Parrots (7 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Strigops is feminine, because it was ruled to have this gender by the Commission in Direction 26, and stands with this gender on the Official List.

('Direction' is a disused name for what is now called an 'Official correction' of an Opinion (see the Glossary). Names on the OL are subject to the ruling(s) of the Commission in any relevant Opinion(s), including any Official Correction of an Opinion, as per Art. 80.6.2. This supersedes the normal application of any provision of the Code, including that of Art. 30.1.4.3, contra what is stated in the paper.)


The treatment of words like habroptilus as adjectives follows David & Gosselin 2002, and is very widely accepted in bird nomenclature.

(habroptilus is deemed latinized from ἁβρόπτιλος, habroptilos, soft-feathered -- not found as such in Greek dictionaries but formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjective in Greek, and akin to, e.g., ἁβροπέδιλος, habropedilos, soft-sandalled, or χλωρόπτιλος, chlôroptilos, green-feathered, which are adjectives found in dictionaries.)

(Unfortunately, the authors obviously failed to understand the rationale that this treatment was based on, and therefore did not provide any rebuttal of this rationale. They also failed to discuss the potential consequences of its rejection. As noted by D&G 2002, a rejection of this rationale would mean that no word formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjectives in Greek is to be treated as an adjective, unless it is listed as such explicitly in a dictionary. If habroptilus is not adjectival, then neither are haematuropygius (now in Cacatua as haematuropygia), pyrrhopterus (now in Brotogerys as pyrrhoptera), ochrocephalus (now in Amazona as ochrocephala), cyanopygia (now in Forpus as cyanopygius), melanurus, callipterus and rhodocephalus (now in Pyrrhura as melanura, calliptera and rhodocephala), leptorhyncha (now in Enicognathus as leptorhynchus), xanthogenius (now in Eupsittula as xanthogenia), etc., etc.)

Why did the editors of the journal accept this manuscript if the grammatical gender of the name Strigops has been definitively determined?

 

[l_raty]

Why did the editors of the journal accept this manuscript if the grammatical gender of the name Strigops has been definitively determined?

Good question.
I guess it was not realized that "the 1955 determination of gender" was actually in a ruling by the Commission and that the name was on the Official List...?

 

[Trevor Worthy]

Strigops is feminine, because it was ruled to have this gender by the Commission in Direction 26, and stands with this gender on the Official List.

('Direction' is a disused name for what is now called an 'Official Correction of an Opinion' (see the Glossary). Names on the OL are subject to the ruling(s) of the Commission in any relevant Opinion(s), including any Official Correction of an Opinion, as per Art. 80.6.2. This supersedes the normal application of any provision of the Code, including that of Art. 30.1.4.3, contra what is stated in the paper. See also Art. 80.9.)


The treatment of words like habroptilus as adjectives follows David & Gosselin 2002, and is very widely accepted in bird nomenclature.

(habroptilus is deemed latinized from ἁβρόπτιλος, habroptilos, soft-feathered -- not found as such in Greek dictionaries but formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjective in Greek, and akin to, e.g., ἁβροπέδιλος, habropedilos, soft-sandalled, or χλωρόπτιλος, chlôroptilos, green-feathered, which are adjectives found in dictionaries.)

(Unfortunately, the authors obviously failed to understand the rationale that this treatment was based on, and therefore did not provide any rebuttal of this rationale. They also failed to discuss the potential consequences of its rejection. As noted by D&G 2002, a rejection of this rationale would mean that no word formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjectives in Greek is to be treated as an adjective, unless it is listed as such explicitly in a dictionary. If habroptilus is not adjectival, then neither are haematuropygius (now in Cacatua as haematuropygia), pyrrhopterus (now in Brotogerys as pyrrhoptera), ochrocephalus (now in Amazona as ochrocephala), cyanopygia (now in Forpus as cyanopygius), melanurus, callipterus and rhodocephalus (now in Pyrrhura as melanura, calliptera and rhodocephala), leptorhyncha (now in Enicognathus as leptorhynchus), xanthogenius (now in Eupsittula as xanthogenia), etc., etc.)

It is a pity the authors did not seek advice from folk in the ICZN or elsewhere such as the authors of the H&M checklist whom would have readily explained this. Trevor Worthy

 

[Mike Earp]

It is a pity the authors did not seek advice from folk in the ICZN or elsewhere such as the authors of the H&M checklist whom would have readily explained this. Trevor Worthy

Equally, it's a pity that the editor of Avian Systematics didn't seek input from folk on this forum (in particular, Laurent Raty) before publishing some papers and notes. I have yet to see any corrections of the several lapses in, or withdrawal of unnecessarey, papers and notes in that journal.

 

[jlsavage]

Strigops is feminine, because it was ruled to have this gender by the Commission in Direction 26, and stands with this gender on the Official List.

('Direction' is a disused name for what is now called an 'Official Correction of an Opinion' (see the Glossary). Names on the OL are subject to the ruling(s) of the Commission in any relevant Opinion(s), including any Official Correction of an Opinion, as per Art. 80.6.2. This supersedes the normal application of any provision of the Code, including that of Art. 30.1.4.3, contra what is stated in the paper. See also Art. 80.9.)


The treatment of words like habroptilus as adjectives follows David & Gosselin 2002, and is very widely accepted in bird nomenclature.

(habroptilus is deemed latinized from ἁβρόπτιλος, habroptilos, soft-feathered -- not found as such in Greek dictionaries but formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjective in Greek, and akin to, e.g., ἁβροπέδιλος, habropedilos, soft-sandalled, or χλωρόπτιλος, chlôroptilos, green-feathered, which are adjectives found in dictionaries.)

(Unfortunately, the authors obviously failed to understand the rationale that this treatment was based on, and therefore did not provide any rebuttal of this rationale. They also failed to discuss the potential consequences of its rejection. As noted by D&G 2002, a rejection of this rationale would mean that no word formed according to the rules of formation of compound adjectives in Greek is to be treated as an adjective, unless it is listed as such explicitly in a dictionary. If habroptilus is not adjectival, then neither are haematuropygius (now in Cacatua as haematuropygia), pyrrhopterus (now in Brotogerys as pyrrhoptera), ochrocephalus (now in Amazona as ochrocephala), cyanopygia (now in Forpus as cyanopygius), melanurus, callipterus and rhodocephalus (now in Pyrrhura as melanura, calliptera and rhodocephala), leptorhyncha (now in Enicognathus as leptorhynchus), xanthogenius (now in Eupsittula as xanthogenia), etc., etc.)

Hi Laurent - I'm the lead author on the article in question. David Donsker from the IOC list team pointed me in the direction of this thread.

As is obvious from my publication record I'm not a taxonomist, but I volunteered to write a note for the Bulletin to resolve the disagreement over the scientific name after the Birds NZ checklist committee made a slightly controversial decision to switch to the habroptila form in 2022, following other checklists. The note is based on my reading of the Code, with a bias towards the original name when there is ambiguity.

You are correct downthread in assuming that I was not familiar with how 'Directions' interact with Articles in newer versions of the Code. I suspect your reading is correct, and am surprised it was not raised during peer review or by the editor. Unfortunately, one reviewer seemed more concerned with objecting to my use of Māori words and macrons than with assessing the argument re. the Code. The Bulletin did not respond to my question about their preprint policy, but as no copyright transfer was requested before publication I have now put it on Zenodo as the BioOne version is currently paywalled.

Thanks for linking the David & Gosselin article - that does resolve my question of why the habroptila form started properly spreading about twenty years ago, and it was not something that I turned up when researching literature for the note. I defer to your greater knowledge of Greek, but it doesn't sound like the adjectival status of those names is formally resolved? If so, is this something that should be the subject of a Case? It seems at present that (even granting Strigops as feminine) the correct form is ambiguous.

You don't by any chance know why Strigops was determined female in the 1955 Direction (contrary to what I believe was Grey's preference)? This doesn't affect the argument over the current name but I'm curious how the disagreement between the Direction and Code came about.

- James

 

[Taphrospilus]

Platycercus pacificus Forster versus Platycercus pacificus Gmelin, or Vigors

In context with Cyanoramphus erythrotis (Wagler, 1832) I came accross several Platycercus pacificus and I did not get the story completly.
Platycercus pacificus Vigors, 1825 v.1 (1824-1825) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library and Supplementary plates (Supplementary plates) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library probably Cyanoramphus erythrotis.

Is Forsters name a a synonym to Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (Sparrman, 1787)?

At least I do not get based on what Wagler used a new species. And where can I find Forsters description?

 

[James Jobling]

Here is a collation of “Pacific Parrots” from Sharpe, 1891, Cat. Birds British Mus., XX:

?Psittacus pacificus, var. γ Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat., I, p. 329 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Psittacus pacificus Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. I, p. 329, n. 88, with var. β = Cyanoramphus novezelandiae.
Psittacus pacificus, var. δ Gmelin, 1788, Syst. Nat. I, p. 329 = Cyanoramphus auriceps.
Psittacus pacificus Shaw,1811, Gen. Zool. VIII, 2, p. 419 = Glossopsitta concinna.
Psittacus pacificus, var. n Vieillot, 1823, Encyclop. Méthod., p. 1387 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Platycercus pacificus, (part.) Vigors, 1823, Zool. Journ., I, p. 529 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Platycercus pacificus (part.) Vigors, 1825, Zool. Journ. I, p. 529 (New Zealand only) = Cyanoramphus novezelandiae.
Platycercus pacificus (part.) Vigors, 1825, Zool. Journ. I, p. 529, Suppl. pl. 1 (Ins. Macquar.) = Cyanoramphus erythrotis.
Platycercus pacificus Wagler, 1832, Monog. Psittac., p. 524 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.
Psittacus pacificus Forster MS; id. Icon. inedit. t. 47; id. Descr. An. p. 238, no. 201 (nec p. 73) 1844 = Cyanoramphus zealandicus.

 

[l_raty]

Vigors attributed Platycercus pacificus to Latham; Latham used a broad Psittacus for all psittacids, and the only pacificus he ever used in this genus was taken from Gmelin 1788, who had actually formed it by latinizing Latham's earlier (1781) English name "Pacific Parakeet". In addition to Latham's "Pacific Parakeet", Gmelin also described three 'varieties' in his Psittacus pacificus entry, which he denoted by Greek letters "β", "γ" and "δ"; but specimens that an author "refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number)" are excluded from the type series associated to a name by ICZN 72.4.1, thus the birds so treated by Gmelin cannot be regarded as part of the type series of his P. pacificus. The bird described in Gmelin's main description was quite clearly what we now call Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae (Sparrman 1787).

Vigors use of the name, even if it departed from the current interpretation of Gmelin's original name, remains merely a subsequent use of the latter. (I.e., one cannot claim the existence of a distinct, separately available "Platycercus pacificus" authored by Vigors.)

Reinhold Forster had used Psittacus pacificus for the birds shown on two unpublished drawings, one of which showed what is now known as Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae, while the other showed what is now known as Cyanoramphus zealandicus (Latham 1790). Forster's names were still manuscript names in the early 19th C, when people like Vigors and Wagler published their own works oabout these birds -- his descriptions were finally published by Hinrich Lichtenstein in 1844, almost half a century after their author's death. One of his P. pacificus description is here, the other here. Wagler 1832, however, evidently regarded Forster's names (not published, but produced first) as having precedence over Gmelin's and, in his work, he adopted Platycercus pacificus as the valid name of our current Cyanoramphus zealandicus, based on one of Forster's descriptions. Thus, using the same name for the birds described by Gmelin or Vigors was not an option for him.

 

[Taphrospilus]

I was more confused about Cyanoramphus erythrotis Bd.1 (1832) - Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften - Biodiversity Heritage Library which seems to be 'varieties' "γ" for Wagler.

 

[l_raty]

I was more confused about Cyanoramphus erythrotis Bd.1 (1832) - Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Klasse der Königlich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften - Biodiversity Heritage Library which seems to be 'varieties' "γ" for Wagler.

Wagler placed under Platycercus erythrotis the birds that had been called Psittacus pacificus, var. γ, by Gmelin/Latham, and Platycercus pacificus by Vigors in the Zool. Journ. (the one shown on the supplementary table I), which he called the male of his species; and the birds that had been called Psittacus pacificus (not a var.) by Gmelin/Latham and Psittacus Novae-Seelandiae (not a var.) by Kuhl, which he called the female. He said he had not seen the female himself -- which suggests he had seen specimen(s) that he regarded as being the male, and which might not have been illustrated or described previously. (Any such additional specimen would have been part of the original type series.)

Schodde designated the bird on Vigors' plate I as the lectotype in 1997 : here.

(A coloured version of this table can be seen here.)