taxonID	type	description	language	source
52524956FF89FFC8AF143D1DFEE9FAA0.taxon	description	Detailed descriptions of the effects of contact between different taxa of Great Tits have been published by Kuzjmina in Dolguschin et al. (1972, IV), Eck and Piechocki (1977), Mistschenko (1982), Kerimov and Formozov (1985, 1986), Formozov et al. (1993) and Ivankina et al. (1997). At the Amur the encounter between Great Tits with quite different song forms (the major and minor groups) were closely examined and the taxonomic results discussed (Martens 1996: 223 – 227). Very recently the methodical studies by Nazarenko and Valchuk have corroborated the old finding of Stegmann (1928) that major and minor are different species (Päckert et al., 2005). The relationships among the Great Tits thus provide particularly impressive support of the significance of the superspecies as a category encompassing very closely related species, since these forms are still capable of interbreeding even though not in the sense of a population­level mixing region. This may also explain the decisions made by Hartert in 1923 (p. 38, footnote) or 1933 (in Hartert & Steinbacher, p. 179) regarding the subspecies of Great Tits. As far as I know, he no longer acknowledged the existence of an “ Artenkreis ” (superspecies). — Recently intrapopular differentiations of Great Tits have been very highly ranked in an evolutionary context (Garant et al., 2004, 2005). — P. monticolus constitutes a separate series of especially intensely pigmented geographical forms, and is an isospecies next to the superspecies P. [major].	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF8DFFCDAF143BA2FD2AFE37.taxon	description	The subdivision of the Blue Tits into species has also changed recently (Eck 1988: 1 species; Salzburger et al. 2002 b: 3 species). Traditionally the difference between Blue Tits s. l. and Azure Tits has been thought to be older than that between the European Blue and the North African / Canarian Ultramarine Tits. Evidently the reverse applies, and the blue and ultramarine forms, which seem more similar to our eyes, are the result of an older differentiation. Even between the Blue Tits in central and in southern Europe, the subtle population comparisons made by Taberlet and Bouvet (1990), Blondel et al. (1991) and Kvist et al. (2004) have revealed biological, ecological and genetic differentiations that could not yet have been suspected to lie behind the description of Parus caeruleus ogliastrae HARTERT 1905. Blue and Ultramarine Tits are strictly allopatric, and at least since Martin (1988: 136 – 137) a species distinction between them has been considered. Blue and Azure Tits are not strictly allopatric, and hybridisation occasionally occurs (Johansen 1952; Vaurie 1957; Meise 1975; Portenko et al. 1982). According to voice and genetic distance (cyt b) they could be subspecies, but there is no population­mixing region! How does the sympatry of these tits prove to be, in concrete terms? If Parus cyanus only recently split off from caeruleus, it would not be surprising for there to be no clear molecular­genetic differentiation between flavipectus and tianschanicus. This is not to say that there are no biological isolating mechanisms between them, but interbreeding of flavipectus with cyanus populations is known to occur (Harrap and Quinn 1996 etc.). On the map by Portenko et al. 1982 the areas of the three southern, yellow­breasted Azure Tits are unfortunately not specially marked.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF92FFD3AF143B12FB58F8B8.taxon	description	Coal Tits in the broader sense: In Nepal J. Martens discovered a contact zone between P. ater aemodius and P. melanolophus, from which it could be concluded that the two are conspecific (Diesselhorst & Martens 1972; Martens 1975; Martens & Eck 1995). Later studies of birds from this contact region raised the question whether the so­called “ cinnamon­breasts ” represented a form close to melanolophus that was on the verge of extinction, whereas the extreme western variant of P. ater aemodius was described as P. ater martensi Eck 1998. West of the Thakkhola P. a. martensi becomes mixed with P. a. melanolophus (Löhrl 1994; Martens & Eck 1995: 331 – 332; Eck 1998). — From NW Africa to NE Iran the Coal Tits are more strongly differentiated, and their relationships require better clarification. — In Nepal Martens (1971, 1975) furthermore discovered that the so­called “ Fichtenmeisen ” (“ spruce tits ”) comprise two different species, P. rufonuchalis (monotypic) and P. rubidiventris (markedly polytypic), because they are sympatric in broad areas but have ecological differences. The two species are so closely related that this amounts to one of the rare cases in which a sympatric monotypic species should (?) be included among the “ component species ” (Clancey 1964, 1966) of the same superspecies, here Parus [rubidiventris], as Martens (1975) had already proposed. However, the vocal differences are considerable (Martens & Eck 1995: 326), so that for the present the question is merely raised; colour Fig. of the main forms l. c., Plate 2.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF95FFD4AF143CC2FB5EFAA7.taxon	description	Between 1830 and 1966 in Japan 6 hybrids between Parus varius and Parus montanus were reported, the last of which was intermediate in plumage but vocally very close to varius (Mishima 1969). Does this support the assignment to Poecile? What criteria for genus status are applied? At least it must be asserted that P. v a r i u s has become rather isolated within Poecile. The relationship to P. semilarvatus (SALVADORI) on the Philippines, which has a quite different, altogether downwardly bent bill, is unclear.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF94FFDAAF143D82FC53FE97.taxon	description	The Marsh Tits (P. palustris) can be extensively subdivided, in the western as well as the eastern Palaearctic. The Siberian brevirostris group (high bill, small feet, long tail) is clearly distinct from the allopatric palustris (although cyt­ b distance only 0.6 %, see GILL et al., 2005: 127) and the Chinese (parapatric?) hellmayri group. Parus hypermelaenus is here tentatively regarded as a species. Field work in Talish induced Loskot (1977, 1978, 1987) to ascribe species status to Parus lugubris hyrcanus: he observed that its voice deviates from that of other Sombre Tits, and it chisels out its nest holes itself, which would place it closer to the Willow Tits! Stepanjan (1978, 1990) and Harrap and Quinn (1996) shared this view of species independence. Löhrl (1982: 127) demonstrated experimentally that Balkan Sombre Tits (P. lugubris lugubris) also chop up rotten wood in a cavity and carry it out, but probably because of their body size do not prepare their own nest holes; hyrcanus is distinctly smaller. Eck (1980 and earlier) had proposed subdividing the Willow Tits to a greater extent on one hand, while on the other hand considering them closely related to the American chickadees as was formerly customary. Thönen and Fujimaki (1995: 174) and Thönen (1996) point out that Parus atricapillus turneri in Alaska sings “ alpine ”, like birds of the European montanus group and unlike the remaining Black­capped Chickadees, with which it appears to hybridise (Thönen 1996: 24). Thönen (l. c.) also emphatically declares that it would be erroneous to separate songarus in the Tian Shan from the Willow Tit at species level. Martens and Nazarenko (1993) as well as Martens et al. (1995) analysed the songs of Palaearctic Willow Tits regarding their historic differentiation; cf. also Kvist et al. (2001). The distribution was most recently presented by Quaisser and Eck (2002 / 03). It exhibits several obviously parapatric situations (l. c., maps 3, 4!): in Europe between very similar representatives with different song forms, namely the salicarius, montanus and borealis complexes; in Asia between very dissimilar representatives with different but also consistent song forms, namely baicalensis­songarus, weigoldicus­affinis, baicalensisanadyrensis. Parus weigoldicus is evidently parapatric with P. m. affinis, is also separated by a considerable cyt­ b distance, and is here tentatively, and in analogy to P. hypermelaenus and P. teneriffae, considered an (allo) species.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF99FFD8AF143E35FBCEFDBF.taxon	description	According to Gill et al. (2005) the Sombre Tits, Parus lugubris s. str., are phylogenetically positioned at the base of the Poecile clade, next to P. v a r i u s! The Sombre Tits s. l. are still controversial today. On the basis of morphological­geographical comparisons Eck (1980) arrived at the divergent taxonomic evaluation of Père David’s Tit, P. davidi, as representative of the Sombre Tits (P. lugubris); its classification as subspecies undoubtedly went too far. A convincing alternative to the idea that the western Sombre Tits are likewise anchored in central Asia, along with davidi, has not yet been discussed.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FF98FFD9AF143A2AFE56F9FF.taxon	description	The Willow Tits s. l. have turned out to be a touchstone for species systematics. The entire holarctic group associated with kleinschmidti and schiebeli, borealis and baicalensis, songarus, weigoldicus to restrictus, turneri, atricapillus, carolinensis and sclateri has been the object of intensive study for over a century. Hartert (1905: 376, Footnote 2) placed all of them except sclateri in a single species. But so far there is no agreement about their systematic status.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FFA1FFE0AF143930FBBCF8A7.taxon	description	The kinship relation between the relatively long­tailed Crested Tit (P. cristatus) and the Grey­crested Tit (P. dichrous) can in my view be best expressed by the superspecies (see Haffer, in: Glutz v. Blotzheim & Bauer 1993, 13: 365). The two share more characteristics than would be expected, given the obvious difference in coloration. In Martens’ judgment (Löhrl 1991: 11) the sonagram reveals a close similarity of the vocalizations of the two species, but cf. Diesselhorst (1968: 347). Both species are “ red ” ­ eyed.	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
52524956FFA1FFE0AF143D2FFEE6FCB0.taxon	description	The position of the White­browed Tit, specially emphasized by Bianchi (1902) with the name “ Poeciloides ”, was also discussed by Kleinschmidt (1911) with no decision regarding the relationships to P. gambeli. To assume conspecificity of these two (Eck 1980) went too far. Knowledge about this group has recently been enhanced by Martens and Gebauer (1993). According to molecular­genetic findings the sympatric species P. gambeli and P. atricapillus are more closely related to one another than either is to P. superciliosus (Gill et al., 2005), a situation reminiscent of a “ triangular relationships ” (see page 7).	en	Eck, Siegfried (2006): The Palaearctic Titmouse Species (Aves: Paridae: Parus sensu lato) — A current survey *. Zootaxa 1325: 7-54, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.174040
