Taxa with or without authority (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Is there an authority behind these taxa (here treated as subfamilies) ?

Macrocephaloninae
Xenoperdricinae
Tropicoperdicinae
Ammoperdicinae
Pternistinae
Rhizotherinae
Eutriorchidinae
Lophospizinae
Melieracinae
Berenicornithinae
Jacamaralcyoninae (or Brachygalbinae)
Corydoninae
Myiobiinae
Cnipodectinae
Chamaezinae
Geosittinae
Glycichaerinae (or Melionychinae, Ptiloprorinae)
Lichmerinae
Ptilorrhoinae
Tephrodornithinae
Philentominae
Perisoreinae
Melanochlorinae
Nesillinae
Grammatoptilinae (or Laniellinae, Cutiinae)
Salpinctinae
Odontorchilinae
Melanoptilinae
Alethinae
Pipraeideinae (or Anisognathinae)

 

[l_raty]

Macrocephaloninae

Macrocephalini
Verheyen R. 1956. Contribution à l'anatomie et à la systématique des Galliformes. Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belgique, 32 (32): 1-24.
p. 18
http://biblio.naturalsciences.be/rb...al-sciences/32-1956/bull-xxxii-42-08-1956.pdf

Xenoperdricinae
Tropicoperdicinae
Ammoperdicinae
Pternistinae
Rhizotherinae
Eutriorchidinae
Lophospizinae

not that I know.

Melieracinae

"Melieraxinae"
Lerner HRL, Mindell DP. 2005. Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37: 327-346.
p. 329
Redirecting , http://heatherlerner.com/pdfs/Lerner.Mindell.MPE.2005.pdf
But for this to be available, you must interpret a flag “This study”, next to the name, as indicating it as intentionally new, which is questionable, and the description is minimal (“Forest accipiters, larger than Accipiter species”). I known no other possible source.

Berenicornithinae
Jacamaralcyoninae (or Brachygalbinae)
Corydoninae
Myiobiinae
Cnipodectinae

not that I know.

Chamaezinae

Chamaezidae
Bertoni A de W. 1901. Aves nuevas del Paraguay. Continuación á Azara. Talleres nacionales de H Kraus, Asunción.
p. 148
Aves nuevas del Paraguay - Biodiversity Heritage Library

Geosittinae
Glycichaerinae (or Melionychinae, Ptiloprorinae)
Lichmerinae
Ptilorrhoinae
Tephrodornithinae
Philentominae
Perisoreinae

not that I know.

For group that the latter would presumably denote, I have the following, which is admittedly extremely obscure :
Cyanopolidae (Cyanopolius, a syn. of Cyanopica)
Dybowski B. 1922. Spis systematyczny gatunków i ras, należących do Avifauny Kamczatki i wysp komandorskich. Archiwum Towarzystwa naukowego we Lwowie, Dział III, 1 (8): [393]-[405].
p. [394] = 2
https://kpbc.umk.pl/Content/208961/download/

Melanochlorinae
Nesillinae
Grammatoptilinae (or Laniellinae, Cutiinae)
Salpinctinae
Odontorchilinae
Melanoptilinae
Alethinae
Pipraeideinae (or Anisognathinae)

not that I know.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Macrocephalini
Verheyen R. 1956. Contribution à l'anatomie et à la systématique des Galliformes. Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belgique, 32 (32): 1-24.
p. 18
http://biblio.naturalsciences.be/rb...al-sciences/32-1956/bull-xxxii-42-08-1956.pdf


not that I know.


"Melieraxinae"
Lerner HRL, Mindell DP. 2005. Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 37: 327-346.
p. 329
Redirecting , http://heatherlerner.com/pdfs/Lerner.Mindell.MPE.2005.pdf
But for this to be available, you must interpret a flag “This study”, next to the name, as indicating it as intentionally new, which is questionable, and the description is minimal (“Forest accipiters, larger than Accipiter species”). I known no other possible source.


not that I know.


Chamaezidae
Bertoni A de W. 1901. Aves nuevas del Paraguay. Continuación á Azara. Talleres nacionales de H Kraus, Asunción.
p. 148
Aves nuevas del Paraguay - Biodiversity Heritage Library


not that I know.

For group that the latter would presumably denote, I have the following, which is admittedly extremely obscure :
Cyanopolidae (Cyanopolius, a syn. of Cyanopica)
Dybowski B. 1922. Spis systematyczny gatunków i ras, należących do Avifauny Kamczatki i wysp komandorskich. Archiwum Towarzystwa naukowego we Lwowie, Dział III, 1 (8): [393]-[405].
p. [394] = 2
https://kpbc.umk.pl/Content/208961/download/


not that I know.

Thanks

For me, Melieraxinae is not available

I think there is already a subfamily Macrocephalinae in Phymatidae (Heteroptera) but I don't know the authorship

 

[l_raty]

I think there is already a subfamily Macrocephalinae in Phymatidae (Heteroptera) but I don't know the authorship

Yes, indeed. Unless I'm overlooking something, this seems to have been introduced as :
Macrocephalina Stål 1876 (Macrocephalus Swederus 1787) : bd.1-5 (1870-1876) - Enumeratio hemipterorum - Biodiversity Heritage Library
The stem adopted by Verheyen was not correctly formed, anyway...

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The stem adopted by Verheyen was not correctly formed, anyway...

There is an article which allows us to correct the ending of the name to "Macrocephaloninae" while keeping Verheyen as the author?

 

[l_raty]

There is an article which allows us to correct the ending of the name to "Macrocephaloninae" while keeping Verheyen as the author?

It's complicated .

Before 2000, this correction would unquestionably have been mandatory (i.e., a justified emendation), because Macrocephalon ends in a transliteration of κεφαλών, -ῶνος, the stem of which is cephalon-, not cephal- (current Art. 29.3.1). Justified emendations retain the original name's author and date.

The current Code is problematic, because it gives rules telling how a family-group name must be formed (Art. 29), but names not formed according to these rules are not included in the names that need to be corrected (Art. 32.5), hence changing them is in theory not allowed at all (Art. 32.2). (Same problem as with genitive endings of names formed from a personal name in a way that conflicts with Art. 31.1.)

If you think that following the provisions of a Code article like Art. 29 (or Art. 31.1) is mandatory, then the stem of a name ending in a Greek word, if formed in violation of Art. 29.3.1, should logically be corrected, except in cases that fall under Art. 29.4 (but this concerns names proposed as new after 1999 only -- not the case here) or 29.5 (the name using that stem is in prevailing usage -- not the case here either, as the name is not in use at all). This is presumably how things were intended to work by those who drafted the Code.

If you do not want to follow that path and correct the name yourself, you cannot create a new name (with its own author and date) to be used instead of Verheyen's either. What you must do, is to refer the case to the Commission, asking for a ruling removing the homonymy between Verheyen's and Stål's names (Art. 55.3.1). The Commission will then change the spelling of one of these names; this change will not affect the name's author and date; it's certainly Verheyen's name that will be changed, because it is not in use, while Stål's name is; and the change will almost certainly be to Macrocephalon-, because this is the most logical thing to do. If so, the result will be the same as above -- the main difference being that you'll have wasted the time of the Commissioners to reach it.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

It's complicated .

Before 2000, this correction would unquestionably have been mandatory (i.e., a justified emendation), because Macrocephalon ends in a transliteration of κεφαλών, -ῶνος, the stem of which is cephalon-, not cephal- (current Art. 29.3.1). Justified emendations retain the original name's author and date.

The current Code is problematic, because it gives rules telling how a family-group name must be formed (Art. 29), but names not formed according to these rules are not included in the names that need to be corrected (Art. 32.5), hence changing them is in theory not allowed at all (Art. 32.2). (Same problem as with genitive endings of names formed from a personal name in a way that conflicts with Art. 31.1.)

If you think that following the provisions of a Code article like Art. 29 (or Art. 31.1) is mandatory, then the stem of a name ending in a Greek word, if formed in violation of Art. 29.3.1, should logically be corrected, except in cases that fall under Art. 29.4 (but this concerns names proposed as new after 1999 only -- not the case here) or 29.5 (the name using that stem is in prevailing usage -- not the case here either, as the name is not in use at all). This is presumably how things were intended to work by those who drafted the Code.

If you do not want to follow that path and correct the name yourself, you cannot create a new name (with its own author and date) to be used instead of Verheyen's either. What you must do, is to refer the case to the Commission, asking for a ruling removing the homonymy between Verheyen's and Stål's names (Art. 55.3.1). The Commission will then change the spelling of one of these names; this change will not affect the name's author and date; it's certainly Verheyen's name that will be changed, because it is not in use, while Stål's name is; and the change will almost certainly be to Macrocephalon-, because this is the most logical thing to do. If so, the result will be the same as above -- the main difference being that you'll have wasted the time of the Commissioners to reach it.

Do you have a Doliprane?