• 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-NACC Proposals 2016 (1 Viewer)

l_raty

laurent raty
Reviving this thread (in the spirit of Richard) instead of starting a new thread on the same results

Anyway, here are this years AOU decisions. Votes still not online

http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1642/AUK-16-77.1

OK, I will repeat my comment here, then. The citation of Zapornia in the Supplement:
Zapornia Leach, 1816, Syst. Cat. Spec. Mammals and Birds, etc., p. 34. Type, by original designation, Z. minuta = Rallus parvus Scopoli.
...is incorrect, as we have already seen [here]. (It is incorrect in H&M4 as well.) It should read:

Zapornia Leach, 1816, Syst. Cat. Spec. Mammals and Birds, etc., p. 34. Type, by original monotypy, Gallinula minuta Montagu = Rallus parvus Scopoli.
 

Kratter

Well-known member
OK, I will repeat my comment here, then. The citation of Zapornia in the Supplement:

...is incorrect, as we have already seen [here]. (It is incorrect in H&M4 as well.) It should read:

Zapornia Leach, 1816, Syst. Cat. Spec. Mammals and Birds, etc., p. 34. Type, by original monotypy, Gallinula minuta Montagu = Rallus parvus Scopoli.

Thanks Laurence, Feels so good to need an addendum within hours of publication!

Andy
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Thanks Laurence, Feels so good to need an addendum within hours of publication!

Andy
Sorry about it, Andy.

Perhaps it might be a good thing to list nomenclatural details in the proposals? This way, if there is a problem, it would have a chance to be identified before the publication. It's all too easy to make a slip.

Laurent -

----------------
PS - I checked rapidly the other generic names that are new for the check-list:

> Hapalocrex Ridgway, 1920, Smiths. Misc. Coll. 72(4): 3. Type, by original designation, Rallus flaviventris Boddaert.
[OD] - OK.

> Antigone Reichenbach, 1852, Handb. Spec. Orn. p. xxiii. Type, by original designation and tautonomy, Grus torquata Vieillot = Ardea antigone Linnaeus.
[OD] - by original designation, not by tautonymy.
(Type designation prevails over tautonymy; tautonymy would require Ardea antigone Linn. to be cited in the OD, which it is not. Note that despite the "=" sign in the citation, Grus torquata Vieillot and Ardea antigone Linnaeus are distinct nominal species with distinct type material: only one of them can act as type species. Reichenbach designated the nominal species Grus torquata; in case of tautonymy (if R. had simply included G. torquata among other spp, with A. antigone cited as a synonym), the nominal type species would have been Ardea antigone.)
This is in the same part of the same work as the next one, hence the refs might have been more similar than they are (in particular, the year of publication should in principle not differ -- it is most frequently given as 1852, but H&M4 made it 1853).

> Ardenna Reichenbach, 1853, Hand. Spec. Ornithol., Die Vögel, pt. 3 (1852), p. iv. Type, by original designation and monotypy, Puffinus major Faber, 1822 = Procellaria gravis O’Reilly, 1818.
[OD] - I'd just write 'by original designation', but this is less problematic than in the previous case.
This is in the same part of the same work as the previous one, hence the refs might have been more similar than they are (in particular, the year of publication should in principle not differ -- it is most frequently given as 1852, but H&M4 made it 1853).

> Thyellodroma Stejneger, 1889, Proc. U.S. Natl. Mus. 11 (1888): 93. Type, by original designation, Puffinus sphenurus Gould = Puffinus chlororhynchus Lesson.
[OD] - OK.

> Neonectris Mathews, 1913, Austral Avian Rec. 2: 12. Type, by original designation, Puffinus brevicaudus Gould = Procellaria tenuirostris Temminck.
[OD] - OK.

> Hemipuffinus Iredale, 1913, Austral Avian Rec. 2: 20. Type, by original designation, Puffinus carneipes Gould.
[OD] - OK.

> Cercomacroides Tello et al., 2014, Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 170: 555. Type, by original designation, Cercomacra tyrannina Sclater.
[OD] - The name is authored by Tello and Raposo, not Tello et al.

> Tunchiornis Slager and Klicka, 2014, Zootaxa 3884: 195. Type, by original designation, Hylophilus ochraceiceps Sclater.
[OD] - OK.

> Pachysylvia Bonaparte, 1851, Consp. Gen. Av. 1:309. Type, by monotypy, Sylvicola decurtata Bonaparte.
[OD] - OK. This tends to be dated as of 1850 nowadays, I believe, however.

> Atticora Boie, 1844, Isis von Oken, col. 172. Type, by subsequent designation, Hirundo fasciata Gmelin (Gray, 1855, Cat. Gen. Subgen. Birds, p. 13).
[OD], [Subs. designation] - seems OK. (I did not search hard for an earlier designation.)
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member
Atticora: (I did not search hard for an earlier designation.) said Laurent.
There is Gould 1842 from Birds of Australia ii, pl. 12.
"Pachysylvia Bonaparte, 1851, Consp. Gen. Av. 1:309. This tends to be dated as of 1850 nowadays, I believe, however." Priority eventually gets to 1850 but its complicated. Von Rossem says part two of part 1 from page 273 to page 400 was certainly published before the end of 1850.
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v063n02/p0243-p0243.pdf .
AOU checklist day is like Christmas around my house but this one tinged by loss.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
There is Gould 1842 from Birds of Australia ii, pl. 12.
[subs.? designation] - This is certainly a type designation, but if it dates from 1842 (and it does according to Waterhouse 1885), then we have a problem... This is two years before the publication by Boie in Isis that is cited as having established the name.
----
Edit: [Neave] also cites the generic name from Gould 1842.
And also quite a few [others]...

> Atticora Gould, 1842, Birds of Australia, 2: pl. 12. Type, by original designation, Hirundo fasciata Gmelin... ?

(I note that, in SACC #314, the name is attributed to Boie 1826, which would presumably be [this] (the source for, i.a., Progne and Cecropis), but the name is not there.)
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member
From Gould's words the genus was already populated. The SACC say (Atticora Boie 1826 is the oldest generic name in the group). I looked at the cite for Progne Boie 1826 in Isis and Atticora was not there. I have seen Atticora 1819 but have not found it. Wrong its volumes 18 &19.
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop314.html .
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
From Gould's words the genus was already populated.
Yes, but this does not necessarily mean that it had been published.
The SACC say (Atticora Boie 1826 is the oldest generic name in the group). I looked at the cite for Progne Boie 1826 in Isis and Atticora was not there. I have seen Atticora 1819 but have not found it. Wrong its volumes 18 &19.
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop314.html .
Obviously we are following the same leads, Mark... ;) (With the same limited success...)

Blyth in 1845 thought that the genus was new in Gould's work.
In the same year, Gray listed the name on account of "the verbal communication of M. Boie", without knowing where it had been published. (He listed Gould's Atticora leucosternon among the species, however.)
 

mb1848

Well-known member
I wonder if Laurent saw Gould's first mention of Atticora in the introduction in Volume 1 of Birds of Australia?
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48184950#page/49/mode/1up . That Gould cites Boie as the author does not count if it was unpublished. Gould met Boie in Kiel in 1850. (Calendar of Correspondence of H. E. Strickland Rookmaaker).
Less relevant but interesting to me is Bonaparte's species of Atticora in 1857. (Page 210)
https://books.google.com/books?id=9...ntemporanea+torino+1857&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
 

l_raty

laurent raty
I wonder if Laurent saw Gould's first mention of Atticora in the introduction in Volume 1 of Birds of Australia?
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48184950#page/49/mode/1up . That Gould cites Boie as the author does not count if it was unpublished. Gould met Boie in Kiel in 1850. (Calendar of Correspondence of H. E. Strickland Rookmaaker).
Yes, but this introduction was certainly issued at the end of the publication process (1848), thus well after Boie's paper in Isis (1844).
The plates of Birds of Australia were arranged into volumes wholly irrespective of their date of publication -- e.g., pl. 1 of vol. ii (Aegotheles novae-hollandiae) was published in 1840 (Waterhouse 1885), but pl. 60 of the same vol. (Campephaga jardinii) was published in 1848 (Waterhouse 1885), thus this single volume's content spans the whole publication period. Gould could not have produced such an introduction, nor even a part of it, before the work was achieved.
 
Last edited:

mb1848

Well-known member

l_raty

laurent raty
"Antigone Gray 1847" is [here]: 4th line of the page, attributed by Gray to "Schum. 1817". (Schumacher's work was bilingual French-Latin; he used Antigone in French and Antigona in Latin -- [OD1] [OD2].)
Under the present rules, Gray's use of Antigone would not represent a demonstrably intentional change (no express statement, the actual OS is not cited), thus would be an incorrect subsequent spelling rather than an unjustified emendation. An ISS is not an available name, hence does not preoccupy the spelling, and Reichenbach's name should normally be safe.

PS - Mathewsia Iredale 1911 [OD]. See also Mathewsena Iredale 1914 [OD]. As well as the comments by Brasil, and reply by Iredale 1912 [here].
 
Last edited:

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
In particular, I found this comment by a "no" voter interesting. It suggests that even under the BSC criteria the AOU is operating under, people seem to be (perhaps unsurprisingly) interpreting it very differently

"More broadly, perhaps the Committee needs to take a stand on what is meant by "reproductive isolation" under the BSC. This is not an easy decision – Mayr himself actually waivered at one point. We all agree that hybridization per se does not constitute reproductive isolation – many taxa we treat as species hybridize to varying degrees. However, none of the taxa that we treat as separate species under a BSC approach "freely interbreed" at contact zones (as far as I know), i.e., mate non-assortatively. The intuitive appeal of this approach is obvious --- if two taxa do not treat each other as "different" when it comes to all-important mate choice, then why should we taxonomists? On the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that hybrid zones themselves act as reproductive isolating mechanisms if there is no gene flow beyond the zone in which a hybrid swarm persists because of strong selection against hybrids; this is the view adopted in the current proposal. I lean towards the former (non-assortative mating) because of its intuitive appeal --- this is the only taxon rank defined by the behavior of the organisms themselves. No matter how small the contact zone, if the individuals at that contact zone show no signs of assortative mating, then to me that sends a meaningful signal concerning the degree to which the taxa in question have diverged."
 

mb1848

Well-known member
Comments: Thanks Morgan. I noticed that comment. I found the comments overall better prepared(?) As though they thought people might actually read them. Nutcracker is influencing me and my inner pedant, I noticed a commenter used overdo (like over cooking pasta) for overdue (like overdue book).
 

Kirk Roth

Well-known member
Comments: Thanks Morgan. I noticed that comment. I found the comments overall better prepared(?) As though they thought people might actually read them. Nutcracker is influencing me and my inner pedant, I noticed a commenter used overdo (like over cooking pasta) for overdue (like overdue book).

This one might be even funnier:

"Yet with the Oldsquaw that is the one I do hear complaining about, though no one who wines knows why the name was changed."

a very sobering statement,

B :)
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
In particular, I found this comment by a "no" voter interesting. It suggests that even under the BSC criteria the AOU is operating under, people seem to be (perhaps unsurprisingly) interpreting it very differently

"More broadly, perhaps the Committee needs to take a stand on what is meant by "reproductive isolation" under the BSC. This is not an easy decision – Mayr himself actually waivered at one point. We all agree that hybridization per se does not constitute reproductive isolation – many taxa we treat as species hybridize to varying degrees. However, none of the taxa that we treat as separate species under a BSC approach "freely interbreed" at contact zones (as far as I know), i.e., mate non-assortatively. The intuitive appeal of this approach is obvious --- if two taxa do not treat each other as "different" when it comes to all-important mate choice, then why should we taxonomists? On the other hand, a reasonable case can be made that hybrid zones themselves act as reproductive isolating mechanisms if there is no gene flow beyond the zone in which a hybrid swarm persists because of strong selection against hybrids; this is the view adopted in the current proposal. I lean towards the former (non-assortative mating) because of its intuitive appeal --- this is the only taxon rank defined by the behavior of the organisms themselves. No matter how small the contact zone, if the individuals at that contact zone show no signs of assortative mating, then to me that sends a meaningful signal concerning the degree to which the taxa in question have diverged."

This is more explicit, but I had the feeling these arguments were implicit in some of what I have read from that committee in the past.

Niels
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top