Proposal (924) to South
American Classification Committee
Recognize the genus Coeruleomitra for “Uranomitra” franciae
Effect on SACC: This proposal would
replace the genus name Uranomitra, as interpreted by Stiles et al. (2017: the generic nomenclature
of the Trochilini), based on Elliot (1879), with Coeruleomitra, because
Bruce and Stiles (2021) demonstrated that Uranomitra
and Leucolia were unavailable in
the combinations designated by Elliot (1879)
due to different, prior type species designations by Gray (1855, 1869).
Background: The revised
interpretations were partly influenced by a detailed study of the works of
George R. Gray (1808-1872) of the British Museum, particularly his The Genera of Birds (1844-1849), by one
of us, cf. Bruce (in press[1]). The relevant details
can be found in Bruce and Stiles (2021).
Uranomitra: Vieillot
(1817) named and described Trochilus quadricolor among the “colibrís”[2]. Vieillot (1822)
subsequently identified his Trochilus quadricolor of 1817 with Trochilus
mango Linnaeus, 1758; he then also
named and described a second Trochilus quadricolor, this time among the
“oiseaux-mouches”. Gray (1848) listed the first quadricolor as a synonym of T. mango,
and recognized the second quadricolor
as a species within his broad interpretation of Polytmus Brisson, 1760,
equating it with Lesson’s (1829) Ornismya cyanocephala, the only
subsequently named species at that time matching Vieillot’s circumscription.
In
March 1854, Reichenbach proposed the generic name Agyrtria, and within
this new grouping Uranomitra was
proposed as a subgeneric name, but without naming a type species.
In May 1854, Bonaparte proposed the generic name Cyanomyia, including
the same group of species but not quite in the same sequence, also without
naming a type species. Gray (1855)
clearly recognized that these two newly proposed generic names were identical,
and, treating Cyanomyia as the senior
name, by following Bonaparte’s subsequent synonymizing of Uranomitra under
Cyanomyia, designated the type species as Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822; thus Vieillot’s 1822 Trochilus quadricolor was applied to both
generic names. Cabanis and
Heine (1860) demonstrated that Uranomitra
was the senior name by dating the two generic names to the month in 1854,
with Cyanomyia as June 1854, but
revised to May 1854 by Heine (1863); the treatment of the names otherwise
following Gray (1848, 1855), with U.
quadricolor listed first. However, the 1822 quadricolor passed into
disuse, perhaps due to the recommendation of Salvin (1892), and was not used
after 1899, becoming a nomen oblitum (Art. 23.9.1, ICZN 1999). As
a consequence, Ornismya cyanocephala Lesson, 1829, as the senior,
available subjective synonym of Trochilus
quadricolor Vieillot, 1822, and as the first listed
species by Bonaparte (1854) also became the type species of Uranomitra,
per Gray (1855,
1869) based on his recognition at the time of the priority of Cyanomyia, under which cyanocephala Lesson “1832” [= 1829] was
first listed, despite a different sequence of species listed by Reichenbach
(1854) for Uranomitra.
This
interpretation was accepted by Ridgway (1911), Simon (1921) and Peters (1945),
although Peters demoted Uranomitra to a subgenus of Amazilia.
Thus, Elliot (1879) designating the type of Uranomitra as Trochilus
franciae Bourcier & Mulsant,
1846, had been pre-empted by Gray (1855; Art. 70.2 of ICZN 1999),
s.n. Cyanomyia. Several authors
including Stiles et al. (2017) followed Elliot’s designation of franciae,
but Gray’s earlier designation of cyanocephala must stand.
Recent
genetic evidence (McGuire et al. 2014, Stiles et al. 2017)
indicated that franciae is a phylogenetic outlier best accommodated in a
monotypic genus. The phylogenetic evidence also mandated the transfer of
cyanocephala to the genus Saucerottia Bonaparte, 1850, thus
rendering both Uranomitra and
Cyanomyia as subjective synonyms of Saucerottia. To
accommodate T. franciae as representing a monotypic genus, we proposed
the name Coeruleomitra (Stiles
& Bruce, in Bruce and Stiles 2021).
This
proposal covers the recognition of the genus-group name Coeruleomitra Stiles
and Bruce, 2021, to apply to Trochilus
franciae Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846, its designated type species, which
had been erroneously designated as the type species of Uranomitra Reichenbach
1854, by Elliot (1879).
Recommendation: We recommend a YES
vote.
References:
Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. (1850). Notes sur les Trochilidés. Comptes rendu hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences,
Paris 30
(13): 379‒383.
Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. (1854). Tableau des oiseaux-mouches. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et
appliquée (2) 6: 248–257.
Bruce, M.D. (in press). The
Genera of Birds (1844‒1849) by George Robert Gray: a review of its part publication, dates,
new names, suppressed content and other details. Zoological Bibliography 7 (1).
Bruce, M.D. & F.G. Stiles (2021). The generic nomenclature of the
emeralds, Trochilini (Apodiformes: Trochilidae): two replacement generic names
required. Zootaxa 4950 (2): 377-382.
Cabanis, J. & F. Heine. (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. Theil III.
Die Schrillvögel, und die Zusammenstellung der Gattungen und Arten des 1‒3 Theils enthaltend. R. Frantz, Halberstadt. 221 pp.
Elliot, D.G. (1879). Classification and synopsis of the Trochilidae. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge
317: 1‒277.
Gray, G. R. (1848). The Genera of
Birds: Comprising their Generic Characters, a Notice of the Habits of each
Genus and an Extensive List of Species Referred to their Several Genera. Longman,
Brown, Green & Longman, London. Part 46: [103]‒[116], [195]‒[200],
[480]‒[483], pll. XXXV‒XXXVII, LIII, CXXa, 35, 53, 120*, 120(2).
Gray, G.R. (1855). Catalogue of
the Genera and Subgenera of Birds contained in the British Museum. Trustees
of The British Museum, London. iv + 192 pp.
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. xx + 404 pp.
Heine, F. (1863). Trochilidica. Journal
für Ornithologie 11: 172‒217.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN]
(1999). International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London. 4th
edition. xxx + 306 pp.
Lesson, R.P. (1829 [1829‒1830]). Histoire Naturelle des
Oiseaux-Mouches, ouvrage orné de planches dessinées et gravées par les
meilleurs artistes, et dédié A.S.A.R. Mademoiselle. Arthus Bertrand, Paris. xlviii + 223 pp., pll. 1‒85, 48bis.
McGuire, J.A., C.C. Witt, J.V. Remsen, Jr., A. Corl, D.L. Rabosky, D.L.
Altshuler, & R. Dudley. (2014). Molecular phylogenetics and the
diversification of hummingbirds. Current
Biology 24: 1-7.
Mulsant, M.E., J. Verreaux, & E. Verreaux. (1866). Essai d’une classification des Trochilidés ou
oiseaux-mouches. Mémoires de la Société
Impériale des Sciences Naturelles de Cherbourg (2) 7: 140–252.
Peters, J.L. (1945). Check-list of Birds of the World. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Mass. Vol. 5. xii + 306 pp.
Ridgway, R. (1911). The Birds of North and Middle America. Bulletin
of the United States National Museum 50 (5): xxiv + 859 pp. + 33 pll.
Reichenbach, H.G.L. (1854). Aufzählung der Colibris oder Trochilideen in ihrer wahren
natürlichen Verwandtschaft, nebst Schlüssel ihrer Synonymik. Journal für Ornithologie 1 [1853], Extraheft: 1‒24.
Salvin, O. (1892). Catalogue of the Picariæ in the Collection of the
British Museum: Upupæ and Trochili. In: Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum, Trustees of the British
Museum, London. Volume 16: xvi + 703 pp,
14 pll.
Simon, E. (1921). Histoire Naturelle des Trochilidæ (Synopsis et
Catalogue). Encyclopédie Roret, Paris. vi + 416 pp.
Stiles, F.G., J.V. Remsen Jr. & J.A. McGuire. (2017). The generic
classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae): Reconciling taxonomy with
phylogeny. Zootaxa 4353 (3): 401–424.
Murray D. Bruce and Gary
Stiles, October 2021
Comments
from Robbins:
“YES. I vote
yes for giving new generic names to those two hummingbirds, relying on those
two experts in sorting this out.”
Comments from Areta: “YES to recognizing the genus Coeruleomitra
for franciae for the reasons stated by Bruce & Stiles (2021).”
Comments from Lane: “To vote on this, I would like to
know what the source taxon of the tissue for the franciae was? Depending
on the population used, this causes a taxonomic conundrum that will result in
my giving the following answer: NO. My concerns are regarding which taxon was
used in the tree that establishes the placement of the species. My experience
with the three taxa within franciae suggests that there are probably two
distinct species involved (Peruvian cyanocollis and the two northern
forms: viridiceps and nominate) based on very different vocal
repertoires. Given that the McGuire et al. tree used an LSU tissue for this
species, it seems likely to be of cyanocollis, I am concerned that true franciae
was not included in the tree and may not be sister to cyanocollis (or
perhaps even to viridiceps?). This has important taxonomic implications
because it will mean, if my concern is true, that the new name will not refer
to franciae (sensu stricto), but rather to cyanocollis! I assume
that Bruce and Stiles (in press) will give "franciae" as the
type species for the genus in the description, but if that species is not
monophyletic, then how is this best resolved?”
Response
from Stiles:
“We noted the possible species distinctness of the S subspecies,
but unless it is so different as to require a separate genus (which I doubt), I
see no problem for Coeruleomitra as the substitute genus name we
propose. However, it would be nice to have genetic info for all 3 races to
evaluate this. Because Uranomitra
as described applies to the nominate race, only if genetic data were to show
that cyanocollis is distinct enough to merit generic separation would a
new generic name would be required.”
Comments
from Laurent Raty:
“As
noted in the proposal, Cyanomyia and Uranomitra were both
introduced with several included species and no original type fixation. In such
cases, the type can only be fixed by a subsequent designation (ICZN 69.1). The
Code is pretty clear that “subsequent designation”, in this context, means an
express statement, issued in a subsequent work, that one of the originally
included nominal species is the type of the nominal genus or subgenus (ICZN
69.1.1, ICZN Glossary: “designation, n.”); the Code also insists that the
meaning of the term “designation” is to be construed rigidly (ICZN 67.5). (And
it may also be noted here that the Code (ICZN 69.4) explicitly rejects
“fixation by elimination” – a method of type fixation which was widely accepted
in some circles in the late 19th-early 20th C, in which the type was deemed
fixed as a result of the subsequent exclusion of all but one of the originally
included species of the genus. This is consistent with the other provisions of
the Code: although such subsequent exclusions may indeed be seen as implying
that this last remaining species is the type, implying is not enough for the
ICZN – an express statement is always needed.)
“The entry in Gray (1855: 139) which cites Cyanomyia and Uranomitra
reads:
‘315 a. (2272.) CYANOMYIA, Pr. B. 1854. Uranomitra, Reichenb.
1854. (Trochilus quadricolor, Vieill.)’
“Of course, such an entry (two genus-group names, one species
name, no explanation) does not in itself constitute an express statement that
anything is the type of anything. Gray’s (1855) entries are type-species designations
only when viewed in combination with the Introduction of his book, where we
find, i.e., the following statements:
‘THE principal object of the present Catalogue is to give a
complete List of the GENERA and SUBGENERA of BIRDS, with their chief Synonyma
and Types. [...] The Genera are marked by an Asterisk, and those left unmarked
are to be considered only of subgeneric value.’
“This provides a key to parse Gray’s entries, which in the present
case yields : ‘315 a. (2272.) CYANOMYIA, Pr. B. 1854’ is a subgenus of
birds (which is placed under the full genus ‘*313. POLYTMUS, Briss.
1760.’ of p. 21); ‘Uranomitra, Reichenb. 1854.’ is the ‘chief Synonymon’
of Cyanomyia; ; ’Trochilus quadricolor, Vieill.’ is the type of Cyanomyia.
This tells us absolutely nothing about the type of Uranomitra, however:
two genus-group names can perfectly be synonyms without having the same type;
and there is no express statement anywhere in Gray’s book, to the effect that
the species cited in his entries would also be the types of his ‘chief Synonyma’.
As a consequence, under the rigid interpretation that the Code imposes, Gray
designated a type for Cyanomyia, but he cannot be construed as having
designated one for Uranomitra. The first author who actually did this
was Elliot (1879: 195), who, as correctly noted in Stiles et al. (2017),
designated Trochilus franciae Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846. There are no
reasons to regard this designation as invalid and, therefore, I can see no
problems with how this name is currently used in the SACC list.
“(Re. Dan’s concerns about the monophyly of Uranomitra franciae:
the sample used in McGuire et al. (2014) was LSUMZ B12063; this is given by
Kirchman et al. (2010, Biol. Lett., 6: 112-115) and Hernández-Baños et al.
(2014, Rev. Mex. Biodiv., 85: 797-807) as being from Pichincha Province
in Ecuador and should thus be viridiceps. It may be worth to note, here,
that Ornelas et al. (2014, J. Biogeogr., 41: 168-181) sequenced ~1200 bp
of mtDNA from two other samples of U. franciae, LSUMNS B-12179 from
Pichincha, Ecuador (= viridiceps), and LSUMNS B-33360 from Cajamarca,
Peru (= cyanocollis) – these two samples did not emerge as sister in
their trees, one of them appearing closer than the other to what is currently
called Chrysuronia in the SACC list. The support for these relationships
was poor, however.)”
Comments from Pacheco: “NO. The nomenclatural assessment
of the case by Raty, with which I agree, forces me to vote No. Raty states: “The first author who actually did this [designated type species
for Uranomitra] was Elliot (1879: 195), who …designated Trochilus
franciae Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846. There are no reasons to regard
this designation as invalid. and therefore, I can see no problem with how this
name is currently used in the SACC list.”
“For this reason, Coeruleomitra Stiles and Bruce, 2021
becomes a junior synonym of Uranomitra.”
Comments
from Claramunt:
“NO. Raty’s explanation makes sense. Trochilus franciae is the type of Uranomitra
(designated by Elliot 1879). It is not clear that Gray designated cyanocephala
previously.”
Comments
from Piacentini:
“NO to the replacement of Uranomitra by its
(new) junior synonym Coeruleomitra. I totally agree with Raty's
comments. I copy below the relevant part of an email exchange by the time the
paper was published, which may be useful for SACC's webpage.
“’>>>>>>>
The case for Uranomitra is clear-cut: the fact that it was mentioned as a synonym of Cyanomyia by Gray does not make it "inherit"
the type fixation of Cyanomyia.
There is just no base to assume it according to the Code. A type fixation must
be rigidly construed (art. 67.5), and the union of two genus-group name as one
genus-level taxon does not make any difference for the definition of their
respective type species (art. 67.10, for a parallel reasoning).
Here is Gray's relevant page: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136778 (see 315a)
Thus, the following sentence (Bruce &
Stiles, p.378) "Gray (1855: 139) synonymized Uranomitra under Cyanomyia, and thus by subsequently
designating the type species of Cyanomyia as Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822, this also became the type species of its synonym, Uranomitra" finds no support in the Code.[bold added]
The type species of Uranomitra, to the best of my knowledge, was first
and subsequently fixed by Elliot in 1879, which designated Trochilus franciae Bourcier & Mulsant. Period. The name
therefore applies to "Amazilia" franciae, and the unnecessary just-proposed new genus Coeruleomitra Stiles & Bruce is a junior objective
synonym of
Uranomitra.
<<<<<<<’”
Comments
from Stiles:
“Murray is preparing a rebuttal to Raty, basically showing
that the documented historical context
has been ignored. So let´s wait until
these data are presented by Murray before making a final decision.”
Comments from Murray Bruce and
Stiles in response to those of Laurent Raty: “Why Raty opted
to ignore the historical context of the case, as summarised
where relevant by us, remains surprising, except that by doing so, he is no
longer tied to considering what actually happened. Instead, he is free to raise unnecessary
speculation that may sound feasible. But
why ignore the well-established facts?
“The relevant historical context omitted
by Raty can be summarised thusly (see our paper for
further details; relevant references also cited with this proposal): In 1854
Reichenbach and Bonaparte published competing classifications of
hummingbirds. They both recognised one particular group of species as sufficiently
distinctive to require the proposal of a new genus-group name to distinguish
it. Reichenbach proposed Uranomitra, while Bonaparte proposed Cyanomyia. Indeed, no type species was designated by
either author. In 1855 Gray included
both names in his revised list of avian genera and subgenera. Gray adopted Cyanomyia and listed Uranomitra
as an objective synonym. As would be
evident from examining the 1854 papers of concern here, both names applied to
the same species and therefore one would be an objective synonym of the
other. Gray clearly knew this. However, although Gray chose to use what was
soon revealed as the junior name, his selection was because Bonaparte’s name
was proposed at the generic level, while Reichenbach’s was added as a
subgeneric name. This interpretation
apparently accords with the view of his brother and boss at the British Museum,
J.E. Gray, who wrote the introductory remarks in the 1855 catalogue, quoted by
Raty, and who opposed G.R. Gray adopting the recently proposed international
rules of nomenclature.
“Indeed, there was no ‘express statement’
of a ‘subsequent designation’ because Gray was following his own rules and did not
adopt those proposed as international rules in 1843. However, what may be seldom appreciated is
that the current Code, in operation since 1961, as revised three times, and
also adapted from the earlier sets of rules, makes allowances for what can be interpreted
as pre-Code nomenclatural acts. Gray’s
type species interpretations in 1855, and in his earlier editions of lists of
genus-group names going back to 1840, are widely accepted as sources of both
original and subsequent type species designations despite lacking the wording
subsequently demanded by the Code. Note
that in the Code some articles make such distinctions with before and after
dates that also help to distinguish the pre-Code and early Code periods from a
time when the Code was universally accepted and followed (e.g., ICZN 12 &
13). Further to this, and contrary to
Raty, type selection by elimination, as discouraged under the Code (ICZN 69.4),
and as used earlier by some authors, was not Gray’s method of subsequent type
species selection and designation. As
later explained in a publication we cited, Gray selected the first species
listed, should there be more than one.
Bonaparte’s first listed species is [Ornismya]
cyanocephala; it also could be
regarded as the original designated type species, based on the obvious
alliterative link in the proposed new genus-group name, thus Cyanomyia cyanocephala. Reichenbach’s first listed species is Trochilus franciae. In this instance,
Gray seemed not to follow his own method but actually he did. Gray had earlier (1848) recognised
Trochilus quadricolor Vieillot, 1822,
not 1817, as identifiable with Ornismya
cyanocephala Lesson, 1829, and thus the senior name. In 1855 Gray obviously designated the same
type species to Uranomitra because
Gray recognised it as an objective synonym of Cyanomyia. There is much to tell from
Gray’s listing in 1855, rather than “absolutely nothing” as argued by
Raty. Elliot’s later designation of Trochilus franciae as the type species
of Uranomitra was by applying Gray’s method. Elliot, however, either overlooked or
misunderstood Gray’s earlier action in 1855 in designating quadricolor to both genus-group names, by treating quadricolor as the senior species-group
name for the first listed cyanocephala. Note that in 1854, both quadricolor and cyanocephala were
listed as separate species by both Bonaparte and Reichenbach.”
“In 1860 Cabanis & Heine (Mus.
Hein., 3, p. 41) dated Reichenbach’s paper to May 1854 and Bonaparte’s to June
1854. However, in 1863 Heine corrected
the dates to March (Reichenbach) and May (Bonaparte). Cabanis & Heine also first corrected the
genus-group name sequence and used Uranomitra,
with “Cyanomyia (!)” listed as the objective synonym. They also recognised
the same type species for both names, indicated by listing quadricolor first. Their
first listing of the type species in sequence actually demonstrates a form of
shorthand to indicate the type species, as extrapolated from Gray’s selection
method of choosing the first originally listed species as type. It should be noted that very few subsequent
type species designations antedate Gray’s lists, and as all were compiled by
using Gray’s own rules of nomenclature, Gray’s first species rule is one of the
earliest for subsequent type species designations.
Later, Ridgway in his major work (vol.
5, 1911, p. 406), recognised that in 1855 Gray had
subsequently designated Trochilus
quadricolor as the type species of both Uranomitra
and Cyanomyia. This interpretation was followed by Simon
(1921, p. 325) in the most recent hummingbird classification wherein all known
names were included. Peters did not list
these two names because, under his editorial policy, as they had been
previously synonymised by Sharpe in his Handlist (vol. 3, 1900, p. 108), they
would be omitted.
“Both nominal genus-group names can have
the same type species when they are objective synonyms (ICZN 61.3.3). Therefore, both Uranomitra and Cyanomyia have
the same type species, recognised as being
subsequently designated by Gray in 1855, and this interpretation was supported
by the most recent standard authorities covering the status of both names. Both genus-group names, although established
without using Code rules, meet the requirements of being acceptable by use of
one or more available species-group names in combination, and by indication
(ICZN 12.2.5, 12.2.6; names published before 1931). Thus ICZN 67.5 does not negate the subsequent
type fixation despite not having the explicit wording subsequently
required. ICZN 69.1.1 is met because it
is clear that the author (Gray) accepts the type species given as its
subsequent designation for both genus-group names Uranomitra and Cyanomyia. However, contrary to Raty, ICZN 69.4 does not
apply as the type species was not fixed by elimination but by the selection of
the first species listed in the case of the genus-group name adopted by Gray (Cyanomyia), and thus the objective
synonym (Uranomitra), as recognised by Gray, would share the same type species.
“We
therefore wish to confirm that Coeruleomitra
is available, with Trochilus franciae
as its type species.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“YES – Based on Bruce – Stiles rebuttal. Unless there is a major flaw here that
someone better equipped to work through nomenclatural issues, and how to apply
the Code, than I can offer?”
Comments from Lane: YES to
recognizing Coeruleomitra
for “Uranomitra” franciae. However, I would like to go on
record to say that the three taxa currently assigned to that species (franciae,
viridiceps, and cyanicollis)
need to be phylogenetically assessed with respect to one another, as I suspect
that, at the very least, cyanicollis
will be found to be specifically distinct from the other two. In
addition, given that the taxonomy within the “Amazilia” group has
undergone severe upheaval (as this very proposal illustrates!), and that
generically valid morphological characters seem to be minimal (at least to my
eye), it would be best to sample all three taxa to make sure they are in fact
sisters, and don’t fall in different genus-level clades. This was my concern in
my first comment above: since the taxon sampled wasn’t the nominate, using that
result to assign “franciae” as the type of the genus may not accurately
represent the phylogenetic relationships of
franciae (sensu
stricto) with respect to other genera within the larger clade.”
Additional
comments from Claramunt: “My vote is still NO.
“1) From what I see in
the rest of the list, Gray (1955) is only mentioning (between parenthesis and
at the end of every entry) the type species of the generic name he considered
valid. He is not listing the type species of any of the synonyms. Therefore, in
the case of the hummingbird, he is implying that the type species of Cyanomyia
is Trochilus quadricolor. But nothing can be inferred about the type
species of Uranomitra. Laurent is right. Lots of hypotheses and
inferences can be made from the historical context, but at the end of the day,
we have to follow the rules of The Code.
“2) The fact that two
names are applied to the same group of species does not make them objective
synonyms. They can be subjective synonyms. For two generic names to be objective
synonyms they must share the same type species (Art. 61.3.3 and Glossary),
which doesn’t seem to be the case for Uranomitra and Cyanomyia.”
Additional
comments from Piacentini:
“Bruce said: ‘Both nominal genus-group names can have the
same type species when they are objective synonyms (ICZN 61.3.3). Therefore, both
Uranomitra
and
Cyanomyia
have the same type species.
“This is incorrect. Being objective synonyms is a
consequence of having
the same type, and not an a priori
assumption as clearly
interpreted by Bruce in his papers and comments. So, the first question is: ACCORDING
TO THE CODE (and NOT according to [questionable] historical context over a
century before the first edition of the Code), what is the type of
Cyanomyias? (answer:
Trochilus quadricolor, subsequently designated by Gray,
1855). And what is the type of Uranomitra? (It is
Trochilus franciae, subsequently designated by
Elliot, 1879). Since quadricolor
and franciae
are regarded as distinct species, and since they belong to
distinct lineages afforded independent genera status,
Cyanomyias
and Uranomitra
are not synonyms (less so objective synonyms).
“Bruce himself acknowledges that his interpretation of type
fixation for Uranomitra does not
have follow the Code, stating: ‘(...) despite not having the explicit wording subsequently required’. That is precisely the point. The
Code requires explicit wording for type fixation, and Gray does not do it for Uranomitra.
This ends any further discussion.
“Bruce ends his comment with ‘We therefore wish
to confirm that Coeruleomitra is available, with Trochilus franciae as its type species’. There is
no question here. Coeruleomitra is indeed
available for
franciae. And so is Uranomitra. With both
genus names having the same type species,
they are
objective synonyms. And, according to the principle of priority,
Uranomitra is the
valid name.”
Additional comments from Robbins: “Based on Victor’s
comments and the taxonomic concerns expressed by Dan, I change my vote to NO.”
Additional comments from Lane: “I would like to change to
NO based on the comments by Vitor, and Santiago. This also makes me feel better
regarding the phylogenetic issue that has been causing me sleepless nights.”
Comments from Frank Rheindt (voting for Zimmer): “The
question regarding the type species of Uranomitra is a convoluted one.
Clearly, a lot of research has gone into this by Bruce & Stiles (2021 and
subsequently), and valid points have been raised by Laurent Raty. I find myself
in partial agreement with both sides. I would appreciate the chance of weighing
in on this. There are two core questions:
1.
Should type species statements in catalogues
such as Gray’s Genera of Birds be considered “rigidly construed type
species designations”?
“This is a difficult question, and I am not sure there would be a
unanimous answer even among Commissioners of the ICZN. The wording of the
Code’s Article 67.5 implies some “rigidity” in how a type species must be
designated, meaning there cannot be any doubt as to what the author may have
meant. On the other hand, there is a long-standing tradition in various
zoological communities (mostly in invertebrates) to accept catalogue statements
as type designations, especially if these are historically important catalogues
and a wide acceptance of these type designations has built up over the decades.
An example is d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire Universel d’Histoire Naturelle,
published in multiple installments from 1839 to 1849, which contains numerous
type species designations for Diptera (flies) that continue to be accepted.
Indeed, a sudden rejection of all these type species designations would
probably lead to substantial taxonomic chaos and instability. The Commission is
generally quite reluctant to insert itself into long-standing taxonomic
traditions of particular zoological communities and will rarely tell them what
should and should not count as a designation in such borderline cases.
“Catalogues are necessarily compact in their format and lack
detailed statements. The most important factor, in my opinion, is whether the
format allows for unequivocal interpretation of the author’s intent. In this
case, a close reading of Gray’s introductory statements makes it clear that the
species in brackets refer to what Gray assumed or intended to be the type
species.
“If the Commission were asked whether this sort of statement is a
valid type designation, my guess is that the majority of Commissioners would
feel reluctant to opine on this and would hope for the ornithological community
to come to its own consensus on whether such an important book as Gray’s
catalogue contains valid type species designations or not. Based on the
statements by Murray and Gary, who have a much deeper understanding of this
catalogue than I do, I would tend to err on the side of accepting type species
designations in important historical catalogues such as Gray’s.
“But as we shall see below, thankfully this question is only
tangential to resolving the present case, and we don’t need to worry about it
here.
2. Are Cyanomyia and Uranomitra objective
synonyms?
“No, they’re not. The Code’s Glossary definition of “objective
synonym” stipulates that the genera in question must have identical type
species. This is regardless of whether the originally included species are
identical or not. If Gray’s type designation for Cyanomyia is accepted, Trochilus
quadricolor is its type species, but that still leaves Uranomitra
without a type. The first available type designation for Uranomitra
eems to be Elliott’s (1879), who chose Trochilus
franciae, which makes the two genera subjective (not objective) synonyms,
as has been pointed out by others. Hence, the species Trochilus franciae
is the type of Uranomitra and does not require a new genus name, and any
name proposed to that end becomes a junior synonym.
“My comments do not address the equally important issue raised by
Dan Lane, namely whether the three taxa currently placed within Uranomitra
franciae are monophyletic or not. I agree this requires urgent resolution.
At the same time, even if there are multiple species-level taxa within Uranomitra
franciae, I hope they will not fall into different generic groups, as that
would be the only way in which their species-level taxonomy could conflate our
genus delimitation.
“I hope these comments are helpful, and I appreciate any criticism
that may point to mistakes in my reasoning.”
Additional
comments from Areta:
“Thanks Laurent, Vitor, and Frank for your input on
this very instructive case. My vote was cast early on, and I did not have a
chance to revisit this. Based on these clarifications, I change my vote to NO.”
Additional
comments from Jaramillo: “I change my vote to NO, having
others step in and detail some of these issues has been good. One needs to be
akin to a constitutional scholar to understand some of these nomenclatural
issues.”
Comments from Steven Gregory (voting for Bonaccorso): “NO. I broadly agree with Laurent Raty, and the
salient points are:
“1. Uranomitra
Reichenbach, 1854, was introduced with four included nominal
species, franciae, quadricolor, cyanicollis,
and cyanocephala.
“2. The Code (ICZN, 69.1.1 and 67.5) is very clear about
subsequent designation and that 'designation' must be rigidly construed. The
inclusion of Uranomitra
Reichenbach, 1854, as a synonym of
Cyanomyia Bonaparte,
1854, by G.R. Gray (1855: 139) does not confer the type species of the latter
upon the former.
“3. The first to correctly designate a type species for
Uranomitra was Elliot
(1879: 195), who designated franciae
Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846.
“This was further supported by the comments by Piacentini, with
which I concur. Coeruleomitra
Stiles & Bruce, 2021, becomes a junior objective synonym of
Uranomitra Reichenbach,
1854. A 'no' vote, as defined by the SACC proposal 924.
“While Murray Bruce is correct in his rebuttal that (obviously) no
rules other than the British Association 'Strickland' Rules (1842) were then
available, and which had little to say on subsequent designation as such, Gray
did, clearly, have a system, and those names spelled out in small caps were
those to which the type species, in brackets at the end of the entry, applied.
Thus in the entry on p. 139 the type species (Trochilus quadricolor,
Vieillot) applies to "CYANOMYIA Pr. B.
1854", and not any name (Uranomitra)
listed as a synonym.
“Were Bruce's method of interpreting G. R. Gray's works to be
widely adopted, numerous genera listed in synonymy by him would have to have
earlier and different type-species from those currently understood to be
correctly designated elsewhere. There is no 'case law' in Zoological
Nomenclature, but this would nevertheless be a dangerous precedent to
establish.
“The correct type of Cyanomyia
Bonaparte, 1854, is a completely separate issue, with
'Trochilus quadricolor, Vieillot', being an apparent
nomen oblitum (Art. 23.9.1) and the subsequent designation, again by Elliot
(1879: 195) of Trochilus
cyanocephala Lesson,
1830, the first nominal species listed by Bonaparte, being generally accepted.”
Response from Bruce and Stiles:
Reply to recent
comments plus a recap on Coeruleomitra
“We already have presented three discussions of the
relevant details supporting recognition of Coeruleomitra. The only significant change since our earlier
discussions is that the review of G.R. Gray’s The Genera of Birds (1844-1849) cited to Bruce in press, was
published in February (see http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/sherbornia/issue8.html).
Therein important details explaining Gray’s own rules and methods with
nomenclatural issues, including type selection, were discussed in the
introductory section. Such an
understanding of how Gray developed his work on avian genus-group names over
the period of 1840-1871 helps with interpreting what he sought to do with the
1855 catalogue, the source of the type selection issue that continues to
concern the current proposal. As noted
in the Gray review, this 1855 catalogue was a continuum in his series of
publications focused on avian genera.
Indeed, while his 1840 list and its 1841 revision and 1842 supplement,
along with the 1855 catalogue, are major sources of accepted subsequent type
species designations by Gray, his connection of generic names to their type
species runs through all his lists and catalogues, as also seen in particular
in his major monograph The Genera of
Birds (1844-1849) and his world ‘Handlist’
(1869-1871), each consisting of three volumes.
“Also as discussed in the Gray review, Gray
followed his own rules. Although
international rules were promulgated from 1842, Gray stuck to his own in all
his publications. The various sets of
personal nomenclatural rules used before we had international rules, and indeed
for the decades from the 1840s before international rules finally became
universal, by the time of the official Règles of 1905,
often had particular views of how names should be used, or not used. Going back to those first altering the
Linnaean structure, none explained their rules, but something of what they were
doing could be gleaned from their writings.
G.R. Gray was unusual in that he published details of his rules of
nomenclature, around 1871, but privately, and anonymously, in the third person,
and as it turned out, not long before he died in 1872. Moreover, it revealed that some of his rules,
such as the ‘first species’ rule, had been very influential and widely followed
for decades.
“It is all the more significant because a perusal
of the Peters checklist volumes demonstrates that Gray’s works noted above,
particularly for 1840, 1841 and 1855, are the senior publications from which
formal, subsequent type species
designations are recognised and cited. Peters was influenced by the work of J.A.
Allen in 1907-08 based in particular on his study of the type species of the
genera of North American birds, wherein Allen gave due credit to Gray as the
source of the earliest subsequent type species designations. Thus a perusal of the Peters checklist
volumes, including those completed by Peters’ successors, reveals wide usage of
these Gray publications.
“As Gray outlined in his 1871 pamphlet, his method
of type species designation followed the ‘first species’ rule. Gray’s pioneering work on summarising
and assessing avian generic names in the 1840s and later was very influential
in its day; and all based on Gray following his own rules. Strickland, a critic of Gray’s first list of
avian generic names, was primarily influenced to seek to establish
international rules of nomenclature because of his concerns about nomenclatural
chaos within ornithology. Ornithology
continued as a major influence on how international rules evolved. Their wide acceptance came in particular with
the Règles
of 1905.
“However, the contentious issue of subsequent type
species designations particularly that of the ‘first species’ rule vs.
selection by elimination was considered unresolved in the 1905 rules. It soon became a topic of an extended debate
in Science in 1906-1907, initiated by
ornithologists Witmer Stone and J.A. Allen.
The upshot was a revision of Article 30 of 1905 on the designation of
type species, connected to an extended series of recommendations. Amongst them
was recognition of the ‘first species’ rule. With only slightly revised
wording, Art. 30, recommendation (s), is now represented by Art. 69A.9 of the
1999 Code. While recommendations are not
rules, an important function is historical context. The Code not only provides rules to aid with
naming animals, but also it is a bridge linking names and nomenclatural acts
established under international rules with those names and nomenclatural acts
established before there were international rules, and equally if not more
importantly, during the decades of transition when the international rules, as
they evolved, was but one of many sets of rules guiding nomenclatural
acts. Thus it is important to see the
dual role of the Code, i.e., reconciling past nomenclatural acts under
different rules with those under international rules.
“In other words, as in the case before us in
Proposal 924, based on historical context, Gray’s actions in 1855 fall within
the scope of what is covered by the Code.
An important point being that in such accepted designations outside of
the international rules, explicit wording was not yet a requirement. A comment by Raty here is misleading because
the type was not fixed by elimination but by simply applying the ‘first species’
rule, and as such there was no implication but actually an express statement
because the species selected was the first species listed in the original
source of the name and as such, in the case under consideration here, also
would apply to an objective synonym. If
explicit wording is to become a retrospective requirement then it can be argued
that it could lead to a reassessment of many names where such explicit wording
is absent, yet the type designations are widely accepted. One must bear in mind that requirements for
explicitly stating a type species designation came much later, particularly as
linked to the 1905 rules, although as we’ve seen here, the matter still needed
some finalisation.
“Let us herewith briefly consider again the relevant
points (this both revises and supplements our previous comments):
●
In 1854 within two months two rival classifications of hummingbirds were
published, Reichenbach in March, Bonaparte in May. Both recognised the
same group of species as warranting a name.
Reichenbach proposed the subgenus Uranomitra,
Bonaparte the genus Cyanomyia. No type species was indicated, although
arguably in the case of Bonaparte, the first listed species named cyanocephala was implied by the partial
homonymy of the names. Also in 1854
Bonaparte subsequently linked the two names, giving priority to his own
name. The publication dates of the two
names were clarified later.
●
In 1855 Gray listed both names together in his Catalogue because he also clearly recognised
both as applying to the same group of species.
His choice of Cyanomyia, with Uranomitra as the objective synonym, was
not about any confusion of publication dates.
Gray gave priority to Cyanomyia
because it was proposed as a genus, whereas Uranomitra
was proposed as a subgenus. As a
consequence, both names were linked to the same type species, which Gray recognised as Trochilus
quadricolor Vieillot, 1822. Although
there is a Trochilus quadricolor
Vieillot, 1817, Gray recognised both names because at
the time they represented different species in different genera. However, the junior homonym was subsequently
replaced with the next available name, Ornismya
cyanocephala Lesson, 1829, as recognised by
Bonaparte, and thus the designated type species for both generic names.
●
If one chooses to dispute the connection as given by Gray and argue that
his type designation only applies to Cyanomyia,
although no explicit indication by Gray, then following the nomenclatural
history of the names we turn to the next relevant publication. In 1860 Cabanis & Heine followed Gray,
notably with the first species listed following the ‘first species’ rule, but
therein recognising the seniority of Uranomitra over Cyanomyia, and maintaining the connection of both names to the same
type species, as by Gray. Again, no explicit wording, but also an express
statement through the ‘first species’ rule by following Gray, as intended, to
be covered by the recommendation in the rules and later the Code. The
publication dates indicated for Reichenbach and Bonaparte were corrected by
Heine in 1863.
●
All subsequent major works on hummingbirds followed Gray, culminating with
Ridgway on North and Middle American birds (1911), and Simon’s monograph of
1921, the last time all known names applied to hummingbirds were listed. Peters is no help on the two names concerned
because, according to his editorial policy, they already had been synonymised and thus not to be listed in the relevant
checklist volume. This absence of
relevant documentation in such an oft-cited reference, even though all details
were provided by Ridgway and Simon earlier, was not helpful to most users of
the checklist, as this case demonstrates.
●
The treatment of Uranomitra by
Elliot in 1879 was due to a misunderstanding that was not explained and not
followed.
●
Some of the above discussion also clarifies a point disputed by
Piacentini. Historical context does
matter because the earlier rules, particularly from 1905, and then the Code
from 1961, were also revised constructs to reconcile what went before with what
was done under international rules. The
linking of the two names, making Cyanomyia
an objective synonym of Uranomitra,
was first established in 1854, accepted by Gray in 1855, with priority and
dating corrected by Cabanis & Heine in 1860 and 1863. While the Code does require explicit wording
now, the whole point of the recommendations and the Code reconciling with past
actions not based on international rules and thus an absence of explicit
wording was in the interests of nomenclatural stability. The recognition of both names as applying to
the same type species is a well-documented fact within the relevant
ornithological literature.
●
Rheindt’s comments about the role of past
catalogues and explicit wording and potential chaos fits with some comments
above.
●
Rheindt also considered whether or not Cyanomyia and Uranomitra are
objective synonyms. What is apparently
overlooked here is that the first and most obvious evidence of this connection
is by the reversal of the names based on priority by Cabanis & Heine in
1860, with the same type species listed first, following Gray. As demonstrated by Ridgway and Simon as the
latest authorities covering the names in question, the link to the same type
species for both Uranomitra and Cyanomyia, following Gray, was not
questioned by them, and thus subsequently accepted by Peters.
●
Once again we believe we have presented a strong case for the acceptance of Coeruleomitra as the available generic
name with type species Trochilus franciae
Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846.
“For the first time in our discussion we can cite
Bruce’s review of Gray’s The Genera of Birds as an available
publication, containing a discussion of Gray’s rules on nomenclature. With access we hope it helps in understanding
how Gray interpreted the generic names.
Moreover, some additional historical background is provided as a reminder
that for all the clinging to exact wording in Code articles, we must bear in
mind that the Code also was intended to have a dual role in reconciling
nomenclatural acts not covered by the international rules with how the
international rules were subsequently applied.
“In this particular case, to argue against what
Gray intended is also to argue against what has long been accepted in the
relevant ornithological literature. It
is worth emphasising that where the imprimatur of a
Peters checklist volume is missing when one wishes to determine the status of a
name, with one then required to delve further back, then that is where problems
may arise. What Peters intended by
omitting names previously synonymised was that he was
following what was done earlier. In this
case it was Ridgway and Simon, key works also cited by Peters. Clearly, if Peters disagreed with an earlier
interpretation he would have listed the names differently, but if not, it can
be implied that he agreed with the previous interpretation. This point seems to be lost on current users
of his work.
“If Peters had listed the names we would not be debating
this topic at all, and a new generic name for franciae would
be obvious.”
New
Comments from Frank Rheindt (voting for Zimmer): “NO.
“Rationale:
It was a great pleasure to read Bruce & Stiles’s latest
response to previous votes. Their work on Gray’s catalogue is clearly
important, and I am looking forward to reading Bruce (2023), which did not seem
to be available at the time I’m writing this. Understanding the historic
context that reigned at the time when a nomenclatural act was made is very
important. A large percentage of zoology’s nomenclatural acts were made at a
time when Code rules didn’t exist, and the framers of the Code have been
careful to avoid discrepancies that might lead to the rejection of
widely-accepted older names because of the adoption of new rules. I thoroughly
enjoyed reading Bruce & Stiles’s scholarly explanations of Gray’s own
nomenclatural practices and rules, and I learned a lot that I didn’t know
before.
“At the same time, I feel compelled to vote NO on their request to
implement Coeruleomitra a genus
name for franciae. The
reason for that is that Gray never designated a type species for
Uranomitra. He clearly only designated a type species for
Cyanomyia, allowing
Uranomitra to remain
available to serve as the senior genus-group name for the taxon
franciae.
“Gray’s pre-Code practices and their present-day acceptance:
Despite the words that have been exchanged, I think very few
people in this debate would want to belittle the importance of Gray’s catalogue
and his practices. Bruce & Stiles expend a lot of effort to discuss the
importance of Gray’s practice of affording the first-named species type status,
and that is great. It doesn’t really matter which rule Gray adopted; the
important thing is that we all continue to honor his practice and recognize his
nomenclatural acts. For instance, the sort of type designations that Gray
practiced (by placing a type species in brackets) would no longer be acceptable
if carried out in 2023, because the Code demands modern type designations that
are rigorously construed. But when it comes to pre-Code names, users of the
Code close one eye and allow for such practices, provided that they enjoy wide
acceptance in the community. Even Bruce & Stiles’s fiercest critics in this
debate didn’t disagree about the validity of Gray’s designation of
Trochilus quadricolor as type
species for Cyanomyia. And this
should serve as a reminder for all of us that – in fact – we do honor pre-Code
practices and tolerate them in ways that we wouldn’t tolerate acts carried out
in 2023.
“But Gray’s practice must be explicit for us to recognize it:
We can only honor and tolerate such pre-Code practices where they
have been explicit, such as Gray’s type designation for Cyanomyia. What
Bruce & Stiles ask us to do now is to extend that tolerance to Uranomitra, even
though this genus-group taxon was never listed by number in Gray’s catalogue.
Bruce & Stiles arrive at the conclusion that
Uranomitra must be an
objective synonym of Cyanomyia
because they were described on the basis of the same group of
species, even though this defies the definition of “objective synonym” as per
Code Glossary. I wonder how Bruce & Stiles are so confident that Gray
didn’t list Uranomitra as a
subjective (rather than objective) synonym?
“Gray lived before the time that the Code existed, and it is
highly questionable whether the modern Code concepts of “objective versus
subjective synonyms” would have ever featured in Gray’s thinking. I feel Bruce
& Stiles ask too much of us when declaring that “…Uranomitra
is an objective synonym of
Cyanomyia, hence Gray’s intention was to assign his type
species to both of them…”. Firstly, this type of thinking ignores the true
definition of objective synonym, and secondly, how can we be so confident that
this was Gray’s intention? In the hundreds of instances where he lists “chief
synonyms”, are they always automatically objective synonyms with identical type
species? Surely not…
“Works subsequent to Gray’s catalogue do not salvage the case:
Bruce & Stiles go on to say that – even if we disregard Gray’s
questionable type species designation for
Uranomitra – Gray’s
intent was reconfirmed by subsequent authors, most notably Cabanis & Heine
(1860). To be sure, Cabanis & Heine (1860) and any other publications are
independent works and have to stand on their own two legs for a nomenclatural
act to be accepted. I have scrutinized Cabanis & Heine (1860; III. Theil),
but apart from listing the two genera (Uranomitra, Cyanomyia) in a
corrected sequence of priority, there is no sign anywhere that the authors
attempt to clarify the type species designation for either name. The authors do
make occasional statements about type species designations in their footnotes,
but not for these two genus-group names. I have also perused the entire
Introduction, written by J. Cabanis in archaic German in the 1. Theil, to glean
any potential information on whether the authors set out to indicate type
species identities with particular practices, but there is no indication
anywhere. Hence, we cannot just use Cabanis & Heine (1860) – or any
subsequent publication for that matter – to justify the intention that Gray may
or may not have had.
“Summary:
In summary, I acknowledge Bruce & Stiles’s main point that
historic context is very important in making sense of nomenclatural acts, and I
feel we (=the community) are largely doing so by tolerating old practices that
would no longer be OK today, such as formulaic type species designations in
catalogues. But this tolerance should not extend to recognizing designations
that were never explicitly made, and that may or may not have been the intent
of the original author.”
New
comments from Claramunt: “At the risk of repeating the
same arguments, here are some comments on B&S rebuttal:
B&S: “In 1855 Gray listed both names together
in his Catalogue because he also clearly recognised
both as applying to the same group of species.
His choice of Cyanomyia,
with
Uranomitra as the objective synonym, was not about
any confusion of publication dates.”
“The linking of the two names, making Cyanomyia an objective synonym of Uranomitra, was first established in 1854, accepted
by Gray in 1855, with priority and dating corrected by Cabanis & Heine in
1860 and 1863.”
“Here is the crux of the problem: Gray considered them synonyms
(two names applied to the same group of species), but nothing can be firmly
inferred about whether he considered them “objective synonyms” (sharing a type
species) versus “subjective synonyms” (same taxonomic scope but different
type).
“The introduction is skimpy and doesn’t say whether the listed
types also apply to synonyms.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17136778#page/11/mode/1up
“If you see other cases in his lists, it is not clear that the
type species also corresponds to the synonyms. For example:
“Here, Motacilla
caerulea is the type
of Polioptila, as we all
know. Culicivora is included as a synonym of Polioptila,
as they were treated as synonyms by previous authorities. But the type species
of Culicivora was already clearly established by Swainson as C. stenura (= caudata, Tyrannidae). So, in this case, I
don’t think that Gray is establishing a new type species for Culicivora
(which would be against the rules and will have consequences for our current
usage).
“Another case with a similar construction:
“Here Gray lists Dicaeum as a synonym of Microchelidon, and Sylvia hirundinacea as the type of Microchelidon. The type
of Dicaeum is D. cruentatus, not S. hirundinacea.
“In many other cases the type applies to both, but the majority
are cases of spelling variants, not true synonyms.
“However, there are some cases like this:
“In this case, Ornismya is indeed that type of both Lampropogon and Chalcostigma, and they are objective synonyms. But you cannot
infer that from Gray’s skimpy text. We know that by digging into the literature
and figuring out the type of each..
“Yet in other cases the type within parenthesis seem to apply only
to the synonym only!
“Therefore, Gray seems to be inconsistent about listing types. It
doesn’t seem that there is a clear methodology here.
“More importantly, the Code clearly indicates that type species
cannot be just inferred from context. If they are not fixed in the original
description (as in this case), they are to be established using the rules of
Art. 69 (https://www.iczn.org/the-code/the-code-online/)
“ICZN: Art. 69.1.1. In the absence of a prior type fixation for a
nominal genus or subgenus, an author is deemed to have designated one of the
originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for
whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species, or uses
an equivalent term, and if it is clear that that author accepts it as the type
species.”
“I’m not convinced that Gray’s list fulfills these requirements.
“Historical context is important, but it cannot be used in
substitution or contravention of Code rules. The Code is fairly explicit about
how historical information should be used (specific regulations for older names
versus newer names, etc.). Just because some authorities interpreted Gray’s
list as establishing type species is not enough.”
New Comments from Steve Gregory (voting for Bonaccorso): “Santiago
has admirably shown that the 'chief synonyma' in
Gray's 1855 Catalogue are far from consistent, representing, at best, Gray's
opinions about both objective and subjective synonyms, and that the types of
the senior synonym cannot be 'transferred' to any included junior synonym.
Frank Rheindt wrote "We can only honor and tolerate such pre-Code
practices where they have been explicit, such as Gray’s type designation for
Cyanomyia. What Bruce & Stiles ask us to do now is
to extend that tolerance to Uranomitra, even
though this genus-group taxon was never listed by number in Gray’s
catalogue" and "I wonder how Bruce & Stiles are so confident that
Gray didn’t list Uranomitra
as a subjective (rather than objective) synonym?"
We have maintained all along that the Code (Articles 67.5 and
69.1.1) requires that types be clearly and unambiguously stated, with Gray's synonyma demonstrably not the case. No one is doubting that
both Uranomitra
Reichenbach, 1854, and Coeruleomitra
Stiles & Bruce, 2021 are available. They both have
Trochilus franciae Bourcier & Mulsant, 1846, as
the type species. The former by subsequent designation by Elliot, 1879,
Smithson. Contrib. Knowl., 23, art. 5, p. 195.
Looking at this, Elliot clearly listed "Uranomitra Reich., Aufz. der Colib. (1853). p. 10.
Type T. franciæ.
Bourc." It should be noted that
Stiles & Bruce attempted to dismiss this as "a misunderstanding that
was not explained" but Article 69.1.1 is clear that "if he or she
states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type
species, or uses an equivalent term, and if it is clear that that author
accepts it as type species."
“I agree with Frank that ‘works subsequent to Gray's Catalogue do
not salvage the case’. The Code must be applied at the point of establishment,
and aside from the provisions relating to subsequent designation, the opinions
and actions of others have no material bearing. Peters would have saved the
world from a heap of problems if he had decided to include full synonymies, as
far too many have assumed that those names he did list are the only ones
available to choose from.
“We should close by stating clearly that Uranomitra
Reichenbach, 1854, is the valid name for the taxon that includes
Trochilus franciae Bourcier
& Mulsant, 1846, the type species by subsequent designation, Elliot, 1879,
as having priority over Coeruleomitra
Stiles & Bruce, 2021, Article 23.1 (ICZN, 1999: 24).
“This is therefore a 'no' vote, as defined by the SACC proposal
924, on my part. Be that as it may, is it anyone else's feeling that this may
need pulling together as a paper?”
New comments from Pacheco: “I maintain the vote NO. I simply
agree with the last points added by Frank, Santiago and Steve. Despite the
historical context and the commendable work of Bruce & Stiles, the absence
of irrefutable indication of type-species of by Gray and the application of
art. 69 of the ICZN remain irreconcilable.”