-
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.
Undescribed (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Daniel Philippe
- Start date
Xenospiza
Distracted
Via Alan Lewis, a new woodquail in Oxapampa, Peru, flagged as a range extension of Stripe-faced Woodquail in 2020:
I saw this taxon back in 2006: https://ebird.org/checklist/S10974259
At the time it left me completely nonplussed as there was nothing like it illustrated anywhere (this was when the only field guide to Peru was Clements & Shany), and I thought I might have stumbled into a new species. In the years that followed, as better illustrations of Stripe-faced Wood-Quail became available and other reports emerged from central Peru, I figured this must have been what I saw, and entered the record in eBird with my original description (which matches the new taxon much better).
The record is acknowledged in the UNOP paper (when I entered the checklist, ten years ago or so, I mistakenly entered the year as 2004 and this was carried over in the paper; I have now corrected this in eBird), and appears to be the first sighting ever of this taxon by a birder/ornithologist. Apparently it is being described as a new species (I am trying to get in touch with the authors), and the UNOP paper drops some hints of this (it is referred as Odontophorus cf. ballivianus throughout), although it is a bit strange to publish a range extension for Stripe-faced Wood-Quail if you suspect the taxon involved isn't actually Stripe-faced Wood-Quail.
Brian J Small
Well-known member
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
How to be sure it's just not a subspecies?
Xenospiza
Distracted
If the woodquails are as variable as the bobwhites, it could be a subspecies. Still undescribed though!
Melanie
Well-known member
Seems that new descriptions of birds will be rather rare this year. It is because of Covid 19 or it is so difficult to describe a new bird species?
We have several new fossil birds, we have one recent extinct bird and we have one recent subspecies so far in the first half year.
We have several new fossil birds, we have one recent extinct bird and we have one recent subspecies so far in the first half year.
Fred Ruhe
Well-known member
Yes we have. 21 new fossil species and 1 new fossil subspecies in the period Januari 1 2023 - May 31 2023.
For all the information see the bird paleontology subforum. just search for the name..
1. Cratonavis zhui Li, Wang, Stidham et Zhou, 2023.
2. Castignovolucris sebei Buffetaut, Angst et Tong, 2023.
3. Tegulavis corbalani Mourer Chauviré, Bourdon, Duffaud, le Roux et Laurent, 2023.
4. Anachronornis anhimops Houde, Dickson, and Camarena, 2023.
5. Danielsavis nazensis Houde, Dickson, and Camarena, 2023.
6. Murgonornis archeri Worthy, De Pietri, Scofield et Hand, 2023.
7. Petradyptes stonehousei Ksepka, Field, Heath, Patt, Thomas, Giovanardi et Tennyson, 2023.
8. Kumimanu fordycei Ksepka, Field, Heath, Patt, Thomas, Giovanardi et Tennyson, 2023.
9. Macronectes tinae Tennyso et Salvador, 2023.
10. Papasula abbotti nelsoni Hume, 2023.
11. Rhynchaeites litoralis G. Mayr et Kitchener, 2023
12. Pelecanus paranensis Noriega, Cenizo, Brandoni, Perez, Tineo, Diederle et Bona, 2023.
13. Papulavis annae Mourer Chauviré, Bourdon, Duffaud, le Roux et Laurent, 2023.
14. Dynatoaetus gaffae Mather, Lee, Camens et Worthy, 2023.
15. Ypresiglaux micheldanielsi Mayr et Kitchener, 2023.
16. Yarquen dolgopolae Tambussi, Desgrange et Gonzalez Ruiz, 2023.
17. Eotrogon stenorhynchus G. Mayr, De Pietri et Kitchener, 2023.
18. Tynskya crassitarsus Mayr et Kitchener, 2023.
19. Tynskya brevitarsus Mayr et Kitchener, 2023.
20. Avolatavis europaeus G. Mayr et Kitchener, 2023.
21. Sororavis solitarius Mayr et Kitchener, 2023.
22. Sericuloides marynguyenae Nguyen, 2023.
Fred
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
If you google "taxonomic impediment" there are lots of papers which kind of explain why we don't see much research effort focused on descriptions and taxonomic revisions. These include:
- Lack of funding for institutions that traditionally do this sort of thing, e.g. natural history museums, versus other biological research areas such as climate change, biochemistry or conservation biology.
- Taxonomic journals are generally low-rated or not listed at all in leading indices, disincentivising academics, many of whom are subject to pay-related performance reviews and other assessments based on the ranking of journals they publish in, to write on the topic
- Most people doing taxonomy do it in their spare time as volunteers, whether they are professional biologists or not, since there are so few jobs in the field.
One could add to this list and grumble more over a beer. E.g. , in my experience:
- It is quite painstaking; any taxonomic study requires not only fieldwork in remote areas which some novelty is found (and related funding, permits, analysis after the event), but then also travel to museums in numerous countries to compare and study the specimen record.
- Statistical analysis of vocal variation is very painstaking and involves a lot of staring at screens taking measurements.
- When you do publish on taxonomic topics, there is a lot of resistance to change and criticism. How many discussions here about appropriateness of names, appropriateness of authorships, whether proposed splits are good, etc? [I apologise here for all mine to others and don't mean to put anyone off.] E.g. you have to contend with this sort of crap: Atlapetes blancae, 8 years later, still not found. Wish or Species? – Planet of Birds .]
- You also have to contend with taxonomic committees (e.g. SACC) whose overall aggressive attitude against non-affiliated research is a real turn-off. [Overall, I've published a few new species, subspecies, splits and lumps, but get the impression many colleagues in the field would prefer none of it had ever been published. ]
- Difficult to get taxonomic research published anywhere (even in the lower ranking journal group).
- Peer review for maintstream journals give authors of new taxa a really hard time, expecting the same n= in data samples for very rare species occurring in remote locations as are achievable studying sparrows in your local park.
It's overall a pretty negative environment, whether you are from the global North or global South.
Some of the first listed factors are why many would-be taxonomic papers focus on molecular biology and are published in journals like Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, which will publish phylogenetic trees with very wordy and (in my view, generally not very interesting at all, speculative) discussions appended, but apparently will not allow authors to address the taxonomic implications of their findings.
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
BTW is there an update on Daniel Philippe's "Undescribed" list which kicked this off? I always found that interesting.
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Well, the draft is still updated but updates are far and between (last one in october 2022). It is in excel format and I don't know how to attach it. I can send it to anyone who would know the trick if it is doable.
Melanie
Well-known member
Many thanks for the clarification. I commend the work of Rheindt and his colleagues, who have identified many unknown bird species from Indonesia in recent years. Nevertheless, I think it is important to dedicate a description to undescribed bird species more often, before they become extinct.
In theory, is you have (a copy of) it in a cloud system such as dropbox, then it is possible to provide a more or less permanent link to the file. If you keep the same filename and save a copy on top of the previous version, then it should still work after an update.
Niels
Xenospiza
Distracted
On 26 July, I saw an interesting parakeet in a flock of White-eyed Parakeets at Villa Quintiarina (Cusco).
It was maybe a bit smaller than the White-eyed Parakeets, but the main feature was that it was bright red, with yellowish median coverts. Three other people saw it; it was not photographed. My friends joked that we had rediscovered the Cuban Macaw. Unfortunately we had no time to cross back over the Apurímac and search for it. If there really is such a parakeet and it wasn't a dyed bird, the locals should know it...
It was maybe a bit smaller than the White-eyed Parakeets, but the main feature was that it was bright red, with yellowish median coverts. Three other people saw it; it was not photographed. My friends joked that we had rediscovered the Cuban Macaw. Unfortunately we had no time to cross back over the Apurímac and search for it. If there really is such a parakeet and it wasn't a dyed bird, the locals should know it...
Jacana
Will Jones
It's been fun to read back through this thread from the beginning. Quite a few "about to be published" descriptions from 15 years ago, still awaiting the light of day! (I get it, I'm an academic myself. Currently dusting off a manuscript that I started 7 years ago, so I know how time can get away from you!).
One bird that appears to have been missed from the discussions is an undescribed oxpecker seen on Forest Buffalo in Taï NP, Côte D'Ivoire. Given the state of the large mammal populations in that part of the world, it could well be extinct...
One bird that appears to have been missed from the discussions is an undescribed oxpecker seen on Forest Buffalo in Taï NP, Côte D'Ivoire. Given the state of the large mammal populations in that part of the world, it could well be extinct...
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Anyone know what happened to James Eaton's Parrotfinch in Indonesia?
awiner
Well-known member
Still undescribed, as best I know.
DMW
Well-known member
Being seen quite regularly, colloquially known as Mt Mutis Parrot finch.
(Also named as such in the Eaton book)
Similar threads
