|
|
Post by another specialist on Jan 29, 2007 6:46:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Jan 29, 2007 20:29:12 GMT
Thank you Alex and Frank for your quick answer. But thinks simply don't fit in my mind. Foster watercolor obviously depicts a juvenile Pomarea nigra from Tahiti Is, but Duperrey's plate is simply puzzling. The black bird could be a Tahitian adult but the other two don't fit with any available (at least to me) description of any Pomarea taxa. Alex, you said that you found out later that those birds are from the extinct Maupiti population. I know that some of the posts in this thread have been deleted, so perhaps I have missed your explanation, but I don't find any support to say that. I'm so perplexed that I decided to buy the file from the Natural History Museum, just to find out what does the legend of that plate says. So did I, but the file supplied (although much better than the free one available with the watermark in it) is far from be of high resolution and the text is still not completely clear, but this is what is written in it: "Voy. de la Coquille Nº17.
A. [the glossy black monarch]
B. [the dull black and white monarch]
C. [the rufous black and whitish monarch] MOUCHEROLLE POMARÉ. (Muscicapa Pomarea N.)
A. Mâle en plumage adulte B. Le mémé en plumage de ?? âge C. Femelle
[A. Male in adult plumage B. The same in ?? old plumage C. Female]
îLES DE LA SOCIÉTÉ So the birds can be (theoretically) from any of the Society Islands. The birds are depicted exquisitely in every detail, so much that the black and white bird has clearly a mixed plumage, retaining several juvenile feathers (thre outermost greater left wing coverts, 6th, 7th and 8th primaries in the left wing and the 8th in the right one) so the bird is in its second basic plumage (probably 2nd year). It reminds a lot of female patterns of some P. mendozae subspecies, without fitting with any of them. Besides the plate says it's a male. The same happends with the third (C) bird, it reminds some juvenile and female plumages of some Pomarea species without fitting with any. It is obvious that birds B and C are different from anything known and if they came from Maupiti, they were a VERY different species, nothing to do with the Tahitian form P. nigra. (I don't like to post the file in the forum as it has copyright, but if someone wants it I'll send it via e-mail. Please don't post it later) |
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Jan 29, 2007 21:47:57 GMT
Yes please Carlos if you don't mind sending it to me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2007 11:15:22 GMT
Well, there is an picture of the Maupti Monarch, this is the picture that I found.
The Maupiti Monarch is said to be black and white, so I thought this picture would show this black and white bird together with the Tahiti Monarch, but the three shown birds do not fit to any other (known) species of the genus Pomarea, so I just think it shows a pair and a juvenile of the Maupiti Monarch.
BTW: male or female ..., HBW depicts a pair of Pomarea dimidiata, the male in grey, the female in brown - but both adult sexes are grey ! Brown birds are just not fully adult.
So to me these three birds are a family of the Maupiti Monarch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Jan 30, 2007 17:26:35 GMT
Well, there is an picture of the Maupti Monarch, this is the picture that I found. The Maupiti Monarch is said to be black and white, so I thought this picture would show this black and white bird together with the Tahiti Monarch, but the three shown birds do not fit to any other (known) species of the genus Pomarea, so I just think it shows a pair and a juvenile of the Maupiti Monarch. BTW: male or female ..., HBW depicts a pair of Pomarea dimidiata, the male in grey, the female in brown - but both adult sexes are grey ! Brown birds are just not fully adult. So to me these three birds are a family of the Maupiti Monarch. I see your point, Alex. Certainly both sexes of P. dimidiata are alike and very late to attain the full adult plumage and that they also can breed in any intermediate inmature plumage. Perhaps the birds shown in that plate are something similar. Who knows? The rufous bird look like a juvenile plumage and the black and white is obviously an inmature plumage. The black is clearly an adult male and as the inmature intermediate plumages between the basic juvenile and the basic adult are something mixed o both, I agree with you that if all three birds come from the same island then it can be the female of an unknownn form (even if the plate says that it is a male). But where, as you point, it is said that the Maupiti Monarch is black and white? Truly, I'd love to know. I see that you have a very special interest in this group of birds and must have a good deal of information. A very good point woud be to know who described this form and where was that description published. I couldn'n find the reference, only that it was found, collected and lost in 1823. I know that the author of P. nigra is Sparrman 1786. If the birds of the plate are indeed P. pomarea, then the author is signaled there as "N." (Muscicapa Pomarea N.) I would very much lke to see that reference and description. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2007 18:40:51 GMT
But where, as you point, it is said that the Maupiti Monarch is black and white? ... give me a minute, I try to find it.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2007 19:03:29 GMT
I'm so sorry, I cannot find that website anymore.
I also cannot remember if it was an english or a german website, but it was something like this:
'The Maupiti Monarch was similar to the Tahiti Monarch exept for being not black but black and white.'
And further all the circumstances were mentioned, where this bird was found, and when and Louis-Isidore Duperrey's Voyage de la Coquille 1822-1825 etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2007 19:13:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Jan 30, 2007 19:23:15 GMT
Thank you for your effort Alex. Let's hope that time will give us the answer.  I think that you probably are right, if only because Pomarea species are only known from Tahiti and Maupiti in the Society Islands. The only thing that still puzzles me is that a striking black and white form is too conspicous not to be mentioned anywhere, even if only known from a single (lost) specimen and that drawing. It should have been, by far, the most important feature and mentioned every time that the Maupiti Pomarea appears in the ornithological litterature.  |
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Jan 30, 2007 19:58:13 GMT
I didn't see your last post Alex. So part of the mistery is solved (the description of this form would be the best clue).
Interesting to note that it mention an (single?) old black and white male in that painting. If so, the inmature one in Duperrey's plate could be the second drawing of that bird (with probably the rufous inmature/female as well, and the black one could be P. nigra from Tahiti).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2007 10:56:41 GMT
Interesting to note that it mention an (single?) old black and white male in that painting. This was because I was thinking the picture would show a P. pomarea together with two P. nigra, but after a comparison with all photos that I know of P. nigra, I could see many differences between P. nigra and the birds in the picture. and the black one could be P. nigra from Tahiti). Well, this could be, but I dont think so. All three birds in the picture look very natural in their colouration etc., and the black bird has a bluish gloss, unlike Pomarea nigra, also the bill is grey or blackish, not blue as in P. nigra, the feet are also not bluish as in P. nigra. I really think that this picture shows three P. pomarea, but no official authority seems to have recognized that up to now. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Jan 31, 2007 20:03:51 GMT
Yes, I thing that you are right about the black and white and the juvenile being P. pomarea, from Maupiti. Also that the black bird looks different from P. nigra.
The question is that both are described as males. Most Pomarea have no sexual dimorfism and there are no known species with two colour phases.
So a third posibility arises, that the black adult male could come from a further yet unknown population in some other of the Society Islands.
Somewhere I read of another extinct undescribed Pomarea species from an Island that I fail to remember now. I'll try to find out and post it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2007 20:36:46 GMT
Most Pomarea have no sexual dimorfism and there are no known species with two colour phases. I know of nine species of which only three have no sexual dimorphism. (P. dimidiata, P. nigra, P. whitneyi) All others show indeed sexual dimorphism. (P. fluxa, P. iphis, P. mendozae, P. mira, P nukuhivensis, P. pomarea ?) Somewhere I read of another extinct undescribed Pomarea species from an Island that I fail to remember now. I'll try to find out and post it. Do You mean the Pomarea sp. (formerly Myiagra sp.) from Ua Huka ? This is identical to the still living P. iphis. |
|
|
|
Post by Carlos on Feb 1, 2007 17:42:46 GMT
Right Alex, my fault, I didn't actually count them, so it should be a "some" instead of a "most".
|
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Aug 7, 2007 18:34:24 GMT
P. pomarea Maupiti Flycatcher This taxon was shown to be specifically distinct from P. nigra by Cibois et al (2004). Extinct. Res formerly Society Is (Maupiti). www.rosssilcock.com/18.htm |
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Mar 22, 2008 23:06:27 GMT
Hi ! You all are the first to see it:  male above, female below, the green tentacles are Taeniophyllum fasciola, an leafless orchid that is now extinct on Maupiti but does still exist on Moorea and Tahiti  www.flickr.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Jul 24, 2009 7:07:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Melanie on Jul 22, 2017 10:33:29 GMT
I must say I am still confused on this species. On the one hand we have the collected and later lost male (the only known specimen) and on the other hand we have a female and a color morph. All three birds can be seen on the painting. My question is what are the provenance and the collection date of the female and the color morph and what led the artist to the assumption that all three birds belong to the same species?
|
|
|
|
Post by Melanie on Jul 26, 2017 10:48:16 GMT
I must say I am still confused on this species. On the one hand we have the collected and later lost male (the only known specimen) and on the other hand we have a female and a color morph. All three birds can be seen on the painting. My question is what are the provenance and the collection date of the female and the color morph and what led the artist to the assumption that all three birds belong to the same species? I've made a request to Dr. Hume according this issue. Here is his reply: |
|
|
|
Post by alexanderlang on Jul 27, 2017 11:09:01 GMT
|
|
