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: 3586947" data-attributes="member: 24811">Taphrolesbia Simon 1918Simon E. 1918. Notice sur les travaux scientifiques de M. Eugène Simon.; p.39; I couldn't find this online.Type species, by original designation (fide Peters 1945 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14480134" target="_blank">here</a>]): Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p.    72; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28679858" target="_blank">OD</a>].)Note: This name is not listed by Neave, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918; Neave only lists Tephrolesbia Simon 1919.Tephrolesbia Simon 1919Simon E. 1919. Note critique sur les Trochilidés. Rev. Fr. Ornithol. 6:52-54.; p.54; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8766132" target="_blank">OD</a>].Type species, by original designation if deemed available as a new genus from this source: Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883.(Cynanthus griseiventris Taczanowski 1883: Taczanowski L. 1883. Description des espèces nouvelles de la collection péruvienne de M. le Dr. Raimondi de Lima. Proc. Zool. Soc. London, year 1883:70-72.; p.    72; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28679858" target="_blank">OD</a>].)Note: Called an 'emendation' of Taphrolesbia Simon 1918 by Peters 1945 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14480134" target="_blank">here</a>], but modification of spelling not demonstrably intentional, hence could only be an unavailable incorrect subsequent spelling. It is flagged as a new genus, however. Neave lists the present name, but not Taphrolesbia Simon 1918, despite he listed three other names from that book as from 1918.Aglaiocercus Zimmer 1930Zimmer JT. 1930. Birds of the Marshall Field Peruvian expedition, 1922-1923. Field Mus. Pub. Zool., 17(7):233-480.; p.290; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2768761" target="_blank">OD</a>].Type species, by original designation: Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47497295" target="_blank">OD</a>].)Should the two genera be merged, Taphrolesbia has precedence. There is a complication, however, which is:Lesbia Lesson 1832Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.xvii; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47497377" target="_blank">OD</a>].No original type fixation; originally included nominal species Ornismya sapho Lesson 1829, Ornismya nuna Lesson 1832, Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832; type by (indirect) subsequent designation (Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London.; p.14; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13668908" target="_blank">here</a>]): "L. forficatus, (Lath.) n. O. Kingii, Less." = Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832.(Ornismya kingii Lesson 1832: Lesson RP. [1832.] Les trochilidées, ou, Les colibris et les oiseaux-mouches, suivis d'un Index général, dans lequel sont décrites et classées méthodiquement toutes les races et espèces du genre Trochilus. A Bertrand, Paris.; p.107; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47497295" target="_blank">OD</a>].)Note: This name is currently in use for another goup, based on a type designation made more than half a century later, by Salvin 1892 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8347948" target="_blank">here</a>], who designated O. nuna. This designation was accepted by Zimmer 1930 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2768761" target="_blank">here</a>], who argued that Gray "designated Trochilus forficatus Linnaeus as type species under the mistaken notion that kingii was a synonym, but since forficatus was not among the original species, these designations are invalid." This is not tenable under the present Code. ("<a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/includes/page.jsp?article=69&nfv=#2" target="_blank">69.2.2.</a> If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus.") Gray cited the originally included nominal species Ornismya kingii Lesson as a synonym of the species he designated, there is no question that his 1840 designation is valid.Incidentally, there was another, earlier designation of nuna by Elliot 1878 [<a href="https://archive.org/stream/cu31924000050777#page/n159/mode/2up/search/Lesbia" target="_blank">here</a>].</blockquote>

Verification