AOU-NACC Proposals 2024 (3 Viewers)

[l_raty]

Unnecessary - it is completely sufficient to call them Greater, Tibetan and Siberian Plovers.

"Greater Plover" for Leschenault's would be inaccurate as well -- this species is "greater" only among "sand plovers". The real "greater plovers" are Pluvialis spp.

 

[Kratter]

NACC comments on 2024 proposals have been posted:

2024 Proposals - American Ornithological Society

2024 proposals for check-list

americanornithology.org

 

[James Jobling]

AOS Proposal 2024-A-2b Ixobrychus and Botaurus. Jim Gaudin has previously suggested the ms.name Microbutor for Ixobrychus exilis.
EDIT 1: (after Jim's #124 understandable comment) I have added the following to The Key definition of Ixobrychus; "Contentiously and, apparently, without full data, some ornithologists have recently suggested that the small, distinctive Ixobrychus bitterns be included within the equally distinctive and large Botaurus bitterns." I am sure many experienced field-workers will disagree with this proposal.
EDIT 2: see Latest IOC Diary Updates #2903.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

AOS Proposal 2024-A-2b Ixobrychus and Botaurus. Jim Gaudin has previously suggested the ms.name Microbutor for Ixobrychus exilis.

There are moronic decisions that I will never understand. Sorry if I'm vulgar but it's true after all.
I am sometimes ashamed of being a taxonomist because I have the impression that professional systematists make "lazyish" choices

 

[Henicorhina]

AOS Proposal 2024-A-2b Ixobrychus and Botaurus. Jim Gaudin has previously suggested the ms.name Microbutor for Ixobrychus exilis.
EDIT 1: (after Jim's #124 understandable comment) I have added the following to The Key definition of Ixobrychus; "Contentiously and, apparently, without full data, some ornithologists have recently suggested that the small, distinctive Ixobrychus bitterns be included within the equally distinctive and large Botaurus bitterns." I am sure many experienced field-workers will disagree with this proposal.
EDIT 2: see Latest IOC Diary Updates #2903.

I'm curious what everyone here makes of the extensive commentary on this decision by NACC committee members: 2024 Proposals - American Ornithological Society
Because the nominate minutus was not sampled for nuclear data and thus cannot be confidently placed in either genus, the only current options are 1) do nothing and wait for more genomic data, 2) transfer all Ixobrychus to Botaurus, or 3) place exilis and involucris each in monotypic genera or move just them to Botaurus (which is pretty ridiculous given how similar they are to minutus and others). The east Asian taxa do really span the morphological range between the small and large species.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Because the nominate minutus was not sampled for nuclear data and thus cannot be confidently placed in either genus, the only current options are

What do you mean by not sampled?

 

[Xenospiza]

What do you mean by not sampled?

Not sampled, see Table 1:

Ultraconserved elements resolve the phylogeny and corroborate patterns of molecular rate variation in herons (Aves: Ardeidae)

Abstract. Thoroughly sampled and well-supported phylogenetic trees are essential to taxonomy and to guide studies of evolution and ecology. Despite extensi

academic.oup.com

Really an omission not to sample the type species of Ixobrychus...

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Not sampled, see Table 1:

Ultraconserved elements resolve the phylogeny and corroborate patterns of molecular rate variation in herons (Aves: Ardeidae)

Abstract. Thoroughly sampled and well-supported phylogenetic trees are essential to taxonomy and to guide studies of evolution and ecology. Despite extensi

academic.oup.com

Really an omission not to sample the type species of Ixobrychus...

But it is in fig. 6 and, I think, sampled by Packert & al. (2014) 🧐🧐

 

[Xenospiza]

But it is in fig. 6 and, I think, sampled by Packert & al. (2014) 🧐🧐

Then I (also) don't understand why they didn't just put the American "little bitterns" in Botaurus.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Then I (also) don't understand why they didn't just put the American "little bitterns" in Botaurus.

Simplistic decisions are not always the best. The Botaurus/Ixobrychus clade seems very old compared to the others. Are modern taxonomists trying to kill taxonomy or what?

 

[Farnboro John]

Not sure the Short-billed Gull/Mew Gull situation is a good comparison for the Cory's shearwater situation. It seems like the shearwater is shared equally between Europe and North America. Short-billed Gulls obviously show up in Europe, but they are mostly a New World Species. It's one thing allowing the status quo to persist (Black-bellied and Gray Plover have a long history of use in their respective regions), it's another matter entirely to create a new name conflict between regions. Which is what would probably ensue as I don't see BOU or other relevant checklists adopting the Cory's name change.

That's Grey Plover BTW, Nearctic brother 😉

Cheers,

John

 

[Henicorhina]

But it is in fig. 6 and, I think, sampled by Packert & al. (2014) 🧐🧐

Yeah, those papers sampled minutus, but only sequenced 1-2 mitochondrial genes. The Hruska paper showed that the mitochondrial and nuclear genomic data conflict in this group (as they do in many clades), so the mitochondrial data are unreliable for genus-level classification. Like Xenospiza said, it was really an omission to not sequence nuclear genomic data from minutus.
We did consider moving just exilis and involucris over to Botaurus, but it really seemed ridiculous to have those two species in a different genus than the extremely similar-looking minutus and sinensis.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

We did consider moving just exilis and involucris over to Botaurus, but it really seemed ridiculous to have those two species in a different genus than the extremely similar-looking minutus and sinensis.

Putting all in Botaurus is a questionable choice made by 21st century taxonomists.

Do they indicate divergence times in their article?

 

[Henicorhina]

No, unfortunately Hruska et al. did not estimate divergence times. But, that is partly because there is a lot of variation in mutation rates (and therefore branch lengths) in the heron tree, including in the bittern clade (which has higher rates), which makes estimating divergence times difficult. If we take the branch lengths at face value (risky, given the elevated mutation rates in bitterns), the crown age of Botaurus+Ixobrychus is a bit deeper than some of the other currently recognized genera, but not much more so than Ardea now that ibis is included.

I am truly curious why you think this is a "stupid" choice. If you have a better solution to this taxonomic issue, I would be very interested in hearing the rationale.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I am truly curious why you think this is a "stupid" choice. If you have a better solution to this taxonomic issue, I would be very interested in hearing the rationale.

"Stupid" because I feel like they're sometimes rushed choices. I feel like their thinking is limited to "We'll put everything in one genus because it's faster and [insert kindless words here]", at least that's how I see it while it's not the simplest decisions that are the best. I'm obviously exaggerating because in many cases it seems obvious to me, but in the case of the Bitterns, I am more perplexed.

I much prefer several genera that reflect ancient lineages (even if the group is falsely homogeneous) rather than a large genus encompassing a very ancient clade. It will be extra work but it would seem more coherent to me. For the Bittern group, we would only have two genera to describe, it is not a burden either.

We have also seen in the Loriini that morphological similarities have not necessarily led to the inclusion of these species into a single genus but on the contrary to a split (Charmosyna, Coriphilus, Synorhacma, Hypocharmosyna; Trichoglossus, Eos, Saundareos). And yet, these are very young clades. Nothing prevents us from following this example for the Botaurinae, multiple genera or nothing. And I would keep the traditional genus Ixobrychus until a satisfactory taxonomic revision is made.

 

[D Halas]

Yeah, those papers sampled minutus, but only sequenced 1-2 mitochondrial genes. The Hruska paper showed that the mitochondrial and nuclear genomic data conflict in this group (as they do in many clades), so the mitochondrial data are unreliable for genus-level classification. Like Xenospiza said, it was really an omission to not sequence nuclear genomic data from minutus.
We did consider moving just exilis and involucris over to Botaurus, but it really seemed ridiculous to have those two species in a different genus than the extremely similar-looking minutus and sinensis.

So how does Figure 6 in Hruska et al. include Ixobrychus minutus, given that Figure 6 depicts "a set of 100 unique and randomly chosen UCEs"? Surely there's an error somewhere - either Ixobrychus minutus was sampled, or Figure 6 is mislabelled.

 

[jurek]

It is surprising that out of Ixobrynchus, with Eurasian and Least Bitterns so similar in size, shape, color pattern and sexual dimorphism, sprung completely different but also internally uniform Botaurus which actually resembles other genera (large, uniform and delicately patterned, no sexual dimorphism, far-carrying booming call).

Any chance of another interpretation of the genetic data?

 

[Henicorhina]

So how does Figure 6 in Hruska et al. include Ixobrychus minutus, given that Figure 6 depicts "a set of 100 unique and randomly chosen UCEs"? Surely there's an error somewhere - either Ixobrychus minutus was sampled, or Figure 6 is mislabelled.

Yeah, that's an error. They sampled dubius from Australia. That taxon is sometimes considered a subspecies of minutus, and was incorrectly labeled as minutus in some of the trees.

 

[Henicorhina]

It is surprising that out of Ixobrynchus, with Eurasian and Least Bitterns so similar in size, shape, color pattern and sexual dimorphism, sprung completely different but also internally uniform Botaurus which actually resembles other genera (large, uniform and delicately patterned, no sexual dimorphism, far-carrying booming call).

Any chance of another interpretation of the genetic data?

It's a legitimate question, but the UCE data do seem quite robust (and I've worked with a lot of UCE data from the bioinformatics side). I think what's going on is that a lineage of small/medium-sized bitterns went crazy and got large (the large Botaurus sensu stricto), but most of the rest of the "Ixobrychus" stayed smaller. So we have rapid evolution of size and color, but not of overall behavior/ecology. This kind of rapid morphological evolution has happened in a few other clades, which results in somewhat morphologically heterogenous but genetically monophyletic genera. It's a cool evolutionary story, but does make the classification a bit tougher. Other examples include the tiny Cattle Egret within Ardea (but Intermediate kind of spans the bridge), "Antilophia" within Chiroxiphia, and "Tijuca" cotingas within Lipaugus. Most taxonomists have (and I think reasonably) absorbed the smaller embedded morphological-outlier clade into the larger genus.