• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Species delimitation (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Tobias, Seddon, Spottiswoode, Pilgrim, Fishpool & Collar 2010. Quantitative criteria for species delimitation. Ibis: in press.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01051.x/abstract

Only a quick look so far, but seems to develop the quantitative scoring system already applied by Nigel Collar, eg:

A test of the system against 23 WP ssp pairs suggests that Oenanthe (oenanthe) seebohmi Seebohm's Wheatear and Rhodopechys (sanguinea) aliena African Crimson-winged Finch [usually treated as masculine?] qualify for species status. [The former is already recognised by Dutch Birding and Svensson et al 2009; the latter by DB and IOC.]

There's free access to the supporting info:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01051.x/suppinfo

Richard
 
Last edited:
Italian Sparow

Hi,

While reading the following section in the APPENDIX S1 (Comments on the BOU guidelines for assigning species rank in birds) attached to the article in post 1, I thought about the Italian Sparrow (problematic situation, hybrid? population and despite these, is it treated as species by some authorities, however I don’t know which species concept are used by some of these authorities, see question below):

It also reveals little about the status of hybrid populations themselves (e.g. Junco hyemalis cismontanus: Newton 2003). Such ‘taxa’ appear destined to persist ‘through time and space’, but do they possess ‘integrity’ (Helbig et al. 2002)? If they do, as geographical isolates they might qualify under the BOU criteria for species rank, but if they do not, they forfeit their taxonomic status altogether.
Click to expand...

Do you think that treatment of the Italian Sparrow as a species will stand against this? Also do you think that my comparison of the Italian Sparrow case with the case of this Junco hyemalis cismontanus , which I don't know, is correct or not.

Before asking this I should ask which species concept the HBW and Svensson et al. 2009 (Collins Bird Guide) are using, because they are the only ones who treat Italian Sparrow as a species along with the Dutch Birding (according to what I reed in an earlier forum about the Italian Sparrow: http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=90506&highlight=Italian).

Töpfer T. (2006) (abstract), it seems no one is following his treatment.

By the way, anyone here had access to the article in post 1, I would be thankful if someone send it to me.

Edit: the paper received, many thanks.
 
Last edited:
Italian Sparrow

Acrocephalus said:
Töpfer T. (2006) (abstract), it seems no one is following his treatment.
Click to expand...
Well, Töpfer's treatment is followed by Cornell/Clements, but with invalid nomenclature: italiae (Vieillot, 1817) is treated as as a ssp of hispaniolensis (Temminck, 1820) [why doesn't Cornell include dates, to prevent such blunders!?]. Same for Clement, Harris & Davis 1993 (Finches & Sparrows).

Richard
 
The aims of the paper seem twofold: to develop a more consistent approach to assigning species and subspecies identity and to introduce the idea that a large criteria set can be used as the basis of criteria selection for assigning such identities, depending upon individual cases. In other words, individual criteria sets may differ; that for Italian Sparrow (taking into account the narrow hybridisation zone with House Sparrow in its northern range and the cline to Spanish Sparrow to the south) may well differ from that for, say the Thalassarche albatross populations.
The paper could be a shot in the arm for the 'traditional' (non-molecular) approach. Certainly there have been several molecular papers recently that, while revealing in finer detail many complex biological subtleties, have contained much taxonomic speculation, due to a single molecular technique being applied to specimens that are not representative of entire distributions; in itself, this speculation is no bad thing, because it is informed, but the phrasing used has not really conveyed the 'heath warning' aspect. Consequently, interpretations appear that are expressed with unwarranted confidence.
There needs to be closer alignment between molecular and non-molecular ornithological views of species delimitation, if only to highlight better where these truly diverge.
Perhaps as individuals, too many of us expect biology and taxonomy to be subject to the same ease of definition as traditional Physics and Mathematics - 'why can't 'they' define a species?' Species and subspecies are better regarded as 'fuzzy' concepts that work very well in most cases in ornithology, but I would just ask you to remember that botanists have long been aware of the impossibility of defining 'variety'!
 
Welcome to BirdForum, MJB. :t:

Presumably the system developed by Tobias et al will increasingly be applied by the BirdLife International Taxonomic Working Group in the context of the BLI Checklist.

I was rather surprised by the results of the test described in the paper. When Nigel Collar applied the approach to the Asian babblers in 2006, it generated a considerable number of new splits (and probably raised a few eyebrows, even though oriental species are almost certainly overlumped). But the test suggests that the method is actually rather conservative, given that the quantitative scoring system identified fewer potential splits than the BOU guidelines.

Richard
 
Last edited:
Though I'm a subscriber, I can't seem to log in on the site. Does anyone have a pdf of the Tobias et al paper? Seems like it might suggest good compromises on these issues ...

cheers
D
 
"Töpfer's treatment is followed by Cornell/Clements, but with invalid nomenclature: italiae (Vieillot, 1817) is treated as as a ssp of hispaniolensis (Temminck, 1820)"

I have seen:
1998. Preference of Fringilla hispaniolensis Temminck, 1820 over Fringilla italiae Vieillot, 1817. Bull. Zool. Nom. (Walter Bock w/ Jurgen Haffer). Was this ever published?

Bonaparte wrote to Strickland:
A downright false name must of course be changed, such as Fringilla hispaniolensis! ! (St. Domingo, while he meant Spain, and not even there !)
Memoirs of Hugh Edwin Strickland (propane and propane accessories 1858)
 
Quantitative criteria for species delimitation

Richard Klim said:
Tobias, Seddon, Spottiswoode, Pilgrim, Fishpool & Collar 2010. Quantitative criteria for species delimitation. Ibis: in press.
Click to expand...
[Free access to published PDF (Ibis 152(4): 724-746):
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01051.x/pdf]

Earlier related short notes in Forktail now published on the OBC website:

Richard
 
Rieppel 2011

Rieppel 2011. Species are individuals—the German tradition. Cladistics: in press. abstract

Probably a bit too deep for me... :h?:
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Rieppel 2011. Species are individuals—the German tradition. Cladistics: in press. abstract Probably a bit too deep for me... :h?:
Click to expand...

In other words, species are real, but only for certain definitions of reality...

It's well into the realms of philosophy, but essentially it's a conceptual argument concerning what I express in my motto below.
MJB
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Taphrospilus
Ithaginis cruentus marionae Mayr, 1941
Replies
1
Views
410
PScofield
P
Taphrospilus
Oceanodroma monteiroi (Bolton, Smith, Gómez-Díaz, Friesen, Medeiros, Bried, Roscales & Furness, 2008)
Replies
1
Views
405
l_raty
l_raty
Taphrospilus
Batrachostomus chaseni Stresemann, 1937 and others
Replies
9
Views
861
PScofield
P
Taphrospilus
Acrocephalus baeticatus hopsoni Fry, Williamson and Ferguson-Lees 1974
Replies
1
Views
276
PScofield
P
Taphrospilus
Small addition on Cistothorus palustris marianae
Replies
9
Views
1K
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top