To refer to this article use this url: http://www.zoologischemededelingen.nl/80/nr05/a10
Zoologische Mededelingen, 80 (December 2006)
Systematic notes on Asian birds. 56. The authorship and date of Turdus rubrocanus
E.C. Dickinson, M. Walters
Keywords: Turdus rubrocanus; synonym; nomen nudum; nomenclature; dates of publication; priority; Brian H. Hodgson; John E. Gray; George R. Gray.
Abstract
This name from J.E. & G.R. Gray’s 1847 Catalogue of B.H. Hodgson’s materials from Nepal was not based on a description therein, although it is generally cited from there, and correctly so except for the date. It is valid from there only under the little-used Articles 11.6 and 50.7 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N., 1999). These rules allow Hodgson’s 1844 nomen nudum to be reintroduced together with an ‘indication’ although still without a description. In exploring the validity of the citation from 1847 we found that over time the rules of nomenclature have changed and that what should not have been acceptable in 1962 and 1964, is now acceptable. We also draw attention to a colour plate that seems likely to have been intended to support the description as new of this thrush, but had to be corrected when it was found that the bird had already been named. In the event this plate appeared about five months after the Catalogue.
Introduction
Among widely consulted works dealing with this species, authorship of Turdus rubrocanus (for Grey-headed Thrush) was assigned to ‘“Hodgs.“ 1846, in Gray, Cat. Mamm. Birds Nepal Thibet’ by Ripley (1961: 534; 1964: 200; 1982: 484). Most recently, in the Handbook of Birds of the World, Collar (1995) assigned the authorship to G.R. Gray, 1846. All these works cited the ‘Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B. H. Hodgson Esq., to the British Museum’ although, prior to Collar (1995), no initials were offered to clarify the authorship. Dickinson & Walters (2006, this issue) have argued that new names in this Catalogue [1]should be credited to J.E. & G.R. Gray[2] and have presented evidence of publication in January 1847. However, this case is not as simple as it appears and those checking the Catalogue for a description will find none.
The present paper explains why the citation is correct despite the lack of description and notes the existence of a colour plate that could have appeared before the Catalogue and seems to have been intended to accompany a description of a novelty, and which would have provided a more transparent basis for the use of the name rubrocanus.
Early usage
Hodgson (1844: 83) introduced the nomen nudum T(urdus) rubrocanus with the notation “575”. Gray & Gray (1847: 81) listed Turdus castaneus with a citation to Merula castanea Gould, ‘1835’, and gave Turdus rubrocanus citing p. 82 (sic) from Hodgson (1844). They listed two specimens and two drawings and after the skins put “No. 575”. Thus Hodgson’s nomen nudum appeared in synonymy[3] and was identified with the bird described by Gould, i.e., it took on an identity which it could not have as a nomen nudum.
The matter of whether a name in synonymy such as this can be employed as a valid name is discussed below.
Hodgson’s rubrocanus continued to appear in the synonymy of Turdus castaneus for over 80 years, always without a formal description, until Baker (1930a: 115; b: 624) noted that the name Merula castanea Gould, 1836 was preoccupied in Turdus by Turdus castaneus P.L. Statius Müller, 1776 [4] Baker thus adopted rubrocanus and credited the name to Gray[5], referring to p. 81 of Gray & Gray, where, this nomen nudum appears in synonymy. This ignored another, opposing view offered four years earlier regarding the availability of the name. A distinct eastern population of this species, from Sichuan, had been named gouldi by Verreaux (1870)[6], and when Collin & Hartert (1927) noted the preoccupation of castaneus believing rubrocanus unavailable they had taken the name of the Sichuan population as the valid specific name and re-named Hodgson’s western population Turdus gouldi cinereiceps (a name not listed in synonymy by Baker, 1930a, b).
The treatment of a nomen nudum that appears in synonymy
An absolute nomen nudum has no standing. However, if reintroduced it may be able to meet conditions of availability. Thus the use of Turdus rubrocanus by Gray & Gray (1847) has to be considered on its own merits.
Vaurie (1959: 404) accepted the name Turdus rubrocanus and justified its use in a footnote saying “Replaces Turdus castaneus (Gould), 1835, preoccupied by Turdus castaneus Müller, 1776, because T. rubrocanus Gray ‘has been brought into use .. and is generally accepted’ (Copenhagen Decision 115 (2))”. The full text of that Decision (see Hemming, 1953: 63) recommended that the new provisions to be incorporated in the Règles[7], following the rejection in Copenhagen of a 1948 decision to repeal Opinion 4, should state “Where, prior to the introduction of the new provisions, a name (whether generic or specific) published in a synonymy (whether generic or specific) has been brought into general use, it shall be deemed to be available if it is generally accepted”. However, this Copenhagen Decision did not make it into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1958 (I.C.Z.N., 1961; the 1958 Code)[8] and although Vaurie (1959) had good grounds to follow it this was no longer solid ground after the Code replaced the old Règles. Melville (1995: 56) explained that two resolutions were adopted by the Copenhagen Congress which advised that the Decisions should be taken as guidance, but that these were intended to deal with the “interim before the new Code could be adopted and published”.
The Introduction to the 1958 Code (I.C.Z.N., 1961) included a brief history of the Règles (rules) that existed before its adoption, and indicated that although widely consulted such rules were not wholly accepted. The 1958 Code (I.C.Z.N., 1961) stated in Art. 10 (d) “A name first published as a synonym is not made available”, however in Art. 16 (b) (ii) it stated that “citation of a name in synonymy” did not constitute an indication[9]. Since, for a name to be available, the Code required there be a “description, definition or indication” these Articles held shut the door that Copenhagen Decision 115 (2) had been intended to open, and which would have allowed Turdus rubrocanus to be considered available.
Ripley (1961, 1964) does not seem to have been clear on this and may have relied on Vaurie’s treatment. By the time the 3rd Edition of the Code appeared (I.C.Z.N., 1985) Art. 11 (d) had been modified and a new Art. 11 (e) inserted[10] which read “a name first published as a junior synonym is not thereby made available unless prior to 1961 it has been treated as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym …” and the text of Art. 16 (b) of the 1958 Code was removed. Thus a greatly expanded Art. 12, taken in conjunction with Art. 11 (e), permitted the presence of an indication to validate a pre-1931 name in synonymy that had not been previously described or depicted.
In its current, 4th edition, The Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) has similar wording in Art. 11.6 to that in 11 (e) of the previous edition, and in Art. 12.2. to that in 12 (b) of the 3rd edition.
It would be interesting to know whether the treatment of this name in volume X of Peters’s Check-list led to any discussion between Ripley and Mayr or Paynter, the two editors, for Ripley (1964: 200), after the opening trinomial, gave the author as Hodgson.
The first point of discussion should have been the use of Hodgson here since in the second citation below that, after Gould’s preoccupied name, Ripley gave it as ‘”Hodgs.,” in Gray, 1846, and in certain similar cases in this volume (e.g., Saxicola insignis on p. 105 and Saxicola ferrea on p. 115) Ripley gave Gray[11] as the author. This was presumably just a lapsus; ‘Gray’ was probably intended to appear after the opening trinomial. However, the second point of discussion, if it was actually realised at the time, should have been the absence of any description of Turdus rubrocanus where the name was cited and the fact that the recently issued Code (I.C.Z.N., 1961) did not consider an indication sufficient to validate a name in synonymy. No doubt Mayr, a leading proponent of stability in nomenclature (Melville, 1995: 65), and surely in favour of Copenhagen Decision 115, would have held to that decision and said that the Decision was in the process of being implemented[12].
The first description or depiction
It would seem that this taxon could easily have been properly described and depicted in The Genera of Birds by Gray (1844-49) using this name. The part dealing with the genus Turdus is dated June 1847 (five months after the Catalogue) and was no doubt drafted well before June. Under this generic name Gray listed 104 species accompanied by citations of their first use. The species Gray asked Mitchell to illustrate to represent the genus was this one, and this strongly suggests that Gray then thought it new, and that he would be listing it as Turdus rubrocanus. In the event it was recognised in time that this name was a synonym and it duly appeared here, as in Gray & Gray (1847), as Turdus castaneus Gould, and we believe that the caption for Pl. LVI was corrected. Had this part of Gray’s The Genera of Birds appeared before the Catalogue there need have been no search for a description as linkage to the plate would have sufficed. Instead the validating indication is to its identity with castaneus Gould.
Conclusion
Collar (2005) was thus correct to cite the Catalogue as the source of this name, but we recommend that authorship be credited to both authors (although they included no description for it) and that it be dated 1847 (Jan.). One question should perhaps be addressed when revision of the Code is next considered. How are names validated under these Articles to be cited? It seems insufficient to cite the name to a place where there is only a nomen nudum and a supporting indication, and yet there are many older names which depend upon this and pose similar problems[13]. Thought may also need to be directed to type material in cases like this. In this case the skins listed in Gray & Gray (1847) were considered to be the types by Warren & Harrison (1971: 472) although they could not find the two specimens so listed. But surely, due to the indication, the type of Merula castanea Gould must serve as the type for Hodgson’s name?
Acknowledgements
We thank Alison Harding at the Natural History Museum, Tring, for help with the relevant original literature, Carol Inskipp for providing details of her examination of Hodgson’s drawings and Murray Bruce for some preliminary discussion and his thorough and detailed comments when refereeing this paper, which led to a substantial revision of our draft.
Notes
1 Their list of new names did not include Turdus rubrocanus because no description is present, and this paper was developed to explain the very different situation.
2 One of our referees disagrees noting that J.E. Gray’s Preface implies that G.R. Gray worked on the birds and did not work on the mammals. This appears to be correct, but we consider J.E. Gray to have been primarily responsible for the publication and thus implicitly partly responsible for the authorship of the bird names.
3 Numerous, indeed perhaps all, the nomina nuda of Hodgson (1844) appeared in the 1847 Catalogue.
4 Now Philepitta castanea (P.L. Statius Müller, 1776) from Madagascar (see Amadon, 1979).
5 With no initials given.
6 The title page for the volume is dated 1870 and in his 1871 paper Verreaux cited these names from 1870, so that Ripley (1964: 200) seems to have erred in citing 1871.
7 The Règles, adopted in 1905 and broadly but not universally accepted, underwent a series of modifications over the years, being replaced by the 1958 Code. That the ‘Règles’ should become the Code was evidently not envisaged during the Copenhagen Colloqium (see Hemming, 1953: 132).
8 See Bock (1994: 71) and Melville (1995: 62-67) for comments on the extent to which the 1958 Code diverged from the wishes of those who had developed the consensus behind the Copenhagen Decisions.
9 The 1958 Code (I.C.Z.N., 1961: 150) defined an ‘indication’ as “Published information that in the absence of a definition or description allows a name proposed before 1931 to be considered available”; essentially this means that it links the name to something that is identifiable.
10 A referee (MDB) advises us that Art. 11 (e) in the 3rd. Edition of the Code was already inserted, as Art. 11 (c), in the 2nd Edition in 1964 (which we have not seen).
11 Not identified to G.R. or J.E., although G.R. may have been intended.
12 As apparently it was, in the 1964 Code, which may even have appeared before volume X of Peters’s Check-list. In fact the speedy appearance of the 2nd Edition was no doubt due to concerns about the extent to which the Copenhagen Decisions had been set aside.
13 This is not an argument against the validity of indications, just a reminder that a valid name in zoology must be attached in some way to the ‘treasure’ of a clear identification through description or depiction (especially if there is no voucher specimen). The citation is intended, like an audit trail, to lead to the treasure.
14 These dates refer to the work as a whole. As explained, Pl. LVI belongs to a part dated January 1847.
References
Amadon, D., 1979. Family Philepittidae. Pp. 330-331. In: M.A. Traylor, Jr. Check-list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. VIII.— Cambridge, Mass.
Baker, E.C.S., 1930a. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. 7 i-viii, 1-484.— London.
Baker, E.C.S., 1930b. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Birds. 8 i-iv, 485-801.— London.
Bock, W.J., 1994. History and nomenclature of Avian Family-group Names.— Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 222: 1-281.
Collar, N.J., 2005. Family Turdidae (Thrushes). Pp. 514-807. In: J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & D. Christie. Handbook of the birds of the world. 10.— Barcelona.
Collin, A. & E. Hartert, 1927. Nomina mutanda.— Novit. Zool., 34: 50-52.
Dickinson, E.C. & M. Walters, 2006. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 53. The authorship and date of publication of the “Catalogue of the Specimens and Drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B.H. Hodgson, Esq. to the British Museum”.— Zool. Med. Leiden 80-5 (5): 137-153.
Gould, J., 1836. [Birds ... regarded as hitherto undescribed].— Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., (1835) (3): 185-187.
Gray, G.R., 1844-49[14]. 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. 1 i-xvi, (1-300).— London.
Gray, J.E. & G.R. Gray, ‘1846’ = 1847. Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet presented by B.H. Hodgson Esq., to the British Museum. i-xi, 1-156.— London.
Hemming, F. (Ed.). 1953. Copenhagen decisions on zoological nomenclature. Additions to, and modifications of the Règles internationales de la Nomenclature zoologique approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August, 1953. i-xxix, 1-135.— London.
Hodgson, B.H., 1844. Catalogue of Nipalese Birds, collected between 1824 and 1844.— (Gray’s) Zoological Miscellany, (6): 81-86.
I.C.Z.N., 1961. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1958. [1st Edition]. i-xviii, 1-176.— London.
I.C.Z.N., 1985. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 3rd Edition. i-xx, 1-338.— London.
I.C.Z.N., 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th Edition. i-xxix, 1-306.— London.
Melville, R.V., 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals. A History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. i-xi, 1-92.— London.
Ripley, S.D., 1961. A synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Ceylon. i-xxxvi, 1-703.— Bombay.
Ripley, S.D., 1964. Family Muscicapidae, Subfamily Turdidae. 13-227. In: E. Mayr and R.A. Paynter, Jr. Check-list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters. X.— Cambridge, Mass.
Ripley, S.D., 1982. A synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan together with those of Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. i-xxvi, 1-653.— Bombay.
Statius Müller, P.L., 1776. Linne’s Natursystems: Supplements und Register Band. 1-536.— Nurnberg.
Vaurie, C., 1959. The birds of the Palearctic Fauna. Order Passeriformes. i-xiii, 1-762.— London.
Verreaux, J.P., 1870. Note sur les espèces nouvelles d’oiseaux recueillis par M. l’Abbé Armand David dans les montagnes du Thibet Chinois.— Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris, 6, Bull.: 33-40.
Warren, R.L.M. & C.J.O. Harrison, 1971. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History). 2 i-vi, 1-628.— London.