https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean...axonomic-consequences?redirectedFrom=fulltextBiogeographical history and taxonomic delimitation in the Australo-Papuan bird-of-paradise Lophorina–Ptiloris species complex is examined with a combination of DNA and morphological markers. The results suggest that the complex started to diverge in the mid-Pliocene, driven by initial isolation and adaptation to altitudinally different habitats. As in many other New Guinean avian taxa, phylogeographic structure is more varied in montane Lophorina than foothill Ptiloris. With the exception of populations of Lophorina in the eastern New Guinean cordillera, phylogenetic patterns from molecular data and morphological discontinuities are consistently concordant, as are molecular species delimitation tests with previous morphology-based circumscription of taxa in Ptiloris. In Lophorina, however, both molecular data and significant, re-discovered morphological traits identify several taxa as more deeply differentiated than hitherto thought. Accordingly, we use these data in an integrative taxonomic approach to re-delimit taxa in the entire clade, including the recognition of three species in the previously monospecific Lophorina. In Lophorina, the identity of several type specimens is reviewed, one new subspecies is described from the Vogelkop, and the identity of the species name superba Pennant is resolved by neotypification, with correction of its author.
Lophorina niedda inopinata subsp. nov. Holotype: AMNH 294594, ♀ adult, collected on 13 May 1928, by Ernst Mayr no. 602 – type locality: Siwi, Arfak Mountains, Vogelkop, West Papua.
Phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomic consequences in a bird-of-paradise species complex, Lophorina–Ptiloris (Aves: Paradisaeidae)
Can anyone send me a pdf of this paper please? The link gives just an abstract and I can't access the full text.
Thanks
Phylogeny, biogeography and taxonomic consequences in a bird-of-paradise species complex, Lophorina–Ptiloris (Aves: Paradisaeidae)
https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean...axonomic-consequences?redirectedFrom=fulltext
From the article:
Lophorina niedda is split from Lophorina superba.
There are two subspecies:
Lophorina niedda niedda
Lophorina niedda inopinata
In the case of Lophorina superba there are the following subspecies.
L. superba superba (with L. superba feminina as synonym)
L. superba addenda
L. superba latipennis
Lophorina minor is split from Lophorina superba
Can anybody explain in layman's terms how this new taxonomy reconciles with that in HBW?
I'm struggling to understand how superbus can be applied to eastern birds, when the type specimen of Superb BoP (s.l.) was apparently a bird from the Arfak Mountains, which now seem to be included under L.niedde.
Thanks
Duncan
Lophorina niedda niedda:
Range: mountains of the Wandammen Peninsula, Bird’s Neck, West Papua, c. 1200–2000 m a.s.l.
Lophorina superba superba:
Range: western cordillera, between the Kobowre
Mountains, West Papua and Sepik–Strickland River
Divide, far West PNG, c. 1200–2200 m a.s.l., evidently
intergrading with addenda eastwards through the
Lagaip-upper Kikori River drainages.
I'm struggling to understand how superbus can be applied to eastern birds, when the type specimen of Superb BoP (s.l.) was apparently a bird from the Arfak Mountains, which now seem to be included under L.niedde.
"It has the superba haplotype but a somewhat variable latipennis phenotype that may be stabilizing with incipiently divergent traits: loss of mantle spotting and warmer cream ventra in female plumage (Table 3). Whether this mix of character states has resulted from lineage sorting, mtDNA sweep or morphologically expressed gene flow, the combined morphological and mtDNA signature of the eastern cordillera population is regional in scale."So addenda is resurrected in this new sequence. In recent literature it was regarded a synonym of latipennis together with connectens. What are the differences ?
They re-identified the type of superba from the illustrations (Paradisea superba Pennant 1781 ["OD"] is based on [Martinet's planche enluminée 632]; [Sonnerat 1776] shows the same bird), attributing it to the Central Cordillera–Papuan Peninsula populations and, arguing that the type is demonstrably lost (*) and that their re-interpretation might be doubted or disputed, they designated a neotype from these populations.
As a result, the Arfak mountains birds lost their name; so they described them as new ssp. inopinata.
(*) I see no actual evidence in the paper that they looked for it, however. They just cited [Levaillant 1806:46-47] in support of it having "disintegrated, destroyed by sulphur fumigation intended to rid the Cabinet du Roi of dermestid infestation", and proceeded. I do not read Levaillant's text as meaning this, however. Levaillant wrote that he had seen the bird and that it was in an overall deteriorated state ("est aujourd'hui entièrement dégradé"); not that it had been destroyed. (This is potentially problematic for the validity of the neotype designation.)
OK, I'm just passing what is in the paper, so please don't shoot the messenger .I'm getting more and more puzzled by this. They re-identified nominate superba from those, may I say not very accurate, illustrations ? It's not plausible at all that the earliest skins from Lophorina came from anywhere else but the Vogelkop. All the new Birds of Paradise that became known in eighteenth-century Europe were collected there. The Central Cordillera populations of Lophorina were only described in the early nineteen hundreds except for the far eastern birds.
I don't know these birds well enough to comment on the characters. (The reference to the length of cape plumes relative to the tail in the above is puzzling, though, as, in Table 2, they compare the length of cape plumes to wing tips. I suspect this is what was intended here as well.)The figures and descriptions of Sonnerat’s type, however, match males of the central cordillera–Papuan Peninsula populations instead. Not only are the longest (mid-outer) cape plumes rather straight and distinctly shorter than the square-tipped tail in repose (Sonnerat, 1776: pl. 96), but the tips of the plumes are also squared-off, tending to spathulate (Daubenton, 1765–1781: pl. 632). There are discrepancies however. Although technical delineation is poor, the central breast shield feather scales show no sign of black centre spots. Thus, notwithstanding that cape and tail traits overtly identify Daubenton’s plate 632 with central cordillera–Papuan Peninsula forms, this minor discrepancy and the possibility that longer, out-curving and narrowly rounded outer cape feathers could have been in moult at the time introduce elements of doubt and grounds for dispute.