Picidae (1 Viewer)

[mb1848]

I had not seen a family-group name based on Sasia or Verreauxia (or one of their synonyms) in a Code-compliant publication either.

What about subfamily Picumninea Gray?
A List of the Genera of Birds . Page 70.
“The” Genera of Birds: Comprising Their Generic Characters, a Notice of the Habits of Each Genus and an Extensive List of Species Referred to Their Several Genera ... .
Hargitt on the validity of Sasia:
ser.4:v.5=no.17-20 (1881) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[l_raty]

What about subfamily Picumninea Gray?
A List of the Genera of Birds . Page 70.
“The” Genera of Birds: Comprising Their Generic Characters, a Notice of the Habits of Each Genus and an Extensive List of Species Referred to Their Several Genera ... .

Picuminae Gray 1840 is formed from Picumnus Temminck 1825 (type by subsequent designation of Gray 1840, in my reading of the standard provisions of the Code, Picus minutissimus Pallas 1782), which is not nowadays treated as synonymous with Sasia Hodgson 1837 (type by original designation Sasia ochracea Hodgson 1837) or Verreauxia Hartlaub 1856 (type by original designation Sasia africana Verreaux & Verreaux 1855).

 

[mb1848]

I am sure you are right Laurent but Temminck put two Sections into the genus Picumnus. The first section has three species. The second section has only P. abnormis. I have seen this species placed in Sasia??
v.4 (1838) - Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux - Biodiversity Heritage Library .

 

[l_raty]

I am sure you are right Laurent but Temminck put two Sections into the genus Picumnus. The first section has three species. The second section has only P. abnormis. I have seen this species placed in Sasia??

Yes, but Gray designated the first species of the first section as the type, thus this is now what the genus-group name is anchored on.

The exact identity of this type may be discussed, but it will certainly not involve P. abnormis.

(Temminck's original concept for this species was composite: he called it "Picumnus minutissimus", adding that it was also known as Picus minulus Latham, and citing "le très-petit Pic de Cayenne" of Buffon, Pl. Enl. 786, as an illustration. Picus minulus Latham was itself a composite concept, being based on Picus minutissimus Pallas and "le très-petit Pic de Cayenne" of Buffon, Pl. Enl. 786. -- from which it can quite easily be deduced that the name "minutissimus" as used by Temminck was indeed that of Pallas. Pl. Enl. 786, on the other hand, became subsequently the base of Picumnus buffoni Lafresnaye (not originally included in the genus and thus not eligible to become its type under the standard provisions of the Code), and is not now regarded as the same species as P. minutissimus Pallas. Gray designated the type as Picumnus minutissimus "(Gm.) Temm.", which is a recombination of Gmelin's "Yunx minutissima", itself a recombination of Picus minutissimus Pallas... but again adding a ref to Pl. Enl. 786 which, if taken into account, makes Gray's concept composite as well.)

 

[mb1848]

Great thanks Laurent. Congrats to Jimmy. My brain as well as a google translation of Temminck made me think C.J. T meant that the type for the genus was all three of the four toed birds. Picking one bird to be listed first does not make the bird the type and there is no drawing of minutissimus in CJT but is of abnormis? In 1825 A. G. Desmarest set "Yunx minutissima", and Picus minutus Latham as type of Picumnus.
Bulletin des sciences naturelles et de géologie . Page 262.
Strickland agreed with Gray's action.
v.7=no.41-47 (1841) - The Annals and magazine of natural history - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Blyth discusses this :
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal . Page 1005.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (980) to SACC

Treat Celeus grammicus as conspecific with Celeus undatus

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Proposal (981) to SACC

Treat Campephilus splendens as a species separate from Campephilus haematogaster

 

[Taphrospilus]

Actually I do not understand the authorship of Melanerpes lewis (Gray, GR 1849) OD v.3 (1844-1849) - The genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library entry 444. See also v.2 (1844-1849) - The genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library . I assume reference to Drapiez t.13 (1828) - Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library . How do we come from this descriptions to v.3 (1811) - American ornithology, or, The natural history of the birds of the United States - Biodiversity Heritage Library and v.3 (1811) - American ornithology, or, The natural history of the birds of the United States - Biodiversity Heritage Library ? Some more comments here An account of the various publications relating to the travels of Lewis and Clarke, with a commentary on the zoological results of their expedition about the story. Of course Celeus torquatus (Boddaert, 1783) may the reason for a new name required (as described as Picus torquatus). Bonaparte here t.1 (1850) - Conspectus generum avium - Biodiversity Heritage Library

So why attributed to Gray and not to Drapiez? I am confused about the story of name of this woodpecker.

 

[l_raty]

So why attributed to Gray and not to Drapiez?

Drapiez only used 'Pic Lewis' as a French vernacular. Gray turned this into the scientific name Picus Lewis, hence the authorship of the scientific name goes to Gray.
That being said, the availability of the name is probably disputable, as there was no 'Picus Lewis' in Drapiez's work, and Gray did not actually cite Drapiez's 'Pic Lewis'. It might be argued that no objective link exists between Drapiez's vernacular and Gray's scientific name, and that Gray's name is therefore a nomen nudum.

 

[Taphrospilus]

The link might be Bonaparte?

 

[l_raty]

I guess we could simply disregard the reference to Drapiez ?
Gray's action in the 1849 Appendix was to add "Picus Lewis Drap." to the synonymy of "M[elanerpes]. torquatus", as used on p. 444 of his work, where he also provided references to descriptions and illustrations of "M. torquatus (Wils.)" by Bonaparte and Audubon. I assume these references can be seen as indications making the name available (satisfying ICZN 12.2.1 and 12.2.7).

Note that a name first introduced in the synonymy of an available name is not regarded under the current Code as having thereby been made a nomen novum for that available name.
Such a name is available from its original introduction in synonymy only if it was "treated before 1961 as an available name and either adopted as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym" (ICZN 11.6.1).
Its type series "consists of the specimen (or specimens) cited with that name in the published synonymy, or, if none was cited there, denoted by that name when it was adopted as the name of a taxon." (ICZN 72.4.3), and is not inherited from the name in the synonymy of which it was originally placed.

In the present case, Gray did not cite any specimen with the name. Riley 1905 proposed to use Asyndesmus lewisi for the species, but this was after a discussion that concluded that, Picus collaris Wilson being preoccupied, the species was left "without a name" : I would read it as the proposal of a new name authored by Riley himself, not as an adoption of an emended version of Gray's "Picus lewis Drap.". Subsequently (e.g., Ridgway 1914), this name was cited as Asyndesmus lewisi Riley 1905. The first real adoption of Gray's Picus Lewis as the valid name of a taxon may have been in the 1931 ed. of the AOU Checklist. (There, the name was treated as a new name for P. torquatus Wilson, which probably can be read as making the type specimen of this last name "denoted" by Gray's name in the Checklist, hence the type of Gray's name as well ?)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I guess we could simply disregard the reference to Drapiez ?
Gray's action in the 1849 Appendix was to add "Picus Lewis Drap." to the synonymy of "M[elanerpes]. torquatus", as used on p. 444 of his work, where he also provided references to descriptions and illustrations of "M. torquatus (Wils.)" by Bonaparte and Audubon. I assume these references can be seen as indications making the name available (satisfying ICZN 12.2.1 and 12.2.7).

Note that a name first introduced in the synonymy of an available name is not regarded under the current Code as having thereby been made a nomen novum for that available name.
Such a name is available from its original introduction in synonymy only if it was "treated before 1961 as an available name and either adopted as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym" (ICZN 11.6.1).
Its type series "consists of the specimen (or specimens) cited with that name in the published synonymy, or, if none was cited there, denoted by that name when it was adopted as the name of a taxon." (ICZN 72.4.3), and is not inherited from the name in the synonymy of which it was originally placed.

In the present case, Gray did not cite any specimen with the name. Riley 1905 proposed to use Asyndesmus lewisi for the species, but this was after a discussion that concluded that, Picus collaris Wilson being preoccupied, the species was left "without a name" : I would read it as the proposal of a new name authored by Riley himself, not as an adoption of an emended version of Gray's "Picus lewis Drap.". Subsequently (e.g., Ridgway 1914), this name was cited as Asyndesmus lewisi Riley 1905. The first real adoption of Gray's Picus Lewis as the valid name of a taxon may have been in the 1931 ed. of the AOU Checklist. (There, the name was treated as a new name for P. torquatus Wilson, which probably can be read as making the type specimen of this last name "denoted" by Gray's name in the Checklist, hence the type of Gray's name as well ?)

I have always wondered why some patronymic Latin epithets did not have final i (Galeocerdo cuvier, Megapodius freycinet, Asyndesmus lewis)

 

[l_raty]

I have always wondered why some patronymic Latin epithets did not have final i (Galeocerdo cuvier, Megapodius freycinet, Asyndesmus lewis)

It's merely a spelling choice by the authors.
The Code is explicit that both are OK. (31.1 : the name without the final i is de facto treated as "a noun in apposition (in the nominative case)".)

(In the case of the woodpecker, maybe Drapiez's use of "Pic Lewis" -- rather than "Pic de Lewis" -- induced Gray into using Picus Lewis -- rather than Picus Lewisi ?)

 

[mb1848]

Please read page 26 of Bruce 2023 Sherbornia V. 8. He names it lewsii?
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/sherbornia/issues/s08-01.pdf .

 

[l_raty]

Please read page 26 of Bruce 2023 Sherbornia V. 8. He names it lewsii?
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/sherbornia/issues/s08-01.pdf .

He interprets Gray's 1868 "Picus Lewisii, Drap.", offered by Gray without any comments, as a 'justified emendation'. (Without actually explaining what would give it this status.)

I see no emendation there (the change does not meet the Code requirements to be regarded as demonstrably intentional), and even if there was one (e.g., if Gray had added the OS in quotes with an exclamation mark indicating its rejection), I don't see how this emendation could ever be justified (justified emendations are exclusively changes in spelling that the Code makes mandatory; the only thing that the Code requires to change in a name like 'Picus Lewis' is the upper-case L, which must be changed to a lower-case l).

(More generally, I rarely follow Murray's nomenclatural interpretations... Sometimes I get the feeling that he's not using the same Code as me.)

 

[Taphrospilus]

Authorship Dinopium javanense malabaricum Whistler & Kinnear, 1934 or Whistler, 1934 OD v.37:pt.1-2 (1934) - The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society - Biodiversity Heritage Library and the article was by publishred by both v.37:pt.1-2 (1934) - The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society - Biodiversity Heritage Library ?

 

[l_raty]

Authorship Dinopium javanense malabaricum Whistler & Kinnear, 1934 or Whistler, 1934 OD v.37t.1-2 (1934) - The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society - Biodiversity Heritage Library and the article was by publishred by both v.37t.1-2 (1934) - The journal of the Bombay Natural History Society - Biodiversity Heritage Library ?

The article was by Whistler "assisted by" Kinnear.
The name proposal is written in the first person singular ("I propose"), thus we can be pretty sure that authorship was not intended to be shared with Kinnear.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

G. Sangster, S.M.S. Gregory & E.C. Dickinson, 2023 (October 25): I. The correct authorship of the family-group name Nesoctitini (Picidae). Pp. N1-N3

https://www.aviansystematics.org/uploads/texteditor/AS_2_N1_PDFA.pdf

 

[l_raty]

G. Sangster, S.M.S. Gregory & E.C. Dickinson, 2023 (October 25): I. The correct authorship of the family-group name Nesoctitini (Picidae). Pp. N1-N3


https://www.aviansystematics.org/uploads/texteditor/AS_2_N1_PDFA.pdf

Yes, this one is correct.
(Cf. AOU-NACC Proposals 2021 )

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Jente Ottenburghs and Michaël P. J. Nicolaï (2024) Hybridization constrains the evolution of mimicry complexes in woodpeckers. Journal of Avian Biology, published online 26 February 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.03228

Abstract
The evolution of interspecific mimicry does not always result in perfect resemblance between mimics and models. Differences between members of a mimicry complex can be explained by genetic or developmental constraints. Alternatively, imperfect mimicry might be the outcome of a tradeoff between multiple selective pressures. In this study, we explored the evolutionary conflict between mimicry and hybridization in woodpeckers. Based on the selective tradeoff hypothesis, we expected that mimicry complexes will start to evolve once the constraint of maladaptive hybridization is relaxed. Hence, we predicted limited overlap in the divergence times between hybridizing species pairs and members of a mimicry complex. This prediction was supported by clear tipping point in the probability of hybridization and mimicry at ca 9 million years of divergence. Around this timepoint, the probability of hybridization approaches zero while the probability of belonging to a mimicry complex increases. This finding is only correlational and remains to be confirmed in other taxonomic groups. Nonetheless, our results suggest a selective tradeoff between evolving interspecific mimicry and avoiding maladaptive hybridization in woodpeckers.