Content uploaded by Edward C. Dickinson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Edward C. Dickinson on Mar 30, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Priority! The dating of scientific names in ornithology
... A brief overview of this 50part publication, subsequently bound into three volumes is provided here. Bibliographical details and dates of parts expand on those provided by Dickinson et al. (2011). GB is invariably cited in its bound form, and a summary of the volume contents is given below. ...
... This avoids any confu sion of dates as most parts, published over five years, contain subfamily components that sequentially belong in all three vol umes. The list of parts and associated details follows the sum mary provided by Dickinson et al. (2011) on the CDROM supplement. For each part, the page and plate details are pro vided here, but the indicated pagination came later in the sum mary of the work because the text was originally published unpaginated 32 . ...
... The list provided in Dickinson et al. (2011) indicates that each part was published in the same year, and apparently in the same month, as dated on the pages, or presumably very close to these printed dates. Although they can be considered to be dates of printing, the evidence of the dates of receipt suggests they may in fact have been intended as publication dates. ...
... Despite the lag, Ramsay's name has precedence; the relevant part of the Ibis containing Salvin and Godman's description of regalis is dated in July 1880, although Salvadori (1882) thought it was not published until October and it is possible that he had proof of this. Nevertheless, despite the point being moot, for issues in this serial Dickinson et al. (2011) advised 'where exact dates are available they should be relied on, in all other cases the last day of the given month [in this case 31 July 1880] must be used'. Finally, it also bears mention that in other cases in which he knew others might work on the same material as him and seek to describe new taxa, Ramsay was sufficiently collegiate to take precautions to try and avoid this by making his intentions clear to the other parties (McAllan 2016: 32), thereby making Sharpe's charges against him doubly unfair. ...
We detail the types and some other early specimens of the four taxa currently usually treated as subspecies of the New Guinea endemic, Pheasant Pigeon Otidiphaps nobilis. This material has been subject to a number of erroneous statements in the previous literature. In chronological order of description, O. n. nobilis Gould, 1870, was based on a single specimen of unknown provenance and collector, now at the Natural History Museum, Tring; O. n. cervicalis E. P. Ramsay, 1880, and its objective junior synonym O. n. regalis Salvin & Godman, 1880, were based on multiple syntypes taken in 1879 (several of them the same specimens), all held in Tring (despite being previously reported as such, two specimens in Sydney appear to have no name-bearing status); O. n. insularis Salvin and Godman, 1883, is known from the two syntypes, collected in 1882 and held in Tring, and just one other specimen, taken in 1896 and held in the American Museum of Natural History, New York; and O. n. aruensis Rothschild, 1928, was based on a specimen collected in June 1914, now in New York, although there is a significantly earlier specimen of this taxon in the Museum Heineanum Halberstadt.
... Given the statement that Hume (1875b) made regarding the time period over which specimens considered in that paper had been collected, it appears highly improbable that his type description earlier in the same issue would have been based on specimens taken later than March 1875. Supporting this, given that the issue is dated May 1875, which is accepted as the true date of publication (Pittie 2006, Dickinson et al. 2011, and that Hume presumably wrote his type description at his home in Simla, north-west India, whereas Davison was collecting in southern Burma, the logistics alone make it unlikely that he would have had later specimens to hand. Of the first nine specimens in Table 1, it therefore appears that claims to syntype status for 7-9, all taken in April 1875, should be considered very doubtful. ...
... A more recent molecular study is congruent with these results, as olive birds grouped together vs. grey and streaked birds (Alvarez et al. 2016). Both studies shed light on the taxonomic relationships between the different morphotypes, but the nomenclatural confusion remains unresolved, because grey-coloured birds with a dark cap were originally described as S. atriceps (Salvin 1863, Salvin & Godman 1879-1904, meaning that using the name S. pinus perplexus for grey birds with a dark cap violates the International code of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999, Dickinson et al. 2011. ...
We present an update on the status and distribution of birds in Guatemala relative to a previous summary (Eisermann & Avendaño 2007) and based upon a review of new published and unpublished records. During the period 2006 to 2017, 50 species were first documented in Guatemala. Another 11 species were reported for the first time but without verifiable documentation. Breeding was newly confirmed for 58 species. Noteworthy observations, including range extensions, are summarised for 131 species. The Guatemalan avifauna now comprises 758 species of which 23 lack documentation. Of the 758 species, 509 breed in Guatemala, 240 are non-breeding visitors, transients or vagrants, and the status of nine is uncertain.
This is the eighth annual taxonomic update after Praveen et al.
(2016). Since our last update (Praveen & Jayapal 2022), there
were two revisions in IOC taxonomy (Gill et al. 2022, 2023) and
one for eBird/Clements (Clements et al. 2022). However, these
revisions in global taxonomy have minimal impacts on Indian
birds owing to increased alignment between the two authorities,
whose consensus has been the basis for the India Checklist
taxonomy and nomenclature (see Praveen et al. 2020 for
details). In this update, we implement a few taxonomic changes
relevant to Indian birds, that have been accepted by the global
authorities.
In deciding to provide a complement to Buffon's Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, Temminck, who had not previously published a ‘part work’ on this scale undertook to do so under the name Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux. At the start Temminck did not provide texts; each part included six plates. Of the many problems to solve the three main ones seemed to be: (i) the number of plates per part, (ii) the dates of publication, and (iii) the need to discover the wrappers issued with parts 1–20. The plates carried French names, but for these 20 parts the wrappers provided the new scientific names and attributed authorship. From previous studies we conclude that the Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées must be considered as two works, and that the first of these (livraisons 1–20) must be seen as complete with the inclusion of the wrappers. We then examine all names applicable to images in these 120 plates, assessing authorship, date of publication and date precedence. We identified three cases where names long in prevailing usage require application to the ICZN for a ruling on reversal of precedence. We list 15 names that have been in widespread use over the last 60 years that risk changes if the names on the wrappers are judged unacceptable. Our Appendix deals with the 86 names Temminck thought new: (a) 27 of Temminck’s own names with precedence; (b) 19 manuscript names for which Temminck is the author; (c) 27 Temminck names which are junior synonyms; (d) 12 manuscript names from Temminck that are also junior synonyms; (e) one name used for two specimens Temminck thought were of the same species but proved different.
A recent comprehensive molecular phylogeny of the Picidae recovered the genus Dinopium as paraphyletic, with Olive-backed Woodpecker D. rafflesii sister to Pale-headed Woodpecker Gecinulus grantia. Of the available taxonomic responses, we favour assigning D. rafflesii to its own genus, in line with the modern trend to recognise more and smaller genera. Several genus names were used for rafflesii between the mid-19th and early 20th centuries, of which Chloropicoides Malherbe, 1849, is the oldest. Available information suggests, however, that it was not Malherbe's intention to designate rafflesii as the type of his new genus, but that in near-simultaneously publishing two works on the Picidae he inadvertently introduced Chloropicoides first in combination solely with rafflesii, making it the type species by monotypy. Should it be proven that his other, more detailed paper was in fact published first, then another Malherbe genus, Gauropicoides, could be used by those who seek to recognise the distinctiveness of rafflesii.
In the scientific literature, the availability, authorship, date and onomatophore of the four
generic nomina of lizards "Platydactyles", "Hemidactyles", "Thecadactyles" and Ptyodactyles" published by Cuvier (1816) and of the genus nomen of toads "Otilophes" published by Cuvier (1829) as French scientific nomina in the plural, and of their latinised forms, are credited to various authors. After a careful analysis, these nomina are here attributed respectively to Goldfuss (1820) for Platydactylus, Hemidactylus, Thecadactylus and Ptyodactylus, to Wagler (1830) for Otilophus and to Tschudi (1838) for Osilophus. Solutions are proposed to various other nomenclatural problems related to these and related nomina. Attention is drawn again to the fact that the Code’s Rules concerning specific epithets and generic substantives being ‘unmodified vernacular words’, as well
as those distinguishing ‘unjustified emendations’ from ‘incorrect subsequent spellings’ are deficient. In order to solve all these nomenclatural cases, we had to resort to 20 Articles of the Code (3.2, 11.2, 11.3, 11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 21.2, 21.3, 23.9, 24.2, 30.2, 32.5, 33.2, 33.3, 35.4, 40.2, 50.1, 57.3, 67.8 and 68.3) and to 59 technical nomenclatural terms. This highlights the fact that nomenclatural problems concerning old nomina cannot be properly dealt with in a hurry and without a good, but also critical, knowledge of the Code, and that the use of a more detailed terminology than that of the Code facilitates such a work.
To the review of the ornithology of the voyage of La Coquille by Dickinson et al. (2015) we add three birds named as new species, overlooked for different reasons: 1. Diomedea epomophora, the current name of the Southern Royal Albatross; 2. Todiramphus sacer, a synonym of the Chattering Kingfisher Todiramphus tutus; 3. Dromiceius novaezelandiae, the second name applied to a kiwi and evidently an available senior synonym of the North Island Brown Kiwi Apteryx mantelli. The La Coquille expedition introduced the indigenous name 'kiwi' to ornithology; it is now the common name applied to birds of the family Apterygidae.
Several original descriptions of birds and mammals appeared in the Catalogue des Mammifères, Oiseaux, Reptiles, Poissons et Mollusques testacés marins, observés dans lʹarrondissement d'Abbeville, published by Louis Antoine François Baillon in the Mémoires de la Société Royale d'Emulation d'Abbeville. Although it is generally accepted that Baillon's Catalogue was published in 1834, recent publications and online databases mention the year 1833. For the sake of nomenclature stability and taxon dating we provide here evidence that Baillonʹs Catalogue was released in 1834. Beside Anser brachyrhynchus which is currently in use as a valid name, nine other taxon names are concerned (four mammals and five birds).
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.