• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Passeriformes (1 Viewer)

jts1882

Well-known member
United Kingdom
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!

Is it worth making two monotypic subfamilies for Formicarius and Chamaeza? The latter probably needs a new family name to be described, as it's previously been in Formicariinae and Formicariini before all the splitting.

The morphological analysis of Rhinocryptidae by Maurício et al (2012; pdf), while not consistent with the molecular analyses (according to TiF), defines a number of subfamily, tribe and subtribes that could be useful.
 

Acanthis

Well-known member
Is it worth making two monotypic subfamilies for Formicarius and Chamaeza? The latter probably needs a new family name to be described, as it's previously been in Formicariinae and Formicariini before all the splitting.

The morphological analysis of Rhinocryptidae by Maurício et al (2012; pdf), while not consistent with the molecular analyses (according to TiF), defines a number of subfamily, tribe and subtribes that could be useful.
Oh that is most excellent pal! Cheers for that!
Now just a wee bit shuffling of Mauricio et al's names needed to apply them to Harvey et al's tree and the job's done. 👍

With Formicariidae it would merely be to recognise the great divergence age (>20 mya) between the two genera in Harvey et al, and unless someone has already coined a name based around 'Chamaeza' it may be a while before a 'Chamaezinae' is created.
I'll keep it as an informal name in my scribblings. 🙂
 

l_raty

laurent raty
I think Taenidiura is available
Toenidiura Reichenbach 1850
Reichenbach HGL. 1849-52. Avium Systema Naturale. Das naturliche System der Vögel mit hundert Tafeln grösstentheils Original-Abbildungen der bis jetzt entechten fast zwölfhundert typischen formen. Expedition der vollständigsten Naturgeschichte, Dresden & Leipzig.
pl. LII : Abt.2:Bd.1 [Plates] (1836) - Die vollständigste Naturgeschichte der Vögel - Biodiversity Heritage Library

(This has been listed consistently as Toenidiura Reichenbach in recent nomenclators (Richmond, Neave, Schulze...), even though Taen- makes indeed more sense etymologically, and the Reichenbach's captions, not being printed with types, are probably interpretable. (If viewed as an error of latinization, it cannot be corrected, because errors of latinizations cannot be deemed inadvertent errors.) If the OS is Toenidiura, Taenidiura is an incorrect subsequent spelling, first used by Bonaparte in 1854 here, which lacks nomenclatural standing.)

(I suggest reading Art. 67 and 69 of the Code if anything in the following is unclear.)

Toenidiura Reichenbach was introduced with an illustration only and no included nominal species. I know this is what people are generally tempted to do, but you are not supposed, in such cases, to look at the plate, identify the bird as a given taxonomic species, and claim that this taxonomic species "is the type". (Remember that a type species is a nominal species, not a taxonomic species. Remember also that putting a name on the subject of a plate amounts to a subjective statement of conspecificity between the subject and this name's type specimen : this is 100% subjective taxonomy; nomenclature, including type fixations, must in principle always be fully objective.) What you are supposed to do in such cases, is to search the subsequent literature for the first work where nominal species are "expressly included" in the nominal genus: these will be the originally included nominal species, and are the only ones eligible to become the type. ("67.2.2. If a nominal genus or subgenus was established before 1931 [...] without included nominal species [Art. 12], the nominal species that were first subsequently and expressly included in it are deemed to be the only originally included nominal species." Note that the Code offers no option to discard a first subsequent inclusion as invalid for subjective reasons.)
If only one nominal species was first subsequently included, it is the type by subsequent monotypy. ("69.3. Type species by subsequent monotypy. If only one nominal species was first subsequently included in a nominal genus or subgenus established without included species, that nominal species is automatically fixed as the type species, by subsequent monotypy." Note "nominal", not "taxonomic species"; one taxonomic species with a valid name + a subjective synonym = two nominal species.)
If there were more than one nominal species subsequently included, you always need a subsequent designation of one of them. (Even if there was only one taxonomic species figured in the OD; even if the included nominal species are treated as taxonomically conspecific when they are included; even if the name of one of them is identical to the genus-group name.)

Bonaparte 1854 (link above) just listed the name without including anything. He was probably the only author to have ever treated this name as valid after it was introduced.

Gray 1855 here listed Toenidiura with a query in the synonymy of Formicivora Swainson 1824, for which he designated a type.
As I explained earlier for some hummingbird genera, the species listed by Gray 1855 are the types of the names there treated as generic or subgeneric, due to the presence of a statement in this book's Introduction which tells us that they are; they are not to be understood as having been designated as the types of any of the genus-group names that Gray treated as synonyms, because there is nothing in the work that tells us this. Gray definitely did not designate a type for Toenidiura Reichenbach.
I regularly see it accepted that, in cases like the present one, as both the valid name and the synonym are associated to the same taxonomic genus, in which a nominal species is included, this species may be deemed included in the synonym as well : in this case, if (and only if) the synonym had never had any nominal species included in it yet, Gray's designation of a type for a valid name might be seen as having made this species the type of the synonym by subsequent monotypy. (I.e., it may end up fixing a type for the synonym, even though this type is not designated as such.)
But here, even if this principle is accepted, the query remains a problem. If the synonymy is tentative, an inclusion of species under the valid name cannot have been more than tentative for the synonym; and, when it comes to type fixation, anything made tentatively or with reservations does not count. ("67.2.5. A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally included".)
Thus Gray 1855 does not appear to have done anything that could have affected Toenidiura Reichenbach nomenclaturally.

To the extent that "express" inclusion through a synonymy treatment is OK, the first positive inclusion of nominal species in Toenidiura Reichenbach was in Cabanis 1860 here, where the name was made a synonym of Ellipura Cabanis (without any reservations), with three taxonomic (seven nominal) species included. We need a designation of one of the nominal species cited there -- which I have not seen so far.
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
To the extent that "express" inclusion through a synonymy treatment is OK, the first positive inclusion of nominal species in Toenidiura Reichenbach was in Cabanis 1860 here, where the name was made a synonym of Ellipura Cabanis (without any reservations), with three taxonomic (seven nominal) species included. We need a designation of one of the nominal species cited there -- which I have not seen so far.
The only thing an actual taxonomist needs to do is to fix squamata as the type species of Toenidiura in a future revision. I think at least
 

l_raty

laurent raty
The only thing an actual taxonomist needs to do is to fix squamata as the type species of Toenidiura in a future revision. I think at least
Basically yes.
Perhaps first make sure a designation does not exist in some obscure mid-20th C work, though.
And it may be better not to start using the name in the sense of an expected future designation, that may end up different from your expectations when it finally materializes...
 

andrew147

Well-known member
...If viewed as an error of latinization, it cannot be corrected, because errors of latinizations cannot be deemed inadvertent errors...
I've never understood this and I dislike the Code's insistence on preserving bad Latin/Greek. Surely not being able to spell is inadvertent?!
 

jts1882

Well-known member
United Kingdom
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!
The morphological analysis of Rhinocryptidae by Maurício et al (2012; pdf), while not consistent with the molecular analyses (according to TiF), defines a number of subfamily, tribe and subtribes that could be useful.

Now just a wee bit shuffling of Mauricio et al's names needed to apply them to Harvey et al's tree and the job's done. 👍

Thought I'd have a play at splitting Rhinocryptidae using the Harvey et al (2020) dating.

A split date of 20mya would give four subfamilies, but the splits are close at 23.5 mya (Scytalopodinae), 22 mya (Pteroptochinae), and 21 mya (Psilorhamphinae and Rhinocryptinae). You could easily choose two or three subfamilies with a slightly different date.

Further splitting into tribes base on dates could split Scytalopodinae at 17.5 mya (Merulaxini, Scytalopodini), Psilorhamphinae at 17mya (Psilorhamhinae, Lioscelini) and Rhinocryptinae at 18mya (Acropternini, Rhinocryptini). However, splits at those dates (17-18 mya) would also require a split between Rhinocrypta (Rhinocryptini) and Teledromas (no suitable name in Mauricio et al, 2012).

It does illustrate how difficult purely date based splitting is. The morphology-based taxonomy of Mauricio et al (2012) can probably provide morphological grounds for the tribe splits (as they all form clades), while not providing reasons to group them in subfamilies.
 

Acanthis

Well-known member
Thought I'd have a play at splitting Rhinocryptidae using the Harvey et al (2020) dating.

A split date of 20mya would give four subfamilies, but the splits are close at 23.5 mya (Scytalopodinae), 22 mya (Pteroptochinae), and 21 mya (Psilorhamphinae and Rhinocryptinae). You could easily choose two or three subfamilies with a slightly different date.

Further splitting into tribes base on dates could split Scytalopodinae at 17.5 mya (Merulaxini, Scytalopodini), Psilorhamphinae at 17mya (Psilorhamhinae, Lioscelini) and Rhinocryptinae at 18mya (Acropternini, Rhinocryptini). However, splits at those dates (17-18 mya) would also require a split between Rhinocrypta (Rhinocryptini) and Teledromas (no suitable name in Mauricio et al, 2012).

It does illustrate how difficult purely date based splitting is. The morphology-based taxonomy of Mauricio et al (2012) can probably provide morphological grounds for the tribe splits (as they all form clades), while not providing reasons to group them in subfamilies.
Those were the subfamilies I settled on too.
I started messing about with tribes but felt they were an unnecessary layer in this case.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Psilorhamphinae at 17mya (Psilorhamhinae, Lioscelini)
Psilorhamphidae was attributed by Bock 1994 to Wolters 1983, but it is nude there. Maurício et al. 2012 accepted it from this source without proper verification (they trusted Bock...), hence did not flag it as a new name in their work, which (as this was after 1999) makes it unavailable from there as well. The name was made available as Psilorhamphini (tribe) in :
Maurício GN, Areta JI, Bornschein MR, Reis RE. 2015. Corrigendum: Morphology-based phylogenetic analysis and classification of the family Rhinocryptidae (Aves: Passeriformes). Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 174: 877-878.​

Thus Lioscelinae has precedence for this subfamily.
 
Last edited:

Snapdragyn

Well-known member
Can anyone work out what TiF is doing with Rufous-winged Antwren?

They show a split of scapularis from rufimarginatus. What do they do with frater & exiguus, though? I can't find either of those referenced anywhere on the site.

Edit: Never mind, found out via the IUCN website. From the maps there, it appears that they group with scapularis.
 

Snapdragyn

Well-known member
Can anyone work out what TiF is doing with Rufous-winged Antwren?

They show a split of scapularis from rufimarginatus. What do they do with frater & exiguus, though? I can't find either of those referenced anywhere on the site.

Edit: Never mind, found out via the IUCN website. From the maps there, it appears that they group with scapularis.

And now changed to a three-way split, rufimarginatus vs. scapularis vs. frater/exiguus.
 

TomDerutter

Well-known member
Plain-brown Woodcreeper: Based on Harvey et al. (2020), the HBW Checklist, Weir and Price (2011), and Derryberry et al. (2012), the Line-throated Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla fuliginosa is spliit into:
  • Line-throated Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla fuliginosa, including ridgwayi, lafresnayei, barinensis, deltana, phaeochroa, and neglecta
  • Plain-brown Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla meruloides, including atrirostris, rufoolivacea, and trumali
  • Plain-brown Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla meruloides, including taunayi
Somethings wrong here. I think the last entry should be Plain-winged Woodcreeper (turdina, including taunayi)
 

jts1882

Well-known member
United Kingdom
Locustelloidea including Acrocephalidae...? (In the suppl. info.)


The former is of Bonaparte 1854 [here], as "Locastelleae" [sic].

Acrocephalinae was introduced by Dresser 1880 [here], I believe. (Not Salvin two years later [here] or Oates three years later [here], both of which were cited by Bock 1994 -- in different parts of his publication -- as sources for that name.). But it takes the priority of Calamoherpinae Bonaparte 1838 [here] (or [here] -- I don't know for sure if a day/month can be put on the latter; this is the source Bock 1994 cited for this name, but he was inconsistent on this issue: he attributed some names that appeared in these two works to one of them, others to the other, without any apparent reason) (type Calamoherpe Boie 1822, placed in the synonymy of Acrocephalus Naumann 1804 well before 1961) under Art. 40.2.1 of the ICZN.

Why not Acrocephaloidea Dresser 1880 (1838) ?

Anything further on this?

I was looking for Acrocephaloidea and found this post. The only other place was in the Polish checklist linked below (and secondarily on Polish Wikipedia) which uses Acrocephaloidea Salvin 1880 (1838).

 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
August 4
We have completed the Harvey et al. (2020) changes, for now. That means its time for the first post Harvey et al. change, redoing the Plain-brown Woodcreeper complex.

Plain-brown Woodcreeper complex:

Plain-brown Woodcreeper complex: Based on Schultz et al. (2021) and Weir and Price (2011), with some help from Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW Checklist, the Plain-brown Woodcreeper complex has been reorganized. The complex, which included only three species (Plain-winged, Tawny-winged, Plain-brown) in H&M-4, is now comprised of four species:

Tawny-winged Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla anabatina, including typhla and saturata
Plain-brown Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla fuliginosa, including rufoolivacea, trumaii (deprecated); ridgwayi, lafresnayei (both parts); meruloides, barinensis, deltana; phaeochroa, and neglecta (deprecated)
d'Orbigny's Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla atrirostris
Plain-winged Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla turdina, including taunayi
The subspecies taunayi is transferred to the Plain-winged Woodcreeper, Dendrocincla turdina. Those who are sharp-eyed will notice that the Line-throated Woodcreeper has disappeared. It may eventually return. More details can found on the Furnariida II page.
[Dendrocolaptinae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

Furnariinae: The subfamily Xenopinae has been demoted to Xenopini, the basal tribe of Furnariinae. Moreover, the tribes of Furnariinae have been rearranged a bit, to conform to Harvey et al. (2020).
[Furnariinae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

Plain Xenops: Based on Harvey and Brumfield (2015) and the HBW Checklist, the Plain Xenops, Xenops minutus, is split into:

White-throated Xenops, Xenops minutus
Northwestern Plain Xenops, Xenops mexicanus, includes ridgwayi, littoralis, olivaceus, and neglectus
Southeastern Plain Xenops, Xenops genibarbus, includes remoratus, ruficaudus, obsoletus, and alagoanus
[Furnariinae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

Sharp-billed Treehunter: This has been moved from Heliobletus to Philydor. Also, note that one of the subspecies currently doesn't have a name! The problem is that contaminatus and camargoi refer to the same subspecies! See Penhallurick (2011) for details. For years we've heard there will be a replacement… we're still waiting.

Also, there seems to be a sister species in Bahia. It hasn't been described yet, but is included as such in Harvey et al. (2020).
[Furnariinae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

Ancistrops: Two species of Ancistrops are placed in the temporary genus "Philydor" because they are sufficiently different from Ancistrops itself, both in appearance and genetics. They are the Buff-fronted Foliage-gleaner, "Philydor" rufum, and the Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner, "Philydor" erythropterum.
[Furnariinae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

Ruddy Foliage-gleaner complex: Both the Santa Marta Foliage-gleaner, Clibanornis rufipectus, and Henna-hooded Foliage-gleaner, Clibanornis erythrocephalus, are embedded in the complex. We First transfer all of these species to Hylocryptus (Chapman 1919, type erythrocephalus).

Based on Harvey et al. (2020), Claramunt et al. (2013), and the HBW Checklist, the Ruddy Foliage-gleaner, Hylocryptus rubiginosus, is split into:

Rusky Foliage-gleaner, Hylocryptus rubiginosus, including guerrerensis, veraepacis, and fumosus
Cinnamon-throated Foliage-gleaner, Hylocryptus cinnamomeigula, including watkinsi
Dusty Foliage-gleaner, Hylocryptus obscurus, including venezuelanus, caquetae, and brunnescens
Black-tailed Foliage-gleaner, Hylocryptus nigricauda, including saturatus and sasaimae
Automolus: The two basal species in Automolus are transferred to Cryptomolus (Claramunt et al. 2013, type rufipileatus).

Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner: In Supplement 59 (2018) the NACC split the Chiriqui Foliage-gleaner, Automolus exsertus, from the Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner, Automolus ochrolaemus. Based on Harvey et al. (2020), the HBW Checklist, and Freeman and Montgomery (2017), I've redone the complex as follows:

Western Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner, Automolus cervinigularis, including hypophaeus and pallidigularis
Chiriqui Foliage-gleaner, Automolus exsertus
Eastern Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner, Automolus ochrolaemus, including turdinus and auricularis
Part of the point is that it seems clear from Freeman and Montgomery that exsertus is vocally different from the Western forms. NACC are clearly of the opinion that it is also different from those to the east, as if on an island (sky island?). Harvey et al. (2020) found 2 million years distance between the Costa Rican birds and those from Loreto, Peru, which are in the ochrolaemus group. This gives us the three species solution above. Yes, it is a bit speculative.

Pale-legged Hornero: Based on Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW Checklist, the Pale-legged Hornero, Furnarius leucopus, is split into:

Tricolored Hornero, Furnarius tricolor, including araguaiae and assimilis
Pale-legged Hornero, Furnarius leucopus
Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail: Based on Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW Checklist, the Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail, Leptasthenura aegithaloides, is split into:

Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail, Leptasthenura aegithaloides, including grisescens
Pallid Tit-Spinetail, Leptasthenura pallida
Buffy Tit-Spinetail, Leptasthenura berlepschi
Asthenes: Divided Asthenes into three genera, ``Asthenes'', Siptornoides, and the Asthenes thistletails.

Rusty-vented Canastero: Based on Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW Checklist, the Rusty-vented Canastero, "Asthenes" dorbignyi, is split into:

White-tailed Canastero, "Asthenes" usheri
Rusty-vented Canastero, "Asthenes" dorbignyi
Ash-browed Spinetail: Based on Harvey et al. (2020), the subspecies debilis is sister to the Creamy-crested Spinetail, Cranioleuca albicapilla. As a result, Ash-browed Spinetail, Cranioleuca curtata, is split into:

Slender-billed Spinetail, Cranioleuca debilis
Ash-browed Spinetail, Cranioleuca curtata, including cisandina
As you can see from tree, these are not sister taxa. The name Slender-billed has been used in the past for debilis, e.g., by Cory and Hellmayr.

Undescribed Spinetail: On a Field Guides trip we Bret Whitney and Marcello Barreiros, Bret pointed out an undescribed Certhiaxis spinetail on a river island. As we were in the Araguaia drainage, this must be the unnamed Certhiaxis mentioned in the Harvey et al. (2020) tree. It's pretty similar to a Yellow-chinned Spinetail, without a yellow chin. I didn't add it to the list, but Harvey et al. (2020) included it in their analysis and you can find it in the species tree next to the Yellow-chinned Spinetail, Certhiaxis cinnamomeus.

Necklaced Spinetail: Based on Harvey et al. (2020), Stopiglia et al. (2020), and the HBW Checklist, the Necklaced Spinetail, Synallaxis stictothorax, is split into:

Necklaced Spinetail, Synallaxis stictothorax
Chinchipe Spinetail, Synallaxis chinchipensis
White-lored Spinetail: Harvey et al. (2020) found that a subspecies of Plain-crowned Spinetail, Synallaxis gujanensis is closer to White-lored Spinetail, Synallaxis albilora than to the rest of gujanensis. The race in question is present in Santa Cruz, Boliva, near El Tuná and I infer it is certhiola. Apparently it looks a lot like albilora.

Rufous Spinetail: Based on Harvey et al. (2020) and the HBW Checklist, the Rufous Spinetail, Synallaxis unirufa, is split into:

Merida Rufous Spinetail, Synallaxis meridana
Perija Rufous Spinetail, Synallaxis munoztebari
Colombian Rufous Spinetail, Synallaxis ochrogaster
Peruvian Rufous Spinetail, Synallaxis unirufa
"Philydor" rufum and erythropterum = Dendroma
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top