Edward C. Dickinson

Correcting the "correct" name for the Asian Brown Flycatcher (Aves: Passeriformes, Muscicapidae, Muscicapa)

Muscicapa dauurica Pallas, 1811 is shown to be an available name and the oldest available name for the Asian Brown Flycatcher

Hemixus sumatranus Wardlaw Ramsay, 1882, and Hemixus sumatranus Salvadori, 1888

Summary. Eight specimens collected in 1878 by the Italian explorer Odoardo Beccari have provided one or more type specimens for two seemingly identical names given to the Sunda Bulbul of Sumatra, now treated as a subspecies of Ixos virescens or perhaps a full species. These names are Hemixus sumatranus Wardlaw Ramsay, 1882, and Hemixus sumatranus Salvadori, 1888. The International code of zoological nomenclature is not clearly explicit on the treatment of a name that when introduced was simultaneously a junior homonym and an objective junior synonym. While both names are available, the junior one is invalid because of its homonymy. Because both names are available, both have type material and this is not identical. Here we clarify the situation and the type material applicable.

Some comments on Schodde & Bock (2016) on gender agreement

Schodde & Bock (2016) put forward their interpretation of Art. 31.2.2 of ICZN (1999) taking selected cases from Aves, and contended that five names, of 27 examined, may require correcting. The authors offered their conclusion that the requirement for gender agreement in species-group names is the single biggest cause of nomenclatural instability in zoology, and, to resolve it, they advocated replacing gender agreement by original spellings for species-group names. Here, we wish to offer some comments. Olson (1987) argued that the perception of stability is very largely caused by evolving knowledge leading to changes in attributions to genus, and thus in some cases consequent adjustments to the final syllable of names based on the rules for gender agreement. We agree completely that revised phylogenetic arrangements must be seen as the principal root cause of name changes in recent decades; moreover, as we hope these represent the advancement of science, we believe such change is appropriate. On this basis then, instability is a necessary part of our nomenclatural practice. By contrast, instability due to varied usage of the spelling of any species-group name over time is minimal and computers can be programmed to catch such variations. Schodde & Bock based their comments on appendices (on CDs) to vols. 1 and 2 of the Howard and Moore complete checklist of birds of the world, fourth edn. (Dickinson & Remsen 2013, Dickinson & Christidis 2014). These appendices1 are, respectively, David & Dickinson (2013) and David & Dickinson (2014). In these the authors explored as many cases as they could identify of individual taxon names that have been quite widely used both in original form and in variant forms, and appeared to represent problems. Interestingly, a variety of issues needed to be addressed, but the total number of cases is only 79 non-passerine names (vol. 1) and 163 passerine names (vol. 2), which can be related to either the c.28,000 species-group names listed in the above-mentioned checklist or to the figure of 130,000 species-group names, which is a conservative estimate of the sum of avian names in use plus the many synonyms that form part of our knowledge base. We quite understand why, from these, Schodde & Bock selected for discussion the group of names that they did. Interpretation of Art. 31.2.2 is not straightforward because some words and phrases are not clearly defined. In essence, the rule states that a species-group name must be treated as a noun in apposition when the following three conditions are all met: (1) where the author did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective; (2) where the name may be regarded as a noun as well as an adjective; (3) and where evidence of usage is not decisive. Unfortunately, the expression ‘evidence of usage’ as used by the Code leads to interpretation because the word ‘usage’ means ‘established practice’ as well as ‘action of using’. However, the wording of the Example accompanying Art. 31.2.2 is enlightening. This, in a point made on the basis of a subsequent combination where the name Cephenemyia phobifera ‘has been often used’ states that ‘the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer Clark,

Remarks on the name Cercomacra Sclater, 1858 (Aves: Thamnophilidae) and its type species

A recent molecular phylogeny of Cercomacra Sclater, 1858 found the genus to be polyphyletic (Tello et al. 2014). Two non-sister clades in putative Cercomacra were uncovered: Cercomacra sensu stricto , including Cercomacra manu Fitzpatrick & Willard, 1990, C. brasiliana Hellmayr, 1905, C. cinerascens (Sclater, 1857), C. melanaria (Menetries, 1835), C. ferdinandi Snethlage, 1928, C. carbonaria Sclater & Salvin, 1873 and C. nigricans Sclater, 1858; and Cercomacroides Tello & Raposo, 2014, including Cercomacroides nigrescens (Cabanis & Heine, 1859), C. laeta (Todd, 1920), C. parkeri (Graves, 1997), C. tyrannina (Sclater, 1855) and C. serva (Sclater, 1858). This split required a prior re-examination of the apparently difficult facts surrounding the name of the type species of Cercomacra to ensure that the appropriate group would retain that name leaving the balance to the new genus-group name, Cercomacroides . The findings of that re-examination are nomenclatural rather than taxonomic and are complex enough to deserve a historical explanation, which is presented here. In summary, Hellmayr (1905) was correct in clarifying the identity of the type species chosen by Sclater (1890), but he did not suggest any nomenclatural action to fix the misidentified type species. Subsequent information provided by Cory & Hellmayr (1924) regarding the type specimen of Cercomacra brasiliana was incorrect, and the holotype is not in St. Petersburg as they implied.

The correct authorship and type locality of Melanocorypha leucoptera (Aves: Passeriformes, Alaudidae)

Mlikovský (2013) proposed replacing the widely-used Melanocorypha leucoptera (Pallas, 1811) with Melanocorypha leucoptera (Hablizl, 1785) as the correct name for the White-winged Lark, with consequent shift in type locality from the Irtys River-Baraba steppe region in south Siberia to the Crimea. This action breaches Art. 80.9 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), hereafter “the Code”. That article states that “no ruling given by the Commission in relation to a particular work, name, or nomenclatural act is to be set aside without the consent of the Commission”. Melanocorypha leucoptera of Pallas (1811), as published in his Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica , was conserved explicitly in Opinion 403 of the Commission (ICZN 1956), and no consent to Mlikovský’s findings has been given since.

Case 3491 Podargus cornutus Temminck, 1822 (currently Batrachostomus cornutus; Aves, podargidae): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the accustomed usage of the name cornutus Temminck, 1822 for the Sumatran population of the southeast Asian species currently named Batrachostomus javensis (Horsfield, 1821) (Aves, podargidae). To this end, we ask that Temmincks action in proposing the replacement of Horsfields name javensis with cornutus be set aside so that cornutus does not become a junior objective synonym of javensis (type locality in Java) and that the Sumatran specimen which Temminck actually described as cornutus be designated as its neotype. This would establish cornutus for the Sumatran form for which it has been in use for over 70 years as the subspecific name.