• 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.

AOU 2017 Checklist proposals (1 Viewer)

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
R. Terry Chesser, Kevin J. Burns, Carla Cicero, Jon L. Dunn, Andrew W. Kratter, Irby J. Lovette, Pamela C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., James D. Rising, Douglas F. Stotz, and Kevin Winker (2017) Fifty-eighth supplement to the American Ornithological Society's Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk: July 2017, Vol. 134, No. 3, pp. 751-773.

[pdf]
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
At any rate, given that ebird uses clements, and ebirding seems to be most popular in the USA and Canada, it really makes sense they would try to be consistent with AOU/ABA.

But equally, one significant consequence is that ebird has had remarkably little penetration into Europe, and particularly UK, compared to the density of birders.

It's nonsensical to refer to a vernacular name as "taxonomically inaccurate".

Not at all. It is typically one of the major justifications given for proposed changes in English names, like e.g. Hume's Ground Jay Hume's Ground Tit with its transfer from Corvidae to Paridae, or Spotted Wren-babbler Spotted Elachura with its transfer from Timaliidae to Elachuridae. Plenty of other similar examples, and a thoroughly good idea.

Same too, from longer ago, is why we all talk about Willow Warblers now, rather than historical 'Willow Wren' - taxonomic conformity of vernacular names was a major tradition among 19th century ornithologists.
 
Last edited:

fugl

Well-known member
Not at all. It is typically one of the major justifications given for proposed changes in English names, like e.g. Hume's Ground Jay Hume's Ground Tit with its transfer from Corvidae to Paridae, or Spotted Wren-babbler Spotted Elachura with its transfer from Timaliidae to Elachuridae. Plenty of other similar examples, and a thoroughly good idea.

Same too, from longer ago, is why we all talk about Willow Warblers now, rather than historical 'Willow Wren' - taxonomic conformity of vernacular names was a major tradition among 19th century ornithologists.

Where do you draw the line? Merlin, Dunlin, Sanderling, Dunnock, Nightingale and (indeed) our old friend Erithacus rubecula, all grist for the "taxonomic" mill, are they? Sand Calidris anyone? Red-breasted Chat-flycatcher? Bald Sea Eagle?
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Where do you draw the line? Merlin, Dunlin, Sanderling, Dunnock, Nightingale and (indeed) our old friend Erithacus rubecula, all grist for the "taxonomic" mill, are they? Sand Calidris anyone? Red-breasted Chat-flycatcher? Bald Sea Eagle?

Merlin, Dunlin, Sanderling are all unique names, it's not like they're misleading anyone the way they would if say, Merlin had once been called 'moor cuckoo' or something like that.

Dunnock - there was a serious proposal (Harrison, Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palaearctic) to use 'Dunnock' for all the species in Prunella (thus European Dunnock, Alpine Dunnock, Siberian Dunnock, Japanese Dunnock, etc.), instead of the rather contrived 'Accentor' (one who accents things??), but his proposal was never taken up by anyone else. Always thought that was a shame he failed in this.

Erithacus rubecula - the original Robin defining the term (as it were, the type species of robins), so it is other unrelated birds that would need changing ;)

Bald Sea Eagle - why not?? In French, all the Haliaeetus species are called 'Pygargue' (Bald [Sea] Eagle being 'Pygargue à tête blanche'), to distinguish them from Aquila, which are all 'Aigle' in French. Same with most other European languages, there has been an even greater taxonomic systematisation of vernacular names than in English.
 

fugl

Well-known member
Merlin, Dunlin, Sanderling are all unique names, it's not like they're misleading anyone the way they would if say, Merlin had once been called 'moor cuckoo' or something like that.

Dunnock - there was a serious proposal (Harrison, Atlas of the Birds of the Western Palaearctic) to use 'Dunnock' for all the species in Prunella (thus European Dunnock, Alpine Dunnock, Siberian Dunnock, Japanese Dunnock, etc.), instead of the rather contrived 'Accentor' (one who accents things??), but his proposal was never taken up by anyone else. Always thought that was a shame he failed in this.

Erithacus rubecula - the original Robin defining the term (as it were, the type species of robins), so it is other unrelated birds that would need changing ;)

Bald Sea Eagle - why not?? In French, all the Haliaeetus species are called 'Pygargue' (Bald [Sea] Eagle being 'Pygargue à tête blanche'), to distinguish them from Aquila, which are all 'Aigle' in French. Same with most other European languages, there has been an even greater taxonomic systematisation of vernacular names than in English.

Unique names, sure, and in that respect "misleading" to no one who already knows to what they refer. But to everybody else they're just odd words of unknown referent (like so much of the English lexicon ;)).

The type species, now there's a solid basis for a thorough-going revision of vernacular names! Might take some little time to implement, however. ;)

Bald Sea Eagle, never! Just plain "bald" is ludicrous enough. ;)

In my opinion, well-established vernacular names should never be changed, however inconvenient to hobbyists trying to keep their taxa straight. [I should say "almost never", since I certainly don't regret the demise of a name as blatantly demeaning as "Oldsquaw"].
 

mb1848

Well-known member
In the Auk article:
Genus TADORNA Boie
Tadorna Boie, 1822, Isis von Oken, col. 564. Type, by
tautonymy, Anas tadorna Linnaeus.
From Zoonomen:Tadorna Citation
The Richmond Index and AOU Cl (5th and 6th) give Oken 1817 for the author.
Peters Checklist 1:449 and HBW give Boie Tagebuch Reise Norwegen pp.140,351.
Norman David has been very helpful with this. His email (2001.01.21):
"Alan
You give: Tadorna Oken 1817 Isis 1 p.1183
Here is Isis p. 1183 verbatim:
VI. Ord. Palmipeden
4 Fam. Lamellirostern
Mergus
Anas; Querquedula;
Anas, Tadorna, Souchet
Marila. Eider, Clangula,
Macreuse, Bernicla, An-
ser, Cygnus
It is difficult to see a valid genus description in the above text. I cannot see the "type by tautonymy Anas tadorna Linnaeus" listed in the above text (as given by AOU 1957: p. 70).
The correct citation for Tadorna is either:

Tadorna Boie 1822 Tagebuch Reise Norwegen pp. 140, 351 (as in HBW 1: 591)
or


Tadorna Fleming 1822 Philosophy of Zoology 2: 260 (as in Peters I, first Edition, and AOU 1931)

whichever has priority.
--------------------------------------------------
Normand David, Directeur general
Association quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues
4545 Pierre-de-Coubertin
C. P. 1000, Succ. M
Montreal, Qc
H1V 3R2
Absent any other indication, I follow Peters and HBW and use Boie rather than Fleming."

Tagebuch gehalten auf einer Reise durch Norwegen im Jahre 1817
By Friedrich Boie is supposed to be dated before May 1, 1822. Since he mentions the book in the Isis article.
https://books.google.com/books?id=V...KHd9dD40Q6AEIQTAD#v=onepage&q=Tadorna&f=false .
Boie, 1822, Isis von Oken, col. 564. is in heft five which might mean May 1822 or not.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87990#page/290/mode/1up .
If you use isis von Oken Boie lists two species of Tadorna T. familiaris and rutila (not A. tadorna)so no tautology??
The norwegian book only uses T. familiaris as a species and specifically mentions it equals Anas tadorna Lin. So tautology and monotypy. On the internet Fleming 1822 Tadorna genus has type Anas tadorna by monotypy? One problem the Norwegian book was edited with notes by Heinrich Boie.
A little more on T. ferruginea Pallas :
AOS: "Tadorna ferruginea (Pallas). Ruddy Shelduck. Anas ferrugineus Pallas, 1764, in Vroeg, Cat. Raisonne´ Coll. Oiseaux, Adumbr., p. 5. (no locality =Tartary.)"

C. D. Sherborne says it is listed as no. 358 but is really 258. Sherborne says “no locality cited but called Tartarysche Gans Anser Tartaricus ferrugineus Mas. in Catalouge.” On page 25 by Vosmear. (Rookmaaker & Pieters 2000)
 
Last edited:

gusasp

Well-known member
R. Terry Chesser, Kevin J. Burns, Carla Cicero, Jon L. Dunn, Andrew W. Kratter, Irby J. Lovette, Pamela C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., James D. Rising, Douglas F. Stotz, and Kevin Winker (2017) Fifty-eighth supplement to the American Ornithological Society's Check-list of North American Birds. The Auk: July 2017, Vol. 134, No. 3, pp. 751-773.

[pdf]

Can someone please reveal the rationale for in my view two weird sets of new linear orders, as follows?

* In Scolopacidae, why place Phalaropus after Tringa? Following the usual small-clades-to-large (and also considering Xenus possible relationship to Phalaropus, now far separated), shouldn't it instead precede Xenus or Acitis?

* In Cardinalidae, Serinus and Spinus are sisters, but the smaller genus Serinus is put last, not ahead of Serinus. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
 

mb1848

Well-known member
Genus SIBIRIONETTA Boetticher
Sibirionetta Boetticher, 1929, Anz. Orn. Ges. Bayern 2:
11. Type, by original designation, Anas formosa
Georgi.
Here is the OD:
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Anzeiger-Ornith-Ges-Bayerns_2_1_0010-0015.pdf .
Did he really make formosa (N. formosum) the type by original designation?? Google translate does not think so.
"To the genus Nettion Kaup. I think you can see on the N.
Crecca (L) (with the subspecies N. er. Carolinense (Gmel.)) Probably also
Nettion georgicum (Gmel.) With the m. E. only as their races too
Looking forms N. g. Flavirostre (Vieill.), N. g. oxypterum
(Meyen) and N. g. Andium Sei. Et Salv. As real crickets.
Perhaps it would appear appropriate to some, even the slightly different
Nucked, Nettion formosum (Georgi), still in the same
Species, which, however, can be traced back to the old ones
The tip of the arm - wings extended shoulder - fin
Considerably more powerful and clumsy beak and the constant number..."

The term "designation" in relation to fixation of a type species [Arts. 68, 69] must be rigidly construed; the following are not designations under the Code:

67.5.1. mention of a species as an example of a genus or subgenus;

67.5.2. mention of a particular character or structure as "type" or "typical" of a genus or subgenus; and

67.5.3. one made in an ambiguous or conditional manner
 
Last edited:

James Jobling

Well-known member
Sibirionetta
I wouldn't use Google to translate German!! Further on in the paper Boetticher provides diagnoses for his new genera and subgenera, where we find "Sibirionetta subgen. nov. ... Typus : S. formosa Georgi" (see my Key).
 

l_raty

laurent raty
If you use isis von Oken Boie lists two species of Tadorna T. familiaris and rutila (not A. tadorna)so no tautology??
No tautonymy there.
Additionally, if you give precedence to Isis von Oken over the Tagebuch, Tadorna familiaris Boie was a nomen nudum at the time of introduction of the genus, thus is not eligible as a type species, and Anas rutila Pallas is the type by original monotypy.
 

mb1848

Well-known member
Sorry Mr. Jobling! You are correct of course and for the second time in this very thread I must say: "All should follow Mr. Jobling's advice that is do not guess but use his free resource."
Thanks Laurent so the Tagenbuch citation has priority and the type is by tautology. Page for all this is listed as 140 and 351 because 351 is where familiaris is revealed to be A. tadorna. Laurent do you see the author of Tadorna as H. and F. Boie?
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Laurent do you see the author of Tadorna as H. and F. Boie?
Unless there are reasons to do otherwise, I'd tend to attribute the main text to F Boie alone, and the introduction and footnotes to H Boie. The name is in the main text.
 

Tom Schulenberg

Active member
Can someone please reveal the rationale for in my view two weird sets of new linear orders, as follows?

* In Scolopacidae, why place Phalaropus after Tringa? Following the usual small-clades-to-large (and also considering Xenus possible relationship to Phalaropus, now far separated), shouldn't it instead precede Xenus or Acitis?

I'm told that in this case, NACC felt that the support for the relevant nodes in the phylogenetic tree (Gibson and Baker 2012) was low, and perhaps not to be trusted. Therefore, rather than adopting the sequence you recommend - which follows from the tree, and which was adopted independently by the South American Classification Committee - NACC reverted to their status quo ante.

* In Cardinalidae, Serinus and Spinus are sisters, but the smaller genus Serinus is put last, not ahead of Serinus. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

That looks like a flat out mistake. Of course, the better time to comment on this would have been when the relevant proposal was posted online, rather than after the mistaken sequence already has been adopted (!).
 

Mike Earp

Well-known member
* In Cardinalidae, Serinus and Spinus are sisters, but the smaller genus Serinus is put last, not ahead of Serinus. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Do you mean "not ahead of Spinus" rather than "not ahead of Serinus"? On a global scale, Serinus is by far the larger genus, so I don't think the chosen sequence is wrong.
 

gusasp

Well-known member
Do you mean "not ahead of Spinus" rather than "not ahead of Serinus"? On a global scale, Serinus is by far the larger genus, so I don't think the chosen sequence is wrong.

Haha, yes, that's what I meant! No, since AOS now endorsed Crithagra, Serinus is a small one with only a handful of species, far smaller than Spinus.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top