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 the
prioponly 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historical reference that was mounted in support of their position (see the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.
- The holotype of Malacorhynchus speluncae (today, Scytalopus speluncae) exists and
all agree that it was an adult bird and was collected by and described by Ménétriés.
- All agree that a high-quality
color illustration accompanied the original description and, like the
holotype, it is available for independent examination today; it shows an
entirely gray bird with no hint of brown color or dark barring anywhere in
the plumage.
- All agree that the holotype is not
in perfect condition, having lost most of the feathers of its lower
underparts, especially on one side. There is dissention as to
whether there are enough feathers present in the posterior underparts to
reliably allow their description today: Raposo et al assert that contour
feathers are completely lost on both sides and it is impossible to see
dark barring that must have been there, pointing to a miniscule
brownish tinge or vestiges of some barred effect in the uppertail coverts,
while Mauricio et al. and Whitney et al. explain the lack of barring as a
natural feature of the specimen, with traces of brownish feathering
anywhere on the lower underparts being remnants of a previous, subadult
plumage.
- The holotype is 180+ years old.
All agree that it cannot be expected to have maintained its natural
coloration (saturation and hue), but there is dissention as to how much it
might have changed and in what manner, and there is dissention surrounding
the original coloration of gray plumage areas and how to interpret Ménétriés’s
description of this gray, especially in the throat and breast.
- All agree that Ménétriés clearly
designated a grotto near São João del Rei the type locality and his
diaries exist in which he provided sufficient detail to establish its
identity near São João del Rei today.
- Ménétriés described fifteen (I
believe) species of birds, over half of which have been shown to have been
assigned erroneous type localities (Pacheco 2004 and subsequent
elaborations of tangential details). All agree on this point, but
Raposo et al do not believe that Ménétriés could have erred in the case of
M. speluncae because he
collected the specimen himself (i.e., it was not Langsdorff material) and
provided an unusually accurate and detailed description of the locality
and described iris color of a bird [possibly a tapaculo, we cannot
objectively determine what kind of bird he had in hand] after collection.
Mauricio et al. and Whitney et al. believe that it is not only
possible, but essentially irrefutable, that Ménétriés erred in his
designation of the type locality because his description and the
accompanying color plate of the holotype quite accurately portray
another, geographically proximate population of Scytalopus, one inhabiting the region through which his
itinerary clearly indicates his party passed en route to and from São João
del Rei — and because there exists today — as all agree — only one form of
Scytalopus in the
immediate vicinity of São João del Rei, a form that in all plumages bears
conspicuous dark barring on the flanks, features not mentioned at all in Ménétriés’s
original description or featured in the color illustration of the holotype
that accompanied the description. It is worth repeating that Ménétriés
published his description some ten years after collecting his specimen —
plenty of time, according to Mauricio et al. and Whitney et al., for him
to have forgotten critical details of his fieldwork or to have mixed up
specimens in his possession or in museums, labeled or not. Mauricio
et al. and Whitney et al. believe it highly probable that Ménétriés
improperly linked the specimen and the locality, as he more obviously did
for several other birds he described (notwithstanding that most of the
problematic ones were Langsdorff specimens). Great detail in Ménétriés’s description of the type locality,
including collection of a tapaculo there, does absolutely nothing to validate that locality for the specific
specimen in question. As for
labels attached to the specimen, whether in Ménétriés’s handwriting or not
— it is, of course, impossible to establish when those might have been
affixed.
“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:
- To
reach a conclusion on the application of the name Malacorhynchus speluncae, Raposo et al. (2006) examined 28 specimens of the entire Scytalopus speluncae complex,
including only two specimens of the light-gray taxon. To question these
conclusions, Maurício et al.
(2010) and Whitney et al. (2010)
analyzed over 200 specimens of the same complex, from which 30 were from
the new Scytalopus petrophilus,
the light-gray taxon.
“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 (“dévident 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?”
Response from Krabbe:
“Vitor misquotes me. I said that because the type has no brown on the wings but
does have brown un the upper flanks (as seen in the photos), it cannot be the
dark form. No specimen of the dark form presented or described shows this combination,
while it is typical of the pale form. And no adult or subadult tapaculo with
brown on the upper flanks does not also have it on the lower flanks (show me
one to prove me wrong). Therefore the type must have had brown flanks. I admit
he is right about the specimen having been mounted, but it has no bearing on
the issue.”
Response from Whitney: “Niels, as much
as I hate to have to open the door a crack on the discussion of what the flanks
of the damaged holotype might be interpreted as having been like in the natural
state, I guess I will have to ask you to show us where this brown on the upper
flanks is because your argument hinges entirely on its presence. I'm
sorry, but I just cannot see brown feathers, not even a single brown feather, in
the high-res photos provided of the holotype, flash or no flash, which are
every bit as good as actually looking at the specimen itself. 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 (but if I had to try to guess, I'd certainly
lean toward the upper flanks looking like they were entirely gray). Not
even Raposo et al. are purporting to have found brown feathering in the upper
flanks - only the lower flanks/thighs area, and the rump/uppertail coverts.
Since you are also using these photos, I suppose anyone should be able to
see at least one brown feather, so please point it out unambiguously. I'm
almost embarrassed to ask, but are you sure you are looking only at photos of
the holotype, and not some of the other specimens of which photos were
presented? (This is just plain crazy).”
Response from Krabbe:
“Bret, You are right. I was fooled by the light in the first photo I looked at.
I throw in the towel and concur with you. Sorry.”
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 inférieurement, pieds de couleur de
chair. Va à terre et sur les petits 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 inférieurement; pieds de couleur de chair.
La queue est allongée; à pennes larges et molles. Toute
la partie supérieure de l’oiseau est d’un gris de souris lustré de bleuâtre;
cette couleur s'éclaircit sur les côtes 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 noirâtre.
Je trouvai cette espèce seule, courant à terra et
voltigeant sur les petits buissons, à l´entrée d´une grotte calcaire près de St.
João Del Rey, dans La province de Minas Gérées; 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 allongée”); 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 les 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 allongèe”,
Ménétriés 1835)[5] |
|
|
Bill color |
Brown bill, lighter below (bec brun, plus clair inférieurement)[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 les 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 spécimen 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’Académie 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.
Comments
from Stiles: “Here, I’ll continue to abstain in the
hopes that genetic data can eventually be forthcoming.. if anything, I still
have a weak preference for Raposo’s stand on the basis of better first-hand
information but given the amount of invective involved in the discussions and
my lack of familiarity with the birds involved, “on the fence” seems the safest
place to be for now!”
Comments from Remsen: “NO.
After taking an hour to read through all the statements above one last
time, I am strongly persuaded, especially by the arguments of Whitney and
Piacentini, that whatever speluncae
refers to, it is not the population found at the alleged type locality, or at
least there is sufficient doubt that only a DNA sample could reverse my
assessment of the competing arguments.
“I also resent the tone of the
arguments by Raposo that if you disagree
with me, you are not a scientist.
Part of this attitude derives from apparent blind faith that Occam’s
Razor always leads to “the truth”. Where
is the evidence that the true explanation in biology is always the
simplest? Occam’s Razor has a place in
logic when the number of assumptions underlying each argument is equivalent,
but even then, it is based strictly on probability and does not necessarily
lead to “the truth.” I point out that
Occam’s Razor is used by some philosophers of religion to prove the existence
of God because it is a much more parsimonious explanation than all of the steps
required for the evolution of life.
Further, nothing could be less parsimonious than human behavior,
which is at the center of several of the arguments herein concerning a specimen
whose origin, labeling, description, subsequent handling, and subsequent
inspections by several ornithologists is about as distant as one can get from
the use of parsimony in, for example, determining the minimum number of
evolutionary steps to reach the most likely branching pattern in a cladogram.
“Finally, at the risk of seeming
defensive, it should be noted that in preliminary discussions, there was
concern that I would not even allow this proposal to be posted, much less vote
for it, given that Whitney is my colleague at LSU and Pacheco my colleague on
SACC. As any of my colleagues can report
with resounding affirmation, I have no fear of disagreeing with colleagues,
much to our mutual temporary discomfort but, in the long run, to our mutual
benefit, and if my assessment of the evidence herein was in favor of a YES
vote, a YES it would have been. I
greatly appreciate the effort that all participants put into trying to resolve
this issue.”
Additional comments from Stiles:
“Regarding
the contentious Scytalopus proposal,
and the observations of several outside observers, I am changing my vote to NO.
The evidence from morphology and the painting and description of the type
clearly link the type to the "dark-gray" species - and I find it very
easy to believe, from what I've seen of remounted specimens here after only ca.
50 years, that the type has faded. Given Menetries's track record on
localities, I find it much easier to believe that he described his type
accurately, but got the locality mixed up, especially in that his collections
did not have accurate labels affixed when collected to the particular bird
collected.“
Comments from Stotz: “NO. This doesn't necessarily mean that I am
convinced that Whitney et al are correct, but because I am not completely
convinced by either camp. Given that, I think the best thing to do
currently is maintain the status quo. S.
speluncae (as currently defined) has always been used for the dark species
(Serra do Mar Tapaculo), which is far and away the most widespread species, and
I am disinclined to mess with that without being fairly certain that changing
it is valid. Given that I have to continue to use speluncae for the
widespread dark taxon, and apply petrophilus
to the less widespread paler Rock Tapaculo, as SACC currently does.
Comments from Pacheco: “NO. To avoid boring repetition, I gather
here the three stronger reasons to vote "no" on this Proposal.
“1) Most importantly, the holotype of Malacorhynchus
speluncae does not match the "light-gray taxon" (= Scytalopus
petrophilus) for not presenting the abundant barring on the flanks
(therefore matching the dark-gray taxon). This character - the most conspicuous
- was not described by Ménétriés, not illustrated by D'Avignon, and was not
observed by Hellmayr, Chrostowski, or Sick before the type was damaged.
“2) The transcription and translation
of the entry of diary of Ménétriés about the bird collected in São João Del Rei
does not agree with either the "taxon light-gray" or "dark-gray
taxon." The color of bill, the color of the tarsus, the color of the iris,
the relative size of the tail, indicate that the bird collected by Ménétriés
was not a Scytalopus. Thus, the only data in support of the application
to the light-gray taxon – i.e., the type locality “São João Del Rei” – is now
known to be originally linked to a bird other than Scytalopus.
“3) There is an earlier available name
for the "dark-gray taxon" that predates by 154 years description of Scytalopus
notorius. This is Scytalopus undulatus Jardine & Selby, 1852
(holotype at Natural History Museum, Tring, U.K.). The formal paper that meets
rationale for application of the name (Pacheco et al., in prep.) will be
submitted in the coming weeks. Thus, the name notorius could never be
applied anyway.”
Comments from Zimmer: “NO. After much waffling, and finding myself
changing my mind with each new counter-argument, I have systematically waded
through this entire mess again, and I vote NO.
Ultimately, I find myself persuaded that the following points are
true:
1) The holotype is highly degraded from
its condition at the time of its description, both in terms of the absence of
most of the abdominal feathering, and in the color tone and wear of the
remaining feathers.
2) It is entirely possible, perhaps
even probable, that after 180 years, a Scytalopus
of the “dark species-group” could fade/fox to the condition seen in the
holotype, particularly if (as is apparent) said specimen had been mounted and
exposed to light for decades.
3) It is not uncommon for adult Scytalopus of the dark species-group to
have some brown barring on the rump/upper tail-coverts (Indeed, virtually every
photo I have ever taken of territorial males of the coastal birds show some
remnants of brown barring on the rump or flanks – this character must take
years of molt to eliminate completely.).
4) All individuals (regardless of age
or sex) of the pale species-group in question have extensive and quite
bold/contrasting black-and-brown barring on the flanks, contrasting with the
otherwise pale gray abdomen.
5) Neither the original description of
the holotype by Ménétriés nor the accompanying illustration refer to or
illustrate brown-and-black barred flanks, nor uniformly pale gray underparts,
which are the primary plumage distinctions separating the dark coastal birds
from the pale interior birds.
6) The absence of mention of barred
flanks in the original description and the absence of depiction of such a mark
in the accompanying illustration is not because those feathers were already
gone (neither Hellmayr nor Sick gave any indication that most of the abdomen of
the holotype was missing).
7) It is not possible that the feathers
in question were destroyed by shot when the bird was collected – as noted by
Whitney, such shot-inflicted damage would also have taken out the legs, feet
and tail, and there is no evidence of that.
8) The absence of mention/depiction of
barred flanks in the original description/illustration was not due to being
overlooked or considered unimportant by Ménétriés or the artist – refer to the
concomitant description of E. indigoticus,
in which the whitish color of the underparts and the brown-and-black barred
flanks are clearly described and illustrated.
“Given all of the above, it is my conclusion that the
holotype in question is not inconsistent with a diagnosis of an individual of
the dark coastal birds, whereas the original description and accompanying
illustration, both of which were made when the specimen was in much better
condition than it is now, clearly point toward a bird of the dark coastal
group, rather than an example of the pale, barred-flanked interior birds. I agree with those who contend that the
holotype and accompanying descriptive/illustrative material should trump
questions of provenance. Everyone agrees
that only the pale birds occupy São João del Rei today, and the name “speluncae” bestowed by Ménétriés
certainly suggests that the holotype was taken in habitat that would be
considered typical of the pale interior birds.
However, given that the two taxa are, today, sympatric at locations as
close as 66 km in the same mountain range as the alleged type locality, and
given that in 200 years it is entirely possible that climatic and anthropogenic
factors could have significantly altered microhabitats throughout the region,
it is no large reach to think that both forms could have been sympatric at São
João del Rei in the past – Quien sabe? It is undisputed that Ménétriés erred
significantly on several occasions concerning type localities of species he
described. Whether he erred in
designating São João del Rei as the locality where he collected the holotype of
speluncae is speculation. But the point remains that he had a track
record for this sort of error, and the fact is, that he described the bird
essentially a decade after it was collected, and there was no original tag with
precise locality data. We also know from
his journals that he traveled and collected extensively within the range of the
dark coastal tapaculos within the same general time period that the holotype of
speluncae was collected. Given the length of time between collection
and description, the lack of any precise locality data on the label prior to
description, and a proven track record on the part of the describer for errors
in remembering localities, it doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to imagine that
Ménétriés erred in his recollection of the type locality. But again, this is speculative, and
ultimately, not important, given that we have a holotype and an original
description and illustration of the holotype.
“I should point out that I was particularly swayed by the
fact that Hellmayr compared the holotype directly to a dark coastal bird (from
Itatiaia), Sick compared the holotype directly to the holotype of S. novacapitalis, and the former found
the holotype of speluncae to agree in
every respect with the dark, unbarred Itatiaia bird, while the latter found the
differences between the holotype and the pale-breasted, barred-flanked novacapitalis “very clear”.
“I would reiterate Doug’s point, that the name speluncae is so entrenched with respect
to the Serra do Mar inhabiting “dark group” of Scytalopus, that it would be destabilizing in the extreme to upset
the apple cart by applying that name to the geographically more restricted
taxon that everyone in Brazilian ornithology has understood for the past 25
years or so to be the “new” or “undescribed” species, and giving a newly
manufactured name to the familiar Serra do Mar birds that everyone has known as
“speluncae” for the past ca. 200
years. Of course, if it could be conclusively
demonstrated that a name was applied in error, then that trumps questions of
stability. But lacking concrete proof
that such an error has been made in this case (one need only to read the
passionate, but diametrically opposed arguments from two sets of respected
authors to realize that there are no clear-cut conclusions regarding either the
holotype or the type locality), I too (like Doug) would be loathe to opt for a
course that would destabilize the nomenclature of the entire genus. And, if anything, I think the holotype
(degraded as it is) and its accompanying original description and illustration,
argue more strongly for retention of speluncae
for the dark Serra do Mar birds, and petrophilus
for the pale, barred-flanked interior birds of Minas Gerais.
“I would like to add, for the record, that I really have no
dog in this fight. There are authors on
both sides of this contentious issue that I consider respected colleagues, and
both sides have advanced arguments that I find valid. I have extensive field and museum experience
with each of the populations of Scytalopus
in question, which has informed my opinions to a certain extent. My main desire is that we get it right. In the absence of a clear-cut case of what is
right, I think it best to consider the essence of the Hippocratic oath – which
has been popularly paraphrased as “first, do no harm” – and apply it to
decisions impacting nomenclatural stability, which, after all, is what the ICZN
Code is supposed to promote.”
Comments from Cadena: “NO. Having a special interest in the birds in this
group, I have read the papers and have tried to follow the (long and winding)
discussion in detail, and have come to the conclusion that I am not 100% sure
about who is right. I tend to be inclined towards the position taken by Raposo
et al., but I see value in some of the arguments from the other side - I am
simply not ready to firmly argue for one position over another. With that, I
believe the most sensible thing to do is to vote for maintaining our status quo
pending additional information. The analyses and discussion here have gone to
great limits in examining all the information available, and I suspect with the
data at hand the issue will remain impossible to solve with certainty. I would
thus like to close with a plead to the curator at the institution housing the
type specimen to reconsider his position about not allowing "destructive
sampling" of the specimen for DNA analyses. I do not get how removing a
tiny piece of skin from a foot would cause major harm to a specimen that is
already badly damaged and likely faded, as extensively described in this
discussion. And, well, specimens exist to be used for scientific purposes, and
I cannot imagine a more relevant use of this particular specimen than allowing
its study to resolve this ongoing debate about the taxon it represents. With
even a short sequence of mtDNA the dispute could be totally settled!”
Additional comments from Niels Krabbe: “I should perhaps
be a bit more specific than just "I throw in the towel". I should
have said that I agree entirely with the argumentation of one group.
“I recently
wrote this to an author preparing yet another paper on the subject:
“I must admit
that I was fooled into thinking there were remains of brown on the upper flanks
by the light on the first photo of the holotype I examined, but a careful look
at better photos of the holotype convinced me, that it is not the case. After
having pointed out to me that the specimen had been mounted (as the glass eyes and
steel wire through the feet clearly demonstrate) I realised that the gray
colors probably had faded (in Scytalopus they fade considerably with exposure
to light). As a final blow, while reading Chrostowski's careful description of
the brown on the rump as well as Sick's note that it was perfectly prepared, I
realised that these authors would have mentioned a strong moth attack making a
description of the flanks impossible, had it been the case.
“The only
reasonable explanation was that the flank feathers were intact and dark as on
the drawing of the holotype, so I had to throw in the towel.
“Menetries'
many mistakes are so well-documented that one more is no surprise.”
Additional comments
from Whitney: “Since my first posting to Guilherme’s
proposal, I have unwaveringly maintained sharp focus on objectivity, and
interpretation of factual points, with a much lesser emphasis on probabilities
and a minimum of verbiage on speculative material: I consistently strove to
identify tangential material as such. As I mentioned a couple of times, I
am not interested in the slightest in maintaining a name I or anyone else
authored if it is shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been applied
erroneously. Deus me livre, de jeito nenhum! Some who have
participated in Proposal 559 have obviously assumed that I am biased, that I
have a personal interest in having a name I co-authored upheld. Such
assumption is exactly wrong, and truly comes from within your own heads -- if
you think not, please provide citations or at least some well-developed
reasoning based on my wording in Proposal 559, for example. To the point,
after just now reading through the votes that have come in recently, then
looking back at what I posted at the beginning, I would not change a word of it.
I outlined the case about as plainly and simply as could be (which Kevin
summarized fairly completely), given that we are dealing with a very old,
presently damaged holotype. The only point I would add to it is
that it is important that Hellmayr, Sick, and others examined the holotype and
noted no barring on the flanks or damage to the specimen; in their
examinations, these features were contraindicated. Oddly, however, it
seems that about half of the voters have opted for something like “ultimately, it’s
most stable to stick with the old nomenclature, given that we can’t get it
figured out without DNA analysis”. Some voters said they couldn’t make up
their minds which set of arguments was most accurate or factual, yet they
failed to identify perceived inconsistencies or sticking points; strange voting
indeed, unless one abstains.
“I continue to strongly
encourage amplification of holotype DNA as highly desirable in this case — but
it is not, objectively, necessary — that is, unless Menetries’s description and
the accompanying color illustration (among other, lesser bits of information)
are discarded. Fortunately, no one has suggested that (because
there is absolutely no reason to do so), and I will underscore here that we
definitely do not want to discard the holotype; to the contrary, it must
be carefully maintained. I hope that there is overwhelming agreement
on this important point, which none of the voters and few participants in the
discussion has addressed (beyond desire to have tissue analyzed).
Following up on this point, even should analysis of tissue fail to
provide definitive placement of the holotype in a phylogenetic tree of
congeners from eastern Brazil, it must be carefully maintained because it one
day (soon) will be possible to obtain that definitive answer. Then,
should the independent analysis of holotype tissue (the removal of which from
the specimen by known, independent researchers should be duly videotaped) show
that petrophilus is a junior synonym
of “notorius”, that would be fine
with me — truly, and I would bow to the gene trees despite my grave doubt based
on currently available evidence. As I’ve said multiple times, I
have deep respect for everyone involved in the back-and-forth, and emotions
expressed by others have not swayed my own, consistent, argumentations. I
learned a lot in the process, and trust that friendships and professional
relationships have not suffered at all along the way. There is certainly
no ground for that.”