Proposal (292) to South American
Classification Committee
Change linear sequence
of species in Veniliornis
On
proposals 262 and 263, SACC voted to move Veniliornis
fumigatus to Picoides and move various former Picoides species
to Veniliornis, following Moore et al. (2006). I promised a new
linear order proposal to deal with the genus Veniliornis thereafter,
depending on the outcomes of the other two votes. The current SACC list reads
as follows:
Veniliornis mixtus Checkered
Woodpecker
Veniliornis lignarius Striped Woodpecker
Veniliornis callonotus Scarlet-backed Woodpecker
Veniliornis dignus Yellow-vented Woodpecker
Veniliornis nigriceps Bar-bellied Woodpecker
Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker
Veniliornis frontalis Dot-fronted Woodpecker
Veniliornis spilogaster White-spotted Woodpecker
Veniliornis sanguineus Blood-colored Woodpecker
Veniliornis kirkii Red-rumped Woodpecker
Veniliornis affinis Red-stained Woodpecker
Veniliornis chocoensis Choco Woodpecker
Veniliornis cassini Golden-collared Woodpecker
Veniliornis maculifrons Yellow-eared Woodpecker
Moore
et al. (2006)'s phylogeny would suggest various changes to the existing linear
order. More basal taxa are listed first, with the current order preserved
otherwise where possible:
Veniliornis kirkii Red-rumped
Woodpecker
Veniliornis cassini Golden-collared Woodpecker
Veniliornis spilogaster White-spotted Woodpecker
Veniliornis mixtus Checkered Woodpecker
Veniliornis lignarius Striped Woodpecker
Veniliornis sanguineus Blood-colored Woodpecker*
Veniliornis passerinus Little Woodpecker
Veniliornis frontalis Dot-fronted Woodpecker
Veniliornis callonotus Scarlet-backed Woodpecker
Veniliornis dignus Yellow-vented Woodpecker
Veniliornis nigriceps Bar-bellied Woodpecker
Veniliornis affinis Red-stained Woodpecker
Veniliornis chocoensis Choco Woodpecker*
Veniliornis maculifrons Yellow-eared Woodpecker*
*
= taxa not sampled by Moore et al. (2006). The placement of V.
sanguineus is based on comments by Short (1982), who hypothesized a
relation with V. passerinus. V. chocoensis is an
SACC split from V. affinis. The position of V. maculifrons is
provisional. Short (1982) hypothesized it to form an allospecies with kirkii, cassini and affinis (+ chocoensis);
however, affinis is apparently not closely related to the former two
species. Moore et al. (2006) hypothesized affinis to be a more
plausible relative of V. maculifrons based on their ranges and
other factors.
References: all on SACC
references page.
Recommendation: a YES vote. The
current linear sequence is inconsistent in many ways with Moore et al.'s
recently published molecular phylogeny (and in any event is not fully
consistent with certain published hypotheses of relations within the group
based on morphological considerations). Although linear orders are not the best
way of illustrating relations, the proposed new linear sequence conveys more
information than the existing sequence.
Anonymous, June 2007
(with minor
modification from Doug Stotz, 30 August 2007)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Stiles:
"YES. This proposal accords best with the phylogenetic evidence
available."
Comments
from Jaramillo:
"YES - Matches the most recent published data on this genus."
Comments
from Robbins:
"YES. Moore et al.'s (2006) data are quite solid and the sequence in this
proposal reflects those findings."
Comments
from Nores:
"YES. Si la secuencia sugerida por Anonymous está de acuerdo
con el análisis molecular de Moore et al. (2006), que resulta aceptable.
Esperamos que no aparezca otro análisis molecular que diga lo contrario."
Comments
from Pacheco:
"YES. Considero que a sequência linear
proposta representa um avanço e está em melhor sintonia com os dados
moleculares disponíveis."
Comments
from Zimmer:
"YES, primarily because this arrangement is more consistent with the
molecular data. However, I'm not sure that I buy the position of V.
maculifrons. In fact, when one looks purely at vocal differences and
similarities within the genus, several curiosities emerge in this sequence.
That said, the molecular evidence is still the best thing we've got to hang our
hats on at present, so "YES"."