• 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.

Trochilidae (2 Viewers)

One interesting tidbit from the discussion: They have found Vervain Hummingbird and Bahama Woodstar to be sister species. Bee Hummingbird is not sister to Vervain according to personal communication from someone else.

Niels
 
Thiago F. Rangel, Robert K. Colwell, Gary R. Graves, Karolina Fučíková, Carsten Rahbek and José Alexandre F. Diniz-Filho. Phylogenetic uncertainty revisited: Implications for ecological analyses. Evolution Accepted manuscript online: 20 MAR 2015

Abstract
 
Zootaxa 3957 (1): 143–150 (13 May 2015)
Classification of the Polytminae (Aves: Trochilidae)
J. V. REMSEN JR., F. GARY STILES & JIMMY A. MCGUIRE

Abstract
 
Last edited:
Inagua Woodstar

TiF Update July 9
Based on Feo et al. (2015) and the 56th AOU supplement, the Inagua Woodstar, Nesophlox lyrura, has been split from the Bahama Woodstar, Nesophlox evelynae. Also, to match SACC usage, the English name of Anthocephala berlepschi becomes Tolima Blossomcrown (was Andean Blossomcrown).
 
In summary, we propose that Eulampis be merged with Anthracothorax. Boie (1831) described both genera, but Anthracothorax has priority on the basis of being described on page 545 vs. page 547 for Eulampis.

There's no such thing as page priority according to the ICZN. Would this statement count as a first reviser act though?

John Boyd uses Eulampis, but mistakenly attributes Anthracothorax to Reichenbach, 1854

Thanks
Liam
 
Last edited:
Would this statement count as a first reviser act though?
Yes, it definitely would. It would (obviously) also be important to check whether no earlier FR act exists; but, if the synonymization is new, it's likely there'll be none.

Anthracothorax Boie 1831 [OD] (column 545); originally included nominal species Trochilus mango [Linn.?], T. holosericeus Gm., T. violaceus Gm., T. gramineus Gm.
Eulampis Boie 1831 [OD] (column 547); originally included nominal species T. violaceus Gm., T. jugularis Linn., T. auratus Linn., T. niger P. Max. [= Wied].

(And Reichenbach 1854 [here] used both, attributing them correctly to Boie.)

Gray 1840 [here] designated "E. aurata, (Audeb.) Boie" as the type of Eulampis, adding a reference to Edwards' plate 266 [here]; T. auratus is actually of Gmelin 1788 [OD], and is now treated as a junior synonym of T. jugularis Linn. 1766. (Gray may have added the ref to Edward's plate due to Gmelin's original name being based on a plate by Latham [here], which shows a green-backed bird, while Boie's diagnosis for the genus described the upperparts as black; both Edwards' and Latham's plates show the same species, though, so we are presumably on safe ground.)

I'm much less clear about the type of Anthracothorax. Gray, in 1840 and later, retained this name in the synonymy of Lampornis; his type designations apply only to the latter. The currently accepted designation (eg., H&M4) seems to be by Elliot 1879 [here], who designated "T. violicauda Bodd." [OD] (now in the synonymy of T. viridigula Bodd.). But this is not an originally included nominal species, and thus not eligible. Neither is Boddaert's name a replacement name for one of the originally included nominal species; and the only things that look like one of the originally included nominal species, and that Elliot cited in the synonymy of violicauda, are (four) subsequent (mis)uses of mango -- thus, Elliot's designation cannot be interpreted as an indirect designation of one of the OINS. At first glance, there seems to be no way that Elliot fixed the type validly.
Is there another type designation published elsewhere?
 
Last edited:
The currently accepted designation (eg., H&M4) seems to be by Elliot 1879 [here], who designated "T. violicauda Bodd." [OD] (now in the synonymy of T. viridigula Bodd.).
From what Elliot had written in 1872 (Ibis, s.3, 2:345-357), his intent when designating violicauda in 1879 seems reasonably clear, in fact: in 1872, he had advocated moving the name mango Linn. 1766 [OD] from the mainland taxon to which it was apparently applied by most authors at this time, to the Jamaican bird to which it has been applied since (and which was then generally known as Lampornis porphyrurus). As a corollary, the name applying to the mainland population (the mango "of authors") was changed from mango Linn. to violicauda Boddaert. What he then did in 1879, was to designate, as type of Anthracothorax Boie, the taxonomic species that he thought Boie was calling by the name of mango, and which he, in turn, called by the name that he regarded as applying validly to it.

This type of action is now actually possible under the Code; but it was not before 2000, and it still is not as a single-step process: first, you'd need to have a type species fixed (as one of the originally included nominal species); then, it might perhaps be argued that the type species (now that you have one) is demonstrably misidentified, and in need of a correction. (Furthermore, in the present case, establishing the misidentification beyond reasonable doubt is probably not even possible: Boie's generic diagnosis is vague enough to apply to either taxa, and he did not describe his species individually, nor indicate their geographical origin. The nomenclatural validity of such a correction is conditional to the new designated type really being the taxonomic species involved in the misidentification. To anybody disagreeing with this, the correction is to be ignored. Thus, if there is the slightest chance that others might have another opinion, it's probably best not even to think about applying this provision.)
 
Hellmayr 1918 says Anthracothorax Boie, Isis, 1831, p. 545 (Type Trochilus violicauda Boddaert = Trochilus nigricollis Vieillot). No further explanation. Wetmore 1929 agrees.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...hracothorax+nigricollis&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Birds of the Pnchot expedition page 10. Not sure this helps.
The designation by Elliot has been recurrently accepted, even though, as it stands and under the current Code, it is perfectly invalid. However:
The Code said:
69.2.2. If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus.
...Thus the acceptance of another's invalid designation can sometimes hide an indirect valid designation of a different nominal species. For instance, this statement by Peters 1945, when he accepted Elliot's designation of T. violicauda:
Peters said:
Genus ANTHRACOTHORAX Boie 1
Anthracothorax Boie, Isis von Oken, 1831, col. 545. Type, by subsequent designation, Trochilus violicauda Boddaert = Trochilus gramineus Gmelin. (Elliot, Classif. Syn. Trochil., 1879, p. 37.)
...constitutes a potentially valid subsequent designation of T. gramineus Gm., which was an originally included nominal species, and is thus eligible to be the type of Anthracothorax. The caveat being that someone else may have done something similar before him.


http://iczn.org/content/there-such-thing-“page-priority” . When designating a type there is position precedence.
Yes, but
- this is about which of the originally included nominal species of a genus-group name should be given "precedence" to be selected as a type, and completely unrelated to which of two or more simultaneously published names should be given "precedence" to be used as a valid name;
- this is part of a recommendation that aims at providing guidance, not at all something mandatory; and
- position is the lowest-ranked criterion that is cited in this context (the one that you should consider when you really, really can't find any reason to do something else):
The Code said:
Recommendation 69A. Criteria of preference. In designating a type species for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author should give preference to a species that is adequately described or illustrated, or of which type material still exists, or of which material is easily obtained. When these properties are shared by more than one species, an author should be guided by the following criteria, in order of preference:
69A.1. The most common species, or one of medical or economic importance, or one with the specific name communis, vulgaris, medicinalis, or officinalis, should be designated.
69A.2. If the valid name or a synonym of one of the originally included nominal species includes a species-group name virtually the same as the name of the genus-group taxon, or that is of the same derivation or meaning, that species should be designated as the type species (choice resulting from "virtual tautonymy"), unless such designation is strongly contra-indicated by other factors.
Examples. Bos taurus, Equus caballus, Ovis aries, Scomber scombrus, Sphaerostoma globiporum, Spinicapitichthys spiniceps.
69A.3. If some of the originally included nominal species have been removed to other nominal genus-group taxa, preference should be given to a remaining species, if any such is suitable ("choice following elimination").
69A.4. A nominal species having a sexually mature specimen as its type is generally preferable to one based on a larval or otherwise immature specimen.
69A.5. If more than one group of species is recognized in a nominal genus-group taxon, preference should be given to a nominal species that belongs to as large a group as possible.
69A.6. In genus-group taxa of parasites, preference should be given to a nominal species that parasitizes humans or an animal of economic importance or a common and widespread host species.
69A.7. All other things being equal, preference should be given to a nominal species well known to the author of the nominal genus-group taxon at the time he or she established it.
69A.8. If an author is known to have habitually placed a "typical" (i.e. representative) species first and described others by comparison with it, that fact should be considered in the designation of a type species.
69A.9. If an author is known to have denoted type species by their position ("first species rule"), the first nominal species cited by him or her should be designated as the type species.
69A.10. All other things being equal, preference should be given to the nominal species cited first in the work, page or line ("position precedence").​
 
Last edited:
This is quite extraordinary. Even the more so as I once had an MS rejected from Zootaxa principally on the basis that in it, one of two contemporaneously described genera was chosen using and citing the first reviser principle provisions of the Code. The editor and a reviewer asserted this to be wrong and in breach of the Code, and that page position priority applied. Seriously.

At least Zootaxa are consistent in generally seeking to ignore or breach the Code in relation to first reviser actions and the spelling of family names. You don't see this sort of nonsense ever in Bull BOC, ZB and other journals specialising in avian taxonomy. They really need to get their house in order to justify their high ratings and profile.
 
Ernst Mayr in early 1950's protested about a change introduced in 1948 Zoological Congress of absolute line and page priority.
 
Ernst Mayr in early 1950's protested about a change introduced in 1948 Zoological Congress of absolute line and page priority.
- The Paris Congress of 1948 replaced the First Reviser Principle that had hitherto been in the Règles with a principle of page/line precedence (see BZN 4, 1950).
- There were indeed significant protestations and discussions in the immediately subsequent years (I didn't run into anything by Ernst Mayr, but I didn't search specifically for this). The discussions resulted in a case being introduced in 1953 (BZN 10) proposing the restoration, in hole or in part, of the First Reviser Principle.
- The Copenhagen Congress, held in August 1953, restored it entirely.

So, there were indeed a couple of years around the middle of the 20th C, during which page precedence was the official rule.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top