S.M.S. Gregory, 2024 (June 18): V. The correct family-group name for a clade of the Falconidae Leach, 1819, the Caracaras and Spot-winged Falconet”. Pp. N27–N32
I have two main comments here :
1)
Polyborus Vieillot 1816.
OD : Vieillot 1816 (Apr) :
Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire
As noted by Steven, this name was proposed without any included nominal species ("Caracara, Buff." is not a nominal species denoted by an available name, and cannot act as a type species).
The first inclusion of nominal species was in Vieillot 1816 (Dec) :
t.5 (1816) - Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Here, Vieillot included positively only one single taxonomic species, "le CARACARA proprement dit",
Polyborus vulgaris Vieillot, for which he cited
Falco brasiliensis "Latham" as a synonym. He further cited (1)
Falco cheriway "Gmelin" (without actually combining this name with
Polyborus, and which he treated as of uncertain identity (
species inquirenda), ineligible to become the type of the genus; see ICZN 67.2.5), and (2) two additional species described by Azara (which he named
Polyborus chimachima and
P. chimango, but which he had not seen himself, and included with explicit reservations -- "Comme il faut voir ces oiseaux en nature, pour décider si réellement ils doivent faire partie de ce genre, je ne les y place que provisoirement." -- ineligible to become the type as well; same ICZN article).
The current Code defines "subsequent monotypy" as occurring when "only one
nominal species was first subsequently included". Here, Vieillot included one
taxonomic species, but arguably two nominal species, and a designation of one of these may be seen as necessary. (*)
I would personally be inclined to make the case that Vieillot 1816 (Dec) called what was evidently the single included species (and, thus, his
Polyborus vulgaris) the type of his new genus ("[...] je crois l'avoir placé convenablement en le présentant comme
le type d'un nouveau genre [...]"). This designation might possibly be called ambiguous, though, as it occurs before the introduction of the species name in the text, and some might feel it is not warranted to treat what got designated there ("le
caracara") as being equal to the species ("le CARACARA proprement dit"). However, even if it was not accepted, Vieillot repeated a very similar designation in 1821 (livr. 9, 15 Sep 1821 (?) -- there are difficulties with the dating of early portions of the text this work; in any case, certainly before Vigors designated
F. brasiliensis in 1824) :
t.1=pt.1-2 (1825) - La galerie des oiseaux - Biodiversity Heritage Library . This time the designation was included in a text covering
Polyborus vulgaris specifically, hence I don't really see how it could be set aside.
1ère famille. Vaurourins, Vulturini, Illiger.
[…]
7me division. Caracara, Polyborus. Falco, Linnée.
[…]
LE CARACARA proprement dit, Polyborus Vulgaris.
[...] nous a paru, d’après ses caractères, pouvoir être
le type d’une nouvelle division que nous avons placée dans la famille des Vautourins, d’après plusieurs parties nues de sa tête, son jabot saillant, ses yeux à fleur de tête, ses doigts antérieurs, alongés, et son goût pour la charogne.
Thus I read the type of
Polyborus Vieillot 1816 (Apr) as being
Polyborus vulgaris Vieillot 1816 (Dec), by subsequent designation of either Vieillot 1816 (Dec), or Vieillot 1821 (Sep).
Not Falco brasiliensis Gmelin. And I note that
Polyborus vulgaris Vieillot has always been cited as a synonym of
Falco plancus Miller -- even by those who insisted about dropping
Polyborus.
In other words, under today's rules, I'm very much unclear that there is any actual justification for the invalidation of this genus-group name as used in its traditional sense. Or, obviously, of any family-group name formed from it. (The invalidation was a direct consequence of the fact that "Caracara, Buff." was seen as the "type" of the genus-group name -- which is definitely not an option at all under the ICZN.)
(*) NB : My understanding is that there is a significant probability that, in the next edition of the Code, the mechanism of fixation by subsequent monotypy will be made similar to that of a fixation by monotypy in the OD (ICZN 68.3). I.e, it may well be that under the 5th ed. of the Code, the type of
Polyborus Vieillot 1816 (Apr) will be
Polyborus vulgaris Vieillot 1816 (Dec) by subsequent monotypy, "regardless of any cited synonyms, subspecies, or unavailable names, and regardless of whether the author considered the nominal genus-group taxon to contain other species which he or she did not cite by name, and regardless of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or identified".
----------
2) Caracarinae :
I had not identified this problem previously, but Steven is indeed completely correct that the various uses of Caracaridae by d'Orbigny 1835, d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837, d'Orbigny in La Sagra 1839, do not meet the requirements for availability. (In these works,
Polyborus is used as the valid name for the wannabe type genus.) The source which he suggests to accept instead (i.e., Wetmore 1956), however, is not the right one. The name is available as :
Caracarinae Wetmore, Friedmann, Lincoln, Miller, Peters, Van Tyne & Zimmer 1950 (27 Jul) :
Twenty-Fifth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds | Searchable Ornithological Research Archive