-
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.
Tyrannides (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Daniel Philippe
- Start date
Too cryptic, at least for me. Please explain when you have time.
l_raty
laurent raty
Catesby M. 1729-32/1754/1771. The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama islands, etc.
The image "were the bird is reversed" alluded to by Mark above (Fig. 4 in the paper) appears to have been Catesby's original watercolour (which was used as a model for the published plate).
This work went through at least three editions in the 18th C, of which a number of scans can be found online -
1) 1729-32
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
3) 1771
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
The bird was here called "MUSCICAPA FUSCA. The little brown Fly-Catcher. Petit Preneur de Mouches brun."
The 1771 copy in the very last link above is oddly coloured -- much brighter than others, including other 1771 copies, and in some cases using colours departing strongly from what is seen in all other copies. (E.g., the cap of the Osprey on plate 2 is largely brown instead of largely white as in all other copies, the spots on the primaries of the Merlin on table 3 are bright red, which they were not in any of the other copies, etc.) I can provide no certain explanation to this, but I suspect this copy had originally been left uncoloured, and was coloured at some (much ?) later date. In the paper, it is argued (based on this sole copy) that "The colourists of the third edition apparently attempted to reconcile the composite characters of Linnaeus (1766) and Catesby (1731) by giving the ‘little brown Fly-catcher’ a white supercilium (Fig. 6)." The fact that other 3rd-ed copies do not agree with this one in this respect suggests that this is an unjustified assumption.
Setting this particular copy aside, comparing copies shows that the strength and length of the pale superciliary area on this bird varies somewhat between them -- even between copies of the first edition (which is not really unexpected given the colouring was made by hand). (E.g., the third 1st-ed copy linked above may have the most prominent supercilium; the wingbar may also be slightly more prominent in this copy.) The general tones of the plate vary also to some extent from copy to copy (which may also in part come from the age of the books). (A yellowish hue is quite perceptible on the bird's underparts in the second 1st-ed copy linked above, more so than in the other three; the vireo appears also a bit brighter green in this copy.)
In the paper, it is argued that Catesby's bird cannot be safely identified from an Eastern Phoebe. Although Catesby's plate, taken in isolation, might possibly not be safely identifiable, this plate can of course not be considered without its associated text, which states explicitly that the lower mandible was yellow. (This cannot be seen on the plate, because only the upper mandible is shown there.) This character excludes Eastern Phoebe, and is actually accepted in the paper as achieving this for the hypothetical syntype which, we are told, Brisson would have used : why, then, doesn't it exclude Eastern Phoebe for Catesby's bird too ? Incidentally, Catesby illustrated what I would regard as a fairly obvious Eastern Phoebe (with unmarked wing, both mandibles black) on the immediately preceding plate (plate 53) of his work : he was apparently well aware of the differences between the two species.
****************************
Klein JT. 1750. Historiae avium prodromus, etc.
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
The bird was here called "LVSCINIA, MVSCICAPA FVSCA; the little brown Fly Catcher; petit Preneur de mouches brun".
This was provided with a reference to Catesby, p. 54, and a descriptive sentence that was probably entirely derived from Catesby's text and plate, indeed. This descriptive sentence included white fringes in the wings and a yellow lower mandible (but no white supercilia).
****************************
Brisson MJ. 1760. Ornithologie ou méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés.
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
Here the bird was called "Le Gobe-mouche cendré de la Caroline", "Muscicapa carolinensis cinerea", and Brisson provides references to Klein and Catesby.
As is noted in the paper, all the species that Brisson had seen himself had their name marked in this work with a double asterisk. The paper cites Allen 1910 for this assertion, but the actual source is, of course, Brisson himself in the Préface to the first volume of his work: t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library . The present species received no asterisk. Additionally, Brisson usually indicated the source of the specimens for the species he had seen at the end of his species accounts; for the present species no such indication was provided.
Brisson's species accounts followed a standardized plan, and they always started with measurements (this is explicit in the Préface as well t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library ). This also included all the accounts of species which Brisson had not seen, and for which no measurements had been published : in these cases the only reasonable interpretation is that Brisson guessed the measurements he provided, based on the info he had at hand, and the experience he had of similar species.
In the paper, it is argued that Brisson must have had a syntype, because he provided measurements and despite his work indicated he had none; this is, I'm afraid, pure fantasy. The idea that this fantasized syntype could then be identified as an Empidonax, based on Brisson's guessed measurements departing from the actual measurements of Eastern Wood-Pewee, rests on nothing at all.
****************************
Linné C a. 1766. Systema naturae, etc. Edicio duodecima, reformata.
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
Here the bird was called Muscicapa virens. The only reference provided was to Brisson (but this of course represented indirect reference to Klein and Catesby, whom Brisson cited).
Linnaeus' diagnosis was extremely limited, merely reading "M. fusco-virens, subtus lutea, superciliis albis" = brown-green Flycatcher, yellow below, with white supercilia. The last character may indeed have been added in error (having been taken inadvertently from another description), but it can't really be safely excluded that it represented Linnaeus' own interpretation of (the particular copy he had seen of) Catesby's plate. Whichever it was, if Linnaeus' account was entirely derivative, and as he only cited Brisson, I think it is at best questionable that this should be regarded as making the base of his Muscicapa virens composite. (And if this base really had to be regarded as composite, designating Catesby's bird as lectotype -- a historically much less disruptive action than a neotypification -- would have solved the problem.)
What was the actual "exceptional need" that justified designating a neotype (= rewriting history) for this name ?
The image "were the bird is reversed" alluded to by Mark above (Fig. 4 in the paper) appears to have been Catesby's original watercolour (which was used as a model for the published plate).
This work went through at least three editions in the 18th C, of which a number of scans can be found online -
1) 1729-32
v.1 (1729-1732) - The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
v.1 (1729-1732) - The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
v.1 (1729-1732) [Incomplete] - The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
2) 1754
v. 1 - The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
v.1 (1771) - The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
Biblioteca Digital Real Jardín Botánico Madrid RJB CSIC
The natural history of Carolina, Florida and the Bahama Islands [...] Volume the first [3.ª ed.]
bibdigital.rjb.csic.es
v.1 (1771) - The natural history of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
The bird was here called "MUSCICAPA FUSCA. The little brown Fly-Catcher. Petit Preneur de Mouches brun."
The 1771 copy in the very last link above is oddly coloured -- much brighter than others, including other 1771 copies, and in some cases using colours departing strongly from what is seen in all other copies. (E.g., the cap of the Osprey on plate 2 is largely brown instead of largely white as in all other copies, the spots on the primaries of the Merlin on table 3 are bright red, which they were not in any of the other copies, etc.) I can provide no certain explanation to this, but I suspect this copy had originally been left uncoloured, and was coloured at some (much ?) later date. In the paper, it is argued (based on this sole copy) that "The colourists of the third edition apparently attempted to reconcile the composite characters of Linnaeus (1766) and Catesby (1731) by giving the ‘little brown Fly-catcher’ a white supercilium (Fig. 6)." The fact that other 3rd-ed copies do not agree with this one in this respect suggests that this is an unjustified assumption.
Setting this particular copy aside, comparing copies shows that the strength and length of the pale superciliary area on this bird varies somewhat between them -- even between copies of the first edition (which is not really unexpected given the colouring was made by hand). (E.g., the third 1st-ed copy linked above may have the most prominent supercilium; the wingbar may also be slightly more prominent in this copy.) The general tones of the plate vary also to some extent from copy to copy (which may also in part come from the age of the books). (A yellowish hue is quite perceptible on the bird's underparts in the second 1st-ed copy linked above, more so than in the other three; the vireo appears also a bit brighter green in this copy.)
In the paper, it is argued that Catesby's bird cannot be safely identified from an Eastern Phoebe. Although Catesby's plate, taken in isolation, might possibly not be safely identifiable, this plate can of course not be considered without its associated text, which states explicitly that the lower mandible was yellow. (This cannot be seen on the plate, because only the upper mandible is shown there.) This character excludes Eastern Phoebe, and is actually accepted in the paper as achieving this for the hypothetical syntype which, we are told, Brisson would have used : why, then, doesn't it exclude Eastern Phoebe for Catesby's bird too ? Incidentally, Catesby illustrated what I would regard as a fairly obvious Eastern Phoebe (with unmarked wing, both mandibles black) on the immediately preceding plate (plate 53) of his work : he was apparently well aware of the differences between the two species.
****************************
Klein JT. 1750. Historiae avium prodromus, etc.
Iacobi Theodori Klein secr. div. ged. ... Historiae avivm prodromvs - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
The bird was here called "LVSCINIA, MVSCICAPA FVSCA; the little brown Fly Catcher; petit Preneur de mouches brun".
This was provided with a reference to Catesby, p. 54, and a descriptive sentence that was probably entirely derived from Catesby's text and plate, indeed. This descriptive sentence included white fringes in the wings and a yellow lower mandible (but no white supercilia).
****************************
Brisson MJ. 1760. Ornithologie ou méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés.
t.2 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
Here the bird was called "Le Gobe-mouche cendré de la Caroline", "Muscicapa carolinensis cinerea", and Brisson provides references to Klein and Catesby.
As is noted in the paper, all the species that Brisson had seen himself had their name marked in this work with a double asterisk. The paper cites Allen 1910 for this assertion, but the actual source is, of course, Brisson himself in the Préface to the first volume of his work: t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library . The present species received no asterisk. Additionally, Brisson usually indicated the source of the specimens for the species he had seen at the end of his species accounts; for the present species no such indication was provided.
Brisson's species accounts followed a standardized plan, and they always started with measurements (this is explicit in the Préface as well t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library ). This also included all the accounts of species which Brisson had not seen, and for which no measurements had been published : in these cases the only reasonable interpretation is that Brisson guessed the measurements he provided, based on the info he had at hand, and the experience he had of similar species.
In the paper, it is argued that Brisson must have had a syntype, because he provided measurements and despite his work indicated he had none; this is, I'm afraid, pure fantasy. The idea that this fantasized syntype could then be identified as an Empidonax, based on Brisson's guessed measurements departing from the actual measurements of Eastern Wood-Pewee, rests on nothing at all.
****************************
Linné C a. 1766. Systema naturae, etc. Edicio duodecima, reformata.
t.1, pt. 1 (Regnum animale) (1766) - Caroli a Linné ... Systema naturae - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.
Here the bird was called Muscicapa virens. The only reference provided was to Brisson (but this of course represented indirect reference to Klein and Catesby, whom Brisson cited).
Linnaeus' diagnosis was extremely limited, merely reading "M. fusco-virens, subtus lutea, superciliis albis" = brown-green Flycatcher, yellow below, with white supercilia. The last character may indeed have been added in error (having been taken inadvertently from another description), but it can't really be safely excluded that it represented Linnaeus' own interpretation of (the particular copy he had seen of) Catesby's plate. Whichever it was, if Linnaeus' account was entirely derivative, and as he only cited Brisson, I think it is at best questionable that this should be regarded as making the base of his Muscicapa virens composite. (And if this base really had to be regarded as composite, designating Catesby's bird as lectotype -- a historically much less disruptive action than a neotypification -- would have solved the problem.)
What was the actual "exceptional need" that justified designating a neotype (= rewriting history) for this name ?
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
I have ninety-nine problems but a neotype for Contopus virens is not one of them. A perfect analysis. Sorry Laurent for simply throwing it out there without doing any work organizing my questions.
A recent article (April 2023) by Leslie Overstreet, Henrietta McBurney Ryan and Roger Gaskell somewhat addresses your research on Catesby’s work.
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/suppl/10.3366/anh.2023.0836 .
Thank you for all the links to the different versions of Catesby.
You mention how limited Linne’s original description of virens is. I think that is why when Cabanis makes virens as type of the new genus Contopus he lists Lin. And Gm.
Jahrg.3-4=no.13-24 (1855-1856) - Journal für Ornithologie - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Tom. 1 Pars. 2 - Caroli a Linné. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Pennant in Arctic Zoology adds Buffon and refers to Mrs. Anna Blackburn’s collection.
v.2 - Arctic zoology - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
But these younger works cannot fix Linne 1766.
I had a fantasy that Daniel Solander who moved to England in 1760 and who left England on Cook’s voyage in 1768 had seen Catesby’s prepatory drawings at the booksellers and sent written descriptions to Linne. But I have no evidence.
A recent article (April 2023) by Leslie Overstreet, Henrietta McBurney Ryan and Roger Gaskell somewhat addresses your research on Catesby’s work.
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/suppl/10.3366/anh.2023.0836 .
Thank you for all the links to the different versions of Catesby.
You mention how limited Linne’s original description of virens is. I think that is why when Cabanis makes virens as type of the new genus Contopus he lists Lin. And Gm.
Jahrg.3-4=no.13-24 (1855-1856) - Journal für Ornithologie - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Tom. 1 Pars. 2 - Caroli a Linné. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Pennant in Arctic Zoology adds Buffon and refers to Mrs. Anna Blackburn’s collection.
v.2 - Arctic zoology - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
But these younger works cannot fix Linne 1766.
I had a fantasy that Daniel Solander who moved to England in 1760 and who left England on Cook’s voyage in 1768 had seen Catesby’s prepatory drawings at the booksellers and sent written descriptions to Linne. But I have no evidence.
Last edited:
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
Mike, Laurent and Mark, even if not directly connected to the (Eastern) Wood-Pewee Contopus virens (nor to the Family Tyrannidae), I assume you've seen the BHL Blog, by Rick Wright (from 5th of December 2019): How Many Buntings? Revisiting the Relationship Between Linnaeus and Catesby (here):
Björn
Either way, enjoy!
Björn
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
Mark, neither do I (at least not right now), but also note that Rick Wright, in the Blog above, mentions Solander (even if only once) in the following phrase (though, still in connection with yet another well-known Naturalist/Ornithologist/Bird illustrator):
/B
Last edited:
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
Also note that another one of Linnaeus's disciples, the Finnish-Swedish naturalist Pehr Kalm (c.1716–1779), met Catesby, in person, on the 21st of April, 1748, in London [when Kalm was on his way to America* (here)]:
... which in English would be (something like):
Also from the same Diary by Pehr Kalm, 23rd of May, the same year (here):
... and then they start to discuss the Good, or Bad, of drinking Punch!
Cheers!
Björn
PS. The Swedish Word ganska has shifted in value slightly since the 1700s. Today it's more equal of English words like; rather, pretty (much), fairly, (somewhat hesitant), but in Linnaeus's and Kalm's days it meant more like; very, great, particularly, clearly (in a superlative way).
*En Resa til Norra Amerika (a Trip/Voyage to North America), ... by Pehr Kalm, Vol. 1 (1753) = here, vol. 2 (1756) = here (the second volume also includes several references to Catesby's Work, see for example, pp.329-334, where Kalm "Bland andra rara foglar, ſom Norra America har at ſkryta af, ..." (Among other rare Birds, which North America can brag about, ...) is/was wonder-struck by the Humming-bird, in/of Pensylvanien/Pensylvania).
**Mark Catesby was born 1682 (and he died in 1749, the year after Kalm had met him).
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
García, Natalia C., Campagna, L., Rush, Andrew C., Bowie, Rauri C. K., and Lovette, Irby J. (2023) Comparative genomics of two Empidonax flycatchers reveal candidate genes for bird song production. Evolution, 77: 1818–1828.
Comparative genomics of two Empidonax flycatchers reveal candidate genes for bird song production
Abstract
Whole-genome-level comparisons of sister taxa that vary in phenotype against a background of high genomic similarity can be used to identify the genomic regions that might underlie their phenotypic differences. In wild birds, this exploratory approach has detected markers associated with plumage coloration, beak and wing morphology, and complex behavioral traits like migration. Here, we use genomic comparisons of two closely related suboscine flycatchers (Empidonax difficilis and E. occidentalis [recently lumped]) and their hybrids to search for candidate genes underlying their variation in innate vocal signals. We sequenced the genomes of 20 flycatchers that sang one of two species-specific pure song types and 14 putative hybrid individuals with intermediate song types. In the resulting genomic comparisons, we found six areas of high differentiation that may be associated with variation in nonlearned songs. These narrow regions of genomic differentiation contain a total of 67 described genes, of which three have been previously associated with forms of language impairment and dyslexia in humans and 18 are known to be differentially expressed in the song nuclei regions of the avian brain compared with adjacent parts of the avian brain. This "natural experiment" therefore may help identify loci associated with song differences that merit further study across bird lineages with both learned and innate vocalizations.
Comparative genomics of two Empidonax flycatchers reveal candidate genes for bird song production
Abstract
Whole-genome-level comparisons of sister taxa that vary in phenotype against a background of high genomic similarity can be used to identify the genomic regions that might underlie their phenotypic differences. In wild birds, this exploratory approach has detected markers associated with plumage coloration, beak and wing morphology, and complex behavioral traits like migration. Here, we use genomic comparisons of two closely related suboscine flycatchers (Empidonax difficilis and E. occidentalis [recently lumped]) and their hybrids to search for candidate genes underlying their variation in innate vocal signals. We sequenced the genomes of 20 flycatchers that sang one of two species-specific pure song types and 14 putative hybrid individuals with intermediate song types. In the resulting genomic comparisons, we found six areas of high differentiation that may be associated with variation in nonlearned songs. These narrow regions of genomic differentiation contain a total of 67 described genes, of which three have been previously associated with forms of language impairment and dyslexia in humans and 18 are known to be differentially expressed in the song nuclei regions of the avian brain compared with adjacent parts of the avian brain. This "natural experiment" therefore may help identify loci associated with song differences that merit further study across bird lineages with both learned and innate vocalizations.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Pamela Reyes, John M. Bates, Luciano N. Naka, Matthew J. Miller, Isabel Caballero, Catalina Gonzalez-Quevedo, Juan L. Parra, Hector F. Rivera-Gutierrez, Elisa Bonaccorso, José G. Tello (2023). Phylogenetic relationships and biogeography of the ancient genus Onychorhynchus (Aves: Onychorhynchidae) suggest cryptic Amazonian diversity. Journal of Avian BiologyEarly View e03159.
Abstract
We examined phylogeographic patterns and cryptic diversity within the royal flycatcher, Onychorhynchus coronatus (Aves: Onychorhynchidae), a widespread Neotropical lowland forest tyrant flycatcher. A phylogeny of the six recognized subspecies was constructed from mtDNA sequence data of the NADH dehydrogenase subunit two gene, using Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood methods. Phylogenetic analyses revealed high levels of intraspecific divergence within O. coronatus, supporting the existence of at least six independent lineages. The phylogenetic results uncovered the following relationships: (O. c. swainsoni [Southern Atlantic Forest], (O. c. coronatus [western Amazonia], (O. c. castelnaui [eastern Amazonia], (O. c. mexicanus [Central America], (O. c. occidentalis [Tumbesian], O. c. fraterculus [extreme northwestern South America])))). Biogeographic and dating analyses suggest that vicariant and dispersal events acted across approximately six million years to influence lineage diversification within this genus. Some of those events include the formation of the Amazon River and its tributaries, Andean uplift, and climatically induced vegetational shifts. Phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses of O. coronatus lineages support a hypothesis of area relationships in which the first divergence event isolated the Southern Atlantic Forest from Amazonia during the Late Miocene/Early Pliocene. This event was followed by the split of western and eastern Amazonia at the Early/Late Pliocene, the divergence of cis- and trans-Andean lowland regions also at the Early/Late Pliocene, the split between Central America and the extreme northwestern South America/Tumbes at the Early/Middle Pleistocene, and the split between extreme northwestern South America and Tumbes at Middle/Late Pleistocene. Subsequent divergence of the southern and northern populations in the western and eastern Onychorhynchus lineages took place during the Pleistocene. Comparison of phylogenetic trees and patterns in Onychorhynchus with those from published work suggests that across large New World radiations such as the Suboscines, some co-distributed lineages began to diverge long before others, which exemplifies the complexity of their evolutionary history
.
Abstract
We examined phylogeographic patterns and cryptic diversity within the royal flycatcher, Onychorhynchus coronatus (Aves: Onychorhynchidae), a widespread Neotropical lowland forest tyrant flycatcher. A phylogeny of the six recognized subspecies was constructed from mtDNA sequence data of the NADH dehydrogenase subunit two gene, using Bayesian Inference and Maximum Likelihood methods. Phylogenetic analyses revealed high levels of intraspecific divergence within O. coronatus, supporting the existence of at least six independent lineages. The phylogenetic results uncovered the following relationships: (O. c. swainsoni [Southern Atlantic Forest], (O. c. coronatus [western Amazonia], (O. c. castelnaui [eastern Amazonia], (O. c. mexicanus [Central America], (O. c. occidentalis [Tumbesian], O. c. fraterculus [extreme northwestern South America])))). Biogeographic and dating analyses suggest that vicariant and dispersal events acted across approximately six million years to influence lineage diversification within this genus. Some of those events include the formation of the Amazon River and its tributaries, Andean uplift, and climatically induced vegetational shifts. Phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses of O. coronatus lineages support a hypothesis of area relationships in which the first divergence event isolated the Southern Atlantic Forest from Amazonia during the Late Miocene/Early Pliocene. This event was followed by the split of western and eastern Amazonia at the Early/Late Pliocene, the divergence of cis- and trans-Andean lowland regions also at the Early/Late Pliocene, the split between Central America and the extreme northwestern South America/Tumbes at the Early/Middle Pleistocene, and the split between extreme northwestern South America and Tumbes at Middle/Late Pleistocene. Subsequent divergence of the southern and northern populations in the western and eastern Onychorhynchus lineages took place during the Pleistocene. Comparison of phylogenetic trees and patterns in Onychorhynchus with those from published work suggests that across large New World radiations such as the Suboscines, some co-distributed lineages began to diverge long before others, which exemplifies the complexity of their evolutionary history
.
Mysticete
Well-known member
The part relevant for most of the forum viewers:
"Overall, marked patterns of genetic divergence, tree structure, and phenotypic differences within Onychorhynchus support the proposal that all six taxa most likely constitute independent lineages that deserve species status. Interestingly, all these forms, except fraterculus, were originally described as species (Traylor 1979), and four of these forms are recognized as species under some taxonomies (Gill et al. 2023), which further exemplifies their distinctive nature in terms of morphology and disjunct distribution."
Several checklists have split Royal Flycatcher 2 or 3 ways, but I don't think any have advocated for a 6 species split.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I would be tempted to say 7 species if the seventh corresponds to an undescribed species.. Let's be crazy
Mysticete
Well-known member
I am skeptical of a 6 way split nevermind 7. The paper only uses the mitochondrial DNA NDAH2 gene. That isn't really sufficient by the standards of modern phylogenetic analysis to make taxonomic changes. Not to mention there is no mention of voice, which would be the really important variable to quantify for taxonomic change in flycatchers.
Just from the divergence times, I’d be tempted to accept four species:
Structure within mexicanus including fraterculus and occidentalis seems to be of the same ages as within coronatus and castelnaui respectively.
- Atlantic Royal Flycatcher (O. swainsoni)
- East Amazonian Royal Flycatcher (O. coronatus)
- West Amazonian Royal Flycatcher (O. castelnaui)
- Northern Royal Flycatcher (O. mexicanus)
Structure within mexicanus including fraterculus and occidentalis seems to be of the same ages as within coronatus and castelnaui respectively.
Perhaps, but bit of a random assortment of divergence times---from quite old to "yesterday" (almost on a par with the large white gulls)
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
And used after 1900
l_raty
laurent raty
Myiosympotes Reichenbach 1850 was discarded by Hellmayr in 1927 : v.13:pt.5 (1927) - Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands in Field Museum of Natural History - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Hellmayr argued that Reichenbach's figure did not show Alecturus flaviventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837, and that this made Gray's 1855 designation invalid.
Under the standard provisions of the present Code, however, the type of Myiosympotes is the nominal species designated by Gray, because Gray was the first to include a nominal species in Reichenbach's genus. The actual ID of the bird shown on Reichenbach's figure does not matter.
Hellmayr argued that Reichenbach's figure did not show Alecturus flaviventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837, and that this made Gray's 1855 designation invalid.
Under the standard provisions of the present Code, however, the type of Myiosympotes is the nominal species designated by Gray, because Gray was the first to include a nominal species in Reichenbach's genus. The actual ID of the bird shown on Reichenbach's figure does not matter.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
So it's good?
l_raty
laurent raty
Yes, Gray's designation is valid and Hellmayr's action is not Code-compliant.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Rafael Dantas Lima, Fernanda Bocalini, Luís Fábio Silveira, Integrative revision of species limits in the genus Schiffornis (Aves: Tityridae) reveals cryptic diversity in the Neotropics, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023;, zlad108, Integrative revision of species limits in the genus Schiffornis (Aves: Tityridae) reveals cryptic diversity in the Neotropics
Abstract
Accurate species delimitation is essential for many biological subdisciplines. Nonetheless, current species diversity remains incompletely documented even in well-studied groups such as birds. Here, we take an integrative approach to examine species limits in the genus Schiffornis, a widespread group of dull-plumaged, whistle-voiced suboscine passerines of Neotropical humid-forest understory, currently considered to comprise seven species. We measured geographic variation in song, morphology, and mitochondrial and genome-wide nuclear markers to resolve the taxonomy of the genus. We show that Schiffornis comprises 13 separately evolving population lineages, of which most qualify as species taxa under all species definitions. These include a cryptic new species, several species splits, and the resurrection of a morphologically undifferentiated, but vocally and genetically distinct, taxon that was synonymized nearly a century ago in the Schiffornis turdina complex. We also found several hitherto unnoticed contact zones between diverging lineages and a leapfrog pattern of geographic song variation in the S. turdina complex, and we highlight potential avenues of further research of this genus.
academic.oup.com
If anyone can get this paper
Abstract
Accurate species delimitation is essential for many biological subdisciplines. Nonetheless, current species diversity remains incompletely documented even in well-studied groups such as birds. Here, we take an integrative approach to examine species limits in the genus Schiffornis, a widespread group of dull-plumaged, whistle-voiced suboscine passerines of Neotropical humid-forest understory, currently considered to comprise seven species. We measured geographic variation in song, morphology, and mitochondrial and genome-wide nuclear markers to resolve the taxonomy of the genus. We show that Schiffornis comprises 13 separately evolving population lineages, of which most qualify as species taxa under all species definitions. These include a cryptic new species, several species splits, and the resurrection of a morphologically undifferentiated, but vocally and genetically distinct, taxon that was synonymized nearly a century ago in the Schiffornis turdina complex. We also found several hitherto unnoticed contact zones between diverging lineages and a leapfrog pattern of geographic song variation in the S. turdina complex, and we highlight potential avenues of further research of this genus.
Integrative revision of species limits in the genus Schiffornis (Aves: Tityridae) reveals cryptic diversity in the Neotropics
Abstract. Accurate species delimitation is essential for many biological subdisciplines. Nonetheless, current species diversity remains incompletely docume
academic.oup.com
If anyone can get this paper
Similar threads
