• 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.

The real type species of Pomarea (1 Viewer)

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
France
I have a doubt about this sentence from Andersen & al (2014, phylogeny of Monarchidae) :

Our results strongly supported monophyly of a clade including all Marquesas species, henceforth recognized as true Pomarea (P. mendozae, P. mira, P. nukuhivae, P. iphis, P. fluxa, and P. whitneyi)

According to them, the type species is one of the species mentioned above.
But this source says that Muscicapa nigra Sparrman, 1786 (= Pomarea nigra) is the type species (which is embedded in the Metabolus clade )

So, who's wrong, who's right ?
 
Last edited:
The type of Pomarea Bonaparte is Muscicapa nigra Sparrman 1786 by original monotypy, as stated in the Peters' CL.

Bonaparte CL. 1854. Notes sur les collections rapportées en 1853, par M. A. Delattre, de son voyage en Californie et dans le Nicaragua. Neuvième et dernière communication. C.R. Hebd; Séan. Acad. Sci. Paris, 38: 650-665.
p. 650: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1216333
[...] — Pomarea, Bp., en diffère à peine, contenant des Monarcha presque aussi changeants, à pattes plus allongées que chez les typiques, telles que Muscicapa nigra, Sparrmann, etc. — [...]
Muscicapa nigra Sparrmann is the only species-group name associated to the generic name in the original description (OD).

______
(Bonaparte regularly tended to use a quite convoluted and sophisticated language, making his intentions (incl. in type designations) hard to understand at times. A quite striking example, from the same series of papers, is Adelura https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1215399:
[...] il faut en outre purger le genre Ruticilla de caeruleocephala, Vig., qui ne doit pas être séparée de sa rubeculoides. Mais qu'il soit bien entendu que c'est cet oiseau, qui n'est pas un Muscicapide, qu'il faut rapprocher des Saxicoliens, parmi lesquels nous le placerons comme type du genre Adelura, Bp., en compagnie de celui que nous faisons sortir de Ruticilla.
About everybody seems to have misread that one — [Blanford], [Sharpe], [Richmond], [Mayr & Paynter]... All wrong. :eek!:)
 
Last edited:
Muscicapa nigra Sparrmann is the only species-group name associated to the generic name in the original description
The name Pomarea is listed first as a genus in a table on page 68 and later on page 79 . Is not Muscicapa pomarea Less. et Garn. in Lesson, 1828, Manuel d’Ornithologie, 1, p. 192 a species name associated with the genus name Pomarea both on p. 68 and 79?
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22724444/0 .
Page 68 of https://books.google.com/books?id=oio6AQAAMAAJ&dq="Pomarea"+"Bonaparte"&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Page 111 of https://www.researchgate.net/public...e_1822-1825_with_comments_on_some_spellings_1 .
 
Last edited:
The name Pomarea is listed first as a genus in a table on page 68 and later on page 79 . Is not Muscicapa pomarea Less. et Garn. in Lesson, 1828, Manuel d’Ornithologie, 1, p. 192 a species name associated with the genus name Pomarea both on p. 68 and 79?
No, the type species can really only be a nominal species denoted by an available species-group name explicitly included in the genus-group taxon in the original description (or, should there be no available species-group names at all cited in the OD (cf. some works by Lacépède, Cuvier, Vieillot, Reichenbach's plates, etc.), in the first subsequent work where one or more available species-group names are placed under this genus-group name).
You cannot regard a mere similarity between a genus-group name and an existing but not cited species-group name as implying the original inclusion of the latter in the former.

(Beware also that this "separate" version of the Delattre papers is actually a significantly modified re-edition, not a real reprint of the original work published in the Comptes-Rendus. In the original version, Pomarea did not appear in the table equivalent to p.68 of the "separate": https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1216186 )
 
A question comes to my mind now. Pomarea nigra is embedded within Metabolus, but which has priority knowing that both genera were created by Bonaparte, 1854 ?
 
A question comes to my mind now. Pomarea nigra is embedded within Metabolus, but which has priority knowing that both genera were created by Bonaparte, 1854 ?
I asked that myself as well, but I failed to find an answer. (A First Reviser act is needed, and it may be that none has been published to date. Or I just did not find it...)

I'm not exactly comfortable with drawing new generic limits in this group based on Andersen et al's trees. Many of the nodes are given a support that is way too low to make them trustable, and the data included for some of the taxa is insufficient. (In particular, the type of Metabolus, M. rugensis, is represented in the data matrix by a single ND2 sequence taken from GenBank, which was extracted from a museum study skin. Ditto for Monarcha godeffroyi. Pomarea dimidiata, on the other hand [isolated in basal position in the group + at the end of a shorter branch, a combination that can result from a mis-rooting of the group], is represented by a partial cyt-b only.)
 
Ok |8(|

Thanks anyway. I temporarily placed Pomarea dimidiata in Rarotonga, P. nigra in Metabolus and the remaining Pomarea in '' Pomarea " pending further investigation.
 
Yes, but there is no evidence of an inadvertent error in the OD itself, thus the OS is in principle to be deemed correct...
(The only exception allowed by the Code being that, if a modified spelling is in prevailing use, this is deemed correct instead of the actual OS.)
 
Last edited:
It is Rarotonga in the index. First reviser or a form of errata?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40498938#page/150/mode/1up .
A real erratum in the volume containing the work would be a reason to emend the name. But just having another spelling used in another place does not amount to an erratum; at the very least, you'd need something indicating which one of these two spellings is to be treated as the correct one.
The index was not published before 31 July 1925 (imprint date on the last issue of the volume); the issue that includes the work is dated 25 April 1925. Thus it's not a case of dual original spelling, and a first reviser could not select the spelling used in the index.
 
The two spellings were not published simultaneously so Mathews act in 1930 was not a first reviser. But what was the "Rule" in 1930?
It is not necessary to correct a mispelling in a corrigendum just if you do, that is clear evidence of an inadvertent error. I think the correction of the spelling in the index is some evidence that the first spelling was made by the copyist or publisher. And inadvertant. The correction does not have to be done on the same date merely if in a publication of parts, in one of the parts of the same volume. The Index is .
 
A guess about the name pomarea. The key has it named for Tū Tūnuiēaiteatua Pōmare II King of Tahiti (1774–1821; reigned 1803-1808, 1815-1821) (Pomarea). Pomare was the royal family name. Lesson's specie name is dated from June 1828 . The Maupiti bird was collected in 1823 after the King died. ʻAimata Pōmare IV Vahine-o-Punuateraʻitua became Queen in 1827. I think the name is for her.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 5 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