Curve-billed Scythebill (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

Aleixo, Portes, Whittaker, Weckstein, Gonzaga, Zimmer, Ribas & Bates 2013. Molecular systematics and taxonomic revision of the Curve-billed Scythebill complex (Campylorhamphus procurvoides: Dendrocolaptidae), with description of a new species from western Amazonian Brazil. HBW SV: 253–257. [supp info]

Portes, Aleixo, Zimmer, Whittaker, Weckstein, Gonzaga, Ribas, Bates & Lees 2013. A new species of Campylorhamphus (Aves: Dendrocolaptidae) from the Tapajós - Xingu interfluve in Amazonian Brazil. HBW SV: 258–262. [supp info]

• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) gyldenstolpei sp nov - Tupana Scythebill
• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) procurvoides - Curve-billed Scythebill
• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) sanus - Zimmer's Scythebill
• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) multostriatus - Snethlage's Scythebill
• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) probatus - Rondonia Scythebill
• Campyloramphus (procurvoides) cardosoi sp nov - Tapajós Scythebill

AOU-SACC Proposal #623 (Portes & Aleixo, Dec 2013): Recognize newly described Campylorhamphus gyldenstolpei and Campylorhamphus cardosoi and split Campylorhamphus procurvoides into four species.

Marantz et al 2003 (HBW 8).

 

[thomasdonegan]

We accepted some but not all of these splits when updating the Colombian checklist this year. For reasons why, follow the link or see the recent comments in the proposal on the SACC website:

Reference: Donegan, T.M., McMullan, W.M, Quevedo, A. & Salaman, P. 2013. Revision of the status of bird species occurring or reported in Colombia 2013. Conservacion Colombiana 19: 3-10. [PDF]

 

[Richard Klim]

SACC proposal

AOU-SACC Proposal #623 (Portes & Aleixo, Dec 2013): Recognize newly described Campylorhamphus gyldenstolpei and Campylorhamphus cardosoi and split Campylorhamphus procurvoides into four species.

Proposal failed to pass, 26 May 2014.

 

[aegithalos]

How did 'curve-billed scythebill' get on the books? Not only does 'curve-billed' not distinguish between scythebills (there are many instances of that issue), but 'scythebill' means ... 'curve-billed', rather exactly. Is there another instance of such a perfect double name?

Just wondering ...

Keith

 

[Nutcracker]

Is there another instance of such a perfect double name?

My very own BirdForum monniker, scientific name Nucifraga caryocatactes - Latin nux (nut) + fraga (to smash), plus Greek caryon (nut) + catactes (to smash): so the name means nut-smashing nut-smasher :t:

 

[mb1848]

Black-billed Scythebill Campylorhamphus falcularius should be called Scythe-billed Scythebill. Latin falcatus, from falc-, falx sickle, scythe.

 

[8669]

I think Souimanga Sunbird is another example of a double name. Souimanga means sunbird.

Theo

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

What about Moustached Turca?
I've understood that "turca" is an association to a Turkish moustach? Maybe someone can confirm this?

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

What about Moustached Turca?
I've understood that "turca" is an association to a Turkish moustach? Maybe someone can confirm this?

Hej Markus,

As this question seem to be a little sidestep of this thread I take the easy way, and answer the question of "The Turka" in Swedish . In my MS I have the following regarding the proposed Swedish name "turko":

turko, i just turko Pteroptochos megapodius, är en försvenskad stavning utifrån vad lokalbefolkningen i Chile kallade den här endemiska tättingen.

I sina berättelser från den klassiska resan med HMS Beagle 1832-1836 noterar den brittiske naturvetaren Charles Darwin kort: ”The P. megapodius, is called by the Chilenos «EL TURCO»; ...”. (P. megapodius kallas för ”El Turco” av chilenarna; ...)

I en dagboksanteckning berättar han vidare. “It really requires little imagination to belive that the bird is ashamed of itself, and is aware of its most ridiculous figure. On first seeing it, one is tempted to exclaim, »A vilely stuffed specimen has escaped from some museum, and has come to life again!« ...” (Det krävs verkligen ingen större fantasi för att tro att fågeln skäms över sig själv, och att den är väl medveten om sitt synnerligen löjliga utseende. När man först får syn på den är man benägen att utropa; ”Ett uselt uppstoppat exemplar som rymt från något museum, som blivit levande igen!”).

På spanska, som är det språk som talas i dagens Chile betyder El Turco; ”turken”. Men varför fågeln kallades så, om det verkligen var turkarna som åsyftades eller om namnet har en helt annan bakgrund, framgår dock inte?

 

[Richard Klim]

What about Moustached Turca?

It's fortunate that the species is restricted to Chile. According to Wiktionary, in Nicaragua turca is an offensive term meaning penis! 'Moustached turca' would perhaps apply to a non-Brazilian example... :eek!:

 

[lewis20126]

It would appear that SACC are, one by one, rejecting the proposals within the HBW special volume, not because they are not likely to be "correct" but because they are (currently) unsupported to the level required by the committeee. I would imagine the new Yellow-margined Flycatcher will suffer the same fate (Is there a proposal for this?) but would hope that the two new Herpsilochmus and the Jay (!) at least might be acceptable...

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

HBW Special Volume

It would appear that SACC are, one by one, rejecting the proposals within the HBW special volume, not because they are not likely to be "correct" but because they are (currently) unsupported to the level required by the committeee. I would imagine the new Yellow-margined Flycatcher will suffer the same fate (Is there a proposal for this?) but would hope that the two new Herpsilochmus and the Jay (!) at least might be acceptable...

Alan, SACC proposals (#585, #586) to recognise the two new Herpsilochmus passed on 29 Dec 2013.

But the new Yellow-margined Flycatcher and jay still await SACC proposals...

Whitney et al. (2013) described a new species in the complex, Tolmomyias sucunduri, from south-central Amazonian Brazil. SACC proposal badly needed.

Cohn-Haft et al. (2013) described a new species from southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Cyanocorax hafferi, that they found was most closely related to C. heilprini and C. affinis. SACC proposal badly needed.

 

[lewis20126]

Alan, SACC proposals (#585, #586) to recognise the two new Herpsilochmus passed on 29 Dec 2013.

But the new Yellow-margined Flycatcher and jay still await SACC proposals...

Thanks Richard, I missed (or forgot!) the Herpsilochmus being accepted. I guess it's easier to accept isolated taxa, restricted to a single habitat type (in this case white sands) that are unlikely to be in contact with next nearest neighbours (so the Jay should pass!). The other cases are these "new" (or newly recognised) interfluvial taxa, which occupy the same habitat type, and presumably there may be some hybridisation at headwaters, or interchange across rivers.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

It would appear that SACC are, one by one, rejecting the proposals within the HBW special volume, not because they are not likely to be "correct" but because they are (currently) unsupported to the level required by the committee.

Also, SACC is not necessarily rejecting recognition of the newly described forms as valid taxa, just the proposed splitting into multiple distinct species in some cases.

 

[thomasdonegan]

I'd put the story another way.

A lot of these "species" show really minor differences, which may usually be associated with species status by northern hemisphere committees, but which in S America are more consistent with subspecies rank.

Some authors have "gotten away" with being able to describe what look like subspecies as exciting new species at SACC, including various of the committee members and their research groups, which include some of the main authors for HBW new species. I would view the authors of some of the HBW new species as perhaps "trying it on" a bit here: if published in some of the specialist taxonomic journal literature, many of these new taxa would probably have had to have been called subspecies. SACC is just applying standards here to those it has applied to unconnected researchers outside of their "rosca" in the past. I hope we will see more future proposals for less ambitious splitting in some of these studied groups though, esp Lepidocolaptes and Scythebills, which need splitting but probably not that much.

The authors of the HBW volume should of course be applauded for getting all these new taxa published and out in the open of course, and for producing such a wealth of information. I just think they were misguided in trying to call them all species under BSC. This might create more impact, but does not seem correct application of well-accepted standards for assessing species rank using this concept.

TD.

 

[lewis20126]

Also, SACC is not necessarily rejecting recognition of the newly described forms as valid taxa, just the proposed splitting into multiple distinct species in some cases.

Sorry, yes I do appreciate that the proposal(s) are about the delineation of species and not the recognition of taxa per se. I should have been clearer.

cheers, a

 

[lewis20126]

I'd put the story another way.

A lot of these "species" show really minor differences, which may usually be associated with species status by northern hemisphere committees, but which in S America are more consistent with subspecies rank.

Is there more to this that meets the eye? It would be a real paradigm shift once (and if) SACC accept any of these Amazon wide split ups of what are essentially "the same birds" (IMO, numerous caveats apply). Once a single Pan Amazonian species is split into interfluvial "species", this logic might then extend to a large number of other widespread pan-Amazonian species, particularly in the sub-oscines...

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

I would view the authors of some of the HBW new species as perhaps "trying it on" a bit here: if published in some of the specialist taxonomic journal literature, many of these new taxa would probably have had to have been called subspecies.
The authors of the HBW volume should of course be applauded for getting all these new taxa published and out in the open of course, and for producing such a wealth of information. I just think they were misguided in trying to call them all species under BSC. This might create more impact, but does not seem correct application of well-accepted standards for assessing species rank using this concept.

I remain sceptical of the merits of publishing these descriptions in HBW rather than in scientific journals. It obviously generated much pre-publication hype, presumably encouraged by Lynx (who were obviously keen to promote them as a major scoop for the Special Volume), but it seemed a slightly uncomfortable mix of science and sales promotion. The descriptions are still only available to those fortunate enough to own (or have access to) a very expensive publication.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the new taxa and related proposed splits are treated as species by HBW/BirdLife (although we probably won't find out about most until 2016, when the passerine volume of the illustrated checklist is published).

 

[ZanderII]

I hope we will see more future proposals for less ambitious splitting in some of these studied groups though, esp Lepidocolaptes and Scythebills, which need splitting but probably not that much.

Er, I'm a newbie to this part of the forum, but if voice is a super character then in what way are the Hyponcmenis splits - e.g. rondoni any different from the proposed Lepidocolaptes split? In so far as I was aware Hypocnemis rondoni [passed] was only separable by differences in call notes (and not loud song) plus genetic differences. The Lepidocolaptes differ in loud song and genetics in the same way, AND are weakly diagnosable based on plumage characters. Do you want one rule for antbirds (and the beloved tapaculos) and another rule for woodcreepers Thomas?

Most understorey woodcreeper superspecies complexes do not differ at all in voice, this includes differences between several widely-recognized species e.g. the Hylexetastes group. Are we binning cryptic species then? Does strong genetic divergence + some vocal variation + no plumage variation trump strong genetic divergence, plus weak vocal and morphological variation?

 

[ZanderII]

I remain sceptical of the merits of publishing these descriptions in HBW rather than in scientific journals. It obviously generated much pre-publication hype, presumably encouraged by Lynx (who were obviously keen to promote them as a major scoop for the Special Volume), but it seemed a slightly uncomfortable mix of science and sales promotion. The descriptions are still only available to those fortunate enough to own (or have access to) a very expensive publication.

It'll be interesting to see how many of the new taxa and related proposed splits are treated as species by HBW/BirdLife (although we probably won't find out about most until 2016, when the passerine volume of the illustrated checklist is published).

Have you tried PDF requests?