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: 4048618" data-attributes="member: 24811">These are ISSs of Polipicus Cassin 1863 (Cassin J. 1863. Notes on the Picidae, with descriptions of new and little known species. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, 15: 194-204.; p. 196; <a href="https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1958460" target="_blank">https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1958460</a> ; type Polipicus elliotii Cassin 1863 (in use) by monotypy), which is a wholly different name.Polipicus is a synonym of Mesopicos Malherbe 1849 / Chloropicus Malherbe 1845 (= broad-sense "Dendropicos" Malherbe 1849, for which Chloropicus Malherbe 1845 now has precedence).(Note that Dendropicos is additionally problematic because its type is not fixed validly -- the species that is accepted as the type, Dendropicos lafresnayi Malherbe 1849, was a nomen nudum in the work which is accepted as the <a href="https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k33229k/f350.image" target="_blank">OD</a>, hence is not eligible; the eligible species are Picus mystaceus Vieillot 1818, Picus schoensis Rüppell 1842, and Picus minutus Temminck 1823 (nec Latham 1790) = Dendropicos elachus Oberholser 1919.)That said, I would agree that these names, although certainly "forgotten" in the common sense olf the word, are not "nomina oblita" in the current sense of the Code, viz: "A Latin term (meaning "forgotten name") applied after 1 January 2000 to a name, unused since 1899, which as a result of an action taken under Article 23.9.2 does not take precedence over a younger synonym or homonym in prevailing usage", because no action under 23.9.2 has so far been taken for any of them. Taking such an action would obviously require that the name be indeed senior to a current valid synonym or homonym, which is the case only for Andrornis.As long as they are not used to displace a name that is in wide use, some of these names could in principle become valid. (This is also true for actual nomina oblita, by the way.)</blockquote>

Verification