S.M.S. Gregory

N55

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Further notes on family-group names introduced as substitutenames under Article 5 of the Règles (1905) between 1931 and1960 inclusive
Steven M.S. Gregory
COPYRIGHT: © 2024 Gregory. This is an article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
ABSTRACT: The requirements of Article 13 (ICZN, 1999: 17–19) for the availability of familygroup names are discussed, and the provisions of the Règles (1905) and the Codes of Zoological
Nomenclature (1961–1999) are compared with the views expressed by Bock (1994). Four nonpasserine family-group names introduced as substitute names between 1931 and 1960 inclusive,that represent taxa currently in use, are discussed in detail, and the methods by which they arepotentially made available outlined. The availability of one, Harpiini Verheyen, 1959 would
seem to rest on a single use as valid, the rejection of which would necessitate an application to
the ICZN commission.
KEYWORDS: Aythya, Mesitornis, Harpia, Psittrichas, Aythyini, Mesitornithidae, Harpiini,
Psittrichasinae, Delacour, Mayr, Wetmore, Verheyen, von Boetticher, International Code ofZoological Nomenclature.
ZOOBANK LSID for publication: D3DB2DE7-0350-4B2A-845E-D40671D6DE6C
INTRODUCTION

Unlike names in the genus-group, names in the family-group (both terms stem from theiruse in the Copenhagen Decisions (ICZN, 1953) and the International Congresses of Zoology thatpreceded them) were not officially subject to priority until the publication of the first editionof the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1961). Before that, the priority of thetype genus was paramount. These two widely differing methodologies have resulted inmisunderstandings that persist to this day, made potentially worse by the back-dating of strict
requirements for their establishment to 1931.
Bock (1994: 82) was convinced that an error in the Bradley draft (Bradley, 1957) for the
new Code (ICZN, 1961) resulted in Article 25 of the Règles (CIPNZ, 1905), and the amendmentof 1927 (Styles, 1929) originally intended for generic and specific names only, being
inadvertently extended to the family-group, whose names he felt were self-evidently definedby their type genera (the new Article 12 and Article 13 simply referred to ‘names’). He argued
that family-group names proposed between 1930 and 1961 (presumably exclusive) were‘proposed in complete accordance with the existing requirements of zoological nomenclature
as given in the Règles, and accordingly these names are available regardless of the wording in
Article 13 of the Code.’ Strong words indeed, but his hopes that the forthcoming new editionof the ICZN Code (ICZN, 1999) would be altered to meet his point of view proved to be
unfounded.
They did not fall entirely upon deaf ears, however, as one change did occur to modify the
Code in respect of family-group names proposed after 1930 and before 1961. Article 13.2.1(ICZN, 1999: 18) allowed for a name which did not satisfy the provisions of Article 13.1 to be‘available from its original publication only if it was used as valid before 2000, and also was
ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N56

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

not rejected by an author who, after 1960 and before 2000, expressly applied Article 13 of thethen current editions of the Code’. It should be noted that a replacement name is not anecessary condition of rejection.
Article 39 (a) (ii) in the first edition of the ICZN Code (ICZN, 1961: 41) contained astatement that seems to validate actions taken before 1961 ‘under a different procedure’
presumably the Règles (CIPNZ, 1905). This statement did not survive the transition to thesecond edition (ICZN, 1964) with a curious gap in the typesetting between Article 39 andArticle 40, and the note ‘Article 39a is deleted’ (ICZN, 1964: viii).
All four editions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature are complex
documents, and can appear at times to present internal contradictions. Central to them are the‘Principles’. Appearing in order, they are: the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature, Principleof Priority, Principle of the First Reviser, Principle of Coordination, Principle of Homonymy
and the Principle of Typification. Although of equal standing, it is the Principle of Priority(Article 23) that commands the most attention, and it should be noted that the very firstsubclause, Article 23.1.1 (ICZN, 1999: 24) contains the simple statement ‘For an exception forcertain family-group names replaced before 1961 see Article 40.’
In turn, Article 40 (ICZN, 1999: 46) is one of the least convoluted. The second subclause,
Article 40.2, also contains a simple statement ‘If, however, a family-group name was replaced
before 1961 because of the synonymy of the type genus, the substitute name is to be
maintained if it is in prevailing usage’. The Example given for Article 40.2 is equally concise
and instructive, in that the type genus should be ‘synonymized’ and the substitute name‘adopted’, i.e., the junior synonym is synonymized with the senior synonym and the familygroup name based on the senior synonym is adopted as the valid family-group name.
The Example also carefully explains the use of author and date, in which the date of thereplaced name is placed in parentheses following the date of the adopted name.
This echoes the sentiment of the first edition and Bock’s musings on the subject, and at nopoint is Article 13 (ICZN, 1999: 17) mentioned as a requirement or as a redirection, as often
encountered in the Code in square brackets. This would seem to support Bock’s contention
that names introduced before 1961 under Article 5 of the Règles (CIPNZ, 1905: 29) aresufficiently available for the sole purpose of being substitute family-group names. But ofcourse, the absence of any redirection does not absolve any family-group name from the needto fulfil the requirements of Article 13 (ICZN, 1999: 17), and specifically those of Article 13.2.
If they do not, there are only two courses of action open to the user of the Code. The first would
be the mandatory use of the senior family-group name (based on a junior synonym), despiteany ‘prevailing usage’ of a junior family-group name (based on the senior synonym), and ifthat was sufficiently unpalatable, an application would have to be made to the ICZN
commission to validate the junior family-group name in its accustomed usage.
Bock wrote too soon, just before the explosion of the internet and the scanning and posting
on websites of the vast majority of out-of-copyright publications, and many in-copyright withpermission, which has made it far easier to track down and verify family-group names. As
Storrs Olson noted (Olson, 1995), some parts of Bock’s History can be useful, despite its many
shortcomings, the references especially, although even these must be used with caution.
Bock’s advocation of replacement names due to the synonymy of type genera were usually
accurate, although no precedence is to be had from invalid names due to the homonymy of
their type genera, Article 39 (ICZN, 1999: 46), as often encountered in Bock’s list.
A distinction should be drawn between it not being necessary for the oldest generic nameto be the type genus of any family, as stipulated in Opinion 133 (ICZN, 1936), Opinion 141(ICZN, 1943) and Article 64 (ICZN, 1999: 65), and the replacement, before 1961, of family-

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N57

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

group names because of the synonymy of the type genus, Article 40.2 (ICZN,1999: 46).
It should be further noted, that if no such replacement occurred before 1961, that family-groupname cannot now be replaced, Article 40.1 (ICZN, 1999: 46). This is particularly relevant forrecently introduced family-group names that have overlooked the existence of oldersynonyms.
FOUR CASES OF IN-USE SUBSTITUTE NAMESGregory and Sangster (2023) have shown that Article 5 of the Règles Internationales de laNomenclature Zoologique or International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature (CIPNZ, 1905) has
been widely interpreted as meaning that family names based on junior objective or juniorsubjective synonyms could be replaced by those based on a senior synonym:
ART. 5. –– The name of a family or subfamily is to be changed
when the name of its type genus is changed.
This was somewhat fortuitous, as it made it possible to preserve family-group names inwidespread use based on type genera whose names are senior synonyms. The Règles were theinternationally recognized rules for Zoological Nomenclature that were in force from their
publication in 1905, and as revised in 1926 (ICZN, 1926) and 1927 (Styles, 1929), until the firstedition of the ICZN Code (ICZN, 1961) officially replaced them on 6 November 1961, as
reported in the preface to the second edition (ICZN, 1964: vii). The ‘basic dates’ listed in thefirst three editions included a 1960/1961 dichotomy for family-group names, with the words‘before 1961’ appearing in Article 39 (a) (ii) and Article 40 (a) (ICZN, 1961: 41), so the cut-off
date for actions under the Règles should be taken as 31 December 1960. Although the
Copenhagen Decisions (ICZN, 1953) extended priority to family-group names, they were only
‘recommendations’ and were not to come into operation until after the publication of a revised
Code.
Of the 51 non-passerine family-group names listed by Gregory and Sangster (2023: N57–
N58) in their Table I, 13 were introduced between 1931 and 1960 inclusive as substitute names
for their respective taxa, i.e., the family-group name was changed ‘when the name of its typegenus is changed’, and of these, four represent taxa that are in use:
Junior family-group name

Senior synonym
type genus

Senior family-group name

Junior synonym
type genus

Aythyini Delacour & Mayr, 1945

Aythya Boie, 1822

Fuligulinae Swainson, 1832

Fuligula Stephens, 1824

Mesitornithidae Wetmore, 1960

Mesitornis Bonaparte, 1855

Mesoenatinae Reichenbach, 1861

Mesoenas Reichenbach, 1861

Harpiini Verheyen, 1959

Harpia Vieillot, 1816

Thrasaetinae Blyth, 1850

Thrasaetos Bonaparte, 1838

Dasyptilinae Bonaparte, 1854

Dasyptilus Wagler, 1832

Psittrichasinae von Boetticher, 1959 Psittrichas Lesson, 1831

The wording of Article 39 (a) (ii) in the first edition of the ICZN Code (ICZN, 1961: 41),
which appears to have been inserted solely for the purpose of not upsetting changes madeunder the Règles, is worth repeating here: ‘The provisions of this section [Taxa of the familygroup and their names] are not to be applied so as to upset a widely accepted family-groupname that was established before 1961 under a different procedure’. Under the Règles, Article
5 (CIPNZ, 1905: 29), there are no formalities or requirements other than the change itself, i.e.,
if a family-group name is seen to be based on a junior synonym, it is to be automaticallyexchanged for one based on the senior genus-group synonym.
As shown above, to be available, names established after 1930 must also fulfil therequirements of Article 13 (ICZN, 1999: 17–19), and specifically for family-group names,
ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N58

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Article 13.2. The four non-passerine family-group names currently in use that were introduced
as substitute names between 1931 and 1960 inclusive when the name of their type genus waschanged through recognition of a more senior synonym are discussed in detail. Corrections to
Bock (1994) and any addition information is given within square brackets.
AYTHYINI DELACOUR & MAYR, 1945

Delacour and Mayr (1945: 24) introduced the name Aythyini in their paper The family
Anatidae, and included a brief description. Aythya Boie, 1822 [before May], is the seniorsynonym of Nyroca Fleming, 1822 [June] (subjective), Fuligula Stephens, 1824 (subjective), andMarila Reichenbach, 1853 (objective). All of them have family-group names based upon themthat are senior to Aythyini, and of which Fuligulinae Swainson, 1832, is the oldest. This can betreated as a simple family-group name substitution under Article 5 of the Règles then in force.
Bock (1994: 174) noted ‘Fuligulinae Swainson and Richardson, 1831 [Swainson, 1832],
Marilinae Reichenbach, 1849–50 [1853] and Nyrocinae Peters, 1931 [A. Newton, 1896] havebeen replaced by Aythyinae Delacour and Mayr, 1945 (1831 [1832]) which takes precedence
from 1831 [1832].’ The prevailing usage of Aythyini since 1945 has been virtually complete,with one use of Nyrocinae found, Ries and Werner (1946: 136) being before 1961 and not,presumably, subject to the conditions of Article 13.2.1.
MESITORNITHIDAE WETMORE, 1960

Wetmore (1960: 12, 26) introduced the name Mesitornithidae in his paper A classification
for the birds of the world. There was no description. His reason for replacing Mesoenatinae
Reichenbach, 1861, and Mesoenas Reichenbach, 1861, as used by Peters (1934: 141), was that
Mesitornis Bonaparte, 1855, was the older name. This would appear to be a simple familygroup name substitution under Article 5 of the Règles then in force. The earlier use of
Mesitornithidae by Van Tyne and Berger (1959: 425) as a synonym can be discounted as theyused Mesoenas Reichenbach, 1861 as the valid generic name, and not Mesitornis Bonaparte,
1855 which is ‘evidence to contrary’ under Article 11.7.1.1 (ICZN, 1999: 12). Bock (1994: 178)
noted ‘Mesitidae Bonaparte, 1850[a] [invalid due to homonymy of type genus, Article 39(ICZN, 1999: 46)] and Mesoenatidae Reichenbach, 1862 [1861] have been replaced by
Mesitornithidae Wetmore, 1960 (1850 [1861]) which takes precedence from 1850 [1861].’ A side
issue is the availability of Mesitornis Bonaparte, 1855 itself, which Bonaparte tried to disown“pas même en Mesitornis” (Bonaparte, 1855: 651), but the overwhelming use of this genusgroup name since 1960 would strongly advise against any attempt to dislodge it now,
although it may be necessary for an application to the ICZN to stabilize its use as the validname by placing it on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Uses of Mesitornithidae
Wetmore, 1960 before 2000 would satisfy Article 13.2.1 (ICZN, 1999: 18) and it is also available
under Article 13.1.3 (ICZN, 1999: 17). The prevailing usage of Mesitornithidae since 1960 has
been virtually complete, with only one use of Mesoenatidae found, Fisher and Peterson(1964: 174) who did not reject Mesitornithidae by expressly applying Article 13 of the thencurrent edition of the Code, one of the conditions of Article 13.2.1.
HARPIINI VERHEYEN, 1959

The sorry tale of this family-group name has been recounted in full in the recent paper by
Gregory et al. (2024). In summary, it was shown that the family-group name ‘Harpiinae
Lesson, 1828’ was based on a vernacular plural (harpyées) that in turn was based on the generic

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N59

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

name Harpyia Cuvier, 1816, a junior homonym of Harpyia Ochsenheimer, 1810 [Lepidoptera]and Harpyia Illiger, 1811 [Mammalia]; moreover, Harpiinae had never been accepted as datingfrom ‘Lesson’ and in the ‘latinized form’ until Bock’s listing in 1994, contrary to the strict termsof Article 11.7.2 (ICZN, 1999: 13) [Article 11 (f) (iii) (ICZN, 1985: 27)]. Indeed, it is doubtful that
Lesson’s vernacular plural was even a family name within the meaning of Article 11.7.2, whichgave an example with the French suffix ‘-idés’. Because the generic name Harpia Vieillot, 1816,
had been overshadowed by the junior homonym Harpyia Cuvier, 1816, Thrasaetos Bonaparte,1838 and Thrasaetinae Blyth, 1850 entered into widespread use until Oberholser (1919: 282)
demonstrated that Harpia Vieillot, 1816 should be used. Harpiini was introduced by Verheyen
in his paper Revision de la Systematique des Falconiformes (Verheyen, 1959: 41). There was nodescription. This can be treated as a simple family-group name substitution under Article 5 of
the Règles then in force. Because Verheyen did not provide a description or definition, a valid
use before 2000 must also be found, to satisfy Article 13.2.1 (ICZN, 1999: 18). Stresemann andStresemann (1960: 393) wrote: “Als Merkwürdigkeit sei erwähnt, daß Geranoaëtus melanoleucus
bei Verheyen (1959) in sein Tribus Harpiinae geraten ist und dort neben Morphnus und Harpia
steht, weit weg vom Tribus Buteonini.” That they identified the contents of the tribe, and that
it was removed from the Buteonini should be sufficient. They were not simply ‘listing’
Verheyen’s family-group name, but were actively discussing the taxonomy of the Accipitridae,
and there is nothing to suggest that they considered it to be invalid, even if a curiosity. The Codemakes no qualitative demands beyond an author’s taxonomic judgment (Glossary; ICZN,
1999: 121). An uncredited Harpiinae entered into widespread use after Lerner and Mindell
used the name for a clade identified by them containing Harpia (see Lerner & Mindell, 2005:
339, 343). The prevailing usage that has resulted is probably due to the erroneous priority
afforded to the name by Bock (1994: 132), who, as Gregory et al. (2024: N12) observed“permanently altered the dynamic of those names”.
It should be noted that the senior synonym (Thrasaetinae Blyth, 1850), which has not beenused as valid since 1916, would now clearly threaten stability and cause confusion, and if thesolution to the question of the availability of Harpiini Verheyen, 1959 offered here under
Article 13.2.1 is rejected, it would then become an issue for which an application to the ICZN
commission must be made.
PSITTRICHASINAE VON BOETTICHER, 1959

Bock (1994: 141, 184) correctly identified that von Boetticher introduced the name
Psittrichasinae in a popular little book: Papageien (von Boetticher, 1959: 11, 13) where a brief
description occurs on p. 13. Sibley and Ahlquist (1972: 164) made an ambiguous statement thatinvolved both an earlier paper: Gedanken über die systematische Stellung einiger Papageien (vonBoetticher, 1943), and a 1964 reprint of Papageien. The 1943 paper has now been examined, andcontained no new family-group names, contra Gregory and Sangster, (2023, Table I). Dasyptilus
Wagler, 1832 is a junior objective synonym of Psittrichas Lesson, 1831, and Psittrichasinae vonBoetticher, 1959 would appear to be a simple family-group name substitution under Article 5of the Règles then in force. Bock noted ‘Dasyptilinae Bonaparte, 1854 has been replaced by
Psittrichadinae von Boetticher, 1959 (1854), which takes precedence from 1854.’ Bock’s use of
the spelling ‘Psittrichadinae’ followed Homberger (1980: 180), but I agree with Joseph et al.
(2012: 36) who argued for the retention of the original spelling, using the entire generic nameas the stem, as allowed by Article 29.1 (ICZN, 1999: 32). They also noted ‘valid by substitution
in prevailing use (Art. 40.2), replacing Dasyptilinae Bonaparte, 1854’. Dasyptilinae Bonaparte,1854 seems rarely, if ever, to have been used, so the prevailing usage of Psittrichasinae vonISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N60

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Boetticher, 1959 has been complete and unopposed. Wolters (1980: 445) used yet anotherspelling ‘Psittrichidae’, which should be deemed to be incorrectly formed from the type genus.
CONCLUSION

To summarize, the following details would now appear to be correct for these four cases:
Aythyini
Aythyini Delacour & Mayr, 1945 (1832)
Replacement name for Fuligulinae Swainson, 1832, Article 40.2 (ICZN, 1999: 46).
Type genus: Aythya Boie, 1822.
Contents: Pteronetta Salvadori, 1895, Cyanochen Bonaparte, 1856, Marmaronetta
Reichenbach, 1853, Asarcornis Salvadori, 1895, Netta Kaup, 1829, Aythya, Rhodonessa
Reichenbach, 1853 [The list of genera included here is subjective].
ZooBank LSID for Aythyini: 5AF56228-C0C6-419B-A57E-E28DB878FA79
Comment: Available by description, Article 13.1.1 (ICZN, 1999: 17). Prevailing usage since1945 (ICZN, 1999: 121).
Mesitornithidae
Mesitornithidae Wetmore, 1960 (1861)
Replacement name for Mesoenatinae Reichenbach, 1861, Article 40.2 (ICZN, 1999: 46).
Type genus: Mesitornis Bonaparte, 1855.
Contents: Mesitornis, Monias Oustalet & Grandidier, 1903.
ZooBank LSID for Mesitornithidae: 78E40A0E-DF54-441A-A13A-E05272CB8243
Comment: Available by proposal as a new replacement name, Article 13.1.3 (ICZN, 1999:17) and use as valid before 2000, Article 13.2.1 (ICZN, 1999: 18) e.g., Rand in Thomson(ed.) (1964: 454), Wolters (1975: 17). Prevailing usage since 1960 (ICZN, 1999: 121).
Harpiinae
Harpiini Verheyen, 1959 (1850)
Replacement name for Thrasaetinae Blyth, 1850, Article 40.2 (ICZN, 1999: 46).
Type genus: Harpia Vieillot, 1816.
Contents: Morphnus Dumont, 1816, Harpia, Harpyopsis Salvadori, 1875, Macheiramphus
Bonaparte, 1850b.
ZooBank LSID for Harpiini: BA51E506-EBB3-45A1-BA74-D4D223B54621
Comment: Available by use as valid before 2000, Article 13.2.1 (ICZN, 1999: 18) e.g.,
Stresemann and Stresemann (1960: 393). Prevailing usage since 1959 (ICZN, 1999: 121).
Psittrichasinae
Psittrichasinae von Boetticher, 1959 (1854)
Replacement name for Dasyptilinae Bonaparte, 1854, Article 40.2 (ICZN, 1999: 46).
Type genus: Psittrichas Lesson, 1831.
Contents: Psittrichas [Coracopsis Wagler, 1832 removed to a separate subfamily,
Coracopseinae, by Joseph et al., 2012].
ZooBank LSID for Psittrichasinae: FF1A6CFB-9167-4E11-8C49-8F3D91C9451C
Comment: Available by description, Article 13.1.1 (ICZN, 1999: 17). Prevailing usage since
1959 (ICZN, 1999: 121). The erroneous date ‘1943’ given in Table I, Gregory and Sangster(2023: N58), is here corrected to 1959.

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N61

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Patrice Bouchard is gratefully thanked for his advice concerning Article 39 and Article 40(ICZN, 1999: 46). Thanks also go to Norbert Bahr, Jochen Martens and the Universitätsbibliothek Mainz for making the 1943 paper by von Boetticher available, enabling theresolution of the correct date for Psittrichasinae.
REFERENCES
Blyth E., 1850. Conspectus of the ornithology of India, Burma and the Malayan peninsula, inclusive ofSindh, Asám, Ceylon and the Nicobar islands. – Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 19 (4): 317–342.
Bock W.J., 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. – Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History, 222: 1–281.
Boetticher H. von, 1943. Gedanken über die systematische Stellung einiger Papageien. – Zoologischer
Anzeiger, 143 (7–8): 191–200.
Boetticher H. von, 1959. Papageien. 1–116. – A. Ziemsen, Wittenberg Lutherstadt.
Boie H., 1822. Tagebuch gehalten aus einer Reise durch Norwegen im Jahre 1817. i–viii, 1–352. – Königl.
Laubstummen-Institut, Schleswig.
Bonaparte C.L., 1838. Description of new or interesting birds from South America and Mexico. –Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 5 (59): 108–122.
Bonaparte C.L., 1850a. Revue critique de l’Ornithologie Européenne de M. le Docteur Degland (de Lille). 1–206.
– Ve Wouters, Bruxelles [Brussels].
Bonaparte C.L., 1850b. Revue général de la classe des oiseaux. Première partie: Perroquets et oiseaux deproie. – Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure et appliquée, Série 2, 2 (9): 474–492.
Bonaparte C.L., 1854. Tableau des Perroquets. – Revue et magazin de Zoologie pure et appliquée, Série 2,
6 (3): 145–158.
Bonaparte C.L., 1855. Correspondence. – Compte Rendu des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 41 (17):649–661.
Bonaparte C.L., 1856. Excursion dans les divers Musées d'Allemagne, de Hollande et de Belgique (suiteet fin), et Tableaux paralléliques de l’ordre des Palmipèdes. – Compte Rendu des séances de l’Académie desSciences, 43 (13): 643–652.
Bradley J.C., 1957. Draft of the English text of the international code of zoological nomenclature as
amended by the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953) Congresses. – Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,
14 (1/6) (7/9): 1–286.
C.I.P.N.Z. [Commission Internationale Permanente de la Nomenclature Zoologique], 1905. Règles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique adoptées par les Congrès Internationaux de Zoologie. 1–57. –F.R. de Rudeval, Paris.
Cuvier G., 1816 [1817]. Le règne animal distribué d'aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a l'histoire
naturelle des animaux et d'introduction à l'anatomie compareé. Vol. 1, i–xxxvii, 1–540. – Deterville, Paris.
Delacour J. & Mayr E., 1945. The family Anatidae. – The Wilson Bulletin, 57 (1): 3–55.
Dumont C., 1816. AIGLE (Ornith.) (supplément, pp. 83–91). In: Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles. Vol. 1. –F.G. Levrault, Paris.
Fisher J. & Peterson R.T., 1964. The world of birds a comprehensive guide to general ornithology. 1–288. –Macdonald, London.

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N62

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Fleming J., 1822. The philosophy of zoology; or a general view of the structure, functions, and classification ofanimals. Vol. 2. 1–618. – Archibald Constable & Co., Edinburgh: Hurst, Robinson & Co., London.
Gregory S.M.S. & Sangster G., 2023. The correct family-group names of two parrot clades (Psittaciformes:
Amazonini and Proboscigerini). – Avian Systematics, 1 (XII): N55–N66.
Gregory S.M.S., Sangster G., Worthy T.H. & Scofield R.P., 2024. Falling through the cracks: a family-groupname for a clade of hawks and eagles (Accipitridae) including Morphnus Dumont, 1816, Harpia Vieillot,
1816, Harpyopsis Salvadori, 1875 and Macheiramphus Bonaparte, 1850. – Avian Systematics, 2 (II): N5–N17.
Homberger D.G., 1980. Funktionell-morphologische Untersuchungen zur Radiation der Ernährungsund Trinkmethoden der Papageien (Psittaci). – Bonner Zoologische Monographien, 13: 1–192.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1926. International rules of zoologicalnomenclature. – Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 39: 75–104.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1936. Opinions rendered by theinternational commission on zoological nomenclature. Opinions 124 to 133. – Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 73 (8): 1–44.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1943. Opinion 141. On the principles
to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of families andsubfamilies. – Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 2: 55–66.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 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. – International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1961. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. i–xvii, 1–176. – International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature, London.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1964. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature adopted by the XV International Congress of Zoology. i–xx, 1–176. – International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature, London.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1985. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature third edition adopted by the XX general assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences.
i–xx, 1–338. – International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
I.C.Z.N. [International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature], 1999. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. 4th edition. i–xxix, 1–306. – International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Illiger J.K.W., 1811. Prodromus Systematis Mammalium et Avium. i–xviii, 1–301. – C. Salfeld, Berolini[Berlin].
Joseph L., Toon A., Schirtzinger E.E., Wright T.F. & Schodde R., 2012. A revised nomenclature andclassification for family-group taxa of parrots (Psittaciformes). – Zootaxa, 3205: 26–40.
Kaup J.J., 1829. Skizzirte entwicklungs-geschichte und natürliches System der europäschen Thierwelt. i–xii, 1–203. – Carl Wilhelm Leske, Darmstadt und Leipzig.
Lerner H.R.L. & Mindell D.P., 2005. Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae
based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. – Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 37: 327–346.
Lesson R.P., 1828. Manuel d'Ornithologie, ou description des genres et des principales espèces d’oiseaux. Vol. 1,
i–iv, 1–421. – Roret, Paris.

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N63

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Lesson, R.P., 1831. [Review] 197. Illustrations de Zoologie. Par R.P. Lesson. 1re décade. MS., avec vélins
in 4o; juin 1831. – Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie (Paris), 25: 339–348.
Newton A., 1896. A dictionary of birds. Part IV. (Sheathbill-Zygodactyli, together with index andintroduction). 833–1088, i–xii, 1–124. – Adam and Charles Black, London.
Oberholser H.C., 1919. Thrasaetos versus Harpia. – Auk, 36 (2): 282.
Ochsenheimer F., 1810. Die Schmetterlinge von Europa. Vol. 3. i–viii, 1-360. – G. Fleischer, Leipzig.
Olson S.L., 1995. Review – History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. Bulletin of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, volume 222. W.J. Bock. 1994. 281 pages. – Auk, 112 (2): 539–546.
Oustalet E. & Grandidier G., 1903. Description d’une nouvelle espèce d’Oiseau, type d’un genre nouveau,
provenant de Madagascar. – Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 9 (1): 10–12.
Peters J.L., 1931. Check-list of Birds of the World. 1st ed. Vol. 1. i–xviii, 1–345. – Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Peters J.L., 1934. Check-list of Birds of the World. Vol. 2. i–xvii, 1–401. – Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rand A.L., 1964. MESITE (pp. 454–455). In: Thomson A.L. (ed.). A new dictionary of birds. – Nelson, London& New York.
Reichenbach H.G.L., 1853. Das natürliche System der Vögel. Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie.
Lieferung 3. i–viii, 1–36, i–xxxi. – [Expedition der Vollständigsten Naturgeschichte, Dresden undLeipzig].
Reichenbach H.G.L., 1861. Die vollständigste Naturgeschichte de Tauben und taubenartigen Vögel: Wallnister,
Erdtauben, Baumtauben, Hocco’s. Columbariæ Megapodinæ, Peristerinæ, Columbinæ, Alectorinæ. Handbuch
der speciellen Ornithologie. Lieferung 7. [i–iv], 1–160. – Expedition der Vollständigsten Naturgeschichte,
Dresden und Leipzig.
Ries D.T. & Werner F.G., 1946. Check list of the birds of Starved Rock State Park and surrounding
territory. – Illinois Academy of Science Transactions, 39: 135–142.
Salvadori T., 1875. Descrizione dell’ Harpyopsis novae guineae, nuovo genere e nuova specie di rapace dellasottofamiglia degli Accipitrini, raccolta dal Sig. L.M. D’Albertis nella Nuova Guinea. – Annali del Museodi Storia Naturali di Genova, 7: 682–683.
Salvadori T., 1895. Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. XXVII. Catalogue of the Chenomorphæ
(Palamedeæ, Phœnicopteri, Anseres), Crypturi, and Ratitæ in the collection of the British Museum. i–xv,
1–636. – Trustees of the British Museum, London.
Sibley C.G. & Ahlquist J.E., 1972. A comparative study of the egg-white proteins of non-passerine birds.
– Bulletin of the Peabody Museum of Natural History, 39: i–viii, 1–276.
Spix J.B. von, 1824. Avium species novae, quas in itinere per brasiliam annis MDCCCXVII–MDCCCXX. [1],1–90. – Franc. Seraph. Hübschmanni, Monachii [Munich].
Stephens J.F., 1824. General Zoology, vol. XII, part II, Birds. [i–iv], 1–264. – J. and A. Arch; Longman, Hurst
and Co.; E. Jeffery and Son; J. Mawman; Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy; J. Booth; Sherwood and Co.; G.B.
Whittaker; R. Scholey; S. Bagster; Rodwell and Martin; R. Saunders; Hamilton, Adams, and Co.; Simpkin
and Marshall; J. Duncan; T. and J. Allman; C. Smith; and G. Wightman, London.
Stresemann V. & Stresemann E., 1960. Die Handschwingenmauser der Tagraubvögel. – Journal fürOrnithologie, 101 (4): 373–403.

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024

S.M.S. Gregory

N64

Avian Systematics 2024 2 (VII): N55–N64

Styles C.W., 1929. In: Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of Zoology (Budapest, 1927).
[not seen].
Swainson W., 1832 [1831]. In: Swainson W. & Richardson J. Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the zoology of thenorthern parts of British America: containing descriptions of the objects of natural history collected on the latenorthern land expeditions under command of Captain Sir John Franklin R.N. Part second. The Birds. i–lxvi, 1–523. – John Murray, London.
Van Tyne J. & Berger A.J., 1959. Fundamentals of ornithology. i–xi, 1–624. – John Wiley & Sons Inc., New
York; Chapman & Hall Limited, London.
Verheyen R., 1959. Revision de la Systematique des Falconiformes. – Bulletin de l'Institut royal des Sciences
naturelles de Belgique, 35 (37): 1–51.
Vieillot L.P., 1816. Analyse d'une nouvelle ornithologie élémentaire. i–iv, 1–70. – Deterville, Paris.
Wagler J., 1832. Monographia Psittacorum. – Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Classe derKöniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1 (13): 463–750.
Wetmore A., 1960. A classification for the birds of the world. – Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 139(11): 1–37.
Wolters H.E., 1975. Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische Liste mit verbreitungsangaben sowie deutschen
und englischen Namen. Lieferung 1. 1–80. – Paul Parey, Hamburg.
Wolters H.E., 1980. Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische Liste mit verbreitungsangaben sowie deutschen
und englischen Namen. Lieferung 6. 401–452. – Paul Parey, Hamburg.
Address
Steven M.S. Gregory (), 35 Monarch Road, Northampton NN2 6EH, UK.
e-mail: sgregory.avium@ntlworld.com.
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2272-2247

ISSN 2051–4441

NoticesPublished 5 September 2024