Comments on the proposed conservation of Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 and Philesturnus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (Aves) by suppression of the generic name Creadion Vieillot, 1816 1 (Case 3499)

We wish to comment on the proposed suppression of Creadion Vieillot, 1816, as one
aspect of the submission as presented is contentious. While it may or may not affect
the outcome, we would nevertheless like the Commission’s opinion.
The contentious issue is the valid subsequent designation (or otherwise) of Sturnus
carunculatus Gmelin, 1789, by Vigors & Horsfield (1827) in the (as admitted by Bock,
Schodde & Palma) ‘landmark review’ of Australian birds. The original passage
concerned, in full, is as follows:
‘As we consider our present group [Anthochæra] to have no relation to the
Sturnidae beyond the unimportant analogical one of having in common with two
or three species carunculated appendages to the head, we have no hesitation in
removing it [Anthochæra] from the genus Creadion; leaving the Sturnus carunculatus
(with which species however we must confess that we are unacquainted) to
represent that group.’
Bock, Schodde & Palma quite correctly state that Article 67.5 requires that the
fixation of type species ‘be rigidly construed’, with which we are in perfect accord.
Their citation, however, of Article 67.5.1, in relation to the word ‘represent’ in the
above would appear to be less than satisfactory, as clearly generic limitations were
being drawn by Vigors & Horsfield at this point, and the statement is no mere
‘mention of a species as an example of a genus’. We would contend, therefore,
that far from not qualifying, this does indeed constitute a valid type species
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67(1) March 2010 93
designation under Article 69.1.1, with ‘represent’, within this context, being an
‘equivalent term’.
Neither can this be, moreover, an invalid type species fixation by elimination
(Article 69.4) as then contended by the authors, as that proscribes the elimination of
all but one of the originally included nominal species without, by implication, any
statement concerning the fate of the remaining taxon, which clearly there is.
We would be grateful if the Commission would address the above concerns in their
deliberations, and in coming to their conclusion regarding this case.
We have two final comments. Firstly, we agree with Bock, Schodde & Palma that
the type species of Anthochaera was fixed by Gray (1840, p. 15), Secondly, we wish
to point out that Creadion is neuter (transliterated from a Greek neuter noun) and
that therefore uses of Creadion carunculatum and C. rufusatrum are all correct, as
exemplified by Hoeven (1852–1856, Handbuch der Zoologie, p. 510), Pelzeln (1873,
Archiv fur Naturgeschichte, p. 52), and Wolters (1980, Die Vogelarten der Erde
Lieferung 6, p. 448).