p.345: [OD].
    Originally included nominal species: Picus shorii Vigors (syn. Picus abnormis Hodgson), Picus tiga (Horsfield) (syn. Picus javanensis Ljung, Chrysonotus tridactylus Swainson, Tiga tridactyla Blyth), Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson), Picus grantia McClelland.
    No original type fixation.

    The [Richmond index card] claims a type designation by Strickland 1851, which I presume is:
    Strickland HE. 1851. Ornithological notes. Contrib. Ornithol., 4:15-20.
    p.19 [here]: "12. Chloropicoides, Malh. = Tiga, Kaup, 1836. Type, T. tridactyla (Swains.)"
    But this is a misinterpretation -- the types "designated" in this note are not those of Malherbe's names, they are only those of the names Strickland regarded as their valid synonyms; see, p.18: "the Malherbian genus includes the type-species of the previous author, whose generic name must therefore be regarded as synonymous with it, and be retained accordingly." (I.e., here, Stickland says us that Tiga tridactyla (Swains.), the type of Tiga Kaup, was originally included in Chloropocoides Malherbe.)

    On a quick search, the earliest type designation I found was:
    Hargitt E. 1890. Catalogue of the Picariae in the collections of the British Museum. British Museum, London.
    p.411 [here]: the type is "Tiga shorii" = Picus shorii Vigors. = Dinopium shorii (Vigors).

(The problem with type designation is always the same, though: no list of valid type designations for avian generic names exists, and overlooking/missing relatively obscure designations is extremely easy...)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Flamingos phylogeny
Replies
1
Views
1K
george890
G
Peter Kovalik
Passer moabiticus
Replies
2
Views
1K
Paul Clapham
Paul Clapham
J
Messy Taxonomy
Replies
15
Views
3K
James Lowther
J
Fred Ruhe
2 new genera and 3 new species of Picidae
Replies
4
Views
1K
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Peter Kovalik
Cavitaves
Replies
3
Views
1K
njlarsen
njlarsen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top