59th Supplement AOS checklist pdf (1 Viewer)

[James Jobling]

I think we must treat Horornis flaviventris Hodgson, 1845, either as unidentifiable or as a synonym of Horornis fortipes Hodgson, 1845. Horornis flaviventris Hodgson, 1845 is not Brachypteryx flaviventris Salvadori, 1879 (which = Horornis vulcanius flaviventris (Avibase) = Horornis flavolivaceus flaviventris (HBW) = Cettia vulcania flaviventris (Peters XI)). If flaviventris Hodgson 1845 is not a forgotten name or has otherwise been disposed of then flaviventris Salvadori 1879 must fall.

 

[l_raty]

But is Horornis flaviventris Hodgson, 1845, identifiable? It seems to be a small example of Horornis fortipes Hodgson, 1845.

Hodgson's description certainly fails to allow a clear identification, but his original types are still extant and appear to be what we now call Locustella thoracica (fide Dickinson et al. 2000, who examined them; link in my original post above; these specimens were described by Seebohm 1881 [here], and by Brooks 1881 [here]). It is the identity of these specimens that fix the applicability of the name.


Dickinson et al. 2000 "declared" flaviventris Hodgson 1845 a nomen oblitum, but without explicitly identifying a corresponding nomen protectum (the nomen protectum implied was Bradypterus thoracicus Blyth 1845, which was apparently published [shortly] after flaviventris); neither did they fulfil the Code requirements for a reversal of precedence. Anyway, under the present rules, a nomen oblitum can displace a name in use, provided that this name is not its nomen protectum and that the conditions to make it a nomen protectum itself are not fulfilled.
Dickinson et al. wrote that flaviventris Hodgson had not been used as a valid name after 1899. If this is so, a reversal of precedence can be done, if flaviventris Salvadori was used as valid in at least 25 different works published by at least 10 different authors in the last 50 years, and over a time span encompassing at least 10 years. (I think it's quite likely that it would be the case, but can't really be sure about it. flaviventris Salvadori remains a rather obscure ssp name, after all...)
On the other hand... If flaviventris Hodgson is a synonym of thoracicus Blyth as stated by Dickinson et al., it should in principle not now be in the same genus as flavirostris Salvadori, in which case the latter can stand (see Art. 59.2 of ICZN; irrespective of whether Horonis is used as the generic name for flavirostris Salvadori).

Should Horornis fall as a junior synonym of Locustella, the next name that applies to the group as currently delineated is Neornis Blyth 1845 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40127365, I think. Two OINS, Neornis flavolivacea and N. cacharensis (albeit today these are regarded as a single taxonomic species); type by subsequent designation (Seebohm 1881:133; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8305045) Neornis flavolivacea Blyth (*) 1845.

(*) Or should it be Hodgson (in Blyth) ?. Blyth quoted the species descriptions from Hodgson.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Should Horornis fall as a junior synonym of Locustella, the next name that applies to the group as currently delineated is Neornis Blyth 1845 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40127365, I think. Two OINS, Neornis flavolivacea and N. cacharensis (albeit today these are regarded as a single taxonomic species); type by subsequent designation (Seebohm 1881:133; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8305045) Neornis flavolivacea Blyth (*) 1845.

Richmond index genera mentions Neornis Hodgson, 1844 http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/N/n00160a.jpg No record of Neornis Blyth, 1845 on RIG

 

[l_raty]

Richmond index genera mentions Neornis Hodgson, 1844 http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/N/n00160a.jpg No record of Neornis Blyth, 1845 on RIG

On the Richmond card:

Hence, Neornis, altho a nom. nud. here, [etc.]

As a nomen nudum, the name is not available from Hodgson 1844, and will instead be available from the first subsequent publication where the requirements for availability are fulfilled. In my notes I have:

Name: Neornis
Author: Blyth
Date: 1845
OD ref: Blyth E. 1845. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 14: 546-602.
Page: 590
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40127365
OINS: Neornis flavolivacea, N. cacharensis
Type: Neornis flavolivacea Hodgson (in Blyth) 1845
Syn. of ? in use
Fixation by: subsequent designation
Fixation ref: Seebohm H. 1881. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or perching birds, in the collection of the British Museum. Cichlomorphae: part II. Containing the family Turdidae (warblers and thrushes). Catalogue of the birds in the collection of the British Museum. Volume V. British Museum, London.
Page: 133
Link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8305045
OD of type ref: as OD
Page: as OD
link: as OD
Notes: The PCL accepted a type fixation by monotypy (the two OINS represent the same taxonomic species; in fact, Blyth even noted that he suspected this to be the case in the OD). Published earlier in: Hodgson BH. 1844. Catalogue of Nipalese birds, collected between 1824 and 1844. Zool. Miscell. (Gray): 81-86.; p. 82; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49831444 ; nomen nudum (no description; same two species names, plus a third one (strigiceps), all nude). At least two earlier type designations are invalid because they quoted the name from Hodgson 1844 (where it was unavailable), instead of Blyth 1845: Gray GR. 1844-49. The genera of birds: comprising their generic characters, a notice of the habits of each genus, and an extensive list of species referred to their several genera. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, London.; [175] (1848); https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40012281 ; designated Neornis cacharensis. Gray GR. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds contained in the British Museum. British Museum, London.; p. 34; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136654 ; designated Neornis cacharensis.
Available: yes
Family: Cettiidae​

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

ok

 

[mb1848]

ABA blog take:
http://blog.aba.org/2018/06/aos2018.html .
Rick Wright's link takes me nowhere. I think he is talking about:
https://breure.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/soon-to-be-published-morelet-monograph .

 

[mb1848]

Laurent you mention Seebohm 1881 but have you seen Seebohm 1879?
The identity of Horornis fortipes?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28519704#page/614/mode/1up .

 

[Mysticete]

comments are now available online:

http://checklist.aou.org/nacc/proposals/2018.html

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Merge Nesotriccus into Phaeomyias? Sorry but it's not possible, Nesotriccus has priority over Phaeomyias

 

[Kirk Roth]

comments are now available online:

http://checklist.aou.org/nacc/proposals/2018.html

This quote about the Rock Pigeon made me laugh:

"Species of Rock-Pigeon will always be easily differentiated by the precious hyphen."

 

[Mike Earp]

Merge Nesotriccus into Phaeomyias? Sorry but it's not possible, Nesotriccus has priority over Phaeomyias

They have already recognised that. On 29 March 2018, Terry Chesser, the chair of the Committee, wrote "As was noted in the comments, Nesotriccus has priority over Phaeomyias. ... We would transfer Phaeomyias murina to Nesotriccus."

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

They have already recognised that. On 29 March 2018, Terry Chesser, the chair of the Committee, wrote "As was noted in the comments, Nesotriccus has priority over Phaeomyias. ... We would transfer Phaeomyias murina to Nesotriccus."

In this case, there is nothing to add.

 

[D Halas]

Now that the storm-petrels are no longer a monophyletic group, don't the AOU's silly hyphenation rules require that the hyphen be dropped?

 

[jmorlan]

Now that the storm-petrels are no longer a monophyletic group, don't the AOU's silly hyphenation rules require that the hyphen be dropped?

Not likely. AOS/SACC guidelines leave the hyphen in some polyphyletic groups such as “Wood-Rails,” “Palm-Swifts,” and “Mountain-Finches” because hyphen removal leaves the names with similar or worse misleading connotations. Storm-Petrels are not Petrels.

http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/HyphensBirdNames.htm

 

[D Halas]

Storm-Petrels are not Petrels.

That's a rather ahistorical perspective, isn't it? The AOU didn't start calling hydrobatids (apart from Hydrobates pelagicus, of course) "storm petrels" until the 1983 checklist update. For by far the greater part of the time that the word "petrel" has been in use in the English language, it applied equally well to hydrobatids as it did to procellarids.

 

[jmorlan]

....it applied equally well to hydrobatids as it did to procellarids.

Which is exactly the problem that Storm-Petrel solved.

 

[Nutcracker]

For by far the greater part of the time that the word "petrel" has been in use in the English language, it applied equally well to hydrobatids as it did to procellarids.

Actually, the name 'petrel' ("little Peter") originally only applied to Hydrobatidae, because, like St. Peter, they could walk on water. Procellariidae species were called 'fulmar' ("foul gull"), shearwater, and puffin (juveniles; later transferred to Fratercula); genera like Procellaria and Pterodroma didn't have English names at all until much later, since they did not occur in UK waters (other than as exceptional vagrants).

So it ought really be Petrels for Hydrobatidae, and something else for Procellariidae.

 

[Nutcracker]

Addenum: Procellariidae (specifically Fulmarus) also called 'Mallemuck' ("foolish gull") in early English, cf. Danish Mallemuk for Fulmarus, and also subsequently 'mollymawk' applied to some Diomedidae.

 

[jmorlan]

Addenum: Procellariidae (specifically Fulmarus) also called 'Mallemuck' ("foolish gull") in early English, cf. Danish Mallemuk for Fulmarus, and also subsequently 'mollymawk' applied to some Diomedidae.

Or we could go with something a little more modern:

• Oceanitidae - Southern Storm-Petrels
• Hydrobatidae - Northern Storm-Petrels
• Procellariidae - Shearwaters and Petrels

 

[Kirk Roth]

Now that the storm-petrels are no longer a monophyletic group, don't the AOU's silly hyphenation rules require that the hyphen be dropped?

Then how would anyone know that a Wilson's Southern-Storm-Petrel is unrelated to a Leach's Northern-Storm-Petrel?

3