• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Owls (1 Viewer)

"T. rosenbergii and T. nigrobrunnea are subspecies of T. javanica; T. sororcula and T. manusi are subspecies of T. novaehollandiae"

and this; important for birders as three very difficult species, now submerged into easier widespread species!

cheers, alan
 
"T. rosenbergii and T. nigrobrunnea are subspecies of T. javanica; T. sororcula and T. manusi are subspecies of T. novaehollandiae"

and this; important for birders as three very difficult species, now submerged into easier widespread species!

cheers, alan

A few more implications than that! Only one Grass Owl, only one Sooty Owl, and hasta la vista Sulawesi Masked Owl...
 
Coopman´s (heard) Screech-owl ... ?

Guys, I have one short question ...

When trying to write something "witty and clever" regarding the late Paul Coopmans, and "his" birds, I came across the following text (quoted below), in the OD of the (Foothill) Elaenia subspecies Myiopagis olallai coopmansi, Cuervo et al, 2014*:
Etymology. The epithet honors the late Paul Coopmans (1967–2007) in recognition of his acute talent for recognizing bird vocalizations in the field and his knowledge of Neotropical birds. Coopmans made many important discoveries using his extraordinary identification skills by ear (see Krabbe 2008), including Myiopagis olallai, Scytalopus unicolor, Henicorhina negreti, and an unnamed Megascops screech-owl from Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia.
And don´t worry, this is not an "Etymology issue" gone stray, ending up in the wrong Forum (or even in the wrong thread), I have all the information I need on Mr Coopmans himself, and the three former birds, thereby no need to dig further into him, and those birds, but one question remain; ... has the "unnamed Megascops screech-owl" got a name yet?

Or is this taxon (four years later) still undescribed?

Is this possibly the "Santa Marta Screech-Owl" described as Megascops gilesi Krabbe, 2017 (here), repeatedly mentioned in earlier posts in this thread. Or did Cuervo et al refer to yet another, this far, still undescribed Screech-Owl ...?

I´m just curious. I could delete the Owl from my text all together, but would like to included it, as yet another example of what the (apparently remarkable) ears of Paul Coopmans could perceive, and achieved.

Anyone who knows? For sure?

Björn

__________________________________________________
*Cuervo, A. M., F. G. Stiles, M. Lentino, R. T. Brumfield & E. P. Derryberry. 2014. Geographic variation and phylogenetic relationships of Myiopagis olallai (Aves: Passeriformes; Tyrannidae), with the description of two new taxa from the Northern Andes. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 1–24.
 
Guys, I have one short question ...


I´m just curious. I could delete the Owl from my text all together, but would like to included it, as yet another example of what the (apparently remarkable) ears of Paul Coopmans could perceive, and achieved.

Anyone who knows? For sure?

Björn

As someone who did quite a few trips led by the late Paul Coopmans I can indeed had a remarkable ability to locate and identify birds by ear.

He was a remarkable and charismatic bird tour leader and the birding world is a much poorer place since he passed away.

Ian
 
Yes, the screech-owl Paul heard is that now known as M. gilesi.
Thanks, "DLane", ... I suspected that, but as Krabbe (2017) didn't emphasized the contribution by Coopmans in any major way, in that particular paper (he only mentioned him among others) I had some minor doubts.

Simply wanted to be sure. Once again; thanks!

Björn

PS. Thanks also to Ian for the affirmative/emphasizing reply regarding the unique qualities of the late Paul Coopmans. The internet is full of similar praise (for example; here).
--
 
Last edited:
Indeed, Paul and I first heard this taxon on January 4th 1994, I made a recording of it. With playback of my recording, Paul made a better recording on the 5th. Paul deposited this recording in the Macaulay Library as ML68082, with a spoken explanation preceding the actual recording, listen here
 
Thanks Peter! :t:

That's what I call a reliable source; first-hand information, "straight from the horse's mouth" ...

And congratulations to you, being one of the first to hear the Santa Marta Screech-Owl!

23 years prior to the OD. Wow!

Björn
 
"the 'published' status"
I looked in Zoobank for gilesi and found three but none were an owl. The paper does not mention
Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature or Zoobank. But "8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, ...."
 
I'd love not to, but I still have problems with the 'published' status of this description...
(And a few others that are a similar situation, by the way.)
Laurent, I know I´ve read some of your raised objections in this matter, earlier on, but cannot remember where ... (was it, like post #7, here, or post #14, here?)

Please refresh my (our) memory; and your "problems with" ... what? Or simply link to your original post/s/thoughts/doubts ...

Is it a case of Electronic publication vs the printed ditto?

Do you mean that Krabbe 2017 is a published OD (on the internet), not validly published (IRL) ... ?

As in; only published on the "net"? And thereby, as such, the name gilesi should/would be considered unavailable?

Or?
 
The work was not "registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank)" and does not "contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred" (as required by ICZN 8.5.3). As a consequence, in any case, the electronic version (which is "distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. via the Internet)" (cf. ICZN 9.11)) "does not constitute published work" (as per ICZN 9).

The journal produces paper copies in parallel to the online edition. These may of course be seen as a separate printed edition -- but for this edition to be published under the Code, the copies should have been made "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase" (ICZN 8.1.2). The usual interpretation of this last article is that the public should have been offered an option to either purchase, or obtain for free, some of the "simultaneously obtainable" (ICZN 9.1.3) "numerous identical and durable copies" (ICZN 8.1.3.1) of the work at the time of their original release... (Making copies publicly obtainable would place the journal in a situation similar to that of the PLoS journals before the e-publication Amendment came in force, as described in [this document].) Are printed copies of the journal made publicly obtainable ? My understanding is that the number of copies is kept as small as it can, and that the copies are sent to a predefined number of libraries (e.g., 3rd § [here]), which in my view would not at all clearly satisfy 8.1.2. I guess I may be missing a part of the picture, though; if so I apologize for the fuss.

(In any case, I really think it would be preferable for a journal operating on this type of model to ask authors of nomenclatural acts to register their works with ZooBank prior to publication... If the .pdf files themselves -- what most readers will see -- were clearly published, no question could arise. The Code now makes this possible, so why not do it...?)


----------

PS - FWIW, there are also quite significant problems with the statement that used to come with issues of the journal (up to #13 on the website), and I'm not fully clear what these may imply either. (Or how to deal with the situation.) The statement read:
CODIGO INTERNACIONAL DE NOMENCLATURA ZOOLOGICA, ARTÍCULO 8.6: Este artículo estipula que para establecer la validez de los nombres de nuevos taxones en zoología, copias (en papel) de la publicación pertinente (en particular esto es aplicable a las publicaciones en el Internet) deben ser depositadas en cinco o más bibliotecas con acceso público. Para cumplir con este requisito, Ornitología Colombiana envía copias en papel de cada número a las siguientes bibliotecas: En Colombia: Biblioteca Nacional, Hemeroteca Nacional, Biblioteca del Congreso, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales – Universidad Nacional de Colombia y Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango. En los Estados Unidos: American Museum of Natural History, U. S. National Museum, Louisiana State University, Field Museum of Natural History, y Los Angeles County Museum. En el Reino Unido: British Museum of Natural History. En Francia: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Este número de Ornitología Colombiana fue puesto en la Internet el 12 enero de 2012 y enviado posteriormente a las mencionadas bibliotecas.
This was obviously derived from the pre-Amendment version of Art. 8.6:
8.6. Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself.
...but, unfortunately, deeply misinterpreted it. Article 8.6 was never intended to cover publication on the Internet at all (works distributed by means of electronic signals were excluded from being published by the then-in-force version of Art. 9.8); it was exclusively supposed to deal with publication on a physical support other than paper, such as a CD-ROM. Note also that the copies of the work this Article called for were "in the form in which it is published", i.e., in the case of a CD-ROM, it's the CD-ROM that was supposed to be deposited; not a paper version of its content.
Anyway, with the Amendment, this Article is now gone; it was replaced with:
8.4.2. Works on optical disc. To be considered published, a work on optical disc must be issued, in read-only memory form, after 1985 and before 2013, and
[...]
8.4.2.2. if issued after 1999, must contain a statement naming at least five major publicly accessible libraries in which copies of the optical disc were to have been deposited.
...which is very clearly not about online publication. There is no way under the current Code that the deposition of 5, or be it 12, paper copies in libraries might 'validate' an online publication not registered with ZooBank. Without a registration, the online publication simply does not exist, which means that the deposited paper copies must stand as a publication on their own... Do they ? Or were there more copies ?
 
I really think it would be preferable for a journal operating on this type of model to ask authors of nomenclatural acts to register their works with ZooBank prior to publication
I totally agree. It also does not appear to be burdensome. It really is in the interest of the authors and of all users of scientific names of creatures.
My occupation has moved from a very old system with signatures and ink stampings, hot wax and signet rings to now all filings are PDFs a real signature is no longer needed. Parties must be served with documents electronicly. It has been discocerting to my old brain. We now see no difference between paper and a PDF in fact the PDF gets more dignity. I think that putting a paper copy in a few libraries satisfies the spirit of "free" part of the rule. But I could be wrong.
 
Ok, thanks guys, so it´s all about registration, whether registered at ZooBank, or not.

Now I get it ... ;)

Björn

PS: If Ornitología Colombiana 16 ever (originally) was printed/published on paper is unknown to me.
__
 
Last edited:
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 and museums. But how can we know that the printed copies are actually published simultaneously with the online edition? It should be noted that with N. Krabbe and D. F. Lane two experienced taxonomists are author or co-author of these descriptions, respectively. And if they actually forget to register their publication, should the editors and reviewers of the journals not have hinted at ZooBank registration?
 
Myrmoderus eowilsoni
My concern with the rule is once you publish with out registration there is no way to fix it.
8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published. I guess you could republish.
Should not paper published names also register with Zoobank whether required or not.
Björn it is an oversimplification to say it is only about registration. There are institutions that denigrate the ICZN and all "foreign" authorities and just want to publish so they do not perish. Damn the rules. They did not vote for the rule change! Others are concerned with civilization and that rules be followed.
 
Last edited:
...
Björn it is an oversimplification to say it is only about registration. There are institutions that denigrate the ICZN and all "foreign" authorities and just want to publish so they do not perish. Damn the rules. They did not vote for the rule change! Others are concerned with civilization and that rules be followed.
Mark, I would like to think of myself as fairly "concerned with civilization", as I prefer rules be followed, however at times, a bit clumpsy, here on BirdForum, as English is not my mother tongue.

Short answers, quick comments, and smart replies, as well as; irony, jokes or even sarcasm, is usually when it doesn´t always turn out the way I intended it. ;)

/B
--
 
Last edited:
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 and museums. But how can we know that the printed copies are actually published simultaneously with the online edition? It should be noted that with N. Krabbe and D. F. Lane two experienced taxonomists are author or co-author of these descriptions, respectively. And if they actually forget to register their publication, should the editors and reviewers of the journals not have hinted at ZooBank registration?

I will respond here, since I am named in this comment. I was entirely unaware of any need to register a new name, so may I ask how was this regulation disseminated? As far as I can tell, journals that regularly publish new taxa should be aware of changes in requirements, not necessarily the authors (who may or may not be informed of the process). I cannot speak for Niels, but I only imagine that he was in a similar situation. In the case of Myrmoderus eowilsoni, it seems that Andre's response here https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3656185&postcount=62 would suggest that the Auk made the attempt to rectify the situation, and that perhaps there was no situation, since hardcopies were still distributed? Either way, it seems the ICZN does a rather poor job of making new requirements for taxonomic description widespread knowledge. We (the authors of M. eowilsoni) only heard about this thanks to a private message from Norbert Bahr (many thanks!).
 
I will respond here, since I am named in this comment. I was entirely unaware of any need to register a new name, so may I ask how was this regulation disseminated? As far as I can tell, journals that regularly publish new taxa should be aware of changes in requirements, not necessarily the authors (who may or may not be informed of the process). I cannot speak for Niels, but I only imagine that he was in a similar situation. In the case of Myrmoderus eowilsoni, it seems that Andre's response here https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=3656185&postcount=62 would suggest that the Auk made the attempt to rectify the situation, and that perhaps there was no situation, since hardcopies were still distributed? Either way, it seems the ICZN does a rather poor job of making new requirements for taxonomic description widespread knowledge. We (the authors of M. eowilsoni) only heard about this thanks to a private message from Norbert Bahr (many thanks!).

Hi Dan

Is it not fair to say though that a thorough literature search is part of naming a new taxa?

Meaning, and not trying to be controversial or aggressive, that if you're putting together a description and diving into every obscure manuscript you should also be conversant with "the rules" at the same time?

Isn't there some responsibility to be acquainted with the requirements of "The Code" inherent in the responsibility of "The Naming"...?

Cheers, McM
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top