. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club. Birds. [Bull. Brit. Orn. (4)] 146. ERITHACUS RUFIDORSUS MELANURUS § FALLAX Fig. 1. Distribution of 4 species of Ceyx in southeast Asia. Note area of sympatry of erithacus and rufidorsus centring on Borneo, Sumatra and Malaya. in Malaya, Sumatra and especially Borneo, both parental forms, as well as many intermediates, occur, with individuals exhibiting varying levels of similarity to one or the other parental form. Ripley (1942) presented an analysis of plumage characters in regional populations of these three-toed kingfishers, offering
. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club. Birds. [Bull. Brit. Orn. (4)] 146. ERITHACUS RUFIDORSUS MELANURUS § FALLAX Fig. 1. Distribution of 4 species of Ceyx in southeast Asia. Note area of sympatry of erithacus and rufidorsus centring on Borneo, Sumatra and Malaya. in Malaya, Sumatra and especially Borneo, both parental forms, as well as many intermediates, occur, with individuals exhibiting varying levels of similarity to one or the other parental form. Ripley (1942) presented an analysis of plumage characters in regional populations of these three-toed kingfishers, offering the opinion that, in spite of considerable levels of hybridization in sympatry, both taxa should be recognized as species. Subsequent to this, the problem has been re-analysed with the aid of additional data, both by Voous (1951a, b), who tentatively supported Ripley's (1942) opinion and Sims (1959), who suggested that the 2 forms be considered conspecific. Fry (1980), in his recent revision of the family Alcedinidae, treated the 2 taxa as conspecific, although he provided no discussion of the problem. In their monograph of the Coraciiformes, Forshaw & Cooper (1983), who followed Fry (1980) in most other opinions, chose, in this instance, to follow Voous (1951a, b) and Ripley (1942). Opinion seems to be divided throughout the literature. Those lumping the 2 include: Smythies (1960), Wolters (1976), Ripley (1982) and White & Bruce (1986). Those favouring splitting the 2 include: duPont (1971), Lekagul & Cronin (1974), King et al. (1975), Medway & Wells (1976) and Clements (1981). For a number of reasons, including the clear ambivalence expressed in the literature, we believe that the Ceyx erithacus/rufidorsus problem should be reassessed. The analyses of Ripley (1942) and Voous (1951a, b) depended upon data that were incomplete, and although Sims was able to. Please note that these images are extracted from scanned page images that may have been digitally enhan
Size: 1868px × 1338px
Photo credit: © Book Worm / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, booksubjectbirds, bookyear1893
