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: 3698086" data-attributes="member: 24811">In my view only Bonaparte's name was validly created.Thaumatias linnaei Bonaparte 1854 [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13681326" target="_blank">OD</a>] is indeed a substitute for the available species group name thaumantias Linnaeus 1766 [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/42946386" target="_blank">OD</a>], obviously introduced for the sole purpose of avoiding tautonymy when the species was placed in Bonaparte's genus Thaumatias [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43560121" target="_blank">OD</a>], here spelled 'Thaumantias' (*), as was frequently done back then. Bonaparte also cited fig. 1 of <a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/35214405" target="_blank">Pl. enl. 600</a> -- not published in 1766, hence of course not part of the original type series of Tr. thaumantias L.; added to its synonymy by <a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2897089" target="_blank">Gmelin 1788</a>, and cited again repeatedly, including by <a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13668908" target="_blank">Gray 1840</a> when he designated [and misspelled] "Polytmus thaumatias (L.)" as the type of Polytmus Brisson (**). The citation of this plate does not affect the type series of the replacement name, which remains that of the replaced name (<a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=72&nfv=#7" target="_blank">ICZN Art. 72.7</a>).The only thing that Gould did, was to explicitly apply Bonaparte's name:With this, Gould could only have created a new name if Bonaparte had not validly created it before him, which he had.Gould presumably adopted Bonaparte's name for what he believed to be the taxonomic species which Bonaparte called "Tr. thaumantias L. 1766" in the OD, which is not quite clear, at least to me. It appears, from Bonaparte's Conspectus generum avium [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43560121" target="_blank">here</a>], that in 1850 the Prince regarded "Trochilus thaumatias L." as a senior synonym of Ornismya albiventris Lesson [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49416438" target="_blank">OD</a>] (itself now regarded as a junior synonym of Trochilus fimbriatus Gmelin). However, in the 1854 work where he introduced Thaumatias linnaei, Bonaparte used albiventris Lesson as valid for another species, thus he had presumably changed his mind on this issue. In 1861, Gould used albiventris as valid for an other species too; he treated Thaumatias linnaei Bonaparte as a synonym of O. viridissima Lesson 1829 [<a href="https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49416436" target="_blank">OD</a>], which he regarded as preoccupied by Trochilus viridissimus Gmelin 1788, and which Bonaparte 1854 did not cite. Which taxonomic species Bonaparte applied his replacement name to (what Thaumatias linnaei "Bonaparte 1854 sensu Bonaparte 1854" may have been) does not affect the type series of this name either (<a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=72&nfv=#7" target="_blank">ICZN Art. 72.7</a>, again).___(*) An incorrect subsequent spelling here, in my reading. I know the opposite (i.e., Thaumatias being an incorrect OS) was again recently argued for, but it does not seem possible to prove an inadvertent error using exclusively internal information from the OD (which spelling was used in Linnaeus 1766 is external information, and cannot be used), thus in my view the OS cannot be deemed incorrect under <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=32&nfv=#5" target="_blank">ICZN Art.32.5</a>, and any correction would be unjustified. Additionally, the modification of spelling is not demonstrably intentional here, thus I would not even regard it as an emendation. (The modified spelling is presumably available as an unjustified emendation from some later work, though.)(**) Gray's misspelling being presumably the source of the spelling that Bonaparte used for his genus, as well as its type species. Bonaparte unquestionably used Gray as a source, as he referred to his work in the OD ("Polytmus, p. Br. Gr." = Polytmus as per Brisson and Gray).</blockquote>

Verification