• 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.

Common Chaffinch populations (Fringilla coelebs ssp.) (1 Viewer)

Acrocephalus

Well-known member
Morocco
Population Differentiation, Historical Demography and Evolutionary Relationships Among Widespread Common Chaffinch Populations (Fringilla coelebs ssp.). Master of Science, University of Toronto. Full text

Auteur: Samarasin-Dissanayake, Pasan
Advisor: Baker, Allan
 
Macaronesia

Lachlan, Verzijden, Bernard, Jonker, Koese, Jaarsma, Spoor, Slater & ten Cate (in press). The progressive loss of syntactical structure in bird song along an island colonization chain. Curr Biol. [abstract]

See also:
 
Last edited:
Azores

Rodrigues, Lopes, Reis, Resendes, Ramos & Tristão da Cunha (in press). Genetic diversity and morphological variation of the common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in the Azores. J Avian Biol. [abstract]
 
Last edited:

I noticed this today, geographically incorrect:

Chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs) on the furthest island of their dispersal, Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands, still sing the same notes, but with a much less structured pattern from one bird to the next, sort of like an island of Charlie Parkers.

Chaffinches also breed further west on Tenerife, La Gomera, El Hierro and La Palma, not to mention the Azores, which are more westerly still.
 
Macaronesia

I noticed this today, geographically incorrect:
Chaffinches (Fringilla coelebs) on the furthest island of their dispersal, Gran Canaria in the Canary Islands, still sing the same notes, but with a much less structured pattern from one bird to the next, sort of like an island of Charlie Parkers.
Chaffinches also breed further west on Tenerife, La Gomera, El Hierro and La Palma, not to mention the Azores, which are more westerly still.
Perhaps Duke University's Office of News & Communications was confused by the fact that Gran Canaria is the furthest Macaronesian island from North Carolina to be colonised. ;)
 
Perhaps Duke University's Office of News & Communications was confused by the fact that Gran Canaria is the furthest Macaronesian island from North Carolina to be colonised. ;)

A perfect explanation, adding, as it does, the fact that NC is short for North Carolina, which I wondered about!
 
Birdwatch

Rodrigues, Lopes, Reis, Resendes, Ramos & Tristão da Cunha (in press). Genetic diversity and morphological variation of the common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in the Azores. J Avian Biol. [abstract]
David Callahan, Birdwatch Listcheck, 27 Jan 2015: Atlantic Chaffinch subspecies to be split?

  • Collinson 2001. Evolution of the Atlantic-island Chaffinches. Brit Birds 94(3): 121–124. [pdf]
  • Suárez et al 2009. Phylogeography and genetic structure of the Canarian common chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs) inferred with mtDNA and microsatellite loci. Mol Phylogenet Evol 53(2): 556–564. [pdf]
  • Lachlan et al 2013. The progressive loss of syntactical structure in bird song along an island colonization chain. Curr Biol 23(19): 1896–1901. [pdf]
  • Rodrigues et al 2014. Genetic diversity and morphological variation of the common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in the Azores. J Avian Biol 45(2): 167–178. [pdf]
 
Last edited:
solomkoi

Yablonovska-Grishchenko, Grishchenko & Tsvelykh 2014. Geographic variation of song of the Crimean Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs solomkoi). Berkut 23(1): 40–55. [abstract]

[With thanks to Alain Fossé for reporting on AvianReferences.]
 
harterti

Svensson 2015. A new North African subspecies of Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Bull BOC 135(1): 69–76.
SUMMARY.—A new subspecies of Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs in North Africa is described. It is restricted to northern Cyrenaica in north-east Libya. ... Reasons for not recognising the subspecies F. c. koenigi are reconfirmed. ...

Fringilla coelebs harterti, subsp. nov.
 
Hello

does anybody of you have a PDF of this paper by Svensson ?

I had submitted a paper to Dutch Birding, an extended and updated version of what I published in Birding Frontiers a while agò, on tail pattern variation of "African Chaffinch" taxa and I get Bull BOC in my home address in Siracusa, Sicily but I am since 3 months in Roma

please, I need this asap if possible and any help will be most welcome

thanks

Andrea Corso
 
HWPB subspecific taxonomy

Svensson 2015. A new North African subspecies of Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Bull BOC 135(1): 69–76.
Incidentally, Lars comments in the paper that the 75% rule is applied to subspecies distinction in the forthcoming Handbook of Western Palearctic Birds (Shirihai & Svensson in press).

As long anticipated, this suggests that we can look forward to a thorough and authoritative overhaul of WP subspecific taxonomy (with much-needed synonymisation of many clinal subspecies). Hopefully it will be readily adopted by the major world checklists as the new regional subspecific baseline...
 
in this way I think almost all subspecies , for ex. of N Africa, of Larks, of Rock Sparrow, of Passer sp., of other taxa will be considered synonym as well as some Lanner Falcon subsp. (erlangeri and tanypterus being same taxon) and Peregrine and so on....

However, nobody have the PDF please?

B :)B :)o:Do:D:smoke::smoke:
 
Svensson 2015. A new North African subspecies of Common Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs. Bull BOC 135(1): 69–76.

Given the range, I presume (but don't know) that harterti is similar in appearance and perhaps genetically to spodiogenys? Though, given the surprising genetic results concerning africana, spodiogenys and the position of both relative to coelebs, assumption could be dangerous...
 
Given the range, I presume (but don't know) that harterti is similar in appearance and perhaps genetically to spodiogenys? Though, given the surprising genetic results concerning africana, spodiogenys and the position of both relative to coelebs, assumption could be dangerous...
Not seen the paper, but Roselaar in Cramp & Perrins 1994 (BWP VIII) wrote:
"Birds from Cyrenaica (northern Libya) have longer bill than those from remainder of North Africa, coulour near africana, but underparts tinged yellow-buff instead of white, and white nape patch large (Stanford 1954); here included in africana following Vaurie (1959), but perhaps separable."

(I'm not sure what you are alluding to about africana and spodiogenys, but note that the results concerning these two taxa have been misrepresented in the birding literature as suggesting that these two taxa differ a lot from one another in mtDNA. In fact, all africana and most spodiogenys have mtDNA very close to that of European birds, while, in a minority of Tunisian birds, a divergent haplotype (which was nicknamed the "Nefza haplotype") has been found. In published analyses, this haplotype appeared more distinct from European haplotypes than Macaronesian haplotypes. But as its distribution does not coincide with a population, it cannot really be used as a taxonomically significant character.)
 
Last edited:
harterti

Given the range, I presume (but don't know) that harterti is similar in appearance and perhaps genetically to spodiogenys?
In a rather curious (dubious?) arrangement, the isolated N Cyrenaican population has usually (eg, Clement 2010) been included in africana despite being geographically separated from africana sensu stricto by spodiogenys.

Svensson...
SUMMARY.—... Differences from the other North African subspecies, F. c. africana and F. c. spodiogenys, are discussed, the main ones being that males invariably possess a prominent white patch on the central nape, a hint of white post-ocular supercilium, a more yellowish tinge both above and below, stronger yellow fringes to the tertials and wing-coverts, and a less clean blue-grey head. ...
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top