Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
• "Poecilophoyx"
• "Microbutor"
• Botaurus
• Dupetor
• Nannocnus
• Ardeiralla
• Ixobrychus
-
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.
Ardeidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
• "Microbutor"
• Botaurus
• Dupetor
• Nannocnus
• Ardeiralla
• Ixobrychus
andrew147
Well-known member
Any thoughts appreciated!
The group known as 'Pelecanimorphae' is divided into a variable number of orders in different works, usually 3 or 5. The following ordinal names are in use:
Ardeiformes Wagler, 1830
Ciconiiformes Bonaparte, 1854
Plataleiformes Newton 1884
Pelecaniformes Sharpe, 1891
Suliformes Sharpe, 1891
My question is, why is the name Ardeiformes only ever used when herons are considered to be the only included family? Why does Pelecaniformes, or even Ciconiiformes, get used for an order including herons when Ardeiformes is the oldest name?
In my personal list, I have fewer orders than in most official lists, and I treat all these birds as suborders of a larger group which I call Ardeiformes. Am I right or am I wrong?
The group known as 'Pelecanimorphae' is divided into a variable number of orders in different works, usually 3 or 5. The following ordinal names are in use:
Ardeiformes Wagler, 1830
Ciconiiformes Bonaparte, 1854
Plataleiformes Newton 1884
Pelecaniformes Sharpe, 1891
Suliformes Sharpe, 1891
My question is, why is the name Ardeiformes only ever used when herons are considered to be the only included family? Why does Pelecaniformes, or even Ciconiiformes, get used for an order including herons when Ardeiformes is the oldest name?
In my personal list, I have fewer orders than in most official lists, and I treat all these birds as suborders of a larger group which I call Ardeiformes. Am I right or am I wrong?
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
The question I ask myself is what differentiates the Pelecaniformes from the Suliformes? If nothing distinguishes them, I would put everything in one order
andrew147
Well-known member
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
NoDo you know the answer to my actual question?
I'd say age is a pretty good reason as any. Palaeocene split according to Prum, older than several other order-level splits.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
It should be discussed with the various committees
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Also, according to Alvarenga & Höfling 2003 : Ralliformes Reichenbach 1852, Gruiformes Bonaparte 1854.
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
I thought the reason was that priority only extended to family-group names. Since Pelecanidae Rafinesque 1815 predates Ardeidae Leach 1820*, Pelecan- would be the root used for higher ranks including both groups, right?
Hmm... but then I note Rallidae Rafinesque 1815 vs. Gruidae Vigors 1825, so that one still doesn't work. I don't know.
Note: Forgive me for only going by Wikipedia here; I don't have fast access to the multiple fine sources used by others here & it's rather late for me.
Hmm... but then I note Rallidae Rafinesque 1815 vs. Gruidae Vigors 1825, so that one still doesn't work. I don't know.
Note: Forgive me for only going by Wikipedia here; I don't have fast access to the multiple fine sources used by others here & it's rather late for me.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
As long as the root of the name derives from an available and valid taxon 🤷 But I think the priority should also apply to these taxonomic ranks. These names are followed by an authority, after all.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
The Code regulates names above the family group (i.e., above the rank of super-family) in a couple of rather trivial aspects only.
For the rest (e.g., which form these names can take, which changes in the name are acceptable for this name to still be accepted as dating from a given authority (e.g., whether Ardeae Wagler 1830 is an acceptable source from "Ardeiformes"), which among several names that might potentially apply should be used (i.e., how priority and homonymy might apply to these names), etc.), there are no official rules. Usage is king.
The principle of limiting order names to names formed from the root of an included taxon is usage accepted in ornithology. In other groups (mammal, reptiles, insects, etc.), the names of orders do not (necessarily) derive from the name of any included taxon. If priority applied to these names, the rejection by ornithologists of older names that did not comply to this internal ornithological usage would violate it.
These articles are principally about these names having to be uninominal, to start with a capital letter and be written with the letters of the Latin alphabet only, without diacritics, and to have been published according to the Code.
For the rest (e.g., which form these names can take, which changes in the name are acceptable for this name to still be accepted as dating from a given authority (e.g., whether Ardeae Wagler 1830 is an acceptable source from "Ardeiformes"), which among several names that might potentially apply should be used (i.e., how priority and homonymy might apply to these names), etc.), there are no official rules. Usage is king.
No, not even that.
The principle of limiting order names to names formed from the root of an included taxon is usage accepted in ornithology. In other groups (mammal, reptiles, insects, etc.), the names of orders do not (necessarily) derive from the name of any included taxon. If priority applied to these names, the rejection by ornithologists of older names that did not comply to this internal ornithological usage would violate it.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
You can imagine that I was talking about ornithology in this case, being on an ornithology forum x)
Yesterday, you said that 🤔
So, in theory, I should say:
Ralliformes
Ardeiformes
Trochiliformes
l_raty
laurent raty
Yes, but there is no "Ornithological Code of Nomenclature".
Any specifically ornithological nomenclatural usage is based on unwritten convention.
I still do. Above the family group, which name must be used as valid, in preference to other names that have also been published, is not regulated by the Code.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
If you read my pm, you must have seen what Boyd said about the name Apodiformes
Basically, I can use Ardeiformes, Ralliformes and Trochiliformes as I want. At least, that's how I understand it.
l_raty
laurent raty
In the absence of written rules, you can in theory do what you want. (And others are also free not to follow you, and to keep using Pelecaniformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes.
)Still : note that, if rules were to be written, I can easily imagine that something equivalent to Art. 35.5 (for family-group names) might be included to protect established usage.
Pelecaniformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes have been traditionally used at the rank of order, while Ardeae (now 'Ardei'), Ralli and Trochili have traditionally been used at the rank of suborder (within Ciconiiformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes, respectively). A 35.5-like rule would give precedence to the names traditionally used at the higher rank, whatever their date of availability.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Ok. Forget my PM lolIn the absence of written rules, you can in theory do what you want. (And others are also free not to follow you, and to keep using Pelecaniformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes.
Still : note that, if rules were to be written, I can easily imagine that something equivalent to Art. 35.5 (for family-group names) might be included to protect established usage.
Pelecaniformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes have been traditionally used at the rank of order, while Ardeae (now 'Ardei'), Ralli and Trochili have traditionally been used at the rank of suborder (within Ciconiiformes, Gruiformes and Apodiformes, respectively). A 35.5-like rule would give precedence to the names traditionally used at the higher rank, whatever their date of availability.
It shows that I don't know the Code very well lol
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I'm not sur that Dupetor is available for flavicollis if it is a new name for Ardeiralla 🤔
l_raty
laurent raty
“Dupetor Heine [Ardeiralla (!) "Verr." Bp. 1855. Butoroides (!) Gould 1865 nec Butorides (!) Blyth 1865].” (here.)
Dupetor was introduced to "replace" both Ardeiralla Bonaparte 1855 and Butoroides Gould 1865. The type of Ardeiralla is Ardea sturmii Wagler 1827; Butoroides is actually an emendation of Butorides, and inherits its type which is Ardea javanica Horsfield 1821.
Obviously Dupetor cannot be a nomen novum for these two names at the same time (a nomen novum always inherits the type of the name it replaces : this would imply that Dupetor would inherit two distinct type species simultaneously, which is impossible), hence it is usually understood as a new genus, to be assessed on its own merits, with Ardea flavicollis Latham 1790 (the only nominal species included in the OD) as its type by monotypy.
(It would be great if we could agree to stay away from the phrase "is available for". A name's availability, and what it applies to, are two entirely distinct questions. When you claim that a generic name "is available for" a given species, you use the word "available" in a sense which is not that which it is given in the Code.)
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
I don't always use "available" in the sense of the Code x)
mb1848
Well-known member
“The type of Ardeiralla is Ardea sturmii Wagler 1827” It is one of the types. The first publication of the name is in Catalogue des oiseaux d'Europe offerts, en 1856, aux ornithologists .By Parzudaki. It was listed in the November 15 1856 Bibliographie de la France: 1856 p. 1155. Richmond says that a Compte Rendu report of a meeting on November 24, 1856 has priority over Conspectus Generum Avium “1855” .
Richmond Index -- GENERA Aaptus - Azuria .
Parzudaki page ten seem to pick A. gutteralis ex Smith as the type but it lists sturmi and plumbea? Sw. But the text is larger for the first bird mentioned and gutteralis has no question marks and sturmi is misspelled.
Catalogue des oiseaux d'Europe offerts, en 1856, aux ornithologistes - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Here is Bonaparte’s language in Comptes Rendu.
Ardetta gutturalis, Smith, occurs in the Pyrenees; they have been killed several times, and I held in my hands two specimens from an educated and worthy hunter. faith. It would therefore still be an accidental species, added the Fauna of Europe. In all the Pyrenean specimens the beak was yellowish; this is why, despite the greater distance of their dwellings, I relate them to Ardea gutturais of the Cape rather than to Ardea sturmi, Wagl., of Senegal. I must add that I acquired from Mr. Parzudaki a specimen with an entirely intense black beak, although it came from the country of the Betjouanos in the southern Caffrerie. Would Mr. Verreaux be right, and would there be only one Ardeitalla variable by age as to the color of the beak? »
Richmond Index -- GENERA Aaptus - Azuria .
Parzudaki page ten seem to pick A. gutteralis ex Smith as the type but it lists sturmi and plumbea? Sw. But the text is larger for the first bird mentioned and gutteralis has no question marks and sturmi is misspelled.
Catalogue des oiseaux d'Europe offerts, en 1856, aux ornithologistes - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Here is Bonaparte’s language in Comptes Rendu.
Ardetta gutturalis, Smith, occurs in the Pyrenees; they have been killed several times, and I held in my hands two specimens from an educated and worthy hunter. faith. It would therefore still be an accidental species, added the Fauna of Europe. In all the Pyrenean specimens the beak was yellowish; this is why, despite the greater distance of their dwellings, I relate them to Ardea gutturais of the Cape rather than to Ardea sturmi, Wagl., of Senegal. I must add that I acquired from Mr. Parzudaki a specimen with an entirely intense black beak, although it came from the country of the Betjouanos in the southern Caffrerie. Would Mr. Verreaux be right, and would there be only one Ardeitalla variable by age as to the color of the beak? »
Last edited:
