BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3957393" data-attributes="member: 24811">A couple of family-group name issues...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Estrildinae (Bonaparte, 1850) (clade A). Referred taxa: Brunhilda, Coccopygia, Cryptospiza, Estrilda, Delacourella, Glaucestrilda, Mandingoa, Nesocharis, Nigrita and Parmoptila.</li> </ul>In my notes, Estrildidae/Estrildinae dates from Blyth 1846, not from Bonaparte 1850.- Estrildinae (subfamily) : Blyth E. 1846. Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds. [Continued from Vol. XIV, p.602]. J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 15: 1-54.; p. 36; <a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40122571" target="_blank">https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40122571</a><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lagonostictinae (Steiner, 1960) (clade B). Referred taxa: Clytospiza, Euschistospiza, Granatina, Hypargos, Lagonosticta, Pyrenestes, Pytilia, Spermophaga and Uraeginthus.</li> </ul>Steiner 1960 used an apparent plural “Lagonostictae” only once in his text, when discussing his so-called "Tribus Didymostictae", in a sentence saying that the species [Clytospiza] cinereo-vinacea of this group leads to "Lagonostictae". He did not adopt such a group in his classification at a supra-generic rank; he placed Lagonosticta in Tribus Estrildae, which he directly subdivided into two genera, Lagonosticta and Estrilda; under Estrildae, Steiner re-affirmed a link beween Clyptospiza cinereo-vinacea and "Lagonosticta", this time using the generic name in the singular. I do not see that "Lagonostictae" was "clearly used as a scientific name to denote a suprageneric taxon and not merely as a plural noun or adjective referring to the members of a genus" (11.7.1.2.) by Steiner and, if not, it is not a family-group name. Additionally, the purported taxon was not given a diagnosis, in a work published after 1830, and I am unaware that the name was adopted by any subsequent author before 2000 : thus I'm not at all sure that the exception offered by Art 13.2.1 for family-group names published after 1830 but before 1961 can be deemed to apply. My current impression is that this name doesn't exist at all.Why not Pyrenestinae Bonaparte 1854 ? (Please not "Pytiliinae Bonaparte 1840".)- "Lagonostictae" (not adopted at any suprageneric rank) : Steiner H. 1960. Klassifikation der Prachtfinken, Spermestidae, auf Grund der Rachenzeichnungen ihrer Nestlinge. J. Ornithol. 101: 92-112; p. 96; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634</a>- Pyrenesteae (group) : Bonaparte CL. 1854. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., sér.4, 1: 105-152.; p. 115; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35982400" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35982400</a>- ("Pytiliidae Bonaparte 1840" apud Bock 1994 <a href="http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830" target="_blank">http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830</a> = Pytilinae (subfamily) : Bonaparte CL. 1840. A new systematic arrangement of the vertebrate animals. Trans. Linn. Soc. London 18: 247-304.; p. 271; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4862456" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/4862456</a> ; see the diagnosis: short, thick, subtriangular bill, 9 primaries only... The type of this group is obviously not the delicate and 10-primaried Estrildid Pytilia Swainson, it is Pitylus Cuvier 1829. I have yet to see an available family-group name based on Pytilia.)<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Amandavinae (Steiner, 1960) (clade C). Referred taxa: Amadina, Amandava, Ortygospiza and tentatively Paludipasser.</li> </ul>This one seems available from Steiner 1960, but it is not currently in use. Why should the senior name Amadininae Bonaparte 1854 be discarded ?- Amandavae (tribe) : Steiner H. 1960. Klassifikation der Prachtfinken, Spermestidae, auf Grund der Rachenzeichnungen ihrer Nestlinge. J. Ornithol. 101: 92-112; p. 103; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634</a>- Amadineae (group) : Bonaparte CL. 1854. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Ann. Sci. Nat. Zool., sér.4, 1: 105-152.; p. 115; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35982400" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35982400</a><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Erythrurinae (Delacour, 1943) (clade D). Referred taxa: Chloebia and Erythrura.</li> </ul>This one is OK.- Erythrurae (tribe) : Delacour J. 1943. A revision of the subfamily Estrildinae of the family Ploceidae. Zoologica (New York) 28: 69-86.; p. 71; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51008604" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51008604</a><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lonchurinae (Steiner, 1960) (clade E). Referred taxa: Euodice, Lepidopygia, Lonchura, Mayrimunia, Padda, and Spermestes.</li> </ul>This name is available from Steiner 1960 too, and is in use, so I guess it would be best retained... I'm not that sure this is what the Code says, though. (Bock 1994 treated it as taking precedence from its senior synonym Spermestinae Cabanis 1847 as per what is now Art. 40.2 (<a href="http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830" target="_blank">http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830</a>; p. 156 : "LONCHURINAE Steiner, 1960 (1847)"); however, this would be true only if Cabanis' name had been "replaced before 1961 because of the synonymy of the type genus"; Steiner 1960 (see the work's title) created a new tribe Lonchurae which he placed in the family Spermestidae, thus he did not "replace" this last name with the first one in any meaningful way. All the subsequent uses of the name date from after 1960, and are thus too late for 40.2 to apply. Spermestidae can certainly not be claimed to be a nomen oblitum.)- Lonchurae (tribe) : Steiner H. 1960. Klassifikation der Prachtfinken, Spermestidae, auf Grund der Rachenzeichnungen ihrer Nestlinge. J. Ornithol. 101: 92-112; p. 96, 107; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634</a>- Spermestinae (subfamily) : Cabanis J. 1847. Ornithologische Notizen. Arch. Naturgesch. 13: 186-256;308-352.; p. 331; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14785301" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14785301</a><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Poephilinae (Mayr, Paynter & Traylor, 1968) (clade F). Referred taxa: Aidemosyne, Bathilda, Emblema, Heteromunia, Neochmia, Oreostruthus, Poephila, Stagonopleura, Stizoptera and Taeniopygia.</li> </ul>Introduced after 1960 without a single word of description -- the name, as used by Mayr, Paynter & Traylor 1968, is a pure nomen nudum, it can certainly not be cited from there. Is there a better source (with a decent diagnonis) somewhere else ?Zonaeginthinae Steiner 1960 applies to the same group (Zonaeginthus is a syn. of Stagonopleura in the adopted classification), and is available.- Poephilae (unranked group) : Mayr E, Paynter RA, Traylor MA. 1968. Family Estrildidae. Pp. 306-390 in: Paynter RA (Ed.). 1968. Check-list of birds of the world. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. Volume XIV. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA.; p. 352; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14481553" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14481553</a>- Zonaeginthae (tribe) : Steiner H. 1960. Klassifikation der Prachtfinken, Spermestidae, auf Grund der Rachenzeichnungen ihrer Nestlinge. J. Ornithol. 101: 92-112; p. 106; <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01670634</a></blockquote>

Verification