• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Turdus sanchezorum (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

-------------------------
O'Neill, Lane & Naka (in press). A cryptic new species of thrush (Turdidae: Turdus) from western Amazonia. Condor. [abstract]

Do the authors suggest an English name?

Edit: Thanks. 'Varzea Thrush' (várzea, seasonally-flooded river-edge forest habitat).
 
Last edited:

Daniel Philippe

Well-known member
BTW, is there any news of J. Hornbuckle's "Beni Thrush":
http://www.worldtwitch.com/new_species_hornbuckle.htm

"Although I have conducted fieldwork in several poorly known areas, only once have I encountered a bird that was definitely different from anything described. This was a Turdus thrush in Beni, Bolivia, that had a striking white eye-ring, a feature not shown by any Neotropical thrush."
 
Last edited:

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Oh-oh: "In the absence of modern, data-rich specimens, the new thrush might well have remained unknown."
Also, very topically... ;)
Importance of continued collecting
Despite there being more than 30 specimens of Turdus sanchezorum already deposited in various museums, it was not until modern (post-1960) specimens—complete with data about soft-part colors, molt, reproductive condition, etc.—were available, that this species was detected. Seasoned museum taxonomists such as Hellmayr (1934), Gyldenstolpe (1945a, b, 1951), and Snow (1985) all pondered the variation in T. hauxwelli, but none had the information available to recognize the undescribed form before them. In the field, T. sanchezorum has repeatedly been misidentified as T. hauxwelli or T. lawrencei even by the most experienced field ornithologists. Without the modern LSUMZ specimens that allowed JPO to note the correlation of the colors of the bill and orbital ring with the grayish tail, how much longer would T. sanchezorum have escaped notice? This case focuses a spotlight on the importance of continued collecting, even at oft-visited sites. We believe that critics of continued collecting, particularly of general collecting (e.g., Bekoff and Elzanowski 1997, Donegan 2000, 2008, American Bird Conservancy 2007), underestimate the importance of such collections in unraveling such complicated and intriguing stories such as that of T. sanchezorum, improving our understanding of the true biodiversity of our planet. Additional reasons supporting the continued collection of specimens and the importance of having vouchered tissue specimens have been published elsewhere (e.g., Remsen 1995, Peterson et al 2007). As an even more powerful vouchering technique, we emphasize the importance of recording the voice of a specimen subsequently collected (e.g., Cohn-Haft et al. 1997). As new techniques to study birds (and other organisms) evolve, individual specimens will prove yet more valuable. We cannot foresee a time when legally regulated, responsible specimen collection will not be one of the most powerful tools available for the study of all aspects of bird biology, particularly their phylogenetics, systematics, and taxonomy.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
I think that horse have been beaten to death many times over in recent BF threads ...

Niels
 

GMK

Well-known member
I think I'm correct in saying that it reaches as far east as the Madeira, so yes, well into Brazil.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Brazil

Yes, the distribution map depicts presence in Amazonas state from Parintins westwards (on Rio Amazonas, Rio Madeira and Rio Purús).
 

Snapdragyn

Well-known member
Could someone with access to the article please describe the range in Peru & Ecuador? I know the latest Peru guide mentions the 'gray-tailed morph' of Hauxwell's, which I'm guessing would be this newly described taxon. Does it also range into Ecuador?
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Could someone with access to the article please describe the range in Peru & Ecuador? I know the latest Peru guide mentions the 'gray-tailed morph' of Hauxwell's, which I'm guessing would be this newly described taxon. Does it also range into Ecuador?

Peru: San Martín department: Aguas Verdes; Posic. Loreto department: Boca de Río Curaray on Río Napo; island in Río Napo at mouth of Río Yanayacu; Isla Yarina, Río Napo; ExplorNapo Lodge, Río Sucusari; Quebrada Yanamono, Río Amazonas; S bank Río Amazonas, E side Quebrada Vainilla; Orosa, Río Amazonas, Pampa Hermosa, Río Ucayali. Ucayali department: Yarinacocha.

Colombia: Amazonas department: Isla Ronda, Río Amazonas

Brazil: Amazonas state: Tefe, Rio Solimões; Villa Bella Imperatriz (= Parintins), Rio Amazonas; Lago Beruri; Rio Purús, Igarape da Castanha; Huitanaa (= Hyutanahan), right bank of Rio Purús; Rio Purús, Itaboca; Rosarinho, Rio Madeira; Borba, Rio Madeira; Auare Igarapé, Rio Madeira; Santa Isabel, Rio Preto.
 

DLane

Well-known member
BTW, is there any news of J. Hornbuckle's "Beni Thrush":
http://www.worldtwitch.com/new_species_hornbuckle.htm

"Although I have conducted fieldwork in several poorly known areas, only once have I encountered a bird that was definitely different from anything described. This was a Turdus thrush in Beni, Bolivia, that had a striking white eye-ring, a feature not shown by any Neotropical thrush."

-----------------------------------

Based on the one photo, I'd say that his 'new' thrush is simply a female-type Creamy-bellied Thrush. *That* is one variable bird!
 

Birdingcraft

Well-known member
How exciting! Great ornithological "detective work" by the authors. Maybe it will also turn up in easternmost Ecuador sometime.
 

lewis20126

Well-known member
A good paper. I was however interested in the assertion of the authors that this example suppports continued collecting. I thought it was actually rather a poor example of support for collecting to date, since so many have gone unnoticed in existing collections! The argument (which may be true in part) is "the old collectors / museum workers didn't do a very good job of recording data (eg soft parts colour) and identifying stuff, so we need to carry on and do it right this time".

cheers, alan
 
Last edited:

DLane

Well-known member
A good paper. I was however interested in the assertion of the authors that this example suppports continued collecting. I thought it was actually rather a poor example of support for collecting to date, since so many have gone unnoticed in existing collections! The argument (which may be true in part) is "the old collectors / museum workers didn't do a very good job of recording data (eg soft parts colour) and identifying stuff, so we need to carry on and do it right this time".

cheers, alan

I don't think we were so down on earlier collectors/collections (assuming that's what you meant by 'to date.' Certainly, collections made since the 1960s are what made this discovery possible!) as you've suggested, but I guess your last sentence is somewhat along the lines of what we were saying.

The general gist is that with all the information taken with each modern specimen, its value to science can be considered higher than that of older individual specimens and not necessarily due to faults of those olde timey collectors. In many cases, the technology simply wasn't available for them to do what we can now... but that said, recording soft part colors, molt, fat, reproductive condition, stomach contents, skull ossification, presence/absence of a bursa, etc., would have been possible even then, and would have been very helpful. Furthermore, we wanted to make the point that general collecting is still important because you never know what, down the line, will be discovered and how specimens that had been collected by general collection (meaning, a broader array of taxa), rather than targeted specifically (e.g., by going to some remote location and only targeting a few taxa there), will be used to support such new discoveries--the present thrush being an excellent example. Having specimens from wide geographic and seasonal sampling is immensely important to show patterns that may not be noticed in the field or even in the hand, without the benefit of comparison to a series.

And contrary to our paper being "poor support for collecting to date", I'd say that the older specimens that we discovered sitting, unrecognized, in museums were very important to our story in allowing us to show that we weren't dealing with a few freak individuals, to map the species' distribution, and to allow us to muse on timing of breeding, at the least. To further illustrate the importance of the old specimens: search for photos of Turdus hauxwelli and T. sanchezorum (heck, almost ANY Neotropical Turdus!) online... You'll find *very* few (so far, I have only seen one of T. sanchezorum, on Wikiaves: http://wikiaves.com/502564&t=s&s=11526. I know of a handful of others, but probably fewer than 5), even of true T. hauxwelli. Meanwhile, the specimens, even the oldest ones, are great documentation for the form now that we know how to identify it! That's the beauty of museum collections: you can always go back and refer to them if you have a question. Photos can never replace that.

In any event, thanks for your comment, it sounds like you agree with us.

Good birding!
Dan
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top