Parrots (2 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Arinae has potential to become a distinct family (Aridae) unique to the Americas, especially since the separation between Psittacinae and Arinae is as old as the separation between Psittrichasidae and Psittaculidae

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I think the best classification of Psittaciformes is this one:

 

[Fred Ruhe]

I think the best classification of Psittaciformes is this one:

I like your taxonomy, it looks as mine, but I include fossil taxa:
Fossil taxa in red

Ordo Psittaciformes Wagler, 1830;
Subordo Vastanavi
Familia Vastanavidae
G. Mayr, Rana, Rose, Sahni, Kumar, Sing et T. Smith, 2010
Subordo Halcyornithi
Parvordo Halcyornithida
Familia Halcyornithidae Harrison et Walker, 1972
Parvordo Quercypsittida
Familia Quercypsittidae Mourer-Chauviré, 1992
Parvordo Namapsittida
Familia Namapsittidae Mourer-Chaviré, Pickford et Senut, 2017
Parvordo Mopsittida
Familia Mopsittidae
Subordo Psittaci Wagler, 1830.
Superfamilia Strigopoidea C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1849
Familia Incertae Sedis
Familia Strigopidae C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1849
Familia Nestoridae C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1849
Superfamilia Cacatuoidea G. R. Gray, 1840
Familia Cacatuidae G. R. Gray, 1840
Subfamilia Nymphicinae
C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1857
Subfamilia Calyptorhynchinae
C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1853
Subfamilia Cacatuinae G. R. Gray, 1840
Tribus Microglossini
C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1853
Tribus Cacatuini
C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1853
Superfamilia Psittacoidea Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1815
Familia Psittacidae Rafinesque, 1815
Subfamilia Psittacinae Rafinesque, 1815
Subfamilia Arinae G. R. Gray, 1840
Tribus Amoropsittacini
Brereton, 1963
Tribus Brotogerini Wolters, 1975
Tribus Androglossini
Sundevall, 1872
Tribus Arini G. R. Gray, 1840
Familia Psittaculidae Vigors, 1825
Subfamilia Psittrichasinae
von Boetticher, 1959
Subfamilia Coracopseinae
Joseph, Toon, Schritzinger, Wright et Schodde, 2012
Subfamilia Psittaculinae Vigors, 1825
Tribus Incertae Sedis
Tribus Micropsittini
Mathews, 1927
Tribus Polytelini Mathews, 1916
Tribus Psittaculini Vigors, 1825
Tribus Psittacellini Wolters, 1975
Tribus Pezoporini
C. L. J. L. Bonaparte, 1838
Tribus Platycercini Selby, 1836
Tribus Agapornini Salvin, 1882
Tribus Loriini Selby, 1836
Superordo Psittacopedimorphae Superordo Novum
Familia Psittacopedidae G. Mayr, 2015

Fred

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I like your taxonomy,

Of course, we can't do better. Who's up to describe a new genus?

 

[Xenospiza]

My only remark is : Touit stictopterus needs a new genus, clearly, mandatory

Politely disagree, as Touit is monophyletic. I think the evolution of the long-living parrots is slow and there is no need to burden the world with yet another genus. Same goes for the Cacatua split.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Politely disagree, as Touit is monophyletic. I think the evolution of the long-living parrots is slow and there is no need to burden the world with yet another genus. Same goes for the Cacatua split.

However, I remain unsatisfied and this classification has a taste of unfinished business. ☹️

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (1020) to SACC

Treat Pionus seniloides as a separate species from P. tumultuosus

 

[andrew147]

I think the best classification of Psittaciformes is this one:

So is eupatria definitely not the type species of Palaeornis Vigors, 1825?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

So is eupatria definitely not the type species of Palaeornis Vigors, 1825?

alexandri is the only species mentioned in the Palaeornis OD, so we conclude what we want

 

[andrew147]

alexandri is the only species mentioned in the Palaeornis OD, so we conclude what we want

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the OD mentions both names and says the distribution is Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and India, and that it has "greater size of bill" and red shoulder spots... certainly sounds more like eupatria.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the OD mentions both names and says the distribution is Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and India, and that it has "greater size of bill" and red shoulder spots... certainly sounds more like eupatria.

Post in thread 'New bird taxa' New bird taxa

v.2=no.5-8 (1825:Apr.-1826:Apr.) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[andrew147]

Post in thread 'New bird taxa' New bird taxa

v.2=no.5-8 (1825:Apr.-1826:Apr.) - The Zoological journal - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

Yes, but in the OD, he goes on to describe what he means by 'alexandri' - and it is clearly a description of eupatria. So, surely it is just the name alexandri which is misapplied/confused here - in terms of our present understanding?

The English name of eupatria is Alexandrine Parakeet - I'm guessing the names alexandri and eupatria were interchanged back in the day.

I'm gonna carry on using Palaeornis until I find a more compelling explanation of why we should swap for Mascarinus.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

...

The English name of eupatria is Alexandrine Parakeet - I'm guessing the names alexandri and eupatria were interchanged back in the day.

The same in French. I'll check old French literature

In any case, we can corrected erroneous names and I corrected several of them

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Yes, but in the OD, he goes on to describe what he means by 'alexandri' - and it is clearly a description of eupatria. So, surely it is just the name alexandri which is misapplied/confused here - in terms of our present understanding?

The English name of eupatria is Alexandrine Parakeet - I'm guessing the names alexandri and eupatria were interchanged back in the day.

I'm gonna carry on using Palaeornis until I find a more compelling explanation of why we should swap for Mascarinus.

The description of Psittacula eupatria by Vieillot (1917) is the following:

[She] has a red beak; the bare skin, which surrounds the eyes, reddish; the whole body olive green, dark above, pale green mixed with yellowish below; the throat and front of the neck inclined to ashen; the coverts of the wings, close to the body, of a dark red, the others green; its pinnae edged with black; the two intermediate parts of the tail having blue in their middle; red feet and black nails.

Except for a few details, the description conforms to that of Ps. eupatria. Vieillot gives it the name of "Grande Perruche à ailes rougeâtres"/Great Red-winged Parakeet 😄

But which author would be at the origin of the confusion between these two species? Buffon? Or did we think that one was the adult version of the other?

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (1021) to SACC

Treat Myiopsitta luchsi as a separate species from M. monachus

 

[l_raty]

Yes, but in the OD, he goes on to describe what he means by 'alexandri' - and it is clearly a description of eupatria. So, surely it is just the name alexandri which is misapplied/confused here - in terms of our present understanding?

The English name of eupatria is Alexandrine Parakeet - I'm guessing the names alexandri and eupatria were interchanged back in the day.

Vigors (and basically all other authors in his time) used alexandri for what we now call eupatria, and pondicerianus for what we now call alexandri. Cuvier had used alexandri in the same sense in a work which he referred to in the publication in which he proposed Psittacula.

Under the Code, when an author designates "Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus" as a type species, this makes the nominal species P. alexandri Linnaeus (as defined by its original type specimen(s)) the type species. Before 2000, short of an action by the Commission under the Plenary Powers, Palaeornis would have been stuck with the nominal type Vigors had designated. In the current Code, however, a provision was added, which now allows authors to 'correct' type species that are misidentified. This reads :

70.3. Misidentified type species

If an author discovers that a type species was misidentified (but for type species fixed by deliberately cited misidentifications, see Articles 11.10, 67.13 and 69.2.4), the author may select, and thereby fix as type species, the species that will, in his or her judgment, best serve stability and universality, either​

70.3.1. the nominal species previously cited as type species [Arts. 68, 69 ], or​

70.3.2. the taxonomic species actually involved in the misidentification. If the latter choice is made, the author must refer to this Article and cite together both the name previously cited as type species and the name of the species selected.​

Examples. If the taxonomic species actually involved is selected, the designation could be made in the form "Type species now fixed (under Article 70.3 of the Code) as Aus bus Mulsant, 1844, misidentified as Xus yus Horn, 1873 in the original designation by Watson (1912)".
Stephens (1829) included "Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst" in his new beetle genus Quedius; Curtis (1837) subsequently indicated that species to be the type, and this concept of Quedius has been accepted ever since. The description of "S. tristis" by Gravenhorst (1802) shows that he was dealing with a new species, but due to misidentification he applied to it the name of S. tristis Fabricius, 1792, which is a species now placed in a different staphylinid tribe. Faced with this misidentification, by then long known, Tottenham (1949) designated Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 as the type species, stating that this was the valid synonym of "Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, nec Fabricius, 1792". However, "S. tristis Gravenhorst" is not an available name or a stated misidentification [Art. 67.2.1], and in Opinion 1851 (1996) the Commission designated S. levicollis as the type species in order to maintain usage. Had there been no such ruling, under Article 70.3.2 an author would be able to designate S. levicollis as the type species without recourse to the Commission (such an action could not have been taken under previous editions of the Code).

An act intending to 'correct' the type of Palaeornis from Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus to Psittacus eupatria Linnaeus was indeed published in :

Braun MP, Datzmann T, Arndt T, Reinschmidt M, Schnitker H, Baht N, Sauer-Gürth H, Wink M. 2019. A molecular phylogeny of the genus Psittacula sensu lato (Aves: Psittaciformes: Psittacidae: Psittacula, Psittinus, Tanygnathus, †Mascarinus) with taxonomic implications. Zootaxa, 4563: 547-562.​

In this paper, the authors treated Palaeornis as valid (with two taxonomic species included), introducing the genus as follows:

Palaeornis Vigors
Type species: Psittacus eupatria Linnaeus fixed here according to Art. 70.3 of the Code (ICZN 1999), misidentified in the original description by Vigors as Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus.

I don't like this article for a variety of reasons -- but I would say that the above meets its requirements. Except that... there is actually a serious problem in the present case : the change in the type species clashes directly with Opinion 2332 (2014), which placed Palaeornithinae Vigors (type genus Palaeornis Vigors) on the Official Index as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae Vigors (type genus, fixed there under the Plenary Powers, Psittacula Cuvier, type species Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus). This Opinion did not deal directly with Palaeornis, but the status of Palaeornithinae as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae requires that the type of Palaeornis Vigors be the same as that of Psittacula Cuvier. And this status should, in principle, be strictly protected by Art. 80.7.1 ("A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s).").

A possible interpretation is that the 'correction' cannot be valid, because 'correcting' the type required to set aside a ruling by the Commission, which no individual author is allowed to do.

 

[andrew147]

Vigors (and basically all other authors in his time) used alexandri for what we now call eupatria, and pondicerianus for what we now call alexandri. Cuvier had used alexandri in the same sense in a work which he referred to in the publication in which he proposed Psittacula.

But, under the Code, when an author designates "Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus" as a type species, this makes P. alexandri Linnaeus (as defined by its original type specimen(s)) the type species. Before 2000, short of an action by the Commission under the Plenary Powers, Palaeornis would have been stuck with the type Vigors had designated. In the current Code, however, a provision was added, which now allows authors to 'correct' type species that are misidentified. This reads :



An act intending to 'correct' the type of Palaeornis from Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus to Psittacus eupatria Linnaeus was indeed published in :

Braun MP, Datzmann T, Arndt T, Reinschmidt M, Schnitker H, Baht N, Sauer-Gürth H, Wink M. 2019. A molecular phylogeny of the genus Psittacula sensu lato (Aves: Psittaciformes: Psittacidae: Psittacula, Psittinus, Tanygnathus, †Mascarinus) with taxonomic implications. Zootaxa, 4563: 547-562.​

In this paper, the authors treated Palaeornis as valid (with two taxonomic species included), introducing the genus as follows:


I don't like this article for a variety of reasons -- but I would say that the above meets its requirements. Except that... there is actually a serious problem in the present case : the change in the type species clashes directly with Opinion 2332 (2014), which placed Palaeornithinae Vigors (type genus Palaeornis Vigors) on the Official Index as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae Vigors (type genus, fixed there under the Plenary Powers, Psittacula Cuvier, type species Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus). This Opinion did not deal directly with Palaeornis, but the status of Palaeornithinae as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae requires that the type of Palaeornis Vigors be the same as that of Psittacula Cuvier. And this status should, in principle, be strictly protected by Art. 80.7.1 ("A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s).").

A possible interpretation is that the 'correction' cannot be valid, because 'correcting' the type required to set aside a ruling by the Commission, which no individual author is allowed to do.

Thank you, very interesting.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Vigors (and basically all other authors in his time) used alexandri for what we now call eupatria, and pondicerianus for what we now call alexandri. Cuvier had used alexandri in the same sense in a work which he referred to in the publication in which he proposed Psittacula.

Under the Code, when an author designates "Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus" as a type species, this makes the nominal species P. alexandri Linnaeus (as defined by its original type specimen(s)) the type species. Before 2000, short of an action by the Commission under the Plenary Powers, Palaeornis would have been stuck with the nominal type Vigors had designated. In the current Code, however, a provision was added, which now allows authors to 'correct' type species that are misidentified. This reads :



An act intending to 'correct' the type of Palaeornis from Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus to Psittacus eupatria Linnaeus was indeed published in :

Braun MP, Datzmann T, Arndt T, Reinschmidt M, Schnitker H, Baht N, Sauer-Gürth H, Wink M. 2019. A molecular phylogeny of the genus Psittacula sensu lato (Aves: Psittaciformes: Psittacidae: Psittacula, Psittinus, Tanygnathus, †Mascarinus) with taxonomic implications. Zootaxa, 4563: 547-562.​

In this paper, the authors treated Palaeornis as valid (with two taxonomic species included), introducing the genus as follows:


I don't like this article for a variety of reasons -- but I would say that the above meets its requirements. Except that... there is actually a serious problem in the present case : the change in the type species clashes directly with Opinion 2332 (2014), which placed Palaeornithinae Vigors (type genus Palaeornis Vigors) on the Official Index as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae Vigors (type genus, fixed there under the Plenary Powers, Psittacula Cuvier, type species Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus). This Opinion did not deal directly with Palaeornis, but the status of Palaeornithinae as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae requires that the type of Palaeornis Vigors be the same as that of Psittacula Cuvier. And this status should, in principle, be strictly protected by Art. 80.7.1 ("A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s).").

A possible interpretation is that the 'correction' cannot be valid, because 'correcting' the type required to set aside a ruling by the Commission, which no individual author is allowed to do.

Do you know what the identity of Psittacus/Psittacula/Palaeornis gingianus is?

 

[l_raty]

Do you know what the identity of Psittacus/Psittacula/Palaeornis gingianus is?

Psittacus ginginianus Latham 1790 is in effect a new name for Psittacus "erythrocephalos" = erythrocepalus Gmelin 1788 (the other references cited by Latham had all also been cited by Gmelin in his introduction of P. erythrocephalus).
The base is :

• "La Perruche a teste rouge de Gingi", Psittaca ginginiana erythrocephalos, of Brisson 1760 (see also the volume of coloured plates on Gallica);
• "La Perruche à tête rouge" of Buffon 1779, Pl. enlum. 264.

My understanding is that these names are usually placed in the synonymy of Psittacula cyanocephala cyanocephala (largely based on the type locality -- Gingi / Gingee).

There is some discussion in :

• v.37:pt.3-4 (1934-1935) - The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society - Biodiversity Heritage Library
• http://hdl.handle.net/2246/3969

 

[Norbert R. B.]

Vigors (and basically all other authors in his time) used alexandri for what we now call eupatria, and pondicerianus for what we now call alexandri. Cuvier had used alexandri in the same sense in a work which he referred to in the publication in which he proposed Psittacula.

Under the Code, when an author designates "Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus" as a type species, this makes the nominal species P. alexandri Linnaeus (as defined by its original type specimen(s)) the type species. Before 2000, short of an action by the Commission under the Plenary Powers, Palaeornis would have been stuck with the nominal type Vigors had designated. In the current Code, however, a provision was added, which now allows authors to 'correct' type species that are misidentified. This reads :



An act intending to 'correct' the type of Palaeornis from Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus to Psittacus eupatria Linnaeus was indeed published in :

Braun MP, Datzmann T, Arndt T, Reinschmidt M, Schnitker H, Baht N, Sauer-Gürth H, Wink M. 2019. A molecular phylogeny of the genus Psittacula sensu lato (Aves: Psittaciformes: Psittacidae: Psittacula, Psittinus, Tanygnathus, †Mascarinus) with taxonomic implications. Zootaxa, 4563: 547-562.​

In this paper, the authors treated Palaeornis as valid (with two taxonomic species included), introducing the genus as follows:


I don't like this article for a variety of reasons -- but I would say that the above meets its requirements. Except that... there is actually a serious problem in the present case : the change in the type species clashes directly with Opinion 2332 (2014), which placed Palaeornithinae Vigors (type genus Palaeornis Vigors) on the Official Index as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae Vigors (type genus, fixed there under the Plenary Powers, Psittacula Cuvier, type species Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus). This Opinion did not deal directly with Palaeornis, but the status of Palaeornithinae as an objective synonym of Psittaculinae requires that the type of Palaeornis Vigors be the same as that of Psittacula Cuvier. And this status should, in principle, be strictly protected by Art. 80.7.1 ("A work, name or nomenclatural act entered in an Official Index has the status attributed to it in the relevant ruling(s).").

A possible interpretation is that the 'correction' cannot be valid, because 'correcting' the type required to set aside a ruling by the Commission, which no individual author is allowed to do.

I'm not sure that your opinion is correct. A decision made by the Commission does not require anything except, of course, that the majority of Commissioners votes for it. Opinion 2332 only rules that the family-group name Psittaculinae is conserved and the family-group name Palaeornithinae is suppressed. It does not affect the genus-group name Palaeornis.