Talk:Inca dove

Scardafella vs Columbina
I think the best thing to do is see where the various authorities line up on classifying this bird.
 * AOU 7th Edition, accessed February 26 2007- Columbina inca
 * Clements, James F. Birds of the World: A Checklist 5th ed, 2000, updated 2005 - Columbina inca
 * Howard & Moore. Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World 3rd edition, version 6, 2005. - Columbina inca
 * Sibley & Monroe. A World Checklist of Birds, 1993 - Columbina inca
 * Handbook of the Birds of the World Volume 4: Sandgrouse To Cuckoos, 1994 - Scardafella inca

Then there's this note from Van Remsen's SACC website :

7. Columbina squammata (sic) '', along with northern C. inca, were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Goodwin 1983) treated in the genus Scardafella, but genetic data (Johnson and Clayton 2000a, Johnson 2004) show that it is embedded within Columbina, as proposed by Johnston (1961) based on morphology and behavior. Vocal and display differences from other Columbina continue to be cited by recent authors (e.g., Baptista et al. 1997, Gibbs et al. 2001, Hilty 2003) in support of recognition of Scardafella.''

Both the South American Classification Committee and the American Ornithologists' Union clearly support lumping Scardafella back into Columbina on this basis, and considering the range of this genus does not fall within the jurisdiction of Eurasian, African, or Oceanic authorities, I think we would be obliged to follow.

Finally, the source most likely to used by American birders starting articles on Wikipedia, David Sibley's field guides, seems to follow AOU nomenclature fairly well, and uses Columbina.

Short of a "Google fight", I think this pretty much settles most debate: what do you think? -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 09:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a real problem with it. Check the Johnson & Clayton reference under Dove kindly linked by (IIRC) yours truly. Here, it is demonstrated that judging from their mtDNA and nDNA data, the present Columbina is paraphyletic with regards to Scardafella, with the oddball C. picui being the outgroup. together with the sequence data suggests that Scardafella is one of at least probably [bad sample density] 3 subgenera of Columbina. Biogeography - which for me, due to it rarely showing homoplasies for ecological constraints, is very robust if you can handle paleomaps - also does not advocate against a lumping.
 * The alternative to lumping Scardafella with Columbina would be to split C. picui (and what else? Probably nothing because picui is very distinct) from that genus. It's simply so that the morphological distinctness of the Scardafella lineage has been overvalued, and the more subtle (but clearly present) morphological distinctness of C. picui undervalued.
 * So in the Columbina sensu lato clade, we have, preliminarily:


 * 1) picui group - C. picui - prominent white wing bar, black markings on wing restricted to line on scapulars(?). Outer tail feathers white overall.
 * 2) Scardafella group - scalloped pattern. (Interestingly, squammata at least seems to have a minor white wing bar). Outer tail feathers white only at tips.
 * 3) Columbina sensu stricto - no white wing bar, black markings on wing all over the coverts, but least so on scapulars(?). Outer tail feathers white only at tips.
 * Split it or lump it, but Columbina with picui and without Scardafella cannot stand it seems.
 * We could do an article on Columbina after a lumping where the above is outlined. Similar to what I did with Patagioenas maybe. The thing with morphological vs molecular data is that either has its distinct source of homoplasies confounding the analysis, and only by combining both one can say which characters carry phylogenetic signal and which ones dont. In the present case, overall patterning only has minor signal, but wing covert patterning seems a most significant morphological marker. This has not been fully acknowledged in the past because the Scardafella's pattern is so bold and tends to draw the observer's eye towards it. Compare woodcreepers, where the bill shape/size is very conspicuous, but obviously very plastic and no indication of relationship, but having little black diamonds with white center on your breast vs plain brown streaks is... Dysmorodrepanis 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong picture
The bird in the picture is not an Inca Dove. It appears to be a Common Ground-Dove. -djringer 68.94.233.73 05:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you're entirely right and I'll removed the photo in a few secs.Rabo3 04:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common Ground Dove which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common ground dove which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)