Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

A question for ICZN/taxonomy gurus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 13 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Thursday 27th May 2010, 11:04   #26
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
I think the 40 pages of text suppressed by Pauline Knip were about pigeons as well. She also suppressed the Latin index. As I understand Temminck's text ("elle supprima 40 pages d'impression du texte qui auraient pu servir de témoins contre le prétendu auteur"), he is suggesting that she did this to increase the weight of her own work (the 87 paintings) in the publication, thus justifying she being the author instead of him.

From the ICZN:

Article 8. What constitutes published work. A work is to be regarded as published for the purposes of zoological nomenclature if it complies with the requirements of this Article and is not excluded by the provisions of Article 9.
8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria:
8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record,
8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and
8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies.

If the "authentic edition" was issued with the only purpose to fool Temminck, letting him believe that his entire work was being published under his own name, whether 8.1.1 is fulfilled might be questioned. Furthermore, if this "authentic edition" was sent only to him, and he did not make it "obtainable" "free of charge or by purchase" at that time, 8.1.2 is not fulfilled either...
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 27th May 2010, 16:13   #27
JustinJansen
Registered User
 
JustinJansen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Grave, The Netherlands
Posts: 420
A paper is forthcomming in the next edition of Archives of Natural History: Histoire naturelle des pigeons or Les pigeons: Coenraad Jacob
Temminck versus Pauline Knip (Dickinson, David, Overstreet, Steinheimer and Jansen). It is mainly on the dating of the work.

In the book there are no sandgrouses included.
__________________
Justin Jansen
The Netherlands
JustinJansen is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 12th January 2011, 13:13   #28
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,732
Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay, 1910) vs. Ptilopsis erlangeri (Ogilvie-Grant, 1906)

Which name is correct - Ptilopsis granti or P. erlangeri?

http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/n/e.html

Ptilopsis erlangeri Nomenclature and Concept
This taxon was previously listed as:
Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay) 1910 Orn.Monatsb. 18 p.148 Concept
With a note indicating:
Described by Kollibay as subspecies of Pisorhina leucotis.
Elevated to specific status. HBW 5:183 indicates it differs in DNA and vocal patterns from P. leucotis.
The card in the Richmond index says "New name for (the bird Grant should? have named, but didn't?) or because preoccupied ?"
It seems clear, that now that the bird is in Ptilopsis, Kollibay's replacement name for leucotis is no longer needed.
The Richmond index card for Scops erlangeri has a note:
New name for the Asio leucotis leucotis of Erlanger
(J.f.O., 1904, 233, pl. XIX, low. fig.), nec Temm. Erlanger renamed the
northern instead of the southern form.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th January 2011, 16:10   #29
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Which name is correct - Ptilopsis granti or P. erlangeri?
Erlanger 1904 remarked that the birds from NE Africa differed from those from further S, and named them Asio leucotis nigrovertex Erl. He thought that the birds from NW Africa were somewhat intermediate, but suggested nevertheless that they were best included in the new form he was describing. By this, he overlooked that the original leucotis of Temminck 1820 is based on a bird from NW Africa (hence including NW African birds in the taxon he was describing made his name a junior synonym of leucotis).
Ogilvie-Grant 1906 noted this, and proposed to call the southern form, that remained unnamed, Scops erlangeri.
Last, Kollibay 1910 noted that Ogilvie-Grant's erlangeri was preoccupied by Pisorhina scops erlangeri Tschusi 1904, a name applying to Tunisian populations of Scops Owl, and proposed the replacement name Pisorhina leucotis granti for the former.

The homonymy is secondary, and comes into effect only if the taxon named by O-G is deemed congeneric with (Tunisian) Scops Owls. Thus, in Psilopsis, O-G's erlangeri must be used.

Cheers, Laurent -
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 13th January 2011, 17:33   #30
RaMa
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
The homonymy is secondary, and comes into effect only if the taxon named by O-G is deemed congeneric with (Tunisian) Scops Owls. Thus, in Psilopsis, O-G's erlangeri must be used.

Cheers, Laurent -
But what about article 59.3 of the Code?
59.3. Secondary homonyms replaced before 1961 but no longer considered congeneric. A junior secondary homonym replaced before 1961 is permanently invalid unless the substitute name is not in use and the relevant taxa are no longer considered congeneric, in which case the junior homonym is not to be rejected on grounds of that replacement.
- Scops erlangeri was replaced before 1961.
- It is permanently invalid, unless
- the substitute name [granti] is not in use (but it is!), and
- the taxa are no longer congeneric (true)
With only one of the two criteria being true, I'd say that erlangeri is invalid and granti is correct.

Rainer
RaMa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dolphin: Id confirmation and taxonomy question njlarsen Cetaceans & Marine Life 9 Sunday 19th April 2009 15:23
A question about taxonomy HelenB Photos of New Species for OPUS 3 Thursday 15th March 2007 17:36
taxonomy question BirdsPeru Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 4 Saturday 7th October 2006 19:07
A question of taxonomy David FG Other Wildlife 9 Tuesday 26th July 2005 09:04
Owl Taxonomy Question cuckooroller Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 5 Saturday 19th March 2005 20:55

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.13983107 seconds with 14 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:03.