• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Icteridae (1 Viewer)

Good idea. They do the same for Endomychura / Synthliboramphus, it will make me happy. ;) YOLO

Have you read the whole article ?

Zootaxa is a very interesting web journal but unfortunately it's not free.

Can we split Psarocolius into two subgenera Psarocolius and Gymnostinops ?
 
Last edited:
Nomenclatorist said:
Can we split Psarocolius into two subgenera Psarocolius and Gymnostinops ?
Click to expand...
No, you would need more if you want these two names to be valid.

Psarocolius Wagler 1827 [OD], 42 originally included species (33 arranged into two section, the first subdivided into two subsection, the second into 5 subsections, plus 9 species that he had not seen and didn't know where they belonged within the genus -- but that are included unconditionally nonetheless); no original type fixation; type species, by subsequent designation of Gray 1855 [here], Oriolus cristatus Gmelin 1788 [OD] (nec Forster 1781 [OD]) (cited in the OD as "Oriolus cristatus Auctor. (exclusis varietatibus α et β)" (typo for "β et γ"?)), a junior synonym of Xanthornus decumanus Pallas 1769 [OD], now Psarocolius decumanus (Pallas 1769).

Gymnostinops Sclater 1886 [OD], originally included nominal species Cacicus montezuma Lesson 1830 [OD], Cassicus bifasciatus Spix 1840 [OD], Ostinops guatimozinus Bonaparte 1853 [OD], Cassicus yuracares d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1838 [OD]; no original type fixation; type species, by subsequent designation of Ridgway 1902 [here]: Cacicus montezuma Lesson.


The phylogeny that is accepted by Remsen et al. is that of Powell et al 2014 [pdf]. For oropendolas, they found:
[ (P. wagleri, [P. angustifrons,P. atrovirens]) ; (P. decumanus, [P. viridis, Gymnostinops sensu Sclater]) ]
​
If this phylogeny is correct, recognising Gymnostinops implies that (1) Psarocolius must be restricted to P. decumanus only, and (2) you must recognise at least an additional subgenus for the wagleri, angustifrons and atrovirens clade. (Probably Zarhynchus Oberholser 1899 [OD], a new name for Eucorystes Sclater 1883 [OD] (nec Bell 1862 [OD]), type species by original monotypy Cacicus wagleri Gray 1844 [OD]...?) (These three species don't really form a morphologically homogeneous cluster, however.) P. viridis must either go with Gymnostinops or in an additional (unnamed?) monotypic subgenus.
 
Last edited:
l_raty said:
Isn't "Cassicus Illiger 1811" ["OD"] problematic as a type genus? Illiger did not claim this name as new at all, he expressly attributed it to Cuvier, Lacépède and Duméril -- who had previously made it available under the spelling "Cacicus". Additionally, Illiger did not provide any statement to the effect that he had modified the spelling intentionally, he did not cite the correct OS, and Cacicus => Cassicus is not a type of change that could be repeated on other names: under the present Code (Art. 33.2.1), the change in spelling cannot even be interpreted as "demonstrably intentional", and "Cassicus Illiger 1811" ends up as an incorrect subsequent spelling (not even an emendation), with exactly zero nomenclatural standing.
Accordingly, I would tend to regard "Cassicus Illiger 1811" as being Cacicus Lacépède 1799 [OD], misspelled by Illiger, and mis-attributed to him by subsequent authors; if so, the stem of the family group name is to be corrected to that of the correct OS of the type genus under Art. 32.5.3.3 (i.e.: it should be Cacicinae Bonaparte 1853).
Click to expand...

Laurent, I think you would have to read all 300 pages of Illiger to see whether he turned any other c into an ss in another genus name to determine if it is an incorrect emendation (i.e. "available name"). It looks like it could be intentional. "Cacicus" in Latin would read 'kakikus' but the c in the original spanish/portuguese is what in French would be a c-cidilla (cacique meaning some form of chief), which would sound like "cassicus". Even if another example could be found, that would not be the end of the issue surely? Because even if it is an incorrect emendation to Cacicus, do you not then go back to Cacicus as the correct spelling of the type genus and usage of Cacicidae anyway?

Thomas
 
Last edited:
To follow on from the above, I would love to bail out Remsen and co, so would argue:

"Cassicus" is without doubt an available name with authorship attributable to Illiger.

See the footnote on page 214 of Illiger:
"Cassicus a maxillae basi, cassidis seu galeae instar frontem tegente, vocatus est, liinc Cacicus
falso scribitur."

He used both forms and said (in his view) that Cacicus is incorrectly written. Minimally Cassicus is an unjustified emendation and an available name.

However, it might even be a valid description. Here is why: Lacépède 1799 may not be a valid description, because it uses the genus name Cacicus but then does not specify any type species (or indeed any species) as part of the genus. So on that basis, it does not seem very compliant with article 12 of the Code, which arguably requires something more than a short morphological diagnosis. Cassicus Iliger may actually be the correct original spelling unless there is other usage of Cacicus before Illiger. (Are we all mis-spelling the genus name instead?)

(The relevant passage on this in Remsen et al.'s paper as justification for Cassicinae not Cacicinae is most unsatisfactory and incomplete, to say the least:

"The other amendment is to Cacicinae Ridgway, 1902
(1853) for the caciques and oropendolas. Bock (1994) used it to replace Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853, because,
under Article 40.2 of the Code, the type genus of Cassicinae (Cassicus Illiger, 1811) had been synonymized with
Cacicus Lacépède, 1799, before 1961. However, that action is justifiable only if Cacicinae is in prevailing use,
which is not the case. Accordingly, we employ Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 as the earliest available name for the
caciques and oropendolas. Although published as Cassiceoe, thus resembling a plural generic name, its use as an
available family-group name is made clear in Bonaparte’s (1853: 642) definition: “groupes intermédiaires … aux
Sous-Familles et aux Genres” (Article 11.7.1.2 of the Code). Its seniority is challenged, nevertheless, by Cassicinae
(as “Cassicinés”) of Chenu & Des Murs (1853: 210), made available under Article 11.7.2 of the Code by later
latinization and use by Desmarest (1857). Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 was notified in its journal of publication as
appearing on 7 November 1853, whereas the volume (5) in which Cassicinés Chenu & Des Murs was published
cannot be dated more precisely than 1853 (Zimmer 1926: 131) = 31 December 1853 under Article 21.2.3 of the
Code.")

They regard Cacicus of Lacepede as the genus name, in which case Cassicus is an attempted emendation under their scheme and not a synonym in its own right. (Unjustified emendations are of course deemed to be available names and junior synonyms.) If that is the case, then it is not clear how article 29 works. You can argue that Cassic- is a misformed stem under Article 29. If that is the case, then Cassic- can only be used if the family name with that stem is in prevailing usage under Article 29.4, not the other way round. I suppose there is another argument that Cassicus is an available name and so a family description based on that name is valid. Having spent far too long breaking my brain over stems based on Ortalis last year, I think you could make either argument based on the current code. What is the "type genus" under Art 29? Is it Cassicus, an unjustified emendation - wrongly spelt but still "available"? Or is the type genus really Cacicus because it cannot be Cassicus by definition because there is no such (valid) genus Cassicus?

Thomas
 
Last edited:
thomasdonegan said:
Or is the type genus really Cacicus because it cannot be Cassicus by definition because there is no such (valid) genus Cassicus?
Click to expand...

Put more simply, Cassicinae is correct if a family name can be based on a genus stem which only has availability by virtue of being an unjustified emendation.

Sabrosky, who probably knew more about family-group names than anyone else, said this: "Errors and emendations are not critical for family-group names. Group names can be based on either and their priority is unaffected; they are simply correctable to the proper spelling."
http://www.online-keys.net/sciaroidea/add01/Thompson_et_al_1999_family_group_names.pdf

Under that interpretation, Cassicinae is not supportable.
 
Last edited:
thomasdonegan said:
Sabrosky, who probably knew more about family-group names than anyone else, said this: "Errors and emendations are not critical for family-group names. Group names can be based on either and their priority is unaffected; they are simply correctable to the proper spelling."
http://www.online-keys.net/sciaroidea/add01/Thompson_et_al_1999_family_group_names.pdf

Under that interpretation, Cassicidae is not supportable.
Click to expand...
I would read:
"32.5.3. A family-group name is an incorrect original spelling and must be corrected if it
[...]
32.5.3.2. is formed from an unjustified emendation of a generic name (unless the unjustified emendation has become a substitute name)"​
...as saying the same thing.
But on the other hand, I would treat statements published under the previous edition of the Code with caution. Changes might have made them incorrect. Under the 3rd edition, usage and original spelling were both mostly irrelevant to determine the correct spelling of a family-group name -- how ever the name had been written by others, or even by their original author if the name was deemed Latin or Greek, they were "simply correctable to the proper spelling". That is not so any more.

You are right about Cassicus being a deliberate emendation, of course -- I really don't know how I missed this footnote... Sorry about this.
 
Last edited:
So, put simply I think we all got here?

The genus Cacicus is attributable to Lacépède 1799 or Daudin 1800.

Cassicus was an unjustified emendation of Cacicus, so is a junior synonym of Cacicus. Cassicus is attributable to Illiger 1811.

Cassiceæ of Bonaparte, 1853 is therefore corrigible to Cacicinae under article 32.5.3.2 of the Code.

The correct subfamily name is:
Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853 emend. Ridgway 1902.

Assuming noone has used it before, Cassicinae is an incorrect emendation and therefore a junior objective synonym of Cacicinae with authorship attributable to Remsen et al. 2016.
 
Last edited:
Yes, except perhaps for the last sentence:
thomasdonegan said:
Assuming noone has used it before, Cassicinae is an incorrect emendation and therefore a junior objective synonym of Cacicinae with authorship attributable to Remsen et al. 2016.
Click to expand...
If "Cassiceae" Bp is an incorrect OS that must be corrected to Cacicinae, the same holds true for "Cassicinae" Remsen et al.
If the application of mandatory corrections results in the same correct spelling, did Remsen et al 2016 really author anything...?
 
ICZN code says:
19.1. Unjustified emendations and incorrect spellings. An unjustified emendation of an available name is itself an available name ...

50.5. Authorship of unjustified emendations. An unjustified emendation is attributed to the author who first publishes it [Art. 33.2.3].

Remsen et al. cite other prior spellings, decide they were wrong and propose as a new spelling "Cassicinae". So theirs is an unjustified emendation and the new spelling is a deemed objective synonym with their authorship.
 
Yes, but it also says:
32.5.3. A family-group name is an incorrect original spelling and must be corrected if it [...] is formed from an unjustified emendation of a generic name ...

32.4. Status of incorrect original spellings. [...] An incorrect original spelling has no separate availability and cannot enter into homonymy or be used as a substitute name.
​
Things are a bit intricate, because "Cassicinae" appears to be BOTH an emended (deliberate) subsequent spelling (of Cacicinae Bonaparte) AND an incorrect (and accidental) original spelling (of Cacicinae Remsen et al.) A name proposed under an incorrect OS should in principle be spelled using its own correct OS (here Cacicinae Remsen et al.). The actual (incorrect) spelling that was used in the OD ("Cassicinae" Remsen et al.) has no nomenclatural standing -- it is not available on its own; its use by its authors does not result in its own spelling being preoccupied; it could not become a valid name under any circumstance.

In effect, "Cassicinae" Remsen et al. just doesn't exist; Remsen et al. appear to have "emended" Cacicinae Bp into Cacicinae Remsen et al.

Note also that "Cassiceae" Bonaparte and "Cassicinae" Remsen et al. differ only in their suffix. If these two names were corrects OS proposed for two distinct taxa, they would be homonyms.
 
Last edited:
RICHARD SCHODDE, J.V., JR REMSEN. Correction of Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 (Aves, Icteridae) to Cacicinae Bonaparte, 1853. Zootaxa, Vol 4162, No 1: 8 Sept. 2016.

Abstract:

In our recently published revised classification of the Icteridae (Remsen et al. 2016), we used the family group name Cassicinae Bonaparte, 1853 on the assumption that its type genus was Cassicus Illiger, 1811. We have since confirmed, after kind advice from Thomas Donegan (pers. comm. 2016), that Cassicus Illiger (1811: 214) is simply an unjustified emendation of Cacicus Lacépède, 1799, made clear by Illiger (l.c.) in a footnote to his description of Cassicus. Under Articles 32.5.3.2 and 35.4.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), a family-group name formed from an unjustified emendation of the name of its type genus is to be corrected, unless the emendation has come into use as a substitute name or through prevailing use. This is not the case here, and accordingly we correct the spelling of Cassicinae to Cacicinae. Bonaparte (1853) retains authorship; and, although not expressly mentioned before, his originally ligatured suffix -eoe for the name was automatically corrected by us (Remsen et al. l.c.) under Articles 11.7.1.3 and 32.5.3 of the Code (ICZN l.c.).
 
Zootaxa

Variation of plumage patterns, geographic distribution and taxonomy of the Unicolored Blackbird (Aves: Icteridae)
LEONARDO ESTEVES LOPES

Abstract

The Unicolored Blackbird Agelasticus cyanopus (Vieillot, 1819) is a marsh bird with four allopatric subspecies restricted to lowlands in South America east of the Andes. I conducted a taxonomic revision of the species based on analysis of external morphological characters of 288 study skins, including all types available. My revision shows that: 1) Leistes unicolor Swainson, 1838, is a senior synonym of A. c. xenicus (Parkes, 1966) and, therefore, the correct name of the taxon should be A. c. unicolor (Swainson, 1838); 2) the range of A. c. unicolor (Swainson, 1838) is much wider than previously thought, extending from the mouth of the Rio Amazonas to the state of São Paulo, in southeastern Brazil, where it intergrades with A. c. atroolivaceus (zu Wied-Neuwied, 1831); 3) A. c. atroolivaceus extends its range well beyond the coast of Rio de Janeiro, reaching the coast of São Paulo, the central part of Minas Gerais, Bahia and Espírito Santo; and 4) specimens attributed to A. c. beniensis are highly variable, so this name must be considered a subjective junior synonym of the nominotypical taxon. Under the Biological Species Concept, two broadly parapatric species should be recognized, A. cyanopus and A. atroolivaceus (including unicolor as a subspecies). Under the Phylogenetic Species Concept or the General Lineage Concept of Species, the best taxonomic treatment is to recognize three species: A. cyanopus, A. atroolivaceus, and A. unicolor.



Keywords

Aves, Agelasticus cyanopus, intergradation zone, marsh birds, New World blackbirds

http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4221.4.2
 

Similar threads

Markus Lagerqvist
Island radiations
Replies
9
Views
2K
Jacana
Jacana
Mysticete
Parulidae
2 3
Replies
47
Views
10K
Peter Kovalik
Peter Kovalik
TicoTyler
The Fun Taxonomic History of Selasphorus flammula
Replies
14
Views
2K
THE_FERN
T
J
Birding Asia Taxonomy
2
Replies
29
Views
7K
Andy Adcock
Andy Adcock
Fred Ruhe
A juvenile bird with possible crown-group affinities from a dinosaur-rich Cretaceous ecosystem in North America
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top