thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
The list of junior synonyms or homonyms published in Zootaxa Aves as purported new taxa or alleged emendments in the last few years is truly staggering:
1. Icterus bullockorum sensu Chesser 2015. An incorrect emendation and hence a deemed junior synonym. Now corrected to bullockiorum by the same author.
2. Cassicinae sensu Remsen, Powell, Schodde, Barker & Lanyon 2016. An incorrect emendation and hence a junior synonym of Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853, emend. Ridgway, 1902. Now subject to a correction.
3. Inundicola Bravo, Isler & Brumfield 2013. Recognised as a junior synonym in Isler et al. (2014).
4. Tachurididae Ohlson, Irestedt, Ericson & Fjeldså, 2013. Incorrectly formed, see further Franz 2015, Donegan 2015.
5. Ortalisini David, 2014. "Doubly invalid" as a junior homonym of Ortalisini Acloque 1897 as well as a junior synonym of Ortalidaini Donegan 2012. See Donegan 2015 and "open letter" on researchgate on this topic. Not retracted and response suppressed.
6. Now Remsenornis.
That is not to list other jaw-dropping basic errors of nomenclature, such as a Remsen & Stiles paper which chose between contemporaneous names based on "page priority" when "first reviser" action is instead required.
These publications have all been discussed here on birdforum, and were often spotted here first after peer review and editorial work failed to notice the errors. How many of these sorts of issues have we seen in Bull BOC in the same period? I think none. Yet Zootaxa has a huge rating as a "leading journal" and Bull BOC scores zero in most journal indices. Zootaxa is not living up to that billing for birds.
Zootaxa Aves is rapidly becoming a "joke publication", a by-word for low standards in nomenclature, churning out poorly-researched papers authored and reviewed by a connected group of typically AOU or Smithsonian -linked personalities, a production line for nonsensical papers with clear cause and effect. Sure, a rationale for recognizing a monotypic genus is probably publicable - or could be informally published as an AOU proposal. But careful research or review using sources such as worldbirdinfo, literature searches and additional review from colleagues should avoid situations like this. Maybe this paper was just "one of those things that happens" - but the journal is up to at least 6 synonyms in 4 years and it does not seem reasonable to have such an excuse for all of them. I think the Myiopagis and antbird paper above had some other valid names in them, but the strike rate is pretty low.
Get your act together Zootaxa.
1. Icterus bullockorum sensu Chesser 2015. An incorrect emendation and hence a deemed junior synonym. Now corrected to bullockiorum by the same author.
2. Cassicinae sensu Remsen, Powell, Schodde, Barker & Lanyon 2016. An incorrect emendation and hence a junior synonym of Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853, emend. Ridgway, 1902. Now subject to a correction.
3. Inundicola Bravo, Isler & Brumfield 2013. Recognised as a junior synonym in Isler et al. (2014).
4. Tachurididae Ohlson, Irestedt, Ericson & Fjeldså, 2013. Incorrectly formed, see further Franz 2015, Donegan 2015.
5. Ortalisini David, 2014. "Doubly invalid" as a junior homonym of Ortalisini Acloque 1897 as well as a junior synonym of Ortalidaini Donegan 2012. See Donegan 2015 and "open letter" on researchgate on this topic. Not retracted and response suppressed.
6. Now Remsenornis.
That is not to list other jaw-dropping basic errors of nomenclature, such as a Remsen & Stiles paper which chose between contemporaneous names based on "page priority" when "first reviser" action is instead required.
These publications have all been discussed here on birdforum, and were often spotted here first after peer review and editorial work failed to notice the errors. How many of these sorts of issues have we seen in Bull BOC in the same period? I think none. Yet Zootaxa has a huge rating as a "leading journal" and Bull BOC scores zero in most journal indices. Zootaxa is not living up to that billing for birds.
Zootaxa Aves is rapidly becoming a "joke publication", a by-word for low standards in nomenclature, churning out poorly-researched papers authored and reviewed by a connected group of typically AOU or Smithsonian -linked personalities, a production line for nonsensical papers with clear cause and effect. Sure, a rationale for recognizing a monotypic genus is probably publicable - or could be informally published as an AOU proposal. But careful research or review using sources such as worldbirdinfo, literature searches and additional review from colleagues should avoid situations like this. Maybe this paper was just "one of those things that happens" - but the journal is up to at least 6 synonyms in 4 years and it does not seem reasonable to have such an excuse for all of them. I think the Myiopagis and antbird paper above had some other valid names in them, but the strike rate is pretty low.
Get your act together Zootaxa.
Last edited: