The Code of Nomenclature and Check-List of North American Birds

THE CODE OF NOMENCLATURE AND CHECK-LIST OF North American Birds Adopted by the American Ornitliologists' Union BEING THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE UNION ON CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE V Zoological Nomenclature is a means, not an end, of Zoological Science NEW YORK AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION 1886 Copyright, 1885, By American Ornithologists' Union. a John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. PREFACE. AT the first Congress of the American Ornithologists' Union7~helH^m New York, —September 26-29, 1883, the following resolution was adopted : of five, ^'- Resolved^ That the Chairman appoint a Committee including himself, to whom shall be referred the question of a Re- vision of the Classification and Nomenclature of the Birds of North America." In pursuance of this resolution the following Committee was appointed : Messrs. Coues, Allen, Ridgway, Brewster, and Hen- shaw. The Committee, having held numerous 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 accepted and adopted, and that it be recommitted to the Committee, with instructions to complete and submit it to the Council as soon as practicable ; and that the Council be empowered and instructed to 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 2 1 St of April, 1885, when the RejDort 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 BREWSTER. H. W. HENSHAW. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE I. INTRODUCTION i II. PRINCIPLES, CANONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . i8 A. General Principles i8 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 11. Of the Authority for Names 56 C. Recommendations for Zoological Nomenclature in THE Future 38 § 12. Of the Construction and Selection of Names .... 58 13. Of the Transliteration of Names 65 14. Of the Description of Zoological Objects d'j 15. Of the Bibliography of Names (>"] 16. 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 3. Alcidae 'j^ II. LONGIPENNES 84 4. Stercorariidae 84 5. Laridae %^ 6. Rynchopidae 96 III. TUBINARES 97 7. Diomedeidas 97 8. Procellariidse 98 IV. Steganopodes 106 9. Phaethontidse 106 10. Sulidae 107 11. Anhingidce 108 12. PhalacrocoracidiE . 109 13. Pelecanidas . 112 14. Fregatidae 113 V. Anseres 113 15. Anatidae ....'.. 113 VI. Odontogloss^ 130 16. Phoenicopteridas 130 VII. Herodiones 131 a. Ibides 131 17. Plataleid^e 131 18. Ibididae 131 b. Ciconias 133 19. Ciconiidae 133 c. Herodii 134 20. Ardeidae 134 VIII. Paludicol^ 138 d. Grues 138 21. Gruidae 138 e. Ralli • • • i39 22. Aramidas 139 23. Rallidae 140 IX. LIMICOL^ 145 24. Phalaropodid::e 145 25. Recurvirostridas 146 26. Scolopacidas . .- 147 160 27. Charadriidae , 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. Cracidse 178 XI. CoLUMB^ 178 34. Columbidae 178 XII. Raptores 182 h. Sarcorhamphi 182 35. Cathartidae 182 i. Falcones 184 36. Falconidae 184 / Striges 197 37. Strigidae 197 38. Bubonidae 198 XIII. PsiTTACi 205 39. Psittacidae 205 XIV. Coccyges 206 k. Cuculi 206 46. Cuculidce 206 */. Trogones 208 41. Trogonid^ 208 m. Alcyones 209 42. Alcedinidce 209 XV. Pici 210 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. Tyrannidas 228 r. Oscines 238 48. Alaudidae 238 49. Corvidae 240 VIU TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE 50. Sturnidae . 247 51. Icterid^ 247 52. Fringillidae 254 53. Tanagridae 290 54. Hirundinidae 292 55. Ampelidae 294 56. Laniidae . 295 57. Vireonidae 296 ^S. Coerebidae 300 59. Mniotiltidae 300 60. Motacillidae 319 61. Cinclidaa 321 62. Troglodytidae " 321 63. Certhiidae ... 330 64. Paridae 331 65. Sylviidae 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. INTRODUCTION. IN beginning its work the Committee found it necessary to 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 application to the subject in hand ; and ultimately resulted in the for- 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 upon Ornithology alone ; it being obvious that sound principles of nomenclature should be susceptible of general application. 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 nomenclature is a means, not an end, of science, the merit of a code of rules for naming objects rests upon its utility, its availability, 2 CODE OF NOMENCLATURE. and its efficiency in meeting all necessary and reasonable requirements of a system of classification, — in a word, upon its practical convenience. Fortunately for the interests of science, the tendency of naturalists 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 principles in minor details. To prepare an acceptable and entirely available code of rules, the compilers of to-day have therefore to do 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 zoological and botanical nomenclature from the Linnsean 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 Linnaean 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 science, 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 — lex prioritatis — is the one great underlying principle ; and the nearly uni- versal tendency is, to hold this principle inviolate, to adhere to it with the utmost possible stringency, and to tolerate the fewer infractions as time advances.^ But there is unfortunately no 1 A signal exception to this is found in the just published * History of British Birds,' by Mr. Henry Seebohm, — an ingenious and thoughtful ornithologist,— who discards the lex prioritatis, substituting therefor an auctorum phtrimoriun principle, according to which his method is to use for every bird that specific name which has — INTRODUCTION. 3 unanimity in fixing the date of the beginning of the operation of the law of priority, naturalists being nearly evenly divided in opinion upon this point. The so-called ' Stricklandian Code' of fixed the date at 1766/ — that of the twelfth edition the 'Systema Naturse.' This has been generally accepted by Brit- while many others, especially in America and of ish zoologists ; late years, consider 1758 as the fittest starting-point, this being the date of the tenth edition of the * Systema Naturae,' in which Linnseus first methodically and consistently applied the binomial nomenclature to zoology.

Load more