-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
AOU-NACC Proposals 2015 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Without a shred of morphological or vocal evidence for identification?? Surely a 'split too far'!
Alabama (from Sibley's map, mid-way between the two populations, with neither breeding) are not going to like having to throw out every single state Painted Bunting record as 'unidentifiable'.
As an aside, if split, shouldn't the citation be Passerina pallidior Mearns, 1911? No brackets, as it hasn't changed genus, just rank within the genus it was described in.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Hahaha, yeah wow. I think that proposal literally defined a picture perfect delineation of what a subspecies should be.
The Le Conte's proposal is almost as sketchy. Almost.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Last edited:
Paul Clapham
Well-known member
I was originally thinking that 2015-B-6 would revolutionize the American greeting card industry but after looking at the details, I think that won't happen after all.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
More on the birds in proposal B8 in post #37 of this thread: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=203745
Isn't it a little funny that the paper recommends using the name Inaguan Lyretail while the proposal (by one of the authors of the paper) recommends Inagua Sheartail?
Niels
Isn't it a little funny that the paper recommends using the name Inaguan Lyretail while the proposal (by one of the authors of the paper) recommends Inagua Sheartail?
Niels
Xenospiza
Distracted
As the genus is Calliphlox, surely it should be Inaguan -if not even Inagua- Woodstar?
(Names of small Caribbean islands tend not to be modified in bird names, cf. Barbados, Martinique, Barbuda, St. Lucia, Grenada etc.)
I saw just saw a pair of Bicoloured Wrens in Yaviza, Panama (proposal 2015-A-2): it should definitely be on the main list, as deforestation in the Darién has created a lot of habitat...
(Names of small Caribbean islands tend not to be modified in bird names, cf. Barbados, Martinique, Barbuda, St. Lucia, Grenada etc.)
I saw just saw a pair of Bicoloured Wrens in Yaviza, Panama (proposal 2015-A-2): it should definitely be on the main list, as deforestation in the Darién has created a lot of habitat...
The proposal mentions that the genus level taxonomy needs clarification, but that Calliphlox is almost certainly not going to be where these belong.
Niels
Mysticete
Well-known member
That cardinal proposal has no chance of passing...you think people would learn by now that AOU-NACC never splits taxa (especially very similar taxa such as the different forms of cardinal) solely on the basis of a single mitochondrial DNA tree, without discussion of vocals, behavior, etc.
The genetic data shows promise, but a LOT more work needs to be done first.
The genetic data shows promise, but a LOT more work needs to be done first.
mb1848
Well-known member
On changing Ch. Wilsonia to wilsonius: I love Rick’s blog and his contributions to the ABA blog etc. I do not really care what is the scientific name of Wilson’s Plover. But… One small mistake Vieillot uses Le Pluvier Wilson, Charadrius wilsonius in volume 27 not volume 24 as listed in the literature cited. (Still 1818) Not a big deal but it slowed me down finding it. Burns (1909) describe the book in which Ord changed the name to wilsonius as a separate book published in 1825. (not Ord 1824) Supplement to the American ornithology of Alexander Wilson : Containing a sketch of the author's life with a Selection from His Letters, Some Remarks Upon His Writings, and a History of Those Birds which Were Intended to Compose Part of His Ninth Volume. Laval & Bradford Philadelphia 1825. I do believe Ord is the author; it is vol 9 of Wilson from 1814 which Ord produced after Wilson’s death. The volume with Ch. Wilsonia. Added to it the sketch of the life of Wilson by Ord also. Rick’s listing Ord as the author of the 1828 cheap 3 vol edition is not quite right. Coues says “It does not appear who was the editor." Burns 1909 says the editor is anonymous and not Ord because the editor thanks Ord in the preface. An ad for this edition does say that Ord arranged scientifically the birds. Even though this edition is called Ord’s edition he was not in control of what was in it but it has his notes and uses information from IX (1814) and the Supplement (1825) and his life of Wilson.
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v021n04/p0165-p0186.pdf .
But that does not matter much because the Wilson’s Plover account in the 1828-9 edition is directly from the Ord Supplement. I actually have not seen the Ord 1825 Supplement to American Ornithology but a French review (by Lesson) does say Ord uses wilsonius.
Vieillot’s emandation to wilsonius does not mean we have to change the specific name. Ord’s changing his mind eleven years after he named the bird, does not mean we have to change the specific name. Rick’s assertion that Wilsonia is a lapsus in 1814 by Ord or his printer is based on what facts? We actually have facts that it was not a lapsus because he used it again in 1815 with a different printer.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=289524 .
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/wilson/v021n04/p0165-p0186.pdf .
But that does not matter much because the Wilson’s Plover account in the 1828-9 edition is directly from the Ord Supplement. I actually have not seen the Ord 1825 Supplement to American Ornithology but a French review (by Lesson) does say Ord uses wilsonius.
Vieillot’s emandation to wilsonius does not mean we have to change the specific name. Ord’s changing his mind eleven years after he named the bird, does not mean we have to change the specific name. Rick’s assertion that Wilsonia is a lapsus in 1814 by Ord or his printer is based on what facts? We actually have facts that it was not a lapsus because he used it again in 1815 with a different printer.
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=289524 .
Last edited:
Snapdragyn
Well-known member
I checked one of the cardinal papers (the one published later), & it does include nuclear data. The divergence estimates differ a lot for nuclear or nuclear + mtDNA vs. just mtDNA, though. From that I think they could've made a better case (though still not one the AOU would accept absent detailed morphology, plumage, vocalizations, etc. differences) for a 3-way split of Long-crested, Eastern (including Yucatan & Cozumel), & Western (including Tres Marias).
Rick Wright
Well-known member
Many thanks, MB1848, for the bibliographic corrections -- much appreciated.
The best the proposal can hope for is that the c'ee reject it with a clear statement that "wilsonia" is one of these "nouns in apposition" (I think I edited out of the version submitted the phrase "the scoundrel's last nomenclatural refuge").
I still wish that someone could tell me what that noun might m e a n ....
Again, thanks!
rick
The best the proposal can hope for is that the c'ee reject it with a clear statement that "wilsonia" is one of these "nouns in apposition" (I think I edited out of the version submitted the phrase "the scoundrel's last nomenclatural refuge").
I still wish that someone could tell me what that noun might m e a n ....
Again, thanks!
rick
l_raty
laurent raty
I found it interesting that Burns (1909 - the first link in Mark's post above) uses it in English.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
mb1848
Well-known member
The ABA says: "We begin with a bit of linguistic housekeeping. As it turns out, the species epiphet wilsonia is the wrong gender for the genus Charadrius, an oversight that has gone without rectification for 143 years since the species was formally described. This proposal would, at long last, rectify it."
Quotes are from the wilsonis/wilsonius proposal.
“The Fifth Edition of the AOU Check-List (AOU 1957) restored Wilson’s Plover to the genus Charadrius. That edition and those subsequent (AOU 1983, AOU 1998, AOU 2014), however, retained the species epithet wilsonia, apparently considering that name a noun in apposition (see ICZN 31.2.1) rather than an adjective requiring gender agreement (see ICZN 31.2) with the masculine genus name Charadrius.”
Ord named the bird in the genus Charadrius. AEgialitis wilsonia first edition 1886 and 2nd edition 1895 AOU check-list. Ochthodromus wilsonius 1910 3rd edition AOU check-list , Pagolla wilsonia 4th ed. AOU check-list.
Fourth Edition of the Howard and Moore Complete Checklist (Dickinson and Remsen 2013), where the epithet wilsonia is indicated to be “invariable.”.
Wilsonia is mentioned in David & Gosselin 2013. Variable species-group names and their gender endings. Appendix 4 in H&M4.
http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php?t-265206.html .
“There is no documented suggestion anywhere that George Ord considered wilsonia a noun when he described and named the species in 1814. There is, however, unequivocal evidence that he considered it an adjective, as did his contemporaries and as did ornithological taxonomists for the next 143 years.”
There were no regles/rules for naming birds in 1814-1818.
But, Linnaeus’s (1751) aphorisms from the Philosophia botanica served as the basis for nomenclatural practices up to the 1840s in zoology, when the Strickland Code was devised (Strickland 1843), and up to the 1860s in botany, when de Candolle Jr. (1867) published the first botanical rules (Nicolson 1991).
In Aphorism #257 of the Philosophia Botanica, Linnaeus (1751) clearly defines a trivial name as a single word (vocabulo uno). However, more importantly, he also indicates that trivial names do not follow any laws and can be selected freely (vocabulo libere undequaque defunto). This largely explains why Linnaeus changed some specific (trivial) names between the 10th and the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae… (Celebrating 250 Dynamic Years of Nomenclatural Debates Dayrat 2010)
Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle is a central author in nomenclatural history because he provided one of the first definitions of the principle of “priority” in his Théorie élémentaire de la botanique (1813), a cornerstone in the history of systematics (it also is in this book that de Candolle coined and defined “taxonomie,” as the théorie des classifications, i.e., classification theory). De Candolle (1813:227–228) mentioned three primary principles: (1) names must be in Latin; (2) names must follow basic grammar (e.g., names mixing Greek and Latin roots can be replaced); (3) the first name given to a species must remain unchanged, unless it is already in use for another species or contradicts some essential rules of nomenclature. De Candolle (1813:228–241) Ord in Philadelphia in 1814 had not read this and so was following Linne. But Vieillot in France in 1818 most probably had read de Candolle. Thus he felt the need to fix Char. Wilsonia.(?) The fact that he did does not make it correct today following the 1999 ICZN rules.
Ord in 1814 capitalized Wilsonia. Linnaeus capitalized most of the species group names that he used as nouns, but not all. In the works of Linnaeus (and authors who followed him like Ord) capitalization of a specie name may have relevance in indicating a noun when they can be regarded as either a noun or adjective. (Art. 31.2.2) Normand & Gosselin 2000) Ord in 1825 supplement 2nd edition simply followed the respected Vieillot. Philadelphia of 1825 was pro-republicanism and pro-French.
“ It is the lack of grammatical agreement between the masculine genus name and Ord’s species epithet that has apparently misled more recent authorities to construe wilsonia as a noun in apposition. There is, however, no indication anywhere that Ord meant to create a new noun, or what such a noun, feminine or neuter plural in form, might be intended to mean.”
Capitalization of Wilsonia is an indication by Ord.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46337984#page/57/mode/1up .
“Lapsus.”
See my first post. Wilsonia is a latinization, I think?? Bad latinizations are misspellings the 1999 code does not let you fix.
32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
“In an ironic echo of Ord’s own error, the AOU’s first edition had named the bird Aegialitis wilsonius (1886), notwithstanding Coues’s (1882) admonition that the genus when spelled thus was feminine; the error was corrected in the abridged reprint of that edition (AOU 1889)”
I have looked at four copies of the 1886 first edition of the check-list and all have AE. wilsonia. Perhaps they all were revised editions(?) but it is not apparent anywhere. All were google books from different libraries.
Quotes are from the wilsonis/wilsonius proposal.
“The Fifth Edition of the AOU Check-List (AOU 1957) restored Wilson’s Plover to the genus Charadrius. That edition and those subsequent (AOU 1983, AOU 1998, AOU 2014), however, retained the species epithet wilsonia, apparently considering that name a noun in apposition (see ICZN 31.2.1) rather than an adjective requiring gender agreement (see ICZN 31.2) with the masculine genus name Charadrius.”
Ord named the bird in the genus Charadrius. AEgialitis wilsonia first edition 1886 and 2nd edition 1895 AOU check-list. Ochthodromus wilsonius 1910 3rd edition AOU check-list , Pagolla wilsonia 4th ed. AOU check-list.
Fourth Edition of the Howard and Moore Complete Checklist (Dickinson and Remsen 2013), where the epithet wilsonia is indicated to be “invariable.”.
Wilsonia is mentioned in David & Gosselin 2013. Variable species-group names and their gender endings. Appendix 4 in H&M4.
http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php?t-265206.html .
“There is no documented suggestion anywhere that George Ord considered wilsonia a noun when he described and named the species in 1814. There is, however, unequivocal evidence that he considered it an adjective, as did his contemporaries and as did ornithological taxonomists for the next 143 years.”
There were no regles/rules for naming birds in 1814-1818.
But, Linnaeus’s (1751) aphorisms from the Philosophia botanica served as the basis for nomenclatural practices up to the 1840s in zoology, when the Strickland Code was devised (Strickland 1843), and up to the 1860s in botany, when de Candolle Jr. (1867) published the first botanical rules (Nicolson 1991).
In Aphorism #257 of the Philosophia Botanica, Linnaeus (1751) clearly defines a trivial name as a single word (vocabulo uno). However, more importantly, he also indicates that trivial names do not follow any laws and can be selected freely (vocabulo libere undequaque defunto). This largely explains why Linnaeus changed some specific (trivial) names between the 10th and the 12th edition of the Systema Naturae… (Celebrating 250 Dynamic Years of Nomenclatural Debates Dayrat 2010)
Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle is a central author in nomenclatural history because he provided one of the first definitions of the principle of “priority” in his Théorie élémentaire de la botanique (1813), a cornerstone in the history of systematics (it also is in this book that de Candolle coined and defined “taxonomie,” as the théorie des classifications, i.e., classification theory). De Candolle (1813:227–228) mentioned three primary principles: (1) names must be in Latin; (2) names must follow basic grammar (e.g., names mixing Greek and Latin roots can be replaced); (3) the first name given to a species must remain unchanged, unless it is already in use for another species or contradicts some essential rules of nomenclature. De Candolle (1813:228–241) Ord in Philadelphia in 1814 had not read this and so was following Linne. But Vieillot in France in 1818 most probably had read de Candolle. Thus he felt the need to fix Char. Wilsonia.(?) The fact that he did does not make it correct today following the 1999 ICZN rules.
Ord in 1814 capitalized Wilsonia. Linnaeus capitalized most of the species group names that he used as nouns, but not all. In the works of Linnaeus (and authors who followed him like Ord) capitalization of a specie name may have relevance in indicating a noun when they can be regarded as either a noun or adjective. (Art. 31.2.2) Normand & Gosselin 2000) Ord in 1825 supplement 2nd edition simply followed the respected Vieillot. Philadelphia of 1825 was pro-republicanism and pro-French.
“ It is the lack of grammatical agreement between the masculine genus name and Ord’s species epithet that has apparently misled more recent authorities to construe wilsonia as a noun in apposition. There is, however, no indication anywhere that Ord meant to create a new noun, or what such a noun, feminine or neuter plural in form, might be intended to mean.”
Capitalization of Wilsonia is an indication by Ord.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/46337984#page/57/mode/1up .
“Lapsus.”
See my first post. Wilsonia is a latinization, I think?? Bad latinizations are misspellings the 1999 code does not let you fix.
32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
“In an ironic echo of Ord’s own error, the AOU’s first edition had named the bird Aegialitis wilsonius (1886), notwithstanding Coues’s (1882) admonition that the genus when spelled thus was feminine; the error was corrected in the abridged reprint of that edition (AOU 1889)”
I have looked at four copies of the 1886 first edition of the check-list and all have AE. wilsonia. Perhaps they all were revised editions(?) but it is not apparent anywhere. All were google books from different libraries.
Rick Wright
Well-known member
A quick check shows that you are right about the AOU list -- that was a bad slip of my pen, and I'm grateful for your having pointed it out.
