• 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.

AOU-NACC Proposals 2011 (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
N&MA Classification Committee: Proposals 2011-A. [pdf]
  • 2011-A-1: Set a minimum standard for the designation of a holotype for extant avian species
  • 2011-A-2: Change linear sequence of genera in Trochilidae to reflect recent genetic data (SACC #267)
  • 2011-A-3: A new generic name for some sparrows formerly placed in Amphispiza
  • 2011-A-4: Split Gray Hawk Buteo nitidus into two species
  • 2011-A-5: Transfer Deltarhynchus flammulatus to Ramphotrigon
  • 2011-A-6: Change the gender ending of two species names
  • 2011-A-7: Change English Name of the Bahama Warbler to Pinelands Warbler
  • 2011-A-8: Reorganize classification of Thryothorus wrens
  • 2011-A-9: Recognize the genus Dendroplex Swainson 1827 (Dendrocolaptidae) as valid (SACC #316)
  • 2011-A-10: Change sequence of wren genera
  • 2011-A-11: Transfer the genus Paroaria to the Thraupidae (SACC #276)
  • 2011-A-12: Change species limits in the Arremon torquatus complex (SACC #468)
  • 2011-A-13: Change English name of Maui Parrotbill to Hawaiian name Kiwikiu
  • 2011-A-14: Revise the citation for Anser anser
Proposal 2010-C-15 (1 Apr), which suddenly disappeared (I assumed it had just been a mischievous April fool's joke!), has re-materialised as Proposal 2011-A-1.
 
Last edited:
They want to change Maui Parrotbill to some newly invented "hawaiian" name that has no historical basis. (not "widely used", as suggested) How likely is that to pass?

There was some other guy who came up with another made-up "hawaiian" name for it a few years back, as well. Interestingly that name was pooh-poohed in the same circles. I think it did even make it onto some National Park signage.
 
Last edited:
In the last proposal is this quote:
The basis for this proposal is information posted by someone identified as “mb1848” on
BirdForum, in a lengthy discussion on the white-fronted goose, on 24 Jan. 2010.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap:



Another one of the proposals is about renaming Bahamas Warbler to Pinelands Warbler. I need to think about that a little more, but Caribbean Pine is also naturally growing on Hispaniola and as such, even though the bird exists in Caribbean Pine in the Bahamas islands where it is, is that enough to warrant the change?

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Another one of the proposals is about renaming Bahamas Warbler to Pinelands Warbler. I need to think about that a little more, but Caribbean Pine is also naturally growing on Hispaniola and as such, even though the bird exists in Caribbean Pine in the Bahamas islands where it is, is that enough to warrant the change?

Niels
Click to expand...

I've just read the rationale and would support it. The comparison with Elfin Woods Warbler is a good one and I've always loved that name!

cheers, alan
 
Hey, thats me! But it was Rainer who did the heavy lifting, and determined Sweden as the location for Grey-lag.
"Concerning the basis for Anas anser, AOU is somewhat wrong here. Linnaeus listed three varieties under this name, namely: [alpha] Anser ferus, [beta] Anser domesticus and [gamma] Anser canadensis fuscus maculatus. (I do not consider these names as available, based on the style of the work, but that's another topic.) Only the last of these varieties is based on Edwards, and the bird is indeed A. albifrons.

Art. 72.4.1 of the code defines the type series as "all the specimens included by the author ... except any that the author ... refers to as distinct variants (e.g. by name, letter or number)..." Thus, Edwards' specimens do not belong to the type series of Anas anser. The only source given by Linnaeus, that is not assigned to one of the varieties is his own Fauna Svecica, p.90, and this is the only source to base the name Anas anser on...." RaMa, Rainer.
 
Last edited:
It's been awhile since I had reread that withdrawn proposal, but from what I recall this version sounds a bit different in tone? Might be the proposal was withdrawn to rewrite it? No clue
 
Proposal 2011-A-1

Mysticete said:
It's been awhile since I had reread that withdrawn proposal, but from what I recall this version sounds a bit different in tone? Might be the proposal was withdrawn to rewrite it?
Click to expand...
Mark retained a copy of 2010-C-15 (link to text in post #1). 2011-A-1 is identical. Maybe it was decided that the committee should be given more time to consider such a controversial issue.
 
Competency?

Re 2011-A-1, shouldn't the AOU be developing their own guidelines on descriptions that their committees are likely to look upon with favour, rather than seeking to amend someone else's document? Or feeding into discussions on the next edition of the Code?

Article 90. Amendments of the Code. This Code can be amended [Arts. 78.3, 80.1] only by the international body of zoologists having the delegated power of the International Congresses of Zoology over the Commission [Art. 77] and then only acting on a recommendation from the Commission presented through and approved by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of that international body.

Any AOU guidelines presumably ought to start at paragraph 1, not "Recommendation 73A (AOU)." ...

That is not to say I disagree with the wording formulation proposed (but not including all the rationale presented with it) as a helpful enhancement that could be considered by the ICZN as a possible amendment to the Code.
 
Proposal 2011-A-1

My understanding is that the proposal is essentially for a supplementary recommendation/requirement to be unilaterally adopted by AOU-NACC in addition to the Code, rather than seeking an amendment to the Code itself.
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
My understanding is that the proposal is essentially for a supplementary recommendation/requirement to be unilaterally adopted by AOU-NACC in addition to the Code, rather than seeking an amendment to the Code itself.
Click to expand...

So in summary a type specimen would be required by AOU-NACC to recognise a new North American taxon? I shouldn't think there will be too many of them. Would the assumption be that SACC follow suit?

cheers, alan
 
Proposal 2011-A-1

lewis20126 said:
So in summary a type specimen would be required by AOU-NACC to recognise a new North American taxon? I shouldn't think there will be too many of them. Would the assumption be that SACC follow suit?
Click to expand...
That's my reading (with the proviso about instances with possible negative consequences for population biology). And (as you've implied) in practice it's obviously of much greater relevance to SACC...
 
Hello, I don't understand how this could work in practice.

A species might be discovered and recognized by ICZN and worldwide, but not by AOU? What then? AOU will refuse its existence, and wait for new holotype and new name, possibly from different scientist?
 
Proposal 2011-A-1

jurek said:
A species might be discovered and recognized by ICZN and worldwide, but not by AOU? What then? AOU will refuse its existence, and wait for new holotype and new name, possibly from different scientist?
Click to expand...
If the proposal is passed, then presumably that would indeed be the case!

PS. Rather than 'refuse its existence', I guess AOU would potentially acknowledge its existence as an undescribed species. ;)
 
Last edited:
I am introducing a new requirement that any newly described terrestrial snails recognised on my garden list must have the description printed in pink and use Wingdings font. This new requirement for European mollusc taxonomists will be known as Article 90A of the ICZN Code (Someone's snail back garden list).

In all seriousness, this proposal represents a slippery slope towards non-universality of the Code, both for a particular taxon (birds vs. rest of the animal kingdom) and regionally (North American vs. rest of the world).
 
Last edited:
I agree with Thomas's arguments...I would much rather not see this rule put into place and instead dealt with it on a case by case basis as it occurs (Which I imagine would be very very rare...I just don't see there being too many discoveries left in the AOU region)
 
Proposal 2011-A-1

And ultimately, the acceptability of a description without a skin specimen would hinge on AOU's judgement of the required 'empirical evidence of rarity', which would inevitably be arbitrary and contentious.
 
Richard Klim said:
And ultimately, the acceptability of a description without a skin specimen would hinge on AOU's judgement of the required 'empirical evidence of rarity', which would inevitably be arbitrary and contentious.
Click to expand...

Any any AOU area species which has yet to be described would almost certainly be exceptionally rare and localized (other than, perhaps, some cryptic taxa).

cheers, a
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

G
AOU-NACC Proposals 2024
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
l_raty
l_raty
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2023
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
Mysticete
Mysticete
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2022
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
20K
Mysticete
Mysticete
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2021
6 7 8
Replies
153
Views
20K
l_raty
l_raty
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2020
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
20K
Andy Adcock
Andy Adcock

Users who are viewing this thread

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