Published on 19 October 2025
In early September, I published a new paper on ornithological nomenclature.
Littauer, R. (2025). Nomenclatural corrections for gender of species-group names for two Solomon Island birds. Emu - Austral Ornithology, 125(3), 261–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2025.2551298
This was the first paper that I have published that corrected the name of recognized, extant species names. Earlier in the year, I fixed some issues with the name for the subspecies of Kelp Gull that may be in New Zealand, although the name Larus dominicanus antipodum is not widely accepted yet, as we’re waiting on more study of the genetic differentiation of the species. I also published a correction of the spelling for the extinct bird, Archaespheniscus lopdelli. Both of those papers were published in Notornis, the main journal for New Zealand birds, and you can find them here: https://www.burntfen.com/projects/publications/.
This paper was along the same lines. I had been mindfully scouring changes in endings from AviList, a new global taxonomy of bird names that is joining together three or four previously separate taxonomies, when I came upon the name Ceyx gentiana. Gentiana is a Latin name for a plant, but some authors had corrected it to agree in gender with Ceyx (masculine) and made it gentianus. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which governs how scientific names are formed, says this should only be done for adjectives. So, it really ought to be gentiana. It seemed like a reasonable mistake to make, and one that could be easily fixed.
A single species name being fixed for grammatical agreement like this isn’t quite big enough for a paper. So I scoured Wikipedia for a list of all of the birds of the Solomon Islands, and I found three others that needed changing. Zosterops tetiparia is another one that was changed without justification, as tetiparia could be a noun – it’s the latinized name of an island. I originally in my draft had corrected the two other names - Zosterops tetiparia paradoxus and Myzomela melanocephala, but some of the reviewers for the journal disagreed with my treatment. The first one was pretty clearly an adjective, although I still think the jury is out on that. The second one is a single name that has been treated badly, in my opinion, but if I changed it, another 200+ names need to be changed in ornithology, and one of the reviewers pointed out quite rightly that this journal wasn’t the right place to do that. Another reviewer thanked me for making the change, and said I was quite right.
Not to be an obstinate dumbdumb or to join the middle of a nomenclature war, I just removed both names. Publishing is a group effort. I am grateful for the reviewing and editorial work, all of which is volunteer, in any event.
So, the other two names were published, and I added in a good deal of text for the non-taxonomic readers of the journal Emu explaining why it is important to change these names. The article APC fees were covered by my university, so it is free for anyone to read. As I wrote:
Changing names for grammatical agreement alone may seem annoying and unnecessary. However, they are part of a wider goal to let us follow a set protocol for names so that we can speak the same language when we talk about taxa. The Code is a monumental artefact of science. Following it closely enables its continued usage. Like all systems, some parts may seem byzantine and bureaucratic. This is the cost of having a protocol for such an unspecific, imperfect, malleable thing as language.
You can read the short communication here.
Now, if anyone wants to fund me to go to the Solomons to see these birds and report on how they like the names, I would be very happy to entertain the idea. Please contact me as soon as possible.
Tagged: