What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Accipiters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 2555096" data-attributes="member: 24811"><p>Not sure why <em>trivirgatus</em> and <em>poliogaster</em> are retained in <em>Accipiter</em>...?</p><p>In Breman et al. 2012, Fig.5, the complete barcode sequence of <em>trivirgatus</em> clusters with the outgroup, rather than with any subgroup of <em>Accipiter</em> -- albeit admittedly with poor support.</p><p>GenBank has a partial cytb sequence that has a similar signal, so I combined this segment with the cox1 sequences (which produced an alignment of 1192bp in total), and analysed it together with the other accipitrids that have had these two genes sequenced. The tree is attached.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://archive.org/stream/classificationde00kaup#page/116/mode/1up" target="_blank">Tachyspiza Kaup, 1844</a> and <a href="http://archive.org/stream/classificationde00kaup#page/119/mode/1up" target="_blank">Leucospiza Kaup, 1844</a> seem to have equal priority (same publication, both as subgenus), and may require a First Reviser act.</p><p></p><p>Ending issues:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"<em>Tachyspiza castanilia</em>": original spelling <em>castanilius</em>. From <em>castanea</em> (chestnut) + <em>ilia</em> (flank) with ending modified into <em>-us</em>. Ends in a Latin noun with modified ending, but no adjectical suffix; I'd treat it as a noun and retain the original ending.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"<em>Tachyspiza erythropa</em>": OS <em>erythropus</em>. From ἐρυθρός (red) + πούς (foot, genitive ποδός), latinized. This ends in a Latinized Greek noun, I'd retain the original ending. (Cf. <em>Gallinula chloropus</em>; "<em>erythropodus</em>" would have been adjectival.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"<em>Tachyspiza henicogrammus</em>". From ἑνικός (single) + γραμμή (line) + variable ending -ος,-ος,-ον, latinised into -<em>us</em>,-<em>a</em>,-<em>um</em>; meaning "single-lined". This is what David & Gosselin call a "latinized adjective derived from Greek", I'd let the ending vary.</li> </ul><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"<em>Tachyspiza francesiae</em>": OS <em>francesii</em>. Another type of problem; my reading of the 4th ed. of the Code is still that this type of correction, that was mandatory under the 3rd ed., is now forbidden. (I don't believe that <em>francesiae</em> is in clear prevailing usage.)<br /> But I know others will disagree with this.</li> </ul><p>...I also have a small lingering doubt about this one:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">"<em>Tachyspiza minulla</em>": OS <em>minullus</em>. Jobling gives: "<strong><em>minula</em> / <em>minulla</em> / <em>minullum</em> / <em>minullus</em></strong> Med. L. <em>minulus</em> very small (dim. from L. <em>minus</em> less)." I'd be most interested if anybody could show me a Latin dictionary that actually includes this word--it is certainly absent from classical Latin dictionaries, but also, eg., <a href="http://archive.org/stream/LatinLexicon1976/NiermeyerMediaeLatinitatisLexicon1976#page/n802/mode/1up" target="_blank">Niermeyer's Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary</a> seems to ignore it. Does it really exist?</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="l_raty, post: 2555096, member: 24811"] Not sure why [I]trivirgatus[/I] and [I]poliogaster[/I] are retained in [I]Accipiter[/I]...? In Breman et al. 2012, Fig.5, the complete barcode sequence of [I]trivirgatus[/I] clusters with the outgroup, rather than with any subgroup of [I]Accipiter[/I] -- albeit admittedly with poor support. GenBank has a partial cytb sequence that has a similar signal, so I combined this segment with the cox1 sequences (which produced an alignment of 1192bp in total), and analysed it together with the other accipitrids that have had these two genes sequenced. The tree is attached. [URL="http://archive.org/stream/classificationde00kaup#page/116/mode/1up"]Tachyspiza Kaup, 1844[/URL] and [URL="http://archive.org/stream/classificationde00kaup#page/119/mode/1up"]Leucospiza Kaup, 1844[/URL] seem to have equal priority (same publication, both as subgenus), and may require a First Reviser act. Ending issues: [LIST] [*]"[I]Tachyspiza castanilia[/I]": original spelling [I]castanilius[/I]. From [I]castanea[/I] (chestnut) + [I]ilia[/I] (flank) with ending modified into [I]-us[/I]. Ends in a Latin noun with modified ending, but no adjectical suffix; I'd treat it as a noun and retain the original ending. [*]"[I]Tachyspiza erythropa[/I]": OS [I]erythropus[/I]. From ἐρυθρός (red) + πούς (foot, genitive ποδός), latinized. This ends in a Latinized Greek noun, I'd retain the original ending. (Cf. [I]Gallinula chloropus[/I]; "[I]erythropodus[/I]" would have been adjectival.) [*]"[I]Tachyspiza henicogrammus[/I]". From ἑνικός (single) + γραμμή (line) + variable ending -ος,-ος,-ον, latinised into -[I]us[/I],-[I]a[/I],-[I]um[/I]; meaning "single-lined". This is what David & Gosselin call a "latinized adjective derived from Greek", I'd let the ending vary.[/LIST] [LIST][*]"[I]Tachyspiza francesiae[/I]": OS [I]francesii[/I]. Another type of problem; my reading of the 4th ed. of the Code is still that this type of correction, that was mandatory under the 3rd ed., is now forbidden. (I don't believe that [I]francesiae[/I] is in clear prevailing usage.) But I know others will disagree with this.[/LIST] ...I also have a small lingering doubt about this one: [LIST][*]"[I]Tachyspiza minulla[/I]": OS [I]minullus[/I]. Jobling gives: "[B][I]minula[/I] / [I]minulla[/I] / [I]minullum[/I] / [I]minullus[/I][/B] Med. L. [I]minulus[/I] very small (dim. from L. [I]minus[/I] less)." I'd be most interested if anybody could show me a Latin dictionary that actually includes this word--it is certainly absent from classical Latin dictionaries, but also, eg., [URL="http://archive.org/stream/LatinLexicon1976/NiermeyerMediaeLatinitatisLexicon1976#page/n802/mode/1up"]Niermeyer's Medieval Latin-French/English Dictionary[/URL] seems to ignore it. Does it really exist? [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Accipiters
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top