Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (2 Viewers)

[McMadd]

Guy

I guess Birdlife doesn't need the money. Anyway, I'm happy to extend the offer to the publication of the book. So if there is a coherent explanation for the retention of Scottish Crossbill in the book, based on the Tobias et al. criteria, then I'll still pay up.

cheers, alan

Mine's en route via UPS so we'll soon know...

 

[Ian Lewis]

Scottish Crossbill. That IS ludicrous. What is the official Lynx / BLI explanation for that? £100 to Birdlife tonight if you can provide a coherent explanation of this, which is consistent with the other Loxia, the type specimen and speciation in Loxia, if any.

Cheers, alan

See page 31 and 33 of volume 1 of the Illustrated Checklist under the heading of 'Distributional Criteria'

Five conditions of geographical relationship are given with the allocated scores for each relationship: allopatry (0), broad hybrid zone (1), narrow hybrid zone (2), parapatry(3) and sympatry (7).

Thus as Scottish Crossbill is sympatric with both Common and Parrot Crossbill it scores 7 points irregardless of how small the morphological, genetic or vocal differences might be.

I hope this reply has generated £100 for Birdlife's funds but I do appreciate that I am rather late in coming up with this explanation and the offer may be closed.

Ian

 

[DMW]

See page 31 and 33 of volume 1 of the Illustrated Checklist under the heading of 'Distributional Criteria'

Five conditions of geographical relationship are given with the allocated scores for each relationship: allopatry (0), broad hybrid zone (1), narrow hybrid zone (2), parapatry(3) and sympatry (7).

Thus as Scottish Crossbill is sympatric with both Common and Parrot Crossbill it scores 7 points irregardless of how small the morphological, genetic or vocal differences might be.

I hope this reply has generated £100 for Birdlife's funds but I do appreciate that I am rather late in coming up with this explanation and the offer may be closed.

Ian

Based on your interpretation, tbat would make every single individual bird a seperate species!

 

[Nutcracker]

See page 31 and 33 of volume 1 of the Illustrated Checklist under the heading of 'Distributional Criteria'

Five conditions of geographical relationship are given with the allocated scores for each relationship: allopatry (0), broad hybrid zone (1), narrow hybrid zone (2), parapatry(3) and sympatry (7).

Thus as Scottish Crossbill is sympatric with both Common and Parrot Crossbill it scores 7 points irregardless of how small the morphological, genetic or vocal differences might be.

I hope this reply has generated £100 for Birdlife's funds but I do appreciate that I am rather late in coming up with this explanation and the offer may be closed.

Ian

Based on your interpretation, tbat would make every single individual bird a seperate species!

Yep to DMW in reductio ad absurdam; but by that criterion a "separate species" for each different 'call type' of crossbills for sure. But there is hybridisation between the call types as well; does that reduce it to 2 points? Surely for the full 7 points it has to be 'sympatry without hybridisation'?

And the vital point still stands: there remains no hard evidence that the '3C' call type crossbill = Loxia scotica as described by Hartert.

 

[Ian Lewis]

Yep to DMW in reductio ad absurdam; but by that criterion a "separate species" for each different 'call type' of crossbills for sure. But there is hybridisation between the call types as well; does that reduce it to 2 points? Surely for the full 7 points it has to be 'sympatry without hybridisation'?

And the vital point still stands: there remains no hard evidence that the '3C' call type crossbill = Loxia scotica as described by Hartert.

Indeed but I'm only pointing out how by the criteria given in the introduction to Vol 1, Scottish Crossbill can be seen to qualify for 7 points. Maybe when Vol 2 arrives there will be a fuller explanation.

Ian

 

[thomasdonegan]

See page 31 and 33 of volume 1 of the Illustrated Checklist under the heading of 'Distributional Criteria'

Five conditions of geographical relationship are given with the allocated scores for each relationship: allopatry (0), broad hybrid zone (1), narrow hybrid zone (2), parapatry(3) and sympatry (7).

Thus as Scottish Crossbill is sympatric with both Common and Parrot Crossbill it scores 7 points irregardless of how small the morphological, genetic or vocal differences might be.

I hope this reply has generated £100 for Birdlife's funds but I do appreciate that I am rather late in coming up with this explanation and the offer may be closed.

Ian

Hmm, maybe this is a holding position until this case is all unraveled better. The Mallards in my local park are sympatric with the other Mallards in my local park but no one is splitting them from one another.

 

[Ian Lewis]

Hmm, maybe this is a holding position until this case is all unraveled better. The Mallards in my local park are sympatric with the other Mallards in my local park but no one is splitting them from one another.

Yes, but Scottish, Common and Parrot Crossbill are supposed to be diagnosable as three separate species based on wing length, bill measurements and vocalisations, which I don't think your Mallards are.

The question is, is this assumption true? if it is then Scottish Crossbill deserves it's 7 points if not ....

Ian

 

[McMadd]

Guy

I guess Birdlife doesn't need the money. Anyway, I'm happy to extend the offer to the publication of the book. So if there is a coherent explanation for the retention of Scottish Crossbill in the book, based on the Tobias et al. criteria, then I'll still pay up.

cheers, alan

Nah, there isn't...same text as HBW alive...

 

[lewis20126]

Nah, there isn't...same text as HBW alive...

No surprise there. Thanks to Ian for his alternative explanation - perhaps one which BLI could have deployed, rather than silence.

cheers, alan

 

[Melanie]

What happened to Amaurospiza carrizalensis in the HBW & BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist? It must be now a synonym but of which species?

 

[gusasp]

What happened to Amaurospiza carrizalensis in the HBW & BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist? It must be now a synonym but of which species?

Blackish-blue Seedeater (Amaurospiza moesta)
http://www.birdlife.org/globally-threatened-bird-forums/2016/10/rearrangement-of-a-selection-of-amaurospiza-species-list-a-moesta-and-a-relicta-as-least-concern/

 

[James Jobling]

Amaurospiza carrizalensis Lentino & Restall, 2003, is listed as a subspecies of Amaurospiza moesta (Hartlaub, 1853), the Blue Seedeater, and illustrated, in Illustrated Checklist, 2, p. 842; with the comment, "while relicta is here separated as a full species the other taxa [concolor, aequatorialis, carrizalensis] appear to be very weakly differentiated; available acoustic evidence reveals identical songs, while plumage and mensural differences are all minor, with the possible exception of the larger bill of carrizalensis"

 

[Melanie]

Amaurospiza carrizalensis Lentino & Restall, 2003, is listed as a subspecies of Amaurospiza moesta Hartlaub, 1853, the Blue Seedeater, and illustrated, in Illustrated Checklist, 2, p. 842; with the comment, "while relicta is here separated as a full species the other taxa [concolor, aequatorialis, carrizalensis] appear to be very weakly differentiated; available acoustic evidence reveals identical songs, while plumage and mensural differences are all minor, with the possible exception of the larger bill of carrizalensis"

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[Nutcracker]

Yes, but Scottish, Common and Parrot Crossbill are supposed to be diagnosable as three separate species based on wing length, bill measurements and vocalisations, which I don't think your Mallards are.

The question is, is this assumption true? if it is then Scottish Crossbill deserves it's 7 points if not ....

Ian

Missed this somehow - Parrot Xb is diagnosable on wing length, bill measurements and vocalisations; "Scottish" (as per 3C call type birds; but not the Loxia scotica type specimen!) only on vocalisations, not reliably on wing or bill measures (much overlap with Common, some overlap with Parrot).

As for Mallards - Aylesburys and Indian Runners are diagnosable on wing length, bill measurements and vocalisations; do they get 7 points?? :eek!: :king:

 

[jalid]

In many cases I got a feeling that the species status is really decided beforehand and then the scores are made to reach the magical seven. Good examples in Phylloscopus - Eastern Bonelli's gets seven based only the call. In reality it would be still a subspecies in every list without the substantial genetic difference. Getting seven for Sichuan Leaf Warbler is a real achievement, but then they got tired and left Gansu Leaf Warbler without scoring.

Unlike in several comments here and elsewhere, I do not consider scoring a totally flawed method. But it should be only a tool in the toolbox, not the universal miracle working final solution to everything.

 

[Melanie]

Do they give a reason why Seicercus is treated as synonym of Phylloscopus in the HBW Illustrated Checklist?

 

[l_raty]

Do they give a reason why Seicercus is treated as synonym of Phylloscopus in the HBW Illustrated Checklist?

"Recent review (43) indicates that previous internal arrangement, with all taxa of present family split between Seicercus and Phylloscopus, was paraphyletic. As a result some authors have split Phylloscopus into several genera, with some movement of taxa from Phylloscopus to Seicercus, but accuracy of this debatable on present knowledge. One of these versions (930) involves groups containing species as listed below: Rhadina (species 1-3); Abrornis (species 4-13); Phylloscopus (species 14-28); and Seicercus (species 29-78). Another version (659) divides family into nine genera. More cautious alternative involves merging Seicercus into Phylloscopus; adopted herein, pending results of a comprehensive study currently in progress (31)."

31 = "Alström, P. pers. comm."
43 = Alström et al 2013 [here]
659 = Boyd 2016, TiF Checklist 3.06.
930 = Dickinson & Christidis 2014, H&M4, volume 2.

 

[Melanie]

Thanks a lot. So we have to wait until there is a proper classification.

 

[lewis20126]

Scottish Crossbill

There is no review of Loxia using Tobias et al. Indeed the text on the Loxia seems to rely entirely on what might be called "traditional taxonomy"... a theme I have noticed across many taxa in Vol 2 I have skimmed through tonight. Indeed there are now huge effect (total) scores for vocals in the sub-oscines, based on various characteristics.

cheers, alan

 

[DMW]

Here's an interesting question to ponder: which of the current major taxonomic authorities, as of this moment, is likely to be the most "realistic" species level classification?

For all the criticism of the process involved in arriving at its classification, my guess is that it is the BirdLife list. I base this on the principle that 10 steps forward and two steps back gives more progress than 5 steps forward. Take one example: White-browed Shortwing. BirdLife splits it into 8 species. A thorough review is unlikely to arrive at the exact same conclusion (for example there is almost certainly more than 1 species in the Philippines), but BirdLife's 8 species is likely to be much more realistic than the 1 species currently recognised elsewhere.