Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --A

• Original spelling is "altera", not "alter".
• Thanks to Wayne Longmore for picking this up.

• This occurs in the "2001" (Vol.113) issue of the Wilson Bulletin.
• The backmatter of no.2 for this volume states "This issue ofTheWilson Bulletin was published on 18 Feb. 2002."

• Sherborn, in Index Animalium (p.230), spells the specific epithet"alteralbus". (Verified in both online version, and physicalbook.
• The correct spelling is verified from the original description.
• O.D. p.113

• This was included in the August 1966 issue of the J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc.
;
• The J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc.100 no.2&3 indicates this number was published1967.03.27.

• PetersIII:200 cites this to "ca. 1839".
• H&M 4^th:357 follows this.
• Dickinsonet al. have written several papers discussingdates in this complex and confusing work. To date I find NO discussion of this taxon, though it isin Peters CL, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. and in Sherborn's Index Animalium. The name may have been overlookedas it is not treated in Cory and Hellmayr's Birds of the AmericasII no.1 (Cory,1918).
• I identified this name as occuring in the Itinerary and not as previously cited.
• I had interpreted the date 1847 to be likely given that the name appears on p.376, and livraison 89 (1847)contained text pages 369-395 and the work of Dickinsonet al. seemed to suggest that was appropriate for that portion of the Itinerary. But the date was substantially at variance with the dateDickinson and Remsen gave in the 4^th edition (Non-Passerines)of the Checklist.
• Happily, Dickinson also recognized this problem and has subsequently corrected the date as had I. His work is pubished in Zool.Biblio.5(8):399-402. March 8, 2019.
• Additionally, his work shows details of the irregular publishing history and indicates that this portion was issued in 1841.

• PetersXII:285 and others cite this to 1845
• The name first appeared on the plate in no.11 in 1845.
• See, for example the Richmond Index card for this taxon.R I Card Arachnothera armata
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• It appears that this Number (no.152) must have been published in 1881. On p.431 notice is given of apublication printed in Berlin in 1881.
• At this time, the publication of the J.Orn. was generally running 6 months (or more) behind schedule.

• For resolution asamazonum, see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group namesunder Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC131(2):103-115. (See p.108-109.)

• The authority is usually listed without parentheses, however the Richmond Index shows this taxonas described inNisus.
• Richmond Index Card Nisus affinis
• To date I have note been able to examine the original description.

• Previously cited as:
  • Coracina tenuirostris aruensis (Sharpe) 1878Mitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden Heft3 p.369
• This is the citation as given in Peters ChecklistIX:186 (either Peters or Mayr 1960), which in turn merely parrots the citationas given in CBBM452.
• The Mitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden citation can be seen hereMitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden Heft3 p.369, and to my understandingit is hardly satisfactory as a basis for the name, though the entry in the CBBM in 1879 certainly is.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• The citation is often (e.g. H&M 3^rd:271; HBW5:631,684 given as "1854", implying the citation as here:
  • Coeligena iris aurora (Gould) 1854PZS["1853"] Pt21 no.251 p.61
  However, this was published July 25, 1854.
• The name was published April 16, 1853 in No. 1329 of the Athenaeum.This fact was discussed several decades ago and the description therereproduced (Bruce & McAllen 1990 p.463) though this literature apparently has beenignored by current workers. I believe that description, having priority, is correct. I find no discussion of this in H&M 3^rd.

• Previously as
  • Oriolus larvatus tibicenLawson 1962DurbanMus.Novit. 6 no.16 p.192Nomenclature
• My previous reasoning is below. However, on reflection I think that it is right thatHartert's action (placing thenomen nudum in the synonomy ofOriolus oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus)) is tantamount to publishing the name as a synonym, and thus requiring a replacement name.
[Previous note:
• Lawson proposed a replacement name for this taxon, based on the fact that Brehm,AE in 1866 proposed a nameOriolus Galbula tibicen (Verz.Samml. p.4).
• However, Brehm's name is anomen nudum, so by my understanding of the Code, the 1962 nameOriolus larvatus tibicen is available.
• H&M 3^rd:488 (and through 2008 Corrigendum 8) accepts Lawson's replacement name, and makes no comment regarding the application of the Code to this problem.
• This taxon is not in Peters Checklist15 so this interpretation of the Code relative to thismatter is not due to those authors.
[2010.07.15]
• Returning to this matter thanks to the motivation of Dr David Donsker.
• I am interested in the following questions:
  • Was A.E. Brehm's use ofOriolus Galbula tibicen (Verz.Samml. p.4) actually anomen nudum? Lawson says it was, and he is probablycorrect.
  • If Brehm's name is anomen nudum, then does Hartert's inclusion of itin the synonomy ofOriolus oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus) prevent it's beingused again? [APP: this sounds possible and even probable to me, but as of yetI have not confirmed it to be so.]
  • What is the work "Verz. Samml. 1866" referred to by Lawson? It does not seem to be the 1842 work with this title by Lichtenstein.
  • It appears to be this work, a copy of which is in the Tring library:

    Verzeichniss der nachgelassenen Sammlung (meist) europäischer Vögel von Dr. Ch. L. Brehm...nach Arten (Species) und Unterarten (Subspecies)    Brehm, Alfred Edmund, 1829-1884.Main author: Brehm, Alfred Edmund, 1829-1884.Title: Verzeichniss der nachgelassenen Sammlung (meist) europäischer Vögel von Dr. Ch. L. Brehm...nach Arten (Species) und Unterarten (Subspecies)Publisher info: Hamburg, 1866.Physical descrip: 16p ; 8voMisc. local note: In bound vol. of reprints entitled: [European Ornithology Vol.1]Subject - person: Brehm, Ch. L, Dr.

  • Hartert does indeed list this name in the synonomy ofOriolus oriolus oriolus,

    86. Oriolus oriolus oriolus (L.)....Oriolus Galbula musicus, tibicen, minor, alticeps, planiceps, crassirostris, septentrionalisA. Brehm, Verz. Samml., p. 4 (nom. nuda!).

    Note that he does not list 1866, which suggests that Lawson got that from another source,and may actually have seen the work.
  • What part of the Code applies to this issue? There is 11.6 which reads as follows:

    11.6.Publication as a synonym. A name which when first published in an available work was treated as a junior synonym of a name then used as valid is not thereby made available.

    That does not seem to apply, as this was first published in an available work (apparentlyas anomen nudum) andsubsequently listed as a synonym. The name (thenomen nudum) was published in a work that apparently is not excluded by Article 9 (facsimiles, labels, photographs, microform, web "publishing", &c).
• This is currently not resolved to my satisfaction. [2010.07.15]

2010.07.16

• Peters Checklist8:80 [Hemitriccus obsoletus; (= Traylor 1979) &Peters Checklist7:80Oreophylax moreirae:; (= Peters 1951)] dates taxa from this volume to 1906, though the basis for this is not made clear.
• Volume 13 has an imprint date of 1905 on the cover, and Rieser and I do not findany indications in the journal that its publication was delayed.Until such indication is brought forward, I use the date specified.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Normand David indicates (in litt. 2009.12.20) that he believesthis name requires correction to aurantius, as the original descriptionin Latin, 'includes "macula ... aurantia", indicating use of the word as an adjective.'
• Thanks for Theo de Kok for bringing this to my attention.

• Conventionally cited as
  • Poephila atropygialisDiggles 1876Trans.Philos.Soc.Queensland p.11
  and that may be correct.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this most probably was published first in a newspaper (The Queenslander), apparently prior to the publication in the Transactions.
• Richmond Index Card Poephila atropygialis (side 2)
• [2010.01.05] Murray Bruce kindly supplied publishing details (in litt.) for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist15:72 (= Moreau 1962) gives the citation as:

  Penthetria asymmmetrura Reichenow, 1892, Journ. f. Orn.,40p. 126

  . This citation appears to merely follow that given by W.L. Sclater. 1930Systema Avium Aethiopicarum p.766.
• It is my impression that Moreau relied heavily on Sclater's excellent (thoughnot faultless) compilation of African birds. If true, it is interesting that this finework by Sclater gets no mention in the Introduction to volumeXV of Peters Checklist.
• As Moreau apparently followed Sclater, so other author's follow the Peters Checklist.This name is frequently dated to 1892.
• This name appears to have been published 30 November, 1891, in the Allg.DeutscheOrn.Ges.Berlin and should, I believe, be cited to that publication and that date.

• Peters Checklist15:49 (= Moreau 1962) gives the citation as:

  Hyphantornis axillaris Heuglin, 1867, Journ. f. Orn.,15, p.381.

  This may simply be a repetition of the CBBM13:460 (= Sharpe 1890) citation, which is given as:

  Hyphantornis axillarisHeuglin, 1867, J. f. O., 1867,  p.381.

• The facts of the matter appear more complex and uncertain to me. Heuglin did indeeduse the nameHyphantornis axillaris on p.381 of J.Orn.15 no.90 p.381,however, he used it previously in J.Orn.15 no.89 p.298 where he writes:

  Ploceus melanocephalus P. WüUrt., Icon. No. 43.ist eine höchst eigenthüimliche Art und fällt mit dem von mir inCab. Journ. 1865 p. 98. beschriebenen Webervogel, den ichHyphan-tornis axillaris benannt habe, zusammen. Meine Vögel sind übriigens nicht vollkommen ausgefärbt, weshalb ich den vom Herzogyon Würtemberg in Qamamil gesammelten, der sein vollkommenesHochzeitkleid trägt, hier näher charakterisire:Hyphantornis: pileo, nucha, faeie et cello antico nitide nigris;interscapulio, scapularibus, tergo et uropygio, colli lateribus, pect-ore, epigastreo et abdomine laterali laete castaneis; abdominereliquo flavissimo, ex parte castaneo tincto; area humerali fumosa,plumis omnibus late flavo-viridi marginatis; tectricibus alarummajoribus nigris, late et conspicue flav0 marginatis et castaneolavatis; tectricibus alae secundi ordinis magis et purius castaneis,basi flavis, macula obsoleta mediana pogonii interni nigricante;tertiariis nigricantibus, flare marginatis, laete castaneo lavatis;remigibus fuscis, pogonio interne late-, externo stricte flavo margi-natis; rectricibus pallide olivaceo fusis, laete flare limbatis; --rostro nigro, pedibus rubellis. ~ Long. tot. circa 5½''. -- rostr.aft. 8"'. -- al. 2" 10'". ~ caud. 1" 8--9'". ~ tars. 9--10"'. --

• This may be anomen nudum and I am currently seeking help for interpretingthe German to establish whether this use of the name satisfies the requirements of the Code.
• Whether Sharpe, or Moreau was aware of this earlier use of the name is unknown to me.
• Of some interest, if the citation, as given by Sharpe and Moreau is used there is some possibility that it may date from 1868, rather than 1867. In the Richmond Index, it is noted thatno.90 was published in "Dec. or later". Though the full details of this possibility are not currentlyknown.

• A minor point here, the Richmond Index card indicates that this bird was namedfor "Frau Annaliesa Heinrich" (not Annalisa Heinrich) and it would seem to me that ifthe original description (not seen) so indicates, that the specific epithet should beannaliesa, notannalisa.
• Richmond Index Card Dendrobiastes hyperythra annalisa
• Normand David helpfully comments (2009.09.12) that Stresemann apparently is latinizing"Annaliesa" to annalisa and is using this as a noun in apposition.

• Peters Checklist10:67 (= Ripley 1964) misspells the authors name as "Elliott" (with two t's).
• H&M 3^rd:680 and HBW10:765 spell the author's name correctly.

• Described inIxus.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:346 (= Salomonsen 1967) to 1870.
• This date is followed by H&M 3^rd:439 (through Corrigenda 8)
• The Richomnd Index shows that this was published in April of 1871.
• Salomonsen may have been confused by the submission date at the end of thearticle (and bottom of page 364). The submission date was19 August, 1870.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• H&M 3^rd:485, dates this to 1862,though it dates other taxa from the same article to 1861 (i.e.Myiarchustuberculifer brunneiceps (p.377)).).
• This undoubtedly results from simply following Peters Checklist14:132(= Blake 1968).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist15:97 (= Anamdon 1962) gives the citation as:

  Lamprotornis purpuropterus aeneocephalus Heuglin, 1863, Journ.f.Orn.,6,p.22

  which makes no sense.
• This name first occurs in 1856 Sitz.K.Akad.Wiss.Wien 19 Heft2 p. 288 whereevidently it is anomen nudum. It does occur in J.Orn.11 no.61 on p.22, so evidently Amadon merely got the volume number wrong.

• Peters Checklist15:105 (= Anamdon 1962) gives the author of this taxon asTytler, and this is followed without discussion by H&M 3^rd:655(through Corrigenda 8).
• The Richmond Index gives the author as Beavan, which seems to me to be much more in line with the current Code (even though that did not exist at the time Richmond prepared his card).
• The article in this issue of the Ibis is by Beavan, though he describes many taxa collected by Tytler. For this particular species, Beavan quotes Blyth's discussion of this bird and gives a description "taken from specimens in Col. Tytler's Museum". For other taxa, Beavan directly quotes comments presumably from Tytler (after the quoted text there is the string "(R.C.T.)" but this doesnot occur in the text relating toTemenuchus andamensis (pp.329-300).
• This situation is almost exactly congruent with that ofEulabes andamanensis,(nowGracula religiosa anadamensis) which is described on the next page (p.331)and is attributed to Beavan by both Amadon, and Dickinson (!!).
• I follow the Richmond Index here (as well as my understanding of the Code) andattribute the authority to Beavan.

• For a discussion of the confusion and difficulties concerning this citation,see Cleere N. 2002. Forktail18:147.

• H&M 3^rd:652 (though Corrigenda 8) lists theauthority in parentheses.
• The original combination wasAplornis opaca aenea. However,I find no evidence of a genus group nameAplornis, and I feel the correctinterpretation here is that "Aplornis" is merely an emendation ofAplonis,a possibility very strongly supported by the fact that these authors described twoother subspecies ofAplonis opaca in the same year, and described them inAplonis, not "Aplornis".
• The Code reads:

  51.3.1. Parentheses are not used when the species-group name was originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (this applies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its own authorship and date [Art. 33.2.3]).

• Peters Checklist10:653 (= Paynter 1964) dates this to 1832, andin this he was probably following Hellmayr 1934:495. It appears in this instance,as in others, neither Paynter nor Hellmayr consulted Zimmer 1926.
• In Zimmer's discussion of the difficulties in dating this work he indicates(1926:614) that this plate was in a group almost certainly issued in 1831.
• The Richmond Index gives 1831 as the date for this taxon, and I followthe Richmond Index and Zimmer here.

• Originally described inHeleodytes.
• H&M 3^rd:634 lists the authority without parentheses, apparently an oversight, and probably relating to the fact that the taxon is notlisted in Peters Checklist9.

• H&M 3^rd: treats this as a subspecies ofO. guttata without comment.
• IOC Worldbird list holds this as a full species, citing Sick 1993, a citationnot mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
• It appears the SACC has not yet acted upon this.

• This citation is based on, but is not identical to, the Peters Checklist12:305 (= ?Mayr 1967),which I consider highly questionable.
• I do not find an entry for this in the Richmond Index.
• Michael Rieser helpfully points out (2009.03.22) that A.B.Meyer's compliation of Richenbach's System der Vögel appears to suggestthat this bird is in tab. 461 (CCCCLXI) not 451 as rendered by Mayr.

• Treated as a subspecies by H&M 3^rd:624.
• Treated as a full species by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02).

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:602 as a subspecies ofParadoxornis webbianus.
• The IOC World Bird name list holds this as a full species.

• Often spelledoemodium.
• This matter is dealt with in Dickinson EC & Pittie A. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 51. Dates of avian names introduced in early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" Zool. Med. Leiden80-5(3):113-124. p.119, footnote # 14.
• Dickinson & Pittie note that three spellings of this specific epithetwere employed in the paper,Æmodius in the title,Œmodius heading the description, andOmodium on the plate.
• Dickinson & Pittie indicate that Hartert in 1907 acted as First Reviser,and selectedaemodius as the rendering. There is no reason to doubt this,though it is most regrettable that Dickinson & Pittie do not give any reference for this action. Possibly it is in "Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna? Though it may be a number of other publications (Novit.Zool., BBOC, &c) as well.
• [2009.08.27] I note that Gillet al. in IOC World Bird names 2.2 (Aug. 2009)employ "oe..." as "oemodium".

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:602 as a subspecies ofPseudalcippe abyssinica and in support of this they citeDowsett and Dowsett-Lemaire 1993.
• The IOC World Bird name list splits this, stating:"Pseudoalcippe atriceps is split fromP. abyssinica(Collar & Robson 2007)". This is not mentioned by H&M 3^rd - through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Garrulax annamensis is split fromGarrulax merulinus by Robson 2000 and by Collar 2006 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• See David N, & Gregory SMS. 2008. BBOC128(4):273-274 foran explanation of why this must be treated as masculine.

• Treated by Peters Checklist11:165 (= Traylor 1986) as a subspecies ofA. rufogularis.and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:561.
• In a published treatment more recent than Peters 1986 (Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.599) the status of this taxon is discussed, and interpreted there to be a full species. No mention of thisinterpretation is made by H&M 3^rd.
• Sibley & Monroe refer to Hall & Moreau 1970 "An Atlas of speciation of in African Passerine Birds" p.185, a work whichis referenced in H&M 3^rd.
• H&M 3^rd:561 interpreteidos to be included inA. rufogularis argentea and cite Irwin 1997 (not seen) in this context. Irwin 1997 isnot cited bySibley & Monroe 1999 and Irwin's interpretation may not have been available when Sibley & Monroe went to press. Irwin 1997 may address the Hall and Moreau 1970 approach, as followed by Sibley & Monroe, and have shown it to be incorrect.

• Peters Checklist11:88 (= Traylor 1986) cites this to Ibis 1869 p.102, and this appears to be followedwithout comment by H&M 3^rd:88 where this is cited to 1869.
• The Richmond Index points out that in 1867 Heuglin published the following in J.Orn.XV no.87 p.202 (he is discussing taxa from Antinori's 1865 "Katalog der nordost-afrikanishen Vögel.")

  Pag. 37.Drymoeca sp.? Steht derDr. ruficeps sehr nahe und wurdevon Graf SalvadoriDr. Antinorii bennant.

• It appears to me this is sufficient (by indication) to establish the name, and it should be cited to this source.
• If the Salvadori Catalogue was not actually published, this may not meet the requirements of serving asan indication, and the citation then would be
  • Cisticola lateralis antinorii (Heuglin) 1869Ibis p.102

• Almost universally cited to 1834.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 (unchanged through Corrigenda 7) says "date, 1833, not 1834 [RJD or ECD et al. in prep.]" but no more details are forthcoming.
• The Richmond Index notes "article dated July, 1834", and it seems unlikely thathe is mistaken in this regard.
• We await the publication of an explanation as to why this should be dated 1833 if it is to be cited from this source.

• Richmond Index Card with diagnosis

• A very confusing and difficult situation surrounds this taxon. It is discussed in detail byDickinson EC, 2001. Systematic Notes on Asian birds. 9. 'The "Nouveau receuil de planches coloriees"of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839). See esp. pp.31,45.
• I interpret Dickinson to argue that the text to pl.337 was reissued with supplementary textat some time after the initial issue with livr.57 (1825). The evidence for thisseems compelling, as the specimens did not arrive in Leiden until Oct. 8, 1828so the date associated with livr.57 (1825) is not possible.
• The question is when this evidently supplementary text was added. Dickinson appears to takeapractical approach, suggesting the first date of publication following the Oct. 8, 1828 arrivalof the specimens. The next date is Sept. 5, 1829 (the date of livr.80). Though I do not findevidence presented to support the speculative possibility that it might have been published then.
• I regard the date of publication as part of the Pl.Col. as uncertain and unsupported by any evidenceknown to me. Absent such data, I would have to date the publication as occuring when the final partof the work was published (1839).
• However, Dickinson tells us that Lesson published this name in 1830, as part of Traité Orn.Subsequently Dickinson has argued, I think convincingly, that livr. 5 must date to 1831 (see entryfor TraitedOrn. for his reasoning on this); so I take that as the putative date for this taxon as well.so I regard this as the citation that must be used, unless or until additional data (rather thanspeculation) is brought forward regarding the date of the supplementary text from the Pl.Col.

• Peters Checklist15:149 (= Vaurie 1962) cites this to1860 but on the following page (p.150) cites a taxon (Dicrurus amboinensis) from thesame page in this work correctly to 1861!

• Peters Checklist9:180 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this as:
  • Coracina papuensis angustifrons (Sharpe) 1878J.Linn.Soc.LondonZool. 13 p.81
  though no discussion of this citation is provided.
• This citation (as least with regards to author and date) is followed by H&M 3^rd:467 (through Corrigenda 6).
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was first published by Salvadori two years earlier (with a note "Sharpe in litt.") in 1876, and I follow that citation.
• Of interest the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.4:36 1879 (by Sharpe himself) cites both references,though gives dates for neither; he lists his own reference first.

• While it has no effect on nomenclature (that I know of) it is worth noting thatthis name was published as an "advanced sheet" on Aug. 16, 1893. The regular issue of thiswas then on Oct. 25 but the taxon must be dated to the distribution of the advanced sheet.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for pointing this out.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:137 (through Corrigenda 6) and HBW3:[300] treat this as a subspeciesofRostratula benghalensis.
• Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Rogers DI, Elbourne R, & Hassell CJ. "Mitochondrial-DNA evidence shows theAustralian Painted Snipe is a full species,Rostratula australis." Emu 2007107:185-189 present molecular, plumageand anatomical data supporting this as a full species.
• Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist9:368 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cites this to "1878 Nyt. Mag. Naturv.,24 Heft 3 p.291".
• It is clear that either they do not understand the title of the serial ("Nyt" is a full word (meaning "News" in Danish)and not an abbreviation), or the typesetter has done them wrong. Their string ending in a period would indicate an aabbreviation..In addition the Richmond Index shows that this is in heft 4not heft 3, and that it was published in1879not 1878 as indicated by Mayr & Greenway.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda corrects the date to 1879 and cites "Wetmore 1946" without further details for this.

• H&M 3^rd:746 spells thisalesandrovi,however, Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2007.02.26) that the correctspelling is with an "x" not an "s" (confirmed by Vladimir Loskot) and this will becorrected subsequently.

• Peters Checklist14:96 dates this to 1879, and this error isfollowed H&M 3^rd:759.
• The Richmond Index shows that this work was published in 1878, a factsubsequently confirmed by Storrs Olsen with the 1878 date correctly employed bythe AOU CL since 1983.

• For systematics I follow Alstöm P, Olsson U, Rasmussen PC, Yao C-T, Ericson PGP, Sundberg R."Morphological, vocal and genetic divergence in theCettia acanthizoides complex (Aves:Cettiidae)." Zool.J.Linn.Soc. 2007.149:437-452.
• Several nomenclatural details in the Alstömet al. paper are incorrect.

• Originally described inOryzoborus, the use of parentheses for the authority in H&M3^rd:793 is an error (fidein litt. ECD 2007.02.11).

• Peters Checklist1(2):380 gives the date of publication for this work as 1861, butoffers no data or evidence to support this.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of 1860. The publication is entitled:

  Bericht über die XIII. Versammlung der Deutsch. Orn. Gesellshc. zu Stuttgart vom 17 bis 20Sept. 1860

• The CBBM1:239 also dates this taxon to 1860.
• Norbert Bahr helpfully communicates on this (in litt. 2007.02.10):

  A Sonderheft of the Journal für Ornithologie appeared in 2001, in which Prof. R. Prinzingerpublished a paper on "150 Jahre 'Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft'", reviewing the history of theGerman Ornithologists Society, in particular the 19th century, in much detail, based on thearchives of the DO-G. The paper contains a table on the meetings of the society, with notes onimportant dates, decisions and resolutions. The 1860 meeting took place in Stuttgart from 17th -20th September; the Bericht (=Proceedings) of that meeting appeared in 1861 and had 104 pages. Fromthe table it is evident that the Berichte mostly appeared in the year following the meetings,except in the years 1867 (without a date; only 4 pp.), 1869, 1872, 1873 and 1875. In these latteryears, the meetings were organized in spring or early summer. Note that meetings were not holdannually. Hölzinger (1991) agrees with Prinzinger's list for the Berichte 1 for 1860 (publ.1861) and 2 for 1862(1863), but gives for the 1867 meeting the same year as date of publication(without a date in Prinzinger), and for the 1868 meeting also 1868 as year of publication(Prinzinger gives 1869!). However, I consider Prinzinger's paper as more realistic and trustworthy.

  The table of meetings appears on p.19 of the 2001 Sonderheft of the J.Orn.

• Peters Checklist13:190 (Paynter, 1970) lists the authority in theorder Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny, and this is consistent with The RichmondIndex.
• Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.11:260 lists the authority in the order d'Orbigny& Lafresnaye, and this order is employed by AOU CL7^th:601 (1998) andH&M 3^rd:800.
• In the abscence of an opportunity to examine the work, I chose to followthe Richmond Index.
• Bjorn Bergenholtz directed me (2013.08.14) to an image from the original publication, showing that the attribution there is listed as Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny, resolving the matter.
• The Rev.Zool.1:165. image can be seen hereRev.Zool. 1 p.165

• Peters Checklist1(2):297 (Mayr and Amadon, 1979) give this citation as:

  Milvus affinis Gould, 1838 Synop. Birds Australia pt. 3 pl.47 fig.1 and text

  The Richmond Index and the type catalogue of the Acad.N.S.Phila. give the plate as "pl.[10]" which Ifollow.
• Sherborn in Index Animalium gives the plate as "pl.47" with the note "teste G.M.M.";in my experience, this increases the likelihood that "pl.[10]" is correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Many authors follow Peters Checklist13 in placing the authority for allAimophilataxa that were described inHaemophila in parentheses.
• Neave, Schulze, and The Richmond Index and Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.12:720all clearly showHaemophila to be an emendation ofAimophila Swainson.
• If the Code is to be followed in such instances, the authority should not be placed inparentheses.

• Peters Checklist13:73 (Paynter) appears to have bungled the citation here, listing theoriginal combination asPasserculus sandwichensis anulus. The Richmond Index isvastly more trustworthy than the later Peters Checklist volumes though it is rarely mentioned bycurrent authors. The Richmond Index lists the original combination asPasserculus rostratus anulus, and I expect that is correct.

• Peters Checklist13:72 (Paynter) spells thisPasserculus athinus withoutcomment.
• The original text is here reproduced demonstrating that the original spelling isanthinus

• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1987. International Trust forZoological Nomenclature. London has this entry (p.43):

  Alle Link, 1807,Beschr. nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock2 : 46(gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy :Alca alleLinnaeus, 1758,Syst.Nat. (ed. 10)1: 131 (Aves) O. 999

• I have not seen Opinion 999 in the 10 Oct. 1973 issue of the Bulletin of ZoologicalNomenclature, but I presume the decision there is based on erroneous facts or incompleteresearch.
• All the evidence I am aware of supports a date of 1806 (not 1807) and the presence of this namein volume1 (not volume2) of this work. This interpretation is based upon thepublished works of Sherborn, Neave, Schulze, & Richmond, who all place this name in vol.1 anddate it to 1806. The Richmond Index addtionally notes that the Vögel section occupies pp.17-50which would correlate with vol.1 and not with vol.2.
• Whilefollowing the Code would appear to require employing their citation as given in the"Official" list, I chose to follow Sherborn, Schulze, Neave, Richmond, and all of the AOU Checkliststhat list this taxon.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this issue to my attention.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospizamelodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds ofNorth America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. placeM.m.azteca in the synonomy ofM.m.mexicana.

Peters Checklist2:132 gives the citation as:

Argusianus Rafinesque, Analyse, 1815, p.219. New name for Argus Temminck, preoccupied. Type by monotypy and tautonomy,Phasianus argus Linné

• Peters appears to be using the CBBM22:362 (1893) citation of Ogilvie-Grant, whichreads:

   ArgusianusRafinesque, Analyse, p.219 (1815).

• It should be noted there are two works referred to by Peters as "Analyse":
  1. "Analyse D'Une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire"Vieillot 1816, (see for example2:51) and
  2. "Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps organises, &c."Rafinesque1815.
  I follow the convention of referring to the latter as AnalyseNat.
• As Michael Rieser points out (in litt. 2006.11.16), a deeper problem exists. This problem, as henotes, has been addressed and a resolution published. Peters' ignorance of this resolution appears tohave been honored by subsequent workers who have also consistently ignored both the problem and the publishedresolution.
• Richmond in 'Generic names applied to the Birds during the years 1901 to 1905, inclusive, with furtheradditions to Waterhouse's "Index Generum Avium."' Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus.35: no.1656 pp.591(notea),594(notea). [Publ. 1908.12.16] brings knowledge and understanding to this problem thatapparently was unavailable to Peters, who also appears to have ignored Richmond's publication. Richmond writes:

  Argus is preoccupied byArgusBOHADSCH, 1761, andArgusSCOPOLOI, 1777.ArgusianusRAFINESQUE, 1815, now employed for the Argus Pheasant, is a purenomen nudum at that date,and as a valid generic name will have to be cited from Gray, Cat. Genera and Subgenera of Birds, 1855, p.103.

• HBW2:551 (McGowan) follows the tradition of Peters by citingRafinesque, as does
• H&M 3^rd:61 (throughCorrigenda 5).
• I subsequently understand from Edward Dickinson's communication (inlitt. 2007.12.22) that Steven Gregory has determined that the name is appropriately cited to Gray,GR in 1849 Genera of Birds, Vol.2 Appendix,p.47.

• This publication is dated to 1870 by Peters Checklist14:19, though no justificationfor the belief in delay of the publication is given.
• The Richmond Index cites this to "Arg.26 no.6 for July 1869"
• Until I find evidence for or proof of a delay in this publiction I will date this to 1869, whichit appears must be the imprint date.

• The genus group name is based on the Greek wordαγελασ&tauικος which Cabanistranslates as "gesellig, in Heerden lebend." I in turn attempt to translate the German as something like"gregariousness in military life" but the Greek dictionary definintion ofαγελασ&tauικος -- "disposedto herd together, social" seems rather more likely to be the idea.
• Dr Calos Sánchez Osés offers an additional suggestion regarding theetymology. He writes (in litt. 2007.04.18):

  Canabis translates the Greek word as "[...], in Heerden lebend" but maybe hemeant "in Herden lebend" which means "living in herds / groups", as you correctly stated."Heer" (neuter) is an army and "Herde" (feminine) is a herd or group (for example of animals).

• Cited by Peters Checklist14:140 (Blake) to Lafresnaye& d'Orbigny.
• H&M 3^rd:768 lists the authority in the opposite order, as d'Orbigny& Lafresnay. The standard of H&M 3^rd seems to demand that others justifythe tiniest departure from citations as given by the Peters checklist. A requirement that H&M3^rd does not appear to meet itself. H&M 3^rd mayjustify this "departure from Peters" somewhere, but I certainly can't find it.
• The order d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye is that given by the Richmond Index, which is the justification Iuse for the order that I employ.

• Cited by Peters Checklist11:382 (Traylor) to 1856.
• Peters Checklist cites other taxa described on the same page(Phalacrocorax coronatus &neglectus) to 1855.Gyldenstlpe's Arkiv För. Zoologi Band 19 A. N:o 1. lists other typesfrom this page to April of 1855.
• H&M 3^rd:455 listsBatis priritaffinis to 1856, but corrects this to 1855 in Corrigenda 2.1.

• The systematics and nomenclature of the "Francolins" is problematic. I have attempted to followCrowe TM, Harley EH, Jakutowicz MB, Komen J & Crowe A. 1992. "Phylogenetic, taxonomic andbiogeoraphical implications of genetic, morphological, and behavioral variation in Francolins(Phasianidae:Francolinus). Auk109(1):24-42.
• Following their presentation, I previousl listed the taxon:
  • Scleroptila africana (Stephens)1819Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 11pt2 p.323
• My colleague Dr David Donsker raised questions about the gender agreement endings of some of theScleroptilan specific epithets, and this prompted several changes.
• Normand David assisted in the understandings here, and he pointed out (2006.10.01) that:

  InFrancolinus,afer Muller 1776 (the type ofPternistis =P. afra =Francolinus afer) is a senior homonym ofafer (afra) Latham 1790, the latterbeing replaced by the junior synonymafricanus (=africana) Stephens 1819. See againWolters who usesScleroptila afra (p.105) andPternistis afer (p. 104).

• I was somewhat uncertain as to whether Latham's 1790 name was actually referable to this bird(the "Grey-Winged Francolin", but again Dr Donsker was able to provide help, he writes (2006.10.01)

  I am reasonably confident that Latham'sPerdix afra (Index Ornithologicus, 1790, p.648) basedon "Var.A. Pearled Partridge, Latham, Gen.Syn. II, ii, p.773, no. 15A refers to "Grey-wingedFrancolin",Scleroptila africana. I base this on two important features:
  The specimen, according to Latham's Gen. Syn. entry, was sent to Sir Joseph Banks from the Capeof Good Hope. This is perfect for the range ofS. africana.
  The critical portion of Latham's description is as follows: "over each eye an elegant stripe,minutely dotted with black and white: chin, and fore part of the neck, marked in the same elegantmanner".
   Of the South African francolins, only S. africana is characterized by a freckled throat which,according to Sinclair (1993) is its most distinctive feature. The rest of Latham's description alsoseems to fit.

• Crowe 1992 refer to Wolter's work, but make no mention (that I can find) of Wolter's recognitionthatafra Latham is the correct name to use when this taxon is held inScleroptila.
• Most helpfully, Dr Richard Schodde (in litt. 2020.03.08) notes:

   “afra Latham, 1790 replacesafricanus Stephens, 1819, being no longer a junior secondary homonym in the same genus asPternistis afer (St. Müller, 1776) - see ICZN Art. 59.4”

• Art. 59.4 reads:

  59.4.Reinstatement of junior secondary homonyms rejected after 1960A species-group name rejected after 1960 on grounds of secondary homonymy is to be reinstated as valid by an author who considers that the two species-group taxa in question are not congeneric, unless it is invalid for some other reason.

• Conventionally cited to 1887 (e.g. Peters Checklist10:97 (Deignan 1964) ;H&M 3^rd:601; Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Aethiop.II:361).
• The actual dates of publication of the J.Orn. during this period are extremely problematic. Delays of between 3 and 9 or more months between the "imprint date" and the actual date ofpublication being one of the problems.
• However in this instance there is very goodpublished evidence to support the interpretationthat this name was not published until 1888. The Richmond Index, as well as the unpublished notes onDates of Publication point repeatedly to a note in the Ibis 1891:616 where evidence is publishedconcerning the actual apparent dates of availability for the J.Orn. during this period. The 1887July. number (179) containing this description was not recieved at the London ZoologicalSociety until March 5, 1888 (virtually a 5 month delay).
• Edward Dickinson (in litt. maintains that 1887 remains the appropriate date to useaccording tohis interpretation of the Code. (He relies on theFrench text of Art. 21.2French text "est à adopter comme correcte en l'absence de preuve du contraire"). Thecorresponding English text is "is adopted to be correct in the absence of evidence to thecontrary.", so the difference hinges on the distinction between "evidence" and "preuve" (proof), adifference which encompasses the minor and the profound.
• The publishing history of the J.Orn. is vastly rich inevidence of delays andirregularities, and some of the evidences can be regarded as tantamount to proofs, but most, so far,are not.
2014.04.01
• Fortunately, in this instance additional data internal to the publication sets aside concerns overnice distinctions betwee "proof" and "evidence". On p.298 of this number Dr Carl Eckstein's article the final linereads:

  Eberswalde, den 12. October 1887

  Given this fact, the "July 1887" publication datemust be set aside, and the date when the materialwas first demonstrated to be in existence must be used. Currently this would be the 5 March 1888 datewhen the London Zool.Soc. acknowledged receipt of the work.

• H&M 3^rd:383 dates this to 1869, though this was published in1868. This error results from lack of understanding of the (changing, confusing and inconsistent)orthography used in the Peters Checklist volumes. Other examples of this erroneous interpretationare corrected (e.g.Frederickena unduligera unduligera on p.380.But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW8:569 has the date correct as 1868.

• Peters Checklist11:427 (Mayr) lists the page number for this taxon as "p. 106"
• The Richmond Index lists the page as "102"; which I follow.

• The Richmond Index notes that Reichenbach employs the spellingAgaiaon p.XV, andAjaia on p.XVI. This is confirmed by Neave1:82.

• Originally spelledCarbo albiventer.
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1986 onpage 192 lists this name as

  albiventor, Carbo, Lesson, 1831,Traité Orn. (8) : 604(Aves)O.409

• The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda states that this is alapsusbut does not indicate how this is known.
• [2010.01.22] Thanks to the efforts of David Nicholson of ITIS, I have read the Opinion 409 in which an apparent attempt is made by Meinertzhagen to deal with this name. In this Opinion the original name is spelled incorrectly asalbiventor (twice) on p.160, correctly (twice) asalbiventer (p.163), and finally incorrectly asalbiventor on p.170, with apparent recommedations to render the name both ways.
• The Official List follows what seems to me to be least logical path.
• In the face of this apparent error, and with evident confusion, ignorance or inattentionon the part of the Commission in this matter, I am reluctant to follow the Official List.

• The Peters Checklist1(2):161 (Dorst & Mougin) give the page number as "p.199".
• If that were true for the second volume of the Austral Avian Record, it would date to 1915, and not 1914.
• The Richmond Index shows the page correctly as p.119.
• HBW1:632 faithfully replicates this error from the Peters Checklist.

• Chapman named this birdOreoibis akelyorum, but named it after Mr &Mrs. Carl Akeley.
• Contra Chapman (as followed by Peters CL1(2):261), this must becorrected toakeleyorum.
• The requirement for this correction is noted in H&M 3^rdCorrigenda 5.

• This number of the Proceedings of the U.S. Nat. Mus. is dated Oct. 25, 1893.
• The U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. No.193 notes that advance sheets were issued Aug. 16, 1893.
• Aug. 16, 1893 is the date listed in the Richmond Index; Peters Checklist15:140(Vaurie) does not trouble itself with such details, but gets theyear datecorrect.

• Usually cited to PZS pt12 no.138 Dec. 1844 p.135 (e.g. Peters1(2):152; HBW1:632).
• McAllen. 2004. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities ofsome birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand" Notornis51:125-6 points out that the publication of this name in Birds Australia(part 17 published in late Nov. 1844) antedates the publication in the PZS (lateDecember, 1844).

• The Peters Checklist gives a confused, and inconsistant approach to datesfor this number of volume 31 of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal, (see for examplepp.311,312 of volume 8, where Mayr gives different years for citations to thesame page). Thus it is not clear whether the "1863" date follows Peters(where one has one's pick of dates) or from Round, 2002.
• Sharpe Cat.B.Br.Mus.14:412 dates this to 1862.
• The basis for Round's use of "1863", is unstated. For my part it, I don'tknow whether it is correct. Given the fact that the date is not discussed byRound, it gives the impression that he and his editors, were unaware of,or unconcerned by the problem of dating this taxon.

• The Corrigenda 5 of H&M reinstates the genus groupAnthocincla forthe taxon more generally referred to asPitta phayrei. There are, howeverproblems.
  1. The date given for this taxon is 1863, though other taxa from pagesbefore andafter the page (p.343) where this genus is described inJASB are dated in H&M to1862
     • Gecinulus grantia viridis Blyth 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31p.341 -- H&M p.330 1862. (no correction in Corr. 5)
     • Treron pompadora phayrei (Blyth) 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31p.344 -- H&M p.172 1862 (no correction in Corrigenda)
  2. No gender is given for the Genus group name. My bestguess isthat it is feminine.
  3. The reference given in support "Round, 2002" is not given in theCorrigenda, however I understand from Edward Dickinson that it is Round PD."Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 30. An undescribed acoustic display of theeared pittaAnthocincla phayrei Blyth, 1863." Zool.Verh.Leiden340:197-199, fig.1."
  4. Sharpe separated this fromPitta, stating:

     kept apart fromPitta on account of its longer and more compressedbill, lengthened neck-feathers, shorter tarsi, and short roundedwings.

     .
  5. Round states:

     It is the only pitta to possess entirely russet or brown, non-iridescent plumageas an adult, and one of very few species to possess elongate, somewhat erectile, "ear-tufts". It differs in other respects, too, having a slightlylonger, more slender and curved bill, and proportionately shorter tarsi thanother pittas. It tends to occur in drier areas, and possibly more distrubedhabitats than the other non-migratory pittas, often showing an association withdrier secondary growth, although there is considerable overlap with [the] bluepittaP. cyanea Blyth, 1843, and the two species are often foundtogether. Feeding behaviour also differs, Eared pittas tend to move around lesswhen feeding, often spending many minutes foraging under the same bush or [onthe] same few square metres of forest floor, in contrast to other pittas whichtend to "patrol" through their territories when feeding, seldom remaining in anyone location for more than a few seconds.

     Round does not mention Sharpe's basis for generic separation: Round and Sharpeshare the "shorter tarsi" criterion, and both comment on bill differences("compressed" and "slightly longer, more slender and curved").Round's use of "one of very few species to possess elongate, somwhat erectile,"ear-tufts"" would seem to me to argue for it being a congener with those otherspecies, so I see that as neutral in the separate-genus-or-not argument.
• For the moment, and with some trepidation, I follow this generic split.

• The dates of the second volume of the Conspectus Generum Avium alwaysinclude some uncertainty.
• This name occurs in a portion that the Richmond Index indicates has a Signaturedate of "1 Dec. 1855", though Richmond does not date this name to a specificyear.
• Peters Checklist1:62 lists 1857 but without comment or discussion.
• Mathews, 1925 suggests volume 2 p.1-160; 161-184 as 1856, and185-232 from 1857.

• Peters Checklist1(2):347 cites this as:

  Astur gentilis arrigonii Kleinschmidt, 1903, Ornith. Monatsber.,9,p.152

• Volume9 appears to make no sense for 1903, and the Richmond Index citesthis to volumeXI (no doubt misinterpreted as "9" by the Petersauthors).
The Peters error is reproduced in HBW2:573.

• Peters Checklist4:26 cites this as:
  • Cacomantis castaneiventris arfakianusSalvadori 1889Mem.R.Accad.Sci.Torino(2) 40 p.177
  With a note that it is included in the "reprint" on p.49. This evidently refers to the "Aggiunte". The Aggiunte was published in 1889, while vol. 40 of theMem. was not published until 1890. Thus I cite the taxon to the Aggiunte.

• The comments in the Richmond Index suggests that this may be quitemarginal as an acceptable taxon. The comments there read:

  Mere outline of some generic characters here; almost anomen nudum.Figured + described by Gurney in Trans.Zool.Soc.Lond., VI,Pt.3, Mch 28,1867, 117, pl.27 under the nameM.alcinus.

• The last comment suggests that Gurney himself did not appear torecognize this form a mere year after he published the name.
• No mention of the validity of this taxon, or the basis of it'sidentification are found in any of the modern works available to me.Mayr in his 1940 description ofM. a. papuanusmakes no mention ofthis (putative) form.
• The type is (or was) evidently in the Norwich Museum, consisting ofone specimen (a female).

• Cited by Peters Checklist2:344 as being published in 1848,though no supporting data are adduced.
• The Richmond Index lists a date of 1847, with a note that thesignature is dated Dec. 1847.
• I believe it is likely that 1848 may be the correct date for thistaxon, but that in the abscence of proof of delay, then 1847 must beaccepted as the date, unless and until proof of delay is presented.
• The 1957 AOU CL lists the date as 1847, and evidently on that basis,H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3 reverted from 1848 to 1847.
• HBW3:647 lists the taxon to 1848.

• Conventionally cited to Brehm alone (e.g. HBW3:609 (Gochfeld& Burger)).
• However, Zimmer (p.89,90), Rolf Schlenker. "Bibliographie derDeutschen Vogelkundlichen Literatur von 1480 bis 1850" Hiersmann.Suttgart. 2004. (p.35) make it clearthat Schilling was also an author for Band 3.
Schilling is also listed as an author for this taxon in the RichmondIndex.

• HBW3:423 (Piersma) includes the subspecies
  • Pluvialis apricaria altifrons (Brehm,CL) 1831Handb.Naturgesch.Vog.Deutschl. p.542
  with only the indication that subspecies in this taxon are "debated". Literature documentationfor this "debate" is not given.
• H&M 3^rd:134, includes this taxon but includes no notes, discussion, or supportfor its status as a subspecies.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was considered, at least at some time as a synonym ofCharadrius apricarius.
• Neither HBW nor H&M pretends to be a primary taxonomic work. The inclusion of this taxonis not based, as near as I can tell, on any published data. It may well be I havemissed something here, but I await indication of published support for this taxon before Iinclude it.

• Cited by Peters Checklist6:73 to Heft 2. pl.2 and text.
• HBW7:562 gives this same citation, though pl.2 seems apeculiar number for Heft 2 (unless the plates are numbered anew in eachHeft).
• The Richmond Index gives "hef. 2 pl. 17 + text", which seems morelikely and which I follow.

• Norbert Bahr writes (2005.11.03)

  ..., in a recent article Grauet al. (2005) confirmed thesystematics of the piping guans proposed by Delacour & Amadon in 1973,namely the merger ofPipile inAburria. Grauet al. (2005)found thatPipile jacutinga is the sister species toAburriaaburri + all other species ofPipile; the next splitisA. aburri, which is the sister species to the remainingPipile species.  Thus,Pipile would be papraphyletic, and itseems the best solution to merge both genera under the oldest name,Aburria (as did Delacour & Amadon more than 30 years ago).Grau et al. (2005): Mol. Phylogen. Evol.35:637-645.

• Previously as

  Pipile(m.)Bonaparte 1856Compt.Rend. 42 p.877Type

  Pipile pipile (Jacquin) 1784Pipile cumanensis (Jacquin) 1784Pipile cumanensis cumanensis (Jacquin)Pipile cumanensis grayi (Pelzeln)Pipile cujubi (Pelzeln) 1858Pipile cujubi cujubi (Pelzeln) 1858Pipile cujubi nattereri ReichenbachPipile jacutinga (Spix) 1825

• Originally described inEntomyza, and evidently (though it isnot discussed) for this reason H&M 3^rd:435 encloses theauthority in parentheses.
• Neave p.244 listsEntomyza as

  (pro -zon Swainson 1825)

  which I interpret to mean that Neave seesEntomyzaGray, as an emendation ofEntomyzon Swainson.
• I do not find a card for any Genus group nameEntomyza in theRichmond Index, and until other information becomes available, Iinterpret it as an emendation, with no parentheses required around theauthority.

• This is held to be a valid subspecies by
  1. Peters Checklist (1940)4:110
  2. AOU CL (1957) 5^th:278
  , and by
  3. Weick, Friedholm (1999). Zur Taxonomie der AmerikanischenUhus (Bubo spp). Unter Beruecksichtigung eines groesstenteils parallelvariierenden Polymorphismus innerhalb der Subspecies. Mit zweiFarbtafeln und zwei Verbreitungskarten. [Transl: Taxonomy of theAmerican great horned owls (Bubo spp) with consideration of a mostlyparallel variation within the polymorphic subspecies. With two colourplates and identification maps.]. Okologie der Vogel,21(2):363-387.
• HBW (1999)5:185 (KL Schuchmann) states

  Numerous geographical races named, many poorly differentiated, orapparently result of individual variation, or due to wandering birds fromother parts of range: thus , forms described from coastal W Alaska(algistus) ... considered not acceptable: ...

  However if there is either data or a cited literature in support of thisassertion I have not been able to find it.
• H&M 3^rd:225 follows HBW despite the lack ofpublished taxonomic support for this interpretation.

• Peters Checklist2:183 lists the author of this taxon(Ortygometra affinis) as J.E. Gray with a date of 1846.
• Sharpe 1894 Cat.B.Br.Mus.23:106 lists the author as "Gray"and the year of publication as 1846, and this is undoubtedly the source thatPeters followed, and either Peters or the C.B.B.M was then followed byH&M 3^rd:123 and HBW3:184.
• The authorship of the Birds part of the Voy.Erebus&Terror is attributed toG.R. Gray and this portion of the work was published in 1845, not 1846.

• Originally described inPtilonopus and forthis reason Peters Checklist3:38 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175.
• It appears to me thatPtilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that theauthority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist3:27places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• See the discussion under Chalmayera cerviniventris for a discussion of the page numbering here.Citation
• I do not find any listing in Sherborn for this taxon.

• H&M 3^rd:162 indicates this name should be used inlieu ofM. batchianensis, citing Mees. 1982.
• The text of Bonaparte's description reads:

  MACROPYGIEÆ.  » A propos de diverses races deMacropygia ajoutez qu'albiceps, Temm.,de Ternate a la tête d'un jaune isabelle, et ressemble à monemiliana, quej'ai retrouvé dans presque tous les Musées. ...

• Usually cited to 1877 (e.g. Peters Checklist3:94; HBW4:138).
• However see the notes on Orn.Angola, and note that this taxon is describedon p.386, which puts it in pt2, published in 1881.
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett for the understanding on this.

• Usually cited as
  • Hirundo ariel (Gould) 1843PZS(1842) Pt10 no.117 p.132
  (e.g. Peters Checklist9:123 ; H&M3^rd:538 (Petrochelidon ariel)) .
• However McAllan (2004) points outthat publication in BirdsAustr. was available in early December, 1842, while thePZS publication was not published until Feb. 1843.
• McAllan IAW,2004. Notornis. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities ofsome birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand."51:125-130. (see p.128)

• Treated by Peters Checklist4:207 ; HBW5:365; andH&M 3^rd:243 as a subspecies ofCaprimulgus macrurus
• Sangster G & Rozendaal FG 2004. Systematic notes on Asian birds.41. "Territorial songs and species-level taxonomy of nightjars of theCaprimulgus macrurus complex, with description of a new species." Zool. Verh.,Leiden350:7-45. not only recognize a new species, but holdC.andamanicus to be a full species.

• H&M 3^rd:371 replacesandicola withalbicauda arguing that Traylor's intrepretation ofandicolaandandecolanot being homonomies is wrong(that is to say arguing that theyAREhomonomies).
• Traylor's argument (Peters Checklist8:166) is that they arenot homonomies because the names are based on different derivations(Andium (L.) andAndes (Fr.)). It appears to me that if thederivations are in fact different, as they appear to be, then ICZN (1999)Art. 58 would hold themnot to be homonomies. The Article reads:

  Article 58. Variant spellings of species-group names deemed to be identical. Species-group names established for different nominal taxa thatdiffer in spelling only in any of the following respects and that are of the samederivation and meaning are deemed to be homonyms when the nominal taxathey denote are included in the same genus or collective group.

• Cited by Peters Checklist11:15 (Watson) as datedto 1871, though no evidence or support for this assertion isgiven.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprintdate.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an 1871 papercited this name to 1870. Absent evidence that demonstrates adelay of publication, which Watson was unwilling or unable toprovide, then the date must be regarded as 1870.

• As this is the only taxon in this first volume, that I cite aspublished in 1879 (imprint date 1878), it seems appropriate to indicatethe evidence for the publishing history.
• A publication date of 1879, is used by Peters Checklist8:178(Traylor); Harris. 1928. Condor30:80; and the Richmond Index.CWR gives the date as "May ?", and Harris dates the two signatures 30,31as "April 30 - May 2, 1879", presumably the first date for sig.30 and theMay date for sig.31.
The dates used by Harris, may well be the stereotype dates for thosesignatures, and thus would not be the actual publication date. It ispossible that this fact is indicated by CWR's use of "May ?"

• Peters Checklist8:177 (Traylor) lists Heine as the author, and1859 as the date for this taxon.
• The Richmond Index lists "Cabanis in Heine", and has a note for thistaxon that reads "not published until 1860."
• In general, modern workers follow the Peters Checklist.
• The cover of this number includes the text:

  NB. Das erste Heft des Jahrganges 1860 ist im Druck und wird baldigsterscheinen.

  I translate this:

  The first heft of the year 1860 is in press and will appear soon.

  The interpretation here is problematic. Does this mean that it is "now" 1860 andthat the first heft of this year (1860) is in press? Does it mean that inanticipation of the new year the first heft for that year is now in press? (thewording there would more likely be "The first heftfor the year 1860 is inpress...."). An alterantive interpretation would suggest that the delay is not"proven" (even though delays in publication for this serial were at this time clearlythe "routine" and were expected and acknowledged by one and all) and that the"imprint date" (i.e. 1859) must stand as the nomenclatural date. I thinkhistorical fact overwhelmingly favors 1860, while the combination of currentnomenclatural requirements as well as the data known at present may favor1859. It is not apparent to me that "stability" is served, by having nomenclaturalcode requirements trump historical likelihood, as it is reasonable to expect thatsome little bit of data will show up that confirms the historical likelihood and thusnecessitates a change in the citation.
• It must be noted that the problem of dating the J.Orn. is one of considerable difficulty. In my opinion it is not the kind of problem thatTraylor had a particularly strong record of dealing with. I stronglysuspect that Richmond is correct here, and that Traylor is wrong. The"track record" regarding other similar issues makes this a remarkably safeposition to take. For full resolution, however, we must await thedevelopment of additional information.
• Initially I followed the Richmond Index in attributing the authority to Cabanis,however upon examinint the article itself (2009.06) I think I agree with Traylor.The article in question "Das GenusCnipolegus Boie." is clearly by Heine.On page 334 where this name appears, the entry reads:

  3.C. anthracinus Cab. nov. sp.....

  The following description does not include any quoted text or other direct indicationsof Cabanis' involvement that I can see. Presumably Cabanis may have contributed onlya manuscript name, and absent other specific evidence of his involvement the author of the article (Heine) should be held as the author of the name.

• Peters Checklist8:102 (Traylor) gives this date as 1883.
• This is copied by H&M 3^rd:363, but corrected in Corrigenda 2.1.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

• The Peters Checklist8:70 (Traylor) lists the volume number as"15(362)" which I interpret to be a representation of vol.15,no.362. (Note that earlier in the same volume, on p.26 Traylor represents thesame work as "15 no.362").
• A comparison of other citations to this serial makes the combination of no.362and vol.15 appear unlikely, and this peculiarity would appear to beexplained by the note in the Richmond Index for this taxon. That notehas "XV" scratched out and "XIV" written in above it. The note (in CWR'shand) says

  misprinted vol. "XV" on this no.!

• Another taxon from this same volume and number isSclerurus salvini,which Jim Peters lists (7:152) as from vol.14 no.362. The RichmondIndex for this taxon has the same note concering the misprinted volume number forthis number. It appears to me that Traylor was unwilling, unable, or disinclined tomake his citation consistent with others in the Peters Checklist Series.

• Published in the Dec. no. for Rev.Zool.VIII. Quite possibly notpublished until Jan. (or later) of 1846.

• Peters Checklist8:248 lists the date for this as 1860.
• This portion of the Proceedings has a publication date of March, 1861.

• I follow the treatment by Lowther, Fraga, Schulenberg & Lanyon.
  Lowther PE, Fraga R, Schulenberg TS, & Lanyon SM. 2004. "Nomenclaturalsolution for a polyphyleticAgelaius." BBOC124(3):171-175.

• Peters Checklist gives the citation for this as:

  Opopsitta diophthalma aruensis (Schlegel)Psittacula diophthalma aruensis Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas,3, 1874,      Psittaci revue, p.33 (Aru Islands).
  

  Which is almost exactly correct, but misleading due to incorrectlisting of the volume number. The initial section on parrots is involume 3 (as the set is conventionally bound). This section (no.26) isthe first in the physical volume III (and is half-way throughlivraison #5). Page 33 of this portion discussesPsittaculuscyanopygius Souancé, andPsittacus robustusGmelin.Psittacula diophtalma (sic), Hombron et Jacquinot.first appears on p.75 of this section, but the subspecific name"aruensis" does not appear in this volume or section.
• Psittacula diophthalma aruensis appears in bound volume V (5),livraison 11, in part no.38 (Revue ... Perroquets (Psittaci)...) onp.33.

• Peters Checklist3:196 lists the volume of theProc.Biol.Soc.Wash. as "18", which makes no sense for 1915.
• The Richmond Index shows this as vol.28 which isappropriate for 1915. HBW4:615 also shows the volume correctly as28.
• Compare also the citation forForpus passerinus cyanophanes on3:203where the volume is given (correctly) as28.

• This taxon previously represented by:
  • Charmosyna amabilis (Ramsay,EP)1875Proc.Linn.Soc.NewS.Wales 1 p.30
• It appears my concern over the date was justified, as I understandthis was not published until 1876, and thereforeC. aureicinctahas priority.
• [2010.01.03] The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda notes that the correctcitation may well be by Ramsay in the Sydney Morning Herald 28 July 1875.

• In contrast to virtually all listings of avian taxa, I listsubspecies within species in alphabetical order.
• The convention in ornithology is to try to list subspecies in somekind of geographical order, although many ornithologists understandablybelieve that the subspecific ordering reflects the same kind ofinformation as the species-within-genus sequence. Thespecies-within-genus sequence is intended to proceed from morebasal to more derived.
• A number of problems are unavoidable in trying to use a linear listto reflect geographic distributions which often are non-linear, andoften not known well. Subspecies are usually described before theirgeographic distribution is well worked out.
• A widespread convention attempts a "north-west to south-east"arrangment. Of interest the AOU Check-lists up through the5^th used a "north-east to south-west" convention, while withthe 6^th the orientation became north-to-south orwest-to-east.
• An addtional problem is that consistency of approach isunderstandably impossible, yet no indication is given as to whether thesequence follows a systematic, geographic, or traditional basis.
• For these reasons, I have currently adopted an alphabeticalsequence for subspecies. This enhances convenience when searchingthrough a long list of subspecies.

• Peters Checklist5:123 lists the page number for this as "p. 90", andthis error is repeated by HBW5:688.
• The copy of the publication that I have to hand shows that the genus group name is on p.291.

• A confusing situation exists here. This name is variably attributedto Gray, Bonaparte, Hombron & Jacquinot, Hombron & Pucheran, orPucheran.
• It appears that Gray used a nameActenoide in 1846 inGen.BirdsI:78,79. He appears to have adopted this from avernacular name used by Hombron & Jacquinot, evidently on a plate.This name was emended toActinoides in Gray 1848, List BirdsBrit.Mus.,2(1):52, where it appears he did not use the name, butsimply listed it in the synonomy ofHalcyon.
• Bonaparte used the genus group nameActenoides inConsp.Gen.Av. 1850 p.157, and attributes it to Hombron & JacquinotinVoy. Pole Sud, Ois. t.232 (which had notyet been published). So it is reasonable tospeculate (as suggested by Edward Dickinsonin litt.) thatBonaparte had been shown a draft of Hombron & Jacquinot's work and wasemploying their name and attributing it to them despite theirpublication being not yet available.
• I am told that the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.17:213 (where EdwardDickinson informs me the name appears to be mis-spelledAetenoides, butActenoides in the index) attributesthe name to Hombron & Jacquinot 1853 Voy.Pôle Sud, Zool.iii, p.100.
• Stephen Gregory's treatment of the genus and the type is, I believe,dispositive he communicates (by email 2004.05.07):

  Actenoides Bonaparte, 1850 Conspectus Generum Avium,1, p.157.  [Type by] monotypyActenoides hombroni Bonaparte, 1850  Remarks:Halcyon actenoides, Gr[ay]., which I cannot trace,  quoted first by Bonaparte, p.157. Both Gray and Bonaparte described  species figured by Hombron & Jacquinot in the 'Atlas', in this  case the "Actenoide variée", pl. 23, fig. 2. (January 1845).Actenoïdes     G.R.Gray, 1848, List Specimens Birds Brit.Mus.,2(1), p.52.,    is anomen nudum.Actenoide G.R.Gray, 1846, Genera of Birds,1, p.80, fn,  not introduced as a generic name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:348 (Salomonsen) as published in1879 but evidently with an imprint date of 1878. The basis for hisbelief that the publication was delayed is not given.
• This was followed initially by H&M 3^rd:439.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1878.
• This date has evidently subsequently been supported by a publicationin the Linn.Soc.NSW 1929 index, which is cited in support of changingthe date to 1878 by the Corrigenda #2 for theH&M 3^rd.

• Cited by Peters Checklist5:202 as published in 1885.
• This was followed by HBW6:216, and initially also byH&M 3^rd:288.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1884.
• This date has evidently subsequently been supported by a publicationin the Linn.Soc.NSW 1929 index, which is cited in support of changingthe date to 1884 by the Corrigenda #2 for the H&M3^rd.

• Authorship conventionally attributed to McClelland (i.e. PetersChecklist5:243, HBW6:371, The Richmond Index,etal.).
• The complex issue of the authorship of names from the McClelland drawings istreated by Edward DickinsonDickinson EC. 2003. 'Systematic notes on Asianbirds. No.38 "The McClelland drawings and a reappraisal of the 1835-36 surveyof the birds of Assam." Zool. Verh., Leiden 344 p.[63]-106'
• I follow his approach here

• Sometimes (e.g. Peters Checklist11:337) held to be a subspecies
• H&M 3^rd:693 holds this to be a full species, and this isalso followed in the Taxonomic Recomendations for British birds.Sangsteret al. Ibis. 2004.146:156..

• Peters Checklist6:26 lists the source as "Bull.Zool.Soc.France".This abbreviation is a minor error, as the title of the serial is"BULLETIN DE LA SOCIETE ZOOLOGIQUE DE FRANCE"
• HBW7:[559] reproduces this error exactly

• Peters Checklist4:62 gives 1935, and this is followed by HBW4:607 and H&M 3^rd:217
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• Often, and usually spelled "annectens"
• Originally spelled "annectans", and H&M 3^rd:621indicates that the altered spelling is now considered to be an unjustified emendation.

• Peters Checklist10:9 gives the date as 1844.
• The Richmond Index gives the date as Oct. 9 1843, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist10:9 gives the name as "atragularis (sic)".
• The Richmond Index gives the name asatrogularis and this isfide (copy of original seen, thanks to Edward Dickinson).

• The original description reads:

  SITAGRA ALIENA, n. sp.  [male] Similis nulla speciei generis 'Sitagra dicti. Notæo     concolore, flavicanti-olivadeo; pileo undique et gutture     nigris; gutture imo laterali et præpectore castaneis;     pectore et abdomine læ flavis, subcaudalibus magis     cervinus; corporis lateribus olivaceo-viridioribus: rostro     nigro; pedibus sordide corneo-cæruleis; iride coccinea.     Long. tot. 5.6 pll., culm.0.8, alæ 2.8, caudæ 2.2,     tarsi 0.9.  [female] Mari similis, sed gutture, summo tantum nigro,     gutture reliquo et præpectore castaneis.Hab. Ruwenzori, Feb. 13, 1902.Obs. This species, according to Capt. Shelley's classifi-cation of the Weaver-Birds (b. Afr. i. p.38), would comeinto his genusHyphanturgus, but even then there is nospecies with a black head and throat.

• Bob Dowsett informs me that the specific name may be an anagram of the name ofMr FJ Jackson's wife - "Aline". (The taxon is described from a bird in Jackson's collection).ALIENA, obviously also can be the feminine from of the adjective meaning "strange".In the former case, it appears to me that it would not be declinable, while it obviously wouldin the latter -- resulting inPloceua alienus.
Bob tells me that this is not a particularly "strange" Weaver. The descriptiondoes emphasize the unique black head and throat and this could support the idea of a degree of difference. In addition, the original description doesNOT make a specific mention of Jackson's wife, or her name. Therefore, after"flip-flopping" on this issue, I preferPloceus alienus toPloceus aliena.

• Previously given as
  • Motacilla aguimpDumont 1821Dict.Sci.Nat. 21 p.466
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in ZoologySupplement 1986-2000." gives the Temminck citation for this.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N.  54 ALCEDO (ænea) atroviridis, subtus, ferru-ginea, fascia transversa jugulari viridi-atra, albovariegata, abdomine albo.  Magn. vix Spinumæquat.   Remiges omnes interiori margine albæ,secundariæ exteriori albo passim interruptæ.

• The locality (taken from theCatalogue, not theAdumbratiunculae) isgiven as "Surinam."
• Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birdsin Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):333-4.

• A new (phylogenetic) species separated fromP.vulturina on the basis of plumage. Previously had beenheld to be an immature ofP. vulturina.

• I am a little puzzled here:
  • According to Peters Checklist9:439. Originally describedas "Myrm[ornis] arada Hermann, 1783 Tabl. Affin. Anim., p.211 note r"
  • I do not find an entry in the Richmond Index for this taxon (though there is one for"Myrmornis campanisoma Hermann. Tab. Affin. Anim., 1783, 189 (note in text)").

• Often speltC. aradus. Originally described asMyrm[ornis] arada Hermann, 1783. (According to Peters Checklist9:439.)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):40 discuss this. They indicate that: "The wordarada is a native name "often wrongly made to agree in gender(Jobling 1991)".
• During the period of 1978-1992 in theZoo. Rec. I find both combinationsCyphorhinus arada andCyphorhinus aradus occuringonce each.

• Often speltG. andicola. Originally described asHypsibamon andicolaCabanis, 1873.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):37 discuss this. They indicate that: "The nameandicolus ends here inthe substantival suffix-cola [dweller] with a modified ending." [and thus should not bechanged].
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationGrallaria andicol[a,us] does not occurin theZoo. Rec..

• Often speltP. atricapilla. Originally described asParusatricapillus Linnaeus, 1766.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latinadjectival stem joined to the Latin nouncapillus are noun phrases that are to be treatedas nouns in apposition... . Linnaeus'satricapillus could also be viewed as the Latin nounatricapilla with a modified ending, as it was customary for him to coin such names."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationParus atricapillus occurs 220 timesin theZoo. Rec.;Poecile is not used in combination withatricapill...during that time.

• Often speltA. auricapilla. Originally described asPsittacusauricapillus Kuhl, 1820.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latinadjectival stem joined to the Latin nouncapillus are noun phrases that are to be treatedas nouns in apposition..."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationAratinga auricapilla occursin theZoo. Rec., it occurs 5 times.
• The HBW4:432 (Collar) usesAratinga auricapilla with no discussion ofthenomenclature.

• Mesoamerican components ofAulacorhynchus are discussed inNavarro AG, PetersonAT, Lopez-Medrano E, & Benitez-Diaz H. 2002. "Species Limits in MesoamericanAULACORHYNCHUS Toucanets." Wilson Bull. (2001) 113(4):363-372.
• Navarro,et al. regard three taxa as species, which are considered as subspecies bythe recently published HBW7. They give them as:
  • A. wagleri (Sturm) 1841 [The author here is Sturm according to Peters, andSturm & Sturm according to both the Richmond Index and Sherborn.]
  • A. caeruleogularis (Gould) 1854
  • A. cognatus (Nelson) 1912
• Navarro,et al. also suggest other taxa may need consideration as full species.They are:
  • A. albivitta (Boissonneau) 1840
  • A. atrogularis (Sturm) 1841
  • A. lautus (Bangs) 1898

• Often speltL. albidinuchus. Originally described asDomicellaalbidinucha Rothschild & Hartert, 1924.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " Noun phrases that end in a Latinnoun are to be treated as nouns in apposition, and the original spelling is to be retained,with gender ending unchanged (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationLorius albidinuchusoccurs in theZoo. Rec., it occurs 3 times.
• The HBW3:349 (Collar) usesLorius albidinuchus with no discussion of thenomenclature.

• Often speltO. atricapillus. Originally described asStris atricapillaTemminck, 1822.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the wordatricapilla canonly be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequentlyinvariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• In addition they point out that " ...atricapilla may also be viewed as a noun phraseending in the modified Latin nouncapillus, which would also make it invariable".
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationOtus atricapillus occurs9 times in theZoo. Rec..Otus atricapilla does not occur.

• Often speltV. atricapillus. Originally described asVireoatricapilla Woodhouse, 1852.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the wordatricapilla canonly be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequently invariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• As soon as 1853-1854 Cassin was using the binomenVireo atricapillus inBirds.Calif.Tex.Ore.Brit.Russ.Am., Coues also usedVireo atricapillus in hisworks.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationVireo atricapillus occurs 13 times intheZoo. Rec..Vireo atricapilla does not occur.

• Often speltZ. atricapillus. Originally described asZosteropsatricapilla Salvadori, 1879.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the wordatricapilla canonly be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequently invariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationZosterops atricap... does not occur intheZoo. Rec..

• Peters Checklist6:12 includes this inBucco.
• Rasmussen & Collar HBW7:104 argue for inclusion in a monotypic genus.This is based on:
• The presence of a pointed, distinctlynon-bifid bill tip. (All other seeminglyclosely related puffbirds have some degree of bill-tip bifurcation).
• The presence of an apparently unique plumage type.
• H&M 3^rd:332 includemacrodactyla inBucco, without commenton the position taken by Rasmussen & Collar.

• Often speltP. amauropterus. Originally described asHalcyonAmauropterus Pearson, 1841.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name must becorrected toHalcyon amauroptera ... The nameamauropterus islatinized from the Greek adjectivalαμαροπτερος[amauropteros; dark-winged]."

1. Placed the taxon in another genus (FRINGILLApro EMBERIZA)
2. corrected the ablative to the plural (atro foratris; head AND chestblack)
3. described the body as chestnut colored (instead of wings as red).
4. described the tail as having four lateral black lines
5. added the Brisson reference.
6. and left the locality as the Cape of Good Hope.

• Listed by Peters Checklist4:89 as a full species.
• Listed by Sibley & Monroe p.171 as a full species, but deleted in Supplement.
• HBW5:154 lists this as a full species, and (Dr C. Hinkelmann) states "morphologicstudy clearly demonstrates its distinctness and validity as a species."

• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avianspecies names." BBOC.122(1):21 discuss this. Theyindicate that: "The adjectival namealbitaris (-is, -e is formed from theLatin adjectivealbus (-a, -um) and the stem of the latinized Greek nounταρσος [tarsos; foot], to which was added theLatin adjetival suffix-is (-is, -e) (Glare 1982:970, under the suffix-is). To changealbitarse to albitarsus would turn a variable adjective intoan invariable noun."
• During the period of 1978-1992 none of these combinations occurs in theZoo.Rec..

• The troublesome issue ofAcanthogenysversusAcanthagenys is disscussed byMcAllenand Bruce, 1989 and with an opposing opinion inBruceand McAllan, 1991. I give the citation here as followedconventionally.
• The facts of the case appear to be:
• Gould's 1838 name wasAcanthagenys(Sherborn andRichmond, et al. 1992 agreeon this).
• Richmond, et al. 1992 atributesAcanthogenys toGray GR 1840 in ListGenBirds p.15,where Richmond notes it is an emendation of Gould's name.
• Bruce and McAllan, 1991 p.478 discuss these namesin some detail and reach the decision thatAcanthogenys Gould 1844 is a junior objectivesynonym. Their discussion does not mention Gray's 1840emendation.
• M. Bruce adds further clarification to this persistantlyconfusing issue (2001.05.12):
  [BEGIN M. BRUCE]

  Acanthogenys:
  The reason why Ian and I changed our minds on this issue was theresult of looking at Gould's names as a whole. We demonstrated inthe 1991 (not 1990) paper that Gould was not consistent and evenignored earlier publications of his own names. However, as wenoted, it gets down to justified vs unjustified emendations andGould's subsequent use ofAcanthagenys supportedit as the intended spelling (or is he being inconsistentlyconsistent?). I checked Gray 1840 later, where an emendation can beimplied (he used the same spelling in the 1841 2nd ed.). Gould'slater use ofAcanthogenys may have been theinfluence of Gray, or just a case of Gould ignoring what he didearlier.

  Whatever, Gray's spelling is the one widely used.
  [END M. BRUCE]

• On general widespread consideration of this issue, both the logic of thematter, and the consensus opinion is that the original spellingAcanthagenys stands and thatAcanthogenys is an unjustifiedemendation.
....; 2004.12.20

• Peters Checklist2:222 recognizesAfrotis atra(previously inOtis), and gives a citation ofSyst.Nat..ed.12 that is correct forOtis afra,however this name first occurs in ed.10 on p.155.
• Examination of the font leaves no doubt in my mind that it isan "f" and not a "t".
• Bob Dowsett informs me (2003.02.14) that he and R.K. Brooke addressed this issue previously, and reached the same conclusion. Stating that "Otis atra is no more than amisreading of a badly printed text and is to be regarded at the best as an unustifiedemendation." (p.104).Brooke R.K. & Dowsett R.J. 1969. "The original name of the bustardEupodotis afra". BBOC.89:103-104.

• Peters Checklist2:82 lists 1851.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 give 1854.
• [DeignanBBOC80(7):121. 1960. indicates that"1848 was the date of issue only of Aflervering 1 ... . Aflevering 2,...., was issued in 1851, as has been pointedout by Sherborn (Index Animalium, A-B, p.xvii) and Sherborn's decisionis supported by the fact that Volume 1, Aflevering 2, of the Bijdragen was notreceived byt he Académie des Sciences at Paris until22^nd September 1851."][Deignan's data is supported by the CWR unpublished notes on Dates of Publication, in which he notes that Aflevering 2 & 3 were Rec'd by the ParisAcademy on Sept. 22, 1851]
• These facts make the date of 1851 for Aflevering6 extremelyunlikely, and I am reluctant to follow the unsupported and unlikely dateof 1851 for no other apparent reason than that it occurs in PetersChecklist.
• Absent any other data, and with 1851 apparently proposed by authorswho knowless of the situation than it appears Richmond did, Ifollow the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist2:82 lists 1851.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 give 1854.

• Peters Checklist4:108 has 1848.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciencesindicates that this portion of Vol.4 for 1848 was published in1849.

• Peters Checklist14:224 does not indicate that this is thesecond series.

• Peters Checklist12:369 has a typographic error, "Amer." for"Ann.".

1875

Peters Checklist11:577 has 1876; remarkably, the rightidea, but applied in the wrong situation. SeePoggi,1996.

Charmosyna amabilis 1875 vs 1876

This may be 1876, as I am uncertain where the 1875-1876 breakoccurs in Vol.1.

Turdus amaurochalinus

Peters Checklist10:216 has 1851. SeeBrowning andMonroe, 1991

• Peters Checklist3:24 lists 1855.
• The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71 according to taxa listed inRichmond, et al. 1992.
• However, Mathews suggests volume 2 p.1-160 are from 1855.
• I followRichmond, et al. 1992 here, though 1855 may be right.

AmpelioidesVerreaux

I have not determined which Verreaux this is.

Diomedeaamsterdamensis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.1.

Tchagra anchietae1869

This date is uncertain, and may well be 1870. If the volume wasissued in parts, my best guess is that this will be 1869.

Upucerthia andaecolaplates

Peters Checklist7:63 does not include the plates, which Itake fromRichmond, et al. 1992.

Ptilinopusarcanus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.3.

Aegothelesarchboldi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
HBW5:264 indicates this was previously treated as a race ofA. albertisi, but is now seen as a sibling species,replacingA. albertisi at higher elevations.

Ardeotis

Not used by Peters Checklist Vol.2. AsChoriotis Gray GR 1855.

Platylophus ardesiacus1850

Peters Checklist15:205 has 1851. SeeBrowning andMonroe, 1991}.

Columba argentina1854

Peters Checklist3:71 lists 1855. The signatures of volume2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71 according to taxa listed inRichmond, et al. 1992. Mathews suggests volume 2p.1-160 are from 1855. I followRichmond, et al. 1992here, though 1855 may be right.

Anal. Nat.

Peters Checklist2:132 cites "Rafinesque, Analyse,1815".
On p.51 (for example) he cites "Vieillot, 1816, Analyse". Theconfusion results from two works:

• "Analyse D'Une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire"Vieillot 1816, and
  
• "Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et desCorps organises, &c."Rafinesque 1815.
  

• Peters Checklist1:69 lists 1857.
• Mathews, 1925 suggests volume 2 p.1-160; 161-184 as1856, and 185-232 from 1857.
• I don't find it inRichmond, etal. 1992, so I follow Mathews here.

Clytoctantesatrogularis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.7.

• Peters Checklist2:306 has 1830.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 notes "mayhave appeared in 1830".
• Sherborn 1902 says "ante March1831".

• Peters Checklist10:166 has "Rev.Zool.[Paris], ser. 2, 1,p.158".
• I followRichmond, et al. 1992 as Rev.Mag.Zool. is thesecond series of Rev.Zool.
• The date (and the volume) are somewhat in question. Peters Checklist10:166 is the source of the volume "1"; no volume is givenin the Richmond Index. The date of 1850 seems unlikely for volume1 as most taxa from volume1 are dated to 1849. So mysuspicion is that the volume number, or date (or both) are wronghere.
• Sherborn gives the volume as "II" which makes much more sensethan the Peters (S. Dillon Ripley) citation.
• Examination of this original description on-line confirms that the Ripley citationis incorrect. This is found in Ser.2 vol.2 of the Rev.Mag.Zool. Interestingly the citation is correct in the CBBM5:289, so it is not clear what material Ripleywas dealing with then he composed this portion of his text. (2009.07.11).

• Peters Checklist9:199 has 1827, and does not list thelivraison, which is 64. This puts the date at 1825 byRichmond, et al. 1992 Sherborn, and Mathews.

Piculusaurulentus

• I don't find this name inRichmond, et. al. 1992orSherborn
• This description is in livr.10 -- as the Peters Checklist citationindicates -- hence Zimmer's listing of the dates for Pl.Col. wouldindicate 1821 rather than 1823 as listed by Peters.
• This is confirmed by E. Dickinson's detailed study of Pl.Col.(referenced in the citation note).

Picus awokera1836

• Peters Checklist6:133 (and Wolters p.163) list the date as 1826. (Perhaps alapsus for 1836).
• The date given byRichmond, et al. 1992 andSherborn 1902 is 1835.
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) providesevidence for 1836.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck &Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avisaccompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the"Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries thedate April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thusfrom December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guineain 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis vanZr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl.1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".
  • Dickinson's (2001) Appendix III "Names for which citations inPeters Check-list must be changed" shows the Peters date forPicus awokera as "1835", which I believe is alapsus forthe Peters Checklist listing of "1826".
• HBW7:541 perpetuates the Peters Checklistlapsus of "1826"

• Peters Checklist3:103 gives a range of dates "1838-1843",as does Sherborn.
• This date is given as 1840 in Sibley & Monroe,but the basis for that is uncertain.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:287.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and SchulenbergRemsen, 1998

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:287.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and SchulenbergRemsen, 1998

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:287.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and SchulenbergRemsen, 1998

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:284.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and SchulenbergRemsen, 1998

• Placed by Sibley & Monroe inGrus, based onDNA-hybridization work by Krajewski.
• Further work by Krajewski, and others Krajewski C andFetzner JW, 1994 using cyt-b DNA sequences indicates theinclusion intoGrus is premature. These relationshipsrequire further resolution.

• Peters Checklist4:252 attributes this to "Rev. Zool."which did not commence until 1838.

• Peters Checklist5:263 attributes to JE Gray;
• The Richmond index attributes to Hodgson.

• Richmond questions whether this is anomen nudum andnotes it is also in Bonaparte Consp.Gen.Av. I p.90 where it appearsto be attributed to Hodgson.

• Peters Checklist2:59 gives "pt.3 pl.4,5 and text"; Ifollow (Richmond, et al. 1992).

• Peters Checklist3:87 lists 1810. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist11:544 has 1875. See {Poggi, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist15:95 has 1870.
• The dates of publication of this Journal are somewhat of amystery. The collected portions of the work are dated 1870. "NumVII." which includes "Aves das possessoes portugueazas d'Africaoccidntal que existem no Museu de Lisboa (quarta lista)" p.333-352has a heading of AGOSTO de 1869.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1869, but has a "? following thedate. Of interest the Richmond Index dates a taxon from the previouspage of this same volume and number (Telephonus anchietae) to1869 with no "?" on the date. Peters Checklist9:321 dates thissecond taxon to 1870 with no comment on the date.

• Peters Checklist15:117 does not list the plate.

• Peters Checklist13:124 gives "Archiv f. Naturg. 30p.49". I follow the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist9:268 has 1881.
• This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuringin 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.1.
• Not listed in Sibley & Monroe based on the interpretationthat was known only from bones from the islands it hadinhabited.
• However, evidently specimens were captured, taken to Paris, andbred, and the Vieillot description evidently is from one of theParis animals, which, if true indicates the species deservesinclusion according to the Sibley & Monroe criteria.
• Norbert Bahr writes:

  "Concerning the emus of the South Australian islands, there areseveral mounted specimens and skeletons in the museums of Paris,Geneve and Firenze, which were brought back by Cpt. Baudin (somealive) to France. It seems that King Island Emus (Dromaius ater)bred in the Paris Zoo in the early 1800s, so the description ofthat species by Vieillot was based on live specimens, I think.Photos of the mounted skins have been published in Krumbiegel:Die Straussen- vögel. Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 1966, andDottrens: Mus. Geneve2 (1960), 12-15. Balouet & Jouanin (1990)clarified the situation in L'Oiseau60, 314-318."

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.9.
• Named after the Rev. Fr. O. Appert, missionary andcollector in Madagascar. Jobling (p.16) lists Appert as German, but Bob Dowsett informs me(2003.02.14) that he was Swiss.

Capitoauratus

• Not listed in Sibley and Monroe.
• Listed as a subspecies by Peters Checklist6:26.Haffer (1997), Orn. Monogr.48: 281-305. recommendedto re-establishCapito auratus, as he felt the reasonsoffered to subsume it underC. niger are insufficient.

• Brooke and Rowe. 1996 treat thePterodromaarminjoniana/heralidca group. Their proposal is based onbehavioral and molecular evidence.

  Brooke M de L, Rowe G. Behavioural and molecular evidencefor specific status of the light and dark morphs of the HeraldPterodroma heralica. 1996. Ibis 138:420-432.

• The HBW1:242 does not recognizeatrata as a species,and treatsheraldica as a race.
• I am still (2000.11.11) seeking the specifics for the Mathewscitation.
• Murray Bruce adds this note:

  Pterodroma atrata:Mathews, 1912, Birds of Australia, 2 (2): 163.It is one of several names quoted from a MS of Daniel Solander dating from Cook's first voyage.Peters Checklist1(1931):66 listed it as one of four from this source "not yetidentified.

• Maijer argues for species status based on the distinctiveplumage and unique song.Maijer S. Rediscovery ofHylopezus (macularis) auricularis: Distinctive song and habitatindicate species rank. 1998. Auk 115(4):1072-1073.

• HBW3:496 lists this as a subspecies ofG. paraguaiae butputs the authors name in parentheses.
• Taczanowski, however, desctibed it inGallinago (though not inG.paraguaiae as implied by their listing). The HBW error may resultfrom the listing in Peters Checklist which has Taczanowski in parentheses, as the taxon there islisted inCapella.

• In HBW5:595 A.A. Weller gives the authority as Lesson 1826, andon p.685 gives the citation as: "Lesson(1826).Voy.'Coquille', Zool.1:683".
  
• Zimmer treats the extremely complex and confusing publishinghistory of this work in detail. The citation given above is from1830, though that portion of the work has animprintdate of 1826.
• The citation I give follows the Richmond Index.It antedates the citation given by Weller in HBW, and that given byPeters Checklist5:74 where he gives:"ornisyma Amazilia Lesson, Man. d'Orn.,2, 1828,p.81"
• (Why the genus name is in all lower case while the specific epithetis capitalized is unkown to me).

• Often spelt atricapillus. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, andPeters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2000. "The supposedsignificance of originally capitalized species-group names." BBOC.120(4):262 discuss this issue in detail and indicate thatthe name is a classical Latin noun. "The fact that Linnaeus hasused atricapilla in apposition to the masculine genusTurdusindicates that the word can only be a noun, not an adjective --which would have beenatricapillus in this case, as alladjectives used by Linnaeus in combination withTurdus aremasculine (plumbeus, roseus, cafer, dominicus, etc.).Therefore, the correct spelling ... isDonacobiusatricapilla, and not "Donacobius atricapillus".

Quoting Normand David:"Amaurornis Reichenbach 1852 (Av.Syst. Nat, p. xxi) ends in the transliterated Greek nounornis, which is masculine as well as feminine, was establishedin combination witholivacea, and is thus feminine as perICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.4.2). Peters (1934), and Dickinson et al.(1991)] correctly treatedAmaurornis as feminine."

AtlapetesSystematics

An extremely complex situation.

Garcia-Moreno J & Fjeldsa J. 1999. "Evaluation ofspecies limits in the genus Atalapetes based on the mtDNA sequencedata." Ibis141:199-207.
Is the best current treatment I am aware of.
The current species listing I show (2001.01.12) undoubtedly isincorrect. It is not fully faithful to the Garcia-Moreno/Fjeldsalisting order, though it uses some of their concepts. They treat agood number, but far from all theAtalpetes species.
Further changes are certain.

Stercorarius antarcticusSpelling

Moving this species intoStercorarius necessitateschanging the specific epithet toantarcticus, forgender agreement.
Normand David tells meskua remains unchanged as it is anoun.

Chlidonias albostriatusSystematics

Sometimes place inSterna, for example byHandbookof Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Oxford UniversityPress.
Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention.

ActophilornisCitation

• HBW3:289 gives "Oberholser 1899"
• The Richmond Index gives details on this:

• Oberholser's 1899 nameActophilus was published inProc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 51 p.202 as a new nameforPhyllopezus Sharpe, 1896nec Peters, 1877.
  
• Actophilornis was erected as a new name forActophilus, Oberholser, 1899 which was preoccupied byActophilus Agassiz, 1846.

Nytyornis athertoni1828

Peters Checklist5:239 has the date as 1830. The Richmond index gives Nov.of 1828, which fits more with collation of other taxa from thiswork.

Oxyura australis1837

Listed by Peters Checklist1:504 as 1836; HBW1:628 (Carles Carboneras)perpetuates this error.

This portion of PZS (part IV, no. XLV) was published on Jan 16,1837 (Richmond Index, and PZS 1937 vol. 107 pt.1 April for alisting of dates of publication of the parts and numbers.)

• Peters Checklist9:328 (Rand) has 1788.
• The Richmond IndexTurdus aethiopicus has "1788" with last "8" crossed out and "9"written in.
• 1789 is correct as this falls in the second part of the work (pp.501-1032) published in1789.

AnodorhynchusCitation

An apparently complex situation here:

Peters Checklist3:179 gives the citation as:
'Anodorhynchus Spix, Av.Bras.,1, 1824,47² [i.e. 24 bis], pl.11."

The footnote reads:
'² See Hellmayer, Abh. K. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Kl. 2,22, 1906, p.576.'
(not seen APP 2001.03.04)

The card in the Richmond index reads:
'Anodorynchus AVIUM SPECIES NOVAE, I, (2^nd edition ofvol.1), 1838, p."47" '
Then there is a note stating: 'additional to p.47 of theoriginal edition! ?'

The note goes on to say:
'Diagnosis here given of genus + species. Omitted in
orig. ed., where name only occurs.
The extra p.47 probably occurs insome copies of theorig.
printing, as Sherborn writes me that it is in the copy
consulted by him.'

Several questions arrise:

• Why does Peters Checklist3:179 list the plate, while the Richmond Indexdoes not?
• Is the date 1838 and not 1824 as suggested by Richmond?
• what does "[i.e. 24 bis]" mean with regard to thispeculiar pagination? Wouldn't "[i.e. 47 bis]" make moresense?

Siphonorhis americanaSpelling

• SpeltS. americanus by AOU CL (7):269;(6):310.
• SpeltS. americana by HBW5:344 (N. Cleere) withno discussion of the spelling.
• Spelt (I am told)S. americana by the recentNightjar monograph, with the comment thatSiphonorhis "isfeminine".

Normand David writes (2001.03.10):
Cyclarhis Swainson, 1824, andSiphonorhis Sclater,1861, were formed from the feminine Greek nounris [nose],but with the latinizedrh spelling (ICZN 1985, Appendix B).Both names do not end in a truly transliterated Greek word asPtiloris andStachyris do. They are latinized Greekwords with a changed ending that, contrary to-us,-a, or-um , is not indicative of a particular gender,and in which case should be treated as words of common gender (ICZN1999, Arts. 30.1.3, 30.1.4.2).BecauseSiphonorhis wasestablished in combination withamericanus, it must betreated as masculine.

Normand David subsequently writes (2002.04.01) thatSiphonorhis is feminine.

2013.01.26

---

Abroscopus albogularisAuthor

Peters Checklist (George Watson)11:264 gives the author as Hodgson; Ifollow the Richmond Index here.

---

Coracias abyssinicusSpelling

Often speltCoracias abyssinica,however as noted in HBW6:371-2,Coracias is masculine.

---

Chersomanes albofasciataCitation

• Peters Checklist9:29 gives it as:
  Certhilauda albofasciata Lafresnaye, 1836, Mag.Zool., p.3, pl.58 ; with a note "fideMacdonald, 1953" which may relate to the type location.
• Sherborn gives:
  "albofasciata Certhilauda, Lafr.; G.R. Gray, Genera ofBirds, II. Nov. 1844, 383."
• The CBBM13:515 (= Sharpe 1890) is probably the basis for Mayr and Greenway's incomplete and confused state.The listing there is "Certhilauda albofasciata,Lafr. Mag. de Zool. 1836,Ois p. 58"
• The Richmond Index gives an indication of the basis for the confusion. The name is listed as"A[lauda] albo-fasciata" with a note that it is "Certhilaudaalbo-fasciata on plate."
• Richmond Index Card A[lauda] albo-fasciata
• The basis for Mayr and Greenway including "p.3" is unknown to me, especially as it appears very unlikely thatthey actually examined the original description, and no other citations I have found include a "p. 3".

....; 2008.08.09

---

Saucerottia alfaroanaConcept

Treated by most authors as a subspecies ofAmaziliacyanifrons. See Weller A-A. 2001. BBOC 121(2):98-107.

---

Montifringilla adamsi1859

• Peters Checklist15:28 (Moreau and Greenway) give the date as1858.
• This part of the volume was published in 1859.

---

Euryostomus azurea1861

• Peters Checklist5:246 gives the date as 1860.
• HBW6:376 (CH Fry) gives the date as 1860.
• Duncan 1937 PZS indicates this part was "Issued between August1860 and March 1861".
• The Richmond index shows "Mch 1861"; which I follow.

---

MomotusaequatorialisConcept

• HBW6:283 (DW Snow) holds this to be a full species,stating:
  "Fairly closely related toM. momota and sometimes treatedas a well marked highland race thereof, but notable differences insize and plumage, as well as in ecology, probably justify theseparation as a full species."
• "probably" seems to be good enough these days.

---

ZosteropsatricepsDate

• Peters Checklist12:306 (Mayr) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of thisyear.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

---

Moho apicalisDate

• Peters Checklist12:425 (Mayr) gives a date of 1860.
• The AOU CL 7^th Ed. p.427 gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of thisyear.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

---

Penelopides affinisConcept

• Peters Checklist5:263 listsP. samarensis as a subspecies ofP. panini
• Sibley & Monroe list as a full species

• Penelopides samarensisSteere 1890ListBirdsMamms.SteereExped. p.13

• HBW6:507 (Kemp) indicatessamarensis is a subspecies ofaffinis but notes the status is uncertain andproblematic.

---

AgelaioidesNomenclature

• Lowther, PE. 2001. "New name for the Bolivian Blackbird".BBOC. 121:280,281. demonstrates:
• • Agelaioides (misspelled in text asAgelaiodes)Cassin, 1866 has precedence overOreopsar Sclater,1939.
  • Placingbolivianus Sclater, 1939 andbadiusVieillot, 1819 in the same genus as proposed byJohnson &Lanyon 1999. Auk 116:759-768. creates a secondary homonomydue to the existence ofMolothrus badius bolivianusHellmayr, 1917.
• Lowther therefor proposes thenomen novumAgelaioidesoreopsar along with resurrecting the genusAgelaioides.

Previously the genus was:
OreopsarSclater,WL 1939Ibis p.144

• Oreopsar badius (Vieillot) 1819Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 34 p.535Concept
• OreopsarbolivianusSclater,WL1939Ibis p.144

---

Cinclosoma ajaxDate

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g.Peters Checklist10:234, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) providesevidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck &Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avisaccompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the"Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries thedate April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thusfrom December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guineain 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis vanZr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl.1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

---

PteruthiusaenobarbusDate

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g.Peters Checklist10:234, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) providesevidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck &Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avisaccompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the"Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries thedate April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thusfrom December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guineain 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis vanZr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl.1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

---

StreptocittaalbertinaeCitation

• Peters Checklist15:117 (Amadon) gives 1866.
• The first part of this volume was published in 1865. Seedetails of Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. for a the history of publicationof this work.

Thanks to Colin Jones for picking up this error.

---

Oenanthe albonigraSpelling

• Often speltalboniger. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, andPeters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avianspecies names." BBOC.122(1):17-18 discuss this. Theyindicate that: "The wordalboniger is a compound Latin adjectivethat ends in the classical adjectiveniger, and isvariable."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationOenanthealboniger occurs in theZoo. Rec.; it occurs 2 timesbetween 1981 and 1988.

---

Comments&Suggestionsto Data Steward
Alan P. Peterson, M.D.
POB 1999
Walla Walla, WA 99362-0999

Last updated 2021.07.24

---

[8]ページ先頭

---

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp