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).