In this proposal, we reluctantly accept the AOU checklist committee’s decision in the Fifteenth Supplement (1909) that the type of Ammodramus is A. bimaculatus (now A. savannarum), rather than the intended A. caudacutus.
The type of
Ammodrammus Swainson 1827 [
OD] under the Code is
Ammodramus bimaculatus Swainson 1827 by original monotypy.
Fringilla caudacuta 'Wilson' = Gmelin 1788 is not cited in the work where the name was established, hence is not an originally included nominal species of
Ammodramus in the sense of the Code, and is not eligible to become its type species.
Furthermore:
- Accepting the correct type fixation does not now upset stability, as there has not been any prevailing use of
Ammodramus in the recent literature for a group excluding its correct type. (Thus there would be no base to petition the Commission in order to have the Code-compliant type fixation set aside.)
- Swainson's explicit (but later-published) designations have now been regarded invalid for more than a century; restoring their validity now would unquestionably be highly destabilizing (as per these designations,
Vermivora is an invalid junior synonym of
Helmitheros,
Tiaris applies to the species now in
Charitospiza,
Xiphorhynchus applies to the species now in
Campylorhamphus, etc.); on the other hand, restoring the validity of the designation made for
Ammodramus only, under an argument (the respect of Swainson's original intent) that would equally apply to the other cases, would seem completely arbitrary.
So, I'd wholefully agree the way to go is to accept the checklist committee conclusion.