Questions on synonyms ... in today's Pachyptila, Nycticorax and ... in what? (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

I also have some questions regarding other synonyms (as well, all eponyms, all commemorating Swedish guys) ... this as there are similar, different bids or contradictory claims (alt. different opinions) in various references.

So what about ...

solanderi as in:
• "P. [Pseudoprion] turtur solanderi" MATHEWS 1912 (here)... equal of; nominate Pachyptila t. turtur KUHL 1820 or monotypic P. belcheri MATHEWS 1912 ... ?


sparrmannii as in:
• "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" WAGLER 1827 (here)... equal of; nominate Nycticorax caledonicus caledonicus GMELIN 1789 or Nycticorax caledonicus australasiae VIEILLOT 1823 ... ?


And the even more unknown (!) ...

sparrmannii as in:
• "C. [Certhia] Sparrmanni" SUCKOW 1800 (here)* ... based on Sparrman's "Certhia lepida" 1787, here (which, as I understand it, isn´t the same bird as "Certhia lepida" LATHAM 1790, the latter a synonym for Anthreptes malacensis SCOPOLI 1786?)

Is it a specimen of (Nectarinia) Leptocoma zeylonica LINNAEUS 1766 (here) as "[Certhia] "zeylonica"? Or yet another, completely different Sunbird... ?

I assume it has nothing to do with Linnaeus's "[Fringilla] lepida", also of 1766 (here).

Anyone who does know their Sunbirds?

Björn

______________________________________________
* from what I can tell, not listed in today's HBW Alive Key.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Answering my own (latter) question ...

According to Shelley's A monograph of the Nectariniidae, or, Family of sun-birds (1876-1880), here, Sparrman's "Certhia lepida" is equal of the species "Cinnyris zeylonica" [i.e. today's Purple-rumped Sunbird (Nectarinia) Leptocoma zeylonica LINNAEUS 1766].

Also see page lx-lxi (here, bottom page):

1786. SPARRMAN, A. Museum Carlsonianum (4to. Holmiæ)
The following fresh Latin titles are here given to species previously named by Linnaeus : -
Part ii, pi. 35. Certhia lepida, sp. n., hab. ?, = Cinnyris zeylonicus (Linn. 1766).
[...]

On top of this: compare the illustration in Sparrman's work, with the one (of the male ) in Shelley's (both attached).

The darker throat on the bird in Sparrman's work (that made me a bit uncertain) could possibly be explained by poor quality of the Artist's pigment. Some Purple colours are known to darken by age (and certainly so if mixed with others).

Well, that´s good enough for me! At least on species level (less on subspecies level) ...

Anyone in opposition?

The thing that disturb me (most) is that Sparrman, if so, seemingly must have missed Linnaeus's zeylonica. He was normally fully aware of the work (and birds) of his great Tutor.

However; if the (rather crudely) depicted bird in Sparrman's work truly was made from a specimen of the nominate itself (from "Ceylon") or from a ditto of today's ssp. L. z. flaviventris HERMANN 1804 (from mainland India) is, in my mind, impossible to say.

Also compare with photos, like the ones found; here, here, here ... and elsewhere (all over).

From what I can tell, not knowing Latin, simply trusting Shelley's question mark; "hab. ?," (which I read as Habitat/Location/Geographic origin unknown) in the quote above, Sparrman didn´t mention the origin of his "Certhia lepida". Or did he?

Also note that Shelley, as well, listed Hermann's flaviventris in the list of synonyms for zeylonica.

Björn
--

 

[l_raty]

The thing that disturb me (most) is that Sparrman, if so, seemingly must have missed Linnaeus's zeylonica. He was normally fully aware of the work (and birds) of his great Tutor.

Linnaeus 1766 [here] described the throat and rump of his Certhia zeylandica as azure (Lat. azureus)... Perhaps Sparrman simply thought that the description was not a good match for the bird he had in hand ?

From what I can tell, not knowing Latin, simply trusting Shelley's question mark; "hab. ?," (which I read as Habitat/Location/Geographic origin unknown) in the quote above, Sparrman didn´t mention the origin of his "Certhia lepida". Or did he?

He did not.
(Just for the precision, and although the general meaning of the Shelley's 'hab. ?' is indeed, ultimately, that the bird's origin is unknown: 'habitat' in Latin is not a real direct equivalent of 'habitat' in English. The latter is a noun; the former is the verb habitare in the third person singular, meaning 'he/she/it resides'.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent, thereby I will not claim more than ...

sparrmannii as in:
• "C. [Certhia] Sparrmanni" SUCKOW 1800 = (Nectarinia) Leptocoma zeylonica ssp.?

Is this the proper way (ssp.?) to write it; when known on a species level, leaving the synonymity of which subspecies uncertain/unknown ... or?
--

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

So if we can agree on Sparrman's Sunbird "C. [Certhia] Sparrmanni" SUCKOW 1800 (based on Sparrman's "Certhia lepida") as a synonym of (Nectarinia) Leptocoma zeylonica, but no further than that regarding of which subspecies ...

What about the true identity of Sparrman's (Rufous) Night-Heron? And Solander's (Fairy) Prion? Does the Latin texts in those ODs (in post #1) tell us anything elucidating?
-

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

"P. [Pseudoprion] turtur solanderi" MATHEWS 1912

To me the trouble (and confusion) regarding the Identity of "P. turtur solanderi" MATHEWS 1912 (OD in post #1) seems to be caused by two different type specimens ... !?

One in the American Museum of Natural History: "LECTOTYPE [!]: AMNH 527263, not sexed. No original label, no data except a notation on a Mathews collection label: 'type of solanderi,' and the locality: 'Cape Horn' From the Mathews No. 4602, and the Rothschild collection.", which is* (or was?) equal of monotypic Pachyptila turtur KUHL 1820.

And one in the British Museum (88.5.18.158), labeled: "type of P. turtur solanderi", ... equal of a juvenile specimen of P. belcheri MATHEWS 1912.

Compare the "Pachyptila turtur turtur (solanderi)" in Avibase (here) versus the entry in today's HBW Alive Key: " syn. Pachyptila belcheri" ... !?!

Which is The "Type" to follow?

Or have I missed some recent conclusion alt. a ditto consensus?

Björn

____________________________________________________
*according to: James C. Greenway, jr. 1973. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History. Part 1, ... Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol.150, article 3 (here, p.222).

 

[l_raty]

Or have I missed some recent conclusion alt. a ditto consensus?

LeCroy 2017 [here] (p. 24-25) concluded that the AMNH specimen should not be regarded a type.

 

[l_raty]

What about the true identity of Sparrman's (Rufous) Night-Heron? [...] Does the Latin texts in those ODs (in post #1) tell us anything elucidating?

Quick translation of Wagler's text:

52. A. Sparrmannii. With the structure, size, and the three elongated occipital plumes of Nycticorax, differing from it: by the entire upper body, tail and all flight feathers cinnamon-coloured, a white neck washed pale cinnamon at the back; with a black cap; with the superciliary stripe, the breast and all the other lower parts of the body, white. Adult.

Ardea caledonica Forster unpublished illustrations, plate 111 (very good figure) and authors. Cook Travels, 2, plate 50.

Juv. With the front and lateral neck, and the entire body below, in a cinnamon-brown background, longitudinally striped with white; the back and the wings of the same colour, more obscure, with sub-ovate, subdued marks, most visible in the wing coverts, and circled with dark; the tail uniform cinnamon; the feet darkish yellow; the head black above; the occiput without elongated plumes; the mandible green with black tip.

Face nude and green; black bill, with a yellowish lower base; irides yellow; legs yellow with dark nails. Resides in New-Holland, first detected and killed by the Forsters in New-Caledonia (Paris Museum, Linnaean Society of London).

Note. Vieillot's description of Ardea novaehollandiae (Nouveau Dictionnaire p. 436) looks at a young bird of this species and in part at Ardea leuconotus, which is why, in order to avoid errors, I have omitted it.

(It seems quite likely that this description was based on specimens from both Australia and New Caledonia...)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

"P. [Pseudoprion] turtur solanderi" MATHEWS 1912

LeCroy 2017 [here] (p. 24-25) concluded that the AMNH specimen should not be regarded a type.

Many thanks, Laurent! :t: I had a feeling I´d missed something (or at least hoped for it). And I apparently did!

Thereby: Slender-billed Prion Pachyptila belcheri was, and is, the true identity!

Just like the HBW Alive Key have claimed all along ...

Björn

PS. An even more heartfelt THANKS to Mary LeCroy (I hope she reads this)! That Paper saved me weeks of unnecessary work ... talk about timing, if I´d started this thread a year ago I would have, could have, been stuck in hesitation.

PPS. And yet another; thank you Laurent, for help with he Night-Heron. I´ll look into it later.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Here´s Wagler's; "Ardea caledonica F o r s t e r Icon. inedit. t. 111 (fig. opt.) ..." ["Ardea caledonica Forster unpublished illustrations, plate 111 (very good figure)] ...", the first reference for "A. Sparrmannii".

Today kept in the BNHM's Image Collections (Forster and Cook's Second Voyage), here.

"Very good ..." (by the standards of that time ) ... but the question remain: is it good enough for pin-pointing regarding identity on a subspecies level?

Either way; enjoy!

To be continued (... off to work).

Björn
--

 

[l_raty]

but the question remain: is it good enough for pin-pointing regarding identity on a subspecies level?

Forster's bird is the base of the name Ardea caledonica Gmelin 1789 (Gmelin [here] cited only Latham's synopsis [here], who cited Forster): its inclusion means that the type of caledonica is part of the type series of A. sparrmannii.
But Wagler clearly saw other specimens (in Paris and London, including at least one juvenile), some of which were quite likely from Australia ("New Holland"). These would be syntypes of sparrmannii too.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent, and yes, I´ve looked at those references earlier and I´m with you this far. But still a bit confused ...

Do you (or anybody else) have any idea of where to find Wagler's (second?) reference; "... C o o k Reise 2. t. 50"/"... Cook Travels, 2, plate 50" ... ?

Also note Latham's second footnote (1785):

"See Cook's Voy. vol. ii, p.111. pl 50.--I do not find it there described but Dr. Forster was so obliging as to supply that defect."

Does this mean that Forster's "unpublished" illustration (plate 111) versus plate 50 (and page 111!?) was/is the one and the same, the latter only (later, if ever?) published in different Editions, prior to Wagler 1827?
--

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Continuation on "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" WAGLER 1827

To me; the bird on Forster's plate (in post #10), looks like an adult specimen of today´s nominate Nycticorax c. caledonicus GMELIN 1789, and Wagler's "Sparrmannii" (1827), seems to be different to that one by "superciliary stripe, the breast and all the other lower parts of the body, white.", suggesting the latter being equal of today's N. c. australasiae VIEILLOT 1823. Compare with several photos in the IBC collection, here.

If not ... why?

But (of course, like Laurent pointed out) contrary to this, the juvenile bird, of "Sparrmannii", mentioned in Wagler's OD, "first killed by the Forsters in New-Caledonia" was/is apparently (by location only) a specimen of nominate N. c. caledonicus.

Final point; making Wagler's "Sparrmannii" a mixture of both ... = nothing more than Nycticorax caledonicus ssp.? (i.e. subspecies incerta/uncertain subspecies).

Anyone disagree?

Björn
--

 

[l_raty]

Wagler's text is a bit unclear on this, but I wouldn't read the paragraph where it is said "first killed by the Forsters in New-Caledonia" as concerning the juvenile; I think it is about the species as a whole. (It makes little sense to describe a range only for juvenile birds of a species.)

My first reaction to Wagler's adult description was the same: it suggests more white in the plumage than what I see on pictures of nominate birds from New Caledonia. (NB - also the fore neck is described as white (with the rear neck washed cinnamon), which I find particularly hard to reconcile with Forster's figure.) But, again, Wagler's inclusion of Forster's figure should in principle make the bird shown on this plate a syntype of sparrmannii, with the consequence that Wagler's original concept must at least have encompassed caledonicus. Wagler's comment that this figure was very good, suggesting he regarded it as a good match for what he was describing, makes it quite hard to dismiss the inclusion of the figure as a mere 'mistake', I think. The rest of the type series might be assumed to be composed of the specimens of this species that were in the museums of Paris and of the Linnaean Society of London in Wagler's time (Wagler cited these two institutions in the OD), some of which may have been from Australia. If so, these would have influenced Wagler's description of the adult, making it appear closer to australasiae.

If the original series was mixed, a lectotype might be designated from the type series, which would make the name a synonym of either caledonicus or australasiae. (Although here, in practice, there is no particular need that such a designation be done -- in either case, the name would remain a junior synonym.)

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks Laurent, we´re on the same page. And like you said, I doubt there will a designated lectotype as we´re clearly dealing with a synonym. At best making Forster's figure a syntype of "Sparrmanii" (and the type of caledonica/caledonicus!).

Thereby, only left with one question: Which way would you say is the most proper way to write it, when a synonym is known to what species, but not of which subspecies, a case when the subspecies is beyond determination?

Is the proper (scientific) way to write it (and now we´re getting into minute details), either one of the versions below:

1. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" WAGLER* 1827 = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp?
(italics on ssp?, no dot)

2. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp.?
(italics on ssp.?, with dot)

3. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp?
(no italics on ssp?, no dot)

4. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp.?
(no italics on ssp.?, with dot)

5. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp?
(italics on ssp?, no dot, no italic question mark)

6. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp.?
(italics on ssp.?, with dot, no italic question mark)

... or the easy way out:

7. "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" [*] = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus caledonicus/australasiae

Does the Code tell us how it ought to be written?
:scribe:
Björn

____________________________________________________________________________
* Here not dealing with how to write the Authors name (in brackets, or not, capitalized, or not).
That´s a later issue (as it differs, following local traditions/customs, when published).

 

[l_raty]

The Code itself doesn't really say anything about this. (The closest thing I see is §6 of the "General recommendations" in Appendix B -- but these "do not form part of the legislative text of the Code" [Art.89.2.].) I would not consider this issue as intrinsically different from how to write an author's name*: both are basically editorial policy.

I'd be tempted by #7. If not, I'd just use "ssp.": no italics (it's not part of the taxon name), a dot (it's an abbreviation), no question mark. If you want to be fully explicit, you may also consider something like:

• "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" WAGLER 1827 = Syn. Nycticorax caledonicus caledonicus (partim), N. c. australasiae (partim).

___
* Not here taking into account the presence/absence of parentheses around some author names. This is fully regulated by [Art.51.3] of the Code.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

In conclusion ...

solanderi as in:
• "P. [Pseudoprion] turtur solanderi" MATHEWS 1912 = today's monotypic Pachyptila belcheri MATHEWS 1912 [not Pachyptila t. turtur KUHL 1820]

sparrmannii as in:
• "A. [Ardea] Sparrmannii" WAGLER 1827 = syn. Nycticorax caledonicus ssp. [i.e. Nycticorax caledonicus caledonicus/australasiae]

sparrmannii as in:
• "C. [Certhia] Sparrmanni" SUCKOW 1800 = (Nectarinia) Leptocoma zeylonica ssp. [i.e. Leptocoma zeylonica zeylonica/flaviventris]


The guys behind those names, Solander and Sparrman, will be dealt with (hopefully soon, not too far away) in the Bird Name Etymology Sub-forum.

See you all there!

Björn

PS. And, as always; don´t hesitate to remark on any (or all) of the conclusions above.