• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Accipitridae (3 Viewers)

Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
If Dumont remains the author, does that not call into question the typification made by Gray?
Click to expand...

No -- not under the current Code. See my ICZN quote in post #86 above.

(There was a period, in the early/mid-20th C, during which type designations were indeed deemed valid only if the genus-group name was sourced from the publication where the name was actually made available. Then I guess it was realized that asking to find a new designation, potentially of another species, every time an earlier source was identified for a given genus-group name, was actually detrimental to stability. In any case, this has never been the case under the ICZN -- Art. 67(g) of the 1st edition, 1961, said basically the same thing as the current 67.7.)
 
l_raty said:
No -- not under the current Code. See my ICZN quote in post #86 above.

(There was a period, in the early/mid-20th C, during which type designations were indeed deemed valid only if the genus-group name was sourced from the publication where the name was actually made available. Then I guess it was realized that asking to find a new designation, potentially of another species, every time an earlier source was identified for a given genus-group name, was actually detrimental to stability. In any case, this has never been the case under the ICZN -- Art. 67(g) of the 1st edition, 1961, said basically the same thing as the current 67.7.)
Click to expand...
I guess there are no available names for guianensis si Morphnus is not applicable for it
 
"Morphinus Fleming, Phil. Zool., 2, p. 235, 1822—type, by monotypy, Falco guianensis Daudin." (Hellmayr and Conover, 1949, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. I (4), p. 200). The Richmond Card Index treats this name as an emendment or a lapsus for Morphnus (e.g. Morphinus dubius A. Smith, 1830).
See Index of Scientific Names of Type Species (search ZZY in The Key)
 
Last edited:
Previously a preprint, now formally published:

Catanach, T.A., M.R. Halley, S. Pirro (2024)
Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/blae028

Hawks, eagles, and their relatives (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) are a diverse and charismatic clade of modern birds, with many members that are instantly recognized by the general public. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationships among genera within Accipitridae, and several studies have suggested that some genera (in particular, the megadiverse genus Accipiter) are not monophyletic. Here, we combine a large new dataset obtained from ultraconserved elements, generated from whole genome sequencing of 134 species, with publicly available legacy markers (i.e. a suite of commonly sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear genes) to infer a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny of 237 extant or recently extinct species. Our densely sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.
 
albertonykus said:
Previously a preprint, now formally published:

Catanach, T.A., M.R. Halley, S. Pirro (2024)
Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/blae028

Hawks, eagles, and their relatives (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) are a diverse and charismatic clade of modern birds, with many members that are instantly recognized by the general public. However, surprisingly little is known about the relationships among genera within Accipitridae, and several studies have suggested that some genera (in particular, the megadiverse genus Accipiter) are not monophyletic. Here, we combine a large new dataset obtained from ultraconserved elements, generated from whole genome sequencing of 134 species, with publicly available legacy markers (i.e. a suite of commonly sequenced mitochondrial and nuclear genes) to infer a well-supported, time-calibrated phylogeny of 237 extant or recently extinct species. Our densely sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.
Click to expand...
If anyone can get it
 
Sounds like they didn't investigate any subspecific taxonomic questions? Particularly in A striatus it would be amazing to finally have some decent genetic work done...
 
Mysticete said:
That would probably be an entire PhD worth of work right there!
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a mess and I'm not casting blame on the authors, it's just a taxonomic situation that I find interesting is all. There was the paper a couple years back on Caribbean populations of A striatus that recommended recognizing three additional species but I at least don't recall IOC acting on this? And IOC still recognizes Plain-breasted, White-breasted, and Rufous-thighed so I guess WGAC reconciliation will be addressing that Clements/IOC difference.

Even if you don't sample Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, just including samples for the "standard" N American birds, the Chiapas/Guatemala White-breasted Hawk, the Andean Plain-breasted Hawk, and Southern Rufous-thighed Hawk would be illuminating. Plain-breasted vs Rufous-thighed and variation within each is probably more complex than currently viewed but even with just sampling those two you could see some placement relative to N American and Caribbean subspecies. To get into to it just a bit further the birds from the S Sierra Madre (Guerrero and Oaxaca) are interesting, and you could sample a couple locations of "standard" N American birds and perhaps more broadly in S America. Anyways, just a group of birds that interests me and that it would be neat to see more info on, sort of like the situation with N Pygmy-Owl.
 
The authors do point out that they limited sampling to one per species, even though some species are not monophyletic. They mention "Accipiter poliogaster, various monotypic eagle genera, and Rupornis magnirostris" as taxa in need of additional sampling. They also mention the American goshawk, Astur atricapillus, a recent split, as a species that needs testing.

Often such concluding remarks mean they are in the process of doing just that. I wouldn't be surprised if a more detailed study looking at Accipter s.s. and Astur, the part of the tree from A. poliogaster to A. gentilis (which includes A. striatus), is in the works.
 
pbjosh said:
Yeah it's a mess and I'm not casting blame on the authors, it's just a taxonomic situation that I find interesting is all. There was the paper a couple years back on Caribbean populations of A striatus that recommended recognizing three additional species but I at least don't recall IOC acting on this? And IOC still recognizes Plain-breasted, White-breasted, and Rufous-thighed so I guess WGAC reconciliation will be addressing that Clements/IOC difference.

Even if you don't sample Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, just including samples for the "standard" N American birds, the Chiapas/Guatemala White-breasted Hawk, the Andean Plain-breasted Hawk, and Southern Rufous-thighed Hawk would be illuminating. Plain-breasted vs Rufous-thighed and variation within each is probably more complex than currently viewed but even with just sampling those two you could see some placement relative to N American and Caribbean subspecies. To get into to it just a bit further the birds from the S Sierra Madre (Guerrero and Oaxaca) are interesting, and you could sample a couple locations of "standard" N American birds and perhaps more broadly in S America. Anyways, just a group of birds that interests me and that it would be neat to see more info on, sort of like the situation with N Pygmy-Owl.
Click to expand...
The Caribbean taxa have been quite well sampled actually: it's the South American (and "other nisus group taxa") that are lacking.

Loading...

bvearmb.do
 
Xenospiza said:
The Caribbean taxa have been quite well sampled actually: it's the South American (and "other nisus group taxa") that are lacking.

Loading...

bvearmb.do
Click to expand...

Yeah that's the paper I was recalling ;)

Were there ever any proposed splits / commentary from IOC on this?

I don't think NACC or SACC addressed these taxa. There was a proposal in 2022 to NACC to split A chionogaster that as I recall was sort of a "put a rubber stamp on the status quo" proposal but also commented that it was likely a good species, just more data was necessary.
 
I think the fact that they mention that more work needs to be done ensures SACC won't act.

IOC treats chionogaster as a separate species, with the North American taxa included in striatus. The article would lead to lumping chionogaster with the North American taxa and splitting off (in whatever way) the Caribbean birds.
 
pbjosh said:
Yeah that's the paper I was recalling ;)

Were there ever any proposed splits / commentary from IOC on this?

I don't think NACC or SACC addressed these taxa. There was a proposal in 2022 to NACC to split A chionogaster that as I recall was sort of a "put a rubber stamp on the status quo" proposal but also commented that it was likely a good species, just more data was necessary.
Click to expand...
This year's batch of NACC proposals includes one to split off the Caribbean A. striatus, although if I recall correctly the proposal doesn't call for splitting off each island population, which I think the original paper argued for?
 
Mysticete said:
This year's batch of NACC proposals includes one to split off the Caribbean A. striatus, although if I recall correctly the proposal doesn't call for splitting off each island population, which I think the original paper argued for?
Click to expand...

Buaa, somehow I completely forgot that. Pffft. This is one that I have a hard time developing a feel for "will it pass?"
 
Xenospiza said:
I think the fact that they mention that more work needs to be done ensures SACC won't act.

IOC treats chionogaster as a separate species, with the North American taxa included in striatus. The article would lead to lumping chionogaster with the North American taxa and splitting off (in whatever way) the Caribbean birds.
Click to expand...

The IOC also recognise erythronemius (rufous-thighed hawk) and ventralis (plain-breasted hawk) as species and it seems this is an old split, possibly going back to Sibley and Monroe.

If the island endemics are recognised, the North American continental subspecies would presumably be recognised as ''A. velox'' with the three subspecies in the eBird/BOW ''velox'' species group.
 

Similar threads

A
Preservation of phaeomelanin in fossil feathers
Replies
0
Views
349
albertonykus
A
Peter Kovalik
The reuse of avian samples
Replies
1
Views
884
njlarsen
njlarsen
Fred Ruhe
Dynatoaetus gaffae gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
6
Views
1K
Melanie
Melanie
Peter Kovalik
Symposiachrus (Monarchidae)
Replies
4
Views
2K
andrew147
andrew147
Peter Kovalik
Quaternary land bridges
Replies
0
Views
691
Peter Kovalik
Peter Kovalik

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top