Taxonomy in-flux updates (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Morus Vieillot 1816 : Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire
No originally included nominal species cited by an available name ("Fou de Bassan" does not qualify).
First inclusion of nominal species in Vieillot 1817 : t.12 (1817) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Nominal species eligible to become the type : Morus sula, M. bassanus, M. piscator, M. parvus.
The type is Pelecanus sula Linnaeus 1766 by subsequent designation of Ogilvie-Grant 1898.

A list of the genera of birds - 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

Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds contained in the British Museum - 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

Gray (1840 and 1855) included Morus in the synonymy of Sula. Shouldn't the two genera carry the same type species?

 

[l_raty]

Gray (1840 and 1855) included Morus in the synonymy of Sula. Shouldn't the two genera carry the same type species?

No. To fix the type of a genus-group name, you need a type designation, i.e., a statement that a given nominal species is the type of this name. Placing a name in the synonymy of another one does not make the type of the former the same as that of the latter (even if you designate a type for the valid name simultaneously).

Note that Gray, in 1840, also placed Pelecanus L. in the synonymy of Sula: this was merely a way to indicate that Linnaeus had placed the type of Sula in a broad Pelecanus, and was certainly not intended to be a statement about the type of the latter. Gray designated onocrotalus as the type of Pelecanus L. a bit lower down on the same page.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No. To fix the type of a genus-group name, you need a type designation, i.e., a statement that a given nominal species is the type of this name. Placing a name in the synonymy of another one does not make the type of the former the same as that of the latter (even if you designate a type for the valid name simultaneously).

Note that Gray, in 1840, also placed Pelecanus L. in the synonymy of Sula: this was merely a way to indicate that Linnaeus had placed the type of Sula in a broad Pelecanus, and was certainly not intended to be a statement about the type of the latter. Gray designated onocrotalus as the type of Pelecanus L. a bit lower down on the same page.

Didn't we talk about a similar case some time ago? I don't know if it was with Myiophila

 

[l_raty]

Didn't we talk about a similar case some time ago? I don't know if it was with Myiophila

It's likely that we discussed a few similar case over the years.

The case of Myiophila is slightly different, because this name had been made available by Reichenbach in 1850 with an illustration only, without associating any nominal species to it.
Reichenbach's illustration quite clearly showed a Pied Water Tyrant (now Fluvicola pica (Boddaert)). In 1855, Gray cited Myiophila in the synonymy of Arundinicola, for which he simultaneously designated Todus leucocephalus Pallas (which is the White-headed Marsh Tyrant) as a type. There are no reasons to think that Gray mixed up the two species -- more likely, he simply regarded them as congeneric, which to him made the two genus-group names subjective synonyms. But : by designating Todus leucocephalus Pallas as the type of Arundinicola and making Myiophila a synonym of the latter, Gray 1855 de facto included this nominal species in a genus to which the name Myiophila also applied. As Reichenbach had failed to include any nominal species in Myiophila when making available, and no other author had supplied one in the intervening period, this arguably made Todus leucocephalus Pallas the type of Myiophila, not by subsequent designation, but by subsequent monotypy.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

It's likely that we discussed a few similar case over the years.

The case of Myiophila is slightly different, because this name had been made available by Reichenbach in 1850 with an illustration only, without associating any nominal species to it.
Reichenbach's illustration quite clearly showed a Pied Water Tyrant (now Fluvicola pica (Boddaert)). In 1855, Gray cited Myiophila in the synonymy of Arundinicola, for which he simultaneously designated Todus leucocephalus Pallas (which is the White-headed Marsh Tyrant) as a type. There are no reasons to think that Gray mixed up the two species -- more likely, he simply regarded them as congeneric, which to him made the two genus-group names subjective synonyms. But : by designating Todus leucocephalus Pallas as the type of Arundinicola and making Myiophila a synonym of the latter, Gray 1855 de facto included this nominal species in a genus to which the name Myiophila also applied. As Reichenbach had failed to include any nominal species in Myiophila when making available, and no other author had supplied one in the intervening period, this arguably made Todus leucocephalus Pallas the type of Myiophila, not by subsequent designation, but by subsequent monotypy.

Ok

But regarding the names of Brisson, they cannot be rejected and I don't know if each of his names is a special case. We should have invented the principle of Brissonian tautonymy, instead of tautonymy.

It's all really complicated and I was never really interested in all aspects of the Code

 

[Mysticete]

Aves—A Taxonomy in Flux: Recent Changes

Avian Taxonomy

jboyd.net

Big overhaul for June 25th, mostly focused on a complete revision of Columbidae but also some adjustment to higher level taxonomy and linear order within ducks. Too many changes for me to copy and past here, so I will just refer you to their site.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Aves—A Taxonomy in Flux: Recent Changes

Avian Taxonomy

jboyd.net

Big overhaul for June 25th, mostly focused on a complete revision of Columbidae but also some adjustment to higher level taxonomy and linear order within ducks. Too many changes for me to copy and past here, so I will just refer you to their site.

Bruxaux is the first searcher who has included Starnoenas cyanocephala but It seemed to me that there was another study that included it

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The problem is that, obviously, switching from one interpretation to the other for all these names at once would be hugely disruptive...

Fortunately, this only involves two genera and few species. In my opinion, this is less problematic than if it involved several dozen species, as with the tinamous. Because if we reverse these genera, it would cause instability at this moment and at least for some time for the current users. But in ten or twenty years, this new usage would quickly be accepted by ornithologists and reference lists.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No. To fix the type of a genus-group name, you need a type designation, i.e., a statement that a given nominal species is the type of this name. Placing a name in the synonymy of another one does not make the type of the former the same as that of the latter (even if you designate a type for the valid name simultaneously).

Note that Gray, in 1840, also placed Pelecanus L. in the synonymy of Sula: this was merely a way to indicate that Linnaeus had placed the type of Sula in a broad Pelecanus, and was certainly not intended to be a statement about the type of the latter. Gray designated onocrotalus as the type of Pelecanus L. a bit lower down on the same page.

Which author fixed bassanus as the type species of Morus?

 

[l_raty]

Which author fixed bassanus as the type species of Morus?

bassanus is regarded as the type of Morus purely as a consequence of Vieillot 1816 having originally included "Fou de Bassan, Buff." in the genus.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

bassanus is regarded as the type of Morus purely as a consequence of Vieillot 1816 having originally included "Fou de Bassan, Buff." in the genus.

This means that a subsequent author followed Vieillot by fixing bassanus as type since "Fou de Bassan" cannot constitute an available name to be eligible ?

 

[l_raty]

This means that a subsequent author followed Vieillot by fixing bassanus as type since "Fou de Bassan" cannot constitute an available name to be eligible ?

"Fou de Bassan" is not eligible to be a type species under the current Code.

The first inclusion of nominal species in Morus Vieillot 1816 was in:

Vieillot LP. 1817. Fou, Morus, Vieill.; Pelecanus Lath. Pp. 35-41 in: Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, appliquée aux arts, à l'agriculture, à l'économie rurale et domestique, à la médecine, etc. Par une société de naturalistes et d'agriculteurs. Nouvelle édition presqu'entièrement refondue et considérablement augmentée. Tome II. Deterville, Paris.​

t.12 (1817) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - 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

The species were : Morus sula, M. bassanus, M. piscator, M. parvus.

Pelecanus sula Linnaeus 1766 was fixed as the type by a subsequent designation in:

Sharpe RB, Ogilvie-Grant WR. 1898. Catalogue of the Plataleae, Herodiones, Steganopodes, Pygopodes, Alcae, and Impennes in the collection of the British Museum. Catalogue of birds in the British Museum. Volume XXVI. British Museum, London.​

p. 423​

Vol 26 (1898) - Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum - 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

Subsequently, Stone 1907 argued that Morus was "based entirely upon Pelecanus bassanus Linn.", and had to be used for this species. He did not call bassanus "the type" of the genus, however. On a quick search, the first author who did this may have been Mathews in 1913.

...but there was nothing left to be fixed at that point.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Pelecanus sula Linnaeus 1766 was fixed as the type by a subsequent designation in:
Sharpe RB, Ogilvie-Grant WR. 1898. Catalogue of the Plataleae, Herodiones, Steganopodes, Pygopodes, Alcae, and Impennes in the collection of the British Museum. Catalogue of birds in the British Museum. Volume XXVI. British Museum, London.
p. 423

Vol 26 (1898) - Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum - 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

Ok, I knew this link that you had put in an other thread but I thought that a previous author had already done the job before Sharpe and Ogilvie-Grant.

 

[l_raty]

Ok, I knew this link that you had put in an other thread but I thought that a previous author had already done the job before Sharpe and Ogilvie-Grant.

If this had been the case, there would be no problem.