• 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.

(Not only) Thamnophilidae (1 Viewer)


Will Jones
Cordillera Azul Antbird, Myrmoderus eowilsoni - For those who didn't want to read the whole article.

8 specimens collected.

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Andre E. Moncrieff, Oscar Johnson, Daniel F. Lane, Josh R. Beck, Fernando Angulo, and Jesse Fagan (2018) A new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from the Cordillera Azul, San Martín, Peru. The Auk: January 2018, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp. 114-126.


We describe a distinctive new species of antbird (Passeriformes: Thamnophilidae) from humid montane forest (1,340–1,670 m above sea level) of the Cordillera Azul, San Martín Region, Peru. Plumage, voice, and molecular evidence distinguish this species from its sister taxon Myrmoderus ferrugineus (Ferruginous-backed Antbird), which is found in lowland Amazonian rainforests of the Guiana Shield and Madeira-Tapajós interfluvium. The new species is presently known only from one ridge in the Cordillera Azul, and therefore we recommend further fieldwork to better estimate its distribution and population size.

IOC Updates Diary Dec 14

Post new Cordillera Azul Antbird on Updates/PS


Well-known member
"appropriately, an antbird."
Because he is a myrmecologist.
Is this also the first scientific name including initials?


Well-known member
Last edited:

Fred Ruhe

Well-known member
Pachyplichas jagmi MILLENER 1988

Nope, not even among birds, there´s, for example; the (sub-)fossil species Grant Mackie's Wren (Xenicornis) Pachyplichas jagmi MILLENER 1988, or the odd (and invalid) generic name Stonowa ... ;)

In 2016 the species (Pachyplichas yaldwyni MILLENER 1988 and Pachyplichas jagmi MILLENER 1988) were transfered to Xenicus G. R. Gray, 1855 by Mitchell, Wood, Llamas, McLenachan, Kardailsky, Scofield, Worthy & Cooper.

Etymology: The species is named for Dr John A. Grant-Mackie, Associate Professor of Geology, Auckland University, who has been an inspiration to many graduate students, an enthusiastic collector and, by way of his published papers, a valued contributor in the freld of avian palaeontology. The specific-name is dèrived from Dr Grant-Mackie's initials, commonly used as an affectionate appellation by his stuclents.

Philip R. Millener, 1988
Contributions to New Zealand's Late Quaternary Avifauna. I: Pachyplichas, a New Genus of Wren (Aves: Acanthisittidae), with Two New Species
Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 18: 383-406
Free pdf: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03036758.1988.10426464?needAccess=true

Kieren J. Mitchell, Jamie R. Wood, Bastien Llamas, Patricia A. McLenachan, Olga Kardailsky, R. Paul Scofield, Trevor H. Worthy & Alan Cooper, 2016
Ancient Mitochandrial Genomes Clarify the Evolutionary History of New Zealand’s Enigmatic Acanthisittid Wrens
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 102: 295-304



Norbert R.

Active member
Sorry for depressing your enthusiasm about this new species, but it seems that the name is not available because the requirements of the Code are not fulfiled. As The Auk is published electronically-only from the first issue of the 2018 volume, a ZooBank registration and a date of publication are mandatory for such publications, among others. If the version of the paper available is the final version, which I assume it is, then the new antbird is not yet properly described and the name is not yet available.


laurent raty
My understanding (from discussions on other forums) is that a year of publication being cited in the work (here: "2018") is enough to fulfill the date requirement.

However, the work must indeed have been registered on ZooBank before it was issued, the ZooBank entry must satisfy the requirements of [Art. 8.5.3], and there must be evidence in the work itself that registration had occurred. Bar this, the work is unpublished for nomenclature. (The names in it have no status; the information in it cannot be referred to in a subsequent publication in order to fulfil a nomenclatural requirement.)

Perhaps worth noting:
- "in the work itself" means in the .pdf file where the names are introduced and the requirements for their availability are fulfilled (i.e., not on the journal website outside of this .pdf, even if within a "full text" version of the work, because formats used on websites do not assure "fixed content and layout" and can never be deemed published; not in another .pdf aimed to act as a corrigendum for the main work either, because you can't correct something that never started to exist);
- it's the work that must be registered (there is no explicit requirements to register the names themselves; registering the names but not the work would be insufficient, as it would not make the work published -- e.g., I don't know if [this] is to remain as is (a name + "Placeholder Entry - no reference set") but, should it be the case and should [the work] not be printed (it's not straightforward to find out on the website, but I think it's not), it would be problematic).
Last edited:


Former amateur ornithologist
This is one of those rare "really distinctive" new species discoveries, so well done to those involved.

It's a shame the formalities were not followed, but somehow I don't expect relevant committees to get all sanctimonious about it, like they did here, for all the usual political reasons related to the journal this was published in and the authors' connections to LSU:


Maybe there is time to amend and reissue the PDF here, given we are not yet in 2018?



laurent raty
Maybe there is time to amend and reissue the PDF here, given we are not yet in 2018?
I don't think it would be a problem. I.e., if it gets registered now, the registration data could be added on the last page of the .pdf, without any other modification.
Last edited:


Former amateur ornithologist
I don't think that is necessarily relevant to validity. The publication date would simply be deemed to be 31 December 2018 in the absence of other evidence with "2018". I suppose the authors might be at risk of an earlier dated competing description in 2018, given how many of those we have seen recently in birds - so it's quite advisable obviously.

"21.3. Date incompletely specified. If the day of publication is not specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of publication, but in the absence of such evidence the date to be adopted is

21.3.1. the last day of the month, when month and year, but not day, are specified or demonstrated, or

21.3.2. the last day of the year when only the year is specified or demonstrated."
Last edited:


laurent raty
There are potentially additional issues with e-only publications, however, due to the Amendment requiring that the "date of publication" be specified in the work for it to be published. There is no such requirement for a printed work: a fully specified date is OK, so is a half-specified date, or no date at all.

It's not fully clear (from the Amendment wording) that a date that is specified only in part, is to be treated as having been specified.
Neither is it fully clear that a date, that would be specified in full but would not "be" the "date of publication" as defined by the Code (be it by accident, or because the publisher's own definition of "date of publication" is at variance with that of the Code), would fulfil the requirement.
(But Commissioners I have seen commenting on these issues have tended to accept both partial and incorrect dates.)

There is a precise date specified in the Auk paper, actually: "Published December 13, 2017", just above the Abstract.


Andre Moncrieff
I greatly appreciate the input from everyone here. Certainly the best option would have been to register the taxon on ZooBank before publication (which I will make sure is done in the future--assuming I get to be involved in a species description again!). I would like to refer everyone to the Auk homepage where they clarify that inclusive of 2018, they will still be issuing hard copies to various major libraries for a permanent record:

"Since 2014, The Auk: Ornithological Advances functions primarily as an online journal, with current articles published electronically in their final form weekly. Posted articles have a DOI and final page numbers for citation. Inclusive of 2018, hard copies of quarterly issues continued to be printed on paper in numbers exceeding 25 copies per issue and are distributed to various libraries, including the U.S. Library of Congress."


Norbert R.

Active member
Hard copies are doubtless the best solution. So the description of the new antbird species will be available from the date the printed copies are distributed. Andre (or someone else), can you help with an actual publication date? It makes a difference whether the paper appeared in 2017 or in 2018. And the date provided in the .pdf may not be the date of publication of the hard copies. Many thanks.

Users who are viewing this thread