Parrots (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kovalik]

Jaime Gerardo Morin Lagos. A comprehensive mitogenome phylogeny of the avian tribe Arini (Arinae: Psittacidae) with emphasis in Pyrrhura species. Master’s thesis, 2021.

Abstract:

The tribe Arini is the most diverse group of Neotropical parrots, and it includes approximately 158 species distributed in at least 32 genera. These parrots have been largely affected by habitat loss, fragmentation, and the illegal wildlife trade market. In the past, many molecular phylogenies have been inferred based on both nuclear and mitochondrial sequences. However, the evolutionary relationships between some taxa remain unclear, especially within the Pyrrhura genus, the most diverse genus within the tribe. This study used whole-genome shotgun sequencing to obtain mitochondrial genome sequences of 48 Pyrrhura samples, representing 22 Pyrrhura species. Using this data together with all publicly available mitogenome sequences, we inferred the most comprehensive mitogenome-based phylogeny of the tribe Arini. The obtained phylogeny shows better resolved clades and higher support than previous phylogenetic studies of Arini and Pyrrhura. Previous studies categorized Pyrrhura species in three groups, including P. cruentata, the picta-leucotis complex, and the ‘remaining Pyrrhura species’. The evolutionary relationships within the last two groups have been poorly studied so far. Based on our mitogenome phylogeny, we divide the ‘remaining Pyrrhura species’ into the following groups: Clade 1: P. rupicola; clade 2: P. frontalis, P. molinae, P. perlata, and P. lepida; clade 3: P. hoffmani, and P. rhodocephala; clade 4: P. egregia, P. calliptera, and P. melanura. Previous works placed P. albipectus and P. devillei in clades 4 and 2 respectively. On the other hand, the P. orcesi could form an independent clade within the remaining Pyrrhura species. The systematic positions of P. viridicata and P. hoematotis remain a mystery due to lack of data. hoematotis remain a mystery due to lack of data. Finally, a CYTB-CR-based phylogeny was inferred to further study the relationships within the clade 4 of the ‘remaining Pyrrhura species’, finding that P. melanura taxa form two separate clades. The first includes P. melanura taxa from Venezuela: P. m. souancei, P. calliptera, and P. albipectus. The second includes P. melanura taxa from Western South America, P. m. berlepschi, and P. m. pacifica. Moreover, species distribution models (SDMs) provided further support to the isolation of P. m. souancei and P. m. pacifica from the nominal race. Our results suggest that P. melanura subspecies are geographically and genetically separated from the nominal race. Future studies should increase the sample size and involve morphological analysis.

[pdf]

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Phylogenomic Analysis of the Parrots of the World Distinguishes Artifactual from Biological Sources of Gene Tree Discordance

Abstract. Gene tree discordance is expected in phylogenomic trees and biological processes are often invoked to explain it. However, heterogeneous levels o

academic.oup.com

I want this

 

[Mysticete]

Phylogenomic Analysis of the Parrots of the World Distinguishes Artifactual from Biological Sources of Gene Tree Discordance

Abstract. Gene tree discordance is expected in phylogenomic trees and biological processes are often invoked to explain it. However, heterogeneous levels o

academic.oup.com

I want this

likewise!

 

[Jacana]

Can probably get it when i get back into the office tomorrow. DM me if you still need it by then.

In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the tree.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1554833391253479426

Looks like they recommend a couple of extra families:

Pssitrichasidae and Nestoridae

 

[Mysticete]

Can probably get it when i get back into the office tomorrow. DM me if you still need it by then.

In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the tree.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1554833391253479426

Looks like they recommend a couple of extra families:

Pssitrichasidae and Nestoridae

Those families were originally suggested in the Joseph et al 2012, but they don't seem to have been picked up by others. I do recognize both in my own classification.

 

[Jacana]

I have it if anyone still wants it

 

[jts1882]

Those families were originally suggested in the Joseph et al 2012, but they don't seem to have been picked up by others. I do recognize both in my own classification.

They have tribes Amoropsittacini and Forpini in subfamily Arinae. Joseph et al only had tribes Arini and Androglossini, with a number of genera incertae sedis.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Can probably get it when i get back into the office tomorrow. DM me if you still need it by then.

In the meantime, here's a sneak peak at the tree.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1554833391253479426

Looks like they recommend a couple of extra families:

Pssitrichasidae and Nestoridae

Arinae merits family status, Aridae

 

[Jacana]

By what criteria?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

By what criteria?

Time divergence, similar to Psittrachisidae and Psittaculidae. Répartition (Africa for Psittacinae, America for the remaining).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

What are the current scientific names of these old binomials appearing in "Œuvres complètes de Buffon" ? These are New World Psittacidae which are all called Perriche in French :

Psittacus gujanensis
P. aeruginosus
P. versicolor
P. virescens
P. anaca
P. smaragdinus
P. rufirostris
P. canicularis
P. aureus
P. makavouana

 

[l_raty]

"Œuvres complètes de Buffon"

Which edition ? (I have 4 different ones on my hard disk... ) No authorities cited ?
(Most seem to be NW, not OW species.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Which edition ? (I have 4 different ones on my hard disk... ) No authorities cited ?
(Most seem to be NW, not OW species.)

t.24 (1831) - Œuvres complètes de Buffon - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

What are the current scientific names of these old binomials appearing in "Œuvres complètes de Buffon" ? These are New World Psittacidae which are all called Perriche in French :

Psittacus gujanensis
P. aeruginosus
P. versicolor
P. virescens
P. anaca
P. smaragdinus
P. rufirostris
P. canicularis
P. aureus
P. makavouana

New world species of course

 

[l_raty]

OK. At first sight :

• Psittacus gujanensis "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Psittacara leucophthalmus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus aeruginosus "L." = Linnaeus 1758 is now Eupsittula pertinax aeruginosa (Linnaeus 1758)
• Psittacus versicolor "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Pyrrhura picta (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus virescens "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Brotogeris versicolorus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus anaca "L." = Gmelin 1788 has traditionally been regarded as another syn. of Pyrrhura picta (Statius Müller 1776), but was in the late 20th C suggested to be a (senior) syn. of Pyrrhura griseipectus Salvadori 1900
• Psittacus smaragdinus "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Enicognathus ferrugineus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus rufirostris "L." = Linnaeus 1758 was once used for what is now Psittacara chloropterus Souancé 1856, but is now regarded as unidentifiable (and most likely a Psittacula sp.)
• Psittacus canicularis "L." = Linnaeus 1758 is now Eupsittula canicularis (Linnaeus 1758)
• Psittacus aureus "L." = Gmelin 1788 is now Eupsittula aurea (Gmelin 1788)
• Psittacus "makavouana Lath." = Psittacus makawuanna Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Orthopsittaca manilatus (Boddaert 1783)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

OK. At first sight :

• Psittacus gujanensis "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Psittacara leucophthalmus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus aeruginosus "L." = Linnaeus 1758 is now Eupsittula pertinax aeruginosa (Linnaeus 1758)
• Psittacus versicolor "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Pyrrhura picta (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus virescens "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Brotogeris versicolorus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus anaca "L." = Gmelin 1788 has traditionally been regarded as another syn. of Pyrrhura picta (Statius Müller 1776), but was in the late 20th C suggested to be a (senior) syn. of Pyrrhura griseipectus Salvadori 1900
• Psittacus smaragdinus "L." = Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Enicognathus ferrugineus (Statius Müller 1776)
• Psittacus rufirostris "L." = Linnaeus 1758 was once used for what is now Psittacara chloropterus Souancé 1856, but is now regarded as unidentifiable (and most likely a Psittacula sp.)
• Psittacus canicularis "L." = Linnaeus 1758 is now Eupsittula canicularis (Linnaeus 1758)
• Psittacus aureus "L." = Gmelin 1788 is now Eupsittula aurea (Gmelin 1788)
• Psittacus "makavouana Lath." = Psittacus makawuanna Gmelin 1788 is a syn. of Orthopsittaca manilatus (Boddaert 1783)

Ok thanks. All these species have been grouped under the name "Perriche" by Buffon, but none of them corresponds to Myiopsitta monachus. And for good reason, this species is described in the same volume under the name "Perruche souris" (and "Perruche à poitrine grise" in the Planches enluminées), Psittacus murinus in the "Oeuvres Complètes" (1831), Psittacus monachus in the "Table des Planches enluminées" (1783).

These species were mentioned by Bonnaterre, however the "Perruche souris" of Buffon is here named "Perriche cotorra, ou jeune veuve" Psittacus cotorra (which is now a subspecies of Myiopsitta monachus cotorra)

I come to the conclusion that the correct French name for Myiopsitta is Cotorra, not Perriche. The true Perriche refers to one of the species described by Buffon, but which ? because most are grouped under the name "Conure" (except Brotogeris and Orthopsittaca).

"Perriche" is a generalist name that cannot be attached to a specific taxonomic group, so I have to make an arbitrary decision :

The first species listed by Bonnaterre in his "Tableau encyclopédique" now belong to the genus Brotogeris, thus :

Perriche = Brotogeris
Cotorra = Myiopsitta
The remaining doesn't changes

 

[l_raty]

I don't know which rules you use exactly, which makes it difficult to comment in details.

These may be relevant (or not):

• The first author I can trace as having used "perriche" was not, actually, Buffon, but Barrère -- first in 1741, then in 1745. Barrère's uses of the name were subsequently quoted by Brisson (1760), who did not adopt it as valid, however.
• Buffon used "perruche" exclusively for OW species, and "perriche" exclusively for NW species. His use of "Perruche-souris", for Myiopsitta, was because he did not known where the bird was from, and thought that he perhaps recognized it in a vague description of a bird from Mauritius -- i.e., it was based on an error.
• The text you attribute to "Bonnaterre" in the above ("Perriche cotorra, ou jeune veuve. Psittacus cotorra.", here) was actually written by Vieillot and published in 1823. (Only the 320 initial pages of the first volume of the Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique are from Bonnaterre.) Vieillot (assuming his writings are relevant) had already used the name "perriche" in 1818 ("1817": here).
• The name "perriche" appeared in quite a few works between Buffon (1779) and Vieillot (1818), either cited from Buffon, or endorsed as part of valid French names. E.g., in 1800: t.10 (1800) - Dictionnaire raisonné, universel d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't know which rules you use exactly,

This rule : Les génériques français doivent être appliqués aux groupes d'espèces qui contiennent l'espèce à l'origine du nom, c'est-à-dire l'espèce pour laquelle le nom fut créé ou donné (à condition de pouvoir retracer l'origine de ce nom, bien sûr). You see 🤓

• The first author I can trace as having used "perriche" was not, actually, Buffon, but Barrère -- first in 1741, then in 1745.

Good to know. Can you trace the current scientific names of the species he cites in his two books?

• Buffon used "perruche" exclusively for OW species, and "perriche" exclusively for NW species. His use of "Perruche-souris", for Myiopsitta, was because he did not known where the bird was from, and thought that he perhaps recognized it in a vague description of a bird from Mauritius -- i.e., it was based on an error.

Ok

• The text you attribute to "Bonnaterre" in the above ("Perriche cotorra, ou jeune veuve. Psittacus cotorra.", here) was actually written by Vieillot and published in 1823. (Only the 320 initial pages of the first volume of the Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique are from Bonnaterre.) Vieillot (assuming his writings are relevant) had already used the name "perriche" in 1818 ("1817": here).

I have consulted these books (except the last), hence my doubts. I had read that this name, which is derived from "Perruche", was given to almost all South American species. However, in Buffon's descriptions, despite and because his error, there is nothing that allows the name "Perriche" to be associated with the genus Myiopsitta. So I wonder if the current attribution of this name to the genus Myiopsitta in the French nomenclature would not be an arbitrary decision, in the absence of another name.

• The name "perriche" appeared in quite a few works between Buffon (1779) and Vieillot (1818), either cited from Buffon, or endorsed as part of valid French names. E.g., in 1800: t.10 (1800) - Dictionnaire raisonné, universel d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library

Even here, Myiopsitta is excluded from the Perriches. Looks like in those days, authors were copying each other

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Psittacus toui and Psittacus tui are synonyms of current genus Touit ?

 

[l_raty]

Can you trace the current scientific names of the species he cites in his two books?

Certainly not for all of them.

The 1741 book was about the natural history of Cayenne, Guyane, and nearby areas, hence included only NW species. In 1745, he included a species that was presumably Psittacula krameri as well. I think he would have used the name for any kind of parakeet.

The species Barrère called "Perriche commune" in 1741 was presumably Pyrrhura picta. (The "Anaca Brasiliensibus Marcg.", which he cited as a synonym, has been argued to be Pyrrhura griseipectus (see Revalidation of Pyrrhura Anaca (Gmelin, 1788), Northeastern Brazil (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae). | Teixeira | Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia - Brazilian Journal of Ornithology ), but this species is not present in Guyane.)