raymie
Well-known member
The issue is that everyone has something if you look deep enough...
-
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 2021 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
If it is a name based on something that doesn't exist, I don't see how it can be used for something that does exist?
l_raty
laurent raty
When Richmond wrote "type" on one of his genus-group cards, he generally meant what we would call "included species".
OD of Corthylio: Cabanis J. 1853. Zur Naturgeschichte des Pallas'schen Laubhähnchens, Phyllobasileus superciliosus. J. Ornithol., 1: 83-96.; p. 83; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13866877.
Cabanis included two species in the new genus: Corthylio calendula, a recombination of Motacilla calendula Linnaeus, which he had also placed in the genus Phyllobasileus previously, and C. Cuvieri, a recombination of Regulus cuvieri Audubon. He did not designate a type (or, at least, not explicitly enough for me), he treated the included taxa as more than one taxonomic species, and the new generic name was not identical to the available name denoting one of the included nominal species, or identical to a pre-1758 one-word name cited in the synonymy of one of the included nominal species. At this point, there was no fixed type yet -- only two candidates.
The type became Motacilla calendula Linnaeus 1766 through the subsequent designation of this species in: Baird SF, Brewer TM, Ridgway R. 1874. A history of North American birds. Land birds. Volume I. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.; p. 72; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7273614.
(At least this is the first satifying designation I found. There was an earlier, wannabe designation in: Giebel CG. 1872. Thesaurus ornithologiae. Repertorium der gesammten ornithologischen Literatur und Nomenclator sämmtlicher Gattungen und Arten der Vögel nebst Synonymen und geographischer Verbreitung. Erster Band. FA Brockhaus, Leipzig.; p. 781; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48113912 . Giebel wrote: “Typus.: Regulus calendula Lichtst., R. Cuvieri Audub.” This might perhaps be deemed valid if interpreted as a designation of calendula, with cuvieri made a synonym. But it was not unusual for Giebel to designate multiple and clearly distinct species as the "Typus" of a genus – e.g., p. 256 of the same volume; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48113389 : “Acanthis Blasius und Keyserling […] Typus: Fringilla spinus, Fr. carduelis, Fr. linaria.” – hence I don't think this is tenable.)
(In case anyone wonders – Baird, Brewer & Ridgway 1874 also listed Phyllobasileus Cabanis 1850 (which is senior to Corthylio) as having Motacilla calendula as its type. Although Cabanis 1850 included calendula in Phyllobasileus when he introduced it, Phyllobasileus was a purist replacement name for Reguloides Blyth 1847 (*), which had Regulus modestus Gould 1837, a synonym of Motacilla proregulus Pallas 1811 (= Pallas's Warbler), as its type by original designation. Phyllobasileus Cabanis 1850 automatically takes the same type, and BB&R's designation has no standing.
(*) Probable reason, a zoological application of Linnaeus' principle: "Nomina generica in oides desinentia, e foro Botanico releganda sunt.")
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
These are both nude, however.
For a species-group name, there must be a description or illustration of the named organism published somewhere -- either in the OD itself, or in an earlier published work referenced there. Short of this, the name is a nomen nudum.
("Like Larus canus but from Kamchatka" is not a descriptive statement, and points only, indirectly and through the use of the name canus, to descriptions of birds that would not be included in the Kamchatkan taxon -- this cannot make a name available for this taxon.
Gavina bruchi, in the same two papers, as a Mexican race of canus with a remarkably short bill, is not nude. But it's presumably a junior synonym of brachyrhynchus.)
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
If it is a name based on something that doesn't exist, I don't see how it can be used for something that does exist? There you go again using logic with bird nomenclature. Thank you Laurent. But what does Richmond mean by Type: Not calendula Linn. and then listing R. cuvieri?
l_raty
laurent raty
"Type: Mot. calendula", where "Mot." stands for "Motacilla", I believe.
mb1848
Well-known member
Mot not not. Thanks again. Richmond had a second card he names Regulus calendula type?
https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/C/c01658a.jpg .
https://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/C/c01658a.jpg .
Let the first one who is 100% pure be the one to throw the stone. I could easily imagine that people who currently are overzealous with criticizing people of the past becoming the target of future criticism.
Niels
johnallcock
Well-known member
I really hope that if the split is accepted, then the name Japanese Stonechat is rejected. It's a dreadful name for a species that ranges across much of the eastern Palearctic, with Japan as only a small part of the range. This has been done with various other species in the past (Japanese Tit, Japanese Sparrowhawk, Japanese White-eye prior to the recent split).
Given the concerns that Americans have applied to European colonial nomenclature recently, it seems very blinkered to me to ignore the potential sensitivities of the people of China, Korea and other parts of Asia with memories of imperial Japan in the 20th Century.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Why just Asia? I had a family member who was worked, tortured and ultimately starved to death in a Japanese prisoner of war camp and I'm far from unique in this. On a less political note, it does seem silly to name anything other, than a genuine endemic species, after any place.
TomDerutter
Well-known member
It goes beyond me why they would create a new English name for a species that already has one. Especially one that is not blatantly wrong, and has seen a lot of use recently.
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
The insert (from Zink 2009) on p.52 of the proposals suggests Western Siberian Stonechat for maurus & Eastern Siberian Stonechat for stejnegeri - might be a good option?
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Any thoughts for new names for Dartford Warbler & Sandwich Tern? 😂
Or (for Americans) Cape May Warbler (which I gather is a rarity at Cape May?)
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
What reputation did Stejneger have? Perhaps they're thinking in terms of avoiding having it named afer a person?
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I had been under the impression that it was now 'not' the thing to do anyway, regardless ofthe history of the individual?
l_raty
laurent raty
In the proposal, Pamela Rasmussen wrote:
("del Hoyo and Collar 2016" is the HBW/BLI check-list, where the name is used for stejnegeri treated as a ssp group of Saxicola torquatus.)
So, yes, the idea seems to be to avoid eponyms generally.
TomDerutter
Well-known member
I wholeheartedly agree with not using eponyms for a new name (they're not very informative anyway). My take on this is that this species already has a name, so it doesn't need a new one.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Indeed, I too am opposed to new eponyms in most cases - they're simply not informative in the vast majority of cases. However in this case, the name Stejneger's Stonechat is not a new name. It's a bit of a weird situation, where the intention is good but the reality is that this is a pretty well established name that the author seems to inexplicably not completely acknowledge. There might even be an argument that it's an established name but without a very long history and there is a perhaps worthwhile opportunity to choose a better name (not my argument - just saying that it could be argued). But I'm not sure what business the NACC has imposing new common names for old world species...
Mysticete
Well-known member
I've seen Stejneger's Stonechat (while in Japan lol), but don't really care what name they give it. It's not like Stejneger's provides some key bit of identification trivia in its name: At least Japanese provides information on where it can be found geographically. Plus, the bird, outside of vagrants to North America and ?Britain? pretty much only hangs out in non English-speaking parts of the world, so it's not like you can accuse this move of imperialism or something. Neither Brits nor Americans have some sort of special rights to the naming of this bird.
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
Indeed, but the fact remains that just as German names for all birds in the world are made by German speakers, English names for birds will generally be made by English speakers, and the major taxonomies are all now more or less curated / maintained by Americans, for better or worse. Though IOC does have a more international team behind them, the principals are largely Americans, no?
And regarding this point, the thought occurs that with Ms Rasmussen is a major figure at IOC, perhaps this is reflective of an attempt to remove an eponym from both lists simultaneously?
