Report from Swedish Taxonomic Committee (1 Viewer)

[Steve Lister]

Collins et al

The latest Collins just has superbus for both Tenerife and Gran Canaria but with the main author being a Swedish taxonomist I guess this will be different in the next edition.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No battle please, but I think that there are decisions that are taken too quickly under the pretext of (monophyly for example), like "à la one again bistoufly".

And yet I follow IOC more than any other authority

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

No battle please, but I think that there are decisions that are taken too quickly under the pretext of (monophyly for example), like "à la one again bistoufly".

The cattle egrets were moved to Ardea based mainly on Hruska m.fl. (2023) which shows that Bubulcus is embedded in Ardea based on nucelar DNA, with high support. The analysis of mtDNA also puts it in the same clade as Ardea, but basally with lower support. Genera is a matter of preference and another option would be to split up Ardea into multiple genera instead.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

and another option would be to split up Ardea into multiple genera instead.

Voila !

 

[Acanthis]

Voila !

This would be my intuitive preference..

 

[Acanthis]

The latest Collins just has superbus for both Tenerife and Gran Canaria but with the main author being a Swedish taxonomist I guess this will be different in the next edition.

I've seen both and they are definitely different, but different enough? I'm not qualified to say for certain.
Always up for an armchair tick though😉

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This would be my intuitive preference..

Because it's the better decision

 

[Markus Lagerqvist]

Because it's the better decision

Will be interesting to see which treatment WGAC will adopt. The recent NACC proposal (2024-A) favours a wider Ardea over splitting up into Ardea and Casmerodius:

"For Part 2, I recommend that Bubulcus ibis be transferred to Ardea. As with the Ixobrychus issue above, this is a close call over keeping B. ibis in Bubulcus and splitting Ardea into two genera, but I favor transferring B. ibis for reasons similar to those regarding the bitterns: (1) it is the least disruptive option; (2) it limits the genus transfers to a widespread species (B. ibis) that occurs in the Americas, rather than transferring, in addition to a widespread species (A. alba) that occurs in the Americas, an Old World species (A. intermedia) accidental to our area (the third species of Casmerodius, A. pacifica, is an Old World species not known from our area; and (3) there is ample precedence for placing ibis in genera other than Bubulcus (i.e., not recognizing it as so distinctive as to require its own genus). Also, if relying on phenotype to continue to recognize Bubulcus, there is the question of what phenotypic characters distinguish Casmerodius from Ardea. As with the bitterns, should a global body such as WGAC endorse the transfer of alba, intermedia, and pacifica to Casmerodius, then point 2 above becomes moot and the balance may be tipped towards this alternative. In that case we could re-vote, but for now I recommend the transfer of B. ibis to Ardea."

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Will be interesting to see which treatment WGAC will adopt. The recent NACC proposal (2024-A) favours a wider Ardea over splitting up into Ardea and Casmerodius:

"For Part 2, I recommend that Bubulcus ibis be transferred to Ardea. As with the Ixobrychus issue above, this is a close call over keeping B. ibis in Bubulcus and splitting Ardea into two genera, but I favor transferring B. ibis for reasons similar to those regarding the bitterns: (1) it is the least disruptive option; (2) it limits the genus transfers to a widespread species (B. ibis) that occurs in the Americas, rather than transferring, in addition to a widespread species (A. alba) that occurs in the Americas, an Old World species (A. intermedia) accidental to our area (the third species of Casmerodius, A. pacifica, is an Old World species not known from our area; and (3) there is ample precedence for placing ibis in genera other than Bubulcus (i.e., not recognizing it as so distinctive as to require its own genus). Also, if relying on phenotype to continue to recognize Bubulcus, there is the question of what phenotypic characters distinguish Casmerodius from Ardea. As with the bitterns, should a global body such as WGAC endorse the transfer of alba, intermedia, and pacifica to Casmerodius, then point 2 above becomes moot and the balance may be tipped towards this alternative. In that case we could re-vote, but for now I recommend the transfer of B. ibis to Ardea."

Is there a Razzie award of the ornithology ?

 

[Martin Stervander]

Because it's the better decision

As established, it's a matter of preference, but since yours is so strong in this question, what makes you so firmly believe this? In terms of genomic divergence Ardea s.l. is only marginally older than Egretta or Botaurus s.s. and considerably younger than Ixobrychus s.s. (and Botaurus s.l. if transferring exilis and involucris). I'm not arguing that genomics and divergence times are the only things that count, but they are also not insignificant or uninformative.

Cheers!

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

As established, it's a matter of preference, but since yours is so strong in this question, what makes you so firmly believe this? In terms of genomic divergence Ardea s.l. is only marginally older than Egretta or Botaurus s.s. and considerably younger than Ixobrychus s.s. (and Botaurus s.l. if transferring exilis and involucris). I'm not arguing that genomics and divergence times are the only things that count, but they are also not insignificant or uninformative.

Cheers!

In the best case, in the best possible way, let's avoid heterogeneous genera and even a monophyletic and homogeneous clade is not necessarily monogeneric otherwise many groups would be reduced to a single genus (for example, the Rhynchocyclidae have homogeneous lineages and yet we recognize multiple [unnecessary?] genera). The Botaurus/Ixobrychus example is perfect because we could put this whole group into one genus because paraphyly makes us wonder where the limits of Botaurus and Ixobrychus end, they are very close after all. Sometimes taxonomic simplification is not the best solution

 

[Martin Stervander]

In the best case, in the best possible way, let's avoid heterogeneous genera and even a monophyletic and homogeneous clade is not necessarily monogeneric otherwise many groups would be reduced to a single genus (for example, the Rhynchocyclidae have homogeneous lineages and yet we recognize multiple [unnecessary?] genera). The Botaurus/Ixobrychus example is perfect because we could put this whole group into one genus because paraphyly makes us wonder where the limits of Botaurus and Ixobrychus end, they are very close after all. Sometimes taxonomic simplification is not the best solution

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I don't agree that a broad Ardea is simplifying matters (other than one genus being fewer than three). As for Botaurus/Ixobrychus, I'd say the most parsimonious solution is moving I. exilis and I. involucris, to Botaurus. After all, incorrect interpretation of evolutionary relationships (and "simple" generic assignment) has been quite common, in some groups more than others.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Here are Jim's papers. How many taxonomic papers have you contributed to?

ORCID

orcid.org

Lol, most of them are collaborations and I hardly wrote anything (just made suggestions and corrections).