• 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.

Alaudidae (1 Viewer)

Xenospiza

Distracted
Supporter
Grrrr . . . xlsx file again :storm: Can it be changed to xls please so that it can be opened by everyone, not just those few with access to xlsx software?
I have stone age software too. Microsoft's converter works fine, although (curiously) at work I need to open my excel first before opening an xlsx-file.
I am more afraid of having to switch to a new type of access... which looks like a nightmare for my data!
 

Melanie

Well-known member
Zootaxa 3779 (3): 397–398 (17 Mar. 2014)
The correct authorship and type locality of Melanocorypha leucoptera (Aves: Passeriformes, Alaudidae)
RICHARD SCHODDE, WALTER J. BOCK, EDWARD C. DICKINSON, ROBERT J. DOWSETT, MARY K. LECROY, RICARDO L. PALMA & CARLO VIOLANI

PDF
 

mb1848

Well-known member
OD of A. leucoptera in Hablizl:
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10636377_00185.html .
Reading throughout the book I do not see Gablizl or Hablizl thus anonymous. But in 1784 Pallas refers over and over to Hablizl as the author of this work.
http://books.google.com/books?id=kx...Hablizl&q=Hablizl#v=snippet&q=Hablizl&f=false .
Opinion 403, with Col Meinertzhagen's agreement.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/107609#page/150/mode/1up .
Pallas does not refer to Hablizl in his Alauda leucoptera.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Alau/alau00193a.jpg .
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/92513#page/550/mode/1up .
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Interesting.

The Code says: "80.7.1. A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s)."

The reason why we are currently using leucoptera Pallas, 1811, as the name of the white-winged lark, is that Opinion 403 ruled that the senior name Alauda sibirica Gmelin, 1789, was not to be used, because it is a secondary homonym of "Tanagra sibirica" (actual OS: siberica) Sparrman, 1786, in the genus Melanocorypha Boie, 1828. I can't find any suggestion, in Op. 403, that Gmelin's name should be regarded as unavailable or unpublished.

If the white-winged lark is moved from Melanocorypha to Alauda, as suggested by Alström et al. 2013, the secondary homonymy problem disappears. Shouldn't it then be Alauda sibirica...? (Unless it is leucoptera Hablizl, 1785, of course.)
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Dickinson (2001) considered A. siberica Gmelin as unidentifiable, composite(?). Footnote 16, of: http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/46432 .
Dickinson (2001):
16. The name sibirica Gmelin, 1789, was based upon "Pall. it. 2, p. 708, n. 15 * 3 p. 697". Research shows that this refers to two volumes of a book by Pallas, first Pallas (1773) where on p. 708, which is within the Anhang (= Appendix), No. 15 is “Alauda Calandra?”; second Pallas (1776), where on p. 697, again within the Anhang to the volume, No. 19 is Alauda mongolica - and a footnote to this refers to the 1773 text and explains that his mongolica is not the same as his calandra of 1773 [18]. Peters (1960a) treated Gmelin’s name as unavailable, presumably on the grounds of preoccupation by Tanagra siberica Sparrman, 1786 (which is a synonym of Alauda yeltoniensis Forster, 1767) although the editors of Peters Check-list footnoted a contrary opinion. Alauda sibirica Gmelin, 1789, would therefore seem from its citation to have been based on both Alauda calandra? Pallas, 1773, and on Alauda mongolica Pallas, 1776. As Pallas’s 1776 footnote makes clear that the two names relate to different entities Gmelin’s name would seem to relate to a composite set of type material. However, Peters (1960a) treated Alauda sibirica Gmelin as an unavailable senior synonym of Alauda leucoptera Pallas, 1811. Pallas (1811) below his description of leucoptera referred to "Alauda Calandrae affinis", this seems to imply that he recognised that the two were very similar (rather than that leucoptera was a name put forward as a replacement name, but there is no mention of the 1776 name and we have not achieved a clear understanding of the application of these names). Sharpe (1890: 557) took it that both Gmelin’s name and leucoptera Pallas applied to the same taxon. We have not examined Sharpe’s reasons or sources for interpreting this name in the way he did (although a misreading of the 1776 footnote seems possible). These names all relate to type localities to the north of our area of interest and we have elected not to pursue this further. Our limited findings suggest that Alauda sibirica Gmelin, 1789, should probably be considered unidentifiable on the grounds that when first applied the indications given were to two distinct and different taxa, but we do not feel we have sufficiently resolved the matter.

(Being composite and being unidentifiable are two entirely different things as far as a name goes [ia., one can be solved readily by a lectotypification, the other not--a very large number of names that are currently in universal use were originally composite]; neither makes the name unavailable ["unavailable" in the text above seems to be used in the sense of "invalid"--in any case not in the sense that the Code gives it]. But these are secondary issues here.)

[Gmelin (1789)]
[Pallas (1773)]
[Pallas (1776)]

Pallas' Alauda mongolica ("Pall. it. 3. p. 697. n. 19" -- "it." = iter in Latin / journey in English / Reise in German) is the base of Gmelin's Alauda mongolica, the species that immediately precedes Alauda sibirica in Gmelin's book (Alauda species #30).

Under his Alauda sibirica, Gmelin does not cite "Pall. it. 3. p. 697. n. 19". He just cites "Pall. it. 3. p. 697.", presumably in an attempt to point to the footnote on p. 697. What this footnote says, is that the bird Pallas had described with reservations as calandra lark in his second volume is actually distinct from the real calandra lark (that he had seen afterwards), even more than the one being described here as Alauda mongolica. This footnote was probably one of the main reasons why Gmelin treated Pallas' "Alauda Calandra ?" separately from his own Alauda calandra. Gmelin's text for Alauda sibirica is, clearly, entirely derived from Pallas' description of his "Alauda Calandra ?", and includes no elements that would appear to be taken from Pallas' Alauda mongolica text. Therefore, Gmelin's sibirica = Pallas' "Calandra ?", and nothing else.

I see no real problem with this name.
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member
Good analysis, Laurent. Pallas 1811 refers to Latham 1783 General Synopsis who calls Alauda Calandra? of Pallas's travels p. 708 variety A. White-winged Lark and differentiates Alauda mongolica as a separate species.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BV5UAAAAcAAJ&dq=Latham+white-winged+lark&source=gbs_navlinks_s (page 383.) I like A. leucoptera because it means white-winged.
Sharpe 1890:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z_QZAAAAYAAJ&dq=leucoptera+Sharpe+1889&source=gbs_navlinks_s . (page 557.)
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Pallas 1811 refers to Latham 1783 General Synopsis who calls Alauda Calandra? of Pallas's travels p. 708 variety A. White-winged Lark and differentiates Alauda mongolica as a separate species.
Yes, he cites his own "Calandra ?", but paraphrasing it as Alauda Calandrae affinis = lark related to the calandra, and then indeed Latham who called it "White-winged Lark". The default explanation for leucoptera, thus, would seem to be that Pallas latinised the English name coined by Latham (and simply overlooked Hablizl's name).


I went through the bird list in the French translation of Hablizl's book (published in 1788). The list covers 13 pages, includes 78 species, and is followed by a note saying:
"Besides the bird species that we just described and that stay almost year-round in Tauride, other migrants are also encountered, that show up in spring, during their journey from the southern to the northern countries, and vice versa in fall. But as they don't make it their permanent stay, these are not part of the indigenous species of Tauride."
However:
- although the list includes a few species (eg., the common swift) that are nevertheless said to be present in summer only, many other included species are certainly completely absent from Crimea in winter, without this being noted at all;
- some species that should be winter visitors (eg., the whooper swan) are noted as being present in spring and autumn only;
- not a single species is explicitly said to be present in winter.
Overall, I'd say that this list looks very much like the list of someone who never studied birds in Crimea in winter.
Despite this, Hablizl's Alauda leucoptera (which, if it is the white-winged lark, should only be a winter visitor to Crimea) is said to be abundant in every plain and valley, together with crested larks.
I can't refrain noting that Hablizl's list apparently lacks calandra lark... which also has white in the wings, even if admittedly much less than a white-winged lark, and "swarms" of which are promised by WINGS to the clients who will visit this region with them.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
If the white-winged lark is moved from Melanocorypha to Alauda, as suggested by Alström et al. 2013, the secondary homonymy problem disappears. Shouldn't it then be Alauda sibirica...?
No, on a second look, this seems incorrect.
59.3. Secondary homonyms replaced before 1961 but no longer considered congeneric. A junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the substitute name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, in which case the junior homonym is not to be rejected on grounds of that replacement.
Opinion 403 is from 1956, and the substitute name is in use, hence the replacement made the junior secondary homonym permanently invalid.
 
Last edited:

Acrocephalus

Well-known member
Galerida larks

Guillaumet, A. & Leotard, G. 2015. Annoying neighbors: Multi-scale distribution determinants of two sympatric sibling species of birds. Current Zoology 61(1): (online first) PDF

p.s. Does anyone knows the etymology of the word “bathas”. It seems that Google does not know everything after all.
Bathas = grasslands with shrubs (in this paper).
 

mb1848

Well-known member
The Greek bathos or bathus means deep. I cannot prove it but I think bathas is related to the word for "of Crete" Crete has bathas habitat ie low growing herbaceous shrubs among the grass.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Naveh, 1975 suggests that batha is "a biblical term applied by Eig (1927) in Israel to heather-like dwarfshrub and herb associations."
Eig, A. 1927. On the vegetation of Palestine. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull., Inst. Agr. & Nat. Hist., Tel Aviv, 7: 1-88.
I can't find it online right now. (1927 is not a good date--almost as old as you can while still being under copyright.) Of course, "biblical" does not give you a language.

EDIT - Here, it is said to be "a Hebrew term".
 
Last edited:

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Batha

Naveh, 1975 suggests that batha is "a biblical term applied by Eig (1927) in Israel to heather-like dwarfshrub and herb associations."
Eig, A. 1927. On the vegetation of Palestine. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull., Inst. Agr. & Nat. Hist., Tel Aviv, 7: 1-88.
I can't find it online right now. (1927 is not a good date--almost as old as you can while still being under copyright.) Of course, "biblical" does not give you a language.
EDIT - Here, it is said to be "a Hebrew term".
Shirihai 1996 (Birds of Israel) discusses, eg, 'Mediterranean garrigue and batha', 'grassland and batha', 'desertic batha'.

Wikipedia: "Garrigue is a common general word for the shrubland habitat ecosystems in France along with maquis, which are known elsewhere as: phrygana in Greece; tomillares and matorral in Spain; and batha in Israel".
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Alström, Barnes, Olsson, Barker, Bloomer, Khang, Qureshi, Guillaumet, Crochet & Ryan (in press). Multilocus phylogeny of the avian family Alaudidae (larks) reveals complex morphological evolution, non-monophyletic genera and hidden species diversity. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]

Generic-level implications...
  • .....
  • Mirafra hova > Eremopterix

Looking at pics of Madagascan Lark, it doesn't look remotely like anything else in Eremopterix. What possibility an error in placement here, perhaps due to e.g. misplaced or misidentified tissue samples?

From HBW, "Relationships uncertain ... has been suggested as belonging in Calandrella". But no suggestion of belonging in Eremopterix.

Seems a good case for testing the results with fresh samples, if they can be obtained.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Madagascan Lark

Looking at pics of Madagascan Lark, it doesn't look remotely like anything else in Eremopterix. What possibility an error in placement here, perhaps due to e.g. misplaced or misidentified tissue samples?
Alström et al...
...the strongly supported inclusion of the Madagascar endemic Mirafra hova in this clade, and hence its suggested transfer to Eremopterix, is most remarkable in view of its strikingly different plumage from all plumages of other Eremopterix species and close similarity to some Mirafra species...
Hmm. The sample used was reportedly FMNH 352844: Phyllastrephus (Bernieria) madagascariensis madagascariensis.

[The suggested transfer has been adopted by H&M, IOC and TiF.]
 
Last edited:

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Alström et al...

Hmm. The sample used was reportedly FMNH 352844: Phyllastrephus madagascariensis madagascariensis.

[The suggested transfer has been adopted by H&M, IOC and TiF.]
Yikes! Now Bernieria madagascariensis, family Bernieridae. If true to name, not a lark at all . . . what does that say about the results?!? :eek!:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top