-
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.
The correct type species of Sylvietta Lafresnaye (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mike Earp
- Start date
l_raty
laurent raty
Sylvietta Lafresnaye 1839
I agree entirely with Gregory & Dowsett that the originally included nominal species were: Sylvietta brachyura, S. crombec, S. icteropygialis; and that no type was fixed in the OD.
However, the suggested "correct citation" :
1) The claimed type designation (in G.R. Gray, 1841, A List of the Genera of Birds, ed. 2, p. 33 -- A list of the genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library) was not, actually, the first published type designation. It was preceded by a designation in : Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London. Addenda & Errata sheet, i -- A list of the genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library. (This Addenda and Errata sheet is lacking in some copies of Gray 1840, and may have been circulated later than the work itself. However, it is easy to demonstrate that Strickland 1841 (Strickland HE. 1841. Commentary on Mr. G. R. Gray's 'Genera of birds.' 8vo. London, 1840. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6: 410-423.; v.6=no.34-40 (1840-1841) - The Annals and magazine of natural history - Biodiversity Heritage Library) was commenting on a copy of the first ed. of Gray's work that had been completed and corrected by this sheet; and Strickland 1841 (Feb) is universally accepted as having been published before the 2nd ed. of Gray's work (Nov; Sep claimed by Mathews 1925 but without supportive evidence), thus so must have been the Addenda and Errata sheet. Craspedophora Gray is available from the Addenda & Errata sheet, and usually dated to 1840.)
(Luckily, in this case, the first and second type designations were identical. But this is not always going to be the case.)
2) Unless I misunderstand the status of the three final lines in the "correct citation" (this status is not explained; I'm not aware that an offical format of "correct citation" exists), these appear, I'm afraid, to represent a misreading of the Code :
Dicaeum rufescens Vieillot 1817 was not originally included in Sylvietta Lafresnaye 1839 : there is, of course, no way that it could ever be the type. The fact that Gray identified it as a synonym of an originally included nominal species changes absolutely nothing to this, and cannot be seen as having "turned" an ineligible nominal species into a validly designated type.
(Of course, in this case, treating one instead of the other as the type cannot have any deep consequence, as the two names are objective synonyms -- they are both based on the same plate of Levaillant's Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux d’Afrique. But, here as well, this is not always going to be the case.)
Lafresnaye F de. 1839. Quelques nouvelles espèces d’oiseaux. Rev. Zool. (Soc. Cuv.), 2: 257-259.
I agree entirely with Gregory & Dowsett that the originally included nominal species were: Sylvietta brachyura, S. crombec, S. icteropygialis; and that no type was fixed in the OD.
However, the suggested "correct citation" :
...is incorrect on at least two accounts.
1) The claimed type designation (in G.R. Gray, 1841, A List of the Genera of Birds, ed. 2, p. 33 -- A list of the genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library) was not, actually, the first published type designation. It was preceded by a designation in : Gray GR. 1840. A list of the genera of birds, with an indication of the typical species of each genus. R and JE Taylor, London. Addenda & Errata sheet, i -- A list of the genera of birds - Biodiversity Heritage Library. (This Addenda and Errata sheet is lacking in some copies of Gray 1840, and may have been circulated later than the work itself. However, it is easy to demonstrate that Strickland 1841 (Strickland HE. 1841. Commentary on Mr. G. R. Gray's 'Genera of birds.' 8vo. London, 1840. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. 6: 410-423.; v.6=no.34-40 (1840-1841) - The Annals and magazine of natural history - Biodiversity Heritage Library) was commenting on a copy of the first ed. of Gray's work that had been completed and corrected by this sheet; and Strickland 1841 (Feb) is universally accepted as having been published before the 2nd ed. of Gray's work (Nov; Sep claimed by Mathews 1925 but without supportive evidence), thus so must have been the Addenda and Errata sheet. Craspedophora Gray is available from the Addenda & Errata sheet, and usually dated to 1840.)
(Luckily, in this case, the first and second type designations were identical. But this is not always going to be the case.)
2) Unless I misunderstand the status of the three final lines in the "correct citation" (this status is not explained; I'm not aware that an offical format of "correct citation" exists), these appear, I'm afraid, to represent a misreading of the Code :
Gray 1840 (just like Gray 1841) designated as type species "S. rufescens (Vieill.)", a recombination of Dicaeum rufescens Vieillot 1817, and a nominal species that was not originally included; at the same time, he placed that nominal species in synonymy with the single originally included nominal species "S. crombec Lafr." = Sylvietta crombec Lafresnaye 1839: that act constitutes fixation of the latter species (= Sylvietta crombec Lafresnaye 1839; NOT Dicaeum rufescens Vieillot 1817) as type species of the nominal genus Sylvietta Lafresnaye 1839.
Dicaeum rufescens Vieillot 1817 was not originally included in Sylvietta Lafresnaye 1839 : there is, of course, no way that it could ever be the type. The fact that Gray identified it as a synonym of an originally included nominal species changes absolutely nothing to this, and cannot be seen as having "turned" an ineligible nominal species into a validly designated type.
(Of course, in this case, treating one instead of the other as the type cannot have any deep consequence, as the two names are objective synonyms -- they are both based on the same plate of Levaillant's Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux d’Afrique. But, here as well, this is not always going to be the case.)
Last edited: