Lynx - Bird Families of the World (2 Viewers)

[l_raty]

New taxa

Chaetopidae Fjeldså et al. 2015
OD Fjeldså J, Ericson PGP, Johanson U, Zuccon D. 2015. Three new bird family names. Pp. 33-34 in: Winkler DW, Billerman SM, Lovette IJ (Eds). Bird families of the world. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
page 33
OS Chaetopidae
OR family
type genus Chaetops Swainson 1832; type species by original designation Chaetops Burchelli Swainson 1831, now in the synonymy of Malurus frenatus Temminck, 1826, now Chaetops frenatus; in use; stem under Art.29.3 (χαιτη, -ης, hair + ωψ, ωπος, face) Chaetop-.
OD type genus: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41549931
OD type species: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41549931

Hylocitreidae Fjeldså et al. 2015
OD Fjeldså J, Ericson PGP, Johanson U, Zuccon D. 2015. Three new bird family names. Pp. 33-34 in: Winkler DW, Billerman SM, Lovette IJ (Eds). Bird families of the world. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
page 33
OS Hylocitreidae
OR family
type genus Hylocitrea Mathews 1925; type species by original designation Pachycephala bonthaina Meyer & Wigglesworth 1896 (now Hylocitrea bonensis bonthaina); in use; stem under Art.29.3 (possibly ὑλη, -ης, woodland + genus Tchitrea Lesson, on the model of Muscitrea Blyth) Hylocitre-.
OD type genus http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40498932
OD type species http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33471072

Modulatricidae Fjeldså et al. 2015
OD Fjeldså J, Ericson PGP, Johanson U, Zuccon D. 2015. Three new bird family names. Pp. 33-34 in: Winkler DW, Billerman SM, Lovette IJ (Eds). Bird families of the world. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
page 34
OS Modulatricidae
OR family
type genus Modulatrix Ripley 1852; type species by original designation Turdinus stictigula Reichenow 1906; in use; stem under Art.29.3 (modulatrix, -icis, she that regulates) Modulatric-.
OD type genus http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40498932
OD type species http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33471072

 

[lewis20126]

1. Loxia curvirostra Common Crossbill
2. Loxia pusilla Red Crossbill
3. Loxia leucoptera White-winged Crossbill
4. Loxia bifasciata Two-barred Crossbill
5. Loxia megaplaga Hispaniola Crossbill

...?

Well would make more sense than the status quo, but I think the status quo is what we will get. Parrot will presumably get waved through on the basis of sympatry (score 7) with Common.

cheers, alan

 

[Ian Lewis]

Another family that puzzles me in this book is Phylloscopidae. it gives:

Rhadina 3sp, example given - Wood Warbler (presume the two Bonelli's are the other two)
Abrornis 9sp, example given Pallas' Leaf Warbler
Phylloscopus 15 sp (!) example Common Chiffchaff
Seicercus 43 sp example White-spectacled Warbler.

So obviously mant sp have been moved from Phlyloscopus (66 sp IOC) to Seicercus (11 sp IOC) but that still only gives 70 sp in the family compared to 77 by IOC.

So it might be that Illustrated Checklist vol 2 is far from the tick fest we expected and is more of a lump fest.

As I work through the book I'm sure that I (and others) will find simillar examples in other families.

Ian

 

[l_raty]

H&M4: Rhadina 3 spp; Abrornis 10 spp; Phylloscopus 16 spp; Seicercus 48 spp.
This is presumably the source for generic limits.

Are there good reasons to assume a connection between the numbers in this book and the Checklist?

 

[Mysticete]

Another family that puzzles me in this book is Phylloscopidae. it gives:

Rhadina 3sp, example given - Wood Warbler (presume the two Bonelli's are the other two)
Abrornis 9sp, example given Pallas' Leaf Warbler
Phylloscopus 15 sp (!) example Common Chiffchaff
Seicercus 43 sp example White-spectacled Warbler.

So obviously mant sp have been moved from Phlyloscopus (66 sp IOC) to Seicercus (11 sp IOC) but that still only gives 70 sp in the family compared to 77 by IOC.

So it might be that Illustrated Checklist vol 2 is far from the tick fest we expected and is more of a lump fest.

As I work through the book I'm sure that I (and others) will find simillar examples in other families.

Ian

The scoring system perhaps having difficulty recognizing cryptic species that largely differ in voice? How do Empidonax flycatchers compare?

 

[Richard Klim]

Are there good reasons to assume a connection between the numbers in this book and the Checklist?

Probably not. But the non-reciprocal relationship between this book and the HBW/BirdLife Checklist does seem a little strange. The Checklist explicitly cites Bird Families of the World as its macrosystematic reference...

For this checklist, however, rather than following a recently published classification, we adopt—so far as possible, although minor discrepancies may occur owing to the time lag between the three publications involved—one that will appear in due course in Bird Families of the World: a Guide to the Spectacular Diversity of Birds (Winkler et al. in prep.). Because this book will provide a comprehensive, current interpretation of systematic findings, covering each of the 35 avian orders and more than 230 avian families, we make no attempt here to offer an explanation of or commentary on macrosystematic relationships.

And yet Bird Families (admittedly not published under the HBW 'brand') apparently treats H&M4 as the most authoritative source for species-level taxonomy.

Given that the book has been co-published by Lynx and Cornell, perhaps H&M was seen as a neutral alternative to HBW/BirdLife or eBird/Clements for species-level taxonomy – although the reliance on H&M may simply have been dictated by the non-availability of the revised HBW/BirdLife passerine taxonomy at the time of writing...

PS. Or maybe this book has effectively revealed that the HBW/BirdLife genus/species-level passerine taxonomy will be close to H&M4...

 

[l_raty]

Picoides 10 spp, Dendropicos 17 spp, Leiopicus 3 spp, Dryobates 6 spp, Leuconotopicus 6 spp, Veniliornis 14 spp, Dendrocopos 13 spp: at least this is identical to HBW-Alive.

(The illustrated example of Dendropicos Malherbe 1849 being pyrrhogaster, now the type species of Chloropicus Malherbe 1845... :smoke

 

[Richard Klim]

Is there nothing in the introductory sections explicitly stating the source of these lists of genera with very exact numbers of species (especially for passerines)?

 

[l_raty]

Yes, I had overlooked it at first, but there is this:

The red bar and group names. At the head of every family account is the order (and subgroup if appropriate) to which the family belongs, followed immediately by a red bar containing, on the far right, the number of genera and species in the family. These numbers reflect the numbers in the HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklists of the Birds of the World.

The numbers of species for each genus, OTOH, appear only on the plates, which show one sample species per genus. The source for these numbers doesn't seem to be given, so far as I have found up to now. But it will presumably be the same.

 

[Richard Klim]

Yes, I had overlooked it at first, but there is this...

OK, so it's hopefully giving a genuine preview of the Dec 2016 (?) HBW/BirdLife passerine taxonomy (although presumably still a work in progress).

 

[Melanie]

Eupetidae and Cinclosomatidae.

Are these families lumped as in HBW 12 or are they splitted?

And what about Drepanididae. It is still treated as family?

 

[l_raty]

Cinclosomatidae include Ptilorrhoa (4 spp) and Cinclosoma (5 spp).
Eupetidae include Eupetes (1 sp)
Drepanini (15 genera, 26 spp) are a tribe within subfamily Carduelinae, family Fringillidae.

The generic compositions and numbers of species evidently take only extant taxa into account. (E.g., 'I'iwi being in Vestiaria, Drepanini does not [explicitly] include the genus Drepanis.)


Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), the work entirely lacks nomenclatural details.

(Cinclosomatidae is attributed by Bock 1994 to "Mathews GM. 1921-22. The birds of Australia. Volume 9. Part 4. Witherby, London.", which I have not seen. Original Spelling Cinclosomatidae; Original Rank family. This part was published in Oct 1921 according to the review in Ibis. The name may have been introduced in a slightly odd way if we are to believe the [review in Auk], however.
Eupetidae is by Bonaparte 1850 (OS Eupetinae; OR subfamily).
Drepanidini is by Cabanis 1847 (OS Drepaninae; OR subfamily). The OS was made incorrect by ICZN 1961 (Opinion 610) and ICZN 1976 (Opinion 1046): it must be corrected to the linguistically better Drepanidinae (and stands with this spelling on the Official List) to avoid conflict with Drepanidae Boisduval 1828, type genus Drepana Schrank 1802 (Lepidoptera). Using "Drepanini" is not an option.
Carduelinae is by Vigors 1825 (OS Carduelina; OR subfamily).
Fringillidae is by Leach 1819 (in the 15th ed. of the Synopsis, not in the 17th ed. of 1820 as per Bock) (OS Fringillidae, OR family).)

 

[Richard Klim]

OK, so it's hopefully giving a genuine preview of the Dec 2016 (?) HBW/BirdLife passerine taxonomy (although presumably still a work in progress).

Although the numbers of species presumably reflect an early draft version of Illustrated Checklist vol 2, it would be interesting to compare the total number of passerine species with BirdLife Checklist v8 (5,912 extant + 41 extinct spp) and HBW (6,008 extant spp). It might give some broad indication of the level of splitting/lumping to be expected...

[See also my earlier musings on the subject: www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3261543&postcount=17.]

 

[Murray Lord]

If anyone could send me a scan of the list of families in this book I would appreciate it. [Having paid for all 17 volumes of HBW I don't feel shy about asking for this, I don't want to spend more money for a condensed copy of what I already have!]

 

[Melanie]

If anyone could send me a scan of the list of families in this book I would appreciate it. [Having paid for all 17 volumes of HBW I don't feel shy about asking for this, I don't want to spend more money for a condensed copy of what I already have!]

Bird Families of the World is merely orienting on the IOC family list with some exceptions, e.g. Modulatricidae is given priority over Arcanatoridae, as Modulatrix is the type species of this family.

 

[l_raty]

'Arcanatoridae' has--so far as I can assess--never been made an available name in any publication. Formally, this name just doesn't exist.

Modulatricidae is described here as a new family. It includes the genera Modulatrix, Arcanator and Kakamega, among which the authors chose Modulatrix to be the type genus.
They commented that 'Modulatricidae' had been suggested for this group, though not made available, by Fjeldså & Bowie 2008 [pdf] (which is correct), and had been mentioned again by Alström et al. 2014 [pdf] (but, so far as I can see, Alström et al. 2014 only used Arcanatoridae, for one of the terminals of the tree on their Fig.2). They did not mention any use of 'Arcanatoridae' by IOC or anybody else.

 

[l_raty]

For Murray (albeit it's not really a scan) and Richard (I have added the numbers of genera:species in each family in parentheses).
I just typed it on the fly while looking at the front and back endpapers, so can't really guarantee it is free of typos. (If you spot one, please, shout. [So that I can also correct my own .ods file.])

Struthionidae (1:2)
Rheidae (1:3)
Tinamidae (9:48)
Casuariidae (2:4)
Apterygidae (1:5)
Megapodiidae (7:21)
Cracidae (11:56)
Numididae (4:8)
Odontophoridae (10:35)
Phasianidae (51:187)
Anhimidae (2:3)
Anseranatidae (1:1)
Anatidae (52:165)
Podicipedidae (6:20)
Phoenicopteridae (3:6)
Columbidae (49:351)
Mesitornithidae (2:3)
Pteroclidae (2:16)
Steatornithidae (1:1)
Nyctibiidae (1:7)
Podargidae (3:14)
Caprimulgidae (20:98)
Aegothelidae (1:10)
Hemiprocnidae (1:4)
Apodidae (19:96)
Trochilidae (104:363)
Cuculidae (36:149)
Musophagidae (7:24)
Otididae (12:26)
Opisthocomidae (1:1)
Heliornithidae (3:3)
Sarothruridae (3:12)
Rallidae (36:131)
Psophiidae (1:6)
Aramidae (1:1)
Gruidae (6:15)
Burhinidae (2:10)
Chionidae (1:2)
Pluvianellidae (1:1)
Pluvianidae (1:1)
Haematopodidae (1:9)
Ibidorhynchidae (1:1)
Recurvirostridae (3:7)
Charadriidae (12:71)
Pedionomidae (1:1)
Thinocoridae (2:4)
Rostratulidae (2:3)
Jacanidae (6:8)
Scolopacidae (16:91)
Turnicidae (2:18)
Dromadidae (1:1)
Glareolidae (5:17)
Laridae (21:101)
Stercorariidae (2:7)
Alcidae (10:24)
Rhynochetidae (1:1)
Eurypygidae (1:1)
Phaethontidae (1:3)
Gaviidae (1:5)
Sphenicidae (6:18)
Oceanitidae (5:9)
Diomedeidae (4:22)
Hydrobatidae (1:15)
Procellariidae (16:93)
Ciconiidae (6:20)
Fregatidae (1:5)
Sulidae (3:10)
Phalacrocoracidae (2:34)
Anhingidae (1:4)
Threskiornithidae (14:35)
Ardeidae (18:64)
Scopidae (1:1)
Balaenicipitidae (1:1)
Pelecanidae (1:8)
Cathartidae (5:7)
Sagittariidae (1:1)
Pandionidae (1:1)
Accipitridae (69:248)
Strigidae (26:220)
Tytonidae (2:16)
Coliidae (2:6)
Leptosomidae (1:1)
Trogonidae (8:43)
Bucerotidae (16:62)
Upupidae (1:2)
Phoeniculidae (2:8)
Meropidae (3:31)
Coraciidae (2:13)
Brachypteraciidae (4:5)
Todidae (1:5)
Momotidae (6:14)
Alcedinidae (19:120)
Galbulidae (5:19)
Bucconidae (12:38)
Capitonidae (2:18)
Ramphastidae (5:50)
Semnornithidae (1:2)
Lybiidae (10:52)
Megalaimidae (2:35)
Indicatoridae (4:16)
Picidae (33:254)
Cariamidae (2:2)
Falconidae (11:64)
Strigopidae (2:3)
Cacatuidae (7:21)
Psittacidae (79:374)
Acanthisittidae (2:2)
Pittidae (3:30)
Philepittidae (2:4)
Eurylaimidae (7:9)
Sapayoidae (1:1)
Calyptomenidae (2:6)
Thamnophilidae (59:217)
Conopophagidae (2:10)
Melanopareiidae (1:4)
Grallariidae (4:51)
Rhinocryptidae (12:59)
Formicariidae (1:12)
Furnariidae (68:296)
Pipridae (17:51)
Cotingidae (25:65)
Tityridae (11:38)
Tyrannidae (101:410)
Menuridae (1:2)
Atrichornithidae (1:2)
Ptilonorhynchidae (8:20)
Climacteridae (2:7)
Maluridae (6:27)
Dasyornithidae (1:3)
Meliphagidae (50:180)
Pardalotidae (1:4)
Acanthizidae (13:64)
Orthonychidae (1:3)
Pomatostomidae (2:5)
Mohouidae (2:3)
Eulacestomidae (1:1)
Neosittidae (1:2)
Oriolidae (3:32)
Paramythiidae (2:2)
Oreoicidae (3:3)
Cinclosomatidae (2:9)
Falcunculidae (1:1)
Pachycephalidae (5:43)
Psophodidae (2:5)
Vireonidae (6:58)
Campephagidae (11:82)
Rhagologidae (1:1)
Artamidae (6:23)
Machaerirhynchidae (1:2)
Vangidae (21:37)
Platysteiridae (4:28)
Aegithinidae (1:4)
Pityriasidae (1:1)
Malaconotidae (9:48)
Rhipiduridae (3:45)
Dicruridae (1:25)
Ifritidae (1:1)
Monarchidae (16:86)
Platylophidae (1:1)
Laniidae (4:31)
Corvidae (21:123)
Melampittidae (2:2)
Corcoracidae (2:2)
Paradisaeidae (13:39)
Callaeidae (2:3)
Notiomystidae (1:1)
Melanocharitidae (4:10)
Cnemophilidae (2:3)
Picathartidae (1:2)
Eupetidae (1:1)
Chaetopidae (1:2)
Petroicidae (20:46)
Hyliotidae (1:4)
Stenostiridae (4:9)
Paridae (14:57)
Remizidae (3:11)
Alaudidae (21:95)
Panuridae (1:1)
Nicatoridae (1:3)
Macrosphenidae (6:18)
Cisticolidae (27:154)
Acrocephalidae (6:53)
Pnoepygidae (1:4)
Locustellidae (13:57)
Donacobiidae (1:1)
Bernieridae (8:11)
Hirundinidae (20:83)
Pycnonotidae (31:131)
Phylloscopidae (4:70)
Scotocercidae (12:36)
Aegithalidae (4:13)
Sylviidae (19:65)
Zosteropidae (12:120)
Timaliidae (10:51)
Pellorneidae (16:59)
Leiothrichidae (21:138)
Certhiidae (1:9)
Sittidae (3:30)
Polioptilidae (3:18)
Troglodytidae (19:85)
Cinclidae (1:5)
Buphagidae (1:2)
Sturnidae (33:115)
Mimidae (10:34)
Turdidae (20:153)
Muscicapidae (57:298)
Regulidae (1:6)
Dulidae (1:1)
Hypocoliidae (1:1)
Hylocitreidae (1:1)
Bombycillidae (1:3)
Ptiliogonatidae (3:4)
Elachuridae (1:1)
Promeropidae (1:2)
Modulatricidae (3:3)
Irenidae (1:2)
Chloropseidae (1:11)
Dicaeidae (2:44)
Nectariniidae (16:132)
Prunellidae (1:13)
Peucedramidae (1:1)
Urocynchramidae (1:1)
Ploceidae (15:116)
Estrildidae (34:134)
Viduidae (2:20)
Passeridae (8:41)
Motacillidae (8:67)
Fringillidae (49:201)
Calcariidae (3:6)
Rhodinocichlidae (1:1)
Emberizidae (5:42)
Passerellidae (30:134)
Zeledoniidae (1:1)
Teretristidae (1:2)
Icteridae (31:112)
Parulidae (18:108)
Phaenicophilidae (3:4)
Spindalidae (1:4)
Nesospingidae (1:1)
Calyptophilidae (1:2)
Mitrospingidae (3:4)
Cardinalidae (11:51)
Thraupidae (98:377)

non-passerines (988:4372)
passerines (1347:6037)
total (2335:10409)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Scotocercidae instead of Cettiidae ? Since when ?

Oddly, I found the name Setophagidae Swainson Nomen oblitum. Can we rehabilitate a nomen oblitum like it ?

 

[Richard Klim]

Although the numbers of species presumably reflect an early draft version of Illustrated Checklist vol 2, it would be interesting to compare the total number of passerine species with BirdLife Checklist v8 (5,912 extant + 41 extinct spp) and HBW (6,008 extant spp). It might give some broad indication of the level of splitting/lumping to be expected...

[See also my earlier musings on the subject: www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3261543&postcount=17.]

non-passerines (988:4372)
passerines (1347:6037)
total (2335:10409)

Many thanks, Laurent. :t:

As expected, the total number of extant non-passerine spp (4,372) exactly reflects BirdLife Checklist v7/v8 and Illustrated Checklist vol 1.

But in my earlier musings, I guessed at an eventual total of ~6,550 extant passerine spp in Illustrated Checklist vol 2. The total of 6,037 in Bird Families therefore suggests either that there'll be much less splitting than I'd anticipated, or that the process of taxonomic revision at species level (by application of the Tobias criteria) was still at a very early stage when the book went to press...

 

[l_raty]

Scotocercidae instead of Cettiidae ? Since when ?

Same as in H&M4: Scotocercidae, with three subfamilies Erythrocercinae, Cettiinae and Scotocercinae.

"Cettiidae Alström et al 2006" [here] is unavailable because it was introduced without "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon".
This name has now been correctly introduced, but only as Cettiinae Alström et al. 2014, in H&M4(2):636, which appeared after Scotocercidae Fregin et al. 2012 and Erythrocercidae Fregin et al. 2012 [OD] were proposed. Alström et al. 2014 (loc. cit.) also acted as First Revisers, giving precedence to Scotocercidae Fregin et al. 2012 over Erythrocercidae Fregin et al. 2012.

Oddly, I found the name Setophagidae Swainson Nomen oblitum. Can we rehabilitate a nomen oblitum like it ?

"Setophagidae Swainson 1831" is an invention by Bock 1994. “Setophagae” in Swainson 1832:li [here] and 206 [here] (this is the work cited by Bock, but it appeared in 1832, not 1831) are generic plurals: the genus Setophaga used in the plural to mean "Setophaga spp". Not at all a new name proposed for a suprageneric taxon. Swainson (and many authors back then) did this all the time, none of these plurals is available as a family-group name.
Family-group names based on Setophaga were validly introduced by Chenu & Des Murs 1853:254 [Setophaginae; family; OD; see also p.295 in the same work] and by Bonaparte 1853:644 [Setophageae; group/series; OD]; I don't know which of these two appeared first.