Chaffinch: Fringilla coelebs tintillon (1 Viewer)

[Gonçalo Elias]

Hi all,

There used to be a race of Chaffinch of the Canary Islands called Fringilla coelebs tintillon.

According to this site https://www.biolib.cz/en/taxon/id249243/, Fringilla (coelebs) tintillon was proposed by Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon in 1841

However, it seems that this name is no longer valid and has been replaced (?) by canariensis.

I would like to understand the history of this name.

Any hints would be appreciated.

Best regards,
Gonçalo

 

[Nutcracker]

Maybe because Fringilla coelebs canariensis happened to be described much earlier, by Vieillot in 1817?

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Makes sense, it all happened before the Strickland code was presented.

 

[Nutcracker]

What I find odd, is why the tintillon name ever came into widespread use, since Vieillot is not an obscure author whose earlier name could have escaped notice.

 

[l_raty]

What I find odd, is why the tintillon name ever came into widespread use, since Vieillot is not an obscure author whose earlier name could have escaped notice.

Fringilla canariensis Vieillot 1817 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18057986 has been regarded as a primary homonym of Fringilla canariensis Boddaert 1783 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27822613, which was the reason why the junior synonym Fringilla tintillon Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon 1841 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308186 was used.
Fringilla canariensis Boddaert 1783 is now generally considered a mere incorrect subsequent spelling of Fringilla canaria Linnaeus 1758 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/727088, which means it lacks standing and cannot preoccupy Vieillot's name.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Laurent, thanks but I got lost at one point: what happened to Linnaeus' Fringilla canaria?

 

[Nutcracker]

Laurent, thanks but I got lost at one point: what happened to Linnaeus' Fringilla canaria?

Serinus canaria :t:


My other query:

.... is now generally considered a mere incorrect subsequent spelling ....

Who pointed this out? Is there a reference for this change in viewpoint, please?

 

[l_raty]

Who pointed this out? Is there a reference for this change in viewpoint, please?

There is a footnote by Mayr that starts saying this in the PCL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14481404. I'm rather convinced that I have seen it elsewhere as well, though (but can't find where right now). Unfortunately, the second part of Mayr's footnote -- claiming that, should Boddaert's name be available, there would still be no homonymy because the canary had been moved to Serinus by Koch in 1816, before Vieillot proposed the name of the chaffinch, hence that the two names would at no point have been in the same genus -- is nonsense. This makes quoting this footnote a bit problematic, it not being globally Code-compliant.

(There is no such thing as an "official" generic classification of species under the Code: the transfer of this species to Serinus was a mere reflection of Koch's personal taxonomic opinion, and can have had no effect whatsoever beyond his classification. Junior primary homonyms are permanently invalid under the Code (Art. 57.2, https://code.iczn.org/homonymy/article-57-species-group-names/#art-57-2), irrespective of their subsequent classification at any given point in time. Only exceptions: (1) if the precedence of the two homonyms has been reversed; (2) if the Commission decided the contrary under the Plenary Power; (3) if the senior name is within the scope of a published part of the List of Available Names where it is omitted -- none of which applies here. If Boddaert's name is available, continuing Vieillot's name requires an action by the Commission.
As a matter of fact, Vieillot 1817, in the very same article where he named the chaffinch, treated the canary as part of Fringilla -- https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18057938.)

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

gosh, this is a bit confusing, let's see if I understand this:

1. In 1758, Linneaus identifies the canary and calls it Fringilla canaria
2. In 1783, Boddaert identifies the canary again and calls it Fringilla canariensis, but it is considered invalid because the species had been named before
3. In 1816, Koch moves the species to Serinus
3. In 1817, Vieillot correctly identifies the Chaffinch and calls it Fringilla canariensis and this time it is correct
4. In 1841, Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon call the Chaffinch Fringilla tintillon but they just got too late so the name is invalid

Am I missing something?

 

[Nutcracker]

gosh, this is a bit confusing, let's see if I understand this:

1. In 1758, Linneaus identifies the canary and calls it Fringilla canaria
2. In 1783, Boddaert identifies the canary again and calls it Fringilla canariensis, but it is considered invalid because the species had been named before
3. In 1816, Koch moves the species to Serinus
3. In 1817, Vieillot correctly identifies the Chaffinch and calls it Fringilla canariensis and this time it is correct
4. In 1841, Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon call the Chaffinch Fringilla tintillon but they just got too late so the name is invalid

Am I missing something?

It's more:
2. In 1783, Boddaert accepts Linneaus' naming of the Canary, but mis-spells it Fringilla canariensis; since it is just a typo of another person's name, it has no nomenclatural standing (i.e., there is no "Fringilla canariensis Boddaert", he didn't identify or name any new finch)

 

[Nutcracker]

There is a footnote by Mayr that starts saying this in the PCL: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14481404. I'm rather convinced that I have seen it elsewhere as well, though (but can't find where right now). Unfortunately, the second part of Mayr's footnote -- claiming that, should Boddaert's name be available, there would still be no homonymy because the canary had been moved to Serinus by Koch in 1816, before Vieillot proposed the name of the chaffinch, hence that the two names would at no point have been in the same genus -- is nonsense. This makes quoting this footnote a bit problematic, it not being globally Code-compliant.

(There is no such thing as an "official" generic classification of species under the Code: the transfer of this species to Serinus was a mere reflection of Koch's personal taxonomic opinion, and can have had no effect whatsoever beyond his classification. Junior primary homonyms are permanently invalid under the Code (Art. 57.2, https://code.iczn.org/homonymy/article-57-species-group-names/#art-57-2), irrespective of their subsequent classification at any given point in time. Only exceptions: (1) if the precedence of the two homonyms has been reversed; (2) if the Commission decided the contrary under the Plenary Power; (3) if the senior name is within the scope of a published part of the List of Available Names where it is omitted -- none of which applies here. If Boddaert's name is available, continuing Vieillot's name requires an action by the Commission.
As a matter of fact, Vieillot 1817, in the very same article where he named the chaffinch, treated the canary as part of Fringilla -- https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/18057938.)

Thanks! :eek!:

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

It's more:
2. In 1783, Boddaert accepts Linneaus' naming of the Canary, but mis-spells it Fringilla canariensis; since it is just a typo of another person's name, it has no nomenclatural standing (i.e., there is no "Fringilla canariensis Boddaert", he didn't identify or name any new finch)

Got it, thx

 

[l_raty]

4. In 1841, Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon call the Chaffinch Fringilla tintillon but they just got too late so the name is invalid

The reality may be slightly different here as well. In 1841, Webb, Berthelot & Moquin-Tandon rejected Vieillot's name, stating explicitly that it was not tenable because it conflicted with Fringilla canaria Linnaeus.

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308187 -

Un individu apporté par Maugé, et conservé dans les galeries du Muséum d'Histoire naturelle de Paris, se trouve identique avec le nôtre; c'est celui qui a servi de type à l'espèce de Vieillot. Le nom de ce dernier ornithologiste ne peut être maintenu, puisqu'il existe déjà dans la science un Fringilla Canaria (voy. Linn., Syst. Nat., i, pag. 321.)

I.e., they were perfectly aware that they came after Vieillot: the main issue with their action was not really that they "just got too late"; the main issue was that they were applying a rule, excluding the coexistence of similar (but not identical) names ("homonymy sensu largo"), which was not continued until today.

 

[mb1848]

Unrelated to anything but how is Fringilla tintillon dated 1841 when F. canaria from the same page is reviewed in a 1837 Isis von Oken?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87723#page/146/mode/1up .
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Frin/frin00575a.jpg .

 

[mb1848]

Unrelated to anything but how is Fringilla tintillon dated 1841 when F. canaria from the same page is reviewed in a 1837 Isis von Oken?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87723#page/146/mode/1up .
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Frin/frin00575a.jpg .

 

[l_raty]

Unrelated to anything but how is Fringilla tintillon dated 1841 when F. canaria from the same page is reviewed in a 1837 Isis von Oken?
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87723#page/146/mode/1up .
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Frin/frin00575a.jpg .

I can't tell for sure what the date should be, but is Isis, it is said:

Von der Zoologie sind erst da 3 Tafeln.
Fringilla teydia n. m. et f. ill.
-- canaria deßgl. ziemlich sorgfältig gemacht kleinern Federn freylich wie Haare.
Schnecken darunter das Thier von Cryptella canriensis n.

So the 1837 review only reports 3 plates, without text:

• https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308182
• https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308185
• https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308496

 

[l_raty]

There were several reviews of the publication process of this work in Isis:

• 1837: https://books.google.com/books?id=H8FBAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA245
• 1839: https://books.google.com/books?id=PxsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA699
• 1842: https://books.google.com/books?id=oRsOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA697

The 1839 review cites the dates 1835-1839, and tells us:

Zoologie.
Vögel.
Taf. 1. Fringilla teydea m. et f. ill.
Taf. 2. Fringilla canaria m. et f. ill.
-- 3. Columba laurivora m. et f. ill.
-- 4. Fringilla tintillon, Procellaria columbina, ill.

The 1842 review cites the dates 1835-1841; only part of "Band II. Theil 2." (= the zoology) which is presented as published there is the entomology.

The ornithological text is believed to have been issued as a unit, "probably" in 1841, see Zimmer https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36283017. It includes references to works published up to 1840, the first one on p. 3.

In 1843, Moquin-Tandon pointed out an error he had made in the work, in a way that can not really leave any doubt that it had then been published (https://books.google.com/books?id=0O0rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122).
In 1857, he indicated that Webb & Berthelot had handled him the bird specimens to start the work in 1841 (https://books.google.com/books?id=sPBDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA489 ).

Thus it would appear that:

• Fringilla teydea is available from pl. 1, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308182, the first Isis review says 1835, in any case not later than 1837;
• Columba laurivora is available from pl. 3, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308194, not later than 1839;
• Fringilla tintillon and Procellaria columbina are available from pl. 4, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308196, not later than 1839;
• Thalassidroma hypoleuca is available from p. 45, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308214, possibly 1841, perhaps later given that the 1842 Isis review does not cite it, not before 1841 based on a published statement by one of the author, in any case not before 1840 based on internal evidence.

The pigeon name being available from the plate is a bit problematic. This name is not in use because, in the text (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41308191), it is presented as a new name for Columba trocaz Heineken 1829, hence is deemed to apply to the Madeiran species. ("Le docteur Heineken est le premier qui ait signalé cette Colombe; il l'a décrite en lui conservant le nom vulgaire de Trocaz, mais sans lui imposer de nom latin scientifique. Nous n'avons pas conservé cette dernière dénomination, qui nous a paru trop vague, et nous adopterons l'épithète latine de laurivora, qui nous parait très-caractéristique, puisqu'elle indique une des principales habitudes de l'oiseau.") If the plate was published first, this name must stand based on what the plate offers: the illustrated birds are the types, and the name should apply to one of them. These birds are both from the Canaries (the specimens were still extant in 2005, see Voisin et al 2005, p. 844: http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/z2005n4a7.pdf), one is a Bolle's Pigeon, the other a Laurel Pigeon, here misinterpreted as the male and female of a unique species. laurivora is senior to both bollii Godman 1872, and junoniae Hartert 1916, which are in use for these two species; it was in use in the early 20th C, thus cannot be dismissed as a nomen oblitum.

 

[l_raty]

Evenhuis NL. 2019. Revised dates of publication for the Zoologie portion of Webb & Berthelot’s Histoire Naturelle des Îles Canaries (1836–1844). Sherbornia, 5: 157-165.
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/sherbornia/issues/s05-02.pdf

Fringilla teydea, plate 1, 7 Mar 1836.
Columba laurivora, plate 3, 20 Nov 1837.
Fringilla tintillon and Procellaria columbina, plate 4, 2 Jul 1838.
Thalassidroma hypoleuca, text only, p. 45, 25 May 1842.

 

[mb1848]

Thank you Laurent! Bird Forum is not published but Evenhuis 2019 is. July 1838 !
F. DuCane Godman in 1870 thought canaria and canariensis were confusing and recommended Webb Berthelot Moquin-Tandon name should be used.
https://archive.org/stream/naturalhistorya00godmgoog#page/n39/mode/2up .