• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

Search results

  1. N


    The number of ornithologists was relatively small, but from published correspondences it becomes obvious that they often exchanged and/or borrowed specimens among each other, for example to depict rare species or varieties in their books, or to ask for identifications of little-known taxa. The...
  2. N

    Alectoris chukar

    Indeed, very interesting and helpful. However, we cannot be sure about the OD of armenica, as the type catalogue gives only information on the 1935 source (which should be Buturlin in Buturlin & Dementiev?), but treats Anser (Melanonyx) serrirostris rossicus from the 1933 book! Note the...
  3. N

    Alectoris chukar

    Thank you very much, Mike and Laurent! Dementieff [sic] in his review of the Russian ornithological literature in Alauda 6 (1934: 130-131) provides details of Buturlin's book and cites Alectoris kakelik armenica from this source, on p. 35. Further new taxa described therein are Tetraogallus...
  4. N

    Alectoris chukar

    It is often quite difficult to get access to papers published in the former USSR in the decades from the 1920s to the 1960s. Only for the later decades of that period are there ornithological journals, and many papers were published in universal biological or scientific journals or in...
  5. N


    A work is published when several identical issues are available for free or for purchase! That Bonaparte presented one copy to the Academie is no evidence for publication in the sence of the Code.
  6. N

    Gentoo Penguin possible future split into 4 species

    I tried to find the new species Pygoscelis poncetii in ZooBank, but neither was there an entry under that scientific name nor under the ZooBank number given in the paper. Thus, I conclude that the name is not available, whatever the reasons are that led to the failure of registration.
  7. N


    According to Art. 11.6.1 of the Code (ICZN 1999), if a name published as a younger synonym has been used before 1961, either accepted as an available name for a taxon or treated as an older synonym, it is thereby made available. As Stresemann and von Zedlitz used Gloger's synonym vulpinus for...
  8. N


    Is someone able to confirm that the Russian Ornithological Journal publishes a printed version? If it is published online only, the new taxa described are not validly introduced, as they need a ZooBank registration.
  9. N

    Lowland antpittas

    Cryptopezus is not the only case, unfortunately, in which new taxa of birds were "described" not in accord with the rules of the Code. There are four cases in 2018 alone, so it seems that the new regulations in connection with electronic only publication are not well known, despite their...
  10. N

    AOU-NACC Proposals 2020

    It is not strictly resident as there are hybrids between cirtensis and Iberian buteo in southern Spain. The Strait of Gibraltar is apparently not an obstacle for the North African birds.
  11. N

    Names lacking in the Key

    The description of this grebe has been published by M. N. Korelov (1948) in Isvestija Akademii Nauk Kasakhskoi SSR 63, Ser. Zool. 8, pp. 122-127; the new taxon is introduced on p. 124 in the text. The type localities are: Almaty province of south-east Kazakhstan (Karakastek, lower Lipsa River...
  12. N


    Many thanks for your explanations and literature references, Laurent, Björn and Mark. Jerdon (1844) explicitly refers to micropus as a MS name so it remains a nomen nudum, am I right? And the acceptance of Turdus micropus by Gray & Gray (1846 = 1847) does not make that name valid because it is...
  13. N


    Turdulus Gray, 1846 was used for a subgenus of Geokichla by Wolters (Vogelarten d. Erde, Lfg. 6, 1980: 409) with Geokichla wardii (Blyth, 1842) the only included species. Turdulus was introduced by Hodgson (1844) in J. E. Gray's Zool. Misc. 3, p. 83 for O[reocincla]. ? rostrata and O. ...
  14. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    Following Steinheimer (2005, Senckenbergiana biologica 85 (2), 1-32), Rüppell's "Neue Wirbelthiere, zur Fauna Abyssinien gehörig, entdeckt und beschrieben..., Vögel", Lfg. 2, pp. 1-16, ls. I-VI (1835); Lfg. 5, 8, pp. 17-48, pls. VII-XVIII (1836); Lfg. 9, 10, pp. 49-80, pls. XIX-XXX (1837)...
  15. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    Now I have seen the relevant pages of Lichtenstein's "Preisverzeichniss" of 1822 (through the courtesy of P. Eckhoff, Zool. Mus. Berlin). All names in that list are nomina nuda, as Mauersberger (1988) already stated. They don't have the "n." (for new combinations) or "N." (for new taxa) that...
  16. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    This agrees with Mauersberger's (Annalen f. Ornith. 12, 1988) statemant that the 1822 "Verzeichniss" contains no descriptions of new taxa, and that Lichtenstein provided no names of authors nor the origin of the birds which are offered for auction. If this is correct, than Sphenura Lichtenstein...
  17. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    Thank you, Laurent, for your well-founded and interessant thoughts about this tricky case. So we have Hellmayr (1934) who accepted Mathews's (1923) logic that Sphenura Licht., 1822 is an available name. As he did not use subgenera, he circumvented a decision which of the two names should be...
  18. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    Wolters, H. E. (1980): Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische Liste mit Verbreitungsangaben sowie deutschen und englischen Namen. Lieferung 6, pp. 401-452 (November 1980). Troglodytidae on pp. 430-433. Also, Hellmayr (1934; Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ., Zool. Ser. 13, pt. 7, pp. 110-295)...
  19. N

    Pheugopedius vs. Sphenura

    While updating my files on the Troglodytidae I stumbled over the use of Pheugopedius Cabanis, 1851 (type species Pheugopedius genibarbis Cabanis) for a genus of wrens formerly included within Thryothorus Vieillot, 1816 in H&M 4 as well as HBW/BirdLife Illustr. Checklist. There is the much older...
  20. N


    Yes, if Meropogon is still accepted although there is apparently no real evedence for it (see Burt 2004 [Ibis 146: 481-492] and Marks et al. 2007 [Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 45: 23-32]), than at least Coccolarynx and Bombylonax should also be recognized. But that would probably better be discussed in...
  21. N


    There can be little doubt that the species named Megascops gilesi and Myrmoderus eowilsoni are valid species, but there is some doubt whether they are correctly named according to the Code. To be clear, I would very much like it if N. Krabbe and Moncrieff et al. would be confirmed as the authors...
  22. N


    The question is: Are the mentioned species validly described, or not? Acceptance by the IOC list or by SACC cannot be used as validation of a nomenclatural mistake or sloppiness. Should the SCON (or however it is currently called) be asked for a recommendation?
  23. N


    You are not alone, Laurent, with your doubts and concerns about the availability of Megascops gilesi. Another new species published electronically without registration in ZooBank is Myrmoderus eowilsoni, although it is said that this journal distributes 25 printed copies among major libraries...
  24. N


    Well, one could have the impression that the Code of Zoological Nomenclature is irrelevant for ornithologists and editors of ornithological journals.
  25. N

    (Not only) Thamnophilidae

    I don't think that it works. The work has to be registered before it is published, so instead of adding an erratum file, it should be published as a new, corrected edition after the registration took place. That should be not a big problem in electronically published journals. And care should be...