• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

My taxonomic predictions (3 Viewers)

andrew147

Well-known member
  • Garrulax leucolophus, bicolor, milleti, ferrarius, strepitans, maesi, castanotis & palliatus

Can Garrulaxis Lafresnaye, 1838 (type: leucolophus) stand for this group?

Regarding Eriodora, the type is 'Myiothera squamata' (not sure where Myothera ferruginea came in)
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Yes, I read that, but it has a different type species and it exists apart from Garrulax ...and 'probably a deliberate mispelling' certainly wouldn't hold up in court!

'Garrulaxis' is a subsequent spelling of Garrulax. Indeed, "probably deliberate" would not hold up in court. This name does not meet the Code requirements to be treated as a demonstrably deliberate emendation (Lafresnaye attributed it to Lesson and treated it as if Lesson had used this spelling). Hence is is to be treated as an error and is wholly unavailable.

Even if it could be interpreted as a deliberate emendation, an emendation is always an objective synonym of the original name, hence Garrulaxis, being junior to Garrulax, would be permanently invalid. (Beware that the type fixation of Garrulax itself is extremely muddy. The earliest designated type, belangeri, has more recently been regarded as nude in the OD, which resulted in another type, rufifrons, being designated. If you found two different types indicated for these two names, it is likely that these corresponded to two different treatments of Garrulax. Not to two independent treatments of Garrulax and 'Garrulaxis'.)
 

andrew147

Well-known member
'Garrulaxis' is a subsequent spelling of Garrulax. Indeed, "probably deliberate" would not hold up in court. This name does not meet the Code requirements to be treated as a demonstrably deliberate emendation (Lafresnaye attributed it to Lesson and treated it as if Lesson had used this spelling). Hence is is to be treated as an error and is wholly unavailable.

Even if it could be interpreted as a deliberate emendation, an emendation is always an objective synonym of the original name, hence Garrulaxis, being junior to Garrulax, would be permanently invalid. (Beware that the type fixation of Garrulax itself is extremely muddy. The earliest designated type, belangeri, has more recently been regarded as nude in the OD, which resulted in another type, rufifrons, being designated. If you found two different types indicated for these two names, it is likely that these corresponded to two different treatments of Garrulax. Not to two independent treatments of Garrulax and 'Garrulaxis'.)

great explanation, thank you
 

l_raty

laurent raty
Are you something about Eriodora ?

This is one that is possibly open to discussion.

Gloger C. 1827. Etwas über einige ornitologische Gattungsbenennungen. Notiz. Geb. Natur. Heilk. (Froriep), 16: 275-279.
p. 278 : Bd.16-18 1826-1827 - Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und Heilkunde - Biodiversity Heritage Library

This name was proposed for smaller species usually placed in Myiothera Illiger and bearing unusually long and woolly feathers on the back. But Gloger did not cite any species by an available name. In such cases the Code instructs us to look for the first subsequent work where nominal species cited by an available name are 'expressly' included in the new nominal genus: the nominal species included there, and no others, will be the nominal species eligible to become the type. If there is only one such nominal species, this is the type by subsequent monotypy; if there is more than one, we need a subsequent type designation. (There is no tautonymy option outside of the OD.)


My current reading of the Code is that Cabanis' 17 nominal species may be regarded as the originally included nominal species of Eriodora; but that, short of an explicit statement that it does, a type designation directed towards a taxonomic genus cannot be construed as applying to a synonymized nominal genus included in this taxonomic genus. If so, an explicit designation of one of Cabanis' 17 nominal species as the type of the nominal genus Eriodora would be needed to fix the type. Having failed to find such a designation, I doubt the type is validly fixed -- it cannot, however, be squamata, because this species was not listed by Cabanis. Under this reading, Gray's action, if it had been the earliest inclusion of a nominal species in Eriodora, could have resulted in a type fixation os squamata by subsequent monotypy (not by subsequent designation); but Gray came after Cabanis, hence what he did had no effect whatsoever.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top