• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Passeriformes (1 Viewer)

Acanthis

Well-known member
"Flavescent Flycatcher: Based on Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW CHecklist, the Flavescent Flycatcher, Scotomyias flavicans, is split into:

  • Flavescent Flycatcher, Scotomyias flavicans
  • Haughty Flycatcher, Scotomyias superciliosus (monotypic)
Yes, I made up the name Haughty Flycatcher. It seemed too good to resist."

:LOL: (y)
 

DLane

Well-known member
Anyone know more about this comment, under Streaked Flycatcher Myiodynastes maculatus?

"PS. Still waiting for the Island Streaked-Flycatcher to be described…"
It is my opinion that Bret has jumped at shadows on this one... the island form of M. maculatus is not appreciably different from nominate birds of the Guianan Shield area in plumage or voice. The last time I discussed the two populations with him, I think he basically agreed that that may be the situation. I suspect his initial proclamation was based on comparisons with M. m. solitarius, which is very different from other populations of M. maculatus, and would be the form most deserving to be split off (but, of course, is already described and named)... I would guess Bret wasn't yet familiar with nominate birds when he made his conclusion about island birds.
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
Even though Phyllomyias griseocapilla is basal and sister to all Zimmerius, isn't it different enough to be placed in a distinct genus?

July 15​

Gray-capped Tyrannulet: Given its common ancestor with the Zimmerius tyrannulets was about 8.7 mya, my first reaction was to list its genus as "Phyllomyias". I had only seen one once, back in 2010, and couldn't recall what it looked like. The illustration in the HBW Checklist didn't help, so I checked photos via Birds of the World. They didn't look much like the illustration, and showed a Zimmerius-like wing pattern. That impressed me enough to put it in Zimmerius instead.
[Elaeniinae, Tyrannida II, 3.07]
This wing pattern is shared by a lot of Tyrannid genera, no? :unsure: Let's see how taxonomists will solve this problem. Will they include it in Zimmerius or create a genus for it? Lista Ptakow says that could be an alternative although they put this species in Zimmerius.
Streaked Flycatchers: Thanks to Dan for his response to my implicit question about the Island Streaked-Flycatcher.
[Tyranninae, Tyrannida II, 3.07]
 
Last edited:

Acanthis

Well-known member
Bock (1994) attributes Pittasomatidae to Ridgway (1911). Remsen relates in SACC #235 that he searched for it, and could not find it. I used Google, which has apparently scanned all of the volumes of Ridgway's The Birds of North and Middle America. I searched for family, subfamily, and tribe for both Pittasomidae and Pittasomatidae. Nada. Bock strikes again!

Oh god, this is a concern!

I earlier suggested "Iodopleurinae" through a name "Iodopleuridae, Bonaparte 1854" in Bock 1994.
The reference being "BONAPARTE, C.L. 1854. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae".
I can't find a readable version of this online to check the name.

Since the source was Bock should the prior existence of "Iodopleuridae" be regarded as unproven?
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Bock's work is often quite hard to use, because he never cited the original spelling of what he thought was an available name, and he never gave the page on which this name was used.

He systematically "corrected" the rank of the names he cited as invalid synonyms of a name he treated as valid to the ending matching the rank of the valid synonym. Thus he cited "Pittasomatidae Ridgway, 1911" with an ending indicating the rank of family, not at all because this is what Ridgway had done, but because he made this name an invalid synonym of Formicariidae Gray 1840, which he regarded as a valid family name...

Pittasomae (original rank: group) is a family-group name available from Ridgway 1911, p. 17: no.50:pt.5 (1911) - Bulletin of the United States National Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

Iodopleureae (original rank: group) is a family-group name available from Bonaparte 1854, p. 30 of the separate: 2 - Opera ornithologica. - Biodiversity Heritage Library , or p. 134 of the journal version: ser.4:t.1-2 (1854) - Annales des sciences naturelles - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
(Bonaparte presented (what was presumably the complete separately printed version of) the Conspectus systematis ornithologiae to the Académie on 29 May 1854 (t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences. - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); this name is in the second part of the journal version, in Cahier n° 3, which was not presented to the Académie before the 26 Jun 1854 (t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences. - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); thus I find evidence of existence for the separate earlier than for the journal version.)
 
Last edited:

Acanthis

Well-known member
Bock's work is often quite hard to use, because he never cited the original spelling of what he thought was an available name, and he never gave the page on which this name was used.

He systematically "corrected" the rank of the names he cited as invalid synonyms of a name he treated as valid to the ending matching the rank of the valid synonym. Thus he cited "Pittasomatidae Ridgway, 1911" with an ending indicating the rank of family, not at all because this is what Ridgway had done, but because he made this name an invalid synonym of Formicariidae Gray 1840, which he regarded as a valid family name...

Pittasomae (original rank: group) is a family-group name available from Ridgway 1911, p. 17: no.50:pt.5 (1911) - Bulletin of the United States National Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

Iodopleureae (original rank: group) is a family-group name available from Bonaparte 1854, p. 30 of the separate: 2 - Opera ornithologica. - Biodiversity Heritage Library , or p. 134 of the journal version: ser.4:t.1-2 (1854) - Annales des sciences naturelles - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
(Bonaparte presented (what was presumably the complete separately printed version of) the Conspectus systematis ornithologiae to the Académie on 29 May 1854 (t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences. - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); this name is in the second part of the journal version, in Cahier n° 3, which was not presented to the Académie before the 26 Jun 1854 (t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences. - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); thus I find evidence of existence for the separate earlier than for the journal version.)
Thank you Laurent for sorting that out, and clarifying some of the issues associated with Bock.
 

birdboybowley

Well-known member.....apparently so ;)
Supporter
England
So......the Slaty-capped Fly split. JB mentions the lumping of ssp but I can't find a newer list of them now. I must've got mine from HBW and have superciliaris (Ecuador), hellmayri (Costa Rica) and pariae (Trinidad). Does anyone please know which species they now are listed under?? 😱
 

TomDerutter

Well-known member
from IOC:
superciliaris: Includes hellmayri, transandinus, poliocephalus, venezuelensis, and pariae. Fitzpatrick, 2004.

which is split by TiF into
  • Western Slaty-capped Flycatcher, Leptopogon transandinus, including hellmayri, and if needed, troglodytes for the Darien population.
  • Eastern Slaty-capped Flycatcher, Leptopogon superciliaris

I guess pariae stays with superciliaris
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
Myrmopagis unified: Myrmopagis has grown. In the Harvey et al. (2020), the species previously designated as Myrmopagis2 (except fluminensis) and Myrmopagis3 can be and have been merged with Myrmopagis.

It does not match with the youth of most lineages, nor with the fact that he considers Neorhopias as distinct from Formicivora (which has less than 10 mya) while his large Myrmopagis greatly exceeds 10 mya. He should have kept the old conception: Myrmopagis, Poliolaema (assimilis and menetriesii) and `` Myrmopagis '' (behni species group)
 

Acanthis

Well-known member
Moyle et al. (2009), suggest raising both Sclerurinae (leaftossers and miners) and Dendrocolaptinae (woodcreepers) to family rank. For fans of temporal distance, there are divisions within some of the other families that are deeper, including all three antbird subfamilies. Personally, I'm not in favor of further dividing the antpittas, tapaculos, or antthrushes, into families as there are too few taxa involved and the groups seem pretty coherent as is.
Yeah, having tried this out and found it to be impossible and unnecessary I reckon it's best to leave these ancient, conservative, well-established old lineages unsplit family-wise. That being said I would like to see some deep divisions recognised at subfamily level with 2 in Formicariidae and maybe 4 in Rhinocryptidae. Not sure if there are any suitable names available and to be honest I haven't had enough coffee yet to embark on that kind of hunt!
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Shouldn't we be using Myrmophila Cabanis & Heine, 1860 (type: urosticta) instead of Myrmopagis Ridgway, 1909 (type: axillaris)?
The type of Myrmophila is Formicivora brevicauda Swainson 1825, which is regarded as unidentifiable. As a consequence, the genus-group name is unidentifiable.
The type is not urosticta.
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
The type of Myrmophila is Formicivora brevicauda Swainson 1825, which is regarded as unidentifiable. As a consequence, the genus-group name is unidentifiable.
The type is not urosticta.
I read that in James' key 🤷

Its true that he specifies that the species is not identifiable 🙄

And about Taenidiura ?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top