Taxonomy and molecular systematics of the Yellow-green Grosbeak Caryothraustes canadensis (Passeriformes: Cardinalidae)

An annotated avian inventory of the Brazilian state of Alagoas, one of the world’s most threatened avifauna

“…Also, since 2010 researchers from the Laboratório de Bioecologia e Conservação de Aves Neotropicais (LABECAN) at the Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL) have been monitoring birds in the largest forest fragment of the Murici Ecological Station, and birds collected therein have been deposited at the Museu de História Natural da UFAL (MHNAL), in Maceió. Results from these 1999-2020 expeditions have served as the basis for a number of studies (e.g., Silveira & Olmos, 2003;Silveira et al, 2003a, b;Dénes et al, 2011;Batalha-Filho et al, 2013Lobo-Araújo et al, 2013;Pereira et al, 2014bPereira et al, , 2019aRêgo et al, 2014;Thom & Aleixo, 2015;Tonetti et al, 2017;Campos et al, 2018;Bolívar-Leguizamón et al, 2020;Harvey et al, 2020;Bocalini et al, 2021;Carvalho et al, 2021;Dickens et al, 2021;Francisco et al, 2021;Gonçalves & Efe, 2022). The number of ornithological surveys (e.g., Cabral et al, 2006;Araujo & Rodrigues, 2011;Lyra-Neves et al, 2012;Portes et al, 2018); many notes on specific records for the state have also been published (e.g., Silva e Silva, 1996;Olmos, 2002;Sousa et al, 2005;Mestre, 2007;Lobo-Araújo et al, 2008;Patrial et al, 2011;Pereira et al, 2012;Leal et al, 2013) and birdwatchers have also been producing many new records for the state (WikiAves, 2021).…”

On species concepts, species delimitation criteria, taxonomy committees, and biases: a response to Lima (2022a)

“…So, reliance on operational criteria, and also on the views of the different taxonomists/committee members about the same dataset being interpreted for operational purposes, are inherent aspects of taxonomy practice and can be extended to the work done by taxonomy committees. A clear example of this is the "Caryothraustes case" (Tonetti et al 2017) mentioned by Lima (2022a), whereby a morphologically consistent, albeit slightly distinct, taxon (C. canadensis frontalis) was lumped with another (C. canadensis brasiliensis) supposedly only "…because of lack of reciprocal monophyly in a gene tree" (Lima 2022a). It is worth here going through the entire process resulting in the CBRO decision to "lump" brasiliensis and frontalis as a case in point to discuss in more detail how evidence is evaluated, and any changes are implemented in the CBRO checklists.…”

“…As discussed above, this particular taxonomic treatment implemented in Pacheco et al (2021), following the work by Tonetti et al (2017), derives completely from the types, amount, and quality of data available for this particular case and also from the manner in which the CBRO dealt with this new evidence. In fact, the CBRO never casted a vote on a specific case for synonymizing frontalis into brasiliensis but instead focused its attention in whether or not splitting Caryothraustes canadensis into two species: C. canadensis and C. brasiliensis (i.e., the main focus in Tonetti et al (2017) as well).…”

“…As discussed above, this particular taxonomic treatment implemented in Pacheco et al (2021), following the work by Tonetti et al (2017), derives completely from the types, amount, and quality of data available for this particular case and also from the manner in which the CBRO dealt with this new evidence. In fact, the CBRO never casted a vote on a specific case for synonymizing frontalis into brasiliensis but instead focused its attention in whether or not splitting Caryothraustes canadensis into two species: C. canadensis and C. brasiliensis (i.e., the main focus in Tonetti et al (2017) as well). This latter split was eventually approved (albeit not unanimously) by the committee, whereas the decision to implement the synonymization of frontalis into brasiliensis in Pacheco et al (2021) stems from the agreement with the remaining parts of the new treatment proposed by Tonetti et al (2017), who explicitly based their ranking on the GLSC as implemented in Aleixo (2007).…”

“…In fact, the CBRO never casted a vote on a specific case for synonymizing frontalis into brasiliensis but instead focused its attention in whether or not splitting Caryothraustes canadensis into two species: C. canadensis and C. brasiliensis (i.e., the main focus in Tonetti et al (2017) as well). This latter split was eventually approved (albeit not unanimously) by the committee, whereas the decision to implement the synonymization of frontalis into brasiliensis in Pacheco et al (2021) stems from the agreement with the remaining parts of the new treatment proposed by Tonetti et al (2017), who explicitly based their ranking on the GLSC as implemented in Aleixo (2007). The lack of reciprocal monophyly between frontalis and brasiliensis shown in Tonetti et al (2017) trees is in fact just one of three other additional factors for not treating them as distinct species or subspecies.…”