Clements 2023 Checklist Update (1 Viewer)

[Henicorhina]

They took the easy way out, put everything in Charadrius and Anarhynchus despite significant differences, this is really what I call the pinnacle of laziness.

I wrote the NACC and SACC proposals for this change. The issue was the quality of the genetic data, which is good enough to tell that the species now in Charadrius and Anarhynchus are definitely unrelated to each other (Anarhynchus is closer to the lapwings), but the relationships within each is mostly guesswork at this point. We really need better data to resolve those relationships, at which point further dividing each is potentially warranted, which would hopefully take into account more data on morphological diagnosability.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I wrote the NACC and SACC proposals for this change.

Can I see it ?

 

[Henicorhina]

Can I see it ?

Here's the SACC version:

Revise the taxonomy of the Charadriidae (in 8 parts, A-H)

NACC version is still being voted on

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Here's the SACC version:

Revise the taxonomy of the Charadriidae (in 8 parts, A-H)

NACC version is still being voted on

The Charadrius stricto sensu clade is very old (more than 25 mya!! it's huge). Even pending further studies, it is more reasonable to recognize three genera in this group : Charadrius (I also recognise Oxyechus), Thinornis, Eudromias. It is not consistent to keep one genus, especially if especially if we compare it to close groups that appeared more recently

 

[Henicorhina]

The NACC version (which is not public yet), does recommend splitting Eudromias, but that's not a SACC issue. Splitting Thinornis is an old world issue, so I didn't recommend that one one way or the other, until global authorities had a change to review the data. It looks like eBird/Clements/WGAC chose to maintain Thinornis in Charadrius, but I agree that the old divergence time suggests genus-level differences. I don't really know Thinornis (having never seen one), but the photos sure do look like different beasts than Charadrius.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The NACC version (which is not public yet), does recommend splitting Eudromias, but that's not a SACC issue. Splitting Thinornis is an old world issue, so I didn't recommend that one one way or the other, until global authorities had a change to review the data. It looks like eBird/Clements/WGAC chose to maintain Thinornis in Charadrius, but I agree that the old divergence time suggests genus-level differences. I don't really know Thinornis (having never seen one), but the photos sure do look like different beasts than Charadrius.

Even without having seen these birds, we see that they are quite different phenotypically.

On the other hand, I am less shocked to put the ancient Charadrius in Anarhynchus, despite the particular anatomy of frontalis