Oceanodroma hubbsi (1 Viewer)

[Melanie]

A few years ago there was a revision of the family Hydrobatidae and the genus Hydrobates where all recent species of Oceanodroma were transfered into the genus Hydrobates. Interestingly fossil species where excluded in this study. My question is now should the fossil species of Oceanodroma retain in the genus Oceanodroma or should they also transfered into the genus Hydrobates.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

A few years ago there was a revision of the family Hydrobatidae and the genus Hydrobates where all recent species of Oceanodroma were transfered into the genus Hydrobates. Interestingly fossil species where excluded in this study. My question is now should the fossil species of Oceanodroma retain in the genus Oceanodroma or should they also transfered into the genus Hydrobates.

It depends on its position vis-à-vis other species, but since furcatus is the type species of the genus Oceanodroma, and all Oceanodroma have been placed in synonymy by most (but not all) sources, there are chances of fossils Oceanodroma integrate Hydrobates. Although I admit that placing everything in Hydrobates is an easy way out resulting from laziness

 

[Fred Ruhe]

Oceanodroma hubbsi L. H. Miller, 1951.

I have never seen the name in combination with Hydrobates. but if you see Oceanodroma as a junior synonym of Hydrobates, it would be logical to transfer Oceanodroma hubbsi to Hydrobates as Hydrobates hubbsi (L. H. Miller, 1951).

Fred

 

[Melanie]

Carolina Hospitaleche might be an expert on fossil seabirds. Maybe she has an idea whether Oceanodroma hubbsi which is as far as I know the only known fossil member of the Hydrobatidae should remain in Oceanodroma or if it really should transfered into Hydrobates.

 

[Fred Ruhe]

Carolina Acosta Hospitaleche is indeed a specialist on fossil seabirds, but minly on Penguins. But as I wrote, if you see Oceanodroma as a junior synonym of Hydrobates, it would be logical to transfer Oceanodroma hubbsi to Hydrobates as Hydrobates hubbsi (L. H. Miller, 1951).

But it might be possible that Loye Miller saw osteological differences between Oceanodroma and Hydrobates.

If you treat it as different from Hydrobates, it must get its own new genus as the type of Oceanodroma is Procellaria furcata Gmelin, 1789, and that is transferred to Hydrobates.

Fred

 

[Fred Ruhe]

Here is the original description of Oceanodroma hubbsi:

Genus Oceanodroma Reichenbach, 1852

Oceanodroma hubbsi L. H. Miller, 1951
Loye Holmes Miller, 1951
A Miocene Petrel from California
The Condor 53: 78-80
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v053n02/p0078-p0080.pdf

It was not compared with any Hydrobates species.

Fred

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Here is the original description of Oceanodroma hubbsi:

Genus Oceanodroma Reichenbach, 1852

Oceanodroma hubbsi L. H. Miller, 1951
Loye Holmes Miller, 1951
A Miocene Petrel from California
The Condor 53: 78-80
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v053n02/p0078-p0080.pdf

It was not compared with any Hydrobates species.

Fred

If we are not a fan of a single genus, we would be tempted to place it in the genus Cymochorea