Scarlet-rumped Tanager - Cherrie's or Passerini's (1 Viewer)

[Victor Soares]

I know that this species used to be classified as just one species: Scarlet-rumped, but I also know that it is now classified by most as two seperate species - Cherrie's and/or Passerini's.

The trick comes in telling them apart .... the males are basically identical in all aspects but it is the females where there may be a chance of differentiating the differences.

The attached (I think) is a Cherrie's female but \\i may be wrong ... whichever one it is not could you explain what the differences would be.

Thanks

 

[Andy Adcock]

It's lumped again, now one species again but this looks like Passerini's.

 

[Victor Soares]

It's lumped again, now one species again but this looks like Passerini's.

Really? My Panama book still shows this as two seperate species and so does the IOC v8.2 ... which list have this lumped together again?

 

[Larry Sweetland]

Really? My Panama book still shows this as two seperate species and so does the IOC v8.2 ... which list have this lumped together again?

IOC relumpificated it this year (we now on 9.1). Don't know about other authorities. Guess they had to sacrifice it to make up for all those new white-eyes

 

[njlarsen]

In accord with AOS-NACC (Chesser et al. 2018), Passerini's Tanager Ramphocelus passerinii and Cherrie's Tanager Ramphocelus costaricensis are lumped as Scarlet-rumped Tanager Ramphocelus passerinii, based in part on Freeman and Montgomery (2017). We recognize each subspecies as separate monotypic groups, Scarlet-rumped Tanager (Passerini's) Ramphocelus passerinii passerinii and Scarlet-rumped Tanager (Cherrie's) Ramphocelus passerinii costaricensis.

this quote from the Clements checklist download most recent version

Niels

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Sur HBW Alive.

Taxonomy: Ramphocelus costaricensis Cherrie, 1891, Pozo Azul, Costa Rica.
Often treated as conspecific with R. passerinii, and indeed divergence between them (1.8%) is lower than between most species of tanager (2.4–4.0%), visual differences are minimal (involving mainly females) and vocal differences minor; further work to assess degree of divergence clearly needed. Monotypic.

Distribution:
Pacific slope of Costa Rica from Puntarenas (C & S regions) and NE Central Valley S to W Panama (Chiriquí and Veraguas).

 

[THE_FERN]

Sur HBW Alive.

1.8% : wow that's more than I would have thought. And more than other "species" like (from memory) Iberian [green] woodpecker, some of the Canary Island splits. One to target if I ever get there, then

[Underpins that the decision whether is / isn't a species is highly subjective and personal. Of course, you can devolve the decision-making process to one of the big lists rather than make it yourself...]

 

[Andy Adcock]

1.8% : wow that's more than I would have thought. And more than other "species" like (from memory) Iberian [green] woodpecker, some of the Canary Island splits. One to target if I ever get there, then

[Underpins that the decision whether is / isn't a species is highly subjective and personal. Of course, you can devolve the decision-making process to one of the big lists rather than make it yourself...]

Most people I know, do devolve the decision making, speciation isn't subjective to most though it may, on occasion, be questionable. The only personal decisions I'm aware that people take, are in regard to whether a bird is a genuine vagrant or an escape but even then, most comply with the various authorities.

Again, most people I know, will strike a species from their list if it gets lumped just like I did with this and a couple of others recently. If you don't devolve in this way, there's little point in following any checklist, you may as well compile your own.

I assume then that as you deem this a subjective matter, you wouldn't count Iberian Woodpecker or the Canarian splits as you seem to suggest they may not be valid?

I think someone suggested in another thread recently which compared four lists, that we should perhaps tick any species that is recognised as a species by any, of the four authorities?

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Most people I know, do devolve the decision making, speciation isn't subjective to most though it may, on occasion, be questionable. The only personal decisions I'm aware that people take, are in regard to whether a bird is a genuine vagrant or an escape but even then, most comply with the various authorities.

Again, most people I know, will strike a species from their list if it gets lumped just like I did with this and a couple of others recently. If you don't devolve in this way, there's little point in following any checklist, you may as well compile your own.

I assume then that as you deem this a subjective matter, you wouldn't count Iberian Woodpecker or the Canarian splits as you seem to suggest they may not be valid?

I think someone suggested in another thread recently which compared four lists, that we should perhaps tick any species that is recognised as a species by any, of the four authorities?

There are many different possible definitions of species. To make it simplified, we can decide that two populations are different species if genetic divergence is 2%. In this case, we should apply the same rules in the Canaries than in Costa Rica.

So there are two aspects to discuss to agree on the classification: the definition we use, then finally to check if we apply that definition consistently.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Most people I know, do devolve the decision making, speciation isn't subjective to most though it may, on occasion, be questionable. The only personal decisions I'm aware that people take, are in regard to whether a bird is a genuine vagrant or an escape but even then, most comply with the various authorities.

Again, most people I know, will strike a species from their list if it gets lumped just like I did with this and a couple of others recently. If you don't devolve in this way, there's little point in following any checklist, you may as well compile your own.

I assume then that as you deem this a subjective matter, you wouldn't count Iberian Woodpecker or the Canarian splits as you seem to suggest they may not be valid?

I think someone suggested in another thread recently which compared four lists, that we should perhaps tick any species that is recognised as a species by any, of the four authorities?

When I'm sure a bird cannot be as references say, I use my own classification. Only in case I've very high level of certainty.

Look as post #9 in 2011 here.

(NB: I refuse to call cirtensis Long-legged/rufinus, as it is to me more closely related to buteo: shape, behaviour and voice + hybridation).

It is only now that, finally, genetic confirmed : http://www.magornitho.org/2019/02/north-african-buzzard-taxonomy/

With enough experience of bird in the field, we can see if the classification make sense of not. I've many other examples.

 

[Andy Adcock]

There are many different possible definitions of species. To make it simplified, we can decide that two populations are different species if genetic divergence is 2%. In this case, we should apply the same rules in the Canaries than in Costa Rica.

So there are two aspects to discuss to agree on the classification: the definition we use, then finally to check if we apply that definition consistently.

My point is, it's not subjective to most birders, they just apply the decisions of the list makers regardless of the inconsistency.

 

[Larry Sweetland]

I think someone suggested in another thread recently which compared four lists, that we should perhaps tick any species that is recognised as a species by any, of the four authorities?

Or even better, as above minus Scottish Crossbill :-O:-O

 

[Andy Adcock]

Or even better, as above minus Scottish Crossbill :-O:-O

Scottish/ Yorkshire/ Derbyshire Crossbill I think you mean....:t: