Proposal
(521) to South American
Classification Committee
Change the scientific name
of the Common Bush-Tanager from Chlorospingus
ophthalmicus to C. flavopectus
Ever since Zimmer (1947) lumped Chlorospingus
flavopectus (Lafresnaye, 1840) into Chlorospingus ophthalmicus (Du
Bus de Gisignies, 1847), it has been overlooked by all subsequent workers,
including Storer (in Peters' Check-List, 1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990),
Dickinson (2003), and Rising et al. (in HBW, 2011), that the former name has
priority by 7 years over the latter. Zimmer did not present publication dates.
I couldn't find any source giving an explanation why the junior ophthalmicus
should be preferred, contra the Principle of Priority, and consider this to
have happened by mistake.
The publication dates have never been disputed,
and both original descriptions are online on BHL (see links below).
I therefore propose to change the scientific
name of the Common Bush-Tanager from Chlorospingus ophthalmicus to Chlorospingus
flavopectus.
Zimmer, J.T. 1947. Studies of Peruvian birds. No.52 Amer. Mus. Novit.
1367: 1-26. Online pdf.
Rainer Massmann, April 2012
Comments from Stiles: “YES,
the priority issue seems clear (however, a recent but as yet unpublished study
by Jorge Avendaño has recommended a split of this complex into two species
based on morphology, genetics and distribution, so hopefully the change will be
only temporary).”
Comments from Pacheco:
“YES. The adoption of the oldest name for this
polytypic species repairs an unsuspected mistake.”
Comments from Jaramillo: “YES –
this is a puzzling one; usually there is a clear reason why something like this
happened. Could it just be a mistake? I guess that is the only probable cause
for this unusual usurpation of priority.”
Comments from Cadena: “YES. I have
to wonder if something else influenced Zimmer's decision to use the name ophthalmicus, but given the publication
dates, the issue appears clear. As Gary mentioned, when my student Jorge
Avendaño publishes his work at least two South American species of "ophthalmicus" will likely be
recognized so we will have to return to the issue of nomenclature then.”