Parrots (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

As I wrote, I may be wrong, but my understanding was that you printed version 6.1, 2023 ?
"

Now its the 6.2, soon 6.3 when new genera in progress will be published. Some copies are deposited at the BNF (pour le dépôt légal)

My book is only on French names, nothing else, not taxonomy or nomenclatural act.

 

[l_raty]

My book is only on French names, nothing else, not taxonomy or nomenclatural act.

Well, you do use scientific names, and nomenclature is affected by this, whether you want it or not.
Your use of Proboscigerinae (in version 3.4, 2022) is cited in Gregory & Sangster 2023 in direct support of the nomenclatural validity of this name.

[...] and as Gaudin (2022) in Noms français normalisés des oiseaux du monde has reverted to Proboscigerinae, we conclude that the valid name for this clade is:
Proboscigerini
[...]

You may be the only author to have used the name Arremonidae in a publication for over a century.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Well, you do use scientific names, and nomenclature is affected by this, whether you want it or not.
Your use of Proboscigerinae (in version 3.4, 2022) is cited in Gregory & Sangster 2023 in direct support of the nomenclatural validity of this name.


You may be the only author to have used the name Arremonidae in a publication for over a century.

But I use available names, except those in brackets. Does the fact that the authors of higher-ranking taxa (family and order) are not cited change anything?

 

[l_raty]

This is my (current) take on family-group names in Psittaciformes.
(The .zip file contains a .xls file -- I had to compress it to be able to attach it here. The .xls is converted from a .ods file -- I don't use M$ products -- hopefully it is readable to anybody.)
If anybody is willing to engage in discussion or provide comments, I would be most interested.

(I am in no way opposed to people using the content of this file in their work but, please, if you do so, acknowledge your source.)

 

[l_raty]

But I use available names, except those in brackets. Does the fact that the authors of higher-ranking taxa (family and order) are not cited change anything?

When there is more than one available name potentially applying to a taxon, which one of these should be used as valid is determined in part by the past usage of these names.

Eurhynchides Billberg 1828, Microglossidae Hogg 1846 and Proboscigeridae Mathews 1916 are all available names, formed from genus-group names that are synonymous.
The first of these, Eurhynchides Billberg 1828, is invalid because the name of its type genus was suppressed in Opinion 1352 v.42:pt.1-4 (1985:Apr.-Dec.) - The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature - Biodiversity Heritage Library (see Art. 39).
Microglossidae is (much) older than Proboscigeridae but, as Microglossus is in the synonymy of Probosciger and Proboscigeridae 'replaced' Microglossidae before 1961, Art. 40.2 of the Code protects the younger synonym, by giving it the precedence of the older synonym, if it is in prevailing usage.
In other words : the Code is asking us to go through all the most recent (published !) works where one of these two names was used, and count how many authors used one or the other; if "at least a substantial majority" of the authors used a name based on Probosciger, then (assuming a tribe -- you make it a subfamily) Proboscigerini Mathews 1916 (1846) should be used; in the opposite case, then Microglossini Hogg 1846 should be used.

Joseph et al, in 2012, did not regard Proboscigerini as having reached prevailing usage and recommended using the older synonym, Microglossini. Gregory & Sangster now disagree and recommend using Proboscigerini instead. This was in part a result of you having used this name in your book.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

When there is more than one available name potentially applying to a taxon, which one of these should be used as valid is determined in part by the past usage of these names.

Eurhynchides Billberg 1828, Microglossidae Hogg 1846 and Proboscigeridae Mathews 1916 are all available names, formed from genus-group names that are synonymous.
The first of these, Eurhynchides Billberg 1828, is invalid because the name of its type genus was suppressed in Opinion 1352 v.42:pt.1-4 (1985:Apr.-Dec.) - The Bulletin of zoological nomenclature - Biodiversity Heritage Library (see Art. 39).
Microglossidae is (much) older than Proboscigeridae but, as Microglossus is in the synonymy of Probosciger and Proboscigeridae 'replaced' Microglossidae before 1961, Art. 40.2 of the Code protects the younger synonym, by giving it the precedence of the older synonym, if it is in prevailing usage.
In other words : the Code is asking us to go through all the most recent (published !) works where one of these two names was used, and count how many authors used one or the other; if "at least a substantial majority" of the authors used a name based on Probosciger, then (assuming a tribe -- you make it a subfamily) Proboscigerini Mathews 1916 (1846) should be used; in the opposite case, then Microglossini Hogg 1846 should be used.

Joseph et al, in 2012, did not regard Proboscigerini as having reached prevailing usage and recommended using the older synonym, Microglossini. Gregory & Sangster now disagree and recommend using Proboscigerini instead. This was in part a result of you having used this name in your book.

If Sangster and Gregory were more attentive, they would have seen that I had used Androglossinae instead of Amazoninae but I imagine that would not have influenced their final decision.

I referred to Bock (1994) and Boyd for taxa above genus but I wonder if the former would not have forgotten some taxa in his work.

 

[l_raty]

I referred to Bock (1994) and Boyd for taxa above genus but I wonder if the former would not have forgotten some taxa in his work.

By my last count, I think that Bock 1994 was wrong in one way or another in roughly 50% of the names he listed, the most frequent issue being probably misattribution (i.e., he took the name from a source, while it was available from another). And his list was far from complete, too, indeed. (See, e.g., the names marked "overlooked" in the column "Bock's 1994 source", in the file I posted above.)

(Of course, Bock made his review alone, in the matter of a mere couple of years, and without the Internet -- a perfect result was probably unattainable. Establishing complete lists of e.g., available generic names in birds, required entire lives of people like Richmond, etc., studying the literature.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

(See, e.g., the names marked "overlooked" in the column "Bock's 1994 source", in the file I posted above.)

Too long to download

 

[l_raty]

Too long to download

???
It's 62 Kb.
The .jpg file of your "mignon petit Traquet rubicole" is twice bigger.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

???
It's 62 Kb.
The .jpg file of your "mignon petit Traquet rubicole" is twice bigger.

My laptop runs on diesel 😂

it downloads it but it takes time for the file to appear in the download folder

Ok it's good

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

To be published for the purposes of nomenclature, any unprinted version of your book should have been individually registered in ZooBank before you released it, and contain evidence that the registration had occurred.

But I won't do it because the main subject is common names even if there are Latin scientific names (obligatory because I link a French binomial to a Latin binomial so I have no choice to use taxonomy) and that this can influence the uses. Common names are not regulated by the Code, I don't learn you. On the other hand, for my current project which deals with taxonomy will have a Zoobank registration.

 

[l_raty]

But I won't do it because the main subject is common names even if there are Latin scientific names (obligatory because I link a French binomial to a Latin binomial so I have no choice to use taxonomy). Common names are not regulated by the Code, I don't learn you. On the other hand, for my current project which deals with taxonomy will have a Zoobank registration.

I understand completely that you don't do it.
But if you don't, then these unregistered versions are not published in the sense of the Code, and your usage of names in them should not be counted in an analyzis intended to establish prevailing usage for the purposes of Art. 40.2.

Your version 6.1 has a double ISBN (paper + pdf), and is marked "Imprimé sur les presses de Modern’ Repro | 37, rue Saint Louis, 17000 La Rochelle |
Imprimé au deuxième trimestre 2023 | Dépôt légal : mai 2023" which, at the very least, makes it look like a work also published in print.

Is (or was) the paper version 'obtainable' by the public ? I mean, if I felt the urge to own one of the paper copy printed "au deuxième trimestre 2023" as per the above, would I be able to get one ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Your version 6.1 has a double ISBN (paper + pdf), and is marked "Imprimé sur les presses de Modern’ Repro | 37, rue Saint Louis, 17000 La Rochelle |
Imprimé au deuxième trimestre 2023 | Dépôt légal : mai 2023" which, at the very least, makes it look like a work also published in print.

Is (or was) the paper version 'obtainable' by the public ? I mean, if I felt the urge to own one of the paper copy printed "au deuxième trimestre 2023" as per the above, would I be able to get one ?

There are some print version, I think there are 4 in BNF and 2 copies are in my city's media library (médiathèque Michel Crépeau), but there are more (I have one of them and a friend too). All these versions contain errors of all kinds (mispelling, authority errors, etc.). Now I will only make pdf versions and I am thinking of making a final version but for that, I am waiting for several genera to be described because certain taxonomic revisions at the generic level will involve modifications in the French names for at least two families, Muscicapidae and Cardinalidae. .

 

[l_raty]

There are some print version, I think there are 4 in BNF and 2 copies are in my city's media library (médiathèque Michel Crépeau), but there are more (I have one of them and a friend too). All these versions contain errors of all kinds (mispelling, authority errors, etc.). Now I will only make pdf versions and I am thinking of making a final version but for that, I am waiting for several genera to be described because certain taxonomic revisions at the generic level will involve modifications in the French names for at least two families, Muscicapidae and Cardinalidae. .

OK. Is it correct to say, then, that, although there was a printed version, it was not actually intended for public distribution at all ?
(If so, the book is probably best regarded as entirely unpublished for the purposes of nomenclature.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

OK. Is it correct to say, then, that the printed version was not actually intended for public distribution at all ?
(If so, it is probably best regarded as entirely unpublished for the purposes of nomenclature.)

I wanted to print copies to have a form of exclusivity and I preferred to print new copies when there were major changes. My work was completely proofread by Normand David and I believe that Michel Gosselin has just discovered it.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

You may be the only author to have used the name Arremonidae in a publication for over a century.

I also use Nyctherodius and Myiosympotes, will this have an influence on the taxonomy?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

OK. Is it correct to say, then, that, although there was a printed version, it was not actually intended for public distribution at all ?

I publish each new version on my Facebook group (Mon Coin Ornitho) and it has been downloaded by some members. Jean-Sébastien Guénette (Québec Oiseaux) has a version published this year (after the death of Normand David)

 

[l_raty]

I publish each new version on my Facebook group (Mon Coin Ornitho) and some members must have the PDF version. Jean-Sébastien Guénette (Québec Oiseaux) has a version that I published this year (after the death of Normand David)

Yes, but this .pdf version does not meet the requirements of the Code for electronic publication, because it is not registered in ZooBank.
The printed version did not need to be registered, but some type of public distribution should have occurred -- original paper copies should have been made 'obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase' -- for it to meet the requirements of the Code for paper publication.

Not meeting the requirements of the Code does not, of course, mean that your work can't be called 'published' in the common sense of the term.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Yes, but this .pdf version does not meet the requirements of the Code for electronic publication, because it is not registered in ZooBank.

Even work that doesn't treat on taxonomy? Don't forget that this is a CINFO bis. Besides, my list contains two nomina nuda (Campina and Lanyonia) and I don't want tu remove them.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Not meeting the requirements of the Code does not, of course, mean that your work can't be called 'published' in the common sense of the term.

Voila, just that