Passeriformes (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Hey all,

Thanks, Laurent, for sharing that. Apologies for changing the filename - the current url is: http://www.harveybirdlab.org/docs/Harveyetal2020_Fig1_tree_HiRes.pdf
(You can also find it by going to the "Publications" tab on the website and scrolling down to the appropriate entry.)

In other news, we recently started a project involving a second round of sampling with the goal of building an even more comprehensive suboscine phylogeny. The plan is to attempt to sample every subspecies, which will roughly double the number of taxa in the existing tree. To that list, we are also adding some distinct populations that are not currently considered subspecies.

We are currently seeking feedback from the community on the project. We put together a draft project website that contains more info: https://www.harveybirdlab.org/suboscines/

To summarize, we are particularly interested in hearing:

1. If you are aware of any highly distinct (plumage, voice, biogeography, etc.) populations within the suboscines that are not afforded subspecies status, but you think should be included in this next round, please let us know!

2. For 426 of the taxa we plan to add, we have been unable to find high-quality samples (tissues in genetic resource collections, fresh blood samples, etc.) and are currently going to have to resort to requesting samples of lower-quality material from study skins that we have located for each taxon. If you are aware of modern, high-quality material for genetic sampling of any of these taxa (full list is downloadable from the page linked above), we would love to know (and we could help arrange necessary permits for shipping).

The best way to reach me is probably email ([email protected]), although I'll try to check this thread periodically. Thanks for any feedback. We're looking forward to building this new tree!

Mike Harvey, on behalf of collaborators

Do you have any revisions planned at generic level?

 

[mgharvey]

Do you have any revisions planned at generic level?

Jim,

I am aware of at least 34 generic revisions that are planned or in preparation (some by members of our research team, some by other groups). Some of these are stalled because we were unsatisfied with the sampling from the first round and decided to put them off until we complete this second round of sampling. That said, if someone is motivated to tackle the analyses and writing involved in publishing a revision of a particular genus, feel free to reach out. We could tell you if it's already well underway and, if not, could assist with getting the necessary data.

Mike

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Jim,

I am aware of at least 34 generic revisions that are planned or in preparation (some by members of our research team, some by other groups). Some of these are stalled because we were unsatisfied with the sampling from the first round and decided to put them off until we complete this second round of sampling. That said, if someone is motivated to tackle the analyses and writing involved in publishing a revision of a particular genus, feel free to reach out. We could tell you if it's already well underway and, if not, could assist with getting the necessary data.

Mike

First, you could suggest 4 new genera :

One for "Myrmotherula" behni, brachyura, grisea, minor, schisticolor, snowi and sunensis : Myrmozetetes

One for "Drymophila" squamata : Taeniocerca

One for "Thamnophilus" murinus and schistaceus : Rhopomanes

And one for "Dysithamnus" puncticeps and striaticeps : Cnemonastes

 

[andrew147]

Jim,

I am aware of at least 34 generic revisions that are planned or in preparation (some by members of our research team, some by other groups). Some of these are stalled because we were unsatisfied with the sampling from the first round and decided to put them off until we complete this second round of sampling. That said, if someone is motivated to tackle the analyses and writing involved in publishing a revision of a particular genus, feel free to reach out. We could tell you if it's already well underway and, if not, could assist with getting the necessary data.

Mike

Hi Mike,

Jim and I have begun work on descriptions of a significant number of 'nameless' Avian lineages, including many of those discussed on this thread:

My taxonomic predictions

Our motivation is literally "these birds need names", so, needless to say, we would rather not do work that is already underway by others.

Wondering if you could give me a 'heads up' on taxa that are already being worked on - by PM if the information is not yet being made public. For example, are the 34 generic revisions you mention all concerned with New World suboscines?

Cheers, Andrew

 

[Mysticete]

You know, by posting publicly the names you want to apply to new taxa, you are probably ensuring instead that they will never be used.

Maybe it's different in neontology, but paleontologists strive to never mention new names, even at scientific conferences where information won't leak. and informally created names are almost always ignored, or at least modified. Those names are only revealed in official publications, usually in peer-reviewed reputable journals (or at least the online version of those journals).

 

[andrew147]

You know, by posting publicly the names you want to apply to new taxa, you are probably ensuring instead that they will never be used.

Maybe it's different in neontology, but paleontologists strive to never mention new names, even at scientific conferences where information won't leak. and informally created names are almost always ignored, or at least modified. Those names are only revealed in official publications, usually in peer-reviewed reputable journals (or at least the online version of those journals).

Yeah, we understand that and it's not a problem. Ditto with issues around intellectual property. I'm all too familiar with cloak-and-dagger academia, and will not be getting involved.

The thread started out as a bit of fun, an intellectual exercise for Jim - through discussion, it morphed into something else. Not all the names on the public thread are the ones we have settled on and there are numerous lineages that haven't been discussed publicly - and at least one of the names on the thread has since been shown as polyphyletic. However, we are not ego-motivated in this exercise: I can't speak for Jim, but I would be totally happy for someone else to do all this work. Indeed, I wish it had long-ago become habitual for authors to coin new names whenever their research revealed novel lineages. IMO, even bad names like Synorhacma and Oneillornis are preferable to "_".

In terms of what Jim and I are aiming for - it doesn't matter if many of the names ultimately become synonymised because, in many cases, they are intentionally being created as synonyms - a way of future-proofing for taxonomic revision.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

You know, by posting publicly the names you want to apply to new taxa, you are probably ensuring instead that they will never be used.

Maybe it's different in neontology, but paleontologists strive to never mention new names, even at scientific conferences where information won't leak. and informally created names are almost always ignored, or at least modified. Those names are only revealed in official publications, usually in peer-reviewed reputable journals (or at least the online version of those journals).

Even though it was originally a semantics game, I think there are genera deserve describing for species that diverge morphologically, phenotypically, and phylogenetically.

 

[mgharvey]

Hey all,

Just to clarify, I would encourage you to reach out before writing a manuscript revising taxonomy in suboscines. As I said in my previous message, there is already a set of taxonomic papers in progress, so it makes sense not to duplicate effort.

Thanks

Mike Harvey

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Hey all,

Just to clarify, I would encourage you to reach out before writing a manuscript revising taxonomy in suboscines. As I said in my previous message, there is already a set of taxonomic papers in progress, so it makes sense not to duplicate effort.

Thanks

Mike Harvey

George Sangster contacted you recently to invite you to a project

 

[George Sangster]

Hi Mike,
I am very rarely on BirdForum but was notified today by Jim Gaudin that you posted a message. I assume that you posted your latest message because I sent you a completed manuscript, authored by me and Jim Gaudin, three weeks ago describing a new genus of ovenbird.

In my message, I asked if you would be interested in reading the manuscript, and I offered co-authorship if you were interested.

However, I didn't receive a reply. I also contacted Liz Derryberry six days ago, who so far didn't respond either.

Reading between the lines, I now suspect you have discovered the same taxonomic issue. If your manuscript is well-underway, and mine (with Jim Gaudin) is finished, why not join forces instead of competing for priority? I offered you and Liz co-authorship, so I hope you are willing to extend the same courtesy to us.

My manuscript is ready to submitted, but I did the right thing and contacted you first. The offer for co-authorship still stands. However, if you prefer, I am willing to discard my manuscript if you can offer us co-authorship of your manuscript. This might avoid some stress on both 'sides'. Very few people care enough about taxonomy that they prepare descriptive manuscripts like these, so I hope we can collaborate.

Kind regards,
Dr George Sangster

 

[mgharvey]

Hi Mike,
I am very rarely on BirdForum but was notified today by Jim Gaudin that you posted a message. I assume that you posted your latest message because I sent you a completed manuscript, authored by me and Jim Gaudin, three weeks ago describing a new genus of ovenbird.

In my message, I asked if you would be interested in reading the manuscript, and I offered co-authorship if you were interested.

However, I didn't receive a reply. I also contacted Liz Derryberry six days ago, who so far didn't respond either.

Reading between the lines, I now suspect you have discovered the same taxonomic issue. If your manuscript is well-underway, and mine (with Jim Gaudin) is finished, why not join forces instead of competing for priority? I offered you and Liz co-authorship, so I hope you are willing to extend the same courtesy to us.

My manuscript is ready to submitted, but I did the right thing and contacted you first. The offer for co-authorship still stands. However, if you prefer, I am willing to discard my manuscript if you can offer us co-authorship of your manuscript. This might avoid some stress on both 'sides'. Very few people care enough about taxonomy that they prepare descriptive manuscripts like these, so I hope we can collaborate.

Kind regards,
Dr George Sangster

George and Jim,

I never received George's initial email, but he just reached out to me. I responded to him directly, but I will include some thoughts here for the forum.

I appreciate the excitement from folks about taxonomic revisions revealed by recent phylogenetic works, and in particular the Philydor split. We have been aware of (and also excited about!) the paraphyly of Philydor and the need for such a split since the Derryberry et al. Furnariidae tree came out, and particularly so since it was confirmed in our 2020 suboscine tree. It's one of the taxonomic revision papers in our list of 34 that are priorities for publication.

I want to highlight that we have also put many thousands of hours into building these trees, and have spent considerable time agonizing initially over the sampling and then over the relationships estimated when the trees were complete. Given these efforts and experiences, I believe it appropriate to include the folks laboring on the phylogenies in the process of publishing taxonomic revisions based on their results (whether that be as authors or otherwise). Reaching out to us in advance of drafting such a revision both averts duplication of effort and acknowledges the amount of time and effort phylogenetic workers have put into the completion of these projects.

Like, I presume, many others out there, I am not thrilled by the slow process of scientific publication and taxonomic revision, but I don't believe displeasure with this system warrants exclusion of the folks that have invested so much into obtaining samples and generating the data from the process of taxonomic revision. I for one am not opposed to others helping shoulder the burden of publishing these revisions -- I only ask that we do so in an inclusive way.

Thank you again, George and Jim, for reaching out, and I look forward to seeing all these new taxa roll out in the coming years!

Thanks,

Mike Harvey

 

[George Sangster]

Hi Mike,

Thank you for responding.

I am very happy with your recent message. Jim and I fully agree that a joint/inclusive publication is the best option. That's why I contacted you at first (and, later on, Liz). I would be delighted if you and other members of your team would join the current manuscript, and perhaps modify or expand it.

I have just sent you an e-mail with the current version of the manuscript, and I hope we can (further) collaborate on this.

Best,
George

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Another problem name in the same group, for what it's worth -

name : Erythrospiza​

author : Bonaparte​

year : 1830​

OD reference : Bonaparte CL. 1830. Continuazione sulla seconda edizione ec. (Vedi T. IV. pag. 3 di questi Anali). Ann. Sto. Nat. Bologna, 4: 159-220.​

page : 212​

OD link : Tomo 4 (1830) - Annali di storia naturale. - Biodiversity Heritage Library​

included nominal species : Fringilla purpurea, Pyrrhula frontalis, P. githaginea, Loxia sibirica, L. rosea, L. erythrina, P. synoica, [L. rubicilla – 'probabilmente']​

type species : Fringilla purpurea Gmelin 1789​

type species valid syn. : in use​

fixation by : subsequent designation​

fixation ref : Wilson A., Bonaparte CL, Jardine W. 1832. American ornithology; or, the natural history of the birds of the United States. By Alexander Wilson; with a continuation by Charles Lucian Bonaparte, Prince of Musignano. The illustrative notes, and life of Wilson, by Sir William Jardine, Bart. In three volumes. Vol. I. Wittaker, Treacher & Arnott, London; Stirling & Kenney, Edinburgh.​

page : 121 (f.n.)​

fixation link : v.1 (1832) - American ornithology, or, The natural history of the birds of the United States - Biodiversity Heritage Library​

type OD ref : Linnaeus C, Gmelin JF. 1789. Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species; cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Edicio decima tertia, aucta, reformata. Tomus primus, pars II. GE Beer, Leipzig.​

page : 923​

type OD link : v. 1, pt. 2 - Caroli a Linné ... Systema naturae per regna tria naturae : - Biodiversity Heritage Library​

notes : Cited by Neave from the separate (p.80; Sulla seconda edizione del Regno animale del barone Cuvier osservazioni di Carlo Luciano Bonaparte principe di Musignano ), and dated 1831. Other names from the journal version are all dated 1830, however, and nothing significant was added in the separate. Presented as having already been used by Bonaparte in a comment on Swainson's “Mexican birds“, in the Contrib. Maclurian Lyceum; but this journal had been discontinued in 1829 and this work apparently remained unpublished, without Bonaparte being aware of it. Senior homonym of Erythrospiza Kaup 1867 (Acciptridae). Invalid type designation (accepted in PCL 14: 267; v.14 (1968) - Check-list of birds of the world. - Biodiversity Heritage Library ): Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London.; p. 48; A list of the genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library ; Loxia erythrina Pallas; not the first designation. Objective senior synonym of Haemorhous Swainson 1837, which is in use ! Erythrospiza was in generalized use in the early 20th C, albeit apparently taken from: Bonaparte CL. 1841. Introduzione alla classe II. Uccelli. In: Bonaparte CL. 1837-1841. Iconografia della fauna italica per le quattro classi degli animali vertebrati. Tomo I. Mammiferi e uccelli. Salviucci, Roma.; t.1 (1832-1841) - Iconografia della fauna italica - Biodiversity Heritage Library ; inluded species sinoica, erythrina, rosea, rubìcìlla, frontalis (syn. haemorrhoa), purpurea, tephrocotis, sibirica (syn. longicauda), githaginea; with githaginea (the only species treated in detail here) assumed to be the type (e.g. Hartert E. 1903. Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. Systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien, und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommende Vögel. Heft. I. R Friedländer und Sohn, Berlin.; p. 88; Bd. 1 - Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); this usage was discontinued after the correct source for this name (but not the correct type fixation) was identified in: Sclater WL. 1926 [The generic name of the trumpeter bullfinch.] Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Cl., 46: 130-131.; p. 130: v.46=no.299-307 (1925-1926) - Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club. - Biodiversity Heritage Library .​

ICZN :​

online publication : n/a​

available : yes​

status : extant​

family : Fringillidae​

Wolters evoked Haemorhous Boie, 1826, but I can't find it anywhere

 

[mb1848]

Haemorhous (not of Boie, 1826) Swainson 1837, type species purpureus. This listing indicates that Swainson‘s name is preoccupied and not available. I questioned the authors of Zuccon et al. about their use of that generic name, and was informed (pers. comm.) that the name Boie had used, for a genus of fishes, was Haemorrhois, which does not preoccupy Swainson‘s name, so the latter is actually available. So, the proper generic name for the three native North American species now in Carpodacus is Haemorhous Swainson, 1837.
https://checklist.americanornithology.org/assets/proposals/PDF/2011-C.pdf .
1826 - Isis von Oken - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Actually Hemorrhois. Hemorrhois hippocrepis not a fish but the Horseshoe Whip snake
I think frontalis is type also?
v.2:c.2 (1836) - On the natural history and classification of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

was Haemorrhois,

It's good to know

 

[l_raty]

So, the proper generic name for the three native North American species now in Carpodacus is Haemorhous Swainson, 1837.

Except that, as I was trying to explain in the post quoted by Jim above, the name that has priority for the three N American species is Erythrospiza Bonaparte 1830, which preceded Haemorhous by 7 years...

 

[mb1848]

I apologize Laurent I am a little colorblind so I did not see the red colored sentence Objective senior synonym of Haemorhous Swainson 1837, which is in use ! The use of Carpodacus for Erythrospiza by Bonaparte & Schlegel 1850 is it a problem?
Monographie des loxiens - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Except that, as I was trying to explain in the post quoted by Jim above, the name that has priority for the three N American species is Erythrospiza Bonaparte 1830, which preceded Haemorhous by 7 years...

Valid under Art. 68.3 ?

 

[mb1848]

Valid under Art. 68.3 ?

I am sorry Jim I need more words, Valid What? How does a code section named 68.3. Type species by monotypy. validate any genus?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

68.3. Type species by monotypy.

Yes, I talked about that, purpurea type species of Erythrospiza by monotypy.