Fringillidae (2 Viewers)

[Acanthis]

I believe I give subfamily rank to Myziornis in my own classification. although we are starting to get a bit far afield from Fringillidae

Anyway, here is my most recent classification for Fringillidae from my own checklist project:

Fringillidae (Finches)

Fringillinae (Chaffinches)
Euphoniinae (Euphonias and Chlorophonias)
Coccothraustinae (Grosbeak Finches)
Carduelinae (Typical Finches)

Pyrrhulini (Bullfinches and Allies)
Carpodacini (True Rosefinches)
Carduelini (Canaries and Siskins)

Yeah I recall the hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes being described as an atypical cardueline in terms of behaviour etc.
Can't comment on the other grosbeaks though but raising them to subfamily status is not a huge stretch.

Sinking the drepanidines into the rosefinches may be controversial though. I like it

 

[Mysticete]

Yeah I recall the hawfinch Coccothraustes coccothraustes being described as an atypical cardueline in terms of behaviour etc.
Can't comment on the other grosbeaks though but raising them to subfamily status is not a huge stretch.

Sinking the drepanidines into the rosefinches may be controversial though. I like it

Is it controversial? It seems the accepted dogma that they arose from a rosefinch.

 

[njlarsen]

but you need compensating rounds of lumping when things become clearer. It seems splitting is easier than lumping.

Maybe today it is easier. Going back a hundred years, it seems lumping was definitely preferred, you did not even need to state an argument.
Niels

 

[Mysticete]

There is much to be said for manageable chunk theory.

At one time I think there was a simple Fringillidae-Emberizidae split. Sibley had them as two subfamilies in his Fringellidae and then the splitting began. The embirizoids do seem over-split now the phylogeny is becoming more stable. Some or all of the small Caribbean families could be lumped and I don't think there is a need for the confusing Icteridae-Icteriidae split any more. It's understandable when splits are made to accommodate uncertainties in the phylogeny, but you need compensating rounds of lumping when things become clearer. It seems splitting is easier than lumping.

I would probably keep most of the families, but lump Icteridae-Icteriidae (and remove one of the most confusing names ever), and Nesopingidae with Spindalidae. MAYBE Calyptophilidae and Phaenicophilidae, but I would need to double check that. Otherwise I approve of the current classification and think it makes sense.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I would probably keep most of the families, but lump Icteridae-Icteriidae (and remove one of the most confusing names ever), and Nesopingidae with Spindalidae. MAYBE Calyptophilidae and Phaenicophilidae, but I would need to double check that. Otherwise I approve of the current classification and think it makes sense.

I prefer to keep them all as families because the phylogenies seem to contradict each other on their position

 

[jts1882]

Another reason to prefer the families is that neither the IOC or Clements use subfamilies.

However, if we use the phylogenies in Barker et al (2015) and Oliveros et al (2019) as a guide, there are few lumpings that can be justified at this time.

Nesospingidae and Spindalidae is the only decent case. Icteriidae and Icteridae would also need Zeledoniidae and Teretistridae based on Barker, but Oliveros finds Zeledoniidae with the Caribbean families. You'd have to lump eight families into a broad Parulidae/Icteridae. You could also lump Cardinalidae, Mitrospingidae and Thraupidae. Such changes would need a tidal change in favour of the lumpers.

 

[Acanthis]

Is it controversial? It seems the accepted dogma that they arose from a rosefinch.

Maybe the wrong choice of word. At one time I recall there were some regrets around losing a unique endemic Hawaiian family but things move on.

Once it was known they are actually Fringillids I suspected they were closest to Carduelini - not the only time I've been completely wrong!

Regarding the rosefinch connection. Wouldn't it have been cool if the Bonin Island Grosbeak had turned out to be a basal drepanidine? 😊

 

[Mysticete]

Another reason to prefer the families is that neither the IOC or Clements use subfamilies.

However, if we use the phylogenies in Barker et al (2015) and Oliveros et al (2019) as a guide, there are few lumpings that can be justified at this time.

Nesospingidae and Spindalidae is the only decent case. Icteriidae and Icteridae would also need Zeledoniidae and Teretistridae based on Barker, but Oliveros finds Zeledoniidae with the Caribbean families. You'd have to lump eight families into a broad Parulidae/Icteridae. You could also lump Cardinalidae, Mitrospingidae and Thraupidae. Such changes would need a tidal change in favour of the lumpers.


View attachment 1560625

I believe WGAC might be adopting subfamilies and tribes, for what its worth. Not sure if the others will follow suite but if the long-term plan for IOC and Clements being the same as WGAC taxonomy wise, it probably doesn't matter if they decide to follow or not.

 

[Acanthis]

Not a comment about taxonomy but more of a note around a minor Id issue on Birds of the World.
Now I love ebird and Birds of the World and use them extensively for exploration and pleasure so I'm in no way being critical of these resources, but someone please, please fix the Serinus flavivertex page.

Yellow-crowned Canary - Serinus flavivertex - Birds of the World

Species accounts for all the birds of the world.

birdsoftheworld.org

There are two obvious, wrongly-identified Crithagra species photos including the main one for the species.
Posting here because I don't know the best place to report such a thing

 

[jts1882]

It says "Text last updated June 25, 2013" so have there been species/subspecies changes since then. There was also an issue with merging with Birds Alive which had different treatments which led to articles having contradictory parts. I don't know if this is still an ongoing problem.

 

[Paul Clapham]

There are two obvious, wrongly-identified Crithagra species photos including the main one for the species.
Posting here because I don't know the best place to report such a thing

To report the main photo: click on the "eBird" link below it. That brings up somebody's checklist containing the photo. In this case the checklist identifies it as White-bellied Canary, not Yellow-crowned, so there could be that Birds Alive merging problem.

But if you want to report the photo in eBird, click on it and you'll see a full-screen version. At the bottom right there's a "Report" link. (Which I didn't click on because I don't know whether it reports irreversibly or whether it brings up a screen for you to type more details.)

The other photos, if you click on them you go to a full-screen photo page which also links to an eBird checklist, so that's where you could report them if you wanted to.

 

[Acanthis]

To report the main photo: click on the "eBird" link below it. That brings up somebody's checklist containing the photo. In this case the checklist identifies it as White-bellied Canary, not Yellow-crowned, so there could be that Birds Alive merging problem.

But if you want to report the photo in eBird, click on it and you'll see a full-screen version. At the bottom right there's a "Report" link. (Which I didn't click on because I don't know whether it reports irreversibly or whether it brings up a screen for you to type more details.)

The other photos, if you click on them you go to a full-screen photo page which also links to an eBird checklist, so that's where you could report them if you wanted to.

Thanks Paul
Clicking on the report link allows a user to flag up offensive or inappropriate content only.
I discovered on another forum you must, as an ebirder have submitted at least 100 complete checklists in the previous year before you are allowed to reidentify someone elses photo.
So, If I want to scratch this particular itch I need to get out more 😁

 

[abirdingguy]

Thanks Paul
Clicking on the report link allows a user to flag up offensive or inappropriate content only.
I discovered on another forum you must, as an ebirder have submitted at least 100 complete checklists in the previous year before you are allowed to reidentify someone elses photo.
So, If I want to scratch this particular itch I need to get out more 😁

Is there no exception to this checklist requirement for reporting potentially misidentified species? I haven't found one in the past and have subsequently let seemingly incorrect identifications remain in the database. Maybe there could be a thread for reporting these so that a 100-per-year checklister could initiate the changes.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I think you're on the wrong track. Sure, you can report an incorrectly identified bird photo to eBird. Then the process is, the report goes into a queue for the eBird reviewer for the area where the bird was reported from. In turn the reviewer will send an e-mail to the person who reported the bird, usually including a correct ID for the bird. Then that person will hopefully do something to make it better, eventually.

But all of that does nothing to fix the fact that the page for Yellow-crowned Canary has a picture of a bird which isn't that. It's possible that after the reporting process is complete, that picture is then attached to an e-Bird sighting which identifies it as something else, but what you're looking for is for the page for Yellow-crowned Canary to have a different picture. That isn't going to happen without the help of a person who chooses a different picture for that page.

 

[njlarsen]

When checking this species page now the main picture has changed. I assume that is because someone from Cornell reads birdforum or because someone privately contacted them about this.
Niels

 

[Paul Clapham]

There was also an issue with merging with Birds Alive which had different treatments which led to articles having contradictory parts. I don't know if this is still an ongoing problem.

I see snarky comments about that regularly on the 10,000 Birds blog (10000birds.com).

 

[Acanthis]

When checking this species page now the main picture has changed. I assume that is because someone from Cornell reads birdforum or because someone privately contacted them about this.
Niels

Brilliant! Thank you to whoever sorted out that species account. It has bothered me for a while now.