Acanthis
Well-known member
I see the AOU have a pending proposal for the splitting of the Siskin genus Spinus into 3 genera.
See http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2008-C.pdf
The proposal is as follows:
"Spinus Koch, 1816, for spinus, pinus, dominicensis, and atriceps;
Astragalinus Cabanis, 1851, for tristis, psaltria, and lawrencei; and
Pyrrhomitris Bonaparte, 1850, for the rest of Cental and South American species"
Instead of Astragalinus and Pyrrhomitris the "Taxonomy in Flux" list based on the forthcoming Nguembock et al (2009) paper, uses Pseudomitris and Sporagra respectively.
A brief search through the Richmond Index on zoonomen.net would suggest that the first two mentioned would have priority.
Anyone care to comment? Laurent?
My main reason for posting though is because I wonder if this proposed generic split is really necessary. The 3 groups of Spinus form a fairly well-supported clade in for example:
Arnaiz-Villena (et al) (2007b), Bayesian phylogeny of Fringillinae birds: status of the singular African oriole finch Linurgus olivaceus and evolution and heterogeneity of the genus Carpodacus, Acta Zool. Sinica 53, 826-834.
Arnaiz-Villena (et al) (2008), Mitochondrial DNA Phylogenetic Definition of a Group of ‘Arid-Zone’ Carduelini Finches, Open Ornith. J. 1, 1-7.
And beyond the science, most species are either capped or have black heads and most important of all sound like "a siskin". The have a common, for want of a better word... "Siskinicity". In short if it looks and sounds like a siskin then it's a siskin.
IMO the size of a genus should not be good enough reason to split it. The plausible theory behind the large number of Spinus species is that an invading ancestor found a vacant niche in S. and C. America for a small, agile seedeater and ran with it.
All that being said the American Goldfinches are a little distinct in plumage so if a split is to be made then perhaps Spinus / Astragalinus is warranted.
BTW before anyone asks I don't yet have a copy of Nguembock (2009) and would dearly love to read it. So if anyone has a pdf......
See http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2008-C.pdf
The proposal is as follows:
"Spinus Koch, 1816, for spinus, pinus, dominicensis, and atriceps;
Astragalinus Cabanis, 1851, for tristis, psaltria, and lawrencei; and
Pyrrhomitris Bonaparte, 1850, for the rest of Cental and South American species"
Instead of Astragalinus and Pyrrhomitris the "Taxonomy in Flux" list based on the forthcoming Nguembock et al (2009) paper, uses Pseudomitris and Sporagra respectively.
A brief search through the Richmond Index on zoonomen.net would suggest that the first two mentioned would have priority.
Anyone care to comment? Laurent?
My main reason for posting though is because I wonder if this proposed generic split is really necessary. The 3 groups of Spinus form a fairly well-supported clade in for example:
Arnaiz-Villena (et al) (2007b), Bayesian phylogeny of Fringillinae birds: status of the singular African oriole finch Linurgus olivaceus and evolution and heterogeneity of the genus Carpodacus, Acta Zool. Sinica 53, 826-834.
Arnaiz-Villena (et al) (2008), Mitochondrial DNA Phylogenetic Definition of a Group of ‘Arid-Zone’ Carduelini Finches, Open Ornith. J. 1, 1-7.
And beyond the science, most species are either capped or have black heads and most important of all sound like "a siskin". The have a common, for want of a better word... "Siskinicity". In short if it looks and sounds like a siskin then it's a siskin.
IMO the size of a genus should not be good enough reason to split it. The plausible theory behind the large number of Spinus species is that an invading ancestor found a vacant niche in S. and C. America for a small, agile seedeater and ran with it.
All that being said the American Goldfinches are a little distinct in plumage so if a split is to be made then perhaps Spinus / Astragalinus is warranted.
BTW before anyone asks I don't yet have a copy of Nguembock (2009) and would dearly love to read it. So if anyone has a pdf......
]. The names in Svenska Spindlar have priority over those in Systema naturae.) Of course, this is all entirely arbitrary - the only thing that was needed was a clearly defined starting point.
