Tinamidae (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Is there a first author who chose a type species for Crypturus Illiger?

 

[James Jobling]

Crypturus Illiger, 1811, is a replacement name for Tinamus Latham, 1790, considered barbarous, and takes the same type.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Crypturus Illiger, 1811, is a replacement name for Tinamus Latham, 1790, considered barbarous, and takes the same type.

Ok. I especially wanted to know if Gray had fixed a species

 

[l_raty]

Is there a first author who chose a type species for Crypturus Illiger?

In the introductory text to his book (an address to his "Lectori"), Illiger presented a number of principles, originally laid out by Linnaeus in his Philosophia botanica (here), that were susceptible to make a generic name unacceptable, and listed names of birds and mammals that he regarded as suffering from these 'problems'. Therein (p. XVII), you find :

§. 229. N. g. quae ex graeca vel latina lingua radicem non habent, rejicienda sunt:
Aguti. Aluata. Anarnacus. Ara. Aracari. Cariama. Coati. Coendu. Coescoes. Desman. Dugong. Fenecus. Galago. Gerbillus. Giraffa. Gouan. Hamster. Indri. Llacma. Lemmus. Lori. Kangurus. Kinkajou. Momotus. Narwalus. Ondathra. Pongo. Potorous. Potos. Rollulus. Saguinus (Tapirus). Sula. Tatu. Tenrec. Tinamus. Wombatus. Yerbua.

(= §. 229. Generic names which do not have a root from the Greek or Latin language, are to be rejected: [...] Tinamus. [...])
Thus when he wrote (p. 244) :

GENUS 82. CRYPTURUS (κρυπτειν occultare υρη cauda) Tinamus Latham. Tinamou La Cépède (Steissvogel Germ. Tinamou Gall. Tinamou Angl.)

...this is interpreted as a replacement of Tinamus (attributed to Latham), for the reason that led him to reject that name on p. XVII.

Note that this is in principle tenable only if "Tinamou La Cépède" is interpreted as a mere subsequent spelling of Tinamus, and not as another, independent name, which would potentially have a different type. (This is because the Code defines a nomen novum as "A name established expressly to replace an already established name." : any name established expressly to replace more than "an" already available name does not qualify.)

If Crypturus is a nomen novum for Tinamus Latham, the two names have the same type; the nominal species eligible to be their type are those that were included (cited by an available name) in the OD of the replaced name; if the type was not fixed when the replacement occurred, the first subsequent designation of a type for either name fixes the type of both.

Gray 1840 designated Tinamus brasiliensis Latham as the type of Tinamus Latham. If you regard Hermann and Latham as having independently latinized Buffon's "Tinamou", Gray's designation fixed Tinamus brasiliensis Latham as the type of both Tinamus Latham and Crypturus Illiger. On the other hand, should you regard Latham as having (silently) adopted Hermann's name, there would be no separate Tinamus Latham, and the type of Crypturus Illiger would be the type of Tinamus Hermann, i.e., Tinamus soui Hermann (by monotypy).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In the introductive text to his book (an address to his "Lectori"), Illiger presented a number of principles, originally laid out by Linnaeus in his Philosophia botanica (here), that were susceptible to make a generic name unacceptable, and listed names of birds and mammals that he regarded as suffering from these 'problems'. Therin (p. XVII), you find :

(= §. 229. Generic names which do not have a root from the Latin or Greek language, are to be rejected: [...] Tinamus. [...])
Thus when he wrote (p. 244) :

...this is interpreted as a replacement of Tinamus (attributed to Latham), for the reason that led him to reject that name on p. XVII.

Note that this is in principle tenable only if "Tinamou La Cépède" is interpreted as a mere subsequent spelling of Tinamus, and not as another, independent name, which would potentially have a different type. (This is because the Code defines a nomen novum as "A name established expressly to replace an already established name." : any name established expressly to replace more than "an" already available name does not qualify.)

If Crypturus is a nomen novum for Tinamus Latham, the two names have the same type; the nominal species eligible to be their type are those that were included (cited by an available name) in the OD of the replaced name; if the type was not fixed when the replacement occurred, the first subsequent designation of a type for either name fixes the type of both.

Gray 1840 designated Tinamus brasiliensis Latham as the type of Tinamus Latham. If you regard Hermann and Latham as having independently latinized Buffon's "Tinamou", Gray's designation fixed Tinamus brasiliensis Latham as the type of both Tinamus Latham and Crypturus Illiger. On the other hand, should you regard Latham as having (silently) adopted Hermann's name, there would be no separate Tinamus Latham, and the type of Crypturus Illiger would be the type of Tinamus Hermann, i.e., Tinamus soui Hermann (by monotypy).

It will depend solely on how we interpret Latham's Tinamus. Another hell of a mess

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

One word about their use of Tinamotinae instead Eudromiinae ?

 

[l_raty]

This is the system as adopted in the paper (I have corrected a couple of typos -- "Viellot", "Boetischer", "Yarrel"... -- but nothing more significant that this...) :

Ordo Tinamiformes Huxley 1872

Familia Tinamidae Gray 1840​

Subfamilia Tinaminae Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamus Hermann 1783)​

• Gen. Nothocercus Bonaparte 1856 (type species: Tinamus julius Bonaparte 1854)
• Gen. Pezus Spix 1825 (type species: Tetrao major Gmelin 1789) (synonym: Tinamus Latham 1790)
• Gen. Tinamus Hermann 1783 (type species: Tinamus soui Hermann 1783) (synonyms: Crypturus Illiger 1811; Cryptura Vieillot 1816; Crypturellus Brabourne & Chubb 1914; Microcrypturus Chubb 1917; Crypturornis Oberholser 1922; Orthocrypturus Miranda-Ribeiro 1938)

Subfamilia Tinamotidinae Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamotis Vigors 1837)​

Tribus Tinamotidini Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamotis Vigors 1837)​

• Gen. Tinamotis Vigors 1837 (type species: Tinamotis pentlandii Vigors 1837)
• Gen. Eudromia Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1832 (type species: Eudromia elegans Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1832) (synonyms: Calodromas Sclater & Salvin 1873; Calopezus Ridgway 1884)

Tribus Rhynchotini Boetticher 1934 (type genus: Rhynchotus Vigors 1837)​

• Gen. Nothoprocta Sclater & Salvin 1873 (type species: Crypturus perdicarius Kittlitz 1830) (synonym: Nocthura Yarrell 1844)
• Gen. Rhynchotus Spix 1825 (type species: Tinamus rufescens Temminck 1815)
• Gen. Nothura Wagler 1827 (type species: Tinamus boraquira Spix 1825) (synonyms: Nothurus Sundevall 1873)
• Gen. Paranothoprocta new genus (type species: Nothura cinerascens Burmeister 1860)

In this system, Tinamus Latham and Crypturus Illiger are cited as synonyms of two different genera, which is not explained (and which I would not regard as tenable).
The type of Pezus Spix 1825 should be Pezus serratus Spix 1825 rather than Tetrao major Gmelin 1789 (these two names nowadays denote subspecies of a single species).
The attribution of Nocthura to "Yarrell 1844" (based on the reference list : here) is clearly in error -- the communication reported in this text was made at a meeting of the Zoological Society (with William Yarrell "in the Chair") by Louis Fraser (see here); it was actually first published in Dec 1843 in the PZS (here). (Additionally, "Nocthura perdicaria, G. R. Gray" for a species described by Kittlitz suggests that Fraser regarded Gray as the author of the combination he was using; this conflicts with the idea that he might have intentionally introduced a new generic name here; I think there can be little doubt that this name was merely a misquote of "Nothura perdicaria G. R. Gray" as used here.)

Attributing Tinamidae to Gray 1840 but Tinaminae to Salvadori 1895 is certainly not tenable -- the Principle of Coordination imposes that both names must have the same author and date. (Incidentally, Gray 1840 actually used the name at both ranks, as he included a subfamily Turnicinae along with Tinaminae in his family Tinamidae. He did not, however, divide the tinamous in two groups, which may (?) be a reason why the authors felt that the subfamily name had to be attributed to a later author.) Possible issues associated to Tinamidae include :

• The first family name formed from Tinamus was actually published by Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire in 1837, but was not fully latinized -- "Tinamidés" here. My reading of the Code is that Tinamidae should not be accepted as dating from there, because the name has not "been generally accepted [...] as dating from that first publication in vernacular form", which ICZN 11.7.2 requires for this type of thing; but I have seen this article interpreted in different ways. Bock 1994 would certainly have accepted this introduction, if he had been aware of it -- but he overlooked it.
• On the other hand, one should probably note that the type of Tinamidae/-inae Gray 1840 was, explicitly, Tinamus Latham, not Tinamus Hermann -- if these are regarded as two separately available name, a family name based on Tinamus Latham is actually based on a junior homonym and, as such, permanently invalid (ICZN 39; note that 'invalid' does not equal unavailable -- such name ARE available and, although they cannot become valid, they do compete for homonymy). The earliest use of a family Tinamidae associated to a genus Tinamus attributed to Hermann that I'm aware of was by Ihering & Ihering 1907.
• Illiger 1811 (here) created a genus Crypturus and placed it in a family which he called Crypturi. The word "Crypturus" being his own creation, it is completely undisputable that Illiger formed his "Crypturi" from the stem of his Crypturus, to which he added a plural suffix. My inclination is to accept the arguments developed by Dubois & Bour 2010, who argued that early family-group names should be accepted; thus I regard Crypturi Illiger 1811 (to be corrected to Crypturidae as per ICZN 32.5.3.1) is an unquestionably available family-group name. This name should in principle be easily dealt with under ICZN 40.2 (it was replaced by Tinamidae before 1961 as a result of Crypturus having been synonymized with Tinamus; Tinamidae is in prevailing use); however, I am not fully clear about the possible consequences of "breaking" the synonymy in such cases -- i.e., reinterpreting Tinamus so that Crypturus would actually cease to be its synonym...

Tinamotinae should be attributed to Bonaparte 1854, who introduced it as a group "Tinamotineae" here. But indeed, in the same work, Bonaparte also used a subfamily "Eudromiinae" -- these two names were introduced on the same date but, all other things being equal, "Eudromiinae" should have precedence as it was introduced at a higher rank.
The attribution of Rhynchotini to Boetticher 1934 (who used "Rhynchotinae" here -- snippets only) is standard, but Führbringer 1888 (here), almost half-a-century earlier, had used "Rhynchotinae" in a discussion to denote one (of several) group of birds with very poorly differentiated tail feathers -- this should in principle be sufficient to have established the name.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This is the system as adopted in the paper (I have corrected a couple of typos -- "Viellot", "Boetischer", "Yarrel"... -- but nothing more significant that this...) :

Ordo Tinamiformes Huxley 1872

Familia Tinamidae Gray 1840​

Subfamilia Tinaminae Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamus Hermann 1783)​

• Gen. Nothocercus Bonaparte 1856 (type species: Tinamus julius Bonaparte 1854)
• Gen. Pezus Spix 1825 (type species: Tetrao major Gmelin 1789) (synonym: Tinamus Latham 1790)
• Gen. Tinamus Hermann 1783 (type species: Tinamus soui Hermann 1783) (synonyms: Crypturus Illiger 1811; Cryptura Vieillot 1816; Crypturellus Brabourne & Chubb 1914; Microcrypturus Chubb 1917; Crypturornis Oberholser 1922; Orthocrypturus Miranda-Ribeiro 1938)

Subfamilia Tinamotidinae Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamotis Vigors 1837)​

Tribus Tinamotidini Salvadori 1895 (type genus: Tinamotis Vigors 1837)​

• Gen. Tinamotis Vigors 1837 (type species: Tinamotis pentlandii Vigors 1837)
• Gen. Eudromia Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1832 (type species: Eudromia elegans Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire 1832) (synonyms: Calodromas Sclater & Salvin 1873; Calopezus Ridgway 1884)

Tribus Rhynchotini Boetticher 1934 (type genus: Rhynchotus Vigors 1837)​

• Gen. Nothoprocta Sclater & Salvin 1873 (type species: Crypturus perdicarius Kittlitz 1830) (synonym: Nocthura Yarrell 1844)
• Gen. Rhynchotus Spix 1825 (type species: Tinamus rufescens Temminck 1815)
• Gen. Nothura Wagler 1827 (type species: Tinamus boraquira Spix 1825) (synonyms: Nothurus Sundevall 1873)
• Gen. Paranothoprocta new genus (type species: Nothura cinerascens Burmeister 1860)

(Somewhat intriguingly, the system adopted in the supplementary .doc file is different and, i.a., uses Tinamus in the traditional way. Perhaps the system was modified during the review process ?)

In this system, Tinamus Latham and Crypturus Illiger are cited as synonyms of two different genera, which is not explained (and which I would not regard as tenable).
The type of Pezus Spix 1825 should be Pezus serratus Spix 1825 rather than Tetrao major Gmelin 1789 (these two are names nowadays denote subspecies of a single species).
The attribution of Nocthura to "Yarrell 1844" (based on the reference list : here) is clearly in error -- the communication reported in this text was made at a meeting of the Zoological Society (with William Yarrell "in the Chair") by Louis Fraser (see here); it was actually first published in Dec 1843 in the PZS (here). (Additionally, "Nocthura perdicaria, G. R. Gray" for a species described by Kittlitz suggests that Fraser regarded Gray as the author of the combination he was using, which conflicts with the idea that he might have intentionally introduced a new generic name here; I think there can be little doubt that this name was merely a misquote of "Nothura perdicaria G. R. Gray" as used here.)

Attributing Tinamidae to Gray 1840 but Tinaminae to Salvadori 1895 is certainly not tenable -- the Principle of Coordination imposes that both names must have the same author and date. (Incidentally, Gray 1840 actually used the name at both ranks, as he included a subfamily Turnicinae along with Tinaminae in his family Tinamidae. He did not, however, divide the tinamous in two groups, which may (?) be a reason why the authors felt the the subfamily name had to be attributed to a later author.) Possible issues associated to Tinamidae include :

• The first family name formed from Tinamus was actually published by Isidore Geoffroy St-Hilaire in 1837, but was not fully latinized -- "Tinamidés" here. My reading of the Code is that the name should not be accepted as dating from there, because the name has not "been generally accepted [...] as dating from that first publication in vernacular form", which ICZN 11.7.2 requires for this type of thing; but I have seen this article interpreted in different ways. Bock 1994 would certainly have accepted this introduction, if he had been aware of it.
• On the other hand, one should probably note that the type of Tinamidae/-inae Gray 1840 was, explicitly, Tinamus Latham, not Tinamus Hermann -- if these are regarded as two separately available name, a family name based on Tinamus Latham is actually based on a junior homonym and, as such, permanently invalid. The earliest use of a family Tinamidae with a genus Tinamus attributed to Hermann that I'm aware of was by Ihering & Ihering 1907.
• Illiger 1811 (here) created a genus Crypturus and placed it in a family which he called Crypturi. The word "Crypturus" being his own creation, it is completely undisputable that Illiger formed his "Crypturi" from the stem of his Crypturus, to which he added a plural suffix. My inclination is to accept the arguments developed by Dubois & Bour 2010, who argued that early family-group names should be accepted; thus I regard Crypturi Illiger 1811 (to be corrected to Crypturidae as per ICZN 32.5.3.1) is an unquestionably available family-group name. This name should in principle be easily dealt with under ICZN 40.2 (it was replaced by Tinamidae before 1961 as a result of Crypturus having been synonymized with Tinamus; Tinamidae is in prevailing use); however, I am not fully clear about the possible consequences of "breaking" the synonymy in such cases -- i.e., reinterpreting Tinamus so that Crypturus would actually cease to be its synonym...

Tinamotinae should be attributed to Bonaparte 1854, who introduced it as a group "Tinamotineae" here. But indeed, in the same work, Bonaparte also used a subfamily "Eudromiinae" -- these two names were introduced on the same date but, all other things being equal, "Eudromiinae" should have precedence as it was introduced at a higher rank.
The attribution of Rhynchotini to Boetticher 1934 (who used "Rhynchotinae" here -- snippets only) is standard, but Führbringer 1888 (here), almost half-a-century earlier, had used "Rhynchotinae" in a discussion to denote one (of several) group of birds with very poorly differentiated tail feathers -- this should in principle be sufficient to have established the name.

In parallel, if we were to restore Tinamus to its real type species, the generic classification that I would adopt would be the following :

Eudromia Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 : elegans Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832*, formosa (Lillo, 1905)

Tinamotis Vigors, 1837 : ingoufi Oustalet, 1890, pentlandii Vigors, 1837*

Rhynchotus Spix, 1825 : maculicollis Gray, 1867; rufescens (Temminck, 1815)*

Paranothoprocta Bertelli & al., 2025 (or included in Rhynchotus) : cinerascens (Burmeister, 1860)*

Nothoprocta Sclater & Salvin, 1873 (or included in Rhynchotus) : curvirostris Sclater & Salvin, 1873, ornata (Gray, 1867), oustaleti (Berlepsch & Stolzmann, 1901), pentlandii (Gray, 1867), perdicaria (Kittlitz, 1830)*, taczanowskii (Sclater & Salvin, 1875)

Nothura Wagler, 1827 (include Taoniscus Gloger, 1842) : boraquira (Spix, 1825)*, darwinii Gray, 1867, maculosa (Temminck, 1815), minor (Spix, 1825), nana (Temminck, 1815)

Crypturornis Oberholser, 1922 : berlepschi (Rothschild, 1897), cinereus (Gmelin, 1789)*, ptaritepui (Zimmer & Phelps, 1945)

Tinamus Hermann, 1783 (ex Crypturellus Brabourne & Chubb, 1914) : albigularis (Brabourne & Chubb, 1914), atrocapillus (Tschudi, 1844), bartletti (Sclater & Salvin, 1873), boucardi Sclater, 1860, brevirostris Pelzeln, 1863, casiquiare (Chapman, 1929), castaneus Sclater, 1858, cerviniventris (Sclater & Salvin, 1873), cinnamomeus Lesson, 1842, duidae (Zimmer, 1938), erythropus Pelzeln, 1863, griseiventris (Salvadori, 1895), inconspicuus (Carriker, 1935), kerriae (Chapman, 1915), noctivagus Wied-Neuwied, 1820, obsoletus Temminck, 1815, parvirostris (Wagler, 1827), punensis (Chubb, 1917), soui Hermann, 1783*, strigulosus Temminck, 1815, tataupa Temminck, 1815, transfasciatus (Sclater & Salvin, 1878), undulatus Temminck, 1815, variegatus (Gmelin, 1789)

Crypturus Illiger, 1811 (ex Tinamus Latham, 1790) : guttatus (Pelzeln, 1863), major (Gmelin, 1789)*, osgoodi (Conover, 1949), solitarius (Vieillot, 1819), tao (Temminck, 1815)

Nothocercus Bonaparte, 1856 : bonapartei (Gray, 1867), julius (Bonaparte, 1854)*, nigrocapillus (Gray, 1867)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

If John Boyd is reading this :

The type species of Crypturus Illiger, 1811, is Tetrao major Gmelin, 1789, the same as for Tinamus Latham, 1790 (which is not the same Tinamus of Hermann).
The available genus for the cinereus clade is Crypturornis Oberholser, 1922

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

'Atronanus'

I contacted the author to resolve this issue.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Nocthura is a mispelling for Nothura ?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

• . The earliest use of a family Tinamidae associated to a genus Tinamus attributed to Hermann that I'm aware of was by Ihering & Ihering 1907.

Does this mean that Article 40.2 applies here?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

'Margarobyas'

This case will also be resolved, soon