• 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 DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Gruiformes and Charadriiformes (9 Viewers)

Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
It's Esacus magnirostris, nested within Burhinus
Click to expand...

Usage of the name magnirostris in Burhinidae is a complete mess: without knowing which sequences they used, it's very hard to be sure. (And even then...)

GenBank currently has no sequences attributed to Esacus at all, and redirects searches on "Burhinus magnirostris" automatically to Burhinus grallarius.
BOLD currently has no sequences labelled anything magnirostris in Burhinidae. They have 5 sequences labelled Burhinus grallarius; four of these are closely similar and form the BIN BOLD:AAF5355, the fifth one is almost 10% away from the rest and is the sole member of BIN BOLD:AAI8433. This last sequence (BROM653-07) has "beach thick knee" in the specimen details, hence is presumably an Esacus magnirostris that had its name unduly corrected to grallarius. One of the sequences in the other BIN (BROM621-07) has "bush thick knee" in the specimen details, hence this BIN presumably really represents Burhinus grallarius.

Oedicnemus magnirostris Vieillot 1818 becomes a junior secondary homonym of Charadrius magnirostris Latham 1801 if Esacus is subsumed under Burhinus, hence using Burhinus magnirostris for the Beach Thick-knee is in principle not an option at all.
 
l_raty said:
Oedicnemus magnirostris Vieillot 1818 becomes a junior secondary homonym of Charadrius magnirostris Latham 1801 if Esacus is subsumed under Burhinus, hence using Burhinus magnirostris for the Beach Thick-knee is in principle not an option at all.
Click to expand...
And, FWIW, Oedicnemus magnirostris Vieillot 1818 was rejected as a secondary homonym before 1961 (Meinertzhagen AC. 1924. A review of the genus Oedicnemus. Ibis, ser. 11, 6: 329-356.; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1924.tb05330.x), neglectus Mathews 1912 being then substituted to it: its reinstatement for the Beach T-k (in the printed edition of HBW, in 1996, I think) was probably unjustified as well (see ICZN 59.3 -- the name should have been treated as permanently invalid).

(In HBW, it was suggested that the homonymy had vanished as a result of Charadrius grallarius Latham 1801 being given preference over Charadrius magnirostris Latham 1801 for the Bush T-k, but this is patently incorrect. A name continues to compete for homonymy even when it is objectively invalid.)
 
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
My lapwing classification
Click to expand...
Lots to think about around the Charadrii this morning eg:

Southern hemisphere origins for the various clades within the group.

Whatever happened to the presumably North American link between vanellus and chilensis/resplendens?
It looks like a Charadrius (Kildeer) has stepped into the gap.

Was the original oystercatcher/stilt/ibisbill clade a group of isolated Gondwanan piebald Tringa-like birds which ultimately lost ground to the Tringines once the two groups began to mix, leaving only the more specialised forms?

Was the ibisbill's ancestor an inhabitant of the Indian plate before it's collision with Eurasia? And did it then find a survival bolthole in the rising Himalayan range?

Haven't even looked at the Burhinidae yet but suspect a similar southern origin.

Re. Vanellinae. Separating out cayanus, vanellus, chilensis & resplendens. All the rest (excepting the 2 central Asian species) seem to share a characteristic diversity in outward form where even similar-looking species are not sister species. Not sure how to place them genus-wise.
 
Acanthis said:
. Vanellinae. Separating out cayanus, vanellus, chilensis & resplendens. All the rest (excepting the 2 central Asian species) seem to share a characteristic diversity in outward form where even similar-looking species are not sister species. Not sure how to place them genus-wise.
Click to expand...
After cogitation, maybe 5 genus : Chettusia clade, Lobivanellus clade, Belonopterus clade, Vanellus clade, Hoploxypterus clade
 
Acanthis said:
Haven't even looked at the Burhinidae yet but suspect a similar southern origin.
Click to expand...
For that matter :

Oedicnemus Temminck, 1815 (oedicnemus, senegalensis, indicus, vermiculatus)
Burhinops Roberts, 1922 (capensis)
Esacus (magnirostris, recurvirostris)
Burhinus (grallarius)
New genus "Euburhinus" (bistriatus, superciliaris)
 
Last edited:
See also Laurent's post here:
www.birdforum.net

Beach Thick-knee

Avibase has this species listed as Esacus neglectus, Esacus magnirostris, Burhinus magnirostris, and Burhinus giganteus. This seems to me an extra-ordinary amount of confusion considering the relatively few checklists that goes into it. What is really correct here? Why do we have no fewer than...
www.birdforum.net www.birdforum.net
Looks to me the same problem still lingers

Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
New genus "Euburhinus" (bistriatus, superciliaris)
Click to expand...
Pity nothing is available for these, seems the only part that is clear is these need a seperated genus :)
 
TomDerutter said:
See also Laurent's post here:
www.birdforum.net

Beach Thick-knee

Avibase has this species listed as Esacus neglectus, Esacus magnirostris, Burhinus magnirostris, and Burhinus giganteus. This seems to me an extra-ordinary amount of confusion considering the relatively few checklists that goes into it. What is really correct here? Why do we have no fewer than...
www.birdforum.net www.birdforum.net
Looks to me the same problem still lingers


Pity nothing is available for these, seems the only part that is clear is these need a seperated genus :)
Click to expand...
The person who chose grallarius as the type species did not think about the future consequences XD
 
So to organise these:

VANELLINAE
1) Hoploxypterus: cayanus
2) Belonopterus: chilensis, resplendens
3) Vanellus: vanellus
4) Lobivanellus: indicus, macropterus, senegallus, duvaucelii, miles (+novaehollandiae), crassirostris
5) Chettusia: (i) spinosus, albiceps, armatus (ii) tricolor, tectus, cinereus (iii) gregarius, leucurus (iv) coronatus, malabaricus, melanopterus, lugubris

Needing placement: melanocephalus, superciliosus
 
TomDerutter said:
See also Laurent's post here:
www.birdforum.net

Beach Thick-knee

Avibase has this species listed as Esacus neglectus, Esacus magnirostris, Burhinus magnirostris, and Burhinus giganteus. This seems to me an extra-ordinary amount of confusion considering the relatively few checklists that goes into it. What is really correct here? Why do we have no fewer than...
www.birdforum.net www.birdforum.net
Looks to me the same problem still lingers


Pity nothing is available for these, seems the only part that is clear is these need a seperated genus :)
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree. Who came up with "Euburhinus"?
 
Acanthis said:
So to organise these:

VANELLINAE
1) Hoploxypterus: cayanus
2) Belonopterus: chilensis, resplendens
3) Vanellus: vanellus
4) Lobivanellus: indicus, macropterus, senegallus, duvaucelii, miles (+novaehollandiae), crassirostris
5) Chettusia: (i) spinosus, albiceps, armatus (ii) tricolor, tectus, cinereus (iii) gregarius, leucurus (iv) coronatus, malabaricus, melanopterus, lugubris

Needing placement: melanocephalus, superciliosus
Click to expand...
1) Hoploxypterus: cayanus
2) Belonopterus: chilensis, resplendens
3) Vanellus: vanellus
4) Lobivanellus: indicus, macropterus, senegallus, duvaucelii
5) Chettusia: miles, novaehollandiae, crassirostris, spinosus, albiceps, armatus, tricolor, tectus, cinereus, gregarius, leucurus, coronatus, malabaricus, melanopterus, lugubris, melanocephalus, superciliosus

Or reunite the two latter genera into one
 
Chettusia is a bit problematic.

The source that is usually acknowledged for this name is this, which was in part XXIII of Bonaparte's Iconografia della fauna italica, published in 1838. The problem is -- the name "Chettusia gregaria" as it appears there, just like "Ganga grandule" for the previous species here, or "Numenio ciarlottello" for the next one here, is actually an Italian vernacular, not at all a scientific name. Bonaparte apparently used Chettusia as a scientific name first in the Introduzione of the same work, here, or in the index here. The Introduzione was published with or after the last part of the work (XXX), as the last two paragraphs comment on the entire content of the work; the index, of course, cannot have been produced before the last part of the work had been produced either. The writing of the work, according to the Prefazione here was completed on 21 Dec 1841.

Gray's use of Chetusia here (single t; an apparent independent adoption of Bonaparte's vernacular as a scientific name) seems actually to have been before Bonaparte himself used Chettusia (double t) as a scientific name. Mathews dated Gray's work to Sep 1841, although I'm unclear on which base. This work was advertised (presumably as having been published) in the Nov 1841 issue of London, Edinburgh & Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., ser. 3, 19: 414, here.

Strickland's paper with Lobivanellus here was published in Oct 1841.
 
Last edited:
Most of it seems to make sense.
But looking at Scolopacidae... hmm... I'd expect to see some very young sister species in Tringa & Calidris... but nothing there.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
Back
Top