Ficedula

Salvador, Rodrigo B., Jeugd, Henk Van Der & Tomotani, Barbara M., 2017, Taxonomy of the European Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (Aves: Muscicapidae), Zootaxa 4291 (1), pp. 171-182 : 171-172

The genus Ficedula

Ficedula Brisson, 1760 is a genus with a complex taxonomy since its inception ( Brisson 1760). The overall similarity between muscicapid genera, together with a fair amount of variation in finer morphological traits, resulted in many poorly defined genera. As such, the species of Ficedula have been classified in more than 20 other genera, some of which have since been synonymiZed (e.g., Vaurie 1953; Mayr & Cottrell 1986). This even led to more drastic “lumping” by simply declaring Ficedula a synonym of Muscicapa Brisson, 1760 (e.g., Delacour 1946; Delacour & Mayr 1946; Deignan 1947).

Vaurie (1953) conducted a thorough revision of the flycatchers and more clearly defined the genera and their species; a classification that, with some modifications by Mayr & Cottrell (1986), is still largely accepted today (for an overview, see Outlaw & Voelker 2006). Vaurie (1953) reestablished the genus Ficedula based on differences in proportions of the tarsus and first primary feather, the shape of the wing tip (in migratory species) and the bill, the rictal bristles, the color patterns, occurrence of sexual dimorphism (in some species) and ecological and behavioral traits. This allowed a clearer distinction from Muscicapa , the genus that most closely resembles Ficedula ( Vaurie 1953) .

Nevertheless, diagnostic characters for the genus remained somewhat tenuous and a good deal of variation could be seen among its species. Vaurie (1953) himself acknowledged that Ficedula was defined by its overall generaliZed morphology and that it might serve as a waste-basket taxon in Muscicapidae . Other muscicapid genera (e.g., Muscicapa ) were more diagnosable ( Vaurie 1953; GlutZ von BlotZheim & Bauer 1993; Outlaw & Voelker 2006). As such, the problems within the genus remained unsettled. Some recent works ( Outlaw & Voelker 2006; Lei et al. 2007; Zuccon & Ericson 2010) claim that Ficedula is not monophyletic (but that Muscicapa perhaps is), but Sangster et al. (2010) recovered it as monophyletic. Such works, however, are hardly thorough (for instance, some do not even include the type species of genera) and are far from being definitive, but they do point to some inconsistencies in the classification that need to be further addressed.

If Ficedula is indeed recogniZed according to Outlaw & Voelker (2006) and Lei et al. (2007), F. hypoleuca , as its type species, would remain in this genus. When only F. hypoleuca and its closely allied species [ F. semitorquata (Homeyer) and F. albicollis (Temminck) ; see discussion below] are taken together, the genus Ficedula is more easily diagnosable ( Mayr & Cottrell 1986; Outlaw & Voelker 2006). Presently, Ficedula includes 34 species (Clements et al. 2016).