The Auk 112(3):633-648, 1995 COMMENTS ON THE STATUS OF REVIVED OLD NAMES FOR SOME NORTH AMERICAN BIRDS RICHARD C. BANKS AND M. RALPH BROWNING NationalBiological Service, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 111, Washington,D.C. 20560, USA AnSTRACT.--Wediscuss 44 instancesof the use of generic, specific,or subspecificnames that differ from those generally in use for North American (sensuAOU 1957) birds. These namesare generally older than the namespresently used and have been revived on the basis of priority. We examine the basisfor the proposedchanges and make recommendationsas to which namesshould properlybe usedin an effort to promotenomenclatural stability in accordancewith the InternationalCode of ZoologicalNomenclature. Received 22 February1994, accepted5 September1994. THEINTERNATIONAL COMMISSION of Zoological su AmericanOrnithologists' Union [AOU] 1957) Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N. 1985) promotesstabil- birds. ity in scientificnames of animals through the We do not discuss the use of old names that use of the InternationalCode of ZoologicalNo- are necessarilyrevived becausea taxon is di- menclature(hereinafter the Code). A primary vided into two or more taxa, unless there is an tenet of the Codeis the principle of priority, additional problem involved. Those situations which statesthat the earliestvalidly proposed are no less important, but require an analysis name for a genus or speciesshould be used, of validity of the basisof the "split," which is although some exceptionsare possible.There beyondthe scopeof this study.We do not dis- are, however, differencesof opinion about the cusschanges necessitated by decisionsof the validity and applicability of some early-pro- International Commissionon Zoological No- posednames. Furthermore, some sources of sci- menclature (hereinafter, the Commission) not- entific nameswere published before or after the ed by and incorporatedby the AOU (1973,1983) generally accepteddate of publication (Brown- unlessthe decisionhas been violated by an au- ing and Monroe 1991), a situation that can alter thor after 1973. Also, we do not discuss name the priorityof namesderived from thosesources. changesabove the level of genus. The discoveryand use of an older name for a For brevity, Opinions of the Commissionare taxon often createsa conflictbetween the prin- cited here only by number and year of publi- ciple of priority and the stability that derives cation. Before December 1959, these appeared from the continueduse of a name that has long in Opinionsand DeclarationsRendered by the In- been establishedand used (seeOlson 1987). The ternationalCommission on Zoological Nomenclature. concurrent use of more than one scientific name From December 1959 to the present they have for a speciesin the literature can be confusing been in the Bulletinof ZoologicalNomenclature. for amateursand for biologistswho do not spe- Both are official publications of the Commis- cialize in nomenclatural matters. sion. Eachproposed change resulting from the re- Names are discussed in the order of the AOU vival of an old name should be evaluated crit- (1983) Check-list.Each sectionis headed by the ically to determine whether the basisis sound revived and current names of the taxon. We set and whether it is likely to lead to nomenclatural forth the basisfor the difference, followed by stability. Although someproposed changes im- our analysis. Finally, we recommend accep- plicitly have been rejected,by being ignored, tanceor rejectionof the proposalwith a citation only a few have receiveda thoroughpublished of what we believe is the properly used name. evaluation.The purposeof this paper is to pro- In someinstances, we alsosuggest that a ruling vide such an evaluation and to make recom- by the Commissionwould be appropriate.Since mendations on which of the alternative names the junior author beganwork on this paper sev- shouldbe usedin instanceswhere changeshave eral yearsago, some of the problemshave been been proposedthat affect North American (sen- resolved in other reports. We mention those 633 634 BANKSAND BROWNING [Auk,Vol. 112 briefly to provide a full record of proposed synonym of Circus.Amadon (1954) gave reasonsfor changesof which we are aware. the continued use of Polyborus,and has been followed (AOU 1983,Sibley and Monroe 1990).However, Banks Podicepscaspicus (Hablitzl, 1783)vs. P. nigricollis(Brehm, and Dove (1992) have shown that the type speciesof 1831).--Oberholser(1974) usedthe specificname cas- Polyborus,Falco brasiliensis of Buffon, is not identifiable picusfor the Eared Grebe (in the genus Proctopus) and that the genericname thereforehas no standing. despitethe fact that it had been suppressedby the Caracara Merrem is the earliest available name for the Commission(Opinion 406, 1956;see AOU 1973). This genus (Hellmayr and Conover 1949) and should be and someother casesof the use of suppressednames used (AOU 1993). by Oberholser(1974) may be becausehis manuscript Falcogyrfalco Linnaeus, 1758 vs. F. rusticolusLin- on the birds of Texas(published posthumously) was naeus,1758.--Portenko (1972:264)used Falco gyrfalco not completelyrevised and updated by the editor. for the Gyrfalcon,a name proposedon a later page The name nigricollisshould be usedfor this grebe. than Falcorusticolus (Linnaeus 1758). Although Por- Sulapiscator (Linnaeus, 1758) vs. S. sula(Linnaeus, tenko gave no reason for his use of that name, he 1766).--Oberholser (1974:86, 970) used the specific apparently followed Dementieff [sic] (1938), De- name piscatorfor the Red-footed Booby, admitting ment'ev and Gladkov (1951), and other Russianwork- that four specieswere confusedin the original de- ers. Most others have followed the AOU (1910) and scription and that the name had been rejected by Harteft (1915);the latter showedclearly that the two earlier authors (e.g. Peters 1931) as indeterminable. names apply to the same speciesand that rusticolus, Oberholser'sdiscussion suggests that he had reser- althoughprovided a meagerdescription, has priority. vations about the use of piscatorand that he was fish- More recently,Hudec and Cerny (1977)used rusticolus ing for a justificationfor that name. We recommend relative to the Russian birds. We recommend the con- the continued use of Sula sulafor this species. tinued use of Falcorusticolus for the Gyrfalcon. Phalacrocoraxbrasilianus (Gmelin, 1789) vs. P. oliva- Catoptrophorussemipalmatus speculiferus (Cuvier, 1829) ceus(Humboldt, 1805).-- Browning (1989a) has shown vs. C. s. inornatus(Brewster, 1887).--Phillips (1962b) that Phalacrocoraxbrasilianus (Gmelin, 1789) properly notedthat Totanusspeculiferus Cuvier may be an early appliesto the Neotropic(formerly Olivaceous)Cor- name for the westernpopulation of Willet, and sug- morant, and this decisionhas been acceptedby Sibley gestedthat it be usedrather than inornatus.The matter and Monroe (1990) and the AOU (1991). had been discussedby Hellmayr and Conover (1948b: Plegadismexicana (Gmelin, 1789)vs. P. chihi(Vieillot, 129), who quoted Berlioz's report that the type of 1817).--Oberholser (1974:971) used mexicanaas the speculiferushad the colorof nominatesemipalmatus but specificname for the White-faced Ibis, citing what the proportions,especially the long slender bill, of seemsto be a decisionby Hellmayrand Conover(1942: inornatus.They believedthat a changein nomencla- 301). However, Hellmayr and Conover did not dis- ture, from the long-usedinornatus to speculiferuswas cussthe matter in the referencecited. Hellmayr and inadvisable--presumablybecause the identity of the Conover (1948a:266) used the name chihion the basis type, from an unknown locality, was not definite. that "Tantalus mexicanus Gmelin seems to be uniden- Phillips (1962b)rejected that conclusionbecause he tiffableas to species."We recommendthe continued believed that the color difference was seasonal. We use of chihi for the White-faced Ibis. recommendthat speculiferusbe consideredunidenti- Brantacanadensis major (Rea, 1888) vs. B.c. interior fiable and that inornatus be used for the sake of sta- Todd, 1938.--Oberholser (1974:971) used the name bility. majorfor the populationsof CanadaGoose generally CapellaFrenzel, 1801 vs. GallinagoBrisson, 1760.- known by the subspecificname interior.Rea (1888) The genericname Capella was used (AOU 1931,1957) comparedthe geesefrom two areas,as indicated by for the Common Snipe (gallinago),even though the Oberholser(1974), one at MooseFactory, at the south- Commissionhad declaredGallinago a nomenconser- ern tip of JamesBay, and one farther east, at Rupert vandum(Opinion 67, 1916)and placedCapella on the River and the eastcoast of Hudson Bay. These pop- OfficialIndex of Rejectedand Invalid GenericNames ulations otherwise have not been considered distinct (Direction 39, 1956; see Mayr 1963). However, some (e.g. AOU 1957). Rea used the term "major" only in authors (see Wetmore 1958, Tuck 1972) questioned an apparentlydescriptive sense, as follows: "This An- usingGallinago on the basisthat it had not been pro- serCanadensis (Major?) instead of beingfound feeding posedas a genericname, and rejectedthe decisionof .... "We do not agreewith Oberholserthat this con- the Commission.Todd (1963) and Oberholser (1974) stitutesthe proposalof a name. We believe that "ma- also used Capella(but see Podiceps,above). Most au- jor" has no nomenclaturalstanding, and recommend thors now (AOU 1983, Sibley and Monroe 1990) use the continued use of interior. Gallinago,and we recommendcontinued use of that CaracaraMerrem, 1826vs. PolyborusVieillot, 1816.-- name in compliancewith