Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812

Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 102-106 SHORTCOMMUNICATION June 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 1,3 2 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Seção de Aves, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, Avenida Nazaré 481, CEP 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil & Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos. Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos, Rua Bambina 50, apto. 104, CEP 22251-050, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Corresponding author. E-mail: vitor.piacentini@gmail.com Received on 21 October 2013. Accepted on 16 March 2014. ABSTRACT: A recent paper discussed the priority of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 over Ornismya aureoventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838, for the Glittering-bellied Emerald and the reasons why the senior name cannot be considered a nomen oblitum according to the rules of zoological nomenclature. However, all details concerning the application of the name have not been fully addressed, raising concerns among several ornithologists on the application of Shaw’s name. Here we discuss in detail why the name Trochilus lucidus must be applied to the Glittering-bellied Emerald. All morphological characters of Azara’s “El Más Bello” hummingbird (upon which the name lucidus was based) agree perfectly with the Glittering-bellied Emerald, reinforcing its status as the valid, senior available name to that species. This conclusion has been historically accepted by almost all ornithologists who have studied the case. KEYWORDS: Chlorostilbon aureoventris, Chlorostilbon lucidus, Glittering-bellied Emerald, nomenclature, priority. INTRODUCTION (Azara 1809), the same species appeared with the name “le plus beau des bec-fleurs” and the naturalist Sonnini In a recent paper, Pacheco & Whitney (2006) argued that de Manoncourt, responsible for the translation, made the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812, is a senior synonym the first attempt to associate the description of that of Ornismya aureoventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838, hummingbird with the Linnean nomenclature: in a footnote, he subordinated it to Trochilus bicolor “Linn”, and should therefore be applied to the Glittering-bellied Emerald, which would become Chlorostilbon lucidus which is clearly incorrect, since the latter name applies according to current taxonomy and systematics of the to a species from the Caribbean (presently Cyanophaia hummingbirds. However, some colleagues reasoned bicolor) and the “Más Bello” of Azara is from Paraguay. that, even though the priority of Shaw’s name was made Shaw (1812), without reference to any specimen, described Trochilus lucidus [“Brilliant Humming-bird”] clear, the paper by Pacheco & Whitney has not defended why the name T. lucidus should apply to the Glittering- based exclusively on the “le plus beau des bec-fleurs” of bellied Emerald. Aiming to fill this gap, here we provide Azara. A few years later, Vieillot (1817) named Trochilus a rationale for the application of Shaw’s name to the splendidus [“Oiseau-mouche Éclatant”] based exclusively Glittering-bellied Emerald. on “El Más Bello” of Azara. Azara’s (1805:487-488) description is as follows: Origin and identity of Azara’s and Shaw’s names (…) Núm. CCXCIII Using the name “El Más Bello” (description n. 293), Félix EL MAS BELLO de Azara (1805) described one of the 11 hummingbirds Longitud 3 1/2 pulgadas : braza 4 1/2 : cola 13 1/2 lineas : pico 7 2/3, recto y encarnado, con la punta dealt with in his work on the birds of Paraguay and La Plata river. Four years later, in the French edition negra. De él á la cola, cobijas y vientre, como en todos, Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco pero mas brillantes. Toda la garganta y la cola azules He then compares his bird with Buffon’s “Saphir fuertes y constantes, y lo inferior y costados del cuerpo emeraude” (from Guadalupe and Cayena), even como el lomo, aunque con mas brillo ; de manera que mentioning the emerald green color with golden shine dichos costados en oposicion brillan lo que no puede in the neck, back, breast, and belly of Buffon’s bird, and explicarse. Baxo del cuerpo es lo proprio, con ménos ends with: “Le parece que son variedad un de otro, ó á lo brillo, sucediendo lo mismo a los timoneles inferiores. ménos especies muy próximas. Esta descripcion solo difiere de Tras del ojo hay un punto blanco, que no se vé sino la mia en que niega el seno á la cola” [“It seems they are estando muy abierto; y la pluma del oido no es larga varieties of each other, or at least very close species. This como en el precedente. Remos 16, sin salto, y la cola con description differs from mine only in denying the forked el mismo seno que la del anterior. tail”]. (Translation: Length 3 1/2 inches : arm [meaning So, all the above said, one must think of a wing] 4 1/2 : tail 13 1/2 lines : bill 7 2/3, straight and hummingbird species occurring in Paraguay that fits the red, with black tip. From it [the bill] to the tail, coverts description of a very brilliant bird, with a golden shining and belly, as in all [other hummingbirds], but shiner. The green color, red bill with black tip, deep blue forked tail, whole throat and the tail strong and constant blue, and the and white spot behind the eye. We see no other option than underside and the flanks as the back, though with stronger Glittering-bellied Emerald, “C. aureoventris”. Depending shine; in a way that makes the flanks in opposition shine on the point of view, the only inaccuracy would be the like one cannot explain. Down on the body it is the same, “constant blue throat”. However, “C. aureoventris” almost with less gloss, the same occurring to the underwing always shines blue in the throat (Figure 1), and that may coverts. Behind the eye there is a white spot, not seen be the cause of this minor “inaccuracy” of a work from unless it is wide open; and the auricular feathers are not 1805. Not surprisingly, several field guides and books long as in the previous [species]. Remiges 16, without a indeed illustrate that species with a blue throat (e.g. break, and the tail forked like the previous [species].) Schuchmann 1999; Sigrist 2006; van Perlo 2009). FIGURE 1. Adult male Glittering-bellied Emerald (Chlorostilbon lucidus) photographed in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. All characters originally described by Azara for his “El Más Bello” can be seen in this bird: straight, red bill with a black tip; shinning golden-green overall plumage; blue throat; white spot behind the eye; and dark blue, forked tail (photo by Sergio Gregorio). Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Nomenclatural history of Azara’s and Shaw’s names ceniciento-obscuro debaxo” Azara’s, auf dem Vieillot’s T. cinereus beruht, das  einer Chlorostilbon-Art ist. th th During the 19 and beginning of 20 Centuries, Der Ausdruck Azara’s “Toda la gargante y la cola most authors associated Azara’s “el más belo” with the azules fuertes y constantes”, der sich wortgetreu bei Glittering-bellied Emerald, although Shaw’s name T. Shaw und Vieillot übersetzt findet, verbietet, diese lucidus was overlooked in favor of its junior objective Beschreibung auf einen Chlorostilbon mit leichtem synonym, T. splendidus Vieillot. The associations were hellblauen Schimmer an der Kehle, also auch nicht given as follows: auf C. aureoventris, anzuwenden. T. lucidus G. 1) Elliot (1875) implemented the combination Shaw kann auch nicht als Synonym zu Hylocharis Chlorostilbon splendidus, and justified his choice: leucotis gezogen werden. Übrigens würde, wenn dies “In 1817 Vieillot described the Masbello of Azara, thunlich ware, in beiden Fällen Shaw’s T. lucidus from Paraguay, as Trochilus splendidus; and his die Priorität haben. T. cyanurus Vieill. dürfte auf description and the locality of the specimens leave einem jüngeren Vogel beruhen, der immerhin zu no doubt that the bird afterwards named phaethon by Chlorostilbon aureoventris oder einer andern Art Bourcier is intended. Vieillot says << le bec incarnat, gehören könnte. et à pointe noire >> and that all the plumage, with [Which we translated as: It is possible that all the exception of the throat, the front of the neck, the synonyms above refer to one and the same form, and that tail, and a white spot on the belly, is a shining golden Azara’s “Picaflor ceniciento-obscuro debajo”, on which is green. I know of no other species of Humming- based Vieillot’s T. cinereus, is the female of a Chlorostilbon bird from the locality given by Vieillot which could species. Azara’s expression “Toda la gargante y la cola azules possibly answer to his description; and I see no fuertes y constantes”, which is found translated verbatim reason whatever that should cause ornithologists to in Shaw and Vieillot, precludes the application of this hesitate in accepting his name as having prior claim description to a Chlorostilbon with a slight blue tinge to to the bird afterwards named phaethon by Bourcier.” the throat, and thus do not apply to C. aureoventris either. 2) In an appendix made specially to correlate the T. lucidus Shaw cannot be also taken as a synonym of identities of the birds described by Azara, Berlepsch Hylocharis leucotis. By the way, were that possible, in both (1887) considered the descriptions 292 (Picaflor cola cases Shaw’s T. lucidus would have priority. T. cyanurus azul com seno), 293 (Pica flor mas bello), and 294 (Pica Vieill. might be based on a younger bird that could belong, flor ceniciento-obscuro debaxo) of the former author as after all, to Chlorostilbon aureoventris or another species.] referring to Chlorostilbon splendidus. This was a key work: after Hartert (1900), several 3) Salvin (1892; miscited as “Hartert 1892” in authors opted to abandon the names lucidus and Pacheco & Whitney 2006) lists the humminbirds/ splendidus in favor of aureoventris. Awkwardly, in many picaflores “más bello” and “cienicento obscuro debaxo” of cases the name aureoventris was incorrectly given priority Azara among the older names of Chlorostilbon splendidus. even when the “Más Bello” and/or the name lucidus were [Surprisingly, Salvin did not realize that lucidus was based positively identified as the Glittering-bellied Emerald. on Azara as well and applied it to Hylocharis leucotis, a For instance: species from Central and North America, thus repeating 1) Laubmann (1939) correlated Azara’s descriptions Sonnini’s mistake.] 292, 293, and 294 to Chlorostilbon aureoventris 4) Bertoni (1901) also took descriptions 292, 293, aureoventris (Lafr. & d´Orb.). and 294 from Azara as Chlorostilbon splendidus. 2) Short (1975), Narosky & Izurieta (1987), At the same time, Hartert (1900) published a work Contreras (1987), La Peña (1988), among others, in which he dealt with the application of Shaw’s and considered lucidus and aureoventris as (apparently) distinct Vieillot’s names (“Species dubiae”; Hartert 1900:227): but conspecific, however presented the combination T. lucidus G. Shaw 1805 ,,Picaflor mas bello” + ,,P. C. aureoventris lucidus instead of the correct C. lucidus ceniciento–obscuro debaxo”? + ,,P. cola azul con seno”, aureoventris. Azara, Apunt. Paxaros, v. 2 p. 487, 489 | 1811 Most recently, Mallet-Rodrigues (2005) argued that Trochilus lucidus, G. Shaw, Gen. Zool., v.81 p. 327 | the name lucidus could not be applied to the Glittering- 1817 T. cinereus (non Gmelin 1788) + T. splendidus? bellied Emerald because that species does not have a + T. cyanurus (non Gmelin 1788), Vieillot in: blue throat as described by Azara and Shaw, but rather a Nouv. Dict., ed. 2 v.7 p. 359, 361, 369 | 1822 T. “golden-green throat with “slight blue tone” (ligeiro tom cinereicollis, Vieillot in: Tabl. enc. méth., Orn. v.2 azulado). In his view, the name Trochilus lucidus should be p. 562. treated as a nomen dubium, even though he acknowledges Es ist möglich, dass sich alle obigen Synonyme auf ein that its application to the Glittering-bellied Emerald und dieselbe Form beziehen, und dass der “Picaflor cannot be disregarded. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco DISCUSSION Sérgio Borges, Marcos Raposo and Catherine Bechtoldt made useful comments and suggestions that improved As we stated before, we see no reason to follow Hartert’s our text. We further thank Sergio Gregorio for the opinion on the identity of Azara’s hummingbirds. Quite splendid photograph, and Edward Dickinson for fruitful to the contrary, we agree with Elliot, Berlepsch, Salvin, discussions. Bertoni, Laubmann and others that Azara’s “Más Bello” is perfectly identifiable so that the name Trochilus lucidus REFERENCES: Shaw applies to the Glittering-Bellied Humminbird and has clear priority over Ornismya aureoventris D´Orbigny Azara, F. 1805. Apuntamientos para la historia natural de los páxaros & Lafresnaye, 1838. del Paraguay y Río de la Plata. Madrid: Imprenta de la Viuda Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Sibley & Monroe de Barra. (1990), and Schuchmann (1999) all recognize that the Azara, F. 1809. Voyages dans l´Amérique Méridionale, vol. 3. Oiseaux. name Trochilus lucidus may be the valid one, but suggest Paris: Dentu. Berlepsch, H. 1887. Systematisches Verzeichniss der von Herrn it should be considered a nomem oblitum. Pacheco & Ricardo Rohde in Paraguay gesammelten Vögel. Journal für Whitney (2006) showed that this is not possible under Ornithologie., 35: 1-37, 113-134. the rules of the ICZN (2009): a reversal of precedence Bertoni, A. de W. 1901. Aves nuevas del Paraguay. Continuacion á (Art. 23.9) cannot be taken because the oldest available Azara. Asunción: H. Kraus. Contreras, J. R. 1987. Acerca de la biología reproductiva del picaflor name (lucidus) was used as valid after 1899. Actually, a verde común, Chlorostilbon aureoventris lucidus (Shaw, 1811) quick search showed that the name lucidus was used in (Aves, Trochilidae). Historia Natural, 7: 31-32. at least 32 different works involving 33 authors (besides Cuello, J. 1985. Lista de referencia y bibliografía de las aves uruguayas. anonymous and institutional authorships) between 1945 Montevideo: Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo. and 1998, among them many publications of national Cuello, J. & Gerzenstein, E. 1962. Las aves del Uruguay: lista sistemática, distribución y notas. Montevideo: Museo de Historia scope, such as: Steullet & Deautier (1945), Cuello & Natural de Montevideo. Gerzenstein (1962), Olrog (1963), Olrog (1979), and D’Orbigny, A. & Lafresnaye, A. 1838. Synopsis Avium II. Magasin Cuello (1985). Further, this widespread use of lucidus de Zoologie, 8: 6-34. demonstrates that there is no “threatened stability” that Elliot, D. G. 1875. Notes on the Trochilidae. The Genera Chlorostilbon and Panychlora. Ibis, 17: 236-250. would require a protective ruling by the International Guyra Paraguay. 2004. Lista comentada de las aves de Paraguay. Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 23.9.3). Annotated checklist of the birds of Paraguay. Asunción: Asociación Lastly, we would like to stress that the application Guyra Paraguay. of the name Trochilus lucidus to the Glittering-bellied Hartert, E. 1900. Das Tierreich. 9. Trochilidae. R. Berlin: Friedländer. Emerald should not be taken merely because of the near Hayes, F. E. 1995. Status, distribution and biogeography of the birds of Paraguay. Colorado Springs: American Birding Association. consensus among ornithologists who have studied the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). case. Quite the opposite, the near consensual opinion 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th ed. The among ornithologists is the result of a straightforward International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London: The identity of Azara’s hummingbird. Denying that the “Más Natural History Museum. La Peña, M. R. de 1988. Guía de aves argentinas, tomo IV. Bello” refers to the Glittering-bellied Emerald means one Columbiformes a Piciformes. Buenos Aires: L.O.L.A. believes that Azara described a [Chlorostilbon or Amazilia] Laubmann, A. 1939. Die vögel von Paraguay, 2 vols. Stuttgart: species now extinct in Paraguay, while missing the most Strecker und Schröder. common hummingbird in that country (cf. Hayes 1995; Mallet-Rodrigues, F. 2005. O beija-flor de Azara e seus enigmáticos Guyra Paraguay 2004). In our review of the evidence, this derivados. Atualidades Ornitológicas, 123: 3-4. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America hypothesis lacks any support. and their distribution. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences Overall, our detailed analysis provides additional of Philadelphia. evidence for Pacheco & Whitney’s (2006) conclusions Narosky, T. & Yzurieta, D. 1987. Guia para la identificacion de las and we support the application of the name Trochilus aves de Argentina y Uruguay. Buenos Aires: Vasquez Mazzini. lucidus to the Glittering-bellied Emerald. Olrog, C. 1963. Lista y distribución de las aves argentinas. Tucumán: Instituto Miguel Lillo. Olrog, C. 1979. Nueva lista de la avifauna Argentina. Tucuman: Fundacion Miguel Lillo. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Pacheco, J. F. & Whitney, B. M. 2006. Mandatory changes to the scientific names of three Neotropical birds. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, 126: 242-244. We dedicate this paper to our dear friend Juan Mazar Salvin, O. 1892. Catalogue of birds in the British Museum, vol. 16. Barnett (in memoriam). Juan showed strong interest in London: British Museum of Natural History. the case and provided us with many references from Schuchmann, K. L. 1999. Family Trochilidae (Hummingbirds). In: Argentina that made use of the name C. lucidus. His Del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J. (eds.) Handbook of the good will to help colleagues truly marked our friendship. Birds of the World, vol. 5. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Shaw, G. 1812. General zoology, or Systematic natural history, vol. 8. las aves de la Republica Argentina, pt. 4. Buenos Aires: Obra del London: G. Kearsley. Cincuentenario del Museo de la Plata. Short, L. L. 1975. A zoogeography analysis of the South American van Perlo, B. 2009. A Field Guide to the Birds of Brazil. New York: Chaco avifauna. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural Oxford University Press. History, 154: 164-352. Vieillot, L. J. P. 1817. Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, vol. 7. Sibley, C. G. & Monroe Jr., B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of Paris: Detterville. birds of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sigrist, T. 2006. Aves do Brasil: uma visão artística. São Paulo: Fosfertil. Steullet, A. B. & Deautier, E. A. 1945. Catalogo sistematico de Associate Editor: Luciano N. Naka Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Ornithology Research Springer Journals

Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/further-comments-on-the-application-of-the-name-trochilus-lucidus-shaw-ptb9IMNg8v
Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Sociedade Brasileira de Ornitologia 2014
eISSN
2178-7875
DOI
10.1007/bf03544239
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 102-106 SHORTCOMMUNICATION June 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 1,3 2 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Seção de Aves, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo, Avenida Nazaré 481, CEP 04263-000, São Paulo, SP, Brazil & Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos. Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos, Rua Bambina 50, apto. 104, CEP 22251-050, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Corresponding author. E-mail: vitor.piacentini@gmail.com Received on 21 October 2013. Accepted on 16 March 2014. ABSTRACT: A recent paper discussed the priority of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 over Ornismya aureoventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838, for the Glittering-bellied Emerald and the reasons why the senior name cannot be considered a nomen oblitum according to the rules of zoological nomenclature. However, all details concerning the application of the name have not been fully addressed, raising concerns among several ornithologists on the application of Shaw’s name. Here we discuss in detail why the name Trochilus lucidus must be applied to the Glittering-bellied Emerald. All morphological characters of Azara’s “El Más Bello” hummingbird (upon which the name lucidus was based) agree perfectly with the Glittering-bellied Emerald, reinforcing its status as the valid, senior available name to that species. This conclusion has been historically accepted by almost all ornithologists who have studied the case. KEYWORDS: Chlorostilbon aureoventris, Chlorostilbon lucidus, Glittering-bellied Emerald, nomenclature, priority. INTRODUCTION (Azara 1809), the same species appeared with the name “le plus beau des bec-fleurs” and the naturalist Sonnini In a recent paper, Pacheco & Whitney (2006) argued that de Manoncourt, responsible for the translation, made the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812, is a senior synonym the first attempt to associate the description of that of Ornismya aureoventris d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1838, hummingbird with the Linnean nomenclature: in a footnote, he subordinated it to Trochilus bicolor “Linn”, and should therefore be applied to the Glittering-bellied Emerald, which would become Chlorostilbon lucidus which is clearly incorrect, since the latter name applies according to current taxonomy and systematics of the to a species from the Caribbean (presently Cyanophaia hummingbirds. However, some colleagues reasoned bicolor) and the “Más Bello” of Azara is from Paraguay. that, even though the priority of Shaw’s name was made Shaw (1812), without reference to any specimen, described Trochilus lucidus [“Brilliant Humming-bird”] clear, the paper by Pacheco & Whitney has not defended why the name T. lucidus should apply to the Glittering- based exclusively on the “le plus beau des bec-fleurs” of bellied Emerald. Aiming to fill this gap, here we provide Azara. A few years later, Vieillot (1817) named Trochilus a rationale for the application of Shaw’s name to the splendidus [“Oiseau-mouche Éclatant”] based exclusively Glittering-bellied Emerald. on “El Más Bello” of Azara. Azara’s (1805:487-488) description is as follows: Origin and identity of Azara’s and Shaw’s names (…) Núm. CCXCIII Using the name “El Más Bello” (description n. 293), Félix EL MAS BELLO de Azara (1805) described one of the 11 hummingbirds Longitud 3 1/2 pulgadas : braza 4 1/2 : cola 13 1/2 lineas : pico 7 2/3, recto y encarnado, con la punta dealt with in his work on the birds of Paraguay and La Plata river. Four years later, in the French edition negra. De él á la cola, cobijas y vientre, como en todos, Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco pero mas brillantes. Toda la garganta y la cola azules He then compares his bird with Buffon’s “Saphir fuertes y constantes, y lo inferior y costados del cuerpo emeraude” (from Guadalupe and Cayena), even como el lomo, aunque con mas brillo ; de manera que mentioning the emerald green color with golden shine dichos costados en oposicion brillan lo que no puede in the neck, back, breast, and belly of Buffon’s bird, and explicarse. Baxo del cuerpo es lo proprio, con ménos ends with: “Le parece que son variedad un de otro, ó á lo brillo, sucediendo lo mismo a los timoneles inferiores. ménos especies muy próximas. Esta descripcion solo difiere de Tras del ojo hay un punto blanco, que no se vé sino la mia en que niega el seno á la cola” [“It seems they are estando muy abierto; y la pluma del oido no es larga varieties of each other, or at least very close species. This como en el precedente. Remos 16, sin salto, y la cola con description differs from mine only in denying the forked el mismo seno que la del anterior. tail”]. (Translation: Length 3 1/2 inches : arm [meaning So, all the above said, one must think of a wing] 4 1/2 : tail 13 1/2 lines : bill 7 2/3, straight and hummingbird species occurring in Paraguay that fits the red, with black tip. From it [the bill] to the tail, coverts description of a very brilliant bird, with a golden shining and belly, as in all [other hummingbirds], but shiner. The green color, red bill with black tip, deep blue forked tail, whole throat and the tail strong and constant blue, and the and white spot behind the eye. We see no other option than underside and the flanks as the back, though with stronger Glittering-bellied Emerald, “C. aureoventris”. Depending shine; in a way that makes the flanks in opposition shine on the point of view, the only inaccuracy would be the like one cannot explain. Down on the body it is the same, “constant blue throat”. However, “C. aureoventris” almost with less gloss, the same occurring to the underwing always shines blue in the throat (Figure 1), and that may coverts. Behind the eye there is a white spot, not seen be the cause of this minor “inaccuracy” of a work from unless it is wide open; and the auricular feathers are not 1805. Not surprisingly, several field guides and books long as in the previous [species]. Remiges 16, without a indeed illustrate that species with a blue throat (e.g. break, and the tail forked like the previous [species].) Schuchmann 1999; Sigrist 2006; van Perlo 2009). FIGURE 1. Adult male Glittering-bellied Emerald (Chlorostilbon lucidus) photographed in Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. All characters originally described by Azara for his “El Más Bello” can be seen in this bird: straight, red bill with a black tip; shinning golden-green overall plumage; blue throat; white spot behind the eye; and dark blue, forked tail (photo by Sergio Gregorio). Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Nomenclatural history of Azara’s and Shaw’s names ceniciento-obscuro debaxo” Azara’s, auf dem Vieillot’s T. cinereus beruht, das  einer Chlorostilbon-Art ist. th th During the 19 and beginning of 20 Centuries, Der Ausdruck Azara’s “Toda la gargante y la cola most authors associated Azara’s “el más belo” with the azules fuertes y constantes”, der sich wortgetreu bei Glittering-bellied Emerald, although Shaw’s name T. Shaw und Vieillot übersetzt findet, verbietet, diese lucidus was overlooked in favor of its junior objective Beschreibung auf einen Chlorostilbon mit leichtem synonym, T. splendidus Vieillot. The associations were hellblauen Schimmer an der Kehle, also auch nicht given as follows: auf C. aureoventris, anzuwenden. T. lucidus G. 1) Elliot (1875) implemented the combination Shaw kann auch nicht als Synonym zu Hylocharis Chlorostilbon splendidus, and justified his choice: leucotis gezogen werden. Übrigens würde, wenn dies “In 1817 Vieillot described the Masbello of Azara, thunlich ware, in beiden Fällen Shaw’s T. lucidus from Paraguay, as Trochilus splendidus; and his die Priorität haben. T. cyanurus Vieill. dürfte auf description and the locality of the specimens leave einem jüngeren Vogel beruhen, der immerhin zu no doubt that the bird afterwards named phaethon by Chlorostilbon aureoventris oder einer andern Art Bourcier is intended. Vieillot says << le bec incarnat, gehören könnte. et à pointe noire >> and that all the plumage, with [Which we translated as: It is possible that all the exception of the throat, the front of the neck, the synonyms above refer to one and the same form, and that tail, and a white spot on the belly, is a shining golden Azara’s “Picaflor ceniciento-obscuro debajo”, on which is green. I know of no other species of Humming- based Vieillot’s T. cinereus, is the female of a Chlorostilbon bird from the locality given by Vieillot which could species. Azara’s expression “Toda la gargante y la cola azules possibly answer to his description; and I see no fuertes y constantes”, which is found translated verbatim reason whatever that should cause ornithologists to in Shaw and Vieillot, precludes the application of this hesitate in accepting his name as having prior claim description to a Chlorostilbon with a slight blue tinge to to the bird afterwards named phaethon by Bourcier.” the throat, and thus do not apply to C. aureoventris either. 2) In an appendix made specially to correlate the T. lucidus Shaw cannot be also taken as a synonym of identities of the birds described by Azara, Berlepsch Hylocharis leucotis. By the way, were that possible, in both (1887) considered the descriptions 292 (Picaflor cola cases Shaw’s T. lucidus would have priority. T. cyanurus azul com seno), 293 (Pica flor mas bello), and 294 (Pica Vieill. might be based on a younger bird that could belong, flor ceniciento-obscuro debaxo) of the former author as after all, to Chlorostilbon aureoventris or another species.] referring to Chlorostilbon splendidus. This was a key work: after Hartert (1900), several 3) Salvin (1892; miscited as “Hartert 1892” in authors opted to abandon the names lucidus and Pacheco & Whitney 2006) lists the humminbirds/ splendidus in favor of aureoventris. Awkwardly, in many picaflores “más bello” and “cienicento obscuro debaxo” of cases the name aureoventris was incorrectly given priority Azara among the older names of Chlorostilbon splendidus. even when the “Más Bello” and/or the name lucidus were [Surprisingly, Salvin did not realize that lucidus was based positively identified as the Glittering-bellied Emerald. on Azara as well and applied it to Hylocharis leucotis, a For instance: species from Central and North America, thus repeating 1) Laubmann (1939) correlated Azara’s descriptions Sonnini’s mistake.] 292, 293, and 294 to Chlorostilbon aureoventris 4) Bertoni (1901) also took descriptions 292, 293, aureoventris (Lafr. & d´Orb.). and 294 from Azara as Chlorostilbon splendidus. 2) Short (1975), Narosky & Izurieta (1987), At the same time, Hartert (1900) published a work Contreras (1987), La Peña (1988), among others, in which he dealt with the application of Shaw’s and considered lucidus and aureoventris as (apparently) distinct Vieillot’s names (“Species dubiae”; Hartert 1900:227): but conspecific, however presented the combination T. lucidus G. Shaw 1805 ,,Picaflor mas bello” + ,,P. C. aureoventris lucidus instead of the correct C. lucidus ceniciento–obscuro debaxo”? + ,,P. cola azul con seno”, aureoventris. Azara, Apunt. Paxaros, v. 2 p. 487, 489 | 1811 Most recently, Mallet-Rodrigues (2005) argued that Trochilus lucidus, G. Shaw, Gen. Zool., v.81 p. 327 | the name lucidus could not be applied to the Glittering- 1817 T. cinereus (non Gmelin 1788) + T. splendidus? bellied Emerald because that species does not have a + T. cyanurus (non Gmelin 1788), Vieillot in: blue throat as described by Azara and Shaw, but rather a Nouv. Dict., ed. 2 v.7 p. 359, 361, 369 | 1822 T. “golden-green throat with “slight blue tone” (ligeiro tom cinereicollis, Vieillot in: Tabl. enc. méth., Orn. v.2 azulado). In his view, the name Trochilus lucidus should be p. 562. treated as a nomen dubium, even though he acknowledges Es ist möglich, dass sich alle obigen Synonyme auf ein that its application to the Glittering-bellied Emerald und dieselbe Form beziehen, und dass der “Picaflor cannot be disregarded. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco DISCUSSION Sérgio Borges, Marcos Raposo and Catherine Bechtoldt made useful comments and suggestions that improved As we stated before, we see no reason to follow Hartert’s our text. We further thank Sergio Gregorio for the opinion on the identity of Azara’s hummingbirds. Quite splendid photograph, and Edward Dickinson for fruitful to the contrary, we agree with Elliot, Berlepsch, Salvin, discussions. Bertoni, Laubmann and others that Azara’s “Más Bello” is perfectly identifiable so that the name Trochilus lucidus REFERENCES: Shaw applies to the Glittering-Bellied Humminbird and has clear priority over Ornismya aureoventris D´Orbigny Azara, F. 1805. Apuntamientos para la historia natural de los páxaros & Lafresnaye, 1838. del Paraguay y Río de la Plata. Madrid: Imprenta de la Viuda Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Sibley & Monroe de Barra. (1990), and Schuchmann (1999) all recognize that the Azara, F. 1809. Voyages dans l´Amérique Méridionale, vol. 3. Oiseaux. name Trochilus lucidus may be the valid one, but suggest Paris: Dentu. Berlepsch, H. 1887. Systematisches Verzeichniss der von Herrn it should be considered a nomem oblitum. Pacheco & Ricardo Rohde in Paraguay gesammelten Vögel. Journal für Whitney (2006) showed that this is not possible under Ornithologie., 35: 1-37, 113-134. the rules of the ICZN (2009): a reversal of precedence Bertoni, A. de W. 1901. Aves nuevas del Paraguay. Continuacion á (Art. 23.9) cannot be taken because the oldest available Azara. Asunción: H. Kraus. Contreras, J. R. 1987. Acerca de la biología reproductiva del picaflor name (lucidus) was used as valid after 1899. Actually, a verde común, Chlorostilbon aureoventris lucidus (Shaw, 1811) quick search showed that the name lucidus was used in (Aves, Trochilidae). Historia Natural, 7: 31-32. at least 32 different works involving 33 authors (besides Cuello, J. 1985. Lista de referencia y bibliografía de las aves uruguayas. anonymous and institutional authorships) between 1945 Montevideo: Intendencia Municipal de Montevideo. and 1998, among them many publications of national Cuello, J. & Gerzenstein, E. 1962. Las aves del Uruguay: lista sistemática, distribución y notas. Montevideo: Museo de Historia scope, such as: Steullet & Deautier (1945), Cuello & Natural de Montevideo. Gerzenstein (1962), Olrog (1963), Olrog (1979), and D’Orbigny, A. & Lafresnaye, A. 1838. Synopsis Avium II. Magasin Cuello (1985). Further, this widespread use of lucidus de Zoologie, 8: 6-34. demonstrates that there is no “threatened stability” that Elliot, D. G. 1875. Notes on the Trochilidae. The Genera Chlorostilbon and Panychlora. Ibis, 17: 236-250. would require a protective ruling by the International Guyra Paraguay. 2004. Lista comentada de las aves de Paraguay. Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (Art. 23.9.3). Annotated checklist of the birds of Paraguay. Asunción: Asociación Lastly, we would like to stress that the application Guyra Paraguay. of the name Trochilus lucidus to the Glittering-bellied Hartert, E. 1900. Das Tierreich. 9. Trochilidae. R. Berlin: Friedländer. Emerald should not be taken merely because of the near Hayes, F. E. 1995. Status, distribution and biogeography of the birds of Paraguay. Colorado Springs: American Birding Association. consensus among ornithologists who have studied the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). case. Quite the opposite, the near consensual opinion 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th ed. The among ornithologists is the result of a straightforward International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London: The identity of Azara’s hummingbird. Denying that the “Más Natural History Museum. La Peña, M. R. de 1988. Guía de aves argentinas, tomo IV. Bello” refers to the Glittering-bellied Emerald means one Columbiformes a Piciformes. Buenos Aires: L.O.L.A. believes that Azara described a [Chlorostilbon or Amazilia] Laubmann, A. 1939. Die vögel von Paraguay, 2 vols. Stuttgart: species now extinct in Paraguay, while missing the most Strecker und Schröder. common hummingbird in that country (cf. Hayes 1995; Mallet-Rodrigues, F. 2005. O beija-flor de Azara e seus enigmáticos Guyra Paraguay 2004). In our review of the evidence, this derivados. Atualidades Ornitológicas, 123: 3-4. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1966. The species of birds of South America hypothesis lacks any support. and their distribution. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences Overall, our detailed analysis provides additional of Philadelphia. evidence for Pacheco & Whitney’s (2006) conclusions Narosky, T. & Yzurieta, D. 1987. Guia para la identificacion de las and we support the application of the name Trochilus aves de Argentina y Uruguay. Buenos Aires: Vasquez Mazzini. lucidus to the Glittering-bellied Emerald. Olrog, C. 1963. Lista y distribución de las aves argentinas. Tucumán: Instituto Miguel Lillo. Olrog, C. 1979. Nueva lista de la avifauna Argentina. Tucuman: Fundacion Miguel Lillo. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Pacheco, J. F. & Whitney, B. M. 2006. Mandatory changes to the scientific names of three Neotropical birds. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club, 126: 242-244. We dedicate this paper to our dear friend Juan Mazar Salvin, O. 1892. Catalogue of birds in the British Museum, vol. 16. Barnett (in memoriam). Juan showed strong interest in London: British Museum of Natural History. the case and provided us with many references from Schuchmann, K. L. 1999. Family Trochilidae (Hummingbirds). In: Argentina that made use of the name C. lucidus. His Del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., & Sargatal, J. (eds.) Handbook of the good will to help colleagues truly marked our friendship. Birds of the World, vol. 5. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014 Further comments on the application of the name Trochilus lucidus Shaw, 1812 Vítor de Q. Piacentini and José Fernando Pacheco Shaw, G. 1812. General zoology, or Systematic natural history, vol. 8. las aves de la Republica Argentina, pt. 4. Buenos Aires: Obra del London: G. Kearsley. Cincuentenario del Museo de la Plata. Short, L. L. 1975. A zoogeography analysis of the South American van Perlo, B. 2009. A Field Guide to the Birds of Brazil. New York: Chaco avifauna. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural Oxford University Press. History, 154: 164-352. Vieillot, L. J. P. 1817. Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, vol. 7. Sibley, C. G. & Monroe Jr., B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of Paris: Detterville. birds of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sigrist, T. 2006. Aves do Brasil: uma visão artística. São Paulo: Fosfertil. Steullet, A. B. & Deautier, E. A. 1945. Catalogo sistematico de Associate Editor: Luciano N. Naka Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 22(2), 2014

Journal

Ornithology ResearchSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 1, 2014

Keywords: Chlorostilbon aureoventris; Chlorostilbon lucidus; Glittering-bellied Emerald; nomenclature; priority

References