Proposal (559) to South American Classification Committee
Synonymize Scytalopus petrophilus with Scytalopus
speluncae and recognize Scytalopus
notorius
Effect on SACC list: If
this proposal is accepted, the name Scytalopus speluncae would be
applied to the Rock Tapaculo, thus replacing the name S. petrophilus,
leaving the Mouse-colored Tapaculo (to which the name speluncae has been
traditionally applied) with the available name Scytalopus notorius.
Justification: This proposal advocates
the adoption of the taxonomic recommendations made by Raposo et al. (2012),
namely that Scytalopus petrophilus
should be considered a synonym of Scytalopus
speluncae. The justification
for this is that Raposo et al. (2012), by virtue of extensive historical
research, made it abundantly clear that the holotype of Scytalopus speluncae is beyond reasonable dispute (based on the
available evidence) from São João del Rei, in Minas Gerais.
It is critical to note that the curator of the relevant collection in
St. Petersburg (Vladimir Loskot), where the type specimen and many relevant
documents are held, is one of the authors of Raposo et al. (2012). The same locality, São João del Rei, is
listed as the provenance of a paratype of S.
petrophilus, yet all of the authors involved in this debate agree that only
one species of Scytalopus occurs in
this region (diagnosed morphologically by being paler than the dark grey
species of the Serra do Mar, and having the rump and posterior underparts
barred brown).
It should be abundantly clear, to those who have read the paper by
Raposo et al., that whatever doubts were expressed by Maurício (2005),
Bornschein et al. (2007), Maurício et al. (2010), and Whitney et al. (2010) reflect
an incomplete knowledge of the historical facts, rather than being based on
information that might permit a reasonable alternative interpretation. The best
example of this is the incorrect interpretation of certain literature by Maurício
et al. (2010), which resulted in a wholly inadequate translation of the sole
historical reference that was mounted in support of their position (see the
figure and text on p. 58 of Raposo et al. 2012).
If there is any doubt concerning a type locality, authors should follow
the recommendations of the Code (ICZN, 1999, 76A.1) especially:
“[articles] 76A.1.1. data accompanying the original material;
76A.1.2. collector’s notes, itineraries, or personal communications; 76A.1.3.
the original description of the taxon; 76A.1.4. as a last resort, and without
prejudice to other clarification, localities within the known range of the
taxon or from which specimens referred to the taxon had been taken” (Raposo et
al. 2012).
These articles from the Code should be borne in mind when considering
the following:
1. All of the available details
directly attached to the specimen indicate that S. J. Del Rei is the type locality.
2. All of the collector’s notes
and field diary also clearly indicate that S. J. del Rei is the type locality,
and Maurício et al. (2010) did not directly examine these sources.
3. The original description
mentions the presence of white elements on the breast, which is also the case
with the topotypical material collected from S. J. del Rei, but was considered
to be in error by Maurício et al.
4. Ménétriés’s itinerary
definitely included S. J. del Rei.
The remaining doubts concerning this specimen’s morphology expressed by
Maurício et al. (2010) essentially revolve around the notion that one might
discover a pale grey specimen with brown barring on the rear flanks and rump
among the few variant individuals from the dark grey population, but this
suggestion has been shown to be erroneous (see Raposo et al. 2012). Unlike the majority of authors of Raposo
et al., not one of Maurício and his co-authors have examined the holotype of Scytalopus speluncae, and all of their
conclusions are based on photographs supplied to them by the senior author of
the 2012 paper itself.
Raposo et al. (2012) demonstrated that the holotype of Scytalopus speluncae is identical to the
topotypes, which can easily be seen by viewing Fig. 7 in Raposo et al. (2012). With the synonymization of S. petrophilus, S. notorius becomes the valid name for the dark grey species inhabiting
the Serra do Mar of eastern Brazil as
shown in Raposo et al. (2006), who already had established the correct use of S.
speluncae for the light gray form and described the
"notable" dark-gray new species six years ago. My proposal can be concluded with the
same words that closed Raposo et al.: "Of what relevance are type
localities, if not to assist in resolving such problems? If these authors doubt
our analysis of the holotype, then they might use the type locality to
determine the morphology of the species (in conjunction with the topotypes),
rather than the opposite."
Literature cited
Bornschein,
M.R., Maurício, G.N., Lopes, R.B., Mata, H. & Bonato, S.L. (2007)
Diamantina Tapaculo, a new Scytalopus
endemic to the Chapada Diamantina, northeastern Brazil (Passeriformes:
Rhinocryptidae). Revista
Brasileira de Ornitologia, 15, 151–174.
International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth edn.
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Maurício,
G.N. (2005) Taxonomy of southern populations in the Scytalopus speluncae group, with description of a new species and
remarks on the systematics and biogeography of the complex (Passeriformes:
Rhinocryptidae). Ararajuba, 13, 7–28.
Maurício,
G.N., Bornschein, M.R., Vasconcelos, M.F. Whitney, B.M., Pacheco, J.F. &
Silveira, L.F. (2010) Taxonomy of “Mouse-colored Tapaculos”. I. On the
application of the name Malacorhynchus
speluncae Ménétriès, 1835 (Aves: Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae). Zootaxa,
2518, 32–48.
Raposo,
M. A., Kirwan, G. M., Loskot, V. & Assis, C. P. (2012) São João del Rei is the type locality of Scytalopus speluncae – a response
to Mauricio et al. (2010). Zootaxa
3439: 51–67.
Whitney,
B.M., Vasconcelos, M.F., Silveira, L.F. & Pacheco, J.F. (2010) Scytalopus petrophilus (Rock Tapaculo):
a new species from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 18
(2), 73–88.
Guilherme R. R. Brito, October 2012
Comments from Bret Whitney: “To address the recently
posted Proposal 559 of Brito to
synonymize Scytalopus petrophilus in Scytalopus speluncae, I offer the
following observations and opinions.
Mention of authors’/parties’ names refers to the literature cited by
Brito, occasionally specified to date for necessary emphasis.
“In our collective effort to determine identification of the holotype, which is
far less complicated than it may seem, it certainly will be best to admit that
disagreement on the condition and appearance of the 180-year-old specimen is
understandable and to therefore drop any further discussion of these points.
That it is not possible for scientists to agree on condition of an extant
holotype is justification enough for discounting any lingering argument. It matters not that no one among
Mauricio et al. or Whitney et al. have personally examined the holotype because
the high-quality photos and descriptions presented by Raposo et al. serve
perfectly well to show that the holotype, especially the critically important
flanks/belly region of it, is in poor condition. The productive course
for resolution of the holotype’s identity is, therefore, to concentrate on
those points on which all parties do agree, and to consider each of them in
their order of relevance under the ICZN*:
1.
the author’s original description with its accompanying
illustration, and
2.
all other data or indications that seem reliable and may be
brought to bear
“Ménétriés’s
description and the color illustration are in close agreement and clearly
indicate an essentially plain, gray bird.
If we are to trust Ménétriés’s diaries, description of a locality we can
identify today, and even a bird’s iris color – and I see no particular
reason to doubt the authenticity or accuracy of any of these things –
then we must also trust without prejudice his description of a very important
specimen. It would be inadmissible
to imagine, for instance, that Ménétriés might have failed to notice
conspicuous barring on the flanks on
either side of a specimen that shows no sign of shot having damaged the
legs or feet and with the tail intact – even if the plumage damage we see
today occurred during his inspection of stomach contents or preparation of the
skin. Such barring was obviously
regarded as important detail because an illustration of Malacorhynchus albiventris (Ménétriés 1835; today Eleoscytalopus
indigoticus) by the same artist on the same plate shows extensively black-barred, rufous
flanks. As Raposo et al have pointed out more
than once, all agree that there exists today only one form of Scytalopus in the vicinity of São João
del Rei: the one with conspicuously barred flanks.
“All
data considered, it is clear that Ménétriés could not have taken the specimen
he described as being essentially plain-gray at that grotto near São João del
Rei — unless, perhaps, more humid forest habitat was present in that area
of Minas Gerais in the early 19th Century and plain-gray birds then occurred
there.
*Raposo
et al (2012) stated, “… correctly identifying the
type locality is of overriding importance to ensure the correct nomenclature of
the entire species-group…” Their
insistence on placing provenance ahead of the original description of the
specimen in establishing the identity of the holotype has unfortunately led to
much wasted time on both sides of the aisle. It is poignant to note that the ICZN does not require designation of a
holotype (see Recommendation 73A) or designation of a type locality (see
Recommendation 73C.2) as part of a valid description of an animal. I mention this to bring focus sharply to identification of the extant holotype of Malacorhynchus
speluncae as the question we must strive to resolve. In order to satisfy all parties
involved in this argument today, identification of this specimen must reside in
(as justified above) collective trust of: 1) Ménétriés’s description, the only
salient point being whether the flanks
were conspicuously barred or not; 2) the color illustration that
accompanied the original description and whether or not it agrees with the
description; and lastly, in other pieces of information. Ménétriés’s original description of
present-day Scytalopus speluncae must
be considered applicable to the Scytalopus
tapaculos matching it in areas in which he is known to have collected birds at
the time. It really is as simple
as that. Thus, the name speluncae must stand for plain-gray
birds that (today, at least) occur as near to his designated locality as about
70 km in Minas Gerais and which remain common in vast areas he traversed and
collected in the state of Rio de Janeiro.
Scytalopus petrophilus
Whitney, Vasconcelos, Silveira, and Pacheco 2010 is the valid name for
tapaculos they described as “Rock Tapaculo”, which is the only Scytalopus that occurs around São João
del Rei, Minas Gerais, today. The
specimens from near São João del Rei called “topotypes of S. speluncae” by Raposo et al (2006) are specimens of S. petrophilus and have no bearing as
types of any taxon. Once again,
the name notorius Raposo, Stopiglia,
Loskot, and Kirwan 2006 must be considered (at least for the present, [Whitney
et al 2010]) a junior synonym of S.
speluncae.
“In
answer to the question from the concluding remarks of Raposo et al (2012)
repeated by Brito to close his proposal, above, I refer to ICZN Article 76,
Recommendation A.2: “A statement of a type locality that is found to be
erroneous should be corrected.”
That is what Mauricio et al (2010) effectively accomplished in
designating “Serra dos Órgãos” as a much more appropriate type locality for S. speluncae, a proposal endorsed by
Whitney et al. (2010). A highly
desirable result was the maintenance of stability of nomenclature long in
use.
“Finally,
concerning stability of nomenclature, which is the single most important objective
of the Code, it occurred to me that it might be desirable to submit a request
to the Commission to consider the name speluncae
a nomen dubium because the holotype
is damaged to such an extent that interested scientists are unable to agree on
its identity. The Commission could
decide to set aside the extant holotype and allow designation of a
neotype. Although this course
might well stabilize the nomenclature (argument on the subject never seems to
go away), I quickly decided against petitioning the Commission for two clear
reasons: 1) neotype designation of a plain-gray specimen from Serra dos Órgãos
(or anywhere else) would only lead to heightened dissention among
ornithologists interested in resolving the issue, a situation the Code
explicitly attempts to head-off (see Recommendation 75B); and more importantly
2) it is highly probable that “ancient DNA” from the extant holotype could be
extracted and amplified to objectively establish its identity. After all, about 90% of the specimen is
intact and in perfect agreement with the author’s description and the artist’s
accompanying depiction. Despite
the dissentions enumerated above, there is no good reason to abandon the
holotype, to the contrary, it should definitely be maintained. If there is any request or
recommendation to be made, it is certainly for the curator(s) at the Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
(ZISP), St. Petersburg to allow specialists with no vested interest in the outcome of this
debate to obtain from the holotype of Malacorhynchus
speluncae (ZISP145251) enough biological material to permit amplification
of its DNA and, consequently, establishment of its identity and stabilization
of nomenclature. The technology
and methodology for undertaking this analysis exist today, and cadres of
scientists around the world are currently working toward ever finer resolution
of “ancient-DNA” analysis such that an attempt to amplify material that might
fail or come up short of confidence levels today might well be repeated with
satisfactory results some time into the future.”
Comments
from Pacheco:
“So that the historical research related
to this case is truly “extensive” and the “available details” impartially
interpreted, I think it opportune to advance a couple of observations bearing
in mind that Ménétriés, once he was established as curator in St. Petersburg
following his experience in Brazil, had at his disposition ornithological
material collected in Brazil during the 1820s by Langsdorff, Freyress, and
Bescke as well as his own material.
“Observation 1: In
the collection in St. Petersburg, the specimens originating from Brazil,
especially those from the Langsdorff-Ménétriés Expedition, did not bear labels
with data, nor field numbers.
“The subsequent annotation
of data on labels was the work of the curator. In this case, this was Ménétriés himself. Chrostowski (1921) attested to this
reality: “Ce n´est pas le cas pour les oiseaux de
Langsdorff-Ménétriès, dont il n´existe au Musée aucun catalogue. Sur les
étiquettes les indications relatives au sexe, à la date et au lieu précis de la
capture de l´oiseau sont négligées. »
“For those species he
described, Ménétriés relied on his memory and annotations in his diaries, but
lacking a numerical or other organization of the material, he inserted on the
labels a small amount of additional information.
“Helmut Sick (who visited
the collection of ZISP on 31 August 1982) wrote in his scientific diary that
the majority of the labels on Brazilian specimens contained only “Langsdorff,
Brasilia”.
“Observation 2: Ménétriés
did not always remember if individual specimens were collected by him or by
someone else.
“In the same article in
which he described Malacorhynchus
speluncae, Ménétriés (1835) described Formicivora
melanaria (= Cercomacra melanaria),
designating as its type locality “Minas Gerais” and augmenting the information
on the specimen labels of his syntypes (apud
Chrostowski 1921) to indicate that he had collected the specimens himself: “E.
Ménétriès leg.” The distribution
of C. melanaria (Mato Grosso Antbird)
is centered on the region of the Pantanal, at least 1,160 km west of the region
through which Ménétriés passed (see the full line of Figure 10 of Raposo et al. 2012) and most certainly could
not have been collected by him.
“These two observations
together reveal that Ménétriés would have had to “select” specimens from within
his Brazilian collection in the absence of information unequivocally defining
their provenance. In the case of
his “№ 18 Myothera,”
he probably (as must be expected, after the passage of nearly ten years) relied
heavily on his field journal describing an impressive cavern and, recalling his
collection of a furtive bird of some kind at that memorable spot, apparently extrapolated that he collected the
tapaculo specimen he wished to describe in St. Petersburg at that place near São João del Rey. Whether this interpretation is really what happened or not,
the fact remains that a failure of memory could easily be involved.”
Comments solicited from
Richard Schodde (Chair, Standing Committee Ornithological Nomenclature, IOC): “Raposo et al.
emphasize the type locality in settling the issue because they find the
holotype difficult to identify. Whitney & Pacheco emphasize the identity of
the holotype as the primary issue, place considerable faith in its
illustration, and treat the type locality as a secondary and, in this case,
indecisive issue.
“I would always side with Whitney and Pacheco in such a case because
it is the identity of type specimens that decide the application of names, not
type localities. Type localities may provide critical collateral information,
but that information is secondary to the primary issue of type specimen
identity.
“Reliance on type locality diverts attention from and diminishes the
power of the type specimen - the only true name bearer for a species-group
taxon - in fixing names. That's why new species-group taxa must be based on
whole collected type specimens. If it is thought that collection might
contribute to extinction, then the taxon is on the way out anyway and, with a
specimen, we would at least have a record of what it looked like and how it
compared with other related taxa.
“Whitney's suggestion that ancient DNA sequencing should be used to
resolve the issue is a good one.”
Comments solicited from
Edward C. Dickinson: “It is
not evident to me that the Code has a particular contribution to make here
unless it is perhaps to force the question of whether there is sufficient proof
that the painting was made from the type as opposed to a better, more easily
depictable specimen thought to be the same taxon but perhaps not and perhaps
not from the same locality. In those days the type concept was hardly formed in
most people's minds. Indeed this remained true until the 1870s or so; until
then the question "asked" of arriving specimens was whether a
specimen was typical of some known population rather than whether it was the
specimen, or one of the specimens from which the original description was
drawn. Thus for example many specimen labels, especially those of Boucard,
which say TYPE are simply those seen to be typical of the population concerned
and the name given to that population was then added to the label.”
Comments from Stiles:
“YES. Having read the
Raposo papers as well as the rebuttals by Whitney and Mauricio et al., I find
the arguments of Raposo et al. to be the more convincing. I am especially
impressed by their painstaking first-hand examination of the type specimen and
the historical materials, the reproduction of which makes it eminently clear
that the type locality is indeed Sao Joao do Rei and its cave and that the
type, while damaged, is typical of material from that locality and thus
correctly identified with the name speluncae.”
Comments from Marcos Raposo:
“No resume of the situation can replace a
close reading of at least the papers by Raposo et al. (2012) and
Maurício et al. (2010), or, even better, all of the relevant papers
published since Maurício (2005). Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to provide a
specific response to the comments of Whitney and Pacheco above, in order to
give clear balance to the discussion directly available here.
“I maintain that what we have
at issue is a dispute between a scientific hypothesis based on clear facts
(Raposo et al. 2012) and a poorly defined opinion (Maurício et al.
2010).
“Throughout the papers by
Raposo et al (2006), Raposo & Kirwan (2008), and Raposo et al. (2012),
there is a clear and, significantly, unmodified narrative, namely that the
holotype of S. speluncae corresponds in plumage to those of its
topotypes, and that it is representative of the generally paler populations
found in the interior of Minas Gerais. We introduced the name S. notorius
for the darker species of the coastal mountains and we defended that the
original type locality designation, São João del Rei, is correct because the
morphology of the type of S. speluncae and its topotypes, other
specimens of both species, the diaries of Langsdorff and Ménétriés, the
original description, images produced by the expedition’s artist (Rugendas),
other historical data and practically all of the 20th century literature
support this hypothesis.
“In
general, Maurício (2005), Maurício et al. (2010), and the responses of Pacheco
and Whitney on this website have sought, as one of their principal objectives,
the transfer of the type locality from São João del Rei to the Serra dos
Órgãos. It is worth spending some time on detail on the fact that each of these
works contains important differences of interest to our discussion.
“First, Maurício (2005) described the holotype as being homogenously dark grey and disagreed with Chrotowski (1921), who had analyzed the holotype directly and had mentioned that it possessed a barred rump. Maurício postulated that the holotype represented the all-dark population from the coastal mountains (S. notorius sensu Raposo et al.) and consequently, its type locality would be there. In this respect, however, his work was meritorious in that demonstrated for the first time the existence of two species of Scytalopus in southeast Brazil, one basically dark and the other paler with some barring. Where he erred was in deciding which should carry the name S. speluncae, and this has been the basis for the entire dispute. Maurício based his analysis entirely on very poor quality photographs (of which copies are also in my possession) yet believed that Chrotowski’s (1921) direct, personal analysis of the holotype was wrong. Maurício’s ideas concerning the morphology of the holotype were categorically refuted not only by Raposo & Kirwan (2008) but also by Maurício et al. (2010)!
“Thus, Maurício et al. (2010)
effectively admitted that Chrotowski had been correct, persuaded by the (much
better quality) photographs of the holotype provided by myself, and that the specimen was not all dark but paler
with some barring (contra Maurício 2005). However, these authors then went
on to suggest that this pattern could be considered a polymorphism of those
populations that we had named S. notorius (not admitted in Maurício,
2005; see also Raposo et al. 2012). On the basis of the paper by Pacheco
(2004), Maurício et al. (2010)
proposed that the type locality of S. speluncae henceforth be considered
the Serra dos Órgãos.
“The following points in
Maurício et al. (2010) may be considered particular weaknesses:
a) once again, these authors failed to analyze the
holotype directly;
b) given that their initial assumption of what the
holotype looked like (Maurício 2005) could no longer be defended, they adopted
an ad hoc hypothesis suggesting the existence of polymorphism in the birds of
the coastal mountains;
c) they proceeded to search for variants of (what we
called) Scytalopus notorius that possess paler plumage and barring on
the underparts (see photos in Maurício et al. 2010), but while admitting that
the type was not all dark, but instead
paler with some barring, they did not admit the primacy of São João del Rei as
the type locality of S. speluncae, despite the fact that all
specimens from the latter show this pattern!
d) they
failed to identify a single specimen that simultaneously possessed generally
paler plumage and a barred abdomen and rump, equal to the holotype, within the
range of S. notorius yet insisted on
changing the type locality of S. speluncae;
e) Serra dos Órgãos was chosen as the new type
locality, despite the lack of historical or morphological evidence to support
this change, for the doubts expressed by Maurício et al. in relation to
Ménétriés and São João del Rei, even if accepted as valid, do not point in any
single direction, much less towards the Serra dos Órgãos;
f) the
only historical information brought to bear for instituting this change was a
partial, incomplete reading and translation of a passage in Pacheco (2004)
(which see Raposo et al. 2012 for a detailed response).
“Pacheco on the SACC website
has concentrated on attempting to cast doubts on the reliability of the author
of Scytalopus speluncae, but a number of problems are immediately
apparent with his arguments.
“(1) Pacheco states correctly that some of Ménétriés’ Brazilian type localities are dubious or wrong, but then appears to assume that because of this São João del Rei can only also be considered doubtful. However, it would be just as correct to claim that many of his type localities are valid, especially those on which his own specimens were based (Pacheco 2004). In this case, the authors of Raposo et al. (2012) have not based their opinion on the validity of this particular type locality using the presupposition that it might or might not be correct because other type localities designated by the same author are or are not valid, but on evidence concerning the type specimen, its topotypes, and historical data collated and studied only by us.
“(2) Pacheco does not discuss
the documentation presented by Raposo et al. (2012) in support of Ménétriés
(and his work). It is very easy to criticize the authors of extremely old
works, in this case (as in others) not wholly without some vindication, but it
should be clearly remembered that few specimens from this era are as well
documented (with date, specific locality, etc.) as that of S. speluncae.
“(3) Pacheco evokes the authority
of one of his mentors, Helmut Sick, who wrote privately that he did not trust
in Ménétriés. Frankly, this type of argument has little use in scientific
discussion. In practice, i.e. public, Sick did not question São João del Rei as
the type locality of S. speluncae (Sick 1997, p. 525), and neither did
he possess access to the diaries of Ménétriés or many of the historical data
studied by us.
“(4) Another interesting
point is that Pacheco (2004: p. 5) stressed the importance of analyzing
Ménétriés diaries. This is something that we have specifically done, yet
Pacheco’s comments suggest that he now considers the original diary information
to have little value, at least in the present case.
“Whitney’s comments above
appear to present a different opinion to that expressed in Maurício et al.
(2010). Specifically, he now appears to regard the question of the type
locality as lacking in importance, whereas Maurício et al. (2010) apparently
considered it sufficiently important to change it.
“The question of stability,
raised by Whitney, is scarcely applicable in this case. His interpretation of
the ICZN articles is equivocal. Scytalopus speluncae has never ceased to
be used. Prior to 2005 only one species belonging to this complex was known to
exist in southeast Brazil. With the description of a new species (S.
pachecoi), it became inevitable that the name speluncae should be
defined correctly. Stability should not be invoked to defend the mistaken use
of a name. Generally, it is used to preserve a junior synonym against a senior
synonym in widespread and long-term use in the literature.
“Furthermore, in respect of
the proposal to designate a neotype in favour of the extant holotype: a) this
suggestion rather ignores the fact that all of those people who have recently
examined the holotype (Marcos Raposo, Guy Kirwan, Renata Stopiglia and its
curator Vladimir Loskot) are of the opinion that it presents the major
morphological diagnostics of the single Scytalopus taxon known from the
relevant region; and b) if someone decides to substitute a holotype with a
neotype this should be done with clear respect to the original type locality,
which runs clearly contrary to Whitney’s stated opinion that the type locality
is of lesser importance.
“Another last and important
point to address is the claim of Whitney that the identity of the holotype of Scytalopus speluncae should now (contra Maurício 2005 and Maurício et al.
2010) rely on:
1. the author’s original description with its accompanying illustration,
and;
2. all other data or indications that seem reliable and may be brought to
bear.
“Considering that Maurício et
al. (2010) suggested that Ménétriés badly (or incorrectly) described his
specimen, for example remarking that his description of the throat must have
been effectively an illusion, produced by examining the specimen at a sideways
angle; little is left for us. The second point of Whitney (“all other data…”)
is exactly all historical data that we’ve brought to light but he apparently
refused to consider it valid.
“We should also call
attention to the fact that the only thing Whitney considers valid in this
entire story is the fact that the plate does not show the brown feathers on the
flanks and rump. Based on this, he insists the holotype is a S. notorius. But all authors to date
(Raposo et al. 2006, Maurício et al. 2010 and Raposo et al.2012) agree that the
holotype has those brown feathers. It is quite obvious that because the
feathers of flanks are damaged, Ménétriés (1835) and the illustrator did not
notice the remains of brown, but they are there (see a clear illustration of rump
in Raposo et al. 2006).”
Additional comments from
Pacheco: “To promote a full
understanding of the case, I summarize here some points that should be known to
all who will give an opinion or vote on this proposal.
“1) Raposo et al.
(2006, 2008, 2012) and Brito's and Raposo's comments made here
exhaustively repeat and put particular weight on the direct analysis of the
holotype as the foundation for the unsurpassed decision on the application of
the name Malacorhynchus speluncae and the consequent description of Scytalopus
notorius. A few excerpts from their arguments on this point of view:
–
“We analyzed two recently collected topotypes of S. speluncae
collected by MAR and RS, in September 2005 at São João del Rei, Minas Gerais
(21o04’16.8’’S, 44o20’19.4’’W), and the holotype
(ZISP 145251)” (Raposo et al. 2006)
–
“The Brazilian
species complex Scytalopus speluncae: how many times can a holotype be
overlooked?” (Title in Raposo & Kirwan 2008)
–
“Failed to
compare their purported new taxa with the holotype that bears the senior name
of the complex” (Raposo & Kirwan 2008)
–
“The species’
holotype is an adult male (ZISP 145251) held in the Zoological Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, in St. Petersburg, Russia. On various occasions
between 2006 and 2009, each of the present authors, except CPA, examined this
specimen” (Raposo et al. 2012)
–
“Our own
knowledge of S. speluncae is based on
a thorough examination of the holotype” (Raposo et al. 2012)
–
“Maurício et al.
(2010) without having examined the specimen, attempted to discredit the notion
that the holotype possesses those whitish or pale gray elements” (Raposo et
al. 2012)
–
“Unlike the
majority of authors of Raposo et al., not one of Maurício and his
co-authors have examined the holotype of Scytalopus speluncae” (Brito, here)
–
“…. ignores the
fact that all of those people who have recently examined the holotype (Marcos
Raposo, Guy Kirwan, Renata Stopiglia and its curator Vladimir Loskot)” (Raposo,
here)
“Amidst so many
catch-phrases, one very important issue has to be clearly stated: all main conclusions made by Raposo et al. 2006 were decided before
the direct examination of the holotype. Better said, all decisions were based on photographs sent by
V. Loskot – the curator of St. Petersburg Museum.
“2)
Raposo et al. (2006, 2012) and Brito's and Raposo's comments placed
excessive emphasis on the type locality, and therefore the origin of the
holotype, as a strong point to support the application of the name speluncae. They also emphasized that
only one taxon of Scytalopus
"occurs" in the region of São João Del-Rei. A few among many
examples:
–
Raposo et al.
(2012) use 191 lines specifically dealing with this aspect (60% of the work),
whereas Mauricio et al. (2010) use 23 lines (9% of the work).
–
“São João del Rei is the type locality of Scytalopus
speluncae” (Title in
Raposo et al. 2012)
–
“Known thus far only from the opposite ends of the Espinhaço
range at São João Del Rei, Minas Gerais, in the south, and Chapada Diamantina,
Bahia” (Raposo et al. 2006)
–
“The original type locality as designated by the species’
author is São João del Rei and this conforms to the available historical data” (Raposo
et al. 2012)
–
“The unanimous agreement that just one species of Scytalopus
occurs in the vicinity of the type locality” (Raposo et al. 2012)
–
“All of the available details directly attached to the
specimen indicate that S. J. Del Rei is the type locality” (Brito, here)
–
“Only one species of Scytalopus occurs in
this region” (Brito, here)
–
“We defended that the original type locality designation,
São João del Rei, is correct” (Raposo, here)
“To demonstrate that the
acquisition of topotypes or the confirmation of the type locality are not as
conclusive as they seem, and that the thesis that only taxon occurs in the
[biogeographical] region of São João Del Rei is a fallacy, I clarify certain
facts below.
a)
São João Del-Rei
is located in the “Campos das Vertentes”, i.e.
northern portion of the Mantiqueira range and is not part of the Espinhaço
range (contra Raposo et al. 2006).
b)
It is true that Scytalopus
petrophilus (or light-gray taxon) is the only Scytalopus of the
Espinhaço range in Minas Gerais and that Scytalopus speluncae (or
dark-gray taxon) is the only Scytalopus on the Serra do Mar in Rio de
Janeiro. However, on the
intermediate Mantiqueira range (where São João Del-Rei is located) both taxa
occur sympatrically – as shown for at least 3 localities (Pacheco et
al. 2008; Whitney et al. 2010) and records for other still unpublished
localities.
Partial
map of Southeastern Brazil showing the mountain ranges: Espinhaço (orange),
Mantiqueira (pink) and Serra do Mar (green). Localities: 1 – São João
Del-Rei (type locality of Scytalopus speluncae, according to
Ménétriés 1835, Raposo et al. 2006, 2012); 2 – Serra da
Piedade (type locality of Scytalopus petrophilus); 3 – Serra dos
Órgãos (type locality of Scytalopus speluncae, assigned by Pinto 1952,
Maurício et al. 2010); 4 – Ibitipoca State Park and 5 –
Campos do Jordão (localities where Scytalopus speluncae and S.
petrophilus are sympatric).
c)
São João Del-Rei
is 66 km in a straight line from Ibitipoca State Park (both on the
Mantiqueira), where both taxa occur together today (not 75 km, as in Raposo et al. 2012); but it is about
100 km far from the southernmost record of de Scytalopus petrophilus on
the Espinhaço range.
d)
Hence, it could
be expected, and is biogeographically sound to speculate that, in the past
(especially 180 years ago!) both taxa (light-gray, dark-gray) occurred together
in many more localities on the Mantiqueira range, when the forests and the
connections were more extensive, without any reasons to exclude São João
Del-Rei as a contact zone of both taxa.
“3) Raposo et al.
(2006, 2008, 2012) and Brito's and Raposo's comments made here suggest a
thorough and unquestionable historical survey of the case. And so on...
–
“Ménétriés’s
diary notes are also in perfect accordance with those of the leader Langsdorff
(Mikulinskii 1995)” [a Russian source] (Raposo et al. 2006)
–
“Yet, Maurício
(2005) and Bornschein et al. (2007) persist in dismissing the shared
conclusion of six authors that have personally examined the holotype (namely
Ménétriès, Chrotowski (sic) and the four authors of Raposo et al. 2006).”
(Raposo & Kirwan 2008)
–
“To our knowledge, only three other
authorities have taken the trouble to examine the holotype of S. speluncae. The
first to do so was Burmeister
(1856)…” (Raposo & Kirwan 2008)
–
“…a comprehensive review of all
available historical data concerning its collection” (Raposo et al.
2012)
–
“Historical data concerning its
collector and author, as detailed below, are also very complete.” (Raposo et
al. 2012)
–
“Maurício et al. (2010) neither
examined the holotype nor were they able to quote from much of the historical
literature, because it runs largely contrary to their hypothesis (e.g.
Chrostowski 1921, Gaysinovich & Komissarov 1968, Komissarov 1977, Mikulinskiy
1995).” (Raposo et al. 2012)
–
“The justification for this is that
Raposo et al. (2012), by virtue of
extensive historical research.” (Brito, here)
–
“It should be abundantly clear, to
those who have read the paper by Raposo et
al., that whatever doubts were expressed by Maurício (2005),
Bornschein et al. (2007), Maurício et al. (2010), and Whitney et al. (2010) reflect an incomplete
knowledge of the historical facts.” (Brito, here)
–
“Other historical data and
practically all of the 20th century literature support this hypothesis”
(Raposo, here)
“It is perfectly possible to
see that all the extensive historical research carried out by Raposo and
colleagues had a clear and only goal: to corroborate the type locality.
However, the confirmation of this point must be properly placed in perspective
according to the arguments presented in the previous topic. On the other hand,
the historical research by Raposo and colleagues (Raposo et al. 2006, Raposo & Kirwan 2008) about the previous
examination of the holotype was clearly incomplete.
a)
Burmeister
(1856) did not examine the holotype (contra Raposo & Kirwan 2008);
however, at least two well-known authors of the Neotropical ornithology,
Charles Hellmayr and Helmut Sick, had directly compared the holotype with
specimens from the Scytalopus speluncae group.
b)
Hellmayr (1907)
compared a [dark-gray] specimen from the Itatiaia massif with the type of S. speluncae, and stated that the former
“... is a perfectly adult male agreeing in every respect with the type of the
species kindly lent to me by Dr. Bianchi.” (Mauricio et al. 2010).
c)
To convince
himself of the differences, Sick (1993:401) compared [in 1982] the holotype of Malacorhynchus speluncae with the
holotype of Scytalopus novacapitalis,
described by him in1958, and concluded that the differences were "very
clear".
d)
Knowing that Scytalopus novacapitalis is the
[light-gray] taxon more closely related and morphologically similar to Scytalopus petrophilus (Mata et al. 2010; Whitney et al. 2010), Sick's conclusions from this
direct comparison are meaningful.
e)
At least, as far
as Sick's name is involved, this has more meaning than a statement that I have
never made here or anywhere else: Raposo stated: “Pacheco evokes the authority
of one of his mentors, Helmut Sick, who wrote privately that he did not trust
in Ménétriés.”
“4) Concerning Raposo's
statement: “a dispute between a scientific hypothesis based on clear facts
(Raposo et al. 2012) and a poorly defined opinion (Maurício et
al. 2010)”, I leave the exactness of Raposo's allegation to the other
members of this committee, based on the following observation:
“Finally, for the debate to
be productive, you need to redirect the discussion to the application of the
name by the features present in the holotype, with the help of defensible
inferences. After all, the Code refers to a name-bearing type but not to such a
thing as a name-bearing type-locality!
“Let´s
focus on the holotype?
“Additional references:
Hellmayr, C.E. (1907) Bulletin
of the British Ornithologists’ Club 19: 76.
Mata, H.; Fontana, C. S.;
Maurício, G. N.; Bornschein, M. R.; Vasconcelos, M. F. and Bonatto, S. L.
(2009). Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of the eastern tapaculos (Aves:
Rhinocryptidae: Scytalopus, Eleoscytalopus): cryptic diversification in
Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 53(2):450-462.
Pacheco, J. F.; Parrini, R.;
Lopes, L. E. and Vasconcelos, M. F. (2008). A avifauna do Parque Estadual do
Ibitipoca e áreas adjacentes, Minas Gerais, Brasil, com uma revisão crítica dos
registros prévios e comentários sobre biogeografia e conservação. Cotinga, 30:16-32.
Pinto, O.M.O. 1952. Súmula histórica e sistemática da ornitologia de Minas Gerais. Arquivos
de Zoologia, São Paulo 8(1):1-51.
Sick, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil:
A Natural History. Princeton: Princeton University.\
Response from Raposo: “I will try to be as concise as possible
in addressing the four points of Pacheco.
“Point 1-
Pacheco now says something totally new and surprisingly: “all main conclusions
made by Raposo et al. 2006 were decided before the direct examination of the
holotype. Better said, all decisions were based on photographs sent by V.
Loskot – the curator of St. Petersburg Museum.”
RESPONSE: False. Pacheco has forgotten that Dr.
Loskot is one of the four authors of our 2006's paper (see bellow). Obviously, he
has conduced our first analysis of the holotype.
Raposo, M.A., Stopiglia, R., Loskot, V. & Kirwan,
G.M. (2006) The correct use of the name Scytalopus
speluncae (Ménétriés, 1835), and the description of a new species of
Brazilian tapaculo (Aves: Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae). Zootaxa, 1271,
37–56.
“Point 2
– Pacheco claims now that “the thesis that only one taxon occurs in the
[biogeographical] region of São João Del Rei is a fallacy”. RESPONSE: False
and contradictory. False, because we have never referred to a
“biogeographic region” when discussing the type locality (please, search it in
Raposo et al. 2012). We defended that only one species occurs (to the best of current
knowledge) at the type locality São João del Rei. Pacheco is also contradictory,
because Mauricio et al. (2010), Whitney et al. (2010), and Whitney's response
above (point 6) (“— as all agree — only one form of Scytalopus in the immediate vicinity of
São João del Rei” Whitney's words) agree with Raposo (2008 and 2012) on
this point.
“Pacheco also states again that we “placed excessive
emphasis on the type locality”. One more time: our
2012 paper on the type locality (where we also have addressed the holotype) is
a response to the change of type locality promoted by Maurício et al. (2010)
and defended by Whitney et al. (2010). So
we were forced to address the issue. We gave special attention to the
holotype in Raposo and Kirwan (2008) paper "The species complex Scytalopus speluncae: How many times a
holotype can be overlooked".
“Point 3
– I will split it in two different small points. a) After repeating some
selected phrases from our papers he states, “the confirmation of this point
[“our thorough and unquestionable historical survey of the case”] must be
properly placed in perspective according to the arguments presented in the previous topic”. RESPONSE: I consider
that the previous topic was properly responded to. b) Pacheco also claims here
“the historical research by Raposo and colleagues ........... was clearly
incomplete”. RESPONSE: Inapplicable. I cant imagine a complete
historical research, but I guess you all will also agree that our historical
research (Raposo et al. 2012) is far more complete than the one presented by
Mauricio et al (2010), won't you?.
“Point 4
– Pacheco criticizes the number of specimens analyzed by us in our 2006
paper. RESPONSE: Inapplicable. We all (myself and Maurício)
examined and collected many more specimens after 2006. The focus here is not
the examined material of Maurício (2005) or Raposo et al. (2006), but the
conclusions of Maurício et al. (2010) and Raposo et al. (2012). It is fair to
mention that we all agree in the differences between the two species of Scytalopus of the region, so the
comparison between Mauricio's and our sample is not relevant at all. We don't
agree in the holotype identification (and it is only one specimen...).
“In relation to Pacheco's last phrase “Let's focus on the
holotype”, I can only say again (sorry) that four of our authors examined the
Holotype (we all went between 2007 and 2008). How many of Pacheco's
collaborators went to St. Petersburg?”
Response from Pacheco:
“Point 1 - Thank you. You confirm
what I said exactly (!): that the initiator and main author of the paper
decided about the identity of the holotype (and everything else) before
examining it directly. It is relevant to note that in spite of this, you have
written an article (without the participation of Dr. Loskot) titled "The
Brazilian species complex Scytalopus
speluncae: how many times the holotype can be overlooked?"
“It would be
quite reasonable and also very scientifically appropriate to expect you to
abandon ambiguity and provide precise dates and circumstances of your
examination of the holotype in St. Petersburg. This was not provided in any of
your works and such information is relevant, although unfortunately, it would
arrive after you having already decided on the nomenclatural arrangement. You
also have not stated in any of your works that you (or Dr. Loskot) have
directly compared the holotype to specimens of the light-gray or dark-gray
taxa, as Hellmayr and Sick did.
“Point 2 - I reiterate what I claimed.
It could very well be called "the fallacy of the false exclusive
occurrence”.
“A statement
in Raposo et al. 2012:
"Regarding the topotypical and near topotypical (sic) material (e.g., from
São João del Rei and Caraça)" is clearly an indicative of this fallacious
argument because São João Del Rei and Caraça are in distinct watersheds and
mountain ranges and distant more than 135 km. In turn, the 66 km between São
João Del Rei and Serra do Ibitipoca (one of the localities of sympatry of the
two taxa involved) are in the same Mantiqueira range and interconnected by the
course of the river Elvas, whose mouth is on the river das Mortes, less than 2
km from the cave Gruta de Pedra.
“I do not
need to abandon the Serra dos Orgãos as a rectification of the type-locality of
Scytalopus speluncae to recognize
that the maintenance of São João Del Rei does not imply – due to
biogeographical reasons – the exclusion of the occurrence of the
dark-gray taxon.
“If you put
together your hypothesis (60% of the content of Raposo et al. 2012 were spent just to ratify the original type-locality)
without checking the biogeographical issue, this was a resounding failure.
“My points 3
and 4 consisted of counter-arguments to improper statements made initially by
Raposo and Brito. The significance and value of the historical research and the
quality and breadth of the sampling are available to everyone from the works
cited.
“To answer
the last sentence: "How many of Pacheco's collaborators went to St.
Petersburg?" I retrieve a specific passage in Maurício et al. 2010:
‘Furthermore, the
decision to apply the name S. speluncae
to a taxon other than the dark-gray species and introduce a new name for the
latter relied upon the examination of the holotype by only one author of that
paper (V. Loskot), whereas the other three worked with second-hand
information.’ “
The following is an email
exchange among those concerned with the issue, posted here – keep in mind
this is unedited, so any errors in grammar etc. are forgiven and ignored:
Additional comments from G. Brito: “Since
new information and ideas are being expressed, I have to state this: science is
based on facts, not doubts or speculations.
“Lets
consider that the holotype is very damaged, thus leading to all this confusion
(despite the fact that all the people that analysed it personally do not have
any doubts) .... what's the next step to be made?? Designate a neotype! That according to the
Code should be a topotype .... since with no doubts Raposo et al. (2012) show
very accurate facts that the type locality is the cave in S. J. del
Rey...and the topotypes collected until now are representatives of the
light-gray taxon with brown barring on the lower back, flank, and thighs!
“All must bear in mind that an
application to ICZN should be made to set aside the extant holotype
information.
“It's
simple! If this happens (neotype designation) ... the dark gray taxon still
bears the name Scytalopus notorius because all the topotypes
are undoubtedly the light-gray form and should bear S. speluncae name.
And S. petrophilus is still a junior synonym .... because
it's type locality is S J del Rey .... end of the story!!"”
Response
from Whitney: “No, Guilherme, the next step is not to abandon the
holotype. The next step is to get a DNA sample of the holotype, somehow,
someday — a sample extracted by a person who has no personal interest
“the answer”. Meanwhile, can you or Marcos or anyone else please
prove to me that that particular specimen was collected at S J del Rei?
As I said in my comments to the SACC, I trust that Menetries collected
birds at the grotto that his artist illustrated. No problem. But as
far as I can tell, there is absolutely no evidence that the particular
specimen we are interested in was taken there. Labels do not help
— we cannot possibly know for sure when those were affixed to the
specimen. You guys insist that the contour flank feathers on both
sides of the specimen are completely missing, and insist that this is why
we cannot see the barring that must have been there. Gosh, it’s pretty
hard to deal with this kind of posturing — and I am not disposed to argue
longer that there are enough feathers there to tell that they were plain gray,
not barred. Now, can you or Marcos please explain how the specimen lost
all of those feathers — and only those feathers — without any
damage to the tarsi or feet or tail? Obviously the feathers were not
lost due to damage from the shot, even if Menetries shot the bird twice or
three times, because it is simply impossible to inflict that amount of
feather damage from shot without damaging anything else. Thus, Menetries
must have had a relatively undamaged bird in his hand. Given the detail
he wrote in his diary, why didn’t he describe the barred flanks, which
had to have been clearly visible on one side or the other?? Why didn’t
the artist illustrate the specimen clearly showing barred flanks, as he did for
Malacorhynchus albiventris?? The answer is quite simple — the
specimen they described/illustrated did not have barred flanks. These
plain facts — not speculation — mean one thing:
Menetries did not collect that specimen at the grotto near S J del Rei.
Most likely, he collected it in the mountains of Rio and just mixed up
his thinking or notes or memory or what have you in the 8-10 years before he
published his description. Why is this simple and very commonplace human
failure so difficult for you and Marcos to imagine? It is, quite truly,
the single most parsimonious interpretation of the facts.
If you still
do not agree, then please explain to everyone, Guilherme and Marcos, how
Menetries managed to fail to see and describe the conspicuously barred flanks
and why we should all believe that he was immune to common human error,
alright? Remember, we already know that made some pretty boldfaced
mistakes... If, in return, you have any specific questions or points you
would like me to address for you and everyone else, I stand by to give clear,
direct answers. No problem if you want to settle it in Portuguese.
I’ve read
the papers, so no need for you to reword any of that. Yes, I definitely
do believe that it is more parsimonious for two major reasons: The
holotype is described by the collector without having barred flanks and the
holotype was illustrated to accompany the description without barred flanks.
I am sure you understand the disconnect there! When we consider
these facts, and we consider that Menetries made mistakes about type localities,
and we consider that he delayed years (not a month!) to describe the bird (not
to mention that the holotype itself looks to some people who know quite a bit
about Scytalopus in Brazil like it had gray flanks, not barred flanks, judging
from the excellent photos supplied to the ornithological community by Raposo et
al) -- then yes, definitely, I believe it is far more likely that Menetries
made one simple mistake that explains everything: he did not collect
the specimen he described at the cavern near S J del Rei — só isso!
Brito: “Yes, I'll later send you a full
response with facts that leads me to believe that that particular specimen was
collected in S J del Rei, but all of them are already published in the Raposo
et. al. (2012) paper!
But before that I just ask you one question: do you
really think that believing that Menetries collecting one dark bird in RJ,
messing up labels, describing the cave, been mindless during 8 or 10 years,
forgetting to read his diary and etc. is MOST PARSIMONIOUS than just believing in the
actual label (with locality and date) on a type specimen?”
Remsen: “I
thought that it had been established that Menetries's localities and labels
have been shown repeatedly to be untrustworthy.”
Brito: “Some...not all of the localities and labels of Menetries
have problems!
“But note that all of the localities with problems are
from birds not collected personally by Menetries. All problems are on specimens
collected by Langsdorff and sent to Menetries in Russia after the baron got
sick (and kind of crazy) in Mato Grosso! The Pacheco' paper (in Portuguese from
Atualidades Ornitologicas...forgot the year) clearly states that, and reading
the Menetries book all of you can see the very different descriptions from
birds originating from the Langsdorff's last bird batch and the birds collected
by Menetries himself! Malacorhynchus speluncae is one of these
(collected by him) since there's information about iris colors, stomach
contents, and habits of the bird collected! Also note that the handwriting on
the label and the "Journal de chásse" are the same, and there's a
number (7 if I remember well) that is the same date that Menetries and
Langsdorff diaries tell about the cave and that Menetries describes as the
collection date! Of course this is not a very accurate label, but from a bird
from more than 200 years old we can't ask too much! Not everybody was like
Natterer!
“Several of Sellow's birds have also known localities and
labels problems, but because of that should we discard the information from
nearly 5000 specimens? Same thing for some of the Olalla’s birds...should we
burn them all because a few known mistakes?
“About the barring....I didn't
personally examined the type but everybody agrees that exist some barred
feathers on it (and in the Mauricio et al 2010 paper there's a good part of the
discussion on the search of light gray birds with barring as polymorphisms on
the dark bird population). Why the artist didn't paint them or Menetries didn't
mention it I don't know.... and we'll never know! Any explanation would be
equally mere speculations.
Whitney: “Thanks for your reply, Guilherme, but writing off as
inconsequential the lack of critically important brown coloration and flank
barring in both the original description and the artist’s illustration is
inappropriate and, I must say, unprofessional. It’s a big deal — the only deal here. All Scytalopus tapaculos have some brown in
the posterior underparts as immatures, and it apparently takes several years
for some species, maybe all species, to attain definitive plumage, which, in
the case of Mouse-colored Tapaculo in the mountains of southeast Brazil, is
entirely gray. It is not unusual, to the contrary, it is expected that
many birds will show some brown vestiges in the posterior underparts, and adult
females usually have some faint flank barring according to Marcos Bornschein
who, along with Giovanni Maurício, has spent more time collecting more Scytalopus
in Brazil than anyone else. To the point, the plumage of the
posterior underparts of the holotype is damaged to the extent that it is not
possible for scientists to agree on what the natural feathers looked like.
“If Raposo et al. insist that
the flanks were conspicuously barred and all interested parties are now not
able to clearly determine this — and we (Maurício et al. and Whitney et
al.) are absolutely not convinced of this and no amount of scrutiny of
the damaged holotype will help in this regard -- then why do we not immediately
turn to the author’s description and the accompanying color illustration?
I really don’t care where Menetries collected the bird: it does not
matter one iota. What does matter is the identification of the
holotype. The description and illustration do not support the
insistence of Raposo et al. that the flanks were conspicuously barred, period.
Raposo et al .and you need to stand up to this, and defending your
position with insistences that the holotype “must have had barred flanks”
because you found some brown bits and only barred birds occur around S J del
Rei today, 180+ years later, all requires special pleading because your “facts”
do not add up. Consider this: If the type had been lost 100 years ago
and all we had today was Menetries description and the accompanying
illustration, none of this arguing would be happening, and “notorius”
would never have been thought about, right? Instead, we would all be
wondering how in the world Menetries managed to get an all-gray bird at S J del
Rei. And the consensus would likely be that he made a mistake about
exactly where he shot the bird. By the way, if you want to dig into how
Menetries was capable of making mistakes about where he personally collected
birds in Rio de Janeiro, such as the vicinity of Serra dos Órgãos, ask
Pacheco to tell you the story of Formicivora deluzae.
“One again, and finally, I
hope, the onus is on you (and Raposo et al), Dr. Stiles, and anyone else who
may vote “yes” on your proposal, to explain why Menetries’s description and the
accompanying illustration do not feature conspicuously barred flanks. Please
let’s have you and Raposo et al. answer this directly: Mauricio et
al and Whitney et al assert that the holotype must have had essentially
plain-gray flanks.
“It would certainly be ideal to
have an impartial DNA analysis of the holotype conducted, but Dr.
Dickinson has informed us that this will not be happening under the current
directorship of the ZISP. That’s no problem -- the world will keep turning while science waits. I
guarantee you that that specimen will eventually be analyzed and probably
reanalyzed well into the future. But for now, here’s another
consideration: If the description and illustration had been lost and we had
only the damaged holotype on which to base the name speluncae, the DNA
analysis would be seen as critically important -- or it might indeed be
desirable to abandon the holotype in favor of designation of a neotype.
Fortunately, an entirely reasonable resolution of this issue does not
require DNA analysis and we certainly do not want to designate a neotype
because we possess a trustworthy description from the author and an excellent
illustration that accompanied the description.
“Ah, as for Dr. Dickinson’s
idea that maybe the illustration was of some other specimen... If someone can
provide any direct evidence that this is a possibility, I would be delighted to
consider it — but absent some direct evidence (of the sort, for example,
that clearly indicates that Menetries erred in assigning type localities to multiple
birds he named) it has no bearing on the issue at hand. Which would, of
course, bring us straight back to the point of explaining why this high-quality
illustration does not show speluncae with conspicuously brown, barred
flanks.”
Comments from Marcos Bornschein:
“A
feature of the flank plumage of the Scytalopus
speluncae type seems forgotten. More important than the holotype having
barred feathers on the flank is what that barring shows.
“Having
traveled 35.000 kilometers after the dark-gray taxon (from Minas Gerais to
Santa Catarina), having collected more than 80 specimens and having followed
some pairs of this species to collect their juveniles (unfortunately, necessary
to the study), I can assure that many adult dark-gray taxon individuals are not
completely gray and have vestigial flank and rump barring, 100% concordant with
the type of S. speluncae.
“My
experience with the light-gray taxon is smaller, but I saw many specimens in
collections and collected 5 of them, more than double of what Raposo et al. (2006) collected. Regardless,
what matters is that we can pluck all the feathers but one from the flanks of
the light-gray taxon, and yet the great difference from the type of S. speluncae will be evident. This is
because not only the barring matters, but also the aspect of this barring. This
is why the S. speluncae type is
perfectly identifiable as belonging to the Mouse-colored Tapaculo populations,
rendering unnecessary a genetic analysis or a neotype. It is not necessary to
repeat here the barring characteristics and differences between the light-gray
and dark-gray taxa because it was covered in Maurício et al. (2010).
“I
want to leave a personal (and unscientific) perception of what I think is the
reason for the current controversy. Due to the absence of bars on the wings,
the type of S. speluncae is an adult
(unanimous to both groups of researchers). Raposo & Kirwan (2008) thought
that adults of the dark-gray taxon have 100% gray flanks ("... S. notorius lacks any trace of brown in
the rump and flanks in adult males."). This work was produced after Raposo
et al. (2006). Therefore, that was
the rational they had when they proposed considering the type of S. speluncae attributable to the
light-gray taxon, which always keeps the barring on the flanks. Having barring,
the direct conclusion was that the type of S.
speluncae could not be the Mouse-colored Tapaculo. And S. notorius was described.
“We
are discussing how a gray animal with vestigial barring on the flanks as in the
Mouse-colored Tapaculo, described as gray and painted gray, could be a barred
gray animal with barring typical of the light-gray taxon. And in this whole
process, the emphasis on direct examination of the type specimen and the
discussion of the type locality only serves to divert attention from the
misconception that Raposo et al.
perpetrated by not knowing the plumage variation of the dark-gray taxon.”
Comments from Robbins: “NO, based on comments by Whitney and Pacheco.”
The following
yellow-highlighted is an email discussion mainly between Raposo and Whitney:
Marcos
Raposo > Dear
friends,
> If you
do not understand after this.... . I couldn't be more didactic then this, cant
I? I answered the central question that motivated Whitney and friends to change
type locality and put Ménétriés in doubt. Later I will send my last
contribution... a more complete explanation on all this mess. The appended
pictures should be carefully observed and read if you really want to understand
the things.
>
> Hope
you also understand now that analysis of the holotype is different from
analysis of pictures. The destroyed feathers were analyzed one by one in St.
Petersburg.
>
> Dr.
Remsen, would you mind uploading this last contribution to SACC's website?
>
> All
the best, Marcos
WHITNEY: ”Well, Marcos, I am sorry, but this does not explain how
Menetries failed to describe the conspicuously brown, barred flank feathers
because the specimen he collected (and you say it is the same one for which he
described iris color and stomach contents) was not so badly damaged by shot
that all of those feathers were lost; the legs, feet, and tail are all in fine
shape!! In other words, the flanks were definitely visible on at least
one side before Menetries opened the stomach cavity or prepared the specimen,
which action(s) I suppose could have resulted in the damage we see today.
Here is all you have ever given us (Raposo et al. 2006) to suggest how
Menetries failed to describe to brown, barred flanks and the artist failed to
illustrate these features:
The holotype of Scytalopus speluncae. Ménétriés (1835: 527) made no
mention of the
rufous and black stripes on the tips of the rump and
flank feathers in the original
description of S. speluncae, nor were they
illustrated (pl. 13, fig. 1). It seems likely that
these parts were already damaged either in the collection
or preparation so that Ménétriés
would not have been aware of such features, in 1835, some
ten years after the specimen was collected. That vestiges of these characters
still remain on the holotype makes their omission from the plate and type
description less important.
This “seems likely” passage is critically important in establishing the
identity of the holotype (without DNA analysis). If we are to trust Menetries’s
diaries and other things (e.g., iris color and stomach contents of some bird he
collected), and we clearly see that he and the artist recognized the importance
of barring on the flanks of Malacorhynchus albiventris, published
together with M. speluncae, then we have to trust that he would have
accurately described the flanks of the specimen he collected and described
— not made critical errors of the sort you are telling us he and the
artist committed. Your selective application of Menetries’s memory
failure is frustrating, and only diverts attention from the critical points we
need to establish. And, once or twice, again, your “vestiges” are merely
remnants of the bird’s normal, subadult plumage — and the omission of
conspicuously barred, brown flanks is no “less important”. You did not
discuss these blatant anomalies in any of your subsequent papers
(understandably so, given your point of view).
Obviously, there will be no rest to this case until the type’s DNA is
analyzed and it is placed in a well-corroborated phylogeny of Brazilian Scytalopus
— but let’s se how the SACC, at least, goes with the voting.
RAPOSO:
I will propose an efficient change of strategy now... Let me talk with
Bret without interruption of huge e-mails... Only Bret and me. My mission will
be to explain our logic to Bret because I am feeling I am really coming close
to convince him.
Question 1 of Bret: “please explain to everyone, Guilherme and Marcos, how
Menetries managed to fail to see and describe the conspicuously barred flanks
and why we should all believe that he was immune to common human error,
alright? Remember, we already know that made some pretty boldfaced mistakes...”
(Whitney
to everybody some days ago)"
ANSWER 1 of Marcos: Ménétriés did not describe the abdominal area in
his description, simply, because it was not intact enough to be described. But
we all must agree that no artist would opt by describing a destroyed venter…
so, the artist simply made his job and described it, parsimoniously, gray. Is
it difficult to understand? I would do the same if I were a painter, won't you?
Question 2 of Bret: "I am sorry, but this does not explain how
Menetries failed to describe the conspicuously brown, barred flank feathers
because the specimen he collected (and you say it is the same one for which he
described iris color and stomach contents) was not so badly damaged by shot
that all of those feathers were lost; the legs, feet, and tail are all in fine
shape!! In other words, the flanks were definitely visible on at least
one side before Menetries opened the stomach cavity or prepared the specimen,
which action(s) I suppose could have resulted in the damage we see today"
ANSWER 2 of Marcos: Bret, if you had read our paper you would have
noticed that all this information (iris color, stomach content etc.) are
written in Ménétriés' diary, in French (easy to read). See the figure 1 where
we show a photograph of the diary. The painting was obviously made in St.
Petersburg as well as the description of the plumage (they are not in the
diary). Yes, it is the same specimen! Labels are the proof we need. And
remember, as soon as we have already shown (and you agree!), the specimen is
not dark gray as S. notorius, but
lighter and buff-marked on flanks and rump. No reason to doubt it is the one
collected and referred in the diary. Also have in mind that the cave reported
by Ménétriés is a place where this tapaculo is one of the first Birds to be
seen and heard.
Next question!
WHITNEY: Marcos, tell us how we can know that the bird for which
Menetries described iris color and stomach contents was a tapaculo
(Scytalopus). It could have been anything! The labels don’t help
because we cannot know when they were affixed to the specimens. Menetries
labels on the holotype does not mean that that specimen is one that he
collected at S J del Rei — it indicates, at most, that there is good
chance that the specimen was among the lot he tried to put together in
publishing his descriptions. Yes, I agree that the specimen is not as
dark gray as the birds we have traditionally called speluncae, and I
reiterate that this is due to the physical properties of the feathers having
changed in predictable ways over 180+ years: basically, the gray becomes
paler, and in as little as ten years (Whitney 1994). There is no way that
that specimen is as dark gray as it was when fresh, and furthermore, it has
glass eyes, so there is a good chance that it was mounted and displayed at some
time (i.e., possibly exposed to even more UV light than if in a drawer), but
this is more speculative. If the artist simply “filled in the blank” of
supposedly damaged (at the time) flanks and belly, I guess he could well have
opted to make them just like the other tapaculo on his plate, and put in brown
flanks with conspicuous barring — no? The cave area holds, today,
only S. petrophilus, and your supposed “topotypes” of S. speluncae have
no status as types of any taxon.
In closing, Marcos, we must maintain focus on this:
How should we, as scientists and taxonomists, explain or interpret the
fact that Menetries’s original description and the accompanying illustration of
the holotype do not feature brown flanks with conspicuous barring?
Asking me and everyone else to simply believe that it did not when there
is direct evidence to the contrary is, frankly, beyond my capacity to
understand you.
RAPOSO: Dear all, please, give us some more time (only me and Bret). Our
dialogue will be useful to your understanding of the problem.
Bret, I want to respond to all your doubts, including your doubt on how
could someone prove the exact time the label met a bird 180 years ago. I will
explain exactly why I don't have to present a proof to the proof (label). I
will show you, why epistemologically, we need not find an historical passage
where Ménétriés says something like "at this exact moment I am labeling my
specimen..." and why the one who have to prove the falsity of the label
are you. I will also dedicate myself to remind you that both Ménétriés and
Langsdorff (the healthy one) were renowned in their time and in history for
their meticulousness exceto pelos infundados comentários postados aqui (we discussed
it properly in Raposo et al. 2012).
But to continue with this discussion, we have, first, to finish with
the explanations on the first two questions. The second one you have probably
already understood. The data were at the diary (Raposo et al. 2012, fig. 1).
Your persistent question is: "How should we, as scientists and
taxonomists, explain or interpret the fact that Menetries’s original
description and the accompanying illustration of the holotype do not feature brown
flanks with conspicuous barring?" .
Essentially you didn't understand how Ménétriés have not described the
totally destroyed feathers....
Ok! maybe it will be easier for you if I give you not an answer,
but a question. Please respond it with few words. It is a very simple question.
Considering that Ménétriés described the totally preserved throat as
"whitish gray" and the plate illustrates a gray belly: Why do you
insist in rejecting his description of the throat (feathers that exist) and,
simultaneously, agree with the part of the plate which is based on feathers we
both know don't exist (also knowing that those preserved feathers contradict
the plate)?
If you manage to respond this question I guess you can understand
where, in terms of science (not in rhetoric!), you are erring.
WHITNEY: No need to determine any exact times anything happened; all
we need to recognize is that it is not possible to determine when Menetries’s
or others’ labels were attached to the holotype. Your response to my
question is, of course, not adequate. If we all accept that Menetries
collected the holotype, and we are to trust his diaries and notes about some (quite
possibly other) bird he collected, then we should also accept that he produced
a trustworthy description of his specimen. Menetries had a largely
undamaged specimen in his hand when he described it: As I have pointed out
several times now, the feather damage on both sides of the posterior underparts
had to have happened after he shot the bird, during preparation or sometime
later, because it is impossible to inflict that amount and kind of shot damage
to both sides of a small bird without also heavily damaging the legs, feet, or
tail. This brings us back to: “Why didn’t he describe and the artist
illustrate the brown flanks with conspicuous dark bars?” I will, again,
answer the question for you, and in the single most parsimonious manner (i.e.,
no special pleading, no convoluted explanations): The flanks were
essentially plain gray, not remarkably different from the rest of the bird.
Why do you refuse to recognize this remarkably straightforward
explanation? Answer: You firmly believe that the specimen had to
have been collected at the cavern near S J del Rei; you believe that only birds
with brown, barred flanks could have occurred at that locality 180+ years ago
because that is the only form that occurs there today; you believe that it is
not possible that Menetries made a mistake in designating this specimen from
that locality; and you believe that Menetries and the artist could not have
been able to determine the color or pattern of the damaged posterior
underparts, and they decided to illustrate them as plain gray just to fill in
the flanks — I mean blanks. Menetries probably didn’t describe the
posterior underparts as any specific color or with barring because they were
essentially plain gray like the rest of the bird. All that really matters,
however, is that he did not describe them as brownish with black barring.
All of your beliefs, above, are somewhat to highly equivocal, and none
are based on irrefutable evidence. I know you do not agree with me on
this, so let’s concentrate on what we do have as solid evidence to establish
the identity of the holotype: A valid description from the person who
collected the specimen accompanied by a high-quality, color plate that agrees
perfectly with it, right down to the throat color — and, you should
objectively also believe, the color and patterning of the posterior underparts.
Gosh, I guess we could warp it so far as to imagine that Menetries
collected a bird with brown, barred flanks, opened the stomach and prepared the
specimen right after collection, in the process inflicting the extensive damage
we see today, and then forgot to make note of the most conspicuous
characters of the specimen, and when he described the bird years later he
didn’t mention the flanks and his artist, or Menetries himself, looking at the
damaged specimen, just painted it all gray except the silvery throat sheen,
which was easy to see. This convoluted scenario would require special
pleading on several levels, invoking a mega-reversal of your previous insistence
on Menetries’s trustworthiness to require all to accept that Menetries could
indeed have made some very serious mistakes about this individual specimen.
It’s actually all somewhat imaginable, but what certainly works best is
to recognize that the bird was not so massively damaged at the time of
collection; to trust Menetries’s description and the accompanying illustration;
to recognize that he did, in fact, commit numerous errors in designating type
localities, including those of some birds he personally collected, years after
his fieldwork; and to designate a new and perfectly reasonable type locality
not only in recognition of the above points but also to preserve
stability of nomenclature long, long in extensive use. Raposo and
Kirwan (2006) threw a wrench into the works, destabilizing all of us by
suggesting a new name to replace one long in use for, I am sorry to say, no
(good) reason.
Here is my answer to your question (below), Marcos: I do agree that
Menetries perceived the throat as whitish toward the center, no problem, as was
explained by Maurício et al (2010). To reiterate it: I think
Menetries probably perceived the same thing that anyone examining fresh, adult
specimens of Scytalopus species can observe: the remarkable
“graphite-like sheen” characteristic of the throat feathers, making them look
silvery or whitish in some aspects and dark gray in others. I have no
doubt that Menetries would have been impressed with this unusual feature, and I
think he attempted to describe it and the artist to illustrate it. The
throat was not “white” like the throat of M. albiventris in the same
work, and they did an admirable job of finding a way to call attention to the
“whitish” aspect of it. The feathers of the posterior underparts simply could
not have been heavily damaged on both sides of the specimen by Menetries’s
shot — this damage occurred sometime later, between the time he prepared
the specimen (or opened its stomach?) and the early 21st Century. And, again,
the brown vestiges in the posterior underparts that you have shown to exist
through your greatly detailed examination of the holotype -- for which everyone
is grateful -- are expected remnants of the bird’s previous, near-definitive plumage.
At this point, let’s stop with the arguing and simply accept the eventual
SACC and CBRO voting outcomes, including any outside voters who may be invited
to either committee -- until one day when it is possible to impartially
obtain a tissue sample followed by an impartial DNA analysis of the
holotype and the real speluncae stands up, or caves in.
RAPOSO: Please, find here my final contribution, a
didactic summary of the situation. If you want to know properly the case,
please, read it and the papers Raposo et al. (2012) and Maurício et al (2010).
I respond here to all doubts raised by Whitney et al. showing how weak is their
perspective on the case.
You have two options to choose. The
math is simple:
- We have our interpretation of the
type. Accordingly to us, it is perfectly compatible with topotypes collected at
the very same point. All historical facts are in favor to this.
- Whitney and colleagues didn't analyze
the type and did not raise one only historical fact that contributed to this discussion.
All that Whitney's team knows come from our historical research and even their
impression on the type (which, accordingly, should be a strange morphological
intermediate between S. notorius and S. speluncae) was constructed after the
analysis of my photographs.
What is all this about, science or
personal charisma (or authority)? The
decision on what SACC will follow is yours.
The last messages of Whitney also show
he is totally based on speculation. I am addressing these speculations at the second
half of this last contribution.
Our opinion is based on (without
contradictions):
1 - our own comparison between
holotypes and topotypes (and other specimens available in museums). Our
description of the holotype specimen indicates a light gray with barred flanks
and rump typical of other species of São João del Rei.
2 – label data;
3 - original description, especially
the mention of whitish throat; description of the habits and behaviour of the
specimen; and the type locality, especially the mention of the limestone cave
that is located at São João del Rei;
4 - the diaries of the author,
Ménétriés;
5 - in Langsdorff's diaries;
6 – in Rugendas paintings of the
cave and itinerary;
7 - in the fact there is only one
species of Scytalopus at the type locality;
8 - the dates of arrival of material to
St. Petersburg, before the period of madness de Langsdorff;
9 – in all historical data that
states how careful were Langsdorff and Ménétriés with their labels and diaries,
before Langsdorff disease.
In relation to Maurício et al. (2010)
and Whitney's thesis
As I have addressed before Maurício et
al. (2010) have a different notion of the holotype that Maurício (2005). After
receiving our material, Maurício et al. (2010) admitted the type was not dark
gray as Maurício (2005) claimed, but lighter and buff-barred blackish, a notion
very similar to our own notion. But Maurício et al. (2010) and Whitney in his
last messages preferred to believe that this “intermediate” would be a kind of
very rare Scytalopus notorius (in
fact Maurício et al. didn't find a specimen like this among his S. notorius,
see Raposo et al. 2012). This strange interpretation would be enough to
question Ménétriés's and our own description of the holotype as well as all
historical facts we raised about the case. It would be also enough to the
authors come to the unexpected conclusion that the holotype should have come
from “Serra dos Órgãos”.
I will demonstrate bellow, again, why
this notion is completely speculative and less parsimonious than simply accept
historical facts and our analysis of the holotype.
In last messages Whitney advocates also
that the description doesn't refer to the specimen that Ménétriés has collected
in São João del Rei, because we could not trust the labels. So it, would be
only a coincidence we find such a compatible topotypes or even a Scytalopus at the very same point that Ménétriés has
referred at the original description with
such a similar behavior of that described in his diary and original description
“courant à terre et voltigeant sur les petits buissons, à l’entrée d’une grotte
calcaire près de St. João del Rey, Minas Gerais” (Ménétriés 1835, see also
figure 1 of Raposo et al. 2012).
Simultaneously, Bret says it is
unacceptable that Ménétriés hadn't noticed the buff-barred blackish pattern in
posterior parts if it really existed, while we all know, by the analysis of the
holotype that those feathers (see figures 2 and 3) exist but are hidden by a
majority of destroyed feathers. They are still present in flanks and vent,
accordingly to Loskot's and my own examination (they are also visible in the
pictures).
Link to the pictures: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop559Figuras
explicadas.pdf
Using a total different kind of
criteria, he advocates that Ménétriés erred in describing the preserved
feathers of the throat and belly as whitish-gray (“blanchàtre”), the same color
they are in current days (see Figures 1 and 3). Throughout this discussion, Whitney did the same
thing. He gave strong weight to the doubts and depreciated all the facts. It is very clear in this point. Obviously this is
behind the desire to change the type locality and hence the question of labels,
history etc.
He also added a new speculation to the
discussion. He is assuming now that Ménétriés has analyzed and described the
fresh and undamaged specimen. I will not enter into his world of speculation
about the shot that killed the specimen but it is quite clear that the painter
did his job when the specimen arrived to St. Petersburg, probably already
damaged (by the comparison with the holotype). Ménétriés
has also described the plumage of the specimen at Russia (we know exactly what
he had in his diary, and plumage details were not there!). So, all Bret's
“facts” on this point are, again, pure speculation based on his lack of
knowledge on the historical facts.
He advocates, in pages and pages of
pure rhetoric that the specimen is dark gray with plain flanks but we know it
isn't dark and Maurício et al (2010) spent half of his
article looking for a light gray barred specimen among those dark gray
tapaculos from the distribution of S. notorius. What kind of reasoning is that?? If the specimen
is light gray with barred flanks and rump why Maurício and Whitney do not admit
it is a typical specimen from the type locality? We must be more scientific
than this to have a serious hypothesis.
Because I don't want to be rude (and my
English doesn't help!) or accused of changing Bret's words, I quote him here
(e-mail 02/12/2012) and list the problems of his very central beliefs on the case:
“I do agree that Menetries
perceived the throat as whitish toward the center, no problem, as was explained
by Maurício et al (2010) (1). To reiterate it: I think Menetries
probably (2) perceived the same thing that anyone examining fresh, adult
(3) specimens of Scytalopus species can observe: the remarkable
“graphite-like sheen” (4) characteristic of the throat feathers (1), making
them look silvery or whitish in some aspects and dark gray in others (5). I
have no doubt that Menetries would have been impressed with this unusual
feature (6), and I think he attempted to describe it and the artist to
illustrate it (7). The throat was not “white” like the throat of M.
albiventris in the same work, and they did an admirable job of finding a way to
call attention to the “whitish” aspect of it (8). The feathers of the
posterior underparts simply could not have been heavily damaged on both sides
of the specimen by Menetries’s shot (9)— this damage occurred
sometime later, between the time he prepared the specimen (or opened its
stomach? 10) and the early 21st Century. And, again, the brown vestiges
in the posterior underparts that you have shown to exist through your greatly
detailed examination of the holotype -- for which everyone is grateful (11) --
are expected remnants of the bird’s previous, near-definitive plumage (12). (Whitney's words responding to my question “Bret,
considering that Ménétriés described the totally preserved throat as
"whitish gray" and the plate illustrates a gray belly: Why do you
insist in rejecting his description of the throat (feathers that exist) and,
simultaneously, agree with the part of the plate which is based on feathers we
both know don't exist (also knowing that those preserved feathers contradict
the plate)?”
Not all marks are related to mistakes
but all refer to imprecisions that make his opinion demonstrably speculative.
These imprecisions and mistakes are listed bellow:
1
– Bret's first sentence is not precise (also in line 4 “ characteristic of the throat feathers”). Such
effect should also be effective to the belly because Ménétriés describes as
whitish-gray the middle of the throat and the belly (“devident blanchâtre vers le milieu de la gorge et de la poitrine”).
The notion that Ménétriés would describe a dark gray specimen as having
whitish-gray throat and belly is highly speculative;
2 - “I
think... probably”......... - Should I state how much speculative it is?
3
– Ménétriés didn't describe a fresh
specimen!. He described it at the Museum, 10
years later. His diary is our figure 1 (Raposo et al. 2012) and shows only the colours
of iris, bill and feet, as well as describes behaviour and the type locality
(the cave at São João del Rei);
4 - “graphite-like sheen” doesn't match or come close
to the “whitish-gray middle of the throat and belly” of Ménétriés;
5
– It is highly speculative to presume Ménétriés would commit such a
mistake. It is also inconsistent because do not considers that the holotype still holds a light gray plumage;
6
– pure speculation!
7 - “
I think he attempted to describe it” - more speculation;
8
– The throat of M. albiventris is pure white and the throat of M. speluncae
is whitish gray. Different plates and descriptions, with no connections with
our case;
9
– speculation about the shot (or the many shots) that killed the bird
– why speculating on this if we know the plumage of the holotype still
hold those feathers?;
10
– speculation on how and when the damage occurred; He is quite right in this
point but what he doesn't understand is that the plumage was described after he
arrived to St. Petersburg;
11-
finally some credit!
12
– speculation on the remnants of an immature pattern on the adult
holotype. The interesting point here is that Maurício et al. (2010) found this
pattern in 25% of the adult S. notorius but commented at Maurício (2005, p. 11) that “all
of them [the same variants] have darker gray underparts” so, they do not match
the holotype, as intended by Bret's text.
Our discussion made it clear that the
whole argument revolves around Maurício's and Whitney's misconception of what
is the holotype morphology. That misconception leads them to put doubts on
labels etc. But see the material in the following link:http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop559Figuras%20explicadas.pdf <http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop559Figuras%20explicadas.pdf>
This material proves Maurício et al.
(2010) and Whitney don't have an objective point here. Whitney's question: “please explain to everyone, Guilherme and Marcos, how
Menetries managed to fail to see and describe the conspicuously barred flanks
and why we should all believe that he was immune to common human error” was totally responded to in my last e-mail.
Ménétriés described what he managed to see. The ventral area was completely
destroyed. So, he ignored it, while the painter did what anyone would have
done, completed the area with gray (see the complete answer at the link above).
All those who evaluated directly the
holotype tell the same story. A light gray specimen, slightly reddish because
of foxing, and still keeping barred feathers on the rump and flanks, typical of
the topotypes from São João del Rei. And indeed, in his work, Mauricio et al.
(2010) practically admit it. They claim that the holotype is an adult very
close to what we stand for (Raposo & Kirwan 2008), i.e. a specimen lighter
than S. notorius, and therefore they start to seek such a specimen
at the distribution of the dark gray species, finding only 4 in 49 adult males.
So, they speculate that the holotype is an adult and lighter specimen of S.
notorius that kept some younger features (brown barred flanks). This is
totally speculative and non parsimonious.
Two last point deserve some attention:
1 – Whitney didn't prove his
thesis on the falsehood of the label. He is the one who should try to prove
something here because he is accusing Ménétriés of failing (in dubium pro rerum). He
believes we should prove the exact time the label met a bird 180 years ago.
This is an infantile reasoning. Obviously we don't have to present a proof to
the proof (label), or we would be obliged to prove the proof of the proof and
so on. Could someone imagine a historical passage where Ménétriés says
something like "at this exact moment, I am labeling my specimen..."?
2 – Maurício, Pacheco and
Whitney, based on fragmentary historical information, commit the serious
mistake denigrate the image of fabulous historical figures (Langsdorff and
Ménétriés), both renowned exactly by their meticulousness. There is a more
profound discussion on this point in Raposo et al. (2012). More information on
these two naturalists can also be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_M%C3%A9n%C3%A9tries <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Édouard_Ménétries> ; and http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Heinrich_von_Langsdorff. Pacheco, in his messages, refers to Sick (1997,
p. 525) and Hellmayr (Cory and Hellmayr, 1924, p. 13) but both agree that São João
del Rei is the type locality of S.
speluncae.
My contribution to this discussion ends
here. None of the authors of Raposo et al. (2012) is willing to continue this
pointless and endless discussion. I only regret the fact that some of you,
although full of good will, are being deceived by the excessive amount of
speculation of Pacheco and Whitney.
Thank you all and I apologize for any
rudeness that I have committed.
WHITNEY: In response to yours, Marcos, just a couple of brief thoughts.
All should recognize that these “topotypes” to which you repeatedly refer
are specimens that, through your blatantly circular reasoning, match the
holotype because they were taken near S J del Rei. However, through the
reasoning of Maurício et al and Whitney et al — and explained in
painstaking detail in my recent messages — that is based mainly on the
author’s description and its accompanying color plate and supported by many
additional points, some more or less speculative as are some of yours, to be
sure, your “topotypes” are referable to S. petrophilus (the description
of which includes a paratype from near S J del Rei). Everyone knows
Menetries described his specimen back in Russia, years after he collected it,
and I am happy to assume that the artist painted it at that time. Whether
the specimen was so heavily damaged at that time or not, we cannot know —
but consider this: no ornithologist who has examined this specimen, and there
have been many (among them Hellmayr and Sick) as recently as Loskot (in
litt. to Pacheco 1998) has called attention to the extensively damaged,
destroyed, posterior underparts. I do not know how to explain that, and
prefer not to enter into speculation on when or how the damage occurred, but you
are not permitted to assume that Menetries and his artist had a damaged
specimen in front of them at the time of description or illustration.
Certo, amigo? The only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that,
at the time of collection, Ménétriés’s shot did not inflict the damage
we see today. Your excellent historical research and examination of the
holotype have been invaluable in determining its identity, and I have learned
much about Menetries and Langsdorff as early collectors in Brazil. Thank
you very much indeed for that!
Comments solicited by Remsen from Donna Dittmann of the
LSUMNS, one of the most prolific preparators of bird skins in the world:
[Remsen]: “Donna -- attached is [pdfs] a controversial
specimen that is the type of Scytalopus
speluncae, collected 150 +/- years ago. What do you think the source
of the damage is? Van”
Dittmann: “Tapaculos have soft feathers
that could easily become abraded - this bird has underparts progressively more
worn - on belly right down to shaft and downy feather base - distal ends all
gone. You see that wear to some degree in harsh environments e.g., Ammodramus, maybe some ovenbirds. My
take, two potential scenarios, a bird in poor physical condition in a harsh
environment that did not molt when it was supposed to ... so physical condition
results in extreme damage (=abraded feathers) from environment - but pale bill
and legs (no tapaculos share that? even after 150 years) could suggest physical
abnormality (could further explain poor plumage condition) OR storage
conditions and/or original preservation method, e.g., contact with chemicals
that could exaggerate or cause damage to or discolor plumage. I don't know how
the specimen was obtained prior to its description...unusual soft part colors
mentioned?”
“That's fine to quote me...soft part are colors
bizarre...if that's how the bird looked (more or less assuming post mortem
changes) in life that's anomalous for a tapaculo...so you consider plumage may
also be affected by genes and wouldn't be typical of the "species".
If the soft parts are the result of chemical contamination then you have
no idea what those chemicals did to the plumage. I don't think that one
should be used for a description.”
Comments solicited by Remsen from Niels Krabbe: “I
have painstakingly read through the discussion and have ended up agreeing
entirely with the views forwarded by the defenders of the proposal.
“The type of speluncae
as seen on photo in Raposo et al. (2012) looks very pale to me, paler than any
museum specimen of similar age I have seen of any dark Scytalopus (e.g. latrans,
acutirostris). The mid throat and
breast are grayish white, just as Menetries described them only 10 years after
it was collected.
“Despite its moth-ridden appearance some brown can be
seen on the upper flanks. Had the brown been remains of an immature or subadult
plumage, brown would have shown elsewhere on the body, at least on the wings. I
must conclude that the bird is fully adult and had brown flanks.
“Why Menetries did not mention the brown on the flanks
and rump, and why the plate accompanying the type description purportedly shows
an all-dark bird remains up to speculation. Most likely, the specimen was
already heavily moth-infested at the time and was touched as little as possible.
Menetries's description, like many other descriptions of the time, was very
general ("Entire upperparts medium gray with bluish sheen; this color
paler towards the underparts, which are whitish on mid throat and breast. Wings
and tail blackish brown."). His lack of mentioning the brown barred flanks
is noteworthy and does suggest that the flanks were already damaged then. His
lack of noting the barred rump would be a natural consequence of reluctance to
touch the most heavily infested part of the specimen.
“But speculation concerning these points is
irrelevant. The type specimen is pale and pale birds inhabit the type-locality.
If the type could be shown to be something else, then there would be a case,
but until then, I see no grounds for doubting that it represents the pale
species. I thus recommend a yes to the proposal.”
Response from Whitney: “I just
looked at Niels's comments. How, I wonder, Niels, have you formed you
"expectation" of "exactly" how a tone of gray should look
after 200 years?? We have no idea how much exposure to UV the specimen
might have had, but it doesn't take anything close to two centuries to take
most the color/tonality out of feathers (take a look the type of Conopophaga lineata at AMNH sometime;
it's almost white after some years on display). Have you ever seen
specimens, series of specimens, of these birds? This is quite something,
Niels!”
Response from Krabbe: “It is based on how
other old specimens of Scytalopus I
have seen have faded and the photos presented of the pale form. I have seen
quite a few old specimens of Scytalopus.
There is nothing to suggest that the type of speluncae has been mounted.
“As much as I like the
idea of having Scytalopus types with
tape-recordings attached to them, I don't think you can discard old types by
creating unlikely scenarios or doubting detailed examinations of types. Your
major objection to accepting the identity of the type of speluncae was based on an artist’s and describer’s attempt to make
up for the missing flank feathers. Close examination of the type reveals that
the brown flanks have not been entirely eaten away. It lacks brown in the wing,
so all agree that it is fully adult. There really is no good reason to doubt
its provenance.”
Response from Whitney: “I
have looked at a lot of old specimens of Scytalopus,
too, and I confess that I am unable to determine the exact shade of gray I can
expect from any of these old skins relative to what they looked like fresh
— and we are talking about subtle shades of gray here. Importantly,
we cannot assume that Menetries and his artist had a damaged specimen at
the time of description — it certainly was not damaged by shot, so he
would have had to have been impressed by the strongly brown and barred flanks
— and we cannot assume that moth damage or anything else was responsible
for the loss of the feathers in the lower underparts; we simply do not know and
cannot even reasonably guess what happened there. If you are 100% sure
that moths are responsible for the damage, why did they stop at the contour
feathers of the lower underparts? Why not eat away lots of other,
surrounding contour feathers, all of the basal feathers of the lower
underparts, the fatty rump and, well, everything else??
“We do know that several
other ornithologists who examined the specimen prior to the year 2000,
including Hellmayr, Sick, and Loskot, did not mention the extensive damage
to the lower underparts. Perhaps they did not see it as important, given
that the description and illustration indicated an all-gray bird, or perhaps
the damage occurred after their examinations. In sum, the failure of
anyone before Raposo et al to mention the damage is a fact, but it cannot be
unequivocally explained.
“I agree 100% that we
cannot “discard old types”! Far to the contrary, we must maintain them,
especially in cases where they are accompanied by unequivocal original
descriptions and illustrations. I am sure you agree with this. I
have not created a single unlikely scenario and, as I have stated
clearly a couple of times or more, I fully trust the detailed
examination of the holotype presented by Raposo et al. I am quite sure
that the brownish bits they have pointed out are simply vestiges of a previous
plumage (no brown in wings required to have brown vestiges in lower underparts,
of course).
Is there “any good reason” to doubt provenance?
Over half of the birds Menetries described, including some he collected
himself, were given erroneous type localities. “Good reason,” -- a likely
scenario given what we know about Menetries descriptions — is his having
made another error here, probably as a result of having waited years to
describe the bird and possibly having mixed up his labels as well.
“As I have suggested any
number of times, starting with my first posting to this proposal, the “answer”
will come from maintaining the holotype to eventually permit completely
impartial analysis of ancient DNA (possibly even more than one analysis,
the way things are going!). In the meantime, the preponderance of evidence
points to another outright Menetries mistake followed 170 years later by a
series of published misinterpretations by Raposo et al and, finally, special
pleadings attached to this SACC proposal by Brito and Raposo. It simply
does not matter, in the context of identifying the holotype, where it was
collected; that is a secondary, “circular reasoning” invocation, just as it is
to assert that specimens from near S J del Rei are “topotypes” of speluncae!
“But let’s see how the
voting goes, and be content with the consensus until we do have DNA analysis.
Sound good?”
Comments solicited by Remsen from Frank D. Steinheimer: “I cannot come up with the "correct"
identification of the type (for that I know the species not well enough), but I
have another solution. If Vladimir Loskot does
not agree to the sampling of the type in question, then the type of Malacorhynchus
speluncae Ménétriés, 1835 [= Scytalopus speluncae (Ménétriés,
1835)], has to be treated as unidentifiable; as such the name is then a nomen dubium. See art. 75.5 of the
ICZN (1999). A neotype designation of a typical specimen showing all diagnostic
characters would settle the dispute and the name Malacorhynchus speluncae
Ménétriés, 1835, would be available again.
“Necessary steps to secure the stability of nomenclature of the Scytalopus group would be:
“1) First contact the authors Raposo, Kirwan and Loskot
explaining the situation and urging them to cooperate in solving the issue by
providing a DNA sample. That should also be in the interest of St. Petersburg Museum
(see below step 2: they would loose the type status of their specimen). If they
agree, then the DNA analysis most likely would solve the problem if markers are
used that qualify for the purpose (e.g. mtDNA control region or another mtDNA
marker) and if the analyses are made by a lab with a good track record of
working with ancient/historic DNA from museum's specimens.
“2) If Vladimir Loskot still
disagrees in the sampling "his" type specimen, then prepare a request
to the Commission to set aside under its plenary power the existing
name-bearing type of Malacorhynchus speluncae Ménétriés, 1835 of St.
Petersburg Museum, and designate a neotype (for the same name and authorship,
i.e. Malacorhynchus speluncae Ménétriés, 1835) but using a type specimen
of the population for which the name is in prevailing usage - cite the papers
accordingly in your request. Which population this will be in the end has to be
decided on the percentages of this prevailing usage, but as I can see now that
this will be the Mouse-colored Tapaculo, and not the Rock Tapaculo). Most
important is that the newly chosen type specimen is from as close as possible to
the original type locality of São João del Rei, Minas Gerais, because the
historic type analysis using the authentic field diaries is very adequate to
ICZN standards (cf. art. 75.3.6 and recommendation 76A.1.2). The citation to
the type remains as: Ménétriés 1835: 527 and plate 13, fig. 1. The request has
to include
a) a statement of the current
discussion on the identity of these birds from São João del Rei, Minas Gerais,
b) a statement that priority
is given to the identity of the type specimen rather than to the accompanying
type locality data as in Raposo et al.
(2012)
c) a diagnostic description of
the neotype and publication of all its accompanying data
d) information on the neotype
holding institution (I would suggest a respectable institution in Brazil, if an
appropriate type specimen is available there)
e) a clear statement why the
historic type of Ménétries is unidentifiable
f) an evidences that the
neotype is consistent with what is known of Ménétries type and that a specimen
closest to the original assumed type locality of São João del Rei has been
chosen.
“3) A publication has to follow in which Malacorhynchus speluncae Ménétriés, 1835, and Scytalopus
notorius Raposo et al. 2006 are synonymized (the
Mouse-colored Tapaculo), and the name Scytalopus petrophilus Whitney et al., 2010, is accepted for the remaining population of the
Rock Tapaculo.
“Comments by me: this issue should have been solved before
Whitney et al. 2010 named a new
(i.e. third) taxon (Scytalopus petrophilus) in the region. It is no good
practice to originally describe a new taxon without consulting the relevant
type material (in this case Ménétries type of Malacorhynchus speluncae in St. Petersburg), especially since
it was known that only two different bird populations for two originally
published names occur. Whitney et al.
may have the better field experience and understanding of the regional avifauna,
so it's a great pity that they have missed the chance to solve this muddle before
establishing another new name. Raposo et
al. (2006) failed in not investigating the identity of the type specimen
itself to the best possible certainty and relied instead on the accompanying
type data. Now it is indeed time to solve this issue for the fortune of a
stable ornithological nomenclature.
“Literature:
Ménétriés,
E.
(1835). Monographie de la famille des Myiotherinae où sont décrites les espèces
qui ornent le Musée d'Académie impériale des Sciences. Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences de St.-Pétersburg (6th
serie) 3: 443–544.
Raposo,
M.A., Stopiglia, R., Loskot, V. & Kirwan, G.M. (2006). The
correct use of the name Scytalopus speluncae (Ménétries, 1835), and the description of a new species of
Brazilian tapaculo (Aves: Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae). Zootaxa 1271: 37-56.
Raposo,
M.A., Kirwan, G.M., Loskot, V. & Assis, C.P. (2012). São João del Rei is
the type locality of Scytalopus speluncae – a response to Mauricio et al. (2010). Zootaxa 3439: 51–67.”
Response from Whitney: “Despite the fact that
Steinheimer’s suggestion would effectively validate the position of Maurício et
al. and Whitney et al. -- although stabilizing the nomenclature through
different means -- by 1) synonymizing S. notorius in S. speluncae,
with 2) designation of a neotype that 3) matches the description of speluncae
(= essentially all gray) from 4) as near as possible (= about 70 km) to São
João del Rei, and 5) recognition of S. petrophilus as a valid
species-group name, I remain staunchly against abandoning the holotype.
It is indeed most unfortunate that the directors of the ZISP in St.
Petersburg are unwilling to permit extraction of a couple of tiny tissue
fragments to permit an attempt to amplify “ancient DNA” right now, but as I
have said before, this is not the end of the world. There is no rush;
let’s have patience. One day, perhaps decades from now, DNA of the
holotype of Malacorhynchus speluncae will be extracted by impartial
technicians and analyzed in satisfactory detail to establish its unequivocal
identity. In the meantime, there is a lot of verbiage above that all
voting and interested parties can attempt to assimilate in reaching a consensus
for practical purposes. I suggest that we all stop with the
back-and-forth and let the voting move forward, then respect the outcome.
If there are voters who wish to abstain for whatever reasons, that is
fine, it matters not. My formal recommendation, all things considered at
this point in time, is maintenance of the holotype and maintenance of
nomenclature of long-standing as regards application of the name speluncae:
a NO vote to Proposal #559.”
Comments
from Vitor Piacentini: So far I’ve been avoiding getting in
this messy situation – one of the most controversial cases in the
taxonomy and nomenclature of Neotropical birds. After changing my view every
time a new paper was published – regardless of the author, of course
– I decide I’d better read once again (fourth or fifth time) all relevant
papers to make my own judgment. I also tried to follow the discussion at SACC’s
page, but I must say it’s becoming too tiring. I further took advantage of
being at MZUSP, which holds the largest series in the world of both light-gray
and dark-gray taxa, to study them myself. And I also sought to go deep in the
historical data. All things considered, I believe several facts emerge clearly:
1)
Ménétriés is far from being a reliable scientist;
2) He
clearly used data from another bird (from São João Del-Rei) in the description
of his Malacorhynchus speluncae,
whose true collecting locality (and true collector!) may never be known;
3) The
type was a former mounted specimen that went through a strong fading and
foxing, similar to other old Scytalopus
specimens available;
4) All
available data point to a recent damage to the specimen; and
5) The
available morphological data agrees well with the dark-gray species and much
better than it would with the light-gray species.
I discuss each of these topics
below.
1) How reliable is Ménétriés?
Despite a few arguments to the contrary, Ménétriés was not a good zoologist.
Indeed, even as an entomologist – his main research field – he made
mistakes such as describing a Brazilian moth whose type is the head and thorax
of one species glued to the abdomen of another species (see Becker & Pinheiro
2009)! Regarding the birds, Ménétriés’s mistakes go beyond “giving wrong
localities to material collected by Langsdorff, not to the material collected
by himself”, as implied by Raposo et al. (2012). Ménétriés assumed he collected
himself several species that he could not have collected simply because they
occur far from the places where he travelled in Brazil. Awkwardly, he assumed he collected birds such as Mato Grosso
Antbird, Black-throated Antbird, and White-fringed Antwren and, of course, linked them all to his collecting diary
(Journal de Chasse). And that is precisely what he did with the type of Malacorhynchus speluncae. So, the fact
that he says he collected himself the type of speluncae guarantees nothing! All those mistakes (and, for sure,
several others that we cannot find the evidence for yet) were not made
deliberately by Ménétriés, but they are the expected result of a zoologist
trusting in his memory to give localities to specimens without original field
labels about 10 years after the collecting of such material. The testimony of Chrostowski
(1921) is very telling:
[About the bird collection at ZISP]
“Among all
collections, the most important one is that of F. H. von Kittlitz. The number
of birds is relatively small, but the collector carefully labeled all his
specimens and, back to Saint Petersburg, studied and described them thoroughly.
Despite that, he prepared a manuscript list of all his birds and presented it
to the museum. That is not the case with the birds of Langsdorff-Ménétriés,
about which there is no catalog in the museum. On the labels, the indications of sex, date and precise collecting
localities of the specimen were neglected.” [bold mine]”
With all that in mind, and being
further aware that the oldest label of the type only indicates “Brazil” as
data, how can we know whether the holotype of speluncae was collected in Minas Gerais? Without any original field
label, how can we be sure it is the specimen #18 of Ménétriés’s “Journal de
Chasse”? [The historical link between the entry #18 and the type is supported
by the wording used by Ménétriés, as shown by Raposo et al. 2012] To answer
these questions, I decided to read carefully all the original information in
the “Journal”. And what we find there is the next topic.
2) Ménétriés mixed information from
another bird he collected in São João Del-Rei in the description of Malacorhynchus speluncae. If one reads
the text for his specimen #18, here is what one finds (see Figure 1 in Raposo
et al. 2012):
“Myothera
(s! caudabrevis ! ) Iris brun clair, bec brun, plus clair infèrieurement, pieds
de couleur de chair. Va à terre et sur le petites arbres, né chanter pas, le
nourrit d’insectes. Je le trouvai d’ouverture de le Grotte D’a Pedra près de
St.-Joam”
Almost all that information was
copied in the original description, which I copy here, for cross-reference:
Ménétriés, 1835
Malacorhynchus speluncae
‘Iris brun
Clair; bec brun, plus clair infèrieurement; pieds de couleur de chair.
La queue
est alongèe; à pennes larges et molles. Toute la partie supérieure de l’oiseau
est d’un gris de souris lustré de bleuàtre; cette couleur s’eclaircit sur lês
cotes du dessous du corps, et devient blanchâtre vers le milieu de la gorge et
de la poitrine; les ailes et la queue sont d’un brun noiràtre.
Je
trouvai cette espéce seule, courant à terra et voltigeant sur lês petits
buissons, à l´entrée d´une grotte calcaire près de St.-Joào Del Rey, dans La
province de Minas Géràes; je ne lui ai entend articuler aucun son; et son
estomac contenait plusieurs petits insectes.’
However, please notice that NONE of the morphological data
from the “Journal de chasse” applies to
a Brazilian Scytalopus! And at
least one of the characters – the tail length – is precisely the
opposite of the information given in the original description! I will detail
all that:
Notice the “caudabrevis” in
parentheses; as you all probably know, this Latin term means “short tail”
(cauda = tail, brevis = short), a feature absolutely not applicable to the M. speluncae of Ménétriés, whose tail is
qualified as long by the author (“La
queue est alongée”); indeed, Ménétriés described his entire new genus
Malacorhynchus as having “Queue assez longue” (= tail very long; p. 522.).
Additionally, the bill description is not applicable for a Brazilian Scytalopus; the bill is described as
brown above and paler below, which contrasts with the uniformly black or
blackish bills of the Brazilian Scytalopus
(see Wikiaves website for several examples of bill color of living individuals
of both S. speluncae and S. petrophilus). Likewise, neither iris
color nor foot color matches a Scytalopus
from eastern Brazil.
Another
point is the description of the behavior of the bird: Ménétriés mentions in the
description that the bird was found running on the ground and fluttering over
small bushes (‘courant à terra et voltigeant sur lês petits buissons, à
l´entrée d´une grotte calcaire près de St.-Joào Del Rey’); in addition to be
difficult to see in the field, none of the Scytalopus
taxa is able to flutter over bushes.
The table below compares all that
information with both light-gray and dark-gray Scytalopus:
|
Specimen #18 of Ménétriés´
Journal de chasse[1] (Fig. 1 – Raposo et al. 2012) |
Dark-gray taxon[2] (Serra do Mar Tapaculo) |
Light-gray taxon (Rocky
Tapaculo)[3] |
Tail |
Short (“caudabrevis”)[4] |
Long (“La queue est alongèe”,
Ménétriés 1835)[5] |
|
Bill color |
Brown bill, lighter below (bec brun, plus clair
infèrieurement)[6] |
Black (Raposo et al.
2006) |
Black with gray tip (Whitney et
al. 2010); Mandible blackish with gray tomia (Raposo et al. 2006) |
Iris |
Light brown (brun clair) |
Dark Brown (Krabbe &
Schulenberg 2003)[7] |
Dark Brown (Whitney et al.
2010) |
Feet |
Flesh colored feet[8] (“pieds
de couleur de chair“) |
Pale brown or yellowish brown
(Raposo et al. 2006); dark brown (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003) |
Olive-yellow (Raposo et
al. 2006); brownish-cream (Whitney et al. 2010) |
Behavior |
Drops down to the ground and
on/over small trees (“Va à terre et sur le petites arbres”) / runs on the
ground and flutters on/over small shrubs (“courant à terra et voltigeant sur
lês petits buissons”, Ménétriés 1835) |
The behavior of fluttering
on/over small shrubs is not consistent with a Scytalopus. |
[1] Content not translated nor
transcribed by Raposo et al. 2012.
[2] Refers to Scytalopus speluncae (sensu
Maurício et al. 2010, Whitney et al. 2010), and Scytalopus notorius (Raposo et
al. 2006, 2012).
[3] Refers to Scytalopus petrophilus (Whitney et
al. 2010), and Scytalopus speluncae
(Raposo et al. 2006, 2012).
[4] The epithet "caudabrevis"
literally means "short tail".
[5] A quite long tail is exactly
one of the features of the genus Malacorhynchus
in which speluncae was described
(Ménétriés 1835, p. 522).
[6] I.e. mandible lighter than the maxilla.
[7] The color of the iris was
omitted in the description of S. notorius
(see Raposo et al. 2006).
[8] Known today as peach color, i.e. pinkish orange.
Therefore, it becomes evident that
Ménétriés once again was betrayed by his memories and associated the data of
his bird # 18, including the collection
(type) locality, to a Scytalopus
specimen without original field label. Where exactly the type specimen was
collected and who collected it are question for which we’ll perhaps never know
the answer. Any further discussion on the birds of São João Del-Rei, whether
there could be a population of the dark-gray taxon in São João, or when
Ménétriés visited the region is simply irrelevant. To properly apply the name speluncae, we must base it on the type
specimen. But before performing a morphological appreciation of the type, we
must be aware of its history.
3) The type was a former mounted
specimen in display that obviously went through a strong fading and foxing.
It’s quite surprising that neither group (Raposo et al. x Maurício/Whitney et
al.) has explored deeply this feature. The holotype was a mounted specimen and,
as such, has been exposed to light for decades in the Zoological Institute
– formerly a “Cabinet of Curiosities”. Besides the glass eyes, it’s also
possible to see the wire used to attach the legs in a mounted specimen (see
Figure 1 in the supporting material[SM]) and the toes are clearly aligned and
“rounded” as they would appear in a “perched” bird. That the type is a former
mounted bird is not surprising since that was the pattern of bird specimens in
the 1820’s. This is important historical information that one needs to have in
mind when analyzing the type.
Despite
the fact that the type was a mounted specimen exposed to light, Raposo &
Kirwan (2008: 80) stated that “The
holotype would also have to be extremely modified over time, from a dark grey
specimen to one that is now pale gray with brown flanks [sic] and rump, yet there is no evidence in any of the,
albeit limited (because so few ornithologists interested in Brazilian
birds have visited the relevant museum), literature
that supports this view.”[bold
mine]. I do not need to highlight how wrong is to say that the holotype has
“brown flanks and rump” – let’s just forget it, such mistake is
irrelevant at this moment. Regarding the change in color from a dark gray
specimen to a pale gray over 180 years, although the literature does not
support it to the speluncae group
(but see Whitney 1994), the museum specimens available do it just perfectly! A
small series at MZUSP, all collected in the same locality (Itatiaia) with a
50-year spam among them, shows that a specimen of the dark-gray taxon can become as pale as a recently
collected specimen of the light-gray taxon after only 100 years (not 180!) and
without having been a mounted specimen in display! The figures 2 and 3 (in the Supplement) speak for themselves. A second 100-year-old specimen from
Alto da Serra (the same dark-gray taxon as the birds from Itatiaia and the type
of notorius) has become likewise pale gray (figure 4). Therefore, any
allegation that the type of speluncae
belongs to the light-gray taxon because presently
it is light gray must be disregarded.
I
must further note that, during a visit to Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro in
May 2008, Dr. Raposo kindly showed me several pictures of the holotype and
explained me his view on the case. Among the many photos there was one of the
holotype of M. speluncae together
with a Merulaxis specimen with
comparable age (of collecting). The similarly old Merulaxis specimen was clearly darker and, therefore, that could be
evidence that the holotype of speluncae was
light gray when collected. I found at MZUSP also a +100 year old specimen of Merulaxis, collected one year before the
old Scytalopus specimen at MZUSP
discussed here. The Merulaxis
specimen, despite being as old as the faded and foxed Scytalopus and having being preserved under the same conditions,
was only slightly faded and preserved its “dark pattern” (Figure 5). That a Merulaxis preserves its colors much
better than a Scytalopus renders any
comparison between specimens of both genera flawed.
4) All available data suggest the
type was damaged only recently. There is no evidence to the claims of Raposo
(in his papers and in this discussion) that the specimen was damaged during
collecting or preparation (why not during the demounting of the specimen?). As
Dr. Krabbe stated in his comment, that kind of damage looks like the result of
moth attack. However, I disagree that the damage was probably made prior to
unpacking the specimen. Here is all we know:
•
Ménétriés did not mention any damage to the specimen;
• Hellmayr, the next person to examine the type (not Burmeister, contra Raposo & Kirwan 2008), did not mention any damage
(Hellmayr 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1924), though he did note on the poor
condition of the type of Scytalopus
acutirostris Tschudi (Cory & Hellmayr 1924: 21);
• most importantly, in the work on the types of birds of the
Museum of St. Petersburg, Chrostowski (1921:26) did not mention any damage in
his long and detailed account for the holotype of speluncae, whereas he says precisely that in the short account for
the type of Malacorhynchus albiventris
[= Eleoscytalopus indigoticus], in
the very same page: “De cette espèce je
n'ai trouvé au Musée qu'un seul specimen en assez mauvais état” (“Of this
species I have found in the Museum only a single specimen, in very poor
condition”).
That
neither Hellmayr nor Chrostowski mention the damage to the type is strong
evidence that the damaged occurred after 1921 (possibly a result of moth
attack, but we cannot discard the role of the demounting of the specimen). If
so, there is no reason to Ménétriés or D’Avignon (the artist) overlook the most
conspicuous diagnostic character of the light gray taxon, i.e. the brown flanks
barred black, especially when such a character was perfectly noted on the type
of Malacorhynchus albiventris. In
other words, there is no evidence to question the reliability of the type being
plain gray as given in the original description and the original plate!
5) All the above said, my analysis
of the morphological characters still visible shows that the type agrees in
every respect with the dark-gray taxon.
I call special attention to the differences between the pictures of the
holotype taken by Dr. Loskot (seen in Raposo et al. 2006), with flash, and
those taken apparently by Raposo himself, with natural light coming from a
lateral source (seen in Raposo & Kirwan 2008 and in Raposo et al. 2012; see
Figure 6 in the Supplement). The photos
with flash clearly show a neutral gray specimen, without any “whitish” tone,
whereas the pictures with the lateral light highlighting the ventral parts (and
leaving the upperparts in the shadow) indeed suggest a bird with whitish
underparts. Which one is closer to the real colors? I can imagine it is easy to
make a neutral gray specimen looks whitish by overexposing it to light, but I
doubt one can make a whitish-gray bird look darker by shedding a flash over it!
It is clear from the photos that the type has a gray throat exactly like an old
specimen of the dark-gray taxon. It could be argued that it also matches some
specimens of the light-gray taxon, sure, but then the foxed and faded holotype
would be being compared with a fresh, recently collected specimen.
As I said
in the comment #3, any allegation that the type of speluncae belongs to the light-gray taxon because presently it is
light gray must be dismissed. Quite to the contrary, given that a dark gray
specimen can become “light gray” after “only” 100 years (MZUSP, above), I
wonder how pale a 180-year-old light gray specimen that has been exposed to
light should appear nowadays! For sure much paler than the recently collected
specimens of the light gray taxon [which, according to Raposo et al. (2006, 2012) and Raposo &
Kirwan (2008), are about the same tone as the type].
One point
I judge worth discussing is the implicit allegation by Dr. Krabbe that the
type, as a fully adult, could not show any brown on the rump if it were a
specimen of the dark-gray species. Despite the several specimens shown by
Maurício et al. (2010: Fig.4) that prove such assumption wrong, I call the
attention to specimen AMNH 492362, from Itatiaia [= dark gray], which likewise
also contradicts that assumption. I examined that specimen back in June 2009
and found it to have brown barring in at least one rump feather and in a few
others in the flanks (Figure 7 in the Supplement). It is thus not surprising that Hellmayr (1907) said that
specimen “agrees in every respect with the type”. So, the simultaneous presence
of brown barring on the rump without brown markings on the wings has no
taxonomic value.
What
about the “whitish throat” originally described and presented in the plate?
That would be the only character that, according to some people, does not match
the dark-gray taxon and disagrees with all remaining evidence that so far
points to the holotype being originally dark-gray, too. I notice, though, that
both the original text description and the original plate indicate a bird with
a throat lighter than the remaining underparts, but such pattern does not fit
either dark-gray or light-gray taxa! None of the 30 specimens of the light-gray
taxon available to me (34 if we include the four specimens seen in photographs
in Raposo et al. 2006, 2012) has a throat paler than the belly. On the
contrary, the throat of the specimens of the light-gray taxon are either darker
than the belly or concolor with it. Further, a whitish throat does not agree
with the gray-throated type either. So, how to explain such character mentioned
by Ménétriés? Another of his mistakes? An imprecise description? At first, the
explanation given by Maurício et al. (2010) was not very appealing to me. Then
I saw the following video of the dark-gray species, taken in northern São Paulo
State: http://youtu.be/wM8WHIv9-pg [the locality is explicitly given here: http://www.wikiaves.com.br/747924]. To my own surprise, it shows the bird as having a marked
whitish throat! And that makes Maurício et al.’s explanation consistent and
plausible. The bottom-line is that the whitish throat mentioned by Ménétriés
does not offer a challenge to the holotype being a dark-gray specimen.
All in
all, I cannot find a single piece of evidence that truly links the type of speluncae to the light-gray species. The
alleged evidence for this represents clear misinterpretations and
misunderstandings of the available historical and morphological data. On the
other hand, the morphology of the type agrees with the dark-gray species, the
plumage pattern given in the original description points to the dark-gray
species, the original plate points to the dark-gray species and the only two
men ever to compare the type directly with either a dark-gray or a light-gray
specimen (Carl Hellmayr and Helmut Sick) both said the type refer to the
dark-gray form. I have no other option than agreeing that the name speluncae applies to the eastern,
dark-gray species.
Post script: When
finishing this rationale, I communicated to the authors of S. petrophilus that I had analyzed the case and came to the
conclusion the name speluncae applies
to the dark-gray species; however, given that some of my arguments have been
similarly expressed in the SACC proposal/discussion by Whitney, I didn’t want
to anticipate any of the possible rebuttal they could be using in their reply
(a MS in prep.). Despite allowing me to freely submit my conclusions, I’ve been
told there is another issue: there is a third name available to the dark-gray
species: Scytalopus undulatus
Jardine, 1851. This name is a junior synonym of S. speluncae (already published in Warren & Harrison 1973) and
was overlooked by Raposo et al. (2006) when naming S. notorius, which is itself a junior synonym of S. undulatus (plumage and morphometrics
points to its application to the dark-gray species). A complete discussion will
be presented by them soon. Anyway, I thank them also for letting me anticipate
their finding. Because all evidence supports the application of the name speluncae to the dark-gray species, the
availability of the name undulatus
has no direct consequence here.
Specimens examined:
Dark-gray/speluncae/notorius: 14 (MZUSP), plus 4 from DZUFMG (high-res photographs);
also, I had already seen the 14 specimens from the AMNH in 2009, including the
one Hellmayr compared directly with the type and said to “agree in every respect
with it”.
Light-gray/petrophilus: 17 (MZUSP), plus 10 from DZUFMG and 3 from PUC-MG
(high-res photographs).
Literature cited:
Becker, V. O. & L. R. Pinheiro. 2009. Laemocharis ignicolor Ménétriés
(Noctuidae, Arctiinae), a bogus Neotropical moth. Revista Brasileira de Entomologia 53(4): 684–685.
Chrostowski, T. 1921. Sur les types d’oiseaux néotropicaux
du Musée Zoologique de l’Academie des Sciences de Pétrograde. Annales Zoologici Musei Polonici, Historiae
Naturalis, 1(1): 9–30.
Cory, C.B. & Hellmayr, C.E. (1924) Catalogue of birds of
the Americas and the adjacent islands. Field
Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 13 (3): 1–369.
Hellmayr, C. E. 1907. [Remarks on: “1. Synallaxis moreirae, Ribeiro. 2. Scytalopus speluncae (Ménétries). 3. Musciphaga obsoleta, Ribeiro.”]. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 19: 76.
Maurício, G.N., Bornschein, M.R., Vasconcelos, M.F. Whitney,
B.M., Pacheco, J.F. & Silveira, L.F. 2010. Taxonomy of “Mouse-colored
Tapaculos”. I. On the application of the name Malacorhynchus speluncae Ménétriès, 1835 (Aves: Passeriformes:
Rhinocryptidae). Zootaxa 2518:
32–48.
Ménétriés, E. (1835). Monographie de la famille des
Myiotherinae où sont décrites les espèces qui ornent le Musée d'Académie
impériale des Sciences. Mémoires de
l'Académie des Sciences de St.-Pétersburg (6th serie) 3: 443–544.
Raposo, M.A., Stopiglia, R., Loskot, V. & Kirwan, G.M.
2006. The correct use of the name Scytalopus
speluncae (Ménétries, 1835), and the description of a new species of
Brazilian tapaculo (Aves: Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae). Zootaxa 1271: 37-56.
Raposo, M. A., Kirwan, G. M., Loskot, V. & Assis, C. P.
2012. São João del Rei is the type
locality of Scytalopus speluncae – a response to Mauricio et al. (2010). Zootaxa 3439: 51–67.
Raposo , M. A. & Kirwan, G. M. 2008. The Brazilian
species complex Scytalopus speluncae:
how many times can a holotype be overlooked? Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 16(1): 78-81.
Warren, R.L.M. & Harrison, C.J.O. 1973. Type-specimens of birds in the British
Museum (Natural History), vol 3: systematic index. Trustees of the British
Museum, London.
Whitney, B.M. 1994. A new Scytalopus tapaculo (Rhinocryptidae) from Bolivia, with notes on
other Bolivian members of the genus and the magellanicus
complex. Wilson Bulletin 106(4):
585-614.
Whitney, B.M., Vasconcelos, M.F., Silveira, L.F. &
Pacheco, J.F. 2010. Scytalopus
petrophilus (Rock Tapaculo): a new species from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 18
(2): 73–88.
Response from Raposo: “After
all these fading demonstrations, it is quite evident that Whitney agrees that
the holotype is a light gray bird. As soon as our analysis has shown
unequivocally that the specimen still holds the buff with dark bars feathers
which are diagnostic of the light gray species (see the red marked words of
Maurício, bellow), we could finally finish all this discussion with the
conclusion that the holotype is a typical Scytalopus petrophilus,
couldn't we?
Rump and lower flank feathers pdf
Legend: remains of the original pattern buff with black bars feathers at rump (above) and among the destroyed lower flanks/undertail coverts (bellow). Maurício et al. (2010, p. 37) consider it “the pattern buff with dark bars that diagnosis the light gray taxon”. We cannot estimate the original extension of these buff feathers in the bird’s flanks because they are completely destroyed as admitted by Whitney "Raposo et al. have adequately proven, I think, that the contour feathering in the upper flanks region is essentially all gone — there simply is nothing there to be brown, nothing there to be gray" (one of his last messages addressed to Niels Krabbe)” As soon as Whitney and others also agree the specimen is light gray (what is a faded gray??) the specimen can easily be identified as Scytalopus petrophilus, and there is no reason to discredit São João del Rei as the type locality and Ménétriés' original description.
No, we couldn't. Whitney et al.
will always defend their misguided identification of the holotype although they
have changed totally their opinion on its morphology, from an “uniformly
dark grey specimen” (Maurício, 2005) to a faded gray (light gray) adult
with subadult barred feathers (after these messages). They are still unable to
admit that the light gray holotype is the light gray species.
In this message I will try to be
as precise and formal as possible. I will demonstrate here that the overall
hypothesis of my colleagues Maurício, Whitney and Pacheco congregates
everything that classically should not be used in science, e.g.: tautology, ad
hoc hypotheses, inductive reasoning, and speculation (none of them badly
intended!).
Vitor's message concurs with
Whitney's hypothesis of the fading process by using the same strategy:
denigrating Ménétriés a little more; saying that the type was not, originally,
what it looks like today (Scytalopus
petrophilus); and also totally dismissing Ménétriés's description. All
points raised by Vitor were already addressed in Raposo et al. (2012) and
within these messages. I address again the relevant points of his text.
I will concentrate in showing
those misconceptions that are central in Whitney's hypothesis. I also
call attention to the fact that science is the best way to find the truth and
that science implies some epistemology. I will show that all this speculation (how much is the bird faded? when the ventral
plumage was destroyed? how can we be sure about the correspondence between
diary, label and holotype? is the diary compatible with the holotype or not
(how subjective is that?); why Ménétriés and Chrostowsky didn't say that the
abdominal feathers were destroyed? is Serra dos Órgãos a possible alternative
type locality? Was Ménétriés really a “bad zoologist”, capable of describing a
dark gray bird as being whitish gray?) are only necessary if we deny the
real facts. And when you go against them, speculation is almost inevitable and
pages and pages must be written to construct the viability of an unlikely
story. And when scientists speculate, they speculate well...
Many philosophers of science
(e.g. Karl Popper) have shown how easy is to be fooled by poorly constructed
arguments in speculative scenarios. They also have shown how readers can the
distinguish good reasoning from the bad one. That's the case here! I detail
below the most important and evident reasoning errors (the fallacies of Arthur
Schopenhauer) of Maurício / Whitney / Pacheco's hypothesis that have brought
this discussion into pure speculation. I already mentioned tautology and ad hoc
hypotheses in the last message, but I am presenting them here again in a more
clear and comprehensive way.
Would you defend a hypothesis
that has changed (totally) 3 times? Would you defend a contradictory and
tautological point of view? Could this hypothesis be considered scientific?
If you are still in doubt, use a
little of the Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae).
What is more parsimonious? To
believe that Ménétriés has labeled the bird (fact corroborated by his
description of the bird and by the fact that we found the same species at the
original type locality) or to believe in the domino effect of speculations
proposed by Whitney's alternative? I sincerely believe the solution is not that
difficult. I am appending some pages of Ménétriés monograph to this message,
with the descriptions of some dark species so you can read and see how unlikely
would be for a skilled zoologist like him to describe a dark gray breast as
BLANCHÀTRE!
1 – Use of ad hoc hypotheses / Changes in
hypothesis
This is the most important
kind of fallacy (sensu A. Schopenhauer) because it usually denotes the
weakness of the hypothesis. In science and philosophy, ad hoc means the addition of extraneous hypotheses to a theory to
save it from being falsified (definition from Wikipedia).
- First
hypothesis of Maurício (2005) - the holotype is a “uniformly dark grey
specimen” with no barred feathers on rump and flanks (Maurício 2005, p. 22,
last paragraph), obviously, associating it with the dark gray form and its
distribution.
- Second hypothesis of Maurício et al. (2010) – after Raposo and
Kirwan (2008) proved the specimen was not a an uniform dark gray specimen,
Maurício et al. argued that the holotype was a kind of intermediate specimen,
paler than notorius but darker than
the light gray species and with more barred flanks and rump than regular notorius, yet less than the light gray
taxon (see the text and the figures of Maurício 2010, showing all the paler and
barred notorius they could find).
This is discussed in Raposo et al. (2012). They also speculate the holotype
could be an adult with remains of subadult plumage. This is their first clear ad hoc hypothesis. The holotype was not what
they thought at the beginning but they found an explanation that helped them to
maintain their opinion as to its identity. Maurício et al. (2010, p.37)
based their main conclusion in an estimation of the extension of brown feathers
in the flanks. According to them, my pictures of the holotype “show the right flank partially covered by
complete or nearly complete gray feathers and several feathers on the undertail
coverts” and “the pattern buff with
dark bars that diagnosis the light gray taxon is so extensive and contrasting
that it would remain clearly observable even in very damaged specimens”
(pg. 39). So, according to this first ad hoc hypothesis, the flank feathers are
central to their identification of the holotype as the dark gray form and also
to the conclusion the type locality should be “Serra dos Órgãos”.
- Third hypothesis (from these messages) – now, after our rebuttal
(Raposo et al. 2012), the last messages and Niels Krabbe's comments, Bret
considers that the bird is totally faded. It is not a natural
intermediate specimen as defended by Maurício et al. (2010) any more. Now, the
type is a faded notorius. This new idea is their second ad hoc
hypothesis. Their notion as to the holotype has changed again but the
identification remains the same. Bret also admitted that "Raposo et al. have adequately proven, I
think, that the contour feathering in the upper flanks [which was used by
Maurício et al. In the identification of the holotype as the dark gray species]
region is essentially all gone —
there simply is nothing there to be brown, nothing there to be gray"
(one of his last messages addressed to Niels Krabbe) in clear opposition to
Maurício et al. (2010, p.37, 39).
He has
also admitted he is not able to “determine
the exact shade of gray I can expect from any of these old skins”. At the
same time, Vitor's comments show that “A
small series at MZUSP, all collected in the same locality (Itatiaia) with a
50-year spam among them, shows that a specimen of the dark-gray taxon can
become as pale as a recently collected specimen of the light-gray taxon after
only 100 years (not 180!)”. Now, apparently, the defenders of Whitney's
hypothesis are prepared to admit the specimen can be lighter than the light
gray species and maintain the main conclusions!
The
obvious consequence of all this confusion is that it is quite difficult to know
what the authors really think about the holotype. It looks like they now agree
with us about the morphology of the type, although providing a different
rationale as to the light gray color of the specimen. Bret's last notion of the
case, in contradiction to that Maurício et al. (2010), has opened a huge door
to the identification of the holotype as the light gray bird (Scytalopus petrophilus).
I am
again appending pictures to this message proving that the feathers that retain
their original color in lower flanks and rump are buff with dark bars.
2 –Tautological reasoning
Bret's
belief in a fading process is also tautological. From an initial wrong
impression of the morphology of the holotype, he and his colleagues deduced
that the bird was from Serra dos Órgãos. Now, they interpret the light gray
holotype as being a faded bird because they believe it comes from Serra dos
Órgãos. But Serra dos Órgãos was deduced from their abandoned (Maurício’s)
first hypothesis! Adding to this odd situation, all of the historical facts
point to São João del Rei and no fact points in the direction of Serra dos
Órgãos as the type locality, while there is no reason to believe the holotype
is faded (see Niels Krabbe comments!).
This tautology
is central to their reasoning and it is one of the forces behind the huge
amount of speculation concerning the origin and morphology of the type
3 – Misleading inductive reasoning (false syllogism
and “inductive leap”)
- Used to demonstrate São João
del Rei can't be the type locality. From the fact that some (57%) localities
are regarded as presenting “clear
problems in the attribution of origins” (Maurício et al. 2010, contested by
Raposo et al. 2012) Whitney and Pacheco, in this discussion, have constantly
maintained that the type locality is wrong. The implicit syllogism is: A- some
of Ménétriés's localities are wrong; B - São João del Rei is one of the
localities of Ménétriés; C – conclusion, São João del Rei is a wrong type
locality”. This deduction can't be done. Two minor premises don't permit the
greater conclusion.
- Another interesting and
extremely important point is the “inductive leap”, very common in all their
messages. For instance: (A) we don't believe in the label and diary so the
specimen can't come from São João del Rei; (B) we don't believe in the label
and diary so the specimen comes from Serra dos Órgãos. Another one is present
is Vitor's message and in Maurício et al. (2010): (C) we found a specimen from
Itatiaia that was referred by Hellmayr as being in total agreement with the
holotype, so, the holotype is from Serra dos Órgãos; or (D) we examined a
specimen from Itatiaia that was referred by Hellmayr as being like the
holotype, so, I know exactly what is the holotype. This last point was
discussed also in Raposo et al (2012, p.64).
- Vitor compared the holotype
with the diary and found some incongruences (I will not speculate here about
how subjective was Vitor's analysis, e.g. what is a long tailed bird? I
remember my first impression on the holotype as a long tailed Scytalopus!).
Based on those supposed incongruences, he concluded that the holotype could not
be the Myiothera that Ménétriés has found at the cave. This is obviously
a huge inductive leap. If Vitor had used the same logics in all his analysis,
as soon as he also disagree with the breast description presented by Ménétriés,
he would also have to reject the holotype as the bird Ménétriés has described.
4 – Incoherence in the use of the
disposable information (or incomplete use)
There
are many examples of incoherent use of information. Here, I mention only four,
because they are related to the two important central issues, the compatibility
of Ménétriés' description with the holotype and the credibility of the material
collected by Ménétriés.
A - Trying to explain why
Ménétriés pointed to a whitish gray throat and breast (“blanchâtre vers le
milieu de la gorge et de la poitrine”), Maurício et al. (2010, p. 35) advocated
he was confused by a silvery reflection to the feathers. At the same time they
make a very strong case concerning the fact that Ménétriés didn't describe
brown in the flanks (their legend to Fig. 6). Clearly, they discard only the
part of the description that doesn't corroborate their hypothesis. Accordingly
Vitor's message “there is no reason to
Ménétriés or D’Avignon (the artist) overlook the most conspicuous diagnostic
character of the light gray taxon”. If Ménétriés was a “bad zoologist” (in
Vitor's wording), capable of describing the breast and the throat as whitish
gray when it was in fact dark gray, why couldn't he miss the flanks? Isn't that
a hugely incoherent analysis of the data? It becomes worse when we know the
breast and throat can easily be described nowadays as whitish gray (or faded,
whatever) and that the feathers of the flanks are destroyed. At the same time,
Vitor Piacentini discredits everything Ménétriés has done or said but uses the
fact “Ménétriés did not mention any damage to the specimen” to support his
speculation as to when the abdominal feathers were damaged. It is a typical
inductive contradictory reasoning in the use of available information. This is bad science!
B
– Pacheco (2004) published a good paper on Ménétriés. At that time, he
was very clear (and his analysis concurs broadly with our own) about the
difference in credibility between the material collected by Ménétriés himself
and the material that came from Langsdorff (after Ménétriés left the team):
“...none of these problems [with Langsdorff's
material] pertain to specimens obtained
by Ménétriés himself in Brazil... We can therefore suppose that the larger
number of transcription [labeling] problems
exist... in the lot of material that came from Langsdorff.... than with those
specimens collected by the monograph’s author [Ménétriés]”. For a complete
translation and discussion, please go to Raposo et al. (2012, p. 57). During
all this discussion, Pacheco has avoided mentioning his paper, and has not
explained why he has changed so much his convictions about the specimens
collected by Ménétriés. It is also important to note that the three authors (Chrostowsky,
Hellmayr and Sick) used by Pacheco and Piacentini do denigrate Ménétriés image
agree with us in addressing São João del Rei as the type locality.
C-
Vitor's message brings the insinuation that I have chosen between the pictures,
the one which the bird was lighter in order to induce your opinion. Well, this
fallacy is named by Arthur Schopenhauer “last stratagem”, “argumentum ad personam” or “personal attack”. I would like to make
clear that I made my best to get the photo as close as possible to the real
tone; that my camera is a professional one; and that, in our plates (in Raposo
and Kirwan 2008 and Raposo et al. 2012), we resolved the situation using the
same background (exactly the same), when comparing notorius, petrophilus and
the holotype. We also used color catalogues that has shown the identical tone
of gray between holotype and topotypes. But he is wright in doubting pictures!!
Vitor, Whitney, Pacheco and the rest of their team will only have a good notion
of what is the holotype when they go to St. Petersburg, as we all did.
D
– At the end of his message, Vitor states that “there is a third name
available to the dark-gray species: Scytalopus undulatus Jardine, 1851”. I
don't know what kind of diversion is that, but Scytalopus undulatus is
also a junior synonym of Scytalopus speluncae (sensu Raposo et al. 2012)
and another senior synonym of the light gray species! The appended picture show
the holotype with an evident whitish belly (pure white) “typical” of S.
petrophilus. I have not called attention to this name before because the
specimen is a young bird without precise indication of type locality. There is
no need to discuss such a complex specimen here. Hope they do not allege this
specimen is also faded!
5 – Using Occam’s razor or the principle of
parsimony
“Occam's
razor (also written as Ockham's razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or
succinctness. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the
fewest assumptions should be selected” (from Wikipedia, 2013).
After
the last messages of Whitney and Vitor, both defending passionately the fading
process, it is clear that they now believe the holotype is light gray (what is
a faded gray, after all?). They only disagree with us about the original color
of the holotype.
So, let's use the parsimony.
A – The
holotype is light gray (all agree!)
B – The
holotype holds buff with dark bars on the feathers of the rump and flanks (see
the pictures and the Maurício's red phrase above!) and that we cannot (now
admittedly, see Whitney's blue phrase above) estimate the original extension of
these buff feathers in the bird’s flanks.
Let's use some logic. As soon as
it is clear that A (light gray) +B (buff with dark bars) = Scytalopus petrophilus, it is clear that:
D – today,
the morphology of the holotype matches Scytalopus
petrophilus. Ménétriés has collected a Scytalopus
petrophilus; OR,
E – as
postulated by Whitney and Vitor, the holotype is faded (very faded). In this
case, the holotype became compatible with S.
petrophilus after fading, but originally, it was a dark gray bird with some
subadult character (the barred feathers). In this case, Ménétriés has collected
a S. notorius.
D and E can be considered a resume of the two
available hypothesis. Is that correct? Yes, these are definitely the two
available hypothesis, ours and their current version of the case. No doubts
about that!
So, let's use Occam’s razor to
compare hypothesis D and E:
D – The
morphology of the specimen collected (light gray) is the morphology of the
specimen today (light gray); 1 STEP, NO NEW EVENTS!
E – The
morphology of the specimen collected (dark gray) has changed (fade) and
it became the morphology of the specimen today (light gray). 2 STEPS, ONE NEW
EVENT (THE SPECIMEN FADED)!
That's the application of
Occam’s razor! The hypothesis D is more parsimonious.
But we could apply it a little
more. We could add to the situation the description of Ménétriés pointing to a
whitish gray specimen; we could also consider the type locality of the original
description (São João del Rei) where it is only possible to find light gray
birds; we could also use the barred feathers of rump and flanks, also
associated with the diagnosis of the light gray form... etc. That's why, in
choosing the wrong hypothesis, the least parsimonious, we have to enter into so
much speculation!
So, let’s finish the application
of the principle of parsimony (repeating: “it states that among competing
hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected”).
Our hypothesis: We examined the holotype. According to our analysis, the
holotype, collected in São João del Rei, is a light gray specimen (throat and
breast) with barred flanks and rump (see appended figures). The label and the
diary written by Ménétriés are correct. The specimen is identical to the
topotypes. Holotype, labels, diaries and original description are proof of this
hypothesis. We are telling the same story since the beginning of our
participation in the case (2006).
The hypothesis of Whitney et al.
Ménétriés has collected an aberrant adult (not since found in Serra dos Órgãos)
that retained some subadult features (barred rump and flanks) in Serra dos
Órgãos. Ménétriés didn't mention this specimen in his diary and although he and
Langsdorff were very careful about their data, as we explained in our paper,
Ménétriés didn't label the bird. Some years later he went to São João del Rei
and collected another Scytalopus (or
a similar bird). At that time he made all of the notes in his diary, describing
habitat, behavior etc. (all in the diary figured in our paper) but forgot to
label the bird. The date referred to in the diary (7 June) also coincidently
matches many other historical sources (including Langsdorff’s diaries and
Rugendas pictures). The label that should have been attached to the specimen
from São João del Rei was attached to the bird from Serra dos Órgãos. After the
material arrived in St. Petersburg, Ménétriés was deluded by a mysterious
silvery sheen to the feathers and described the specimen from Serra dos Órgãos
as having a whitish throat and breast (“BLANCHÀTRE”). But he was wrong,
because, still according to Whitney's hypothesis, the specimen would only be
light gray after 180 years of fading. He named the bird as “speluncae” (of the
cave) still impressed by that magnificent cave, but holding the wrong bird in
his hands. After 180 years, the specimen becomes quite identical (because it
has faded, and still has barred feathers on rump and flanks) to specimens of Scytalopus collected in the very same
cave where Ménétriés, wrongly, thought he collected the holotype. The most
incredible thing in Whitney's story is that Ménétriés was able to predict, in
1835, the exact color the specimen would be 180 years later and also the
precise point where a population of an identical species would be discovered.
Additionally, in terms of Methodology, they did not analyze the holotype and
their knowledge of the history (diaries, labels etc.) comes from reading our
paper. We should also mention that based on the same pictures analyzed by
Whitney and collaborators, Niels Krabbe had an opposite impression. That’s why,
we emphasize the importance of analyzing the holotype.
Which one is the most parsimonious
hypothesis?
Vote
for Science!
Response from Piacentini: “Marcos’ reply has wrong statements, misunderstandings,
and a few distortions, which I’ll quickly correct in the first part of this
reply, below. Most importantly, none of the issues I raised were refuted in his
responses, some not even addressed. I think it is time to directly discuss the
points, otherwise we will be stuck to an endless discussion. And I had planned
to move on, with focus. So, I divided my reply in two parts. The first one is a
correction to the misleading statements of Raposo. Those who are tired of this
long discussion on the details can skip it and go to the second part, which is
a concise presentation of my points of view, given following Raposo’s own
approach of facts x speculation.
Part I – corrections to Raposo’s
misstatements.
A- There is absolutely no
syllogism. I did not defend that the type locality of speluncae is wrong because Ménétriés made many mistakes regarding
his localities. Where did Marcos take this from? Anyone can easily conclude
that the type locality given by Ménétriés is wrong because he copied the data
of another bird (from SJDR) from his diary in the description of speluncae.
Ménétriés’ other mistakes have no causal effect in this conclusion; they serve
only to avoid anyone gets surprised by this easy observation.
B- There is no tautological
reasoning. I never defended a priori that
the bird came from Serra dos Órgãos. And I guess neither did Whitney, Maurício,
et al. I explicitly said that we cannot know the true locality of that
specimen. But, once we recognize it belongs to the dark-gray species, then the
most probable locality for its collection is
indeed the Serra dos Órgãos, where Ménétriés spent 25 months based in the Faz.
Mandioca, in the foothills of that mountain range, 2-3 hours walking [and
through a paved way] from the upland habitats where the dark-gray Scytalopus lives. The same area was also
visited by Langsdorff (other possible true collector). That the type
faded/foxed is the result of noticing that the type was a formerly mounted
specimen in display. And it belongs to a bird naturally prone to fading as exemplified
by the specimens at MZUSP. Where is the tautology?
C- I never made any suggestion that
Raposo has “chosen
between the pictures, the one which the bird was lighter in order to induce
your opinion”. And his following sentence, “this fallacy is named by Arthur
Schopenhauer “last stratagem”, “argumentum ad personam” or “personal
attack”… well, that could not be more ironic, coming from you! What I said
– and I reaffirm it here – is that the whitish throat seen in the
pictures by Marcos is an artificial bias of the lateral light highlighting the
ventral surface. If the throat was truly whitish, the photo with a flash should
also show it. One cannot make a true whitish surface looks gray with a flash.
But I can accept, in advance (though reluctantly), the potential forthcoming
reply from Marcos that I’m comparing photos made with different cameras . Since
Marcos has have made his pictures with his professional camera, then please, Marcos, make available to all of us
the original RAW file you made of the holotype without the throat highlighted,
i.e. the very same picture your student Claydson Assis presented in the
beginning of his dissertation; the one that shows the left side of the
specimen. It has the same background, it was made virtually at the same time,
under the same conditions. But, unlike the picture with the throat turned to
the light source, it shows a specimen with a clear plain gray throat.
D- I
really do not know what to think about Raposo’s allegation that the birds from
Itatiaia should not be used for comparison with those from Serra dos Órgãos.
I’m speechless! First, Raposo himself named the dark-gray populations as notorius including the birds from
Itatiaia at MZUSP (check “specimens examined” in Raposo et al. 2006). Second,
in over 100 years of research in the eastern slopes of the Itatiaia massif
(where all specimens I used for comparison came from), including 14 years of
intensive field work there by Luciano Lima and Bruno Rennó, despite hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of birdwatchers and ornithologists voice-recording birds
there, there is not a single record of the light gray species in that area.
Third, the absence of recordings of S.
petrophilus in the eastern slopes is not that important; they could be in
sympatry there, and indeed it appears the range of both species overlap in the
western slopes of Mantiqueira, just like S.
pachecoi (of the light-gray group of species) and “southern S. speluncae” (dark gray group) overlap
their ranges in southern Brazil without any intergradation. Fourth, the genetic
data of Mata et al. (2009) shows precisely that dark-gray specimens from the
western slope of the Mantiqueira range fall within the dark-gray species group
clade, whereas specimens of S.
petrophilus fall within the light-gray species group clade, just like
expected! Fifth, vocal data published by Maurício (2005) and the plenty of
recordings available at Xeno-Canto, Wikiaves, and Macaulay Library show that
birds from Itatiaia share the same pattern of contact and alarm calls as those
from Serra dos Órgãos (which diagnose them in relation to the southern S. speluncae – to be formally
described soon).
As a
somehow related issue, I think it is worth mentioning that the similar
allegation by Raposo et al (2012) that Mauricio et al. (2010) used birds from
two different species to show individual variation is totally misleading.
Mauricio et al. (2010) showed that individual variation can be observed in some
bird series from a single locality for both northern and southern
populations/species.
In
conclusion, both in the publication (Raposo et al. 2012) and in the present
discussion, Raposo’s use of the data from Mata et al. (2009) is misleading. On
the other hand, I’m glad that Raposo is currently acknowledging the validity of
the results of Mata et al. (2009), i.e. that there are several independent
species within the dark gray clade/population (currently treated under the name
speluncae). Therefore I belive that,
for coherence, Raposo must accept also that there are at least four species
within the light gray clade, i.e., the results of his student synonymizing S. pachecoi, S. petrophilus (their speluncae)
and S. diamantinensis based on
plumage, can be questioned (if ever published).
Message
to Guilherme: You have asked me to answer the following questions, so here they
are:
-“how much the holotype is faded" – I have shown that a dark-gray specimen can
become as light as light-gray specimens with half the age of the holotype. The
point here is not how much the holotype faded, but being aware its present tone
of gray cannot be used as diagnostic. That simple.
-"When the holotype was
destroyed" – it is my pleasure to give you this answer in the
end of this reply.
-"Menetries collected
anything but a Scytalopus on that cave" – I have shown that in
my analysis. See below.
-"Menetries mislabeled
these particular birds" – I never said that. Further, the labels
do not matter at all. The oldest label available only brings “Brazil” as data!
-"Holotype's chest is not
whitish gray” – the pictures
available show a gray bird, not a whitish one (such as the whitish-bellied
specimens of S. petrophilus). See Figure 6 of the supplement to my last
message.
Lastly,
a short message to Marcos. There is one of your reasoning that especially
called my attention: many times you suggest in a negative way that the
“Whitney’s hypothesis” has changed every time new facts emerged. Personally, I
think the negative option is to get tied to an idea regardless of new
discoveries. I’d better keep an open mind and eventually change my conclusions
in face of new facts. What about you? If you are not willing, then there is no
reason to continue this debate.
Part
II – my points of view (a
concise version of my previous analysis). The approach of facts x speculation
tries to please Marcos.
1)
That Ménétriés made many mistakes regarding his localities is a fact. That he
assumed he collected some specimens he could have never collected is a fact.
That the type of speluncae has no original label (and the oldest only brings
“Brasilia [=Brazil]” as locality) is a fact. That he was right about the
locality given in his description of M. speluncae is a speculation (and please,
Marcos, note that I’m not saying a priori
he is wrong – I’m just aware we cannot trust his localities and
should investigate it, just like I did below)
2)
That Ménétriés wrote in his diary that he collected a short-tailed,
brown-billed etc. bird in São João Del-Rey is a fact. That such morphological
description does not apply to any Brazilian Scytalopus is a fact. That it conflicts with the
“tail very long” given by Ménétriés himself in the description of M. speluncae
is a fact. That his description of behavior does not make sense for a
Scytalopus is a fact. That Ménétriés indeed meant a Scytalopus in his diary
despite all these conflicting data is a speculation.
3)
That the type was a former mounted specimen in display is a fact. That such
specimens fade faster than those kept closed in a cabinet is a fact. That
centenary specimens of the dark-grey species can fade enough to reach the tone
of gray of a light-gray specimen is a fact. That Scytalopus specimens are prone
to fade is a fact. That the 180-years old holotype foxed (acknowledge by Raposo
et al. 2006:50) but did not fade at all despite its age and despite being a former
mounted specimen is a speculation.
4)
[I’m keeping this one here as a formality. New data confirms the integrity of the holotype until
recently – see below.] That Ménétriés did not mention any damage to the
type is a fact. That Hellmayr did not mention any damage to the type while mentioning damage to other Scytalopus
type is a fact [Guilherme, please do not simplify it as just “not
mentioning a damage”. The context is important]. That Chrostowski did not
mention any damage to the type while noting damage to a Eleoscytalopus type
specimen of Menetriés is a fact. That the type was damaged since collection
would be a speculation, which is now refuted by the new data, below.
5)
That the pictures of the holotype without a lateral source of light shows the specimen
with a plain gray throat is a fact (see the photos by Loskot and by Marcos, if
he makes available the original photo I mentioned before). That the original
plate and original textual description depict a bird with a throat lighter than
the belly and flanks is a fact. That such pattern conflicts with both
light-gray and dark-gray species is a fact. Most important, that the whitish
throat and breast described by Ménétriés, if taken verbatim, conflicts with the
type itself is a fact. That a whitish throat can be seen in dark-gray birds
depending of the incidence of the light is a fact. Any thought on what
Ménétriés trully meant with such description is a speculation.
As I
said when concluding my (previous) analysis, there is not a single evidence
that truly links the holotype to the light-gray species. The morphological
characters seen presently in the damaged holotype do not allow 100%
unequivocal application of the
name, though they agree much better with the dark-gray species (I’d expect a
much lighter bird as a result of a light-gray specimen being formerly mounted
and 180-years old, as well as a much more extensive buff on the abdominal
feathers with minimally preserved structure – not only a fringe [as seen
in some feathers on the bird from Itatiaia that Hellmayr compared with the
type]). On the other hand, the original plate and description of plain gray
flanks, Hellmayr’s comparison with a dark-gray bird, and Sick’s comparison with
a light-gray bird, all support the application of the name to the dark-gray
species. To refute all that, the alternative hypothesis considers as a fact the
speculation that the holotype always had its flanks damaged. Such speculation
is disproved below.
The new data
J.F.Pacheco searched for any
information about the holotype of S.
speluncae in Sick’s diary (for his visit to ZISP in 1982). After the
transcription of the labels of the type of speluncae
(and then of albiventris), follows
one short mention of speluncae, which
is the only one in the entire diary. In a sentence about dates, Sick apparently
says there is a failure/lack regarding the year “to speluncae”, and then ends the sentence with “tadelloses Präparat”, which means “impeccable preparation” (it is
in gothic German*: “Jahreszahlen aus Ausfälle Jahr bis speluncae, tadelloses
Präparat”; the type of speluncae
seems to be the only [or one of the few] bird specimen from Ménétriés without
an annotation of year on the labels]. That the type was in very good conditions
in 1982 obviously means:
- That Ménétriés had it in perfect
condition and noted the flanks as gray (= dark gray species), not brown barred
black (= light gray species);
- That D’Avignon (the artist) had
it in perfect condition and painted the flanks as gray (= dark gray species),
not brown barred black (= light gray species);
- That Hellmayr found the specimen
from Itatiaia to agree “in every respect” – he would never say that if
the type was a light-gray specimen with flanks brown barred black;
- That Chrostowski noted the few vestigial brown feathers
on the rump as the only character that Ménétriés did not mention – were
the type a specimen of the light-gray species, he would obviously note the
flanks as brown barred black, too.
I think there is nothing else to
say.
* I thank Dr. Rolf Granstau and his
wife Ilse for kindly helping me to transcribe and teaching me the letters in
old gothic German; five other German speakers also read the sentence in
question.
P.s. as you all are aware, I’ve requested - and was denied - access to the type
of M. speluncae and the collections
of Ménétriés and Langsdorff to further improve our understanding on what really
happened with those birds. Fortunately, the rich data available
allows the application of the name (to the dark-gray species).
Response from Raposo: see attached
pdf.