Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
More discoveries. NEW: Zeiss Victory SF 32

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.

Why no Anseridae?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Friday 8th May 2020, 14:42   #1
in vitrio
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 178
Why no Anseridae?

Just wondering. There's Anser anser, Anseriformes, Anserimorphae. I think all the other -iformes have an -idae to go with them.

Yet there is no Anseridae, the geese are all in Anatidae. Should that not logically be Anseridae on the basis that Anser seems to have priority everywhere else?

Or maybe the question should be why there is no Anatiformes?
in vitrio is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th May 2020, 15:16   #2
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: La Rochelle (France)
Posts: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by in vitrio View Post
Just wondering. There's Anser anser, Anseriformes, Anserimorphae. I think all the other -iformes have an -idae to go with them.

Yet there is no Anseridae, the geese are all in Anatidae. Should that not logically be Anseridae on the basis that Anser seems to have priority everywhere else?

Or maybe the question should be why there is no Anatiformes?
It's a good question.

Why not Phasianiformes as well?
LeNomenclatoriste is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 8th May 2020, 23:16   #3
Rick Wright
Registered User
 
Rick Wright's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Bloomfield, New Jersey, USA
Posts: 138
According to Bock's History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names (fussy hyphen, that), both Mergidae and Anseridae enjoy priority over Anatidae, but (p. 173) "Anatidae Leach 1820 should be conserved conditionally in preference to Mergidae and Anseridae because of its well-established use for 170 years since the original proposal of the name Anatidae."


Yet there is no Anseridae, the geese are all in Anatidae. Should that not logically be Anseridae on the basis that Anser seems to have priority everywhere else?

Or maybe the question should be why there is no Anatiformes?[/quote]
__________________
Rick Wright

Victor Emanuel Nature Tours
www.ventbird.com
Rick Wright is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 20th May 2020, 10:06   #4
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 1,579
Does anyone know what Anser punctulatus Dubois, CF mentioned here https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...e/149/mode/1up is? Or in other words it is a synonym for todays......?
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 10:23   #5
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taphrospilus View Post
Does anyone know what Anser punctulatus Dubois, CF mentioned here https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/...e/149/mode/1up is? Or in other words it is a synonym for todays......?
OD:

Quote:
Kopf ziemlich klein, und zur Mitte des Halses unrein braun, Kehle und ein Strich unter dem Augen weisslich, Schwung- und Schwanzfedern schwarzbraun; Flügel mit einem großen weißen Spiegel, wodurch sich noch ein grüner Streifen zieht, und welcher von oben noch den weißen Spiegel einfasst. Oberrücken und kleine Flügeldeckfedern bräunlichgrau, wo wo letztere den weissen Spiegel mit einem schmalen schwarzen Streifen abschneiden. Grosse Flügeldeckenfedern braungrau wie der Rücken, wovon ein paar Federn eine schwarzbraune äussere Fahne haben. Unterrücken schwarzbraun, und obere Schwanzdeckfedern grau. Untervorderhals, bis über die Brust braun, mit weißen Flecken (denn jede braune hat einen weissen Fleck, der noch zu beiden Seiten schwarz eingefasst ist.) Uebrigen Untertheile unrein weiss, an den Seiten etwas braun gewellt oder gefleckt. Beine und Schnabel am ausgestopften Vogel fleischrot.
Grösse: 1 Fuss 10 Zoll.
Das Vaterland ist mir noch nicht bekannt, und kann ich auch daher noch nichts darüber mittheilen; hoffe aber es später noch nachtragen zu können. Das Original befindet sich in der Sammlung des Herrn A. Nütten.
My try to translate it:

Head very small and to the midle of throat dirty brown, throat and and white stripe beyond the eyes wistish. Remiges and tail feathers black-brown, wings with big white speculum with a narrow green stripe through the speculum which edge the speculumon upper side. The front back and the smaller wing cover feathers brownisch gray, where smaller wing cover boarder the white speculum with his black edge. The greater wing covers brown-gray like the back, with some feathers black-brown on the outer webs. Hinter back black-brown and upper tail coverts gray. The lower throat till breast brown with white spots (every brown feather have a white spot with black edges on the side of the spot). The rest below side is off-white, flanks somehow brown undulated or spotted. Feet and bill at the prepared specimen flesh red.

Size 1 feet and 10 inches.

Country of occurance not known and can't be mentioned here. I hope to deliver this information later. The type is in the collection of Mr. A. Nütten.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 16:32   #6
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taphrospilus View Post
OD:
Maybe I'm just overlooking something but, so far, I fail to see which known wildfowl species might match this.
No plate ? (One might expect illustrations would be central in a work titled "Ornithologische Galerie".)
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 17:28   #7
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 1,579
Doubt that it will help.

Thought of something like Tachyeres patachonicus
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	anser punctlatulus.JPG
Views:	35
Size:	41.7 KB
ID:	727857  

Last edited by Taphrospilus : Thursday 21st May 2020 at 17:48.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 18:22   #8
Welsh Peregrine
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 1,237
I’m vaguely reminded of West Indian Whistling Duck.
Welsh Peregrine is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 20:36   #9
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,539
Chenonetta jubata ?
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 21:19   #10
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,483
Based on the Plate (in post #7), mostly due to its spotted breast and its tiny beak (a Rare feature for most Ducks) I'd say it's a poorly depicted Chenonetta sp., if so (most likely a female or/alt. a subadult Australian Wood Duck C. jubata, a k a Maned Duck), but the wing bar (on the plate) doesn't fit (at least not in a normal standing position), nor does some of the other Characters described in the text.

Compare with Photos of C. jubata; here, here, here, here, here, or here, ... and elsewhere.

Or is it possibly a Plate of the extinct (flightless) Finsch's Duck (Euryanas) Chenonetta finschi ... !?! If so, if the latter, it would be nothing but a sensation (as I think the latter never have been depicted), has it?.

/B

PS. While I was typing away, comparing photos, inserting links, etc. ... Laurent apparently had the same (first) idea/impression.

--

Last edited by Calalp : Friday 22nd May 2020 at 09:47. Reason: Added PS. Simultaneous post + typo
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 21st May 2020, 21:54   #11
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,483
Short question on German vs English ...

Doesn't the phrase, from/in the OD; "ein Strich unter dem Augen weisslich" translate better into "a/one whitish stripe under/below the eyes" (instead of; "white stripe beyond the eyes wistish")?

If so, it's an even better match for a Female C. jubata.

/B
--

Last edited by Calalp : Friday 22nd May 2020 at 21:40. Reason: edit
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 22nd May 2020, 11:58   #12
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calalp View Post
Doesn't the phrase, from/in the OD; "ein Strich unter dem Augen weisslich" translate better into "a/one whitish stripe under/below the eyes" (instead of; "white stripe beyond the eyes wistish")?
You are right it's the better translation. And if I look at https://tazintosh.com/en/australian-...onetta-jubata/ I agree female might be possible. But not really a narror green stripe.

Last edited by Taphrospilus : Friday 22nd May 2020 at 19:11.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 22nd May 2020, 13:32   #13
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taphrospilus View Post
But not really a narror green stripe.
On pics, the stripe looks either black or glossy green, presumably depending on light incidence.
It is formed by the bases of the secondaries, thus its breath will be somewhat dependent on how the greater coverts are positioned, and how much they cover these bases.
It can look quite narrow, e.g.: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/8c...e9ce7da49b.jpg, or https://www.flickr.com/photos/moment...n/photostream/

Last edited by l_raty : Friday 22nd May 2020 at 14:21.
l_raty is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:24   #14
Taphrospilus
Registered User
 
Taphrospilus's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Munich
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by in vitrio View Post
Just wondering. There's Anser anser, Anseriformes, Anserimorphae. I think all the other -iformes have an -idae to go with them.

Yet there is no Anseridae, the geese are all in Anatidae. Should that not logically be Anseridae on the basis that Anser seems to have priority everywhere else?

Or maybe the question should be why there is no Anatiformes?
Think Vigors came from the Subfamily Anatina to his name here?
Leach 1820 here.

Last edited by Taphrospilus : Yesterday at 15:13.
Taphrospilus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 23:13   #15
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by in vitrio View Post
Or maybe the question should be why there is no Anatiformes?
There are no rules of priority applying to order names in animals, and no universal rules saying how to form them. In birds the modern orders names are indeed conventionally formed in such a way that they "look like" they are made of a generic stem to which a suffix "-iformes" was added; but in many other groups (e.g., insects, mammals), orders have arbitrary names that are not related to generic name in any way. I believe we have "Anseriformes" because Linnaeus 1758 had "Anseres" for one of his original orders, and this happens to have sticked -- except for the "-iformes" thing that was added when it became fashionable. Linnaeus' Anseres was merely the Latin word anser (goose) in the plural; not a generic name (the genus Anser Brisson 1760 did not exist yet in 1758; Linnaeus 1758 placed geese in Anas). Ditto for "Galliformes", which seems more likely to me to derive from Linnaeus' order name Gallinae (the plural of gallina, a hen), rather than the generic name Gallus (also of Brisson 1760; Linnaeus 1758 called the fowl Phasianus gallus).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Wright View Post
According to Bock's History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names (fussy hyphen, that), both Mergidae and Anseridae enjoy priority over Anatidae, but (p. 173) "Anatidae Leach 1820 should be conserved conditionally in preference to Mergidae and Anseridae because of its well-established use for 170 years since the original proposal of the name Anatidae."
Bock's work is problematic...


Anatidae:

My current preference:
Anatidae; family; Leach WE. 1819. Eleventh room. Pp. 63-68 in: Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. Fifteenth Edition. British Museum, London.; p. 67; https://books.google.com/books?id=YSlhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA67
(This edition was not cited by Bock 1994. The 14th ed. had no names in it https://books.google.com/books?id=WylhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA62 ; the 16th edition https://books.google.com/books?id=ZylhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA63 had a reworked text, but the same names as in the 15th ed. Bock only cited the 17th ed.)

Bock 1994 accepted:
Anatidae; family; Leach WE. 1820. Eleventh room. Pp. 65-68* in: Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. Seventeenth Edition. British Museum, London.; p. 68*; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/55257931
(A year, and two eds, later than Leach 1819.)


Anserinae:

My current preference:
Anserides; family; Goldfuß GA. 1820. Handbuch der Zoologie. Zweite Abtheilung. Johann Leonard Schrag, Nürnberg.; p. 198; https://books.google.com/books?id=aPN8cFZ-XhQC&pg=PA198
(Goldfuß' system for birds was Illiger's with a couple of changed/added names, most of which were formed from generic names and have no reasons to be unavailable. This work was not cited by Bock 1994. Anser is attributed here to Meyer, which would be http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42446119 ; but Meyer obviously picked it from Brisson, to whom he attributed the first binomen in which he used the name.)

Bock 1994 accepted:
Anserina; subfamily; Vigors NA. 1825. Observations on the natural affinities that connect the orders and families of birds. Trans. Linn. Soc. London 14: 395-517.; p. 404; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27490748
(Five years later than Goldfuß.
Additionally, Bock regarded this name as being in wide use and as having replaced, before 1961:
Anserinia; subfamily; Rafinesque-Schmaltz CS. 1815. Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés. S.n., Palerme.; p. 72; http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k98061z/f75.image .
...due to the type genus of the latter, Anseria Rafinesque, having been made a synonym of Anser Brisson 1760: in this case, Vigors' name should take precedence from from the date of publication of the relaced name (i.e., 1815) under Art. 40.2. But Rafinesque's family and subfamily names were explicitly not plural https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k98061z/f39.image , thus fail to meet Art. 11.7.1.1, are principle wholly unavailable, and have no precedence to pass to a later name. (Anseria Rafinesque 1814 is a new name for (or emendation of) Anser Brisson, deemed to conflict with Cancer Linn. 1758 under Rafinesque's peculiar nomenclatural rules: https://books.google.com/books?id=Op85AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA27 . Bock attributed this name to Rafinesque 1815, where it would have been wholly nude, leaving the family name he nevertheless accepted nude as well.))


Mergini:

My current preference:
Merginae; stirps; Fischer G. 1831. Rapport aux membres de la Société sur quelques faits nouveaux en zoologie. Oiseaux. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 3: 57-85.; p. 85; http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40206798
(This work not cited by Bock.)

Bock 1994 accepted:
Mergidia; subfamily; Rafinesque-Schmaltz CS. 1815. Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés. S.n., Palerme.; p. 72; http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k98061z/f75.image
(Earlier than Fischer, but Rafinesque's family and subfamily names were explicitly not plural https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k98061z/f39.image , thus fail to meet Art. 11.7.1.1, and are in principle wholly unavailable.)

(Note also:
Mergidae; family; Leach WE. 1819. Eleventh room. Pp. 63-68 in: Synopsis of the contents of the British Museum. Fifteenth Edition. British Museum, London.; p. 67; https://books.google.com/books?id=YSlhAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA67
This edition (and this name) not cited by Bock. For grebes, loons, shearwaters and auks, while mergansers were in Anatidae: the type here was not Mergus Linnaeus 1758, but its junior homonym Mergus Brisson 1760, which is an invalid synonym of Gavia (cf. also Leach in Ross 1819: https://books.google.com/books?id=GEsNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA159 , where he attributed this name to Brisson). Senior homonym of Merginae Fisher 1831, but permanently invalid (based on a junior homonym), and was certainly not used after 1899.)


Based on the above, I would say that Anatidae has precedence over both Anseridae and Mergidae, and the only name that should be conserved conditionally is Merginae Fischer (relative to Mergidae Leach).


PS - "family-group names" are names of taxa belonging to the family group, which encompasses all taxa ranked from above the genus, up to the superfamily. The hyphen may look fussy from the outside, but it's pretty standard nomenclatural jargon (> 100 instances in the Code).

Last edited by l_raty : Yesterday at 23:29.
l_raty is online now  
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

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.10916805 seconds with 28 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:20.