Parrots (6 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

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.)


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.)

Why did the editors of the journal accept this manuscript if the grammatical gender of the name Strigops has been definitively determined?

 

[l_raty]

Why did the editors of the journal accept this manuscript if the grammatical gender of the name Strigops has been definitively determined?

Good question.
I guess it was not realized that "the 1955 determination of gender" was actually in a ruling by the Commission and that the name was on the Official List...?

 

[Trevor Worthy]

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.)

It is a pity the authors did not seek advice from folk in the ICZN or elsewhere such as the authors of the H&M checklist whom would have readily explained this. Trevor Worthy

 

[Mike Earp]

It is a pity the authors did not seek advice from folk in the ICZN or elsewhere such as the authors of the H&M checklist whom would have readily explained this. Trevor Worthy

Equally, it's a pity that the editor of Avian Systematics didn't seek input from folk on this forum (in particular, Laurent Raty) before publishing some papers and notes. I have yet to see any corrections of the several lapses in, or withdrawal of unnecessarey, papers and notes in that journal.

 

[jlsavage]

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.)

Hi Laurent - I'm the lead author on the article in question. David Donsker from the IOC list team pointed me in the direction of this thread.

As is obvious from my publication record I'm not a taxonomist, but I volunteered to write a note for the Bulletin to resolve the disagreement over the scientific name after the Birds NZ checklist committee made a slightly controversial decision to switch to the habroptila form in 2022, following other checklists. The note is based on my reading of the Code, with a bias towards the original name when there is ambiguity.

You are correct downthread in assuming that I was not familiar with how 'Directions' interact with Articles in newer versions of the Code. I suspect your reading is correct, and am surprised it was not raised during peer review or by the editor. Unfortunately, one reviewer seemed more concerned with objecting to my use of Māori words and macrons than with assessing the argument re. the Code. The Bulletin did not respond to my question about their preprint policy, but as no copyright transfer was requested before publication I have now put it on Zenodo as the BioOne version is currently paywalled.

Thanks for linking the David & Gosselin article - that does resolve my question of why the habroptila form started properly spreading about twenty years ago, and it was not something that I turned up when researching literature for the note. I defer to your greater knowledge of Greek, but it doesn't sound like the adjectival status of those names is formally resolved? If so, is this something that should be the subject of a Case? It seems at present that (even granting Strigops as feminine) the correct form is ambiguous.

You don't by any chance know why Strigops was determined female in the 1955 Direction (contrary to what I believe was Grey's preference)? This doesn't affect the argument over the current name but I'm curious how the disagreement between the Direction and Code came about.

- James

 

[Taphrospilus]

Platycercus pacificus Forster versus Platycercus pacificus Gmelin, or Vigors

In context with Cyanoramphus erythrotis (Wagler, 1832) I came accross several Platycercus pacificus and I did not get the story completly.
Platycercus pacificus Vigors, 1825 v.1 (1824-1825) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library and Supplementary plates (Supplementary plates) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library probably Cyanoramphus erythrotis.

Is Forsters name a a synonym to Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (Sparrman, 1787)?

At least I do not get based on what Wagler used a new species. And where can I find Forsters description?

 

[James Jobling]

Here is a collation of “Pacific Parrots” from Sharpe, 1891, Cat. Birds British Mus., XX:

?Psittacus pacificus, var. γ Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat., I, p. 329 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Psittacus pacificus Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. I, p. 329, n. 88, with var. β = Cyanoramphus novezelandiae.
Psittacus pacificus, var. δ Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. I, p. 329 = Cyanoramphus auriceps.
Psittacus pacificus Shaw,1811, Gen. Zool. VIII, 2, p. 419 = Glossopsitta concinna.
Psittacus pacificus, var. n Vieillot, 1823, Encyclop. Méthod., p. 1387 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Platycercus pacificus, (part.) Vigors, 1823, Zool. Journ., I, p. 529 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Platycercus pacificus (part.) Vigors, 1825, Zool. Journ. I, p. 529 (New Zealand only) = Cyanoramphus novezelandiae.
Platycercus pacificus (part.) Vigors, 1825, Zool. Journ. I, p. 529, Suppl. pl. 1 (Ins. Macquar.) = Cyanoramphus erythrotis.
Platycercus pacificus Wagler, 1832, Monog. Psittac., p. 524 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Psittacus pacificus Forster MS; id. Icon. inedit. t. 47; id. Descr. An. p. 238, no. 201 (nec p. 73) 1844 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.

 

[l_raty]

Vigors attributed Platycercus pacificus to Latham; Latham used a broad Psittacus for all psittacids, and the only pacificus he ever used in this genus was taken from Gmelin 1788, who had actually formed it by latinizing Latham's earlier (1781) English name "Pacific Parakeet". In addition to Latham's "Pacific Parakeet", Gmelin also described three 'varieties' in his Psittacus pacificus entry, which he denoted by Greek letters "β", "γ" and "δ"; but specimens that an author "refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number)" are excluded from the type series associated to a name by ICZN 72.4.1, thus the birds so treated by Gmelin cannot be regarded as part of the type series of his P. pacificus. The bird described in Gmelin's main description was quite clearly what we now call Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (Sparrman 1787).

Vigors use of the name, even if it departed from the current interpretation of Gmelin's original name, remains merely a subsequent use of the latter. (I.e., one cannot claim the existence of a distinct, separately available "Platycercus pacificus" authored by Vigors.)

Reinhold Forster had used Psittacus pacificus for the birds shown on two unpublished drawings, one of which showed what is now known as Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae, while the other showed what is now known as Cyanoramphus zealandicus (Latham 1790). Forster's names were still manuscript names in the early 19th C, when people like Vigors and Wagler published their own works oabout these birds -- his descriptions were finally published by Hinrich Lichtenstein in 1844, almost half a century after their author's death. One of his P. pacificus description is here, the other here. Wagler 1832, however, evidently regarded Forster's names (not published, but produced first) as having precedence over Gmelin's and, in his work, he adopted Platycercus pacificus as the valid name of our current Cyanoramphus zealandicus, based on one of Forster's descriptions. Thus, using the same name for the birds described by Gmelin or Vigors was not an option for him.

 

[Taphrospilus]

I was more confused about Cyanoramphus erythrotis Bd.1 (1832) - Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften - Biodiversity Heritage Library which seems to be 'varieties' "γ" for Wagler.

 

[l_raty]

I was more confused about Cyanoramphus erythrotis Bd.1 (1832) - Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften - Biodiversity Heritage Library which seems to be 'varieties' "γ" for Wagler.

Wagler placed under Platycercus erythrotis the birds that had been called Psittacus pacificus, var. γ, by Gmelin/Latham, and Platycercus pacificus by Vigors in the Zool. Journ. (the one shown on the supplementary table I), which he called the male of his species; and the birds that had been called Psittacus pacificus (not a var.) by Gmelin/Latham and Psittacus Novae-Seelandiae (not a var.) by Kuhl, which he called the female. He said he had not seen the female himself -- which suggests he had seen specimen(s) that he regarded as being the male, and which might not have been illustrated or described previously. (Any such additional specimen would have been part of the original type series.)

Schodde designated the bird on Vigors' plate I as the lectotype in 1997 : here.

(A coloured version of this table can be seen here.)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (998) to SACC

Treat Psittacara frontatus as a separate species from P. wagleri

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (1006) to SACC

Treat Amazona guatemalae as a separate species from A. farinosa (Mealy Parrot)

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (1009) to SACC

Treat Amazona autumnalis (Red-lored Parrot) as consisting of three species

 

[raymie]

Proposal (1009) to SACC

Treat Amazona autumnalis (Red-lored Parrot) as consisting of three species

If this passes, does anyone know that status of the introduced populations in the US?

EDIT: And northern Mexico, didn't realize that population wasn't native until I looked into it some more.

 

[James Jobling]

Pedants' corner (SACC Proposal 1009); note the specific name diadema is misspelled twice, as diomedea. Perhaps the 'new' species should be called the Wandering Parrot?

 

[Myornis]

Proposal (998) to SACC

Treat Psittacara frontatus as a separate species from P. wagleri

You could email him, they're quite willing to modify proposals in light of something they missed

Omitted from Proposal 998 is any discussion of this 2016 paper (at p.13) which included a re-evaluation of subspecies ranges and photographs of numerous specimens in support of this split. I've emailed Remsen and various of the other committee members (including two have commented) twice to draw their attention to this material omission. None of them has responded nor is the proposal amended to cite relevant research.

In Proposal 998 the SACC concur with the conclusions of that paper. Do they seek to present their own proposal as sole gospel on this topic to the exclusion of others? There is over-citation in the literature of SACC proposals to the exclusion of other original research, which SACC encourage by this sort of behaviour. cajanuma's assertion that SACC take into account constructive comments is naively hopeful or may be restricted to particular individuals or groups. I've seen it happen sometimes. In cases like this one, all there is left to do is sound off ineffectively on discussion forums!!

It's nice to see SACC now looking at all these species limits questions - but they do so from an anachronistic prism. They could have done this in 2014-2016 or so. Subsequently numerous DH&C splits have been accepted by other authorities such as IOC and WGAC and the world moved on. SACC approach is to try and wind the clock back to a starting point of Petersian lumps from the 1960s that most authorities 'got over' years ago, rather than assessing proposals in light of the real status quo, or taking into account whether those arguing for a lump or split should now bear the burden of proof.

 

[albertonykus]

Smith, B.T., G. Thom, and L. Joseph (2024)
Revised evolutionary and taxonomic synthesis for parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) guided by phylogenomic analysis
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 468: 1–87
doi: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1

Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) are a diverse clade that is easily distinguishable from other birds. Despite the clear characters that define Psittaciformes (hooked bills, zygodactylous feet, and plumage that is often predominantly green or red), relative morphological uniformity among parrots has made taxonomic classification a fraught endeavor for over a century. Parrot systematics were propelled forward when DNA sequencing data shed insights into higher- and species-level relationships. However, despite these significant advances, major gaps in taxon sampling and uncertainty in relationships remained due to inferring phylogenetic relationships with short fragments of DNA. Recent work using genome-wide molecular markers with nearly complete parrot species-level sampling has brought clarity to many of the remaining outstanding questions on taxonomic relationships. Here, we build on this work by including four additional species to present a taxonomic revision of Psittaciformes better aligned with its evolutionary tree. We infer maximum likelihood and time-calibrated phylogenies for parrots, present accounts for 106 genera, compare how our findings relate to previous work, and highlight future areas of research. The family-group nomenclature we propose reflects deep evolutionary divergences with diagnosable synapomorphies that are commensurate across comparable ranks in psittaciform clades. We erect three new family-group names at the rank of tribe (Brotogerini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024; Neophemini Schodde, Mason, Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024; Bolbopsittacini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024). We elevate one tribe to subfamily rank for the cacatuid genus Probosciger and we restrict usage of the recently introduced tribe Touitini to its type genus Touit. At shallower taxonomic scales, recognition of more rather than fewer genera addresses issues of paraphyly or high discordance in morphological and genomic characters at those levels. We support many reinstatements of older generic names advocated in recent decades, and we further reinstate five valid, available generic names not widely used in recent literature if at all (Licmetis, Gymnopsittacus, Clarkona, Suavipsitta, Cardeos). We advocate the retention of Vini Lesson, 1833, over Coriphilus Wagler, 1832, based on preliminary examination showing substantially more frequent usage of the former. We redraw generic limits in some other cases (e.g., Bolborhynchus parrotlets and allies) and this includes recognizing fewer genera than recently proposed for the Psittacula sensu lato ringneck parakeets. Our revised classification of parrots addresses many longstanding taxonomic questions including those that have arisen through the acquisition of genetic data. It provides context for the temporal origins of psittaciform clades and the taxonomic and phenotypic diversification throughout their evolutionary history. We hope that it will be a benchmark guiding further taxonomic study as well as for downstream analyses in many other fields.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Smith, B.T., G. Thom, , and L. Joseph (2024)
Revised evolutionary and taxonomic synthesis for parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) guided by phylogenomic analysis
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 468: 1–87
doi: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1

Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) are a diverse clade that is easily distinguishable from other birds. Despite the clear characters that define Psittaciformes (hooked bills, zygodactylous feet, and plumage that is often predominantly green or red), relative morphological uniformity among parrots has made taxonomic classification a fraught endeavor for over a century. Parrot systematics were propelled forward when DNA sequencing data shed insights into higher- and species-level relationships. However, despite these significant advances, major gaps in taxon sampling and uncertainty in relationships remained due to inferring phylogenetic relationships with short fragments of DNA. Recent work using genome-wide molecular markers with nearly complete parrot species-level sampling has brought clarity to many of the remaining outstanding questions on taxonomic relationships. Here, we build on this work by including four additional species to present a taxonomic revision of Psittaciformes better aligned with its evolutionary tree. We infer maximum likelihood and time-calibrated phylogenies for parrots, present accounts for 106 genera, compare how our findings relate to previous work, and highlight future areas of research. The family-group nomenclature we propose reflects deep evolutionary divergences with diagnosable synapomorphies that are commensurate across comparable ranks in psittaciform clades. We erect three new family-group names at the rank of tribe (Brotogerini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024; Neophemini Schodde, Mason, Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024; Bolbopsittacini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024). We elevate one tribe to subfamily rank for the cacatuid genus Probosciger and we restrict usage of the recently introduced tribe Touitini to its type genus Touit. At shallower taxonomic scales, recognition of more rather than fewer genera addresses issues of paraphyly or high discordance in morphological and genomic characters at those levels. We support many reinstatements of older generic names advocated in recent decades, and we further reinstate five valid, available generic names not widely used in recent literature if at all (Licmetis, Gymnopsittacus, Clarkona, Suavipsitta, Cardeos). We advocate the retention of Vini Lesson, 1833, over Coriphilus Wagler, 1832, based on preliminary examination showing substantially more frequent usage of the former. We redraw generic limits in some other cases (e.g., Bolborhynchus parrotlets and allies) and this includes recognizing fewer genera than recently proposed for the Psittacula sensu lato ringneck parakeets. Our revised classification of parrots addresses many longstanding taxonomic questions including those that have arisen through the acquisition of genetic data. It provides context for the temporal origins of psittaciform clades and the taxonomic and phenotypic diversification throughout their evolutionary history. We hope that it will be a benchmark guiding further taxonomic study as well as for downstream analyses in many other fields.

My only remark is : Touit stictopterus needs a new genus, clearly, mandatory

 

[l_raty]

Once more, why Suavipsitta instead of Nannopsittacus ?

We erect three new family-group names at the rank of tribe (Brotogerini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024;

We are aware of no prior family-group name to accommodate the genera Brotogeris and Myiopsitta.

Wolters (1975: 59) introduced Brotogeryinae at subfamily rank to accomodate the genera Brotogeris and Nannopsittaca (which was reported by Bock in 1994). But he gave no description or reference to a description there, hence the name was a nomen nudum in this particular work.​

Wolters gave the following description of Brotogeryinae in Aschenborn (1982: 47-48) :​

​

[etc.]​

[...] Neophemini Schodde, Mason, Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024; [...]

Wolters (1975) introduced Neophemini at tribal rank to accommodate the genera Neopsephotus and Neophema. He gave neither a description nor a reference to one as is required for new family-group names introduced after 1930. Therefore, his name is a nomen nudum and unavailable.

Wolters (1975: 67) introduced Neopheminae at subfamily rank (he did not use the tribal rank), indeed to accomodate these two genera indeed, and indeed without a description or reference to a description, hence the name was a nomen nudum in this particular work.​

Wolters gave the following description of his Neopheminae in Aschenborn (1982: 104) :​

​

[etc.]​

[...] Bolbopsittacini Smith, Thom, and Joseph, 2024).

This one is new. (I think.)​

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Once more, why Suavipsitta instead of Nannopsittacus ?

​

Wolters (1975: 59) introduced Brotogeryinae at subfamily rank to accomodate the genera Brotogeris and Nannopsittaca (which was reported by Bock in 1994). But he gave no description or reference to a description there, hence the name was a nomen nudum in this particular work.​

Wolters gave the following description of Brotogeryinae in Aschenborn (1982: 47-48) :​

View attachment 1588017View attachment 1588016​

[etc.]​

​

Wolters (1975: 67) introduced Neopheminae at subfamily rank (he did not use the tribal rank), indeed to accomodate these two genera indeed, and indeed without a description or reference to a description, hence the name was a nomen nudum in this particular work.​

Wolters gave the following description of his Neopheminae in Aschenborn (1982: 104) :​

View attachment 1588018​

[etc.]​

This one is new. (I think.)​

Also:

The expanded Vini of Joseph et al. (2020)
encompasses a radiation of diversely colored, small-
bodied birds. We acknowledge informal discussion
of the case to replace Vini Lesson, 1833, with
Coriphilus Wagler, 1832. In contrast to the case of
Orthopsittaca manilatus discussed above, we cau-
tiously predict that Vini will warrant retention on
the grounds of much more frequent usage, and
therefore, stability. For example, in a search of the
Biodiversity Heritage Library (https://www.biodi-
versitylibrary.org; accessed 8 January 2024) for ref-
erences to “Vini Lesson” and “Coriphilus Wagler,”
we found 1871 vs. 223 full-text and 31 vs. 0 catalog
references, respectively, citing these names, i.e.,
usage of Vini has demonstrably been more frequent
than that of Coriphilus. Retention of Vini will pro-
mote stability and minimize disruption

I will not follow them and I keep Coriphilus