• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

New Antpitta sp (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
New antpitta sp

A thread to follow/summarise the taxonomy & nomenclature of the new species.

FOR CONTINUING DEBATE ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISCOVERY, DESCRIPTION AND NAMING OF THE NEW SPECIES, PLEASE USE ALTERNATIVE THREAD.

Barrera, Bartels & Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2010. A new species of Antpitta (family Grallariidae) from the Colibrí del Sol Bird Reserve, Colombia. Conservación Colombiana 13: 8-25. [pdf]
  • Grallaria fenwickorum sp. nov. - Fenwick's Antpitta, Tororoi de Urrao

Carantón-Ayala & Certuche-Cubillos 2010. A new species of Antpitta (Grallariidae) from the northern sector of the western Andes of Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana 9: 56-70. [pdf]
  • Grallaria urraoensis sp. nov. - Urrao Antpitta, Tororoi de Urrao

BirdLife International 2011. BirdLife Checklist. v4. [species factsheet]
  • Grallaria fenwickorum - Antioquia Antpitta [CR]

AOU SACC 2011. A classification of the bird species of South America. [proposal #479]
  • Grallaria urraoensis - Urrao Antpitta

Gill & Donsker (Eds) 2011. IOC World Bird List. v2.10 (Draft). [species updates]
  • Grallaria urraoensis - Urrao Antpitta

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011. eBird. v1.52 [taxonomic update]
  • Grallaria (undescribed form) - Antioquia Antpitta
 
Last edited:
Clements Checklist

Cornell Lab of Ornithology 2011. Clements Checklist. v6.6. [checklist]

As expected (from eBird v1.52, 12 Aug 2011), the new species is not recognised/included in the 23 Aug 2011 update.
 
Last edited:
A few more Colombia-specific publications

+ Checklist of the Birds of Colombia. Salaman, Donegan & Caro 2010. Grallaria fenwickorum.

+ Field Guide to the Birds of Colombia. McMullan, Donegan & Quevedo 2010. Grallaria fenwickorum.

+ Guia de aviturismo de Colombia / Travel Guide for Birdwatching in Colombia. Munera, Ocampo, Castaño, Calderón, Schiele, Macías 2010. Grallaria urraoensis.

I have excluded here publications by the authors of the two names. There are also various conference presentations, the infamous editorials, book reviews etc. using one or both of them.
 
Clements & HBW

Clements, Schulenberg, Iliff, Sullivan, Wood & Roberson 2012. The eBird/Clements checklist of birds of the world. Version 6.7.
  • Urrao Antpitta Grallaria urraoensis
del Hoyo, Elliott, Sargatal & Christie (eds) 2013. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Special Volume: New Species and Global Index.
Urrao Antpitta (Grallaria fenwickorum)
Taxonomy: Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera and Bartels, 2010, Colibrí del Sol Bird Reserve, Vereda El Chuscal, 3130 m, Páramo del Sol, Urrao, Antioquia, Colombia.
The name has priority over G. urraoensis, which was published one month later: the two descriptions caused considerable controversy, initially because of ethical concerns, but also because validity of type material (feather samples and photograph) used for the first publication was questioned. Closely related to G. milleri. Monotypic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ICZN Case

Peterson 2013. Case 3623 Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera et al., 2010 (Aves, FORMICARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. BZN 70(2): 99–102. [abstract]
 
"Not AOU!"
I would not be so sure!
The author is A. Townsend Peterson from the University of Kansas. (Go Jayhawks!)
Also at U of Kansas, Mark Robbins a member of the AOU committee SACC. We are not in Kansas anymore, o wait we are.

"Btw, that page could easily be interpreted as encouraging monetary donations to influence the voting on a particular Case... "
If only.
 
Last edited:
ICZN Case

Richard Klim said:
Peterson 2013. Case 3623 Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera et al., 2010 (Aves, FORMICARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. BZN 70(2): 99–102. [abstract]
Click to expand...
Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype (Case 3623). BZN 70(4): 256–269. [article]

The Comment references:
  • González, Proctor & Bruno 2011. The nomenclatural availability of and priority between two recently described names for the same new antpitta species from Colombia. Conservación Colombiana 15: 45–54. [pdf]
 
Last edited:
Well, at least this sorry saga is now in front of the body that can make the final ruling.

Niels
 
ICZN Case

Richard Klim said:
Peterson 2013. Case 3623 Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera et al., 2010 (Aves, FORMICARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. BZN 70(2): 99–102. [abstract]
Click to expand...
Richard Klim said:
Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype (Case 3623). BZN 70(4): 256–269. [article]
Click to expand...
Claramunt, Cuervo, Piacentini, Bravo & Remsen 2014. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype [Case 3623]. BZN 71(1): 40–43. [article]
 
I find it really surprising that nobody discusses the published/unpublished status of these descriptions.

http://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/revista-ornitologia-colombiana-9/:
CODIGO INTERNACIONAL DE NOMENCLATURA ZOOLOGICA, ARTÍCULO 8.6: Este artículo estipula que para establecer la validez de los nombres de nuevos taxones en zoología, copias (en papel) de la publicación pertinente (en particular esto es aplicable a las publicaciones en el Internet) deben ser depositadas en cinco o más bibliotecas con acceso público. Para cumplir con este requisito, Ornitología Colombiana envía copias en papel de cada número a las siguientes bibliotecas: En Colombia: Biblioteca Nacional, Hemeroteca Nacional, Biblioteca del Congreso, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales – Universidad Nacional de Colombia y Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango. En los Estados Unidos: American Museum of Natural History, U. S. National Museum, Louisiana State University, Field Museum of Natural History, y Los Angeles County Museum. En el Reino Unido: British Museum of Natural History. En Francia: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Este número de Ornitología Colombiana fue puesto en la Internet el 12 enero de 2012 y enviado posteriormente a las mencionadas bibliotecas.​
As explained, ia., in Dubois et al. 2014, this type of "Article 8.6 statement" was based on a misreading of this Article, which never applied to Internet publications but instead only to physical publications made by a method that did not employ printing on paper. Furthermore, copies didn't have to be on paper, but instead in the exact same physical form as the work published (eg., if you published a CD-ROM, you had to deposit the CD-ROM). When this Article was in force, anything distributed via the Internet was excluded from publication by the former Art.9.8.
Anyway, as again explained in Dubois et al. 2014, the old Art.8.6 is not in force anymore. It has been abolished retroactively by the electronic publication amendment of 2012. And, under the amended Code, a work published on the web in 2010, with a few paper copies deposited in various libraries, is not to be regarded as published.

Thus I fear very much that the name currently used by the SACC is in fact most likely unpublished under the Code (and therefore unavailable).

I'm not sure about the other one. Is Conservación Colombiana also printed and distributed in this form?
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Claramunt, Cuervo, Piacentini, Bravo & Remsen 2014. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, GRALLARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype [Case 3623]. BZN 71(1): 40–43. [article]
Click to expand...
The arguments they offer are intriguing. Yet, I would note that:

- The ambiguity between "entire original organism" and "preserved part(s) of this organism" as type specimen is an extremely frequent one in species descriptions, and regarding this as invalidating a holotype fixation seems really extreme to me.
I cannot go without noticing that Carantón & Certuche, in their "description of holotype", give an iris colour, describe the testes, and give the detail of the stomach content...while of course their holotype, which is a study skin, has neither eyes, nor testes, nor stomach. These parts were presumably thrown away ("released back into the wild") when the skin was prepared. Thus their publication actually suffers from the very same "problem".

- The Code includes the following:
73.1.5. If a subsequent author finds that a holotype which consists of a set of components (e.g. disarticulated body parts) is not derived from an individual animal, the extraneous components may, by appropriate citation, be excluded from the holotype [...].​
This Article would simply not exist if designating a holotype derived from several individual organisms invalidated the holotype designation. In accordance with this, if the picture and the feather samples are derived from two different individuals, the holotype might be restricted to either the specimen shown on the picture, or the feather samples. I'm very much unconvinced that the Code allows us to interpret this as making the name unavailable.
 
Last edited:
ICZN Case

ICZN should perhaps bear some responsibility for the evident confusion in this and other recent controversial examples of species descriptions. It would surely be in everyone's interests for The Code to provide a simple unambiguous guide that, eg, a young zoologist fortunate enough to diagnose a new taxon could easily follow when writing a description. In reality it's an arcane document that provides an intellectual playground for a community of nomenclature aficionados (eg, certain regular contributors to Zootaxa and Bull BOC), but presents an excessively legalistic obstacle course to those more interested in real science.
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
ICZN should perhaps bear some responsibility for the evident confusion in this and other recent controversial examples of species descriptions. It would surely be in everyone's interests for The Code to provide a simple unambiguous guide that, eg, a young zoologist fortunate enough to diagnose a new taxon could easily follow when writing a description.
Click to expand...
The Code is admittedly rather complex, but this is not without reasons, I think--it has to accommodate the entire history of nomenclature (ie., rules that changed again and again over time) without being overly disruptive, and it must cover the entire range of zoological branches (from birds, that some would like to see described only with a "full preserved specimen", to such exotic creatures as ctenophores or siphonohores, no part of which can effectively be preserved in a way that would keep them diagnosable).
Also, I think that a good deal of the confusion is actually generated by the communities, and in spite of whatever the ICZN might say or do. Eg., the Commission says this, which to me appears unambiguous and unconfusing. Confusion arises from the necessary coexistence of this with other views, such as this.
 
l_raty said:
The Code is admittedly rather complex, but this is not without reasons...
Click to expand...
Yes, my comment wasn't entirely fair. But nevertheless, the fact that highly experienced ornithologists have different understandings of the current minimum requirements for describing and naming a taxon suggests that the Code as formulated provides insufficient clarity. eg, it seems faintly ridiculous that a 94-page paper (Dubois et al 2013) was recently considered necessary to highlight perceived problems with just one aspect of the Code!
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Fred Ruhe
Clymenoptilon novaezealandicum gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
1
Views
560
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Murgonornis archeri gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
2
Views
559
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
?Crossvallia waiparensis, sp. nov.
Replies
1
Views
697
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Awengkere magnonatis gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
1
Views
664
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Björn Bergenholtz
Giles's Santa Marta Screech Owl
Replies
1
Views
1K
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top