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: 3335586" data-attributes="member: 24811">The biggest problem is that, unlike in the case of species- and genus-group names, there never was any real effort to build a correct and complete record of these names progressively, as they were appearing in press. A lot of names have their earliest instances hiding undiscovered in the old literature. Things like:Hemiprocnidae: stands on the Official List asHemiprocnidae Oberholser 1906 (1852) TG Hemiprocne Nitzsch 1829 OS Hemiprocnidae OR family OD Oberholser HC. 1906. The status of the generic name Hemiprocne Nitzsch. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 19:67-70. p.68 link: <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3329278" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3329278</a> ...but:Hemiprocnidae Streubel 1848 TG Hemiprocne Nitzsch 1829 OS Hemiprocnidae OR family OD Streubel AB. 1848. Die Cypseliden des Berliner Museums. Isis (Oken) 41:348-373. p.349 link <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13256263" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13256263</a> ...or Phodilinae: according to Bock:Phodilinae Beddart 1898. TG Phodilus Geoffroy St-Hilaire 1830 OS Photodilinae (formed from Photodilus, an emendation of Phodilus) OR subfamily OD Beddard FE. 1898. The structure and classification of birds. Longmans, Green, and Co, London. p.251. link <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37437829" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37437829</a> ...but:Phodilinae Lesson 1843 TG Phodilus Geoffroy St-Hilaire 1830 OS Phodilae OR tribe OD Lesson RP. 1843. Index ornithologique. L'Écho du monde savant, 10e Année, 2e semestre, 26:613-614. p.613 link <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47080717" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47080717</a> ...etc. I've checked about everything that has been published about birds from 1815, the date of publication of Rafinesque's Analyse de la nature, up to the early 1860's, so I have a reasonable idea of that part of the literature. Trying to continue when I find the time, but it's awfully long and slow. Fortunately, almost everything that is pre-1922 is online nowadays. The main (identified) missing pieces, in case anyone knows where they can be seen, are:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Selby PJ. 1840. A catalogue of the generic and sub-generic types of the class Aves, birds, arranged according to the natural system; with separate lists, distinguishing the various quarters of the globe in which they are to be procured. T & J Hodgson, Newcastle. (Bock placed Eurypigidae and Himantopodidae in this work. Selby used generic plurals often, and Bock misinterpreted generic plurals repeatedly elsewhere. Nobody in Selby's time cited these names from him. alt. [probably]: Eurypiginae Bonaparte 1849, subfamily, Conspectus systematis ornithologiae, p. unknown to me. [Reprint from 1851, with same title and apparently same content as the 1849 version: <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9381845" target="_blank">here</a>] alt. Himantopodinae Reichenbach 1849, Avium systema naturale, on plate XI, [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47618379" target="_blank">OD</a>]. [Note also: "Himantopidés" Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1837; famille; [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=kUY8AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA188" target="_blank">OD</a>]: not latinized, but senior even to Selby 1840; Bock accepted non-latinized names like this systematically, and should have cited this to be consistent with his own practice, but he overlooked the work. In the Code such a name is acceptable from its publication in non-latinized form only if "it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form". The underlined part of this requirement is not fulfilled here, hence the name is unavailable.])</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reichenbach HGL. 1848. Die vollständigste Naturgeschichte der Hühnervögel: Aves Gallinaeceae. Oiseaux gallinacées. Dresden & Leipzig. (The plates are <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47618109" target="_blank">on BHL</a> but have no family-group names on them, and there should be an accompanying text which I have not been able to find anywhere. Bock placed Urogallinae, Callipeplinae, Cryptonychini, Francolinini, Nycthemerini, Pluvianinae, Satyrini, Coturnicini, Attagidae in this work.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bonaparte CL. 1849. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Editio altera reformata additis synonymis Grayanis. M. Westerman & fils, Amsterdam. (An apparent reprint (with exactly the same title and containing exactly the names that Bock claimed from this work) was published in 1851 in <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/9381845" target="_blank">Nuovi annali delle scienze naturali</a>. But I would prefer to see the original.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Bonaparte CL. 1850. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Editio altera reformata additis synonymis Grayanis & Selysanis. M. Westerman & fils, Amsterdam. (Bock claimed Cariamidae and Ortyginae from this work. Cariamidae is by Lafresnaye 1843, [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ZuLRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA172" target="_blank">OD</a>], which he overlooked. Bonaparte had a subfamily Ortyginae in another version of the Conspectus published on the same year [<a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=qyIPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA122" target="_blank">here</a>] and which Bock overlooked as well. But this version is likely to have appeared later, as it contains other new names that Bock attributed to a later work.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reichenbach HGL. 1846-62. Die vollständigste Naturgeschichte der Tauben und taubenartigen Vögel. Columbariae. Les Pigeons, les Pénélopes et les Hoccos. Dresden & Leipzig. (There are scans of this work on <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/47618832" target="_blank">BHL</a>, but they end at p.162 with an announcement that the final part will follow as Novitiae; Bock's copy was 206 pp-long. Bock claimed Geophabinae, Ocyphabinae, Phalacrotreroninae from this work: these are not in the first part, hence [hopefully] must be in the final part.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mathews GM. 1912. The birds of Australia. Volume 2. Part 1. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1913-14. The birds of Australia. Volume 3. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1916-17. The birds of Australia. Volume 6. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1918-19. The birds of Australia. Volume 7. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1919-20. The birds of Australia. Volume 8. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1920. The birds of Australia. Supplement 1. Witherby, London. Mathews GM. 1921-22. The birds of Australia. Volume 9. Part 4. Witherby, London. (The absence of Mathews Birds of Australia on the web is not a new problem...)</li> </ul>Thraupidae     Cabanis 1847TG Thraupis Boie 1826OS ThraupinaeOR subfamilyOD Cabanis J. 1847. Ornithologische Notizen. Arch. Naturgesch. 13:186-256;308-352.p.319link    <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14785286" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14785286</a><a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12223665" target="_blank">Opinion 852</a> initially placed "Thraupidae Wetmore & Miller 1926" on the Official List; but later it was realized that this was not the first use of the name at all, and <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12226117" target="_blank">Opinion 1069</a>, declining to use the Plenary Powers to suppress earlier instances, "corrected" the Official List entry to "Thraupidae Cabanis 1847". <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/14785286" target="_blank">Cabanis 1847</a> proposed his Thraupinae in replacement of Tanagrinae on grounds of purism (with a statement that Linnaeus had not respected his own rules when he proposed Tanagra); but, despite this, he explicitly retained Thraupis in the synonymy of Tanagra Linn., which is the generic name used as valid in this publication. <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35303639" target="_blank">Cabanis in Schomburgk 1848:667</a> used again Tanagrinae, but with exactly the same generic treatment (see on <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35303642" target="_blank">p.670</a>; note that, for species names, Cabanis always cited the author of the combination, not that of the specific epithet: thus the tanager species cited as "T. something", that all have an author other than Cabanis himself, are still in Tanagra; compare for example to the species that Cabanis moved from Tangara to Callospiza, the directly preceding genus). In principle, a family-group name cannot be deemed available from a work where its type genus is treated as invalid. (This was also true under the 2nd ed. of the Code, in force when this Opinion was published.) The first "fully clean" use of this name I have seen is: Cabanis 1860:329; Thraupinae; subfamily; [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/32707137" target="_blank">OD</a>].Cardinalidae Ridgway 1901TG Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838OS CardinaleaeOR groupOD Ridgway R. 1901. The birds of North and Middle America: a descriptive catalogue of the higher groups, genera, species, and subspecies of birds known to occur in North America, from the arctic lands to the isthmus of Panama, the West Indies and other islands of the Caribbean sea, and the Galapagos archipelago. Part I. Bull. U. S. Natl. Mus. 50(1):1-715.p.28link <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7514873" target="_blank">http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7514873</a>(<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Fullerton_Baird" target="_blank">Baird</a> had been gone for a while in 1901. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />)But <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12223014" target="_blank">Opinion 784</a> placed this name on the Official List, attributing it to Sushkin 1925:260 (Cardinalinae, subfamily, [<a href="https://sora.unm.edu/node/13412" target="_blank">OD</a>]), despite Sushkin, like Cabanis above, also explicitly treated the wannabe type genus as invalid (Cardinalis Bonaparte 1838, nec Jarocki 1821, is placed in the synonymy of Richmondena Mathews & Iredale 1918; Cardinalis Jarocki was suppressed in the same Op.784 that conserved Cardinalidae Sushkin). This attribution has not been corrected.</blockquote>

Verification