Proposal (1071) to South American Classification Committee

Adopt Grallaria fenwickorum as the valid name for Urrao Antpitta

Effect on SACC: Determines the scientific name for Urrao Antpitta (currently listed as Grallaria urraoensis).

Background: ICZN (2018a) ruled that Grallaria fenwickorum is an available name and the valid name for a Colombian species of antpitta.

In 2010, a new species of antpitta Grallaria was described and named by two teams of authors: Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels (in Barrera, Bartels & Fundación ProAves de Colombia, 2010) on 18 May 2010, and Grallaria urraoensis Carantón-Ayala & Certuche-Cubillos (2010) on 24 June 2010. There never was disagreement about which name was published first, nor whether this population represented a new species taxon. However, various aspects of the naming of this species have caused considerable controversy. The most consequential aspect of the controversy was whether G. fenwickorum or G. urraoensis is the valid name of the new species. This was contingent on whether or not the senior name G. fenwickorum is available sensu the ICZN Code.

In a previous proposal to SACC (proposal 479B, March 2011), Santiago Claramunt pointed out that there are “fundamental problems with the description by Barrera et al. pertaining to the designation and whereabouts of the type material” which make the name Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 unavailable for nomenclatural purposes. A majority of the committee agreed with this analysis and concluded that the name Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 does not meet the provisions of the ICZN Code, and is therefore unavailable. Consequently, the SACC adopted the name Grallaria urraoensis Carantón-Ayala & Certuche-Cubillos, 2010 for this species.

Peterson (2013) also had come to the conclusion that the type material of G. fenwickorum was problematic. He proposed to the ICZN Committee (Case 3623) that it sets aside the type material of G. fenwickorum and designates the holotype of G. urraoensis as a neotype for Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010.

During the formal consultation round for this proposal, several commentaries were published in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013, 2014, Claramunt et al. 2014). Claramunt et al. (2014) expressed the view that a neotype for G. fenwickorum is not warranted because the name G. fenwickorum is unavailable.

Ultimately, several proposals were voted on by the ICZN Commission (ICZN 2018a). Briefly:

Set A and Set B: set aside the type material of G. fenwickorum and designate the holotype of G. urraoensis as the neotype of the name G. fenwickorum. (The only difference between the two sets is that in Set A (the original proposal by Peterson 2013) the name Grallaria fenwickorum is attributed to Barrera et al. (2010), whereas in Set B (a corrected version of Set A by Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013) the name Grallaria fenwickorum is attributed to Barrera & Bartels (2010)).

Set C: confirm that the name Grallaria fenwickorum is invalid (alternative proposal 2 by Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013);

Set D: rule that the name Grallaria urraoensis is to be given precedence over Grallaria fenwickorum (alternative proposal 3 by Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013).

Another proposed case (confirm G. fenwickorum as an unavailable name) was not taken into consideration by the ICZN Commission and was closed (ICZN 2018b).

New information: Opinion 2414 by ICZN (2018a)

None of the proposed sets generated the 2/3 proportion of affirmative votes required for formal adoption by the ICZN Commission. In their ruling, ICZN (2018a: 182) stated that: “The available specific name Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels in Barrera, Bartels & Fundación ProAves de Colombia, 2010 remains valid for the species of antpitta involved” and that: “The issue is left open for subsequent workers to make new proposals to the Commission.”

Some of the ICZN Commisioners provided comments on their votes, including statements that (i) the designation of a neotype for G. fenwickorum is not warranted because there is no taxonomic uncertainty to be resolved, and (ii) if multiple birds were designated as ‘holotype’ this would only mean that these are actually syntypes, which does not have any consequences for the availability of the name.

Recommendation: YES (i.e. implement Opinion 2414 of ICZN (2018a) by adopting Grallaria fenwickorum as the valid name for Urrao Antpitta).

References

Barrera, LF, Bartels, A & Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2010. A new species of antpitta (family Grallariidae) from the Colibrí del Sol Bird Reserve, Colombia. Conservación Colombiana 13: 8–24. https://www.proaves.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Grallaria_fenwickorum_description_Con_Col_13.pdf

Carantón-Ayala, D & Certuche-Cubillos, K 2010. A new species of antpitta (Grallariidae: Grallaria) from from the northern sector of the western Andes of Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana 9: 56–70. https://revistas.ornitologiacolombiana.com/index.php/roc/article/download/225/190

Claramunt, S, Cuervo, AM, Piacentini, V de Q, Bravo, GA & Remsen JV Jr. 2014. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, Grallariidae): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71: 40–43. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38253/32732

Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2013. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, Grallariidae): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70: 256–269. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38301/32777

Fundación ProAves de Colombia 2014. Comment on Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels, 2010 (Aves, Grallariidae): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71: 254–256. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38033/32639

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) 2018a. Opinion 2414 (Case 3623)–Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera & Bartels in Barrera, Bartels & Fundación ProAves de Colombia, 2010 (Aves, Grallariidae): replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype not approved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75: 181–186. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/41116/35022

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) 2018b. Closure of Cases (3451, 3459, 3564, 3691, 3755). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75: 302. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/44183/38057

Peterson, AT 2013. Case 3623. Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera et al., 2010 (Aves, Formicariidae): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype by a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70: 99–102. https://www.biotaxa.org/bzn/article/view/38375/32841

George Sangster, January 2026

Vote tracking chart:

https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart1044+.htm

Comments from Claramunt: “NO. The proposal seems to be in error saying that the ICZN “ruled that Grallaria fenwickorum is an available name.” There is no such ruling in Opinion 2414. On the contrary, it clearly stated that the ICZN “declined to use its plenary power” for all the proposed solutions. Therefore, there is no new ruling or information to act upon. If we want to revisit the G. fenwickorum issue, that’s fine. But there is nothing coming from the ICZN that changed the formal standing of that name.”

Comments from Piacentini (who has Remsen vote): “NO. In my opinion, it is clear that the commissioners of the ICZN have misaddressed the case, as can be seen in their votes and the idea that the name fenwickorum would be available: most of them considered the case to be a mere case of mislabeling two syntypes as "holotype". However, this is clearly not the case. As can be easily seen in the original (and invalid) description and was also commented by Claramunt et al. (2014), Barrera & Bartels (2010) expressly and intentionally presented two name-bearing type designations, in a purportedly ambiguous way, to try to accommodate different interpretations of the Code. This is completely different from "designating two specimens as name-bearing types but mislabeling them as holotype instead of syntype". This is the big issue with the name fenwickorum. The Code requires type specimens to be explicitly and unequivocally designated when proposing new species-group names after 1999 (Articles 16.4 and 72.3), and the ambiguous type designation by Barrera & Bartels failed to accomplish that. The Code began requiring such a rigor designation from 1999 on in order to avoid the very nomenclatural confusions we are seeing here. It would surprise me if, having correctly understood the duality of the type designation in Barrera & Bartels (2010), the commissioners would still vote against the spirit of rigorous acts that the last published version of the Code defends for new names. Given all the above and following the Commission's own verdict (ICZN 2018a), I think someone needs to present a new proposal on the case (stressing that there are two intentionally and conflicting type designations, not two mislabeled syntypes).

Comments from Stiles: “NO, at least for now. This is a rather more convoluted situation in many respects. First, the two proposals detailed by the ICZN have served to muddy the waters considerably without really arriving at a clear decision. The problems appear to revolve around the nature and validity of the designation(s?) of the type material of fenwickorum,  which for some are not valid. I have read in detail the paper by B&B (2010), and they clearly state that the type specimen is an assortment of 14 feathers plucked from the wing, tail and body plumage of a bird photographed (perhaps not the same as that from which the feathers were plucked?). They also mention the two specimens collected by Carantón y Certuche, one of which they named as the type of urraoensis. The dispute between ProAves y C&C is whether the specimens were collected legally or not, in terms of the contract by ProAves to Carantón. However, in the sense that their collection was definitely covered by the permit from the CAR in question, there can be no doubt that their collection was legal (the argument of ProAves concerns the terms of their laboral contract with Carantón, which is another matter). In any case, B&B ended their mention of the C&C specimens with a citation by Donegan that a whole type specimen is preferable to a fragment or series thereof, and note that "if the [legal] status of these (C&C) specimens could be supported [by whom?], they would encourage or agree to the transfer of the type designation from their type specimen of feathers to the type of urraoensis designated by C&C". This is not quite the way they were cited by Piacentini, which was more definite: they never did take a definite stance. To me, all of this seems sufficiently confusing that I will wait on making a definite vote (but leaning toward a NO).”

Comments from Robbins: “Confusing and seemingly convoluted. I’m not swayed one way or the other at this point given different interpretations.”

Comments from Lane: “Happy to give my vote here to someone with stronger knowledge of The Code. If I have to vote, I would vote NO, following the logic of others who have already responded… though I honestly don’t have enough understanding of the situation to be able to say with any real certainty.”

Additional comments from Piacentini: “The case is simple.

“The "ruling" of the case by the Commission (Opinion 2414) is not adequately code-compliant, because it does not address the real ISSUE involved: two distinct, conditionally and exclusive holotypes were purportedly designated in the paper, trying to accommodate potentially alternative views of the Code. But from 1999 on, the code requires rigor on the designation and fixation of name-bearing types. And, if one actually reads the votes instead of just counting them, one realizes the commissioners did not address the issue. They misunderstood the case and discussed whether miscalling two syntypes as "holotypes" would make a name unavailable. Plain and clear.

“Here is the Code (printed, so we can read it fully):

“If two specimens are alternatively and conditionally considered by the authors as the holotype (i.e., in scenario A, specimen A is the holotype, whereas specimen B is not; in another scenario, A is no longer the holotype, which they now consider to be specimen B), then the (holo)type is not fixed by the authors. If there is no explicit fixation, the name is not valid. Sorry.

The case is not about the (mis)use of technical terms to refer to types; it is not about the ethical nature of the description; it is not about any potential good intention of the authors in declaring two alternative holotypes; it is not about whether the (non)holotypes allow application of the name. It is about the description being code-compliant or not. Trying to accommodate conditional type status of specimens (be it a study skin, a group of feathers or a released bird) as being the same as ‘explicit fixation’ is untenable. Unless one wants to do politics while sacrificing rigor and objectivity of the Zoological Nomenclature (the aim of the ICZN itself). In this case, if one wishes not to follow the ICZN for reasons lying outside the Code, then he/she should state as such.

“Another petition to the Commission is clearly needed to properly show the misunderstanding of the case by the commissioners in Opinion 2414. I'm unable to do it in the foreseen future.

“Also, unless someone brings a really new fact or view, I'll no longer waste energy in this case, which should have been overcome as soon as the unfixed nature of the two ‘holotypes’ have been highlighted.”