Talk:White swamphen

Species authority
Hi,, you recently changed the species authority with an edit summary referring to IOC 13.2. I think these details should be explained in prose too, as they now contradict what is written there, but I can't find the sources used to justify it. Any pointers? FunkMonk (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologise for that. I've now revised the text and added some references. I'm sure that my text could be improved.

There seems to be general agreement that the binomial name (and perhaps also the text of the appendix) is by Shaw. For Shaw as the authority see IOC 13.2 here, Clements v 2023 here and H&M4 (Dickinson & Remsen 2013) here.

H&M4 p. 160 Note 10 contains the text: "Scientific names in White's Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales were not his but Shaw's: see Schodde in Schodde & Mason 1997 [2268]". Reference 2268 is Schodde & Mason 1997 that I've added to the article. The white swamphen is not included in the book but Shaw's contribution is discussed in the entry for the Little lorikeet which I can see on Google books pp 127-128 here.

Nelson 1998, which I've cited in the article, can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. Page 170 includes the text: "It is most unlikely that White himself devised any of the Latin binomials although he may have provided English descriptions which the subeditors—Smith (botany) and Shaw (birds and other animals)—incorporated into the text."

In the article I've changed the page number and the link to White's book. The previous (broken) link was to some ocr'ed text on the University of Sydney's website. I think it is much better to link to a scan of the book itself on the BHL website.

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll double-check the new text soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good,, but shouldn't the authority of the alternative combinations that use the original specific name be changed to Shaw too, then? Anyhow, it seems kind of odd that one would credit someone for providing the name rather than the author of the publication itself, which is otherwise customary? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes of course - the protonym should be credited to Shaw. I hadn't unhidden the list of Synonyms. I've changed White to Shaw for the original combination and also added links for the authorities. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)