Lowland antpittas (3 Viewers)

[l_raty]

This name is unavailable and should not be used. What mistakes the SACC did changes nothing to that.

 

[l_raty]

However at this point it appears that the SACC committee members, for better or worse, have accepted Cryptopezus as a valid name. I think that it's unlikely that anybody is going to unravel this mess in the future, it's just going to be written off as "Mistakes Were Made".

A new registration was created in ZooBank for the Supplementary material of this paper on 8 April 2020: http://zoobank.org/References/01db01a5-af03-475e-978d-be4be2ed7989
The supplementary file with the description was replaced on the publisher's website with a new one on 11 July 2020: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111/zsc.12324&file=zsc12324-sup-0006-AppendixS1.pdf
This new file cites the new ZooBank registration and includes a statement that reads "Correction added on 11 July 2020, after first online publication: Appendix S1 file has been replaced."

I think we can regard Cryptopezus as having been made available in this file on 11 July 2020.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal 832 to SACC

Recognize the new genus Cryptopezus for “Hylopezus nattereri” and transfer H. berlepschi, H. fulviventris, and H. dives to Myrmothera

IOC Updates Diary Jan 8

Recognize newly described antpitta genus Cryptopezus.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

And if the name of the family of antpitta becomes Myrmotheridae (MacGillivray, 1839) instead of Grallariidae (Sclater & Salvin, 1873) ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The correct name of the antpitta clade

Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club contains research on all major aspects of ornithology, particularly new species, or regions incompletely known.

bioone.org

Just these words : I'm very proud of myself 😎

 

[jts1882]

Aves—A Taxonomy in Flux: Recent Changes

Avian Taxonomy

jboyd.net

September 10​

Antpittas: The family name has been changed from Grallariidae to Myrmotheridae because the latter has priority. See Gaudin et al. (2021a). [Myrmotheridae, Furnariida II, 3.07]

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

What is the correct authority of Grallaria squamigera ? Some sources give 2 authorities: Lafresnaye or Prevot et Des Murs

 

[l_raty]

What is the correct authority of Grallaria squamigera ? Some sources give 2 authorities: Lafresnaye or Prevot et Des Murs

Not straightforward.

Lafresnaye published the name with a description in the Nov 1842 issue of Rev. Zool.; but he attributed it to Florent Prévost in the the Zoologie of the voyage of the Vénus, and did not present it as new. This journal usually published the issue for a given month early in the next month (each issue included reports covering learned societies meetings for the entire month; in the present case, there is a report on the 28 Nov 1842 meeting of the Académie des Sciences on p. 368 of this issue). Thus new names in this issue should probably be dated to Dec 1842.

Prévost & Des Murs authored the ornithological part of the Zoologie of the voyage of the Vénus. The Zoologie included a text volume and an atlas volume; both were published in parts.
The publication of the ornithological text was reported by Hartlaub in 1850, in a report covering works that had appeared in 1849.
The publication of the bird plates was reported as having occurred by Wagner in 1845, in a report covering works that had appeared in 1844, where Wagner indicated that the G. squamigera plate was in the 1st of the 6 parts of the atlas that had been published so far.

In Priority! (2011), Edward Dickinson recommended using 1846 for the plates of the atlas, citing Zimmer 1926 and Sherborn & Woodward 1901. In a sequel to Priority! published in 2012, Dickinson & Jones then noted that three of the names introduced in the atlas had been used by Lafresnaye in 1842 and that, if the plates were accepted as having been published in 1846, these names had to be attributed to him.
On Zoonomen, on the other hand, all the bird plates of the atlas are treated as dating to 1842 (and the names on them remain attributed to Prévost & Des Murs), presumably on the authority of the Richmond Index.

1846 is certainly not correct (Wagner reported the publication of the plates before this date, see above), but I have so far not seen clear evidence of a publication before 1844.

Note that, in the Dec 1842 issue of Bull. Soc. Géogr., we can read:

[...] rien n'a encore paru de la zoologie et de la botanique, dont le texte en un volume, divisé en 10 livraisons, doit être rédigé par MM. Brongniart, Decaisne, Gaudichaud, Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Guillemain et Valenciennes; on nous promet les premières livraisons pour le mois actuel.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Not straightforward.

Lafresnaye published the name with a description in the Nov 1842 issue of Rev. Zool.; but he attributed it to Florent Prévost in the the Zoologie of the voyage of the Vénus, and did not present it as new. This journal usually published the issue for a given month early in the next month (each issue included reports covering learned societies meetings for the entire month; in the present case, there is a report on the 28 Nov 1842 meeting of the Académie des Sciences on p. 368 of this issue). Thus new names in this issue should probably be dated to Dec 1842.

Prévost & Des Murs authored the ornithological part of the Zoologie of the voyage of the Vénus. The Zoologie included a text volume and an atlas volume; botyh were both published in parts.
The publication of the ornithological text was reported by Hartlaub in 1850, in a report covering works that had appeared in 1849.
The publication of the bird plates was reported as having occurred by Wagner in 1845, in a report covering works that had appeared in 1844, where Wagner indicated that the G. squamigera plate was in the 1st of the 6 parts of the atlas that had been published so far.

In Priority! (2011), Edward Dickinson recommended using 1846 for the plates of the atlas, citing Zimmer 1926 and Sherborn & Woodward 1901. In a sequel to Priority! published in 2012, Dickinson & Jones then noted that three of the names introduced in the atlas had been used by Lafresnaye in 1842 and that, if the plates were accepted as having been published in 1846, these names had to be attributed to him.
On Zoonomen, on the other hand, all the bird plates of the atlas are treated as dating to 1842 (and the names on them remain attributed to Prévost & Des Murs), presumably on the authority of the Richmond Index.

1846 is certainly not correct (Wagner reported the publication of the plates before this date, see above), but I have so far not seen clear evidence of a publication before 1844.

Note that, in the Dec 1842 issue of Bull. Soc. Géogr., we can read:

Indeed, that doesn't help me much. I still use Lafresnaye, 1842, by default

 

[l_raty]

1846 is certainly not correct (Wagner reported the publication of the plates before this date, see above), but I have so far not seen clear evidence of a publication before 1844.

This may be evidence of publication in or before 1843.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This may be evidence of publication in or before 1843.

Could we not write : Prevot & Des Murs in Lafresnaye, 1842 ?

 

[l_raty]

Could we not write : Prevot & Des Murs in Lafresnaye, 1842 ?

No.
"Prévost [note spelling] & Des Murs in Lafresnaye" would imply that are the authors of the name under the Code are Prévost & Des Murs, despite it having been introduced in a work authored by Lafresnaye. This is not the case: if Lafresnaye's work appeared first, the name was made available there thanks to the Latin diagnosis that Lafresnaye wrote for it, which makes Lafresnaye its author under the Code (see Art. 50.1 -- Art. 50.1.1 is not satisfied).
Note also that Lafresnaye actually attributed the name to "Florent-Prévost" alone.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Cuervo, A.M. (2022) Unnoticed anomaly in the holotype of Grallaria rufocinerea (Myrmotheridae) deprives romeroana Hernández-Camacho & Rodríguez, 1979 of diagnosability. Zootaxa 5213: 445–450.
Unnoticed anomaly in the holotype of Grallaria rufocinerea (Myrmotheridae) deprives romeroana Hernández-Camacho & Rodríguez, 1979 of diagnosability | Zootaxa

"In sum, as types serve to anchor names to populations, the non-diagnostic characters exhibited by the types of romeroana with respect to rufocinerea, implies that the types of romeroana are individuals that also belong to a single, monotypic species: Grallaria rufocinerea".

 

[mb1848]

Unnoticed anomaly in the holotype thank you Peter looks interesting.
In Zoobank this paper is listed as having zero nomenclatural acts.
https://www.zoobank.org/References/43d6f66a-8c40-4d04-b2ec-4d73158f7d79 .
Going back to June this year, Laurent discussed the Atlas of the voyage of the frigate Venus. "1846 is certainly not correct (Wagner reported the publication of the plates before this date, see above)," In the Smithsonian copy of this work inserted is a letter from Dall, he of Dall Sheep and Porpoise, to Davies Sherrborne asking for data about this publication. On the next page is Sherrborne's response. He sticks with 1846 and even 1847?
[Atlas] (1846) - Voyage autour du monde sur la frégate la Vénus - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[l_raty]

He sticks with 1846 and even 1847?

For the plates of Mollusca, I think. Dall was primarily a malacologist.
(In his response, Sherborn wrote that he regarded all the names as dating from the Table des planches -- which is hard to follow, as the plates had names on them, and of course any name in the Table would have been nude if the corresponding plate had not been published when the Table appeared.)

As I noted above, Wagner, in the 1845 volume of Archiv für Naturgeschichte, in a work reporting on ornithological works published in 1844, listed the 10 bird plates (with the name of each portrayed bird correctly associated to the number of the plate on which it appeared) as having been published in the first two livraisons of the Atlas, of which he said 6 livraisons had appeared up to then.
I cannot trace the exact publication of livraisons 1 and 2, but livraison 4 ("Atlas de zoologie, 4e livraison.") was reported as published on 10 Feb 1844 in Le Moniteur de la Librairie. Livraisons 1 and 2 presumably appeared before livraison 4.

 

[mb1848]

Thank you as always Laurent. Zoologie atlas livraisons 1 and 2 were announced in the June 20, 1843 Le Moniteur de la librairie: mémorial universel des publications françaises. No. 1930.
Le Moniteur de la librairie .