• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

9-primaried oscines (1 Viewer)

fugl

Well-known member
Done. Happens to us all. . ..

Very interesting article, BTW. Nice to see the YB Chat in its own family (at last) but Icteriidae?--a proofreader's nightmare!
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Could be lumped with Zeledoniidae and retain monophyly . . . but I suppose Icteriidae has priority over Zeledoniidae?
Of course Icteria is a North-American bird, Zeledonia is not.
A "section Icterieae" was already recognized by Baird, 1858, which is actually over three decades before the description of the genus Zeledonia by Ridgway, 1889...
(And it took next to two more decades before a family-group name based on this genus appeared, in 1907.)

There is a fairly easy way to keep the near-homonymy out of family names, actually: merge Parulidae into Icteridae...
 

Xenospiza

Distracted
Supporter
Of course Icteria is a North-American bird, Zeledonia is not.
A "section Icterieae" was already recognized by Baird, 1858, which is actually over three decades before the description of the genus Zeledonia by Ridgway, 1889...
(And it took next to two more decades before a family-group name based on this genus appeared, in 1907.)

There is a fairly easy way to keep the near-homonymy out of family names, actually: merge Parulidae into Icteridae...
I think the AOU made a smart move back in the day... but the pendulum is swinging towards ever increasing numbers of everything at the moment.
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
Laurent wrote:
There is a fairly easy way to keep the near-homonymy out of family names, actually: merge Parulidae into Icteridae...
Would that be into Icteriidae?

Or what is the point I am not getting ...

Niels
 

fugl

Well-known member
Forgive an ignorant question by an outsider but is there nothing in the rules allowing priority to be dispensed with in extraordinary situations such as this? (It's not as if the double "i's" aren't enough of a nuisance on their own; they're even hard to see sometimes, "i" being such a small letter.).
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Laurent wrote:
Would that be into Icteriidae?

Or what is the point I am not getting ...
No, I really meant into Icteridae. After all, what the recent data suggest is that the traditional Icteridae are embedded in the traditional Parulidae (which, in the vast majority of recent classifications, do include Zeledonia, Teretistris and Icteria). Why would it be so absurd to merge these two families, rather than creating three new ones (including Icteriidae), each for a single genus? (Besides the fact that, as noted by Jan-Hein above, "the pendulum is swinging towards ever increasing numbers of everything at the moment"--but this obviously is not an argument.)

Icteridae would have priority for such a group.

(Icterina Vigors, 1825b (not "Vigors, 1825a" as per Bock 1994: "the Icteri, that belong to the Sturnidae" is a generic plural) is one of the very early family-group names.
Parulidae Wetmore et al., 1947 was introduced to replace Compsothlypidae Oberholser, 1919, which itself had replaced Sylvicolinae Bonaparte, 1838 (?--as per Brodkorb 1978; not "Swainson & Richardson, 1831" as per Bock 1994: this group is there in family Sylviadae [based on Sylvia and dating from Leach, 1820 [1821 ed.]], subfamily Parianae; "Sylvicolae" Vieillot, 1816 as cited [here] by Swainson & Richardson explicitly applies to an order, and is not adopted as valid by the authors, hence cannot be the source of any available name), in both cases as a result of the type genus of the earlier name having fallen into the synonymy of the type genus of the name that replaced it, before 1961. In such cases, according to Art. 40.2 of the ICZN, the substitute family-group name takes its priority from the date of publication of the name it replaced. Thus Parulidae is to be treated as dating from 1838 for the purposes of priority.)

Forgive an ignorant question by an outsider but is there nothing in the rules allowing priority to be dispensed with in extraordinary situations such as this? (It's not as if the double "i's" aren't enough of a nuisance on their own; they're even hard to see sometimes, "i" being such a small letter.).
Even if it was the case (but I don't think it is allowed by the Code itself--you'd have to go before the Commission to obtain a ruling), priority is not acting at all here. Priority determines which name, if two or more are available, must be used. Icteria being the only genus in Icteriidae, the family name must be based on this name: there is nothing to select from. At best, one might imagine promoting the use of a variant spelling, such as "Icteriaidae", to lower down the risk of confusion.
 
Last edited:

fugl

Well-known member
Thanks for that. But is there really no middle way then between leaving the name alone and merging whole families? An obvious way out would be to make up a new genus name whole cloth and base the family name on that. In view of the need for stability, not a course to be adopted lightly, I know, but the case is a very unusual one.
 

Fred Ruhe

Well-known member
Netherlands
Fugi wrote “but the case is a very unusual one” (Icteridae - Icteriidae).

I do not completely agree with fugi.

Other examples are Diomedeoididae Fischer, 1985 (type Diomedeoides Fischer, 1985, a junior synonym of Rupelornis van Beneden, 1871, a family of fossil Procellariiformes - Diomedeidae G. R. Gray, 1840 or Pluvianidae Reichenbach, 1848, - Pluvialidae, MacGillivray, 1852 - Pluvianellidae Jehl, 1975. Also here you have to look at least two times to see what family we are talking about.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Fugi wrote “but the case is a very unusual one” (Icteridae - Icteriidae).

I do not completely agree with fugi.

Other examples are Diomedeoididae Fischer, 1985 (type Diomedeoides Fischer, 1985, a junior synonym of Rupelornis van Beneden, 1871, a family of fossil Procellariiformes - Diomedeidae G. R. Gray, 1840 or Pluvianidae Reichenbach, 1848, - Pluvialidae, MacGillivray, 1852 - Pluvianellidae Jehl, 1975. Also here you have to look at least two times to see what family we are talking about.
They all differ by 2-3 or more letters and couldn't happen by typing accident; Icteridae - Icteriidae is far too easily a typing error by hitting 'i' twice, or just once, by accident. If you came across the typo "Icterridae", would it be for Icteridae or Icteriidae? Impossible to tell.
 

Fred Ruhe

Well-known member
Netherlands
Nutcracker wrote "They all differ by 2-3 or more letters..."

As far as I can count Pluvianidae and Pluvialidae both have 11 letters and differ only in 1. The problem with a typo is of course something different, and not restricted to the names of bird families. And if the context of the paper does not make clear what is ment, the paper is not worth reading, because it is total nonsence, or not?
 

fugl

Well-known member
. . . .And if the context of the paper does not make clear what is ment, the paper is not worth reading, because it is total nonsence, or not?

Of course, in most serious academic contexts one should be able to to work things out in the event of a mistake but why should one have to? In more casual contexts moreover it won't always be readily apparent which is meant. And in any case the point of labels is to enable one thing to be quickly & cleanly distinguished from another, and in that Icteriidae/Icteridae surely falls short? Life is sad enough without having to spend any time at all peering at "i's" & double "i's" to figure out what's being talked about.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
And if the context of the paper does not make clear what is ment, the paper is not worth reading, because it is total nonsence, or not?
Not necessarily. As Icteria is very closely related to Icteridae, we should expect cases where they will be discussed together, in a single work. In such cases (for example, in the case of a statement that Icteri(i)dae are more [this], but less [that]) context might leave you completely clueless.
That said, I'm unconvinced that confusing cases are likely to be frequent. Particularly as, with Icteria being the only Icteriidae, the name Icteriidae does not offer the higher level of generalization that is usually associated to family names, hence I doubt that it will ever become broadly used in discussions.

On the other hand, I actually quite like the idea that New World orioles are "giant wood-warblers". ;)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top