• 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.

Trochilidae (1 Viewer)

...the Cephallepis case needs to be studied.
Click to expand...
Agreed. My understanding of Laurent's use of reinstating it is done not by the ICZN but "authors of checklists, catalogues and faunae" are the one who reinstate the old name as correct spellings. Genitives of species and subspecies nomina derived from personal names should not be emended
ALAIN DUBOIS 2007
 
mb1848 said:
My understanding of Laurent's use of reinstating it is done not by the ICZN but "authors of checklists, catalogues and faunae" are the one who reinstate the old name as correct spellings.
Click to expand...
It is supposed to be done by any and all authors publishing on the taxon, and opting to apply the regular provisions of the Code. (Checklists or faunae are not given any "special" status in comparison to other publications in the Code.)

(The other way out, "suppression", cannot be done by authors, by definition of the term -- nomenclatural suppression is, exclusively, "a ruling by the Commission, using its plenary power" [Glossary]. [It is not correct to use this term in reference to the action of individual authors, deliberately opting to disregard or boycott a particular name.] The only thing that an author wishing to go this way can do, is submit the case to the Commission. Once the case is before the Commission, and until the latter publishes a decision, other authors are said by the Code to keep using the name in prevailing usage, hence this name is effectively protected. As long as this has not been done, authors who don't believe that applying the regular provisions of the Code would be problematic, should in principle apply them [= use the senior name].)
 
I am not in favor of suppression so I hope the commission keeps a blind eye towards us. As an old punk I am in favor of D.I.Y. (see Desperate Bicycles) Thus I am writing a proposal for change to the SACC. They are authors? Authors of a check-list??
I am talking about the Cephallepis case. The other case I know no information arguing that the bird should not stay in Bucco???
 
Last edited:
Sorry, showing my age. As a pimply teen I heard over shortwave John Peel read the back of a 45 rpm single by this band saying "it was easy, it was cheap – go and do it!" The single showed their bill for 153 pounds from the recording studio. DIY is do it yourself. I'm not waiting for some "author" somewhere sometime fixing this I'll do it.
 
LeNomenclatoriste said:
Cyphos is not close to Bucco but to Hypnelus and Nystactes
Click to expand...
Unless I am mistaken, however, these relationships were only shown in [a (now 13-year-old) PhD thesis], which was never published, based on data which were never released.
That doesn't mean the conclusions were wrong, of course; but it's not a type of source that the SACC is used to base changes on.

Commissioners are not going to look after this type of things by themselves; one (or more) ornithologist(s) would have to submit the case to them. It would be the responsibility of those who refuse to switch back to the senior name to make the submission.
I'm not at all fond of suppression either, by the way.
 
I'm not at all fond of suppression either, by the way.
Click to expand...

I am curious as to why. The stated purpose of the system of scientific names is to promote stability. If a name truly has not been used since year 1900 and it is now re-activated and used to replace the commonly used name, that is instability.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
I am curious as to why. The stated purpose of the system of scientific names is to promote stability. If a name truly has not been used since year 1900 and it is now re-activated and used to replace the commonly used name, that is instability.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but, in the cases discussed here, the names in fact have been used since year 1900. When a name truly has not been used since 1900, stability can, and should, according to the Code, be achieved by a reversal of precedence. Suppression should not be necessary. (Reversals of precedences have the potential to cause problems, though. But that's another issue.)

The system is supposed to promote stability (the same name being used across time) and universality (the same unique name being used for a given taxon by all users, which can only be achieved if no more that one single name is ever 'correct' under the Rules). In my view, the present Code largely fails in this latter goal. E.g., a lot of articles use the notion of 'prevailing usage', but the Code fails to provide any quantitative definition for it; as a result, in many cases, some may think that a name having been used recently is in prevailing usage (and retain it), others may disagree that usage was prevailing enough (and replace it); this type of situation promotes the persistent simultaneous use of more than one name for the same taxon, which is an extremely bad thing.
In the present case, we have a rule that basically says, about re-instating the older name: "You should do it. Oh! But, wait. If you believe it's not OK (or someone else in your community believes this), then after all you should not." This type of rule again fails to produce a single valid name for the concerned taxon.
 
In the present case, we have a rule that basically says, about re-instating the older name: "You should do it. Oh! But, wait. If you believe it's not OK (or someone else in your community believes this), then after all you should not." This type of rule again fails to produce a single valid name for the concerned taxon.
Click to expand...

That does sound pretty messy!

Niels
 
Laurent said: "not a type of source that the SACC is used to base changes on." Agreed Also "Rasmussen & Collar HBW 7:104 argue for inclusion in a monotypic genus Nystactes . This is based on:
o The presence of a black, strongly bifid bill tip.
o The presence of "some distinctive plumage features" (Zoonomen) This is Tobias-y reasons and Dr. Remsen is a critic. But Peters 1948 lumped everything Ecchaunornis etc. into Bucco with no clear reason. I like splitting Bucco up a little.
 
The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): Reconciling taxonomy with phylogeny
F. GARY STILES, J. V. JR. REMSEN, JIMMY A. MCGUIRE

Abstract

The generic nomenclature of the hummingbirds is unusually complicated. McGuire et al.’s (2014) recent phylogeny of the Trochilidae based on DNA sequence data has greatly clarified relationships within the family but conflicts strongly with the traditional classification of the family at the genus level, especially that of the largest and most recently derived clade, the Trochilini or “emeralds”. We recently presented a historical review of this classification and the generic modifications required by the Code of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Herein we present a revised generic classification of the Trochilini based upon McGuire et al.’s genetic data, while producing diagnosable generic groupings and preserving nomenclatural stability insofar as possible. However, this generic rearrangement has necessitated the resurrection of nine generic names currently considered synonyms, the synonymization of seven currently recognized genera and the creation of one new genus. The generic changes we recommend to the classification are drastic, and we summarize these in tabular form in comparison with the three most recent classifications of the Trochilini. Where appropriate, we outline alternatives to our proposed arrangement. The classification treats 110 species in 35 genera, including two species that remain unplaced for lack of genetic samples.



Keywords

Aves, biogeography, classification, genetic relationships, hummingbirds, morphology, nomenclature

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4353.3.1
 

Similar threads

Peter Kovalik
European passerines
Replies
0
Views
629
Peter Kovalik
Peter Kovalik
Fred Ruhe
Phylogenetic biome conservatism as a key concept for an integrative understanding of evolutionary history: Galliformes and Falconiformes as study case
Replies
0
Views
303
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Plotornis archaeonautes sp. nov.
Replies
1
Views
593
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Comparative morphology of the avian bony columella
Replies
0
Views
302
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Swindon Addick
Escape behaviors in prey and the evolution of pennaceous plumage in dinosaurs
Replies
2
Views
478
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top