A recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA argued that Giant Hummingbird Patagona gigas comprises two species (‘northern’ and ‘southern’) that differ in morphology, migratory behaviour and, especially, genetics. This proposal merits close consideration, but the introduction of a new name, ‘P. chaski’, for the northern population is unwarranted, as the taxon concerned had already been described, as Patagona peruviana Boucard, 1893. Failure by the authors of ‘P. chaski’ to identify and check the syntypes of P. peruviana, which unambiguously correspond to the same morphotype and taxon as ‘P. chaski’, resulted in the unnecessary erection of a ‘new species’ described already more than a century ago. Here we stabilise nomenclature by designating a lectotype for P. peruviana of which ‘P. chaski’ is a junior synonym.
Williamson et al. (2024) presented evidence that the northern (larger) taxon of Giant Hummingbird Patagona gigas (Vieillot, 1824), originally named Patagona peruviana Boucard, 1893, and long known as Patagona gigas peruviana (e.g., Zimmer 1930, 1952, Hellmayr 1932, Jouanin 1950, Ortiz-Crespo 1974; Table 1), merits species rank. This is plausible, although further studies are needed to rigorously test the hypothesis. However, their claim that ‘The world’s largest hummingbird is undescribed’ (Williamson et al. 2024: 7) is unfounded1. This taxon had already been named (Boucard 1893) and described in detail (Hellmayr 1932, Zimmer 1952), based originally on two specimens (syntypes), male and female, collected at Tinta (14°09′S, 71°25′W), Peru, by Henry Whitely, both labelled as types by Boucard, and held in the Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (MNHN) (Zimmer 1930, 1952, Hellmayr 1932, Jouanin 1950). Despite this, Williamson et al. (2024) made the unfounded assumption that any or all of the 13 extant Whitely specimens labelled ‘peruviana’ in North American museums could be syntypes of P. peruviana, and made no effort to study the relevant Paris type material clearly mentioned in earlier works (e.g., Zimmer 1930, 1952, Hellmayr 1932, Jouanin 1950). None of the specimens they studied has type status; e.g., two peruviana specimens in the Field Museum (FMNH 45797–45798), formerly in the Boucard collection, also from Tinta and collected by Whitely, are not labelled as types and do not form part of the type series. On finding that DNA sequences of their samples of these ‘putative types’ contained individuals of both gigas (AMNH 37502; collected at Ccachupata) and peruviana (AMNH 37499, also from Ccachupata; AMNH 37500–37501, from Tinta) they argued that P. peruviana was a ‘nomen dubium’ and invalid, and named the northern taxon as a new species, ‘P. chaski’ (Williamson et al. 2024).
Even if Williamson et al.'s (2024) conclusion that the name peruviana was based on two different taxa had been accurate, this would not make it a nomen dubium, nor an invalid name. In that case, the appropriate procedure would have been to take action to preserve nomenclatural stability for the long-established name peruviana under Arts. 74 or 75.5 of the International code of zoological nomenclature (ICZN 1999). Likewise, their claim that Boucard's (1893) description was not diagnostic would not invalidate the name peruviana, because it was based on one or more extant name-bearing specimens. Furthermore, their claim of historical confusion between the two taxa in the literature does not hold up; and misidentifications on the labels of non-type specimens are irrelevant from the nomenclatural standpoint.
In a keynote text, Hellmayr (1932) examined Boucard's male syntype in Paris (MNHN-ZO-1989-340), provided a diagnosis of peruviana on plumage and morphometry clearly mirrored by that of Williamson et al. (2024) for their ‘chaski’, clarified that peruviana was not a ‘nomen nudum’ (contra Simon 1921), and restricted the type locality of gigas to Valparaiso, Chile (Table 1). He did not mention the female syntype (MNHN-ZO-1989-341; wing chord 129.5 mm, bill length NA, tarsus 8.6 mm, with plumage generally matching the northern taxon), perhaps because it already lacked an original Whitely label (Jouanin 1950). Hellmayr (1932) wrote (italics ours): ‘The type, a male obtained by H. Whitely on June 15, 1868, at Tinta, Dept. Cuzco… the type examined in the Paris Museum…’ (Fig. 1; MNHN-ZO-1989-340). It is clear that Hellmayr correctly applied the name peruviana to the corresponding taxon, but it is less clear whether his work qualifies as a valid lectotype designation or not depending on how one interprets the wording in Art. 74.5 (ICZN 1999) concerning Hellmayr’s use of the term ‘the type’, but VQP and many of his colleagues in the Working Group on Avian Nomenclature, as well as GMK, consider that it does not.
TABLE 1
Comparison of selected phenotypic characterisations of Patagona taxa by different authors from 1893 to present. Compare these characterisations of gigas and peruviana (= ‘chaski’), with Williamson et al.’s (2024) assertion that ‘neither Whitely, nor Boucard, nor any subsequent ornithological taxonomist of the 19th or 20th centuries, was able to distinguish these two species’.
Continued
To overcome the conflict between these possible interpretations and to promote stability, from the two syntypes we designate MNHN-ZO-1989-340 as the lectotype of P. peruviana Boucard, 1893, the same specimen referred to as ‘the type’ by Hellmayr (1932). It is an adult male unambiguously identifiable as the northern (non-migratory) taxon, i.e. ‘P. chaski’: throat with distinct blackish spots forming streaks, pale upper throat and cinnamon lower throat, wing chord 138 mm, bill length 35.7 mm, and tarsus 8.4 mm (Fig. 1, Table 1). This action fixes the identity on the already universally understood taxonomic concept associated with P. peruviana, satisfying Arts. 74.7.1, 74.7.2 and 74.7.3 (both original and amended versions; ICZN 1999, 2003), as well as clearly according with Recommendations 74A, 74C, 74D, 74E and 74G (ICZN 1999, 2003). Boucard’s female syntype (MNHN-ZO-1989-341) becomes a paralectotype with no name-bearing function (Art. 74.1.3). By priority (Art. 23), the name of the world’s largest hummingbird is P. peruviana Boucard, 1893, and ‘P. chaski’ (Williamson et al. 2024) is its subjective junior synonym (Art. 61.3.1).
Acknowledgements
Patrick Boussès and Jérôme Fuchs shared photographs and measurements of the MNHN type series ( https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/zo/item/list?typeStatus=*&genus=Patagona), John Bates provided photographs and data pertaining to the FMNH specimens, and Ashley Kempken and Paul Smith reviewed an early draft of this manuscript. Members of the Working Group on Avian Nomenclature provided critical feedback on lectotypification. We thank an anonymous reviewer for very helpful suggestions that improved the clarity of our work.
© 2024 The Authors
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
References:
Notes
[1] 1On 16 May 2024, three days after Williamson et al. (2024) was published, MRH was apparently the first to enquire about Boucard's Patagona types at the MNHN. On 17 May, he was informed that the ‘specimens are … present in our collection but have not yet been processed for the database’, and that MNHN staff would ‘take the opportunity of [his] request to treat these types as a priority, which will therefore soon be available with photos online’ (P. Boussès in litt. 2024). On 24 May, the MNHN online database was updated and MRH shared the link with J. Williamson, explaining in detail that P. peruviana has priority and ‘the nomenclature needs to be resolved’. In response, Williamson informed MRH of her intention to stand by the conclusions in Williamson et al. (2024). On 10 June, MRH & JIA sent Williamson an early (but not substantially different) version of the present paper, with an invitation to join as a co-author, which was declined. This correspondence, archived at the Delaware Museum of Nature & Science, Wilmington, is available on request. The manuscript that was shared with Williamson was submitted to Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA on 19 June 2024, then on request shortened on 25 June 2024, but rejected by the latter’s editors on 5 July 2024 for want of it being a ‘substantial’ comment on the science in Williamson et al. (2024). Publication herein has been pursued to resolve these issues as swiftly as possible.