Timaliidae (1 Viewer)

[l_raty]

As well why Gerd Heinrich no co-author (but might be clear within p. 153 which I haven't seen)?

The paper is in three sections with distinct authorship, Einleintung, pp. 551-555, von E. Stresemann; Allgemeine Vorbemerkungen, pp. 155-165, von G. Heinrich; Systematischer und Biologischer Teil, pp. 166-264, von E. Stresemann und G. Heinrich.

On p. 153 (first section, by Stresemann alone), Stresemann states clearly that 7 new sspp introduced in the third section were described by him ("Aus der Ausbeute vom Mt. Victoria habe ich in den folgenden Zeilen als neu beschrieben : | Carduelis spinoides heinrichi subsp. nova | Passer rutilans lisarum subsp. nova | Psittiparus gularis rasus subsp. nova | Mixornis gularis ticehursti subsp. nova | Leioptila gracilis dorsalis subsp. nova | Iole maclellandii ventralis subsp. nova | Dryobates hyperythrus heinrichi subsp. nova.")

Stresemann's text on p. 154 also suggests strongly that he was responsible for the taxonomy ("Im Hauptteil dieser Veröfentlichung habe ich mich über taxonomische Fragen nur kurz ausgelassen"), while Heinrich provided information about the ecology and biology of the birds ("Größere Bedeutung kommt gewiß den Mitteilungen des Herrn Heinrich zur Oekologie und Biologie der Vögel zu, die von him festgestellt worden sind.").

In the third section (with dual authorship), the species accounts are typically divided into a first part in smaller types that deals with taxonomy (and includes the diagnosis for the new taxa), and a second part in larger types and in double quotes that provides information gathered in the field (where the bird was encountered, its voice, etc.). From their respective contents, the first of these two parts would appear to have been by Stresemann, the second by Heinrich. Both authors speak in the first person singular ("ich") in their respective parts.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

... It I unsderstood correct Mixornis gularis ticehursti was published in https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mmnz.19390240201 (I haven't seen)

First why is it always claimed published in 1940 and/or where is claimed that this was published in 1940? ...

For what it's worth, in my notes I have this Paper as:
• Stresemann, E. & G. Heinrich. 1940 ("1939"). Die Vögel des Mount Victoria. Ein Beitrag zur Ornithologie von Burma. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 24 (2): 151–264.

Earlier, way back, in 2014, we (at least I) had a look at this/the same Paper ... (here)

Also see: A substitute name for Dryobates minor heinrichi von Jordans, by Dickinson, Frahnert & Roselaar, 2009 (here):

... The paper on the birds of Mt. Victoria in the 1939 volume of the Mitteilungen der Zoologische Museum Berlin by Stresemann & Heinrich is the first paper in part 2 of that volume, and the first page of that paper, and of the part, is dated 1939. However, the title page is dated 1940 and states ‘Ausgegeben am 18 Januar 1940’.
[...]
References:
[...]
Stresemann, E. & Heinrich, G. 1940 [1939]. Die Vögel des Mount Victoria. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin 24: 151–264.
[...]

As well, note that the (normally trustworthy) Bodleian Archives (here) have a Manuscript listed as:

The Birds of Mount Victoria. A Contribution to the Ornithology of Burma', English translation of 'Die Vögel des Mount Victoria. Ein Beitrag zur Ornithologie von Burma' by Erwin Stresemann and Gerd Heinrich, Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 24(2), 8 Jan 1940.

I see no reason to question that it was indeed published in (early) 1940.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Berman, L. M., M. Y. Wu, P. Baveja, E. Cros, Y. C. K. Sin, D. M. Prawiradilaga, and F. E. Rheindt (2024) Population structure in Mixornis tit-babblers across Sunda Shelf matches interfluvia of paleo-rivers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 197: 108105. Available online 14 May 2024, Version of Record 22 May 2024.
Redirecting

Abstract
Rivers constitute an important biogeographic divide in vast areas of tropical rainforest, such as the Amazon and Congo Basins. Southeast Asia’s rainforests are currently fragmented across islands divided by sea, which has long obscured their extensive history of terrestrial connectivity as part of a vast (but now submerged) subcontinent – Sundaland – during most of the Quaternary. The role of paleo-rivers in determining population structure in Sundaic rainforests at a time when these forests were connected remains little understood. We examined the coloration of museum skins and used the genomic DNA of museum samples and freshly-collected blood tissue of a pair of Sundaic songbird species, the pin-striped and bold-striped tit-babblers (Mixornis gularis and M. bornensis, respectively), to assess the genetic affinity of populations on small Sundaic islands that have largely been ignored by modern research. Our genomic and morphological results place the populations from the Anambas and Natuna Islands firmly within M. gularis from the Malay Peninsula in western Sundaland, even though some of these islands are geographically much closer to Borneo, where M. bornensis resides. Our results reveal genetic structure consistent with the course of Sundaic paleo-rivers and the location of the interfluvia they formed, and add to a small but growing body of evidence that rivers would have been of equal biogeographic importance in Sundaland’s former connected forest landscape as they are in Amazonia and the Congo Basin today.

 

[jurek]

Berman, L. M., M. Y. Wu, P. Baveja, E. Cros, Y. C. K. Sin, D. M. Prawiradilaga, and F. E. Rheindt (2024) Population structure in Mixornis tit-babblers across Sunda Shelf matches interfluvia of paleo-rivers. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 197: 108105. Available online 14 May 2024, Version of Record 22 May 2024.

I suppose many other Indonesian species will show similar unexpected population pattern.

From the phylogenetic perspective, most of the time Sundaland has been one landmass separated by large rivers, and the periods when Borneo, Sumatra, Java and the neighboring islets were separate islands are relatively short. The longer time periods must have shaped the fauna distribution much more.

 

[DMW]

I suppose many other Indonesian species will show similar unexpected population pattern.

From the phylogenetic perspective, most of the time Sundaland has been one landmass separated by large rivers, and the periods when Borneo, Sumatra, Java and the neighboring islets were separate islands are relatively short. The longer time periods must have shaped the fauna distribution much more.

It's fascinating to see how the study of ancient geomorphology and climate is starting to unravel some of the puzzling distributions in the Sundaic region. It always bothered me that there are leopards and Green Peafowl in Java but not Sumatra!

 

[Mysticete]

That whole region of the world has IMHO some of the most interesting biogeographic patterns on the planet. Especially the fact that it has been essentially a tropical forest refugium for most of the Cenozoic