Speaking of Furnariidae, I would like to know the status of genus Dendroma Swainson, 1837, which could be used for ''Philydor'' erythropterum and ''Philydor'' rufum , if it is available, valid or not at all.
The name is certainly available (in the nomenclatural sense of the term), and I'd say it can be used; but the issue seems a bit more complicated than indicated, i.a., higher up in the present thread.
OD:
- Under the ICZN, the name is available from Swainson 1836 [here] without any included species.
(And thus not Swainson 1837; in 1836, Swainson gave some generic characters, and associated two figures to the name: each one of these two acts separately would have qualified as an indication, making the name available, under the ICZN. Under the old AOU code, it is likely that the 1836 publication would have been regarded as insufficient -- no 'identifiable' species included, stated characters deemed insufficient to define the taxon -- and this may be why the 1836 use seems to have been 'forgotten' in a portion of the ornithological literature. Of course, this old code is in principle now irrelevant, even though a good part of our nomenclature still rests on interpretations that were made under it. A generic name cannot be 'rejected' based on this type of considerations under the ICZN.)
Immediately subsequent works having no nomenclatural significance:
- In 1837 [here], Swainson described the taxon in a more detailed way and cited a species, "Dendroma caniceps", which he based on "Braz. Birds, pl. 80". That should in principle mean the 80th plate of his Ornithological drawings; except that only 62 plates of this work appear to have been printed: if plate 80 was not published, Dendroma caniceps Swainson 1837 is a nomen nudum, and Dendroma remained here without any included nominal species.
- Gray 1840 [here] merely cited Dendroma caniceps Swainson as the type. Dendroma remained without any included nominal species.
- Selby 1840 [here] merely cited Dendroma caniceps as the type. Dendroma remained without any included nominal species.
- Strickland 1840 [here], commenting on Gray 1840, suggested the name ought to be a synonym of Philydor Spix, without citing any species. Dendroma remained without any included nominal species.
- Gray 1841 [here] placed the name in the synonymy of Diglossa Wagler. This changed nothing.
These seem to be the critical works:
- Strickland 1842 [here], commenting on Gray 1841, disagreed with the synonymization, and reiterated that Dendroma had to be a synonym of Philydor, adding that it included Spix's superciliaris, albogularis and ruficollis. Evenhuis 2003 ([this]) dated this issue of Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (Vol. VIII, part LII) as of 1 Jan 1842.
- Hartlaub 1842 [here], commenting on Gray 1841, disagreed with the synonymization, and suggested that D. caniceps Swainson is Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein 1823. This appeared in the Jun 1842 issue of the journal, thus presumably after Strickland 1842.
- Gray 1846 [here] cited Anabates poliocephalus Lichtenstein as the type, placing both Philydor ruficollis Spix and Dendroma caniceps Swainson among its synonyms.
Later works (not affecting type fixation):
- Gray 1855 [here] cited Anabates poliocephalus Lichtenstein as the type.
- Sclater 1890 cited Dendrocopus rufus Vieillot as the type [here], placing Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein, Philydor ruficollis Spix and Dendroma caniceps Swainson in its synonymy [here].
- Ridgway 1911 [here] cited as type "D. caniceps Swainson = Dendrocopus rufus Vieillot".
- Cory & Hellmayr 1925 [here] cited Gray 1855 as having fixed Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein ("=" Dendrocopus rufus Vieillot) as the type.
Had Hartlaub's 1842 comment appeared before Strickland's, a case might (perhaps) have been made that he had included
Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein 1823 in
Dendroma, making it the type by subsequent monotypy. If Strickland 1842 appeared first (which appears most likely), the originally included nominal species of
Dendroma were fixed there (under [
Art. 67.2.2 of the ICZN]) as
Philydor superciliaris Spix 1824,
Philydor albogularis Spix 1824 and
Philydor ruficollis Spix 1824; only these three nominal species are then eligible to become the type (
Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein 1823 is not); this makes
Philydor ruficollis Spix 1824 the type by (indirect) subsequent designation of Gray 1846 (designation of
Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein 1823, not an OINS, with the single OINS
Philydor ruficollis Spix 1824 placed in its synonymy, resulting in the fixation of the latter under [
Art. 69.2.2. of the ICZN]).
(Fortunately, as far as taxonomy goes, and in so far as
Sphenura poliocephala Lichtenstein 1823 and
Philydor ruficollis Spix 1824 are still both treated as subjective synonyms of
Dendrocopus rufus Vieillot 1818, it's not really important which of them is the type. It's not always the case in this type of situation.)
