|
|
Post by another specialist on Jun 6, 2005 15:04:56 GMT
Chloridops regiskongi
Olson & James 1991
Holocene of Oahu, Hawaiian Islands
Primary materials: Holotype: maxilla
Secondary materials: Paratypes: maxilla, mandibulae
Storrs L. Olson & Helen F. James,
Descriptions of thirty-two new species of birds from the Hawaiian Islands: Part II. Passeriformes
Ornithological Monographs 46 (1991)
The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington D.C.
|
|
|
|
Post by Melanie on Jun 6, 2005 21:32:20 GMT
A second species of Chloridops was recently described from sub-fossils discovered at Barbers Point, Oahu in 1981 by Aki Sinoto, Patrick McCoy and others. This species of extinct grosbeak finch had the largest bill known among finch-like drepanidines. The bill differs significantly from the other two species of Chloridops in shape as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Jun 7, 2005 6:09:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Nov 8, 2005 7:37:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Nov 8, 2005 7:37:54 GMT
commonly called Giant ("King Kong") "Grosbeak",
|
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Jul 22, 2006 9:03:17 GMT
Chloridops regiskongi, new species
(Figs. 14C, 15A, 16A-B)
"Psittirostra (Chloridops), giant Oahu species" Olson and James, 1982b:40, 45; 1984:
771; James, 1987:225, 228.
Holotype: Maxilla lacking the tip and the right tomial crest, with a small hole
anterior to the left narial opening, BPBM 158742 (Figs. 14C, 17A). Collected 14
August 1981 by Aki Sinoto, Patrick C. McCoy and others.
Type locality.' Site 50-Oa-B6-22, Barbers Point, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands.
Distribution: Oahu: Barbers Point and Ulupau Head.
Etymology: "Of King Kong" from the Latin genitive of rex, king, plus Kong;
in reference to the great size of this finch by allusion to the giant primate of cinema
fame. In a newspaper article, Olson was once quoted as saying this species was
"a giant, gargantuan, a King Kong finch" (Benson ! 977), an appellation that would
never have occurred to him, this being a typical example of the liberties taken
with quotation marks by the print media. Nevertheless, because of its ridiculousness,
the name naturally stuck and we found ourselves referring jocularly to
this species as the "King Kong finch" ever afterwards.
Measurements of holotype: See Table 5.
Paratypes (all from Barbers Point): Maxilla with only the ventral surface and
tomial crests remaining, BPBM ! 588 ! 4 (Figs. ! 4C, 17C); nearly intact mandible
lacking part of both roedial processes, USNM 445789 (Figs. 15B, 17B); mandible
lacking part of both rami and roedial processes, USNM 445788; mandible lacking
the posterior half of the right ramus and left roedial process, USNM 445787;
mandible lacking part of the symphysis and left ramus, BBM-X 151419; left
quadrate, USNM 445790.
Measurements ofparatypes: See Table 6.
Diagnosis: A grosbeak finch possessing the largest bill known among finch-like
drepanidines. The bill differs markedly from the other two species of Chloridops
in shape as well. The maxilla is much deeper and is sharply pointed, the sides of
the maxilla rising steeply to form a blunt crest that extends along the dorsal midline
from the tip through the dorsal nasal bar. The dorsal nasal bar is extremely broad
compared to other drepanidines, so broad as to occlude the anterior part of the
narial openings, which are consequently higher than long. The dorsal nasal bar is
also distinctively elevated at its posterior margin. C. regiskongi differs further
from C. kona and C. wahi as follows: the lateral nasal bars are weaker; the nasal
septurn is unossified (usually partly ossified in C. kona and C. wahi); the ventral
surface of the maxilla does not extend as far posteriorly, so that there is no ossified
floor beneath the narial openings, which, with the extreme depth of the maxilla
and the fairly extensive area of co-ossified nasals, creates a greater antorbital
space; the prominent ventral ridges of the maxilla are less blunt and less closeset,
tending more toward the configuration in Rhodacanthis; the foramina above
the narial openings are absent; the mandibular symphysis lacks a distinct sagittal
groove; in ventral aspect, the posterior margin of the symphysis is curved, as is
more typical of finches, rather than nearly straight; and the lateral cotylae lie
approximately parallel to each other and are not elevated, as opposed to being
elevated and angled posteromedially.
Remarks: In addition to the character differences mentioned in the diagnosis,
the bill of C. regiskongi appears to have developed along a different allometric
trajectory from the other species in the genus, as it differs further from C. kona
and C. wahi, but resembles the smallest known mandible of the genus (Chloridops
sp., Maul) in being less extensively ossified, with the posterior portion of the
tomial crest of the mandible not as broad and flat, the middle part of the ramus
a little less deep (and consequently the angle of the mandible somewhat less acute),
and the surface for attachment of M. depressor mandibulae less expanded.
Although we have placed this species in the genus Chloridops, its osteological
differences from other members of the genus are extensive enough to raise the
possibility of parallel evolution in two lineages from weaker-billed finches. In
particular, the broad, parallel lateral cotylae of the mandible combined with the
prominent ventral ridges and weak lateral nasal bars of the maxilla could be taken
as evidence that C. regiskongi is a sister taxon of Rhodacanthis.
. |
|
|
|
Post by another specialist on Jul 22, 2006 9:08:24 GMT
|
|
