Nemésio André, Rasmussen Claus, Aguiar Alexandre P, Pombal José P, Dubois Alain
Entomology, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia. Rua Ceará, S/N, Campus Umuarama, Uberlândia, MG. 38400-902. Brazil; Email:
Entomology, Department of Biological Sciences, Aarhus University, Ny Munkegade 114, Bldg. 1540, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; Email: unknown.
Zootaxa. 2013 Nov 6;3734:241-58. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.3734.2.8.
The identity of Scytalopus speluncae (Ménétriés, 1835) (Aves: Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae), a tapaculo from southeastern Brazil, has been the matter of debate during the last eight years. A group of ornithologists considers that the nomen Scytalopus speluncae should be attributed to a species endemic to coastal mountains of southeastern Brazil, whereas another group considers it a species from the drier environments of another mountain belt in Minas Gerais, southeastern Brazil. Both research groups disagree on the identity of the still extant but damaged alleged holotype, deposited at the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, on the identity of the holotype specimen illustration from a plate accompanying the species description, and even on the type locality. To further complicate this matter of identity, members of each research group, based on their own interpretations of the identity of Scytalopus speluncae, described and named again the two species with different nomina, erecting at least one unnecessary nomen. After almost ten years of a debate, there is still no consensus on the identity of the species, and there are now at least three available nomina for apparently only two distinct biological species. As taxonomists belonging to fields of zoology other than ornithology, and realizing the above situation is mainly a nomenclatural one, we herein present a summary of the contentious issue, try to distinguish what seems to be facts and speculation and based on these we consider the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code) whenever appropriate, in the hope of bringing some objectivity to the debate. We conclude that no unequivocal evidence was presented to decide to which species the type specimen belongs solely based on its morphological characters, since the holotype presents considerable damage. On the other hand, the original designation of the type locality by Ménétriés (1835) as São João del Rei, in southeastern Brazil, is unquestionable. Thus, the posterior re-designation of the type locality by a group of ornithologists was not done according to the Code. Contrary to the proposition made by a group of ornithologists that the nomen Scytalopus speluncae should be maintained to the species so called up to 2006 until further evidence confirms the identity of the holotype, we here argue that for now the nomen should be applied to the only species known to occur in the vicinities of the type locality, as established by the author of the species. Nevertheless, we also agree that obtaining molecular data from the holotype should be attempted to definitely solve the query.
斯氏塞特窜鸟（Scytalopus speluncae）（梅内特里耶斯，1835年）（鸟类：雀形目：窜鸟科）是一种来自巴西东南部的窜鸟，在过去八年里其身份一直是争论的焦点。一群鸟类学家认为，斯氏塞特窜鸟这个名称应归于巴西东南部沿海山脉特有的一个物种，而另一群人则认为它是来自巴西东南部米纳斯吉拉斯另一山脉带较为干燥环境的一个物种。两个研究小组在现存但已受损的所谓模式标本的身份上存在分歧，该标本存放在圣彼得堡俄罗斯科学院动物研究所；在物种描述所附插图中模式标本的身份上存在分歧；甚至在模式产地的问题上也存在分歧。使这个身份问题更加复杂的是，每个研究小组的成员基于对斯氏塞特窜鸟身份的各自解读，用不同的名称再次描述并命名了这两个物种，至少设立了一个不必要的名称。经过近十年的争论，对于该物种的身份仍然没有达成共识，现在显然仅两个不同生物物种就至少有三个可用名称。作为非鸟类学领域的动物分类学家，并且意识到上述情况主要是一个命名法问题，我们在此对这一有争议的问题进行总结，试图区分哪些似乎是事实和推测，并在此基础上，在适当的时候考虑《国际动物命名法规》（法规）的规则，以期为这场争论带来一些客观性。我们得出结论，由于模式标本有相当大的损坏，没有明确的证据仅根据其形态特征来确定模式标本属于哪个物种。另一方面，梅内特里耶斯（1835年）最初将模式产地指定为巴西东南部的圣若昂-德尔雷伊是毫无疑问的。因此，一群鸟类学家后来对模式产地的重新指定不符合法规。与一群鸟类学家提出的应保留斯氏塞特窜鸟这个名称用于2006年之前所谓的那个物种，直到有进一步证据证实模式标本的身份这一主张相反，我们在此认为，目前这个名称应应用于该物种作者所确定的模式产地附近已知出现的唯一物种。然而，我们也同意应该尝试从模式标本中获取分子数据以最终解决这个疑问。
