Scotocercidae vs Cettiidae (1 Viewer)

[gusasp]

Does anyone know which has priority of Scotocercidae and Cettiidae? Obviously either Clements or H&M/HBW/BL have it wrong. Both include Scotocerca in the same family as the cettids, named Cettiidae by Clements and Scotocercidae by the others.

 

[mb1848]

Don Roberson's Bird Families of the World website says: "...Fregin et al. (2012) proposed treating the genus Scotocerca as a separate family "Scotocercidae." [Ironically it later became the name for the full cettid family because "Cettiidae" was never properly proposed under formal rules..."

 

[l_raty]

Some discussion [here].
Cettiidae has unquestionable precedence because it was used (and thereby made available) before 1931 (even though [Bock 1994] failed to recognise this -- which may be what led Alström et al 2006 to propose it as new, albeit without giving it the now-required diagnosis).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Who is the first reviser of the type species of genus Phyllergates ?

 

[l_raty]

Who is the first reviser of the type species of genus Phyllergates ?

You mean who designated the type ?

In my notes, I have :
Sclater PL, Saunders H. 1883. Notices of recent ornithological publications. (Continued from p. 384.) Ibis, ser. 5, 1: 562-575.
p. 573

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

You mean who designated the type ?

In my notes, I have :
Sclater PL, Saunders H. 1883. Notices of recent ornithological publications. (Continued from p. 384.) Ibis, ser. 5, 1: 562-575.
p. 573

H&M says that : "Before designating the type species herein we concluded that neither of the two taxa listed by Sharpe (1883), now considered subspecies of one species, had been designated as the type and Art. 68.3 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059] cannot be considered to have applied or to apply."

H&M designated cucullatus as type contra keys giving coronatus

 

[l_raty]

H&M says that : "Before designating the type species herein we concluded that neither of the two taxa listed by Sharpe (1883), now considered subspecies of one species, had been designated as the type and Art. 68.3 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059] cannot be considered to have applied or to apply."

H&M designated cucullatus as type contra keys giving coronatus

Sclater & Saunders 1883 had designated cucullatus.

The same type was also designated by:

• Reichenow A. 1884. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der Vögel während des Jahres 1883. Arch. Naturgesch., 50 (2): 309-378.; p. 352.
• Reichenow A, Schalow H. 1884. Vertebrata. III. Systematik, Faunistic, Biologie. 4. Aves. Pp. 230-288 in: Mayer P [ed]. Zoologischer Jahresbericht für 1883. IV. Abtheilung: Tunicata, Vertebrata. Herausgegeben von der zoologischen Station zu Neapel. W Engelmann, Leipzig.; p. 281.

...while, in :

• Sharpe RB. 1884. Aves. Zool. Rec., 20 (for 1883): 1-44.; p. 25.

...Sharpe explained that he had originally intended to use Phyllobates, which Oates 1883 used in print (including only coronatus, which is therefore the type by monotypy), before he actually published it. But then he realised that this name was preoccupied (which it is : Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron 1841; Amphibia) and "renamed" it Phyllergates in Sharpe 1883. He did not cite Phyllobates when doing this however, thus Phyllergates Sharpe 1883 cannot be understood as a nomen novum for Phyllobates "Sharpe" Oates 1883, and does not inherit its type.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Sclater & Saunders 1883 had designated cucullatus.

The same type was also designated by:

• Reichenow A. 1884. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der Vögel während des Jahres 1883. Arch. Naturgesch., 50 (2): 309-378.; p. 352.
• Reichenow A, Schalow H. 1884. Vertebrata. III. Systematik, Faunistic, Biologie. 4. Aves. Pp. 230-288 in: Mayer P [ed]. Zoologischer Jahresbericht für 1883. IV. Abtheilung: Tunicata, Vertebrata. Herausgegeben von der zoologischen Station zu Neapel. W Engelmann, Leipzig.; p. 281.

...while, in :

• Sharpe RB. 1884. Aves. Zool. Rec., 20 (for 1883): 1-44.; p. 25.

...Sharpe explained that he had originally intended to use Phyllobates, which Oates 1883 used in print (including only coronatus, which is therefore the type by monotypy), before he actually published it. But then he realised that this name was preoccupied (which it is : Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron 1841; Amphibia) and "renamed" it Phyllergates in Sharpe 1883. He did not cite Phyllobates when doing this however, thus Phyllergates Sharpe 1883 cannot be understood as a nomen novum for Phyllobates "Sharpe" Oates 1883, and does not inherit its type.

I really don't understand the arguments given by H&M 😂

 

[l_raty]

I really don't understand the arguments given by H&M 😂

The problem is not in the 'argument' -- it's merely a failure to review the contemporary literature thoroughly.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The problem is not in the 'argument' -- it's merely a failure to review the contemporary literature thoroughly.

At least I'm fixed