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.)