Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
What? Sorry? can you repeat please?
Nesotriccus Townsend, 1895, Phaeomyias Berlepsch, 1902
Last edited:
-
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.
AOU 2018 Checklist proposals (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
What? Sorry? can you repeat please?
Nesotriccus Townsend, 1895, Phaeomyias Berlepsch, 1902
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Oh great, a re-lump of Bean Geese, just when Britain had taken up the split via IOC! That'll be really popular :-O
Though I suspect it's a well justified lump 8-P
Though I suspect it's a well justified lump 8-P
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
I'll be curious to see how they vote on Barn Owl (should be split but perhaps they'll still want more info / better data / etc) and White-eared Ground-Sparrow (field ornithologists have long mooted this and the data is there, if they split White-faced/Cabanis's and many Arremon sp, this should go through). I presume that the White-collared Seedeater split will pass, it more or less must, finally. I also assume the Vizcaino Thrasher will finally be recognized but am pessimistically waiting to be proven wrong :/
Cheers!
Cheers!
The NACC has a proposal to remove caudacutus and nelsoni from Ammodramus (p. 97). But there is confusion regarding what is the type of Ammodramus, savannarum or caudacutus, becuase of a mix-up on publication dates? Do you all think that is the reasoning in the proposal is correct:
Further complicating matters is an ambiguous issue concerning the type species of Ammodramus, due to an unfortunate mishap in the order of publication of two papers by Swainson in 1827 (later referred to as the infamous “Swainsonian genera”; Allen 1905). The short version of this story is that Swainson (1827b) clearly described Ammodramus with A. caudacutus as the type. However, due to publication delays, this publication apparently, and accidentally, came out a few months after he (Swainson 1827a) described the species A. bimaculatus (now a subspecies of A. savannarum) and assigned it to Ammodramus (whose genus description was supposed to have already been published, given the dates that he submitted the two manuscripts). Therefore, the name Ammodramus was accidentally first printed with the description of A. bimaculatus, not the formal intended description of the genus wherein A. caudacutus was designated as the type. This issue affected several other bird genera. Oberholser (1905) took a strict interpretation of priority based on the dates of publication (June versus September 1827), and, despite the clear intentions of Swainson, assigned A. bimaculatus as the type of Ammodramus. Allen (1905) objected on the basis of common sense, but in the Fifteenth Supplement to the A.O.U. Check-List (Allen et al. 1909), the committee sided with Oberholser after arbitration by the Nomenclature Committee of the International Zoological Congress.
Now, nearly two centuries later, this mishap continues to be consequential, as the two putative types are clearly in different genera and we must assign a type in order to split the genus. In this proposal, we reluctantly accept the AOU checklist committee’s decision in the Fifteenth Supplement (1909) that the type of Ammodramus is A. bimaculatus (now A. savannarum), rather than the intended A. caudacutus.
Further complicating matters is an ambiguous issue concerning the type species of Ammodramus, due to an unfortunate mishap in the order of publication of two papers by Swainson in 1827 (later referred to as the infamous “Swainsonian genera”; Allen 1905). The short version of this story is that Swainson (1827b) clearly described Ammodramus with A. caudacutus as the type. However, due to publication delays, this publication apparently, and accidentally, came out a few months after he (Swainson 1827a) described the species A. bimaculatus (now a subspecies of A. savannarum) and assigned it to Ammodramus (whose genus description was supposed to have already been published, given the dates that he submitted the two manuscripts). Therefore, the name Ammodramus was accidentally first printed with the description of A. bimaculatus, not the formal intended description of the genus wherein A. caudacutus was designated as the type. This issue affected several other bird genera. Oberholser (1905) took a strict interpretation of priority based on the dates of publication (June versus September 1827), and, despite the clear intentions of Swainson, assigned A. bimaculatus as the type of Ammodramus. Allen (1905) objected on the basis of common sense, but in the Fifteenth Supplement to the A.O.U. Check-List (Allen et al. 1909), the committee sided with Oberholser after arbitration by the Nomenclature Committee of the International Zoological Congress.
Now, nearly two centuries later, this mishap continues to be consequential, as the two putative types are clearly in different genera and we must assign a type in order to split the genus. In this proposal, we reluctantly accept the AOU checklist committee’s decision in the Fifteenth Supplement (1909) that the type of Ammodramus is A. bimaculatus (now A. savannarum), rather than the intended A. caudacutus.
Maffong
Well-known member
It seems to me, the study on geese taxonomy by Ottenburghs et al. (2016). (A Tree of Geese: A Phylogenomic Perspective on the Evolutionary History of True Geese) wasn't considered in the proposal. It seems to me this study justifies the split pretty well.
I'm happy to see that finally the Scopoli's/Cory's Shearwater and Boyd's/Audobon's Shearwater splits are being considered.
I'm curious how things will be decided
Maffong
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
That's unfortunate - and yes, it does suggest that Bean Goose s.l. is paraphyletic to Pinkfoot. Sadly, it also doesn't consider the eastern Bean subspecies.
l_raty
laurent raty
The type of Ammodrammus Swainson 1827 [OD] under the Code is Ammodramus bimaculatus Swainson 1827 by original monotypy. Fringilla caudacuta 'Wilson' = Gmelin 1788 is not cited in the work where the name was established, hence is not an originally included nominal species of Ammodramus in the sense of the Code, and is not eligible to become its type species.
Furthermore:
- Accepting the correct type fixation does not now upset stability, as there has not been any prevailing use of Ammodramus in the recent literature for a group excluding its correct type. (Thus there would be no base to petition the Commission in order to have the Code-compliant type fixation set aside.)
- Swainson's explicit (but later-published) designations have now been regarded invalid for more than a century; restoring their validity now would unquestionably be highly destabilizing (as per these designations, Vermivora is an invalid junior synonym of Helmitheros, Tiaris applies to the species now in Charitospiza, Xiphorhynchus applies to the species now in Campylorhamphus, etc.); on the other hand, restoring the validity of the designation made for Ammodramus only, under an argument (the respect of Swainson's original intent) that would equally apply to the other cases, would seem completely arbitrary.
So, I'd wholefully agree the way to go is to accept the checklist committee conclusion.
Kirk Roth
Well-known member
On the Ammodrammus proposal, it says the following regarding bairdii and henslowii:
"Due to the uncertainty in the relationships of A. bairdii and A. henslowii in relation to these three genera, and the poor resolution for members of this ‘grassland’ clade in all phylogenetic studies to date, we feel that lumping these genera into a single, inclusive Passerculus is the most reasonable approach. This approach was originally proposed by Klicka and Spellman (2007). Though this would eliminate two long-established genera (Melospiza and Xenospiza, the latter of which has itself been a controversial genus [Robins and Schnell 1971]), this solution would be the most stable and least likely to change with additional data."
I don't see how this solution is either most stable nor least likely to change. There are two phylogenies presented with the proposal and the Klicka data is actually the one that makes the least sense for lumping all these sparrows, as bairdii and henslowii are a distinct clade. The Barker data shows the two taxa spread out - with bairdii a sister to Xenospiza and henslowii basal to Passerculus. If the huge lump is the "least likely to change," it implies they believe the Barker data more than the Klicka. But I think that if either clade is close to the truth, it is more "stable" (ie not changing the names of 4-5 other species) to pursue Option B in whole or in part - to resurrect Centronyx bairdii and attribute this also to henslowii. If it is determined (now or later) that Passerculus henslowii (or some unique genus) is valid, then only one more change is needed - as opposed to potentially backtracking and re-splitting a mega-genus of sparrows that don't really look, act, or clade in similar fashion.
"Due to the uncertainty in the relationships of A. bairdii and A. henslowii in relation to these three genera, and the poor resolution for members of this ‘grassland’ clade in all phylogenetic studies to date, we feel that lumping these genera into a single, inclusive Passerculus is the most reasonable approach. This approach was originally proposed by Klicka and Spellman (2007). Though this would eliminate two long-established genera (Melospiza and Xenospiza, the latter of which has itself been a controversial genus [Robins and Schnell 1971]), this solution would be the most stable and least likely to change with additional data."
I don't see how this solution is either most stable nor least likely to change. There are two phylogenies presented with the proposal and the Klicka data is actually the one that makes the least sense for lumping all these sparrows, as bairdii and henslowii are a distinct clade. The Barker data shows the two taxa spread out - with bairdii a sister to Xenospiza and henslowii basal to Passerculus. If the huge lump is the "least likely to change," it implies they believe the Barker data more than the Klicka. But I think that if either clade is close to the truth, it is more "stable" (ie not changing the names of 4-5 other species) to pursue Option B in whole or in part - to resurrect Centronyx bairdii and attribute this also to henslowii. If it is determined (now or later) that Passerculus henslowii (or some unique genus) is valid, then only one more change is needed - as opposed to potentially backtracking and re-splitting a mega-genus of sparrows that don't really look, act, or clade in similar fashion.
mb1848
Well-known member
Nutcracker, Paul Clapham et al. Re: "This is surely wrong? Isn't Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus already on the NACC list, already with that scientific name?" Mason & Chesser modified their proposal in response to someone named Nutcracker correct observation. "Tarsiger Hodgson, 1845 – The fourth clade consisted of five species, only one of which (T. cyanurus) has been recorded from the NACC area; this clade received strong support".
Last edited:
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Nice to see they read Birdforum :t:
Andy Adcock
Well-known member
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
Change the English name of Gallinula chloropus and Columba livia :
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop335.htm
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop109.htm
Last edited:
Should read Columba livia
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
Fixed
Andy Adcock
Well-known member
Wow,fractious!
Why do they refer to ' a shot across the bows' of the IOC, they split the pair anyway, retaining 'Gallinule' in the Americas don't they?
Note Zimmers comment on C livia, he seems to not understand that the species in the UK at least, has very few 'tickable' populations and none are in cities!
Amidst the critcism at the inappropriate names of some British birds, I like that someone pointed out that American Robin is actually a Thrush.
A
Last edited:
