BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 2946291" data-attributes="member: 24811">This dataset has been in GenBank for quite some time (since 2009), and has long intrigued me, as it included sequences of an apparent Gavia arctica, that are identical to other available sequences of Gavia pacifica (as was the case in the data of <a href="http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/fak14/ipmb/phazb/pdf-files/2002%20Pdf.Pubwink/26.2002.pdf" target="_blank">Wink et al. 2002</a>, but to my knowledge has never been the case anywhere else--all other available mitochondrial sequences of these two taxa are clearly distinct).Here, the ID of this bird was apparently changed/corrected at a late stage: in Tables 1 and 2 of the paper, it is now called a Gavia pacifica from Mexico. But it is still labelled Gavia arctica in the trees (figures 1 and 2), where it appears to have sequences identical to those of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_008139.1" target="_blank">another Gavia pacifica from GenBank</a>. (And of course the sequences are still called <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/?term=treutlein+gavia" target="_blank">G. arctica in Genbank</a>.)To make things still muddier, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AY567889.1" target="_blank">the cox1 sequence of this bird</a> was also picked up in GenBank by BOLD and included in the barcode database of the BOLD systems. There, quite amazingly, it recently had a <a href="http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_RecordView?processid=GBIR1237-09" target="_blank">nice picture of an obvious Gavia a. arctica</a> joined to it, which claims to be an image of the specimen... (But that actually appears to come from <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-84351871/stock-photo-arctic-loon-black-throated-diver-in-a-swedish-lake.html" target="_blank">here</a> and, if so, presumably represents an infringement to copyright laws.)In the same dataset, the "Phoenicopterus ruber" seems to be a Ph. minor.(And, not in the same dataset, but included in the analysis, the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NC_014341.1" target="_blank">complete mitochondrial genome of "Pseudopodoces humilis"</a> is problematic too.)</blockquote>

Verification