• 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. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia

Trochilidae (4 Viewers)

l_raty

laurent raty
Would anyone, by chance, happen to know on which (actual) base Reichenbach's Aufzählung der Colibris may be told to have been published in "March" 1854 ?

In the proposal, Bruce & Stiles suggest that this was "demonstrated" (= claimed ?) by Cabanis & Heine 1860, but Cabanis & Heine "Mai" = May (not "März" = March). This would make this work later than the separate edition of Bonaparte's Tableau des oiseaux-mouches (presented to the Académie and said to be just published at the séance of 24 April 1854: see here; noticed as having been published on 6 May 1854 in Bibliogr. France: here; "Jun." = June as per C&H 1860 presumably refers to the journal version of the work, which appeared later).

(In the contemporary literature, I can find no references to it as a published work before the second half of 1854 -- see here. The earliest actual date on which I find a reference to the Extraheft (only the Erinnerungsschrift cited, not the Aufzählung; I'm not fully sure this would concern it too) is 21 Sep 1854 -- here.)
Bonaparte did not use any name from Reichenbach's Aufzählung in Tableau des oiseaux-mouches, but he used a significant number of them in :
  • Bonaparte CL. 1854. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.), sér. 4, 1: 105-152.
...of which:
The Trochilidae were on pp. 135-138 of the journal version (32-34 of the separate), thus would have been in any case demonstrably published with the separate edition of the work on 29 May 1854.

The Aufzählung must then have been published before this date, and would presumably have reached Bonaparte between his writing of Tableau des oiseaux-mouches (before 24 Apr 1854, see above), and his writing of Conspectus systematis ornithologiae, thus quite likely in late Apr or early May.

This may be more consistent with the date of publication originally claimed by Cabanis & Heine in 1860 (May, presumably reflecting the testimony of Cabanis, who had been the editor of the volume that contained the work), than with the 'corrected' date claimed by Heine in 1863 (March, offered without explanations by an author who was too young to have seen the publication of this volume; possibly resulting of the misinterpretation, as a date of publication, of a date appearing in the volume which was not one). It's probably not enough to be really sure, though.
 
Last edited:

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Amazilia rutila

Melisa Vázquez-López, Nandadevi Córtes-Rodríguez, Sahid M. Robles-Bello, Alfredo Bueno-Hernández, Luz E. Zamudio-Beltrán, Kristen Ruegg, and Blanca E. Hernández-Baños. 2021. Phylogeography and morphometric variation in the Cinnamon Hummingbird complex: Amazilia rutila (Aves: Trochilidae). Avian Research 12: 61.
Phylogeography and morphometric variation in the Cinnamon Hummingbird complex: Amazilia rutila (Aves: Trochilidae) - Avian Research

Abstract
Background
The Mesoamerican dominion is a biogeographic area of great interest due to its complex topography and distinctive climatic history. This area has a large diversity of habitats, including tropical deciduous forests, which house a large number of endemic species. Here, we assess phylogeographic pattern, genetic and morphometric variation in the Cinnamon Hummingbird complex Amazilia rutila, which prefers habitats in this region. This resident species is distributed along the Pacific coast from Sinaloa—including the Tres Marías Islands in Mexico to Costa Rica, and from the coastal plain of the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico south to Belize.
Methods
We obtained genetic data from 85 samples of A. rutila, using 4 different molecular markers (mtDNA: ND2, COI; nDNA: ODC, MUSK) on which we performed analyses of population structure (median-joining network, STRUCTURE, FST, AMOVA), Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood phylogenetic analyses, and divergence time estimates. In order to evaluate the historic suitability of environmental conditions, we constructed projection models using past scenarios (Pleistocene periods), and conducted Bayesian Skyline Plots (BSP) to visualize changes in population sizes over time. To analyze morphometric variation, we took measurements of 5 morphological traits from 210 study skins. We tested for differences between sexes, differences among geographic groups (defined based on genetic results), and used PCA to examine the variation in multivariate space.
Results
Using mtDNA, we recovered four main geographic groups: the Pacific coast, the Tres Marías Islands, the Chiapas region, and the Yucatán Peninsula together with Central America. These same groups were recovered by the phylogenetic results based on the multilocus dataset. Demography based on BSP results showed constant population size over time throughout the A. rutila complex and within each geographic group. Ecological niche model projections onto past scenarios revealed no drastic changes in suitable conditions, but revealed some possible refuges. Morphometric results showed minor sexual dimorphism in this species and statistically significant differences between geographic groups. The Tres Marías Islands population was the most differentiated, having larger body size than the remaining groups.
Conclusions
The best supported evolutionary hypothesis of diversification within this group corresponds to geographic isolation (limited gene flow), differences in current environmental conditions, and historical habitat fragmentation promoted by past events (Pleistocene refugia). Four well-defined clades comprise the A. rutila complex, and we assess the importance of a taxonomic reevaluation. Our data suggest that both of A. r. graysoni (Tres Marías Islands) and A. r. rutila (Pacific coast) should be considered full species. The other two strongly supported clades are: (a) the Chiapas group (southern Mexico), and (b) the populations from Yucatán Peninsula and Central America. These clades belong to the corallirostris taxon, which needs to be split and properly named.
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Christopher J. Clark, David T. Rankin, and Carl E. Rudeen. 2022. Banding data show hummingbirds have high rates of hybridization. Ornithology 139. Banding data show hummingbirds have high rates of hybridization

Abstract
We estimate hybridization rates among hummingbirds using nearly a million banding records from the United States and Canada. Annually from 2006 to 2019, an average of 44,600 individual hummingbirds and 14 hybrids were banded. Nearly all reports of hybrids come from localities west of the Mississippi, where multiple species breed in sympatry, whereas only Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) breeds east of the Mississippi. Adult male hybrids comprise 62% of all hybrids banded, a significantly greater fraction than “regular” adult males, which are 29% of all birds banded (excluding Ruby-throated Hummingbird). We infer that this excess of adult male hybrids is caused by ascertainment bias: banders more often misidentify female hybrids as parental species because females mostly lack species-specific showy sexual ornaments of male hummingbirds, making them harder to identify, rather than Haldane’s rule of reduced survivorship of the heterogametic sex. Also influencing the apparent hybridization rate are banders, a few of whom seek out or avoid hybrids. After considering these biases, the data suggest that, in areas of the United States and Canada with >1 species, approximately 1 hummingbird in a thousand (0.1%) is an F1 hybrid.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
So they observe 0.03% hybrids and estimate the real number as 0.1%. Seems a bit of a jump - does the truth perhaps lie somewhere in between?

Niels
 

cclark

New member
United States
Niels, I suggest reading the paper. As we say in the abstract "...in areas of the United States and Canada with >1 species...." and "...whereas only Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) breeds east of the Mississippi." So yes if you include a ton of birds banded in areas with no sympatric species the raw value is 0.03, but the value for places with two or more breeding species is on the order of 0.1%
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
Niels, I suggest reading the paper. As we say in the abstract "...in areas of the United States and Canada with >1 species...." and "...whereas only Ruby-throated Hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) breeds east of the Mississippi." So yes if you include a ton of birds banded in areas with no sympatric species the raw value is 0.03, but the value for places with two or more breeding species is on the order of 0.1%
I thought I had read the entire paper before writing my answer. However, right now I cannot find where I have access to the full version?
Niels
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
cclark, thank you for sharing, this article is very interesting:

Yvonne Lawrie, Thomas Shannon, Arturo Kirkconnell, Christopher Clark, Martin Collinson, Guy Kirwan. 2021. Systematic placement of the Bee Hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae) (Aves: Trochilidae) and potential consequences for nomenclature of the Mellisuginae. Ornitologia Neotropical, 32: 45-50.
 
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Columbia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia
ZEISS. Discover the fascinating world of birds, and win a birding trip to Colombia

Users who are viewing this thread

Top