James Jobling
Well-known member
Alas, I no longer have any old issues of the Archives.
Who is its type species?Dysporus Illiger 1811
Who is its type species?
And there are no names available for Sula sula ?Dysporus is usually regarded nowadays as a new name for Sula Brisson 1760, which Illiger rejected as one of the “N. g. quae ex graeca vel latina lingua radicem non habent”, on p. XVII of his work : Caroli Illigeri ... Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Thus it will take the same type as Brisson's name.
(The usually accepted type fixations of Brisson's names are not Code compliant.)
And there are no names available for Sula sula ?
But "Fou de Bassan" is an explicit name despite its French origin.("Fou de Bassan" does not qualify).
But "Fou de Bassan" is an explicit name despite its French origin.
That said, it's a matter of common sense, Bassan, bassanus, unless to be completely dumb. But the problem is that this would risk creating great instability since the current classification is well established."Fou de Bassan" is not a nominal species cited by an available name, it cannot be the type of anything.
That said, it's a matter of common sense, Bassan, bassanus, unless they are stupid. But the problem is that this would risk creating great instability since the current classification is well established.
What should be done in these cases, what designation should be accepted?At least the type is still a sulid.
Applying the same logic to some other Brissonian names would be worse -- e.g., under Muscicapa, Brisson cited the following available names in his Supplément d'ornithologie Ornithologie ou Methode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes et leurs variétés ... (GoogleBooks link, because the BHL scan lacks pp 50-51):
Motacilla ruticilla Linnaeus 1758, Lanius tyrannus Linnaeus 1758, Turdus crinitus Linnaeus 1758, Corvus paradisi Linnaeus 1758, Fringilla rubra Linnaeus 1758.
These are, respectively, a Parulidae, two Tyrannidae, a Monarchidae and a Cardinalidae...
What should be done in these cases, what designation should be accepted?
Does this mean that it should (for example) be Sula bassana and Morus sula, not Morus bassanus and Sula sula, if the gannets and boobies are separated generically?If I apply the Code, I end up with this :
Sula Brisson 1760 : t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library
No originally included nominal species cited by an available name.
First inclusion of species, in volume VI : t.6;Suppl.:t.6 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library
(NB -- The 6 volumes of the Ornithologie are often regarded as having been published simultaneously, but reviews in the contemporary literature contradict this. Brisson's own species names are not available, hence cannot act as generic types (and they are not cited from a pre-1758 source, hence they can play no role whatsoever in a type fixation by Linnaean tautonymy either). In the two last volumes of his work, Brisson cited available names from the 10th ed of Linnaeus' Systema naturae in his synonymies.
Nominal species eligible to become the type : Pelecanus piscator Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of Brisson's "Le Fou", "Sula"), P. bassanus Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of "Le Fou de Bassan", "Sula Bassana"), P. aquilus Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of "La Frégate", "Fregata").
The type is Pelecanus bassanus Linnaeus 1758 by subsequent designation of Gray 1840.
Morus Vieillot 1816 : Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire
No originally included nominal species cited by an available name ("Fou de Bassan" does not qualify).
First inclusion of nominal species in Vieillot 1817 : t.12 (1817) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Nominal species eligible to become the type : Morus sula, M. bassanus, M. piscator, M. parvus.
The type is Pelecanus sula Linnaeus 1766 by subsequent designation of Ogilvie-Grant 1898.
What surprises me is that Linnaeus himself did not think of creating the name Muscicapa even though it is the most basic Latin name. At first glance, he did not describe any "Muscicapa" species in his Systema Naturae.At least the type is still a sulid.
Applying the same logic to some other Brissonian names would be worse -- e.g., under Muscicapa, Brisson cited the following available names in his Supplément d'ornithologie Ornithologie ou Methode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes et leurs variétés ... (GoogleBooks link, because the BHL scan lacks pp 50-51):
Motacilla ruticilla Linnaeus 1758, Lanius tyrannus Linnaeus 1758, Turdus crinitus Linnaeus 1758, Corvus paradisi Linnaeus 1758, Fringilla rubra Linnaeus 1758.
These are, respectively, a Parulidae, two Tyrannidae, a Monarchidae and a Cardinalidae...
Repeating the question in the hope Laurent may see it and respond:If I apply the Code, I end up with this :
Sula Brisson 1760 : t.1 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library
No originally included nominal species cited by an available name.
First inclusion of species, in volume VI : t.6;Suppl.:t.6 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library
(NB -- The 6 volumes of the Ornithologie are often regarded as having been published simultaneously, but reviews in the contemporary literature contradict this. Brisson's own species names are not available, hence cannot act as generic types (and they are not cited from a pre-1758 source, hence they can play no role whatsoever in a type fixation by Linnaean tautonymy either). In the two last volumes of his work, Brisson cited available names from the 10th ed of Linnaeus' Systema naturae in his synonymies.
Nominal species eligible to become the type : Pelecanus piscator Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of Brisson's "Le Fou", "Sula"), P. bassanus Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of "Le Fou de Bassan", "Sula Bassana"), P. aquilus Linnaeus 1758 (in the synonymy of "La Frégate", "Fregata").
The type is Pelecanus bassanus Linnaeus 1758 by subsequent designation of Gray 1840.
Morus Vieillot 1816 : Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire
No originally included nominal species cited by an available name ("Fou de Bassan" does not qualify).
First inclusion of nominal species in Vieillot 1817 : t.12 (1817) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Nominal species eligible to become the type : Morus sula, M. bassanus, M. piscator, M. parvus.
The type is Pelecanus sula Linnaeus 1766 by subsequent designation of Ogilvie-Grant 1898.
Does this mean that it should (for example) be Sula bassana and Morus sula, not Morus bassanus and Sula sula, if the gannets and boobies are separated generically?
The first species cited by Brisson in the uninomial name Sula is "Le Fou" (proprement dit) based on the description of Catesby, which looks very similar to Sula dactylatra, described some pages below (si je ne me trompe pas) under the name "Le Fou brun" Sula fusca.Basically -- I'm afraid -- yes.
Overall, ornithologists have traditionally treated names introduced with included species that were not cited by an available name (i.e., species cited by a non-binominal name (as in the case of Brisson's generic names), species cited by a French vernacular (e.g., Vieillot's names, also quite a few Swainson's names), species illustrated but not named at all (e.g., many names by Reichenbach), etc.) in a way that differs from what the ICZN mandates.
(What has been done, typically, is: identify the originally included species taxonomically, find an available name that is believed to apply to it, and pretend that the nominal species denoted by that name was originally included. What the Code says, is: only nominal species cited by an available name in the OD of a genus-group taxon are eligible to be its type; if there is none, find the first subsequent publication where nominal species cited by an available name were included in the taxon, and treat these species as though they had been originally included.)
The problem is that, obviously, switching from one interpretation to the other for all these names at once would be hugely disruptive...
The first species cited by Brisson in the uninomial name Sula is "Le Fou" (proprement dit) based on the description of Catesby, which looks very similar to Sula dactylatra, described below (si je ne me trompe pas) under the name "Le Fou brun" Sula fusca.
So I wondered if Brisson did not place the type species of the genus (without indicating that it is the type) first under each genus.