Scolopaci (1 Viewer)

[Markus Lagerqvist]

Hi,

Not sure if this article has been mentioned before:

Multiple gene sequences resolve phylogenetic relationships in the shorebird suborder Scolopaci (Aves: Charadriiformes)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312001133

"We show that Tringa, Gallinago, and Calidris are paraphyletic assemblages, and thus are in need of taxonomic revision."

 

[Daniel Philippe]

Not sure if this article has been mentioned before

Yes : http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=171100&highlight=scolopaci

 

[Richard Klim]

Yes : http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=171100&highlight=scolopaci

The phylogeny is presented in Fig 2.1 (p24) of Rosemary Gibson's thesis.

 

[SzimiStyle]

Will this result drastic reorganisation of taxonomy in shorebirds? This is quite a crucial question for me as I am in the process of publishing a book on them.

Best, Szimi

 

[Richard Klim]

Will this result drastic reorganisation of taxonomy in shorebirds?

John Boyd (TiF) has taken Gibson 2010 into account in his treatment of Scolopacidae, eg adopting a broad Ereunetes:
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List8.html#scolopacidae

From Martin Collinson's BB review, Norbert Bahr (2011) also seems to have adopted a revised (but more deeply split) arrangement:
"Perhaps the thing that will surprise readers, though, is the split of Calidris into several genera, recreating several unfamiliar scientific names such as Pelidna alpina (Dunlin), Leimonites temminkii (Temminck’s Stint) and Ereunetes minutus (Little Stint), for example."
www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=193842

In time, mainstream checklists will presumably also react, although there are still some uncertainties.

 

[Mysticete]

I think Taxonomy in flux tends to oversplit. My guess is that at the end of the day we will get a broader Calidris

 

[Kratter]

Except that Philomachus has priority, or so I have been told (the citation for Calidris and Philomachus are the same, so it depends on which is mentioned first).

Andy

 

[Mysticete]

Then a broader Philomachus will ensue...

Just like we got a giant Setophaga for warblers

 

[Snapdragyn]

I'm just waiting until we merge all birds into Passer (or whichever bird genus was first named). After all, it would be monophyletic, & since that now seems to be the only criterion used for setting genus limits.... *shrug*

 

[RaMa]

Calidris was first introduced in Cuvier, 1800, together with Psittacula, Regulus, Erithacus, Vidua and Chloris. Calidris and Vidua are usually attributed to later sources, but I have no idea why.

If Calidris had to be taken from Anonymous [=Merrem], 1804, precedence between this name and Philomachus would depend on a First-reviser action.

There is NO page priority in the ICZN Code!

 

[8669]

Calidris was first introduced in Cuvier, 1800, together with Psittacula, Regulus, Erithacus, Vidua and Chloris. Calidris and Vidua are usually attributed to later sources, but I have no idea why.

If Calidris had to be taken from Anonymous [=Merrem], 1804, precedence between this name and Philomachus would depend on a First-reviser action.

There is NO page priority in the ICZN Code!

Stolen from John Penhalluricks Worldbirdinfo:

Calidris Cuvier,1800,Leçons d'anatomie comparée,1,p.2. Nomen nudum. (= Crocethia)

Theo

 

[RaMa]

Just re-checked the complicated circumstances by which names from Cuvier, 1800 became available. Seems I've overlooked an important detail. Well then, Calidris is from Anonymous [=Merrem], 1804.

 

[thomasdonegan]

"precedence between this name and Philomachus would depend on a First-reviser action.

There is NO page priority in the ICZN Code!"

I agree. Unfortunately, not many people know that though. A nasty peer reviewer once engineered for a paper of mine to be rejected from Zootaxa on the basis that it used first reviser action and not page priority for establishing priority between two contemporaneously published names. And the editor believed him depite me pointing to Article 24.2 of the Code. Seriously.

 

[Mysticete]

My opinion is that, when taxonomy must be changed to account for new information on phylogeny, it is best to:

Be conservative, and make a decision that would require the fewest changes

But also have consistent morphological/behavioral differences between genera. To me, I am not so sure Knots are all that distinctive in the grand scheme, at least compared to a genus that includes peeps, etc. But honestly this sort of thing is all subjective, since everyone has a different opinion on how different bird genera should be.

 

[mb1848]

I guess page priority was a part of the 3rd ICZN code (1985) via recommendation 24A . But not part of current code.

 

[SzimiStyle]

But also have consistent morphological/behavioral differences between genera. To me, I am not so sure Knots are all that distinctive in the grand scheme, at least compared to a genus that includes peeps, etc. But honestly this sort of thing is all subjective, since everyone has a different opinion on how different bird genera should be.

Agree, and it is an important question when we decide which subspecies must be illustrated or are they that different morphologically which could be seen even on the plates?

Szimi