• 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.

Spotted eagles (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Wells & Inskipp 2012. A proposed new genus of booted eagles (tribe Aquilini). Bull BOC 132(1): 70–72.
  • Aquiloides, gen. nov. (feminine), comprising clanga, pomarina, hastata.
 
Why don't they just lump it with Ictinaetus (including Lophoaetus)?
I can't see the value of two monotypic genera and one genus which is only "slighty above monotypic" (with all the hybridisation of G × L Spotted Eagles).
 
Clanga

John Penhallurick's World Bird Info:
Clanga Tyzenhaus,1858,in Adamowicz,Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et appliquée,sér.2,9,for Dec.1857,p.604.Type,by tautonymy,Falco maculatus G.F.Gmelin,1788 = Aquila clanga Pallas,1811.
Note: Clanga includes A.clanga and A.pomarina.
 
Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et …
(December 1857)
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/title/2744#page/7/mode/1up .
Republished an article which had been published in Russia.
Notice necrologique sur Le Comte Constantin Tyzenhauz par M. A. F. Adamowicz, docteur et professeur a l’universite de Vilna, conseiller d’Etat, etc
Attached to the necologique was Enumeration des travaux scientifiques litteraires publies ou en manuscrits de C. Tyenhauz. Number 14 is Sur les Aigles d’Europe, ou remarques sur quelques Oiseaux de proie en Europe. En reponse a Schlegel, auteur de la Revue critique des Oiseaux en Europe. Cf. Revue zoolog. 1847. Which should be checked for mention of Clanga. But number 19 is observations sur la faune ornithologique des provinces de la Nouvelle-Russie situees sur les cotes de la mer Noire. 1853, en manuscript. …suives de la proposition de former un nouveau genre Clanga, subdivise en trios especes: Clanga naevia (Falco maculates, Gmelini), C. fasciata et macrodactyla (v. der Muhle), …
Here is the Russian version which seems to be published first in 1853 or early 1854?:
Volume 26 of Bulletin de la Societe imperiale des naturalists de Moscou, .

http://books.google.com/books?id=_R0YAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false .

On page 529.
I think by listing the three species it is not nomen nudum for Clanga Adamowicz (Tyzenhauz MS) in Bulletin de la Societe imperiale des naturalists de Moscou, (4)1853 (1854?)

This volume has Eversmann’s description of Lanius mollis.
Zoonomen dates it as :
Lanius excubitor mollis Eversmann 1853 Bull.Soc.Imp.Nat.Moscou 26 no.4 p.498 .
Anyone know what v. d. Muhle means? Are any of these names synonyms of pomarina or hastata?
 
In the remarks on the eagles of Europe Tyzenhauz mentions Falco Mogilnik a name I had never seen.
In a paper published in late 2011 Mlikovsky called it nomen dubium.
Aquila mogilnik S.G. Gmelin
Aquila mogilnik S.G. Gmelin, 1771: 445, pl. 11b.
Now: Aquila sp. indet. See below.
Type series: Single specimen, collected in summer 1769. I estimated the collection date
from the restricted type locality (see below) and S.G. Gmelin’s itinerary.
Type locality: Said to be similar as for Accipiter korschun by S.G. Gmelin (1771: 447).
I thus restrict here the type locality of Aquila mogilnik to Staročerkasskaâ, Russia.
Remarks: Aquila mogilnik was treated as indeterminate by Pallas (1811a: 353). Stephens
(1826: 15) used it as a valid name for the eagle species now known as Aquila heliaca
Savigny, 1809, without explanation, but perhaps because the species name was directly
derived from the Russian vernacular name могильник (mogil’nik), which means
Aquila heliaca. Stephens’s opinion was followed by several authors (e.g. Strickland
1855: 57; Schlegel 1862: 3; Heuglin 1869: 44; Giebel 1872: 395; Dresser 1873: 521,
1903: 521; Gurney 1873: 99; see also Alléon 1866: 274). Sharpe (1874: 240) applied
the name to the eagle species now known as Aquila nipalensis Hodgson, 1833, without
explanation. Blanford (1894: 283-286) and Hartert (1914: 1092, 1099) suggested to set
the name aside as indeterminate. In agreement with Pallas (1811a), Blanford (1876:
111, 1894) and Hartert (1914) I treat Aquila mogilnik S.G. Gmelin, 1771, as a nomen
dubium (ICZN 1999: 111).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...54GiDw&usg=AFQjCNEXl1knfaZRcadVL-ghtG9FaCyPLA .
 
"Anyone know what v. d. Muhle means?"
Pretty sure it is :
Heinrich von der Mühle.
Author of Monographie der europäischen Sylvien, and Beitraege zur Ornithologie Griechenlands.
 
Richmond C.W. (1917): Generic names applied to birds during the years 1906 to 1915, inclusive, with additions to Waterhouse's "Index generum avium". Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus., 53:565-636. http://www.archive.org/stream/proceedingsofuni531917united#page/584/mode/1up
"Clanga TYZENHAUS, in Adamowicz, Revue et Mag. de Zool., sér. 2, vol. 9, for December, 1857 (1858), p. 104.
Type Falco maculatus GMELIN...........(Buteonidae)
(Tautonymy; Aquila clanga Pallas is a synonym.)"​
Friedmann H. (1950): The birds of north and middle America. Bull.U.S.Natl.Mus. 50(11):1-793. http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinunitedst50111950unit#page/452/mode/1up, as a synonym of Aquila:
"Clanga TYZENHAUS, in Adamowicz, Rev. Mag. Zool., sér. 2 (ix), for Dec. 1857 (1858), 104.
Type, by tautonymy, Falco maculatus Gmelin=Aquila clanga Pallas)."​

John Penhallurick's notes almost look like a direct quote of these.
The text on the Richmond Index card at Zoonomen is slightly different, though, with the author the other way around ("Adamowicz, ex Tyzenhaus", not "Tyzenhaus, in Adamowicz"--thus recognising the publication and disregarding the MS, which is the "modern way"), and all three originally-included species listed without declaring one of them the type.
My reading of the current Code is that a type fixation by tautonymy would have required that Aquila clanga Pallas be cited in the original publication introducing Clanga, and it's not. (But this may be another long-standing difference between what the Code says and what ornithologists do in terms of type-species fixation...? In any case, Peters seems to recognise quite a few similar type fixations [tautonymy, via a statement with an "=" sign between two binomina].)
If the name was used during 1906-1915 (as suggested by its inclusion in Richmond, 1917), or before, it would be interesting to know by whom, and how. (I don't find anything on the web.) It is used (as a subgenus) on the pages of the Museum Wiesbaden, which claim to follow Wolters (1982) as its "Ordnungsprinzip": http://www.mwnh.de/samm042.html. Did Wolters use it?


Re. Heinrich Karl Leopold, Graf von der Mühle: no doubt. (See also the Richmond Index card, that has "Heinr. Graf" inserted in front of the name.) But in his writings, I can't find anything that looks like an Aquila macrodactyla or a Falco macrodactylus. The two references to von der Mühle's works that appear on the Index card suggest that Richmond also looked for this. One is in Isis (Oken) and is here: http://www.archive.org/stream/isisvonoken1847oken#page/236/mode/1up; the other is the Beiträge zur Ornithologie Griechenlands: www.archive.org/stream/beitraegezurorni00mh. Both are striked out on the card, so apparently no success...

Couldn't macrodactyla be a typo for brachyctyla (short-toed eagle)...? Tyzenhaus lists this species along with small Aquila in his Remarques sur les Aigles d'Europe, and in the text he strongly rejects the separate placement of this species in "Circaëtos". Then, if his "Clanga fasciata" is Bonelli's eagle, what he would be advocating here, would be to separate the largest eagles (golden, imperial, and the likes) from the smaller ones. Something not too dissimilar from what we used to do with Hieraeetus, in a sense; but with short-toed kept within the eagles, and with a "size limit" placed somewhat higher.
 
My reading of the current Code is that a type fixation by tautonymy would have required that Aquila clanga Pallas be cited in the original publication introducing Clanga, and it's not.

The code states:

68.4. Type species by absolute tautonymy. If a valid species-group name, or its cited synonym, originally included [Art. 67.2] in a nominal genus-group taxon is identical with the name of that taxon, the nominal species denoted by that specific name (if available) is the type species (type species by absolute tautonymy).

So yes, you’re correct that no type was established by tautonymy. But I think that Clanga may be an available name; it’s possible that no type has been designated yet.

Is there anything else which might preclude recognition of Clanga as a valid genus? Again from the code:

12.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication.

12.2. Indications. For the purposes of this Article the word "indication" denotes ... the following:

....

12.2.5. in the case of a new genus-group name, the use of one or more available specific names in combination with it, or clearly included under it, or clearly referred to it by bibliographic reference, provided that the specific name or names can be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa;

No description was provided, but I take it inclusion of "Falco maculatus, Gmelini" would suffice as an indication, so I cannot find anything that would make Clanga an unavailable name. I wonder if Wells & Inskipp had a different take on it, or if they were even aware of the name Clanga at all.
 
So yes, you’re correct that no type was established by tautonymy. But I think that Clanga may be an available name; it’s possible that no type has been designated yet.

69.1.1. In the absence of a prior type fixation for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species, or uses an equivalent term, and if it is clear that that author accepts it as the type species.​

So if we don't accept the tautonymy, Richmond (1917) could be interpreted as designating a type. But ideally we should make sure that there was no other similar statement published earlier.
 
So are we saying that Wells & Inskeep are required by the code to use the old name of Clanga for the new genus they erected??
23.1. Statement of the Principle of Priority. The valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it, …
23.2. Purpose. In accordance with the objects of the Code (see Preamble), the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and it is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning by the introduction of a name that is its senior synonym or homonym …
But when setting up a new genus this purpose is not implicated because the status quo is already going to be upset? I think the case for Clanga is a weak and technical one. Perhaps Wells & Inskeep should move to suppress Clanga.
 
"I really don't see how one could do this." I had not thought of that. I agree.
I think it is interesting W& I made the genus female. I guess not to change the specific names?
30.1.4.4. A compound genus-group name ending in the suffix -ites, -oides, -ides, -odes, or -istes is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it had another gender or treated it as such by combining it with an adjectival species-group name in another gender form.
 
Then submit something for publication! www.birdforum does not constitute a repository that will be searched by tomorrow’s, never mind the less immediate future’s, nomenclaturists—H&M4 will be.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top