• 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.

Rufous Antpitta (1 Viewer)

"Our results indicate that the G. rufula complex consists of numerous genetic units, almost all of which differ enough vocally to be considered separate biological species."

anyone know their defintion of numerous?

thanks
alan
 
  • AOU-SACC:
    "Geographic variation in song strongly suggests that Grallaria rufula includes more than one species (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). Hilty (2003) noted that plumage and size differences alone suggest that saltuensis from the Perijá Mountains may be a separate species, and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that saltuensis might be more closely related to G. quitensis."

  • Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003 (HBW 8)

  • Ridgely & Tudor 2009 (Birds of S America: Passerines):
    "What is presently considered Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) almost certainly comprises more than one species. Cajamarcae of n. Peru seems particularly distinct, on account of plumage differences and its markedly different song; it could be called Cajamarca Antpitta."
 
Last edited:
I seem to recall the birds at Cerro Mongus (N Ecuador) sounding different to those in southern Ecuador although I think they are currently one taxon. "Numerous" sounds rather higher than ten to me - which would be a worry (for those interested in seeing them!).

Cheers, alan
 
I seem to recall the birds at Cerro Mongus (N Ecuador) sounding different to those in southern Ecuador although I think they are currently one taxon. "Numerous" sounds rather higher than ten to me - which would be a worry (for those interested in seeing them!).
I think you're well on your way though?
 
"Our results indicate that the G. rufula complex consists of numerous genetic units, almost all of which differ enough vocally to be considered separate biological species."


thanks
alan

Quote from Huw Llloyd in the trip write up for a tour I did to N Peru in September 2005

'Rufous (Cajamarca) Antpitta Grallaria rufula cajamarcae: CONSERVATION STATUS: ENDEMIC, NOT GLOBALLY THREATENED. Brief views of one very difficult individual as it crossed open ground briefly at Cruz Conga. The manuscript concerned with the split of the Rufous Antpitta complex is on hold for completely unknown (and probably ridiculous) reasons. Split ‘em folks but watch this space.'

Ian
 

Great article by AS on xeno-canto - I wouldn't mind betting there are a few more local forms out there. Back on the 1990s, I certainly didn't appreciate the difference between "call" and "song" so certainly need to re-listen to my Ecuador recordings with that in mind.

Xenospiza - have had fabulous views of 5/7 of the mapped forms, but sure quite a few folk have 6/7 with the Perija birds the least accessible? I have re-listened to the song from Urrao of the birds we saw there and it doesn't sound too much different from the west Andean form, allowing for some minor variation...

cheers, a
 
Chesser, R. T., M. L. Isler, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena, S. C. Galen, L. M. Bergner, R. C. Fleischer, G. A. Bravo, D. F. Lane & P. A. Hosner. 2020. Conservative plumage masks extraordinary phylogenetic diversity in the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes. The Auk: in press.

Link to Cadena's site

and higher up on the same page, under Manuscripts:

Isler, M. L., R. T. Chesser, M. B. Robbins, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena & P. A. Hosner. Taxonomic evaluation of the Rufous Antpitta complex (Aves: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species. In revision.
________________________________________________________________

Grallaria rufula is traditionally considered to contain 7 subspecies. So that might mean up to 9 new species being described in one paper. "Grallaria rufula complex" might include G. blakei though (which apparently harbours its own cryptic species), in which case there might not be quite as many as 9.

Cheers,
Liam
 
Chesser, R. T., M. L. Isler, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena, S. C. Galen, L. M. Bergner, R. C. Fleischer, G. A. Bravo, D. F. Lane & P. A. Hosner. 2020. Conservative plumage masks extraordinary phylogenetic diversity in the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes. The Auk: in press.

Link to Cadena's site

and higher up on the same page, under Manuscripts:

Isler, M. L., R. T. Chesser, M. B. Robbins, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena & P. A. Hosner. Taxonomic evaluation of the Rufous Antpitta complex (Aves: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species. In revision.
________________________________________________________________

Grallaria rufula is traditionally considered to contain 7 subspecies. So that might mean up to 9 new species being described in one paper. "Grallaria rufula complex" might include G. blakei though (which apparently harbours its own cryptic species), in which case there might not be quite as many as 9.

Cheers,
Liam

R Terry Chesser, Morton L Isler, Andrés M Cuervo, C Daniel Cadena, Spencer C Galen, Laura M Bergner, Robert C Fleischer, Gustavo A Bravo, Daniel F Lane, Peter A Hosner, Conservative plumage masks extraordinary phylogenetic diversity in the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes, The Auk, , ukaa009, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa009

Abstract:

The Grallaria rufula complex is currently considered to consist of 2 species, G. rufula (Rufous Antpitta) and G. blakei (Chestnut Antpitta). However, it has been suggested that the complex, populations of which occur in humid montane forests from Venezuela to Bolivia, comprises a suite of vocally distinct yet morphologically cryptic species. We sequenced nuclear and mitochondrial DNA for 80 individuals from across the distribution of the complex to determine the extent of genetic variation between and within described taxa. Our results revealed 18 geographically coherent clades separated by substantial genetic divergence: 14 within rufula, 3 within blakei, and 1 corresponding to G. rufocinerea (Bicolored Antpitta), a species with distinctive plumage found to be nested within the complex. Neither G. rufula nor G. blakei as presently defined was monophyletic. Although 6 of the 7 recognized subspecies of G. rufula were monophyletic, several subspecies contained substantial genetic differentiation. Genetic variation was largely partitioned across recognized geographic barriers, especially across deep river valleys in Peru and Colombia. Coalescent modeling identified 17 of the 18 clades as significantly differentiated lineages, whereas analyses of vocalizations delineated 16 biological species within the complex. The G. rufula complex seems unusually diverse even among birds of the humid Andes, a prime location for cryptic speciation; however, the extent to which other dispersal-limited Andean species groups exhibit similar degrees of cryptic differentiation awaits further study.
 
Isler, M. L., R. T. Chesser, M. B. Robbins, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena & P. A. Hosner. Taxonomic evaluation of the Rufous Antpitta complex (Aves: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species. In revision.
______________________________________________


Finally out: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4817.1.1

Abstract

Populations in the Rufous Antpitta (Grallaria rufula) complex occupy humid montane forests of the Andes from northern Colombia and adjacent Venezuela to central Bolivia. Their tawny to cinnamon-colored plumages are generally uniform, featuring subtle variation in hue and saturation across this range. In contrast to their conservative plumage, substantial vocal differences occur among geographically isolated or parapatric populations. Working within the framework of a comprehensive molecular phylogeny, we reexamined species limits in the G. rufula complex, basing taxonomic recommendations on diagnostic differences in vocalizations and considering identifiable differences in plumage where pertinent. We identified 16 populations for species designation, including seven populations previously described as subspecies and, remarkably, six new species described herein. Within one of these species, we identified less robust vocal differences between populations that we designate as subspecies. Geographic variation exists within another species, but its critical evaluation requires additional material. Taxonomic revisions of groups consisting of cryptic species, like the Grallaria rufula complex, are imperative for their conservation. Rather than widespread species as currently defined, these complexes can comprise many range-restricted taxa at higher risk of extinction given the continuing human pressures on their habitats.

I can download the full pdf from sci-hub at this link, I don't know if it will work for everyone: https://sci-hub.st/10.11646/zootaxa.4817.1.1
 
Finally out: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4817.1.1

Abstract

Populations in the Rufous Antpitta (Grallaria rufula) complex occupy humid montane forests of the Andes from northern Colombia and adjacent Venezuela to central Bolivia. Their tawny to cinnamon-colored plumages are generally uniform, featuring subtle variation in hue and saturation across this range. In contrast to their conservative plumage, substantial vocal differences occur among geographically isolated or parapatric populations. Working within the framework of a comprehensive molecular phylogeny, we reexamined species limits in the G. rufula complex, basing taxonomic recommendations on diagnostic differences in vocalizations and considering identifiable differences in plumage where pertinent. We identified 16 populations for species designation, including seven populations previously described as subspecies and, remarkably, six new species described herein. Within one of these species, we identified less robust vocal differences between populations that we designate as subspecies. Geographic variation exists within another species, but its critical evaluation requires additional material. Taxonomic revisions of groups consisting of cryptic species, like the Grallaria rufula complex, are imperative for their conservation. Rather than widespread species as currently defined, these complexes can comprise many range-restricted taxa at higher risk of extinction given the continuing human pressures on their habitats.

I can download the full pdf from sci-hub at this link, I don't know if it will work for everyone: https://sci-hub.st/10.11646/zootaxa.4817.1.1

Very helpful Cajanuma, many thanks! Once I've read that paper I will have to go and revisit my notes on vocalisations from Urrao, Colombia in 2011- presumably they relate to the new G. alvarezi i Chami Antpitta B :)
 
English name proposal is available here:


Another chain related to Rufous Antpitta English names, on which some similar points came up in the context of inequity and first world bias in bird eponyms, is here:

Some strong and well made points at SACC about overturning honorifics suggested by the original authors, and also the misleading "Sierra Nevada" for Santa Marta mountains issue again (which was also covered in the above chain).

Similarly forceful and passionate pieces have of course not been written, on the few occasions SACC has sought to do away with eponyms/patronyms (although in general, it is probably fair to comment that SACC tend to prefer eponyms ahead of geographical or morphological names). So whilst these points are all very well and good, they do so happen to come up now, when things are closer to home, perhaps when committee members pause to think more about their role and its impacts.
 
Last edited:
I don't really get why any author would feel like it was a slap in the face to have a common name honoring them changed. They already are honored in the species name, which is a much bigger deal as that is fixed in stone. Hundreds of paleontologists are honored in species names of taxa which don't even have common names, and they seem to more than happy with that honor.
 
I don't really get why any author would feel like it was a slap in the face to have a common name honoring them changed.

If nothing else, because there is no sensible reason for those common names to be changed. They were suggested by the multi-national team (the bulk of the authors are from the US and Colombia) who untangled the Rufous Antpitta complex and described these new species, so it is also disrespectful to the people who picked these names in the first place to change them in the face of social media pressure.
 
If nothing else, because there is no sensible reason for those common names to be changed. They were suggested by the multi-national team (the bulk of the authors are from the US and Colombia) who untangled the Rufous Antpitta complex and described these new species, so it is also disrespectful to the people who picked these names in the first place to change them in the face of social media pressure.

Out of interest, where is all this "social media pressure"? There is a lot of interesting discussion on this forum about bird names, but on the whole it is pretty balanced and various reasonable, diverse and honestly held differing views are put forwards without any particular agenda overall. Is there some other anti-eponym movement out there?
 
Out of interest, where is all this "social media pressure"? There is a lot of interesting discussion on this forum about bird names, but on the whole it is pretty balanced and various reasonable, diverse and honestly held differing views are put forwards without any particular agenda overall. Is there some other anti-eponym movement out there?
Not specific to antpittas, (or even South America), but there is a movement to eliminate eponyms in general from usage in common names. Some of this is because certain people always have disliked them simply for being uninformative, but most of this is about bird names honoring some people who engaged in less than savory activities (cough Jameson and child murder cough) or supported slavery, genocide, misogyny, etc. Basically this is the birding parallel to the statue debate in the US, with the idea that removing some names making birding more inclusive. Since some of this is subjective, some people have suggested discarding all eponyms, because then we don't have to worry about gray areas. There are a couple of threads in the general birding forum about this. NACC is apparently also entertaining a set of proposals concerning this topic which didn't make it to this year's list, but presumably may pop up next year.

Ornithology is weird in that, in contrast to the other critter sciences, its the only science that so heavily concerns itself with common names. Just look at things like the hyphen debate! I tend to think common names are one area where scientists don't need to have the final say on things
 
Warning! This thread is more than 3 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top