HBW-BirdLife Version 7.0 (December 2022) (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kovalik]

HBW-BirdLife Version 7.0 (December 2022) - current version, with subspecies available to download there

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

HBW-BirdLife Version 7.0 (December 2022) - current version, with subspecies available to download there

Unfortunately, they put the Bluethroat and the White-bellied Redstart in Luscinia 😔😔 but why ? To comply to Clements taxonomy?
This is a recurring comment because when I look at the HBW list, this is the first thing I look at as I consider it phylogenetic heresy

 

[Paul Clapham]

Oddly, they changed the English names of the species in Pseudoseisura back to "Cachalote", after just recently changing them to "Cacholote" to agree with everybody else. And they also reverted "Coopmans's Elaenia" to "Coopman's". Looks like maybe a glitch in generating the spreadsheets?

Also the new genus for Abbott's Starling came out as "Arizelospar" instead of "Arizelopsar". Looks like a typo to me.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I could kvetch about English names a lot more. However, the only innovations I see (by which I mean new splits which I haven't seen in the other major taxonomies) is to split White Tern Gygis alba into Atlantic and Pacific species, and to split the "Elanine kites" into a new family Elanidae.

 

[Ian Lewis]

I could kvetch about English names a lot more. However, the only innovations I see (by which I mean new splits which I haven't seen in the other major taxonomies) is to split White Tern Gygis alba into Atlantic and Pacific species, and to split the "Elanine kites" into a new family Elanidae.

I presume the 'Little' White Tern of the Marquesas is already split on that list. If not the division just between Atlantic and Pacific seems a bit bizarre.

I suppose the Indian Ocean population is part of 'Pacific' White Tern. Perhaps a better English name should be sought.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I presume the 'Little' White Tern of the Marquesas is already split on that list. If not the division just between Atlantic and Pacific seems a bit bizarre.

I suppose the Indian Ocean population is part of 'Pacific' White Tern. Perhaps a better English name should be sought.

Yes, Little White Tern is already split. The other recently-split species are Common White Tern and Atlantic White Tern, with ranges as you would expect. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

 

[Paul Clapham]

This version uses Eulacestomatidae for the family to which Wattled Ploughbill belongs. This is correct since Schodde and Christidis 2014 declared it to be so, and all major taxonomies are using that now. However Eulacestomidae was widely used before Schodde and Christidis, and it's still in use on the BirdLife Data Zone and Red List websites.

 

[l_raty]

This version uses Eulacestomatidae for the family to which Wattled Ploughbill belongs. This is correct since Schodde and Christidis 2014 declared it to be so, and all major taxonomies are using that now. However Eulacestomidae was widely used before Schodde and Christidis, and it's still in use on the BirdLife Data Zone and Red List websites.

Was it ? I find Eulacestomidae used by Winkler et al 2015 (Bird families of the world) and Del Hoyo & Collar 2016 (in the 2nd vol. of the HBW/BLI Illustrated Checklist) but both were after Schodde & Christidis 2014.

NB: A family Eulacestomatidae was already used in:

Stein GHW. 1936. Ornithologische Ergebnisse der Expedition Stein 1931–1932. V. Beiträge zur Biologie papuanischer Vögel. J. Ornithol., 84: 21-57.​

V. Beiträge zur Biologie papuanischer Vögel - Journal of Ornithology / https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Journal-fuer-Ornithologie_84_1936_0021-0057.pdf​

Stein merely used the name, without describing the taxon.
Any new name proposed after 1930 (and not proposed in replacement of an already available name) must in principle be accompanied by either a description, or a reference to a previously published description; except that a family-group name, if proposed before 1961, will nevertheless be "available from its original publication only if it was used as valid before 2000, and also was not rejected by an author who, after 1960 and before 2000, expressly applied Article 13 of the then current editions of the Code" (ICZN 13.2.1). (Which always leaves me a bit perplex, actually. Article 13.2.1 is conventionally interpreted as meaning that the name should have been used again before 2000 to be available from the work where it was used first, and it seems reasonable to think that this was the intended meaning. However... The "again" is, actually, lacking in the article.)

 

[Paul Clapham]

Was it ? I find Eulacestomidae used by Winkler et al 2015 (Bird families of the world) and Del Hoyo & Collar 2016 (in the 2nd vol. of the HBW/BLI Illustrated Checklist) but both were after Schodde & Christidis 2014.

I found it in John H. Boyd's Taxonomy In Flux 2008 updates, but otherwise everything else I found was post 2014. So it's widely used, and it was used before 2014, but not neccesarily both.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

John H. Boyd's

Besides, what becomes of him?

 

[mb1848]

Google search seems to think that Eulacestomatidae was used in October 1999 Schodde & Mason

DIRECTORY OF AUSTRALIAN BIRDS: PASSERINES. But I have not proved that. Also not necessary under the Code? I looked at the French version of the Code and did not find "again" "encore" type language in that version of that code section. Are both versions of the family name formed according to the Code Article 29?​

Laurent said Stein merely used the name, without describing the taxon. He described the bird he saw as lanius-like. (Lanius-artig) Since there is only one species in the family this description of the subspecies is also a description of the family.

 

[Mysticete]

Besides, what becomes of him?

I assume he's been busy with work. As a fellow prof, university level teaching has been a nightmare since the pandemic, as a lot of students are are coming to college without the skills they need to do well. He might rather be spending his free time birding than writing about bird taxonomy...

 

[l_raty]

Google search seems to think that Eulacestomatidae was used in October 1999 Schodde & Mason
DIRECTORY OF AUSTRALIAN BIRDS: PASSERINES. But I have not proved that. Also not necessary under the Code? I looked at the French version of the Code and did not find "again" "encore" type language in that version of that code section.

Any use of the name in a pre-2000 publication other than Stein 1936 would automatically make it available from the latter. But I don't think Schodde & Mason 1999 used it. (They had Eulacestoma in Pachycephalidae and did not define subfamilies in this family, so far as I can assess from Google Books.)

As I wrote above, Art. 13.2.1 is usually understood as if it included "again" -- even though it doesn't. (Without the "again", the requirement could only affect family-group names published without a description after 1930 and before 1961, not used as valid when first published, not subsequently used as valid before 2000, but treated as senior homonyms before 1961. This is at best an extremely rare situation (I know no actual examples), and one might be entitled to wonder why the Code would bother providing a special rule for it. In all the other cases, a name that fails to meet the requirement of Art. 13.2.1 as a result of not having been used at all before 2000 (not even in the OD) is unavailable due to a failure to meet the provisions of Art. 11.5 or 11.6 in the first place, anyway : Art. 13.2.1 changes nothing to its status.)

Are both versions of the family name formed according to the Code Article 29?

Eulacestoma ends in the Greek word στομα (= mouth), genitive στοματος, stem στοματ-. Thus the stem of the genus-group name under Art. 29.3 (i.e., 29.3.1) is Eulacestomat-.
The use of Eulacestom- as the stem (i.e., Eulacestomidae as the name of the family) would be justified either if this stem had been originally used in a name proposed after 1999 (29.4; but Schodde & Christidis 2014 used Eulacestomatidae, so this could not possibly apply), or if this stem was in prevailing use (29.5).

Laurent said Stein merely used the name, without describing the taxon. He described the bird he saw as lanius-like. (Lanius-artig) Since there is only one species in the family this description of the subspecies is also a description of the family.

"Lanius-artig", as such, does not fulfill the requirement of Art. 13.1 "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon". You cannot make a name available by describing the taxon as being merely "like" another taxon.

 

[gusasp]

I notice BLI have finally rearranged the hummingbirds. However, contra eBird, NACC, SACC and IOC, they keep Indigo-capped (and Guanacaste) in Amazilia, not including them in Saucerottia. In some ways understandable since McGuire have them unsampled. But why in these merging times go against everybody else? And they’re thought to be close to Steely-vented, aren’t they?

Even weirder is keeping Andean Emerald in Amazilia, sampled in McGuire and not part of Amazilia s.s. A lapse or do they know something I don’t?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

there

The link is down. I wanted to access the page which gives the taxonomic notes of each species

 

[TomDerutter]

Looks like an IT issue on their side