• 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.

Thraupidae (1 Viewer)

Acanthis

Well-known member
I am rather glad they have split up the nine-primaried oscines, even if some divergences are comparatively young. At least one measure of the success of a classification is utility, and I just don't find it very useful to have a family that contains 1100 species, given how much larger that is than practically every other bird family
Interesting! The differences are psychological. I'm not a researcher merely a birder who has always had an interest in the degree of kinship between bird species. I can only really relate to them through knowing their relative positions in kinship structures, albeit artificial man-made structures. I've no objection to an emberizoid clade separated into handy bite-size portions. I can see the usefulness in that. But there will always be a niggle at the back of mind that these families are not the same as others. This is merely a personal issue.😄
 

Acanthis

Well-known member
Although the carribean families that have been added to avoid merging parulidae & icteridae don't feel all that useful... Could've gone with less families there.
Nicely summed up.😄

Just out of interest.
How upset would North American birders be if the Cardinalidae was absorbed by Thraupidae?
 

D Halas

Well-known member
Nicely summed up.😄

Just out of interest.
How upset would North American birders be if the Cardinalidae was absorbed by Thraupidae?

I very much doubt anyone would care? And if it stops anyone from trying to claim that Piranga tanagers aren't tanagers and so the name should be changed, so much the better.
 
Last edited:

Acanthis

Well-known member
I very much doubt anyone would care? And if it stops anyone from trying to claim that Piranga tanagers aren't tanagers and so name should be changed, so much the better.
Yeah, but what about Northern Cardinal, Indigo Bunting, or Rose-breasted Grosbeak?
 

Acanthis

Well-known member
What about them? What does it matter if those species are cardinalids or thraupids?
Indeed! Not every birder cares about such things, most probably don't.
I'm a European and not heavily invested either way.

I kinda hated losing my first tanager tick (a truly stunning male Scarlet in NY in the eighties) when Piranga shifted to the cardinals.
But then completely fascinated that these birds were actually cardinals!

First tanager tick became a Thraupis species seen in Mexico years later - totally not in the same league!😐
 

D Halas

Well-known member
Indeed! Not every birder cares about such things, most probably don't.
I'm a European and not heavily invested either way.

I kinda hated losing my first tanager tick (a truly stunning male Scarlet in NY in the eighties) when Piranga shifted to the cardinals.
But then completely fascinated that these birds were actually cardinals!

First tanager tick became a Thraupis species seen in Mexico years later - totally not in the same league!😐
Ah, well that's understandable. Expanding the Thraupidae to include the Cardinalidae isn't like Piranga moving to the Cardinalidae, though. No relationships change; it's simply a matter of deciding how expansive the Thraupidae should be. The Cardinalidae wouldn't be gone, either; the clade would still exist, but as the Cardinalinae, or maybe Cardinalini. At most I could see someone who's trying to see at least one of every bird family a tiny bit disappointed that the percentage of bird families they've seen has dropped very slightly.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top