• 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.

Parrots (1 Viewer)


They recommend to raise Ara militaris mexicanus to species rank
 

They recommend to raise Ara militaris mexicanus to species rank
Not a very strong recommendation though:
"results suggest a historical isolation between the ancestral populations of the military macaw in North and South America, a separation that still persists in its discontinuous geographic distribution. Additionally, we have identified significant ecological niche differentiation between these two lineages. Taken together, these findings suggest that A. m. mexicanus can be recognized as a distinct species (Ara mexicanus) separated from the Military Macaw in South America, which can improve the conservation priorities for both taxa. Nevertheless, genetic information from nuclear regions, as well as morphological measurements and ecological aspects, are indispensable to further support the taxonomic status of these two lineages."
 
Not a very strong recommendation though:
"results suggest a historical isolation between the ancestral populations of the military macaw in North and South America, a separation that still persists in its discontinuous geographic distribution. Additionally, we have identified significant ecological niche differentiation between these two lineages. Taken together, these findings suggest that A. m. mexicanus can be recognized as a distinct species (Ara mexicanus) separated from the Military Macaw in South America, which can improve the conservation priorities for both taxa. Nevertheless, genetic information from nuclear regions, as well as morphological measurements and ecological aspects, are indispensable to further support the taxonomic status of these two lineages."
It should be close...
 
In this page of the Revue et Magasin de Zoologie sér.2:t.6 (1854) - Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et appliquée - Biodiversity Heritage Library , Trichoglossus massena is supposed to be described, but I can't find it anywhere in this article. Couldn't there be a source error?

p. 157, not 147.
 
Ok. Strangely, when I type massena or trichoglossus in the journal's internal search engine, it doesn't find anything

As I said :
(Terrible OCR...)

"Tiiii.ii0GL0ssu8MJkssENA.Bp. .W/fv. Pdiis. cxliis. Polynosiai.
Simili'^ Tr. cyanognimmico; scd peclor^' coccinco vividioie uu-
dulis slririiiiribiis; occipilc, gciiis, gulaquc fusco-caslaiieis; frniiic
pluniis cloii|!alis. striclis. piilclire cyaiicis ; iiilTscapilin 2iilli< iii-
bris onialo"
 
I didn't know what that meant

Optical Character Recognition.

Scans are passed trough a program that "reads" them, and turns the graphical content into a text layer. When you use the search engine, what you search is this text layer. Of course if the OCR program messed up the text in the first place (as here), your search will often fail.

Many publications in BHL are, unfortunately, rather poorly OCRized. Unfortunately, also, no efforts seem to be made to improve this. (This contrasts dramatically with the Google Books files, which have improved a lot with time. If you downloaded a work from GB 5 years ago and re-download it today, the current version will be much better.)
 
Optical Character Recognition.

Scans are passed trough a program that "reads" them, and turns the graphical content into a text layer. When you use the search engine, what you search is this text layer. Of course if the OCR program messed up the text in the first place (as here), your search will often fail.

Many publications in BHL are, unfortunately, rather poorly OCRized. Unfortunately, also, no efforts seem to be made to improve this. (This contrasts dramatically with the Google Books files, which have improved a lot with time.)
Yet I don't have this problem when I consult other works in BHL. It's a tool that I use very often.
 
Yet I don't have this problem when I consult other works in BHL. It's a tool that I use very often.

More recently added scans are generally better, I think (this scan is from 2009 : Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et appliquée : Guérin-Méneville, F.-E. (Félix-Edouard), 1799-1874 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive ), and French works may not be among the most likely to have deep problems. (Note also that if you don't read the text yourself, this problem may affect you, without you noticing it... ;))
OCR programs tend to struggle particularly with texts that contain a mixture of type faces or alphabets (italics + non-italics; Fraktur + Latin types; Cyrillic + Latin alphabets), and with non-standard characters (long s, ligatures, etc.).
 
Apart from differences in plumage which is very variable even within a genus, are there solid arguments for maintaining the genera Psitteuteles, Pseudeos, Chalcopsitta, Eos, Glossoptilus, Saudareos and Glossopsitta? The same for the Charmosyna/Coriphilus clade, many species share the same pattern. These are very young lineages compared to neighboring groups.

Moreover, which has priority between Charmosyna and Coriphilus ?
 
Wilson, John-James, Fisher, Clemency, Senfeld, Tereza, and Collinson, J. Martin (2023) What is John Latham's Rose-fronted Parrot? Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 143: 559-563, 4 December 2023.
What is John Latham's Rose-fronted Parrot?

Abstract
In 1822, John Latham gave the name Rose-fronted Parrot to a single specimen owned by Edward Smith Stanley. This specimen, now at World Museum, Liverpool, has never been given a formal scientific name but had been thought to be an undescribed, possibly extinct species, or an unusual young individual of the genus Psittacula. Based on a short mitochondrial DNA sequence obtained from the specimen that has 100% similarity with sequences on NCBI GenBank, we conclude that the most plausible identity of the Rose-fronted Parrot is a juvenile Plum-headed Parakeet Psittacula cyanocephala.

full Table of Contents here:

Volume 143 Issue 4 | Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club
 

Strigops habroptilus Gray, 1845 is the valid scientific name of the kākāpō (Aves, Strigopidae)

Abstract
The kākāpō was named Strigops habroptilus by G.R. Gray in 1845. However, in recent decades authorities have begun to recommend habroptila as the correct species name through mistaken interpretation of gender agreement rules. Here, we explain that habroptilus remains the valid species name through correct application of the articles in
the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.


Your thought?
 
Strigops is feminine, because it was ruled to have this gender by the Commission in Direction 26, and stands with this gender on the Official List.

('Direction' is a disused name for what is now called an 'Official Correction of an Opinion' (see the Glossary). Names on the OL are subject to the ruling(s) of the Commission in any relevant Opinion(s), including any Official Correction of an Opinion, as per Art. 80.6.2. This supersedes the normal application of any provision of the Code, including that of Art. 30.1.4.3, contra what is stated in the paper. See also Art. 80.9.)


The treatment of words like habroptilus as adjectives follows David & Gosselin 2002, and is very widely accepted in bird nomenclature.

(habroptilus is deemed latinized from ἁβρόπτιλος, habroptilos, soft-feathered -- not found as such in Greek dictionaries but formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjective in Greek, and akin to, e.g., ἁβροπέδιλος, habropedilos, soft-sandalled, or χλωρόπτιλος, chlôroptilos, green-feathered, which are adjectives found in dictionaries.)

(Unfortunately, the authors obviously failed to understand the rationale that this treatment was based on, and therefore did not provide any rebuttal of this rationale. They also failed to discuss the potential consequences of its rejection. As noted by D&G 2002, a rejection of this rationale would mean that no word formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjectives in Greek is to be treated as an adjective, unless it is listed as such explicitly in a dictionary. If habroptilus is not adjectival, then neither are haematuropygius (now in Cacatua as haematuropygia), pyrrhopterus (now in Brotogerys as pyrrhoptera), ochrocephalus (now in Amazona as ochrocephala), cyanopygia (now in Forpus as cyanopygius), melanurus, callipterus and rhodocephalus (now in Pyrrhura as melanura, calliptera and rhodocephala), leptorhyncha (now in Enicognathus as leptorhynchus), xanthogenius (now in Eupsittula as xanthogenia), etc., etc.)
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top