l_raty
laurent raty
Haplospiza 'unicolor' Cabanis, 1851 (new name to replace unicolor)
It seems you need a new name here.
(Note 71b in A classification of the bird species of South America is, indeed, wrong.)
Haplospiza 'unicolor' Cabanis, 1851 (new name to replace unicolor)
Mdr, c'est des bons.
(Note 71b in A classification of the bird species of South America is, indeed, wrong.)
Ok, they talk about it here. Let's wait for them to fix this problemHowever, the main problem for a single genus treatment is one of nomenclature: in an expanded Haplospiza, Phrygilus unicolor was described (as Emberiza unicolor Lafresnaye & d’Orbigny 1837) before Haplospiza unicolor (1851), and so that mess would have to be sorted out in a separate publication. A new name would be required for Haplospiza unicolor, a name that has been in use for nearly 170 years. Therefore, I recommend a YES vote (resurrect Geospizopsis, retain Haplospiza as currently constituted) just as a temporary solution while nomenclature is sorted out.
Do you think it's possible to publish a new name, a name that would be there just in case?
Zoonomen says E. unicolor LaFesnaye is the type of
Geospizopsis Bp. as does SACC. But I cannot see why?
t.42 (1856) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Nicely summarized (with sound recordings) by the first author here:Martínez-Gómez, S.C., C.E. Lara, J.V. Remsen, Jr., R.T. Brumfield, and A.M. Cuervo (2023)
Unmasking hidden genetic, vocal, and size variation in the Masked Flowerpiercer along the Andes supports two species separated by Northern Peruvian Low
Ornithology (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/ornithology/ukad028
Genetic divergence among isolated populations is not always reflected in phenotypic differentiation. We investigated the genetic and phenotypic differentiation in Diglossa cyanea (Thraupidae; Masked Flowerpiercer), a widely distributed species in the tropical Andes. We found strong evidence for two main lineages separated by the Marañón River valley in the Northern Peruvian Low (NPL). These two lineages show a deep sequence divergence in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA; ~6.7% uncorrected p-distance, n = 122), spectral frequency and song structure (with exclusive final whistles in southern populations, n = 88), and wing length (the northern populations are smaller, n = 364). The two divergent D. cyanea mitochondrial lineages were not sister to each other, suggesting a possible paraphyly with respect to D. caerulescens (Bluish Flowerpiercer) that remains to be tested with nuclear genomic data. No genetic variation, size difference or song structure was observed within the extensive range of the southern group (from the NPL to central Bolivia) or within all sampled northern populations (from the NPL to Venezuela). These vocal differences appear to have consequences for song discrimination, and species recognition, according to a previously published playback experiment study. We propose that the southern taxon be elevated to species rank as D. melanopis, a monotypic species (with the proposed name Whistling Masked-Flowerpiercer). In turn, we provide a redefinition of D. cyanea (Warbling Masked-Flowerpiercer), which is now restricted to the northern half of the tropical Andes as a polytypic species with 3 subspecies (tovarensis, obscura, and cyanea). Based on our results, the subspecies dispar should be treated as a junior synonym of cyanea. Our study highlights the need to continue amassing complementary datasets from field observations, experiments, and collection-based assessments to better characterize the evolutionary history, biogeography, bioacoustics, and taxonomy of Neotropical montane birds.
Do they show any clear plumage differences?Nicely summarized (with sound recordings) by the first author here:
Swainson, W. (1834-1835) The Ornithological Drawings of William Swainson. Series 1. The Birds of Brazil. - Baldwin & Craddock (?), London, U.K.
Birds of the world has this to say about the southern population (D. melanopsis) compared to to the northern populationDo they show any clear plumage differences?
But there seem st o be different opinions when plate 37 was published.
- Nora F. McMillan: William Swainson's Birds of Brazil, Mexican Zoology, and Tropical Ornithology, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1970, 5 (5):366-368 => 10. July, 1834
- M. Ralph Browning, Burt L. Monroe: Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds, Archives of Natural History, 1991, 18 (3): 381-405 => dates plate 37 as 1835
SWAINSON'S ORNITHOLOGICAL DRAWINGS
The Ornithological drawings was published in 1834-1835 and consisted of 62 plates (see Coues [1879] for list of species) based principally on Swainson's work in Brazil in 1817 and 1818. Before the publication of this work, Swainson distributed his material (specimens ?) to specialists for their use (McMillan, 1976). According to McMillan (1970), Swainson's (1834-1835) work was issued in five parts: part 1 (consisting of plates 1-13) was issued on 15 January 1834; Part 2 (pls. 14-25) was issued 1 April 1834; Part 3 (pls. 26-38) on 10 July 1834; Part 4 (pls. 39-50) on 2 January 1835; and Part 5 (pls. 51-62) on 27 June 1835.
Three of the names originally proposed in the Ornithological drawings are incorrectly cited by the A.O.U. (1983) and in two volumes of the Peters' check-list.
Traylor (1979) cited the date for Ramphotrigon megacephala as "1836 (?)," and he and the A.O.U. (1983) gave the date for Myiopagis caniceps as 1836. Storer (1970) gave the date for Tanagra episcopus cana as 1836. The correct citations of the three taxa proposed by Swainson in the Ornithological drawings should be as follows:
Tyrannula caniceps (2 January) 1835, Pt. 5, pl. 49 (now Myiopagis caniceps caniceps)Tyrannula megacephala (2 January) 1835, Pt. 4, pl. 47 (now Ramphotrigon megacephala megacephala)T. [anagra] cana (10 July) 1835, Pt. 3, pl. 37 (now Tanagra episcopus cana)
[...]
Could it be that Sporophila beltoni is not a valid species?
Sounds a bit like redpolls. Is it a species? You decide... (stable, distinct morphological form so at least some genes segregate)Genomic islands of speciation harbor genes underlying coloration differences in a pair of Neotropical seedeaters
Incomplete speciation can be leveraged to associate phenotypes with genotypes, thus providing insights into the traits relevant to the reproductive isolation of diverging taxa. We investigate the genetic underpinnings of the phenotypic differences between Sporophila plumbea and S. beltoni . S...www.biorxiv.org
Could it be that Sporophila beltoni is not a valid species?
Apparently larger, certainly with different bill morphology. Depending what the vocal differences are they might just be a consequence of thisAnd yet the bill color difference is consistent. Songs have differentiated as well. One is migratory and the other (plumbea) I believe resident or is it migratory in the S of its range also? And perhaps some bill size differences- not sure if that’s been measured? I also haven’t listened to / heard plumbea from the zone of contact perhaps they are more similar sounding there?
We know it does not take much for Sporophila to start down different evolutionary pathways.
Tropeiro Seedeater seems, morphological and acoustically, much more of a real species than Dubois’s SE (ardesiaca) which occurs together with and sounds identical to Yellow-bellied SE and the only difference is belly color.
Sounds a bit like redpolls. Is it a species? You decide... (stable, distinct morphological form so at least some genes segregate)