Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Discover the ZEISS Digital Nature Hub

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Chachalacas

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 7 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Monday 12th November 2012, 10:44   #1
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Chachalacas

Donegan 2012. A new group name for the Chachalacas (Aves: Cracidae: Ortalis). Conservación Colombiana 17: 41–44. [pdf]
  • Ortalidaini n. tribe.

Last edited by Richard Klim : Monday 12th November 2012 at 10:48.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th November 2012, 08:48   #2
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Ortalida vs. Ortalis Merrem

AP Peterson on Zoonomen: http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/n/o.ht...isNomenclature
Wharton (1879): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/i...e/502/mode/1up
Quote:
Quod genus, cum multas sane species comprehendat, in plures phalanges dividendum videtur, quarum primam cum Linnaeo atque Brissonio Cracem, eam, ad quam nostra pertinet species, Penelopen, tertiam, ad quam Phasianus Motmot et similes ei referendae sunt aves, Ortalida appello.
Roughly:
Which genus, as it indeed includes many species, is seen as divided in several phalanges, of which a first, in agreement with Linnaeus and Brisson, is Crax; the one to which our species "Penelopen" pertains; and a third one, to which Phasianus Motmot and the birds similar to it are referred, that I call "Ortalida".
Wharton's (1879) argument was that appello calls for an accusative, and that Ortalida had to be read as the accusative case of Ortalis. The first assertion is indeed correct (appellare actually calls for a double accusative), but the inferred consequence seems completely wrong to me: the accusative singular of a feminine word Ortalis, in a Latin text, would be Ortalidem--definitely not "Ortalida". A noun with an -a ending in the accusative in a Latin text can only be neuter plural... (And nouns with an -is ending in the nominative are never neuter.)
It seems much more likely to me that the sentence is less-than-perfect Latin, and Ortalida indeed a 1st-declension feminine word written in the nominative singular.
(As side evidence suggesting that the Latin might be poor, note the definitely odd "Penelopen" in the middle of the Latin quote--written this way both by Wharton (1879) and on Zoonomen [the latter having a much longer quote, which was evidently not copied from the former]. This doesn't look like Latin at all, but rather suggests a German plural, retained accidentally in an imperfect translation process...)
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 13th November 2012, 09:20   #3
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Laurent, I tend to agree with a lot of this from reading the actual texts (as you can tell from certain passages in the paper cited above). It is not often that a genus name is ex post facto changed so dramatically in its ending, and this smacks of an inventive solution to the priority of invertebrate genus names. The counter-argument is that "Ortalis" in ancient Greek has a meaning "young fowl" which seems appropriate for a galliform. I am not sure if Ortalida means anything in Latin?

The best solution to me seems to be an ICZN case fixing the name Ortalis and authorship thereof to Merrem. Question is, can anyone be bothered?
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th July 2013, 14:51   #4
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Cracidae subfamilies & tribes

John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html (9 Jul 2013)
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List2.html#cracidae

Last edited by Richard Klim : Wednesday 10th July 2013 at 15:07.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th August 2013, 06:55   #5
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Cracidae subfamilies

AOU-SACC Proposal #584 (Donegan, Aug 2013): Recognize subfamilies in the Cracidae:
  • A. Recognize Cracidae subfamilies Cracinae and Penelopinae (II)
  • B. Recognize Cracidae subfamily Ortalidainae
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th February 2014, 14:50   #6
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,240
Cracidae

Erwin Tramontini Grau, 2008. Filogenia Molecular e Biogeografia: Jacus e Jacutingas (Cracidae). / Molecular Phylogenetics and Biogeography: Typical, Piping and Wattled Guans (Cracidae). Tese de Doutorado, São Paulo.
Abstract and PDF [here]
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 14th February 2014, 03:17   #7
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,246
Going back to 2012:
Laurent said: "(As side evidence suggesting that the Latin might be poor, note the definitely odd "Penelopen" in the middle of the Latin quote--written this way both by Wharton (1879) and on Zoonomen [the latter having a much longer quote, which was evidently not copied from the former]. This doesn't look like Latin at all, but rather suggests a German plural, retained accidentally in an imperfect translation process...)"
I think Penelopen is a very rare latin word, http://nlp.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...open&target=la .
http://nlp.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...pen0&prior=uno .
But Merrem did not name the genus Penelopen but Penelope. I cannot find Merrem 1786 online but in a review it shows that the 11th and 12th drawing of this work Merrem used Penelope as the genus.
http://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/receive/...ticle_00028408 . You must go to the second page of the review to see Penelope. So Penelopen is a sloppy use of German?? I am not sure how this helps with Ortalis/Ortalida

Last edited by mb1848 : Friday 14th February 2014 at 03:20.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th May 2014, 05:42   #8
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
David 2014

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Donegan 2012. A new group name for the Chachalacas (Aves: Cracidae: Ortalis). Conservación Colombiana 17: 41–44. [pdf]
  • Ortalidaini n. tribe.
David 2014. The correct stems of family-group names citing Ortalis Merrem, 1786, as type genus (Aves: Cracidae). Zootaxa 3795(1): 99–100. [pdf]
  • Ortalisini Donegan, 2012.

Last edited by Richard Klim : Friday 9th May 2014 at 14:56. Reason: updated links.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 9th May 2014, 07:33   #9
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Seems correct to me. (I expected declension as a Latinized word, but Merrem actually declined the word in Greek, and indeed ορταλιδα would appear to be a correct Greek accusative. [Obviously my Greek declensions are too far behind me.] Sorry about the fuss, thus, and apologies to Merrem and Wharton.)
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 21st May 2014, 08:28   #10
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
Seems correct to me.
I think I should qualify this statement... The grammar is certainly correct--ie., Ortalida is ορταλιδα, the Greek accusative of ορταλις, which must be turned into a nominative, hence the correct original spelling of the name can only be Ortalis.

However:
Quote:
29.3. Determination of stem in names of type genera. The stem of a family-group name is based on the name of its type genus [Art. 63] and determined as follows.
29.3.1. If a generic name is [..] a Greek [...] word, [...] the stem for the purposes of the Code is found by deleting the case ending of the
appropriate genitive singular.
29.3.1.1. If the stem so formed ends in -id, those letters may be elided before adding the family-group suffixes. [...]
29.3.3. If a generic name is [...] an arbitrary combination of letters, the stem for the purposes of the Code is that adopted by the author who establishes the new family-group taxon, either the entire generic name (see Article 29.6), or the entire generic name with the ending elided, or the entire generic name with one or more appropriate linking letters incorporated in order to form a more euphonious family-group name.
29.4. Acceptance of originally formed stem. If after 1999 a new family-group name is based on a generic name which is or ends in a Greek or Latin word or ends in a Greek or Latin suffix, but its derivation does not follow the grammatical procedures of Articles 29.3.1 or 29.3.2, its original spelling must be maintained as the correct original spelling, provided
29.4.1. it has a correctly formed suffix [Art. 29.2], and
29.4.2. its stem is formed from the name of the type genus as though it were an arbitrary combination of letters [Art. 29.3.3].
Ortalis is a Greek word, its genitive is Ortalidos, its stem is Ortalid- under 29.3.1, which may be elided to Ortal- under 29.3.1.1.

29.4 acts as an exception to 29.3, which is the default. Under 29.4, an originally formed stem would have to be accepted instead of the classical stem, provided that it is formed as though the name were an arbitrary combination of letters (29.3.3). Here, the originally formed stem was Ortalida-. Unfortunately, if this stem is incorrect (ie, not 29.3.3-compliant), nothing allows to replace it with Ortalis- under 24.9 based on an a-posteriori interpretation of the author's intent, however convincing this interpretation might be. If Ortalida- is incorrect, 29.4 simply does not protect the originally formed stem, the exception does not apply, and the stem must be formed classically, under 29.3.

(Or, to put it in other words:
- The only possible way to make a new name "Ortalisini" based on a genus Ortalis correct, is through Art. 29.4.
- The only possible thing that Art. 29.4 can achieve is that an "original spelling must be maintained as the correct original spelling".
Thus the original spelling must have been "Ortalisini", or "Ortalisini" cannot be correct... The original spelling was Ortalidaini.)

(Additionally, I'm also not sure I understand the effect that the permanent invalidity of the family names formed from Ortalis Fallen, 1810, can have on this case. Invalidity does not mean unavailability; even if invalid, these names still compete for homonymy, and make any newly-proposed junior homonym as invalid as themselves.)

Last edited by l_raty : Wednesday 21st May 2014 at 21:09.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 11:42   #11
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Comment from original author: I believe this recent Zootaxa paper is incorrect in various respects. I have sent a response to the editors, though doubt they will publish it.

But in short:
1. Any previously established homonym, even if invalid, is not available for Ortalis the bird. So check this out at p.483:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/b...34225#/summary

2. Ortalida- is an "appropriate" stem within the meaning of 29.6 of the Code when no "standard" options are available. Appropriate is a term capable of a broad interpretation. The original description is valid.

In contrast, those who want to use some other name, e.g. Ortalisini, would have to get the ICZN to suppress previously used homonymous names for flies.

I will not go into more detail here, because that is more the place of a response to a paper not a forum for birders.

Names are about facilitating communication and creating this sort of confusion is not very pointful.

Thanks, Thomas

Last edited by thomasdonegan : Thursday 22nd May 2014 at 11:44.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 11:54   #12
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasdonegan View Post
1. Any previously established homonym, even if invalid, is not available for Ortalis the bird. So check this out at p.483:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/b...34225#/summary
This one doesn't work, though, Thomas.
It was published before 2000, hence Art. 29.4 doesn't apply to it, and the stem must be formed under 29.3. Thus "Ortalisini", as used there, is an incorrect spelling, requiring a mandatory correction into Ortalidini or Ortalini. An incorrect spelling has no availability.

Cheers, Laurent -

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 22nd May 2014 at 12:00.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 12:21   #13
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
But 29.3/4 don't deal with "availability" at the point of publication. "Established" (defined as availability) is the test in 29.6.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 13:12   #14
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
29.3/4 determine the correct original spelling of family group names. 29.4 covers only names that "after 1999" are "new family-group names". If a name is made available in the publication you quote, its spelling is determined by 29.3: a tribe with type genus Ortalis, thus the spelling is Ortalidini or Ortalini. It is with this spelling that the name will enter into homonymy.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 13:20   #15
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Laurent, Yes, thanks. That is something I had overlooked when putting this together. David does not get into these issues either, of course.

Batting for the "other side" (as if such a thing should exist in a discussion about spellings), you should also bear in mind that art 35.4 allows corrections in cases like this, and was cited by David. The argument would be mine is an "unjustified emendation".

Thomas
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 14:34   #16
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
You mean the argument would then be in 2 steps: (1) the name is correctly formed based on Ortalida, treating it "as though it were an arbitrary combination of letters", hence "its original spelling must be maintained as the correct original spelling" under 29.4, and then (2), oh wait, but Ortalida is an unjustified emendation of Ortalis, hence "Ortalis" must replace "Ortalida" in the name under 35.4.1?

Laurent -
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 16:13   #17
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Yes. The two provisions are potentially contradictory, but the Code was not really put together with this situation in mind. Consensus from those I have been speaking to seems to be that a commission case to put one or 'tother name on the official list is needed.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 22nd May 2014, 16:54   #18
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Well, it seems clear that a Commission ruling would put an end to any dispute once and for all, so it would certainly be a good thing. My point here was mainly that the proposed "solution" was in my view questionably Code-compliant--but a ruling of course is Code-compliant by definition.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th June 2014, 08:51   #19
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Cracidae

Pinilla-Buitrago, Martínez-Morales, González-García, Enríquez, Rangel-Salazar, Guichard Romero, Navarro-Sigüenza, Monterrubio-Rico & Escalona-Segura 2014. CracidMex1: a comprehensive database of global occurrences of cracids (Aves, Galliformes) with distribution in Mexico. ZooKeys 420: 87–115. [abstract] [pdf] [database]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd July 2014, 14:09   #20
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
An incorrect spelling has no availability.
An incorrect spelling has no availability today under the modern code, but the relevant test here is "previously established". Again, one could argue two meanings for that phrase in retrospect ... but I still prefer the more obvious one that this includes names that were at one time established.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 3rd July 2014, 18:11   #21
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,607
Quote:
An incorrect spelling has no availability today under the modern code, but the relevant test here is "previously established".
My reading is that the relevant test is homonymy. Homonymy between two family-group names is determined by the identity of their stems, and the stems are regulated by the rules of the modern Code.
Pre-2000 and post-1999 names have their stem determined according to different rules; given the same OS, the stems may end up different. If this is the case, there is no homonymy.

Last edited by l_raty : Thursday 3rd July 2014 at 19:23.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 6th July 2015, 09:21   #22
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Family-group names based on Ortalis Merrem, 1786 (Aves, CRACIDAE): proposed conservation of either Ortalida-, Ortalis- or Ortalid- as the stem and suppression of family-group names based on Ortalis Fallén, 1810 (Insecta, Diptera) in the latter two instances, and acceptance of the English text of part of Article 29.3.3 of the Code as definitive in the second instance. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 72(2): 142-151.

[pdf available here]

In the few years before this is decided upon, I would suggest on the basis of paragraph 7 to use Ortalidaini, but "name TBC" is also a fair treatment for now.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 10th July 2015, 05:52   #23
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,240
TiF Update July 9
Chachalacas: I've switched back to using Ortalidaini as the name for the chachalaca tribe. More natural names have been preoccupied by the names based on the fly genus Ortalis Fallén 1810, a junior homonym of the chachalaca genus Ortalis Merrem 1786. This may change once ICZN Case 3669 (Donegan, 2015) is decided, a process that could take years.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 9th April 2016, 09:35   #24
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Zootaxa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Donegan 2012. A new group name for the Chachalacas (Aves: Cracidae: Ortalis). Conservación Colombiana 17: 41–44. [pdf]
  • Ortalidaini n. tribe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
David 2014. The correct stems of family-group names citing Ortalis Merrem, 1786, as type genus (Aves: Cracidae). Zootaxa 3795(1): 99–100. [pdf]
  • Ortalisini Donegan, 2012.
Thomas Donegan, 8 Apr 2016: Open letter: Demonstrable double-standards and failures of peer review at taxonomy's top scientific journal, Zootaxa. [pdf]

Last edited by Richard Klim : Saturday 9th April 2016 at 09:38.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 28th June 2016, 18:19   #25
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,240
Cracidae

Peter A. Hosner, Edward L. Braun, Rebecca T. Kimball. Rapid and recent diversification of curassows, guans, and chachalacas (Galliformes: Cracidae) out of Mesoamerica: Phylogeny inferred from mitochondrial, intron, and ultraconserved element sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 28 June 2016.

[abstract]
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More Chachalacas? njlarsen Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 3 Thursday 22nd November 2012 06:59

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.23898292 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:58.