Dendroplex is no more (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

DID NOT PASS

I would like someone to give me the true type species of the genus Dendroplex to see if I should keep or remove Paludicolaptes

 

[l_raty]

I would like someone to give me the true type species of the genus Dendroplex to see if I should keep or remove Paludicolaptes

In the absence of any counter-argument, I will stick essentially to what I wrote in post #7 above (before having seen the paper) -- i.e. :

If Cuvier 1829 and Swainson 1830 are discounted, then the inclusion of Oriolus picus Gmelin (syn. Gracula picoides Shaw, Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix) in Voigt 1831 (a German adaptation of Cuvier 1829) can be seen as having provided originally included nominal species for Dendroplex Swainson.​

Should Voigt be discarded too (this doesn't really seem tenable to me, but perhaps "wird das Geschlecht seyn" (= will be the genus) could be claimed to be less completely affirmative than "bildet das Geschlecht" (= forms the genus), which Voigt used in a footnote associated to Xiphorhynchus on the next page of his work...?), then the inclusion of the same three nominal species in M'Murtrie 1831 (an American adaptation of Cuvier 1829 -- this appeared later in 1831 than Voigt's work), and later again in [M'Murtrie &] Cuvier 1834 (a British version which, although not attributed to him, appears largely based on M'Murtrie's), would achieve exactly the same result.​

Of the three nominal species included in these works, Oriolus picus Gmelin was validly designated as the type by Gray 1840.​

Neither Voigt 1831, nor M'Murtrie 1831, nor [M'Murtrie &] Cuvier 1834, were discussed by Raposo et al 2018.

It was perfectly expectable that any original uncertainty about Dendroplex (which resulted in the not-fully-affirmative wording used in Cuvier's 1829 text) would have vanished after Swainson 1830 himself had called le Galapiot of Buffon the type of his Dendroplex, in a commentary addressing the content of p. 351 of the main text of Griffith et al 1829, where Oriolus picus Gmelin, Gracula picoides Shaw and Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix had been given as synonyms of le Galapiot. Thus there is nothing surprising in the fact that the wording associating these nominal species to Dendroplex became more affirmative in later translations/adaptations of Cuvier's work.

In 1837, Swainson cited only Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix, but he did not call it the type of the genus, hence his action had no effect whatsoever.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In the absence of any counter-argument, I will stick essentially to what I wrote in post #7 above (before having seen the paper) -- i.e. :

If Cuvier 1829 and Swainson 1830 are discounted, then the inclusion of Oriolus picus Gmelin (syn. Gracula picoides Shaw, Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix) in Voigt 1831 (a German adaptation of Cuvier 1829) can be seen as having provided originally included nominal species for Dendroplex Swainson.​

Should Voigt be discarded too (this doesn't really seem tenable to me, but perhaps "wird das Geslecht seyn" (= will be the genus) could be claimed to be less completely affirmative than "bildet dad Geslecht" (= forms the genus), which Voigt used in a footnote associated to Xiphorhynchus on the next page of his work...?), then the inclusion of the same three nominal species in M'Murtrie 1831 (an American adaptation of Cuvier 1829 -- this appeared later in 1831 than Voigt's work), and later again in [M'Murtrie &] Cuvier 1834 (a British version which, although not attributed to him, appears largely based on M'Murtrie's), would achieve exactly the same result.​

Of the three nominal species included in these works, Oriolus picus Gmelin was validly designated as the type by Gray 1840.​

Neither Voigt 1831, nor M'Murtrie 1831, nor [M'Murtrie &] Cuvier 1834, were discussed by Raposo et al 2018.

It was perfectly expectable that any original uncertainty about Dendroplex (which resulted in the not-fully-affirmative wording used in Cuvier's 1829 text) would have vanished after Swainson 1830 himself had called le Galapiot of Buffon the type of his Dendroplex, in a commentary addressing the content of p. 351 of the main text of Griffith et al 1829, where Oriolus picus Gmelin, Gracula picoides Shaw and Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix had been given as synonyms of le Galapiot. Thus there is nothing surprising in the fact that the wording associating these nominal species to Dendroplex became more affirmative in later translations/adaptations of Cuvier's work.

In 1837, Swainson cited only Dendrocolaptes guttatus Spix, but he did not call it the type of the genus, hence his action had no effect whatsoever.

After reading this I think I'll go back to Dendroplex