Talk:Galloperdix

Asiatic spurfowl
A counterproductive convention of misclassification persists in the Wikipedia info sphere that was normalized by colonialist mindsets prior to the advent of molecular biology. European imperialism took claim of some of the more visually astonishing bird groups, for example landfowl (Galliformes) & birds of paradise. European naturalists did more than name and classify these creatures. They introduced their existence to generations that hunted them as a form of entertainment. Most species suffered dramatic depopulation as their plumage was commodified for use in European fashion. Conservation minded Europeans took pivotal steps to save the species they’d nearly extirpated-and their relatives, creating groups like the World Pheasant Association, which advertises itself as “the foremost authority of gallinaceous birds”. People that maintain captive populations of these species are generally aligned with conservation organizations like the WPA, even by generalized association, due to their successful propagation initiatives.

Unfortunately, bird hobbyists are not necessarily invested in the ornithological aspects of their passion. They maintain antedated conventions, like the misleading description of Galloperdix as members of the pheasant family.

It has been established for more than 20 years that the Phasianidae is paraphyletic. Galloperdix are not members of the pheasant family. They are Asiatic spurfowl, which probably derived from Asiatic wood-partridges. Technically that would make them members of the roul roul family, which are essentially unrelated to pheasants.

Western pheasant hobbyists of a certain generation tend to cling to taxonomic classification schemes generated during colonialist eras. This matters very much when attempting to disseminate factual scientific information to people living in the regions where these birds are native.

It may not be obvious to westerners but these antedated taxonomic lumping conventions, which fly in the face of two decades of science-are counterproductive and at odds with current day conventions in ornithological literature. Pinudjem (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Type species
I've reverted an IP who changed the type to Sri Lanka spurfowl (Tetrao bicalcaratus) with the comment "The Sri Lanka spurfowl has prior authority over the red spurfowl and the red spurfowl may not belong to this genus." This would need a reliable source.

I had already included citations in the text – but to repeat:

Blyth p. 936:

3. As Francolinus Hardwickii, Gray, the Perdix lunulosa, Valenciennes, v. Fr. nivosus, Mag. de Zool., 1840, Ois. pi. 18; if indeed this be not also the Cingalese, Perdix bicalcaratus of Pennant, which I greatly suspect. The form, to which P. spadiceus also belongs, I regard as constituting a very distinct genus — Galloperdix, Nobis.

The above is slightly ambiguous as to whether Blythe is including Perdix bicalcaratus in his proposed new genus Galloperdix. If he is then some later authority would need to designate which of the listed species is the type – it is not a question of priority.

But two authorities consider that Blythe only placed one species in his new genus (type by monotypy)

Peters Vol. II 106

Edward Dickinson and Leslie Christidis in the fourth edition of the Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World Vol 1 here

GALLOPERDIX Blyth, 1845 F – Tetrao spadiceus J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by monotypy

- Aa77zz (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Confusingly, Gray 1855 p. 105 designated the type of Galloperdix as Perdix lunulata Valenciennes. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)