Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Not "Hocking, Blake & Joseph in Joseph, 2002" ?
-
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.
Parrots (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
l_raty
laurent raty
The person who published the work in which the requirements for the availability of this name is Joseph alone : Joseph alone is the author of the name unless 50.1.1 applies.
The contents of the work shows, indeed, that Hocking was responsible for the name. But I see nothing that indicates clearly that Hocking (or Blake) took part in satisfying any requirement of availability.
As a consequence, 50.1.1 does not apply, and the author of the name should be deemed to be Joseph alone.
Or at least this is how I read these articles.
The literature is full of names that were attributed by their author to someone else (who had, e.g., written it on a museum label, where the author picked it up). In all these cases, it is clear, from the contents of the work where the names are made available, that the person who chose these names was someone else than the author of this work. Yet, unless there is evidence satisfying 50.1.1 in the work, the author of such names under the Code is invariably deemed to be the author of the work -- it is never accepted as the person to whom the name was attributed by the author of the work, nor deemed to be this person and the author of the work together.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Little not important remark about false homonym : in Psittaculidae, Nannopsittacus Mathews, 1916 (type : Cyclopsitta suavissima = Cyclopsitta melanogenia) is not preoccupied by Nannopsittaca Ridgway, 1912 (type: Brotogerys panychlora Salvin & Godman, 1883) in Psittacidae. Suavipsitta Mathews, 1917, proposed as replacement name, is useless.
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Reviving Suavipsitta was suggested by Schnitker 2014. Schnitker noted that Wolters (in Die Vogelarten der Erde) had used Nannopsittacus alongside Nannopsittaca; but, despite this appeared ein wenig überraschend (a bit suprising) to him, he apparently did not further question the outdated rule of homonymy that he was himself applying.
As you note, this is of course not correct -- if gulielmitertii (alt. gulielmitertii, nigrifrons, and melanogenia, when split) is (are) awarded a separate genus, Nannopsittacus is the name that must be used.
Mathews, 1917
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Yes, thanks, sorry. Mathews had a DeLorean
albertonykus
Well-known member
Guhlin, J., M.F. Le Lec, J. Wold, E. Koot, D. Winter, P.J. Biggs, S.J. Galla, L. Urban, Y. Foster, M.P. Cox, A. Digby, L.R. Uddstrom, D. Eason, D. Vercoe, T. Davis, Kākāpō Recovery Team, J.T. Howard, E.D. Jarvis, F.E. Robertson, B.C. Robertson, N.J. Gemmell, T.E. Steeves, A.W. Santure, and P.K. Dearden (2023)
Species-wide genomics of kākāpō provides tools to accelerate recovery
Nature Ecology and Evolution (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02165-y
The kākāpō is a critically endangered, intensively managed, long-lived nocturnal parrot endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand. We generated and analysed whole-genome sequence data for nearly all individuals living in early 2018 (169 individuals) to generate a high-quality species-wide genetic variant callset. We leverage extensive long-term metadata to quantify genome-wide diversity of the species over time and present new approaches using probabilistic programming, combined with a phenotype dataset spanning five decades, to disentangle phenotypic variance into environmental and genetic effects while quantifying uncertainty in small populations. We find associations for growth, disease susceptibility, clutch size and egg fertility within genic regions previously shown to influence these traits in other species. Finally, we generate breeding values to predict phenotype and illustrate that active management over the past 45 years has maintained both genome-wide diversity and diversity in breeding values and, hence, evolutionary potential. We provide new pathways for informing future conservation management decisions for kākāpō, including prioritizing individuals for translocation and monitoring individuals with poor growth or high disease risk. Overall, by explicitly addressing the challenge of the small sample size, we provide a template for the inclusion of genomic data that will be transformational for species recovery efforts around the globe.
Species-wide genomics of kākāpō provides tools to accelerate recovery
Nature Ecology and Evolution (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02165-y
The kākāpō is a critically endangered, intensively managed, long-lived nocturnal parrot endemic to Aotearoa New Zealand. We generated and analysed whole-genome sequence data for nearly all individuals living in early 2018 (169 individuals) to generate a high-quality species-wide genetic variant callset. We leverage extensive long-term metadata to quantify genome-wide diversity of the species over time and present new approaches using probabilistic programming, combined with a phenotype dataset spanning five decades, to disentangle phenotypic variance into environmental and genetic effects while quantifying uncertainty in small populations. We find associations for growth, disease susceptibility, clutch size and egg fertility within genic regions previously shown to influence these traits in other species. Finally, we generate breeding values to predict phenotype and illustrate that active management over the past 45 years has maintained both genome-wide diversity and diversity in breeding values and, hence, evolutionary potential. We provide new pathways for informing future conservation management decisions for kākāpō, including prioritizing individuals for translocation and monitoring individuals with poor growth or high disease risk. Overall, by explicitly addressing the challenge of the small sample size, we provide a template for the inclusion of genomic data that will be transformational for species recovery efforts around the globe.
l_raty
laurent raty
Touitini as proposed here is a junior synonym of
Forpidae (Brereton), -inae (Wolters, first 1975 in Vogelarten der Erde, then 1982 in the (popular) posthumous edition of Carl Aschenborn's Die Papageien, then in quite a few other works which followed one of these), -ini (Schodde et al, Dickinson & Remsen, here) is a complicated issue. The name is certainly OK here, though.
- Bolborhynchinae Mudge 1902; subfamily; Mudge GP. 1902. On the myology of the tongue of the parrots, with a classification of the order, based on the structure of the tongue. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 16 (5): 211-278.; p. [to face p. 264]; v.16 (1901-1903) - Transactions of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library
- Urochrominae Miranda-Ribeiro 1920; subfamily; Miranda-Ribeiro A de. 1920. Revisão dos psittacideos brasileiros. Rev. Mus. Paulista, 12 (2): 1-82.; p. 4; t. 12 (1920) - Revista do Museu Paulista - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Forpidae (Brereton), -inae (Wolters, first 1975 in Vogelarten der Erde, then 1982 in the (popular) posthumous edition of Carl Aschenborn's Die Papageien, then in quite a few other works which followed one of these), -ini (Schodde et al, Dickinson & Remsen, here) is a complicated issue. The name is certainly OK here, though.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Bolborhynchinae cited in A Comparitive Survey of the egg whites of non-passerine birds Sibley & Ahlquist 1972.
no.39 (1972) - Bulletin - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Not exactly hiding.
"Urochrominae and Triclariinae, of which we have only sketched, to verify later that better studies allow a categorical affirmative. The most fashionable key for this group is contained in the British Museum Catalogue..." Is this a valid erection of a family group name?
no.39 (1972) - Bulletin - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Not exactly hiding.
"Urochrominae and Triclariinae, of which we have only sketched, to verify later that better studies allow a categorical affirmative. The most fashionable key for this group is contained in the British Museum Catalogue..." Is this a valid erection of a family group name?
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Or Bolborhynchinae. To tell the truth, I recognise these clades as subfamilies
l_raty
laurent raty
This was before 1931, so very little is needed for a valid erection.
The name must have been used at a rank that is part of the family group (anything above genus, but not above superfamily); it must have been in the nominative plural; it must have been formed from the stem of an available genus-group name; this genus-group name must have been treated as a valid generic name in the group (or, rather, there cannot be evidence that it was not).
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Yes, sure, the choice of rank is up to you.
mb1848
Well-known member
All appear to have been done. In 1920 the author used the genus Urochroma as a valid genus. But in 1937 Peters claimed Urochroma was a junior synonym of Touit G.R. Gray, 1855. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38289 .
ODs of Urochroma:
t.42 (1856) - Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des sciences - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
jahrg. 6 (1856) - Naumannia - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Steven M.S. Gregory & George Sangster, 2023 (September 21). The correct family‐group names of two parrot clades (Psittaciformes: Amazonini and Proboscigerini). Avian Systematics 1(XII): N55–N66.
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Cool, I'm cited
mb1848
Well-known member
Go Jimmy right before George Gray. This paper says: “Microglossum Geoffr[oy]. 1809” not found, a MS name.
I do not think Microglossum is an MS. I agree with Mathews: “It is interesting to note that Gray, in the List Genera Birds, p. 69 (1841),
used Microglossum Geoffr., 1809 ; probably following Gray, Agassiz, in the Nomen. Zool. Aves, p. 47, 1846, gave Microglossum Geoff., Ann. Mus. xiii. (1809). But search through the Annales Mus. d'Hist. Nat. Paris, vol. xiii. (1809) does not reveal Microglossum, though in that volume Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire introduced a new genus Microductylus. I surmise that the similarity of names, through inadvertence, caused the reference of Microglossum to this place. I have looked through all Saint-Hilaire's papers without result, and when he later discussed Microglossus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not claim to have previously proposed the name, and accepted it as of Vieillot, Galcrie d'Oiseaux i. p. 47, pi. 50.
v.13 (1809) - Annales du Muséum d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
v. 18 (1911) - Novitates zoologicae - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Now Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did talk about Microglosse parrots at a meeting in 1821 but the report was not published until 1823.
t.10 (1823) - Mémoires du Muséum d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
t.1=pt.1-2 (1825) - La galerie des oiseaux - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
The Vieillot use was 1822.
Mathews:
In the same place Count Salvadori pointed out that Probosciger Knhl {Consp.
Psitt. p. 12, 1820) was not proposed generically, but only the name given to
a section, and therefore did not recognise it as applicable from that introdnction.”
Conspectus Psittacorum - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
I do not think Microglossum is an MS. I agree with Mathews: “It is interesting to note that Gray, in the List Genera Birds, p. 69 (1841),
used Microglossum Geoffr., 1809 ; probably following Gray, Agassiz, in the Nomen. Zool. Aves, p. 47, 1846, gave Microglossum Geoff., Ann. Mus. xiii. (1809). But search through the Annales Mus. d'Hist. Nat. Paris, vol. xiii. (1809) does not reveal Microglossum, though in that volume Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire introduced a new genus Microductylus. I surmise that the similarity of names, through inadvertence, caused the reference of Microglossum to this place. I have looked through all Saint-Hilaire's papers without result, and when he later discussed Microglossus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not claim to have previously proposed the name, and accepted it as of Vieillot, Galcrie d'Oiseaux i. p. 47, pi. 50.
v.13 (1809) - Annales du Muséum d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
v. 18 (1911) - Novitates zoologicae - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Now Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did talk about Microglosse parrots at a meeting in 1821 but the report was not published until 1823.
t.10 (1823) - Mémoires du Muséum d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
t.1=pt.1-2 (1825) - La galerie des oiseaux - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
The Vieillot use was 1822.
Mathews:
In the same place Count Salvadori pointed out that Probosciger Knhl {Consp.
Psitt. p. 12, 1820) was not proposed generically, but only the name given to
a section, and therefore did not recognise it as applicable from that introdnction.”
Conspectus Psittacorum - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
l_raty
laurent raty
I agree with the conclusion that Amazoninae and Proboscigeridae may be seen as in prevailing use relative to, respectively, Androglossini and Microglossidae. Note that Joseph et al 2012 (who revived Androglossini and retained Microglossidae) did not, actually, perform any global literature search to assess name usage at all. Rather, they deliberately restricted their assessment of usage to a smallish set of “mainstream” (= arbitrarily selected) references (40 in total -- not all published in the sense of the Code), all of them strictly ornithological and more or less oriented towards taxonomy. In the case of Amazoninae at least, most of the authors who adopted the name in the 1975-2012 period were using Wolters’ system, and did not concern themselves directly with bird systematics : they were aviculturists, veterinary scientists, students of parrot ectoparasites, etc., who used the name at least in part as an anchor to make the data they published discoverable. These authors's works were of course absent from Joseph et al's "current usage references". (There were in fact still more uses of Amazoninae, by such authors, than listed by Gregory & Sangster. Enough, actually, to make that, in 2012, the name should have been made a nomen protectum relative to Androglossinae under Art. 23.9.)
I would like to question the notion that "replaced", as used in Art. 40.2, is to be understood as requiring that a name was proposed to take the place of the older family-group name.
(Such names would arguably be new replacement names (nomina nova), except that nomina nova are generally problematic in the family group name because (1) nomina nova, by definition, inherit the (nominal) type of the name they replace, and (2) family-group names must be formed from the stem of the name of their type. If you replace a family-group name with a new one, formed from the stem of another nominal type genus, the name so formed will unavoidably have a different nominal type, and thus cannot, actually, be interpreted as a nomen novum for the original name.)
Note that Art. 40.2 further states that it is "the substitute name" that is to be maintained. A "substitute name" is "Any available name, whether new or not, used to replace an older available name." (Glossary). This definition implies that a name can become a substitute name at any point in its history -- it's not something that is directly linked to how the name was introduced.
FWIW, I regard Amazoninae as having been established by Des Murs 1886, not by Mathews & Iredale 1920: at this date, there is of course no way that the name was proposed "under Article 5 of the Règles (CIPNZ, 1905)". Anyway, the idea that Mathews & Iredale 1920 could have proposed Amazonidae with the replacement of Androglossinae in mind -- while Sundevall's name had not been used for almost half a century -- seems far-fetched to me at best. This is particularly true in the light of the fact that Mathews & Iredale 1920 indicated clearly that another name had been used in the recent past for several of their (e.g., "Palaeornithidae olim" for their (newly proposed !) Psittaculidae, on the same page as Amazonidae), and they did not do this in the case of Amazonidae.
One significant problem with Amazonini may be that Sittacinae Sundevall 1844 (although usually used for macaws and relatives) arguably applies to the same group, as a result of a 1855 type designation by Gray, which makes Sittace Wagler 1832 a synonym of Brotogeris Vigors 1825. (At least this is the earliest valid designation that I can find. Designations that have been claimed in Gray 1840 or 1841 do not exist -- in these works, Gray cited Sittace in the synonymy of three different genus-group names for which he designated three different types; these citations must be read as indicating that the three types fell within the very broad original original circumscription of Sittace, none of them can be interpreted as a type designation for Sittace. Bonaparte restricted Sittace to macaws before 1855 but without any type designation. The family-group name has been used a couple of times in the early 20th C -- not under the assumption that Sittace is a synonym of Brotogeris, of course, but this remains the same name and would prevent making it a nomen oblitum.)
Lucky you.
(The citation of what -- correct me if I'm wrong -- seems to be an unpublished (in the sense of the Code) version of the work, in an analysis of usage for the purposes of nomenclature, is a bit surprising, however. Not that it matters really, of course -- the printed version is presumably validly published and uses the name as well.)
Interestingly, many of the attributions of pre-1861 names in this paper (Table I) are novel, and are evidently taken straight from a file I once shared with Steven. Yet, I don't even get a vague acknowledgement for this.
Last edited:
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Je suis un mignon petit Traquet rubicole
Uuuuuh ? 🧐 Are you talking about my book? If so, this is not a book on taxonomy.
l_raty
laurent raty
As I wrote, I may be wrong, but my understanding was that you printed version 6.1, 2023 ?
"Usage", in the Code, means usage in publications, i.e., in works satisfying the requirements of Art. 8, and not excluded by Art. 9 of the ICZN. If a name is adopted on Wikipedia only, for example, this does not count as "usage" because Wikipedia is not published in the sense of the Code.
To be published for the purposes of nomenclature, any unprinted version of your book should have been individually registered in ZooBank before you released it, and contain evidence that the registration had occurred.
