Trochilidae (4 Viewers)

[jts1882]

Yes, I'm pretty sure the search is picking up version 4.1. If you search for Chalcostigma, it only shows the five species, as version 4.1. The new revision (let's call it 5.0) has ten species in Chalcostigma. The five species from the Chalcostigma sensu 4.1, the four species that were subspecies of Oxypogon guerinii in H&M4.1, and the former Oreonympha nobilis .

Now the thing that is bugging me is the search heading the listing with "Hidden subfamily of monotypic family. - Tribe LESBIINI". What does this mean? The family is not monotypic, as there are six subfamilies including Lesbiinae which has two tribes.

 

[jts1882]

The are quite a few differences between the H&M5 sequences and IOC, but the IOC sequence is compatible with the subfamilies and tribes used by H&M4/5.

There are a few differences in the genera, apart from the IOC recognising Oreonympha and Oxypogon rather than lumping them in Calcostigma. The IOC uses Pampa instead of Platystylopterus (I think this is because the IOC's Pampa pampa is a subspecies of Platystylopterus curviipennis in H&M5) and Uranomitra for Coeruleomitra (see H&M footnote 367). The IOC includes the Dicranurania of H&M5 in Eupherusa, and the Aphantochroa of H&M5 Eupetomena, while H&M5 lumps Eulampis into Anthracothorax.

367. Bruce & Stiles (2021) [Bruce, 2021 #18890] suggested that monotypy for this taxon was designated in 2017, but the designation then related to Uranomitra and they proposed this replacement name.

 

[l_raty]

The IOC uses Pampa instead of Platystylopterus (I think this is because the IOC's Pampa pampa is a subspecies of Platystylopterus curviipennis in H&M5)

Pampa Reichenbach 1854 (OD; type, by monotypy, Pampa campyloptera Reichenbach 1854 -- a new name for Trochilus pampa Lesson 1832, presumably introduced by Reichenbach to avoid a tautonymous "Pampa pampa", which would have been frowned upon back then) and Platystylopterus Reichenbach 1854 (OD; type, by subsequent designation of Gray 1855, Campylopterus rufus Lesson 1840) were published in the same work (Reichanbach's Aufzählung der Colibris) and at the same rank.
Pampa Reichenbach 1854 is a homonym of Pampa Walker 1854 (OD; Lepidoptera), which was published on 11 Feb 1854 fide Sherborn 1934. The exact date of publication of Reichenbach's Aufzählung is no fully clear, but nothing serious suggests a publication before 11 Feb 1854; thus Pampa Reichenbach 1854 is a junior homonym: as such, it is permanently invalid, and another name must be used.
H&M are correct here.

367. Bruce & Stiles (2021) [Bruce, 2021 #18890] suggested that monotypy for this taxon was designated in 2017, but the designation then related to Uranomitra and they proposed this replacement name.

Can anyone translate this sentence for me ?
(I have no idea what "designating monotypy" could possibly mean. Coeruleomitra was presented as a replacement name, but not intended to replace nomenclaturally an already available name, hence must be understood as having been a new genus. There is no question that Uranomitra is the correct name here.)

 

[albertonykus]

Williamson, J.L., E.F. Gyllenhaal, S.M. Bauernfeind, E. Bautista, M.J. Baumann, C.R. Gadek, P.P. Marra, N. Ricote, T. Valqui, F. Bozinovic, N.D. Singh, and C.C. Witt (2024)
Extreme elevational migration spurred cryptic speciation in giant hummingbirds
PNAS 121: e2313599121
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313599121

The ecoevolutionary drivers of species niche expansion or contraction are critical for biodiversity but challenging to infer. Niche expansion may be promoted by local adaptation or constrained by physiological performance trade-offs. For birds, evolutionary shifts in migratory behavior permit the broadening of the climatic niche by expansion into varied, seasonal environments. Broader niches can be short-lived if diversifying selection and geography promote speciation and niche subdivision across climatic gradients. To illuminate niche breadth dynamics, we can ask how “outlier” species defy constraints. Of the 363 hummingbird species, the giant hummingbird (Patagona gigas) has the broadest climatic niche by a large margin. To test the roles of migratory behavior, performance trade-offs, and genetic structure in maintaining its exceptional niche breadth, we studied its movements, respiratory traits, and population genomics. Satellite and light-level geolocator tracks revealed an >8,300-km loop migration over the Central Andean Plateau. This migration included a 3-wk, ~4,100-m ascent punctuated by upward bursts and pauses, resembling the acclimatization routines of human mountain climbers, and accompanied by surging blood-hemoglobin concentrations. Extreme migration was accompanied by deep genomic divergence from high-elevation resident populations, with decisive postzygotic barriers to gene flow. The two forms occur side-by-side but differ almost imperceptibly in size, plumage, and respiratory traits. The high-elevation resident taxon is the world’s largest hummingbird, a previously undiscovered species that we describe and name here. The giant hummingbirds demonstrate evolutionary limits on niche breadth: when the ancestral niche expanded due to evolution (or loss) of an extreme migratory behavior, speciation followed.

 

[njlarsen]

So how do we understand the abstract? A split within peruviana, or something else? Or a split that the two existing subspecies are species?
Niels

 

[awiner]

So how do we understand the abstract? A split within peruviana, or something else? Or a split that the two existing subspecies are species?
Niels

South America’s Giant Hummingbird is Actually Two Species | Sci.News has a bit more detail that isn't in the abstract - it's Patagona chaski nov. sp. No info about ranges, but they're proposing chaski as "Northern Giant Hummingbird", so presumably a spit off of peruviana and mostly in the northern parts of that range?

 

[njlarsen]

another quote from that second source:

The southern migrant species will retain the name Patagona gigas. The proposed scientific name for the resident northern population is Patagona chaski.

We truly need to see some range descriptions (and possibly more) to understand how this split is different from the current two subspecies.
Niels

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Someone has this paper?

 

[pbjosh]

It’s free to read at the link above.

 

[cajanuma]

another quote from that second source:

We truly need to see some range descriptions (and possibly more) to understand how this split is different from the current two subspecies.
Niels

I also found this very confusing. Looking at the Birds of the World account, it seems like the southern population of nominate gigas is migratory, so maybe it is the resident northern population of gigas that gets described as new? But then where does this leave peruviana? Unless the authors have followed Steve Howell's lead in his photo guide to Chilean birds and split peruviana and gigas already? This still wouldn't explain the proposed English names though...

 

[cajanuma]

It’s free to read at the link above.

At least from where I am I need to purchase it, no free access

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

It’s free to read at the link above.

Sorry but it's not 😕

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Williamson, J.L., E.F. Gyllenhaal, S.M. Bauernfeind, E. Bautista, M.J. Baumann, C.R. Gadek, P.P. Marra, N. Ricote, T. Valqui, F. Bozinovic, N.D. Singh, and C.C. Witt (2024)
Extreme elevational migration spurred cryptic speciation in giant hummingbirds
PNAS 121: e2313599121
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2313599121

The ecoevolutionary drivers of species niche expansion or contraction are critical for biodiversity but challenging to infer. Niche expansion may be promoted by local adaptation or constrained by physiological performance trade-offs. For birds, evolutionary shifts in migratory behavior permit the broadening of the climatic niche by expansion into varied, seasonal environments. Broader niches can be short-lived if diversifying selection and geography promote speciation and niche subdivision across climatic gradients. To illuminate niche breadth dynamics, we can ask how “outlier” species defy constraints. Of the 363 hummingbird species, the giant hummingbird (Patagona gigas) has the broadest climatic niche by a large margin. To test the roles of migratory behavior, performance trade-offs, and genetic structure in maintaining its exceptional niche breadth, we studied its movements, respiratory traits, and population genomics. Satellite and light-level geolocator tracks revealed an >8,300-km loop migration over the Central Andean Plateau. This migration included a 3-wk, ~4,100-m ascent punctuated by upward bursts and pauses, resembling the acclimatization routines of human mountain climbers, and accompanied by surging blood-hemoglobin concentrations. Extreme migration was accompanied by deep genomic divergence from high-elevation resident populations, with decisive postzygotic barriers to gene flow. The two forms occur side-by-side but differ almost imperceptibly in size, plumage, and respiratory traits. The high-elevation resident taxon is the world’s largest hummingbird, a previously undiscovered species that we describe and name here. The giant hummingbirds demonstrate evolutionary limits on niche breadth: when the ancestral niche expanded due to evolution (or loss) of an extreme migratory behavior, speciation followed.

The World’s Largest Hummingbird Is Undescribed.
In 1824, P. gigas was described from a single southern-form specimen from Chile (54). A dubious subspecies, P. g. peruviana, was subsequently named from two to three specimens (syntypes) collected from southern Peru (Fig. 3I and SI Appendix, Table S5) (22, 55). The plumage characteristics that formed the basis for its description later proved to be indicators of age and plumage wear, not taxonomic identity (22, 55, 56). Further increasing confusion, the type specimens used to name peruviana, all collected by Henry Whitely, were from the May to August nonbreeding months when northern and southern lineages occur together in Peru.
We sequenced UCEs and whole genomes of Whitely's specimens from Peru (n = 4), from which we obtained diagnostic DNA sequence fragments. We discovered that the putative type series for the taxon peruviana includes both giant hummingbird species: one southern and three northern giant hummingbirds. Compounding this error, there are conflicting historical accounts regarding the definition and diagnosis of peruviana (SI Appendix, Table S5), and the world’s major museum collections identify P. gigas from Peru as peruviana despite their specimen series containing a mix of northern and southern species. Because of the mixed type series, lack of diagnostic characteristics, and historic, ongoing misapplication of its name to both species, the name peruviana is nomen dubium and should be considered invalid (57).
Our migration-tracking, genomic, physiological, and morphological analyses reveal that the northern, high-elevation resident giant hummingbird populations comprise a new species, which we describe here:

Patagona chaski sp. nov.
Northern Giant Hummingbird
Picaflor gigante del norte (Spanish)

....

Etymology. The species name chaski is Quechua for "messenger", referring to the revered relay runners who transported messages and goods throughout the Inka Empire (59). At its peak in the late 15th century, the Inka Empire encompassed the entirety of the northern giant hummingbird range. Chaski runners were sure-footed sprinters, capable of speed and endurance on steep slopes, in part due to high-capacity
lungs and rigorous aerobic training at high elevations. In addition to speed, chaskis were known for their ability to memorize, transport, and recite important messages. The northern giant hummingbird is the dominant avian pollinator species across much of the former Inka territory, and it has a well-honed spatial memory, and extraordinary aerobic capacity and agility; it thus embodies a closely analogous suite of characteristics

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Someone has this paper?

pdf available to download there

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

pdf available to download there

Merci

 

[ramphocelus]

The nomenclatural part unfortunately is a little bit messy. There is no way to argue “peruviana” is nomen dubium for those reason. If the type series is mixed, one has to select a lectotype. Hellmayr (1932) indeed seems to (unintentionally) have done that by assuming “for whatever reason, right or wrong” (cf. ICZN) that a single specimen was the type. And if specimen AMNH 37501 is indeed the one regarded as the type by Hellmayr, then the authors’ own result shows it to genetically belong to the northern species, which makes chaski a synonym of peruviana!

 

[pbjosh]

At least from where I am I need to purchase it, no free access

Bizarre I just followed the original link and read it all - sorry!

 

[James Jobling]

I was able to access the link to Williamson et al. 2024 also (see Bird Name Etymology, BOW #264)

 

[Kirk Roth]

another quote from that second source:

We truly need to see some range descriptions (and possibly more) to understand how this split is different from the current two subspecies.
Niels

I just gave it a quick look, but it seems from the paper that this is the wrong way to look at the species - not through macrogeography but through microgeography.

My understanding is that there is a resident high elevation species, and another species which migrates. These two species look similar, breed together, and occur in the same areas during at least some portion of the year, but there is a strong postzygotic mechanism (the hybrids don't effectively breed/survive) which keeps them from converging into a single population.

Truly remarkable. This is an example of the beginnings of a speciation event as classically theorized - an adaptation divergence has occurred, but mechanisms for the individual birds to identify mating partners with compatible fitness have not yet evolved.

Two key sentences from the abstract are thus:

"Extreme migration was accompanied by deep genomic divergence from high-elevation resident populations, with decisive postzygotic barriers to gene flow. The two forms occur side-by-side but differ almost imperceptibly in size, plumage, and respiratory traits."

 

[cajanuma]

In their Photo Guide to the Birds of Chile, Steve Howell and Fabrice Schmitt already treated peruviana and gigas as two different 'entities', Andean Giant Hummingbird and Chilean Giant Hummingbird respectively. They describe some plumage and structural differences. They say their ranges don't overlap, but perhaps they meant this only in a Chilean context? They do mention that gigas is a migrant and is only a breeding visitor to Chile, occurring only from August to March and from sea level to 2000 meters.
The Williamson et al paper mentions the range of peruviana/chaski as reaching at least to southern Perù, while Howell and Schmitt list it as a fairly common resident in the Andes of northernmost Chile.