What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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.
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Bird Name Etymology
Names lacking in the Key
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Björn Bergenholtz" data-source="post: 3698476" data-attributes="member: 113430"><p>Thanks Laurent, for the great deal of effort, putting this complex matter in writing ... now, hopefully, everyone can see/read exactly why I had, and still have, such a hard time getting "my head around those Hummingbirds". It´s a tricky case, a delicate operation ...</p><p></p><p>However I still cannot understand why James consider Gould's name the only one "validly created" and (if so) why Bonaparte's "<em>linnaei</em>" (syn. <em>Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias</em>) is included in today's <em>Key</em> contra/versus Gould's "species", which isn´t. </p><p></p><p>Nor do I feel all safe (beyond any doubt) claiming that "<em>Linnæi</em>" BONAPARTE, 1854 <em>sensu</em> GOULD, 1861 is a synonym of today's (<em>Polyerata</em>) <em>Amazilia fimbriata</em> GMELIN 1788 (and of nothing else, not even in parts).</p><p></p><p>But I do think so (judging from the Plate) ... !?</p><p></p><p>Looking forward to a reply from James, but I assume he´s celebrating Easter.</p><p></p><p>We´ll see ... when the Easter eggs are all empty.</p><p></p><p>Björn</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Björn Bergenholtz, post: 3698476, member: 113430"] Thanks Laurent, for the great deal of effort, putting this complex matter in writing ... now, hopefully, everyone can see/read exactly why I had, and still have, such a hard time getting "my head around those Hummingbirds". It´s a tricky case, a delicate operation ... However I still cannot understand why James consider Gould's name the only one "validly created" and (if so) why Bonaparte's "[I]linnaei[/I]" (syn. [I]Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias[/I]) is included in today's [I]Key[/I] contra/versus Gould's "species", which isn´t. Nor do I feel all safe (beyond any doubt) claiming that "[I]Linnæi[/I]" BONAPARTE, 1854 [I]sensu[/I] GOULD, 1861 is a synonym of today's ([I]Polyerata[/I]) [I]Amazilia fimbriata[/I] GMELIN 1788 (and of nothing else, not even in parts). But I do think so (judging from the Plate) ... !? Looking forward to a reply from James, but I assume he´s celebrating Easter. We´ll see ... when the Easter eggs are all empty. Björn [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Bird Name Etymology
Names lacking in the Key
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top
