• 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.

Charadriiformes (1 Viewer)

LeNomenclatoriste said:
What is the real type species of Burhinus, grallarius or oedicnemus? In the prodromus of Illiger, only Charadrius magnirostris Latham, is mentioned.
Click to expand...
If I recall rightly, Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1802 is a synonym of Charadrius grallarius Latham, 1802 (both here), so that would be the type. Again if I remember rightly, the former is invalid in Burhinus because of someone else using Burhinus magnirostris for what is now Esacus magnirostris. I could be wrong on both counts though . . .
 
Nutcracker said:
If I recall rightly, Charadrius magnirostris Latham, 1802 is a synonym of Charadrius grallarius Latham, 1802 (both here), so that would be the type. Again if I remember rightly, the former is invalid in Burhinus because of someone else using Burhinus magnirostris for what is now Esacus magnirostris. I could be wrong on both counts though . . .
Click to expand...

For me , it's sufficient to claim that grallarius is the type. But, we could face a similar case that falco
 
Burhinus Illiger 1811 is on the [Official List] with Charadrius magnirostris Latham 1802 as its type by monotypy -- which leaves no real possibilities to argue about it.
(At least unless we want to start arguing about the actual taxonomic ID of magnirostris.)
If you want a generic name anchored on "our Stone Curlew", there is Oedicnemus Temminck 1815 (also on the OL), type (again by monotypy) O. crepitans Temminck 1815. (This being a synonym of Charadrius oedicnemus Linnaeus 1758.)


(FWIW, the 'other' magnirostris in this group is Oedicnemus magnirostris Vieillot 1818, now usually placed in Esacus; this name is preoccupied by Latham's (hence invalid) when the two species are congeneric (i.e., both in Burhinus), but not when they are allogeneric (one in Burhinus, the other in Esacus). Charadrius grallarius Latham was initially given precedence over C. magnirostris Latham when two were made conspecific (H&M4 cite [Sharpe 1896] as the first reviser; albeit [Ball 1843] is much earlier and would arguably qualify too in my opinion); this precedence stands, making Latham's magnirostris permanently invalid. The rejection was initially due to the name being based on a description that was perceived as corrupted, hence not acceptable. But, subsequently, magnirostris was given preference again (Mathews, etc.), presumably due to it appearing 'first' in Latham's work.)
 
Intracontinental biotic divisions across the vast Palaearctic region are not well-characterized. Past research has revealed patterns ranging from a lack of population structure to deep divergences along varied lines of separation. Here we compared biogeographic patterns of two Palaearctic shorebirds with different habitat preferences, Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) and Eurasian curlew (N. arquata). Using genome-wide markers from populations across the Palaearctic, we applied a multitude of population genomic and phylogenomic approaches to elucidate population structure. Most importantly, we tested for isolation by distance and visualized barriers and corridors to gene flow. We found shallow Palaearctic population structure in subpolar bog and tundra-breeding whimbrels, consistent with other species breeding at a similarly high latitude, indicating connectivity across the tundra belt, both presently and during southward shifts in periods of global cooling. In contrast, the temperate grassland-breeding Eurasian curlew emerged in three distinct clades corresponding to glacial refugia. Barriers to gene flow coincided with areas of topographic relief in the central Palaearctic for whimbrels and further east for Eurasian curlews. Our findings highlight the interplay of historic and ecological factors in influencing present-day population structure of Palaearctic biota.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54715-9
 
From the article:

"Our genome-wide data corroborate previous mtDNA-based studies4,6,26,55 in that Nearctic whimbrel populations are deeply differentiated from Palaearctic populations. Populations on the two continents also have a fixed difference in rump colouration52,56. This lack of substantial gene flow is despite opportunities when land bridges have connected Asia and North America57,58. We found no evidence for genomic admixture between Nearctic and Palaearctic whimbrels via variegatus, the Far-Eastern Palaearctic subspecies (Fig. 1a) conjectured to be an intermediate form between continents59. Genome-wide, mitochondrial and plumage evidence points to a deep rift between Nearctic and Palaearctic populations, advocating the elevation of North American breeding populations to species level as the “Hudsonian whimbrel” N. hudsonicus6,52."
 
njlarsen said:
That must be close to being the last nail in that coffin ...

Niels
Click to expand...
Isn't it the opposite of that? The 'last nail in the coffin' [the death of peoples' hopes for an armchair tick] would be very strong evidence that Old and New World Whimbrels can't be split :t:
 
Nutcracker said:
Isn't it the opposite of that? The 'last nail in the coffin' [the death of peoples' hopes for an armchair tick] would be very strong evidence that Old and New World Whimbrels can't be split :t:
Click to expand...

The last nail in the coffin containing the belief that these are the same species ... :king:

Niels
 
A potential rollercoaster ride for British birders then, from one to two to one to two species all within a decade!
 
Yes this is pretty conclusive. I don't see what additional information can reasonably be required by any taxonomic authorities now.
 
NACC uses the biological species concept: to support the split, a lot of the members are going to want to see some sort of display/call differences, or evidence of both forms breeding in close contact with no interbreeding or only the most minor amounts.
 
Nutcracker said:
*Hudsonian - all the New World subspp;

*Eurasian - the rest (no mention of any split for variegatus despite it looking so distinct)
Click to expand...

According to Tan et al (as linked above) there is very little among Palearctic populations, suggesting extensive gene flow. Differences among Palearctic population appear to be mostly clinal. There is some genetic structuring on each side of the Urals, but nothing unique to variegatus.
 
Excellent. In this thread from 2021 were some good posts about Burhinus including one of the authors of the Avian Systematics Journal article.
Gruiformes and Charadriiformes .
Wagler in 1827 said “Cl. Illiger according to this description of this bird species
Burhini established, however, that without bird autopsy, from cl. Lat ha-
my o without any doubt second picture described, not adopted I would” (Google Translate Yoda mode)
In 1856 Bonaparte says, “In Berlin, they apply the generic name Burhinus, Illiger differently than we do; which comes from the unfortunate confusion between the OEdicnemus magnirostris of Latham, and that of Geoffroy - Saint – Hilaire.”
Wagler:
pars 1 - Systema avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
pars 1 - Systema avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
pars 1 - Systema avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
pars 1 - Systema avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Bonaparte:
t.43 (1856) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Geoffrey Saint Hilaire :
t.28 (1819) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Oedicneme a gros bec N. Hollande.
The type of OEdicnemes magnirostrus of Vieillot 1818.
t.23 (1818) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Vieillot mentioned the bird is in the M NH Paris on the next page. The Geoffrey Saint Hilaire drawing is based on the bird on page 7 of Mr. Jansen’s paper.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...522-collected-most-likely-near_fig4_322384429 .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ch. magnirostris of Latham starts out as Great-billed Plover.
Supplement II to the General synopsis of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
New South Wales.
OD: 'Index Ornithologicus, Sive Systema Ornithologiae : Complectens Avium Divisionem In Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Ipsarumque Varietates: Adjectis Synonymis, Locis, Dexdriptionibus, &c.. 3, Supplementum Indicis Ornithologici, Sive Systematis Ornithologiae' - Viewer | MDZ .
This bird is based on a Th. Watling drawing No. 251?
Collections - First Fleet artwork collection .
Burhinus Illiger 1811 type is Ch. magnirostris Latham by monotypy.
Caroli Illigeri D. Acad. Reg. Scient. Berolinens. et Bavaricae Sod. Museo Zoologico Berolin. praefecti professoris extraord. Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

I’m not sure I agree with Boyd 2021 about grallarius??
TiF Checklist: GRUAE II: Charadriiformes .
There is a mild criticism of Christides & Boles (2008) in Australian Bird Names: A Complete Guide “We -cautiously!- suggest that Christidis and Boles (2008) are in error … perhaps they were understandably confused after sorting through the arguments relating to “permanent junior secondary homynomy”



The first publication to meld Ch. magnirostris Latham and Oe. magnirostris Vieillot is Elementi di zoologia di Camillo Ranzani (1825)
*Elementi di zoologia di Camillo Ranzani primicerio della Metropolitana di Bologna, professore di mineralogia, e di zoologia ... .
 
Last edited:
since we find the giant snipe (“Gallinago” undulata) to be more closely related to Coenocorypha and Chubbia than to the rest of the genus. While recovered consistently and with high statistical support (RAxML-NG BS/IC = 94%/0.68, ExaBayes PP = 1, TE BS = 89%), this relationship is for now only supported by the single locus for which “G.” undulata is sampled (COI); we were able to confirm that it persists regardless of which of the giant snipe COI sequences currently available from BOLD (Ratnasingham and Hebert, 2007) is used. Given that the result is based on just one gene, we refrain from advocating for immediate generic reassignment, but note that if corroborated by analyses with broader locus sampling, it may require resurrecting the genus Homoptilura Gray, 1840 for the giant snipe to maintain generic monophyly.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't that be Xylocota instead of Homoptilura? Does anyone have the final version?
 

Similar threads

Fred Ruhe
The island syndrome in birds
Replies
0
Views
482
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Peter Kovalik
Gruiformes and Charadriiformes
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
19K
albertonykus
A
Fred Ruhe
Palaeoceanographic changes in the late Pliocene promoted rapid diversification in pelagic seabirds
Replies
0
Views
444
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
B
Limestone Wren-Babbler
Replies
6
Views
2K
Peter Boesman
P
Fred Ruhe
Large, unwebbed bird and bird-like footprints
Replies
0
Views
516
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top