Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

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.

Osprey taxonomy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 15 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 3rd May 2009, 14:36   #1
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 781
Osprey taxonomy

Hi,
recently somebody asked about how many different "kinds" of Osprey there were. I responded saying there was only the one species in the genus but that 4 sub species were recognised.

The great interest in Ospreys, thanks to live web cams, has meant that I have passed that info on to somebody else only to come across the IOC update of January this year.

I have ben trying to follow-up on that and it is apparent that not all authorities have, as yet, adopted the split into Eastern and Western Osprey. As far as can tell the split is based on work by Christidis & Boles 2008. I was hoping someone would be able to clarify what they identifed as sufficient to justify the split - to some at least for the time being.

cheers
Gordon
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd May 2009, 14:54   #2
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,018
You may find what you are looking for in Wink et al. 2004
Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd May 2009, 15:21   #3
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
IOC recognises P cristatus 'Eastern Osprey':
http://www.worldbirdnames.org

John Penhallurick (World Bird Info) additionally recognises P carolinensis 'American Osprey' (and previously also recognised P ridgwayi 'Caribbean Osprey', but subsequently re-lumped it with carolinensis):
http://worldbirdinfo.net/Pages/Birds...ey&BirdField=6

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Sunday 3rd May 2009 at 16:22.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 3rd May 2009, 15:34   #4
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 781
Thanks guys - I'll have a look at the Wink paper - hopefully I can understand it!
cheers
Gordon
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 11:40   #5
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 781
Hi again,
I've read the paper that you provided Daniel. It seems to me that they are saying that there are 4 species of Osprey.

If I have got it right why has IOC accepted only 2 species - or have I missed something?

Are you aware of which authorities have, to date, accepted the split?

cheers
Gordon

The Australians have accepted the split into 2 species - understandable I suppose as, to an extent, they are only likely to be "interested" in the differences between P h haliaetus and P h cristatus I suppose. I should probably follow-up as well on the J Penhallurick site that Richard noted - will do so now!

Last edited by Gordon : Monday 4th May 2009 at 11:45. Reason: sloppy thinking
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 13:34   #6
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
I've read the paper that you provided Daniel. It seems to me that they are saying that there are 4 species of Osprey.

If I have got it right why has IOC accepted only 2 species - or have I missed something?

Are you aware of which authorities have, to date, accepted the split?
Although Wink et al conclude that Osprey may comprise 4 species, the paper doesn't actually present any real arguments for the splitting of P ridgwayi. Indeed, the abstract only suggests a 3-way split. (I guess that's why John Penhallurick retracted his earlier decision to recognise P ridgwayi.) Also, note the paper's use of cautious language: "appear to represent distinct species", "typical for distinct raptor species", "support the suggestion that the geographically defined subspecies may be recognised as full species". I suspect that few will be fully persuaded by the genetic distances argument in this case.

IOC references Christides & Boles 2008 and Wink et al 2004 to justify the splitting of (only) P cristatus, suggesting that it is prepared to follow Christides & Boles as a respected regional authority, but remains unconvinced of Wink et als' full 4-way split.

IOC is the only world 'authority' to split Osprey - eg, it's not split by BirdLife International or Cornell/Clements.

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Tuesday 5th May 2009 at 10:46.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 14:09   #7
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 22,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Although Wink et al conclude that Osprey may comprise 4 species, the paper doesn't actually present any real arguments for the splitting of P ridgwayi. Indeed, the abstract only suggests a 3-way split. (I guess that's why John Penhallurick retracted his earlier decision to recognise P ridgwayi.) Also, note the paper's use of cautious language: "appear to represent distinct species", "typical for distinct raptor species", "support the suggestion that the geographically defined subspecies may be recognised as full species".

IOC references Christides & Boles 2008 and Wink et al 2004 to justify the splitting of (only) P cristatus, suggesting that it respects Christides & Boles' judgement, but remains unconvinced of Wink et als' 4-way split.

IOC is the only world 'authority' to split Osprey - eg, it's not split by BirdLife International or Cornell/Clements.

Richard
I also read the Wink et al paper and felt there was a strong weakness in their recommendation (in the concluding paragraph) of splitting ridgwayi when that subspecies was described as "basically a pale form of carolinensis", it is the only one that truly has overlap (at least part of the year) with another form, and it was not tested in their study.

Re the last sentence above, it seems it will be 2010 before we have the new version of Howard & Moore, so until then we will not know what they say.

Niels
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Monday 4th May 2009, 14:21   #8
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 781
Thanks for your comments Richard.

I really should have picked up on the language that was used - I suppose I was hoping for a simple answer. I should have known better in this field of study.

cheers
Gordon
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 15:25   #9
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
IOC references Christides & Boles 2008 and Wink et al 2004 to justify the splitting of (only) P cristatus, suggesting that it respects Christides & Boles' judgement, but remains unconvinced of Wink et als' 4-way split.
Except that Christidis & Boles 2008 did not express such a judgment:
"Pandion haliaetus, as currently recognised, has a cosmopolitan distribution (Poole 1994). Genetic distances (based on almost complete nucleotide sequences of the cytochrome-b) between subspecies of Osprey (1.9-3.8%) are equivalent to, or greater than, those seen between members of several closely related sister species within Aquila and Hieraeetus (Wink et al. 2004a). This, combined with small, but consistent, differences in plumage and morphology, led Wink et al. (2004a) and Wink and Sauer-Gürth (2004) to suggest that three species of Pandion could be recognised. Acceptance of this recommendation means that Australian birds become Pandion cristatus (Eastern Osprey)."
(Emphasis mine.)
I read this as an acceptance of a three-way split...

Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I also read the Wink et al paper and felt there was a strong weakness in their recommendation (in the concluding paragraph) of splitting ridgwayi when that subspecies was described as "basically a pale form of carolinensis", it is the only one that truly has overlap (at least part of the year) with another form, and it was not tested in their study.
Additionally, ospreys from S Florida have apparently also been said more similar to ridgwayi than to other N American populations (see http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/EL86_5.pdf), thus we'd probably need data from SE USA too, before we can conclude anything.

I also find the complete absence of data from the Eastern Palearctic a bit disturbing - it makes that we currently have no way to assess the congruence between morphologically and genetically defined subdivisions in the northern hemisphere.
(It may be true that many/most holarctic species/superspecies have their deepest phylogeographical break coinciding with Beringia, but this is far from being universal. While we are at comparing ospreys to Aquila eagles, for instance: the only Aquila with a holarctic distribution does not conform to this rule at all...)

Laurent -
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 15:58   #10
Gordon
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 781
Thanks for your input Niels and Laurent.

I suspected when I asked the question that things would not be simple. Its become very interesting for me - not because I have any particular knowledge of Ospreys or genetics - but.....just because its interesting - particularly as I have just started reading Ian Newton's "The Speciation and Biogeography of Birds".

Originally, I was responding to a query which originated on the RSPB Loch Garten Osprey blog so, without wanting to underestimate the possible knowledge/interest of those following that blog, I think I've gone as far as required for that particular forum - ie, IOC consider 2 species of Osprey while, at present, no-one appears to.

From my own point of view I'll be following-up the additional sources provided here. I'm especially intrigued by the comments regarding the issues of range overlap and the BSC versus PSC in relation to Osprey taxonomy. Plenty more to look into.

thanks again everybody.
Gordon
Gordon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 16:00   #11
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Except that Christidis & Boles 2008 did not express such a judgment
Thanks Laurent - I hadn't seen the full text, and (wrongly) assumed that C&B only addressed the Australian taxon.

Richard
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 16:28   #12
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Laurent,

The link does not seem to work ... is it me ?

Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 20:47   #13
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Philippe View Post
... is it me ?
from here, it works, Daniel... (may be right click + save target as?)
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 4th May 2009, 23:13   #14
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 22,183
Doesn't work from from here either; responce is "cannot establish connection with server"

Niels
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Tuesday 5th May 2009, 07:02   #15
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
Doesn't work from from here either; responce is "cannot establish connection with server"
OK. It still works from here, but the only thing this document has about Florida ospreys is a citation, anyway.

The document was:

Henny Charles J. 1986. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus): Section 4.3.1, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Technical Report EL-86-5, prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Corvallis, Oreg., for the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

What is says about Florida Ospreys is:
"Although only P. h. carolinensis is recognized in the United States, Ogden (1977) postulates that birds nesting in southern Florida are more similar to P. h. ridgwayi."
"Ogden, J. C. 1977. Preliminary report on a study of Florida Bay ospreys. Pages 143-151 In J. C. Ogden, ed. Trans. North Am. Osprey Res. Conf. U.S. Nat. Park Serv., Trans. Proc. Ser. No. 2. 258 pp."

(In full length: Transactions of the North American Osprey Research Conference, United States National Park Service, Transactions and Proceedings Series, No 2. 258 pages.
Some [well: two] of the Transactions and Proceedings are available from here, but not this one. The volume is also referenced in Google Books, but the text is not accessible.)

Last edited by l_raty : Tuesday 5th May 2009 at 07:20.
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th May 2009, 07:28   #16
Daniel Philippe
Registered User
 
Daniel Philippe's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: France
Posts: 1,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
The document was:

Henny Charles J. 1986. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus): Section 4.3.1, US Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual. Technical Report EL-86-5, prepared by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Corvallis, Oreg., for the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
I can access the document in HTML format though and convert it in pdf. Here is what I get.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Osprey 1986.pdf (148.3 KB, 438 views)
Daniel Philippe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th May 2009, 09:01   #17
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

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

Poole, Bierregaard & Martell 2002 (BNA Online) lean towards a 2-way split (as per IOC). Also, note use of leucocephalus vs cristatus:
Geographic Variation

Well studied by Prevost (1983); summarized and developed in Poole 1989. Overall, little variation in plumage or size in this highly migratory species, despite worldwide distribution. This contrasts sharply with the more sedentary Haliaeetus eagles, which have differentiated greatly (8 distinct species over a range nearly identical to that of the Osprey).

Among Ospreys, sexual differences in plumage and size confuse the issue of geographic variation. Within populations, females average about 15–20% larger in body mass than males, and 5–10% longer in wing, tail, claw, and bill length (see Measurements, below). In addition, females tend to have fuller, darker breast-bands and darker heads than males, although this varies among populations (see below).

No significant geographic variation in plumage or size among North American populations. Caribbean breeders noticeably paler on crown and breast than their North American counterparts, appearing almost white-headed and white-breasted and showing little difference between male and female. Occasionally paler individuals, like Caribbean breeders, found breeding in s. Florida, where most individuals similar to breeders farther north; these observations suggest, perhaps not surprisingly, possibility of limited interchange between Caribbean and North American populations. In Baja California, Mexico, residents much like Caribbean birds, with breasts and crowns almost entirely white, under wing-coverts also; females slightly but not significantly darker than males in both these populations, so sexes not reliably distinguished (Blanco and Rodriguez-Estrella 1999).

From Prevost 1983. Following Bergman’s ecogeographic rule, Ospreys from tropical and subtropical climates average smaller then those at cooler, higher latitudes; e.g., sex for sex, Australasian individuals average 12–14% shorter in wing length than Palearctic Ospreys, with Caribbean breeders slightly smaller in wing than those from North America (wing length is a good measure of body size). Following Gloger’s rule, Ospreys breeding at subtropical latitudes (Baja California; Caribbean) paler than conspecifics at higher latitudes; Baja and Caribbean residents essentially similar, although Prevost suggested slightly darker crowns in the former (see also Blanco and Rodriguez-Estrella 1999). Dark breast-band and pale head set Australasian Ospreys apart from others, with males slightly darker in crown than females. Palearctic and North American breeders most similar and easy to confuse, although former (except southern populations) have slightly darker breast-bands than latter. Underwing primary-coverts help separate North American from Palearctic Ospreys; latter have darker, more barred coverts.

In summary, essentially 2 Ospreys: one of Holarctic regions, of which the Caribbean (and perhaps Baja) Ospreys are slightly modified forms, and the Australasian Osprey. Size differences suggest the latter is the more ancient offshoot, and that other resident breeding populations are more recently formed races.

Subspecies

Four subspecies recognized following Prevost 1983 (as modified in Marchant and Higgins 1993). Also see Stresemann and Amadon 1979, and Henny 1988. Taxonomic review needed to better quantify differences among currently recognized taxa and to ascertain relationship among some populations (e.g., between North American and Caribbean and between North American and Eurasian birds) and within subspecies (e.g., Baja breeders; see P. h. carolinensis, below). Australian birds considered most distinctive among all taxa (Prevost 1983); otherwise identification to subspecies requires birds in Definitive plumage.

P. h. carolinensis (Gmelin, 1789); type based on drawings by M. Catesby in 1729, with type locality designated as S. Carolina. Breeds in North America, north of Caribbean (see Distribution, above); winters to South America, as described above. Under wing primary-coverts barred dark brown on inner web and wholly dark brown on outer web; breast markings moderately developed on female and usually lacking on male; large (averages largest in wing length, for example). Baja breeders, currently considered as P. h. carolinensis, differ in plumage from their northern counterparts in being whiter on head, breast, and under wing, almost as much as Caribbean P. h. ridgwayi (Blanco and Rodriguez-Estrella 1999).

P. h. ridgwayi Maynard, 1887; type locality Andros I. Resident in Caribbean from Bahamas and Cuba south to coast of se. Mexico and Belize; not currently found breeding south of s. Belize and Cuba. Under wing primary-coverts mostly white with pale brown restricted to distal two-thirds of outer web; head largely white (dark markings reduced on crown and sides of head); breast markings reduced or lacking on both sexes; relatively small (averaging smaller than P. h. carolinensis). Often paler brown dorsally (perhaps sun bleaching).

P. h. haliaetus (Linnaeus, 1758); type restricted to Sweden. Breeds in Palearctic (Europe, northwest coast of Africa, and Asia north of the Himalayas); winters to s. Africa, India, and East Indies. Under wing primary-coverts unbarred white on inner web and wholly rufous brown on outer web; blackish crown; breast markings more strongly developed sex for sex than P. h. carolinensis (southern populations [e.g., Mediterranean and Red Sea] paler and whiter, especially under wing-coverts); similar in size to P. h. carolinensis but averaging slightly smaller. Includes names P. h. friedmanni of L. P. Wolfe (differences in breast markings attributed to Manchurian breeders, but this based on sexual and individual variation) and P. h. mutuus of F. A. Kipp (birds from Foochow, s. China, thought smaller, but see Prevost 1982).

P. h. leucocephalus (Gould, 1838). Name P. h. cristatus formerly used for this race. Resident breeder in Australia and sw. Pacific (New Guinea west to Celebes and perhaps Java, east and south to New Caledonia and Vanuatu; see details in Poole 1989 and Marchant and Higgins 1993). Under wing primary-coverts nearly entirely ashy brown; somewhat reduced dark markings on head, with male significantly darker than female; breast markings moderately well developed; wing and tail length shorter than other races. Also, primaries and secondaries relatively unbarred and secondary-coverts with thin, brown line along rachis. Combination of relatively dark breast-band and light crown also sets these birds apart. Includes P. h. melvillensis (type Melville I., n. Australia) and P. h. microhaiaetus (type New Caledonia); difference in size north to south has been interpreted in the past as worth subspecific distinction.
Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Tuesday 5th May 2009 at 09:34. Reason: S FL breeders
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 5th May 2009, 23:57   #18
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Also, note use of leucocephalus vs cristatus...
Now, this looks like a real can of worms...

Buteo cristatus Louis J. P. Vieillot, 1816 (Dec.). Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, appliquée aux arts, à l'agriculture, à l'économie rurale et domestique, à la médecine, etc. Tome IV, p. 481.
Richmond Index card (Zoonomen) : http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Burn/burn00107a.jpg
Full text : http://www.archive.org/details/nouveaudictionna04metc

This name is senior to Pandion leucocephalus Gould, 1838.

Vieillot's text reads:
"La BUSE-BONDRÉE HUPPÉE, Buteo cristatus, Vieill., a la tête blanche et brune; une huppe pendante et partant de l'occiput; toutes les plumes du dessus du corps brunes et bordées de roux; le dessous blanc avec des taches brunes sur le devant du cou, mais effacées sur la poitrine; les pennes primaires des ailes, noires; celles de la queue brunes en dessus et blanchâtres en dessous; une bande noire à travers l'oeil et descendant sur les côtés de la gorge; le bec et les ongles noirs; la cire et les pieds jaunes; la taille un peu plus forte que celle de notre balbuzard. On la trouve à la Nouvelle-Hollande."

This description might at first sight fit an osprey - the bird is crested, mainly white below and brown above, and it has a black band through the eye that runs down to the neck sides.
But the described bird also has yellow cere and feet, which would be abnormal for any osprey; it has rufous margins to all of its upperpart feathers, which is surprising as well; it has brown markings on the foreneck, becoming diffuse on the breast, while ospreys have a white foreneck and are marked with brown on the breast only; and it is said to be larger than "our osprey" (presumably in reference to European birds), while Australasian Ospreys are smaller. This bird was also unambiguously placed by Vieillot among buzzards (ospreys were described in another volume of the work), in a separate section along with the Western Honey-buzzard, under a title (p. 479) implying that the two species share the same lores covered with small, dense, scale-like feathers, and the same half-feathered tarsi...
A few years later, Bonnaterre & Vieillot (1823) used the very same name, Buteo cristatus, for the Crested Honey-buzzard Pernis ptilorhyncus.

Except for the range given by Vieillot (Nouvelle-Hollande = Australia), I don't see anything in the 1816 description that would point away from the described bird being an immature Crested Honey-buzzard... Which not only could make the use of cristatus for Australasian Ospreys incorrect, but also could make it the valid name of the Crested HB, as it clearly predates Falco ptilorhyncus Temminck, 1821.

Incidentally, at the MNHN, the type specimen of Falco ptilorhyncus Temminck, 1821 and of Buteo cristatus Bonaterre & Vieillot, 1823, is apparently also marked as being the type of "Buteo cristatus Vieillot" (not "Buteo cristatus Bonnaterre & Vieillot"; http://www.mnhn.fr/publication/zoosyst/z01n1a15.pdf).



But the alternative name also has problems...

Pandion leucocephalus John Gould, 1838 (April). A synopsis of the birds of Australia and adjacent islands. Part III, pl. 4 + text.
Richmond Index card (Zoonomen) : http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Pand/pand00025a.jpg
(Can't find the full text on the web.)

The Richmond Index suggests that this name is preoccupied.

Pandion leucocephalus "N.F." (= "S.D.W." =? S.D. Wood), 1835 (June). Remarks on vernacular and scientific ornithological nomenclature. The Analyst, II, p. 305.
Richmond index card (Zoonomen) : http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Pand/pand00022a.jpg
Full text : http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20086

(This text is signed "N.F.", but a subsequent paper published in the same journal (The Analyst, III:26-35, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20169), this one signed "S.D.W.", is unambiguously from the same author ("In a former paper, (vol. ii, p. 305), I pointed out..."). More about this author can probably be found in http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1938.tb00201.x but I've no access to it.)

The 1835 text states, among other things:
"Selby, in his excellent "British Ornithology,"* places the white-tailed ossifrage (Ossifraga albicilla, mihi) in a different genus from the golden eagle, (Aquila aurea, Willughby,) and yet he calls it eagle, both in vernacular and scientific nomenclature. The white-headed osprey (Pandion leucocephalus, mihi,) is also called Haliaeetus, or sea eagle, although not in the genus Aquila."
The asterisk refers to a footnote about Selby's work:
"* Two vols. 8vo., 2d. edition; 1833, Longman & Co."

It seems quite clear that, in this work, "S.D.W." intends to replace the name Pandion Haliaeetus, used by Selby for British Ospreys, with another name that he proposes himself ("mihi" = myself). There is no description, but there is a clear reference to Selby's British Ornithology (full text here : http://www.archive.org/details/illus...sofb01selbrich), and this work does include a description, which should be enough...

I see no good reason that would make the 1835 name unavailable. And if it is available, it is a senior primary homonym of Gould's name, and makes the latter permanently invalid...

Last edited by l_raty : Wednesday 6th May 2009 at 11:12.
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 6th May 2009, 06:25   #19
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Laurent, you should have been a detective. Hercule Raty...?

Richard

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 6th May 2009 at 06:34.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th May 2009, 19:50   #20
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,059
Laurent, what do you mean in saying that Pandion leucocephalus is available? You do not suggest that the osprey from Britain should be renamed this? If Pandion leucocephalus is permanently invalid, then the next valid name would be Pandion gouldi Kaup Isis 1847?
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th May 2009, 20:13   #21
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,059
The next valid name for the Australian Osprey, I meant. I now think it is P. gouldii, I should have read "Order names" first. Pandion gouldii Kaup Isis 1847 p. 270

Johann Jacob von Dr. Kaup

Storrs Olson thinks S.D.W. is Charles Thorold Wood father of Neville Wood a big believer of phrenology!
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/...0633-p0637.pdf .

Strickland tore him a new blowhole here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=GqS...ient=firefox-a .

And he is mentioned here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...ffd549953a5f25 .

Other names for Australian Osprey?
Pandion haliaetus var. Nouvelle Hollande (Lesson 1831) Pucher Rev. et Mag. Zool. Paris 1850
• Pandion haliaetus australis Burmeister, 1850
Pandion haliaetus minor Schleg. 1869
• Pandion haliaetus melvillensis Mathews, 1912

Last edited by mb1848 : Friday 8th May 2009 at 21:11. Reason: 'cause
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 10th May 2009, 01:03   #22
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
Laurent, what do you mean in saying that Pandion leucocephalus is available? You do not suggest that the osprey from Britain should be renamed this?
I think you are confusing two notions - availability and validity.

Nomenclatural availability simply means that a name has been introduced in a "correct" way - it must have been published (in the sense of the Code), in a work applying binomial nomenclature consistently, must be written using the Latin alphabet, must have been accompanied by a description or an indication, and so on... (The requirements are covered by Chapter 4 of the ICZN; there are more and stricter requirements for recent names, but less and more loosy ones for older names.)
If a name is available, it just "enters the arena" of nomenclature.

The "valid name" of a taxon is the name that correctly applies to it according to the rules of nomenclature. This name is always one of the available names that demonstrably apply to the taxon -- usually the oldest one, except if this one is invalidated for some other reason (e.g., because it is a junior homonym of a name that applies to another taxon).

If Pandion leucocephalus "N.F." is available, it is:
- A junior synonym of Falco Haliaetus Linnaeus, 1758. But the latter has priority, thus is and must remain the valid name of Eurasian ospreys.
- A senior primary homonym of Pandion leucocephalus Gould, 1840. "Primary homonym" means that not only the species-group names have the same spelling, but they also were originally proposed in combination with the same genus-group name. A junior primary homonym can normally not become a valid name - thus, the existence of an available senior homonym should imply that Pandion leucocephalus Gould cannot become the valid name of Australian ospreys.

(There is a "but", here, though...
Article 23.9 of the present Code allows for a reversal of precedence when it is discovered that a name that is in prevailing usage has an old senior homonym that nobody is using anymore. Two conditions must be met (Art. 23.9.1):
- the senior homonym must not have been used as a valid name after 1899, and
- the junior homonym must have been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.
The first condition is more than likely met in the present case. But the second is probably more problematic, because most authors have been using cristatus (Vieillot) -- and therefore not leucocephalus Gould -- as the valid name of this taxon over the last 50 years. If this second condition happened to be met as well, then leucocephalus "N.F." should be declared a nomen oblitum (a forgotten name), and leucocephalus Gould a nomen protectum (a protected name). If so, continuing to use the latter would be OK.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
The next valid name for the Australian Osprey, I meant. I now think it is P. gouldii, I should have read "Order names" first. Pandion gouldii Kaup Isis 1847 p. 270
(You mean the next available name.)

Pandion gouldii Johann Jakob Kaup, 1847. Monographien der Genera der Falconidae. Isis (Oken), Jahrgang 1847 (IV): 270.
(New name for Pandion leucocephalus Gould, "der australische Milanaar", offered "Da wir bereits einen Haliaëtus leucocephalus haben" [because we already have a Haliaëtus leucocephalus].)
Full text here: http://www.archive.org/details/isisvonoken1847oken

L -
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 10th May 2009, 02:14   #23
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 22,183
So, in conclusion, if the Australasian Osprey is a full species, it should be called Pandion gouldii (Johann Jakob Kaup, 1847)?

I wonder how many would be willing to throw out both the currently favored designations? I also wonder, should all this considerations also make gouldii the correct name for the subspecies, or is there any difference in rules for binomen and for subspecies designations?

Thanks
Niels
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

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

Old Sunday 10th May 2009, 03:38   #24
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,059
Laurent, thanks again for the education. As for Art. 23.9.1; I have already started looking for 25 works.
It has been used recently: "Marchant & Higgins (1993: 225, 233) admit only one Indo-Australian subspecies, for which, without explanation, they use the junior synonym leucocephalus instead of cristatus."

Interesting discussion of Australian Osprey here, pages 42-44:
http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/41318
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 10th May 2009, 08:11   #25
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I wonder how many would be willing to throw out both the currently favored designations?
Well, the idea here is that if leucocephalus has been used by only a very tiny minority of recent authors, it arguably does not deserve to be called a "currently favored designation", and switching to it or to something else probably makes little difference...
If the second condition is not fulfilled, but there is a very strong feeling that leucocephalus should nevertheless be preserved, there is still a last solution, though: an application could be submitted to the Commission, asking them to reject the senior homonym under the plenary powers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I also wonder, should all this considerations also make gouldii the correct name for the subspecies, or is there any difference in rules for binomen and for subspecies designations?
There is no difference.
What determines the valid name of a species or subspecies is its circumscription, and the set of available species-group names that are attached to organisms that fall within this circumscription. The rank at which you treat the taxon is taxonomy, not nomenclature, and has no influence.

L -
l_raty is online now  
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
whitefish taxonomy jacana Other Wildlife 3 Saturday 19th January 2008 15:03
Taxonomy AlexC Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 38 Friday 27th April 2007 15:28
New Taxonomy subforum Andy Bright Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 20 Thursday 25th January 2007 03:23
Osprey Poster & Osprey Festival Up-Date the hotel Birds Of Prey 0 Friday 9th June 2006 01:52
Taxonomy sorridsky Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 5 Thursday 24th February 2005 22:37

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.32783103 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:55.