Birds new to science (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Unusually, this title is now available, a month early!

http://www.wildsounds.com/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?prodid=9781472906281


A

 

[Melanie]

In contrast to the annoying Amazon that is apparently not able to get Vanished and Vanishing Parrots in stock and will wait until march until they will have Birds new to Science in stock I have now ordered Birds new to Science from NHBS. Nice sample pages at NHBS.

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

Got from NHBS - it's a great publication - I'm surprised how many of these new species I've seen!

 

[jurek]

Are there only birds truly newly discovered, or splits are included?

 

[Julian Perry]

The opening chapter of the book states that the species covered are only those described in publications dated 1960 or later (that is up to June 2015). It also states that splits are not included, with the only exceptions being taxa that were first described as subspecies after 1960, and which have later been elevated to the status of full species. It also has a section on Future New Species...those in the process of being described, and a section on Invalid Species.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Are there only birds truly newly discovered, or splits are included?

A very good and interesting read, some splits are included.



A

 

[Andy Adcock]

The opening chapter of the book states that the species covered are only those described in publications dated 1960 or later (that is up to June 2015). It also states that splits are not included, with the only exceptions being taxa that were first described as subspecies after 1960, and which have later been elevated to the status of full species. It also has a section on Future New Species...those in the process of being described, and a section on Invalid Species.

I'm not sure that this is so simple and that would be a whole of of birds in fact! Why are none of the Iberian or Mahgreb splits included if this is the case?

I had thought it was simply new discoveries, not splits that were already known and described. Quite a few are nightbirds, split on the basis of vocalisation.

Bogota Sunangel is included, I think I read recently that this species has been discredited and delisted?



A

 

[RafaelMatias]

Why are none of the Iberian or Mahgreb splits included if this is the case?

What Iberian splits are you thinking of Andy?

 

[Melanie]

How do they treat the Tana River Cisticola? Described in 1966 but still one of the most enigmatic birds in East Africa.

 

[Julian Perry]

How do they treat the Tana River Cisticola? Described in 1966 but still one of the most enigmatic birds in East Africa.

It gets half a page and states: 'It is an enigmatic bird, possibly not justifiable as a valid species; it has been suggested that it might be an aberrant example of Ashy Cisticola or a hybrid between that and Rattling Cisticola, but there are no comparative DNA studies.'

 

[Andy Adcock]

What Iberian splits are you thinking of Andy?

The Woodpecker and the Magpie?

If the book is recognising races that have been known since 1960, should they not be included?


A

 

[James Lowther]

The Woodpecker and the Magpie?



A

described in 1872 and 1850 respectively

my understanding of that text around subspecies is that in order to be included, any taxa must have been first described since 1960.

A bird first described as a subspecies in 1850 then elevated to species rank in 2000 doesn't count

A bird first described as a subspecies in 1965 then elevated to species rank in 2000 does count

cheers,

James

 

[Melanie]

It gets half a page and states: 'It is an enigmatic bird, possibly not justifiable as a valid species; it has been suggested that it might be an aberrant example of Ashy Cisticola or a hybrid between that and Rattling Cisticola, but there are no comparative DNA studies.'

Thanks a lot. So it is a similar conclusion like in The Birds of Africa. (Fry, Urban et al). The Tana River Cisticola was never photographed alive and that is in contrast to the most other species included in this book.

 

[Andy Adcock]

described in 1872 and 1850 respectively

my understanding of that text around subspecies is that in order to be included, any taxa must have been first described since 1960.

A bird first described as a subspecies in 1850 then elevated to species rank in 2000 doesn't count

A bird first described as a subspecies in 1965 then elevated to species rank in 2000 does count

cheers,

James

Thanks James,

under 'Scope of the book', it says

'all the birds, described new to science since 1960'

I can't seem to locate what is says about sub species?


A

 

[RafaelMatias]

The Woodpecker and the Magpie?

If the book is recognising races that have been known since 1960, should they not be included?


A

James Lowther has already made clear why I made the question. Those taxa (and other Iberian taxa) have been described before 1960, and in many cases were described in first place as species (and downgraded at a later stage). For example, Picus sharpei was described originally as Gecinus sharpei by Saunders (in 1872), when Green Woodpecker was known as Gecinus viridis; it has afterwards been downgraded as a subspecies of viridis. From memory the same happened with Phylloscopus ibericus. AFAIK, within the Iberian political area (not geographical though...) the only new bird taxon to be described since 1960 might have been Oceanodroma monteiroi (Azores; Bolton et al. 2008); I guess this one is included in the book? (I don't have it...unfortunately...).

 

[Melanie]

I've got my copy today. A very good and comprehensive book with many great photos, though some are rather familiar. Interesting that they have included the Red Sea Cliff Swallow Hirundo perdita into the list of future birds though it is already formally described while the Nechisar Nightjar is in the main part. The 2017 study that regarded the Bogota Sunangel as invalid was also somewhat late for including in this book. Nystalus obamai is regarded as full species in contrast to HBW Alive.

Oceanodroma monteroi is included on p 38.