Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

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.

Trochilidae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 9 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Saturday 10th March 2018, 06:50   #151
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: No where, my soul is lost in the churchyard
Posts: 488
On the other hand, the phylogenetic position of "Amazilia" boucardi and "A" luciae remains unresolved

B. Lump Aphantochroa into Eupetomena while maintaining a monospecific Taphrospilus.
[...] We favor option B as being most concordant regarding relationships, morphology and distributions, although cirrochloris and macroura differ strongly in plumage; [...]

So, continue to recognize two monotypic genera in this case if they are so different in plumage. tssssssss

(Sorry Mr Remsen, Mr Stiles, Mr Piacentini, that's just me but I'll not follow most of your recommendation, and, fortunately it's not mandatory.)

Last edited by LeNomenclatoriste : Saturday 10th March 2018 at 07:52.
LeNomenclatoriste is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd April 2018, 12:38   #152
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 984
General question IOC World bird list here says Amazilia brevirostris (Lesson, R, 1829). Many other sources (Lesson, 1830). What is correct? Maybe there is a publication about dates from Lessons hummingbirds?
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd April 2018, 17:42   #153
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taphrospilus View Post
General question IOC World bird list here says Amazilia brevirostris (Lesson, R, 1829). Many other sources (Lesson, 1830). What is correct? Maybe there is a publication about dates from Lessons hummingbirds?
The species is described on page xxxv of Lesson’s Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches, which should have been published in 1829 since Anker 1938 (Bird Books and Bird Art: An Outline of the Literary History and Iconography of Descriptive Ornithology) says that this work “appeared in different issues and was published in 17 livraisons, the last seven of which appeared in 1830”.
Mike Earp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd April 2018, 18:15   #154
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 984
According Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology p. XXXV-Xl (Dec 1829) based on Sherborn.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd April 2018, 18:55   #155
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,721
Laurent discussed this publication dating here.
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread...iseaux+mouches .
In the authors forward it mentions January 16, 1830 but I'm not sure why.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/13/mode/1up .
Of course forewards could have been published after the first few fascicles were printed?
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 2nd April 2018, 19:03   #156
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
In the authors forward it mentions January 16, 1830 but I'm not sure why.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...ge/13/mode/1up .
Isn't that the foreword to a later work (namely Histoire naturelle des colibris : suivie d'un supplément à l'Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches : ouvrage orné de planches dessinées et gravées par les meilleurs artistes : et dédié A.M. le Baron Cuvier)?
Mike Earp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 3rd April 2018, 02:09   #157
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,721
Yes! Sorry for the mistake.
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 3rd April 2018, 06:20   #158
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 984
Hmm, forgot that I already started a thread about this book. But thank's for the help.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 08:46   #159
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Cristina González-Rubio, Francisco J. García-De León, Ricardo Rodríguez-Estrella. Phylogeography of endemic Xantus’ hummingbird (Hylocharis xantusii) show a different history of vicariance in the Baja California Peninsula. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 31 May 2016.

[abstract]
According

Frank Garfield Stiles III, James Vanderbeek Remsen Jr, Jimmy Adair McGuire: The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): Reconciling taxonomy with phylogeny. In: Zootaxa. Band4353, Nr.3, 2017, S.401–424, doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4353.3.1 here

Quote:
Group B is also taxonomically polyphyletic (Fig. 1). Sister to the rest of the group (subgroup B1) are “Hylocharis” leucotis (Vieillot) and “H.” xantusii (Lawrence). However, the phylogeny (McGuire et al. 2014) separates the rest of Hylocharis Boie, 1831 including its type species sapphirina (Gmelin,1788) in group D (see below). Ridgway (1911) and Cory (1918) treated leucotis and xantusii in the genus Basilinna Boie, 1831, but Peters (1945) merged it into Hylocharis without comment. More recently, Howell & Webb (1995), Schuchmann (1999) and Hernández et al. (2014) have provided evidence that Basilinna should be restored for leucotis (Vieillot, 1818), its type species, and xantusii, which is supported by the genetic data. Here again, the character used by many authors to diagnose Hylocharis, the expanded red base of the bill in adult males, shows considerable homoplasy and is of little phylogenetic value.
Fine. But my question is about the date of publication for Hylocharis xantusii or Basilinna xantusii. I found 1860 and/or 1861. In OD we can find:

Read April 9, 1860 but the Volume is from 1862. I assume read is not equal to published. Nevertheless is 1861 correct or 1860 as publishing date?
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:47   #160
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taphrospilus View Post
Read April 9, 1860 but the Volume is from 1862. I assume read is not equal to published. Nevertheless is 1861 correct or 1860 as publishing date?
The signature is dated April 1860 (at the foot of [p.103]). That should in principle indicate the time of printing.
(Printed is still not equal to published, though; publication requires the distribution of the printed item.)
l_raty 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

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.15377688 seconds with 20 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 16:16.