• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Columbiformes (1 Viewer)

So, let's forget Columbigallina Oken.

the only unknown is the phylogenetic position of Columbina cyanopis, which is temporarily placed in subgenus Oxypelua
Spilopelia senegalensis

Does anyone know what subspecies of Spilopelia senegalensis (Laughing Dove) the populations in SW Asia (Turkey, Israel, etc.) belong to? IOC and HBW don't say, HBW on the pretext that they may be introduced there.

Paraclaravis, a new genus for the Purple-winged and Maroon-chested Ground-doves (Aves: Columbidae)



Previous molecular phylogenetic analyses and new analyses reported here demonstrate that the genus Claravis is not monophyletic and comprises two lineages, one with the species pretiosa Ferrari-Pérez, 1886 (Blue Ground-dove), and the other with two species: geoffroyi Temminck, 1811 (Purple-winged Ground-dove) and mondetoura Bonaparte, 1856 (Maroon-chested Ground-dove). Because the generic name Claravis is typified by C. pretiosa (Ferrari-Pérez, 1886), a new genus, Paraclaravis gen. nov., is described for geoffroyi Temminck, 1811 and mondetoura Bonaparte, 1856.


I predicted this genus in my checklist, maybe I should publish one day |:S|

I have split Columbina into more subgenera but I don't know if Columbigallina Boie, 1826 is preoccupied by Columbigallina Oken, 1817

IOC Updates Diary Apr 4

Move Purple-winged Ground Dove and Maroon-chested Ground Dove from Claravis to Paraclaravis gen. nov.
Pucheran 1853

Pampusanna vs. Pampusana: a nomenclatural conundrum resolved, along with associated errors and oversights
Murray Bruce, Norbert Bahr & Normand David
Bull BOC 2016 - 136(2): 86-100.

Pampusanna Pucheran, 1854
There is a number of other things in this paper that I think could be disputed, but I will deal here only with the date adopted for the work where this name -- along with many others -- was introduced :
Jacquinot H, Pucheran J. 1853. Mammifères et oiseaux. Zoologie. Tome troisième. In: Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes l'Astrolabe et la Zélée; exécuté par ordre du Roi pendant les années 1837-1838-1839-1840, sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont-d'Urville, Capitaine de Vaisseau. Gide & J Baudry, Paris.
The vast majority of ornithological resources use 1853 (the date stated on the title page), albeit ITIS currently uses 1854. A case favouring 3 March 1854 was presented in:
Clark PF, Crosnier A. 2000. The zoology of the Voyage au pôle sud et dans l'Océanie sur les corvettes I'Astrolabe et la Zélée exécuté par ordre du roi pendant les années 1837-1838-1839-1840 sous le commandement de M. Dumont-d'Urville (1842-1854): titles, volumes, plates, text, contents, proposed dates and anecdotal history of the publication. Arch. Nat. Hist, 27: 407-435.​
...who, however, based their recommendation exclusively on their failure to find external evidence that the work had been published before this date. Clark & Crosnier checked the journal Bibliographie de la France (which did not record the publication of this volume, and can only be used to show that the the 5 text volumes covering zoology, and thus this one, were already in existence on 4 Nov 1854; https://books.google.com/books?id=8w2I6CxVfvQC&pg=PA782), and copies of the work found in various libraries. This led them to write:
All that can be concluded from this information is that volume III and IV might have been published at the end of 1853 but that the earliest certain date is 3 March 1854.
It should probably be obvious, from the above, that the recommendation has always been moot at best. Art. 21.2 of the ICZN states quite clearly that "The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary." An absence of confirming evidence is no "evidence to the contrary": in the absence of additional factual evidence, a work that "might have been published at the end of 1853" and that has "1853" printed on its title page should in principle be treated as published on 31 Dec 1853.

In fact, Pucheran's work can be shown, reasonably straightforwardly, to have been published on 10 October 1853, when a copy was presented to the Académie des Sciences in Paris, on behalf of the author, by Charles Lucien Bonaparte -- which is recorded in:
  • Bonaparte CL. 1853. [Présentation à l'Académie, de la part de M. Pucheran, naturaliste attaché au Muséum, le volume de la Zoologie du voyage au pôle sud de l'Astrolabe et la Zélée, qui traite des Mammifères et des Oiseaux, et dont il est l'auteur.] C. R. Hebd. Séan. Acad Sci. Paris, 37: 543; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1216761
  • [Anonymous]. 1853. Bulletin bibliographique. C. R. Hebd. Séan. Acad Sci. Paris, 37: 549-552; p. 550; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1217329 .
I think you are fully correct, Laurent ...

You're backed up by Mathews (1925), here, with the same claim: "... Oct. 10th, 1853."

Also confirmed by Hartlaub (1854); Bericht über die Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der Vögel während des Jahres 1853 (here, see pp.68-69).

To me it sure looks like Pucheran's (and Jacquinot's) volume, covering the Mammifères et oiseaux truly was available, in print, at least in (or shortly prior to, 10th of October) 1853.



PS. Gallica/BnF(Biblioteque national de France) says "Date d'édition: 1853" [here, see Info (Informations détaillées)], the Catalogue de la bibliothèque à la date du 31 décembre 1890 (here, p.370) says: "1853", and Zoonomen* agree (here, with a comment/reference to Clark and Crosnier!?): "Vol. III contains all text rel. to birds [...] III, 1853", ... and onwards.

*Note; Zoonomen gives "1854" for vol. 5 (Zoologie), covering Mollusques (Coquilles et Zoophytes),
all Non-Birds, and as such irrelevant to us. Maybe this is where the ITIS crew got a bit lost?
What is Bonaparte's role? If he donated an early published document given to him to comment on is this published?
What is Bonaparte's role? If he donated an early published document given to him to comment on is this published?
I see nothing suggesting this type of scenario.

As I understand it, in this period, Bonaparte attended the séances of the Académie on a quite régular base, and also spent a lot of time studying the bird collections at the Muséum. Pucheran did not usually attend the séances and worked at the Muséum, where he presumably met Bonaparte frequently. So there is nothing really surprising in Bonaparte having "passed" a work by Pucheran to the Académie, in a séance that he was going to attend anyway.
The book was simply "presented" (= offered) to the Académie; there were no questions or requests accompanying this action.
In the Bulletin bibliographique, nothing suggests that the work might not have been a completed book.
David N., Elliott A. & Bruce M.D. (2021). The valid specific name of Sulawesi's Maroon-chined Fruit Dove: gularis Quoy & Gaimard, 1832

We present evidence demonstrating that the combination Columba gularis Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, is not preoccupied by Columba gularis Wagler, 1827, and is available. It should be used as the valid specific name of the taxon rather than the replacement name Leucotreron epia Oberholser, 1918

I changed the scientific name of the ''Ptilope à mentonnière'' to Ramphiculus gularis (Quoy & Gaimard, 1832)
Last edited:
Sounds rational. The ornithologists of that age did send parts of works to each othe. My only contribution to Priority is showing that Blyth got parts to the second volume of Horsefield and Moore before the book was published.
Page 195 of:
https://books.google.com/books?id=2MqgAAAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
A work is published when several identical issues are available for free or for purchase! That Bonaparte presented one copy to the Academie is no evidence for publication in the sence of the Code.

DeRaad, D.A., Manthey, J.D., Ostrow, E.N., DeCicco, L.H., Andersen, M.J., Hosner, P.A., Shult, H., Joseph, L., Dumbacher, J.P., Moyle, R.G., Population connectivity across a highly fragmented distribution: phylogeography of the Chalcophaps doves, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2021), doi: Redirecting


Chalcophaps is a morphologically conserved genus of ground-walking doves distributed from India to mainland China, south to Australia, and across the western Pacific to Vanuatu. Here, we reconstruct the evolutionary history of this genus using DNA sequence data from two nuclear genes and one mitochondrial gene, sampled from throughout the geographic range of Chalcophaps. We find support for three major evolutionary lineages in our phylogenetic reconstruction, each corresponding to the three currently recognized Chalcophaps species. Despite this general concordance, we identify discordant mitochondrial and nuclear ancestries in the subspecies C. longirostris timorensis, raising further questions about the evolutionary history of this Timor endemic population. Within each of the three species, we find evidence for isolation by distance or hierarchical population structure, indicating an important role for geography in the diversification of this genus. Despite being distributed broadly across a highly fragmented geographic region known as a hotspot for avian diversification, the Chalcophaps doves show modest levels of phenotypic and genetic diversity, a pattern potentially explained by strong population connectivity owing to high overwater dispersal capability.
Forgive the trumpet-blowing, but my Key to Scientific Names, available free for viewing on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Birds of the World site, is a complete alphabetical listing of genera and specific names (old and current) explaining their etymologies and usages (Carpophaga is shown below);

Gr. καρπος karpos fruit; -φαγος -phagos -eating < φαγειν phagein to eat.
• (Columbidae; syn. Ducula Green Imperial Pigeon D. aenea) "GENUS CARPOPHAGA, — SELBY. ... Their food consists of fruits and berries. That of the precious nutmeg, or rather its soft covering, known to us by the name of Mace, at certain seasons affords a favourite repast to some species, and upon this luxurious diet they become so loaded with fat, as frequently when shot to burst asunder when they fall to the ground. ... MAGNIFICENT FRUIT-PIGEON. Carpophaga magnifica. ... In form and character it agrees with the Carpophaga ænea, or Nutmeg Pigeon, and also with the Carpophaga oceanica, the subject of our next plate. ... OCEANIC FRUIT-PIGEON. Carpophaga oceanica. ... Besides the species already mentioned, the Carpophaga hyogastra, Carpophaga pinon, Carpophaga luctuosa, and many others belong, to this beautiful group." (Selby 1835); "Carpophaga Selby, 1835, in Jardine, The Naturalist's Library, IX, Ornithology. Pigeons, p. 112 (not of Billberg, 1828). Type, by subsequent designation (G. Gray, 1840, List Genera Birds, p. 57 ), Carpophaga aenea Selby, i.e. Columba aenea Linnaeus, 1766." (JAJ 2021).
Var. Carpophega, Carpophoga, Carpophagus.
• (Cuculidae; syn. Phaenicophaeus † Crimson-faced Malkoha P. pyrrhocephalus). "BUCCONIDES, rostro integerrimo: ... 4. Carpophaga B. (Phoenicophæus Vieillot)." (Billberg 1828); "Carpophaga Billberg, 1828, Synopsis Faunae Scandinaviae, I (ii), tab. A. New name for Phoenicophaeus, i.e. Phoenicophaus Vieillot, 1816 = Phaenicophaeus Stephens, 1815." (JAJ 2021).

Users who are viewing this thread