General taxonomy megathread (1 Viewer)

[Jacana]

I propose using this thread as a space for general taxonomy discussion, queries, questions, comments etc. We can save other taxa-specific threads or updates threads for specific papers or authority decisions.

Got a question about a name priorities? Have a novel thought on the use of hyphens? Want to know the rational between the IOC splitting something but not Clements? This might be the place.

 

[Mysticete]

I propose using this thread as a space for general taxonomy discussion, queries, questions, comments etc. We can save other taxa-specific threads or updates threads for specific papers or authority decisions.

Got a question about a name priorities? Have a novel thought on the use of hyphens? Want to know the rational between the IOC splitting something but not Clements? This might be the place.

No offense Jacana, but this thread seems pointless and way overly broad. If someone has a question on something relating to hummingbirds, it should go in the hummingbird (Trochilidae) thread. Same with anything on new papers concerning hummer phylogeny/phylogeography, or discussion of name priorities, . I could see hyphen discussion deserving its own thread, but it will probably pop up in other threads as well (Two recent AOS proposals deal with hyphens, so of course people are going to talk about it there).

This would be like having a a general thread like this in the birding forum, which is described as "A space for general taxonomy discussion, queries, questions, comments, etc"

 

[Jacana]

No offense Jacana, but this thread seems pointless and way overly broad. If someone has a question on something relating to hummingbirds, it should go in the hummingbird (Trochilidae) thread. Same with anything on new papers concerning hummer phylogeny/phylogeography, or discussion of name priorities, . I could see hyphen discussion deserving its own thread, but it will probably pop up in other threads as well (Two recent AOS proposals deal with hyphens, so of course people are going to talk about it there).

This would be like having a a general thread like this in the birding forum, which is described as "A space for general taxonomy discussion, queries, questions, comments, etc"

Fair enough and none taken. I also think it might be over the top. If the thread survives, it survives, if not, then that's fine too

 

[pbjosh]

Two reasonable and fair and intelligent opinions. Let’s see if the thread survives.

In whatever threads they are, in whichever fora, the taxonomy discussions are (for me) among the most valuable and interesting here.

 

[raymie]

I'll bite - what are people's opinions on a Blue-winged and Golden-winged Warbler lump, and is it likely to ever go through? If it does, what would the common name be?

 

[Paul Clapham]

I'll bite - what are people's opinions on a Blue-winged and Golden-winged Warbler lump, and is it likely to ever go through? If it does, what would the common name be?

My impression is that they are two separate species plus a fairly well-defined hybrid swarm between them. I am certainly no expert on these topics but based on what I've seen various experts do in the past, I would expect them to remain treated that way.

Although we could discuss renaming them to Blue Winged-Warbler and Golden Winged-Warbler.

 

[D Halas]

I'll bite - what are people's opinions on a Blue-winged and Golden-winged Warbler lump, and is it likely to ever go through? If it does, what would the common name be?

Based on what happens when you mix blue and gold, I would suggest Green-winged Warbler.

 

[Paul Clapham]

This would be like having a a general thread like this in the birding forum, which is described as "A space for general taxonomy discussion, queries, questions, comments, etc"

As I pointed out in the other thread, it's inevitable in forums with a close-knit group of members to spend time just BS-ing. Andy A took umbrage at that observation but that's what happened over there. So if the BS-ing can be moved over here, that might be a good idea. Even though the thread title doesn't explicitly mention BS.

 

[pbjosh]

I'll bite - what are people's opinions on a Blue-winged and Golden-winged Warbler lump, and is it likely to ever go through? If it does, what would the common name be?

My take is similar to Paul's - good species with a defined hybrid zone that isn't increasing, indicating that the hybrids are not as fit / able to compete to breed over the entire range of either parent species. To some degree similar to cases like Hermit / Townsend's Warbler, Blue-winged / Cinnamon Teal, etc. Interestingly there are then species with greater genetic distances between populations / subspecies but that do freely interbreed with no apparent fitness penalty for the offspring when the different groups / subspecies come into contact (Short-tailed Albatross comes to mind).

I think a more interesting case that really is at the border and is perhaps more likely to be lumped or at least more critically examined is Gilded Flicker.

And on the flip side, you get some cases where they are close to being separated but perhaps there's not quite enough evidence yet or perhaps the case isn't quite strong enough - Northern Pygmy-Owl (more evidence needed but Guatemalan could be split now I feel) and White-breasted Nuthatch (I don't pretend to understand this one well enough).

And keeping it to a nearctic scope, I think the one that is most screaming for a lump (beyond the Redpolls) is Cassia Crossbill. The Crossbills are super cool. The research into them is super cool. I don't think the split was warranted. Fight me if you disagree

 

[Xenospiza]

I'll bite - what are people's opinions on a Blue-winged and Golden-winged Warbler lump, and is it likely to ever go through? If it does, what would the common name be?

I think this pair is a nice example of how a minimal difference in genes can still lead to two well-defined taxa.
Lumping them requires ignoring all differences that you (and the warblers) would observe in the field.

A somewhat different example are the yellow wagtails. Currently, all major checklists treat these as two polymorhic species based on mtDNA.
But if you look at a different set of genes, this single constant difference disappears (Per Alström is working on this).
There are however have rather well-defined, although intergrading, taxa with different male plumages and recognisable calls. Funnily the calls also seem to be intermediate where they meet.
So I'd be in favour of either lumping them all, or split them into (obviously quite recent) species, as already done on the Dutch checklist.

 

[Steve Lister]

Based on what happens when you mix blue and gold, I would suggest Green-winged Warbler.

Or, making full use of hyphens, Blue-or-golden-winged Warbler'.

 

[l_raty]

A somewhat different example are the yellow wagtails. Currently, all major checklists treat these as two polymorhic species based on mtDNA.
But if you look at a different set of genes, this single constant difference disappears (Per Alström is working on this).
There are however have rather well-defined, although intergrading, taxa with different male plumages and recognisable calls. Funnily the calls also seem to be intermediate where they meet.
So I'd be in favour of either lumping them all, or split them into (obviously quite recent) species, as already done on the Dutch checklist.

I think one reason why the two way-split became so widely accepted was because it was actually based on both mtDNA and (limited) nuDNA (CHD1Z sequences -- see Ödeen & Björklund 2003, Mol. Ecol.,12: 2113-2130) data -- both of which appeared to show that Motacilla flava was not monophyletic if macronyx, taivana and tschutschensis were included.
However, more recent genome-wide SNP data in Harris, Alström, Ödeen & Leaché 2018, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 120: 183-195 were found to support the monophyly of the traditional broad M. flava.

 

[cajanuma]

I think this pair is a nice example of how a minimal difference in genes can still lead to two well-defined taxa.
Lumping them requires ignoring all differences that you (and the warblers) would observe in the field.

A somewhat different example are the yellow wagtails. Currently, all major checklists treat these as two polymorhic species based on mtDNA.
But if you look at a different set of genes, this single constant difference disappears (Per Alström is working on this).
There are however have rather well-defined, although intergrading, taxa with different male plumages and recognisable calls. Funnily the calls also seem to be intermediate where they meet.
So I'd be in favour of either lumping them all, or split them into (obviously quite recent) species, as already done on the Dutch checklist.

There's a really cool recent video presentation by Per Alstrom where he discusses, among many other things, the yellow wagtail situation:

(yellow wagtails starting at 48:40)

The classifications based on mtDNA (at 50:08) don't seem to make much sense though, as they include Eastern Yellow Wagtail in a clade with the white/pied wagtails, and Western Yellow Wagtails in a different clade altogether. What's worse, one ssp of Citrine Wagtail is in the former clade, and another in the latter! The genome-wide analysis (50:58) makes far more sense. The potential area of intergadation between Eastern and Western Yellow Wagtails in Russia is huge and very poorly explored, so drawing any conclusions on reproductive isolation would be very challenging.

One thing I can say is that if you look through any migrant flock of yellow wagtails in southern Italy in spring, the proportion of individuals with a 'textbook' phenotype for any of the regularly occurring subspecies (mostly flava, thunbergi, cinereocapilla, and feldegg) will be pretty small

 

[l_raty]

If it does, what would the common name be?

"Winged warbler" would be consistent with Tringa spp (i.e., redshanks + greenshanks) having been called 'shanks' and Regulus spp (i.e., goldcrests + firecrests) having been called 'crests' in recent times...

 

[Xenospiza]

There's a really cool recent video presentation by Per Alstrom where he discusses, among many other things, the yellow wagtail situation

Yes, that's my source, haha!

 

[Acanthis]

There's a really cool recent video presentation by Per Alstrom where he discusses, among many other things, the yellow wagtail situation:

(yellow wagtails starting at 48:40)

The classifications based on mtDNA (at 50:08) don't seem to make much sense though, as they include Eastern Yellow Wagtail in a clade with the white/pied wagtails, and Western Yellow Wagtails in a different clade altogether. What's worse, one ssp of Citrine Wagtail is in the former clade, and another in the latter! The genome-wide analysis (50:58) makes far more sense. The potential area of intergadation between Eastern and Western Yellow Wagtails in Russia is huge and very poorly explored, so drawing any conclusions on reproductive isolation would be very challenging.

One thing I can say is that if you look through any migrant flock of yellow wagtails in southern Italy in spring, the proportion of individuals with a 'textbook' phenotype for any of the regularly occurring subspecies (mostly flava, thunbergi, cinereocapilla, and feldegg) will be pretty small

I will watch this when I find time.
All you youngsters have no idea how weird in hindsight bird books were 50 years ago🤣