Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
A question for ICZN/taxonomy gurus (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mysticete
- Start date
l_raty
laurent raty
I find this case very complicated, actually.
I agree with the etymology as suggested here above—πτεροv, “wing” + -κλης, a contraction of -κλεης, a suffix meaning i.a. “famous for”. Words ending in this suffix have genitive in -κλεος or -κλεους, and the generic stem is thus indeed (as per Brooke 1993, cited by Bock) quite unambiguously Pterocle-.
I'm much less convinced, however, by the analogy that supposedly allows the dropping of the -e at the end of this stem.
Heraclidae is the genuine Latin transcription of a genuine Greek word, Ἡρακλειδαι. In this Greek word, the -ει- is a Greek diphthong, that was likely pronounced by classical Greeks like a long -ī-, and was indeed usually transcribed as such by classical Latins. OK. But in fact, absolutely nothing of this is true for Pterocleidae. A word like Pterocleidae is not the transcription of any Greek word. It is an artificial, purely nomenclatural construct—the concatenation of a transliterated Greek stem that happens to end in -e, and a conventional suffix indicating a particular nomenclatural rank that, in the case of a family, happens to start with an i-. In this word, -ei- is not a Greek diphthong; actually, the -e and the i- that make up this -ei- are arguably not even taken from the same language. The current edition of the Code has an explicit provision (Art. 29.3.1.1) that makes the dropping of an -id at the end of a stem possible (presumably the result of the fact that “At its recent meetings, the ICZN has argued in favor of the simplest spelling of family-group names”, and that indeed makes Chionidae possible, in place of Chionididae). But, as far as I see, it doesn't have the start of a provision allowing the dropping of an -e.
So what, exactly, makes this dropping acceptable?
I can also easily believe Bock's statement that “The ICZN has argued [...] against changes in these names simply because of grammatical correction in the form of the generic stem”. But the result of this in the 1999 edition of the Code was, as far as I can see, Art. 29.5—which states that a spelling of a family-group name that is not formed in accordance to the usual rules, but is in prevailing usage, must be maintained.
The main caveat, here, is that given the frequency at which Pteroclididae (based on a different and, as far as I can judge from Temminck 1815, incorrect etymology) has been used, there is arguably no single spelling that is in prevailing usage for the family. If most of the usage is made of two spellings, both of which result from incorrect derivations, and neither of which prevails clearly, why should we preserve one of these incorrect derivations rather than the other...?
Incidentally:
This is technically incorrect, I believe. Bonaparte 1831 introduced a family Pteroclidae, with two subfamilies, Syrrhaptinae and Pteroclinae. As Pteroclidae was proposed at a higher rank, it takes precedence automatically (Art. 24.1). Absolutely no “provision of first reviser” involved here.
mb1848
Well-known member
I am not sure this makes any difference just interesting to me. I had been wondering why the family was not named after the earlier Syrrhaptes (Illiger 1811)?
“In his 'Manuel d'Ornithologie' (1820), 2nd part, p. 474, in a footnote, Temminck states that he published an account of these birds under the generic name of Pterocles in 1809.* I have not been able to find this publication, nor anv record of it, and 18I5 is the earliest date I can assign to the genus.” (A study of the Pteroclidae or Family of the sand-grouse. By Daniel Giraud Elliot) This is because the 1809 book was very rare? The reason for this confusion was fully explained by Temminck (1815: 640-644), who stated that there were only twelve authentic copies (copies
approved by the author) of the book in existence. All other copies had been mutilated and provided with a different title-page by Madame Knip (see also Ronsil, 1957). It is evidently from these multilated copies that later
authors have taken their bibliographical references. On the original title-page Temminck alone appears as author. As the authentic edition is very rare (it would be interesting to now where the twelve copies have gone), I add a reproduction of the title-page of Temminck's own copy of the work (plate II); this copy was purchased for the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie from one of Temminck's descendants, in December 1942 (cf Boschma, 1943). Or it was from something called Histoire des gangas (from Vieillot in Dictionary)??? “M. Themminck, dans une note de son Histoire des gangas, prétend que la perdrix de Damas de Belon”
* En 1809. j'ai publié l'histoire de ces oiseaux sous !e nom génériqne Pterocles, et tn 1817 M. Vieillot forme de ce même groupe son genre OEnas.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/P/p01913a.jpg .
“In his 'Manuel d'Ornithologie' (1820), 2nd part, p. 474, in a footnote, Temminck states that he published an account of these birds under the generic name of Pterocles in 1809.* I have not been able to find this publication, nor anv record of it, and 18I5 is the earliest date I can assign to the genus.” (A study of the Pteroclidae or Family of the sand-grouse. By Daniel Giraud Elliot) This is because the 1809 book was very rare? The reason for this confusion was fully explained by Temminck (1815: 640-644), who stated that there were only twelve authentic copies (copies
approved by the author) of the book in existence. All other copies had been mutilated and provided with a different title-page by Madame Knip (see also Ronsil, 1957). It is evidently from these multilated copies that later
authors have taken their bibliographical references. On the original title-page Temminck alone appears as author. As the authentic edition is very rare (it would be interesting to now where the twelve copies have gone), I add a reproduction of the title-page of Temminck's own copy of the work (plate II); this copy was purchased for the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie from one of Temminck's descendants, in December 1942 (cf Boschma, 1943). Or it was from something called Histoire des gangas (from Vieillot in Dictionary)??? “M. Themminck, dans une note de son Histoire des gangas, prétend que la perdrix de Damas de Belon”
* En 1809. j'ai publié l'histoire de ces oiseaux sous !e nom génériqne Pterocles, et tn 1817 M. Vieillot forme de ce même groupe son genre OEnas.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/P/p01913a.jpg .
l_raty
laurent raty
Not sure I understand the main question...? (The date of publication of the names of the genera included in a family does not normally play any role in the determination/choice of the family name. Family-group names have their own publication dates, that are fully independent from those of the included genera.)
My understanding is that the book published by Pauline Knip was only about pigeons, being the equivalent of the first volume of Temminck's Histoire naturelle générale des pigeons et des gallinacés, thus it seems unlikely that sandgrouse were addressed there.
"Histoire des gangas" is a section (pp. 240-281) of the third volume of the same work (= Temminck 1815 - labelled on page headers).
In the situation that Temminck describes there, it seems at the very least questionable that an "authentic edition" was actually published... The work that was distributed to the public was the altered version.
My understanding is that the book published by Pauline Knip was only about pigeons, being the equivalent of the first volume of Temminck's Histoire naturelle générale des pigeons et des gallinacés, thus it seems unlikely that sandgrouse were addressed there.
"Histoire des gangas" is a section (pp. 240-281) of the third volume of the same work (= Temminck 1815 - labelled on page headers).
In the situation that Temminck describes there, it seems at the very least questionable that an "authentic edition" was actually published... The work that was distributed to the public was the altered version.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Yes I was confused about priority and choosing genera to make family names. Coues had a copy of the real book by Temminck it was in the Philadelphia Academy. It originally was entitled Histoire Naturelle des Pigeons et des Gallinaces. Knip suppressed 40 pages retaining only the Pigeons. Quoting from a review of the Strickland Code:
The other requisite is publication. And now the question arises, what shall be considered publication. In the words of the committee, "to constitute publication, nc4hing short of the insertion of the above particulars (the essential characters) in a printed book, can he held sufficient." The French Academy of Sciences has also decided that nothing can constitute publication, but the rendering' one's labors public, through the press.* These two authorities are the highest to which we could possibly have recourse, and their dicta ought to be conclusive on this point.
The definition of the Academy, it will be perceived, is broader than that of the British Association, inasmuch as the former merely requires that a definition should be given to the public in print, while the latter requires that it should be given in a printed book. We are ready to adopt the most rigid of these requisitions. When descriptions are published, as many of Mr. Say's were, in such a paper as the New Harmony Disseminator, it could not be expected that another naturalist, who might publish descriptions of the same objects, in some widely current scientific work, justifiably ignorant of his predecessor's labors, should forfeit his claim to the names imposed by him. It certainly cannot be expected, that every fugitive newspaper or ephemeral literary periodical, is to be ransacked, before a man may be permitted to name an object. In the case of Mr. Say, however, thanks to the assiduity of his friends, his fugitive publications have been collected, embodied, and given to the public, in books which cannot be set aside. At the present day, every facility which can be asked, is given to authors, for bringing their discoveries before the public as soon as they please, in such a manner as to secure all their rights. It is the custom to print, at short intervals, works in which the essential characters of objects may be given, in anticipation of figures and more ex%
* " Ainsi il est bien 6tabli par l-Acad6mie d«s Sciences, que les communication! fiites par MM. Le Guillou, &c., ne sauraient consumer une publication, et que lean traraus resteront inedita, a 1-etat de manuscrit, jusqu-i ee qu-il* «•>«/ i'ii rautui publics, par la voic de I-imprcssion."—Revue Zoologique, 1841, p. 331.
tended descriptions ; thus giving date and publicity to a discovery, and allowing ample time for a more satisfactory development of it. Such are the " Annals and Magazine of Natural History," and the " Zoological Proceedings," in London; the " Revue Zoologique," in Paris; and the " Proceedings" of the American Philosophical Society, of the Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia ; and of the Boston Society of Natural History, in this country.
It will be perceived that this rule disallows any authority to manuscript names, whether merely attached*to specimens in a museum, or even when descriptions are accurately written out in full. In the words of the report, "many birds in the Paris and other continental museums, shells in the British Museum, and fossils in the Scarborough and other public collections, have received MS. names, which will be of no authority until they are published. Nor can any unpublished descriptions, however exact, claim any right of priority till published, and then only from the date of their publication." One who is publishing may, from courtesy, adopt names which he knows have been applied by some other person; but in that case he must append his own cognomen to it, and not that of his friend, for he alone will be responsible to the scientific world for it, and his publication alone can be referred to as authority.
The other requisite is publication. And now the question arises, what shall be considered publication. In the words of the committee, "to constitute publication, nc4hing short of the insertion of the above particulars (the essential characters) in a printed book, can he held sufficient." The French Academy of Sciences has also decided that nothing can constitute publication, but the rendering' one's labors public, through the press.* These two authorities are the highest to which we could possibly have recourse, and their dicta ought to be conclusive on this point.
The definition of the Academy, it will be perceived, is broader than that of the British Association, inasmuch as the former merely requires that a definition should be given to the public in print, while the latter requires that it should be given in a printed book. We are ready to adopt the most rigid of these requisitions. When descriptions are published, as many of Mr. Say's were, in such a paper as the New Harmony Disseminator, it could not be expected that another naturalist, who might publish descriptions of the same objects, in some widely current scientific work, justifiably ignorant of his predecessor's labors, should forfeit his claim to the names imposed by him. It certainly cannot be expected, that every fugitive newspaper or ephemeral literary periodical, is to be ransacked, before a man may be permitted to name an object. In the case of Mr. Say, however, thanks to the assiduity of his friends, his fugitive publications have been collected, embodied, and given to the public, in books which cannot be set aside. At the present day, every facility which can be asked, is given to authors, for bringing their discoveries before the public as soon as they please, in such a manner as to secure all their rights. It is the custom to print, at short intervals, works in which the essential characters of objects may be given, in anticipation of figures and more ex%
* " Ainsi il est bien 6tabli par l-Acad6mie d«s Sciences, que les communication! fiites par MM. Le Guillou, &c., ne sauraient consumer une publication, et que lean traraus resteront inedita, a 1-etat de manuscrit, jusqu-i ee qu-il* «•>«/ i'ii rautui publics, par la voic de I-imprcssion."—Revue Zoologique, 1841, p. 331.
tended descriptions ; thus giving date and publicity to a discovery, and allowing ample time for a more satisfactory development of it. Such are the " Annals and Magazine of Natural History," and the " Zoological Proceedings," in London; the " Revue Zoologique," in Paris; and the " Proceedings" of the American Philosophical Society, of the Academy of Natural Sciences at Philadelphia ; and of the Boston Society of Natural History, in this country.
It will be perceived that this rule disallows any authority to manuscript names, whether merely attached*to specimens in a museum, or even when descriptions are accurately written out in full. In the words of the report, "many birds in the Paris and other continental museums, shells in the British Museum, and fossils in the Scarborough and other public collections, have received MS. names, which will be of no authority until they are published. Nor can any unpublished descriptions, however exact, claim any right of priority till published, and then only from the date of their publication." One who is publishing may, from courtesy, adopt names which he knows have been applied by some other person; but in that case he must append his own cognomen to it, and not that of his friend, for he alone will be responsible to the scientific world for it, and his publication alone can be referred to as authority.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
I think the 40 pages of text suppressed by Pauline Knip were about pigeons as well. She also suppressed the Latin index. As I understand Temminck's text ("elle supprima 40 pages d'impression du texte qui auraient pu servir de témoins contre le prétendu auteur"), he is suggesting that she did this to increase the weight of her own work (the 87 paintings) in the publication, thus justifying she being the author instead of him.
From the ICZN:
Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.
If the "authentic edition" was issued with the only purpose to fool Temminck, letting him believe that his entire work was being published under his own name, whether 8.1.1 is fulfilled might be questioned. Furthermore, if this "authentic edition" was sent only to him, and he did not make it "obtainable" "free of charge or by purchase" at that time, 8.1.2 is not fulfilled either...
From the ICZN:
Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.
If the "authentic edition" was issued with the only purpose to fool Temminck, letting him believe that his entire work was being published under his own name, whether 8.1.1 is fulfilled might be questioned. Furthermore, if this "authentic edition" was sent only to him, and he did not make it "obtainable" "free of charge or by purchase" at that time, 8.1.2 is not fulfilled either...
JustinJansen
Well-known member
A paper is forthcomming in the next edition of Archives of Natural History: Histoire naturelle des pigeons or Les pigeons: Coenraad Jacob
Temminck versus Pauline Knip (Dickinson, David, Overstreet, Steinheimer and Jansen). It is mainly on the dating of the work.
In the book there are no sandgrouses included.
Temminck versus Pauline Knip (Dickinson, David, Overstreet, Steinheimer and Jansen). It is mainly on the dating of the work.
In the book there are no sandgrouses included.
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay, 1910) vs. Ptilopsis erlangeri (Ogilvie-Grant, 1906)
Which name is correct - Ptilopsis granti or P. erlangeri?
http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/n/e.html
Ptilopsis erlangeri Nomenclature and Concept
This taxon was previously listed as:
Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay) 1910 Orn.Monatsb. 18 p.148 Concept
With a note indicating:
Described by Kollibay as subspecies of Pisorhina leucotis.
Elevated to specific status. HBW 5:183 indicates it differs in DNA and vocal patterns from P. leucotis.
The card in the Richmond index says "New name for (the bird Grant should? have named, but didn't?) or because preoccupied ?"
It seems clear, that now that the bird is in Ptilopsis, Kollibay's replacement name for leucotis is no longer needed.
The Richmond index card for Scops erlangeri has a note:
New name for the Asio leucotis leucotis of Erlanger
(J.f.O., 1904, 233, pl. XIX, low. fig.), nec Temm. Erlanger renamed the
northern instead of the southern form.
Which name is correct - Ptilopsis granti or P. erlangeri?
http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/n/e.html
Ptilopsis erlangeri Nomenclature and Concept
This taxon was previously listed as:
Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay) 1910 Orn.Monatsb. 18 p.148 Concept
With a note indicating:
Described by Kollibay as subspecies of Pisorhina leucotis.
Elevated to specific status. HBW 5:183 indicates it differs in DNA and vocal patterns from P. leucotis.
The card in the Richmond index says "New name for (the bird Grant should? have named, but didn't?) or because preoccupied ?"
It seems clear, that now that the bird is in Ptilopsis, Kollibay's replacement name for leucotis is no longer needed.
The Richmond index card for Scops erlangeri has a note:
New name for the Asio leucotis leucotis of Erlanger
(J.f.O., 1904, 233, pl. XIX, low. fig.), nec Temm. Erlanger renamed the
northern instead of the southern form.
l_raty
laurent raty
Erlanger 1904 remarked that the birds from NE Africa differed from those from further S, and named them Asio leucotis nigrovertex Erl. He thought that the birds from NW Africa were somewhat intermediate, but suggested nevertheless that they were best included in the new form he was describing. By this, he overlooked that the original leucotis of Temminck 1820 is based on a bird from NW Africa (hence including NW African birds in the taxon he was describing made his name a junior synonym of leucotis).
Ogilvie-Grant 1906 noted this, and proposed to call the southern form, that remained unnamed, Scops erlangeri.
Last, Kollibay 1910 noted that Ogilvie-Grant's erlangeri was preoccupied by Pisorhina scops erlangeri Tschusi 1904, a name applying to Tunisian populations of Scops Owl, and proposed the replacement name Pisorhina leucotis granti for the former.
The homonymy is secondary, and comes into effect only if the taxon named by O-G is deemed congeneric with (Tunisian) Scops Owls. Thus, in Psilopsis, O-G's erlangeri must be used.
Cheers, Laurent -
But what about article 59.3 of the Code?
59.3. Secondary homonyms replaced before 1961 but no longer considered congeneric. A junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the substitute name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, in which case the junior homonym is not to be rejected on grounds of that replacement.
- Scops erlangeri was replaced before 1961.
- It is permanently invalid, unless
- the substitute name [granti] is not in use (but it is!), and
- the taxa are no longer congeneric (true)
- the taxa are no longer congeneric (true)
With only one of the two criteria being true, I'd say that erlangeri is invalid and granti is correct.
Rainer
Similar threads
