Talk:Suliformes
Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Suliformes → Phalacrocoraciformes – Expert attention needed. Subordinal names and higher are not ICZN mandated. It is customary however to apply the Principle of Priority and similar rules for these, too ("following ICZN" is the technical buzzword). Reestablishment of nomina nova for validly-described taxa is considered very bad taste. Since both nomina refer to the same taxon (any minor differences in internal taxonomy nonwithstanding), Phalacrocoraciformes Christidis & Boles, 2008 has "priority" over Suliformes IOC, [the naughty boys at IOC do not only reestablish nomina nova for validly published taxa, but are also a bit vague about the date of their nomenclatorial acts.. There may also be a personal feud involved; C&B 2008 is not exactly a minor work, so the IOC was almost certainly have been aware they'd create a junior synonym in all but techniciality. There is a story behind this looks like, and as long as we don't know, we better be careful and conservative. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The name "Suliformes" was accepted in AOU (NACC and SACC). In SACC's page there is this citation ""If Sula and Phalacrocorax are included in the same family-level taxon (e.g. superfamily), then Sulidae Reichenbach, 1849 (1836) (Sula Brisson, 1760) has priority in preference to Phalacrocoracidae Reichenbach, 1849-50 (1836) (Phalacrocorax Brisson, 1760), because the name Suloidea has been consistently used in avian classification as a superfamily name." [Bock, W. J. (1994). History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 222: 1-281.]" Clements updates 2010/2011 accepted Suliformes too. "Suliformes" is often atributted to Sharpe 1891 (=Sulae) or Reichenbach 1849 (=Sulida), but i'm not sure about this. Burmeister (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately all my references currently continue to list the order as Suliformes, so I would support no change. There are other conflicts as well (some lump gulls, terns and skimmers, conficting genus names for neotropical goldfinches and siskins, etc.). Also unfortunate Wikiproject Birds has not settled on any taxonomic standard, so conflicts will continue to occur......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- If what Burmeister says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), I'd oppose the move. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sigh - one can download Bock 1994 here - but beware it's a 48MB file. Searching for the term "suloidea" within the document gets you to the right spot on page 166-67. Personally I much prefer Phalacrocoraciformes due to the number of taxa, but it seems as though consensus is against it :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- If what Burmeister says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), I'd oppose the move. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.