• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Parrots (1 Viewer)

My impression is French is one of the languages in which there is the greatest level of taxonomic agreement / alignment with common names and English is one of the languages where names are very broadly applied.
Yes, we have a more taxonomic approach because despite this abuse of language, French binomials names are not vernacular, they are scientific (read some works on molluscs, reptiles and amphibians). I'm working on French names and I have ensured, at least as best as I could, that French genera reflect natural groups while avoiding polyphyletic use. But we also have to trace the history of any name through literature to know which species is the origin of this or that name, and that how I realized that the list of French names contained many errors or questionable choices.

I don't want ornithological vocabulary to become newspeak with a weak lexicon. Rich vocabulary leads to rich thinking and since names are an identity, we cannot bring together under the same identity groups which have nothing to do with each other.
 
Last edited:
But we can use two types of nomenclature, that of the field with a generalist and simple vocabulary and that of the literature with a more precise vocabulary. Is the English language rich in terms of naturalistic lexicon? E.g. I find it hard to believe that "Warbler" is the only name that exists in the English vocabulary to designate all species that look like a warbler.
No. We already have scientific names. We've messed them up right enough---let's not do the same with "common" names. We can use the scientific names where precision is required and we don't think the English name is unambiguous
 
No. We already have scientific names. We've messed them up right enough---let's not do the same with "common" names. We can use the scientific names where precision is required and we don't think the English name is unambiguous
I don't mind changing common names in the case where you have a few odd outliers or where it may emphasize the distinctiveness...stuff like giving a new name to the two Pittasoma antpitta species seems a good move. But yeah...the idea of trying to find new "unique" names for all the different warblers is head-ache inducing. A move like that would be hugely destabilizing without much benefit (IMHO).
 
I don't mind changing common names in the case where you have a few odd outliers or where it may emphasize the distinctiveness...stuff like giving a new name to the two Pittasoma antpitta species seems a good move. But yeah...the idea of trying to find new "unique" names for all the different warblers is head-ache inducing. A move like that would be hugely destabilizing without much benefit (IMHO).
Reading this, I have a recurring question that often comes to mind: is the English naturalist vocabulary so poor that you have to use the same names under the pretext of stability and simplicity? Among us, I imagine that there are members who are interested in the linguistics and history of local popular names. Doesn't an impoverishment of vocabulary lead to an impoverishment of thought?
 
First time I had explained to me the difference in flight mode between Pionus and Amazona parrots, it was a bit of a revelation. Even though I do not have a strong feeling, I am leaning towards being in favor of the change of common name to Amazon for the second group.

Niels
 
Reading this, I have a recurring question that often comes to mind: is the English naturalist vocabulary so poor that you have to use the same names under the pretext of stability and simplicity? Among us, I imagine that there are members who are interested in the linguistics and history of local popular names. Doesn't an impoverishment of vocabulary lead to an impoverishment of thought?
Scientific names act or are intended to act as globally unique identifiers. Therefore, there are rules about them to facilitate global scientific communication. Common names don't perform the same function---the scope over which they operate is smaller and they don't have to be exclusive. If someone says "I have a robin in my garden" and they are in Australia I don't immediately think must be E. rubecula. If my US aunt says she's seen a buzzard I know to check if it was in fact a vulture.

To talk about impoverishment of vocabulary hardly applies to English, the mongrol language---with many more words than most others, and with many of those taken from other languages (such as French)
 
. If someone says "I have a robin in my garden" and they are in Australia I don't immediately think must be E. rubecula
Because for you, Robin is a generalist name that designates a bird with a red throat (in principle). But you know what is most curious, it is that the name Robin is used in the French nomenclature for the genus Tarsiger. My opinion is that there were no popular name for this genus and that the name Robin has been applied by default.

The French equivalent of Robin is "Rougegorge" and it is only used as generic name for the genus Erithacus (I don't include some Cossyphine genera which are in fact "Cossyphe" not "Rougegorge") and it will never be misused for other bird even if it has a red throat.
 
Last edited:
Urban, L., A. W. Santure, L. Uddstrom, A. Digby, D. Vercoe, D. Eason, J. Crane, Kākāpō Recovery Team, M. J. Wylie, T. Davis, M. F. LeLec, J. Guhlin, S. Poulton, J. Slate, A. Alexander, P. Fuentes-Cross, P. K. Dearden, N. J. Gemmell, F. Azeem, M. Weyland, H. G. L. Schwefel, C. van Oosterhout, and H. E. Morales (2024) The genetic basis of the kākāpō [Strigops habroptila] structural color polymorphism suggests balancing selection by an extinct apex predator. PLoS Biology 22: e3002755.
The genetic basis of the kākāpō structural color polymorphism suggests balancing selection by an extinct apex predator

Abstract
The information contained in population genomic data can tell us much about the past ecology and evolution of species. We leveraged detailed phenotypic and genomic data of nearly all living kākāpō to understand the evolution of its feather color polymorphism. The kākāpō is an endangered and culturally significant parrot endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand, and the green and olive feather colorations are present at similar frequencies in the population. The presence of such a neatly balanced color polymorphism is remarkable because the entire population currently numbers less than 250 birds, which means it has been exposed to severe genetic drift. We dissected the color phenotype, demonstrating that the two colors differ in their light reflectance patterns due to differential feather structure. We used quantitative genomics methods to identify two genetic variants whose epistatic interaction can fully explain the species’ color phenotype. Our genomic forward simulations show that balancing selection might have been pivotal to establish the polymorphism in the ancestrally large population, and to maintain it during population declines that involved a severe bottleneck. We hypothesize that an extinct apex predator was the likely agent of balancing selection, making the color polymorphism in the kākāpō a "ghost of selection past."
 
Arthur F Sands, Astrid A L Andersson, Kerry Reid, Taylor Hains, Leo Joseph, Alex Drew, Ian J Mason, Frank E Rheindt, Caroline Dingle, Juha Merilä, Genomic and Acoustic Biogeography of the Iconic Sulphur-Crested Cockatoo Clarifies Species Limits and Patterns of Intraspecific Diversity, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2024;, msae222.


Abstract
Many highly recognisable species lack genetic data important for conservation due to neglect over their hyperabundance. This likely applies to the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita), one of the world’s most iconic parrots. The species is native to Australia, New Guinea and some surrounding Melanesian islands. Four subspecies are currently recognised based on morphology. Australian subspecies and populations are abundant, but several factors threaten those in New Guinea and Melanesia. Genetic data from natural populations are scarce – information that is vital to identifying evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) important for modern conservation planning. We used whole-genome resequencing to investigate patterns of differentiation, evolutionary affinities and demographic history across C. galerita’s range to assess whether currently recognised subspecies represent ESUs. We complement this with an assessment of bioacoustic variation across the species’ distribution range. Our results point to C. galerita sensu lato (s.l.) comprising two species. We restrict C. galerita sensu stricto (s.s.) to populations in Australia and the Trans-Fly ecodomain of southern New Guinea. The second species, recognised here as Cacatua triton, likely occurs over much of the rest of New Guinea. Restricting further discussion of intraspecific diversity in C. triton, we show that within C. galerita s.s. two ESUs exist, which align to Cacatua galerita galerita in eastern Australia and southern New Guinea and Cacatua galerita fitzroyi in northern and north-western Australia. We suggest that the evolution of these species and ESUs are linked to Middle and Late Pleistocene glacial cycles and their effects on sea level and preferential habitats. We argue that conservation assessments need updating, protection of preferential forest and woodland habitats are important and reintroductions require careful management to avoid possible negative hybridization effects of non-complementary lineages.
 
Andersson, A.A., Sands, A.F., Reid, K., Hains, T., Momigliano, P., Lee, J.G.H., Lee, G., Rheindt, F.E., Merilä, J. and Dingle, C. (2024), Museomics Sheds Light on Evolutionary Diversity in a Critically Endangered Cockatoo Species From Wallacea. Mol Ecol e17616. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.17616

I think some taxa (citrinocristata, abbotti, parvula) need reconsideration.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top