Turdidae (2 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Whether their statements are correct is beyond me.

Why did you say that?

 

[l_raty]

If I decided to split Turdus into multiple genera, could Merula be one of them?

In my reading Turdus merula is the type of Turdus by designation of Selby 1825 (xxix, xxxii). (This is clearly before the designation of T. viscivorus by Gray 1840, which is usually accepted.)

Merula itself is a complicated case. The Merula referred to by Voelker et al in Niels's extract would be Merula Forster 1817. This can certainly not be used, because it is preoccupied, in any case, by Merula Koch 1816, for T. roseus, i.e., the Rose-coloured Starling.
But the name could probably be deemed available from Boddaert 1783, who used it for “Merula montana Linn. Syst. VI” (Pl. enluminée 182), “Merula (Corvus) brachyurus, Linn.” (Pl. enluminée 258), “Turdus merula atricapillus, Linn.” (Pl. enluminée 392).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In my reading Turdus merula is the type of Turdus by designation of Selby 1825 (xxix, [...]

The simple fact of using the name "Blackbird" in front of the genus Turdus is enough for it to be designated as its type-species?


When I see that the "long eared owl" as type of the genus Strix, can we be sure of the relevance of his designations

 

[l_raty]

The simple fact of using the name "Blackbird" in front of the genus Turdus is enough for it to be designated as its type-species?

The simple fact of using the name "Blackbird" in front of the genus Turdus, of course, no.
But putting "Blackbird" in front of Turdus in a list titled "Types of the genera" and adding on a subsequent page (the link you deleted when quoting my post) that "Blackbird" is Turdus merula L., arguably, yes.
Alauda and Coracias are on the Official List with type designations accepted from this work.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The simple fact of using the name "Blackbird" in front of the genus Turdus, of course, no.
But putting "Blackbird" in front of Turdus in a list titled "Types of the genera" and adding on a subsequent page (the link you deleted in your quote) that "Blackbird" is Turdus merula L., arguably, yes.
Alauda and Coracias are on the Official List with type designations accepted from this work.

But BOW states this : "It has been suggested by Oberholser and others that a prior designation is that of Selby ('Illustrations of British Ornithology,' 1st ed. 1825, p. xxix), who made the "Blackbird" the type of Turdus; but an examination of Selby's table shows that his idea of what constituted the type of a genus is not in accordance with our present rules, and in several cases more than one species is listed as the type of a single genus."

 

[l_raty]

But BOW states this : "It has been suggested by Oberholser and others that a prior designation is that of Selby ('Illustrations of British Ornithology,' 1st ed. 1825, p. xxix), who made the "Blackbird" the type of Turdus; but an examination of Selby's table shows that his idea of what constituted the type of a genus is not in accordance with our present rules, and in several cases more than one species is listed as the type of a single genus."

But the Commission nevertheless accepted it in two cases.
Some later authors also occasionally listed several types for a single genus, this does not stop us from accepting their other designations. E.g., see Alectrophasis and Satyra in Gray 1840.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

But the Commission nevertheless accepted it in two cases.

Is there a paper on this?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Satyra

Preoccupied in Diptera anyway

 

[l_raty]

Is there a paper on this?

Alauda : Opinion 67 (1916) accepted a designation by Swainson 1827, this was corrected to Selby 1825 in Direction 44 (1956).
Coracias : Opinion 404 (1956) accepted a designation by Selby 1825.

Preoccupied in Diptera anyway

I'm not arguing about the validity of this particular name.
I'm just saying that, in this case (as well as a few others), Gray designated more than one "typical species" for a genus.
If Selby's designation of a single "type" for Turdus is to be seen as invalidated by the fact that he designated six distinct "types" for Falco, then, in principle, Gray's designation of three distinct "typical species" for Satyra should be seen as invalidating all his other designations. This is not the case.

 

[njlarsen]

Why did you say that?

Maybe better to state that it is beyond my level of expertise.
Niels

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Alauda : Opinion 67 (1916) accepted a designation by Swainson 1827, this was corrected to Selby 1825 in Direction 44 (1956).
Coracias : Opinion 404 (1956) accepted a designation by Selby 1825.




I'm not arguing about the validity of this particular name.
I'm just saying that, in this case (as well as a few others), Gray designated more than one "typical species" for a genus.
If Selby's designation of a single "type" for Turdus is to be seen as invalidated by the fact that he designated six distinct "types" for Falco, then, in principle, Gray's designation of three distinct "typical species" for Satyra should be seen as invalidating all his other designations. This is not the case.

As long as nothing is published to state on the type species of Turdus, Gray's designation will remain valid until proven otherwise.

 

[l_raty]

As long as nothing is published to state on the type species of Turdus, Gray's designation will remain valid until proven otherwise.

Gray's designation is valid in the eye of those who think it is.

Nomenclature is supposed to work at any time through the application of the current Code by current name users. A publication on the past fixation of a type could of course help convince a majority of current name users to accept a particular interpretation of how current Rules apply to this case. However, unless it is by the Commission and results in the name being placed on the Official List or Index with a status following from this interpretation, such a publication would not give any "official" standing or validity to the interpretation in question. The publication would, ultimately, only reflect the personal opinion of its authors, and anyone disagreeing with it would remain allowed to set it aside.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Gray's designation is valid in the eye of those who think it is.

Nomenclature is supposed to work at any time through the application of the current Code by current name users. A publication on the past fixation of a type could of course help convince a majority of current name users to accept a particular interpretation of how current Rules apply to this case. However, unless it is by the Commission and results in the name being placed on the Official List or Index with a status following from this interpretation, such a publication would not give any "official" standing or validity to the interpretation in question. The publication would, ultimately, only reflect the personal opinion of its authors, and anyone disagreeing with it would remain allowed to set it aside.

Isn't there a way to come up with a note that would say: merula is the type species of Turdus and basta? 😂

 

[l_raty]

Isn't there a way to come up with a note that would say: merula is the type species of Turdus and basta? 😂

As I said -- you (or any ornithologist or group of ornithologists) could publish such a note, but it would not have the force to stop someone, who would hold the subjective opinion that when Selby writes 'types', he does not mean 'types', from accepting Gray's designation.

In principle, the Commission might be asked to add Turdus Linnaeus 1758 with a specified type to the Official List, but I'm not sure they'd be very keen on treating such a request unless there is a real, deep problem associated to the situation. (Perhaps the Commission could be asked to rule on the validity of all of Selby's designations at once, though ? His designation of a type for Otis Linnaeus is problematic.)

A last option would be the proposal of a LAN covering genus-group names in Aves, in which a type would be fixed. But this is a multiple-year-long process, that could not be limited to just this (or even to a few) name(s). (And I'm not a big fan of the "rewriting of history" that this type of thing implies.)

 

[mb1848]

I very much enjoyed this thread.
LAN:
Manual for proposing a Part of the LAN | International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature .
"rewriting of history" :
Reverse taxonomy applied to the Brachionus calyciflorus cryptic species complex: Morphometric analysis confirms species delimitations revealed by molecular phylogenetic analysis and allows the (re)description of four species .
Although rich I have not found P. J. Selby to have owned slaves. He ran for Parliment in 1812 as a Whig from which can be infered he was an abolitionist? Some info though that he was virulently anti-Catholic apparently because his mother named him Prideaux. Why get rid of all Selby names?
His plate of the blackbird from his book.
v.1-2 - Plates to Selby's Illustrations of British ornithology - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
By the 1830's he replaced Turdus with Merula:
1834-1842 - History of the Berwickshire Naturalists' Club - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Why in the old books when used as a species name Merula is always capitalized?

 

[Jacana]

Matthew R Halley, Therese A Catanach, John Klicka, Jason D Weckstein, Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden diversity in the Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae) complex in Central and South America, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023;, zlad031, Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden diversity in the Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae) complex in Central and South America


We assembled datasets of genetic (genomic ultraconserved elements [UCEs], mtDNA) and phenotypic (morphology, voice) characters to address species limits and taxonomy in the slaty-backed nightingale-thrush Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae), a polytypic complex of songbirds with a broad montane distribution in Central and South America. We identified 10 allopatric populations that have been evolving independently for multiple glacial cycles. Genetic structure is broadly correlated with divergence in phenotypic characters, including plumage colour, iris colour, maxilla (bill) colour, and the acoustic structure of vocalizations (calls and songs). We propose an integrative taxonomic revision that recognizes seven species in the complex, including a newly described species from eastern Panama, and four subspecies, of which two are newly described.

A thread by the authors on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1677384919801290752

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Matthew R Halley, Therese A Catanach, John Klicka, Jason D Weckstein, Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden diversity in the Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae) complex in Central and South America, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2023;, zlad031, Integrative taxonomy reveals hidden diversity in the Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae) complex in Central and South America


We assembled datasets of genetic (genomic ultraconserved elements [UCEs], mtDNA) and phenotypic (morphology, voice) characters to address species limits and taxonomy in the slaty-backed nightingale-thrush Catharus fuscater (Passeriformes: Turdidae), a polytypic complex of songbirds with a broad montane distribution in Central and South America. We identified 10 allopatric populations that have been evolving independently for multiple glacial cycles. Genetic structure is broadly correlated with divergence in phenotypic characters, including plumage colour, iris colour, maxilla (bill) colour, and the acoustic structure of vocalizations (calls and songs). We propose an integrative taxonomic revision that recognizes seven species in the complex, including a newly described species from eastern Panama, and four subspecies, of which two are newly described.

A thread by the authors on Twitter here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1677384919801290752

Cool Raoul !

 

[Melanie]

Is anyone here who has access to this paper?

 

[birdboybowley]

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Is anyone here who has access to this paper?

I gotcha !