• 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 DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Bean Goose group (1 Viewer)

This issue of the Literary Gazette bears the date "Saturday, March 27, 1852".
I don't known if the dates of the Zoologist are precisely known, but a note dated "Charlton, Dundrum, near Dublin, April 14, 1852", appears two pages ahead of the description. (The name must have been published there after this date, plus the time needed for a letter to reach London from Ireland, plus the time needed to have it printed in the journal.)

The two texts seem identical.
Thanks! Are there (or more importantly, were there then) any restrictions on where a validly published description can appear? I know with botanical publication newspapers are not admissible as formal publications, presumably because they are not considered permanent enough. What the Literary Gazette would count as, I don't know.
 
Thanks! Are there (or more importantly, were there then) any restrictions on where a validly published description can appear? I know with botanical publication newspapers are not admissible as formal publications, presumably because they are not considered permanent enough. What the Literary Gazette would count as, I don't know.
The Code requirement is that a publication "must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record".

A newspaper might indeed be regarded as published for the purpose of providing immediate information rather than any permanent record; but, in birds at least, I know of of no cases that are currently treated this way. Some bird names are treated as available from outlets that I would regard as quite clearly less permanent that the Literary Gazette (things like this: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/63664143 ). The Literary Gazette at least produced an index to each of their volumes: to me, this demonstrates an intention to make their content permanently searchable and retrievable.

In 1990, the Commission conserved the spelling of the genus-group name Semioptera Gray 1859, which had usually been taken from PZS and was threatened by an earlier publication as 'Semeioptera' in the Literary Gazette. They did not do this by ruling that the Literary Gazette was an unacceptable venue; what they did was to place the name on the Official List as dating from its publication in the Literary Gazette, with a ruling under the Plenary Powers to the effect that 'Semeioptera', as used there, was an incorrect OS: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12230496 .
In 1997, the SCON (Schodde & Bock) tried to obtain a global suppression, by the Commission, of all the Gould names introduced in the Literary Gazette and the Athenaeum, and which had been later published in PZS: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12446416 . This failed: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34357821 .


PS - Re. "Are there (or more importantly, were there then)": only the current edition of the ICZN has any force, so the only thing that really matters is "Are there". (This is ICZN 86.3.)
 
Last edited:
PS - Re. "Are there (or more importantly, were there then)": only the current edition of the ICZN has any force, so the only thing that really matters is "Are there". (This is ICZN 86.3.)
Thanks!

Of the last, yes, but when they add a new rule changing what is or isn't valid publication, I presume they make that effective only from the date of the new rule? So if newspapers had been allowed in the 1850s but then disallowed by a new rule introduced in say, 1930, it would only disallow new names in newspapers post-1930 and not be retroactive. Again, that's how it works in the botanical rules that I'm more familiar with (in botany, newspaper publication was disallowed as from 1 January 1953 on).
 
Of the last, yes, but when they add a new rule changing what is or isn't valid publication, I presume they make that effective only from the date of the new rule?
The default for any new rule is that it applies retroactively.
Of course, care must be taken that new rules do not become disruptive. Hence, these are frequently made effective for names published after a given date only, while the rule which applied previously (or some rule similar to it) remains effective for names published earlier. But, in such cases, *both* rules *must* be stated in the last edition of the Code, together with the dates limiting their respective periods of application.
An older rule which is not explicitly re-stated in the last edition of the Code ceases to exist.
 
Ottenburghs, J., Honka, J., Heikkinen, M.E., Madsen, J., Müskens, G.J.D.M. and Ellegren, H. (2023) Highly differentiated loci resolve phylogenetic relationships in the Bean Goose complex. BMC Ecology and Evolution 23: 2.
Highly differentiated loci resolve phylogenetic relationships in the Bean Goose complex - BMC Ecology and Evolution

Abstract
Background
Reconstructing phylogenetic relationships with genomic data remains a challenging endeavor. Numerous phylogenomic studies have reported incongruent gene trees when analyzing different genomic regions, complicating the search for a ‘true’ species tree. Some authors have argued that genomic regions of increased divergence (i.e. differentiation islands) reflect the species tree, although other studies have shown that these regions might produce misleading topologies due to species-specific selective sweeps or ancient introgression events. In this study, we tested the extent to which highly differentiated loci can resolve phylogenetic relationships in the Bean Goose complex, a group of goose taxa that includes the Taiga Bean Goose (Anser fabalis), the Tundra Bean Goose (Anser serrirostris) and the Pink-footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus).

Results
First, we show that a random selection of genomic loci—which mainly samples the undifferentiated regions of the genome—results in an unresolved species complex with a monophyletic A. brachyrhynchus embedded within a paraphyletic cluster of A. fabalis and A. serrirostris. Next, phylogenetic analyses of differentiation islands converged upon a topology of three monophyletic clades in which A. brachyrhynchus is sister to A. fabalis, and A. serrirostris is sister to the clade uniting these two species. Close inspection of the locus trees within the differentiated regions revealed that this topology was consistently supported over other phylogenetic arrangements. As it seems unlikely that selection or introgression events have impacted all differentiation islands in the same way, we are convinced that this topology reflects the ‘true’ species tree. Additional analyses, based on D-statistics, revealed extensive introgression between A. fabalis and A. serrirostris, which partly explains the failure to resolve the species complex with a random selection of genomic loci. Recent introgression between these taxa has probably erased the phylogenetic branching pattern across a large section of the genome, whereas differentiation islands were unaffected by the homogenizing gene flow and maintained the phylogenetic patterns that reflect the species tree.

Conclusions
The evolution of the Bean Goose complex can be depicted as a simple bifurcating tree, but this would ignore the impact of introgressive hybridization. Hence, we advocate that the evolutionary relationships between these taxa are best represented as a phylogenetic network.
 
This paragraph sums up what this forum is most interested in:

Finally, these findings could also inform the taxonomy of the Bean Goose complex, specifically the species status of A. fabalis and A. serrirostris. Some authors have argued that they should be classified as distinct species [32], while others recommended a classification as subspecies [45]. The phylogenetic position of A. brachyrhynchus—which seems to be most closely related to A. fabalis—indicates that A. fabalis and A. serrirostris should be treated as separate taxa to avoid paraphyletic groupings. If one wants to delineate monophyletic clades, all three taxa should thus be classified as either species or subspecies (although some taxonomists do not object to lumping non-sister clades, see [48]). A thorough taxonomic analysis, including eastern taxa of the Bean Goose complex (e.g., Middendorf's Bean Goose), is warranted to achieve a consensus regarding the (sub)species status of the different taxa within this species complex.
 
It is important to note that this study will focus on the European section of the Bean Goose complex which comprises the subspecies Anser f. fabalis and Anser s. rossicus. The eastern subspecies (A. f. johanseni, A. f. middendorfii, and A. s. serrirostris) were not included in the sampling.

This makes the results somewhat confusing to me. If serrirostris is not sampled, then presumably the results only actually resolve the relative position of rossicus, fabalis and brachyrhynchus. Suggesting that fabalis and serrirostris should be treated as different taxa relies on an assumption that serrirostris groups with rossicus rather than fabalis.
Sampling of Asian birds seems to be very important to understanding the taxonomy of this complex.
 
This makes the results somewhat confusing to me. If serrirostris is not sampled, then presumably the results only actually resolve the relative position of rossicus, fabalis and brachyrhynchus. Suggesting that fabalis and serrirostris should be treated as different taxa relies on an assumption that serrirostris groups with rossicus rather than fabalis.
Sampling of Asian birds seems to be very important to understanding the taxonomy of this complex.

I have not read the study yet, and do not pretend to be a field expert here, but this was my instant reaction when I had an initial glance at it.

Reminds me a bit of a recent study of a group of North American birds that stopped exactly at the US border and ignored Mexico. A lot of resources poured into a study that ultimately could be said to be crippled by its scope.
 
Yeah, in my recent reading about the group the eastern taxa are key, with the Middendorf's form probably more worthy of recognition than the current divisions. The amount of introgression going on and the fact that even experts sometimes have trouble, or routinely misidentify, Forest vs Tundra birds makes me very skeptical that these warrant recognition as different species. The argument seems to be based on a phylogenetic species concept, whereas biological species can be more closely related to one population of a species than another.
 
Yeah, in my recent reading about the group the eastern taxa are key, with the Middendorf's form probably more worthy of recognition than the current divisions. The amount of introgression going on and the fact that even experts sometimes have trouble, or routinely misidentify, Forest vs Tundra birds makes me very skeptical that these warrant recognition as different species. The argument seems to be based on a phylogenetic species concept, whereas biological species can be more closely related to one population of a species than another.

It is quite difficult to make Taiga and Tundra Bean Geese into 'phylogenetic' species, too, given the sizeable introgression of genes documented in this article.

It would be interesting, indeed, to see if visually intermediate Bean Geese are indeed these introgressed / hybrid individuals.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 1 year ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top