Fringillidae (1 Viewer)

[James Jobling]

The Key new entry for Iliolopha (note how Gray's fears about the fate of Tanagra have come to fruition):
(Fringillidae; syn. Euphonia † Golden-sided Euphonia E. cayennensis) L. ilia, ilium flanks < ile, ilis flank; Gr. λοφος lophos plume; "e. Euphoneæ. ... 1060. Iliolopha, Bp." (Bonaparte 1854); “Tanagra was established by Linnæus in 1766, and the first species in his list is T. jacapa. In 1805 Desmarest considers T. tatao (= Aglaia) as the type of Tanagra; in 1811 Illiger, taking the first-named species in Linnæus’s list, recurs to T. jacapa; in 1816 Vieillot gives T. cayanensis (= Iliolopha); in 1817 Cuvier adopts T. violacea (= Euphonia); in 1820 Temminck takes Lanius leverianus (= Cissopis); while it is not until 1827 that Swainson proposed T. episcopus as the type of the genus Tanagra. But, even were it possible to set aside all the previously proposed types of this genus, there still remains a fatal objection against this last-named appropriation of the name, if “the stern law of priority” is to have any weight, inasmuch as M. Boie had in the previous year proposed the name of Thraupis for a species which must be arranged along with T. episcopus; and consequently, were the views of the reviewer to be critically carried out, the name of Tanagra would be erased from the nomenclature of the Tanagers altogether.” (G. Gray 1856); "Euphonia Gouldi ... It may, I think, be most naturally placed at the head of the section containing Euphonia pectoralis, E. rufiventris and others (which has been denominated Iliolopha by Prince Bonaparte)" (P. Sclater 1857); "Iliolopha pectoralis (Lath.) Gr. — Euphone rufiventris Licht. (nec Vieill.), Euler No. 89. ♂" (Cabanis 1874); "Iliolopha Cabanis, Journ. Orn., 22, p. 83, 1874—type, by monotypy, "Iliolopha pectoralis (Lath.)" = Pipra pectoralis Latham." (Hellmayr, 1936, Cat. Birds Americas, Pt. IX, p. 15); “Iliolopha G. Gray, 1856, Annals Mag. Nat. Hist, 2nd series, XVII, p. 192. Type, by monotypy, Tanagra cayanensis, i.e. Tanagra cayennensis Gmelin, 1789.” (JAJ 2024 per Laurent Raty in litt.) (see Euphonia and Tanagra).

Edit; Jim, I assume your Crophonia (#220) is a lapsus for Chlorophonia.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Edit; Jim, I assume your Crophonia (#220) is a lapsus for Chlorophonia.

Yes 😅😉

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Iliolopha xanthogaster ou xanthogastra ?

 

[l_raty]

Iliolopha xanthogaster ou xanthogastra ?

xanthogaster.
(It's the OS. See David & Gosselin 2002 here for names ending in -gastra/-gaster. Euphonia and Iliolopha have the same grammatical gender -- both are feminine, Euphonia because it is a transliteration of εὐφωνία which is feminine [30.1.2]; Iliolopha because it ends in a latinization of λόφος which was given an -a ending [30.1.3]. In principle the endings of the species-group names should not change.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Re. Rufiphonia Vázquez-López & Hernández-Baños, gen. nov (2024)

Etymology not given explicitly as far as I can see but "based on their rufous patches" is suggestive.

But ... Vázquez-López & Hernández-Baños wrote even more than the first part (below):

Finally, we propose a new genus for the rufous clade: Rufiphonia gen. nov. based on their rufous patches, ... We propose a new genus because there is no available name for a third group in Euphonia.
[...]
Diagnosis
The new genus can be distinguished from all other Euphonia species by the rufous color patches, which can be on the belly, the crest, and/or the undertail-coverts, in both male and female adults.

Pretty explicit, at least to me ...

Rufi- (Rufi Genitive Singular, alt. Masculine Plural?) of rufus (Latin rufous/red) + the Genus Euphonia Desmarest, 1806 ... or?

Also compare with Jobling's post #213.

/B

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

According to you, are there any arguments, genetic, anatomical, temporal, in favor of a splitting of Fringillidae family into two or three families (Fringillidae, Euphoniidae, Carduelidae)?

 

[Acanthis]

According to you, are there any arguments, genetic, anatomical, temporal, in favor of a splitting of Fringillidae family into two or three families (Fringillidae, Euphoniidae, Carduelidae)?

Things are just fine the way they are....

 

[Acanthis]

According to you, are there any arguments, genetic, anatomical, temporal, in favor of a splitting of Fringillidae family into two or three families (Fringillidae, Euphoniidae, Carduelidae)?

I feel about Fringillidae like Mysticete feels about Cardinalidae...you can prize it from my cold, dead fingers 🤣

 

[Mysticete]

I feel about Fringillidae like Mysticete feels about Cardinalidae...you can prize it from my cold, dead fingers 🤣

Weirdly I am more okay with splitting up Fringillidae into three families, since the divergences in that clade seem equivalent in age from what I have seen in other other nine-primaried oscines. They sort of also, and I know it's a subjective measure, sort of feel like they form discrete enough groups for family level recognition.

That said I haven't done so, although I think my subfamily classification is somewhat different than others.

 

[Acanthis]

Weirdly I am more okay with splitting up Fringillidae into three families, since the divergences in that clade seem equivalent in age from what I have seen in other other nine-primaried oscines. They sort of also, and I know it's a subjective measure, sort of feel like they form discrete enough groups for family level recognition.

That said I haven't done so, although I think my subfamily classification is somewhat different than others.

I think much of the division of the NW 9-primaried oscines into families is a matter of convenience, breaking a large unwieldy family down into manageable portions. Hypothetically a less speciose emberizoid radiation could easily have been circumscribed within a single family - Emberizidae.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Weirdly I am more okay with splitting up Fringillidae into three families, since the divergences in that clade seem equivalent in age from what I have seen in other other nine-primaried oscines.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. And then it wouldn't shock me if there were several families.

 

[Acanthis]

Yes, that's what I was thinking. And then it wouldn't shock me if there were several families.

If you are arguing parity between OW and NW 9-primaried oscines where do you stop?
Are you creating families for blackbirds, orioles, pipits?
And then do you take this further and extend it to all oscines?
Families for Myzornis, spiderhunters, mynas for example?

If you do though you will end up with something like my list where each distinct clade is treated as equal 😊

 

[Mysticete]

If you are arguing parity between OW and NW 9-primaried oscines where do you stop?
Are you creating families for blackbirds, orioles, pipits?
And then do you take this further and extend it to all oscines?
Families for Myzornis, spiderhunters, mynas for example?

If you do though you will end up with something like my list where each distinct clade is treated as equal 😊

I'd probably just use the dates for 9-primaried oscines as a guide or maybe Passeroidea. But its all sort of arbitrary

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Families for Myzornis,

Why not. Already, family for the Ibon, Pseudocalyptomena, Carpospiza ; perhaps Myza and even Robsonius

 

[thyoloalethe]

Families for Myzornis...

I'm keen on this at least, IF Sylviidae and Paradoxornithidae are to be kept separate. Myzornis, being sister to the rest of Paradoxornithidae, is a very different looking bird from the others.

My first preference though is to keep Sylviidae and Paradoxornithidae merged (and to keep Timaliidae, Pellorneidae, Leiothrichidae and Alcippeidae merged).

 

[Acanthis]

Why not. Already, family for the Ibon, Pseudocalyptomena, Carpospiza ; perhaps Myza and even Robsonius

Plus one for each Petroicid subfamily, and the Sylviettas, and each of those Stenostirids

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Plus one for each Petroicid subfamily, and the Sylviettas, and each of those Stenostirids

I mainly focused on Fringillidae because this family is a part of 9-primaried passerines (I think) and the Fringillinae clade is older all families under the 'Emberizoidae' group.

 

[Acanthis]

I'm keen on this at least, IF Sylviidae and Paradoxornithidae are to be kept separate. Myzornis, being sister to the rest of Paradoxornithidae, is a very different looking bird from the others.

My first preference though is to keep Sylviidae and Paradoxornithidae merged (and to keep Timaliidae, Pellorneidae, Leiothrichidae and Alcippeidae merged).

Me too but we seem to be swimming against the tide there.
In a family consisting of sylvias, fulvettas, and parrotbills etc Myzornis would be a good candidate for subfamily status

 

[Mysticete]

I believe I give subfamily rank to Myziornis in my own classification. although we are starting to get a bit far afield from Fringillidae

Anyway, here is my most recent classification for Fringillidae from my own checklist project:

Fringillidae (Finches)

Fringillinae (Chaffinches)
Euphoniinae (Euphonias and Chlorophonias)
Coccothraustinae (Grosbeak Finches)
Carduelinae (Typical Finches)

Pyrrhulini (Bullfinches and Allies)
Carpodacini (True Rosefinches)
Carduelini (Canaries and Siskins)

 

[jts1882]

I think much of the division of the NW 9-primaried oscines into families is a matter of convenience, breaking a large unwieldy family down into manageable portions. Hypothetically a less speciose emberizoid radiation could easily have been circumscribed within a single family - Emberizidae.

There is much to be said for manageable chunk theory.

At one time I think there was a simple Fringillidae-Emberizidae split. Sibley had them as two subfamilies in his Fringellidae and then the splitting began. The embirizoids do seem over-split now the phylogeny is becoming more stable. Some or all of the small Caribbean families could be lumped and I don't think there is a need for the confusing Icteridae-Icteriidae split any more. It's understandable when splits are made to accommodate uncertainties in the phylogeny, but you need compensating rounds of lumping when things become clearer. It seems splitting is easier than lumping.