Owls (1 Viewer)

DLane said:

I was entirely unaware of any need to register a new name, so may I ask how was this regulation disseminated?

Click to expand...

There is no formal requirement to be register *names* (albeit it can be done, and is encouraged); and, as long as you keep publishing "old style", using ink on paper, absolutely no "new requirements" were made by the ICZN.

The only thing that has changed, is that electronic publication, from being wholly forbidden for nomenclature purposes in the original 1999 edition of the Code, is now accepted as a possibility. But there are indeed some specific (new) requirements associated to this (new) type of publication -- one of which being that, to be validly published electronically, a *work* must be registered with ZooBank prior to its release. (Of course, valid publication is the very first requirement that any nomenclatural act must fulfil. Not just new names, by the way: also first reviser acts, acts of reversals of precedence, all the acts affecting the types of nominal taxa, such as type species fixation, lectotypification, neotypification, corrections of misidentified type species, etc.)

The Amendment was published in full by the ICZN in ZooKeys and Zootaxa; press releases were issued; the Internet version of the Code shows all the amended articles explicitly; the news that electronic publication was possible, was spread by many journals. But that all happened almost six years ago, now. (So I'm not sure it can really still be called "new"... And I presume those who were not involved in e-only publication back then, and to whom it didn't really matter, might understandably have forgotten some of the details.)

In the case of Auk (and M. eowilsoni), these requirements became suddenly relevant on Jan 1st, 2018, when the journal ceased to produce a regular paper edition. But the ICZN had nothing to do with this decision, so that it may be a bit unfair to blame them for its consequences, I would say.

From my view; this does not reflect on the Authors. No blame (or very, very little) on their part. There are already enough demands, difficulties, obstacles and requirements, years of work, to fulfil the task of compiling such Papers.

As I see it it´s mainly an Editorial task. It must be the predominant responsibility of the Journal itself. It ought to be in the interest of any Editor and Editorial Board not to decrease the value of their own journal, as well as any work by their contributors. To some extent, I do think ICZN have failed, at least in this part (hard to see it otherwise), or to put it mildly, done "a rather poor job"; spreading the word, reaching all the journals involved, post-2012.

Either way; passing on new information is always difficult, but still; it ought to be every Editor's responsibility to keep any successor, as well as new members of the Editorial board, up-to-date. Every single Author cannot be aware of every single part of the complex ICZN Code. Quite a few started their work as common birdwatchers, out of pure joy and fascination, far far from the complicated, academic, hard-to-grasp world of ICZN, ITIS, ZooKeys and Zootaxa.

It would be very sad if all the work made, on papers like these ones, would be considered less important, simply due to lack of information.

Björn

PS. Note (for what it´s worth) that both Santa Marta Screech-Owl Megascops gilesi Krabbe, 2017 and Cordillera Azul antbird Myrmoderus eowilsoni Moncrieff et al, 2018, have made their way into the IOC List. That´s some sort of acknowledgement.

The question is: Are the mentioned species validly described, or not? Acceptance by the IOC list or by SACC cannot be used as validation of a nomenclatural mistake or sloppiness. Should the SCON (or however it is currently called) be asked for a recommendation?

Norbert, who said it could "be used as validation" ... !?

I only pointed at "some sort of acknowledgement".

Two different things in my English-Swedish dictionary.

Either way; the "mistake or sloppiness" part should reflect the Editors.

At least in my World

There can be little doubt that the species named Megascops gilesi and Myrmoderus eowilsoni are valid species, but there is some doubt whether they are correctly named according to the Code. To be clear, I would very much like it if N. Krabbe and Moncrieff et al. would be confirmed as the authors of these names. However, if they did not describe the taxa according to the Code, the species were formally undescribed, and every "Cybertaxonomist" could at one's pleasure give them a new name, which would then have to be accepted by the ornithological community. If the ODs of these new taxa are invalid, the authors should get a second chance to formally describe their discoveries anew. So, the current nomenclatural status of the above mentioned names should be clarified and, if necessary, a re-description should be arranged for.
For me, the reviewers of the papers should be blamed for the blunder. Such things should not happen in peer-reviewed journals!

Bubo & Strix

Kang H., Li B., Ma X. & Xu Y., 2018. Evolutionary progression of mitochondrial gene rearrangements and phylogenetic relationships in Strigidae (Strigiformes). Gene 674: 8-14.

There for instance

The extinct genus Mascarenotus should be treated as junior synonym of Otus

Ancient DNA reveals the origins, colonization histories, and evolutionary pathways of two recently extinct species of giant scops owl from Mauritius and Rodrigues Islands (Mascarene Islands, south‐western Indian Ocean)
Antoine Louchart
Fabiola Bastian
Marilia Baptista
Perle Guarino‐Vignon
Julian P. Hume
Cécile Jacot‐des‐Combes
Cécile Mourer‐Chauviré
Catherine Hänni
Morgane Ollivier

Journal of Biogeography

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jbi.13450

IOC Species Updates Version 9.1 (Draft)

Peter Kovalik said:

Yin Gwee, C., Christidis, L., Eaton, J.A., Norman, J.A., Trainor, C.R., Verbelen, P., Rheindt, F.E., Bioacoustic and multi-locus DNA data of Ninox owls support high incidence of extinction and recolonisation on small, low-lying islands across Wallacea, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2016), doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2016.12.024

Click to expand...

IOC Species Updates Version 9.1 (Draft)

Splits from Southern Boobook N. boobook based on genetics and vocals (Gwee et al. 2017)

Ninox rotiensis Rote Boobook
Ninox fusca Timor Boobook
Ninox plesseni Alor Boobook

Split of Buru Boobook from unrelated Seram Boobook based on genetics and vocals (Gwee et al 2017). ENG Rename N. squamipila

Ninox hantu Buru Boobook

Well overdue - they sound completely different

Pankaj Koparde, Prachi Mehta, Shomita Mukherjee & V. V. Robin, 2019

Quaternary climatic fluctuations and resulting climatically suitable areas for Eurasian owlets.

Ecology and Evolution (early view)

Abstract:

Aim: The nested pattern in the geographical distribution of three Indian owlets, resulting in a gradient of endemicity, is hypothesized to be an impact of historical climate change. In current time, the Forest Owlet Athene blewitti is endemic to central India, and its range is encompassed within the ranges of the Jungle Owlet Glaucidium radiatum (distributed through South Asia) and Spotted Owlet Athene brama (distributed through Iran, South and Southeast Asia). Another phylogenetically close species, Little Owl Athene noctua, which is largely Palearctic in distribution, is hypothesized to have undergone severe range reduction during the Last Glacial Maximum, showing a postglacial expansion. The present study tests hypotheses on the possible role of Quaternary climatic fluctuations in shaping geographical ranges of owlets.
Methods: We used primary field observations, open access data, and climatic niche modeling to construct climatic niches of four owlets for four periods, the Last Interglacial (~120–140 Ka), Last Glacial Maximum (~22 Ka), Mid‐Holocene (~6 Ka), and Current (1960–1990). We performed climatic niche extent, breadth, and overlap analyses and tested if climatically suitable areas for owlets are nested in a relatively stable climate.
Results: Climatically suitable areas for all owlets examined underwent cycles of expansion and reduction or a gradual expansion or reduction since the Last Interglacial. The Indian owlets show significant climatic niche overlap in the current period. Climatically suitable areas for Little Owl shifted southwards during the Last Glacial Maximum and expanded northwards in the postglaciation period. For each owlet, the modeled climatic niches were nested in climatically stable areas. Main Conclusions: The study highlights the impact of Quaternary climate change in shaping the present distribution of owlets. This is relevant to the current scenario of climate change and global warming and can help inform conservation strategies, especially for the extremely range‐restricted Forest Owlet.

Free pdf: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ece3.5086

Enjoy,

Fred

Megascops gilesi

BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums

The newly described taxon Santa Marta Screech-owl (Megascops gilesi) is to be recognized as a species by BirdLife International.

Posted on May 23, 2019 by Red List Team (BirdLife International)

Santa Marta Screech-owl (Megascops gilesi) was first collected in 1919 in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northern Colombia, but was preliminary classified as Tropical Screech-owl (Megascops choliba). Based on the vocalisation and on genetic and morphological analysis of a second specimen taken in 2007 (Dantas et al. 2016, Krabbe 2017), the taxon was described as a new species in 2017 (Krabbe 2017).

Santa Marta Screech-owl inhabits humid forest at altitudes of 1,800-2,500 m (Krabbe 2017). To date, the species has only been observed on the San Lorenzo ridge in the north-western part of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta; however, it is likely that the species occurs in suitable habitat throughout the entire Santa Marta mountains, maybe even ranging to higher elevations than 2,500 m (Krabbe 2017).

Forests in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta have been heavily logged in the past, with only around 15% of the original vegetation remaining. Human encroachment in the area, which was accompanied by logging and burning of forests, began in the 1950s (Dinerstein et al. 1995, P. G. W. Salaman in litt. 1999, Snyder et al. 2000). Forests have been converted for the expansion of non-native tree plantations, such as pine and eucalyptus, and cleared for livestock farming (C. Olaciregui in litt. 2012). However, an analysis of the rate of forest loss between 2000 and 2012 found that deforestation in the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta was only minor (per Tracewski et al. 2016), indicating that the area of remaining forests is stable, albeit small and fragmented.

Here, we present our assessment against all criteria for the newly described Santa Marta Screech-owl.

JF Salter, CH Oliveros, PA Hosner, JD Manthey, MB Robbins, RG Moyle, RT Brumfield, BC Faircloth. Extensive paraphyly in the typical owl family (Strigidae). The Auk. (Manuscripts Under Review / In Revision / Accepted).

Abstract:

The typical owl family (Strigidae) comprises 194 species in 28 genera, 14 of which are monotypic. Relationships within and among genera in the typical owls have been challenging to discern because mitochondrial data have produced equivocal results and because many monotypic genera have been omitted from previous molecular analyses. Here, we collect and analyze ultraconserved elements (UCEs) from 43 species of typical owls to produce concatenated and multispecies coalescent-based phylogenetic hypotheses for all but one genus in the typical owl family. Our results reveal extensive paraphyly of different taxonomic groups across phylogenies inferred using different analytical approaches. For example, we resolved a clade comprising Glaucidium brodiei and the monotypic genera Micrathene and Xenoglaux that excluded other Glaucidium species; we resolved Pyrroglaux podargina nested in a clade consisting of other Otus species; all analyses suggested Nesasio solomonensis and Pseudoscops grammicus belonged in a clade consisting of other Asio species; and Scotopelia peli and Ketupa ketupu were nested in a clade comprising other Bubo species. Secondary analyses of protein coding mitochondrial genes harvested from UCE assemblies and downloaded from GenBank generally support the extent of paraphyly we observed, while there are some disagreements at higher taxonomic levels between our nuclear and mitochondrial results. In sum, our results suggest the genera Athene, Otus, Asio, Megascops, Bubo, and Strix are paraphyletic, while Ninox and Glaucidium are polyphyletic, reiterating the importance of taxon sampling for understanding and describing evolutionary relationships and suggesting the need for additional sampling, study, and taxonomic revision of this fascinating avian group.

Do you think that we can already get this paper by contacting the corresponding author?

LeNomenclatoriste said:

Do you think that we can already get this paper by contacting the corresponding author?

Click to expand...

So, I don't know.

Damn. Their work seems awesome

I think we have to wait until the paper is pulished online. Seems that it is still not online.

Jessie F Salter, Carl H Oliveros, Peter A Hosner, Joseph D Manthey, Mark B Robbins, Robert G Moyle, Robb T Brumfield, Brant C Faircloth, Extensive paraphyly in the typical owl family (Strigidae), The Auk, , ukz070, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz070

Abstract
The typical owl family (Strigidae) comprises 194 species in 28 genera, 14 of which are monotypic. Relationships within and among genera in the typical owls have been challenging to discern because mitochondrial data have produced equivocal results and because many monotypic genera have been omitted from previous molecular analyses. Here, we collected and analyzed DNA sequences of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) from 43 species of typical owls to produce concatenated and multispecies coalescent-based phylogenetic hypotheses for all but one genus in the typical owl family. Our results reveal extensive paraphyly of taxonomic groups across phylogenies inferred using different analytical approaches and suggest the genera Athene, Otus, Asio, Megascops, Bubo, and Strix are paraphyletic, whereas Ninox and Glaucidium are polyphyletic. Secondary analyses of protein-coding mitochondrial genes harvested from off-target sequencing reads and mitochondrial genomes downloaded from GenBank generally support the extent of paraphyly we observe, although some disagreements exist at higher taxonomic levels between our nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenetic hypotheses. Overall, our results demonstrate the importance of taxon sampling for understanding and describing evolutionary relationships in this group, as well as the need for additional sampling, study, and taxonomic revision of typical owl species. Additionally, our findings highlight how both divergence and convergence in morphological characters have obscured our understanding of the evolutionary history of typical owls, particularly those with insular distributions.

There are too few species analyzed to suggest any taxonomic revision, especially in Bubo, Strix and Ninox.

Interesting! Anyone with access?

gusasp said:

Interesting! Anyone with access?

Click to expand...

Full text available and downloadable