• 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.

Sylvioidea (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Fregin, Haase, Olsson & Alström 2012. New insights into family relationships within the avian superfamily Sylvioidea (Passeriformes) based on seven molecular markers. BMC Evol Biol 12: 157. [pdf]
 
Last edited:
Very nice - and I agree with their stance on placing Scotocerca and Erythrocercus in their own families, given their morphological and ecological divergence, and long internodes from the other Cettiidae. However, if this logic is extended elsewhere, then I think a case can be made to divide up their newly-named Macrosphenidae. The divergence of the genera, combined with their questionable monophyly (which does have some support but isn't a slam dunk), means it might be more reasonable to have at least 4 families along these lines:

- Macrosphenus
- Sphenoeacus & Melocichla
- Cryptillas
- Sylvietta

Achaetops may represent a 5th, although TiF currently has it in a trichotomy with Sphenoeacus and Melocichla based on previous data (and it's anyone's guess where Graueria goes, with these genera or elsewhere altogether).

Liam
 
As it stands, this article is not considered published under the Code section 8.6. Hopefully this will be addressed when the final formatted versions are produced, otherwise the new family names will be unavailable.
 
alytothrix said:
As it stands, this article is not considered published under the Code section 8.6. Hopefully this will be addressed when the final formatted versions are produced, otherwise the new family names will be unavailable.
Click to expand...
Works distributed via the Internet are never published in the sense of the current Code; they are completely excluded from being "published material" by Art. 9.8, and there is currently no fix to this. Art. 8.6 is irrelevant here -- this article concerns works that are produced materially by a method that does not employ printing on paper -- on a cd-rom or dvd, for example.
It is possible to get the content of the work published, by effectively publishing it using another method of distribution than the www. The easiest way is to create a printed edition satisfying Art. 8.1. (Or a cd-rom/dvd edition including the pdf, but then this must also satisfy Art. 8.6.)
Note that such "solutions" never really "make the online paper published", though: it's the printed (or cd-rom, or dvd) edition, and only this, that becomes published; as far as nomenclature goes, what is on the www continues not to exist; therefore what it includes [or not] is completely irrelevant. IOW, there will be absolutely no way to decide whether the content of a work is published or not by looking at a pdf that you obtained on the Internet.
Laurent -
 
Last edited:
You're right, I had the wrong section of the Code. The commonly accepted method for those publishing in online-only journals such as BMC Evol. Biol. or PLoS One is to print copies and include a statement in the online version indicating that such copies are available; PLoS does this as a matter of routine (see here), although I have no experience with BMC's policy. Regardless, there's no indication that the current paper has been or will be published in accordance with the code and that the new names are available.
 
It's a rather widespread misunderstanding, actually.

Indeed nothing indicates that the paper is published. But in a "solution" such as that used by PLoS, the published status of the printed copies is simply due to these copies fulfilling the criteria of publication for any printed work; it is completely independent from any statement being included in the online version. The online statement informs the reader about the claimed existence of a published work with the same content as the pdf, but it does nothing more.

(As a whole, this is an extremely unfortunate situation, btw, imho. The underlying idea is that we have "a good experience" with the durability of printed paper, and no similar experience with online documents, hence we should accept the former but not the latter. In practice, though, we have absolutely no good experience with the durability of 20-or-so payable paper copies of a work that otherwise is available as a free pdf on the web... Paper can stay, yes, but if nobody cares about it, it is much more likely to get trashed. Odds are that nobody will ever be willing to give money and care for these printed copies, and one can only have little doubt that they'll be lost well before the pdf. And however they represent the only validly published version of the work... But there seems to be a consensus to regard this is Code-compliant.)
 
Perhaps such an indication isn't a guarantee that the copies were actually published according to the code, but I think some such indication (either in the paper or on the journals website) would be necessary to satisfy 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. If someone at BMC did print multiple copies satisfying 8.1.3, but there was no advertisement of that fact, then it would be hard to argue that they were public or obtainable.
 
l_raty said:
It's a rather widespread misunderstanding, actually.


(As a whole, this is an extremely unfortunate situation, btw, imho. The underlying idea is that we have "a good experience" with the durability of printed paper, and no similar experience with online documents, hence we should accept the former but not the latter. In practice, though, we have absolutely no good experience with the durability of 20-or-so payable paper copies of a work that otherwise is available as a free pdf on the web... Paper can stay, yes, but if nobody cares about it, it is much more likely to get trashed. Odds are that nobody will ever be willing to give money and care for these printed copies, and one can only have little doubt that they'll be lost well before the pdf. And however they represent the only validly published version of the work... But there seems to be a consensus to regard this is Code-compliant.)
Click to expand...

If it is published in the UK then the printed copies will have to be sent gratis to the British Library in London, and also I think to libraries in Cambridge and Oxford. They will be looked after in these locations. I can imagine a day when the barebones of articles are published on paper but where it is standard practice to have supporting AV material on the web.
 
Comment from a friend who I sent this paper to:
If you look at the cladogram supporting Scotocercidae, which is proposed for a new family only because it is separated from the nearest relative by "a long internode," then I can find hundreds of similar examples in existing families. If this logic is accepted, I predict it will double the number of families.​

Interesting that the IOC checklist accepts this proposal so quickly, and at the same time starts treating Arcanatoridae as a family when the data on those birds was published back in 2008 and I don't think anything new has come out since then.
 
Alström et al 2013

Alström, Olsson & Lei 2013. A review of the recent advances in the systematics of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea. Chinese Birds 4(2): 99–131. [abstract] [pdf]

A useful synthesis of recent findings.
 
Last edited:
Silke Fregin, 2012. Molecular systematics of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea with special regard to the families Acrocephalidae and Locustellidae (Aves: Passeriformes). Dissertation, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald.
[PDF]
 

Similar threads

Fred Ruhe
A juvenile bird with possible crown-group affinities from a dinosaur-rich Cretaceous ecosystem in North America
Replies
1
Views
440
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
A
Ancient mitogenomes of takahē and moho
Replies
0
Views
492
albertonykus
A
Fred Ruhe
Paakniwatavis grandei gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
1
Views
826
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Scandiavis mikkelseni, Avian Phylogenetic Relationships and Brain Evolution
Replies
1
Views
685
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Behaviour of cranes
Replies
0
Views
378
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

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