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: 3334715" data-attributes="member: 24811">It's a complicated case... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />Previously, when the type genus of a family-group name was synonymized, the family-group name was abandoned, and a new family-group name based on the valid (often senior) synonym was introduced. (Thus newer family-group names were created to replace older ones, and priority among family-group names was basically not taken in consideration.) Priority started to be used for family names in 1962 only. At this point a great many names were in use, that would never have been valid under strict priority rules, as they had been introduced specifically to replace a senior synonym. To avoid an extreme disruption, what is now Art.40.2 was introduced in the Code:Parulidae Wetmore et al. 1947 [<a href="https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v064n03/p0445-p0452.pdf" target="_blank">OD</a>] was introduced to take the place of Compsothlypidae, as a consequence of Compsothlypis Cabanis 1851 having been placed in the synonymy of Parula Bonaparte 1838 (previously thought to be preoccupied by Parulus Spix 1824).Compsothlipidae Oberholser 1919 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22875#page/68/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>] was itself introduced to take the place of Sylvicolidae, as a consequence of Sylvicola Swainson 1827 (preoccupied by Sylvicola Harris 1776 [Diptera] and Sylvicola Huebner 1810 [Mollusca]) having been placed in the synonymy of Compsothlypis Cabanis 1851.Parulidae is in prevailing usage and, given the above, takes the priority of Sylvicolidae.<a href="http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830" target="_blank">Bock 1994</a> attributed Sylvicolidae to "Swainson 1831" (which is the same 1832 work where he also placed Setophagidae). However, here again, Swainson never proposed such a name in this work. What you find in Swainson 1832 are:- "Sylvicolae" on p. <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41549596" target="_blank">213</a>, <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41549603" target="_blank">218</a>, which are a genus name in the plural;- "Generis Sylvicolae" on p. <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41549934" target="_blank">489</a>, which is a genus name in the genitive singular (generis Sylvicolae = "of the genus Sylvicola");- "Sylvicolae", cited in a footnote as a synonym of Order Insessores on p. <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/27217106" target="_blank">vlviii</a>, which is a latinization, proposed by Vieillot 1816 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12830267" target="_blank">here</a>], of the French vernacular group name "Les Sylvains" (and not a family-group name formed from Sylvicola Swainson 1827, 11 years before this genus-group name was proposed).I'm unclear which of these Bock thought to be a family-group name (Bock never indicated the page where names had been introduced, nor their original spelling or original rank, which makes it regularly next to impossible to find out what he had in mind exactly), but none of them fits the bill.Swainson 1837 [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41944832" target="_blank">here</a>] referred a single time to a "subfamily Sylvicolinae", but in a rather odd context: in a discussion of his own subfamily Parianae, within which he explicitly placed Sylvicola (see on <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41944782" target="_blank">p.42</a>, and in the <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41945022" target="_blank">synopsis</a> at the end of the book), making this sudden and unique use of Sylvicolinae look very much like a typo. If so, the name is arguably not available from there either. (The author did not actually recognise such a subfamily as valid in his classification.)The next possible source is Bonaparte 1838 [Sylvicolinae; subfamily; <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9327302" target="_blank">OD</a>]; this is what Oberholser cited when he introduced his family Compsothlipidae.Thus I'd say it should be Parulinae Wetmore et al. 1947 (1838). (Which has precedence over Setophagidae Chenu & Des Murs / Bonaparte 1853.)</blockquote>

Verification