• 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.

AOU 2017 Checklist proposals (1 Viewer)

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
In to what?

I hadn't realised either that Great Grey Shrike had been re-named?


A

Into Great Grey Shrike Lanius excubitor (Europe, western Asia) and Northern Shrike Lanius borealis (northeast Asia, North America, inc. subspp. borealis & sibiricus).

Forgot to add - GGS has always been called 'Northern Shrike' in N America, even when borealis was considered conspecific with excubitor.
 
Last edited:

MJB

Well-known member
That's what confused me then Nutty, thanks
A

There are many taxa that at present continue to be listed as sspp of Southern Grey Shrike Lanius meridionalis, but the thrust of a number of papers since 2009 is that L. meridionalis will in future be confined to Iberia and southern France, the more widespread former sspp being attributed to Great Grey Shrike L. excubitor or to a common ancestor of Great Grey Shrike, Southern Grey Shrike populations being associated with a separate, earlier radiation after glaciation retreat.

The 'transfer' of the various taxa from Great Grey Shrike sensu lato to Northern Shrike may have made the formal revision of the 'meridionalis' taxa as stated above more straightforward once a better sampling distribution has been achieved. There are vast areas of large grey shrike distribution that have been poorly researched or sampled.
MJB
PS Charles Vaurie in the early 1950s had constructed two arrangements of large grey shrike taxa, but the limitations of morphology could find little to choose from. He settled on the meridionalis-based version, and I like to think that he would have been quite intrigued to find the version he rejected being supported by molecular research findings.
 

mb1848

Well-known member
I just sent a proposal to Mr. Chesser at AOU:
Technical corrections to authority citation of genus Tadorna:
An earlier work of Boie Tagebuch etc. is the actual original source of the genus Tadorna instead of Isis Von Oken 1822 also Boie.
Tagebuch gehalten auf einer Reise durch Norwegen im Jahre 1817
By Friedrich Boie is dated before May 1, 1822; since F. Boie mentions his Tagebuch book in the Isis article.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Vj...adorna&f=false .
On column 560 of the Isis Von Oken Jahrgang 1822 in Boie’s article in heft five just four columns before the AOU cite is a citation to the Tagebuch book. Boie, 1822, Isis von Oken, col. 564. is in heft five which means May 1822.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/i...e/290/mode/1up .
If you use Isis Von Oken Boie lists two species of Tadorna T. familiaris and rutila (not A. tadorna) so no tautonymy. The Norwegian book only uses T. familiaris as a species and specifically mentions it equals Anas tadorna Lin. So tautology and monotypy. “Also if you give precedence to Isis Von Oken over the Tagebuch, Tadorna familiaris Boie was a nomen nudum at the time of introduction of the genus, thus is not eligible as a type species, and Anas rutila Pallas is the type by original monotypy.” (L. Raty on Bird Forum) Pages for all this is listed as 140 and 351 because 351 is where familiaris is revealed to be A. tadorna.
In the current Auk :
Genus TADORNA Boie
Tadorna Boie, 1822, Isis von Oken, col. 564. Type, by
tautonymy, Anas tadorna Linnaeus.
This is incorrect.
History in the Check-list of North American Birds.
In the first and second AOU check-list (1886 & 1895) there is no Tadorna.
In the third check-list (1910) is Ruddy Sheldrake but in genus Casarca Bonaparte Geog. & Comp. List, 1838, 56. Type, by monotypy, Anas rutila Pallas = Anas ferruginea Pallas. In the Fourth check-list (1931) Casarca is still there for Ruddy Sheldrake but also genus Tadorna for Shel-duck Tadorna tadorna . “Tadorna Fleming Philos. Zool II 1822 260 Type by monotypy Anas tadorna Linn.” Same listing in the Fifth edition of the check-list.
In 1979 Johnsgard had it Tadorna Boie, 1822 (before May), Tagebuch Reise Norwegen, pp. 140, 351. Type, by tautonymy, Tadorna familiaris Boie = Anas tadorna Linnaeus. (Order Anseriformes: from Check-List of Birds of the World) This is correct.
Literature cited:
1. Tagebuch gehalten auf einer Reise durch Norwegen im Jahre 1817, Friedrich Boie, 1822.
2. Isis Von Oken Jahrgang 1822, erstes heft I-VI.
3. Order Anseriformes: from Check-List of Birds of the World, Johnsgard, 1979.
4. Birdforum Taxonomy and Nomenclature Forum. (www. Birdforum.net)
Mark Brown
July 17, 2017.
Eunetta next!
 

Markus Lagerqvist

Well-known member
People know it is named for a place without squirrels and that the genus of these squirrels is Sinesciurus but sinesciuris is the plural, squirrels so is correct. This is why the normals hate us.

A question regarding the English name Cassia Crossbill. The motivation says that "Cassia Crossbill more accurately describes the distribution of this species, which is endemic toCassia County, Idaho"

My question is - is it really endemic to Cassia County? The South Hills seem to be on both sides of the border of Cassia County and Twin Falls County.

Is the crossbill not present on the Twin Falls side of South Hills?
 

jurek

Well-known member
My question is - is it really endemic to Cassia County? The South Hills seem to be on both sides of the border of Cassia County and Twin Falls County.

Is the crossbill not present on the Twin Falls side of South Hills?

Would it be possible to identify Cassia Crossbill with reasonable certainty as a vagrant elsewhere at all?

In Europe, crossbills matching 'Scottish Crossbill' 'Loxia scotica' are repeatedly trapped and recorded outside Scottish Highlands, but no authority ever dared to assign them to this form. Not so good species.
 

fugl

Well-known member
Would it be possible to identify Cassia Crossbill with reasonable certainty as a vagrant elsewhere at all?

In Europe, crossbills matching 'Scottish Crossbill' 'Loxia scotica' are repeatedly trapped and recorded outside Scottish Highlands, but no authority ever dared to assign them to this form. Not so good species.

Distinguishable by DNA and call analysis presumably. Just because Cassias are unidentifiable by the usual morphological criteria doesn't in itself make them a "bad" species,
 
Last edited:

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Would it be possible to identify Cassia Crossbill with reasonable certainty as a vagrant elsewhere at all?

In Europe, crossbills matching 'Scottish Crossbill' 'Loxia scotica' are repeatedly trapped and recorded outside Scottish Highlands, but no authority ever dared to assign them to this form. Not so good species.

Distinguishable by DNA and call analysis presumably. Just because Cassias are unidentifiable by the usual morphological criteria doesn't in itself make them a "bad" species,

What worries me more: does acceptance of Loxia sinesciuris as a species, leave Loxia curvirostra paraphyletic? Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?
 

Kirk Roth

Well-known member
What worries me more: does acceptance of Loxia sinesciuris as a species, leave Loxia curvirostra paraphyletic? Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?

The short answer is "no."

See Figure 1 in the crossbill proposal: http://checklist.aou.org/assets/proposals/PDF/2017-A.pdf for a good illustration. If the Mexican Crossbill ever gets split, there may be questions of polyphyly for those who are concerned.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
The short answer is "no."

See Figure 1 in the crossbill proposal: http://checklist.aou.org/assets/proposals/PDF/2017-A.pdf for a good illustration.
If you accept what this figure shows, the answer is 'yes', actually.
The basalmost L. curvirostra (incl. type 9 = sinesciuris) are those that are at the end opposite to the type 9 cluster. A single type two is sister to everything else; then you have a cluster made of tree type 2 and one type 5, which is sister to sinesciuris + the rest.
No support is given for the two critical nodes, though; and the branch lengths in the basalmost clusters become progressively a bit shorter than the rest (which proves nothing, but is often the case when a tree is misrooted).
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
What worries me more: does acceptance of Loxia sinesciuris as a species, leave Loxia curvirostra paraphyletic? Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?

The short answer is "no."

If you accept what this figure shows, the answer is 'yes', actually.
The basalmost L. curvirostra (incl. type 9 = sinesciuris) are those that are at the end opposite to the type 9 cluster. A single type two is sister to everything else; then you have a cluster made of tree type 2 and one type 5, which is sister to sinesciuris + the rest.
No support is given for the two critical nodes, though; and the branch lengths in the basalmost clusters become progressively a bit shorter than the rest (which proves nothing, but is often the case when a tree is misrooted).

Depends on which of my two original questions you are answering!! I'm assuming Kirk was replying to my second part "Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?"

And again - unfortunate that the paper does not say where the samples are from. I fear there are no Old World samples, which makes the tree even less well rooted. As a basic essential, there really must be a sample from around the type locality (presumably Sweden), to ensure the name-bearing type is included.

In my extensive arboricultural experience, badly rooted trees fall over very easily.
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Depends on which of my two original questions you are answering!! I'm assuming Kirk was replying to my second part "Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?"
True, and now that you ask, I'm not sure any more which part Kirk was answering either... :(
Anyway, what I meant is that, if you accept Fig. 1 in the proposal, some (most) non-sinesciuris crossbills seem closer to sinesciuris than to some other non-sinesciuris crossbills.

And again - unfortunate that the paper does not say where the samples are from. I fear there are no Old World samples, which makes the tree even less well rooted. As a basic essential, there really must be a sample from around the type locality (presumably Sweden), to ensure the name-bearing type is included.
Types 1 to 10 are strictly American and not known in Eurasia. The original data are described in:
Parchman, Buerkle, Soria-Carrasco, Benkman. 2016. Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution. Mol. Ecol. 25:5705–5718.
[abstract & supp.info.] [pdf here]​
For sample sources, check the supporting info file, Table S1 (p.7) and Fig. S1 (p.10). There were clearly no OW samples. (Thus if you accept Fig. 1, sinesciuris is embedded within American Red Xbills.)
 
Last edited:

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
True, and now that you ask, I'm not sure any more which part Kirk was answering either... :(
Anyway, what I meant is that, if you accept Fig. 1 in the proposal, some (most) non-sinesciuris crossbills seem closer to sinesciuris than to some other non-sinesciuris crossbills.


Types 1 to 10 are strictly American and not known in Eurasia. The original data are described in:
Parchman, Buerkle, Soria-Carrasco, Benkman. 2016. Genome divergence and diversification within a geographic mosaic of coevolution. Mol. Ecol. 25:5705–5718.
[abstract & supp.info.] [pdf here]​
For sample sources, check the supporting info file, Table S1 (p.7) and Fig. S1 (p.10). There were clearly no OW samples. (Thus if you accept Fig. 1, sinesciuris is embedded within American Red Xbills.)

Thanks! So another dodgy crossbill species . . . 3:)
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Thanks! So another dodgy crossbill species . . . 3:)

Not really...remember monophyly is not a requirement for a biological species. A good biological species can be embedded within a clade comprising another species in a phylogenetic tree, and may be more closely related to some populations than others. After all, selection is likely to be strongest on peripheral populations, and there are many cases where the founders of a given species are more closely related to a specific nearby population than more distant populations.
 

Markus Lagerqvist

Well-known member
Maybe a small detail, but I'm still curious to the statement that it's endemic to Cassia County, Idaho. Is there anyone familier with the South Hills range (I'm not) that can bring clarity to this? Is the forest vegetation different on the Cassia County side of the range compared to the Twin Falls County side of the range? Or is it actually endemic to Cassia AND Twin Falls counties?
 

l_raty

laurent raty
What worries me more: does acceptance of Loxia sinesciuris as a species, leave Loxia curvirostra paraphyletic? Are Loxia curvirostra in other parts of Idaho more closely related to Loxia curvirostra 12,000 km away in the Himalaya, than they are to Loxia sinesciuris a few kilometres away?
Some mtDNA-based stuff attached.

The sequences marked "Groth" in the tree are from GenBank, where they were deposited by Jeff Groth in 1999 with references to a work "in press" that never materialized. References to these data have been published in the literature (see e.g. Parchman et al. 2006 [pdf]), but no actual analyses, I think. These are long sequences (~4250bp long, encompassing cyt-b, nd6, the entire control region, 12s rRNA, and five intervening/flanking tRNAs), but there are few of them (13 Loxia sp., 10 of which belonged to the plain-winged complex).
The single Michigan sequence marked "Lerner" is from an entire mt genome that was produced to act as one of the outgroups in Lerner et al. 2011 [pdf] [supp.info], a study that addressed Drepanidini. I cropped this sequence to use only the part homologous to Groth's sequences.
The sequences marked "Piertney" are from Scotland and from Piertney et al. 2001 [pdf here]; I reconstructed them using the single sequence deposited in GenBank and Table 2 of the paper. These are ~1140bp long (thus quite shorter than Groth's), covering most of the control region.
The sequences marked "Questiau" were published by Questiau et al. 1999 [pdf here]. These are still a bit shorter, ~715bp long, also of the control region, and overlapped almost entirely by the fragment sequenced by Piertney et al. 2001. The two terminals I have labelled Loxia sinesciuris were of course not presented as such in 1999; they were published as "Endemic race? South Hills, Idaho".
To these I have added a handfull of cardueline mt genomes as outgroups, also cropped to match the fragment sequenced by Groth.

Green is Old World, ochre is New World.
 

Attachments

  • Loxia-Groth-Piertney-Questiau.pdf
    7 KB · Views: 179
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top