Ara autocthones (1 Viewer)

A question for the nomenclaturists under us:

Yesterday I received after a very long search a 1937 paper by Alexander Wetmore from a dear friend. In it he describes a left tibiotarsus from St. Croix as a new species of Ara: and calls it Ara autocthones. Sp. nov. He uses this name throughout the paper.

I always knew this species as Ara autochthones. So I looked it up in the other sources for the name I have:

Julian Pender Hume & Michael Walters, 2012: Extinct Birds: T. & A. D. Poyser pg. 165, London. use Ara autochthones. Wetmore, 1937a;

Errol Fuller, 2000: Extinct Birds: Oxford University Press, Oxford. pg. 236. uses Ara autochthones.

Storrs Lovejoy Olson & Edgar J. Maiz López, 2008: New Evidence of Ara autochthones from an Archeological Site in Puerto Rico: a Valid Species of West Indian Macaw of Unknown Geographical Origin (Aves: Psittacidae) Caribbean journal of Science 44: 215-222. also use Ara autochthones.

As far as I know, there is no paper "correcting" the Wetmore spelling, so I think the Wetmore name must stand as the correct original spelling.

Am I correct, or are great professionals as Fuller, Hume & Walters and Olson & Maiz López correct?

Fred

P.S. Sorry for the stupid typo in the headding, unfortunately, I can't correct it, it should read: Ara autocthones

Fred

Also Matthew I. Williams & David W. Steadman, 2001: The Historic and Prehistoric Distribution of Parrots (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae) in the West Indies: In: C. A. Woods & F. E. Sergile, eds. Biogeography of the West Indies: Patterns and Perspectives, Second edition. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl. Pg. 12: 175-187 pg. 180. use Ara autochthones

Fred

Another stupid mistake:

The Original description was in:

Alexander Wetmore, 1937: Ancient Records of Birds from the Island of St. Croix with Observations on Extinct and Living Birds of Puerto Rico: Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 21(1): 5-16

Fred,

Hope this was the last mistake!

Fred,

A paper 'correcting' the name explicitly would have no effect, unless:
- it is issued by the Commission, or
- it is an erratum issued by the author or the publisher, either in the same volume of the same journal (even if at a later date), or as a slip circulated to this volume's subscribers and to be inserted in it.
Otherwise, this 'correcting' paper would at best create a junior synonym with the 'corrected' spelling.

'autochthones' would arguably be linguistically 'better' if the source is Greek αὐτόχθων (Greek χ is not usually transcribed as a single c), but the Code does not allow to modify a name's spelling on this type of consideration. Note that Wetmore sticked to the -cth- spelling in 1956: [here].

The current Code includes provisions that, in principle, should protect subsequent spellings if they are in 'prevailing usage' (and correctly attributed to the original source). But the Code's definition of 'prevailing usage' is blurry, making these provisions hardly workable, and, as a result, they are widely ignored in birds. On Internet at least, both spelling seem to have significant usage: we don't seem to be in one of those extreme cases where the actual OS was barely used at all out of the original work.

I would use the unmodified OS.

Groeten, L -

Thanks Laurent,

This is exactly what I thought.

Groeten,

Fred

A good friend and fellow listmember was so kind to send me copy of the book Joseph M. Forshaw, 2017: Vanished and Vanishing Parrots: Comstock Publishing Associates 350 pg.

In this book Dr. Walter Boles wrote an excelent chapter on fossil Parrots, but he also used the name Ara autochthones Wetmore, 1937. Reason for me to ask hime some questions:

Dear Dr. Boles,

This week I finally received my copy of the book by Dr. Joseph Forshaw on Vanished and Vanishing Parrots. A very interesting book, in which you wrote the excellent chapter on fossil Parrots. Of course, I do understand you couldn’t imply the publication by Dr. Nikita Zelenkov on the Parrot from Siberia because it was too recent (Nikita V. Zelenkov, 2016: The First Fossil Parrot (Aves, Psittaciformes) from Siberia and Its Implications for the Historical Biogeography of Psittaciformes: Biology Letters 1220160717, but I still have some question left:

After a lot of searching, I finally got hold of the description of a new Ara species, Ara autocthones Wetmore, 1937, not Ara autochthones Wetmore, 1937 as most researchers spell it now. The Wetmore spelling is the original and as I see it, the correct spelling, certainly as he repeats it in the same spelling in 1956 (Alexander Wetmore, 1956: A Check-list of the Fossil and Prehistoric Birds of North America and the West Indies: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections ● Volume 131, №. 5 Publication 4228 Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington). I know the spelling autochthones is used by e.g. Fuller, 2000; Williams et Steadman, 2001; Olson et Maíz López, 2008; Hume et Walters, 2012 and now, of course Boles 2017, but why?

I also do not understand why you don’t spend a word on Ara “wetmorei” Hargrave, 1970, of course a Nomen Nudum, but possibly a new species from the Holocene of Arizona (according to Hargrave, 1970: Lyndon.L. Hargrave, 1970: Mexican Macaws, Comparative Osteology and Survey of Remains from the Southwest: The Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 20: 1-67

With due respect, as always yours, sincerely,

Fred Ruhe.

Dr. Boles answered me:

Dear Fred,

Thank you for your email drawing my attention to some problems with my essay on fossil parrots. These are, unfortunately, embarrassing oversights on my part.

The incorrect usage of autochthones rather than autocthones appears to be one of those mistakes perpetuated by subsequent authors (including me). Although I looked at the original descriptions and the citation in Brodkorb’s catalogue of fossils, where the name was spelt correctly, I overlooked this. I suspect I was led astray by the much more recent 2008 paper by Olson & Maíz López. Olson is very good at working through the correct formation of names, but in this case he surprisingly failed to pick up the error.

This omission of Ara wetmorei, unfortunately, was a lapse on my part. It certainly should have been mentioned. It is surprising that no one has followed up on the possibility that this might be a new fossil species. There seems to be little, if anything, in the literature following the original mention by Hargrave. The characters given in the text almost constitute a valid description.

Both of the errors above are my responsibility. The 2016 paper by Zelekov, however, was actually included in the text.

I have not generally circulated this fossil history independently of the book because it was not peer-reviewed. Nonetheless, I will write a short addendum making these corrections and appending it to my copy should I decide to place the essay on Researchgate or other location.

Thank you again for picking up these errors.

Yours sincerely,

Walter

Can anybody please correct the title of this thread from Ara autocthobnes to Ara autocthones, it is one of my many typos, I'm sorry for that.

Fred

Your wish is my command. Done

KC Foggin said:

Your wish is my command. Done

Click to expand...

That's what I like!!!

Fred