Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
-
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.
Robins are flycatchers? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Pete Mella
- Start date
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I can' t read the article |=(|
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Great. thank !!. Now I waiting for they change the two "new" generic names.
l_raty
laurent raty
Still with the same preoccupied names...
[Second figure]
Chapinia is proposed for "Fraseria" cinerascens.
Fraseria Bonaparte 1854 [OD], type Tephrodornis ocracea Strickland by original monotypy, is restricted to the type species.
Ripleyia is proposed for "Muscicapa" ruficauda.
(But "Muscicapa" ruficauda is in basal position in their tree and outgroups are not shown. In the results of Price et al. 2014 [pdf], it was embedded in Ficedula.)
There are other apparent problems with the nomenclature, but I need to check the original sources.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Bradyornis Sundevall 1850 [OD] is an explicit emendation of Bradornis Smith [OD], type by original monotypy, Bradornis mariquensis Smith.
How can this end up being used for Muscicapa boehmi? And how can two names which are just two variant spellings of the very same one coexist in a single classification?
How can this end up being used for Muscicapa boehmi? And how can two names which are just two variant spellings of the very same one coexist in a single classification?
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
We can use Myopornis Reichenow, 1901 for Muscicapa boehmi.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
In the text (thanks, Richard):
If you limit the outgroups to a single clade (here, Copsychini), you don't test the monophyly of the ingroup. If this is what was done, the results are potentially consistent with the position suggested by Price et al. (but then the tree is misrooted - it should be rooted on "M." ruficauda, not on Copsichini).
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Thank "full text checklist of birds of the world "
Hey ! Is it time for a new classification of Muscicapa and relatives ?
Hey ! Is it time for a new classification of Muscicapa and relatives ?
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
No other big problems, at first sight at least.
Artomyias Verreaux & Verreaux 1855 [OD], type Artomyias fuliginosa Verreaux & Verreaux by original monotypy, a subjective senior synonym (cf. [Sharpe 1879]) of Butalis infuscatus Cassin 1855 [OD]).
(This name was first published by Bonaparte 1854 [here] but it is a nomen nudum there - no description, and this predates the publication of the only originally included species by Verreaux & Verreaux.)
Using it for "Muscicapa infuscata" and "Muscicapa" usheri seems OK. But the species should then be called Artomyias fuliginosa and A. usheri (fuliginosa is certainly not preoccupied in this genus; see the discussion at TiF).
Pedilorhynchus Reichenow 1891 [re-issuing of OD in JfO], type by original designation Pedilorhynchus stuhlmanni Reichenow 1891, a subjective junior synonym (cf. [Mayr & Cottrell 1986]) of Butalis comitata Cassin 1857.
Using it for "Muscicapa" comitata seems OK.
Haganopsornis Roberts 1922 [OD], type by original designation Bradornis infuscatus Smith.
Using it for "Bradornis" infuscatus and "B." pallidus seems OK.
Butalis Boie 1826 [OD], type by original monotypy Muscicapa grisola Linn. 1766, a junior subjective synonym of Muscicapa striata Pallas 1764.
Cichlomyia Oberholser 1905 [OD], type by original designation Butalis caerulescens Hartlaub. (Date of publication 8 Jul 1905 according to the volume's [ToC].)
The type species of Butalis is the same as that of Muscicapa, hence this name can certainly not be used for "Muscicapa" tessmanni and "M." caerulescens; but Cichlomyia seems OK.
Apatema Reichenow 1905 [OD], type by original monotypy Parisoma olivascens Cassin.
Using it for "Muscicapa" olivascens seems OK.
Artomyias Verreaux & Verreaux 1855 [OD], type Artomyias fuliginosa Verreaux & Verreaux by original monotypy, a subjective senior synonym (cf. [Sharpe 1879]) of Butalis infuscatus Cassin 1855 [OD]).
(This name was first published by Bonaparte 1854 [here] but it is a nomen nudum there - no description, and this predates the publication of the only originally included species by Verreaux & Verreaux.)
Using it for "Muscicapa infuscata" and "Muscicapa" usheri seems OK. But the species should then be called Artomyias fuliginosa and A. usheri (fuliginosa is certainly not preoccupied in this genus; see the discussion at TiF).
Pedilorhynchus Reichenow 1891 [re-issuing of OD in JfO], type by original designation Pedilorhynchus stuhlmanni Reichenow 1891, a subjective junior synonym (cf. [Mayr & Cottrell 1986]) of Butalis comitata Cassin 1857.
Using it for "Muscicapa" comitata seems OK.
Haganopsornis Roberts 1922 [OD], type by original designation Bradornis infuscatus Smith.
Using it for "Bradornis" infuscatus and "B." pallidus seems OK.
Butalis Boie 1826 [OD], type by original monotypy Muscicapa grisola Linn. 1766, a junior subjective synonym of Muscicapa striata Pallas 1764.
Cichlomyia Oberholser 1905 [OD], type by original designation Butalis caerulescens Hartlaub. (Date of publication 8 Jul 1905 according to the volume's [ToC].)
The type species of Butalis is the same as that of Muscicapa, hence this name can certainly not be used for "Muscicapa" tessmanni and "M." caerulescens; but Cichlomyia seems OK.
Apatema Reichenow 1905 [OD], type by original monotypy Parisoma olivascens Cassin.
Using it for "Muscicapa" olivascens seems OK.
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Don't forget :
''Fraseria'' (''Chapinia'')(''Chapinomyias'' temporary non-official remplacement name for Chapinia) cinerascens
and ''Muscicapa'' (''Ripleyia'') (''Ripleyornis'' temporary non-official remplacement name for Ripleyia) ruficauda
LOL
Apatema is a genus of moth
''Fraseria'' (''Chapinia'')(''Chapinomyias'' temporary non-official remplacement name for Chapinia) cinerascens
and ''Muscicapa'' (''Ripleyia'') (''Ripleyornis'' temporary non-official remplacement name for Ripleyia) ruficauda
LOL
Apatema is a genus of moth
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
No choice and so much the better
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
= Ficedula until the contrary is proven, IMO. (Once the data are released, checking whether the two sets are congruent or conflicting should be straightforward, as they have two genes in common.)
Apatema is indeed also a moth genus, and the moth "version" has precedence: Apatema Walsingham 1900 [OD]. Thus this name cannot be used. (Still one more significant problem at second sight, thus.) For now, I find no other name that might be used instead, thus if the species is to be recognised as generically distinct, a replacement name may be needed.
Of course one might also unite ochracea, griseigularis, plumbea, olivascens, tessmanni, caerulescens and cinerascens in Fraseria. This node is strongly supported and genetic divergences look comparable to those in Muscicapa. But the group's external appearance would be a bit ragtag.
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
So, Muscicapa olivascens and lendu are unite with Muscicapa tessmani and caerulescens in Cichlomyia.
Oh yeah !
Oh yeah !
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Erithacus rubecula marionae
HBW Alive: Recently described species and subspecies, 23 Oct 2015...
(Presumably the first sentence refers to Dietzen, Witt & Wink 2003.)
PS. First sentence now revised (removing "...in a nomenclaturally invalid way")...
Last edited:
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
l_raty
laurent raty
The recent description as far as I can judge is nomenclaturally valid. The previous ones, indeed, were not valid due to a lack of type fixation.:t: thanks - long way before we split them, then...
The only published genetic data are cytochrome-b sequences from the paper linked by Richard above. (Albeit if you want a more or less "normal" quality pdf, you can download the whole issue of Avian Science [here].) These data suggest that the dominant Gran Canaria haplogroup is basal, while the dominant Tenerife haplogroup is sister to (but still quite deeply divergent from) the nominate haplogroup. The support for these relationships was not terribly high, however; one bird from Tenerife was found to have a "Gran Canaria-like" haplotype; and of course mtDNA never shows more than a part of the "truth".
Bergmann & Schottler 2001 [here] have suggested vocal differences between superbus and rubecula, but they did not consider the possibility that superbus might be more than one taxon; and so far as can be judged, they used only material from Tenerife.
For what it's worth, there are also data from the Canaries in BOLD (cox1, genetic barcodes), that also show two deeply divergent clades, but these are not (yet) public, so you can't see any detail. Somewhat more intriguingly, BOLD also has a single barcode, from [a bird from Krasnodar], NE of the Black sea in Russia, that is deeply divergent from all other sequences too.
andrew147
Well-known member
Sericolius Bonaparte, 1855 (type = Muscicapa pallida) predates Haganopsornis... is this name valid?
Last edited:
