Latest IOC Diary Updates (3 Viewers)

[Markus Lagerqvist]

Nov 17 Revise linear sequence of genera and species within Scolopacidae.
The linear sequence of genera and species within Scolopacidae is revised based on phylogenetic analysis (Černý and Natale 2022).

 

[Swindon Addick]

This is what Clements had to say about their version of this change:

"Taxa 5975–6199: The linear sequence of the Scolopacidae is modified following the phylogeny of Černý and Natale (2022). In this newly modified sequence, major changes include that Prosobonia and Arenaria are deeply diverged but evidently sister taxa to Calidris, which, as the most derived clade of Scolopacidae, is now placed at the end of that family. The position in the phylogeny of Černý and Natale (2022) of Lymnocryptes minimus as deeply diverged sister to Scolopax rather than to Scolopacinae requires further corroboration before adoption, as these authors note. Scolopax minor is a deeply diverged sister to the Old World S. rusticola/mira clade and is thus placed first. Generic-level relationships within Gallinago and Coenocorypha, particularly involving imperialis and undulatus, remain to be clarified in a future study. Minor resequencing within core Scolopax brings the sequence closer to that in Černý and Natale (2022) and accords with geographical sequencing convention. Xenus was found to be a deeply diverged sister to Actitis, which was sister to the Phalaropus + Tringa clade (Černý and Natale 2022), and minor resequencing within core Tringa reconciles the sequence with that in Černý and Natale (2022)."

The actual revised list is in the October 2023 Clements spreadsheet and I guess we'd have been told if the IOC interpretation was different?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This is what Clements had to say about their version of this change:

"as these authors note. Scolopax minor is a deeply diverged sister to the Old World S. rusticola/mira clade and is thus placed first.

Which suggests that minor could be isolated in the genus Philohela Gray, 1841 or Microptera Nuttall, 1832 [1834]

 

[l_raty]

Minor resequencing within core Scolopax

= core Gallinago ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The taxonomy section has:

Petrochelidon fuliginosa

Forest Swallow

Atronanus fuliginosus

PHY, TAX

Forest Swallow was formerly placed in Petrochelidon as P. fuliginosa. However, a new monotypic genus proposed for it: Atronanus de Silva et al., 2018, is tentatively adopted here to align with BirdLife and Clements (2023) but the new genus lacks Zoobank registration. Note gender.

Taxonomic Updates – IOC World Bird List

One of the authors should be warned to publish their name in a journal that makes Zoobank registration

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Hemixos leucogrammicus

Cream-striped Bulbul

Ixos leucogrammicus

TAX

Cream-striped Bulbul was previously tentatively placed in Hemixos with reservations (Shakya & Sheldon 2017). But because this species is a deep lineage without close relatives, it is tentatively moved to Ixos based on some similarities in plumage with other species in that genus, essentially as a placeholder, following WGAC 761.

Implied : a new genus is needed

 

[l_raty]

Implied : a new genus is needed

Jha et al 2021 recovered this species as the sister group of a clade made of Hemixos, Hypsipetes and Ixos.

(To be frank, this looks like a wholly unnecessarily disruptive move to me. The species was described in Ixos in 1836, but had not been placed in this genus for ages. Up to now, searching on two different combinations (Pycnonotus, Hemixos) was necessary to find modern data relating to it -- from now on, three will be needed. For what gain ? If a "place holder" was needed, why not use one of the two genera in which it had been recently placed ?)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

If a "place holder" was needed, why not use one of the two genera in which it had been recently placed ?)

Biscotte Bonapartia tympanistriga (never sampled). They don't take risks if it's a temporary placement

 

[l_raty]

They don't take risks if it's a temporary placement

Well, if this creates what is essentially a new combination so far as the modern literature is concerned, the action is definitely disruptive, and definitely irreversible. (There are no 'risks' at play in this.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Well, if this creates what is essentially a new combination so far as the modern literature is concerned, the action is definitely disruptive, and definitely irreversible. (There are no 'risks' at play in this.)

The bird seems to be a combination, a mix of several other species and you know that in taxonomy, nothing is really definitive

 

[gusasp]

Nov 17 Revise linear sequence of genera and species within Glareolidae.
The linear sequence of genera and species within Glareolidae is revised to better align with the phylogeny in Černý and Natale (2022).

Nov 18 Revise linear sequence of genera and species in Ardeidae.
Revise linear sequence of genera and species in Ardeidae based on Hruska et al. (2023).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Nov 17 Revise linear sequence of genera and species within Glareolidae.
The linear sequence of genera and species within Glareolidae is revised to better align with the phylogeny in Černý and Natale (2022).

What's the best generic alignment?

 

[Swindon Addick]

What's the best generic alignment?

I don't know what IOC have decided (the wording seems to hint it's not identical to Clements) but here's what Clements 2023 says for what it's worth (I think 6215 is a typo for 6315 or possibly 6314):

Taxa 6268–6215: The linear sequence of Glareolidae as in Clements et al. (2023) may require change to present the genera in the order Glareola, Cursorius, and Rhinoptilus, according to the phylogeny of Černý and Natale (2022).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't know what IOC have decided (the wording seems to hint it's not identical to Clements) but here's what Clements 2023 says for what it's worth (I think 6215 is a typo for 6315 or possibly 6314):

Boyd used Figures A.5 and A.7 of Supplemental which show a polyphyletic Glareola, which prompted him to resurrect the genera Subglareola and Galachrysia.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Guys, again, a polite request, open a new thread for such deep conversations, that isn't why I started this thread.

Every time you do this, actual decisions on splits and lumps, are lost in pages of debate and discussion which is beyond most non professionals..

Perhaps I should start a new thread, simply 'IOC splits and lumps' which is what I intended and you guys can keep this one?

 

[Ian Lewis]

Guys, again, a polite request, open a new thread for such deep conversations, that isn't why I started this thread.

Every time you do this, actual decisions on splits and lumps, are lost in pages of debate and discussion which is beyond most non professionals..

Perhaps I should start a new thread, simply 'IOC splits and lumps' which is what I intended and you guys can keep this one?

But as we know David Donkser reads this thread, isn't feedback from those with specialised knowledge useful to the IOC's decision making process?

 

[THE_FERN]

But as we know David Donkser reads this thread, isn't feedback from those with specialised knowledge useful to the IOC's decision making process?

Why not start a new thread for in-depth and then link to it here...

(Meanwhile, in case someone's listening... just to say linear sequences are pointless, and please stop randomly changing English names: they do/should not have to reflect taxonomy)

 

[Andy Adcock]

But as we know David Donkser reads this thread, isn't feedback from those with specialised knowledge useful to the IOC's decision making process?

I'm sure that David is more than capable of reading across two threads so for those requiring a deeper, scientific insight, the option is there without the rest of us plebs having to wade through it.

 

[DDonsker]

But as we know David Donkser reads this thread, isn't feedback from those with specialised knowledge useful to the IOC's decision making process?

There's no question that the discussions by participants with specialized or deeper knowledge of a given subject are extremely helpful (vital in many instances) in pointing out errors and lapses or offering different perspectives and interpretations. It's also encouraging to hear the support when we get things right!

Doesn't matter too much where the discussions are parked. We read them all.

Many thanks.

David

 

[Mysticete]

Why not start a new thread for in-depth and then link to it here...

(Meanwhile, in case someone's listening... just to say linear sequences are pointless, and please stop randomly changing English names: they do/should not have to reflect taxonomy)

if you have a list of things, the list by its very nature...of being a list...has to have some order. And that order is going to change as you split/lump species/genera/families/etc.