• 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.

Howard and Moore 4th edition - Passerines (1 Viewer)

Sooty Tit

IMO here the authors jumped to the gun a bit too quickly… In the most recent study by Wang et al, which is much more thorough than that of Päckert et al, the two taxa (Sooty and Black-browed Tit) are referred to as different species, with the differences in nuclear DNA being clearly larger than those in mtDNA:
http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/11/1/40
Reported here: Aegithalidae: Black-browed x Sooty Tit hybridisation. But publication (May 2014) was presumably too late to be taken into account in Vol 2.
 
Last edited:
Reported here: Aegithalidae: Black-browed x Sooty Tit hybridisation. But publication (May 2014) was presumably too late to be taken into account in Vol 2.

Thanks! Yes, probably too late, but I still don't see the point in lumping a pretty distinctively looking and parapatric (if not sympatric) taxon just based on a study of the mtDNA of a single individual (as in the paper by Päckert). Wang et al confirmed the mtDNA similarity using a larger sample, but simultaneously they pointed out that currently hybridization seems to be rare and that similar mtDNA gene flow also occurs between e.g. Pine Bunting and Yellowhammer (Oriental/Common Cuckoo and Common/Pallid Swift also spring to my mind).

At the current rate the H&M checklist seems to be updated every ten years or so. Therefore I don't see the point in making such hasty changes rather than waiting for more rigorous results and meanwhile preserving the status quo.

Following Olsson et al 2005, Phylloscopus davisoni sl has generally been split into Davison's Leaf Warbler P davisoni ss (monotypic) and Kloss's Leaf Warbler P ogilviegranti (all other sspp) – eg, Rheindt 2006 (Splits galore: the revolution in Asian leaf warbler systematics), Martens 2010 (Review of Phylloscopus and Seicercus), IOC, eBird/Clements.

H&M4 instead recognises Kloss's Leaf Warbler Seicercus ogilviegranti (monotypic) and White-tailed/Davison's Leaf Warbler S klossi (all other sspp), citing Olsson et al 2005 and Päckert et al 2009.

This must either be a mistake or my reading comprehension is really bad. Neither Olsson et al nor Päckert et al propose or even support such a treatment...
 
That was my initial assumption, but wondered if I'd misunderstood something.

Olsson et al. directly propose the treatment that has been adapted by e.g. IOC (except that they don't comment on the status of intensior). Päckert et al. agree with this, except that they question the validity of hainanus as a species (but also write that further studies are required to clarify the position). They also have mixed the distributions of disturbans and ogilviegranti in their map...

Here they reiterate their views (more correct map now on page 82):
http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1525/om.2011.70.1.64
Note that they don't seem to be sure which species intensior should belong to.

In any case, both Olsson et al. and Päckert et al. agree that the closest relative of davisoni is Grey-hooded Warbler and that the rest of the subspecies previously considered to belong to davisoni (except perhaps intensior) form a separate clade (together with hainanus). Thus the treatment in H&M 4 seems clearly wrong to me.
 
Chamaetylas Heine, 1860 (poliophrys, poliocephala, fuelleborni, choloensis) /H&M4/ = Pseudalethe Beresford, 2003 (poliophrys, poliocephala, fuelleborni, choloensis) /IOC4.4, Clements6.9, HBW, TiF2.98/

Hello,

which is the correct type species of Chamaetylas? I can only find suggestions that the name belongs to Alethe castanea which would make it synonymous with Alethe rather than Pseudalethe.

Cheers
 
which is the correct type species of Chamaetylas? I can only find suggestions that the name belongs to Alethe castanea which would make it synonymous with Alethe rather than Pseudalethe.
The type species of Chamaetylas is (by original monotypy) Geocichla compsonota Cassin, 1859. (But this you certainly knew, the real question being: what is the taxonomic identity of this type species?)

Geocichla compsonota Cassin, 1859:
74. GEOCICHLA COMPSONOTA, nobis.
About the size and general form of Turdus interpres, Temm. Pl. Col. 458, but does not resemble that species in colors. Tail short, wings moderate, first quill spurious, fourth and fifth longest, legs rather strong, toes rather long, bill straight, rather thick, upper mandible curved at the tip and distinctly notched. Head above, cheeks and small space on the chin dark cinereous, upper parts of body and wing coverts bright rufous, quills brownish black, the two first edged externally with dark cinereous, others and especially the shorter quills widely edged with the same bright rufous as the back, tail brownish black, outer feathers edged with rufous. Under parts (except a small space on the chin) white, tinged with dull yellowish brown on the breast and flanks. Bill bluish black, legs pale yellowish (in dried skin.) Total length about 6½ inches, wing 4¾, tail 2½, tarsus 1, bill from gape 7/8 inches.
Hab. — Camma river, Western Africa. Discovered by Mr. P. B. Duchaillu.
This bird is, so far as I can see, exactly the same genus as the Asiatic T. interpres alluded to above, and is about the same size. It is not a very good Geocichla, of which T. citrinus is the type, but not a remote relative. One specimen only in adult plumage is in the collection from the Camma.
(The Camma river is in Gabon.) The species' identity remained long doubtful (eg., the footnote in Reichenow, 1905); the type was apparently mislaid at some point (see Seebohm, 1881), which presumably didn't help. But the specimen later resurfaced, and was examined by Bates, 1911, who identified it with Alethe alexandri Sharpe, 1901.

Alethe alexandri Sharpe, 1901:
5. ALETHE ALEXANDRI, n. sp.
Similis A. castanonota, sed facie laterali nigra nec saturate brunnea distinguenda. Long. tot. 7.0 poll., culm. 0.8, alae 3.6, caudae 2.2, tarsi 1.05.
Hab. Efulen, Kamerun.
("Similar to A. castanonota, but distinguished by black, and not deep brown, face sides. Total length 7.0 inches, that of culmen 0.8, of wing 3.6, of tail 2.2, of tarsus 1.05. Inhabits Efulen, Cameroon.")

Alethe castanonota Sharpe, 1871:
180. Alethe castanonota, sp. n.
A. dorso castaneo : capite cinerascente : stria superciliari albida : alis et cauda saturate brunneis, illis castaneo externe lavatis : mento nigro : gula albicante, corpore subtus reliquo fulvescente. Long. tot. 5.8, culm. 0.7, alae 3.6, caudae 2.2, tarsi 0.9.
a. Fantee (Ussher).
("A[lethe] with chesnut back : greyish head : whitish superciliary stripe : wings and tail deep brown, these washed chestnut externally : black chin : whitish throat, remaining underbody fulvescent. Total length 5.8, that of culmen 0.7, of wing 3.6, of tail 2.2, of tarsus 0.9." "a." denotes the first [and, in the present case, only] specimen; I presume "Fantee" refers to a place in current Ghana--the country of Fante people; Ussher is the collector.)

Cassin's name is currently in wide use for a subspecies of Brown-chested Alethe (now Chamaetylas poliocephala compsonota (Cassin), thus: Nigeria/Cameroon to NW Angola), following Mees, 1988 (who corrected the type locality of Trichophorus poliocephalus Bonaparte, 1850, previously thought to apply to the same taxon: this took Cassin's compsonota out of synonymy--while simultaneously making Sharpe's castanonota, which was in use prior to this, a junior synonym of poliocephala).

...However, this same name was also treated, without any explanation, as a synonym of Alethe diademata castanea (Cassin) by Mayr & Painter, 1964, in Peters' Check-list, which if correct would indeed imply Chamaetylas synonymous with Alethe, not with Pseudalethe. (And this may be the reason why the name was overlooked when Alethe was split...)
 
Last edited:
The type species of Chamaetylas is (by original monotypy) Geocichla compsonota Cassin, 1859. (But this you certainly knew, the real question being: what is the taxonomic identity of this type species?)

Yes, sorry, poorly worded on my part.

Thank you very much for the wonderfully thorough answer. I guess we're assuming for the time being that Mayr & Painter were in error...
 
Thank you very much for the wonderfully thorough answer. I guess we're assuming for the time being that Mayr & Painter were in error...
My pleasure ;)
For the time being, I see no reason to doubt Bates' word, and the original description conflicts with A. castanea (perhaps the most obvious being the "head above [...] dark cinereous", while A. castanea [it's Fire-crested Alethe] has a bright chestnut cap). So yes, I would assume Mayr & Painter were in error.
 
Howard & Moore gives the distribution of Aethopyga magnifica as "SW and SE Sulawesi and satellites". Must be a mistake, right?!

HBW gives it as "WC Philippine Is (Marinduque, Tablas, Sibuyan, Panay, Negros, Cebu)" which seems correct (I've seen it on Cebu).
 
Magnificent Sunbird

Howard & Moore gives the distribution of Aethopyga magnifica as "SW and SE Sulawesi and satellites". Must be a mistake, right?!
Presumably an editing mistake (H&M3 gave the range of magnifica as "WC Philippines"). For treatment as a separate species from A siparaja, H&M4 cites Hosner et al 2013, which states: "Curiously, A. sipiraja [sic] magnifica occurs only in the central Philippines (the Visayan PAIC [Pleistocene aggregate island complex], as well as the small islands of Tablas and Sibuyan), with no close relatives found in either the northern or the southern umbilicus. This unique avian distribution is presumably the result of colonization of the Philippines via an umbilicus from Borneo, and subsequent extirpation of connecting populations.". The type locality is Negros (Rand 1967).
 
Last edited:
Satellite is everything smaller and in close proximity. Also, for example, used about some structures on chromosomes.

Niels
 
Presumably an editing mistake...

Richard,
Possibly another editing mistake concerns the distributions of Turdus merula taxa (p622 Vol 2). That given for merula is almost exactly the same as for aterrimus.

My guess is that at some time, it was intended to amend the aterrimus entry, but the amendment was applied to the merula entry.

H&M3, I assume, is correct in these distributions.
MJB
 
Kompletna lista ptaków świata

Mielczarek, P. & M. Kuziemko. Kompletna lista ptaków świata.
that is
The H&M Checklist of the Birds of the World (M. Kuziemko is assistant editor) + Polish bird names.

Updated 25.1.2015 among other things:
Acanthis yemenensis and A. johannis transferred to Linaria
See this Richard's post #35

Change the scientific name of the family Plectrophenacidae to Calcariidae
See Laurent's post #18

Adelura has priority over Phoenicuropsis, Heleia has priority over Lophozosterops, Seicercus ogilviegranti includes sspp klossi, disturbans and intensior [then monotypic Seicercus muleyitensis = Phylloscopus davisoni]
 
Odd - I can download it OK, and I'm not signed up to researchgate either. Try again?
Yes, all posted pdfs are freely downloadable without ResearchGate membership – just dismiss the membership invitation if it pops up. As far as I can see, the only 'extra' provided by membership is the ability to request non-posted pdfs from contributing authors – but this seems to be of minimal value given that abstracts invariably include author email contact details (and even if email addresses are out of date, most academics are easily traceable anyway).
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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