l_raty
laurent raty
Diplura / Diplocercus Jerdon 1864: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36723548
Dipluravis Strand 1910: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33058073
These names are cited in the Key as "(syn. Mycteria Ϯ Painted Stork M. leucocephala)"
But the type as per Jerdon 1864 ("Ciconia leucocephala, Gmelin" | "Ardea apud Gmelin.--Pl. Enl. 906.") is actually Ardea leucocephala Gmelin 1789, based on Pl. Enlum. 906, which is a junior objective synonym of Ardea episcopus Boddaert 1783. Thus Jerdon's names appear to be synonyms of Ciconia, and objective synonyms of Dissoura Cabanis 1850 (which is indeed also synonymous with them in terms of etymological meaning), with Woolly-necked Stork as their type.
In the case of Dipluravis, Strand made the same mistake as in the Key (or maybe he was the source of that mistake ?) and cited Tantalus leucocephalus "Forster" (i.e., Pennant in Forster 1769) as the type of Diplura Jerdon. However, his Dipluravis is unquestionably a nomen novum, and his type statement is simply incorrect and must be ignored. (Cf. ICZN 67.8 -- "the prior nominal taxon and its replacement have the same type species, and type fixation for either applies also to the other, despite any statement to the contrary".)
(I also note that the Key currently does not quote directly from Strand 1910, so I'm not sure that the OD was actually 'seen'.)
Dipluravis Strand 1910: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33058073
These names are cited in the Key as "(syn. Mycteria Ϯ Painted Stork M. leucocephala)"
But the type as per Jerdon 1864 ("Ciconia leucocephala, Gmelin" | "Ardea apud Gmelin.--Pl. Enl. 906.") is actually Ardea leucocephala Gmelin 1789, based on Pl. Enlum. 906, which is a junior objective synonym of Ardea episcopus Boddaert 1783. Thus Jerdon's names appear to be synonyms of Ciconia, and objective synonyms of Dissoura Cabanis 1850 (which is indeed also synonymous with them in terms of etymological meaning), with Woolly-necked Stork as their type.
In the case of Dipluravis, Strand made the same mistake as in the Key (or maybe he was the source of that mistake ?) and cited Tantalus leucocephalus "Forster" (i.e., Pennant in Forster 1769) as the type of Diplura Jerdon. However, his Dipluravis is unquestionably a nomen novum, and his type statement is simply incorrect and must be ignored. (Cf. ICZN 67.8 -- "the prior nominal taxon and its replacement have the same type species, and type fixation for either applies also to the other, despite any statement to the contrary".)
(I also note that the Key currently does not quote directly from Strand 1910, so I'm not sure that the OD was actually 'seen'.)
Last edited:
