Cornell Lab of O, 5 Feb 2015: Hummingbird in Tropical Backyards is a New Species, Researchers Say.
Graves 2015. A primer on the hybrid zone of Jamaican streamertail hummingbirds (Trochilidae: Trochilus). P Biol Soc Wash 128(1): 111–124. [abstract]Judy, Brumfield & Graves. Speciation and hybridization in Jamaican Streamertail Hummingbirds. Evolution 2014. (p242)
Feo, Musser, Berv & Clark 2015. Divergence in morphology, calls, song, mechanical sounds, and genetics supports species status for the Inaguan hummingbird (Trochilidae: Calliphlox "evelynae" lyrura). Auk 132(1): 248–264. [abstract]
Schuchmann & Kirwan 2013 (HBW Alive).
In summary, we propose that Eulampis be merged with Anthracothorax. Boie (1831) described both genera, but Anthracothorax has priority on the basis of being described on page 545 vs. page 547 for Eulampis.
Yes, it definitely would. It would (obviously) also be important to check whether no earlier FR act exists; but, if the synonymization is new, it's likely there'll be none.Would this statement count as a first reviser act though?
From what Elliot had written in 1872 (Ibis, s.3, 2:345-357), his intent when designating violicauda in 1879 seems reasonably clear, in fact: in 1872, he had advocated moving the name mango Linn. 1766 [OD] from the mainland taxon to which it was apparently applied by most authors at this time, to the Jamaican bird to which it has been applied since (and which was then generally known as Lampornis porphyrurus). As a corollary, the name applying to the mainland population (the mango "of authors") was changed from mango Linn. to violicauda Boddaert. What he then did in 1879, was to designate, as type of Anthracothorax Boie, the taxonomic species that he thought Boie was calling by the name of mango, and which he, in turn, called by the name that he regarded as applying validly to it.
The designation by Elliot has been recurrently accepted, even though, as it stands and under the current Code, it is perfectly invalid. However:Hellmayr 1918 says Anthracothorax Boie, Isis, 1831, p. 545 (Type Trochilus violicauda Boddaert = Trochilus nigricollis Vieillot). No further explanation. Wetmore 1929 agrees.
https://books.google.com/books?id=J...hracothorax+nigricollis&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Birds of the Pnchot expedition page 10. Not sure this helps.
...Thus the acceptance of another's invalid designation can sometimes hide an indirect valid designation of a different nominal species. For instance, this statement by Peters 1945, when he accepted Elliot's designation of T. violicauda:The Code said:69.2.2. If an author designates as type species a nominal species that was not originally included (or accepts another's such designation) and if, but only if, at the same time he or she places that nominal species in synonymy with one and only one of the originally included species (as defined in Article 67.2), that act constitutes fixation of the latter species as type species of the nominal genus or subgenus.
...constitutes a potentially valid subsequent designation of T. gramineus Gm., which was an originally included nominal species, and is thus eligible to be the type of Anthracothorax. The caveat being that someone else may have done something similar before him.Peters said:Genus ANTHRACOTHORAX Boie 1Anthracothorax Boie, Isis von Oken, 1831, col. 545. Type, by subsequent designation, Trochilus violicauda Boddaert = Trochilus gramineus Gmelin. (Elliot, Classif. Syn. Trochil., 1879, p. 37.)
Yes, buthttp://iczn.org/content/there-such-thing-“page-priority” . When designating a type there is position precedence.
The Code said:Recommendation 69A. Criteria of preference. In designating a type species for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author should give preference to a species that is adequately described or illustrated, or of which type material still exists, or of which material is easily obtained. When these properties are shared by more than one species, an author should be guided by the following criteria, in order of preference:
69A.1. The most common species, or one of medical or economic importance, or one with the specific name communis, vulgaris, medicinalis, or officinalis, should be designated.
69A.2. If the valid name or a synonym of one of the originally included nominal species includes a species-group name virtually the same as the name of the genus-group taxon, or that is of the same derivation or meaning, that species should be designated as the type species (choice resulting from "virtual tautonymy"), unless such designation is strongly contra-indicated by other factors.
Examples. Bos taurus, Equus caballus, Ovis aries, Scomber scombrus, Sphaerostoma globiporum, Spinicapitichthys spiniceps.
69A.3. If some of the originally included nominal species have been removed to other nominal genus-group taxa, preference should be given to a remaining species, if any such is suitable ("choice following elimination").
69A.4. A nominal species having a sexually mature specimen as its type is generally preferable to one based on a larval or otherwise immature specimen.
69A.5. If more than one group of species is recognized in a nominal genus-group taxon, preference should be given to a nominal species that belongs to as large a group as possible.
69A.6. In genus-group taxa of parasites, preference should be given to a nominal species that parasitizes humans or an animal of economic importance or a common and widespread host species.
69A.7. All other things being equal, preference should be given to a nominal species well known to the author of the nominal genus-group taxon at the time he or she established it.
69A.8. If an author is known to have habitually placed a "typical" (i.e. representative) species first and described others by comparison with it, that fact should be considered in the designation of a type species.
69A.9. If an author is known to have denoted type species by their position ("first species rule"), the first nominal species cited by him or her should be designated as the type species.
69A.10. All other things being equal, preference should be given to the nominal species cited first in the work, page or line ("position precedence").
- The Paris Congress of 1948 replaced the First Reviser Principle that had hitherto been in the Règles with a principle of page/line precedence (see BZN 4, 1950).Ernst Mayr in early 1950's protested about a change introduced in 1948 Zoological Congress of absolute line and page priority.