I'd like to propose a name substitution for one taxon:
>
>>Forpus crassirostris (Blue-winged Parrotlet)
>
> I think the proper name for this species is Forpus
> xanthopterygius. The case for reinstatement of the name xanthopterygius
> was made by Bret M. Whitney and Jose Fernando Pacheco, 1999, The valid
> name for Blue-winged Parrotlet and designation of the lectotype of
> Psittaculus xanthopterygius Spix, 1824, Bulletin of the British
> Ornithologists' Club 119 (4): 211-214. I will try to summarize their
> arguments below, but interested parties also should consult their paper
> (either out of general curiosity, or in case I get some of my facts wrong).
>
>
>1). Spix (1824) described Psittacula xanthopterygius on the basis of
>two specimens from Brazil. No single specimen was designated as a type
>(I haven't verified this myself directly from Spix, but Whitney and

>Pacheco specifically state that this was the case, and it seems reasonable
>given typically "loose" practices at the time regarding the importance of
>types).
>
>2). Later authors (Salvadori 1891, Hellmayr 1905 [1906?]) recognized that
>Spix's two birds represented two different species, Brotogeris chiriri
>Vieillot 1817 and Forpus passerina vivida Ridgway 1888.
>
>3). The name xanthopterygius was resurrected by Gyldenstolpe (1945) in a
>revision of Forpus.
>
>4). Pinto (1945) considered xanthopterygius, based as it was on a
>composite of two taxa, to be invalid, and argued that crassirostris
>Taczanowski 1883 was the earliest available name for the group that
>Gyldenstolpe called xanthopterygius.
>
>5). Since then some authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Forshaw
>1973, Monroe and Sibley 1993) have followed Gyldenstolpe and used the name
>Forpus xanthopterygius, whereas other authors (Stotz et al. 1996, Collar
>1997) have followed Pinto (1945) and used the name Forpus crassirostris.
>
>6). A name does remain available, even if based on more than one
>taxon. Since there no type was specified by Spix (nor any subsequent
>revisor), Whitney and Pacheco designate the Spix specimen of a Forpus,
>"which has no formal museum catalogue number but which is clearly labelled
>with reference to the original description by Spix", as the lectotype of
>Forpus xanthopterygius.
>
>7). I have to swallow hard here, since the name "xanthopterygius" clearly
>describes the *other* Spix specimen, the Brotogeris.
>
> However, this would be far from the first case in which a name that
> is valid is not the "best" name. And by fixing a lectotype, Whitney and
> Pacheco made a move that should bring stability to what had been an

> unstable, messy situation. Therefore, I think that Forpus
> xanthopterygius becomes the name for the species, and that this is the
> name that we should adopt.

Tom Schulenberg (22 Feb. 2001)