Talk:Italian sparrow

Former HTML comment from text

[Unfortunately, no, or do we accept this level of paraphyly? This is really a case of bad timing, since Anderson (2006, ch.1-2) reviews the case also and arrives at a much more robust conclusion; the molecular data says italiae is at least maternally closer to domesticus than hispaniolensis (which biogeographically makes complete sense, whereas the other way around it makes little). Töpfer's claim that "Passer domesticus is not conspecific with them" is refuted, and thus the entire case falls apart. Also possibly strike "comprehensive" since the data was available then already.] [by Dysmorodrepanis, inserted in this edit]

FYI: On the origin of an avian species by means of natural hybridization. Master's thesis, University of Oslo. Case closed it seems. Though Anderson (2006) was very reserved about anthropogenic influence based on the molecular data then available. FWIW, the phylogeography suggests the "proto-domesticus lineage that led to italiae diverged deep in the Würm glaciation already (quite some time before the last major glacial advance), somewhere near Central Asia presumably. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the thesis. That paper appears to provide very strong support for a close relation between the House Sparrow and the Italian Sparrow, though it is very hard to be sure of what is said with just an abstract (do you have the entire thesis, and where did you get the thing about palaeogeography?). However, I'm not sure this is the last word or close to that, and the Italian and Spanish Sparrows' status depends additionally on more abstract issues how to draw a line between species (especially if the Italian Sparrow is a hybrid in any way), and probably on other evidence; currently, the Handbook of the Birds of the World and such sources treat the Italian Sparrow, provisionally, as a species, and using this while emphasising the uncertainty seems best for now. —innotata 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)