• 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.

Olive Sparrow and Olive Warbler (1 Viewer)

Larry Sweetland

Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
Maybe after I die. But 'til then it's Olive Warbler and Olive Sparrow on my list, and I very much doubt anyone I mention them to won't know what I mean. (Unlike the every changing sea of new common names that will serve only to leave a host of people confused)
 

DLane

Well-known member
Correct but Arromonops live mostly in South America (and Central America). I guess it should say Passerellidae include all North and South American Sparrows. Because it said only North America, I was thinking that the South American Sparrows were in a different family.

No, they are all still in the same family. You may be confused because of the recent separation of Passerellidae from Emberizidae, which means there are still a lot of sources that are not updated. In addition, many former members of "Emberizidae" in South America have been shifted to the tanager family, Thraupidae, although I don't think any have "sparrow" in their English name. But the various South American brushfinches and "sparrows" (and now even Chlorospingus) are still in Passerellidae.

I would add that (assuming you use the English concept of continents) Arremonops is found mostly in North America (from Texas to Panama), so it's not correct to consider it a "South American" genus, as it only enters the very northwest of South America. If you want to use Neotropical and Nearctic biogeographic regions, then yes, Arremonops is more Neotropical than Nearctic.
 

Maroon Jay

Airborne
Canada
No, they are all still in the same family. You may be confused because of the recent separation of Passerellidae from Emberizidae, which means there are still a lot of sources that are not updated. In addition, many former members of "Emberizidae" in South America have been shifted to the tanager family, Thraupidae, although I don't think any have "sparrow" in their English name. But the various South American brushfinches and "sparrows" (and now even Chlorospingus) are still in Passerellidae.

I would add that (assuming you use the English concept of continents) Arremonops is found mostly in North America (from Texas to Panama), so it's not correct to consider it a "South American" genus, as it only enters the very northwest of South America. If you want to use Neotropical and Nearctic biogeographic regions, then yes, Arremonops is more Neotropical than Nearctic.

Yes, there are Buntings that are not in with other Buntings, and Finches that are included with Sparrows, and so on. Gets confusing. I was thinking that there were three groups of sparrows: Old World Sparrows, North American or New World Sparrows and the Neotropical Sparrows of South and Central America but it appears that the Neotropical birds are included with North American Sparrows. So that takes care of that.
 

DLane

Well-known member
Yes, there are Buntings that are not in with other Buntings, and Finches that are included with Sparrows, and so on. Gets confusing. I was thinking that there were three groups of sparrows: Old World Sparrows, North American or New World Sparrows and the Neotropical Sparrows of South and Central America but it appears that the Neotropical birds are included with North American Sparrows. So that takes care of that.

Welcome to the world of common bird names. Don't try to look for phylogenetic signal therein, you will be mostly very disappointed. But it does show how much convergence has occurred in bird evolution when it comes to morphology.
 

James Lowther

Well-known member
What do you call an English name? sparrow is not an English name?

Sorry you misunderstood what I’m saying. There is no tradition of formulating English names that apply to single genera e.g. Arremon are called “sparrows” but so are countless other genera. On the other hand some single genera e.g. Anas, Tringa etc have multiple English names associated with them.
Cheers
James
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
Sorry you misunderstood what I’m saying. There is no tradition of formulating English names that apply to single genera e.g. Arremon are called “sparrows” but so are countless other genera. On the other hand some single genera e.g. Anas, Tringa etc have multiple English names associated with them.
Cheers
James

It's fixed in my mind :t:
 

Taphrospilus

Well-known member
Sorry I did not get the story about authorship.

If I read here :

Several names for this group are already available, but the oldest is the Passerellidae (Cabanis and Heine 1850; see Bock 1994).

Cabanis here Subfamily Pasarellinae. So why should Cabanis be as well be author of family Passerellidae? Heine haven't published in Volume 1.

Note the different spellings.

For me Passerellidae Barker et al. 2013 as in Zoonomen here. As well if we accepted Cabanis 1850 or 1851? But based on which rule of the code? See also 2017-B-6 Revise familial limits and the linear sequence of familieswithin the nine-primaried oscines here .
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
Sorry I did not get the story about authorship.

If I read here :



Cabanis here Subfamily Pasarellinae. So why should Cabanis be as well be author of family Passerellidae? Heine haven't published in Volume 1.

Note the different spellings.

For me Passerellidae Barker et al. 2013 as in Zoonomen here. As well if we accepted Cabanis 1850 or 1851? But vbased on which rule of the code? See also 2017-B-6 Revise familial limits and the linear sequence of familieswithin the nine-primaried oscines here .
So, what about Arremonidae?
 

l_raty

laurent raty
But vbased on which rule of the code?

This is called the Principle of Coordination: when an author proposes a name in one of the three main groups (the species group, genus group, or family group), he is automatically deemed to have established the name at all the ranks of this group (respectively: species and subspecies, genus and subgenus, or all suprageneric ranks up to superfamily).

For family-group names, see Art. 36.1:
36.1. Statement of the Principle of Coordination applied to family-group names

A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group; all these taxa have the same type genus, and their names are formed from the stem of the name of the type genus [Art. 29.3] with appropriate change of suffix [Art. 34.1]. The name has the same authorship and date at every rank.

Example. The family name HESPERIIDAE (Lepidoptera), based on Hesperia Fabricius, 1793, was established in 1809 by Latreille (as Hesperides). Latreille is deemed also to have simultaneously established the coordinate superfamily name HESPERIOIDEA and the coordinate subfamily name HESPERIINAE (even though the former was first used by Comstock & Comstock (1904) and the latter by Watson (1893)). The authorship and date of all three names is Latreille, 1809.

I agree that the author of Passerellinae is Cabanis, not Cabanis & Heine. And the date of a name appearing on p. 131 of a book that has "April 1851" printed in the footer of p. 129 can indeed most definitely not be 1850.
(Bock 1994 attributed this name to "Cabanis and Heine, 1850-51", which at least was a reference to a clearly identified and correct source. A good 50% of the total of the name quotations in Bock 1994 have problems that are much worse than this -- you have names quoted from a source where they do not exist as family-group names at all, names quoted from a source which is not the earliest one, names quoted from a source where they were not-latinized but that do not satisfy the requirements to make this acceptable, names quoted from a source where they should have received a description to be available but did not, names attributed a completely wrong type, etc.)

To establish a new family-group name after 1999, you must provide a definition or description which states in words characters differentiating the group, and you must make your intention to make a new name available explicit (e.g., by flagging the name as "fam. nov."). Neither of these two requirement was fulfilled by Barker et al 2013 for Passerellidae -- thus, even if the name had not already been available (which is was), they would not have established it.
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
So, what about Arremonidae?
Arremoninae was introduced by Lafresnaye in 1841: Lafresnaye F de. 1841. Arrémoninées. Arremoninae (Arrémon, un des g. de ce groupe). Ois. P. 153 in: d'Orbigny C [ed]. 1842. Dictionnaire universel d'histoire naturelle. Tome second. Paris.; p. 153; https://books.google.com/books?id=i65TAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA153 . (For dating, see: Evenhuis NL. 1990. Dating of the livraisons and volumes of d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle. Bishop Mus. Occ. Pap., 30: 219-225.; http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pubs-online/pdf/op30p219.pdf .)

Passerellinae was introduced by Cabanis in 1851: Cabanis J. 1850-51. Museum heineanum. Verzeichniss der ornithologischen Sammlung des Oberamtmann Ferdinand Heine, auf Gut St. Burchard vor Halberstadt. I. Theil, die Singvögel enthaltend. R Frantz, Halberstadt.; p. 131; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/49584510 .

Passerellinae is therefore unquestionably junior to Arremoninae. (Unless, with Bock 1994, you attribute the latter to Sundevall 1872...)

Arremoninae was used a couple of times after 1899. E.g.: Bade E. 1904. Die mittelleuropäichen Vögel: Ihre Naturgeschichte, Lebensweise und ihre Jagd. I. Band. H Walther, Berlin.; p. 158; https://books.google.com/books?id=ztQpAQAAIAAJ . As a consequence, a reversal of precedence in its disfavour (= making it a nomen oblitum relative to any other name) is not possible.

The last use of Passerellinae as a valid name before its recent revival that I am aware of, was in 1899 (in this: https://books.google.com/books?id=BcQ-AAAAYAAJ&q=passerellinae ). Since Passerellidae/nae was not used as valid during the 20th C, and revived in 2013 by Barker et al, it has not been in use for a period encompassing 10 years during the last 50 years. As a consequence, a reversal of precedence in its favour (= making it a nomen protectum relative to any other name) is not currently possible either.

An actual reversal of the precedence of these two names would of course require both.

In the 19th C literature, so far as I am aware, these two name were used for non-overlapping groups. There is no established tradition of using Arremoninae for a taxon within Passerellidae.

...What say you ?
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
Arremoninae was used a couple of times after 1899. E.g.: Bade E. 1904. Die mittelleuropäichen Vögel: Ihre Naturgeschichte, Lebensweise und ihre Jagd. I. Band. H Walther, Berlin.; p. 158; https://books.google.com/books?id=ztQpAQAAIAAJ . As a consequence, a reversal of precedence in its disfavour (= making it a nomen oblitum relative to any other name) is not possible.
Also:
Haacke & Kuhnert 1901 and Bade 1904 are unquestionably "usage" in the sense of the Code.

These may be less clearcut:
  • Rüst D. 1900. Erster Nachtrag zum Katalog der systematischen Vogelsammlung des Provinzial-Museums in Hannover. Jahresber. Naturhist. Ges. Hannover, 48-49: 66-79.; p. 69; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11677228 ; as an alternative name for Pitylinae ("Unterfamilie Pitylinae (Arremoninae)"). (Possibly interpretable as being in synonymy, and not adopted at all by the author ? Rüst doesn't cite synonyms for other family-group taxa, though. This is a volume covering the society's activity in the years 1897/98 and 1898/99, published in 1900.)
  • Blanchard R. 1908. Glossaire allemand-français des termes d'anatomie et de zoologie. Asselin & Houzeau, Paris.; p. 222; https://books.google.com/books?id=dqZGxKrjB3UC&dq=arremoninae -- "Arremoninae, Ois.", given as the French translation of "Ruderfinken". (Does translation necessarily imply endorsement ?)
  • Whitney WD, Smith BE. 1914. The Century Dictionary. An encyclopedic lexicon of the English language. Revised and enlarged edition. Volume I. A. to C. The Century Co., New York.; p. 319; https://archive.org/details/B-001-002-311/page/n340/mode/1up ; spelled Arrhemoninae; "A group of tanagrine birds named by Lafresnaye from the genus Arrhemon." (Note correct authorship. Inherited from earlier editions of the dictionary. Retained here by pure inertia ?)
These do not count as usage:
  • Arrigoni degli Oddi E. 1902. Atlante ornitologico. Uccelli europei, con notizie d'indole generale e particolare. U Hoepli, Milano.; p. 97; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7879548 -- in a description of the system adopted by Reichenow in 1882, not endorsed by the author.
  • Hanstein R von. 1907. Zoologische Jahrbücher, Abteilung für Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere. Generalregister zu Band 1-20, sowie zu den Supplementen 1-7. G Fischer, Jena; p. 50; https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11208437 ; in an index, pointing to several pages in Band 3, published 1888: the name was used as valid in 1888, not in 1907.
  • Bock WJ. 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 222: 1-281.; p. 154; http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/830 ; in the synonymy of Emberizinae, not adopted as valid; attributed in error to Sundevall 1872, while Emberizinae Brehm 1828 is attributed in error to Vigors 1825.
 
Last edited:

l_raty

laurent raty
An actual reversal of the precedence of these two names would of course require both.

A last possible issue may be the statement published by the NACC in the 58th supplement to the AOS Check-list of North American birds. https://doi.org/10.1642/AUK-17-72.1 , when they endorsed the use of Passerellidae. They wrote :
Notes.—
Phylogenetic analyses of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences indicate that genera placed in this family form a monophyletic group of uncertain relationship to the Emberizidae (Barker et al. 2013), in which they were formerly included (e.g., as in AOU 1998). The family name Arremonidae Lafresnaye, 1842, although published prior to Passerellidae Cabanis, 1851, is here considered a nomen oblitum under Articles 23.9 and 35.5 of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999).
This was published in Auk 134 (3): 751-773; Auk turned online-only as of volume 135: this supplement is thus validly published for the purposes of nomenclature. (The 59th, 60th and 61st supplements are not.)

Art. 35.5 is unrelated to nomina oblita, and its citation here is hard to understand. Art. 23.9 reads:
23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:
23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and
23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.
23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be qualified by the term nomen protectum and the invalid, but older, name by the term nomen oblitum (see Glossary). In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid.
[...]
Although the conditions of 23.9.1 are obviously not met in the present case (and will never be unless the rules get changed, see above), Art. 23.9 is followed by:
23.10. Erroneous reversal of precedence
If action taken under Article 23.9.2 is found later to have been taken in error in that conditions 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 were not met, the case is to be referred to the Commission. Prevailing usage must be maintained [Art. 82] until the Commission has made a ruling (i.e. an author discovering that such an erroneous action has occurred must not automatically use the older synonym or homonym).
Under a somewhat twisted reading of the above, one might probably argue that because of the "Notes" published by NACC, Art. 23.10 makes that the only way out is now an application to the Commission.

However, although Art. 23.9 was cited in the NACC "Notes", there was no actual explicit statement that an action was being taken under Art. 23.9.2; neither was there an actual explicit statement anywhere in the supplement that Passerellidae is valid; no evidence of any kind was offered that the condition of Art. 29.9.1.2 was met (such evidence does not exist); and no statement was given that, to the authors' knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. Thus we are not actually facing a case of "action taken under Article 23.9.2 [...] found later to have been taken in error in that conditions 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 were not met" (= the condition that triggers Art. 23.10); we are facing a case where no action under Art. 23.9.2 was taken, from the very start, in that the requirements of this article (23.9.2) were not met. As a consequence, it seems obvious, to me at least, that 23.10 is entirely irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top