• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Chickadees/Tits (1 Viewer)

Mountain Chickadee

The protologue of Parus gambeli Ridgway, 1886 is widely cited as:

The code of nomenclature and check-list of North American birds adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union ed.1: 335.

But page 335 only gives a name, no description, so is surely not valid on that page reference alone. What should the correct citation be?
 
Mountain Chickadee

The protologue of Parus gambeli Ridgway, 1886 is widely cited as:
The code of nomenclature and check-list of North American birds adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union ed.1: 335.
But page 335 only gives a name, no description, so is surely not valid on that page reference alone. What should the correct citation be?
Snow 1967 (Peters): Parus gambeli Ridgway, 1886... New name for Parus montanus Gambel, 1843 [Proc Acad Nat Sci Phil I: 259], preoccupied by Parus montanus Conrad, 1827.
 
Last edited:
This is the correct citation, albeit it is, indeed, not really easy to understand.
Under Parus gambeli, you get:
[B 294, C 32, R 40, C 48.]
These are actually four references; see under (10) on p.15:
That references be given to the original description of the species, and to the publication where the name as adopted in the List was first used ; that the number borne by each species and subspecies in the Lists of Baird, 1858, of Coues, 1873, of Ridgway, 1880, and of Coues, 1882, be bracketed in chronological order after the synonymatic references.

Baird 1859 ("1858"), #294 here: = Parus montanus Gambel.
Coues 1873, #32 here: = Parus montanus Gamb.
Ridgway 1881 ("1880"), #40 here: = Parus montanus Gamb.
Coues 1882, #48 here: = Parus montanus Gamb.

Thus the name is proposed for Parus montanus Gambel 1843 [OD here], nec Parus cinereus montanus Conrad von Baldenstein 1827 [OD here] (currently Poecile montana).
 
Thanks! Is that indirect referencing really adequate for establishing a nom. nov.? It certainly wouldn't be acceptable in botany, where there has to be a clear and full reference to the name it is replacing.
 
Thanks! Is that indirect referencing really adequate for establishing a nom. nov.? It certainly wouldn't be acceptable in botany, where there has to be a clear and full reference to the name it is replacing.
The Zoo Code is a bit loose about nomina nova before 1931. Compare 12.2 (before 1931):
For the purposes of this Article the word "indication" denotes only the following:
[...]
12.2.3. the proposal of a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether or not required by any provision of the Code;
to 13.1 (after 1930):
To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must
[...]
13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.
(Emphasis mine.)
After 1930, you'd need the name to have been expressly proposed as a new replacement name; but, before 1931, it is arguably mainly the intent that is required. Here, the intent is rather clear, I think.
If you say that it could be neater, I certainly won't disagree with you. But if it is widely accepted as valid, I'd not go against usage.
 
Last edited:
R V Adams and T M Burg, 2014. Influence of ecological and geological features on rangewide patterns of genetic structure in a widespread passerine. Heredity, (30 July 2014) | doi:10.1038/hdy.2014.64

[Abstract]

Adams R.V., 2015. Landscape genetics of a North American songbird, the Black-capped Chickadee (Poecile atricapillus). Univ. of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada: i-xvii, 1-268.

Access to pdf
 
Baeolophus atricristatus x B. bicolor

Curry C.M. & Patten M.A., 2014. Current and historical extent of phenotypic variation in the Tufted and Black-crested Titmouse (Paridae) hybrid zone in the southern Great Plains. Amer. Midl. Nat. 171: 271-300.

ABSTRACT.—Hybrid zones, where phenotypically distinct populations interbreed, should expand or contract until reaching a balance between selection and dispersal. Few studies examine multiple contacts within one species complex to compare how their extent changes over time. Black-crested and Tufted Titmice (Baeolophus atricristatus and B. bicolor) hybridize extensively within a narrow zone in Texas and southwestern Oklahoma. In Texas, hybridization has been occurring for several thousands of years, while evidence suggests the southwestern Oklahoma contact is more recent, beginning within the past century. We quantify plumage and morphology of the two species across both the younger and older hybrid zones and compare the current and historical extent of phenotypic variation in the older Texas contact with that in the younger Oklahoma contact. Variation in plumage between species is similar in the younger and older contacts, while overlap in morphological characters is broader in the older contact. Recently and historically surveyed transects in the older zone have similar cline widths, indicating selection, at least on crest and forehead plumage, has reached equilibrium with dispersal over the time periods involved (comparing both the historically surveyed data from 1955 vs. the recently surveyed data from the 2000s in Texas). In the recently surveyed younger Oklahoma contact, cline width is narrower, indicating potential for expansion if it follows the course of the older contact. This temporal complexity should make this species complex a productive system for future work, using plumage and additional traits such as song and genetics, on the relative influences of both natural and sexual selection on the evolution of reproductive isolation.

Claire M. Curry & Michael A. Patten. Shadow of a doubt: premating and postmating isolating barriers in a temporally complex songbird (Passeriformes: Paridae) hybrid zone. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, August 2016, Volume 70, Issue 8, pp 1171-1186.

[abstract]
 
Poecile

Tritsch C., Martens J., Sun Y.-H., Heim W., Strutzenberger P. & Päckert M., in press. Improved sampling at the subspecies level solves a taxonomic dilemma - a case study of two enigmatic Chinese tit species (Aves, Passeriformes, Paridae, Poecile). Mol. Phylogen. Evol.

Abstract
A recent full species-level phylogeny of tits, titmice and chickadees (Paridae) has placed the Chinese endemic black-bibbed tit (Poecile hypermelaenus) as the sister to the Palearctic willow tit (P. montanus). Because this sister-group relationship is in striking disagreement with the traditional affiliation of P. hypermelaenus close to the marsh tit (P. palustris) we tested this phylogenetic hypothesis in a multi-locus analysis with an extended taxon sampling including sixteen subspecies of willow tits and marsh tits. As a taxonomic reference we included type specimens in our analysis. The molecular genetic study was complemented with an analysis of biometric data obtained from museum specimens. Our phylogenetic reconstructions, including a comparison of all GenBank data available for our target species, clearly show that the genetic lineage previously identified as P. hypermelaenus actually refers to P. weigoldicus because sequences were identical to that of a syntype of this taxon. The close relationship of P. weigoldicus and P. montanus – despite large genetic distances between the two taxa – is in accordance with current taxonomy and systematics. In disagreement with the previous phylogenetic hypothesis but in accordance with most taxonomic authorities, all our P. hypermelaenus specimens fell in the sister clade of all western and eastern Palearctic P. palustris. Though shared haplotypes among the Chinese populations of the two latter species might indicate mitochondrial introgression in this part of the breeding range, further research is needed here due to the limitations of our own sampling.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years 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