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: 1388619" data-attributes="member: 24811">Nullifying an available name is not possible for a simple author. (Only the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature could do this, by declaring the name unavailable under the plenary powers.) Anyway, this is not what Gyldenstolpe was doing here either - what he was doing, technically, is a subjective symonymization.Nomenclaturally, two available names that are not based on the same type material have fully independent existences, and remain anchored on their own original type material. Although admittedly not too often expressed in those terms, a subjective synonymization equals to a declaration, by an author, that, in his opinion, the types of two names belong to the same taxon. If so, the two names must be regarded as subjective synonyms, and the older one has priority as the 'correct' (valid) name of this taxon. But anybody remains free to re-examine the type material and disagree with this author's opinion, for whatever reason.Wow... I knew the priority argument, but not that of intent. The latter is indeed much more disturbing, because it means that dauurica is arguably nothing more than a mere chimera - not a name at all. (I.e., not even a name referring to an infrasubspecific entity, to which the ICZN could still be applied. In fact, if one accepts this argument, the word 'dauurica' in Pallas's text simply falls outside the remits of the Code.)(For what it's worth, I don't think italicization is relevant here, as Pallas frequently cited scientific names without italicizing them. In his synonymies, author names are typically in italics, taxon names are not; in his descriptions, he used italics merely to make important words stand out. The capitalization of 'Dauurica' in the original text may be a bit atypical for a mere adjective - Pallas tended not to capitalize adjectives, even those referring to localities - but he was not fully consistent in this either. But what seems clear from Pallas's work [and most disturbing in the present case], is that it was not at all usual for him to offer names for the 'varieties' he described.Note that <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover#PPA78,M1" target="_blank">Perdix dauurica (Pallas, 1811)</a> suffers from a very similar problem. ['Proposed' under a heading "TETRAO Perdix", as "Descr. Varietatis rupestris dauricae:", which can be translated as "Description of the Daurian rupestrian variety:", followed by a description. In this case, the 'name' was italicized, but not capitalized.])Certainly not. Muscicapa cinereo-alba was described by Temminck & Schlegel in 1847, based on Japanese birds. In the present taxonomy, this population is invariably included in the nominate race, thus the name is a junior synonym of dauurica (if acceptable), and of latirostris.No. Not even in Gyldenstolpe's opinion, actually: Gyldenstolpe said that the grayish, apparently migrating birds he had seen had to be poonensis, and that the browner birds he had named siamensis equaled nominate latirostris.This opinion conflicts directly with present taxonomy, because Pune (= Poona, W India), the type locality of poonensis, is not within the range of any subspecies supposed to migrate through N Thailand. Thus Gyldenstolpe's series of grayish, migrating birds from N Thailand cannot have been poonensis, and must instead have been the nominate race. Birds disagreeing with this series have to have been something else.L -</blockquote>

Verification