• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Blue Tits on Canary Islands (1 Viewer)

gerrywestdean

Well-known member
Whats the latest on the taxonomy of Blue Tits on the Canary Islands? I see that the Advanced ID Guide gives each island race specific rank. Is this widely accepted? I read in a trip report that the western races were European types, but those on Fuerteventura were African types. What is the truth?

Gerry.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Cyanistes (Parus) teneriffae African Blue Tit (including all Canarian races) is recognised by IOC, HBW, Clements, AERC, SEO (Spain) and MRBC (Morocco).

CSNA/Dutch Birding further splits C palmensis Palma Blue Tit, C ombriosus Hierro Blue Tit, C hedwigii Gran Canaria Blue Tit and C ultramarinus Ultramarine Tit (including synonym 'degener' 'Fuerteventura Blue Tit' and subspecies cyrenaicae 'Libyan Blue Tit'), leaving C teneriffae as Tenerife Blue Tit.

Richard
 
Last edited:

bluechaffinch

Well-known member
Eduardo Garcia-del-Rey's Sociedad Ornitologica Canaria website http://www.avescanarias.com has PDFs of the most recent research on the Canary Island blue tits (plus other species).

I think that current thinking is that birds on Fuerteventura and Lanzarote are identical to N. African race ultramarinus, with the various western races falling under teneriffae.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
I think that current thinking is that birds on Fuerteventura and Lanzarote are identical to N. African race ultramarinus, with the various western races falling under teneriffae.
Dietzen et al 2008 indeed synonymised 'degener' of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote with NW African ultramarinus, but maintained palmensis of La Palma and ombriosus of El Hierro as valid sspp (distinct from teneriffae of Tenerife and La Gomera), and described new ssp hedwigii of Gran Canaria.

Richard

PS: I've only just noticed that Gosler & Clement 2007 (HBW12) treats ultramarinus and cyrenaicae as sspp of C caeruleus sensu stricto - contra AERC, SEO, MRBC, IOC and Clements (which follow Salzburger et al 2002).
ibc.lynxeds.com/species/common-blue-tit-cyanistes-caeruleus
ibc.lynxeds.com/species/canary-blue-tit-cyanistes-teneriffae
Salzburger, Martens & Sturmbauer 2002. Paraphyly of the Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus) suggested from cytochrome b sequences. Mol Phyl Evol 24(1): 19-25.
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...dc7d4e364e67f367eee78fb1611def25&searchtype=a
 
Last edited:

Acrocephalus

Well-known member
Taxonomic pitfalls in tits

PS: I've only just noticed that Gosler & Clement 2007 (HBW12) treats ultramarinus and cyrenaicae as sspp of C caeruleus sensu stricto - contra AERC, SEO, MRBC, IOC and Clements (which follow Salzburger et al 2002).
ibc.lynxeds.com/species/common-blue-tit-cyanistes-caeruleus
ibc.lynxeds.com/species/canary-blue-tit-cyanistes-teneriffae
Salzburger, Martens & Sturmbauer 2002. Paraphyly of the Blue Tit (Parus caeruleus) suggested from cytochrome b sequences. Mol Phyl Evol 24(1): 19-25.
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...dc7d4e364e67f367eee78fb1611def25&searchtype=a

That’s why there is this comment/viewpoint:

Päckert M. & Martens J. 2008. Taxonomic pitfalls in tits – comments on the Paridae chapter of the Handbook of the Birds of the World. Ibis 150 : 829-831. PDF
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Tenerife Blue Tit

I was surprised to see in the field that teneriffae has a blue back on Tenerife and a green back on La Gomera.
Just checked Leo Boon's excellent 2002 video guide (Birds of the Macaronesian Islands - Part 1: the Canary Islands & Madeira). But all footage of teneriffae is from Tenerife, and shows blue upperparts. However juv teneriffae has greenish upperparts (Clarke 2006, Gosler & Clement 2007). Clarke notes that the song on La Gomera seems slightly different in tone and rhythm.

Richard
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Well, like most birders I like to have a good library of bird books, even if a lot of said birds are not relevant to Wyoming :p
 

screaming piha

Well-known member
Thanks Barred Wobbler & Richard.

I think I was looking at adults and they had a small green area on the mantle. I recall reading about this before my trip and looked out for the feature. No idea if it is consistant (small sample and hard to see the back well in laurel forest compared with pines and parks/gardens on Tenerife). Like many birders on La Gomera, I was concentrating on pigeons.
 

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member
I don't know if it's relevant to your particular point, but I managed a few shots of a juv blue tit (degener) on Fuerteventura a couple of years ago.

Here's a shot, just for interest. It's pretty crap, but I'm going back next month, so I hope i can do better this time.
 

Attachments

  • Blue Tit 01 (juv), race degener copy.jpg
    Blue Tit 01 (juv), race degener copy.jpg
    195.4 KB · Views: 220

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Gran Canaria Blue Tit

Dietzen et al 2008 ...described new ssp hedwigii of Gran Canaria.
Manegold 2012. On the name of the Canary Blue Tit Cyanistes teneriffae from Gran Canaria. Bull BOC 132(1): 68.

Concludes that the correct spelling is hedwigae, not hedwigii.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Concludes that the correct spelling is hedwigae, not hedwigii.

The Code is moot on this type of issue (Art. 31.1 explains how a species-group names formed from a personal name "is to be formed" [sounds highly mandatory], but violations of this article are not actually cited among the causes that could justify the correction of an original spelling in Art. 32.5).

Besides, here, the final double i in hedwigii is a clear mark of latinisation (thus: Hedwig => Hedwigius, genitive Hedwigii), hence the name would appear to have been formed under 31.1.1, not 31.1.2.
hedwigae would appear correctly formed under 31.1.2, but switching from one mode of name formation to the other seems hardly justifiable to me.
Although the latinisation is arguably incorrect, this is not really a plain grammatical error (such as, f.i., the use of a genitive singular where a genitive plural would have been necessary), hence it is not even completely clear that 31.1.1 is really violated. Incorrect latinisation is explicitly excluded from the possible justifications to correct an original spelling (32.5.1).

Is there a rationale? What do others think?
 

mb1848

Well-known member
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2012/f/z03207p068f.pdf .
Author changed the name of two crickets based upon bad formation under 31.1.2. The article does not mention Incorrect latinisation nor 32.5.1.

31.1.3 The original spelling of a name formed under Articles 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 is to be preserved [Art. 32.2] unless it is incorrect [Arts. 32.3, 32.4]

For treatment of incorrect subsequent spellings of such species-group names see Articles 33.3 and 33.4. (Not applicable here?)
32.2. Correct original spelling. The original spelling of a name is the "correct original spelling", unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5.
32.3. Preservation of correct original spelling. The correct original spelling of a name is to be preserved unaltered, except where it is mandatory to change the suffix or the gender ending under Article 34 (for treatment of emendations and incorrect subsequent spellings see Articles 32.5, 33.2, 33.3, 33.4).
32.4 An original spelling is an "incorrect original spelling" if it must be corrected as required in Article 32.5.
32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.

So under 32.5 the cricket name was not inadvertent? Because it was intentional?? But, Examples. If an author in proposing a new species-group name were to state that he or she was naming the species after Linnaeus, yet the name was published as ninnaei, it would be an incorrect original spelling to be corrected to linnaei. Enygmophyllum is not an incorrect original spelling (for example of Enigmatophyllum) solely on the grounds that it was incorrectly transliterated or latinized. In the cricket case the author said they were named after two females but he mis-latinized the name under the rules for gender ending??? Inadvertent? Or advertent and non-correctible? Was it mandatory to change the suffix or the gender ending under Article 34???
No. Article 34. Mandatory changes in spelling consequent upon changes in rank or combination.
But Species-group names. The ending of a Latin or latinized adjectival or participial species-group name must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined {even at its creation?} [Art. 31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed accordingly…
So 34 does not apply to a new name that does not change rank or combination? Anyway it is a noun , If a species-group name is a noun in apposition its ending need not agree in gender with the generic name . And it is not mandatory under 32.5 if it is not mandatory the original name is correct.

Rational?? The purpose of 32.5 is that of repose. Or stability of names. If it is an obvious inadvertent error; fix it. Otherwise, leave it alone and give the consumers of animal names some peace.

“the name would appear to have been formed under 31.1.1, “
31.1.1 or 31.1.2 does an author have a choice? Hedwig is a German female given name. The name originates from Old High German Hadwig, Haduwig (hadu meaning battle, and wig meaning fight). So it is not an originally Latin name nor one that got Latinized by the culture. It is a modern name and should have been formed using only the rules of 31.1.2. ????????? Still not a reason for mandatory change.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=31&nfv= .
I am no authority i just like understanding rules and their application.
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
31.1.1 or 31.1.2 does an author have a choice?

31.1. Species-group names formed from personal names. A species-group name formed from a personal name may be either a noun in the genitive case, or a noun in apposition (in the nominative case), or an adjective or participle [Art. 11.9.1].
31.1.1. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case formed from a personal name that is Latin, or from a modern personal name that is or has been latinized, is to be formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar.
[...]
31.1.2. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women; the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive.
[...]
31.1.3. The original spelling of a name formed under Articles 31.1.1 and 31.1.2 is to be preserved [Art. 32.2] unless it is incorrect [Arts. 32.3, 32.4] (for treatment of incorrect subsequent spellings of such species-group names see Articles 33.3 and 33.4).
[...]
Recommendation 31A. Avoidance of personal names as nouns in apposition. An author who establishes a new species-group name based on a personal name should preferably form the name in the genitive case and not as a noun in apposition, in order to avoid the appearance that the species-group name is a citation of the authorship of the generic name.​
And from the Glossary:
latinize, v. To give Latin form and characteristics (including a Latin ending or a Latin suffix) to any word which is not Latin.
Latinisation is just the process of turning a non-Latin word into a Latin-looking word. The Code says nothing else, so basically an author is free to make any change that would make the word look more Latin-like. (And if you follow David & Gosselin, this means nearly any change he could possibly think of.) Latinisation applies to non-Latin words by definition, and any non-Latin word can be latinised.
The author has the choice.
Fully correct and most classical options would include Cyanistes teneriffae hedwigiae (latinised name [Hedwigia], in the genitive case, formed under 31.1.1), C. t. hedwigae (noun in the genitive case, formed by direct addition of -ae, under 31.1.2), C. t. hedwigia (latinised name in the nominative case, in apposition), C. t. hedwig (unmodified name in apposition), C. t. hewiganus (formed by addition of an adjectival suffix--many other possibilities that this one). Other options might be correct as well.
31.1.2 IMO is irrelevant in the present case, because the name is latinised. To violate 31.1.1, the name should not have been "formed in accordance with the rules of Latin grammar". With an -ii ending, it appears to be a 2nd-declension genitive singular. A genitive singular is clearly what is expected grammatically; 2nd-declension nouns that are feminine are admittedly infrequent (and usually the result of a feminine noun being implied when they are used), but they do exist--eg., ulmus, -i ('arbor' is implied), Corinthus, -i ('urbs' is implied), Cyprus, -i ('insula' is implied), amethystus, -i ('gemma' is implied), etc. So here it would have to be Hedwigius, -i ('mulier' implied). A bit unusual, perhaps... But what makes it incorrect?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top