AOU-NACC Proposals 2021 (2 Viewers)

[njlarsen]

Several of these proposals have also been sent to SACC due to overlapping ranges. Looking at the SACC comments, some of them looks to have very little chance of acceptance, e.g., A8 (Frigatebird split).

Niels

 

[Paul Clapham]

2021-A-3: Split Mew Gull Larus canus brachyrhynchus and rename as Short-billed Gull

* Very long overdue! Don't see any need to change the name to 'Short-billed Gull'; Common Gull for canus as it's always been except in the minds of US imperialists, and Mew Gull for brachyrhynchus.

However, historically the AOU had Larus brachyrhynchus in their 1st edition under the name "Short-billed Gull" and it remained thus until the 3rd edition, which was published in 1910. They lumped it with canus in the 4th edition, which I believe was published in 1931. So they have precedent for that name.

 

[l_raty]

On p. 20 of the proposal document, we see:

However, because camtschatchensis Bruch, 1855, is the first available name, Bruch is the author, but the incorrect subsequent spelling kamtschatschensis is in prevailing usage and thus protected by ICZN Article 33.3.1. Thus, on Schodde’s advice the name should be Larus canus kamtschatschensis (Bruch, 1855).
[...]
c. Change the authorship of the east Siberian form to kamtschatschensis (Bruch, 1855).

No.
33.3.1 does not make this possible at all.

33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling.

• "when an incorrect subsequent spelling" [...] "is attributed to the publication of the original spelling": if it is admitted that the publication of the original spelling is Bruch 1855, this article can protect the spelling "kamtschatschensis" only if many instances of it attributed to Bruch 1855 are found in the literature. These many instances do not exist (most likely none exists, actually) -- thus the condition for the article to apply is not met.
• "the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved": the "object" that this article preserves is not a subsequent spelling alone; it is a couple [spelling and attribution]. If "kamtschatschensis Bonaparte 1857" is in prevailing usage, 33.3.1 can only protect "kamtschatschensis Bonaparte 1857", not "kamtschatschensis Bruch 1855".

If the authorship is changed, then the spelling must be changed as well. (And the type series changes as well, by the way.) If this is not acceptable, the only way out is an application to the Commission.

 

[l_raty]

However, historically the AOU had Larus brachyrhynchus in their 1st edition under the name "Short-billed Gull" and it remained thus until the 3rd edition, which was published in 1910. They lumped it with canus in the 4th edition, which I believe was published in 1931. So they have precedent for that name.

Historically, Mew Gull was an American name for Larus canus (sensu stricto), actually. E.g.: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16807071
(If I remember correctly, the author of the name refused to call the bird "common", because it was a vagrant.)

 

[Nutcracker]

However, historically the AOU had Larus brachyrhynchus in their 1st edition under the name "Short-billed Gull" and it remained thus until the 3rd edition, which was published in 1910. They lumped it with canus in the 4th edition, which I believe was published in 1931. So they have precedent for that name.

There may be precedent - but it's 110 years old. I doubt there's many folk still around who remember using it then? 😂

 

[Nutcracker]

Historically, Mew Gull was an American name for Larus canus (sensu stricto), actually. E.g.: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16807071
(If I remember correctly, the author of the name refused to call the bird "common", because it was a vagrant.)

Hence my remark in post #3 (why did they feel the need to treat Europeans as getting the name of a European bird wrong? What does it say about their respect for European birders' right to name their own birds?)

 

[njlarsen]

There may be precedent - but it's 110 years old. I doubt there's many folk still around who remember using it then? 😂

The proposal describes recent usage

Niels

 

[Xenospiza]

The stonechat split remains premature because the Zink article is not a very strong basis, with its odd outliers and unclear sampling.
The split(s) should only be reconsidered once there is "full" sampling from breeding localities and contact zones, combined with morphological backing.
I suggest the NACC to vote with a resounding "No"!

I like a separate genus for Ruby-crowned Kinglet, because it doesn't sound like a Regulus at all.

 

[l_raty]

There may be precedent - but it's 110 years old. I doubt there's many folk still around who remember using it then? 😂

Even if you forget about very recent trends, "Short-billed Gull" persisted until much more recently than this.
To start with, when the AOU lumped in 1931, they did not change the name of the bird, continuing Short-billed Gull: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5824001. I cannot trace a formal change in any of the Supplements, hence "Mew Gull", as a name officially applied to a taxon including brachyrhynchus, may date from the 5th ed of the Check-list in 1957: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34733065. But even after that, "Short-billed Gull" (or, occasionally, "Short-billed Mew Gull") continued to be used with some regularity, particularly when referring to the American race only.

Can you guess the year of this quote ?

Is it visionary to hope, as well, for the time when the Short-billed Gull of the Pacific coast of America and the Common Gull of Europe, both Larus canus, become the circumpolar Mew Gull? It would save awkwardness if those of us who write about birds for publication in England and America alike, addressing readers who are not necessarily professional specialists, could dispense with the need for translation that such differences impose.

 

[l_raty]

The stonechat split remains premature because the Zink article is not a very strong basis, with its odd outliers and unclear sampling.

To be fair, they did clarify the (originally unclear, indeed) sampling subsequently: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.10.032 (access should be free, I think).

 

[l_raty]

2021-A-4: Revise generic limits in the Phalacrocoracidae (cormorants)

Perhaps worth reminding here that Nannopterum, being a latinized Greek word with its ending changed to -um, is (as per Art. 30.1.3) neuter ?
(Hence Nannopterum auritum and Nannopterum brasilianum, not "Nannopterum auritus" and "Nannopterum brasilianus" as suggested by "Figure 1 from Kennedy et al. (2019)", on p. 24 of the proposal document.)

 

[Nutcracker]

Can you guess the year of this quote ?

No, go on, when then?

 

[Andy Adcock]

Even if you forget about very recent trends, "Short-billed Gull" persisted until much more recently than this.
To start with, when the AOU lumped in 1931, they did not change the name of the bird, continuing Short-billed Gull: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5824001. I cannot trace a formal change in any of the Supplements, hence "Mew Gull", as a name officially applied to a taxon including brachyrhynchus, may date from the 5th ed of the Check-list in 1957: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/34733065. But even after that, "Short-billed Gull" (or, occasionally, "Short-billed Mew Gull") continued to be used with some regularity, particularly when referring to the American race only.

Can you guess the year of this quote ?

1930........?

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

No, go on, when then?

1930........?

1968

 

[Mysticete]

Good to see no common name proposals.

Technically there kind of is: I noticed the name Japanese Stonechat proposed, versus the more typical Stejneger's Stonechat. On the other hand, they suggest Darwin's Storm-petrel so it might be down to the preference of the proposal writer.

 

[Steve Lister]

We will have to hope that Darwin was squeaky-clean then otherwise that won't last in the present climate.

 

[Mysticete]

He does have a few writings which come off as sexist nowadays, but otherwise I don't think he has all that many skeletons in his closet, probably less than the average 19th century gentleman of his times.

 

[njlarsen]

Technically there kind of is: I noticed the name Japanese Stonechat proposed, versus the more typical Stejneger's Stonechat. On the other hand, they suggest Darwin's Storm-petrel so it might be down to the preference of the proposal writer.

I am pretty sure that is what you see, common name proposals are those of the proposal writer.

Niels

 

[mb1848]

2021-A-9: Resurrect Corthylio for Ruby-crowned Kinglet
The best part of this genus is that the type species is the "hypothetical" (read drunken lie?) of Regulus cuvieri.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/C/c01657a.jpg .
http://birdaz.com/blog/tag/cuviers-regulus/ .
https://bioone.org/journals/bulleti...at-launched/10.25226/bboc.v140i2.2020.a3.full .

 

[mb1848]

2021-A-3: Split Mew Gull Larus canus brachyrhynchus and rename as Short-billed Gull
Nomenclatural issues:
Mlíkovský (2012) considered the name kamtschatschensis Bonaparte, 1857, to be both a junior synonym to Gavina camtschatchensis Bruch, 1855, and a nomen nudum, and Bruch’s name was adopted by del Hoyo and Collar (2014), but was neither adopted nor commented upon by Dickinson and Remsen (2013), nor by Gill et al. (2020). Dick Schodde kindly reviewed this case (in litt. 25 Jun 2020) and opined that, while Bonaparte’s earlier usages of kamtschatschensis all remain nomina nuda, his 1857 usage is potentially available because it was taken up by Peters (1934) before 1961. However, because camtschatchensis Bruch, 1855, is the first available name, Bruch is the author, but the incorrect subsequent spelling kamtschatschensis is in prevailing usage and thus protected by ICZN Article 33.3.1. Thus, on Schodde’s advice the name should be Larus canus kamtschatschensis (Bruch, 1855)
But one Bonaparte Gavina kamchatschensis from 1854 and one from January 1855 are not nomen nudum He calls the bird the Kamchatka race of Larus canus.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/19830#page/229/mode/1up ,
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/19471#page/20/mode/1up .