Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
-
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.
Thraupidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Myornis
Well-known member
We looked at this one for Colombia a few times and decided to leave it alone or 'deprioritise', rather than being another voice saying that they look very different. The positive recommendation here is where sane persons looking to create a consistent and rational checklist should arrive. But it's very surprising for SACC, who tend to reject these sorts of proposals based on plumage and field guide literature.
Myornis
Well-known member
On the other hand...
One of these occurs in lowish premontane and relatively dryish tall humid forests and secondary growths of the northern Andes. The other is a tepui endemic occurring from lowlands up to the tabletops. They do not overlap in range.
Andean birds look like this for males and females
Tepui birds look like this for males and females
Very different indeed, including for tanagers.
[Several ebird photos of tepui birds have not been allocated properly to the subgroups yet.]
David Ascanio here says the voice in the tepui differs from Andean birds. Looking here on XC, the main call of Andean birds are based on downstrokes and those of tepui birds on upstrokes, quite different shapes.
The proposal seems mostly to be about having a go at the Tobias scoring system (which for sure has its flaws). Of course, this is also one of those cases where there is no detailed study.
If I had an agenda and wanted to discredit Del Hoyo & Collar's split, I would be questioning the status of the isolated population in the Paria peninsula, which is vocally unknown, and where that fits upon splitting the tepui and Andean populations.
Peter Boesman
Well-known member
I agree that voice of both taxa is very different (all call notes and song).
I have made a small note documenting these differences and sent it to Van Remsen (I hope his e-mail is still at lsu.edu).
This changes SACC1013 to a case with clear vocal differences, morphological differences not unlike several other Stilpnia sister species pairs, and no genetic data.
Now it is in the hand of others...
(As for the Paria population. At least based on plumage, I am confident that the people at the Phelps collection correctly attributed it to nominate)
Peter Boesman
Well-known member
here is the note
Mysticete
Well-known member
Lol over half of the proposals since WGAC started have been taking shots at the Tobias scoring system.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Cheers Peter for making that comment to Van. Thomas I know (some) of the history and relationship but I think you might also consider commenting or at least linking to David’s comments.
I personally found the “without plunging into Macaulay or Xeno Canto” comment a bit disappointing from a committee that purports to offer expert opinions. I should almost hope that WGAC voting members would look to voice rather than take a “I didn’t look at voice” at face value. I do recognize that all this is done on volunteer time and no one is paid but if you want to be the arbitrating committee on SA taxonomy and decline to investigate the voice when asked to offer your expert opinion… shrug???
I don’t necessarily agree with SACC’s sacrosanct view of a rather arbitrary status quo based upon arbitrary lumps 60-100+ years ago. I also don’t agree with the dogma of taking a lack of published data over things that a panel of experts should be able to just plain see as clear. But I also am friends with and/or respect everyone on the SACC and I slowly see a bit of movement (arguably WGAC instigated) in the right direction. For instance every proposal that references your voice analyses, Peter, is no longer accompanied by a disclaimer that “unpublished data cannot be considered”
I personally found the “without plunging into Macaulay or Xeno Canto” comment a bit disappointing from a committee that purports to offer expert opinions. I should almost hope that WGAC voting members would look to voice rather than take a “I didn’t look at voice” at face value. I do recognize that all this is done on volunteer time and no one is paid but if you want to be the arbitrating committee on SA taxonomy and decline to investigate the voice when asked to offer your expert opinion… shrug???
I don’t necessarily agree with SACC’s sacrosanct view of a rather arbitrary status quo based upon arbitrary lumps 60-100+ years ago. I also don’t agree with the dogma of taking a lack of published data over things that a panel of experts should be able to just plain see as clear. But I also am friends with and/or respect everyone on the SACC and I slowly see a bit of movement (arguably WGAC instigated) in the right direction. For instance every proposal that references your voice analyses, Peter, is no longer accompanied by a disclaimer that “unpublished data cannot be considered”
Myornis
Well-known member
I've tried privately notifying SACC of shortcomings on proposals a few times in the last year or so (Streptopelia in S America, Campephilus split and one of the Amazona proposals) but have been ignored / blanked (i.e. no response at all from chair). That's understandable, as I've been a strong critic of the committee and asked for prior contributions to be deleted. What's not understandable is omitting to cite relevant cogent literature drawn to the committee's attention on the topics of their proposals, which is at best stubborn but borderline unprofessional. So commenting only here instead - we looked at all the splits relevant to Colombia (which are a lot of them) for non-Passerines in 2015 and 2016, doing various vocal studies and reviews of specimens, and published on them all then, so these are all cases I know fairly well.
Maybe. It looks like they are striving to say something positive on a couple of proposals from the BirdLife list. I wonder if this is not entirely cynical though. If SACC let through a couple of these splits or at least have a few positive votes or positively written proposals, like on Lilacine Parrot and Yellow-tufted Dacnis, then they 'look a bit more objective' in blowing out all the rest. In any event, it has been used as a platform to slag off the Tobias et al scoring system and most of the DH&C splits, which seems to be the main agenda these days (SACC previous raison d'etres have been (1) rejecting all Ridgely's works, (2) English name hyphenation proposals, (3) patronyms.)
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Proposal (1017) to SACC
Treat (A) Dubusia carrikeri and (B) Dubusia stictocephala as separate species from Dubusia taeniata
Treat (A) Dubusia carrikeri and (B) Dubusia stictocephala as separate species from Dubusia taeniata
Mysticete
Well-known member
I thought this point was interesting:
"Comments from Schulenberg: “YES. I'm with Al on this one. In the past, I've voted against any number of good-sounding proposals because of the lack of a "published analysis." But we've let a lot of decent ideas die along the way - many of which have yet to be written up for publication, years later - and in the meantime it's becoming easier and easier to assemble the relevant information online.
“I see some room, in other words, between "field guide taxonomy" (little or no documentation provided) and a Kevin Zimmer 30-page exhaustive survey. The point of a published analysis, after all, is in spreading and sharing data and the conclusions that stem from them. I think this proposal follows in the vein. If we agree that the authors convince us of the merits of their case, and if the data on which we base our conclusions are available to others, then we're only hurting ourselves by voting against it."
This is a recurrent point brought up in a lot of NACC/SACC proposals, that by raising awareness that work is needed on a problem, that somehow it will encourage people to go ahead and work on addressing it in a timely manner. But I think that sort of vastly overestimates the number of current and future taxonomy-interested interested students out there. Part of me expects to see a decline in available workers...Higher education just keeps getting more expensive (and at least in the states there are future potential changes that will make it more so), grant funding is scarce, and the job market is horrible. Scientists employed at universities and museums have increasingly more responsibilities hoisted on them, giving less time for research. If the available evidence is out there, should we really wait for a study to state the obvious, a study that very well might not come out for decades?
"Comments from Schulenberg: “YES. I'm with Al on this one. In the past, I've voted against any number of good-sounding proposals because of the lack of a "published analysis." But we've let a lot of decent ideas die along the way - many of which have yet to be written up for publication, years later - and in the meantime it's becoming easier and easier to assemble the relevant information online.
“I see some room, in other words, between "field guide taxonomy" (little or no documentation provided) and a Kevin Zimmer 30-page exhaustive survey. The point of a published analysis, after all, is in spreading and sharing data and the conclusions that stem from them. I think this proposal follows in the vein. If we agree that the authors convince us of the merits of their case, and if the data on which we base our conclusions are available to others, then we're only hurting ourselves by voting against it."
This is a recurrent point brought up in a lot of NACC/SACC proposals, that by raising awareness that work is needed on a problem, that somehow it will encourage people to go ahead and work on addressing it in a timely manner. But I think that sort of vastly overestimates the number of current and future taxonomy-interested interested students out there. Part of me expects to see a decline in available workers...Higher education just keeps getting more expensive (and at least in the states there are future potential changes that will make it more so), grant funding is scarce, and the job market is horrible. Scientists employed at universities and museums have increasingly more responsibilities hoisted on them, giving less time for research. If the available evidence is out there, should we really wait for a study to state the obvious, a study that very well might not come out for decades?
Myornis
Well-known member
The idea that committees like this encourage work on situations by rejecting proposals is insane. I've discussed with colleagues working with Colombian birds at the El Dorado reserve, numerous times, getting some more data and setting out sonograms and photos as regards this particular situation with Carriker's Mountain Tanager. We always de-prioritised and concluded it was a waste of time, since SACC have rejected it and are set against it. The few who might pay an interest take committee-rejected splits as intransigence, impossibility and rejection, a reason to work on other situations. Not as an encouragement, quite the opposite. This species (and yes, it is a species, its plumage and voice are very distinct) is without a doubt threatened (EN)- like most of the other highest elevation Santa Marta endemics. They are very rarely seen at any easily accessible point and habitats have been decimated by recent forest fires and illegal incursions in the higher parts of the National Park. Birdlife split this quite some years ago (and classify it as EN), so it's already listed as of conservation concern. It's a shame (and a consequence of almost religious SACC-worship among national ornithologists) that the current Colombia list does not split this. But the main game in town nowadays is WGAC and they would be ill-advised to reverse out of this one. Anyway, if a group associated with Proaves / El Dorado reserve were to have published a paper on Carriker's Mountain Tanager and re-proposed to SACC, what would have happened? SACC hate papers like that associated with NGOs, and they have been stubborn before on occasions when previous proposals have been re-proposed.
This was therefore a refreshing proposal.
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
VAGNER CAVARZERE, THIAGO VERNASCHI V. COSTA, GUSTAVO S. CABANNE, NATALIA TRUJILLO-ARIAS, RAFAEL S. MARCONDES, LUÍS F. SILVEIRA (2024). A new species of tanager (Aves: Thraupidae) from the Eastern slopes of the Andes. Zootaxa, 5468 (3): 541-556.
Abstract
The Black-goggled Tanager (Trichothraupis melanops) is a South American forest species that comprises two disjunct populations in the Atlantic Forest and in the Andes. During visits to natural history museums, we noticed morphological differences between these populations, which led to a taxonomic revision of the species based on plumage patterns and morphometry. Our analyses revealed that both populations are fully diagnosable, and that the Andean population represents an undescribed taxon, which we name Trichothraupis griseonota sp. nov. The new taxon differs from T. melanops by the extension of black in the faces of the males, covering the auricular region, and a greyer shade on the back (instead of olive). A previous mtDNA study with Trichothraupis is consistent with our conclusions that a new taxon requires recognition. The new species is found from 400 m up to 1,700 m on the eastern slopes of the Andes in Peru, Bolivia, and northwestern Argentina, inhabiting Tucumano-Boliviano and Yungas Forests as opposed to the Atlantic Forests where T. melanops is found. The biogeographical disjunction of the two species is similar to what has been observed for other bird species and subspecies, whereby avian lineages are allopatrically distributed and separated by the Chaco-Cerrado vegetation. The description of this taxon reinforces the importance of continued studies and analyses of museum specimens, which may yet reveal little-known patterns and undescribed taxa.
Proposal (1023) to SACC
Recognize Trichothraupis griseonota as a separate species from T. melanops
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
DID NOT PASS
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
While checking up some of the Birds described by the Swedish ornithologist Carl Jacob Sundevall (1801–1875) I came across this particular thread/case, and decided to have a quick look at it ... (if still relevant?)
That is, re. the Priority topic of Corydospiza versus Porphyrospiza
First, there's a typo in BHL ... (as referred to by Mark/'mb1848' above). The correct version/title of Sundevall's Work ought to be: Methodi naturalis Avium disponendarum tentamen [with the (Swedish) subtitle]: Försök till fogelklassens naturenliga uppställning (publisher: Samsom & Wallin, printed: P. A. Norstedt & Söner), Stockholm, dated/typed: "1872".
BHL's transcript/typo: "uppställnung" is not a Swedish Word (uppställning = arrangement).
Either way, also note that this Work seems to have been printed in two Pars/parts! (see here).
In the same Work you'll also find Sundevall's List INDEX NOMINUM GENERICORUM (on page 159, here), and Nomina generica (on page 186, here), where you find: "Corydospiza (Fring. alaudina Kittl.)" [*], also with Lists like Nomina nova ... and onwards.
However, as well note Sundevall's own Words, from/in 1874 (here):
The Odd part would be that the Preface (Förord), of his Methodi naturalis Avium ... itself, was/is signed/dated: "Stockholm i [in] Januari 1872" (but maybe it was just delayed, as well, as in finished, already written, just waiting for Sundevall's health to recover).
In any case, it all seems to have been published prior to Porphyrospiza, Sclater & Salvin ("December") 1873.
Hopefully of some help/use?
Björn
*i.e. today's Band-tailed Sierra-Finch Phrygilus alaudinus, alt. Porphyrospiza/Rhopospina/Corydospiza alaudina KITTLITZ 1833 (here), as "Fringilla alaudina" [with the Taf.(Tafel)/Plate XXIII/23, fig.2, here].
l_raty
laurent raty
In my notes I have, for Corydospiza :
In “Pars prior” (up to p. 72). A note of apology for partial, rather than complete publication, on the wrapper of this part, was dated 1 Aug 1872 fide Mathews 1925 Suppl.4-5 (1925) - The Birds of Australia - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Noted as having appeared between 9 and 15 Aug in Nordisk boghandlertidende Nordisk boghandlertidende (taken from Svensk Bokhandels-Tidning, but I cannot find the 1872 volume of this journal online).
Any idea where to find it ?
In “Pars prior” (up to p. 72). A note of apology for partial, rather than complete publication, on the wrapper of this part, was dated 1 Aug 1872 fide Mathews 1925 Suppl.4-5 (1925) - The Birds of Australia - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Noted as having appeared between 9 and 15 Aug in Nordisk boghandlertidende Nordisk boghandlertidende (taken from Svensk Bokhandels-Tidning, but I cannot find the 1872 volume of this journal online).
Any idea where to find it ?
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Had another look at it and, although this did not result in actual new information, I ran into an interesting copy in Google Books, which has the wrappers of the two parts bound with the text.
- Back wrapper of pars prior, with contents listed, and the note of apology (in French) reported by Mathews : Försök till fogelklassens naturenliga uppställning
- Back wrapper of pars posterior, with contents listed : Försök till fogelklassens naturenliga uppställning
Pars prior was listed on 23 Aug 1872 in Nordisk Boghandlertidende Nordisk boghandlertidende, as having appeared between 9 and 15 Aug, citing a communication by Samson & Wallin in Svensk Bokhandels-Tidning as the source.
Pars posterior was listed on 30 May 1873 in Nordisk Boghandlertidende Nordisk boghandlertidende, as having appeared between 10 and 16 May, citing a communication by Samson & Wallin in Svensk Bokhandels-Tidning as the source.
It seems most likely to me that what appeared in Nordisk Boghandlertidende was very close to the original. For an example of an announcement by Samson & Wallin in Svensk Bokhandels-Tidning dating from 1871, see, e.g. : Svensk bokhandelstidning. And for this particular communication relayed in Nordisk Boghandlertidende : Nordisk Boghandlertidende.
(Still, should anyone know where the original can be found, I'd be interested to see it.)
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
PASSED (28 September 2024)
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
DID NOT PASS
