Questions of three "Linnaean" Synonyms … (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

I have three questions regarding some "Linnaean" Synonyms alt. Nomina nuda/dubia …

1: Is the invalid "G. Linnæi" [Graculus Linnæi] GRAY 1845 really synonymous (as claimed by the HBW Alive Key) to "Gulosus aristotelis" [i. e. the Shag (Leucocarbo) Phalacrocorax aristotelis LINNAEUS 1761 a k a "Pelecanus graculus" LINNAEUS 1766] …?!?

When coining this "Linnæi" Mr. Gray only refers to Gould's The Birds of Europe 1837, vol 5, Plate 408. Also see its following text (attached).

But … maybe I stick my head out here: isn´t this Gould's "Phalacrocorax Graculus" simply an adult non-breeding Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus ... !? Even if illustrated vaguely regarding the upper part of the lore and unfortunately not showing its throat in full!? Or an adult, non-breeding, winter specimen (lacking the white patch) of P. carbo sinensis? Though the lesser number of tail feathers (12 instead of 14) points in favour for auritus vs any carbo.

The depicted bird gives, in any case, a much more robust impression than that of a Shag!? Wouldn´t the Artist have made any Shag a bit more slender, more thin-billed and with a steeper fore-head? Do not pay much attention to the red colour of the eye! Or the bright orange bare skin (pointing towards auritus). Soft parts was often, at that time (as well as today), gone by the time any Artist got hold of the specimens. Also worth considering, while reading Gould's (i. e. Temminck's) notes of its distribution, is that the clear distinction between carbo and auritus was far from as well documented as today.

Moreover; the distribution of the Shag is (and surely was) limited to the West Palearctic.

However; does this mean that this "Linnæi" thereby, maybe, is a junior synonym (and if so, of what?) alt. a Numen nudum or Nomen dubium? And if the latter; which one?

Or have I misunderstood the whole thing?



2: And what about: the invalid "Thaumantias "linnæi" BONAPARTE 1854 (without any dedication) and "Thaumatias Linnæi" GOULD 1861: "The term viridissima, assigned to this species by M. Lesson, having been employed many years before by Gmelin for another member of the family, and the other synonyms given above being, in my opinion, very questionable, I agree with M. Bourcier and Prince Charles L. Bonaparte, that it will be advantageous to give the present bird another appellation, and I have therefore adopted that of Linnæi, proposed for it by the Prince, in honour of the great Swedish naturalist." a k a "Linnæus' Emerald". (attached +Plate)

According to the HBW Alive Key it is: "syn. Amazilia fimbriata" (GMELIN 1788) … meaning not (!?) today's subspecies Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias LINNAEUS 1766] ... ?

Of which one is it a synonym?



And the last one, with less doubt, but I´d like some confirmation that I got it right:
3: … the also invalid "Xanthornus linnaei" BONAPARTE (1850?*) [= syn. Icterus nigrogularis HAHN 1819; as "Xanthornus nigrogularis" … ?]

*Here Bonaparte only lists it as his own synonym of "Oriolus xanthornotus", with only one single reference; to the text-less Plate-work Planches enluminées (d'histoire naturelle) Plate 5 (attached), fig. 1, where the bird in question simply is called "Carouge du Méxique" – which surely excludes the synonymity of (as suggested by some) the Asian species; Black-hooded Oriole Oriolus xanthornus LINNAEUS 1758 (as "Coracias Xanthornus") … as well as the fact, the latter being red-billed and all-black-headed.

Anyone disagree?

xxx

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Forwarded replies

Here´s two short replies from our friens at the Bird Identification Forum ...

Agree with P. auritus for the cormorant - the bare skin around the face is a good match.

Lower Oriole could be Black-cowled, upper one is almost Yellow-backed, could be a poor representation I suppose.

Anyone else got any opinions?

 

[l_raty]

The cormorant is not easy, particularly as the range described for the species is almost worldwide...
It doesn't look like an aristotelis, but the white streaking on head sides and thighs doesn't seem to be a good match for auritus either to me. Neither is the white divide that, even if obviously abnormally restricted for a Great Cormorant, is present between the pouch and the black feathering. On balance, I'd be more tempted by the sinensis suggestion.

*******

Thaumantias linnæi Bonaparte, 1854 is a replacement name for Trochilus thaumanthias Linnaeus, 1766 (= Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias (Linnaeus, 1766)), introduced to avoid tautonymy.
Thaumathias Linnæi "Bonaparte" Gould, 1861 is a replacement name for Ornismyia viridissima Lesson, 1829 (= Amazilia fimbriata (Gmelin, 1788)), preoccupied.

These two are unrelated as far as I can see...?

*******

The third one is a total mess...

Xanthornus linnaei Bonaparte, 1850 is a replacement name introduced to avoid tautonymy for "Oriolus xanthornus L.", which is apparently a subsequent spelling introduced by Gmelin, 1788 of O. xanthorus Linnaeus, 1767, itself a replacement name introduced in an errata for (the second!: #13, not #8) O. mexicanus Linnaeus, 1766.

Replacement names are objective synonyms of the names they replace: what determines their type series and application is what appears in the work introducing the original name: here, Linnaeus, 1766; the references listed by Bonaparte 1850 are irrelevant.
Linnaeus' diagnosis reads: "O. luteus, gula remigibus rectricibusque nigris." = "Oriole yellow, with throat, flight feathers, and tail feathers black."
Linnaeus listed the following references:
- Bonana minor. Edw. av. 68. / t. 243.
- Xanthornus mexicanus. Briss. av. 2. p. 118. / t. 11. f. 2.
- Avis Ayoquantototl. Seb. mus. 2. p. 102. / t. 96. f. 4. / Hern. mex. 54. / Raj. av. 171.
He gave the range as Mexico and Jamaica.

Edwards' bird was from Jamaica, and appears to have been a Jamaican Oriole Icterus leucopteryx. Brisson's Carouge du Mexique and Seba's Ayoquantototl may be Yellow Orioles Icterus nigrogularis (based on body incl. back yellow, head yellow with black throat, wing black with limited white on greater coverts and lesser coverts yellow, tail black; even though Brisson also gave as range "Mexico and Jamaica"). Hernandez' "original" Ayoquantototl was, according to him, roughly the same size as his Yxtezcatototl, which he said was the size of a sparrow (Passer); its plumage was varied of yellow, black and whitish; it lived in the mountains, was good to eat, but rarely kept in cage because its song was excessively poor... (?! As far as I can judge, this may well not be an oriole at all.) Ray just repeated Hernandez' diagnosis.

Note that Berlepsch & Hartert, 1902 tried to act on "Oriolus xanthornus Gmelin", by excluding Edwards' citation from the synonymy and Jamaica from the range, suggesting that Mexico was an error, and fixing Cayenne (ex Buffon) as the type locality. They then used the name so restricted for Yellow Oriole. (Which, incidentally, means it is not a nomen oblitum.) But selecting anything from Buffon for this name is definitely problematic, because Buffon, although indeed listed by Gmelin in 1788, is not cited in the 1766/7 publications by Linnaeus, where the name was originally made available. (Which Berlepsch & Hartert did not realize.)

See also Hellmayr 1937.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent!

As usual when you´re involved things get a bit clearer … even if I didn´t manage the whole stretch ... Sorry, about that. My linguistic skills are simply not adequate enough to understand and value it all.

However, here goes, a first staggering attempt:

● … the invalid "Garuculus Linnæi" GRAY 1845 is a Nomen dubium (that cannot with certainty, nor objectively and confidently, be linked to a certain one of today's taxa) of an unidentified Phalacrocorax sp. or ssp. (i. e. not Gulosus/Leucocarbo) … ?

● … the invalid "Thaumantias linnæi" BONAPARTE 1854 [syn. Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias LINNAEUS 1766]

● … the invalid "Thaumatias Linnæi" GOULD (Bonaparte) 1861 [syn. Amazilia fimbriata GMELIN 1788]

● … the invalid "Xanthornus linnaei" BONAPARTE 1850 is … and here I most definitely agree (what a mess!) … also a Nomen dubium (?)… of an unidentified (most likely Caribbean/Central American) Oriole … ?

Am I getting it a bit more correct?

 

[Nutcracker]

The cormorant is not easy, particularly as the range described for the species is almost worldwide...
It doesn't look like an aristotelis, but the white streaking on head sides and thighs doesn't seem to be a good match for auritus either to me. Neither is the white divide that, even if obviously abnormally restricted for a Great Cormorant, is present between the pouch and the black feathering. On balance, I'd be more tempted by the sinensis suggestion.

Agree not P. aristotelis. The thigh streaks may not fit too well for P. auritus, but neither do they for P. [carbo] sinensis; more against that is the lack of a white chin and white thigh patch, and the orange gape extending round the eye - which is a good match for P. auritus. I've not seen any skins of P. auritus to see if they might have any tiny white filoplumes on the thigh, that might be worth checking for though. The artist shows them as very fine, so they may not show up easily in the field and therefore not be mentioned by other authors.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Maybe the Cormorant is a Spring specimen (as indicated by the text), of P. carbo ssp. just about to show the white's on its head and thigh patch?

Here´s some photos that also might be worth taking a look at. Not changing my conclusion, but surely thought-worthy!

Photos: 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 ...

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Let´s return to Post No. #4 ...

No opinions on my futile attempt on conclusion ...
:scribe:

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Yet another try ...

A second attempt on the "three", now five (!), "Linnaean" Synonyms … (and one, single valid name)

● … the invalid "Graculus Linnæi" GRAY 1845 is a Nomen dubium – of an unidentified Phalacrocorax (carbo/auritus) ssp., based on "Phalacrocorax Graculus" GOULD 1837 [most likely P. c. sinensis BLUMENBACH 1798] … although "Pelecanus graculus" LINNAEUS 1766 is synonymous to the Common/European Shag (Gulosus/Leucocarbo) Phalacrocorax aristotelis LINNAEUS 1761]

● … the invalid "Thaumantias linnæi" BONAPARTE 1854 [syn. Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias LINNAEUS 1766]

● … the invalid "Thaumatias Linnæi" GOULD (Bonaparte) 1861 [syn. Amazilia fimbriata GMELIN 1788]

● … the invalid "Xanthornus linnaei" BONAPARTE 1850 is also a Nomen dubium … of an unidentified Oriole (either Icterus nigrogularis HAHN 1819 or Oriolus xanthornus LINNAEUS 1758)

● … the invalid "E. [Eclectus] Linnaei" WAGLER 1832 [syn. Eclectus roratus MÜLLER 1776]

Am I getting slowly getting there?

Note: I´m far from feeling "safe" on it all ... and would need some sort of response, support or just a little "backing-up".

-----------------------

And, for completeness sake, let´s add "his" only valid Bird!

● the subspecies Turdus grayi linnaei PHILLIPS 1966: "In naming this distinctive race, I am mindful of the extraordinary ignorance of some of our highest-placed biologists today of our enormous debt to the great Carl von Linné, and of how few birds commemorate this debt."

 

[l_raty]

● … the invalid "Graculus Linnæi" GRAY 1845 is a Nomen dubium – of an unidentified Phalacrocorax (carbo/auritus) ssp., based on "Phalacrocorax Graculus" GOULD 1837 [most likely P. c. sinensis BLUMENBACH 1798] … although "Pelecanus graculus" LINNAEUS 1766 is synonymous to the Common/European Shag (Gulosus/Leucocarbo) Phalacrocorax aristotelis LINNAEUS 1761]

No, sorry. (My bad: I had only checked the page you linked, not the page that was referenced therein, which I obviously should have done. A recipe for misinterpretations...)
The name was actually introduced by Gray in the main text of the book (#6; this is apparently "p.667", although in practice the pages are not numbered), and it really is a replacement name for Pelecanus Graculus Linnaeus, introduced to avoid tautonymy. In the appendix, Gray just adds a reference (to Gould's plate) to those already cited on p.667; he doesn't introduce a name for the bird on this particular plate. If Graculus Linnæi Gray is a replacement name for Pelecanus Graculus Linnaeus, then this is the only thing that matters, and these two names are synonyms by definition; the other added references, including Gould's plate, are irrelevant.

● … the invalid "Thaumantias linnæi" BONAPARTE 1854 [syn. Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias LINNAEUS 1766]

Yes.

● … the invalid "Thaumatias Linnæi" GOULD (Bonaparte) 1861 [syn. Amazilia fimbriata GMELIN 1788]

Gould's use of this name seems to have been for what is now called A. fimbriata (Gmelin), so if you want to cite it in the synonymy of something, it should be in the synonymy of A. fimbriata.
That said, the situation might also easily be interpreted as a (totally ) wrong use by Gould of Bonaparte's name. (It would then be "linnæi Bonaparte, 1854 sensu Gould, 1861", and there would be no "linnæi Gould, 1861". The limit between these two types of cases is somewhat blurred in the Code.)

● … the invalid "Xanthornus linnaei" BONAPARTE 1850 is also a Nomen dubium … of an unidentified Oriole (either Icterus nigrogularis HAHN 1819 or Oriolus xanthornus LINNAEUS 1758)

For me an objective synonym of Oriolus xanthorus Linnaeus, 1767 (presumably intended as "Oriolus xanthornus", but not so spelled in practice; "corrected" to the latter spelling by Gmelin, 1788), itself an objective synonym of the second instance of Oriolus mexicanus Linnaeus, 1766. (All three refer to the same "thing", hence all are nomina dubia.)
As the original concept, on which Oriolus xanthorus Linnaeus, 1767 was based, is a mixture of at least two species of Orioles (plus an additional unidentified, and probably unidentifiable, bird), I wouldn't write "of an unidentified Oriole". In theory at least, this name could be restricted at some point by the fixation of a lectotype/neotype, which would anchor it objectively to one of the originally included taxonomic species (the one selected by the reviewer).

I don't really see any valid reason to think that Bonaparte, 1850 intended this name to replace Coracias xanthornus Linnaeus, 1758 (now in Oriolus). Bonaparte was apparently careful about citing names in their original combination, and he cited "Oriolus xanthornus, L.", not "Coracias xanthornus, L."; he listed two references that were cited by Gmelin, one of which was also cited by Linnaeus, 1766, but neither of which was cited by Linnaeus, 1758; the diagnosis he added was compatible with that of 1766/1788, but conflicted with that of 1758 (black throat, black tail; in 1758: black head, no black tail described).
Note however that Coracias xanthornus Linnaeus, 1758, currently in use for the Black-headed Oriole, was also originally composite. It had one reference (Edwards) to today's Oriolus xanthornus, one (Catesby) to today's Icterus icterus, and the third one (Browne) to an account referring to these two, but with a diagnosis which is a quite good fit for today's Icterus leucopteryx (olive above, yellow below; black around the eyes, on the throat and upper breast; wing and tail black, secondaries white); the stated type locality was "America". The diagnosis however (yellow, with black head and primary flight-feathers) agreed reasonably only with Black-headed Oriole. This name was restricted by Hartert, 1919, who stated that Edwards' "Black-headed Indian Icterus", with Bengal as it type locality, was considered the only actual source (interpretable as a lectotypification under today's rules?), and also gave priority to this name over Sturnus Luteolus Linnaeus, 1758 (invoking "page priority"; under today's rules, acting as First Reviser).
The 1758 concept was completely dismantled by Linnaeus in 1766: the 12th ed. of Systema Naturae made no reference to its former existence, and the three sources that formed its base were transferred to three other, distinct species.

(Somewhat reminiscent of how he acted with his Ramphastos piperivorus -- 1758 vs. 1766: the two concepts have absolutely nothing in common.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

One more go ...

Ok, and once again (with the risk of getting tedious): Thanks Laurent!

If Gould's contribution from 1837 (incl. the Plate and the Distribution mentioned) doubtless is irrelevant, this surely is a bit more understandable ... Sigh, why couldn´t I simply trust James and what his HBW Alive Key has claimed the whole time!?

In any case; here´s my third (!?) attempt on the eponym linnaei:

● … the invalid "Graculus Linnæi" GRAY 1845 [is based on "Pelecanus Graculus" LINNAEUS 1766 which, in its turn, is a synonym of (Gulosus/Leucocarbo) Phalacrocorax aristotelis LINNAEUS 1761]

● … the invalid "Thaumantias linnæi" BONAPARTE 1854 [syn. Polytmus guainumbi thaumantias LINNAEUS 1766]

● … the invalid "Thaumatias Linnæi" GOULD 1861 [syn. Amazilia fimbriata GMELIN 1788]

● … the invalid "Xanthornus linnaei" BONAPARTE 1850 [Nomen dubium … as the original concept of "Oriolus Xanthorus" LINNAEUS 1767 was based on at least two different orioles. This also goes for Gmelin's 1788 corrected alt. orthographically well-intended version; "Oriolus Xanthornus"*]

● … the invalid "E. [Eclectus] Linnaei" WAGLER 1832 [syn. Eclectus roratus MÜLLER 1776]

● and the valid subspecies Turdus grayi linnaei PHILLIPS 1966

Any better …?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
*Not to be confused with today's Black-headed Oriole Oriolus xanthornus LINNAEUS 1758 (as "Coracias Xanthornus")
:brains:
Talk about various ways (as this thread has shown) to get lost!

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Still stuck ...

All´s silent ... and I´m put on hold, still waiting, stuck on this one!

If still not correct in Post No. #10: Then how should the "linnaei's" (impeccably) be written ... ?
:scribe:
Anyone?

PS. Or do we just sit tight ... and wait for James?
x

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Time to push things forward!

Another week´s gone by and no respons to this thread …

Well, some good 730 readers (at this point) hasn´t complained, and strengthened by someone's sudden kind "five-star-mark" of this tread, I will (with the risk of maybe having some erroneous synonym/s in my MS entry for Linnaeus) have to move on, simply assuming I got it the proper way … hereafter (until proven wrong) leaving the "Linnaei's"* as in post No. #10.

Any future reader finding them wrong!? Please respond.

---------------------------------------------------------------
*= all, of course, commemorating the (or, maybe more appropriate; The) great Swedish naturalist, the Father of binary nomenclature and modern taxonomy himself: Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), who after he was ennobled (in 1757) became even more known (at least in Sweden) as: Carl von Linné.

PS. His name sometimes was (and often still is!) written either Carolus Linnaeus or Caroli Linnæi … even if none of the two latter ever was his true Swedish names. You can even find versions like; Caroli alt. Carlo (de) Linnei … etc. etc. of this, his well-reputed name.