l_raty
laurent raty
Well, they did a little bit more than to "bring attention to" this name, in practice. (I should maybe write "unfortunately"...) They designated a type species for the name, which actively made it a senior synonym of Thripias Cabanis & Heine 1863 (and Dendropicos Malherbe 1849 sensu lato), while this name had historically never been treated this way.
Chloropicus Malherbe 1845 [OD]; introduced as a subgenus of Picus.
Incorrect subsequent spelling "Chloropicos" introduced in 1849 by Malherbe himself [here] (presumably to "correct" the "hybrid nature" of the name - χλωρός, "green", Greek + picus, "woodpecker", Latin; "πικος" is not a genuine Greek word either, though, so the name presumably remained a "barbarism" to some). He later reverted to the OS (eg., Malherbe 1862).
Originally included nominal species:
- Picus (Chloropicus) Pyrrhogaster Malherbe 1845 [OD] (= Dendropicos (Thripias) pyrrhogaster (Malherbe 1845))
- Picus (Chloropicus) Kirkii Malherbe 1845 [OD] (= Veniliornis kirkii (Malherbe 1845))
- Picus (Chloropicus) Rufoviridis Malherbe 1845 [OD] (= Campethera maculosa (Valenciennes 1826))
- Picus (Chloropicus) Xanthoderus Malherbe 1845 [OD] (= Picus chlorolophus chlorigaster Jerdon 1844)
Of these four species, the only one that Malherbe 1862 finally retained in Chloropicus is xanthoderus [here]; pyrrhogaster went to Mesopicus [here]; kirkii too [here]; rufoviridis went to Chrysopicus [here]. The species he included in Chloropicus at this point are species that we now place in Picus or Chrysophlegma.
Gray 1855 [here] and 1870 [here] did not designate a type species, but placed the genus in the synonymy of Gecinus Boie 1830, which he used for the species we now place in Picus. (Views on the type species of Picus have varied quite a bit in the past.)
Stejneger 1886 [here] cited the name from the 1849 subsequent spelling, placed it in the synonymy of Picus Linnaeus 1758, and designated Picus viridis as its type.
Hargitt 1890 [here] cited the name from the 1849 subsequent spelling, placed it in the synonymy of Chrysophlegma Gould 1849, and designated "C. flavinucha" as its type.
Stresemann 1921 [here] cited the name from the original 1845 publication, placed it in the synonymy of Picus Linnaeus 1758, and accepted Stejneger's designation of Picus viridis as its type.
Stuart Baker 1930 [here] cited the name from the original 1845 publication, placed it in the synonymy of Picus Linnaeus 1758, and claimed that Picus viridis was its type by original designation.
Unfortunately, these older type designations are invalid because the designated species was not originally included in the genus. (They were included in 1849, but not in the original 1845 work.) However, the above shows clearly that the name had for a very long time consistently been regarded as a synonym of Picus/Chrysophlegma: this is undoubtedly the reason why Peters 1948 did not use it for a completely other group. And this was not in conflict with the original composition of the genus, as one of the originally included species is nowadays still placed in Picus. This means that, if a type designation was to be done, Picus (Chloropicus) xanthoderus should have been selected, in order to maintain the long-accepted position of the name, and minimize the disruption.
Additionally, I'd be interested if anybody could show me a post-1899 (but pre-2013) work where this name is used as valid. I have not been able to trace any, which suggests that the name should probably have been declared a nomen oblitum, rather than being taken back into use.
Last edited:
