Are not Chenu & Des Murs, 1852 Encycl. Hist. Nat., Oiseaux, pt. 3, p. 236 the authors of Atelornithinae? They originally used Atélornithinés for the family, but according to Art. 11.7.2. Bonaparte only latinized that name, making it available as it has been accepted by later authors as introduced by Chenu & Des Murs. Or am I wrong with this view?
code.iczn.org
11.7.2. If a family-group name was published before 1900, in accordance with the above provisions of this Article but not in latinized form, it is available with its original author and date only if it has been latinized by later authors and has been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned and as dating from that first publication in vernacular form.
To me, the "only if", in this article, quite clearly indicates that this should not be understood as being a "default" rule.
The conditions to cite a name from a source where it was not latinized are three, which must all be met :
- the name must have been latinized by subsequent authors,
- the name must have been "generally" accepted as valid by authors interested in the group (NB -- "valid" in the Code means "one that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and, in the case of a name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment." [Glossary]; "accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned" is not at all the same thing as "accepted by later authors as introduced by [whichever authors]"),
- these authors must have "generally" accepted it as dating from its introduction in vernacular form.
I read this article as attempting to preserve the accepted source for names that are, and have always been, widely used, and treated as dating from an introduction in vernacular form. In some fields (e.g., entomology, I believe), there is a long tradition of citing family-group names from introductions in non-latinized form ; in such fields, when a name is in use and widely understood as taking precedence from an introduction in non-latinized form, not to accept this introduction would be at the risk of turning the name into a junior synonym. Art. 11.7.2 tries to avoid this. In birds, however, we have no established tradition of citing family-group names from introductions in non-latinized form. (In fact, I believe that you would struggle to find even
one bird family-group name clearly attributed to a source where it was used in a non-latinized form before Bock 1994.)
For Atelornithinae, the first condition is certainly met. But, historically, a majority of the authors interested in the group have accepted a name based on
Brachypteracias, rather than one based on
Atelornis, as its valid name : I would not regard the second condition as being met. And, except for Bock in 1994, the authors who used a name based on
Atelornis either did not attribute it to any author at all, or, like Brodkorb in 1971, attributed it to Bonaparte : I would not regard the third condition as being met either. If two of the three conditions are not met, I would not cite this name from Chenu & Des Murs.
But I'm aware that this reading may not make the unanimity.
(Note -- Bock 1994 accepted
all the non-latinized name that he found in works dating from before 1900 as available from these sources; many of these names had actually never been latinized at all, and he should unquestionably have treated these as unavailable.
He latinized them, however, and
he accepted them as dating from the source he was citing them from, so that under a loose understanding of 11.7.2, it could be argued that these names are now available from these sources,
as a result of Bock's action. Under a stricter reading of 11.7.2, these names are not available from their original sources, because they have not "been generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned"; and Bock did not make them available either because, despite having latinized them, he merely cited them in synonymy, which does not fulfil Art. 11.5. Thus these names remain unavailable today.)
