BOU Taxonomic Changes (1 Viewer)

[Docmartin]

phenotype probably, I think the BOU are biological species concept fans (?)
James

The BOURC TSC follows a broadly 'evolutionary' species concept. Specifically, the guidelines for assigning species rank as published in Ibis, freely available from a link at http://www.bou.org.uk/recbrlst.html

you can also get all three tsc reports here too.

 

[Xenospiza]

Both really. The genetics has confirmed the 'old' genera that people defined phenotypically for tits before they were all placed in Parus.

I thought it had been found recently that most tits were actually very closely related and could well regrouped into Parus… (Gill et al, 2005 mention subgenera). I get very annoyed by this genus splitting. Take all these swallow genera… (it would have made more sense to place House Martin in Hirundo: no need for e.g. Cecropis then). I am not too impressed by the support for all those smaller genera (especially since taxon sampling was not exhaustive).
Splitting the Little Shearwaters in two North Atlantic species is the worst choice possible: either one (lherminieri) (as suggested by Austin et al, 2004) or three (lherminieri, boydi, baroli) (to avoid subspecies) would be better.
Not recognising Larus cachinnans is very sad.

Just for the record: Greater Spotted Eagle will soon be in Ictinaetus! Or else Hieraaetus, Aquila, Lophaetus and Ictinaetus should be merged… anyway, unsurprisingly, again the BOU is lagging behind.

Finally, I am in no way responsible for any of the Dutch taxonomic decisions!
I just don't put too much faith in all these "authorities" (BOU, AOU, CSNA, the late James Clements…).

 

[gordon g]

Both really. The genetics has confirmed the 'old' genera that people defined phenotypically for tits before they were all placed in Parus.

So how do you define a species? How much genetic or phenotypic variation?
The briefest (and clearest) definition that I have read is that a species is a population of organisms that reproduces only within that population. This implies some genetic and phenotypic differences, but does not rely on them. How would the lists look if that definition were applied? (Think of all those hybrid ducks!)

 

[Docmartin]

So how do you define a species? How much genetic or phenotypic variation?
The briefest (and clearest) definition that I have read is that a species is a population of organisms that reproduces only within that population. This implies some genetic and phenotypic differences, but does not rely on them. How would the lists look if that definition were applied? (Think of all those hybrid ducks!)

Well the last pair of Corn Buntings on Tiree would be a separate species for a start! Is there even a Corn Bunting left on Tiree?

 

[gordon g]

Well the last pair of Corn Buntings on Tiree would be a separate species for a start!

Point taken, but seriously, how much variation is permissible within a species? After all, look at how much phenotypic variation there is in homo sapiens sapiens for example, or in domestic lifestock, domestic dogs, cats etc.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Firecrest Regulus ignicapilla
On the basis of diagnostic differences in both morphology and vocal signals,
together with significant genetic divergence it is recommended that madeirensis
be treated as a separate species.

· Firecrest R. ignicapilla (polytypic, with subspecies ignicapilla,
balearicus)

· Madeira Firecrest R. madeirensis (monotypic).

Only Firecrest is on the British List. A paper on the taxonomy of Regulus will
appear in due course.

Madeiran Firecrest was split from Common Firecrest in 2005 by the BOU (and other authorities followed later).

However the original name given by Harcourt in 1851 was Regulus madeirensis, meaning that it was originally described as a new species.

I would like to know when it was lumped with Common Firecrest and on what grounds.

Thanks.

 

[recbirds]

I would like to know when it was lumped with Common Firecrest and on what grounds.

I presume it was Hartert in Die Vögel der Paläarktischen Fauna - Systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommenden Vögel Bd.1 (1910) p.399 here, although he does not give any specific reason for treating it as a subspecies of R.ignicapilla.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

I presume it was Hartert in Die Vögel der Paläarktischen Fauna - Systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommenden Vögel Bd.1 (1910) p.299 here, although he does not give any specific reason for treating it as a subspecies of R.ignicapilla.

Thanks recbirds. It helps. As you probably noticed, he quotes Harcourt original name.

 

[l_raty]

I would like to know when it was lumped with Common Firecrest and on what grounds.

I presume it was Hartert in Die Vögel der Paläarktischen Fauna - Systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommenden Vögel Bd.1 (1910) p.299 here, although he does not give any specific reason for treating it as a subspecies of R.ignicapilla.

Hellmayr (in Das Tierreich, Lfg. 18, here -- March 1903) had done it before Hartert (March 1907, actually -- see the title page of this part, here).
But he didn't explain either. (Merely "Diese Art teile ich in 2 Unterarten:")

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Thanks Laurent. I am trying to understand the history of this taxon.