Latest IOC Diary Updates (18 Viewers)

[gusasp]

A few taxonomic updates not mentioned in the diary:

* Ichthyophaga is reinstated as a genus for Lesser and Grey-headed Fish Eagles and is expanded to include four other species formerly attributed to Haliaeetus to better align with genetic data revealing two deeply divergent clades within Haliaeetus s.l. (Mindell et al. 2018).

* The linear sequence of Ciconiidae is revised to follow the phylogenetic analysis of de Sousa et al. (2023).

* Revise sequence of Aquilinae (Stephanoaetusthrough Aquila) based on Lerner et al. (2017).

* Resurrect monospecific Sigelus for Fiscal Flycatcher which, along with Silverbird and Herero Chat, form a polytypic clade that is sister to Melaenorniss.s. Treat each within its own monospecific genus (Voelker et al. 2016).

* Reassign Mountain Robin-Chat from Cossyphato Cossyphiculabased on phylogenetic analysis which shows it sister to Cossyphicula roberti (Zhao M et al. 2023). See also Beresford (2003).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

A few taxonomic updates not mentioned in the diary:

* Ichthyophaga is reinstated as a genus for Lesser and Grey-headed Fish Eagles and is expanded to include four other species formerly attributed to Haliaeetus to better align with genetic data revealing two deeply divergent clades within Haliaeetus s.l. (Mindell et al. 2018).

Excellent news !

* Resurrect monospecific Sigelus for Fiscal Flycatcher which, along with Silverbird and Herero Chat, form a polytypic clade that is sister to Melaenorniss.s. Treat each within its own monospecific genus (Voelker et al. 2016).

Me who would think that they would put all in Melaenornis

 

[l_raty]

* Ichthyophaga is reinstated as a genus for Lesser and Grey-headed Fish Eagles and is expanded to include four other species formerly attributed to Haliaeetus to better align with genetic data revealing two deeply divergent clades within Haliaeetus s.l. (Mindell et al. 2018).

Is there a rationale to use "Ichthyophaga", rather than the original spelling ?

 

[Mike Earp]

Is there a rationale to use "Ichthyophaga", rather than the original spelling ?

This article (available here) is presumably relevant to use of the original spelling (Icthyophaga).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I haven't seen it but this article is presumably relevant to use of the original spelling (Icthyophaga).

I use this spelling

 

[david kelly]

Is there a rationale to use "Ichthyophaga", rather than the original spelling ?

I may be being a little "hard of understanding" here but the paper quoted still includes the Ichthyophaga fish eagles within Haliaeetus and I can't find any mention of moving species from Haliaeetus to Ichthyophaga.

David

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I may be being a little "hard of understanding" here but the paper quoted still includes the Ichthyophaga fish eagles within Haliaeetus and I can't find any mention of moving species from Haliaeetus to Ichthyophaga.

David

Only Tif checklist did it in my knowledge

 

[l_raty]

I use this spelling

So does BirdLife.

 

[david kelly]

Only Tif checklist did it in my knowledge

TiF Checklist: AFROAVES I: Coliiformes and Accipitrimorphae — Vultures and Hawks

Avian Taxonomy

jboyd.net

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

Apr 11 Post proposal to lump Desert Whitethroat and Hume's Whitethroat with Lesser Whitethroat.

Apr 11 Revise parrotbill genera to follow Cai et al. (2019).

 

[gusasp]

Apr 11 Post proposal to lump Desert Whitethroat and Hume's Whitethroat with Lesser Whitethroat.

Finally! ;-)

 

[gusasp]

Only Tif checklist did it in my knowledge

Which makes it a weird move by IOC. I thought they were in the converging process, hence why warranted but novel (in the major checklists) changes are put on hold. At least that's what's been said why for instance Charadrius is not split up, despite strong support for it being VERY paraphyletic. This, however, introduces a new arrangement not present in the Big Four.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Which makes it a weird move by IOC. I thought they were in the converging process, hence why warranted but novel (in the major checklists) changes are put on hold. At least that's what's been said why for instance Charadrius is not split up, despite strong support for it being VERY paraphyletic. This, however, introduces a new arrangement not present in the Big Four.

I think they are waiting for a full revision of Charadriiformes because there is work to do.

 

[l_raty]

Icthyophaga

Icthyophaga Lesson 1843 1843 pt.1 (1843) - L'Écho du monde savant et l'Hermès - Biodiversity Heritage Library : this was a new name for "Icthyaëtus, La Fresn." = Ichthyetus Lafresnaye 1841, deemed preoccupied by a name authored by Kaup in 1829, i.e., Ichthyaetus Kaup 1829 c. 1 - Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte und natürliches System der europäischen Thierwelt - Biodiversity Heritage Library / c. 1 - Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte und natürliches System der europäischen Thierwelt - Biodiversity Heritage Library (Laridae).
The name was originally spelled Icthyophaga and "Icthyiophaga" by Lesson; Richmond 1917 v.53=no.2194-2222 (1917) [Lacks:Pl.52] - Proceedings of the United States National Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library is deemed to have given preference to the spelling Icthyophaga over "Icthyiophaga". (The latter was not used as valid a single time since the publication of the OD, anyway.)

Ichthyetus Lafresnaye 1841 Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle : the type of this nominal genus was "le Falco ichthyetus d'Horsfield" = Falco ichthyaetus Horsfield 1824, by monotypy. Being a replacement for Lafresnaye's name, Icthyophaga Lesson 1843 inherits this type.

(Note that Ichthyetus Lafresnaye 1841 is not actually preoccupied (i.e., it is not homonymous with Kaup's Ichthyaetus under current rules); however, it doesn't appear to have been used after 1899, while Ic(h)thyophaga was used quite widely over the last 50 years. Ichthyetus should thus not be used to displace Icthyophaga, as per ICZN 23.9.1. (Ideally, this situation should be enshrined by making Ichthyetus a nomen oblitum relative to Icthyophaga through a published act under 23.9.2. This has not been done yet, though, hence Ichthyetus can not be called a nomen oblitum at this point.))

Icthyophaga was first spelled "Ichthyophaga" by Stuart Baker in 1927 v.47=no.308-316 (1926-1927) - Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club - Biodiversity Heritage Library ; but Baker did not make the change of spelling demonstrably intentional at this point, hence his use of this spelling must be regarded as an error. The first demonstrably intentional use of the emended spelling may indeed have been by Stresemann 1979 v.1:ed.2 (1979) - Check-list of birds of the world - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Meanwhile, Ichthyophaga had been proposed by Syromyatnikova 1949 Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR for a genus of platyhelminth worms. Syromyatnikova's name is in use, hence insisting on the use of the emended spelling for the bird genus is disruptive to Platyhelminthes nomenclature.
Both spellings are in use for the bird genus. If anything, the proportion of ornithologists who used the OS may have tended to increase in recent years : at this point, I see no compelling reasons to maintain the emendation.
(But every acceptation of the emended spelling as valid may arguably make the situation muddier.)

(BirdLife and H&M both use the name and spell it Icthyophaga; Clements doesn't use it, making it a synonym of Haliaeetus; IOC will thus, from now on, be the only one of the 4 world checklists to use the emended "Ichthyophaga".)

 

[mb1848]

The Lesson 1843 link did not work for me. Heres hoping mine works.
1843 pt.1 (1843) - L'Écho du monde savant et l'Hermès - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[l_raty]

The Lesson 1843 link did not work for me. Heres hoping mine works.
1843 pt.1 (1843) - L'Écho du monde savant et l'Hermès - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

My fault, sorry -- an additional dot had been added in the url by accident, and I didn't notice it.
(I'm not home, working on an old laptop, that behaves oddly at times.)
I corrected it in my post too.

 

[opisska]

Finally! ;-)

Solves a lot of problems for anyone who ever visited Arabia, us included

 

[thyoloalethe]

Icthyophaga was first spelled "Ichthyophaga" by Stuart Baker in 1927 v.47=no.308-316 (1926-1927) - Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club - Biodiversity Heritage Library ; but Baker did not make the change of spelling demonstrably intentional at this point, hence his use of this spelling must be regarded as an error. The first demonstrably intentional use of the emended spelling may indeed have been by Stresemann 1979 v.1:ed.2 (1979) - Check-list of birds of the world - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Meanwhile, Ichthyophaga had been proposed by Syromyatnikova 1949 Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR for a genus of platyhelminth worms. Syromyatnikova's name is in use, hence insisting on the use of the emended spelling for the bird genus is disruptive to Platyhelminthes nomenclature.
Both spellings are in use for the bird genus. If anything, the proportion of ornithologists who used the OS may have tended to increase in recent years : at this point, I see no compelling reasons to maintain the emendation.
(But every acceptation of the emended spelling as valid may arguably make the situation muddier.)

I found the following paper:

Williams E.H., Bunkley-Williams L. An unnecessary replacement name for Ichthyophaga Syromiatnikova 1949 (Platyhelminthes: Prolecithophora) under Article 56.2; and an unnecessary emendation under Article 33.2.3 and the correct spelling of Icthyophaga Lesson 1843 (Aves: Accipitridae). The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 74(1):136-137 (2017). https://doi.org/10.21805/bzn.v74.a037

I can't access it myself, but presumably they make the same argument you do.

 

[mb1848]

Great. The paper is available on Researchgate. Laurent's post hits all the points. Murray Bruce The genera of birds 2023 discusses this paper on page 25.

 

[l_raty]

All BZN issues are in principle freely available online. Older issues (up to vol. 64, published in 2007) are on BHL, the more recent ones are on BioTaxa.
This paper : https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/32957