Yes, I didn't like to suggest it! Where's George...?Wow, plenty of room for taxonomic vandalism there.
Two Thlypopsis ruficeps:
T. ruficeps (d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837) - Rust-and-yellow Tanager
T. ruficeps (Strickland, 1844) (Pyrrhocoma ruficeps) - Chestnut-headed Tanager
Two Thlypopsis ruficeps:
T. ruficeps (d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837) - Rust-and-yellow Tanager
T. ruficeps (Strickland, 1844) (Pyrrhocoma ruficeps) - Chestnut-headed Tanager
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”.
"...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."Certhidae fusca > new genus – is C. fusca not sister to C. olivacea (from which it was split not long ago)?
"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..."Diuca diuca > Hedyglossa but Idiopsar, Phrygilus dorsalis, P erythronotus > Diuca. So Diuca speculifera is not at all related to D. diuca?
"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."And what about "Sicalis" citrina and "Geospiza" difficilis?
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]
Burns et al and John Boyd use Sphenops Sclater and Sphenopsis Sclater respectively.John H. Boyd's A Taxonomy in Flux, February 28:
The tanagers have been restructured based on Burns et al. (2014).
Burns et al and John Boyd use Sphenops Sclater and Sphenopsis Sclater respectively.
Which is correct?
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:
- Catamblyrhynchinae Ridgway, 1901 (Plushcap): Catamblyrhynchus
- Charitospizinae new subfamily (Coal-crested Finch): Charitospiza
- Orchesticinae new subfamily (grosbeak tanagers): Orchesticus, Parkerthraustes
- Nemosiinae Bonaparte, 1854 (flock-dwelling tanagers): Compsothraupis, Cyanicterus, Nemosia, Sericossypha
- Hemithraupinae Sundevall, 1872 (yellow-and-black tanagers): Chlorophanes, Chrysothlypis, Hemithraupis, Heterospingus, Iridophanes
- Porphyrospizinae new subfamily (yellow-billed tanagers): Incaspiza, Phrygilus alaudinus, P carbonarius, P fruticeti, Porphyrospiza
- Dacninae Sundevall, 1836 (blue tanagers): Cyanerpes, Dacnis, Tersina
- Saltatorinae Bonaparte, 1853 (saltators): Saltator (except S rufiventris), Saltatricula
- Emberizoidinae new subfamily (grassland tanagers): Coryphaspiza, Emberizoides, Embernagra
- Coerebinae d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838 (dome-nesting tanagers): Camarhynchus, Certhidea, Coereba, Euneornis, Geospiza, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha, Pinaroloxias, Platyspiza, Tiaris
- Tachyphoninae Bonaparte, 1853 (ornamented tanagers): Conothraupis, Coryphospingus, Creurgops, Eucometis, Lanio, Ramphocelus, Rhodospingus, Tachyphonus, Trichothraupis, Volatinia
- Sporophilinae Ridgway, 1901 (seedeaters): Dolospingus, Oryzoborus, Sporophila
- Poospizinae Wolters, 1980 (warbler tanagers): Cnemoscopus, Compsospiza, Cypsnagra, Donacospiza, Hemispingus, Nephelornis, Piezorina, Poospiza, Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Urothraupis, Xenospingus
- 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
- 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