-
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.
Leaftossers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Birdingcraft
Well-known member
Nice to see that a paper dealing with Sclerurus will be coming out. Other studies have shown large genetic differences in populations of Tawny-throated Leaftosser and the differences in vocalizations among populations have hinted at several cryptic species being involved.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
'Chapman's Leaftosser'
Just noticed Andres Cuervo's flickr post: Sclerurus andinus ("Chapman's Leaftosser").
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
d'Horta et al
d'Horta, Cuervo, Ribas, Brumfield & Miyaki (in press). Phylogeny and comparative phylogeography of Sclerurus (Aves: Furnariidae) reveal constant and cryptic diversification in an old radiation of rain forest understorey specialists. J Biogeogr. [abstract] [supp info]
Suggests recognition of five species within the current Tawny-throated Leaftosser Sclerurus mexicanus:
Published online today...
d'Horta, Cuervo, Ribas, Brumfield & Miyaki (in press). Phylogeny and comparative phylogeography of Sclerurus (Aves: Furnariidae) reveal constant and cryptic diversification in an old radiation of rain forest understorey specialists. J Biogeogr. [abstract] [supp info]
Suggests recognition of five species within the current Tawny-throated Leaftosser Sclerurus mexicanus:
- S mexicanus (incl pullus)
- S obscurior
- S andinus
- S macconnelli (incl bahiae)
- S peruvianus
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
d'Horta et al 2013 pdf
PS. Longer-term access: [pdf]
There's free access to J Biogeogr 40(1) at the moment, including d'Horta et al 2013. [pdf]
PS. Longer-term access: [pdf]
Fig 2(c) shows sampled localities for peruvianus and macconnelli, but not precise boundaries.
Last edited:
Right, but peruvianus apparently occurs out onto the alluvial plain in NW Amazonia, and it is very common for foothills taxa to occur locally into Amazonia in SE Peru (including Sclerurus albigularis).
Given the lack of precise resolution in D'Horta et al, I was curious whether anybody here had additional information.
Barring that, does anybody know how to tell the forms apart? It would be nice to no which species is occurring at my field sites in Peru! If we don't know the precise range limits yet, the best way to learn them would be to develop and disseminate field-usable ID criteria.
Given the lack of precise resolution in D'Horta et al, I was curious whether anybody here had additional information.
Barring that, does anybody know how to tell the forms apart? It would be nice to no which species is occurring at my field sites in Peru! If we don't know the precise range limits yet, the best way to learn them would be to develop and disseminate field-usable ID criteria.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I read through this paper this morning and also found it very difficult to interpret what is supposed now to be going on in mexicanus.
A major initial issue is trying to understand Figure C on page 42, which does not show new species' supposed ranges. The authors seem to have done everything possible to confuse readers in this part: the sample nodes use colour codes which generally do not correspond to the colours on the map, so light blue M15-M18 on the clade is actually dark green on the map; dark green M22-M24 is not related to the other dark green on the map; and the black dots in both Peru and C America do not reflect related populations. It is hard to think of a presentation of these data that could have been more confusing. One assumes that the numbers rather than colours should take priority?
There is then the issue of peruvianus. The paper says that peruvianus is on the east slope and "outlying ridges" but there is no sampling in this paper of macconnelli from below the outlying ridges in the middle of W Amazonia which would support a hypothesis of elevational replacement. The alternative hypothesis would be that peruvianus is a West Amazonian replacement of macconnelli. The authors may have other data (e.g. vocal, specimens, older uncited publications) supporting their statements on the range of peruvianus. Either way, the authors propose splitting peruvianus from macconnelli when they form a monophyletic group whose two taxa are less divergent than Costa Rican versus Panama populations of mexicanus or North versus South of the Amazon populations of caudacutus. There are various sub-populations of other taxa within Amazonia which show similar levels of divergence.
Based on these data, one can definitely split mexicanus from the obscurior / andinus / macconnelli / peruvianus group. obscurior is also a good split due to sympatry with other ex-mexicanus in the West Andes: much overlooked and something the authors have a really interesting finding on. andinus is probably a good split given how close it and peruvianus approach one another on the East slope of the Andes in Colombia, but it would be better to have vocal data on these two. macconnelli versus peruvianus looks like a dodgy PSC split for which more data on distributions and voice would be definitely be welcome ...
A major initial issue is trying to understand Figure C on page 42, which does not show new species' supposed ranges. The authors seem to have done everything possible to confuse readers in this part: the sample nodes use colour codes which generally do not correspond to the colours on the map, so light blue M15-M18 on the clade is actually dark green on the map; dark green M22-M24 is not related to the other dark green on the map; and the black dots in both Peru and C America do not reflect related populations. It is hard to think of a presentation of these data that could have been more confusing. One assumes that the numbers rather than colours should take priority?
There is then the issue of peruvianus. The paper says that peruvianus is on the east slope and "outlying ridges" but there is no sampling in this paper of macconnelli from below the outlying ridges in the middle of W Amazonia which would support a hypothesis of elevational replacement. The alternative hypothesis would be that peruvianus is a West Amazonian replacement of macconnelli. The authors may have other data (e.g. vocal, specimens, older uncited publications) supporting their statements on the range of peruvianus. Either way, the authors propose splitting peruvianus from macconnelli when they form a monophyletic group whose two taxa are less divergent than Costa Rican versus Panama populations of mexicanus or North versus South of the Amazon populations of caudacutus. There are various sub-populations of other taxa within Amazonia which show similar levels of divergence.
Based on these data, one can definitely split mexicanus from the obscurior / andinus / macconnelli / peruvianus group. obscurior is also a good split due to sympatry with other ex-mexicanus in the West Andes: much overlooked and something the authors have a really interesting finding on. andinus is probably a good split given how close it and peruvianus approach one another on the East slope of the Andes in Colombia, but it would be better to have vocal data on these two. macconnelli versus peruvianus looks like a dodgy PSC split for which more data on distributions and voice would be definitely be welcome ...
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Thomas, I don't know what type of display you're viewing on, but the colours in Fig 2(c) correlate quite acceptably for me. M15-M18 are blue both in the clade and on the map (but perhaps darker?); M22-M24 are dark green in the clade and on the map (but M01 is pale green); M25-M29 (Peru) are black in the clade and on the map; and M02-M08 (C America) are brown in the clade and on the map.
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I was using an Ipad this morning on the tube. Looking at it now on the PC, mine is as yours. Obviously, it would be better if the colours were actually the same (because ipads would not reinterpret them differently), but it is definitely more understandable on a PC. The main part of this comment / complaint is retracted and redirected at the late Steve Jobs!
Last edited:
Hi Roy'N and all,
I don't have the HBW in front of me, but if I have understood you correctly, HBW suggests that the peruvianus/macconnelli border south of the Amazon is at the Tapajos.
If so, the species suggested by d'Horta et al cannot be reconciled with the subspecies' ranges delineated in HBW. D'Horta shows individuals with macconnelli genotypes FAR west of the Tapajos. If this is true, then perhaps (probably?) the diagnostic phenotypic characters described in HBW don't work near the actual zone of sym- or parapatry of macconnelli and peruvianus, and nobody has any idea which species is actually represented on the alluvial plain in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia; nor between the Ucayali and the Jurua, possibly even as far as the Purus or Madeira!
Nor does anybody seem to know whether there is contact or sympatry between these forms, whether they segregate elevationally (as claimed), whether they segregate by habitat in western Amazonia, or for that matter whether they hybridize.
I am not CERTAIN we don't know these things, I just can't ascertain that we DO know them.
As an aside--this is not something that I care much about--it occurs to me to wonder where the type specimen for peruvianus came from. Presumably Peru, but somebody had better check whether the type for Peruvianus came from a 'foothills' bird or from somewhere in the remainder of the vast range formerly ascribed to this taxon (all the way to the Tapajos!). Is it possible that the name peruvianus is actually a synonym of macconnelli or a subspecies of macconnelli, and we actually need another name for the western Amazonian/foothills population?
I don't have the HBW in front of me, but if I have understood you correctly, HBW suggests that the peruvianus/macconnelli border south of the Amazon is at the Tapajos.
If so, the species suggested by d'Horta et al cannot be reconciled with the subspecies' ranges delineated in HBW. D'Horta shows individuals with macconnelli genotypes FAR west of the Tapajos. If this is true, then perhaps (probably?) the diagnostic phenotypic characters described in HBW don't work near the actual zone of sym- or parapatry of macconnelli and peruvianus, and nobody has any idea which species is actually represented on the alluvial plain in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia; nor between the Ucayali and the Jurua, possibly even as far as the Purus or Madeira!
Nor does anybody seem to know whether there is contact or sympatry between these forms, whether they segregate elevationally (as claimed), whether they segregate by habitat in western Amazonia, or for that matter whether they hybridize.
I am not CERTAIN we don't know these things, I just can't ascertain that we DO know them.
As an aside--this is not something that I care much about--it occurs to me to wonder where the type specimen for peruvianus came from. Presumably Peru, but somebody had better check whether the type for Peruvianus came from a 'foothills' bird or from somewhere in the remainder of the vast range formerly ascribed to this taxon (all the way to the Tapajos!). Is it possible that the name peruvianus is actually a synonym of macconnelli or a subspecies of macconnelli, and we actually need another name for the western Amazonian/foothills population?
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Perhaps someone out there has been reading this birdforum discussion? Proposal B and some of the comments above have quite a lot in common!
Hopefully soon we can all recognise a more diverse bunch of 'tossers!
Hopefully soon we can all recognise a more diverse bunch of 'tossers!
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
IOC Update Diary:
Nov 4 Post proposed split(s) of Tawny-throated Leaftosser complex on Updates/PS
Nov 4 Post proposed split(s) of Tawny-throated Leaftosser complex on Updates/PS
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Sclerurus obscurior
IOC Update Diary:
Feb 24 Accept Dusky Leaftosser as first step to revising this species complex
IOC Update Diary:
Feb 24 Accept Dusky Leaftosser as first step to revising this species complex
