Thus norfolkensis and norfolciensis are deemed identical, and the latter does preoccupy the former if they are congeneric...Article 58. Variant spellings of species-group names deemed to be identical. Species-group names established for different nominal taxa that differ in spelling only in any of the following respects and that are of the same derivation and meaning are deemed to be homonyms when the nominal taxa they denote are included in the same genus or collective group:
[...]
58.5. use of c or k for the same letter (e.g. microdon, mikrodon);
[...]
58.15. presence or absence of -i before a suffix or termination (e.g. timorensis, timoriensis; comstockana, comstockiana).
But what applies here is:As I understand, the Latham name is surpressed, so the name is not valid anymore, a nomina nova was proposed, and the new name does not have to take into account the old name that has been surpressed, the name no longer excists. It cannot be that in this case norfolciensis must be taken into account. So I think the name of the taxon must be Alopecoenas norfolkensis Forshaw, 2015 and all the rules of the ICZN are met.
I might be wrong, of course, the ways of God are inscrutable, but are nothing compared to those of the government (in this case the ICZN).
...and the relevant ruling(s) don't say that the name no longer exists; they say (Opinion 2251 [abstract]):80.7.1. A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s).
Ergo, the name is suppressed only for the purposes of the Principle of Priority; it still exists as far as homonymy is concerned.Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the name norfolciensis Latham, 1801, as published in the binomen Columba norfolciensis, is hereby suppressed for the Purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name norfolciensis Latham, 1801, as published in the binomen Columba norfolciensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
This specimen is the type of Geotrygon coeruleiceps Lawrence 1868.Specimen/Lot
Catalog Number: USNM 51266
Special Collections: Types
Specimen Count: 1
Current Identification: Geotrygon chiriquensis
Other Identifications: Geotrygon linearis chiriquensis
Geotrygon coeruleiceps Lawrence
Type Status: Type
Type Citations: Lawrence. (Not Earlier Than April) 1868. Ann. Lyc. Nat. Hist. New York. 9: 136.
Common Name: Chiriqui Quail-Dove
Date Collected: 15 Apr 1867https://www.birdforum.net/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=3749917
Country: Costa Rica
Province/State: Cartago
Precise Locality: Cervantes
Expedition: Explorations In Costa Rica, Dr. A. Von Frantzius
Collector(s): Zeledon, J. C.
Field Number(s): 273
Sex/Stage:
Sex Stage Remarks
Female Adult
Preparation Details:
Preparation Remarks
Skin: Whole
EZID: http://n2t.net/ark:/65665/37e4c3221-5f67-4b2c-92d9-a3f897a00721
Paraclaravis, a new genus for the Purple-winged and Maroon-chested Ground-doves (Aves: Columbidae)
Excellent. I don't have access to this paper, does anyone know which species is designated as the type of Paraclaravis?
I have the paper, the type species is C. mondetoura
My take on Oken 1817 would be that no bird names are available from it.I have split Columbina into more subgenera but I don't know if Columbigallina Boie, 1826 is preoccupied by Columbigallina Oken, 1817