• 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.

Pipridae (1 Viewer)

Melanie

Well-known member
Kirwan et al 2016

The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae)
GUY M. KIRWAN, NORMAND DAVID, STEVEN M. S. GREGORY, JAMES A. JOBLING, FRANK D. STEINHEIMER, GUILHERME RENZO ROCHA BRITO
Zootaxa Vol 4121, No 1 7 June 2016

Abstract

The White-crowned Manakin Pipra pipra was long considered congeneric with other members of the genus Pipra, until Prum (1990, 1992, 1994) demonstrated that its display repertoire and syringeal morphology differ considerably from all other members of that genus. Subsequently, three different molecular phylogenies have all indicated that this manakin is more closely related to the genus Machaeropterus than to Pipra. Prum (1992) considered that the name Dixiphia Reichenbach, 1850, was available, and thus the combination Dixiphia pipra has since been in widespread use for this species. However, as first recognized more than 150 years ago, Dixiphia is a junior synonym of Arundinicola d’Orbigny, 1840. We show that no genus-group name is available for the manakin originally described as Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758, and for which we therefore provide a new genus name.

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4121.1
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Curious about the argument that is developed in the paper...

Dixiphia Reichenbach 1850 [OD] was made available via an illustration, without any originally included nominal species: these names, in ornithology, have unfortunately very often a widely accepted type fixation that is absolutely not Code-compliant.

The type species of a genus name must in principle be an originally included nominal species, cited by an available name in the OD. For a name available from a plate, with no OINS cited by an available name in the OD, what determines the OINS (Art. 67.2.2) is the first subsequent express inclusion of any nominal species in the genus. In other words: not at all the ID of what appears on the plate. There is no provision for any exception to this in the Code; if it is unambiguous, the first express inclusion always stands, it cannot be discarded whatever the reasons. (Under the current edition of the Code, however, and where this action "best serve stability and universality", an author would presumably be allowed to deem that a validly fixed type species, if at odds with the original plate, is "misidentified", and to actively correct its ID via a published act under Art. 70.3.2. But note that the same author may as well choose the opposite way, and confirm, under Art. 70.3.1, that the species previously cited as type species is to retain its status.)

If the first express inclusion of a nominal species in Dixiphia, subsequent to its publication by Reichenbach, is Gray's 1855 [here], of Pipra leucocilla Linn. [1764: OD], now in the synonymy of Parus pipra Linn., this represents a 100% valid type fixation. Cabanis having argued more than 150 years ago (1859-60: [here]), be it rightly, that the plate shows Todus leucocephalus Pallas doesn't change anything to this.

...But perhaps the first inclusion should be viewed as having occurred in Burmeister 1853 [here]...?
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Richmond index genera say "No specific names here" and "Identified as Pipra leucocilla".
Obviously no specific names there (at least not in print -- a name was added in handwriting in this copy), and the ID as Pipra leucocilla is presumably Gray's [here].

The use of a binomen Dixiphia leucocephala by Burmeister 1853 [here] (with Arundinicola leucocephala d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye (actually d'Orbigny 1840: [here]), Todus leucocephalus Pallas (1769: [OD] [plate]), and Muscicapa leucocephala (no authorship cited) as synonyms), might be viewed as an earlier inclusion. Burmeister attributed this combination to Cabanis. I've up to now failed to find it published by Cabanis himself at an earlier date; but, as Cabanis was the editor of J. Ornithol., he might presumably as well have suggested the combination during the process of the publication of Burmeister's paper. The type of Dixiphia would then be Todus leucocephalus Pallas by subsequent monotypy in Burmeister 1853 (only one taxonomic species subsequently included; Arundinicola leucocephala is a recombination of Todus leucocephalus Pallas; Todus leucocephalus Pallas appears to have been introduced as a fully new species, i.e., it doesn't seem to be a subsequent use of Pipra leucocephala Linn. 1764 [OD], even though it denotes the same taxonomic species).

The main potential problem I can see here, is that Dixiphia was not expressly attributed to Reichenbach by Burmeister.
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member
Cabanis in Schomburgk (1848):
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/109594#page/193/mode/1up .
Cabanis & Heine said D. leucocephala Nob. page 41 of
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/49/mode/1up .
Bonaparte used Dixiphia in 1854. Page 91 of same link.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/99/mode/1up .
See * footnotes on each page.
Also look at the Druckfehler in reference to page 41 Cab. Burmeister.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/184/mode/1up .
Bonaparte using Dixiphia in 1854:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/181952#page/8/mode/1up .
Conspectus volucrum anisodactylorum . And he cites the name to Reichenbach
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
...Shows that he already didn't like d'Orbigny's name by then. ;)
Cabanis & Heine said D. leucocephala Nob. page 41 of
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/49/mode/1up
Bonaparte used Dixiphia in 1854. Page 91 of same link.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/99/mode/1up .
See * footnotes on each page.
I already linked to this work above. But this is later than Gray, thus nomenclaturally irrelevant.
Also look at the Druckfehler in reference to page 41 Cab. Burmeister.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/196137#page/184/mode/1up .
This I had not seen, however. This definitely suggests Cabanis had not published the combination himself prior to Burmeister 1853; if he had, he would have cited the original.
Bonaparte using Dixiphia in 1854:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/181952#page/8/mode/1up .
Conspectus volucrum anisodactylorum . And he cites the name to Reichenbach
OK, thanks for this. I had overlooked this last one - had found the name in the Compendium generum avium [here], also of 1854, and I assumed this was the source. But Bonaparte didn't cite any nominal species there, while he does here.

The OINS are then either Todus leucocephalus Pallas as included in Burmeister 1853, if this is accepted without Dixiphia being expressly attributed to Reichenbach there; or the nominal species as included in Bonaparte 1854, except "167. rubricapilla, Brisson" which is to be discarded because Brissonian species names are unavailable: "165. erythrocephala, L. — 166. chloromeros, Tschudi. — [...] — 168. leucocapilla, Linn. — 169. caeruleocapilla, Tschudi."
If the former, Todus leucocephalus Pallas is the type by subsequent monotypy in Burmeister 1853; if the latter, Pipra leucocilla Linn., included by Bonaparte as "Pipra leucocapilla, Linn." (= subsequent spelling introduced by Gmelin 1789 [here]: note the ref "Mus. Ad. Frid. 2. p. 33.", which is to the [OD of leucocilla]), is the type by subsequent designation of Gray 1855.

I'm tempted to accept the former, but this is in part due to evidence from outside of Burmeister's work, that shows that the name was indeed Reichenbach's. The other option (i.e., Dixiphia in Burmeister 1853 can't be objectively linked to Reichenbach; Burmeister 1853 must be deemed to have introduced it anew; this name is available from him, through combination with an available species group name, type Todus leucocephalus Pallas by original monotypy; it is a junior homonym of Dixiphia Reichenbach and permanently invalid) can probably be defended as well. (If Burmeister had used the name for an entirely other species, this is certainly how it would have to be treated.)
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae)
GUY M. KIRWAN, NORMAND DAVID, STEVEN M. S. GREGORY, JAMES A. JOBLING, FRANK D. STEINHEIMER, GUILHERME RENZO ROCHA BRITO
Zootaxa Vol 4121, No 1 7 June 2016
[pdf here], thanks to Guy.

They accepted a type fixation from Burmeister 1853. (Interestingly, just like me above, they "missed" the reference to this work in the Druckfehler und Berichtigungen of Cabanis & Heine 1860, that Mark directed us to.)
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
And here was me thinking that Pipra pipra ought to be the type species of Pipra, by tautonymy . . .
That would have been the case if Parus pipra Linn. had been included in the genus when it was made available, either as a valid "Pipra pipra" or, if more than one taxonomic species was included, as a cited synonym of one of them; and unless the author had expressly designated another nominal species.
Linnaeus first used Pipra in 1764: [here]; the species he included in the genus were Pipra aureola, P. leucocephala, P. leucocilla, and P. minuta; he cited no available names as synonyms of any of these...
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member
"PDF ...thanks to Guy" Yes, Thank you Mr. Kirwan. A great and very interesting article. The co-authors got it right that ‘Dixiphia leucocephala’ was a Cabanis MS name. "Burmeister’s action appears to have gone unnoticed" is almost right. "Our review of the literature, specifically including the works of Bonaparte from the relevant period, has not located an earlier type species designation for Reichenbach’s name." True Burmeister1853 is earlier than 1854 Bonaparte. One tiny irrelevant taxonomic point. Seba in 1735, pre-Linnean called the bird Cacatototl, not Cacototol. http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127666#page/388/mode/1up .
Seba's picture is cute: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127666#page/385/mode/1up .
Cacatototl is a name from Francisco Hernandez. Although I have not found it. But the area Seba said Cacatototl was from TETZCOCANARUM is also in Plantarum animalium mineralium Mexicanorum historia by Hernandez. Findable on google books. Zimmer: Linnaeus's original reference gives the type locality of pipra as "in Indiis," which is not sufficiently definite for modern zoology. It is antedated by Seba's "montagnes de Tetzcocanara " which that author, in another connection, places "au Bresil"; but there is considerable doubt
attached to this name. In the first place, both Tetzcocanara and Caco-
tototl suggest Mexican, rather than Brazilian, origin. Seba's reference to
Hernandez in connection with another species also said to be from Tetzco-
canara gives a clue to the probable explanation. Hernandez (Rev. Med.
Nov. Hisp. Thes., Hist. Animal., lib. unic, p. 52, cap. CXCVII) gives the
description of a bird which he calls ' 'Cacatototl " from the ''planis Tetz-
coquensibus" in Mexico. There is not much doubt that Seba took name
and locality from this account, although his own description (which does
not agree at all with that of Hernandez) was drawn up from specimens
which he received from a Jacques Guillot of Amsterdam who, in turn,
probably secured them from Surinam. In any case Seba's species does
not occur in Mexico and Tetzcocanara or Tezcuco can not well be the type
locality of the bird which he described and figured. Linnaeus's citation
of Brazil and Surinam, in the twelfth edition of the Systema Naturae, in
connection with leucocilla, is probably correct, and Surinam, as the most
definite locality given, should be designated as type locality for Parus Pipra,
The Cacatototl of Hernandez has yet to be identified.
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
The Cacatototl of Hernandez is [here]. But Seba must indeed have been confused, as Hernandez' description is that of a bird that was white below, but black above, with fulvous-grey feet: quite cleary not the White-crowned Manakin that Seba described under the same name.

'ad montes Tetzcocanarumenses' / 'dans les montagnes de Tetzcocanara' as used by Seba is a rather strange construction. Hernandez used repeatedly two adjectival forms, Tetzcocanus, -a, -um and Tetzcoquensis, -is, -e, both presumably meaning 'of, from, pertaining to Tetzcoco' (= Texcoco). 'Tetzcocanarum' is the genitive plural feminine of the first one -- e.g.: 'Tetzcocanarum sylvarum' = 'of the Texcocan forests'. To convey the presumed meaning of Seba's 'ad montes Tetzcocanarumenses', Hernandez would have used either 'ad montes Tetzcocani', or 'ad montes Tetzcoquenses'. In French, this should give something like 'dans les montagnes texcocaines'.
(I'm uncertain how Seba worked in practice. As his work is bilingual French/Latin, it seems at least conceivable that he wrote it in French, and had it translated into Latin by a third person, who may not have seen his original sources. If so, the names he took from works in Latin will have been frenchified, then back-latinized, each change presumably modifying the word a bit more. Is it possible that he was himself not fully comfortable with Latin? Does anyone know?)

Of course, if Seba took his type locality (in part) from Hernandez, this type locality is presumably (in part) that which Hernandez attributed to the bird he described, hence should not be regarded as pertaining to the White-crowned Manakin. (I say 'in part', because Hernandez wrote that his Cacatototl is found at Texcoquese plains; Seba wrote that it lives in 'Texcocanarumese' mountains; that the bird is found in mountains may be from another source, and might pertain to the right species.)
 
Last edited:

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Chiroxiphia x Antilophia

Wagner Brito Alves, Ciro Albano, Weber Andrade de Girão Silva, Juliana Araripe, Pericles Sena do Rego. Confirmation of the hybridization of Chiroxiphia Cabanis, 1847 and Antilophia Reichenbach, 1850 (Passeriformes: Pipridae) using molecular markers. Brazilian Journal of Ornithology, Vol. 24 (2), pp. 185-190.

Abstract:

Events of hybridization between species of different manakin genera are well documented, although the relative contribution of the species remains unclear, as well as the factors determining the occurrence of these events. In this context, the use of molecular markers has become increasingly important for the reliable diagnosis of the species involved and the understanding of the process. In 2008 two unusual manakins were observed in the Ibiapaba Highlands of the Brazilian state of Ceará (municipality of Tianguá). Their morphological traits indicated that they were male hybrids of Chiroxiphia and an Antilophia species, despite the fact that neither of the two species of Antilophia had been found in the Ibiapaba region. In order to confirm the hybridization and identify the species involved, the present study was based on the analysis of samples taken from a supposed hybrid and a specimen of C. pareola collected in the Ibiapaba Highlands, together with two samples of the two species of the genus Antilophia (A. bokermanni and A. galeata) provided by research collections. Partial sequences of three mitochondrial markers (ND2/COI/16S) and a nuclear intron (I7BF) were obtained to confirm hybridization and identify the contribution of each parent species. Results confirmed that the specimen was a hybrid produced by the crossing of a male Chiroxiphia (C. pareola as most likely species) with a female Antilophia, although it was not possible to identify which species were involved. The confirmation that this hybridization event in the Ibiapaba Highlands involved Antilophia indicates that one of the two species of this genus occur in this region, which may thus constitute a previously unknown hybrid zone between two manakin species.

pdf here
 

Melanie

Well-known member
Addendum to Kirwan et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4121(1): 89–94)

The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae)
GUY M. KIRWAN, NORMAND DAVID, STEVEN M. S. GREGORY, JAMES A. JOBLING, FRANK D. STEINHEIMER, GUILHERME RENZO ROCHA BRITO
Zootaxa Vol 4121, No 1 7 June 2016



http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4121.1

Zootaxa Vol 4216, No 3 (2017)

Addendum to Kirwan et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4121(1): 89–94)
NORMAND DAVID, STEVEN M. S. GREGORY, GUY M. KIRWAN, JAMES A. JOBLING, FRANK D. STEINHEIMER, GUILHERME RENZO ROCHA BRITO

Abstract

Following the publication of Kirwan et al. (2016), it has been brought to our attention that the treatment of any possible alternative genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758, when treated as monotypic, was not as self-evident to others as it was to the authors. As there is no “case law” in Zoological Nomenclature, and whatever conclusions we reached were naturally subject to our interpretation of the Code (ICZN 1999), and may not necessarily accord with the views of others, we have revisited “Pythis Viell.: Pipra leucocilla Gm.” in Boie (1826: 971) which has been viewed as an available alternative name by one correspondent (Murray Bruce in litt. June 2016).



Keywords

Aves

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4216.3.7
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae)
GUY M. KIRWAN, NORMAND DAVID, STEVEN M. S. GREGORY, JAMES A. JOBLING, FRANK D. STEINHEIMER, GUILHERME RENZO ROCHA BRITO
Zootaxa Vol 4121, No 1 7 June 2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4121.1

TiF Update January 27, 2017

Manakins: The genus name of the White-crowned Manakin has been changed to Pseudopipra (Kirwan et al., 2014b) from Dixiphia. Kirwan et al. note that Dixiphia is a junior synonym of Arundinicola d'Orbigny, 1840.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top