• 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.

Picidae (2 Viewers)

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Forthcoming...

Fuchs, Pons, Liu, Ericson, Couloux & Pasquet (in press). A multi-locus phylogeny suggests an ancient hybridization event between Campephilus and melanerpine woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]
 

Larry Lade

Moderator
Woodpeckers, my favorite family of birds! The references sited above sort of made my head spin. It is rather confusing for me to sort through the changes.

But, I still like woodpeckers!
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Winkler 2013

Winkler 2013. Spechte und Flügelform - Was wurde aus den Ideen von Friedrich Alexander Kipp? Woodpeckers and wing shape - what happened with the ideas of Friedrich Alexander Kipp? Vogelwarte 51(3): 192–199.

[in German]
 

etudiant

Registered User
Supporter
Richard do you read and understand German? In a "nutshell" what were the ideas of Friedrich Alexander Kipp? ;)

The study only suggests the ideas of Kipp, with the punchline that the juveniles often show more advanced evolutionary traits than the adults.
The specific issue was that juvenile woodpeckers were often more brightly colored than the adults.
This study suggests that this reflects the need for the juveniles to be recognized/supported by the adults even post fledging.
More broadly, it seems the authors believe Kipp's ideas verge on 'directed evolution', so they are at pains to dissociate themselves from any such.
 

Daniel Philippe

Well-known member
Winkler, H., A. Gamauf, F. Nittinger & E. Haring, 2013. Relationships of Old World woodpeckers (Aves: Picidae) – new insights and taxonomic implications. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien, B 116: 69-86.

Abstract: The paper presents a phylogeny of Old World woodpeckers based on mitochondrial (cytochrome b, 12S rRNA). It complements published phylogenies of this group in several important aspects. A species that was formerly treated as part of the core group of pied woodpeckers of the genus Dendrocopos, turned out to be the closest relative of the Eurasian lesser spotted woodpecker (Dryobates minor), itself a representative of an American radiation. We identified the brown-fronted woodpecker, a bird of the Himalayan foothills, as the closest relative of the predominantly European middle spotted woodpecker. The latter is a close relative of the yellow-crowned woodpecker, widely distributed over India and other parts of South Asia. We include these three species in the genus Leiopicus (with species medius, auriceps, and mahrattensis). Further taxonomic recommendations resulted from analyses based on a short fragment of the cytochrome b gene. Among these is the inclusion of the genus Mulleripicus into Dryocopus that is represented both in the New and Old World. We present further details of our suggested taxonomy that covers the whole family Picidae in Appendix 2. Open questions concern, among others, the exact phylogenetic relationships of the two African woodpecker clades with Asian woodpeckers, and the phylogeographical and taxonomic structure of the great spotted woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) and its closest allies.
 

MJB

Well-known member
Where are we in the genus wars with Picoides, Dendrocopos and Dryobates for species minor?
MJB:h?:
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Where are we in the genus wars with Picoides, Dendrocopos and Dryobates for species minor?
Winkler et al's recommended classification (wrt H&M4):

Mulleripicus > Dryocopus
Reinwardtipicus > Chrysocolaptes
Chloropicus, Mesopicos, Ipophilus > Dendropicos
Dendrocopos dorae > Dendropicos
Dendrocopos auriceps, D mahrattensis, D medius > Leiopicus
Dendrocopos minor, D cathpharius > Dryobates
Dendrocopos temminckii, D maculatus, D moluccensis, D kizuki, D canicapillus > Picoides
Picoides
(except P tridactylus, P dorsalis, P arcticus) > Dryobates
Veniliornis > Dryobates
 
Last edited:

8669

Well-known member
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).

How do we solve this? A first reviser would be needed or a descision of ICZN.

Theo
 

andrew147

Well-known member
Winkler et al's recommended classification (wrt H&M4):

Dendrocopos dorae > Dendropicos

Fascinating. Is it clear if D. dorae is embedded within Dendropicos? If Chloropicus, Mesopicos & Ipophilus were recognised, would D. dorae belong within one of these groups?

Thanks
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).
Interesting. Winkler & Christie 2002 (HBW 7), IOC and eBird/Clements merge Mesopicos with Dendropicos (but any potential problem has been hidden by synonymising centralis with nominate goertae).
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Arabian Woodpecker

Is it clear if D. dorae is embedded within Dendropicos? If Chloropicus, Mesopicos & Ipophilus were recognised, would D. dorae belong within one of these groups?
Winkler et al...
Our data indicate that Leiopicus and Dendropicos may be sister clades (cf. phylogenies in Fuchs et al. 2013), but this has to be studied in greater detail. An open and interesting question is the position of the Arabian woodpecker (D. dorae) which may link these two groups not only geographically. More studies on the genera Dendropicos and Campethera are clearly needed, and they would have to include D. dorae and another African species that is currently placed in a monotypic genus Ipophilus with species obsoletus (Wolters 1975–1982, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
...
Dendropicos Malherbe, 1849 [15 species]
We keep the genus as in Short (1982). There is no justification so far for the former splits still maintained in the new Howard-Moore list (Dickinson & Remsen 2013). We also include dorae (placed in Picoides by Short 1982) and obsoletus, although their position remains unclear and subject to change.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
We would have a problem then, if we follow this.
Dendropicos fuscecens centralis and Mesopicos goertae centralis both have the same publication dates (30th april 1900).

How do we solve this? A first reviser would be needed or a descision of ICZN.

Theo

Searching for "centralis Neumann" "centralis Reichenow" in Google Books produces a single hit that reads:

Revue de zoologie africaine - Volume 96 - Page 461
books.google.co.uk/books?id=gMOFAAAAIAAJ
1982 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions
Hereby we explicitly reject centralis Neumann in the genus Dendropicos and give priority to centralis Reichenow to ensure stability of nomenclature.

So there is most likely a first reviser act there.

(And if the FR act is as written above, the nomenclature of HBW, etc., is wrong, as they use centralis Neumann as valid, in a taxonomy that places centralis Reichenow in the same genus.)
 
Last edited:

8669

Well-known member
Yes, the HBW is wrong here, but in this case it's a secundary homonym and I can understand they do not want to correct these (if they saw it).
The double use of intermedia in the genus Coracina is a bigger mistake.

Theo
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Yes, the HBW is wrong here, but in this case it's a secundary homonym and I can understand they do not want to correct these (if they saw it).
Probably they didn't see it.
I've no access to the journal, but the ref (cited by Louette 1987) would be:

Louette M., Prigogine A. 1982. An appreciation of the distribution of Dendropicos goertae and the description of a new race (Aves: Picidae). Rev. Zool. Afr. 96: 461-92.

Incidentally, this is cited among the references at the end of the D. goertae account in HBW. (But of course given the usual [email protected]*!# non-system of referencing of HBW, it cannot even be assessed whether the author actually used the work when preparing this account.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top