-
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.
Synallaxis (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Daniel Philippe
- Start date
Richard Klim
-------------------------
S ruficapilla complex
Stopiglia, Raposo & Teixeira (in press). Taxonomy and geographic variation of the Synallaxis ruficapilla Vieillot, 1819 species-complex (Aves: Passeriformes: Furnariidae). J Ornithol. [abstract]
[See also Stopiglia & Raposo 2006.]
Stopiglia, Raposo & Teixeira (in press). Taxonomy and geographic variation of the Synallaxis ruficapilla Vieillot, 1819 species-complex (Aves: Passeriformes: Furnariidae). J Ornithol. [abstract]
[See also Stopiglia & Raposo 2006.]
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
IOC World Bird List
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits
Synallaxis (ruficapliia) whitneyi listed as a proposed lump.
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/proposed-splits
Richard Klim
-------------------------
TiF
John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [7 Sep 2012]
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List14.html#furnariidae
John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [7 Sep 2012]
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List14.html#furnariidae
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Birdwatch
[Free access to Stopiglia et al until 30 Nov 2012.]
Birdwatch Listcheck article by David Callahan: Brazilian spinetails lumped.
[Free access to Stopiglia et al until 30 Nov 2012.]
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Xenospiza
Distracted
Will this further help to rethink Brazil's avifauna? Rufous-capped/Bahia Spinetail and Serra/Restinga Antwren combine forms that are more different than some of the species which appear to be split on the basis of habitat alone!
(Just saw Bahia Spinetail last week, being aware of the impending doom. Thankfully I managed Pinto's as well).
(Just saw Bahia Spinetail last week, being aware of the impending doom. Thankfully I managed Pinto's as well).
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Bahia Spinetail
Bauernfeind, Dickinson & Steinheimer 2014. Contested spinetail systematics: nomenclature and the Code to the rescue. Bull BOC 134(1): 70–76.
AOU-SACC...
Bauernfeind, Dickinson & Steinheimer 2014. Contested spinetail systematics: nomenclature and the Code to the rescue. Bull BOC 134(1): 70–76.
Remsen 2003 (HBW 8).
AOU-SACC...
l_raty
laurent raty
Bahia Spinetail
I've not had the opportunity to read this paper yet, but would be interested to know if they discussed the validity of the wording of this lectotypification...?
(The Code (as amended by Declaration 44) requires:
(In fact, the entire note, down to its affirmative title ("Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995 is a synonym of Synallaxis cinerea Wied, 1831"), actually suggests that the authors' perception was not at all that they were acting according to their free will. All along, the perception seems to be (cf. also the SACC comment cited by Richard above) that they "showed that whitneyi was a synonym of cinerea". In practice, though, there was no such thing to show. The type series of cinerea was composite: the name had the potential to apply to any of the taxa represented in this series, depending on which specimen would be (deliberately) chosen to be the lectotype. Ideally, a lectotype designation should be done such as to minimize disruption--which here would arguably have been achieved by selecting a name-bearing type such that the name become a junior synonym. This, however, simply did not appear to be an option...))
The wording used by Whitney & Pacheco (2001) was:
To me, this seems at best borderline--I can't really be sure from this wording that they deliberately selected the specimen (thereby deliberately making the name a synonym of Synallaxis whitneyi), rather than simply concluded that this bird "had to serve as" the lectotype for reasons independent from their free will. The wording used in the Portuguese abstract would tend to support the latter view, I think:
"deve ser designado como lectótipo" = "must be designated as lectotype": this sounds like they are recommending something, or drawing a conclusion, not like they are actually acting.
(In fact, the entire note, down to its affirmative title ("Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995 is a synonym of Synallaxis cinerea Wied, 1831"), actually suggests that the authors' perception was not at all that they were acting according to their free will. All along, the perception seems to be (cf. also the SACC comment cited by Richard above) that they "showed that whitneyi was a synonym of cinerea". In practice, though, there was no such thing to show. The type series of cinerea was composite: the name had the potential to apply to any of the taxa represented in this series, depending on which specimen would be (deliberately) chosen to be the lectotype. Ideally, a lectotype designation should be done such as to minimize disruption--which here would arguably have been achieved by selecting a name-bearing type such that the name become a junior synonym. This, however, simply did not appear to be an option...))
this may be of interest to this thread: www.xeno-canto.org/forum/topic/12610
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Bahia Spinetail
AOU-SACC Proposal #692 (Pacheco, Nov 2015): Change name of Bahia Spinetail from Synallaxis whitneyi to S. cinerea.
l_raty
laurent raty
Unfortunately, "conclusions" may not be what is needed here; what we'd need is a lectotype designation that fulfills ICZN 74.7.3... 
If we don't have that, and under the interpretation that Wied's action was the description of a new species, not the introduction of a nomen novum replacing Spix' ruficeps, the ultimate fate of Wied's name remains open (i.e., unknowable).
Wied 1831 was certainly explicit that he was dealing with a species already named by Spix, but "felt justified to modify the specific name" ("berichtiget geglaubt, den Trivialname abzuändern") proposed by Spix, because the name ruficeps did not in his opinion characterize the species adequately (and, if I understand him correctly, despite he disapproved Spix' habit not to adopt any name proposed by earlier workers). What I don't understand is that the above quote seems to suggest that, in some way, Stopiglia & Raposo's conclusion that the name is a nomen novum might appear less convincing "due to"(?) Wied's reason to propose this name not having been that ruficeps was preoccupied...?
If we don't have that, and under the interpretation that Wied's action was the description of a new species, not the introduction of a nomen novum replacing Spix' ruficeps, the ultimate fate of Wied's name remains open (i.e., unknowable).
I've not actually read Bauernfeind et al (2014), so I may misinterpret things; if so, sorry about this. But could anybody with an access to the text explain what the relation (if any) is between the two statements in the above quote?J. F. Pacheco said:
Wied 1831 was certainly explicit that he was dealing with a species already named by Spix, but "felt justified to modify the specific name" ("berichtiget geglaubt, den Trivialname abzuändern") proposed by Spix, because the name ruficeps did not in his opinion characterize the species adequately (and, if I understand him correctly, despite he disapproved Spix' habit not to adopt any name proposed by earlier workers). What I don't understand is that the above quote seems to suggest that, in some way, Stopiglia & Raposo's conclusion that the name is a nomen novum might appear less convincing "due to"(?) Wied's reason to propose this name not having been that ruficeps was preoccupied...?
l_raty
laurent raty
(With thanks to Richard for a copy of Bauernfeind et al 2014.)
In fact the claim of replacement of a preoccupied name indeed comes from Stopiglia & Raposo 2006 [pdf], albeit in practice the claim is made fully positively only in the abstract, the main text being much more vague. This claim is certainly not tenable. Wied 1831 wrote:
However, the following is not tenable either, I believe:
Unfortunately, there are cases where it is inherently difficult to decide whether a name was proposed "expressly enough" in replacement of an earlier name to make it a nomen novum, or not. If readers cannot agree on the issue, maybe this is one of them. (If so, and if stability is to be achieved, it would probably be preferable to work towards a solution that would admit both interpretations.)
(Wied's statement quoted above can certainly be read as making the name expressly proposed in replacement of Spix' ruficeps. For instance, if the same name had appeared in a nude list of Brazilian birds (without being explicitly applied to other specimens obtained by Wied in another locality), accompanied by exactly the same statement, there would certainly be no question about its status of nomen novum. On the other hand, if Wied had published exactly the same text but without changing the name (species account titled "S. ruficeps", the statement deleted, not a single other word changed), this text would be a (possibly misguided) subsequent use of Spix' name, not the introduction of an available homonym.)
In fact the claim of replacement of a preoccupied name indeed comes from Stopiglia & Raposo 2006 [pdf], albeit in practice the claim is made fully positively only in the abstract, the main text being much more vague. This claim is certainly not tenable. Wied 1831 wrote:
...which I'd read as saying more or less "While I also fully perceive that Spix commits the great error to adhere nowhere to appellations given by others, as for no single animal he remembers other authors, I have also here felt myself entitled to modify the species name, as the appellation ruficeps fits several of these birds, and therefore is to be rejected."Wied 1831 said:
However, the following is not tenable either, I believe:
This suggests that a name would have to be introduced for a reason "required by the Code" to be afforded the nomen novum status. This suggestion is clearly contradicted by Art.12.2.3 and 13.1.3, as these explicitly allow that a name (wording taken from 13.1.3) "be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not".Bauernfeind et al 2014 said:
Unfortunately, there are cases where it is inherently difficult to decide whether a name was proposed "expressly enough" in replacement of an earlier name to make it a nomen novum, or not. If readers cannot agree on the issue, maybe this is one of them. (If so, and if stability is to be achieved, it would probably be preferable to work towards a solution that would admit both interpretations.)
(Wied's statement quoted above can certainly be read as making the name expressly proposed in replacement of Spix' ruficeps. For instance, if the same name had appeared in a nude list of Brazilian birds (without being explicitly applied to other specimens obtained by Wied in another locality), accompanied by exactly the same statement, there would certainly be no question about its status of nomen novum. On the other hand, if Wied had published exactly the same text but without changing the name (species account titled "S. ruficeps", the statement deleted, not a single other word changed), this text would be a (possibly misguided) subsequent use of Spix' name, not the introduction of an available homonym.)
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
PASSED (31 Jan 2016)
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Similar threads
