(Not only) Thamnophilidae (2 Viewers)

[cajanuma]

This is just crazy talk

Should the unthinkable happen (god forbid), naming the lumped species something like Magnificent, Splendid, or Superb Antbird might go a small way towards easing the pain.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (993) to SACC

Treat Thamnophilus ruficapillus as conspecific with T. torquatus

DID NOT PASS

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (999) to SACC

Treat Sakesphorus pulchellus as a separate species from S. canadensis

DID NOT PASS

 

[Mysticete]

Interesting comment concerning the WGAC embedded here in the decisions at the end:

"Comments from Lane: “NO. Whereas I suspect that a more thorough study of this complex will uncover the evidence necessary to support this proposed taxonomic change, the evidence simply isn’t available right now.

“I am troubled by the eagerness of WGAC to influence change when the cases are woefully under-sampled. In fact, I question the point of the WGAC efforts completely: to try to get all the major world checklists aligned is a fool’s errand. The authors of all these competing checklists clearly don’t use the same criteria for determining species limits, or they would all already match, and most would be superfluous… but they don’t match, and different users use these lists depending on their own ideologies and purposes. And that we in SACC are asked to vote on cases, when other checklists have already made up their minds, suggests that we are still able to disagree with those checklists, and thus will not fall into line with the other WGAC members, correct? So…. What’s the point here? In most cases, the evidence available simply isn’t sufficient to allow us to make an informed decision by SACC’s usual standards, so either we abandon those standards, or we are forced to settle for substandard or (more often) entirely incomplete evidence. This may not matter to many checklist users (some or most of whom just want more species to tick off), but it does mean that any student looking for a potential project will simply assume that many of these poorly supported scenarios are “already settled” when in fact they are very much not. To me, that is a harmful side effect of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.”

 

[l_raty]

“I am troubled by the eagerness of WGAC to influence change when the cases are woefully under-sampled. In fact, I question the point of the WGAC efforts completely: to try to get all the major world checklists aligned is a fool’s errand. The authors of all these competing checklists clearly don’t use the same criteria for determining species limits, or they would all already match, and most would be superfluous… but they don’t match, and different users use these lists depending on their own ideologies and purposes. And that we in SACC are asked to vote on cases, when other checklists have already made up their minds, suggests that we are still able to disagree with those checklists, and thus will not fall into line with the other WGAC members, correct? So…. What’s the point here? In most cases, the evidence available simply isn’t sufficient to allow us to make an informed decision by SACC’s usual standards, so either we abandon those standards, or we are forced to settle for substandard or (more often) entirely incomplete evidence. This may not matter to many checklist users (some or most of whom just want more species to tick off), but it does mean that any student looking for a potential project will simply assume that many of these poorly supported scenarios are “already settled” when in fact they are very much not. To me, that is a harmful side effect of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.”

Hasn't "the point" always been to achieve maximum control over "taxonomy anarchy" in the sense of Garnett & Christidis 2017...?

 

[THE_FERN]

Interesting comment concerning the WGAC embedded here in the decisions at the end:

"Comments from Lane: “NO. Whereas I suspect that a more thorough study of this complex will uncover the evidence necessary to support this proposed taxonomic change, the evidence simply isn’t available right now.

“I am troubled by the eagerness of WGAC to influence change when the cases are woefully under-sampled. In fact, I question the point of the WGAC efforts completely: to try to get all the major world checklists aligned is a fool’s errand. The authors of all these competing checklists clearly don’t use the same criteria for determining species limits, or they would all already match, and most would be superfluous… but they don’t match, and different users use these lists depending on their own ideologies and purposes. And that we in SACC are asked to vote on cases, when other checklists have already made up their minds, suggests that we are still able to disagree with those checklists, and thus will not fall into line with the other WGAC members, correct? So…. What’s the point here? In most cases, the evidence available simply isn’t sufficient to allow us to make an informed decision by SACC’s usual standards, so either we abandon those standards, or we are forced to settle for substandard or (more often) entirely incomplete evidence. This may not matter to many checklist users (some or most of whom just want more species to tick off), but it does mean that any student looking for a potential project will simply assume that many of these poorly supported scenarios are “already settled” when in fact they are very much not. To me, that is a harmful side effect of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.”

Agree with this: "to try to get all the major world checklists aligned is a fool’s errand"

Not entirely in agreement with the rest. Once again (and forever more Amen) taxonomy is subjective

 

[Mike Earp]

The trouble with Myrmornis Hermann, 1783 and Myrmornithinae Sundevall, 1872. (Steven M.S. Gregory, Edward C. Dickinson & Paul van Els, Avian Systematics 2(VI): N33–N53, 30 July 2024)
ABSTRACT: The genus-group name Myrmornis Hermann, 1783, and the family-group name Myrmornithinae Sundevall, 1872, are problematic, and both are shown to be other than as currently defined and used. In the case of Myrmornis, Hermann introduced two valid binominal names (Myrmornis campanisona and Myrmornis arada), which are the only available names from which a type species can be selected, but neither corresponds to the accepted type species cited by Peters (1951: 255), where “Fourmilier proprement dit” was cited from Buffon (1778: 473) together with “Le Fourmillier de Cayanne” based on plate 700 fig. 1 in Daubenton, which was identified with Formicarius torquatus Boddaert, 1783 by Hellmayr in Cory and Hellmayr (1924: 321). The use of vernacular names as type species is contrary to Opinion 1 (ICZN, 1907) and Article 12.3 (ICZN, 1999) where they are explicitly excluded from being an indication. In the case of Myrmornithinae Sundevall, 1872, Sundevall used ‘Myrmornis’ (for Formicarius colma Boddaert, 1783) in a manner not consistent with either of the two originally included nominal species, and any use as a family-group name must be seen as an altered concept as dictated by Article 65.2.1 (ICZN, 1999). In seeking a genus-group name to replace ‘Myrmornis’ it is suggested that Rhopoterpe Cabanis, 1847, which has extensive use as a valid name both before and after 1899, be reinstated as the valid name under the Principle of Priority, Article 23.1 (ICZN, 1999: 24). This action would see Formicarius torquatus changed to Rhopoterpe torquata (Boddaert, 1783), with the available family-group name Rhopoterpinae Ridgway, 1911, replacing the recent use of Myrmornithinae Sundevall, 1872.

 

[l_raty]

The central argument (i.e., the fact that the usually accepted type fixation for Myrmornis is not Code compliant, and that this name can in principle not be used in the way it is used nowadays) is correct. (This case is similar to that of Tinamus Hermann, which has similarly been interpreted as a scientific name given to a Buffonian group, which was assumed to come with all the species Buffon had included in the group.)

There are some issues, however, including :

• If a name is to take the place of the current Myrmornis, the name that has precedence is Formicivorus Temminck 1807. This and Urotomus Swainson 1837 ARE NOT "effectively nomina oblita under Article 23.9.1 (ICZN, 1999: 28), although the requirements of Article 23.9.2, i.e., a formal publication declaring both the nomen protectum and the nomina oblita, has not been undertaken." Assuming these names have indeed not been used as valid after 1899, if they were found to threaten a name meeting the requirements of 23.9.1.2, they could be made nomina oblita relative to this name. But Rhopoterpe Cabanis 1847 had not been used as a valid name a single time between 1918 and today, thus it does not remotely qualify to be made a nomen protectum relative to the other two, and no reversal of precedence is possible. As a consequence, standard precedence must be applied between these three names, and Formicivorus is the older one.
• The following also conflicts with my understanding : "This would be either a). Myrmornis campanisona Hermann, 1783, which would make it an unused senior synonym (and a nomen oblitum) of Myrmothera Vieillot, 1816, or b). Myrmornis arada Hermann, 1783, which would make it an unused senior synonym (and a nomen oblitum) of Cyphorhinus Cabanis, 1844." I am not aware of a provision in the Code that would make it possible to count usage separately depending on the interpretation of a single name. Myrmornis, attributed to Hermann 1783, is in universal use, thus I do not think that this name can be made a nomen oblitum either. A type species should be validly designated, and Myrmornis should then either displace its junior synonym, or be referred for suppression to the Commission. (Although, if the Commission is to be involved, it might arguably make more sense to preserve usage, rather than to suppress the name.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

• and Formicivorus is the older one.

Moreover, his name would fit better than Rhopoterpe for the "Fourmilier proprement dit" 😅

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Should we not check the availability and validity of all genera in Hermann (1783) and the validity of all type fixations for each genera cited in Hermann?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

• . But Rhopoterpe Cabanis 1847 had not been used as a valid name a single time between 1918 and today, thus it does not remotely qualify to be made a nomen protectum relative to the other two, and no reversal of precedence is possible. .

So Rhopoterpe would have had to be used at least 50 years after 1899/1900?

 

[l_raty]

So Rhopoterpe would have had to be used at least 50 years after 1899/1900?

To dismiss Formicivorus (make it a nomen oblitum) in favour of Rhopoterpe, Rhopoterpe should have been used as a valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the last 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

IOW, to do this in 2024, only the uses of Rhopterpe in and after 1974 are to be taken into account. Rhopoterpe could have been used a zillion times before 1974 and up to 1973, this would not matter at all.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

This is the part I don't understand. In the last 50 years, this name had to be used for at least 10 years 🤔

 

[l_raty]

This is the part I don't understand.

The name must have been used as valid in 25 works

• "published by at least 10 authors" (I think this should be clear -- this is to exclude names merely used unilaterally by one or a very small gang of prolific author(s))
• "in the immediately preceding 50 years" (= after 3 Aug 1974, should the act of reversal of precedence be published today)
• "and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years" (= there must be at least 10 years between the publications of the first and the last of the 25 works).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

• "and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years" (= there must be at least 10 years between the publications of the first and the last of the 25 works).

Ok. This is the part that was the least clear

 

[l_raty]

Ok. This is the part that was the least clear

This condition makes, i.a., that a newly proposed name cannot become a nomen protectum before 10 years have passed since its proposal.
Whatever the number of times it has been used.

 

[Myornis]

Interesting comment concerning the WGAC embedded here in the decisions at the end:

"Comments from Lane: “NO. Whereas I suspect that a more thorough study of this complex will uncover the evidence necessary to support this proposed taxonomic change, the evidence simply isn’t available right now.

“I am troubled by the eagerness of WGAC to influence change when the cases are woefully under-sampled. In fact, I question the point of the WGAC efforts completely: to try to get all the major world checklists aligned is a fool’s errand. The authors of all these competing checklists clearly don’t use the same criteria for determining species limits, or they would all already match, and most would be superfluous… but they don’t match, and different users use these lists depending on their own ideologies and purposes. And that we in SACC are asked to vote on cases, when other checklists have already made up their minds, suggests that we are still able to disagree with those checklists, and thus will not fall into line with the other WGAC members, correct? So…. What’s the point here? In most cases, the evidence available simply isn’t sufficient to allow us to make an informed decision by SACC’s usual standards, so either we abandon those standards, or we are forced to settle for substandard or (more often) entirely incomplete evidence. This may not matter to many checklist users (some or most of whom just want more species to tick off), but it does mean that any student looking for a potential project will simply assume that many of these poorly supported scenarios are “already settled” when in fact they are very much not. To me, that is a harmful side effect of jumping to conclusions without sufficient evidence.”

In this particular case (Sakesphorus antshrikes), I tend to agree with Dan with the sentiments and with the outcome. (We looked at this one for Colombia a few years ago and were not impressed it was a clear split; Gustavo Bravo is spot on in saying "As everybody has very well pointed out, the situation is messy, and we lack sufficient data to determine species limits. To me, it is critical to assess gene flow across potential contact zones between pulchellus and canadensis (e.g., Táchira depression), and the extent of plumage and vocal variation across the whole complex." ).

But on the more general point, you might instead ask what is the point in SACC, to stand tight on 1960s taxonomic lumps that no other authority maintains in the face of all the evidence. This has especially been the case on the Ridgely splits. Recently rejected proposals on Splendid Woodpecker, Scarlet-rumped Cacique, Dagua Thrush and making a start on splitting up Mionectes olivaceus have all been pretty depressing, counterproductive and unnecessary. That's the harmful side effect of grandstanding in the face of all the evidence and everyone else's conclusions.

 

[albertonykus]

Bukowski, B., L. Campagna, G.S. Cabanne, P.L. Tubaro, and D.A. Lijtmaer (2024)
Genetic and phenotypic differentiation in Thamnophilus ruficapillus, a Neotropical passerine with disjunct distribution in the Andean and Atlantic forests
Journal of Avian Biology (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1111/jav.03293

The Andean and Atlantic forests are separated by the open vegetation corridor, which acts as a geographic barrier. However, these forests experienced cycles of connection and isolation in the past, which shaped the phylogeographic patterns of their biotas. We analysed the evolutionary history of the rufous-capped antshrike Thamnophilus ruficapillus, a species with a disjunct distribution in the Atlantic and Andean forests and thus an appropriate model to study the effect of the open vegetation corridor and the Andes on the diversification of the Neotropical avifauna. We performed a phylogenetic/phylogeographic analysis, including the five subspecies, using mitochondrial and nuclear genomic DNA, and studied their differences in vocalizations and plumage coloration. Both the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA evidenced a marked phylogeographic structure with three differentiated lineages that diverged without signs of gene flow in the Pleistocene (1.0–1.7 million years ago): one in the Atlantic Forest and two in the Andean forest. However, the two Andean lineages do not coincide with the two disjunct areas of distribution of the species in the Andes. Vocalizations were significantly different between most subspecies, but their pattern of differentiation was discordant with that of the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. In fact, we did not find song differentiation between the subspecies of the Atlantic Forest and that of the northwestern Bolivian Andes, even though they differ genetically and belong to different lineages. Consistently, no differences were found in plumage coloration between the subspecies of the Atlantic Forest and that of the southern Andes. Our results suggest a complex evolutionary history in this species, which differentiated both due to dispersion across the open vegetation corridor, likely during a period of connection between the Andean and Atlantic forests, and the effect of the Bolivian Altiplano as a geographic barrier. In both cases, Pleistocene climatic oscillations appear to have influenced the species diversification.

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

SACC proposal 1024: Treat Rhegmatorhina berlepschi (Harlequin Antbird) as conspecific with R. hoffmannsi (White-breasted Antbird)

Them's fighting words!

Did not pass

 

[cajanuma]

Did not pass

I count four YES votes in favour of the lump (including Mark Robbins, who voted NO but whose comments clearly indicate he meant YES to the lump) and five NO votes (maintain the status quo and keep them split), so I guess it does mean it did not pass.

A relief in purely "emotional" terms, but the discussion was extremely interesting and I can definitely see how this is very much a borderline case. I wonder to what extent this is comparable to the Blue-winged/Golden-winged Warbler situation?