The NACC has not acted on the Bermuda record. That record somehow eluded me when I wrote the proposal. I will write an addendum for it so it can be in the 2016 batch.
Andy
-
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.
AOU-NACC Proposals 2016 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
The NACC has not acted on the Bermuda record. That record somehow eluded me when I wrote the proposal. I will write an addendum for it so it can be in the 2016 batch.
Andy
Paul Clapham
Well-known member
Surely this continued existence of regional committees, each understandably feeling an obligation to retain control of the taxonomy used for their own regional lists, cannot be in the best interests of ornithology, and must be a barrier preventing the establishment of a unified taxonomy...
I don't think it's such a bad thing to have a committee of experts who review the taxonomy of species found in an area such as North America, which roughly corresponds to the Nearctic ecozone. Makers of a world taxonomy would then consider the output of such a committee, rather than repeating their work.
Which is of course what happens now. On the other hand a committee of experts who review taxonomy in a small area such as Britain is much less useful, since its work unnecessarily duplicates the work of similar committees elsewhere in the Western Palearctic, as you say. This is certainly a place for European unity -- in my opinion anyway, so I'm not sad to see the BOU TSC disappear.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Wasn't that changed back in a H&M corrigendum?
---
EDIT - It was reverted to Calcariidae [here], but I'm not sure I understand the comments (even though "LR" refers to me...).
"Plectrophenacinae Olphe-Galliard 1890" (based on Plectrophenax Stejneger 1882) as reported by Bock 1994 doesn't exist. The only author that ever formed a family name from this generic name, so far as I know, is Bock 1994 himself; but he didn't use this name as valid, hence the name is not available from his work.
With the potential caveat that I have checked the literature systematically up to somewhere between 1870 and 1880 only (wholly unrecorded names or name occurrences are certainly still hidden in works I haven't checked), it seems that two names might apply to this group:
Plectrophanidae Olphe-Galliard 1890; type genus Plectrophanes Meyer 1815; type species, by original monotypy, Fringilla calcarata Pallas 1773.
OS: Plectrophaneae
OR: stirps
OD: Olphe-Galliard L. 1890. Contributions à la faune ornithologique de l'Europe occidentale. Fascicule XXXI. Emberizidae. Pitrat Aîné, Lyon; R Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin.
link to OD: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44637251 (p.4)
link to OD of type genus: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46138817 (p.xii)
link to OD of type species of type genus: http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms/load/img/?PPN=PPN330046632 (physical pp.344 & 413)
Notes: The type genus IS NOT Plectrophenax Stej.! (Plectrophenax is explicitly treated as invalid in the work.) O-G cited the type genus from Meyer 1822, but this is a subsequent use.
Calcariidae Ridgway 1901; type genus Calcarius Bechstein 1802; type species, by original monotypy, Fringilla lapponica Linnaeus 1758.
OS: Calcarieae
OR: group
OD: Ridgway R. 1901. The birds of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the higher groups, genera, species, and subspecies of birds known to occur in North America, from the Arctic lands to the isthmus of Panama, the West Indies and other islands of the Caribbean sea, and the Galapagos archipelago. Part I. Family Fringillidae - The Finches. Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus. 50 (1). Smithson. Inst., Gov. Printing Office, Washington.
link to OD: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7514873 (pp.26 & 28)
link to OD of type genus: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41098740 (p.130)
link to OD of type species of type genus: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/727087 (p.180)
Note: Ridgway synonymized explicitly Plectrophanes Meyer with Calcarius Bechstein (on p.154).
Both are introduced fully correctly, but neither is based on Plectrophenax. The type species of the two type genera are subjective synonyms, they both denote the Lapand Bunting.
The choice is between using the older name, Plectrophanidae, based on a type genus that has not been used as valid for ages, or using the younger name, Calcariidae, treating it as taking priority from the older one under Art. 40.2, because it is in prevailing use, and was introduced before 1961 in a context in which the type genus of the older name was being synonymized with that of the younger one, which it still is. The latter makes more sense to me. Either way, "Plectrophenacidae" is just not among the options.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Plectrophanidae was used by Von Schrenk & Brandt in 1879 for nivalis and lapponica.
https://books.google.com/books?id=LTYYAAAAYAAJ&dq=Plectrophanidae&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
https://books.google.com/books?id=LTYYAAAAYAAJ&dq=Plectrophanidae&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
l_raty
laurent raty
OK, thanks Mark -- this one was on my to-do list, but I had not checked it yet indeed.
The author of this work is Hermann Goebel, not Schrenk or Brandt, however. (See the title page [here]. For those without access (it's US-only on Google), there is also a scanned Neudruck (dated 1969) that can be read [here].)
Then it must be:
Plectrophanidae Goebel 1879; type genus Plectrophanes Meyer 1815; type species, by original monotypy, Fringilla calcarata Pallas 1773.
OS: Plectrophanidae
OR: family
OD: Goebel H. 1879. Die Vögel des Kreises Uman, Gouvernement Kiew, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf ihre Zugverhältnisse und ihr Brutgeschäft. Beiträge zur Kenntniss des Russischen Reiches und der angrenzenden Länder Asiens. Zweite Folge, Band II. Kais. Akad. Wiss., St. Petersburg.
link to OD: https://archive.org/stream/beitrgezurkenntn13akad#page/n329/mode/1up (p.88)
link to OD of type genus: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46138817 (p.xii)
link to OD of type species of type genus: http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.de/dms...N=PPN330046632 (physical pp.344 & 413)
Notes: Bock 1994: "Pletrophenacinae", errore pro Plectrophaneae Olphe-Galliard 1890:4; stirps; Olphe-Galliard L. 1890. Contributions à la faune ornithologique de l'Europe occidentale. Fascicule XXXI. Emberizidae. Pitrat Aîné, Lyon; R Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin.; http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44637251 ; subsequent use. The type genus IS NOT Plectrophenax Stejn.! (Plectrophenax is explicitly treated as invalid by O-G.) O-G cited the type genus from Meyer 1822, but this is a subsequent use; Goebel gave no authority.
I've updated my file.
(But this changes nothing to how Calcariidae should be called.)No other new family-group names appear to be introduced in this work. (At least not unless you would be willing to regard Humicolidae [not listed by Bock, and a problematic case for various reasons] as available from here.)
Last edited:
Mysticete
Well-known member
It will be interesting to see how the greater birding community reacts to the movement of orders within the classification. That could entail pretty radical reorganization of field guides, as the two leading ones in the States use taxonomic order for arrangement (Nat Geo and Sibley)
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Well, given the fact that H&M and HBW/BirdLife adopted quite similar sequences in 2013 and 2014 respectively, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that other checklists would follow before too long.
But it will no doubt further irritate those who have tried to promote the adoption of a Howell et al-style standardised, non-taxonomic (and permanent) sequence for field guides...
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
Clearly, AOU-SACC's remit is broader than this and includes English names, linear orders, higher level taxonomy and - of course - hyphenation! I have seen questions raised from time to time over why a USA ornithological society runs the main South American list, and not local ornithological societies. Interaction with the AOU-NACC list has been highlighted as a reason for this. Nowadays, AOU-SACC includes more S American members than it used to.
(I'll stand by the rest of the posts above as "fair comment" for a discussion forum.)
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Proposal 2016-C-6
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/update-diary/
...and eBird/Clements will no doubt follow any changes adopted by AOU.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
lewis20126
Well-known member
Green Violetear
"Recognize Colibri cyanotus as a separate species from C. thalassinus
Green Violetear is a wide-ranging hummingbird consisting of several subspecies found from Mexico to central South America. It occurs in the ABA Area as a semi-regular vagrant with records mostly from Texas, but also widely scattered throughout the US and into Canada. All ABA Area records are represented by the partially migratory thallassinus subspecies which ranges from central Mexico through northern Central America. The proposal suggests that the cyanotus group, found from Costa Rica through South America be treated as a separate species based on range, size and plumage differences. These cyanotus birds become Lesser Violetear, while the northern birds, including those records for the ABA Area, would then be known as Mexican Violetear."
I must have missed this proposal, although I think these may already be species groups in Clements. Does anyone have a link?
thanks, alan
"Recognize Colibri cyanotus as a separate species from C. thalassinus
Green Violetear is a wide-ranging hummingbird consisting of several subspecies found from Mexico to central South America. It occurs in the ABA Area as a semi-regular vagrant with records mostly from Texas, but also widely scattered throughout the US and into Canada. All ABA Area records are represented by the partially migratory thallassinus subspecies which ranges from central Mexico through northern Central America. The proposal suggests that the cyanotus group, found from Costa Rica through South America be treated as a separate species based on range, size and plumage differences. These cyanotus birds become Lesser Violetear, while the northern birds, including those records for the ABA Area, would then be known as Mexican Violetear."
I must have missed this proposal, although I think these may already be species groups in Clements. Does anyone have a link?
thanks, alan
lewis20126
Well-known member
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Proposal 2016-C-10
Also: Remsen, Stiles & McGuire 2015. Classification of the Polytminae (Aves: Trochilidae). Zootaxa 3957(1): 143–150. [pdf]
Last edited:
