• 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. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

AOU-NACC Proposals 2021 (1 Viewer)

MJB

Well-known member
What does Mew mean ? Mew sounds like a Pokémon 🤨
It comes from an old onomatopoeiac word, seamew, for a seagull, but more usually in UK English for the Common Gull. It also was used in US English, quite often for any gull, and so when it was applied more to the Mew Gull, the word was shortened. Apparently, a similar-sounding word with the same meaning and origin exists in Bulgarian. Several aircraft have borne the name Seamew: the Supermarine Seamew, an amphibian seaplane, the Short Seamew, an anti-submarine aircraft and the Curtiss SO3C Seamew, a World War II floatplane.

HMS Seamew also was the name of two ships of the Royal Navy.
MJB
 

cajanuma

Well-known member
"Mouette" in French.
(We also used to have "mauve" for the bigger ones, but this word is completely deprecated.)
Speaking of mauve, and I realize this is completely off topic, but do you know where the 'mauvis' in Grive mauvis (Redwing) comes from? In many southern Italian dialects, the Song Thrush is called Marvizzo, and the Maltese name for it is also quite similar. I guess the etymology is the same as the 'mauvis' in the French name for the Redwing, but I can't figure out what it means
 

MJB

Well-known member
Speaking of mauve, and I realize this is completely off topic, but do you know where the 'mauvis' in Grive mauvis (Redwing) comes from? In many southern Italian dialects, the Song Thrush is called Marvizzo, and the Maltese name for it is also quite similar. I guess the etymology is the same as the 'mauvis' in the French name for the Redwing, but I can't figure out what it means
There is probably a historical link** to the Scots word for the Song Thrush, Mavis, commemorated by Robert Burns in a love song, Mary of Argyle: "I have heard the mavis singing...", set to a beautiful tune...
MJB
**Many Scots words came from the French, who shared 'The Auld Alliance' from 1295 to at least 1560, and then intermittently over the next 2 centuries.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
I guess the etymology is the same as the 'mauvis' in the French name for the Redwing, but I can't figure out what it means
I don't think anything is certain, but there is at least a theory that suggests the source would be malum vitis, the evil of the vine, because thrushes were thought to cause damage to grapes.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
On p. 20 of the proposal document, we see:
However, because camtschatchensis Bruch, 1855, is the first available name, Bruch is the author, but the incorrect subsequent spelling kamtschatschensis is in prevailing usage and thus protected by ICZN Article 33.3.1. Thus, on Schodde’s advice the name should be Larus canus kamtschatschensis (Bruch, 1855).
[...]
c. Change the authorship of the east Siberian form to kamtschatschensis (Bruch, 1855).
No.
33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.
33.3.1 does not make this possible at all.
  • "when an incorrect subsequent spelling" [...] "is attributed to the publication of the original spelling": if it is admitted that the publication of the original spelling is Bruch 1855, this article can protect the spelling "kamtschatschensis" only if many instances of it attributed to Bruch 1855 are found in the literature. These many instances do not exist (most likely none exists, actually) -- thus the condition for the article to apply is not met.
  • "the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved": the "object" that this article preserves is not a subsequent spelling alone; it is a couple [spelling and attribution]. If "kamtschatschensis Bonaparte 1857" is in prevailing usage, 33.3.1 can only protect "kamtschatschensis Bonaparte 1857", not "kamtschatschensis Bruch 1855".
If the authorship is changed, then the spelling must be changed as well. [...]
...which is exactly why Pteroglossus beauharnaesii had to be corrected to beauharnaisii, which SACC has now agreed with.
(I note that the suggestion that preserving the incorrect spelling was possible, despite acceptance of the change in the source of the name, came from the same corners in both cases.)

Hopefully NACC will not take a decision that is completely at odds with the SACC decision...?
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Comments are finally online for last year's AOU proposals:

 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Comments are finally online for last year's AOU proposals:

Is the Rufous-backed (Grayson's) Thrush rejection a surprise, this old link might suggest so?

 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Is the Rufous-backed (Grayson's) Thrush rejection a surprise, this old link might suggest so?

Not particularly a surprise, at least for me. The proposal mostly just uses molecular data which the NACC is loathe to consider (sometimes?)

Although I would like to point out that the Grayson's/Rufous-backed Robin doesn't seem a whole lot different than the McKay's/Snow Bunting split, which the NACC voted to keep. Both involve island populations which sometimes overlap in winter with mainland populations and show morphological differences despite close relationships.
 

Kirk Roth

Well-known member
Not particularly a surprise, at least for me. The proposal mostly just uses molecular data which the NACC is loathe to consider (sometimes?)

Although I would like to point out that the Grayson's/Rufous-backed Robin doesn't seem a whole lot different than the McKay's/Snow Bunting split, which the NACC voted to keep. Both involve island populations which sometimes overlap in winter with mainland populations and show morphological differences despite close relationships.
I think its notable that a couple of the reviewers mention the inconsistency between the McKay's decision and the Haida Gwai Owl decision - and rightful to do so in my opinion. It would have been nice of them to reflect on the differences between the McKay's and Grayson's decisions too, but the migratory nature of the buntings and the sedentary nature of the Grayson's seems to have been mentioned several times in the comments.

Speaking of consistency, there were at least three reviewers which mentioned the different migration and breeding times of McKay's and Snow Buntings as evidence of maintaining the split - one or two even seeming to hint that this by itself might be strong enough for a BSC split despite lack of fixed differences in genetics and other similarities. This immediately had me thinking of another bunting - the Painted!
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
I think its notable that a couple of the reviewers mention the inconsistency between the McKay's decision and the Haida Gwai Owl decision - and rightful to do so in my opinion. It would have been nice of them to reflect on the differences between the McKay's and Grayson's decisions too, but the migratory nature of the buntings and the sedentary nature of the Grayson's seems to have been mentioned several times in the comments.

Speaking of consistency, there were at least three reviewers which mentioned the different migration and breeding times of McKay's and Snow Buntings as evidence of maintaining the split - one or two even seeming to hint that this by itself might be strong enough for a BSC split despite lack of fixed differences in genetics and other similarities. This immediately had me thinking of another bunting - the Painted!
I think both of us commented in prior years that that inconsistency in rulings is not a rare phenomena, even in the same batch of proposals. I wouldn't be surprised if some members themselves have noticed this, as I think there is a fair degree of variance in opinion among the different members, a lot of which seems to be driven by members having pretty significantly different criteria that they use for voting yes and no, at least in any matter pertaining to actually changing taxonomy.
 
Last edited:

THE_FERN

Well-known member
@l_raty - aye, it is a bit of a mix-up, but stejnegeri has shown itself to be a good wanderer (e.g. the several UK records now; Durham bird below); if some of these birds are vagrants which have settled to breed among other Stonechat populations (and ± form small clusters of hybrids), I don't think that need count against species status?
So it regularly settles down to breed and hybridise. Great: so in what sense so we feel it's a different species?

Are some of its genes divergent indicating separation?
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
So it regularly settles down to breed and hybridise. Great: so in what sense so we feel it's a different species?

Are some of its genes divergent indicating separation?
Well you added the regular part to the thing. I wouldn't consider vagrants to represent a regular source of gene flow necessarily (obviously depending on the species involved and the regularity of vagrant dispersal leading to breeding

They are genetically separate populations so that would imply that they are at least to some degree divergent
 

THE_FERN

Well-known member
Well you added the regular part to the thing. I wouldn't consider vagrants to represent a regular source of gene flow necessarily (obviously depending on the species involved and the regularity of vagrant dispersal leading to breeding

They are genetically separate populations so that would imply that they are at least to some degree divergent
Yes ok. But so are you and I...
 

l_raty

laurent raty
In the north (rubicola > maurus > stejnegeri), the ranges of the maurus and stejnegeri haplogroups seem to be parapatric, one replacing the other more or less abruptly, with (so far) no suggestion of mixed populations. (And the ranges of the maurus and rubicola haplogroups, on the other hand, are broadly disjunct.) I don't see any suggestion of regular hybridization in this part of the range of the group.

Our understanding of what is going on further south (rubicola > variegatus/hemprichii > armenicus/variegatus > indicus > przewalskii > stejnegeri), on the other hand, is deeply insufficient, and there is data suggesting the sympatric coexistence of the haplogroups -- maurus and rubicola in the Rostov area, NE of the Black Sea (within the range of rubicola); maurus and stejnegeri in Astrakan, NW of the Caspian Sea (within the range of variegatus/hemprichii). The haplogroup identity of the intervening southern populations, indicus and przewalskii, is not known at all.

The fact that, in a genomic analysis, maurus assumed the position that mtDNA gives to stejnegeri is also a bit disturbing, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top