• 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.

Picidae (1 Viewer)

I would't use Avibase as a taxonomic reference. It hasn't the intention to be one. Use IOC, John Boyds list or H&M instead. And in a few months Zoonomen will be up to date too.

Theo
 
Avibase is up to date for Clements as far as I know. It seems that the last IOC version reflected there is 3.05. Denis is the database guru behind H&M, and I do not know why he has not updated with H&M4 yet.

Niels
 
My innocent question seems to have opened a 21st-century Pandora's πίθος...:eek!: I'll stick with IOC 4.next & et seq:t:
MJB
 
Winkler et al. 2014 said:
Dendropicos Malherbe, 1849 [15 species]
We keep the genus as in Short (1982). There is no justification so far for the former splits still maintained in the new Howard-Moore list (Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
Actually the taxonomy adopted in H&M4 is contradicted by published results.
In the H&M4 taxonomy, Mesopicos includes elliotii, goertae, and griseocephalus. But in the trees of Fuchs et al. 2007, elliotii appears closer to fuscescens (in Dendropicos in H&M4) than to griseocephalus, with strong support.
 
Last edited:
Actually the taxonomy adopted in H&M4 is contradicted by published results.
In the H&M4 taxonomy, Mesopicos includes elliotii, goertae, and griseocephalus. But in the trees of Fuchs et al. 2007, elliotii appears closer to fuscescens (in Dendropicos in H&M4) than to griseocephalus, with strong support.

Laurent,
You cited "Originally Posted by Winkler et al. 2014". Is this a typo for 'Originally cited in Winkler et al 2013', or is this yet another reference I've missed? (My track record in overlooking references is as bad as ever!:eek!:)
MJB
 
Laurent,
You cited "Originally Posted by Winkler et al. 2014". Is this a typo for 'Originally cited in Winkler et al 2013', or is this yet another reference I've missed?
Mike, although available in 2013, the recent Winkler et al paper is actually published in Ann Naturhist Mus Wien B 116 (2014).
 
Last edited:
Middle Spotted Woodpecker

Two new subspecies of Dendrocopos medius described by Oleksas:

D. m. borussicus Oleksas, 2011 (northern and northeastern Poland, Lithuania, Kaliningrad Oblast)
D. m. fedjushini Oleksas, 2011 (Belarus)

info from Alex U. (Оleksas О.): Subspecies affiliation of some nesting bird species in the Kaliningrad region — 1. Non-Passeriformes. Вестник Балтийского федерального университета им. И. Канта. 2013. Вып. 7. С. 95—102.

P.S.: Also Dendrocopos major sachtlebeni, D. m. silvaticus, D. m. piceanus, D. m. bulgaricus...
 
Last edited:
George Sangster gave an interesting talk at the Dutch Birding day, where he also mentioned the amount of invalid species described over the last 80 years (about a third of the total). It looks like subspecies really are a free-for-all.
 
Gorman 2014

Gorman 2014. Woodpeckers of the World: The Complete Guide. Christopher Helm, London.
Gorman 2014. Woodpeckers of the World: A Photographic Guide. Firefly Books, Canada.

Species-level taxonomy and sequence follow IOC World Bird List v4.2 with the following exceptions...
  • Dendrocopos noguchii – Okinawa Woodpecker
  • Piculus [chrysochloros] xanthochlorus – Golden-yellow Woodpecker (Del-Rio et al 2013)
  • Piculus [chrysochloros] capistratus – Bar-throated Woodpecker
  • Piculus [chrysochloros] paraensis – Belém Woodpecker
  • Piculus [chrysochloros] laemostictus – Dot-throated Woodpecker
  • Piculus [chrysochloros] polyzonus – Atlantic Woodpecker
  • Celeus flavescens – Blond-crested Woodpecker (incl ochraceus)
  • Mulleripicus [funebris] fuliginosus – Southern Sooty Woodpecker (Collar 2011)
 
Last edited:
Dryocopus

Winkler, H., A. Gamauf, F. Nittinger & E. Haring, 2013. Relationships of Old World woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae) – new insights and taxonomic implications. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 116: 69-86.
Winkler et al...
The island form hodgei from the Anadamans [sic] is usually considered as a species (Short 1982) which is confirmed here. As Fig. 2 shows, confusus from Luzon, and possibly some of the other island forms, deserve species status by the same token. We also claim species status to the isolated Chinese form khamensis of the black woodpecker which is well separated from the nominate martius form.
[With thanks to Mike Blair (ORL v3.0 Draft) – I had overlooked these suggestions. Dryocopus (martius) khamensis would be an armchair tick...]
 
Last edited:
Winkler, H., A. Gamauf, F. Nittinger & E. Haring, 2013. Relationships of Old World woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae) – new insights and taxonomic implications. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 116: 69-86.

Abstract: The paper presents a phylogeny of Old World woodpeckers based on mitochondrial (cytochrome b, 12S rRNA). It complements published phylogenies of this group in several important aspects. A species that was formerly treated as part of the core group of pied woodpeckers of the genus Dendrocopos, turned out to be the closest relative of the Eurasian lesser spotted woodpecker (Dryobates minor), itself a representative of an American radiation. We identified the brown-fronted woodpecker, a bird of the Himalayan foothills, as the closest relative of the predominantly European middle spotted woodpecker. The latter is a close relative of the yellow-crowned woodpecker, widely distributed over India and other parts of South Asia. We include these three species in the genus Leiopicus (with species medius, auriceps, and mahrattensis). Further taxonomic recommendations resulted from analyses based on a short fragment of the cytochrome b gene. Among these is the inclusion of the genus Mulleripicus into Dryocopus that is represented both in the New and Old World. We present further details of our suggested taxonomy that covers the whole family Picidae in Appendix 2. Open questions concern, among others, the exact phylogenetic relationships of the two African woodpecker clades with Asian woodpeckers, and the phylogeographical and taxonomic structure of the great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and its closest allies.
No-one seems to have put a link in yet; available here (pdf).
 
Grey-headed Woodpecker

Looking in HBW, some of the subspecies listed for Picus canus - notably P. c. dedemi from Sumatra - have disjunct ranges, very different ecology (tropical rather than cool temperate) and don't look even remotely like Picus canus canus.

Any proposals under consideration for breaking the species up?
 
Grey-headed Woodpecker

Looking in HBW, some of the subspecies listed for Picus canus - notably P. c. dedemi from Sumatra - have disjunct ranges, very different ecology (tropical rather than cool temperate) and don't look even remotely like Picus canus canus.
Any proposals under consideration for breaking the species up?
BirdLife, 4 Sep 2013: Grey-faced Woodpecker (Picus canus) is being split.
  • Picus (canus) guerini – Black-naped (Grey-headed/-faced) Woodpecker (incl kogo, sobrinus, tancolo, sanguiniceps, hessei, sordidior, robinsoni)
  • Picus (canus) dedemi – Sumatran Grey-headed/-faced Woodpecker
[H&M4 further identifies robinsoni as a monotypic 'subspecies group' (cf Winkler et al 1995).]
 
Last edited:
Grey-headed Woodpecker

Looks a sensible divide. Do you know if IOC will be following suit?
I get the impression that IOC is (wisely) waiting to see the justification for BirdLife's numerous Tobias et al 2010-based splits/lumps (ie, the numerical scores to be published in the forthcoming HBW/BirdLife illustrated checklist) before considering them as candidates for the IOC World Bird List.
 
Dendropicini

Fuchs & Pons (in press). A new classification of the Pied Woodpeckers assemblage (Dendropicini, Picidae) based on a comprehensive multi-locus phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract] [Fig 1] [Fig 2] [Fig 3] [Fig 4]
Classification

Picoides Lacépède, 1799. Species arcticus, tridactylus

Yungipicus Bonaparte, 1854. Species canicapillus, kizuki, moluccensis (including nanus), maculatus, temminckii. Based on the topology, we would recommend elevating nanus to species status.

Dryobates Boie, 1826. Species cathpharius, minor, pubescens, scalaris, nuttallii

Leuconotopicus Malherbe, 1845. Species albolarvatus, borealis, fumigatus, stricklandi, villosus

Veniliornis Bonaparte, 1825. Species spilogaster, passerinus, frontalis, maculifrons, cassini, affinis (including chocoensis), kirkii, callonotus, sanguineus, dignus, nigriceps, lignus, mixtus

Leiopicus Bonaparte, 1854. Species mahrattensis

Desertipicus Bates and Kinnear, 1935. Species auriceps, medius, dorae

Dendropicos Malherbe 1849. Species fuscescens, stierlingi, elachus, abyssinicus, poecilolaemus, gabonensis, lugubris, elliottii, goertae (including spodocephalus), griseocephalus, namaquus, xantholophus, pyrrhogaster, obsoletus

Dendrocopos Koch, 1816. Species atratus, macei, hyperhythrus, major, leucopterus, syriacus, assimilis, himalayensis, darjellensis, leucotos, noguchii
 
Last edited:
Desertipicus Bates and Kinnear, 1935. Species auriceps, medius, dorae
Dendrocoptes Cabanis & Heine 1863, type species Picus medius Linnaeus.

(Or is there a problem with this one?
I remembered it as a name with type fixation by original monotypy, but it's not: two other species, Picus scindeanus "Gould" Horsfield & Moore and P. syriacus Hemprich & Ehrenberg, are included in a footnote on the next page; the word "type" doesn't seem to appear anywhere, and the type species appears not to be fixed in the OD. However, the intent of the authors was clearly to place medius at the centre of their genus, which makes it unlikely that any subsequent author might have published a statement that one of the other two species is the type. Sundevall 1866 associated the genus with medius only, in a list associating generic names to unique species names that where quite clearly understood as types; but I cannot spot any use of the word "type" there either, hence I presume that this is no valid designation. Hargitt 1890 designated medius as the type unambiguously.
Neave doesn't suggest any homonymy problem.)

(PS - Incidentally, "Dendropicini" Webb & Moore 2005 has of course always been an invalid name too [even if, unlike "Malarpicini" Webb & Moore 2005 and "Megapicini" Webb & Moore 2005 which have no type genus, it can perhaps be deemed available--albeit even this requires quite a stretch: whether it was really described is very much questionable, and the name is not unambiguously flagged as new]. "Dendropicini" was introduced for a tribe that Webb & Moore should have called Melanerpini Gray 1846 [together with "Malarpicini" that should have been Picini Leach 1820, and "Megapicini" that should have been Campephilini Blyth, 1852]; even if the scope is restricted to the pied woodpecker assemblage as studied here, thus excluding Melanerpes, Picoidini Olphe-Galliard 1888 still applies to it; and even if the basal branches are again excluded to get rid of Picoides, the remnant group still must be called Dryobatini Ridgway 1914.)
 
Last edited:
Fuchs & Pons (in press). A new classification of the Pied Woodpeckers assemblage (Dendropicini, Picidae) based on a comprehensive multi-locus phylogeny. Mol Phylogenet Evol.

TiF Update March 27
Woodpeckers: H&M-4 (Dickinson and Remsen, 2013) brought attention to the name Chloropicus (Malherbe 1845, type pyrrhogaster), which has priority over Dendropicos (Malherbe 1849, type fuscescens, subspecies lafresnayi).

Portions of Melanerpini have been rearranged based on Fuchs and Pons (2015)...


Dendrocoptes Cabanis & Heine 1863, type species Picus medius Linnaeus.

... The new genus name is Dendrocoptes (Cabanis and Heine 1863, type medius), not Desertipicus (Kinnear and Bates 1935, type dorae)...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top