• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Trochilidae (1 Viewer)

but a few names can't be changed to correct very obvious mistakes
To me it is not real to describe it as a few names. If Pandora's box gets opened, there will be other groups coming and saying "that group of names could be changed, we feel this group of names also needs to be changed" for whatever reason they have.

Niels
 
To me it is not real to describe it as a few names. If Pandora's box gets opened, there will be other groups coming and saying "that group of names could be changed, we feel this group of names also needs to be changed" for whatever reason they have.

Niels
I agree, its just hard to understand why the code seems to insist on so many unnecessary name changes but when some commonsense changes are suggested the code doesn't allow it & everybody demands stability? Does it really matter if a name ends in na or nus or num & yet correcting something that maybe bothered a tiny handful of linguists affected certainly high 100's if not 1000s of names without seemingly any concerns for nomenclatural stability? Especially as, as we've just been told, all that matters is the name just needs to use the 26 letters of the latin alphabet & doesn't even need to make sense it just needs to be unique?

I see you've got the Barbados flag on your avatar - how would you feel, or other Barbados residents feel, if Barbados Bullfinch was L. jamaicaensis or something similar? I spent a couple of weeks in Barbados this time last year & loved it
 
Because the birdwatchers here use common names regularly and not scientific names, I think most of us would be completely calm. Same thing for Dominica where I lived before.

I would be completely OK with removing the requirement for gender agreement - except for one thing: it would open up a frenzy of people trying to get everything back to original spelling.
Niels
 
Because the birdwatchers here use common names regularly and not scientific names, I think most of us would be completely calm. Same thing for Dominica where I lived before.

I would be completely OK with removing the requirement for gender agreement - except for one thing: it would open up a frenzy of people trying to get everything back to original spelling.
Niels
Hmm, so nothing can be changed because of the need for stability, but when something is changed it can't be changed back because of the need for stability? ;)
 
Oliveira, J. C. P., G. S. Cabanne, and F. R. Santos (2024) Phylogenomics of the gray-breasted sabrewing (Campylopterus largipennis) species complex in the Amazonia and Cerrado biomes. Genetics and Molecular Biology 47: e20230331.
Phylogenomics of the gray-breasted sabrewing (<i>Campylopterus largipennis</i>) species complex in the Amazonia and Cerrado biomes

Abstract:
The Neotropics are one of the most biodiverse regions of the world, where environmental dynamics, climate and geology resulted in a complex diversity of fauna and flora. In such complex and heterogeneous environments, widely distributed species require deep investigation about their biogeographic history. The gray-breasted sabrewing hummingbird Campylopterus largipennis is a species complex that occurs in forest and open ecosystems of South America, including also high-altitude grasslands. It has been recently split into four distinct species distributed in Amazonia (rainforest) and Cerrado (savanna) biomes with boundaries marked by ecological barriers. Here, we investigated the evolutionary dynamics of population lineages within this neotropical taxon to elucidate its biogeographical history and current lineage diversity. We used a reduced-representation sequencing approach to perform fine-scale population genomic analyses of samples distributed throughout Amazonia and Cerrado localities, representing all four recently recognized species. We found a deep genetic structure separating species from both biomes, and a more recent divergence between species within each biome and from distinct habitats. The population dynamics through time was shown to be concordant with known vicariant events, isolation by distance, and altitudinal breaks, where the Amazon River and the Espinhaço Mountain Range worked as important barriers associated to speciation.
 
Believe me, there are few generic diagnoses that I have not seen.
"Diagnosis: Small, strikingly patterned cisticolid warblers with medium long, graduated tail with 10 rectrices. Above dark grey, below white with variable extent of reddish-buff and with black or sooty grey pectoral band separating throat from the lower underparts."​
Yes, this is short.
But much more diagnostic than a statement, about a new genus of hummingbird, that it is white below, green above and with a bronzy tail and rump.
I think there's worse: Gactornis, there's not even a diagnosis
 
I think there's worse: Gactornis, there's not even a diagnosis

Han et al 2010:
The large genetic divergence of C. enarratus from all other caprimulgids was unanticipated, but is consistent with the long isolation of many Malagasy endemics. The species has always been placed in Caprimulgus, although Cleere (1999) commented that its systematic position deserved further study. Based on our results, it should be assigned to a new genus, for which we propose the name
Gactornis (Han, Robbins, and Braun) new genus.
Type species – Caprimulgus enarratus Gray 1871.
Diagnosis – A caprimulgid defined by its large genetic divergence in both nuclear and mtDNA from all other genera and species of caprimulgids studied thus far. No defining morphological characters for the genus are yet known. The single species, enarratus, appears to be unusually quiet for a caprimulgid; its song is as yet unknown (Cleere, 1999; Xeno-Canto Foundation, 2000–2010).
Cleere, N., 1999. Family Caprimulgidae (Nightjars). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. (Eds.), Handbook of the Birds of the World, Barn Owls to
Hummingbirds, vol. 5. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, pp. 302–386.

Cleere 1999, p. 313:
The Collared Nightjar, one of two members of the family found on Madagascar, is a scarce bird largely restricted to the eastern humid forests. Its taxonomic placement perhaps deserves further study, since its bold, distinctive markings and unusual behaviour suggest it might belong in a separate genus.
He then went on describing some behavioural characteristics of the species, including:
It appears to be oddly silent for a nightjar and no song has ever been described [...].
He described the "bold, distinctive markings" of enarratus in some detail in that species' account, p. 376.

Clearly, the content of the OD itself cannot have made this name available. To interpret the name as available, you have to accept that the reference to Cleere 1999 fulfilled Art. 13.1.2, i.e., that Cleere can be construed as having provided "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon". Although he certainly did this in a rather informal way, it is nevertheless clear that Cleere 1999 provided characters that he construed as differentiating enarratus from all other nightjars, and as potentially justifying a new genus for it.


I'm not convinced that this is worse than Ramosomyia.

In the case of Ramosomyia, I see no suggestion in the OD that the characters described by the authors were understood by them as differentiating the taxon they were naming. These characters certainly do not achieve this result, and I cannot believe that the authors thought that they did. (OTOH, I do see a strong suggestion that the authors may have unduly regarded the name as a nomen novum, and if so, they probably did not feel it necessary to actually provide a meaningful description.) So far as I can assess, the authors of Ramosomyia did not provide a reference to an earlier work that would have listed characters differentiating the three species they included in their new genus from other Trochilini.
 
Last edited:
Wow...that Gactornis description is bad.

This is why morphology is important. I bet if the authors had really scrutinized skeletal material and skins they could have found some unique features or combination of features that would have diagnosed this genus. But too many ornithologists snub there nose at morphology.
 
Han et al 2010:



Cleere 1999, p. 313:

He then went on describing some behavioural characteristics of the species, including:

He described the "bold, distinctive markings" of enarratus in some detail in that species' account, p. 376.

Clearly, the content of the OD itself cannot have made this name available. To interpret the name as available, you have to accept that the reference to Cleere 1999 fulfilled Art. 13.1.2, i.e., that Cleere can be construed as having provided "a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon". Although he certainly did this in a rather informal way, it is nevertheless clear that Cleere 1999 provided characters that he construed as differentiating enarratus from all other nightjars, and as potentially justifying a new genus for it.


I'm not convinced that this is worse than Ramosomyia.

In the case of Ramosomyia, I see no suggestion in the OD that the characters described by the authors were understood by them as differentiating the taxon they were naming. These characters certainly do not achieve this result, and I cannot believe that the authors thought that they did. (OTOH, I do see a strong suggestion that the authors may have unduly regarded the name as a nomen novum, and if so, they probably did not feel it necessary to actually provide a meaningful description.) So far as I can assess, the authors of Ramosomyia did not provide a reference to an earlier work that would have listed characters differentiating the three species they included in their new genus from other Trochilini.
I agree with you that both names, Gactornis and Ramosomyia, are very poorly described. In the case of Ramosomyia, the authors provided a description they found sufficient to differentiate their new genus. Besides the weak morphological characters they mentioned genetic and distributional traits. As is true for all descriptions of new taxa, this description is a taxonomic hypothesis. If other researchers may find it too weak for recognition, they can easily put it in synonymy, or they may add further characters which could support the validity of this genus. But I think that Ramosomyia is an available name with a questionable taxonomic validity.
Gactornis has widely been recognized since its introduction, and it would perhaps be advisable to treat the reference to Cleere (1999) as a bibliographic reference as you suggested.
 
In the case of Ramosomyia, the authors provided a description they found sufficient to differentiate their new genus.

If they had done this, the name would certainly be available.

As I see it :
  • They called the name repeatedly a new replacement name, hence quite likely did not regard a description as a requirement.
  • They introduced the name, merely citing a couple of characters "en passant", which were intended to give the reader a weak idea of what the members of the new taxon look like.
  • They did not state, or even imply, anywhere in the OD, that they found these characters "sufficient to differentiate their new genus".
  • It is not plausible that, in the 21st C, half-experienced ornithologists might have found the characters they cited "sufficient to differentiate a new genus" of hummingbirds, so I cannot believe they did.
I'm sorry, but this is really the only way I feel able to look at this description.
 
Last edited:
If they had done this, the name would certainly be available.

As I see it :
  • They called the name repeatedly a new replacement name, hence quite likely did not regard a description as a requirement.
  • They introduced the name, merely citing a couple of characters "en passant", which were intended to give the reader a weak idea of what the members of the new taxon look like.
  • They did not state, or even imply, anywhere in the OD, that they found these characters "sufficient to differentiate their new genus".
  • It is not plausible that, in the 21st C, half-experienced ornithologists might have found the characters they cited "sufficient to differentiate a new genus" of hummingbirds, so I cannot believe they did.
I'm sorry, but this is really the only way I feel able to look at this description.
We must compare Ramosomyia to other close genera that are quite homogeneous and very similar, it will be difficult to find characters that differentiate them
 
GUILHERME ANICET FISCHER, PAOLA FREITAS DE OLIVEIRA, EDGAR BLOIS CRISPINO (2024). There and Back Again: On the Homonymy, Solution and Re-Homonymy of Pampa Walker 1854 (Hexapoda: Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) and Pampa Reichenbach, 1854 (Aves: Apodiformes: Trochilidae). Zootaxa, 5501(4), 593-595.
 
GUILHERME ANICET FISCHER, PAOLA FREITAS DE OLIVEIRA, EDGAR BLOIS CRISPINO (2024). There and Back Again: On the Homonymy, Solution and Re-Homonymy of Pampa Walker 1854 (Hexapoda: Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) and Pampa Reichenbach, 1854 (Aves: Apodiformes: Trochilidae). Zootaxa, 5501(4), 593-595.

Would anyone know what this is about ?

I assume this is about successive assessments of which of the homonyms is senior relative to the other ? (When names are homonyms, this is for ever, there is no 'solution' to this.)
I use [31] Mar 1854 for the work where Pampa Reichenbach 1854 was introduced, and 11 Feb 1854 for Pampa Walker 1854, but would love to know if there is something I missed.


My current notes :

Pampa Reichenbach 1854
Reichenbach HGL. 1854. Aufzählung der Colibris oder Trochilideen in ihrer wahren natürlichen Verwandtschaft, nebst SchlüsseI ihrer Synonymik. J. Ornithol. 1, Extraheft, Beilage: 1-24.
pp. 4, 11: Jahrg.1-2=no.1-12;Suppl.:Jahrg.1 (1853-1854) - Journal für Ornithologie - Biodiversity Heritage Library , Jahrg.1-2=no.1-12;Suppl.:Jahrg.1 (1853-1854) - Journal für Ornithologie - Biodiversity Heritage Library

This work was published as a complement to an “Extra-Heft” to the 1853 (i.e., first) volume of Journal für Ornithologie, which covered the 7th annual meeting of the Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft, in Halberstadt, 11-14 July 1853.
“Cabanis Journ. Extraheft 1853.” appears in the footers of the first page of the gatherings (p. 1 and p. 9).
The main text of the Extra-Heft is 120 pp long; the Aufzählung is 24 pp long (1.5 gatherings), paged separately, and follows the main text in bound copies; it is listed as a “besondere Beilage” at the end of the Inhalt, on the last page of the main text.
Stated date on the title page of the Extra-Heft “1854.”; on the last page of the main text, an announcement of the next meeting of the society was dated (date of writing) “März 1854.”
In 1860, Cabanis & Heine T.3 (1860) - Museum Heineanum - Biodiversity Heritage Library cited many names from the Auzählung to “(Mart.) 1854 “(albeit they also cited one, Uranomitra, presumably inadvertently, to May); Cabanis had been the editor of the Extra-Heft: in principle, he ought to have known.
Bonaparte did not use or cite any name from the Aufzählung in a work on Trochilidae that was freshly published on 24 Apr 1854 (Bonaparte CL. 1854. Tableau des oiseaux-mouches. Rev. Mag. Zool., sér. 2, 6: 248-257.; sér.2:t.6 (1854) - Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et appliquée - Biodiversity Heritage Library ; a separate version of this work (Simon Raçon et Ce, Paris) was presented by Bonaparte to the Académie (and said to be just published) on 24 Apr 1854 (t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); it was also noticed as published on 6 May 1854 in Bibliogr. France (Bibliographie de la France )); he adopted or cited names from the Aufzählung in a work that was demonstrably published on 29 May 1854 (Bonaparte CL. 1854. Conspectus systematis ornithologiae. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool.), sér. 4, 1: 105-152.; a separate ed. was presented by Bonaparte to the Académie on 29 May 1854 t.38 (1854) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library ); he can presumably be assumed to have received a copy of the Aufzählung between the writing of these two works.
In 1854, Cabanis referred to the Aufzählung in a text published in J. Ornithol. and dated (date of writing) “Juli 1854”, in a way which implied that his readers had already seen it Jahrg.1-2=no.1-12;Suppl.:Jahrg.1 (1853-1854) - Journal für Ornithologie - Biodiversity Heritage Library , specifying that it had been printed at Reichenbach’s own costs.
The Extra-Heft, with the Aufzählung (“120, 24 S.”), was listed among erschienene Werke in the Messkatalog of the 1854 Leipziger Michaelismesse Messkatalog ; the Messe started on 1 Oct 1854 fide: Evenhuis NL. 2014. Dates of the Leipzig book fairs (1758–1860), with notes on the book catalogs. Sherbornia, 1: 1-4. http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/sherbornia/issues/s01-01.pdf.
It was also listed, with the Aufzählung cited explicitly, as having appeared in the second half of 1854 in Bibliotheca Historico-Naturalis Bibliotheca historico-naturalis, oder Vierteljährliche systematisch geordnete übersicht der in Deutschland und dem auslande auf dem gebiete der zoologie, botanik und mineralogie neu erschienenen schriften und aufsätze aus zeitschriften ; it was noticed on 1 Oct 1854 in Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung ; listed in an “Uebersicht der neuesten Literatur” on 30 Nov 1854 in the Intelligenz-Blatt zum Serapeum Intelligenz Blatt zum Serapeum ; listed as having appeared in the second half of 1854 in the Verzeichniss der Bücher, Landkarten [...] zu finden bei JC Hinrichsschen Buchhandlung Repertorium ueber die nach den halbjährlichen Verzeichnissen der J.C. Hinrichs'schen Buchhandlung in Leipzig erschienenen Bücher, Landkarten, &c ... ; and listed as having appeared in the third quarter of 1854 in the Vierteljahrs-Katalog aller neuen Erscheinungen im Felde der Literatur in Deutschland Vierteljahrs-Katalog aller neuen Erscheinungen im Felde der Literatur in Deutschland .
Names from this work have been dated to 1853, but there is no clear reason to accept this. (Some distribution could, in principle, have occurred separately, before the publication of the main text of the Extra-Heft, which cannot have been before March 1854; but evidence is, so far, lacking.)

Pampa Walker 1854
Walker F. 1854. List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part I.—Lepidoptera heterocera. British Museum, London.
p. 238: pt.1-3 (1854-1855) - List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum - Biodiversity Heritage Library

Stated date on title page “1854”; Introduction dated “January 28, 1854”.
Published on 11 Feb 1854 fide : Sherborn CD. 1934. Dates of publication of catalogues of natural history (post 1850) issued by the British Museum. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 10, 13: 308-312.; https://doi.org/10.1080/00222933408654812
 
Last edited:
Would anyone know what this is about ?

I assume this is about successive assessments of which of the homonyms is senior relative to the other ? (When names are homonyms, this is for ever, there is no 'solution' to this.)
I use [31] Mar 1854 for the work where Pampa Reichenbach 1854 was introduced, and 11 Feb 1854 for Pampa Walker 1854, but would love to know if there is something I missed.
I would have liked him to put an abstract of the article rather than a photo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top