Birds of paradise (1 Viewer)

Now the cape feather issue begins to make sence to me. Judging by these feathers alone one could indeed interpret Daubenton's bird as coming from the central mountains. But Sonnerat's illustration shows far more crescent-shaped cape feathers, at least to me. And there are two other illustrations apparently of the same bird by Jean-Gabriel Prètre. Published in 1835 in René Lesson's monograph Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de Paradis et des Epimaques, they are far more lifelike than the earlier renderings and from a different angle. They also show crescent outer cape feathers: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/137949#page/327/mode/1up (and scroll down to page 328, note the absence of the black centres in the breast shield)
All in all a very fascinating discovery this three way split of a bird which has been known for centuries.

Hidde Bruinsma said:

Now the cape feather issue begins to make sence to me. Judging by these feathers alone one could indeed interpret Daubenton's bird as coming from the central mountains. But Sonnerat's illustration shows far more crescent-shaped cape feathers, at least to me. And there are two other illustrations apparently of the same bird by Jean-Gabriel Prètre. Published in 1835 in René Lesson's monograph Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de Paradis et des Epimaques, they are far more lifelike than the earlier renderings and from a different angle. They also show crescent outer cape feathers: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/137949#page/327/mode/1up (and scroll down to page 328, note the absence of the black centres in the breast shield)

Click to expand...

Interesting, but I'm unclear how you infer that the model was Sonnerat's bird. Can you explain? In the text [p.180], Lesson says he obtained carcasses at Doréy (which, unless I'm mistaken, was just S of the NE corner of West Papua - "Doré Bai" on [thip map]), hence he certainly had other specimens at hand.

Sonnerat's descriptive text [here] is also arguably at odds with the re-interpretation, as the words that presumably describe the cape plumes read: "de chacun des côtés naissent, en-dessous des ailes, des touffes de plumes noires veloutées, dirigées en bas, aussi longues que les ailes" = on each side arise, below the wings, tufts of black velvety plumes, directed downwards, as long as the wings. This contradicts the plate that shows the plumes much shorter than the wings, but might support their downcurved shape as being real.
From Sonnerat's text, I'm not really clear where he exactly obtained this bird from the Papuans. Does anyone know? He called it an island, but he gave no name or coordinates. On a cursory check, most of the birds he described as from New Guinea (if you forgot the Kookaburra and the 3 penguins, which are known to have been fishy) either were definitely from, or might have been from, West Papua; this makes it look quite improbable that the Lophorina was from anywhere else, indeed.

I'm not positive that Prètre's bird is the same as Daubenton's bird and it is Daubenton's bird that was the first one illustrated, not Sonnerat's bird. All these early illustrations were done by French artists and probably all based on material from the natural history museum in Paris. They all could be from the same specimen with artistic freedom explaining the differences but one cannot be absolutely sure. Lesson did collect specimens of Lophorina from Dorey (an old name for Manokwari at the foot of the Arfak mountains) but that doesn't necessarily mean that Prètre painted his bird from one of those examples.
Trading in Birds of Paradise skins started in the Vogelkop/Raja Ampat area. Collected from the Arfak and Tamrau mountains and then shipped from Dorey, Sergile (now Sorong), Misool and Salawati to the Moluccan islands and further west. There is no way that a Lophorina skin was even needed from a hundred miles away, let alone transported all that distance to be sold in the Birdhead. No logic in that whatsoever.

I forgot to answer your question concerning the locality of Sonnerat's purchase of skins. It was Gebe, another West Papuan Island. In 1772 he was presented on that island with skins of several Birds of Paradise by the Raja of Salawati and the Raja of Patani.

One question please- if a type is lost/destroyed, does that mean it is then invalid and a neotype must be designated? Assuming so, there must be skins still in existence from the Vogelkop populations?
I am sure at that date in the late 18th century the skins would be from West Papua, and I am surprised they have shuffled the taxa so superba is no longer from that region. I am in favour of the split but not the reallocation of the nominate taxa from what I can grasp here. This statement in particular I find surprising:
"In considering the nomenclatural impact of a shift in application of superba Pennant, we submit, given the splitting of species advocated here, that transferring superba to the most widespread and familiar segregate species serves stability better than keeping it for a localised endemic in the Vogelkop".
I am just finishing a book on Birds of Paradise and Bowerbirds and have outlined the new proposals and agreed with the split but so far without altering superba , except for the merging of sphinx into minor

sicklebill said:

One question please- if a type is lost/destroyed, does that mean it is then invalid and a neotype must be designated?

Click to expand...

No.
A neotype can only be designated if exceptional circumstances make this designation necessary.
If a neotype is designated in a case where there is no need to fix a real problem about the identity/properties of the lost type, this designation is invalid; the status-quo is to be maintained and the designated specimen is not to be treated as a type.

Assuming so, there must be skins still in existence from the Vogelkop populations?

Click to expand...

There certainly are specimens from these populations; but the authors did not want to designate one of them.
They developed a theory that the bird shown on the earliest illustrations (*) was a bird from the western Central Cordillera. Consequently, they decided to modify the application of the name. But they didn't stop there: they noted that there was still room for disputes and, "to fix application of superba Pennant to the population of Lophorina that" [in their opinion] "Daubenton’s (1765–1781) plate 632 most closely and most likely depicts", they designated a neotype from the western Central Cordillera population.

*) Daubenton/Martinet and Sonnerat -- these are presumed to show the same individual, which was the first and only one to have reached France at this time, based i.a. on what Buffon said of it (see the footnote [here]). The bird shown on Daubenton's/Martinet's plate is the holotype of Paradisea superba because it is this plate that Pennant gave this name to.

I am sure at that date in the late 18th century the skins would be from West Papua, and I am surprised they have shuffled the taxa so superba is no longer from that region. I am in favour of the split but not the reallocation of the nominate taxa from what I can grasp here. This statement in particular I find surprising:
"In considering the nomenclatural impact of a shift in application of superba Pennant, we submit, given the splitting of species advocated here, that transferring superba to the most widespread and familiar segregate species serves stability better than keeping it for a localised endemic in the Vogelkop".

Click to expand...

There can hardly be any question that this type of thing is disruptive.
It will generate confusion, as, from now on, it will be necessary to know which interpretation an author accepted when he published a statement about L. s. superba. Even if the reinterpretation was to be immediately and universally accepted, there would still be no way to change the nomenclature in the works that are already published, hence this situation would persist.

I am just finishing a book on Birds of Paradise and Bowerbirds and have outlined the new proposals and agreed with the split but so far without altering superba , except for the merging of sphinx into minor

Click to expand...

In my reading, a neotype designation is not valid (i.e., it does not exist) if the author(s) failed to provide "evidence that the neotype is consistent with what is known of the former name-bearing type from the original description and from other sources"; and "evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type locality" (ICZN Art.75.3.5-6). If, after having read the paper, you still think that the available evidence shows that the type really lacked black centres on its breast shield feathers, and that it was from the Vogelkop, then you evidently disagree that these conditions were fulfilled, and I believe that you should treat the designation as invalid.
If you are not free to do this, this means that a neotype designation allows any idiosyncratic, disruptive and questionable reinterpretation of an otherwise wholly unproblematic case to be unilaterally written in stone and forced upon a disagreeing world, provided that the author(s) fulfilled the set of purely technical requirements. And this just seems too wrong.

What I find most baffling about this whole redesignation of the nominate form is the fact that it is presented by five authors. For one person to come up with such a far fetched theory is daring enough but five people. How could they have aligned ?
By the way, Phil, great to know that your monograph is almost done. Any publication date ?

Thank you so much Laurent, both erudite and understandable, a rare thing. You have confirmed what I basically thought, that this whole shift of the nominate seems very odd and I am unconvinced by the reasoning. I shall remain with superba for the western birds, accept the split of L minor, but now what do i call the intervening birds based around feminina, would that be Lophorina feminina if superba is deemed inapplicable?

Hidde Bruinsma said:

What I find most baffling about this whole redesignation of the nominate form is the fact that it is presented by five authors. For one person to come up with such a far fetched theory is daring enough but five people. How could they have aligned ?
By the way, Phil, great to know that your monograph is almost done. Any publication date ?

Click to expand...

Yes, this is quite puzzling as i just find the reasons presented unconvincing, and fail to see why it hinders taxonomic stability if superba stays as it always was! My deadline is end of August, I am on the very last adjustments and reference checking now, and i know Richard Allen is well on with the plates, so I am kind of hoping for next year. Photos of many taxa remain a problem though, and the budget is meagre, I will post an an appeal for what i would still like shortly I hope- especially those newly split Ailuroedus catbirds!

Zootaxa 4329 (6)

Taxonomic status of Parotia berlepschi Kleinschmidt, 1897 based on analysis of external appearance, voice and behavior (Aves: Paradisaeidae)
EDWIN SCHOLES, BRUCE M. BEEHLER, TIMOTHY G. LAMAN

Abstract

Described from trade-skins of unknown origins, Parotia berlepschi Kleinschmidt, 1897 was the subject of a longstanding ornithological mystery that remained unresolved for well over a century. With few specimens and no known wild population, most taxonomic assessments over the last century have treated P. berlepschi as a subspecies of Parotia carolae Meyer, 1894. Following discovery of its geographical home in 2005, most authorities returned to giving P. berlepschi full species status. However, evidence supporting the delineation of P. berlepschi from P. carolae has not yet been fully articulated in the literature. Here, we assess phenotypic differentiation and the taxonomic status of P. berlepschi relative to P. carolae based on specimens and recordings of wild birds. With regard to external appearance and voice, which are important intersexual signals among polygynous birds-of-paradise, our analysis confirms that P. berlepschi is well-differentiated from P. carolae and should be treated as specifically distinct. Evidence for differentiation in courtship behavior is inconclusive and requires further study.



Keywords

Aves, New Guinea, Foja Mountains, Bronze Parotia, bird-of-paradise, courtship phenotype, lectotype

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4329.6.2

Prost S., Armstrong E.E., Nylander J., Thomas G.W.C., Suh A., Petersen B., Dalen L., Benz B., Blom M.P.K., Palkopoulou E., Ericson P.G.P. & Irestedt M., in press. Comparative genomics and genome evolution in birds-of-paradise. bioRxiv.

PDF

Distinctive courtship phenotype of the Vogelkop Superb Bird-of-Paradise Lophorina niedda Mayr, 1930 confirms new species status.

Abstract


The birds-of-paradise (Aves: Paradisaeidae) are a quintessential example of elaborate ornamental diversification among animals. Ornamental evolution in the birds-of-paradise is exemplified by the presence of a highly integrated courtship phenotype, which is the whole package of plumage ornaments, behaviors and sounds that each species uses during courtship. Characterizing a species’ courtship phenotype is therefore a key part of evolutionary and taxonomic investigation in the group. With its unprecedented transmogrification from bird-like form into something abstract and otherworldly, the courtship phenotype of the Superb Bird-of-Paradise, Lophorina superba, is one of the most remarkable of all. Recent research by Irestedt et al. (2017) suggests that the genus Lophorina is not a single species but is likely a complex of three allopatric species spanning the island of New Guinea: L. niedda in the Bird’s Head Peninsula of the west, L. superba throughout the central cordillera and L. minor in the Papuan Peninsula of the east. Of these, niedda is the most phenotypically divergent with plumage traits hypothesized to possibly produce differences in ornamental appearance during display. However, the whole courtship phenotype of niedda has not been documented and so the actual extent of differences in ornamental appearance during courtship remain unknown. Here we analyze the first audiovisual recordings of niedda and compare its courtship phenotype with superba to test the hypothesis of potential differences in ornamental appearance. Our main goals are to: (1) provide the first description of the courtship phenotype of niedda in the wild, (2) determine if and how the niedda courtship phenotype differs from superba and (3) evaluate any uncovered differences in light of niedda’s newly recognized species status. Our secondary goal is to provide a more thorough characterization of courtship phenotype diversity within the genus Lophorina to facilitate future comparative study within the genus and family. Results show that the niedda courtship phenotype differs substantially from superba in numerous aspects of ornamental appearance, display behavior and sound. We highlight six key differences and conclude that the new species status of niedda is corroborated by the distinctly differentiated ornamental features documented here. With full species status, niedda becomes the fourth endemic bird-of-paradise to the Bird’s Head region of Indonesian New Guinea (i.e., the Vogelkop Peninsula), a fact that underscores the importance of this region as a center of endemic biodiversity worthy of enhanced conservation protection.
https://peerj.com/articles/4621/

Lophorina minor, Lophorina niedda

Melanie said:

Phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomic consequences in a bird-of-paradise species complex, Lophorina–Ptiloris (Aves: Paradisaeidae)


https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean...axonomic-consequences?redirectedFrom=fulltext

From the article:



Lophorina niedda is split from Lophorina superba.

There are two subspecies:

Lophorina niedda niedda
Lophorina niedda inopinata

In the case of Lophorina superba there are the following subspecies.

L. superba superba (with L. superba feminina as synonym)
L. superba addenda
L. superba latipennis

Lophorina minor is split from Lophorina superba

Click to expand...

IOC Updates Diary Apr 19

Accept revision w splits (2) of Superb Bird-of-Paradise; English names to follow

IOC Updates Diary Apr 19

Accept revision w splits (2) of Superb Bird-of-Paradise; English names to follow

Has anyone got a map of the ranges of the three species of Superb BOP? I am having difficultly in determining which species I have seen.

Ian

Discovery of a rare hybrid specimen known as Maria’s bird of paradise at the Staatliches Naturhistorisches Museum in Braunschweig.

Abstract

The discovery of a rare hybrid specimen of Maria’s bird of paradise (Paradisaea maria, i.e., P. guilielmi × P. raggiana augustaevictoriae) in the ornithological collection of the Staatliches Naturhistorisches Museum in Braunschweig (SNMB) is reported. Until today only six male specimens (deposited in the natural history museums in Berlin and New York) and presumably one female have been identified in collections world-wide. The male specimen in Braunschweig corresponds well in its plumage colouration with an historical illustration and photographs of the original type specimen from the 19th century housed at the Berlin collection. It shows intermediate characteristics between both parental species, viz. the Emperor bird of paradise (P. guilielmi) and the Raggiana bird of paradise (P. raggiana augustaevictoriae). In addition, we try to elucidate the circumstances how this rare specimen of hybrid origin, which formerly belonged to the natural history collection of the factory owner Walter Behrens from Bad Harzburg, came to the SNMB. Our unexpected discovery highlights the importance to maintain, support and study also smaller private natural history collections, since they may house historical voucher specimens of high scientific value.
https://zse.pensoft.net/article/25139/

CaliSteve said:

Raggiana bird of paradise

Click to expand...

Not that I really care a lot, but I find it intriguing that this can really persist as an 'English' name...
(Raggiana is the Latinized adjective raggianus [= 'Raggian': of, or pertaining to Raggi], used in the feminine because it must agree in gender with Paradisaea, which it qualifies.)

I agree Laurent, for exactly the same reason, in Sweden we managed (in 2015) to change the name of the Raggiana Bird-of-paradise Paradisaea raggiana from "raggianaparadisfågel" (which is was called earlier in Swedish litterature, simply following the English name) into today's raggiparadisfågel [commemorating the Italian naturalist Marquis/Marchese Francesco Raggi (1807-1887), from Genoa, Italy, of the today extinct Noble family Raggi].

In my mind "Raggi's Bird-of-paradise" (or likewise) would be a better, more appropriate English name.

Melanie said:

Phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomic consequences in a bird-of-paradise species complex, Lophorina–Ptiloris (Aves: Paradisaeidae)

Click to expand...

TiF Update June 6

Birds-of-Paradise: Based on Irestedt et al. (2017), the riflebirds have been returned to genus Ptiloris and the Superb Bird-of-paradise, Lophorina superba is split into:
•Vogelkop Superb Bird-of-Paradise, Lophorina superba, inc. niedda.
•Greater Superb Bird-of-paradise, Lophorina latipennis, inc. addenda, feminina and latipennis
•Lesser Superb Bird-of-Paradise, Lophorina minor, monotypic

Note that Irestedt et al. argue that superba does not apply to birds from the Vogelkop Mountains, but to those usually called feminina. They establish a new name inopinata for the Vogelkop birds and refer to the Vogelkop Bird-of-paradise as Lophorina niedda. They also call the Greater Bird-of-paradise Lophorina superba. Given that the type of superba has been considered to be from the Vogelkop, I didn't find their arguments convincing.

Also, I've added Raggi's Bird-of-Paradise as the primary name of Paradisaea raggiana, the point being that it is named for Francesco Raggi.

Peter Kovalik said:

Also, I've added Raggi's Bird-of-Paradise as the primary name of Paradisaea raggiana, the point being that it is named for Francesco Raggi.

Click to expand...

Did Raggi ask for the bird to bear his name?


If no, then it is named after him, not for him.

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/90442#page/826/mode/1up . D'Alberis asked Sclater to name the bird after Raggi. As far back as a 1908 Ibis it was called Raggi's Bird of Paradise. More frequently called Count Raggi's Bird of Paradise. And once called Maruis de Raggi's Bird of Paradise. Which I like the best. Tommy Salvadori was called conte, a count. But Raggi was a Marquis/Marchese whch is different from a Count? In 2018 plain Raggi's is probably best.