-
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.
IOC World Bird List 7.3 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter davercox
- Start date
JWN Andrewes
Poor Judge of Pasta.
If they had I didn't notice so appreciate the heads up Dave, cheers.
The British List and IOC
I'll try and get it right it this time.
It looked as though we were going to gain a species (Thayer's Gull) --- and now (7.2) it seems we're not.
It looked as though we were going to lose a species (Lesser Redpoll) --- and now (7.3) it seems we're not (at least pro tem.
I'll try and get it right it this time.
It looked as though we were going to gain a species (Thayer's Gull) --- and now (7.2) it seems we're not.
It looked as though we were going to lose a species (Lesser Redpoll) --- and now (7.3) it seems we're not (at least pro tem.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
It's all coming out now, the bidding war and secret negotiations between BOURC and the various lists to see which got BOURC's blessing - IOC offered the best sweetener by promising to adopt BOURC taxonomy 3
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Found a possible error in IOC 7.3; on the babblers page, half way down:
But the protologue gives it as Prinia burnesii nipalensis. Is there any reason for the change in spelling from nipalensis to nepalicola, or is this an error?
(my bolding)
But the protologue gives it as Prinia burnesii nipalensis. Is there any reason for the change in spelling from nipalensis to nepalicola, or is this an error?
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Thanks! Does that still apply with the transfer to Laticilla?
DMW
Well-known member
Out of interest, has the taxonomy of Rufous-vented Prinia (s.l.) now been definitively determined? The Nepalese birds are, I believe, intermediate between western and eastern populations, and I wonder what the basis is for assigning them to what is now L.burnesii rather than L.cinerascens, and also whether the existence of an intermediate form undermines the support for the east / west split?
Perhaps the genetics provide clear support?
Perhaps the genetics provide clear support?
l_raty
laurent raty
No, you're right. It's a secondary homonymy: the name is preoccupied only if the Nepalese taxon is congeneric with Prinia inornata. In Laticilla, nipalensis must be used.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Excellent, thanks!
I'm presuming someone from IOC will visit this thread and make the correction?
DMW
Well-known member
Thanks, interesting.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I've contacted Frank Gill and steered him to this thread.
Edit: FG has responded and it will be looked at.
A
Edit: FG has responded and it will be looked at.
A
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Complementary info:
The authors of the HBW/BLI Checklist noted:
What applies here is [Art. 59.4 of the Code]:
The authors of the HBW/BLI Checklist noted:
Their ref. #930 is the second vol. of H&M4. There (p.533, footnote 4), it is written:
[Art. 57.2 of the Code] reads:
...But this does not fit the present case at all, as the 2007 name was established in Prinia and the senior homonym is Drymoica nipalensis ("Hodgson") Moore 1854 [OD here], i.e., the names where not "originally combined with the same generic name", and are not primary homonyms.
What applies here is [Art. 59.4 of the Code]:
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Eeek! :eek!: :eek!: :eek!:
Excellent detail, thanks!
Excellent detail, thanks!
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I just got this reply from David Donsker at the IOC..
'Hi Andy,
Sorry for the tardy reply. I was on vacation for several weeks. Thanks for pointing this out.
It’s difficult to second guess Laurent Raty, but the twists and turns of this case are a little too tough for me to unwrap. My major concern is that the author’s themselves retracted their original name nipalensis and emended (sic) it to nepalicola. Despite their action, I suspect that Laurent may be correct and that the original name they proposed maintains its priority in this case, despite the emendation and the opinion of the H&M4 nomenclatural gurus.
But I would like to check this out with the IOU’s Working Group on Avian Nomenclature for their take on this matter.
I will get back to you once I’ve heard from them.
Best regards,
David
A
'Hi Andy,
Sorry for the tardy reply. I was on vacation for several weeks. Thanks for pointing this out.
It’s difficult to second guess Laurent Raty, but the twists and turns of this case are a little too tough for me to unwrap. My major concern is that the author’s themselves retracted their original name nipalensis and emended (sic) it to nepalicola. Despite their action, I suspect that Laurent may be correct and that the original name they proposed maintains its priority in this case, despite the emendation and the opinion of the H&M4 nomenclatural gurus.
But I would like to check this out with the IOU’s Working Group on Avian Nomenclature for their take on this matter.
I will get back to you once I’ve heard from them.
Best regards,
David
A
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Further to this, it will be altered to nipalensis
Hi Andy,
I just heard from Dick Schodde of the IOU Working Group on Avian Nomenclature. He agrees completely with Laurent’s interpretation.
We will correct the name of this taxon to Laticilla burnesii nipalensis (Baral et al. 2007) in our next update.
Thanks very much for Laurent’s insights and for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
David
A
Hi Andy,
I just heard from Dick Schodde of the IOU Working Group on Avian Nomenclature. He agrees completely with Laurent’s interpretation.
We will correct the name of this taxon to Laticilla burnesii nipalensis (Baral et al. 2007) in our next update.
Thanks very much for Laurent’s insights and for bringing this to our attention.
Kind regards,
David
A
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Nice work, thanks!
Similar threads
