Description of the song of the Nilgiri Thrush (Zoothera [aurea] neilgherriensis) and song differentiation across the Zoothera dauma species complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taxonomic treatment of the Zoothera dauma species complex is highly variable and has been hampered by the absence of song recordings for the Nilgiri Thrush (Zoothera [aurea] neilgherriensis). I obtained two recordings of the song of neigherriensis from southern Indian. Here I publish sonograms and analyze song recordings for all but one currently described taxon from the Eurasian portion of the geographic range of this species complex. Principal component analyses were used to investigate song differences between taxa. The song of neigherriensis is a highly complex series of strophes remarkably similar to the song of the insular Zoothera major. Vocal analyses across the complex indicate four key groups of taxa differentiated in their songs: (1) simple flat whistled songs which include the northern aurea, toratugumi and the undescribed Taiwan population; (2) eastern populations of dauma (reported here for the first time) which sing like northern birds but with much broader bandwidth, (3) strongly down-slurred, thin whistles of tropical resident imbricata of Sri Lanka and horsfieldi of Indonesia, and (4) highly complex songs of Himalayan dauma, neilgherriensis and major. Zoothera dauma is unlikely to represent a single species given the simple singing populations from its eastern range and highly complex song from the Himalayan portion of its range. neilgherriensis should either be transferred from Zoothera aurea, where it is currently classified as a subspecies, and be placed as a subspecies within Z. dauma from the Himalayas or it should be recognized as a distinct species. Given the small number of songs available for analyses, I suggest the former course until it can be clearly demonstrated that neilgherriensis and Himalayan dauma are vocally distinct.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".