Päckert M., Bader-Blukott M., Künzelmann B., Sun Y.-H., Hsu Y.-C., Kehlmaier C., Albrecht F., Illera J.C. & Martens J., 2020. A revised phylogeny of nuthatches (Aves, Passeriformes, Sitta) reveals insight in intra- and interspecific diversification patterns in the Palearctic. Vertebr. Zool. 70 (2): 241-262.
There
From the internets "Sitta carolinensis is arranged in subgenus Leptositta" Ive seen Homositta S. A. BUTURLIN, Travaux Soc??I'm reluctant to subdivided Sitta into subgenera because no name is available for the Sitta carolinensis
Is this work still accessible from the US ? It used to be at: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc1.b2957897
From the internets "Sitta carolinensis is arranged in subgenus Leptositta" Ive seen Homositta S. A. BUTURLIN, Travaux Soc??
Arctositta (p.4), Cyanositta (p.11), Homositta (p.16), Leptositta (p.17) .? Mesositta. Micrositta. Poecilositta. Poliositta. Callisitta, Oenositta??
...Poecilositta. Poliositta. Callisitta, Oenositta??
maintaining a broad Sitta.
Wolters used Poecilositta Buturlin 1916 for azurea alone, but did not use Cyanositta Buturlin 1916 -- instead, he replaced “Orthorhynchus Swainson 1820, nec Cuvier 1800 and Dendrophila Swainson 1837 nec Hodgson 1837” with "Oenositta nom. nov.", without further explanations.I'm assuming that either Cyanositta or Poecilositta would be the correct name but which has priority? And why did Wolters introduce Oenositta when other names existed? (Is there a problem with the closeness of Cyanositta to Cyanocitta?)
Andrew, you couldn't/can't open any 'Invalid Attachment specified', simply as I deleted my earlier post, thus there's no longer anything/nothing to open. Sorry, but copyright rules are copyright rules....
I can't open the attached thumbnails though Björn - I get a message saying 'Invalid Attachment specified'
Cyanositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: corallipes
Poecilositta (Buturlin, 1916) type: azurea
Poliositta (Robinson & Kloss, 1918) type: expectata
Richmond says:Note that, under the ICZN, the type of Poliositta Robinson & Kloss is azurea Lesson -- not expectata, which was treated as a mere subspecies of azurea in the OD. (See Art. 68.3.)
Vol. 8 of this journal is lacking on BHL https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/51854; from the US, you may be able to see it at https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015047632073.Richmond says:
Poliositta H. C. Robinson and C. B. Kloss, Journ. Fed. Malay States Mus.,
VIII, Pt. II, Dec, 1918,228.
Type, Callisitta azurea expectata H.\rtert. [Sittidae.]
( Monotypy.
)
(Not indicated as new here; probably =Poecilositta Buturlin.)
Was this a failed first revisor act? I cannot find on BHL
(Is there a problem with the closeness of Cyanositta to Cyanocitta?)