Picidae (2 Viewers)

[Nutcracker]

Not sure that the Japanese pops are raised to species rank. Only the lilfordi and insularis clades should be elevated

That's how I read it too

Interesting to see from Fig.2 that D. major japonicus may also need splitting from D. major major.

 

[pbjosh]

That's how I read it too

Interesting to see from Fig.2 that D. major japonicus may also need splitting from D. major major.

I only glanced through it thus far, but that was what initially jumped out at me. Aside from Owston's WP clearly not being specifically distinct, was the apparently massive polyphyly of D major.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I notice that no list followed the recommendations of Perktas and Quintero (2013) concerning the phylogeography and taxonomy of Dendrocopos major in which the authors suggest to raise cabanisi, poelzami and japonicus as species, why?

 

[Nutcracker]

I notice that no list followed the recommendations of Perktas and Quintero (2013) concerning the phylogeography and taxonomy of Dendrocopos major in which the authors suggest to raise cabanisi, poelzami and japonicus as species, why?

No-one mentioned it before in this thread, so none of the lists will know about it 🤪

Do you have a citation or link for it please?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No-one mentioned it before in this thread, so none of the lists will know about it 🤪

Do you have a citation or link for it please?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

We can like now? birdforum turns into facebagram

 

[Nutcracker]

Thanks!

I'd guess their paper wasn't acted on, because they didn't include any D. syriacus or D. darjellensis samples, and therefore couldn't show non-monophyly in addition to their results? This may well change now . . .

 

[Nutcracker]

We can like now? birdforum turns into facebagram

Just a way of saying a quick 'Thank you' before I've looked at the paper

 

[Mysticete]

Thanks!

I'd guess their paper wasn't acted on, because they didn't include any D. syriacus or D. darjellensis samples, and therefore couldn't show non-monophyly in addition to their results? This may well change now . . .

There is also only a single gene sampled, and only a passing mention of any other traits that could suggest splitting up this complex. I tend to be a splitter by nature, and this evidence is even too scant for me to really take seriously until more work is done.

Although I do fully expect somewhere down the line we will see some taxonomic shuffling and splitting of this woodpecker

 

[MJB]

Here the full paper, just sent by Pons himself

I notice from Supplement 1 that for one specimen of lilfordi from Russia (Row 34), the location is given as Krasnodarskiy Kray, but the lat/long supplied (43.50N, 40.19E) places it firmly in Georgia. Pre-glasnost Russia?

 

[l_raty]

I notice from Supplement 1 that for one specimen of lilfordi from Russia (Row 34), the location is given as Krasnodarskiy Kray, but the lat/long supplied (43.50N, 40.19E) places it firmly in Georgia. Pre-glasnost Russia?

In the Burke Museum database, the locality for this specimen is given as "Sochinskiy Rayon; Krasnaya Polyana, 1 km S, 3 km W; 43.5, 40.183."
Красная Поляна is some 20 km due N of the point indicated by the coordinates (and it is, indeed, in Krasnodarskiy Kray, in Russia).
Other latitude values in this database (like the longitude value here) are consistently given with three digits after the decimal point -- maybe something got lost in this "43.5" ?
(E.g., 43.665, 40.183 would be close to Krasnaya Polyana.)

 

[MJB]

In the Burke Museum database, the locality for this specimen is given as "Sochinskiy Rayon; Krasnaya Polyana, 1 km S, 3 km W; 43.5, 40.183."
Красная Поляна is some 20 km due N of the point indicated by the coordinates (and it is, indeed, in Krasnodarskiy Kray, in Russia).
Other latitude values in this database (like the longitude value here) are consistently given with three digits after the decimal point -- maybe something got lost in this "43.5" ?
(E.g., 43.665, 40.183 would be close to Krasnaya Polyana.)

From Google Maps, the forest is more or less contiguous between those two locations and so I think your suggestion is most plausible, Laurent. I tend to check locations that are close to borders after reading a summary by Vladimir Arkhipov et al about the difficulties they had in forming the current Russia Checklist out of the mess of records in the former Soviet Union Checklist!
MJB

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Dryocopus schulzi(i)

Proposal (896) to SACC

Change spelling of Dryocopus schulzi to Dryocopus schulzii