Movatterモバイル変換

• This name is published in the December number of the Rev.Mag.Zool., andit is a near certainty thatALL the December numberswere not published until January of the following year.
• This implies that almost certainly this name should be dated to 1853 ratherthan 1852. However, the level of "proof" is perhaps not quite enoughto make the change, unless or until additional data becomes available.

• It is understandably easy to make the error of citing thisGenus group name to 2019, not least because it is published in No.1 of the 2019 volume of this serial.
• This is both understandable and wrong, as the notice given by the journal itself gives this indication:

  Phenotypic similarity leads to taxonomic inconsistency: A revision of the lowland's antpittas
  Lincoln Carneiro
  Gustavo A. Bravo
  Alexandre Aleixo
  First published: 24 November 2018
  https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12324

  [Version of Record, published online on 24 November 2018: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BDD3A461-3253-492C-91F0-C76D2901FF5F]

• There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the typification of this Genus.
• The AOU CL 6^th 1983 and 7^th 1998 give "Type, by monotypy,Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould (not other authors) =Trochilus pucherani Bourcier =Ornismya aureo-ventris d'Orbigny and Lafresnaye."
• Then in 2017 we have "The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae):Reconcilingtaxonomy with phylogeny" 2017. Stiles,FG; Remsen,JV; & McGuire, JA. Zootaxa4353:401-424,where they list (Appendix 1. p.418) the type as "Ornismya prasinus (sic) Lesson, 1830,Hist.Nat.Ois.Mouch., 188 (=Trochilus mellisuga Linnaeus, 1758,Syst. Nat.,ed. 10, 121


• Before proceeding to the disagreement, I address one minor detail.
• Lesson's taxon isOrnismya prasina, notOrnismya prasinus This can be seen here:Hist.Nat.Ois-M. p.188. This fact (commonly confused, and indeed confused by Gould) has no effect on the subsequent considerations.


• In addressing the matter of the type, the Stiles group appears (to me) to be following the argumentsof John Todd Zimmer. They cite two papers by Zimmer in the Am.Mus.Novitates, "Studies ofPeruvian Birds, nos.58 & 59." In the first of theseAm.Mus.Novitates 1474 (not1473, as they list it), Zimmer has a long argument in which he states that Lesson's bird, can in fact be identified as the bird that Linnaeus calledTrochilus mellisugus.
  • He states (p.5) "I have no hesitation in placingOrnismyaprasina of Lesson as a synonym ofTrochilus mellisugus of Linnaeus..."
  • But in my view, assigning the specimen that Lesson calledOrnismya prasina toTrochilus mellisugus Linnaeus, based on the Linnaeus and Lesson descriptionsis important only if Gould erected his genus based on that specimen.
  • In fact, Gould apparently based his genus on some specimen, that some collectorcalledOrnismya prasina, apparently a commonly used namewith unknown relation to Lesson's concept.
  
  
• Thus the point, apparently missed by Zimmer (!) and the Stiles group, is that the type ofChlorostilbon Gould 1853,while intended to beOrnismya prasina Lesson, may or may not have been that species, but rather Gould simply applied it to a bird "generally known by that term among collectors..."not a bird necessarilyso named by Lesson. In such a situation the phrase "not other authors", is appropriate.
• Zimmer (again on p.5) argues that Gould "misapplied thename to another species, being uncertain as to the precise application...". IfGould was uncertain what bird Lesson applied the name "prasinus" to (v.i.), I donotsee how Zimmer could possibly know it was "misapplied" to whatever bird Gould was looking at.


• Other presentations of the type forChlorostilbon.
  • Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 189216:44 C. pucherani
  • Cat.BirdsAm. Cory & Hellmayr2.1:202Ornismya prasina Lesson
  • BirdsMiddleN.AM. Ridgway5:547Ornismya prasina Lesson
  • Peters CL Birds of the World Peters,JL 19455:36Chlorostilbon prasina Gould, not of authors =Trochilus pucherani Bourcier.
  
  
• In Gould's Monograph of the Trochilidae, he discusses this bird (p.cx), indicating it was "impossible to determine to what bird Lesson had given the nameprasinus (sic)"
  He (Gould) applied it to a bird "generally known by that term among collectors..." "From Dr. Cabanis we learn that it has been namedTrochilus nitidissimus by Lichtenstein in the Museum of Berlin, andTrochilus lamprus, Natt. in the Museum of Munich ; but had either of these names been published to the world before Dr. Cabanis included it in his 'Museum Heineanum' under the name ofChlorostilbon nitidissimus ? If not, andprasinus be rejected, that term must certainly give place to M. Bourcier's previously published one ofPucherani, which I find, from the type specimen now before me, was given to a young male of this species. Refer to my account of this species, and ofC. Atala."


• So from Gould's perspectivePucherani wasconditionally the type, iftwo conditions are met:
  • 1.prasin[a,us] Lesson not being identifiable(Gould says it wasnot identifiable to him)., and
  • 2.Trochilus nitidissimus having not been published previous to Gould use. . (I find no evidence that itwas).
• Does it now turn onwere metvs.are met, anddoes it make Gould's inability to identify whether or not thebird was Lesson'sOrnismya prasina unimportant?

• Stiles,et al. in consideringChlorostilbon do not seem to discuss the treatment of the matter by Cabanis and Heine.In Mus.Hein. III 1860 pp.46,47 f.n. where we find this text:


• "Wir beschränken hier die GattungChlorostilbon Gould auf ihren ursprunglichen TypusC. prasinus Gould (nec Lesson) und verbinden damit die kaum generisch zu sondernde GattugCyanophia Rchb., wärhrend wir die von Gould später zuChlorostilbon gestellten feinschnäbligen Arten ais eigene GattungChlorolampis weiter unten auffürhen."

Trans. (thanks to Frank Rheindt).


• "We here restrict the genusChlorostilbon Gould to its original typeC. prasinus Gould (nec Lesson) and unite with it the genusCyanophia, which can hardly be separated from it, while below it we list the slender-billed species that were later attributed toChlorostilbon by Gould as belonging to a separate genusChlorolampis."


• Also in 1863, Heine again refers to this matter inJ.Orn. 1863 11 p.196,197

• "Gen.Chlorostilbon Gould: Wie bereits früher (Mus. Heine III. p.46 - 47) geschehen beschränke ich auch ferner diese Gattung auf die dem Typus C. prasinus Gould (nec. Less.) unmittlebar und untrennbar verwandten grössern dick- und starkschnäbelingen Arten, deren Zahl sich indessen seit jener Publication des Cataloges der Sammlung meines Vaters bedeutend vermehrt hat, und deren damals als einzig aufgefuhrte beide Species besser und richtiger unter einem andern specifischen Namen fortan im System figuriren werden. Ich zähle jetzt nämlich die folgenden sechs Arten hierher:"

Trans. (thanks to Frank Rheindt).
• "Gen.Chlorostilbon Gould: As already done earlier (Mus. Heine III. p.46 - 47) I limit this genus to the large thick- and strong-billed species, which are indissolubly and inseparably related to the type C. prasinus Gould (nec. Less.), the number of which has increased considerably since the publication of the catalog of my father's collection, and the two species, which were the only ones listed at that time, will henceforth better and more correctly appear in the system under a different specific name. I now include the following six species here:"
• I interpret the type ofChlorostilbon to be as interpreted by the AOU Cl.to wit,Trochilus Pucherani Bourcier (?Bourcier & Mulsant), whichis now a subspecies ofChlorostilbon lucidus Shaw 1812.

• Previously as:
  • Passer rutilans (Temminck) 1836Pl.Col. livr.99 pl.588 fig.2Citation
• It is established, however that Gould's PZS publication (8 April 1836) has priorityover Temminck's, which occurred in 1836, but with somewhat uncertain date andthus dated to 31 Jan. 1836.
• Thanks to David Donsker for bringing this to my attention, as well as directing meto Laurent Raty's discussion of this matter.

• Conventionally speltcyanicollis
• Colin Jone checked the original and demonstrated the presence of "o" rather than "i".
• Thanks to Dave Donsker for this information.

• Usually cited to Bonaparte 1850.
• Bonaparte in Consp.Gen.Avium p.312 refers to Du Bus de Gisignies work Equiss.Orn. t.34 (and gives adate of 1850).
• The Richmond Index has a card indicating that Sclater in 1855 in PZS p.66 says that this plate "unlessI am very much mistaken, is still unpublished".
Both the Richmond Index and Sherborn's Index Animalium credit the name to the plate (name and figure alone) with theindication that it was published in 1849.
• The work "Equiss.Orn" is dated to 1845-1848 (not 1849). Supporting the possibility that the plate alonewas subsequently produced (1849), and not surprisingly many, most, or possibly all of the volumes may notnow have the associated plate.
• It is, of course, possible, that the production of the plate did not meet the criteria for "publication". We know, however, that Bonaparte saw, or was aware of the plate, and Sherborn seems to have found a copy. It further seems unlikely(at least to me) that only a single copy of the plate would have been produced.
• My interpretation favors following Sherborn and Richmond with regards to the authority for the name and for its date.
.

• Conventionally cited to 1892.
• The number in which this appears (no. 200 "October") includes a dateline on p.443 of

          "25. December 1892"

  So the imprint date of "October" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
• The first evidence is somewhat uncertain. On the front wrapper of my cover is lightlywritten in pencil

  Issued Ap.3/93

• Unless and until other evidence becomes available I will treat that as the date of availability, butother data is eagerly sought.

• Often cited to Mearns, in the same journal on p.356.
• The Richmond Index indicates that McGregor's description "has anteriority".
• It appears that both descriptions were published in October of 1907, in the same number and section of the Journal.

• For resolution ascrumenifer, 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.105.)

• For resolution ascruciger, 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.105.)

• For resolution ascoryphaea, 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.)

• The ICZN apparently tried to deal with this name in Opinion 784 (Bull.23:201-201 (Dec 20 1966) (not seen 2011.03.15).
  There they suppress Jarocki's 1821 use of the name, and hold Bonaparte as the author.However, in the ICZN listing, they do not cite the earliest generic use of this name by Bonaparte.
• The ICZN cites the name to PZS["1837"] 1838 Pt5 no.59 p.111. That work was published in 14 June, 1838,and Bonaparte used the name in combination with a specific epithet in his Geograph.Comp. on p.32.That work was published 14 April, 1838, and can be seen here:
  Geographical and Compar. List Birds Europe and N. Am. p.35
• Bonaparte previously used the name in 1831 in the G.Arcad. p.52. In that location it wasonly shown in a list of genera, and I interpret it to be anomen nudum there.
It can be seen here:G.Arcad.Sci.Lett.Arti 1831 p.52
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for picking this up.

• The authority here is attributed by almost all authors to J.R. Forster.
• Rainer Massman point out (2011.01.09in litt.) that the authority iscorrectly attributed to the son, Georg Forster, and indeed asMassmann points out, the Richmond Index correctly indicates this as so.
• Richmond Index Certhia coccinea G. Forster Card
• Massmann provided a link to the orginal description thusly:

  The description appeared in the "Göttingisches Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratur", which was digitized by Bielefeld University Library(http://www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/diglib/aufkl/goettmag/goettmag.htm). Click on "1.Jg.,4.St., 1780", then scroll down to find "Beschreibung des rothen Baumläufers von der Insel O-Waihi" on p.346-351.

• A bewildering situation here. The resurrection of this nameis proposed by Penhallurick and Robson who present their argumentsregarding the nomenclature in Forktail (2009):25:137-141.

• Peters Checklist15:173 (= Mayr 1962) does not list the plate.
• The CBBMVI:385 does list the plate ("Taf. 10") which is of possible importanceonly because the CBBM appears to date the plate to 1810.

• The citation is often (e.g. H&M 3^rd:271; HBW5:631,684 given as "1854", implying the citation as here:
  • Amazilia franciae cyanocollis (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.

• David & Gosselin BBOC 2002122(1):38 (#171) indicate that this is a noun phrase, it should be spelledcastaneocapilla and should not be changed tocastaenocapillus.

• Conventionally, and understandably, spelled "cachinnans".
• The original spelling (or mis-spelling) is clearly "cachinnaus", and can be seen here:Crateropus cachinnaus original description
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
• [2010.12.26] Dr David Donsker raises the interesting possiblitythat the apparent "u" might be an "n" set upside down. Close examinationneither supports nor disproves this possibility.
• It does seem virtually certain, however, that "cachinnans" can be presumedto have been intended.

• Usually cited as

  Calyptomena(f.)Raffles 1822Trans.Linn.Soc.London(1) 13 p.295

• See Wells, DR & Dickinson, ECD. 2010. "Authorship of the broadbill genus nameCalyptomena and the correct citations for this andCalyptomena viridis Raffles." BBOC.130:143-145. They discussthe timing and status of the material published by Raffles and Horsfield.

• Originally spelledcosobrina,notconsobrina as it has been frequentlyincorrectly rendered.
• Richmond Index Foudia cosobrina Card
• Compte Rendu v.101 p.222
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
• CBBM13:484 (= Sharpe 1890) shows the original combination incorrectly as"Foudia consobrina" and this is replicated without comment by Sclater Syst.Av.Aeth.II:756, and by Peters Checklist15:63 (= Moreau 1962).
• The current enthusiasm for grammatical virtue deigns to regard the original spelling as a misspelling, and they areno doubt correct. Therefore it is now "corrected". What was actuallypublished is unimportant now thatwe have sages to correct errors of the past, while we all add our own errors.

• Usually cited to 1920, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• However, Colin Jones points out (in litt. 2010.04.20), thatthe cover for no.2 notes that it was issued in March 1921.

• The citation here is a bit of a puzzle.
• Peters Checklist9:161 (= White 1960) gives it as:

  Anthus Coutellii Audouin, 1828, in Savigny, Descr. Egypte,23,p. 360, pl. 5, fig. 5

• I suspect that White is merely following the citation and date as given in the CBBM10:593 (= Sharpe 1885).
• Examining a copy of Descr.Egypte on-line (Gallica) shows the name and description as indicatedin the CBBM/Peters citations.
• However, both the Richmond Index, and Sherborn give an entirelydifferentcitation and anearlier date (1826 as opposed to 1828).
• The Sherborn citation is given as follows (p.1587):

  coutellii  Anthus, V. Audouin in Savigny, Egypte, I (4) (Expl. pls. Ois.) 1826, 281.

• The Richmond Index citation is essentially the same and can be seen here:Richmond Index CardAnthus coutellii
• Zimmer (p.549) explains:

  The description of the species figured on the plates was afterwards undertaken by Audoin (sic),who, in 1826, published his "Explication Sommaire des Planches d'Oiseaux de l'Égypte etde la Syrie" in Part 4 of Vol. I of the Hist. Nat. of the Description de l'Égypte."

• A nomenclatural act in the 1826 publication would have priority over the subsequent 1828 publication cited by Peters and followed by many authors.
• It does seem quite clear that Zimmer, Richmond, and Sherborn all understood the situationbetter than White, or Sharpe. While uncertainty remains, I follow the use of the presumptively 1826 citation until that is shown to be wrong.
• [2010.03.28] Michael Rieser points out that the Willughby reprint includes an index thatshows this taxon as present on p.281 in the folio edition, and p.380 in the 8vo. edition.
• The folio edition is evidently undated (Willughby reprint p.vii), but Newton states (p.vii) that

  it may be presumed to have appeared not earlier than 1826.

• These facts support "1826" and certainly indicate that the octavo edition (as cited by Peters)is not likely to be the publication with priority.

• Originally spelled with a double i (-ii) ending.
• CBBM21:560,561 (Salvadori 1893) may be one source thathas been followed for the incorrect single i (-i) ending.
• Most authors (including Peters CLIII:127, H&M 3^rd:169 and HBW4:171) show the -i ending.
• The Richmond Index and Hellmayr and Conover Birds of the Americas1.¹:566-568 show the correct ending.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Conventionally cited as:

  Coturnix(f.)Bonnaterre 1791Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 1 p.lxxxviiType

• However, see Welter-Schultes FW, Klug G. 2009. Bull.Zool.Nomen.66(3):225-240

• H&M 3^rd:698 lists the date for this taxon as 1860. Then in Corrigenda 2.1 changes the date to 1861 (sic), citing Duncan 1937.
• This appears to me to be an error. This name was published in PartXVII PartIII(which is comprised of sheets 406-416, pp.353-521). The initial portions of PartXVII were published in 1859, and partIII was published in February of 1860.
• H&M 3^rd (including the Corrigenda) cite many taxa from PartXVII PartIII to 1860 (e.g.Crypturellus boucardi) so an explanation wouldbe required to cite one name from this Part to 1861, and all the others to 1860.

• Penhallurick & Robson. 2009 ("The generic taxonomy of parrotbills (Aves, Timalidae)"Forktail25:137-141) Date this genus name and the included species to 1842, as

  Conostoma Hodgson, 1842 ['1841'],Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 10:856

• Deignan 1964 (Peters Checklist10:431) gives:

  Conostoma Hodgson, 1841 or 1842, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal10, p. 856

• The dating of this volume (X of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal) has long been a question. Sherborn, in Index Animalium for example, questioned whether it may have been published in Jan. 1842. But it is not clear what convinced Penhallurick and Robson that 1842 was correct -- that is, whether evidence of delay for this number (no.119) was found. [Note: that Penhallurick and Robson do not indicate the number (no.119) in which this genus is erected, though in this particular instance this fact could be important.]
• Vaurie 1954 Am.Mus.Novitates 1669 p.10 also dates this to 1841.
• Most recently Dickinson & Pittie 2006 "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 51.Dates of avian names introduced in early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" discussed this, and explicitly considered the problem of dating the nameConostoma (see p.118).They present evidence and arguments against this number (no.119) of volumeX being delayed until 1842.
• Past speculation of thepossibility of delay into 1842 is not, in my opinion, sufficient under the Code to accept 1842 as the date.
• As the Richmond Index notes this was not published before December, as itcontains a report of the December meeting.Richmond Index CardConostoma
• I will continue to use 1841, but will be happy to adopt 1842 if appropriate evidence is brought forward.

• H&M 3^rd:664 gives the author as "Latimer", apparentlyfollowing the Peters Checklist10:684. The author of this name, who apparently may havepublished this under the name "Latimer" is Marjorie Eileen Doris Courtenay-Latimer, andas she was referred to as "Miss Courtenay-Latimer" well before this 1961 publication, I use herhyphenated last name. She is, of course, famous for obtaining the first specimen of Coelocanthon 22 Dec. 1938, and the genus group nameLatimeria honors her and her contribution to biology.

• Held to be monotypic by HBW10:750 (Collar 2005).
• Collar's treatment is not mentioned by H&M 3^rd:675 (throughCorrigenda 8).

• This taxon is not found in Peters Checklist.
• Originally described inGeocichla.

• Peters ChecklistX:16 (= Ripley 1964) gives the page numer as "p. 929".
• HBW10:[811] also gives "929".
• CBBMVII:27 gives "934" (!).
• I follow the Richmond Index and Sherborn's Index Animalium and cite this to p.933.

• Peters ChecklistIV:134 gives the citation essentially as I did previously:
  • Glaucidium castanotum (Blyth) 1852Cat.BirdsMus.As.Soc. p.39
• HBW5:683 also lists the emended spelling and the later 1852 citation.
• Similarly, H&M 3^rd:232 (through Corrigenda 8) liststhe name to 1852.

• SpelledTurdus cyanotis on p.[119} andTurdus cyanotus on the plate.
• To date (2009.06.27) I do not find any recent comments on this in the literature,other than Richmond's note in the Richmond Index.

• H&M 3^rd:499 (Corrigenda 8) appropriately corrects the spellingof the subspecific epithet fromcomoroensis tocomorensis.
• It appears that the incorrect spelling was initiated by Peters ChecklistXI:491 [= Traylor 1986].
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Soto, Monteros, and Zink. 2007. Condor109:456-463 make it clearthatT. curvirostre is composed of two or possibly three species.
• This fact is currently not reflected in or mentioned by either H&M 3^rd, or IOC World Bird Names.
• The paper by Sota,et al. does not make it clear (at least to me)how the subspecies (if they are valid) should be distributed in thecurvirostre,palmeri, andinsularum taxa. So for the present I leave the taxon asrendered in H&M 3^rd:650.

• Most recent authors (e.g. Peters CL4134 (1940), HBW5:222 (1999),H&M 3^rd:232 -through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008)) give this names asGlaucidium castanonotum. This spelling is not discussed, justified, or supported.
• The original combination isAth[ene] castanotus.
• Undoubtedly these errors result from Sharpe's 1875 CBBM2:215 treatment where he givesthe original combination incorrectly as "Athene castanonota", while "Athene castanotus" would in fact be correct.
• The errors of our predecessors should be corrected rather than reveared and fossilized. We should also hope that our many errors similarly are corrected.
• Thanks to the remarkable Colin Jones for picking this up.
• [2010.01.03] Further consideration, not surprisingly, makes me less sure of this postion.
• Perhaps the Cat.BirdsAs.Soc. citationis correct. The 1850 name (according to the Richmondindex) is a new name for a Ceylonese bird (Athene castanoptera from J.A.S.B. 15 p.280.
• More work needed here.

• Peters Checklist dates this volume to 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"'.

• 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.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:629 as a subspecies ofZosterops pallidus without comment.

• This taxon is referred to by H&M 3^rd:629 asZ. l. westernensis (Quoy & Gaimard 1930) ["1930" is an error corrected to 1830 in Corrigenda 7].
• Peters Checklist12:316 (= Mayr 1967) holds this taxon (Dacnis westernensis) to be a synonym ofSylvia lateralis Latham.
• This basis for holdingwesternensis to be a valid subspecies ofZ. lateralis is not clear to me, but may well be in the many notes onZosterops species in H&M 3^rd.
• However, the seniority of the Quoy and Gaimard name appears to be a question, and one not addressed by H&M 3^rd. The Richmond Index indicates that Quoy and Gaimard's name is a synonym of Latham's 1801 [=1802]Certhia caerulescens, collected in New South Wales, andwith a type which is "Watling drawing no.110, now in the B.M.".
• Thus it appears to me that the Quoy & Gaimard name is a junior subjective synonymof Latham's name.
• Until it is demonstrated that this assertion by Richmond is incorrect, I follow it.

• Originally spelledTrochalopterum erythrocephalum connectans by Delacour.
• Peters Checklist10:377 (= Deignan 1964) emends this toconnectens without offering any justification or explanation.
• This emendation is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:671 (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).
• I am aware of no justification for this emendation and employ the spelling used by Delacour.

• Garrulax chrysopterus is split fromGarrulax erythroceophalus by Rasmussen and Anderton 2005, and 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).

• Garrulax courtoisi is split fromGarrulax galbanus 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).

• Garrulax castanotis is split fromGarrulax maesi 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).

• Garrulax calvus is split fromGarrulax lugubris 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).

• Originally spelledMixornis rubricapilla connecteus, and usually emendedtoconnectens.
• Later in this segment of the article the birds name is spelled "M. r. connectens, so the interpretationthat "connecteus" is an error seems well supported.

• I follow Boon WM, Kearvell JC, Daugherty CH, & Chambers GK. 2001. "Molecular systematicsand conservation of kakariki (Cyanoramphus spp.)". Science for Conservation no.176., Wellington, N.Z.
• It must be stressed that this work employs the phylogenetic species concept.
• This work is not mentioned in H&M 3^rd.
• Thanks to Harrie van der Linden for bringing this to the attention of ITIS.

• Previously cited as
  • Pterodroma leucoptera caledonicaNaurois 1978Compt.Rend. ser.D 287 p.269
• Still usually cited to Naurois 1978, for example by H&M 3^rd:75 (through 2008 Corrigenda 8).
• See Palma RL, Tennyson AJD. 2005. Notornis52:247-248 for an explanation why Naurois' use of the namewas both an error and anomen nudum, and why the citation should be to Imber and Jenkins.
• Thanks to Mathew Louis and Wayne N.W. Longmore for help with this.

• As noted in the Richmond Index, this is spelled "capistratoides" on p.128-29but "capistroides" on the plate.
• The action of a second reviser may be required here.

• SpelledParus major cashmirensis by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:527.
• Originally spelledParus major caschmirensis
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• SpelledCyanistes caeruleus ogilastrae by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:528.
• Originally spelledParus caeruleus ogliastrae
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• SpelledPitohui kirhocephalus cervineiventris by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:488.
• Originally spelledRectes cerviniventris
• This name is correctly spelled by the Richmond Index, Peters Checklist12:48, and by H&M 3^rd:490.
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• H&M 3^rd:714 spells this "cinereicollis"although this was originally spelledcinireicollis by Vieillot.
• This name is correctly spelled by the Richmond Index, Peters Checklist12:283, and by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:534.
• It is incorrectly spelled by Sherborn in Index animalium p.1295.
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• Clements Checklist 6^thed. p.534 spells this "cagayensis.
• The Richmond Index, H&M 3^rd:704; Peters CL12:212 & HBW13:247all employ the spelling "cagayanensis, which I believe is correct, especially as this is named after the localityCagayan Sulu Island.
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for picking this up.

• Previously as

  ArgicusCabanis &Heine 1863Mus.Hein. 4 Heft1 p.148Concept

  With a note that read:

  ---

  ArgicusConcept
  • 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.
  02.06.27; 2003.10.31

  ---

• See Penhallurick J. 2008. "On some generic names amongst the Bucconidae (puffbirds)." BBOC128(4):272for use ofCyphos.

• Peters Checklist12:287 cites this to 1887 and cites Meesin litt. in support of the type locality.
• The card in the Richmond Index has 1887 crossed out and 1882 written in with a note thatthe plate was published in 1882.
• Until other information becomes available that demonstrates that the notation in the Richmond Index is wrong, I will follow that date.

• I have some uncertainty about this citation, which follows Peters Checklist9:71.
• Mayr and Greenway give no indication if they were aware of Swinhoe's publication of this name in the J.N.ChinaBranchRoy.As.Soc.I no.III on p.288 in December of 1859.
• I am aware of this but do not know when the corresponding portion of the Zoologist was published so the priority issue hangs unresovled.

• Peters Checklist12:213 (=Rand 1967) gives the date for this citation as 1877, and this is followed withoutcomment by H&M 3^rd:704. (through Corrigenda 7).
• The nameAnthreptes celebensis is found on pt.6 p.319, & pl.104 of the Mongr.Nectarin. by Shelley. The nameAnthreptes rhodolaema (styled now in the most recent fad asAnthreptes rhodolaemus) is described in the very same work, but six pages earlier on p.313 & pl.101. It is dated to 1878 (!!) by Rand and by Dickinsonet al. though no explanation is given.
• In the Peters Checklist these two names are given on the same leaf!! (pp.213-214) giving evidenceto the difficulty of adequately proofing and editing materials such as this.
• The Richmond Index shows that pt.6 of this work was published Feb.5, 1878 which I follow for dating names from pt.6.

• Peters Checklist12:231 (=Rand 1967) gives the citation as:
  • Cyanomitra verticalis cyanocephala (Shaw) 1812Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 8 p.203
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 says "date 1811 not 1812 [RJD in prep]"though I am not aware (2008.07.12) of any published paper addressing this issue.
• CBBM9:80 (= Gadow 1884) cites Shaw Gen.Zool. viii. p.214 (1811).
• Given the current uncertainties, is seems to me that this name should be cited to Bechstein 1811, as I have done.

• Peters Checklist12:93 (=Snow 1967) lists the authority in parentheses,and lists the original combination as "Parus ater chorassanicus, and this is followed by HBW12:722.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this name was published asPeriparus ater chorassanicus.This makes much more sense than Snow's assertion, as Zarudy published two other subspecies ofaterinPeriparus in the same year as this (1911).
• H&M 3^rd:526 also lists the authority without parentheses.In Corrigenda 2.1 a correction of the spelling of Bilkevitch's name is made, but there is no comment on the nomenclature.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:92 (=Snow 1967) to Dresser in PZS 1888 ["1887"] p.563, and this is followed by HBW12:754.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this name was published by Guillemard in Jan. 1888 in Ibis, while Dresser's PZS publication of part 4 was almost certainly not until April of 1888. Therefore the Ibis publication by Guillemard has priority.
• Initially it was my interpretation that Guillemard, thus became the author of the name.
• The Code (1999) states: 50.1.1 "However if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other then the actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act."

  Therefore, I interpret Dresser to be the author of the name, which clearly was the intention of Guillimard, though such "intent" has no force under the Code.

• Reviewing this (2021.03.01) I change my mind and agree with the interpretation of Dickinson, that Guillemard is resposible for the "act".
• As Dickinson notes, if the descriptive text, attributed to Dresser, but not in quotes,were in quotes the sitution would be quite different.

• Listed by Peters Checklist15:212 (Blake & Vaurie 1962) as "Aphelocoma coerulescens cactophila"
• This appears to be an error, as the original combination as shown in the Richmond Index isAphelocoma californica cactophila

• Cited by Peters Checklist15:244 (Blake & Vaurie 1962) to "1850 Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p.86"
• H&M 3^rd:509 cites this to 1850 (presumably following Peters) but in theCorrigenda (2.1) says "date 1851 not 1850" with no rationale, justification, or supporting data given. Weare left to speculate on the basis for this assertion, and my best guess is that a determination was made that the relevant portion of the PZS was actually published in 1851, but that is entirely speculative.
• I try to present a rationale and supporting data for the positions I take. In this instance the Richmond Index notes that this name is used by Bonparte on p.382 of the Consp.Gen.Av. volume 1.So I believe the date of 1850 is correct for this taxon, and it should be cited to the Conspectus, not the PZS.

• Peters Checklist15:225 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) list the authority in parentheses and listthe original combination asXanthoura yncaas var. cyanodorsalis.
• This suggests that Blake and Vaurie did not look at, or did not understand Hellmayr, Birds.Am.7:32,33 or CBBM3:130, or if they did their understanding and knowledge did not make it to the printed page. This error is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:505 (including Corrigendas through #6).

Peters Checklist6:179 cites this name as
• Dendropicos guineensis centralisNeumann 1900J.Orn. 48 p.206
• Theo de Kok raised the question (in litt. 2008.01.21) thatMesopicos goertaecentralis Reichenow might have priority over Neumann's name. Edward Dickinson determined fromdates of acceptance on copies of the serials in question that this may very well be so. It appearsthat further work may be necessary to settle the taxonomic and nomenclatural details here.
• Indeed the Orn.Monatsb. publication in the May issue, undoubtedly preceededthe J.Orn. publiction.

• This taxon is not listed in Peters Checklist14, but isused in H&M 3^rd:484 where footnote #1 indicatesthat Phillips 1991 is being followed.
• Phillips2:218 errs in his citation of this taxon, listing itas

  V. l. costaricensis Ridgway 1903, PBSW 16:107

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original isVireosylva josephaecostaricensis, so
  • Phillips listing should be

    V. j. costaricensis Ridgway 1903, PBSW 16:107

  • If listed inVireo, as in H&M 3^rd:484, the authorityshould be in parentheses.
• Deignan's discussion of this specimen (Deignan 1961:518-519) is ofinterest, showing that the correct type locality should be "Barranca" ratherthan "San José" as inexplicably used in the original description.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Bleda canicapillus (Hartlaub) 1854J.Orn. 2 no.7 p.25
• However, I learn from Dr Frank Stenheimer (in litt. 2008.01.14)

  The title page of "Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete..." shows that BOTH"Beitraege" were published in 1852, bound together in one volume including 11plates. No information is found that they would have been published with atwo year gap inbetween.However, the first part was also published separately in the tiny and unknownjournal "Verzeichnis der öffentlichen und Privat-Vorlesungen, welche amHamburgischen Akademischen Gymnasium von Ostern [year] bis Ostern [year]gehalten werden".Complete citation: Hartlaub, Gustav (1850): Beitrag zur OrnithologieWestafrica's. Verzeichniss der öffentlichen und Privat-Vorlesungen,welche am Hamburgischen Akademischen Gymnasium von Ostern ...[probably 1849]bis Ostern ... [probably 1850]gehalten werden. Schulprogramm, AkademischesGymnasium, Hamburg. Pp. 1-56.Thus, in the year 1850 Gustav Hartlaub had already published there his firstpart of the "Beitrag zur Ornithologie Westafrica's". Unfortunately this rarejournal is also not available in the Zoological Institute of Hamburg so thatI have now to trace a copy of this journal.

So this name may well date from 1850 and from this rare source.

• H&M 3^rd:814 dates this to 1864, mostprobably following Peters Checklist13:393.
• This name occurs on p.268, which is in the fifth signature. In thisvolume (XVI) of the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia Sig.4 [pp.177-256]had receipt acknowledged on 12 Dec. 1864 at the Boston Society of NaturalHistory. Sig.5, however [pp.237et seq.] had receiptacknowledged on 13 Feb. 1865 at the Entomological Society ofPhiladelphia. Five signatures completed the year volume during thisperiod.
• Thanks to Roy McDiarmid for his work on discovering the dates of receiptfor various portions of this serial.
• Thanks too, to Colin Jones, for picking up my inconsistency in the way Ihad this citation rendered.

• Peters Checklist11:437 (= Mayr 1986) gives the page number as "p.189" which is a transliteration of the correct page number -- p.198.
• CBBM7:298, Sherborn, and The Richmond Index have the page numbercorrect as "p.198".
• HBW12:758 (2007) replicates the error of Mayr'stransliteration.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• H&M 3^rd:473 has a note stating

  Peterset al.(1960:218) credited this name to McClelland, however there is only a Latindiagnosis by Horsfield, the description in English usually supplied by McClelland is absent.

• It is not only Peters Checklist that credits this name to McClelland, as the CBBM3:306 (Sharpe, 1877),The Richmond Index, Gray Hand-List of Birds Pt1 p.323 also attrbute this name to McClelland.
• The note by Dickensonet al. is intriguing in that is appears to suggest that Horsfield commonlysupplied the Latin diagnosis and McClelland the English description. This, and other taxa attributed to McClellandwould appear to deserve examination to determine the roles of authority. The note by Dickinson would appear tosuggest that Horsfield might have authorial standing in some of the other taxa from this article.

• Conventionally cited (e.g. Peters Checklist12:425 (= Salomonsen 1967) ) as:

  Chaetoptila†(f.)Sclater,PL 1871Ibis p.358

• H&M 3^rd:431 up through Corrigenda 6, cites "Sclater 1871".
• This name was published as a subgenus ofAnthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 by Gray in his Hand listin volume 1, and thus in 1869. In that citation, he cites "Sclater, 1868", though to date such a use has not beenidentified.
• 
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist4:21; HBW3:[611]) given as

  CerococcyxCabanis 1882J.Orn. 30 p.230

• The Richmond Index gives a date of April, 1882 for that volume and number of theJ.Orn., however theOrn.Centralblattalso containing the erection of this genus was issued on March 1, 1882.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• vespertinus andabeillei are often placed in the genusHesperiphona, thoughcurrently not so by the AOU Cl 7^th.

• The original spelling (as correctly noted by Peters Checklist11:472 (=Mayr 1986) wascœsia notcæsia and it appears this was intended as thetext following the name reads:

  Rostro atro; pedibus bruneis; corpore toto cœruleo-cœsio; ventrebrunneo-plumbeo ; crisso cinereo; pennis alarum caudaque nigris cæsiomarginatis.  Hab.  Sumatra.

  (emphasis added)

  And the "oe" ligatures and "ae" ligatures are easily distinguished in the descriptivetext.

• I am not aware of a sound basis for following the emendation that Mayr makeshere.
2019.02.12
• However, in the current zeal of linquistic cleansing the modern savants are now comfortable in sweeping aside whatever that silly ignorant Lesson did, as their Latin is good, while his was not.

• Peters Checklist13:147 (= Paynter 1970), cites thisto "p. 96" while it is actually found on p.99, as shown by the RichmondIndex, as well as by Sherborn's Index Animalium.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Taxa that were originally described inChamaezosa Cabanisare often written with the authority in parentheses.
• Some sources (Nomen. Zoolog. and the Richmond Index, Ridgway) hold thisto be an emendation ofChamaeza Vigors. Sherborn's Index Animaliumdoes not seem to list it as an emendation.

• The number of species to be included here is debated. Genetic evidence hasprovided support for three species, as opposed to three subspecies. This would appearto make sense under the phylogenetic species concept. For the moment I amreluctant to determine species level status simply on the basis of relative geneticdistances.
• ref. Banks J, Van Buren A, Chapel Y, Whitfield JB. 2006. "Genetic evidence forthree species of rockhopper penguins,Eudyptes chrysocome." Polar Biology30:61-67.

• The authors propose treating this as a phylogenetic species, and possibly underthe biological species concept as a subspecies ofXiphocolaptespromeropirhynchus.
• Clements (2007) treats this as a full species.
• This taxon is not discussed by H&M 3^rd up throughCorrigenda 6. Interestingly neither is it discussed in the SACC (accessed2007.06.20).

• A peculiar bibliographic situation exists here. The latter portion of Lawrence's paper(with the initial segment on pp.359-361) was continued following the "General Index that occursat the end of the volume. A footnote at the bottom of the initial pageof the continuation states, "This portion of the paper was inadvertantly left out by theeditor." The pagination is peculiar in that the final page of the "General Index" has pagenumbers "428", "429" at the top of the two columns (all other "General Index" pages have onlyone page number for the two columns). The next page (on which the bird description occurs hasno page number imprinted (!), but clearly it should be regarded as the equivalent of "429" asthe following page is numbered "430".
• The note at the top of the "continuation" says: "[Continued from p.359]", though it appearsto me that it would be more correct to say "[Continued from p.361]", as p.359 at bottom iswhere the article starts.
• Despite the fact that this name isfunctionally onp.429, I label it "p.["429" bis]" as it is the second page that bears that number.

• A complex and confusing situation here. I attempt to follow Sánchez-González LA, Navarro-Siqüenza AG,Peterson AT, & Garcia-Moreno J. "Taxonomy ofChlorospingus ophthalmicus in Mexico and northern Central America."BBOC127(1):34-49.
• The taxonomic and nomenclatural implications of thepartial revision here are considerable, and it must beregarded as incompletely resolved.

• Conventionally spelledcorebicolor (contracarebicolor) and this may becorrect.
• However, the Richmond Index clearly spells thiscarebicolor with a line over the"ae" indicating that it is a ligature (æ). I follow the Richmond Index until it is demonstrated thathis rendering is incorrect.

• Conventionally spelledcoelicolor (contracaelicolor) and this may becorrect.
• However, the Richmond Index clearly spells thiscaelicolor with a line over the "ae" indicatingthat it is a ligature (æ). I follow the Richmond Index until it is demonstrated that his rendering isincorrect.

• Peters Checklist13:318 (=Storer, 1970) dates this to 1836, and thisis initially followed by H&M:807.
• H&M Corrigenda 2.1 changes this date to 1835 and citesBrowning & Monroe (1991).
• Browning & Monroe 1991 p.391 reveals a problem:
  • line 7 of the Orn.Draw. section states:

    ... Part 3 (pls. 26-38) on 10 July 1834; Part 4 (pls. 39-50) on 2 January 1835; ...

    (Note 1834 for Part 3 )

    while on line 19 of this section it states:

    "T.[anagra] cana (10 July) 1835, Pt. 3, pl. 37

    (Note 1835 for Part 3 )

• Certainly the most likely interpretation is that the 1835 is alapsus for1834, which is the date that makes the most sense, and that I employ.

• Peters14:262 [= Howellet al. 1968] cites this to Bonaparte 1850 inConsp.Gen.Av. p.507
• H&M:753 (through Corrigenda 6) apparently follows this, and discusses the citationonly with regard to the question of the date 1850vs 1851 (footnote #1).
• The majority of authors (Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.12:232, Neave, Meyer, the RichmondIndex) give priority to the Reichenbach citaion, and this was recently discussed by Kirwan& Gregory 2005. BBOC125(1):68-80 (see p.77) where the Reichenbach citation wasagain held to have priority.
• H&M:753 (through Corrigenda 6) do not give a rationale for citing this toBonaparte rather than Reichenbach.

• It seems surprising for an African Bird to have been described in a work on Cubannatural history.
• Peters Checklist14:218 (=Howell, Paynter & Rand) correctly point to adiscussion in The Auk 192037:300 that explains this peculiarity.
• The Peters Checklist authors almost get the authors of this work correct, they suggetsthat the authors are "Bangs and Peters" while in fact they were Bangs andPenard.

• In Alstöm P, Olsson U, Rasmussen PC, Yao C-T, Ericson PGP, Sundberg R."Morphological, vocal and genetic divergence in theCettia acanthizoidescomplex (Aves: Cettiidae)." Zool.J.Linn.Soc.149:449 the authorityforCettia acanthizoides concolor is listed without parentheses.
• Ogilvie-Grant described this form with the combinationHoreitesacanthizoiedes concolor, so when listed inCettia the authorityshould be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist13:118 shows the publication date as 1942 withoutcomment or discussion. This was initially followed byH&M 3^rd:790.
• The Richmond Index shows this to be in the June 26, 1941 number (33B no.13).
• The Corrigenda #6 (Dec. 2006) of H&M 3^rdcorrects the date appropriately to 1941 with a note that the originaldescription was checked where the text "Trykt den 26 juni 1941" is found.

• Of interest, in his 1946 Condor paper in which he describesAimophila carpalis cohaerensRT Moore attributes the nameAimophila carpalis not to Coues 1873, but to Bendire in 1872,giving the citation "Ornith. and Oöl. 7, 1882:121" (which looks like 1882 to me).
• I find no other authors citing this, and do not find and evidence of such a periodical.
• The text from that article, reproduced in Deignan's Type Specimens of Birds in the U.S. Natl.Museum (p.644) suggests to me that Bendire was writing in 1882 of events which may have occurred in1872.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow(Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussingM.m.graminea placeM.m.coronatorum in synonomy and comment:

  Birds of Is. Los Coronados ("coronatorum"), San Miguel I. ("micronyx"), and otherChannel Is.  ("clementae") were named on basis of slight mean differences in bill and leglength, hallux length, and overall size, respectively, but populations are not diagnosable(Patten 2001).

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow(Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussingM.m.graminea placeM.m.clementae in synonomy and comment:

  Birds of Is. Los Coronados("coronatorum"), San Miguel I. ("micronyx"), and other Channel Is.("clementae") were named on basis of slightmean differences in bill and leg length, hallux length, and overall size, respectively, butpopulations are not diagnosable (Patten 2001).

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow(Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussingM.m.heermanni placeM.m.mailliardi in synonomy and comment:

   Weak clinal variation from south to northinvolving reduced grayish fringes to mantle-feathers and reduced brown between black medialstreak and fringe; birds called "mailliardi" and "cooperi" cannot be told fromheermannisensu stricto, nor from each other.

• Orignially published asPalaeornis Calthrapae but thebird was named for Layard's first wife, whose maiden name was Calthrop.It appears the name was a manuscript name due to Layard, but was published by Blyth.
• Sharpe's Hand-List 19002:32 has the following note:

  calthorpæ *......* This is the correct rendering of the name. It was dedicated by Mr. E.L. Layardto his first wife, who was a Miss Calthorp.  He told me this himself, remarking thathe had himself inadvertantly perpetuated the error, through a misprint in his 'Birdsof South Africa,' where he intended to call a PipitAnthus calthorpæ, but for thesecond time his printer failed him, and it appeared ascalthropæ.

  I find no evidence of this pipit name.
• Sherborn Index Animalium 1924 p.1006 has an entry for

  calthropae Psittacus, E. L. Layard, Journ. Ceylon Br. R. Asiat. Soc. [II (5) 1849-50]1850, 75  ; ed. 2, 1890, 200.

  which appears to be junior to the Blyth publication, in a different publication, and with a differentspelling!!.
• Peters Checklist3:246 errs in the belief that the bird was named fora Miss Calthorp. In this, he cites, and is following the error in Sharpe's Hand-List 19002:32
• Dickinsonet al. write (H&M 3^rd:[828]):

  Thelapsus by Blyth was emended in or before Salvadori (1891); this taxon was named for a MissCalthrop and not as Peters (1937) wrote a Miss Calthorp. Use of this accurate emendation from 1891 to 1937, has been succeeded by over 50 years of use ofcalthorpae. Sibley & Monroe (1990)resurrectedcalthropae, but we judge thatcalthorpae must benefit from the rules on prevailing usage.

• The definition of "prevailing usage" from the glossary of the ICZN 1999 is as follows:

  usage,prevailing,n.    Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of    the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago    their work was published.

• So, in my view, a demonstration of "prevailing usage" must publish the results of a study showing whatuniverse of data was examined, why that universe of data is sufficient and appropriate to answerthe question of frequency of use by different authors, and show that thedata demonstrate asubstantial majority (i.e. number) of authors used a particularrendering of a name. The argument must include logic in support of the fact that the "majority"is asubstantial majority, and not just a simple majority.
  The discussion by Dickinsonet al. does not indicte the range of publications and authorsconsisdered, it does not demonstrate (or evenmention) a majority, let alone a "substantial majority" of authors, nor does it indicate criteriafor deciding which authors were "concerned with the taxon" (whateverthat means). Theargument in support of "prevailing usage" appears to be based upon the recentduration ofuse, while the definition requires establishing afrequency of use (substantial majorityof authors concerned with the taxon). It may wellbe that the proposed prevailingusage can be demonstrated, but in my view, it must be published and the component criteriamust be presented with supporting logic and arguments. Until such a time I interpret it tobe incompatible with the Code 1999 to usecalthorpae.
• The representations in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.20:461-462 are of some interest. We have:

  15.Palæornis calthropæ [main heading]Palæornis calthrapæBlyth 1849[with 9 additional entries from 6 authors following]Palæornis calthropæKelaart 1852[with approx. 26 additional entries from 18 authors following]Palæornis calthrapaBp. 1857Palæornis calthropiæSchlegel 1864

  Obviously, this sketch must not be interpreted to be any evalution of the "most recent authorsconcerned with this taxon", but I include it here for interest.

• Previously cited as:

  Chalcopsitta(f.)Bonaparte 1850Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.3

  The Comptes Rendu citation has priority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Cited by Peters Checklist14:147 (Blake) to Lafresnaye &d'Orbigny.
• H&M 3^rd:769 lists the authority in the opposite order,as d'Orbigny & Lafresnay.
• The order d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye is that given by the Richmond Index, which is thejustification I use for the order that I employ.

• A very complicated situation here. At issue are the following:
  1. the spelling of the specific epithet
  2. the author of the name
  3. the place where the name first occurs
  4. the date of publication.
• Conventionally (e.g. Peters Checklist5:32) cited as
  • Trochilus chalybeusVieillot 1822Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 p.574
  I say "conventionally", however it must be noted that it is common to misread the Peters Citation and towrongly interpret his date as 1823. In fact he has 1823 as the imprint date with apublished dateof 1822.
• The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.16:426 begins the citation thus:

  Trochilus chalybæus,Vieill. Enc. Méth. p.574;Temm. Pl. Col. 66.f.2;Gray Hand-l. B. i. p.147

  Salvin thus appears to believe the name is due to Vieillot and that it is spelled with a ligature(-æ-).
• The evidence (which is moderately complex) initially suggested that the spellingchalybæus may have been used on the wrappers to livr.11, though the name on the plate isrenderedchalybeus.
• There does seem to be an exellent structure of data and arguments that the Pl.Col. livr. 11 (June1821) publication, in whatever form, antedates the Tabl.Meth. publication where Vieillot is often held tobe the author. Examples of the wrapper for livr. 11 have been actively sought for over a century butit is not clear if they can be found, or will resolve all of the uncertainties.
• The Richmond Index lists the name asTrochilus chalybeus and gives the authority to Temminck(with "Vieill." -- suggeting that it is a manuscript name of Vieillot's), and dates it to June of1821.
• Edward Dickinson provides more details on this matter (in litt. 2006.10.21); relevant portionsof his communication are:

  Contrary to what I wrote before Temminck did NOT usechalybæus on the wrapper. Froriepgavechalybeus and so did the Belgian reviewer in the Annales Générales des Sci.Phys.  Sochalybæus is only in the Tableau Méthodique, which as you recall is an    index, binding plan and link between the Buffon plates and the T&L plates.     ... you remind[] me about the Swiss reports on Temminck & Laugier. I do have the set ofthese and I attach a PDF showing the list of the 6 notes that appeared in vols. 4 and 5. These take us upto the end of Pl. 120 and thus to the end of the livraisons that appeared before their text did. And thusyes, it is possible to cross check Froriep against this source, which I seem to have done but do not seemto have entered into a comparative spreadsheet. I have also copied for you the page that deals withlivraison 11 and you will see that the Swiss review also gives the spelling aschalybeus. So wehave 3/3 votes for that.     For the record, ... the details that I have for these sources -- not quite complete as to dates -- are as    follows:     Froriep inNotizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- unf Heilkunde:     a) 1821 in an issue dated Julius 1821 and numbered PRO 2:     cols 19-22 include an overview and the details of livraisons I to VIII all of which can only be    from the wrappers     b) 1822 in an issue dated Oktober 1822 and numbered Pro 53 as well as (Nr. 9 des III Bandes):     cols 129-132 include the details of Livraisons IX to XXIII and certainly for the last three (at    least) Froreip must have been able to see text as well as plates. In the Introductory paragraph of    text Froreip wrote "Dies Werk geht uunterbrochen fort. Auch ist der Bunsch nach einem    beschreibenden Texte; den wir den wir Notizen Nr. 2 pag. 21 ausserten, ets füllt worden, uns    seit dem 20sten Heft jedesmal der Text beigefügt; der zu denfrühern Heften    gehörige wird nachgeholt." .     Anon. in theAnnales Générales des Sci. Phys. (Bruxelles)     a) In Vol.7 pp.361-371: an extensive review which includes the details of the first 6 livraisons. Thedetails most probably came from the wrappers (comparison with Froriep might reveal differences but I havenot yet made these)     b) In Vol.8 pp.395-396: details of livraisons 7 to 11. The volume title page has 1821 on it. If this iscorrect then all the listed details must have come from the wrappers or from Froriep.     Anon. "U". in theNaturwiss. Anz. Schweiz Ges:     As per the details attached; dates of issue of each part of the review not yet known to me.     Note that we have at least two sources for all of Livraisons 1-20 and a third source for 1-11.

• The Richmond Index also lists:

  Trochilus chalybeus Bechstein 1811 Allg.Uebers.Vogel[Latham] 4 1 p.222Based on Actes.Soc.Hist.Nat. Paris, I. pt.1 1792, p.116, no.48

• Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.1208) gives essentially the same thing (but substantially moreabbreviated).
• Why the Bechstein name (with a full decade of priority) is not the valid name is not clear to me.

• Peters Checklist7:199 lists the date as 1867.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.
• H&M 3^rd:386 lists the date as 1867, but this is corrected in theCorrigenda 2.1 to 1868.
• HBW8:597 has the date correct, as 1868.

• Conventionally cited to 1887 (e.g. Peters Checklist9:97 (Mayr & Greenway1960) ;H&M 3^rd:532; Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Aethiop.II:583).
• 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 theinterpretation that this name was not published until 1888. The Richmond Index, as well as theunpublished notes on Dates of Publication point repeatedly to a note in the Ibis 1891:616 whereevidence is published concerning the actual apparent dates of availability for the J.Orn. duringthis period. The 1887 July. number (179) containing this description was not recieved at theLondon Zoological Society 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 the French 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.

• It appears that there is much uncertainty concerning the systematics in this species.
• See Brumfield RT. 2005. "Mitochondrial variation in Bolivian populations of the VariableAntshrike (THAMNOPHILUS CAERULESCENS)." Auk122(2):414-432 and IslerMT, Isler PR, & Brumfield RT . 2005. "Clinal variation in vocalizations of and Antbird(THAMNOPHILIDAE)." Auk122(2):433-444.
• We can expect much change and turmoil in this species, and probably in this group as awhole.

• H&M 3^rd:382 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 the previous page (p.380).But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW8:559 has the date correct as 1868.

• H&M 3^rd:381 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 the previous page(p.380). But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW8:550 has the date correct as 1868.

• Peters Checklist12:447 gives the date for this publication as "1868".
• Gage and Stearn. 1988. "A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London" p.215 show thatthis was published Feb. 27, 1878 (a Wed.).
• H&M 3^rd:448 correctly gives the date as 1878, but makes nomention of differing from the Peters Checklist in this regard. I must note that when anyoneelse differs from the listings in the Peters Checklist, great editorial excitement isengendered and explicit demonstrations of proof and support for the variant position aredemanded.

• Peters Checklist5:107 lists the original combination here asHeliangelus micraster cutervensis Simon, Hist. Hat. Trochil., 1921, p.182,369
• Colin Jones astutely noticed that Zimmer in Am.Mus.Novit. no.1540 p.29 gives the original citation as "H[eliotrypha] micraster cutervensis", which would imply that the authority should be in parentheses.
• The Richmond Index confirms that the original description is as "Heliotrypha micraster cutervensis".
• HBW5:637 and H&M 3^rd:272 apparently follow the Peters Checklisterror, in that they do not put the authority in parentheses.

• Spelled by Peters Checklist1(2):416 "Falco Cuvieri" (note -i).
• I expect that this follows (without additional examination) Sharpe. Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.18741:400 where the name is listed with an "-i" ending.
• Sharpe in CBBM1 may well have been following Gray's Hand-List of BirdsI:20 where it isspelledCuvieri.
• My facsimile collection of Smith's works (Willoughby Society, 1880) shows the name clearly as

  FALCOCUVIERII

• The listing in the Richmond Index spells the name with the-ii ending.
• The single -i spelling seems to be commonly, but not universally, met with. Wolters (1975) in DieVogelarten der Erde p.78 spells the nameFalco cuvierii.
• Similarly, Sherborn in Index Animalium p.1712 (a work that was certainly readily available to the authorsof the Peters Checklist) spells the namecuvierii.
• HBW2:268 lists the name correctly asFalco cuvierii.
• Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2006.08.03) that the first edition of Peters Checklist (1931)usesFalco cuvierii.
• In further additional information due to Bob Dowsett's efforts,it is established that the Willughby Reprint of Sir Andrew Smith's MiscellaneousOrnithological Papers accurately reflects the original spelling(FALCOCUVIERII)of the name. This was established by Margaret Sandwith kindly providing a scan ofthe original material.

• Usually cited to 1838 (e.g. Peters Checklist1(2):159), and this appears to be conventionallyfollowed.
• The entry in the Richmond Index clearly and strongly shows a 9 overwriting the final "8" in 1838. So Richmonddates this to 1839, not 1838.
• Dates for this early Russian Serial are problematic. Sherborn in his listing for this name, includes theMém.Acad.Imp.Sci. St. Petersburg which Peters shows as an 1840 version of the description published earlierin the Bulletin.
• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.26:450-459 has a number of entries of interest. ForPhaëthon catesbyi (p.457) onlythe 1840 Mém. of the St. Petersb. Academy is listed.Yet the listing forPhaëthon flavirostris (p.454)cites "Bull.Acad. St. Pétersb. ii p.349 (1837)" so some study of the Bulletin occured in developing thesenames.
• The AOU CL 5^th (1957):27 lists the Bulletin and dates it to 1838.
• HBW1(1992):289 (J. Orta) dates this taxon to 1840 Bulletin with a citation that appears to be a strangecombination of data from various sources. I am confused enough by this early Russian periodical that I can not sayanything is necessarily wrong, but the HBW citaion (p.[631]) doesn't fit easily with any of the othercitations I have examined.
• For this taxon, 1838 certainly appears possible. The collation of data for the Bulletin suggests a good measure ofconfusion simply regarding the orderly nomenclature of the publication (even ignoring the problem of establishing theexact date). See the entry forBull.Sci.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. for some details in this regard.
• From my perspective, in the abscence of very little in the way of definite data, the choice is between theconvention , or reliablity. I choose the latter (i.e. CWR).
• It must also be noted that Mathews has written on the matter of this name (Mathews. 1915. Auk32(2):195-197).Mathews takes what seems to me to be a high-handed, and imperious attitude in his article. Consistent with much of hiswork, his data are incomplete, there is at least one typographic problem (perhaps not his fault), and the clarity of hisposition is not what it might be. The citation he gives for Brandt's use of the name does not appear to be the earliestone available.

• SpelledFurnarius Commersoni in the listing on page 34.
• SpelledFurnarius Commersonii in the note no.2 on page 34.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:242 to 1843 and this appears to be followed universally.
• Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981. "War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist'sLibrary, 1833-1843." ISIS72:50-72. addresses this work in detail. From her study ofJardine's correspondence she determines that this work was published in Dec. 1842.
• I am unaware of any reason not to believe her interpretation, which appears to have beenuniversally ignored by the ornithological community.
• Iredale also published on this work (Iredale. 1951. "'The Naturalist's Library: an Essay in Bibliography.'Australian Zoologist11:322-332.) and Edward Dickinson kindly provided me a copy to study. It is clear thatuncertainty remains as to whether this volume was published in Dec. 1842, or in 1843. Possible explanations can beprovided for either case. The appearance (but not the certainty) is that Sheets-Pyenson may have dated this based oninformation in the Jardine correspondence (which was material unknown to Iredale), and Sheets-Pyenson was fully aware ofand relied partly Iredale's work when she published her paper. For the present time I am employing the dating shepublished on p.72 of her work.

• My intention and attempt here is to follow the systematics ofSorenson MD& Payne RB. 2005. "Molecular systematics: cuckoo phylogeny inferred frommitochondrial DNA sequences" Pp. 69-94in R.B. Payne. Bird Families of theWorld (15): Cuckoos. Oxford University Press. as followed by the AOU CL47^th Supplement. 2006.

• Peters Checklist1(2):74 lists the plate as "pl.10"; the Richmond Indexlists the plate as "pl.XI".
• A point such as this may seem overly picky, but Richmond additionally notes thatthe name is spelled "caribaea" on the plate. Attention to detail and fidelity arenot the strong points of the post-Peters volumes of the Checklist.
• HBW1:[631] is unaware of, or chooses not to include reference to theplate.

• The nomenclature and systematics of this species is complicated and confusing. Ifollow the recent paper by Tennyson and Bartle (2005) with regards the nomenclatureand systematics.
• ref.Tennyson AJD, Barlte JA. 2005. "A scientific name for fulmar prionsnesting at Auckland and Heard Islands." Notornis.52:47-55.
• Thanks to the always helpful Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to myattention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist1(2):369 as:

  Buteo calurus Cassin, 1856, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel- phia,7(1855), p.281

  .
• The citation to "1856" is followed (without comment) by HBW2:184 and H&M3^rd:111; although the AOU CL 5^th:106dates this to May 22, 1855, and the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.1:189 dates this to 1855as well.
• This paper was presented at the Meeting of Feb.27, 1855 andappeared in no.VII of volumeVII. Receipt of "no.VII" for that volume wasacknowledged by the Boston Society of Natural History Library on May 22 of 1855.Thus 1855 is the proper date for this taxon.
• Undoubtedly the "May 22, 1855" date as listed in the 1957 AOU CL 5^th:106 comes from this acknowledgement of receipt. It seems peculiar that Stresemannand Amadon in preparing this portion of the Peters Checklist did not take thetrouble to see what the AOU Checklist committee had resolved, especially as Amadonhimself was on that Committee.
• However, perhaps this is not so strange, as consulting the AOU Checklistsseems these days to be the exception rather than the rule.

• Peters Checklist8:180 (Traylor) cites this to 1827. This is followed byH&M 3^rd:373 and HBW9:405
• The actual date here is a bit of a mystery. Zimmer p.154 discusses the problem ofdating names from this work in detail, including details provided by both Sherborn(Ind.Anim Pt.2 p.xli and Mathews Bibliography of the Birds of Australia p.63). Itappears that certainty with regards dates is not to be had.
• Mathews writes:

  We have therefor for the volumes as generally met with, Vol. I. before Aug.6th, 1828;Vol. II., before May 21st, 1829; Vol. III before Jan. 23rd, 1830.

• The volume numbers are, of course themselves confusing. There were 16 vols.Vol.VI (Aves I); Vol.VII (Aves II) and Vol.VIII (Aves III). Note that Zimmer p.154appears to have an error listing

   Vol.III (Aves III)

  but lower downreferring to

  At the close of Vol.VIII (Aves III).

• With nothing better to proceed on, I accept Mathews' dates, and date Vol.VI (AvesI) to 1828.

• Conventionally listed as published in 1891, which is the imprint date.
• James Jobling has noticed that Zimmer (p.97) notes (quotes are Zimmer's)

  "It was completed in December last, and is dated 1891, though it was notactually accessible to the public until the middle of last March"(Ibis, July 1892).

• Of interest, of a number of taxa from this source checked in the Richmond Index,one (Neophema) is dated "1891?".
• Based on the data Zimmer quotes from Ibis, I dated all taxa from this source to1891. Other interpretations are, however possible. If multiple copies not"accessible" to the public were distributed (say at the Museum) during 1891,then the publication date would be 1891 so this date is based onspeculation.Arguments can be made for either date."Completion" is not the same as publication, and this approach argues for using 1892.My general approach has been in controversial issues to default to following theRichmond Index, which here would also appear to favor 1891. Howeverpublishedmaterial includingspecific details (i.e. The Ibis note) appeared tosupport 1892.
• Additional reflection prompted me to change back to 1891, based on thedistinction between "accessibil[ity] to the public" and "publication". That is material may be published, yet not "accesible to the public".
• Who knows, I may change my mind again.

• Peters Checklist2:254 gives the citation here as

  Eudromias crassirostris Severtzov, Izvest. Imp. Obsch. Estestr. Antr. iEthnogr. Moskva,3, no. 2 ["Turkestanski Jevotni"], 1873, p.146.

  All other taxa cited to this source (and some to Turk. Jevotni) are cited to volume8 not3. I have no independant confirmation of the volume number, but fullyexpect that it is a typographic error (a common one) substituting 3 for 8.

• Evidently based on a bird, of questionable identity, referred to in the Vulgate Bible.
• My researches suggest that the occurance is in Leviticus Chapter 11 where it is indicatedwhich birds may be eaten and which are to be detested, held in abomination and not eaten.
• The relevant text of the Vulgate Bible (note line # 19) is:

  LeviticusChapter 111 locutus est Dominus ad Mosen et Aaron dicens2 dicite filiis Israhel haec sunt animalia quae comedere debetis de cunctis animantibus terrae3 omne quod habet divisam ungulam et ruminat in pecoribus comedetis4 quicquid autem ruminat quidem et habet ungulam sed non dividit eam sicut camelus et cetera non comedetis illud et inter inmunda reputabitis5 chyrogryllius qui ruminat ungulamque non dividit inmundus est6 lepus quoque nam et ipse ruminat sed ungulam non dividit7 et sus qui cum ungulam dividat non ruminat8 horum carnibus non vescemini nec cadavera contingetis quia inmunda sunt vobis9 haec sunt quae gignuntur in aquis et vesci licitum est omne quod habet pinnulas et squamas tam in mari quam in fluminibus et stagnis comedetis10 quicquid autem pinnulas et squamas non habet eorum quae in aquis moventur et vivunt abominabile vobis11 et execrandum erit carnes eorum non comedetis et morticina vitabitis12 cuncta quae non habent pinnulas et squamas in aquis polluta erunt13 haec sunt quae de avibus comedere non debetis et vitanda sunt vobis aquilam et grypem et alietum14 milvum ac vulturem iuxta genus suum15 et omne corvini generis in similitudinem suam16 strutionem et noctuam et larum et accipitrem iuxta genus suum17 bubonem et mergulum et ibin18 cycnum et onocrotalum et porphirionem19 erodionem etcharadrion iuxta genus suum opupam quoque et vespertilionem20 omne de volucribus quod graditur super quattuor pedes abominabile erit vobis21 quicquid autem ambulat quidem super quattuor pedes sed habet longiora retro crura per quae salit super terram ...

• An unusual situation here, where the genus group name is publishedprior to the scientific description of any of the component species.
• Peters Checklist2:308 comments that J.R. Forster has

  Diagnosis only, no species included.

• The first species described, and subsequently included in the genus isVaginalis alba Gmelin 1789. A name based on Latham's work.Essentially all that Gmelin did was assign binomina and Latin descriptionsto birds that were described (without Latin binomina) by Latham. Thus itis my speculation that Forster was able to write a diagnosis forChionis based on Latham's description and illustration and lackingonly a Latin binomen. The binomen was subsequently supplied byGmelin.

• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 p.10 indicates that the date frothis taxon is 1811 and not 1808 as conventionally given. The rationale forthis decision is not given, but the note references a 1953 Stresemannarticle inMitt.Zool.Mus.Berlin29(1):75-106 (notseen), and an article in prep. It will be interesting to learn of thedetails here.

• Peters Checklist8:320 (Mayr) lists this as

  Pitta coccinea Eyton, 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p.104

• The Richmond Index listing is:

   Pitta coccinea J.C.Eyton 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., part VII, no. LXXVIII, Nov. 1839, 140

• So the problem is p.140 or p.104 ? A question that should be easily resolvable bychecking the original description. Richmond's listing of "no.LXXVII" does providean additional clue. no.LXVIII for this volume is listed by Duncan as includingpp.93-110, and being published in November. Page 140 is listed as occuring inno.LXXXII which was not published until March of 1840.
• It appears to me that the Peters (Mayr) listing is correct, and that this is a rare example of a transposition error by Richmond.
• HBW8:792 lists the page as 104.
• [2010.09.05] Fred Ruhe confirms that it is p.104.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist11:397 (Mayr) cited as
• Malurus cyaneus cyaneus (Latham) 1783Gen.Syn.Birds 2 p.501
However Ellis's description would appear to antedate this.
• Priority of Ellis's description depends on the date actually being 1782; all the copies of this work I have found in library Catalogues, havebeen of the second edition, with a publication date of 1783.
• The 1782 version is cited by the Richmond Index, and by Sherborn.

2020.11.08

• A letter from Richmond to Witmer Stone (July 21, 1930) contained in the Archives of the Acadamy of Nat. Sci. Phila. states:

  I have sent for Cook's Voyages and when they come will look up therefs. for Giant Fulmar and Dark Gray Petrel and send on to you.      I think it will be perfectly proper to put the date (the particulardate of the page) after the page reference, thus indicating it to bethe date of the page only and not of the volume.

• Mathews in his Bibliography of the Birds of Australia (1925) dates both volumes to 1782 -- whichis at variance with most other bibliographic listings of this work. He comments:

  Motacilla cyanea has been quoted from this book where it is merely anomen nudum.Ellis's drawings of Natural History are preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) and were reported on by Sharpe, Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. Brit. Mus., Vol IIpp. 199-208, 1906.[Painting]No. 95 is the Superb Warbler of Tasmania,Motacilla cyanea Ellis,n.n. then of Lathamand Gmelin.

• Sherborn dates this name to 1782.

• The Richmond Index give the original description as follows:

  A small bird of the Motacilla genus with a bright blue head, which we, onthat account, called Motacillacyanea.

• This is the original description, according to Mathews, Aust.Av.Rec.I, 1912, p.93.

• Peters Checklist11:392 (Mayr) cites this as:

  Todopsis coronata Gould, 1878, Birds Australia, pt. 8

• Birds of Australia pt. 8 was, of course, published in September of1842 some 35 years before this name was published.
• Presumably Dr Mayr, or whoever actually wrote this section for him,confused "The Birds of New Guinea and the Adjacent Papuan Islands" with"The Birds of Australia".

• Originally spelledcolumbiana (according to Peters Checklist2:212; TheRichmond Index; HBW3:207).
• H&M 3^rd:126 spells thiscolombiana which makes more sense,but is incorrect.

• Originally spelledNeocrex colombianus by Bangs.
• MisspelledNeocrex columbianus by Peters Checklist2:194; andthis error has been repeated (e.g. H&M 3^rd:124) sometimes, and the name has been renderedcorrectly sometimes (e.g. HBW3:191).

• Originally spelledRallus Corrius in Vol.3 no.3 Jan. 15, 1887p.33.
• SpeltRallus Coryi in corrected description in Vol.3 no.6,Feb. 5, 1887 p.69
• Whether this satisfies the Code requirements for a "demonstrablyintentional" change is, in my view, slightly uncertain given theuncertainties in Art. 33.2.1, and the lack of an opportunity to examinethe original description and subsequent corrected description.However, it appears very likely that the casedoessatisfy the Code requirements, and it has been treated as an accpetedemendation for many decades.

• Cited by Peters Checklist10:232 (Deignan) to"Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.", and in this Deignan appears to befollowing the Richmond Index, which also lists this as thesource.
• Evanhuis' detailed presentation regarding this publication (Evanhuis)indicates that this must have been in Ann.Nat.Hist.
• Sherborn (p.1131) incorrectly cites this to the later publication in1841 in thePZS.

• Originally spelled"castanotus" by Gould.
• This has been corrected tocastanotum.
• Basis for and validity of this correction uncertain at present(2006.04.08).

• Not recognized as a species by H&M 3^rd.

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason PetersChecklist3:25 places the authority in parentheses. This isfollowed by H&M 3^rd:174 and by HBW4:206.
• Itappears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation ofSwainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that itimplies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described inPtilonopus and for this reason PetersChecklist3:33 places the authority in parentheses. This isfollowed by H&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW4:217.
• Itappears to me thatPtilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation ofSwainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that itimplies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist3:29places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176but not by HBW4:215.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus (as well as a genus group name used in insect taxonomy). As an emendation itappears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist3:13 dates this to 1823.
• The Richmond Index dates this to July of 1822, as does Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.1052)

• Usually cited to the J.As.Soc.Bengal
  • PetersIII:16 cites to J.A.S.B. 14, 1840 p.852 -- the 1840 must be alapsus for 1845 or 1846, as it makes no sense for vol. 14.
  • H&M 3^rd:172 puts the date (more reasonably) at 1846.
  • HBW5:195 uses 1846 and points to J.A.S.B.14:852.
• CWR, has a J.A.S.B. card for

  Tr[eron] chloroptera  J.A.S.B. XIV, pt.II, no.168; n.s. no.84, Dec, 1845, 852, in text.

  and a note "Blyth's paper is Dated May 22, 1846" -- dating the taxon to 1846.
• Prior to that he has a card as follows. (quotes " " are Richmond's)

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Treronchroloptera         "B"India Sporting Review, II, no.3, Sept., 1845, 28 (in text).    " A fifth Hurryaul, [APP: not completely sure of this word, possibly Hurryanl? ]of superior dimensions, but otherwisemuch resembling thepompadora, has lately been receivedby the Museum of the Asiatic Society from the NicobarIslands, and is named by the Curator -Treronchloroptera." (full ref.)                         (Book in Dept. Agr. library).~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Blyth was the Curator of the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal fromca. 1841-1861.

• Peters Checklist3:143 notes thatChalcopsittacus is an emendation bySalvadori and Sharpe ofChalcopsitta Bonaparte. Thus Peters does notplace taxa descr. inChalcopsittacus but now held inChalcopsitta in parentheses.(duivenbodei andsyringanuchalis).
• Of the recent sources available to me it appears that HBW4:341 (Collar. 1997) started the interpretation of not acceptingChalcopsittacus as an emendation ofChalcopsittaand thus putting the authority in parentheses. This then seems to have been followed, or shouldI say parroted, by H&M 3^rd:184 (2003).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Taxa from this source are almost universally dated to 1846, the imprintdate.
• Regarding the date of publication, Roy McDiarmid writes (2005.01.11)

  In 1926, C. Davies Sherborn, Ann Mag Nat Hist ser. 9, vol.17:271-272 published a brief note titled: Dates of Publication ofEarly Catalogues of Natural History issued by the British Museum. In thatwork Sherborn attributes the Catal. Spec. and Drawings .... by Hodgson toG. R. Gray, 1846 with the bracketed date [9 January 1847].  In the text hestates that 'Information supplied from the Records by permission of theTrustees of the British Museum.'  Further, he stated that many difficultieshave arisen in question of priority and that it is impossible to recover theexact date they were offered for public sale. He continues that " ... wemust be contented to recover the exact day on which they were 'laid on thetable' of the Trustees, a preliminary to the issue to the public.' Henotes that these are the dates he used in the Index Animalium.

• This is cited by Peters Checklist6:140 to 1844.
• This is initially followed by H&M 3^rd:318 (but corrected to1845 in Corrigenda 3).
• HBW7:537 (Winkler & Christie) evidently follows Peters Checklistand uses 1844 without comment.
• The Richmond Index dates this taxon to 1845, noting "Ref. to Madr. paper ofAug. 9, 1845 in this no.!"

• Originally published asCapsiempis flaveola cerula asshown by the Richmond Cardex, as well as by Deignan 1961 p.293 andHBW9:287.
• Listed by H&M 3^rd:354 asC. f.cerulua
• Corrected by H&M 3^rd: Corrigenda 3 toC. f.cerula

• The authority for this genus seems to perpetually change, attributed to 1826,then to 1825; to Vigors and then to Swainson.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 takes the position that the authority isSwainson in Vigors, and dates it to 1825. The basis for this assertion is given asICZN decision67.
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1987. p.71lists:

  Colaptes Swainson, 1825,in Vigors,Trans. linn. Soc. London14(3): 457 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy:Cuclus auratus Linnaeus, 1758,Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)1:112) (Aves) 0.67

• This Official 1987 act by the ICZN seems to be largely ignored, and see below forexcellent reasons to do this. The AOU CL 7^thEd. (1998) p.343 lists Vigorsas the author, as does HBW7:510 (2002).
• The 1825 Vigors citation, which the ICZN chose as the basis for thisgenus is of interest. The Richmond Index card for this includes thefollowing notes (quotes are Richmond's).

  "This group forms the genusColaptes of Mr. Swainson."(this is the only "orig. diag." given by Vigors

  (The parentheses are unclosed in the original.)
• The type is apparently indicated asCuclus auratus Linn. bymonotypy, so what constitutes the "group" is not clear, not having seenthe paper.
• Swainson's role in this nomenclatural act appears to me, at least, tobe minimal and well below that which should afford him status as theauthor of the genus. Richmond lists the name Colaptes as a "[SwainsonMS.]" name.
• Roy McDiarmid kindly provided a copy of text of Opinion 67 (Smith.Ins.Publ. no.2409. April, 1916). This constitutes 102 bird names placed in theOfficial List of Generic names. In this list, the nameColaptes islisted as follows.

  Colaptes (Swainson MS.) Vigors, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 14, iii, 1825, 457.Mt.,Cuculus auratus Linn.

  The author of this taxon is clearly held by Opinion 67 to be Vigors, and notSwainson, and while it may be interesting, it is useless to speculate on the basisfor this error. However, error it is, and one now enshrined in the "OfficialLists...". From my point of view the intention of this part of Opinion 67, whileextremely clear to me, escaped the understanding of the authors of the 1987 "OfficialList....". I follow the original intention and action of Opinion 67 and list theauthor as Vigors.

• This occurs in the "1994" volume of Orn.Neotrop.
• I learn from Normand David (in litt. 2004.11.19) thatthe back cover of this number (no.2) shows "10 May, 1995", sothat must be taken as the date for the taxon.

• Peters Checklist 8:122 (Traylor) 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 betweenAugust 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• The Peters Checklist8:26 (Traylor) lists the volume number as"15 no.362" this is inconsistent with his orthographic representation ofthis work, which he represents as15(362) on p.70 of the same volume ofthe Checklist.
• A comparison of other citations to thisserial makes the combination of no.362 and vol.15 appear unlikely, and thispeculiarity would appear to be explained by the note in the Richmond Index for thistaxon. That note has "XV" scratched out and "XIV" written in above it. The note (inCWR's hand) says

   misprinted vol. "XV" on this no.!

• Another taxon from this same volume and number isSclerurus salvini,which Jim Peterslists (7:152) as from vol.14 no.362. The Richmond Index for this taxonhas the same note concering the misprinted volume number for this number. It appearsto me that Traylor was unwilling, unable, or disinclined to make his citationconsistent with others either of his own or elsewhere in the Peters ChecklistSeries. I fight my own battles with unwillingness, inability, and disinclination, and knowthat it is not an easy fight.

• The original description of the genus reads:

  CHRYSOMUS,SW. (fig. 243.)  Bill resemblingZanthor-nis; but the margin of both mandibles inflexed.  Wings moderate; the first quilrather shorter than the second. Tail rounded. Feet formed for walking. Toes large,very long, and slender : middle toe longer than the tarsus; lateral toes equal; hinder toe shorter than the tarsus. Claws long, very slender, and but slightly curved.icterocephalus. Edw. pl.323. zanthopygius. Part 5. No. 190.

• I am somewhat uncertain about this citation.
• N.J. Collar says in HBW4:456 (1997).

  NE Brazilian population, if proven racially distinct, must be known aschryseura (Swainson, 1820), notruficauda Berla, 1954.

  Though the specific Swainson citation is not given in HBW4.
• The only citation I can find for this name is from the Richmond Index

  Psittacus chryseürus Wm. Swainson 1823Zoological Illustrations, ser.1, 3, no.28, Jan. 1823. pl.141 + text

  I do not find it in Sherborn, it is not in Peters Checklist, and it is not inthe Hand-List of the Genera and species of Birds edited by Ogilvie-Grant and Sharpe,so I presume it is not in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. XX (not examined 2004.09.12).
• I suspect (but do not know) that the correct date for this name should be 1823,and cited as above.

• The original description reads (emphasis added forcyanochlora):

  PISTTACULUS SANCTI THOMAE. __ Psittacus (Psittacula) St.Thomae, Kuhl. -- Psittacus gregarius fem. Spix, pl.34, fig.2 et 3.  Très semblable au passerinus, mais à teintes beaucoup plusclaries et passant, dans le premier plumage, au jaune sur le frontet le devant de la tête en général. -- Aile 2 pouce 9 lignesà 2 pouces 11 lignes; queue 16 à 17 lignes; hauteur de lamandibule supérieure 3 lignes, largeur de l'inférieure 4 lignes.  Observé sur les bords du fleuve des Amazones et du Riobranco.  1. Mâle en habit de passage, tué le 28 Déc. 1831, Fortedo Rio branco, Guyane portugaise, voyage de Natterer; obtenu en 1864 du Musée de Vienne sous le nom dePsittacula cya-nochlora, Natterer. -- 2. Femelle au premier plumage, tuéele 24 Mai 1822, Foret de Rio branco, Natterer, du Musée deVienne, 1864, sous le nome dePsittacula cyanochlora. --3.Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck. -- 4.Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck, éti-quette de la main de Kuhl mème: Psit. St. Thomae. -- 5.Individu au premier plumage, acquis en 1860.

• Often cited as:
  • Eclectus roratus corneliaBonaparte 1850PZS(1849) Pt17 no.198 p.143 pl.11
• Peters Checklist3:231 includes a note that says:

  "The description may have first appeared in Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris,30, Feb., 1850, p.135."

• The dates of publication of the PZS number are uncertain -- listed byDuncan and CWR as "Ja-Je" for 1850. This number (6) of the Compt.Rend. isfor the Séance du Lundi 11 Février 1850.
• It is my guess that this number of the Compt.Rend. was publishedbefore the no.198 of the PZS. My logic here is that no.198 of the PZS isthe fifth number of this volume of the PZS that is designated as occuringin the "Jan. - June" period. Thus, it appears likely that it may have beenlater than the middle of Feb. It is not impossible that the PZSpublication appeared earlier.
• I do not know what (if any) imprint dates may be on this number of thePZS, or on the wrappers in which it was delivered.
• It also is of interest that Peters Checklist3:231 lists theplate in the PZS as "pl.11". The Richmond Index lists the plate in the PZSas

  Aves, pl."X".

  The implication of the quotation marks aroundthe plate number are not immediately clear to me, but suggest thepossibility that it is incorrectly numbered.
• HBW4:[611] lists the PZS citation, including the page numberbut not the plate.
• Most workers are apparently unaware of and thus do not reference Bonaparte's useofEclectus cornalia in Athenaeum no.1155, Dec. 15, 1849 p.1277, but accordingto the Richmond Index the name there is anomen nudum.

• NotP. grisola.
• refM.P.Walters, 2003. Systematicnotes on Asian birds.39. "The correct name for the MangroveWhistlerPachycephala cinerea (Blyth)". Zool. Verh. Leiden,344:107-109.

• Cited by Peters7:4 to 1840; and this is followed by H&M^rd:335.
• HBW8:83 lists the date as 1839. This is supported by SherbornC:1058, aswell as Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Ethiop.2:305, and the Richmond Index, where it is notedthat this is from "Part VII" with a date of Sept. 2, 1839. Additionally, taxa described onsubsequent plates 28,30 & 32 (Bradornis infuscatus,Ploceus subaureus, &Microparra capensis) are all dated to 1839 by Peters, Sherborn, Richmond, andH&M.

• Peters Checklist5:197 lists the original combination asHalcyoncyanoventris and this is also followed by HBW6:207.
• Sherborn Ind.Anim.C:1733, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was initiallydescribed inAlcedo. This interpretation is represented correctly in H&M3^rd:286.

• Listed by Peters Checklist8:317 (Mayr) as 1860.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in March of 1861, a factconfirmed by Duncan.

• The date here is a bit of a mystery. Peters Checklist6:223 showthe date as 1830, as does the Richmond Index and HBW7:552.
• Sherborn lists the date as "ante May 1832", and a later date seems to makemuch more sense given the page and plate numbers.
• With some trepidation I adopt 1832 until additional understandings become available.

• Peters Checklist3:205 cites this to Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév. découv., 1847 p.251 with a notethat he is "unable to verify this reference." This note is appropriate as this name occurs nowhere on p.251 of the cited reference.
• The exact correct citation is still a bit of a mystery. The citation I givehere is from the Richmond Index, though Richmond has a note that the Lesson 1847article quotes "Echo, 1844, t.2" Peters refers to that citation, but says "the namedoes not appear there" -- implying he examined the extremely rare L'Echo du Monde Savantbut did not examine the much more readily available Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév.découv.
• It is clear that there is uncertainty with regard to the citation for this taxon.
• Great thanks to Michael Rieser for checking the page cited by Peters and demonstratingthat the name is not present there.

• Cited by Peters Checklist3:207 to Salvadori, and this is followed by HBW4:451 and H & M 3^rd:201.
• Vitor Piacentini communicates (2004.03.03)

  J. F. Pacheco [indicated] that the correct author's name is (Pelzeln, 1870).There is a note in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) that deals with it. According do Olivério Pinto (1978. Novo catálogo das aves do Brasil), the basonym is:Sittace cyanoptera Pelzeln, 1870, Orn. Bras., (3), p.260 (in the synonymy of"Brotogeris jugularis")

• H&M 3^rd:268 spells thiscircumventris withoutcomment.
• The original name isColibri amethystinus circumventus(verified).

• This citation is currently a bit of a guess on my part. Peters Checklist6:195 cites this as
  "Dendrocopus minor comminutus Hartert, Bds. Brit. Isles, 1907, p.22"
  
• I can find no work by that title for that date, and presume that thereference is to the serial entitledBritish Birds which commencedin 1907.
• Olav Runde confirms (in litt.2008.05.16) that this was published inBritish Birdsbut that it is described on pp.221-222 not on "p.22".

• Peters Checklist5:23 gives 39 as the volume number. HBW5:688 follows Peters in this.
• Peters' citations for four taxa described alongsideC. t. crissalis (namely,Lepidopyga luminosa phæochroa,Amazilia chionopectusorienticola,Amazilia fimbriata elegantissima, andOcreatus underwoodipolystictus) have 29 as the volume number. Reference to Todd's work on pages 5 and 36 also usethat number.
• The Richmond Index confirms that volume 29 is correct.

• Peters Checklist9:32 (Mayr & Greenway) lists the date here as1841.
• The Richmond Index, Zimmer, and Sherborn all show that this part waspublished in Nov. 1839.

• H&M 3^rd:409 cites 1916 for this taxon. 1916 is the yearthat Cherrie describedSynallaxis rufogularis. But due toSynallaxis rufogularis Gould 1839, a replacement name was requiredand supplied by Gyldentolpe in 1930.
• HBW8:280 has the correct date and citation.

• Peters Checklist5:267 attributes pl.530 to livr.88 and thus to 1831. HBW6:499 follows Peters in this.
• The Richmond Index shows that this plate occurs in livr.89, and thus dates it toFeb. 1832
• Dickinson 2001. also determines pl.530 to be in livr.89 and he dates it to Feb. 11,1832

• H&M 3^rd:416 misspells thiscolombianum.
• It originally wasP[hilydor] columbianus.

• The specific epithet is spelledcolumbiana by Peters Checklist7:87 and bythe Richmond Index.
• H & M 3^rd:409 makes the understandable error of spelling it withan "o" (colombianus) instead of with a "u".

• The specific epithet is spelledcolumbiana by Peters Checklist7:68; butDavid & Gosselin BBOC 2002144:277 indicate that this must be spelledcolumbianus in accordance with the current (1999) ICZN approach.
• H & M 3^rd:403 appropriately notes the correct spelling of the end of thesubspecies epithet, but makes the error of spelling it with an "o" (colombianus)instead of with a "u", as both the Peters Checklist, and the Richmond Index indicate it wasspelled.

• Conventionally cited to Gurney 1868. (e.g. Peters Checklist2:137; HBW2:565; H & M 3^rd:40)
• This citation is not discussed, and thus would appear to be based more on conventionthan understanding.
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one discussing the Gurney name, andits relationship to the previous use by Gray, and another that refers to a name by PLS Muller. That card contains this information:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Numida coronata "Pallas" Phillipp (Ludwig Statius) Müller. 1776Vollständigen Natursystems Supplements-und Register-Band} 1776, 126.[Pall. Spic. Zool. IV p.18 ?](See Cassin. Proc. Acad. N.S. Phila 1864, 247)"Es fuhret gleichaur eine kegelförmige Bischofs-mütze oder Pabstkrone auf dem Kopfe, und die Kehlehaf eine Falte. Die Fürsze sind schwarze. Diese Art kommtausAfrica.Pallas Miscell." (full descr.)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Why this citation is not used, referred to, or discussed is not known to me. Inaddition the standing of the Pallas citation is uncertain, but intriguing asthe Pallas subspeciesNumida meleagris mitratus is cited to the same page (p.18)(though with a plate).

• Conventionally speltcoyolocos.
• It seems clear that the original spelling wasCoyleos.
• The name is interpreted to have been based on "le Coyolcos" of Buffon, and workershave felt uninibited in their recognition of Statius Miller'sintent.

• Cited by Peters Checklist4:132 to Neumann, and this is repeated byHBW5:223, and H&M 3^rd:232.
• The Richmond Index indicates the author is Reichenow, and I follow this.

• In HBW2:510,573 the Mayr & Rand subspecies ofCoturnix ypsilophora are citedas "1937Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.73".
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that the correct citation is 1935 andAm.Mus.Novit.

• HBW2:513 list the authors of as Whistler & Kinnear.
• The Richmond Index lists only Hugh Whistler as the author.

• Authorship frequently given as Vigors & Horsfield (e.g. Peters Checkist7:7).
• Thanks to Murray Bruce's work on this it is clear that Vigors was the author of the birddescriptions in the catalogue attached to the Memoir by Lady Raffles. This sole authorship wasindicated by the Marquis Tweddale in Ibis 1877 (4)1:284.
• Bruce indicates that the likelihood is that Gray attributedauthorship to Vigors & Horsfield based upon their names in attribution for a plate in thework.

• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.38 spells thiscolombiana, whichmakes logical sense, but does not follow the spelling as given by the Richmond Index,Peters Checklist2:18, and HBW2:345.

• Correct original spelling iscamaronensis (as pointed out by BobDowsett, and confirmed in the Richmond Index).
• As Dowsett also points out, this spelling is supported by the spelling "Camaroons" in thetitle of the paper.
• Peters Checklist10:153 (S.D. Ripley) spells thiscameronensis.

• Given by Peters Checklist9:318 (Mayr & Greenway) list this as:
  • Dryoscopuscubla (Shaw) 1809Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 7 pt2 p.328
• Bob Dowsett tell me (2003.05.05) that Latham's name has priority here.
• I presume that Latham's name (based on Le Vaillant Ois. d'Afr. pl.72 f. 1 & 2) istherefor a senior synonym to Shaw's name (presumably based on the same work?).

• Pallas' original description, reproduced by Sherborn, is reproduced here:

 N.  78 COLUMBA (cristata) cœrulescens, capitis        crista maxima compressa diffusa cirrhosa.  Mang.supra Phasianum.  Rostrum columbinum.  Corpusplumbeo cœrulescens antrorsum dilutius.  Fascianigra a rostro ducta, oculos includens.  Iridesfulvæ.  Dorsum medium humerique tincturatransversa punicea, antice abrupte terminata,postice obsolescente.  Tectrices secundariæ albæ,extremitate puniceonigræ.  Cauda plumbeo-fusca, apicibus rectricum dilutioribus.Phasia-nus cristatus Brissonii Spec. 6.     [Banda.]

• Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg'sCatalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):334.

• TheRichmond index gives Temminck 1807 Cat.Syst.Cab.Orn.Quad. p.162; it is not clear to me why Richmond's citation is not correct.
• Subsequent to my original note (the line aboveante 1988) this matter has been investigatedmore fully, and there appears to be agreement that the 1807 use of this name is valid andsufficient.
• The original spelling unquestionably is "coerulescens" and not"caerulescens".
[2010.07.11]
• Richmond Index Otis coerulescens Card

Deppe

 PTILONOPUS CHALCURUSB.M.Ptilononpus chalcurus, G. R. GRAY. Cook's Islands (Harvey or Hervey Island). Very similar to thePtilonopus coralensis, but the front and topof the head shining greyish-purple.

• It is often suggested to me that this is two species, and it maywell be. The basis for the suggestion is the paper by Zink et al. Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, and Dittmann DL. 1995. "Trans-BeringiaComparisons of Mitochondrial DNA Differentiation in Birds." The Condor. 97(3):650-662.
• The relevant paragraph states.

  "Our Larus canussample represented the subspecieskamtschatschensis(Russia) and brachyrhyncus (U.S.), which are separated only by the BeringSea.Larus c. kamtschatschensis is a larger and heavier-billed form thanNorth Americanbrachyrhynchus, and slightly darker dorsally, especially injuvenile plumage; tail patterns differ in first basic plumages(Cramp and Simmons, 1983). The mtDNA data suggest that two species arerepresented, a possibility also raised by Sibley and Monroe (1990).previous molecular studies revealed little differentiation over a large areain a gull species (e.g. Bell 1992). Although gulls tend to wander, thereare no North American records ofL. c. kamtschatschensis. The specieslevel mtDNA differentiation of p=0.02 was consistent with the morphologicaldifferentiation of the east Siberian form."

• They didNOT look at the nominate subspeciesLarus canuscanus, and didnot address the issue of intergradation as raised by Sibley and Monroe.
• To date I do not find the argument totally convincing for a separationof species. I expect the argument will be made convincing with moredata.
The subspecific forms are:
• Larus canus canus Linnaeus 1758Syst.Nat.ed.10 p.136
• Larus canus kamtschatschensisBonaparte 1857Consp.Gen.Av. 2 p.224
• Larus canus brachyrhynchusRichardson 1831Am.Orn.[Jamesoned.] 4 p.352

HenceCisticola is a male gender genus-group name;nana becomesnanus,incana toincanus &c.

---

Ptilorrhoa caerulescensDate

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 10:236, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence 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 "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

---

CotingaCitation

• Usually (e.g. Peters 8:297 (DW Snow)) listed as
• CotingaBrisson 1760Orn. 2 p.339
• However, it occurs first in vol.1 Ornithologia (Tabulasynoptica) where I understand from Steven Gregory it is available asa binomial name.

---

Anas carolinensisConcept

• Sangster G. et. al. 2002 Ibis 144:154 argue thatplumage, courtship behaviour and molecular phylogenetic analysisaruge that this be elevated to full species status, separate fromA. crecca.

---

Aramidescajaneus Nomenclature.

• For resolution ascajaneus, 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.114.)

....; 2011.10.16

2011.10.16

---

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

Last updated 2021.06.01

---

[8]ページ先頭

---

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp