• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Thraupidae (1 Viewer)

Daniel Philippe

Well-known member
Mason, N. A., 2012. Song complexity and its evolutionary correlates across a continent-wide radiation of songbirds. Faculty of San Diego State University: 1-90.

pdf
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Burns et al

Burns, Shultz, Title, Mason, Barker, Klicka, Lanyon & Lovette (in press). Phylogenetics and diversification of tanagers (Passeriformes: Thraupidae), the largest radiation of Neotropical songbirds. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]

Subfamilies:
  1. Catamblyrhynchinae Ridgway, 1901 (Plushcap): Catamblyrhynchus
  2. Charitospizinae new subfamily (Coal-crested Finch): Charitospiza
  3. Orchesticinae new subfamily (grosbeak tanagers): Orchesticus, Parkerthraustes
  4. Nemosiinae Bonaparte, 1854 (flock-dwelling tanagers): Compsothraupis, Cyanicterus, Nemosia, Sericossypha
  5. Hemithraupinae Sundevall, 1872 (yellow-and-black tanagers): Chlorophanes, Chrysothlypis, Hemithraupis, Heterospingus, Iridophanes
  6. Porphyrospizinae new subfamily (yellow-billed tanagers): Incaspiza, Phrygilus alaudinus, P carbonarius, P fruticeti, Porphyrospiza
  7. Dacninae Sundevall, 1836 (blue tanagers): Cyanerpes, Dacnis, Tersina
  8. Saltatorinae Bonaparte, 1853 (saltators): Saltator (except S rufiventris), Saltatricula
  9. Emberizoidinae new subfamily (grassland tanagers): Coryphaspiza, Emberizoides, Embernagra
  10. Coerebinae d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838 (dome-nesting tanagers): Camarhynchus, Certhidea, Coereba, Euneornis, Geospiza, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha, Pinaroloxias, Platyspiza, Tiaris
  11. Tachyphoninae Bonaparte, 1853 (ornamented tanagers): Conothraupis, Coryphospingus, Creurgops, Eucometis, Lanio, Ramphocelus, Rhodospingus, Tachyphonus, Trichothraupis, Volatinia
  12. Sporophilinae Ridgway, 1901 (seedeaters): Dolospingus, Oryzoborus, Sporophila
  13. Poospizinae Wolters, 1980 (warbler tanagers): Cnemoscopus, Compsospiza, Cypsnagra, Donacospiza, Hemispingus, Nephelornis, Piezorina, Poospiza, Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Urothraupis, Xenospingus
  14. Diglossinae Sclater, 1875 (highland tanagers): Acanthidops, Catamenia, Conirostrum, Diglossa, Diuca speculifera, Haplospiza, Idiopsar, Melanodera, Nesospiza, Oreomanes, Phrygilus (except P alaudinus, P carbonarius, P fruticeti), Rowettia, Sicalis, Xenodacnis
  15. Thraupinae Cabanis, 1847 (core tanagers): Anisognathus, Bangsia, Buthraupis, Calochaetes, Chlorochrysa, Chlorornis, Cissopis, Cnemathraupis, Diuca diuca, Dubusia, Gubernatrix, Iridosornis, Lophospingus, Neothraupis, Paroaria, Pipraeidea, Saltator rufiventris, Schistochlamys, Stephanophorus, Tangara, Thraupis, Wetmorethraupis
Suggested possible changes to genera...

Porphyrospizinae:
  • Phrygilus alaudinus, P carbonarius > Corydospiza Sundevall, 1872
  • Phrygilus fruticeti > Rhopospina Cabanis, 1851
Saltatorinae:
  • Saltatricula > Saltator
Coerebinae:
  • Certhidea fusca > new genus ?
  • Loxigilla portoricensis, L violacea > Melopyrrha
  • Tiaris bicolor > Melanospiza
  • Tiaris canorus > Phonipara Gray, 1850
  • Tiaris fuliginosa, T obscurus > new genus
Tachyphoninae:
  • Tachyphonus cristatus, T luctuosus, T rufiventer > new genus
  • Tachyphonus delatrii > new genus
  • Tachyphonus surinamus > new genus
Sporophilinae:
  • Dolospingus, Oryzoborus > Sporophila
Poospizinae:
  • Hemispingus atropileus, H calophrys, H parodii, H reyi > new genus
  • Hemispingus frontalis, H melanotis > Sphenops Sclater, 1862
  • Hemispingus goeringi, H rufosuperciliaris > Orospingus Riley, 1922
  • Hemispingus verticalis, H xanthophthalmus > Pseudospingus Berlepsch & Stolzmann, 1896
  • Hemispingus superciliaris, Pyrrhocoma > Thlypopsis
  • Hemispingus trifasciatus, Poospiza alticola, P cabanisi, P cinerea, P erythrophrys, P lateralis, P melanoleuca, P torquata > Microspingus Taczanowski, 1874
  • Poospiza caesar, P hypochondria > Poospizopsis Berlepsch, 1893
  • Poospiza hispaniolensis > new genus
  • Poospiza rubecula > new genus
  • Poospiza thoracica > new genus
Diglossinae:
  • Haplospiza rustica > Spodiornis Sclater, 1866
  • Idiopsar, Phrygilus dorsalis, P erythronotus > Diuca
  • Oreomanes > Conirostrum
  • Phrygilus plebejus, P unicolor > Geospizopsis Bonaparte, 1856
Thraupinae:
  • Buthraupis wetmorei > Tephrophilus Moore, 1934
  • Diuca diuca > Hedyglossa Reichenbach, 1851
  • Saltator rufiventris > Dubusia or new genus
  • Tangara ornata > T argentea Lafresnaye, 1943
  • Thraupis abbas, T cyanoptera, T episcopus, T glaucocolpa, T ornata, T palmarum, T sayaca > Tangara
  • Thraupis cyanocephala > Sporathraupis Ridgway, 1898
 
Last edited:

Cadu Agne

Member
Two Thlypopsis ruficeps!

Two Thlypopsis ruficeps:

T. ruficeps (d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837) - Rust-and-yellow Tanager
T. ruficeps (Strickland, 1844) (Pyrrhocoma ruficeps) - Chestnut-headed Tanager
 

gusasp

Well-known member
Two Thlypopsis ruficeps:

T. ruficeps (d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837) - Rust-and-yellow Tanager
T. ruficeps (Strickland, 1844) (Pyrrhocoma ruficeps) - Chestnut-headed Tanager

John Boyd:

The Rust-and-yellow has priority (d'Orbigny and Lafresnay, 1837) over the Chestnut-headed (Strickland, 1844). However, there seem to be no junior names for the Chestnut-headed. For now, I distinguish it as “ruficeps”.

By the way, there's some heavy duty oversplitting of genera going on here isn't there? You'd really avoid some headache by following Boyd, only two new genera to name: Hemispingus atropileus and friends + Poospiza thoracica. Plus of course "Saltator" rufiventris.

I find two interesting discrepancies between Boyd's tree and your summary Richard:
* Certhidae fusca > new genus – is C. fusca not sister to C. olivacea (from which it was split not long ago)?
* Diuca diuca > Hedyglossa but Idiopsar, Phrygilus dorsalis, P erythronotus > Diuca. So Diuca speculifera is not at all related to D. diuca?

And what about "Sicalis" citrina and "Geospiza" difficilis?
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Certhidae fusca > new genus – is C. fusca not sister to C. olivacea (from which it was split not long ago)?
"...as in Petren et al. (2005), we found that the two species of Certhidea do not form a monophyletic clade, with C. fusca more closely related to the rest of the Darwin's Finches than it is to C. olivacea. However, this relationship was not strongly supported in our data set. If additional data continue to uphold paraphyly, retaining Certhidea for both of these species would be misleading. Thus, a new generic name will be needed for C. fusca to reflect accurately the relationship of these species to other birds."

['?' added to my summary.]
Diuca diuca > Hedyglossa but Idiopsar, Phrygilus dorsalis, P erythronotus > Diuca. So Diuca speculifera is not at all related to D. diuca?
"Our phylogenies are congruent with these differences and show the two Diuca species are distantly related, with D. speculifera belonging to Diglossinae and D. diuca belonging to Thraupinae..."
And what about "Sicalis" citrina and "Geospiza" difficilis?
"In our concatenated ML and BEAST analyses, Sicalis is not monophyletic, with S. citrina more closely related to species in the "yellow clade" than to other species in Sicalis. However, support for this relationship is not strong (0.84 PP; 62% bootstrap). In addition, none of the individual gene phylogenies provides strong support either for or against a monophyletic Sicalis (Supplementary Figs. 1-6). Given the lack of strong support for the position of S. citrina, additional data are needed to clarify the monophyly of Sicalis. Until then, despite the position of S. citrina in our concatenated phylogeny, we recommend that Sicalis be maintained for all species in the genus, given their morphological and behavioral similarities."

[Only one sample of Geospiza difficilis – nested within Geospiza.]
 
Last edited:

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
TiF vs World Bird Info

J. H. Boyd: "They had trouble with the Gray-capped Hemispingus, “Hemispingus” reyi, which is the basal member of this “Hemispingus” group. There does not seem to be an available name for the group, so I use “Hemispingus” for now."

J. Penhallurick: Grey-capped Hemispingus = Exospingus reyi

Also TiF: "Hemispingus" atropileus, auricularis and parodii
but WorldBirdInfo: Episkuniospingus

TiF: "Poospiza" thoracica
WBI: Paranospiza thoracica

Thraupidae by J. Penhallurick here (on the bottom of the page)
 
Last edited:

Snapdragyn

Well-known member
I can find no mention of Exospingus or Episkuniospingus online except for this thread & WorldBirdInfo, which does not list an authority or date for either genus.
 

mb1848

Well-known member
Wagler in 1830 used Sphaenops for an amphibian genus.
http://books.google.com/books?id=L6U-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false . page 161. Sphenops was one letter close to Wagler so not available in 19th Century? But is OK now? Sclater probably emended to Sphenopsis?
Sphenopsis in PZS: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/91152#page/475/mode/1up .
Sphenops appears to be a misprint because it cites the PZS article which is clearly Sphenopsis.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47708#page/342/mode/1up .
edit: Correctamundo! (cite to Pulp fiction) In an errata Sclater says for Sphenops read Sphenopsis.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/47708#page/10/mode/1up .
The 1861 PZS is possibly dated February 1862, (Sphenopsis). The Catalogue has to be later than May 1862 the date of the forward; (Sphenops fixed to Sphenopsis in errata).
 
Last edited:

thyoloalethe

Well-known member
Burns, Shultz, Title, Mason, Barker, Klicka, Lanyon & Lovette (in press). Phylogenetics and diversification of tanagers (Passeriformes: Thraupidae), the largest radiation of Neotropical songbirds. Mol Phylogenet Evol. [abstract]

Subfamilies:
  1. Catamblyrhynchinae Ridgway, 1901 (Plushcap): Catamblyrhynchus
  2. Charitospizinae new subfamily (Coal-crested Finch): Charitospiza
  3. Orchesticinae new subfamily (grosbeak tanagers): Orchesticus, Parkerthraustes
  4. Nemosiinae Bonaparte, 1854 (flock-dwelling tanagers): Compsothraupis, Cyanicterus, Nemosia, Sericossypha
  5. Hemithraupinae Sundevall, 1872 (yellow-and-black tanagers): Chlorophanes, Chrysothlypis, Hemithraupis, Heterospingus, Iridophanes
  6. Porphyrospizinae new subfamily (yellow-billed tanagers): Incaspiza, Phrygilus alaudinus, P carbonarius, P fruticeti, Porphyrospiza
  7. Dacninae Sundevall, 1836 (blue tanagers): Cyanerpes, Dacnis, Tersina
  8. Saltatorinae Bonaparte, 1853 (saltators): Saltator (except S rufiventris), Saltatricula
  9. Emberizoidinae new subfamily (grassland tanagers): Coryphaspiza, Emberizoides, Embernagra
  10. Coerebinae d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838 (dome-nesting tanagers): Camarhynchus, Certhidea, Coereba, Euneornis, Geospiza, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha, Pinaroloxias, Platyspiza, Tiaris
  11. Tachyphoninae Bonaparte, 1853 (ornamented tanagers): Conothraupis, Coryphospingus, Creurgops, Eucometis, Lanio, Ramphocelus, Rhodospingus, Tachyphonus, Trichothraupis, Volatinia
  12. Sporophilinae Ridgway, 1901 (seedeaters): Dolospingus, Oryzoborus, Sporophila
  13. Poospizinae Wolters, 1980 (warbler tanagers): Cnemoscopus, Compsospiza, Cypsnagra, Donacospiza, Hemispingus, Nephelornis, Piezorina, Poospiza, Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Urothraupis, Xenospingus
  14. Diglossinae Sclater, 1875 (highland tanagers): Acanthidops, Catamenia, Conirostrum, Diglossa, Diuca speculifera, Haplospiza, Idiopsar, Melanodera, Nesospiza, Oreomanes, Phrygilus (except P alaudinus, P carbonarius, P fruticeti), Rowettia, Sicalis, Xenodacnis
  15. Thraupinae Cabanis, 1847 (core tanagers): Anisognathus, Bangsia, Buthraupis, Calochaetes, Chlorochrysa, Chlorornis, Cissopis, Cnemathraupis, Diuca diuca, Dubusia, Gubernatrix, Iridosornis, Lophospingus, Neothraupis, Paroaria, Pipraeidea, Saltator rufiventris, Schistochlamys, Stephanophorus, Tangara, Thraupis, Wetmorethraupis

Is there any strong support for relationships between these 15 subfamilies? Or do they essentially form a polytomy, as seems apparent from the graphical abstract?

Also, was the Cherry-throated Tanager (Nemosia rourei) sampled for this study?

Thanks
Liam
 

andrew147

Well-known member
Is there any strong support for relationships between these 15 subfamilies? Or do they essentially form a polytomy, as seems apparent from the graphical abstract?

Also, was the Cherry-throated Tanager (Nemosia rourei) sampled for this study?

Thanks
Liam

You should be able to see the relationships between the fifteen groups in the attached file. They are not all equal and equivalent and an argument could be made for fewer subfamilies divided into tribes.

No, no Cherry-throated Tanager - for which, considering its rarity, we should probably be thankful. They recommend retaining it in Nemosia:

"We were unable to include samples of the extremely rare and recently re-discovered N.
rourei
(Bauer et al., 2000; Scott, 1997). However, this species shares similarities with other
species in Nemosiinae that lead us to conclude that it belongs in this clade as well. Eye color,
plumage colors, and plumage patterns are similar between N. rourei and N. pileata. Also, S.
cristata, C. loricata,
and N. rourei have red throats, and the crowns of some individuals of N.
rourei
are white like those of S. cristata (as illustrated in Venturini et al., 2005). Venturini et al.
(2005) also note apparent similarities in courtship between N. pileata and N. rourei. Overall,
pending further analyses, we recommend retaining N. rourei in Nemosia".

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • Burns [2014] .jpg
    Burns [2014] .jpg
    104.6 KB · Views: 281
Last edited:

thyoloalethe

Well-known member
Thanks Andrew - there's no asterisk next to any node below the subfamilies (except the one subtending the whole family), so I take it to mean that none of the sister relationships between the subfamilies are strongly supported, and the authors could only minimally name 15 subfamilies.

I appreciate the info on Nemosia rourei too!

Cheers
Liam
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top