Proposal (848) to South American Classification Committee

Change the genus of White-crowned Manakin from Dixiphia to Pseudopipra

Effect on SACC: This proposal would replace one genus name (Dixiphia) with another (Pseudopipra).

Description of the problem: White-crowned Manakin, Dixiphia pipra, occurs from Costa Rica south to Amazonia, and also in southeastern Brazil. As with other small, short tailed manakins in which the males are black with a contrastingly colored crown, pipra formerly was classified in a broad genus Pipra. Phylogenetic analysis of syringeal characters and of DNA sequence data revealed that Pipra was polyphyletic (see citations in Chesser et al. 2013); as a result, pipra was reclassified in the monotypic genus Dixiphia by Prum (1992), a move that was followed by subsequent authors (e.g., Snow 2004, Kirwan and Green 2011, Chesser et al. 2013, Dickinson and Christidis 2014, and the AOS South American Classification Committee).

The genus Dixiphia is based on Dixiphia Reichenbach 1850, specifically from a figure on Plate LXIII. Prum (1992) reported that the type species of Dixiphia is Pipra leucocilla Linnaeus, a junior synonym of [Parus] Pipra Linnaeus. Other references clarify that the designation of leucocilla as the type species stems from Gray (1855: 55) (Chesser et al. 2013, Dickinson and Remsen 2014).

But Kirwan et al. (2016) reported that this is all wrong: "However, Dixiphia of Reichenbach does not apply to the White-crowned Manakin. Reichenbach (1850) only represented it in a figure on Plate LXIII, under the generic name Dixiphia without any explanatory text or the allocation of any species. The illustration itself is not of a White-crowned Manakin". The bird depicted in the image instead, quite clearly, is a male Arundinicola leucocephala White-headed Marsh Tyrant. Kirwan et al. further pointed out that Burmeister (1853: 166) used the combination Dixiphia leucocephala and equated this with Arundinicola leucocephala d’Orbigny, thus fixing Arundinicola leucocephala, not Pipra leucocilla, as the type species of Dixiphia. Although it took almost 25 years for this issue to come to light, I am not aware of any controversy over this interpretation of the type species of Dixiphia.

Solution to the problem: Kirwan et al. were unable to locate another available genus-group name for pipra. The only other identified contender is Pythis Boie 1826 (page 971): "Therein, Boie refers to Vieillot as author. Indeed, Vieillot (1818a: 112) lists Pithys, but with generic details alone. However, Vieillot (1818b: 520) later included the species leucops Vieillot, 1818 = Pipra albifrons Linnaeus, 1766 (= White-plumed Antbird Pithys albifrons) in Pithys, which accordingly becomes its type species by subsequent monotypy (ICZN 1999, Art. 69.3.). Therefore, as Boie attributed the name to Vieillot, Pythis Boie, 1826, is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pithys Vieillot, 1818. Consequently, 'leucocilla Gm.', the only species included by Boie, cannot be viewed as a type, but rather as an additional species, and, with Pipra albifrons Linnaeus as its type species, Pithys Vieillot cannot therefore apply to the White-crowned Manakin".

In the absence, then, of an available genus for pipra, they propose a new genus, Pseudopipra, with type species Parus pipra Linnaeus.

The combination Pseudopipra pipra has been adopted by the IOC World Bird List and by del Hoyo and Collar (2016).

Kirwan et al. later learned that at least one correspondent, Murray Bruce, took issue with their dismissal of Pythis as an applicable name. Consequently they published a follow-up paper (David et al. 2017), in which they expanded on their case. This paper, which is short, perhaps should be consulted in full, but the heart of their argument is expressed here:

"The first thing to note is that Boie attributed 'Pythis' to an author, in this case Vieillot, indicating at the very least that he considered that it had been introduced prior to his use of it in 1826. This is reinforced by the circumstantial evidence that new names introduced by Boie in the same paper carry no authorship. As a result, we concluded that 'Pythis Viell.' is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pithys Vieillot, 1818. It was also treated as such by G.R. Gray (1855: 42), Sherborn's Index Animalium (1929: 5348), Schulze et al.'s Nomenclator Animalium (1935: 2986), Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus (1940: 1064) and Richmond’s Card Index (Richmond, 1889–1932). In addition, neither Peters (1951: 245) nor Snow (1979: 269) listed 'Pythis, Boie, 1826' in their respective synonymies. Consequently, 'Pythis Viell.', as cited by Boie (1826: 971), being an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pithys, Vieillot, 1818, is not an available name under Art. 19.1 (ICZN 1999). As a result, Pseudopipra Kirwan et al., 2016, remains the only Code-compliant genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758.

“Furthermore, in our opinion any attempt to resurrect 'Pythis, Boie, 1826' as anything other than an incorrect subsequent spelling of Pithys, Vieillot, 1818, would be highly controversial and lead to the potential destabilization of two genus-group taxa".

Recommendation: The name Dixiphia Reichenbach 1850 clearly does not refer to White-crowned Manakin. And there appears to be long-standing consensus that Pythis Boie 1826 is not an applicable name, as outlined by Kirwan et al. (2016) and (in more detail) by David et al. (2017). Therefore I recommend replacing Dixiphia with the new name Pseudopipra Kirwan, David, Gregory, Jobling, Steinheimer, and Brito 2016.

Literature Cited:

Boie, F. 1826. Generalübersicht der ornithologischen Ordnungen, Familien und Gattungen. Isis von Oken 19 (10): 975 [969]–981.

Burmeister, C. H. C. 1853. Ueber die Eier und Nester einiger brasilianischer Vögel. Journal für Ornithologie 1: 161-177.

Chesser, R. T., R. C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., J. D. Rising, D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2013. Fifty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American birds. Auk 130: 1-14.

David, N., S. M. S. Gregory, G. M. Kirwan, J. A. Jobling, F. D. Steinheimer, and G. R. R. Brito. 2017. Addendum to Kirwan et al. (2016, Zootaxa 4121(1): 89–94). Zootaxa 4216: 299–300. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4216.3.7

Dickinson, E.C., and L. Christidis (editors). 2014. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Fourth edition. Volume 2. Passerines. Aves Press, Eastbourne, United Kingdom.

Gray, G. R. 1855. Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds. British Museum, London.

del Hoyo, J., and N.J. Collar. 2016. HBW and BirdLife International illustrated checklist of the birds of the world. Volume 2. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Kirwan, G. M., and G. Green. 2011. Cotingas and manakins. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Kirwan, G. M., N. David, S. M. S. Gregory, J. A. Jobling, F. D. Steinheimer, and G. R. R. Brito. 2016. The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae). Zootaxa 4142: 89-94. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4121.1.9

Neave, S. A. (editor). 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, a list of the names of genera and subgenera in Zoology from the Tenth Edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935. Volume 3. The Zoological Society of London, London. [not seen; cited by David et al. 2017]

Peters, J. L. 1951. Check-list of birds of the world. Volume 7. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Prum, R. 1992. Syringeal morphology, phylogeny, and evolution of the Neotropical manakins (Aves: Pipridae). American Museum Novitates number 3043.

Reichenbach, H. G. L. 1850. Avium Systema Naturale. Das natürliche System der Vögel. Zoological Museum of Dresden, Leipzig, Germany.

Schulze, F. E., W. Kükenthal, K. Heider, R. Hesse, and Th. Kuhlgatz. 1935. Nomenclator Animalium Generum et Subgenerum. Lieferung 21. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. [not seen; cited by David et al. 2017]

Sherborn, C. D. 1929. Index Animalium sive Index Nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII Generibus et Speciebus Animalium Imposita Sunt. Sectio Secunda a Kalendis Ianuariis, MDCCCI usque ad Finem Decembris, MDCCCL. Part XXI. Index Pratincola—pyxis. Trustees of the British Museum, London.

Snow, D. W. 1979. Family Pipridae, manakins. Pages 245-280 in M. A. Traylor, Jr. (editor), Check-list of birds of the world. Volume 8. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Snow, D. W. 2004. Family Pipridae (manakins). Pages 110-169 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and D. A. Christie (editors), Handbook of the birds of the world. Volume 9. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Vieillot, L. P. 1818a. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire naturelle. Nouvelle édition. Tome XXIV. Chez Deterville, Paris.

Vieillot, L. P. 1818b. Nouveau Dictionnaire d’Histoire naturelle. Nouvelle édition. Tome XXVI. Chez Deterville, Paris.

Tom Schulenberg, February 2020

Comments solicited from Murray Bruce:

Pythis vs. Pseudopipra

Response to Proposal (848)

Further to the ‘description of the problem’ summarised by Tom Schulenberg for SACC Proposal 848 of February 2020, the second paper by David et al. (2017) was, as indicated, a consequence of me questioning their conclusions. In doing so, I offered an alternative interpretation supporting Pythis, based on the subsequent history of the name, and made this clear to a co-author of the paper when the first paper was still in press because it was the obvious solution. In a later discussion with Normand David, I supported my argument with the Code (ICZN 1999), citing relevant articles. A paper detailing my views was submitted to Zootaxa (Bruce MS), refereed and revised and resubmitted, then nothing happened for over two years until enquiries led to another referee report and rejection without any reason explaining why beyond the suggestion it might cause confusion, which seems an extraordinary interpretation for a name introduced only in 2016. The complex background of the case was discussed, including the confusion of Linnaeus and Gmelin in works of Boie’s time and later, the dual applications of Pythis by Gray (1855: 42, 55; also 1869: 302, 377), the dual applications of Dixiphia by Cabanis & Heine (1860: 41, 91), and in demonstrating problems with evidence cited to the contrary, the long standing consensus actually has been for accepting Pythis as an applicable name.

Following I extract the summary and conclusions presented in my paper (Bruce MS):

Whatever Boie originally intended, Pythis is associated with a different name/taxon, which represents a different type species, as there is no other species mentioned. In this case, following Article 19.1, it is a different name associated with a different type species, meeting other requirements of availability. It is not an unjustified emendation nor an incorrect subsequent spelling (ISS). Thus Articles 33.1, 33.2, 33.3 and 33.5 do not apply, and because the name concerned can be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon, Article 12.2.5 likewise does not apply. ISS’s of genus-group names remain exactly that, by association with the original name and its type species; therefore, they should not recur as separately recognised genus-group names with their own type species and, moreover, recognised as such in standard works of the day. For Pithys, the nearest to an ISS is Pitys Agassiz, 1846. Agassiz (1846: 70) appended the name variant to his entry for Pithys; as such, it retains association with the same type species and was so listed by Gray (1855: 42).

The dual nomenclatural acts of Gray (1855: 42, 55) affecting Boie’s Pythis suggest invoking First Reviser principles. However, under Article 24.2.5 it can be shown subsequently that precedence can be objectively determined by the actions of Sclater (1888), thus nullifying a need for a First Reviser action here. And to emphasise Sclater’s actions, Hellmayr not only followed him but also explicitly distinguished Pythis as “not Pithys Vieillot, 1816 [=1818]” (1929: 8), which further removes the need for any First Reviser proposal here.

Under Article 70.3.2 Sclater (1888: 292) selected as type of Pythis the misidentified type species of Boie by correcting its attribution from Gmelin to Linnaeus (id., p. 297). Following Article 67.7 Boie wrongly attributed the name of the type species to an author other than that denoting its first establishment. Therefore, under Article 67.13.1 (see also Article 69.2.4), Sclater (1888: 292, 297) fixed Pipra leucocilla Linnaeus as the type species of Pythis, making it an available name.

Recommendation: Treating Pythis as an ISS is not supported by a more comprehensive review of its nomenclatural history and, thus, there is no support for the continued recognition of Pseudopipra Kirwan et al. 2016. Therefore, I recommend the reinstatement of Pythis Boie, 1826, as the oldest available name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758, which becomes the type species by monotypy of Boie (1826: 971), replacing Pipra leucocilla Gmelin [= Linnaeus, 1766 (= 1764)] as originally given.

Additional literature cited:

Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici. Index Universalis, continens Nomina Systematica Classium, Ordinum, Familiarum et Generum Animalium Omnium, tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis plantarum, nec non variis adnotationibus et emendationibus. Sumtibus et typis Jent et Gassmann, Soloduri.

Bruce, M.D. MS. The genus-group name of the White-crowned Manakin is Pythis Boie, 1826, not Pseudopipra Kirwan et al. 2016 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae).

Cabanis, J. & Heine, F. 1860. Museum Heineanum. Verzeichniss der ornithologischen Sammlung des Oberamtmann Ferdinand Heine auf Gut St. Burchard vor Halberstadt. Mit kritischen Anmerkungen und Beschreibung der neuen Arten, systematisch bearbeitet. Part II. Die Schreivögel enthaltend. R. Frantz, Halberstadt.

Gray, G.R. 1869. Hand-list of Genera and Species of Birds, distinguishing those contained in the British Museum. Part 1. Accipitres, Fissirostres, Tenuirostres, and Dentirostres. Trustees of the British Museum, London.

Hellmayr, C.E. 1929. Catalogue of Birds of the Americas and the adjacent Islands in the Field Museum of Natural History including all species and subspecies known to occur in North America, Mexico, Central America, South America, the West Indies, and islands of the Caribbean Sea, the Galapagos Archipelago, and other islands which may be included on account of their faunal affinities. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 13 (6), 1-258.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth ed. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.

Sclater, P. L. (1888) Catalogue of the Passeriformes or Perching Birds in the Collection of the British Museum. Oligomyodæ, or the families Tyrannidæ, Oxyrhamphidæ, Pipridæ, Cotingidæ, Phytotomidæ, Philepittidæ, Pittidæ, Xenicidæ, and Eurylæmidæ. In, Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. Vol. 14. Trustees of the British Museum, London.

Murray Bruce, March 2020

Comments from Jaramillo: “YES. Gosh, I hope this is straightforward, and I am not missing something. But following the logic of the proposal and the cited literature, it does clarify that Dixiphia does not apply and neither does Pythis. Pseudopipra also alludes to this bouncing around, from the original Pipra.”

Comments from Bonaccorso: “Abstain. I am afraid there seems to be no easy answer, and people were already getting familiar with Dixiphia, any change needs to be very-well supported.”

Comments from Areta: “I am unsure as what to do, but I will not abstain. Instead, I will try to clarify what I see in the hope that Murray and Guy can provide more arguments before I issue my vote. First of all, what a nicely done proposal by Tom! Full of links to read the original sources and with clear descriptions of the problems and purported solutions. The comments by Murray Bruce are also spot-on, and it is too bad that this has not been published in full in a taxonomic journal.

“It is clear that Dixiphia cannot be used for pipra, but it seems to me that Pythis is the correct genus for it. However, it is a complicated case. After reading all the original sources, I think that Murray Bruce is formally correct and that his arguments are well backed by "The Code". Even then, it is such a twisted history based on such a narrow and accidental series of names without elaboration, that I do not think that using Pythis is the "right" thing to do. It seems as if bringing Pythis back to life as the genus of pipra is more the product of a historical accident interpreted a posteriori with "The Code" than a clear decision made at that time by the author of the genus. In this regard, the legal interpretation of Murray seems accurate, but it may create more confusion than what it solves, because the spelling of Pithys (albifrons) is so similar to Pythis (pipra) and because Vieillot was cited by Boie (albeit without mentioning any species) it seems likely that Boie was referring to something that Vieillot did. If not, how should one interpret the citation to Vieillot in Boie´s first mention (description!) of Pythis? Can we just omit this part of the context because it does not refer to any specific species in reference to Vieillot? Was Boie playing a joke on us and on Vieillot by using Pythis for Pipra leucocilla while Vieillot used Pithys for Pipra albifrons and for what he called Pithys leucops? Two extremely similar generic names for birds with white on their heads? Thus, in this case, the formal interpretation of presumed accidents product of a historical moment would take us to "solve" a problem, creating others. I feel that this is one of those cases in which the pure legality needs an injection of intentions and a fresh interpretation based on what was known and what was unknown to workers at that time beyond the formality. Clearly, taxonomy was less structured at that time, and all kinds of unintentional omissions and errors crept on publications. Clinging too much to these accidents may sometimes result in more instability. In sum, the case is problematic because the literal application of the code takes us to what, to me at least, is by far a sub-optimum yet legally correct option.”

Comments from Robbins: “What a mess, I’m not sure what the correct course of action is on this.”

Comments from Paul Smith: “"Ok this seems like a horrible mess. If I am understanding it correctly, then I think that while I can agree with the argument Murray Bruce provides, he is really arguing on a technicality that causes practical difficulties. Usually I’d be all for that if the name was totally different to an existing one, but the fact that it is very similar to an existing one I think outweighs the "legality" of the argument. If stability of nomenclature is accepted as the overall "goal" of the Code, then I would say that going with the new name Pseudopipra is the correct cause of action. I’d argue that on the basis that :

a) It has been employed in the literature as an intended name (albeit for a short amount of time) and is code compliant.

b) Boie referring Pythis to Vieillot makes me think that it was an ISS at first, i.e. it wasn’t intended as a new name. Thus, all the first reviewer stuff that comes after it, whilst technically correct, doesn’t outweigh for me the fact that the resultant name wasn’t intended and is very similar to an existing valid name.

c) I’m not  100% sure on what the process would be, but I am pretty sure that a proposal to ICZN requesting the suppression of Pythis on the ground of the resultant confusion would be necessary and probably they would support it. However, ONLY they can make that ruling

“So, I would think that the Kirwan name can be used as valid for now, but for the issue to be resolved, it MUST come simultaneously with the proposal to suppress Pythis to the ICZN. And when they make their decision then that is final. Either a) they suppress it and life goes on as normal or b) they reject the argument and everybody has to revert to using Pythis after all".

Comments from Zimmer: “YES”, with the disclaimer that: A) trying to connect all of the dots in the comments provided by Murray Bruce gave me a raging headache, so I may not be thinking clearly, and B) As a generic statement, I feel completely out of my depth with respect to these Byzantine nomenclatural issues involving an intimate knowledge of the Code. So, with all of that in mind, it seems to me that the interpretations of Paul Smith and Nacho are sensible, in that while the arguments by Bruce for the validity of “Pythis” are sound in a narrowly technical sense as regards a strict interpretation of the Code, the outcome resulting from that interpretation poses practical difficulties relative to Pythis versus Pithys, and results in the establishment of an unintended name. Given that, I would favor the approach suggested by Paul Smith – petition the ICZN to suppress “Pythis”, and, if they so act, then make the change to Pseudopipra”.

Comments from Pacheco: “YES. Murray Bruce seems to me to be technically correct in interpreting the ICZN, but I agree with Nacho that the use of two very similar genus names Pythis Boie 1826 and Pithys Vieillot, 1818 (with mixed history) is not good for nomenclatural stability and should be avoided. For this reason, I vote for the use of Pseudopipra Kirwan et al. 2016 and I appreciate Paul Smith's suggestion to ask the ICZN for the formal suppression of Pythis Boie, 1826.”

Comments from Claramunt: “YES to accept the new name Pseudopipra. I think that Kirwan et al. (2016) and David et al. (2017) are correct and I favor the interpretation that Pythis is not available. By citing “Viell.”, Boie indicated that he is not introducing a new name but citing a bird from Vieillot. The alternative interpretations is that Boie described a new genus, with Pipra leucocilla Gmel. as the type species and by mistake added “Viell.” after the name.

“Maintaining that Boie was introducing a new name requires explaining too many coincidental errors. First, the citation of Vieillot after a name that is very similar to one of Vieillot’s names. On top of that, both names refer to small dark passerines with white on the crown, with references to Pipra in both cases. So, clearly, Boie did not came up with a new name out of the blue but almost certainly based his name on Vieillot’s Pithys. The difference in spelling can easily be explained as either an error, only requiring the swap of the “i" for the “y”, or an attempt to correct the original spelling, as Pithys looks very similar to the classic Greek name Pythis. Therefore, I think that Boie’s Pythis is an “incorrect subsequent spelling”, and thus not an available name (see Art. 19.1 and articles cited there).”

Comments from Piacentini: “The name Pythis in Boie 1826 is clearly attributed to Vieillot and is an ISS as explained by Kirwan et al. 2016. The rationale given by Murray Bruce does not find support in the ICZN, but rather stands on the views of some past authors who considered the name available -- but that was before the ICZN was first published! So, let's go into details:

“Bruce’s rationale has some interesting parts (mostly historical), but unfortunately lacks foundation on the ICZN (hereafter, the Code). With all due respect to previous ornithologists and zoologists, their opinions bear no value at all to decide whether “Pythis Boie” is an available name. Only the original publication matters. Thus, Bruce’s idea that “the long standing consensus actually has been for accepting Pythis as an applicable name” does not apply to the present case. Bruce’s wording that “Whatever Boie originally intended, Pythis is associated with a different name/taxon, which represents a different type species” is not correct in my opinion. The mere association of a previous genus name with a new species name does not create a new nomem (sensu Dubois 2000). There is no “type species” (in the current sense of the Code) for a bibliographic citation of a name. Therefore, in my opinion, no Code-compliant rationale supports Bruce’s view.

“Let’s take a look at Boie’s work. He EXPRESSLY attributed the name to Vieillot, contrary to his own names, all of which lack a written authorship/bibliographic reference (of course! Boie himself is presenting them!). See, in the same page, the new genus-names Progne, Phylloscopus… both obviously intended as new by Boie (and currently in use). So, what is the evidence that Boie was introducing a new name with “Pythis Vieill”?? None! To me, it is obvious that Pythis is a misspelling for Pithys. The Code affirms so, art. 33.3: Any [bold mine] misspelling of a nomen is to be treated as an ISS (unless, of course, it is an emendation, in which case “Pythis Boie” would be an objective synonym of Pithys Vieillot and unapplicable to Pseudopipra). I have always had problems myself writing this name in my papers, so why couldn’t Boie misspelled it? In fact, there are many misspellings by Boie in his work:

Pardolotus (Pardalotus)

Synalaxis (Synallaxis)

Agelajus (Agelaius)

Coccygus (Coccyzus)

“And Pythis. All of them were correctly attributed to Vieillot. How can anyone question that they are misspellings of previously published names? How, then, should Pithys (expressly attributed to Vieillot) be written to be recognized as an ISS?

“We can ask another rhetorical question here: if Pythis Vieillot is not Pithys Vieillot, where in Boie’s work is Pithys Vieillot? Because Boie mentioned Synallaxis, originally published together with Pithys. So it is clear that Boie was aware of Vieillot’s names (as we can conclude from the obvious attribution of all Vieillot’s name to Vieillot, by Boie).

“In sum, Boie presented in his work tens of names originally published by Vieillot, all correctly attributed as such; Boie misspelled some of them; when proposing new names, Boie did not mention any author, thus making clear they were of his own; Boie was clearly aware of Pithys Vieillot (by the citation of the “copublished” Synallaxis); whatever previous authors believed or expressed about the name “Pythis Boie” is meaningless in the light of the Code: the original work is the one that matters. Therefore, “Pythis Boie” does not exist as a nomen. There is no article of the Code supporting such a view. Since it is not an available nomen, it does not have a “type species”; it is not even a true synonymy sensu Dubois (2000) [it is instead a “chreysonymy”]. Contra Paul Smith’s view, Bruce’s view is not supported by a “technicality”, because there is nothing in the Code that supports an alternative interpretation of the data clearly presented in the original work by Boie. Pseudopipra is the only available, Code-compliant name for “Parus pipra Linnaeus”.

Dubois, A. 2000. Synonymies and related lists in zoology: general proposals, with examples in herpetology. Dumerilia 4(2): 33-98.