The Code of Nomenclature and Check-List of North American Birds
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IH^^HI v. - -'. , "H E m m I .": ^H ^ i ! * 4 ^B^H I . i - - . : H . - " ; i . * * ' J. A THE CODE OF NOMENCLATURE AND CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS Adopted by the American Ornithologists' Union BEING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE UNION ON CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE of Science Zoological Nomenclature is a means, not an end, Zoological NEW YORK AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION 1886 Copyright, 1885, BY AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION. Enibrrsitn \3rtss: JOHN WILSON AND SON, CAMBRIDGE. LIBR PREFACE. the first Congress of the American Ornithologists' AT Union, held in New York, September 26-29, 1883, the following resolution was adopted : "Resolved, That the Chairman appoint a Committee of five, the of a Re- including himself, to whom shall be referred question vision of the Classification and Nomenclature of the Birds of North America." In pursuance of this resolution the following Committee was and Hen- appointed : Messrs. Coues, Allen, Ridgway, Brewster, shaw. The Committee, having held mimerous sessions in Washing- ton and New York, presented its Report at the second Con- gress of the Union, held in New York, Sept. 30 to Oct. 2, 1884, - when the following resolution was adopted : "Resolved, That the Report of the Committee on the Revision of the Nomenclature and Classification of North Ameircan Birds be ac- cepted and adopted, and that it be recommitted to the Committee, with instructions to complete and submit it to the Council as soon as and that the be and instructed to practicable ; Council empowered accept and adopt the Report as finally rendered, with such modifica- tions as they may deem necessary, and to publish the same, copy- righted, in part or in whole, and in one or more forms, in the name and under the auspices of the American Ornithologists' Union." The Committee, having continued its sessions, presented its final report to the Council at a meeting held in Washington on the 2ist of April, 1885, when the Report of the Committee was iv PREFACE. accepted and adopted, and was referred again to the Committee for publication, the Committee to exercise such editorial revision as might seem necessary. Pursuant to the foregoing resolutions of the Union and Coun- cil, the Committee now offers to the public, in the name and on behalf of the Union, the result of its labors, consisting of a List of North American Birds, preceded by the Code of Rules adopted by the Committee for its guidance in the preparation of the List. The Committee ventures to hope that the new Code will find favor, not only with ornithologists, but among zoologists generally. ELLIOTT COUES. J. A. ALLEN. ROBERT RIDGWAY. WILLIAM BREVVSTER. H. W. HENSHAW. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE I. INTRODUCTION i II. PRINCIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 18 A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 18 B. CANONS OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 22 I. Of the Kinds of Names in Zoology 22 2. Of the Binomial System as a Phase of Zoological No- menclature 29 3. Of the Trinomial System as a Phase of Zoological No- menclature 30 4. Of the Beginning of Zoological Nomenclature proper, and of the Operation of the Law of Priority ... 32 5. Of Names Published Simultaneously 40 6. Of the Retention of Names . -41 7. Of the Rejection of Names 47 8. Of the Emendation of Names 51 9. Of the Definition of Names 51 10. Of the Publication of Names 54 it. Of the Authority for Names 56 C. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE IN THE FUTURE 58 12. Of the Construction and Selection of Names .... 58 13. Of the Transliteration of Names 65 14. Of the Description of Zoological Objects 67 15. Of the Bibliography of Names 67 1 6. Of the Selection of Vernacular Names 68 III. CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS ... 71 I. PYGOPODES 73 a. Podicipedes 73 I. Podicipidas 73 ' Vi TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE b. Cepphi 75 2. Urinatoridae 75 Alcidte 3. 76 II. LONGIPENNES 84 4. Stercorariidae 84 5. Laridae 86 6. Rynchopidas 96 III. TUBINARES 97 7. DiomecleidcC 97 8. Procellariidae 98 IV. STEGANOPODES 106 9. Phaethontidae 106 10. Sulidae 107 u. Anhingidae loS 12. Phalacrocoracidae 109 13. Pelecanidas 112 14. Fregatidae 113 V. ANSERES 113 15. Anatidae 113 VI. ODONTOGLOSS/E 130 16. Phcenicopteridae 130 VII. HERODIONES 131 a. Ibides 131 17. Plataleidae 131 1 8. Ibididae 131 b. Ciconiae 133 19. Ciconiidse 133 c. Heroclii 134 20. Ardeidas 134 VIII. PALUDICOL^ 138 d. Grues 138 21. Gruidns 138 e. Ralli 139 22. Aramidae 139 23. Rallida? 140 IX. LIMICOL.E 145 24. Phalaropodid.c 145 25. Recurvirostrida- 146 26. Scolopacido? 147 27. Charadriidae I Co 28. Aphrizidae 164 TABLE OF CONTENTS. Vll PAGE 29. Haematopodidae 165 30. Jacanidce 166 X. GALLING 167 f. Phasiani 167 31. Tetraonidae 167 32. Phasianidae 177 g. Penelopes 178 32. Cracidae 178 XI. COLUMB^E 178 34. Columbidas , 178 XII. RAPTORES 182 h. Sarcorhamphi 182 35. Cathartidaa . 182 i. Falcones 184 36. Falconidae 184 j. Striges 197 37. Strigidaa 197 38. Bubonidae 198 XIII. PSITTACI 205 39. Psittacidce 205 XIV. COCCYGES 206 k. Cuculi 206 4$. Cuculidae 206 /. Trogones 208 41. Trogonidce 208 m. Alcyones 209 42. Alcedinidaa 209 XV. PICI 2to 43. Picidae 210 XVII. MACROCHIRES 219 n. Caprimulgi 219 44. Caprimulgidae 219 o. Cypseli 221 45. Micropodidae 221 p. Trochili 223 46. Trochilidae 223 XVIII. PASSERES 228 q. Clamatores 228 47. Tyrannidae 228 r. Oscines 238 48. Alaudidas 238 49. Corvidae 240 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE 50. Sturnidae 247 51. Icteridae 247 52. Fringillidas 254 53. Tanagridag 290 54. Hirundinidae 292 55. Ampelidae 294 56. Laniidae 295 57. VireonidjE 296 58. Coerebidas 300 59. Mniotiltidae 300 60. Motacillidae 319 61. Cinclidae 321 62. Troglodytidae 321 63. Certhiidae ... 330 64. Paridae 331 65. Sylviidas 338 66. Turdidae 341 IV. HYPOTHETICAL LIST 343 V. THE FOSSIL BIRDS OF NORTH AMERICA . 359 INDEX 369 -*.%?; THE CODE OF NOMENCLATURE AND CHECK-LIST OF NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS. i. INTRODUCTION. beginning its work the Committee found it necessary to IN examine particularly those rules, precedents, and practices of nomenclature respecting which leading authorities differ, it becoming immediately obvious that no substantial and satis- factory progress in the preparation of a List of North Ameri- can Birds could be made until various disputed points should be settled. This necessity led to the discussion of the general principles of zoological nomenclature, in their special applica- tion to the in hand and resulted in for- subject ; ultimately the mation of a Code of Rules for the guidance of the Committee in fixing the name of every North American bird. These rules were considered in their bearing upon Zoology at large, as well as alone it upon Ornithology ; being obvious that sound prin- of ciples nomenclature should be susceptible of general applica- tion. Furthermore, 'since in the nature of the case there can be no personal obligation, and no court of appeal with power to enforce its decision, canons of nomenclature should derive their weight wholly from their merit, and should acquire the force of law only by the common consent of zoologists. Since nomen- clature is a means, not an end, of science, the merit of a code of rules for naming objects rests upon its utility, its availability, i 2 CODE OF NOMENCLATURE. and its efficiency in meeting all necessary and reasonable re- quirements of a system of classification, in a word, upon its practical convenience. Fortunately for the interests of science, the tendency of natu- ralists has latterly been toward substantial agreement upon most of the fundamental principles involved in nomenclature, vari- ance of opinion coming mainly in the application of those prin- ciples in minor details. To prepare an acceptable and entirely available code of rules, the compilers of to-day have therefore to <!<> little more than clearly formulate the current usages of the best naturalists, and consistently apply them to any given case. Without undertaking to give in detail the history of zoologi- cal and botanical nomenclature from the Linnaean period to the present day, the Committee deems it proper and needful to advert to certain moot points. While binomial nomenclature may be considered to have originated with Linnaeus, who pro- pounded and established its fundamental principles with admi- rable sagacity, these have in the course of time and to some extent been necessarily modified to meet the requirements of the progress of zoological science, by restriction in some direc- tions and extension in others. So radically, indeed, has the aspect of the science changed since the Linncean period, and so profoundly do modern conceptions in biological science differ from those then held, that a strict binomial system has probably had its day, and may be abandoned, with great benefit to sci- ence, in the not distant future. But, assuming that the binomial nomenclature, with some modification, is still to be retained for a while, in its general features, the whole course of scientific nomenclature has shown that the law of priority Ic.v priorita- tis--\?> the and the uni- one great underlying principle ; nearly to versal tendency is, to hold this principle inviolate, adhere to it with the utmost possible stringency, and to tolerate the fewer infractions as time advances. 1 But there is unfortunately no ' 1 A signal exception to this is found in the just published History of British who I'.irds,' by Mr. Henry Sccbnhm, an ingenious and thoughtful ornithologist, mis the lex prioritatis, substituting therefor an ,ntctoriim pliiri)iu>rum principle, nling to which his method is to use for every bird that specific n.inic which has INTRODUCTION. 3 of the unanimity in fixing the date of the beginning operation divided in of the law of priority, naturalists being nearly evenly The so-called ' Stricklandian Code' opinion upon this point.