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.

Laridae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Sunday 19th June 2016, 21:19   #76
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Adriaens & Gibbins 2016. Identification of the Larus canus complex. Dutch Birding 38(1).
Any sign of this split being taken up by IOC yet? Seems an obvious one
Nutcracker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 23rd June 2016, 14:21   #77
Frank Gill
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutcracker View Post
Any sign of this split being taken up by IOC yet? Seems an obvious one
Nudge noted
:)
Frank Gill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th June 2016, 19:22   #78
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,734
Sarah A. Sonsthagen, Robert E. Wilson, R. Terry Chesser, Jean-Marc Pons, Pierre-Andre Crochet, Amy Driskell, Carla Dove. Recurrent hybridization and recent origin obscure phylogenetic relationships within the ‘white-headed’ gull (Larus sp.) complex. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 28 June 2016.

[abstract]
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 22nd August 2016, 07:08   #79
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,734
TiF Update August 21, 2016

Gulls: The Gray-hooded Gull / Gray-headed Gull, Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus, has been split into the Gray-hooded Gull, Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus, of South America and the Gray-headed Gull, Chroicocephalus poiocephalus, of Africa. Given et al. (2005) found that C. poiocephalus was more closely related to Hartlaub's Gull, Chroicocephalus hartlaubii than to C. cirrocephalus. They noted this relationship could be an artifact of introgression, but they did not have any evidence to that effect.
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 22nd August 2016, 13:07   #80
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Gulls: The Gray-hooded Gull / Gray-headed Gull, Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus, has been split into the Gray-hooded Gull, Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus, of South America and the Gray-headed Gull, Chroicocephalus poiocephalus, of Africa. Given et al. (2005) found that C. poiocephalus was more closely related to Hartlaub's Gull, Chroicocephalus hartlaubii than to C. cirrocephalus. They noted this relationship could be an artifact of introgression, but they did not have any evidence to that effect.
It's very little data to base a conclusion, I think.
The two hartlaubii barcodes that are in BOLD (scroll down to the BIN tree, then click on the "PDF tree (All members and a member of the nearest BIN)" link to see the geographical origin of the samples) are 100% identical to two poiocephalus barcodes, as well as two cirrocephalus barcodes. Then you have some other cirrocephalus that are a bit different, and some other poiocephalus that are a bit different too.
Given et al. found one poiocephalus more closely related to two Hartlaub's Gull than to one cirrocephalus. How do we know they wouldn't have found the opposite, had they chosen other individuals?

Last edited by l_raty : Monday 22nd August 2016 at 13:25.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 22nd August 2016, 13:53   #81
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
It's very little data to base a conclusion, I think.
The two hartlaubii barcodes that are in BOLD (scroll down to the BIN tree, then click on the "PDF tree (All members and a member of the nearest BIN)" link to see the geographical origin of the samples) are 100% identical to two poiocephalus barcodes, as well as two cirrocephalus barcodes. Then you have some other cirrocephalus that are a bit different, and some other poiocephalus that are a bit different too.
Given et al. found one poiocephalus more closely related to two Hartlaub's Gull than to one cirrocephalus. How do we know they wouldn't have found the opposite, had they chosen other individuals?
Also, from the same small sample of masked gulls, Given et al 2005 suggested species status for the New Zealand Red-billed Gull L. scopulinus and the Australian Silver Gull L. novaehollandiae, an arrangement that recently was re-lumped from more comprehensive data (Gill et al 2010). I think that the conclusions of Given et al 2005 are best noted until such time as more advanced techniques are applied to the masked gulls.
MJB
Reference
Gill, BJ, BD Bell, GK Chambers, DG Medway, RL Palma, RP Scofield, AJD Tennyson and TH Worthy. 2010.
Checklist of the birds of New Zealand, Norfolk and Macquarie Islands, and the Ross Dependency, Antarctica. 4th edn. Te Papa Press and Ornithological Society of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand.
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy

Last edited by MJB : Monday 22nd August 2016 at 15:06. Reason: typo, add refernce
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd August 2016, 03:58   #82
PScofield
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 28
Just to clarify MJB, The New Zealand Checklist committee did not accept a split between L. n. scopulinus and L. n. novaehollandiae not due to new data but due to the fact that Given et al 2005 failed to include samples from New Caledonia of the putative ssp L. n. fosteri. Without inclusion of this taxa there remains a possibility that the supposed polyphyletic structure of the Australian and NZ populations would collapse.

The status of Australasian birds is intriguing with Dwight (1925) reporting (without example) L. n. novaehollandiae occurring as a vagrant in NZ and the status of vagrant birds reported from Norfolk and the Kermadec Islands has not been resolved.
PScofield is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 23rd August 2016, 11:43   #83
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScofield View Post
Just to clarify MJB, The New Zealand Checklist committee did not accept a split between L. n. scopulinus and L. n. novaehollandiae not due to new data but due to the fact that Given et al 2005 failed to include samples from New Caledonia of the putative ssp L. n. fosteri. Without inclusion of this taxa there remains a possibility that the supposed polyphyletic structure of the Australian and NZ populations would collapse.

The status of Australasian birds is intriguing with Dwight (1925) reporting (without example) L. n. novaehollandiae occurring as a vagrant in NZ and the status of vagrant birds reported from Norfolk and the Kermadec Islands has not been resolved.
Thanks for that info! Nevertheless, even if forsteri had been included in Given et al 2005, the tiny sample size should still count against any firm conclusions until more comprehensive molecular research had been done. I'm with the NZCC all the way, even though it cost me a species on my personal lists!
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 25th September 2016, 17:00   #84
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16,757
This paper claims that Lesser Crested Tern should be Sterna [Thalasseus] media Horsfield, 1821, not bengalensis Lesson, 1831.

Presumably from the failure of any of the usual bird lists (IOC, Clements, etc.) to take this up, the paper is at fault somewhere - anyone know why, please?
Nutcracker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th September 2016, 13:40   #85
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nutcracker View Post
... Lesser Crested Tern should be Sterna [Thalasseus] media Horsfield, 1821, not bengalensis Lesson, 1831. ...
H&M4 has a footnote reading:
Quote:
Mlíkovský (2011) [1673] argued that the older name media Horsfield, 1821, was not truly preoccupied by media Vieillot, 1820, and should be restored.
Unfortunately, Mlíkovský tends to have 'divergent' views on many aspects of nomenclature, which may explain in part that his findings are not always adopted immediately by mainstream checklists.

Obviously, Hartert 1916 interpreted Vieillot 1820 as having introduced a new name "Sterna media", to denote "la Guiffette, de la pl. enlum. de Buffon, n. 924" -- making the bird shown on this plate the holotype of a new nominal taxon, and making S. media Horsfield 1821 preoccupied. If you take the whole picture into account, it seems quite clear that, as argued by Mlíkovský, media was but an incorrect subsequent spelling of naevia. It may be a bit less clear if you have to demonstrate it from Vieillot 1820 taken in isolation, however... (Thus, without recourse to the comparison to Vieillot 1819.)

One potential problem here may also be that it's typically difficult to obtain that two names be treated as variant spellings of one another, when they at first appear to have completely different meanings and derivations. ("Having the same meaning and derivation" is a working criterion than many workers apply or have applied, to differentiate between emendations [new names proposed to replace an existing one, formed by modifying the latter] and replacement names ["wholly" new names proposed to replace an existing one], which some parts of the Code pretend to treat differently without saying how to recognize the two cases. In practice the boundary is completely fuzzy.) Naevia = spotted; media = intermediate. If, upon seeing Vieillot 1820, you turn back to Latham looking for 'media', without being ready to accept 'naevia' as a potential variant spelling of it, you simply won't find it. Ergo: media must have been added by Vieillot himself, and is not part of what he cited from Latham; hence, the fact that Latham used naevia becomes irrelevant...


Some links to relevant references, if you want to explore them :
  • Brisson 1760(6):217 [here] - Sterna naevia ("l'Hirondelle-de-mer tachetée"). Illustration [here]. (Brisson's species names are unavailable.)
  • Linnaeus 1766 [here] - Sterna naevia. Name borrowed from Brisson (= first reference cited), available from here.
  • Buffon 1781:339 [here] - "La Guifette". (This is the edition cited by Latham.) Cites Sterna naevia from Brisson. Martinet, planche enluminée n° 924 [here] - "La Guifette".
  • Latham 1785:358 [here] - Sterna naevia Linn. and "La Guifette, Buf. Ois. viii. p. 339. - Pl. Enl. 924." cited under "Var. A" of Latham's Sandwich Tern, and said to be "no doubt a young merely of" this species.
  • Bonnaterre 1791('1823'):98 [here] - "LA GUIFETTE. 23. S. Naevia." Treated here as a valid species. Illustration [here].
  • Bossi 1808 [here] - About a bird improperly called aigrette in Ain: "Nous sommes portés à croire que c'est la guifette. (Sterna media.)" No description or indication, no available name here. (Misprint for naevia, perhaps taken from Bonnaterre?)
  • Vieillot 1816:238 [here] - "AIGRETTE. On appelle ainsi dans le département de l'Ain, une hirondelle de mer qui se trouve souvent sur les nombreux étangs de la Bresse, et qui paroît se rapprocher beaucoup de la GNIFFETTE (sterna media)." Quite likely an unattributed citation of the content of Bossi 1808; "media" presumably inherited from there. No name can be available from here either.
  • Vieillot 1819:167 [here] - "Latham rapporte à cette espèce, comme un jeune oiseau, la guiffette de la planche enluminée de Buffon , n.° 624, sterna naevia; mais je crois qu'il se méprend."
  • Vieillot 1819:171 [here] - "sterna naevia [...] de Gm." and "la Guiffette de Buff., pl. enl. n.° 924." said to be the same thing and treated as the young of Sterna nigra Linn.
  • Vieillot 1820('1823'):347 [here] - "Latham rapporte à cette espèce, comme un jeune oiseau, la Guiffette, de la pl. enlum. de Buffon, n. 924 (Sterna media); mais nous croyons qu’il se méprend. Lath. general Synopsis, tom. 3. p. 356. n. 9."
  • Vieillot 1829:400 [here] - "Guiffette, Buff., p. 359" and "Sterna naevia, Linn., Gm., n° 5" again as the young of Sterna nigra Linn. (Clearly, Vieillot did not change his mind on this.)
  • Horsfield 1821:199 [here] - OD of Sterna media.
  • Hartert 1916:1697 [here] - "Sterna media Horsfield (nec Vieillot 1820!)": this is where Sterna media Horsf. was called preoccupied for the first time.

**********
PS - As an aside: "Guifette" is fully correct French -- and still nowadays the accepted name of Chlidonias marsh terns. This word appears related to Provençal "gafeto", and Spanish "gaviota" (seagull) -- deriving from Latin "gavia" (also seagull), with a diminutive suffix. "Guissette" (Mlíkovský p.58, quoting Vieillot incorrectly; see also his "[sic]" on the same page after "guifette" as used by Bossi, suggesting that it is misspelled) and "Guisette" (e.g., Richmond Index card [here], presumably quoting Buffon, also incorrectly) are corrupt forms, which are used in none of the above references.

Last edited by l_raty : Monday 26th September 2016 at 16:27.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 26th September 2016, 17:57   #86
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16,757
Wow! Complex! Many thanks for the very detailed explanation!
Nutcracker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th March 2017, 07:46   #87
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,734
‘Orange-billed terns’

J. Martin Collinson; Paul Dufour; Abdulmaula A. Hamza; Yvonne Lawrie; Michael Elliott ... When morphology is not reflected by molecular phylogeny: the case of three ‘orange-billed terns’ Thalasseus maximus, Thalasseus bergii and Thalasseus bengalensis (Charadriiformes: Laridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Advance Access, Published: 10 March 2017.

Abstract:

In order to elucidate genetic structure within the royal tern Thalasseus maximus, genetic analyses and phylogenetic reconstructions were performed on royal terns Thalasseus maximus albididorsalis from the West African breeding population and compared with sequences from American populations Thalasseus maximus maximus. The analysis shows that royal tern as currently defined is a paraphyletic species: West African royal tern is genetically distinct from American breeding populations of the nominate subspecies and forms part of a genetic cluster with lesser crested terns Thalasseus bengalensis (of all subspecies) and greater crested terns Thalasseus bergii. This represents the first published analysis of the genetic relationship between the two subspecies of royal terns, suggests that the West African population should be treated as a distinct species, and provides support to previous studies suggesting that morphological and genetic similarities are poorly correlated in the genus Thalasseus. Conservation and taxonomic implications are discussed.
Peter Kovalik is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th March 2017, 19:04   #88
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
J. Martin Collinson; Paul Dufour; Abdulmaula A. Hamza; Yvonne Lawrie; Michael Elliott ... When morphology is not reflected by molecular phylogeny: the case of three ‘orange-billed terns’ Thalasseus maximus, Thalasseus bergii and Thalasseus bengalensis (Charadriiformes: Laridae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Advance Access, Published: 10 March 2017.
[pdf here]
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th March 2017, 01:08   #89
Nutcracker
Northumbrian

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 16,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Interesting one!

As well as splitting American & African Royal Terns, looks to me like Libyan Lesser Crested Tern (T. b. emigrata) should be lumped into nominate T. b. bengalensis from the Red Sea etc.
Nutcracker is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 27th June 2017, 14:13   #90
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
Whiskered Tern

Dayton, Ledwoń, Paillisson, Atamas, Szczys. 2017. Genetic diversity and population structure of the Eurasian Whiskered Tern (Chlidonias hybrida hybrida), a species exhibiting range expansion. Waterbirds 40(2):105-117.
[abstract]
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 17th May 2018, 16:50   #91
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,734
Thalasseus bernsteini

Jia YangGuoling ChenLeyang YuanQin HuangZhongyong FanYiwei LuYang Liu Shuihua Chen. Genetic evidence of hybridization of the world's most endangered tern, the Chinese Crested Tern Thalasseus bernsteini. Ibis.
First published: 16 May 2018.

Abstract:

We collected multi‐locus data to test whether hybridization has occurred between a critically endangered waterbird, the Chinese Crested Tern Thalasseus bernsteini, and the Greater Crested Tern T. bergii. Phylogenetic analysis shows these two tern species are sister species, having diverged less than one million years ago. Our findings suggest a grave threat to the survival of the Chinese Crested Tern, and illustrate the need for conservation managers to monitor for further hybridization of this endangered tern species.

[pdf]
Peter Kovalik 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
Laridae (sensu lato) AlexC Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 10 Sunday 21st October 2012 08:28

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.46839404 seconds with 28 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:13.