Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Tristesse :-C
-
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.
Apodidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Yep. But at least it is produced by a bird club, so buying it (a) supports a worthy cause, and (b) you won't be forced to pay €50 per page or whatever the big publishers charge now to cover for their fat cat pay :storm:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
CaliSteve
Living life in Paradise!
A reappraisal of Schouteden’s Swift Schoutedenapus schoutedeni.
https://www.africanbirdclub.org/bul...schouteden’s-swift-schoutedenapus-schoutedeni
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Chaetura
Proposal (841) to SACC
Change the species status of two swifts of the genus Chaetura: (A) recognize C. andrei as a valid species, and (B) treat C. viridipennis as conspecific with C. chapmani
Proposal (841) to SACC
Change the species status of two swifts of the genus Chaetura: (A) recognize C. andrei as a valid species, and (B) treat C. viridipennis as conspecific with C. chapmani
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
BirdLife Taxonomy: Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) is being split: assessment of newly recognised taxa.
Following a taxonomic reassessment, Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) has been split into Vaux’s Swift (C. vauxi) and Andre’s Swift (C. andrei) (see Chesser et al. 2018). The newly-split Vaux’s Swift is a partial migrant with a resident population in Central America and a population breeding in eastern North America. Andre’s Swift is endemic to northern Venezuela. The habitat requirements of the newly-split Andre’s Swift have not been investigated, but it is likely that, similarly to Vaux’s Swift, it occupies primary and secondary forests in lowland and montane areas (Chantler et al. 2020). Both of the newly recognised taxa appear to be under threat from forest loss, as they depend on old-growth forest for nest and roost sites (Chantler et al. 2020, Schwitters et al. 2020).
The pre-split taxon was estimated to number 870,000 mature individuals (Partners in Flight 2019). The population size of the newly-split Andre’s Swift has not been estimated directly. However, based on the recorded population density of a congener (Band-rumped Swift Chaetura spinicaudus: 1 mature individual/km2 in French Guiana [Santini et al. 2018]) and the area of the species’s mapped range (81,400 km2), and assuming that around 10% of the range is occupied, the population of Andre’s Swift may number c.8,000 mature individuals. This estimate is highly preliminary and may be corrected if more detailed data becomes available. To account for uncertainty in the estimate, the population size of Andre’s Swift is here placed in the band 2,500-9,999 mature individuals. From this, it follows that the population of the newly-split Vaux’s Swift may number roughly 860,000 mature individuals.
The pre-split species was listed as Least Concern (BirdLife International 2020). However following the taxonomic split, new estimates of population sizes suggest that both species warrant a thorough assessment, which is provided below.
Following a taxonomic reassessment, Vaux’s Swift (Chaetura vauxi) has been split into Vaux’s Swift (C. vauxi) and Andre’s Swift (C. andrei) (see Chesser et al. 2018). The newly-split Vaux’s Swift is a partial migrant with a resident population in Central America and a population breeding in eastern North America. Andre’s Swift is endemic to northern Venezuela. The habitat requirements of the newly-split Andre’s Swift have not been investigated, but it is likely that, similarly to Vaux’s Swift, it occupies primary and secondary forests in lowland and montane areas (Chantler et al. 2020). Both of the newly recognised taxa appear to be under threat from forest loss, as they depend on old-growth forest for nest and roost sites (Chantler et al. 2020, Schwitters et al. 2020).
The pre-split taxon was estimated to number 870,000 mature individuals (Partners in Flight 2019). The population size of the newly-split Andre’s Swift has not been estimated directly. However, based on the recorded population density of a congener (Band-rumped Swift Chaetura spinicaudus: 1 mature individual/km2 in French Guiana [Santini et al. 2018]) and the area of the species’s mapped range (81,400 km2), and assuming that around 10% of the range is occupied, the population of Andre’s Swift may number c.8,000 mature individuals. This estimate is highly preliminary and may be corrected if more detailed data becomes available. To account for uncertainty in the estimate, the population size of Andre’s Swift is here placed in the band 2,500-9,999 mature individuals. From this, it follows that the population of the newly-split Vaux’s Swift may number roughly 860,000 mature individuals.
The pre-split species was listed as Least Concern (BirdLife International 2020). However following the taxonomic split, new estimates of population sizes suggest that both species warrant a thorough assessment, which is provided below.
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
MJB
Well-known member
I believe they spelled 'western' wrong.
Given that I've seen it in Washington State (summer breeder) and Belize (resident), BirdLife's article does display the 'Buttons and bows' effect.**
MJB
**"East is east and west is west
And the wrong one I have chose..."
(Livingstone & Evans, 1941: sung by Dinah Shore)
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I wonder, Indicapus and Zoonavena were created by Mathews (1918) and published in the same paper in the same page (265) , but Indicapus appears first. shouldn't Indicapus be the valid name?
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
So C. andrei was C.aphanes?
There is no such thing under the Code as page (or where-on-the-page) priority.
The single species Mathews placed in Indicapus (I. sylvaticus) was included in Chaetura (as C. sylvatica) by Peters (Volume IV, 1940), who kept C. grandidieri in Zoonavena, of which it is the type. Who first placed C. sylvatica and C. grandidieri in the same genus (other than Chaetura)? They should have acted as first reviser; would placing them both in Zoonavena without comment count if they made no explicit choice? Would selecting Indicapus now not be destabilising to nomenclature?
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
ok.
I don't think choosing Indicapus instead of Zoonavena will destabilize nomenclature.
You know, I was just asking the question, because it's a question I've in my mind for some time
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I'm confused by the range, Scythebill states that andrei is in Eastern Venezuela and mentions the split, aphanes is stated to be in the North hence my previous question, so which is correct.
We had a sighting of Vaux's at Henri Pittier in Venezuela, would they be Andre's?
Unless Indicapus has aleady been selected, why suggest that if a species is taken from one genus and placed with another in an established genus both should have new generic names? When was Indicapus last used?
Paul Clapham
Well-known member
Sort of. C. andrei was frequently treated as a separate species from C. vauxi, but a review in 1997 claimed that andrei was indistinguishable from C. vauxi aphanes and recommended that they be synonymized. And andrei has priority, which is the "yes" part of the answer to your question.
The SACC followed that recommendation, which implied treating andrei as a subspecies of vauxi, up until their recent split of the two.
mb1848
Well-known member
I think 1970 Brooks says It should be noted that Indicapus Mathews 1918 with type species of sylvatica Tickell has line priority over Zoonavena. However I am the first reviser…
https://journals.co.za/content/admn/9/2/AJA0012723X_1554 .
For a short time the rules did allow page/line priority 1940 1950s?
Last edited:
Thanks. The full quote is:
The last group is Zoonavena Mathews, 1918, with type species grandidieri (J. Verreaux), of Malagasy and the Comoros, with which are associated thomensis of the Gulf of Guinea and sylvatica of India. It should be noted that Indicapus Mathews, 1918, with type species sylvatica (Tickell), has line priority over Zoonavena. However, I am the first reviser in respect of the genera and subgenera of swifts placed in Chaetura by authors, and I select Zoonavena on the grounds that it has been more widely used by major authorities, including Sclater (1924), Rand (1936), and Peters (1940).
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Thanks both. So,well, I have my answer
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Thanks for this Paul however, there is remaining confusion, for me anyway, as to the correct range of andrei, see post 33.
l_raty
laurent raty
Zoonavena vs. Indicapus
I agree Brooke 1970 was the first reviser.
Just to be complete and answer some questions that have been asked :
This was not the case here, though -- both names were introduced a full genera (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53451501 ).
To have a FR act, both names must have been cited, and one of them must have been given precedence over the other, either explicitly (i.e., in a comment), or in the adopted taxonomic treatment -- this can be done either by adopting one of the name as the valid name of a taxon and citing the other as an invalid synonym of this valid name, or by adopting both names as valid for two taxa, one of which would be subordinate to the other (e.g., making Indicapus the name of a subgenus within a full genus Zoonavena gives precedence to Zoonavena).
But page priority was also the rule under the old AOU Code -- which is why, historically, so many cases were solved using it in ornithology.
I agree Brooke 1970 was the first reviser.
Just to be complete and answer some questions that have been asked :
Indeed, but there is "rank priority", which is the first thing that should be checked when trying to establish the precedence between two names published on the same date. If the names were introduced at different ranks (e.g., genus and subgenus, species and subspecies, family and subfamily, etc.), the name introduced at a higher rank has automatic precedence over the other.
This was not the case here, though -- both names were introduced a full genera (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/53451501 ).
No comment is needed, but simply "placing them both in Zoonavena" would not be enough either.
To have a FR act, both names must have been cited, and one of them must have been given precedence over the other, either explicitly (i.e., in a comment), or in the adopted taxonomic treatment -- this can be done either by adopting one of the name as the valid name of a taxon and citing the other as an invalid synonym of this valid name, or by adopting both names as valid for two taxa, one of which would be subordinate to the other (e.g., making Indicapus the name of a subgenus within a full genus Zoonavena gives precedence to Zoonavena).
1948-1953, indeed. (Shortly discussed here: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom/2010-April/116212.html )
But page priority was also the rule under the old AOU Code -- which is why, historically, so many cases were solved using it in ornithology.
