Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Relevant question
-
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.
Passeriformes (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Acanthis
- Start date
The Key to Scientific Names - Birds of the World
Species accounts for all the birds of the world.
birdsoftheworld.org
Erythrina
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Pallas's Rosefinch C. roseus) Specific name Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770; "III. G. Karmingimpel, Erythrina Br. 1) Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel, E. rubrifrons —— 2) Der weißstirnige —— E. rosea ——" (Brehm 1828); "Erythrina Brehm (Isis, 21, col. 1276, 1828), which Stresemann (Orn. Monatsber., 30, pp. 60-61, 1922) sought to revive, is a nomen nudum under the Rules, since E. rubrifrons was undescribed at the time, while the second species, E. rosea, listed without author's name or reference, is indeterminable." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151).
andrew147
Well-known member
The Key to Scientific Names - Birds of the World
Species accounts for all the birds of the world.
Erythrina
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Pallas's Rosefinch C. roseus) Specific name Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770; "III. G. Karmingimpel, Erythrina Br. 1) Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel, E. rubrifrons —— 2) Der weißstirnige —— E. rosea ——" (Brehm 1828); "Erythrina Brehm (Isis, 21, col. 1276, 1828), which Stresemann (Orn. Monatsber., 30, pp. 60-61, 1922) sought to revive, is a nomen nudum under the Rules, since E. rubrifrons was undescribed at the time, while the second species, E. rosea, listed without author's name or reference, is indeterminable." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151
Thanks. That's one of the sources I was referring to. If it's correct/complete then Erythrina should not be in use, certainly not for 'Carpodacus' erythrinus.
However, Zuccon et al. (2012) 'The phylogenetic relationships and generic limits of finches (Fringillidae)' states:
"Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas, 1770) falls outside the core rosefinch clade and should be transferred to a monotypic genus, for which we propose to resurrect the genus name Erythrina Brehm, 1829 (type species Erythrina albifrons Brehm, 1829 = Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770, gender feminine, thus requires emending the specific name to erythrina)"
They also date it a year later... which makes more sense than it being a senior synonym of Carpodacus... still confusing though.
Presumably still nomen nudum, though.
How about Erythrothorax?
Erythrothorax
(Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Common Rosefinch C. erythrina) Gr. ερυθρος eruthros red; θωραξ thōrax, θωρακος thōrakos breastplate; "Karmingimpel. Erythrothorax, Br. ... Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel. Erythrothorax rubrifrons, Br. (Loxia erythrina, Pallas. N. W. IV. Th. Taf. 113, 1, 2.)" (Brehm 1831); "Erythrothorax Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 248, 1831—obviously proposed as a new name for Erythrina Brehm, previously used in Botany." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151) (see Erythrina).
birdsoftheworld.org
How about Erythrothorax?
Erythrothorax
(Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Common Rosefinch C. erythrina) Gr. ερυθρος eruthros red; θωραξ thōrax, θωρακος thōrakos breastplate; "Karmingimpel. Erythrothorax, Br. ... Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel. Erythrothorax rubrifrons, Br. (Loxia erythrina, Pallas. N. W. IV. Th. Taf. 113, 1, 2.)" (Brehm 1831); "Erythrothorax Brehm, Handb. Naturg. Vög. Deutschl., p. 248, 1831—obviously proposed as a new name for Erythrina Brehm, previously used in Botany." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151) (see Erythrina).
The Key to Scientific Names - Birds of the World
Species accounts for all the birds of the world.
birdsoftheworld.org
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Let us agree on the genus to give to "Carpodacus" erythrinus. For the moment, I place it in the genus Erythrina but your comments make me doubt now
James Jobling
Well-known member
I revisited Erythrina. The Key entry/definition is now revised, as follows:
Erythrina
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Common Rosefinch C. erythrinus) "2. Der Rosengimpel, Erythrina* albifrons Br. (Pyrrhula rosea, Temm., Fringilla rosea, Pall.) ... * So heißt schon eine Pflanze." (Brehm 1829); "Erythrina Brehm, 1829, Isis von Oken, col. 725. Type, by monotypy, Erythrina albifrons Brehm, 1829 = Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770 (see Banks & Browning, 1995, Auk, 112 (3), p. 643)." (JAJ 2021).
Var. Erithrina.
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Pallas's Rosefinch C. roseus) Specific name Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770; "III. G. Karmingimpel, Erythrina Br. 1) Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel, E. rubrifrons —— 2) Der weißstirnige —— E. rosea ——" (Brehm 1828); "Erythrina Brehm (Isis, 21, col. 1276, 1828), which Stresemann (Orn. Monatsber., 30, pp. 60-61, 1922) sought to revive, is a nomen nudum under the Rules, since E. rubrifrons was undescribed at the time, while the second species, E. rosea, listed without author's name or reference, is indeterminable." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151).
• (Estrildidae; syn. Erythrura † Pin-tailed Parrotfinch E. prasina ) Perhaps an error for genus Erythrura Swainson, 1837; Mod. L. erythrinus red, dark red < L. erythros red < Gr. ερυθρος eruthros red; "Genus ERYTHRINA. 631. E. PRASINA (Tem. Pl. Col. 96). SYN. Fringilla prasina, Sparrman (nec Latham). Fr. sphecura, Temminck. Emberiza quadricolor, Gmelin. E. viridis, Swainson. Emberiza cyanopis (?), Gmelin. HAB. Indian archipelago." (Blyth 1852); "Erythrina Blyth, 1852, Cat. Birds Mus. Asiat. Soc., 1849, p. 118. Type, by monotypy, L. prasina Sparrman. Not preoccupied by Erythrina Brehm, 1828 (nomen nudum) [but preoccupied by Erythrina Brehm, 1829]." (Mayr in Peters, 1968, XIV, p. 363).
Erythrina
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Common Rosefinch C. erythrinus) "2. Der Rosengimpel, Erythrina* albifrons Br. (Pyrrhula rosea, Temm., Fringilla rosea, Pall.) ... * So heißt schon eine Pflanze." (Brehm 1829); "Erythrina Brehm, 1829, Isis von Oken, col. 725. Type, by monotypy, Erythrina albifrons Brehm, 1829 = Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770 (see Banks & Browning, 1995, Auk, 112 (3), p. 643)." (JAJ 2021).
Var. Erithrina.
• (Fringillidae; syn. Carpodacus † Pallas's Rosefinch C. roseus) Specific name Loxia erythrina Pallas, 1770; "III. G. Karmingimpel, Erythrina Br. 1) Der rothstirnige Karmingimpel, E. rubrifrons —— 2) Der weißstirnige —— E. rosea ——" (Brehm 1828); "Erythrina Brehm (Isis, 21, col. 1276, 1828), which Stresemann (Orn. Monatsber., 30, pp. 60-61, 1922) sought to revive, is a nomen nudum under the Rules, since E. rubrifrons was undescribed at the time, while the second species, E. rosea, listed without author's name or reference, is indeterminable." (Hellmayr, 1938, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. XI, p. 151).
• (Estrildidae; syn. Erythrura † Pin-tailed Parrotfinch E. prasina ) Perhaps an error for genus Erythrura Swainson, 1837; Mod. L. erythrinus red, dark red < L. erythros red < Gr. ερυθρος eruthros red; "Genus ERYTHRINA. 631. E. PRASINA (Tem. Pl. Col. 96). SYN. Fringilla prasina, Sparrman (nec Latham). Fr. sphecura, Temminck. Emberiza quadricolor, Gmelin. E. viridis, Swainson. Emberiza cyanopis (?), Gmelin. HAB. Indian archipelago." (Blyth 1852); "Erythrina Blyth, 1852, Cat. Birds Mus. Asiat. Soc., 1849, p. 118. Type, by monotypy, L. prasina Sparrman. Not preoccupied by Erythrina Brehm, 1828 (nomen nudum) [but preoccupied by Erythrina Brehm, 1829]." (Mayr in Peters, 1968, XIV, p. 363).
l_raty
laurent raty
A nice mess... 
To be frank, my inclination is to go with Stresemann, Hartert, Oberholser, etc., not with Hellmayr (or, for what matters, Banks & Brownings).
I mean: it really gives me a hard time to pretend that I might not know full-well what Brehm 1828 intended when he used rosea (i.e., obviously, the second, and only other species of Karmingimpel (rosefinch) that was generally believed to occur in Europe by authors of the time (see e.g. Temminck 1820, Meyer 1822, Naumann 1824, etc.), the adult male of which is weißstirnig (white-fronted), and which was named rosea by Pallas in 1776). The Code does not ask for more than this -- it does NOT require an authority to be cited; if things are sufficiently clear to infer the authority (= identify the nominal species) unambiguously from the context, this should be OK.
Kaup did not cite authorities for his species names either, and many of his diagnoses (including that of Carpodacus) were pretty limited, to say the least.
I would suggest that the main reason why Erythrina as published in 1828 is now made "a nomen nudum under the Rules", is probably that some argument was needed to protect Carpodacus (which had taken its place due to it having long been perceived as preoccupied: first by Erythrina Linnaeus 1753, Plantae; later by Erythrinus “Gronovius 1763” = Scopoli 1777, Pisces), in a way that could be claimed to be more or less Code-compliant.
Incidentally:
To be frank, my inclination is to go with Stresemann, Hartert, Oberholser, etc., not with Hellmayr (or, for what matters, Banks & Brownings).
I mean: it really gives me a hard time to pretend that I might not know full-well what Brehm 1828 intended when he used rosea (i.e., obviously, the second, and only other species of Karmingimpel (rosefinch) that was generally believed to occur in Europe by authors of the time (see e.g. Temminck 1820, Meyer 1822, Naumann 1824, etc.), the adult male of which is weißstirnig (white-fronted), and which was named rosea by Pallas in 1776). The Code does not ask for more than this -- it does NOT require an authority to be cited; if things are sufficiently clear to infer the authority (= identify the nominal species) unambiguously from the context, this should be OK.
Kaup did not cite authorities for his species names either, and many of his diagnoses (including that of Carpodacus) were pretty limited, to say the least.
I would suggest that the main reason why Erythrina as published in 1828 is now made "a nomen nudum under the Rules", is probably that some argument was needed to protect Carpodacus (which had taken its place due to it having long been perceived as preoccupied: first by Erythrina Linnaeus 1753, Plantae; later by Erythrinus “Gronovius 1763” = Scopoli 1777, Pisces), in a way that could be claimed to be more or less Code-compliant.
Incidentally:
- There were two distinct taxonomic species included in 1829, Erythrina albifrons (syn. rosea) here and Erythrina rubrifrons (syn. erythrina) here: if the name is taken from this source, there can be no monotypy (unless one wants to pretend that Temminck's combination "Pyrrhula erythrina" is, also, indeterminable -- but then many more names will have to be treated as nude too). The type is then Loxia erythrina Pallas 1770 by absolute tautonymy (pace Banks & Brownings 1995).
- The person who described the live bird in this 1829 paper was not Brehm (as per B&B), but Felix von Gourcy-Droitaumont, who may also have been the person responsible for the misidentification of the bird as a rare vagrant from Asia. So far as I understand things, Brehm only saw the bird dead (G-D sent it to him after it had died), and only wrote the parts of the text that are explicitly indicated as Nachschrifte von Brehm (which included the part where the second species was included in Erythrina).
- The footnote "So heißt schon eine Pflanze", on the other hand, was quite clearly added to make the authors aware that the name they were using in the text was problematic. This footnote was presumably authored by the editor of the journal.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
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
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
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Benjamin G. Freeman, Jonathan Rolland, Graham A. Montgomery, and Dolph Schluter. 2022. Faster evolution of a premating reproductive barrier is not associated with faster speciation rates in New World passerine birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, published 05 January 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1514
Abstract
Why are speciation rates so variable across the tree of life? One hypothesis is that this variation is explained by how rapidly reproductive barriers evolve. We tested this hypothesis by conducting a comparative study of the evolution of bird song, a premating barrier to reproduction. Speciation in birds is typically initiated when geographically isolated (allopatric) populations evolve reproductive barriers. We measured the strength of song as a premating barrier between closely related allopatric populations by conducting 2339 field experiments to measure song discrimination for 175 taxon pairs of allopatric or parapatric New World passerine birds, and estimated recent speciation rates from molecular phylogenies. We found evidence that song discrimination is indeed an important reproductive barrier: taxon pairs with high song discrimination in allopatry did not regularly interbreed in parapatry. However, evolutionary rates of song discrimination were not associated with recent speciation rates. Evolutionary rates of song discrimination were also unrelated to latitude or elevation, but species with innate song (suboscines) evolved song discrimination much faster than species with learned song (oscines). We conclude that song is a key premating reproductive barrier in birds, but faster evolution of this reproductive barrier between populations does not consistently result in faster diversification between species.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1514
Abstract
Why are speciation rates so variable across the tree of life? One hypothesis is that this variation is explained by how rapidly reproductive barriers evolve. We tested this hypothesis by conducting a comparative study of the evolution of bird song, a premating barrier to reproduction. Speciation in birds is typically initiated when geographically isolated (allopatric) populations evolve reproductive barriers. We measured the strength of song as a premating barrier between closely related allopatric populations by conducting 2339 field experiments to measure song discrimination for 175 taxon pairs of allopatric or parapatric New World passerine birds, and estimated recent speciation rates from molecular phylogenies. We found evidence that song discrimination is indeed an important reproductive barrier: taxon pairs with high song discrimination in allopatry did not regularly interbreed in parapatry. However, evolutionary rates of song discrimination were not associated with recent speciation rates. Evolutionary rates of song discrimination were also unrelated to latitude or elevation, but species with innate song (suboscines) evolved song discrimination much faster than species with learned song (oscines). We conclude that song is a key premating reproductive barrier in birds, but faster evolution of this reproductive barrier between populations does not consistently result in faster diversification between species.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Concerning Stenostiridae, I don't see any formal description of this family in Beresford and al (2005) which make the family-group name available. In the supplementary data ?
l_raty
laurent raty
In my notes, I have:
OS (uncorrected) : Stenostiridae
author : Fuchs, Pasquet, Couloux, Fjeldså & Bowie
year : 2009
original rank : family
OD reference : Fuchs J, Pasquet E, Couloux A, Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK. 2009. A new Indo-Malayan member of the Stenostiridae (Aves: Passeriformes) revealed by multilocus sequence data: biogeographical implications for a morphologically diverse clade of flycatchers. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 53: 384-393.
page : 391
OD link : Redirecting , A new Indo-Malayan member of the Stenostiridae (Aves: Passeriformes) revealed by multilocus sequence data: Biogeographical implications for a morphologically diverse clade of flycatchers
type genus : Stenostira Cabanis & Bonaparte 1850
valid synonym of type genus name : Stenostira Cabanis & Bonaparte 1850
family : Stenostiridae
higher classification : Passeriformes
potential non-latinized contender : n/a
Bock’s 1994 source : -
notes and comments : Not technically flagged as new, but intention to “formally name the family Stenostiridae under the rules of the international Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999)” stated expressly. No morphological diagnosis, but a molecular synapomorphy is described (“one base-pair insertion (A in position 330 of our alignment) in MB”). Initially as: Stenostiridae; family; Beresford P, Barker FK, Ryan PG, Crowe TM. 2005. African endemics span the tree of songbirds (Passeri): Molecular systematics of several evolutionary 'enigmas'. Proc. R. Soc. B, 272: 849-858.; p. 852; African endemics span the tree of songbirds (Passeri): molecular systematics of several evolutionary ‘enigmas’ | Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7853654 ; no description: nomen nudum.
available : yes
post-1899 usage (in publications) : yes
nomenclatural validity : potentially valid
stem under Art.29.3 : Stenostir- (Gr. στενος, narrow + στειρα, forepart of a ship's keel [+ L. -a ending if formation assumed to be via στενοστειρος])
plural suffix used in OS : -idae
Arguably (?) not fully ideal, but I would go with it. Comments ?
Last edited:
ornithociencia
Active member
Does anyone have this paper?
I don't have access to Journal of Biogeography.
I don't have access to Journal of Biogeography.
andrew147
Well-known member
I have a copy - pm me if you still need it
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Me too please
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I believe the next step will be taxonomic revisions
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Underestimated Neotropical diversity: Integrative taxonomy reveals two unrelated look-alike species in a suboscine bird (Pachyramphus albogriseus)
Abstract. We applied an integrative taxonomic framework to evaluate the systematics of the Neotropical Black-and-white Becard (Pachyramphus albogriseusScla
academic.oup.com
Pachyramphus albogriseus salvini is raised to species rank : Pachyramphus salvini
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Who kept this figure? the link is broken
l_raty
laurent raty
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
No need to go 88 miles per hour. Thanks
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
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
Similar threads
