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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3127868" data-attributes="member: 24811">This pretty much looks like a can of worms. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />In theory, you could deem that all the older names are nomina dubia, and refuse to use them. But this would just be your personal taxonomic choice, and would not give priority to the younger names... And I think this would be quite unlikely to gain universal acceptance.A more "classical" (and efficient?) way to go would be to neotypify the older names, assuming they indeed lack types. But in doing so, you would still have to select a type approaching as close as possible what info can be derived from the ODs, among other in terms of type locality. IOW, you would not be free to select a neotype from the breeding grounds for a name that is clearly based on a wintering bird; you would have to select a specimen from as close as possible to where the original type(s) had been obtained/described.The name carneirostris was given by Buturlin 1901 to a black-and-pink-billed (but orange-legged) bird collected by Heuglin on Novaja Zemlia; this bird had earlier been described by <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/102848#page/133/mode/1up" target="_blank">Heuglin in 1872</a>. I presume it would most likely have been a pink-billed variant of today's rossicus, but Heuglin was unsure of its identity. ("Oder sollte der beschriebene Vogel zu Anser brachyrynchus gehören?")The name neglectus was coined by <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/101092#page/300/mode/1up" target="_blank">Sushkin 1895</a> and originally made available via a short Latin diagnosis only; the taxon was later described in details by <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/54800#page/47/mode/1up" target="_blank">Sushkin 1897</a>. The type locality is <a href="https://www.google.be/maps/place/Ufa+Russia" target="_blank">Ufa, Russia</a>, which is too far S for any breeding Bean Goose, and the types were obtained in October, during migration. They were pink-legged and black-and-pink-billed but, besides this, would seem closest to today's rossicus. I would regard these as most likely (also) variants of rossicus, not representatives of today's fabalis.I've not seen Bannerman either.<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1944.tb07533.x/abstract" target="_blank">Ibis 1944 (87-88)</a> seems to refer to two pages in the middle of a longer paper about SE Tibet, are you sure of this reference?<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1947.tb04150.x/abstract" target="_blank">Ibis 1947 (272-275)</a> analyzes the descriptions associated to Anas fabalis Latham, and concludes that they fit Pink-footed Goose much better than any Bean G. :eek!: (There are descriptions for this name. [Actually there is always either a description, or an illustration somewhere for a name, if it is to be available.] As you noted, the name was indeed introduced on <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/103199#page/335/mode/1up" target="_blank">page 297, Gen. Synopsis Birds, suppl. 1., 1787</a>. There it was made available via two references, which both describe the bird: "Synopsis VI, p. 464" =  <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/123874#page/166/mode/1up" target="_blank">Latham 1785:464</a>, and "Br. Zool. II, N° 267" = <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/127014#page/235/mode/1up" target="_blank">Pennant 1776:575</a>. Note that Latham 1785 included a "Lev. Mus." in his Bean Goose header, which means there must also have been a specimen in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leverian_collection" target="_blank">collections at the Leverianum Museum</a> in his time; unfortunately, these collections have been dispersed, and where this specimen could be today is probably not straightforward at all to establish.)<a href="https://archive.org/stream/geeseEuropeAsia00Alfe#page/n9/mode/2up" target="_blank">Alphéraky 1905</a> is worth a look, I think.</blockquote>

Verification