I agree that Chalcophabini Bonaparte 1855 (
originally Chacophapeae) seems to be the correct name for a tribe including
Chalcophaps Gould,
Turtur Boddaert and
Oena Swainson. (Even though I cannot remember having ever seen Bonaparte using the rank of tribe; he called the taxa for which he used names in -eae either "groupes", or "séries", never "tribus". He used "série des Chalcophapés" in the text of the paper where he introduced Chalcophapeae.)
I disagree completely, however, that Turturinae Gray 1840 (which can of course not be used for a group including Turtur Boddaert 1783) can be dismissed the way Steven dismisses it. Even if you insist on Gray's attributions to the pre-Linnaean author Ray, Gray himself fulfilled the conditions for the availability for all the names he used in 1840, hence none of these names can be deemed unavailable -- in this case, the type of Turturinae Gray 1840 would be
Turtur Gray 1840 (ex Ray), the type of which would be, by original designation,
Turtur auritus Gray 1840 (ex Ray), based by Gray 1840 on Pl. Enl. 394, which shows a Turtle Dove. Of course, the subfamily name is based on a junior homonym : this makes it invalid (
ICZN 39), but certainly not unavailable (which it would be if it failed to satisfy
ICZN 12.2.4 as claimed in the paper). Turturinae Gray 1840 competes for homonymy, and makes any later family-group name based on a senior homonym invalid as well (short of an action by the Commission).
(I would also disagree that Verheyen 1957 was the first to base a family-group name of
Turtur Boddaert -- after the revival of
Turtur Boddaert by
Mathews in 1910,
Mathews & Iredale 1920 used a family Turturidae for the Peristeridae of earlier authors, which can only be understood as having been based on
Turtur Boddaert.
Note also that
Turtur Boddaert is now under threat due to "
Turtur Garsault 1767", which would be a senior homonym if Garsault 1767 is accepted as binominal, as some would like it to be.)
www.biodiversitylibrary.org
