l_raty
laurent raty
Determined to be 'standard' Taphrospilus hypostictus, after all ?
This is what the distributional data in Schulenberg et al's Birds of Peru (2010) suggest, in any case.
-
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.
Trochilidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
This is what the distributional data in Schulenberg et al's Birds of Peru (2010) suggest, in any case.
Taphrospilus
Well-known member
Well, mostly. Basically, there has been no evidence that this species occurs at Ampay regularly and, assuming the initial specimen was actually collected there (and not accidentally mislabeled), we assumed it to represent an elevational vagrant of T. hypostictus. I think the reason it was thought to be a "new species" by Hocking and Fjeldsa was because of the elevation and habitat which are very uncharacteristic of T. hypostictus... But having investigated the specimen personally, I cannot find anything about it that is not typical of the morphology of T. hypostictus. So, unless someone is able to "rediscover" this population, it falls into the "that was weird" bin of questionable records among Peruvian birds.
You'll be aware that quite a few birders say they've seen this around Abancay. But not from Ampay; around the river instead. I saw what I take to be this on the radio mast side of the river in the xeric scrub feeding on flowering agaves, for example. I think I have a (terrible) photo somewhere...
...have those birds been looked at?
Is there evidence to look at? I am not aware of any besides the one specimen. While I was there I saw a lot of Amazilia chionogaster, but never a Taphrospilus.
Taphrospilus
Well-known member
Sorry in which museum is this specimen? In Lima? I ask as it is not clear where the brief description in the book came from.
Last edited:
Yes, it is at the San Marcos museum in Lima.
Well of course it could be a form of mass hysteria, but it's not difficult to find claims in otherwise credible cloud birders reports... Yes lots of white-bellied, but not that one (I saw)
[edit]: from memory, larger, paler than white-bellied. Unfortunately, I don't have access to my notes at mo'. I only saw one individual amongst v many other hummingbirds iirc. If you didn't find it, might that be a time of year thing?
Last edited:
I can't assess what you, or anyone else, saw... but if it was paler than a White-bellied Hummingbird it certainly doesn't sound like a Taphrospilus! They are more heavily speckled below and so would appear darker overall. If there are seasonal movements (certainly plausible), it would speak more strongly for the Apurimac birds simply being standard Taphrospilus hypostictus undergoing elevational movements rather than another species, no?
Well it obviously wasn't the same as "typical" many-spotted hummingbird. I'm not alone in seeing it as less speckled; see (e.g.) brief description in 2013 cloud birders trip report list. I would not have equated what I saw with many-spotted and others have commented on differences. It remains that various people have reported this bird which is not obviously the same as any known form. Whether it is or isn't many-spotted remains to be seen. I'd suggest that whatever it is does exist, though. (It is kinda boring looking if I'm honest)
I think people ascribe this to many spotted because of that initial report: so probably 2 different things are being conflated. (I see "my" bird as undescribed, or at least unassigned. Rather less sure about that ant wren I think we corresponded about; didn't look that distinctive to me, but our photos and recording of that were better).
Have to say I might not be the world's greatest birder but I'm reasonably observant. And there are so many other reports one can find that I suggest this isn't so easily dismissable.
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Christopher J Clark, David T Rankin, and Carl E Rudeen. 2021. Banding data show hummingbirds have high rates of hybridization. Ornithology. Published 25 October 2021.
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.
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.
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Proposal (924) to SACC
Recognize the genera Coeruleomitra for A. “Uranomitra” franciae, and B. Ramosomyia for “Leucolia” viridifrons
l_raty
laurent raty
For some reason, this has now been restricted to:
Recognize the genera Coeruleomitra for “Uranomitra” franciae
Clearly changed hastily as "genera" not changed to "genus".
l_raty
laurent raty
Also, there is still reference to Leucolia in the "Effect on SACC" paragraph, and the single cast vote revers to "those two hummingbirds".
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
What has happened ? where has Ramosomyia gone?
Edit : ok, Ramosomyia is a Mexican genus
Last edited:
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.)
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.)
Last edited:
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
I assume "März 1854" origins from here.
l_raty
laurent raty
Quite plausible -- I had missed that. But this is quite obviously a date of writing, not a date of publication.
I just found myself that "Mai" (as given by C&H 1860) was corrected to "März" by Heine 1863 here, at the same time that he corrected the date of Bonaparte's Cyanomyia from "Juni" to "Mai" (only this second correction is cited in the proposal) -
Note that he did not explain any of the two date corrections.
The correction to the date of Bonaparte's name, however, will very likely have been because the name had appeared in the "May" 1854 issue of Rev. Mag. Zool. (Bonaparte CL. 1854. Tableau des oiseaux-mouches. Rev. Mag. Zool., sér. 2, 6: 248-257.; here), which would quite definitely make it unjustified, as the issues of this journal for a given month are well known to have been usually published at the start of the next month (so that the issue could report on the scientific meetings that had occurred during this month). This particular "May" issue reported on a meeting of the Académie that took place on 29 May here, and it seems improbable that it might have been published in May as claimed by Heine.
The question that arises, then is: Why would Heine's 1863 correction to the date given by Cabanis & Heine 1860 for the Extraheft be sounder...? (Cabanis had been the editor of the Extraheft, he should have known better than Heine, who was only 14 when the work was published.)
Last edited:
Similar threads
