• 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.

Tetraogallus and Montigallus (1 Viewer)

Peter Kovalik

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
R. L. Potapov. History of description of the genus Tetraogallus and designation of the type species of the subgenera Tetraogallus and Montigallus (Potapov 1991). Rus. ornitol. zhurn. 2015, 24:1133 pp 1361-1368. (Рус. орнитол. журн. 2015. Том 24. Экспресс-выпуск № 1133).

Abstract:
The paper traces the history of description of the members of the genus Tetraogallus G.E.Gray, 1833, and analyses of the species distribution and morphology (Potapov 1991). The author has agreed with V.L.Bianchii (Bianchii 1899) who was the first to separate the snowcock species into two groups based on coloration of the male’s underparts, especially belly. The first group comprised of birds with dark, blackish belly, included the nominate species, the Himalayan Snowcock T. hymalayensis, the Caucasian T. caucasicus (Pallas, 1811) and Caspian T. caspius (Gmelin, 1784) snowcocks. The second group included two other species with the prevalence of the white color in the abdomen and comprised of the Altai T. altaicus (Gebler, 1836) and Tibetan T. tibetanus (Gould, 1843) snowcocks. Unfortunately, V.L.Bianchii (1899) did not gave scientific names to the two groups, which was later done by Potapov (1991).The two groups were given a status of subgenus. The first group of dark bellied snowcocks was given the nominate genus name (as sensu stricta) and the second group of white-bellied snowcocks was given name Montigallus (subgen.nova). In this paper I present the current taxonomical order of the genus Tetraogallus, and according to the article 69.1. of «Type species by subsequent designation» (The Code, 1999), I designate the type species of the subgenera suggested earlier (Potapov 1991).

Genus Tetraogallus J.E. Gray, 1832.

Subgenus Dark-bellied Snowcock Tetraogallus subgenus sensu stricto
Type species Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus himalayensis G.R.Gray, 1843 (1842). Type specimen – catalogue number 1880.1.1.1845, holotype. Museum Nat. Hist. London. 1. Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) himalayensis G.Gray, 1843.
Caucasian Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) caucasicus (Pallas, 1811).
Caspian Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) caspius (Gmelin, 1784).
Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus himalayensis G.R.Gray, 1843

Subgenus White bellied Snowcock Montigallus subgen.nova Potapov 1991
Type species Tibetan Snowcock T. (Montigallus) tibetanus J.Gould, 1854.
Type-specimen – catalog number 1880.1.1.1845, holotype.
Museum Nat.Hist. London.
Altai Snowcock T. (Montigallus) altaicus (Gebler, 1836).
Tibetan Snowcock T. (Montigallus) tibetanus Gould, 1853)
 
Peter Kovalik said:
Unfortunately, V.L.Bianchii (1899) did not gave scientific names to the two groups, which was later done by Potapov (1991). The two groups were given a status of subgenus. The first group of dark bellied snowcocks was given the nominate genus name (as sensu stricta) and the second group of white-bellied snowcocks was given name Montigallus (subgen.nova). In this paper I present the current taxonomical order of the genus Tetraogallus, and according to the article 69.1. of «Type species by subsequent designation» (The Code, 1999), I designate the type species of the subgenera suggested earlier (Potapov 1991).
Click to expand...
Interesting, thanks Peter.
Montigallus presumably now dates from Potapov 2015...? A genus-group name proposed after 1930 without a type fixation (as was, it seems, Montigallus in 1991/2013) is a nomen nudum, hence up to now the name was in all likelihood not available.


Потапов Р.Л. (Potapov R.L.) 1991. Основные этапы эволюции уларов и история становления видовых ареалов рода Tetraogallus. (The main stages of the evolution of snowcocks and the history of the formation of species ranges in the genus Tetraogallus.) Труды Зоологического института Академии наук СССР (Proceedings of the Zoological institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR), 239: 121-140.
Reprinted as: Потапов Р.Л. 2013. Русский орнитологический журнал (Russian ornithological journal), 22 (930): 2843-2861.

(Bianchi, who did not name the groups at all, is:
Бианки В.Л. (Bianchi V.L.) 1898. Обзор видов рода Tetraogallus Gray. (Review of the species of the genus Tetraogallus Gray.) Ежегодник Зоологического музея Императорской Академии Наук / Annuaire du Musée zoologique de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.-Pétersbourg, 3: 111-123. [here])
 
For those interested, thanks to the editor and publisher of the journal Alexander Bardin, Русский орнитологический журнал (starting from vol. 5/1996) is freely available on cloud.mail.ru

Peter Kovalik said:
R. L. Potapov. History of description of the genus Tetraogallus and designation of the type species of the subgenera Tetraogallus and Montigallus (Potapov 1991). Rus. ornitol. zhurn. 2015, 24:1133 pp 1361-1368. (Рус. орнитол. журн. 2015. Том 24. Экспресс-выпуск № 1133).
Click to expand...
[pdf]

l_raty said:
Потапов Р.Л. (Potapov R.L.) 1991. Основные этапы эволюции уларов и история становления видовых ареалов рода Tetraogallus. (The main stages of the evolution of snowcocks and the history of the formation of species ranges in the genus Tetraogallus.) Труды Зоологического института Академии наук СССР (Proceedings of the Zoological institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR), 239: 121-140.
Reprinted as: Потапов Р.Л. 2013. Русский орнитологический журнал (Russian ornithological journal), 22 (930): 2843-2861.
Click to expand...
[pdf]
 
The name remains a nomen nudum, as the subsequent designation of a type species for a genus-group name introduced after 1930 is not an option. According to Art. 13.3. of the Code, all genus-group names erected after 1930 have to be accompanied by the designation of a type species. Art. 69.1., on which R. Potapov refers to, rules names introduced before 1931.
 
Mmh...
The name here is used as valid, is accompanied by a description, and its type species is unambiguously designated: up to 1999, this would have made it available without any possible discussion. (That the designation is claimed to be "subsequent", and which articles the author referred to, is not important.)
The only possible problem I can see in 2015 is with 16.1, which requires that a name published after 1999 be explicitly indicated as intentionally new. As the name is claimed to have been established earlier, it obviously cannot be interpreted as "intentionally new" in 2015, hence on a strict interpretation of this article's letter, it fails. That said, the aim (spirit) of this article is to make accidental introductions of new names (where no new name at all is intended) impossible, which certainly does not apply here. More, even if this is attributed to "Potapov 1991", the name is actually flagged as new in the paper ("subgen. nova" [sic...]), hence there can be no doubt that the author intended to establish it at some point.
I would still give it the benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik said:
R. L. Potapov. History of description of the genus Tetraogallus and designation of the type species of the subgenera Tetraogallus and Montigallus (Potapov 1991). Rus. ornitol. zhurn. 2015, 24:1133 pp 1361-1368. (Рус. орнитол. журн. 2015. Том 24. Экспресс-выпуск № 1133).

Abstract:
The paper traces the history of description of the members of the genus Tetraogallus G.E.Gray, 1833, and analyses of the species distribution and morphology (Potapov 1991). The author has agreed with V.L.Bianchii (Bianchii 1899) who was the first to separate the snowcock species into two groups based on coloration of the male’s underparts, especially belly. The first group comprised of birds with dark, blackish belly, included the nominate species, the Himalayan Snowcock T. hymalayensis, the Caucasian T. caucasicus (Pallas, 1811) and Caspian T. caspius (Gmelin, 1784) snowcocks. The second group included two other species with the prevalence of the white color in the abdomen and comprised of the Altai T. altaicus (Gebler, 1836) and Tibetan T. tibetanus (Gould, 1843) snowcocks. Unfortunately, V.L.Bianchii (1899) did not gave scientific names to the two groups, which was later done by Potapov (1991).The two groups were given a status of subgenus. The first group of dark bellied snowcocks was given the nominate genus name (as sensu stricta) and the second group of white-bellied snowcocks was given name Montigallus (subgen.nova). In this paper I present the current taxonomical order of the genus Tetraogallus, and according to the article 69.1. of «Type species by subsequent designation» (The Code, 1999), I designate the type species of the subgenera suggested earlier (Potapov 1991).

Genus Tetraogallus J.E. Gray, 1832.

Subgenus Dark-bellied Snowcock Tetraogallus subgenus sensu stricto
Type species Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus himalayensis G.R.Gray, 1843 (1842). Type specimen – catalogue number 1880.1.1.1845, holotype. Museum Nat. Hist. London. 1. Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) himalayensis G.Gray, 1843.
Caucasian Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) caucasicus (Pallas, 1811).
Caspian Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus) caspius (Gmelin, 1784).
Himalayan Snowcock T. (Tetraogallus himalayensis G.R.Gray, 1843

Subgenus White bellied Snowcock Montigallus subgen.nova Potapov 1991
Type species Tibetan Snowcock T. (Montigallus) tibetanus J.Gould, 1854.
Type-specimen – catalog number 1880.1.1.1845, holotype.
Museum Nat.Hist. London.
Altai Snowcock T. (Montigallus) altaicus (Gebler, 1836).
Tibetan Snowcock T. (Montigallus) tibetanus Gould, 1853)
Click to expand...

I cannot read the Russian text, but from the English summary it is clear that R. Potapov "designate(d) the type species of the subgenera suggested earlier (Potapov 1991)". Again, it is not possible to validate a nomen nudum by subsequent designation of a type species. It is a pity, as R. Potapov is a deserving author and scientist. He should have described the subgenus anew to eliminate all doubts.
 
Well, nomina nuda do not have any standing in nomenclature: strictly speaking, they can never be "validated" afterwards, because they never existed at all before this "afterwards" in the first place. On the other hand, there are hundreds upon hundreds of names that are regarded as having been correctly made available in publications that attributed them to an earlier work that had failed to do so, or even had never been published; so this, I think, cannot be regarded as a significant problem. The first work to fulfil the criteria for availability makes the name available (which can only be "anew", as this name didn't exist nomenclaturally before that).

I fully agree that what the author tries to do here (viz., to designate subsequently a type species for an unavailable genus-group name) is incorrect; but I think that as a consequence this attempted action can only be disregarded as void and ineffective.
If I disregard this action, what I do see, is a name that is correctly formed, being used by the author for a valid subgeneric nominal taxon, with characters that distinguish it being cited, a type species being explicitly designated, and (admittedly the most disputable point) the name being flagged "gen. nova". Thus, unless you insist on a very strict and literal reading of Article 16.1, for me all the criteria for the availability of a new generic name are fulfilled in the 2015 paper.

What would you suggest to correct the problem?
 
Last edited:
First of all, I must confess that I really regret that R. L. Potapov's attempt to validate his new subgenus name Montigallus failed again, according to my understanding of the Code. It was not my intention to look for the "hair in the soup", but his slip was obvious to me.
Potapov (2015) is obviously supposing that his 1991 genus-group name is valid, he only missed to designate a type species. He believes that it is possible to rectify this mistake by subsequent designation according to Art. 69.1. of the Code (1999). From his text, in particular the English summary, it is unequivocal that he not described Montigallus as a new subgenus in his 2015 paper, as he always referred to it as "subgen. nova Potapov 1991" and "I designate the type species of the subgenera suggested earlier (Potapov 1991)". I believe that I am not hair-splitting nor that I insist on a very strict and literal reading of the Code (descriptions of new taxa have been contested for lesser mistakes!), but that Potapov simply made his new subgenus not available with his 2015 paper. The only way to validate Montigallus is another paper in which that taxon is described according to the Code presently in force: as a new taxon, with a short diagnosis distinguishing it from other taxa, and a valid type species.
 
This far I cannot see the etymological angle ...

How come this thread was started here, in the Etymology section, and not in the "Taxonomy and Nomenclature" ditto?

Simply a mistake or am I missing something?
 
Bei An, Lixun Zhang, Luzhang Ruan, Naifa Liu, Zexi Zhang, Ali Abutalip & Yila Suo. The complete mitochondrial genome of Himalayan Snowcock (Tetraogallus himalayensis). Mitochondrial DNA. Published online: 24 Sep 2015.

Abstract:
We reported here the first complete sequences of mitogenome of Tetraogallus himalayensis obtained by next generation sequencing methods. The assembled mitogenome is a 16 692 bp circle, comprising of 13 protein-coding genes, two rRNA genes (12S rRNA and 16S rRNA), 22 tRNA genes, and one control region. The resultant phylogenetic tree supported T. himalayensis and T. tibeanus are sister taxon, and Tetraogallus with Alectoris and coturnix formed a monophyletic group.
 
An, B., Zhang, L., Wang, Y. et al. Comparative phylogeography of two sister species of snowcock: impacts of species-specific altitude preference and life history. Avian Res 11, 1 (2020) doi:10.1186/s40657-019-0187-0

Abstract:

Background
Phylogeographical patterns and population dynamics are usually interpreted by environmental disturbances and geographic barriers of the past. However, sister species may exhibit disparate patterns of genetic structures and population dynamics due to their habitat preference and altitude segregation. In this study, we tested how species-specific altitude habitat affected phylogeographical patterns in two sister snowcock species, Tibetan (Tetraogallus tibetanus) and Himalayan Snowcocks (T. himalayensis).

Methods
A panel of seven microsatellite loci and a fragment of Mitochondrial DNA Control Region were used to investigate genetic structures and population dynamics in hope of revealing the underlying evolutionary processes through the identification of possible past demographic events.

Results
Our results suggest that T. himalayensis showed a significant phylogeographical signal in mtDNA (FST = 0.66, p < 0.001) and microsatellite (FST = 0.11, p < 0.001) data and is stable during the glacial-interglacial cycles in the Pleistocene and followed demographic contraction until 0.003 million years (Mys) ago. The phylogeographical signal of T. tibetanus is lower than the level of genetic difference among populations in mtDNA (FST = 0.41, p < 0.001) and microsatellite (FST = 0.09, p < 0.001) data, likely benefiting from stable habitats over a long period of time. T. tibetanus has been experiencing expansion since 0.09 Mys ago. However, an abnormally haplotype H9 from T. himalayensis clustering with T. tibetanus was spotted.

Conclusion
Our results indicate that differences in habitat preference and altitude specialities were reflected in the genetic structure patterns and population dynamics of these two species. These dissimilarities in life history traits might have affected the dispersal and survival abilities of these two species differently during environmental fluctuations. The results of this study also enriched our knowledge on population differentiation and connectivity in high altitude mountain ecosystems.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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

Fred Ruhe
diversification of Tetraogallus
Replies
1
Views
468
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
ChinaBirds
China Birds (Nick Sismey) 2006 List
Replies
12
Views
22K
ChinaBirds
ChinaBirds
Rich Bonser
Turkey July 2004
Replies
10
Views
21K
John o'Sullivan
J

Users who are viewing this thread

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