Undescribed (1 Viewer)

[GMK]

new form of thrush babbler (Ptyrticus)

Cf. Faucher, I. & Dowsett-Lemaire, F. (2011) A new form of thrush babbler Ptyrticus sp. from the Bakossi Mountains, Cameroon? Bull. Afr. Bird Cl. 18: 74–75. [Includes a painting of the purported new taxon.]

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Undescribed rail, probably a new taxon of Woodford's Rail, bathing on road.
Foto Guy Dutson
http://ibc.lynxeds.com/photo/woodfo...ed-rail-probably-new-taxon-woodfords-rail-bat

 

[Daniel Philippe]

Undescribed rail, probably a new taxon of Woodford's Rail, bathing on road.
Foto Guy Dutson

Since 2002: http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2002/09/675.html

 

[Melanie]

The Santa Marta Screech-owl has a provisional scientific name: Otus gilesi. But still no official scientific description.

http://www.arkive.org/santa-marta-screech-owl/otus-gilesi/photos.html

 

[Ficedula]

The Santa Marta Screech-owl has a provisional scientific name: Otus gilesi. But still no official scientific description.

http://www.arkive.org/santa-marta-screech-owl/otus-gilesi/photos.html

perhaps someone more familiar with modern conventions in bird nomenclature can confirm, but does not this website cause this name to be nomen-nudum, so whatever the name used in the formal description it cannot be this one?

if this name is used then the Authority will be the website authors, no?

whaterver the case surely it is very bad form to publish such names prior to formal description.

 

[Melanie]

Well, shortly after the discovery there was another scientific name: Megascops gilesi

http://www.abcbirds.org/newsandreports/birdconservation_pdf/MagFall07.pdf
http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=74F795BB0D07B342

 

[GMK]

As used in the websites / webzines that Melanie has pointed to, the name Otus / Megascops gilesi is undoubtedly a nomen nudum, but that doesn’t make it unavailable for future use (see the Code’s glossary). It’s merely the case that its use in such ‘literature’ has not satisfied the requirements of availability under Art. 13, although the ABC magazine write-up might technically not have gone much further before it would have done.

All the same, “bad form”.

The discrepancy that Melanie has pointed to presumably merely reveals that the folks responsible for ARKive haven’t caught up with modern generic taxonomy … yet.

 

[Ficedula]

As used in the websites / webzines that Melanie has pointed to, the name Otus / Megascops gilesi is undoubtedly a nomen nudum, but that doesn’t make it unavailable for future use (see the Code’s glossary). It’s merely the case that its use in such ‘literature’ has not satisfied the requirements of availability under Art. 13, although the ABC magazine write-up might technically not have gone much further before it would have done.

All the same, “bad form”.

The discrepancy that Melanie has pointed to presumably merely reveals that the folks responsible for ARKive haven’t caught up with modern generic taxonomy … yet.

Many thanks for clarification.

 

[COLOMBIA Birding]

The Santa Marta Screech-owl has a provisional scientific name: Otus gilesi. But still no official scientific description.

http://www.arkive.org/santa-marta-screech-owl/otus-gilesi/photos.html

No matter if you call it Megascops or Otus gilesi, it is a nomen nudum and just a clear example of bad science from the people/foundation promoting to call it that way... no official proper scientific description of that taxon have been done even one specimen is been (with / without permits?) collected up there in Santa Marta (btw: anyone know in which scientific collection/museum is it properly deposited?)

still a Megascops sp.nov.

There is only one reason in my mind to give scientific names to birds before proper publication: to please someone with money that you will receive "to protect" that bird..

 

[Mysticete]

or you know, it was a mistake to release it which then got picked up by other people.

Or the paper was delayed but the articles still got out with the name on them.

Bad taxonomic practice, but as someone who has seen on multiple occasions fossil specimens with nomen nudum attached in museum exhibits, press releases, or even National Geographic, I don't think we need to spin off conspiracy theories.

 

[thomasdonegan]

The ABC piece raises some interesting nomenclature questions. It names a species, has a photograph of an individual that could serve as a holotype, calls it out as a new species and appears to be a printed work that satisfies the requirements of the code for publication. It seems to fall short of establishing a name in that no character diagnosis is presented (as required under article 13.1.1 of the Code) - assuming the reference to the species' distribution in Santa Marta of itself is inadequate. Arguably, there is also no explicit intention to establish a name for purposes of article 16.1 due to references to other researchers working on the description, and future tense 'will be', although this is a more tenuous argument. We've considered this name a nomen nudum for now and called it Megascops sp. in the Colombia checklist and English/Spanish field guides as a result.

These sorts of informal reports of new species result in interesting cases for students of nomenclature. But like Mysticete, I would not read any more into them than an NGO including an interesting success story in its news bulletin.

Separately, it's sad that some people apparently continue to have nothing better to do with their lives than circulate innuendo and lies about ProAves and projects it supports - even in cases like this when the lead researcher is not a ProAves employee and several external researchers are involved. I've seen the permit the Megascops was collected under and also the relevant report that was filed with the Corporacion stating that the individual was collected. All the paperwork seems in order. People who are motivated to make serious allegations of illegality or wrongdoing should check their facts first. This sort of behaviour, in my view, needs moderator attention and should have no place on a serious forum discussing birds.

It is appropriate that those who have supported the conservation of new nature reserves where a new species is found and/or the studies that led to a discovery and description should be appropriately cited. I have known Robert Giles for many years. He is a modest, generous and tireless supporter of conservation and ornithological research, especially in Colombia.

 

[RaMa]

...has a photograph of an individual that could serve as a holotype, ...

The holotype must be designated explicitly (article 16.4.1), i.e. a statement like "we designate the photographed specimen as holotype" would be required. So that door is closed, too!

 

[thomasdonegan]

Agreed.
Basically if the paper had also said "the bird in the photo is the type specimen" and "it's got a different song and plumage from other owls", that might have been all that was needed.

 

[Ficedula]

Agreed.
Basically if the paper said "the bird in the photo is the type specimen" and "it's got a different song and plumage from other owls", that might be it.

Well opinion on this forum is clear, the name is still available. However, i know from my own attempts to untangle nomenclatorial confusions in Bombyliidae, that taxonomists can differ widely in their interpretation of the code, and indeed interpretations change through time. The describers of this Megascops might feel that they should avoid all possibility of future challenge to their name and choose one that has not been widely disseminated. Thus Robert Giles would loose the no doubt deserved honour of having this owl named for him.

 

[thomasdonegan]

From what I read above, consensus is that Megascops gilesi is not an 'available' name at present.

Using a different name in the formal publication might create even more confusion: better to have arguments (if any) restricted to the date and authors than over two different names?

 

[Ficedula]

As used in the websites / webzines that Melanie has pointed to, the name Otus / Megascops gilesi is undoubtedly a nomen nudum, but that doesn’t make it unavailable for future use (see the Code’s glossary).

From what I read above, consensus is that Megascops gilesi is not an 'available' name at present

maybe i misunderstood GMK. Seems to me that here we have just the differing interpretation that will cause describers to be very cautious about using the publicised name.

Using a different name in the formal publication might create even more confusion: better to have arguments (if any) restricted to the date and authors than over two different names?

surely only if the ABC article is deemed to validate the name? does anybody think that it does?

 

[Richard Klim]

ICZN's use of the term 'available name' often confuses. My understanding is that Megascops gilesi Holmer et al., 2007 is not an available name (sensu The Code), but gilesi is nevertheless still 'available' (sensu plain English) for use if/when the taxon is formally described (when it would become an available name).

 

[GMK]

It's clear that M. gilesi is not a valid taxonomic / nomenclatural entity, as defined by the Code, for the reasons already elucidated by Rainer, Thomas and myself, i.e. none of the "articles" pointed to by Melanie can be considered a nomenclatural act (although as noted by Thomas and myself, it would have scarcely taken much to make some of these commentaries into nomenclatural acts). Therefore, the discoverers are still free to use the name gilesi when they do describe it.

 

[alytothrix]

As well, the only way the name Megascops gilesi could be preoccupied would be if someone had already published it as an (nomenclaturally) available name. In this case the only downside would be that unintended authors would be attached to the name; the owl itself would be correctly referred to as M. gilesi.

 

[Melanie]

Well, two other names might be possible too:

after its discoverer Dr. Niels Krabbe Megascops krabbesi

or after the locality

Megascops santamartae