Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Would you by chance know the details of the type fixations of these two names?
Callolophus Salvadori 1874
Salvadori T. 1874. Catalogo sistematico degli uccelli di Borneo. Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. Nat. Genova, 5:v-lii,1-431.
p.49: [OD].
Originally included nominal species: Picus puniceus Horsfield, Picus mentalis Temminck (syn. Picus gularis Temminck), Picus malaccensis Latham (syn. "Picus miniatus" Vigors nec Fortser).
No original type fixation.
On a quick search:
Like Stresemann, Peters 1948 [here] accepted Blanford's text as a type designation, albeit this is probably disputable; should it not be valid, Streseman's text certainly is.
- Blanford WT. 1895. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. Vol. III. Taylor & Francis, London.
p.29 [here]: this text implies that P. malaccensis is the type (Bl. says three species were originally included but no type designated, he then places two of the three in other genera and uses the genus as valid for malaccensis), but doesn't actually designate it explicitly.- Stresemann E. 1921. Die Spechte der Insel Sumatra. Arch. Naturgesch., 87(7):64-120.
p.81 [here]: the type is said to be P. malaccensis Latham by subsequent designation of Blanford 1895:29.
P. malaccensis Latham = Chrysophlegma miniaceum malaccense (Latham).
On which base can this name be used for puniceus & chlorolophus?
Chloropicoides is problematic because it can be taken from two different works, I have no idea which one was issued first, and this affects the type species directly.
- Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
Malherbe A. 1849. Note sur quelques nouvelles espèces de pics. Bull. Soc. Hist. Nat. Départ. Moselle 5:14-30.
p.26: [OD].
Originally included nominal species: Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson).
Type species Picus rafflesii Vigors by original monotypy. (No designation.)
- Chloropicoides Malherbe 1849
Malherbe A. 1849. Nouvelle classification des Picinées, devant servir de base à une monographie de ces oiseaux grimpeurs, accompagnée de planches peintes. Mém. Acad. Nat. Metz, 30:313-367.
p.345: [OD].
Originally included nominal species: Picus shorii Vigors (syn. Picus abnormis Hodgson), Picus tiga (Horsfield) (syn. Picus javanensis Ljung, Chrysonotus tridactylus Swainson, Tiga tridactyla Blyth), Picus rafflesii Vigors (syn. Picus amictus Gray, Picus labarum Lesson), Picus grantia McClelland.
No original type fixation.
The [Richmond index card] claims a type designation by Strickland 1851, which I presume is:
Strickland HE. 1851. Ornithological notes. Contrib. Ornithol., 4:15-20.
p.19 [here]: "12. Chloropicoides, Malh. = Tiga, Kaup, 1836. Type, T. tridactyla (Swains.)"
But this is a misinterpretation -- the types "designated" in this note are not those of Malherbe's names, they are only those of the names Strickland regarded as their valid synonyms (here Tiga Kaup); see, p.18: "the Malherbian genus includes the type-species of the previous author, whose generic name must therefore be regarded as synonymous with it, and be retained accordingly."
On a quick search, the earliest type designation I found was:
Hargitt E. 1890. Catalogue of the Picariae in the collections of the British Museum. British Museum, London.
p.411 [here]: the type is "Tiga shorii" = Picus shorii Vigors. = Dinopium shorii (Vigors).
(The problem with type designation is always the same, though: no list of valid type designations for avian generic names exists, and overlooking/missing relatively obscure designations is extremely easy...)
Shame on me, I based myself on this :
https://pl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinopium
Then, are these following names available?
Cirropicus Stresemann, 1921
Gauropicoides Malherbe, 1861
Mesospilus Sundevall, 1866
Last edited: