Proposal
(266) to South
American Classification Committee
Macropsalis
forcipata has priority over Macropsalis creagra
Introduction:
There is some confusion whether or
not to accept the views expressed by Pacheco & Whitney (1998) with regard
to the scientific name of the Long-trained Nightjar. This confusion derives, in
part, from a footnote on page 245 of Dickinson (2003). Perhaps this is why I
have been invited to examine the issues and put a proposal to SACC.
The contending views:
Pacheco & Whitney (1998)
recommended the use of Macropsalis forcipata (Nitzsch, 1840), arguing
that the name was not a nomen oblitum as had been suggested by
Sibley & Monroe (1990), in that it had been used as the valid name for the
species by Pinto, Sick and Ruschi despite the substitution of the name Macropsalis
creagra (Bonaparte, 1850) by Peters (1940). Cleere (1998) followed
Peters (1940) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) and used the name creagra;
however, the Editors of the Handbook of Birds of the World (del Hoyo et al.,
1999) decided that their work would be based on acceptance of the views of
Pacheco & Whitney and overruled the author's wish to use creagra.
When Dickinson (2003) was in preparation Cleere was employed as a compiler and
it was known to the editors that a paper was to be submitted to the Bulletin
of the British Ornithologists' Club seeking to rebut the position of
Pacheco & Whitney. This explains the above-mentioned footnote and the retention
of the name creagra by Dickinson (2003). A paper was duly submitted to
the Bulletin by Cleere & Walters, but it was not accepted for publication.
It is understood that the Editor of the Bulletin submitted the paper to Pacheco
& Whitney and took their views as is they were impartial referees. A
version of this draft has kindly been supplied by Cleere & Walters thanks
to which it is possible to summarise their views. Although these may have
originally suggested that Nitzsch's name was a nomen nudum their later
view was that the description was insufficient to identify the species. They
suggested that the name must date from the more complete description by
Burmeister (1856) and be credited to him making the name a junior synonym of creagra
Bonaparte.
Pacheco, Whitney & Pioli (2003)
have since provided further information. They provided a translation of
Nitzsch's description and added that Nitzsch referred to two long-tailed
species, his own forcipatus and psalurus Temminck and
referred to plates 157 and 158 in the 'Planches Coloriées' of the latter,
demonstrating Nitzsch well understood the distinction from that which forms a
key part of his diagnosis.
Points of agreement:
As I understand it Nitzsch did not
designate a type but the two parties agree that the holotype of Nitzsch's name
has been identified since at least 1856 and is extant. It has been examined by
Cleere, who has also examined Bonaparte's type, and it is depicted in Pacheco,
Whitney & Pioli (2003). It is agreed that the two are of the same species.
It is also agreed that the name forcipatus
has been used as valid since 1899. Neither party was able to offer any evidence
as to why Peters (1940) chose to use the name creagra and if he thought
it a nomen oblitum then he was wrong.
The critical issue:
I consider it to be shown
satisfactorily that the name forcipata Nitzsch has been used as valid
since 1899 and thus Article 23.9 of the Code requires its use unless it was not
validly introduced in 1840. This then is the critical issue.
Nitzsch's description is indeed
brief, but at this period there were numerous names introduced with even
briefer descriptions (e.g. in Bonaparte's Conspectus Generum Avium).
There seems to be general acceptance that Burmeister was correct in stating
that the older of two birds held in Halle was Nitzsch's type specimen, this is
thus available to support and sustain the identity so that the implication of
no third species need be considered. It is indeed relevant as Pacheco et
al. (2003) suggest that Nitzsch mentioned Temminck's plate as a point
of reference and that the description was by this reciprocal means thus not as
insufficient as it might appear. Thus, I believe, it must be accepted that this
name dates from Nitzsch (1840) and not from Burmeister (1856).
Recommendation:
I hereby recommend that SACC
approve the use of the name Macropsalis forcipata (Nitzsch, 1840) for
the Long-trained Nightjar.
Edward C.
Dickinson, March 2007
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles:
"YES. If Nitzche's description is indeed adequate, the name should
clearly be forcipata. Another of Peters's arbitrary decisions
corrected?"
Comments from Nores:
"YES. La propuesta de Dickinson
es muy clara, y no parece haber dudas que le corresponde el nombre de forcipata
ya que no es un "nomen oblitum" y tiene prioridad en el tiempo. La crítica
de que la descripción de Nitzsch es insuficiente para
identificar la especie no parece tener demasiado peso como para invalidar la misma."