Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --D

• For the date and authority, see Bruce & Bahr. 2020. Sherbornia6(1):1-42
• Bruce & Bahr 2020 Sherbornia pdf

• The current version (10.2) of the IOC World Bird Checklist holdsDiuca to be monotypiccontatiningDiuca diuca.
• Some (Peters (=Paynter) and Hellmayr) held the type ofDiuca to be while Sharpe (CBBM12, held the type to beFringilla diuca Molina.
• Terry Chesser provides the resolution, writing:"This appears to be based on Burns et al. (2016), who stated the following:'The necessity of allocatingdiuca andspeculifera to different genera reopens the question of the type species ofDiuca because the species that is not the type may require a new genus. The issue is resolved by Article 67.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), hereafter the Code. In the first explicit assignment of species to either of the relevant generaDiuca Reichenbach andHedyglossa Cabanis, Cabanis (1851: 135) listed only one,Fringilla diuca Molina, 1782, which applies to both generic names, irrespective of Cabanis’s treatingDiuca as a synonym ofHedyglossa. Under Article 67.2.2 of the Code,Fringilla diuca thus becomes the only species eligible for fixation as the type for either of these generic names, effectively by monotypy (Article 69.3).Consequently, Gray’s (1855) subsequent designation ofspeculifera as type species ofDiuca is irrelevant, and ifspeculifera is to be assigned to a monospecific genus, a new generic name is needed for it. Accordingly we provideChionodacryon here.'"
• Chesser also notes that Bonaparte 1850, Consp.Gen.Avium may constitute thetypification, in which case possibly three taxa are available for the choiceof the type.

• Cited by HBW2:[571] to p."355".<./li>
• The description and name are found on p.356.

• Cited by Peters Checklist7:44 to Lafresnaye alone. Examining theoriginal descriptions shows quoted text attributed to Pucheran and Lafresnaye.

• Most frequently spelleddesmursii, though that is not how the name was rendered.
• 
• I do not see any internal reference to himself (or to the name) so I believethat the (mis)-spelling must stand as rendered.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.


• Indeed, as pointed out by Dr David Donsker, this matter isdiscussed by Gregory & Dickinson. Zootaxa (2012)3340:48-49. There they demonstrate the date is best held to be 1845, and Gay to be the author.
2021.02.24

• Peters Checklist9:154 (= White 1960) gives the citationas "Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr.,24, p.344".
• Volume24 would be correct for 1933, the correct volume here is29.

• Originally spelledHyphantornis dichrocephala, but the original combinationwas rendered incorrectly in the Peters Checklist15:48 (= Moreau 1962), asHyphantornis dicrocephala.
• This error may have resulted from a hasty reading of Sclater,WL 1930SystemaAv.Aethiop.2:749, where Sclater renders the originalcombination correctly, asHyphantornis dichrocephala, but in combinationwithPloceus, spells itPloceus dicrocephalus.

• Peters Checklist15:49 (= Moreau 1962) gives the authority as"Antinori and Salvadori" while the Richmond Index gives it as "Salvadori & O. Antinori"
• I have not been able to find a copy of the original publication, but for the momentfollow the Richmond Index.
• Of interest, the CBBM13:459 cites the authority as "Antin. & Salvad.",but cites this to "Viagg. Bogos, p. 120, pl. 111 (1873)". I am not sure what this might be.I find an 1885 publication entitled "Viaggio nel mar Rosso e tra i Bogos.." which mentionsAntinori (but not Salvadori) and does not seem to have the name in it, or any "pl.111".
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:56 as a subspeciesofArborophila cambodiana, without comment.
• Treated as a full species by IOC World Bird Names (2.0) without comment.

• Accepted as a full species by the IOC World Bird List 2.0.

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Alcippe danisi is a proposed split fromA.ruficapilla (Robson 2000,Collar 2006a); under review BLI."

• The original spelling wasPomatorhinus Dedekensi and this isconventionally corrected todedekeni -- having been named in honor of Father Dedeken.
• This change is correct only if Father Dedeken is explicitly and correctly referenced in the articlecontaining the original description. I assume this is so, but do not know it to be true for certain.
• (2009.11.27) Theo de Kok helpfully points out that the original description mentions Father Dedekens (sic).even though the gentleman's name was "Dedeken".
• The original spelling must stand.
• Interestingly, Edward Dickinson notes from his communications with Bert Deignan, that Bert was aware of this problem and apparently wrestled with the decision as to how to proceed.

• Previously represented as follows:
  • Dendroica dominica (Linnaeus) 1766Syst.Nat.ed.12 p.334
  • Dendroica dominica albiloraRidgway &Baird,SF 1873Am.Nat. 7 p.606Nomenclature
  • Dendroica dominica dominica (Linnaeus) 1766Syst.Nat.ed.12 p.334
  • Dendroica dominica flavescensTodd1909Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 22 p.171
  • Dendroica dominica stoddardiSutton 1951Auk 68 p.28 pl.1
  however, McKay 2008. "Phenotypic variation in the Yellow-throated warbler" Condor110(3):569-574 demonstrates that in this species phenotypic variation is clinal, and also communicates that a genetic survey showednone of the subspecies qualified as evolutionarily significant units.

• SeeMoyle RG, Hosner PA, Nais J, Lakim M & Sheldon FH. 2008. "Taxonomic status of the Kinabalu 'linchi' swiftlet." BBOC128(2):94-100for a discussion of the status of this taxon.

• In Zootaxa 2008.1742:61-68 "Phylogenetic relationships within the genusCynanthus (Aves: Trochilidae), with emphasis onC. doubledayi"GABRIELA M. GARCÍA-DERAS, NANDADEVI CORTÉS-RODRÍGUEZ, MAGALI HONEY, ADOLFO G. NAVARRO-SIGÜENZA, JAIME GARCÍA-MORENO & BLANCA E. HERNÁNDEZ-BAÑOSargue for full species status fordoubledayi

• Peters Checklist15:259 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this name to p.365 only.
• The Richmond Index shows that the description occurs on p.365, but that thename occurs on pl.39.

• The original description for this taxon raises significant questions.
• The remarks section of the description reads:

  Remarks: While working at the FNSF onNinox owls for the colour plates in König et al. (1999), I discovered this dubious skin between many otherNinox skins, labelled only with the inscription"Ninox spec. no. 25238". Subsequent mensuralanalyses of a series of allNinox species confirmedthe distinctness of this specimen[.]

• The locality, distribution, and further details are unknown --dubious indeed!
• Thanks to Alain Guimond for providing details on this.

• Peters Checklist9:212 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cites this tovolume 52, which apparently is alapsus for the correct volumenumber, which is 53.

• H&M 3^rd:410 lists the authority in parentheses.
• Michael Rieser indicatesin litt. 2006.11.01 that this was described inCranioleuca, andthe Richmond Index confirms this.
• The authority is erroneously placed in parentheses also in HBW8:291.

• My citation, which I take from the Richmond Index, differs in a number of respects fromthat given by Peters7:208, Peters gives it as

  Formicivora deluzea Ménétriés, Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.Pétersbourg (6),3, pt. 2 (Sci. Nat.), 1835, p.484, pl. 5, fig. 2

• The Richmond Index makes it clear that the name isFormicivordeluzae, apparently an error forFormicovora.Additionally his citation seems to make more consistent sense with otherMénétriés' citations from this source.
• The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.15:249 gives the citation as:

  Formicivora deluzæ,Ménétr. Mém. Acad. St.Pétersb. sé. vi (Sci. Nat. t. i p.484, pl. 5 fig. 2

  with no mention of the misspelling of the genus group name.
• Gonzaga & Pacheco. 1990. "Two new subspecies ofFormicivoraserrana (Hellmayr) from southeastern Brazil, and notes on the typelocality ofFormicivora deluzae Ménétriés".BBOC110(4):187-193 have some discussion ofMénétriés' work. They appear to have examined thework (or had one of their collaborator's examine the work). They do notmention the misspelling of the genus group name, and cite the work

  Ménétriés, E. 1835. Monographie des MyiothètheresMém. Acad. Sci St Petersburg (6th series) III (2):484-485,pl.5.

• The question here is should this taxon be held to be a full species or a subspecies.
• Treatment as a subspecies:
  • Peters5:66 (1945)
  • Wolters lief.2 p.131 (1976)
  • SACC citing Peters, and "Weller (1999)" [?=HBW5:601] in support.
  • H&M 3^rd:266 with a note:

    Type species of the genusPolyerata still submerged here,pending further publication.

    The full implications of that note are not clear to me.

• Treatment as a species:
  • AOU 7th CL p.298 (1989).
  • Cory 1918 (not seen).
• Weller's note in HBW5:601 states:

  Racedecora sometimes considered a separate species on groundsmainly of morphological differences, combined with distribution.

  No data or argument is offered why that is insufficient for holding it to be a full species.
• Consideration of this matter is currently best summarized in an email from F. Gary Stiles (2006.06.30):

  ... I considered it a separate species in theBirds of Costa Rica because ofdifferences in plumage, to which might be added differences in body proportions, song behavior and to some extent, ecology. My feeling then and now is that superspecies status fordecora+amabilis, with each being considered an allospecies, is most appropriate. The avifauna of the Pacific slope of S Costa Rica and extreme SW Panamá contains a number of forms that differ from their closest relatives on the Atlantic slope,decora vs.amabilis being one such case. These two show differences comparable to those of other such forms currently considered (allo)specifically distinctin genera as diverse asCotinga,Carpodectes,Manacus,Thamnophilus orThryothorus,hence I can see no problem in doing likewise here.

• Cited by Peters Checklist9:116 (Mayr & Greenway) and Sclater SystemaAvium Aethopicarum2:578 as
  • Hirundo domicellaHartlaub &Finsch 1870Vog.Ost.-Afr.[Finsch & Hartlaub] p.143
• Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.10:165 lists this citation as well as

  Heugl. Orn. N.O.-Afr. i p.159 (1869-70)

• The Richmond Index lists the Heuglin citation with "Hartl. & Finsch" inquotes (indicating a manuscript name from them). Additionally Richmondnotes:

  Antedates Hartl. & Finsch (publ. 1870) [cf.Newton, Zool.Rec. VI, 73(note).]

• I follow the Richmond Index here

• The date of this portion of Contrib.Orn. has been a difficult problem, and both uncertainty and different opinions as to how to proceed remain.
• Following the treatment by Murray Bruce (based on Hartlaub's notice of thismaterial for the year 1853) and on Richmond's writing a "3" above the "1852" in hisIndex, I chose to date this material to 1853.
• The treatment by other workers of the date of this taxon is of some interest,but it is important to recognize that these other workers do not undertake tounderstand, explain, or acknowledge the basis (if any) for their treatments, and invirtually all works, some unexplained inconsistencies can usually be found.

Voisin & Voisin. 1999. "Liste des types d'oiseaux des collections duMuséum national d'Histoire naturelle de Paris. 6. Coucous (Cuculidae)"Zoosystema21(2):379-402. Date this taxon to 1831.
• This publication was issued in parts, with Livraison 2 published May 8,1830. The work as a whole, which I imagine the Voisons examined, has an imprintdate of 1831, so it is easy for the casual worker to be mislead.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.1900; 1925), Peters Checklist4:51 (1940)and HBW4:573 (1997) have the correct date of 1830. Cat.B.Br.Mus.19:390 has the date incorrect as 1831.
• This is not the only dating mistake made by Voisin & Voisin; they replicatethis error with other Lesson taxa:
  1. Bubatus isidori
  2. Bubatus duvaucelii
  3. Centropus pumilus
  all of which should be 1830 and not 1831.

• Peters Checklist6:94 spells this species epithetd'Orbygnianus, and this is followedby H&M 3^rd:313, as well as Short. 1982 "Woodpeckers ofthe World." pp.83-86.
• The original spellingis d'Orbignyanus at least accordingto The Richmond Index, Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.4601) and HBW7:428 where Winkler & Christie explicitly discuss thespelling.
• Also of interest, Bonaparte in Consp.Gen.Av. p.141 drops the initial"d" and has the taxon asP. orbignyanus and on p.401 hasthe spelling UNCIROSTRUSorbygnii!!.
• CBBM19:533 (not seen) evidently lists the taxon asPicumnus orbignyanus.
• Great thanks to Normand David for bringing this to myattention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist9:54 (Mayr & Greenway) aspublished in 1820, and this is followed by H&M3^rd:547.
• This work "Faune France" has a complex publishing history, andindeed it commenced in 1820, with publication continuing on until 1830.This name occurs in livraison "9&10" so a publication date of 1820is unlikely.
• Sherborn in Index animalium p.2051 lists the date as 1824, which Ifollow. It should also be noted that Sherborn and Woodward 1901Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7)8 p.498 published on the dates ofpublication of the various parts making it clear that this portionwas published 28 Feb. 1824 (a Saturday).
• The Richmond Index dates this name to "182 " with the final digit ofthe date not filled in.
• I do not recognize any priority issues that may result from this date change, and am thankful to Edward Dickinson forpointing out that possibility. To evaluate this possibility Ilooked at the synonomy in CBBM13:526 (Sharpe). It appearthat according to Sharpe the next available name would be aTemminck 1835 nameCerthilauda duponti -- a name not foundin Sherborn or the Richmond Index.

• The gender of this name is probably masculine, but the originaldescription must be examined to be sure.

• Works from volume 1 of this work are cited by Peters Checklist7:124,127 as having been published in 1840. (Note here that the orthographic rendering in this volumeof Peters Checklist would appear to indicate the imprint date with no parentheses, and the publication date with parentheses).
• The HBW8:328,338 (Remsen) confuses both the Peters Checklistrepresentation (which is confusing) as well as the dates from the workin which these taxa are described, listing the date as "1842". Ofadditional interest the date "1842" evidentlyNEVER occurs as an imprint date (!),though it is the actual date of completion of volume 2.
• These confusions are reproduced without comment or discussion inH&M 3^rd:414,416.
• The dates of publication of this work were dealt with in detail by Sherborn and Palmerin 1899.Sherborn CD, Palmer TS. 1899. "Dates of d'Orbigny's 'Dictionnaire Universeld'Histored Naturelle,' 1839-1849." Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7)3:350-352. Sherborn andPalmer's treatment is reflected in subsequent compilations (e.g. Sherborn'sIndex Animalium, Schulzeet al., Neave), and thosetreatments do not seem to have been consulted by subsequentworkers.
• Of interest, Sclater in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.15:105 cites the date 1847 forthe genusAnabazenops. 1847 is the imprint date on the title page of the copyin the Zoological Society Library (the B.M. (N.H.) copies have imprint dates of 1861for this volume). Certainly the most valuable copy, as noted by Sherborn and Palmer, is thecopy then in the U.S. National Museum, which was Baird's personal copyand has an imprint date of 1841 for the first volume. 1841 is the dateof the completed volume, with the individual livraisons starting to beissued in Dec. 1839.
• Also of note, Sibley & Monroe 1990 isalone in correctly interpreting the datesfrom Peters, giving the date as "1840" forAnabacerthiastriaticollis (p.407) even though that Peters interpretation of thedate is wrong. Sibley & Monroe, it appears is not consulted bycurrent workers, even though much of the bibliographic work in itis of very high quality.

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

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist3:32places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176and by HBW4:217.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Cited by Peters Checklist15:28 (Moreau &Greenway) as dated to 1871, though no evidence orsupport for this assertion is given.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprintdate.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an 1871 papercited this name to 1870. Absent evidence that demonstrates adelay of publication the date must be regarded as 1870.

• Baird in his description refers to specimens from widely separated localities;Fort Steilicoom, WA, and Fort Tejon, CA, a distance of over 870 miles (direct).
• Brodkorb. 1949. Condor51:39 argues for fixing the type locality toFort Steilacoom.

• Originally spelled "Dromiceius" on p.54 of Analyse, andspelled "Dromaius" on p.70 in the listing of "Nouveaux noms, tirésdu grec, ..." [trans. New names, coming from the Greek], where the listingreads:

  "Dromaius [δρομαιος, velox]."

  Notes:
• δρομαιος [Greek, trans. running at full speed, swift,fleet];
• velox [Latin, trans. swift, rapid, quick, fleet].
• The consistent (and reasonable) interpretation has been that the original spellingwas a misprint, or printer's error.
• In much of the 19^th and early 20^th century the name was spelledDromaeus (e.g. Cat.B.Br.Mus.) where the listing reads:

  1.DROMÆUSDromiceius (errore),Vieill. Analyse, p.54 (1816) .. D. novæ hollandiæ Type.Dromaius,Vieill. op. cit. p.20 (1816);id. N. D. [APP note: ?misprint for p.70?]x. p.211 (1817).Dromæus,Ranz. El. di Zool. iii. 1 p.88 (1821) [APP note: ? misprint for p.98 or p.99?]Tachea,Flem. Phil. of Zool. ii. p.257 (1822)  .... D. novæ hollandiæ.Dromiceus,Sw. Class B. ii. p.346 (1837)Dromeicus,A. Newton, Dict. of B. p.213(note)(pt. 1, 1893)

• Alfred Newton, 1896, in his Dictionary of Birds(p.213) includes this note:

  1 The obvious misprint ofDromeicus in this author's work (Analyse &c.,p.54) has been foolishly followed by many naturalists, forgetful that he corrected it a  few pages further on (p.70) inDromaius - the properly latinized from of which isDromæus.

  [APP: one has to chuckle at the fact that Newton himself misspells Vieillot's original misspelling.]
• As noted by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. listing theDromæus /Dromaeus rendering is an emendationattributable to Camillio Ranzani. 1821. The Richmond Index provides two listings for this:
  • Dromaeus Elementi di Zoologia,III, Parte 1, p.99
  • Dromoeus Elementi di Zoologia,III, Parte 1, p.98
  So Ranzani, along with Vieillot, and Newton fights for consistency with limited success.
• Ernst Mayr's note in Peters Checklist 19791(2):9 reads:

  3The incorrect formationDromiceius, possibly arising from aprinter's misreading of the manuscript, and changed toDromaius by the author a few pages later, was not employed except as a synonymofDromaius until early in the twentieth century. G. R. Gray, as first reviser, 1840, List Gen. Birds, p.63, clearly establishedDromaiusas the correct spelling. Cf. Serventy, Condon, and Mayr, 1965, Bull. Zool. Nomencl.,22, pp.63-65, and  Melville, 1977, Bull. Zool. Nomencl.,34, pp.12-13. --E. M.

  I am dissapointed that Mayr does not discuss the use ofDromaeus as prevalentthrougout the latter 19^th and early 20^th centuries. It does seem reasonable toaccept his presentation that Gray, as first reviser, fixesDromaius as the name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist6:45 as "1855(1856)" whichin this volume means an imprint date of 1855 and a publishing dateof 1856. This interpretation is followed by H&M3^rd:308.
• The Richmond Index notes that this is in "no. VIII" (whichapparently is signature no.8) for the meeting of April 24, 1855.The receipt of this signature was acknowledgedby the American Philosophical Society on 15 June, 1855.
• Additionally when Ms. Robin Sinn at the Academy Library looked intothese dates of publication, she also established that no.8 was publishedin 1855.
• HBW7:187 correctly lists 1855 for this taxon.

• Usually held to be a subspecies ofnana. (e.g. Peters Checklist11:278; H&M 3^rd:597.)
• Sangsteret al.Ibis. 2004. "Taxonomic recommendations forBritishbirds: second report."146:156 elevate to species status, based onplumage and song.
• No mention of this publication is made by H&M 3^rd through the late 2008 Corrigenda (8).

• Two points of consideration:
  1. Date:
     • Listed by Peters Checklist6:40 as published in 1907, andthis is followed by H&M 3^rd:306 and HBW7:209.
     • For this volume of Abh.K.Bay.Akad.Wiss. that would seem to be severalyears too early.
     • The Richmond Index lists the date as 1910 which appears much morereasonable for this volume. I previously followed the Richmond Index here.
     • I have come to understand from Edward Dickinson, that there is unpublisheddata that indicates that this was published in a separate in 1907, though I haveno independant confirmation of this fact.
     • Edward Dickinson writes (2004.10.02):

       [Murray Bruce appears] to have an original separate dated 1907. In the Rothschild library there are two copies, the titlepage is dated 1907 and the wrapper present in one case is also dated 1907. The whole volume has been examined, in South Kensington, [where] the title pagefor the volume is 1910; the title page for part I is dated 1906, but at the endof this, the second article in Part I, it reads "Angegeben am 6 November 1907";the BMNH date stamp shows receipt on 26 November 1907.

       The case for 1907 being correct appears to be made.
  2. Nomenclature:
     • Originally described inMegalaema
     • Peters Checklist6:40 puts the author's name in parentheses,interpretingMegalaema to be different fromMegalaima. Thisis followed by HBW7:209 and H&M 3^rd:306, and in neithercase does this appear to warrant discussion.
     • ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

         51.3.1 Parentheses are not used when the species-group name was originallycombined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (thisapplies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its ownauthorship and date [Art.  33.2.3]).

     • Thus it appears that at least HBW and H&M considerMegalaemato be something other than an emendation or incorrect spelling.
     • To date, I am unable to find any indication thatMegalaema wasproposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendationand do not use parentheses around the author's name. Sherborn listsMegalaema (without ligature) as an Agassiz "emend. pro Megalaima,Gray.", and Schulze "Nomen. animalium gen. et subgen." p.1995 also has thisinterpretation.
     • IfMegalaema was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not amisspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know ofthe facts supporting that case as it appears to be unknown to Sherborn,Richmond, or Schulze, et al.

• Peters Checklist6:73 cites Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus.9:93; and thisis followed by HBW7:561.
• The Richmond Index and Harris. 1928 CondorXXX:93 cite The AukIII:333 with a date of July, 1886, and attribute The Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus.publication to Sept. 17, 1886. This may possibly be theimprint date forthe signature (6), but if anything the publishing date would be later, andcertainly not earlier than that.
• I do not recognize a rationale for citing the Proc. article rather than theAuk article.

• Peters Checklist5:260 gives the citation as:
  • Buceros (Rhynchaceros) Deckeni (Cabanis) 1869ReisenOst.-Afr.[Decken] 3 pt1 p.37 pl.6
  • HBW6:[527] follows this as well.
  • This is also the citation given by Sclater 1924 inSyst. Av. Aethiop1:228.
  • None mention the citation given by the Richmond Index, which I give here.The date given on the Richmond Index card (probably the imprint date, and quitepossibly not the publishing date) is Nov. 1868.
  • ThisReisenOst.-Afr.[Decken] citation may well be correct. In myview to establish it so it must be demonstrated that either theJ.Orn.description has a problem of nomenclatural character (e.g.nomen nudum)or was publishedafter the Decken publication. To date I am aware of nodata to support either condition.
  • A similar situation may involveHyphantornis bojeri Cabanis, nowPloceus bojeri.

• This taxon is not in Peters Checklist, the Richmond Index, or in HBW.
• My copy ofThe Ornithological Works of Tweedale. 1881. p.539-540 givesthe reference as PZS 1877 p.766. This is the same as that given by the Cat.B.Brit.Mus22:449.
• Given the page number (p.766) and the fact that the following taxon (from p.767) is in the PZS pt.ivfor 1877, which was published in 1878, it seems overwhemlimgly likely that the year this taxon was publishedis 1878, and not 1877 as given in the above sources and in H&M 3^rd ed. p.36.

• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.32 spells thisdellatrei
• The Richmond Index, Peters Checklist, and HBW all show the spelling asdelattrii, which I follow.

• Gould's description reads:

  Typus genericus.DENDROCITTA LEUCOGASTRA.Dend. atra; occipite, cervice,    strigâ transversâ ad remigum basin, abdomineque albis; scapu-    laribus, interscapulio, tecticibusque  caudæ inferioribus dilutè    castaneis; rectricibus duabus internis misi ad apices cinereis.Hab.  The shortness and comparative feebleness of thetarsi inDendro-citta, and its more elongated tail, the feathers of which are equally graduated, except the two middle ones which are much longer thenthe others, distinguish it from the typicalPicæ, thecommon Magpiefor example.  These characters are in accordance with its habit of wandering from tree to tree in search of its food.  It is further di-stinguished by the form of its bill.  All the species yet known are natives of Eastern Asia.

• Gould's description reads:

  DENDROCITTA.Rostrum capite brevius, cultratum, ad basin latum, culmine ar-cuato, latribus subtumidis.Nares basales, plumis setaceis partim tectæ.Alæ mediocres, remigibus 5tâ 6tâque longioribus.Cauda elongata, cuneata, rectricibus spatulatis.Tarsi brevis debiles.Digiti mediocres.Hallux fortis, ungueforti, incurvo.

• Peters Checklist6:59 (Peters) gives a date of 1798.
• HBW7:195,562 (Short & Horne) repeat this error.
• Both the Richmond Index, and Sherborn show this as 1799. The Richmondindex, shows it to be no.12 Aug. 1799.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• In the 43rd Supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk2002119(3): 900 the page number is erroneously given as"p.502"

• Described by de Schauensee as a subspecies ofHerpsilochmus sticturus.
• Marek Kuziemko writes (2002.07.24) "Often considered to be a race ofH. sticturus, butRidgely and Tudor (1994) treatdugandi as a full species because it is widely allopatrictosticturus and female plumages differ. They are vocally similar.Ref.: Ridgely, R. S., and G. Tudor. 1994. The birds of South America,2. Univ. TexasPress, Austin.."

• Listed in Peters Checklist6:62 as "[1847]".
• Listed by Sherborn as "[1847]"
• Listed by HBW7:176 as "1850".
• This volume of theVoy.Abissinie evidently came out from 1847 to 1850. Theentry from theLibrary of the British Museum (Nat. History) states:
  • "General Note: Vol.3 seems to have been published in parts, at different dates,probably as follows: Geology, p.1-84, 1947 (sic); Plantae, Mammalia and Aves as far asp.224, 1848; rest of Aves with Insecta, 1850"
  • "Publs. about item: For dates of issues of the natural history portion of this work,see Annals and magazine of natural history, ser. VII, vol.8"
  • Edward Dickinson investigated this problem and writes (2002.08.20):
    'I inspected the Tring copy when there in July, but I found no date on what I looked at.This, with a sub-title "Quatrième Parties // HistoireNaturelle. -- Zoologie." was TomeSixiéme. It contains pp. 1-398 (except that it also has pages161-182 repeated with asterisks by the numbers). I do not understandwhy this is ever cited as Vol.3 ...

    The dating of this I have since found discussed by Sherborn & Woodward

    Sherborn, C.D. & B.B. Woodward, 1902. "Notes on the dates of publication of the naturalhistory portions of some French voyages. Part 2. Ferret and Galinier's 'Voyage enAbyssinie'; Lefebvre's Voyage en Abyssinie'; 'Explorationscientifique de l'Algérie'; Castelnau's 'Amérique duSud'; Dumont d'Urville's 'Voyage de l'Astrolabe'; Laplace's'Voyage sur la Favorite'; Jacquemont's Voyage dans l'Inde';Tréhouart's 'Commission scientifique d'Islande';Cailliaud, 'Voyage à éroé';'Expédition scientifique de Mor´e';Fabre, 'Commission scientifique du Nord'; Du etit-Thouars, 'Voyagede la Vénus' and on the dates of the 'FauneFrançaise'. -- Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7)8:161-164.

    They date the section containing pp.1-170 as 1847 and then argue that the distinctcrowded smaller type pages of 161*-176*, 177-192, and 177*-192* seem to show that theseparts were delayed. They date these pages along with pp.193-238 as 1851.

    On this basis the three taxa that concern us:

    1. Tracyhphonus darnaudii p.99 is 1847
    2. Lanius excubitorides p.99 would be 1847 but
    3. Lanius excubitorius p.170* is 1851.
    The latter name was not used in Peters and is not used in H&M (due to the one letter differencerule although I am not entirely sure this is safe as we deal with vowels connecting twosyllables).

    The correction that the third offers relating to the second strengthens the argument that thesepages were delayed."

Psarisomus dalhousiaepage number

• Peters Checklist7:11 has p.589, evidently a typographicerror.
• for p.389.

Xenopirostris damii1865

• Peters Checklist9:366 has 1866.
• Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched thedates of publication for this work. Vol.3 pp.1-180 were publishedin 1865.

• Peters Checklist15:150 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist10:61 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist10:28 has 1840.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show, this was published in July of1841.

• Peters Checklist7:24 has 1853.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1852.

• Peters Checklist6:45 lists the date as 1856.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and from the Libraryof the Academy is 1855.

• Peters Checklist3:176 hasKakatoe ducrops.
• Sibley and Monroe 1990:112 indicate thatducropsBonaparte is supressed.

• Peters Checklist14:176 has "1851?".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist10:82 has 1834.
• All my studies indicate that this work was published in1832.

• Peters Checklist9:456 has 1832.
• Zimmer p.614 makes it clear that despite the uncertainties and date confusionssurrounding the publication of this work, 1831 appears to be the date for this section.

• Peters Checklist12:98 lists this as 1844.
• The publishing history of theJ.As.Soc.Bengal is uncertain. My researchessuggest that in vol.13 of the Journal the changeover from 1844 to1845 is around p.936.

• This change in ending follows the 7^th AOU Checklist.
• WasOxyura dominica becomesdominicus inNomonyx.

• Not used by Peters Checklist, Vol.13.
• Recognized by Bock, 1985 Neotrop. Ornith. Ornith.Monogr. no.36 p.319-332.
• H&M 3^rd:817 has a footnote stating:

  2 We prefer to follow the consensus against recognition of a genusDiglossopsis P.L.Sclater, 1856.

  • The error ofDiglossopsis forDiglossopis is corrected in the Corrigenda.
    (Though it must be noted thatthere is a Giebel 1874 emendation of that name toDiglossopsis and the string "Diglossopsis" is widely,though probably erroneously, used in the literature.)
  • I am not sure among whom "the consensus against recognition of a genusDiglossopis" is held. Recent publishedmaterial [Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003)] employsDiglossopis. Presumably the "consensus against ..." is that of the South American Checklist Committee, wheretheir note (accessed 2007.05.20) suggests they are waiting for more data.
  • For the present time in this case I am following the apparent consensus of material published in the last 22 years.

• Peters Checklist2:5 gives vol. "31". The Richmond Indexgives vol. 21, which I follow.
• Of note Peters Checklist3:143 citesChalcopsitta insignis to the same serialin the same year, and lists the volume as21.

• Normally part ofAra
• I follow the treatment of Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol. 4, by N.J. Collar . Morphology, voiceand behaviour are offered as the basis for re-instating the oldgenus for this form.

• Peters Checklist10:317 gives 1849 as it is usually cited.
• Mathews, 1925 indicates this is 1852. [Bock 1994 explains: Thiswork was finally published after 1 Sept 1852, although the proofsheets for the bulk of the book were printed in 1849...]

• Peters Checklist12:174 has 1817.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Listed in the text of Vieillot's work (Analyse) as"Dromiceius" (p.54);
• Listed in index (p.70) as "Dromaius [dromaios (in Greek script), velox]."
• Jobling interprets this as "fleet of foot, swift". "Dromiceius" is interpreted as a printer'smisread of the manuscript.
• GR Gray, as first reviser 1840. List.Gen.Birds p.63 establishesDromaius as the spelling of use.

• Spelt almost universally "darwinii" (note ...ii).
• Salvadori in Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum27:562 (1895) spells it "Nothuradarwini" (note one "i") consistently (3 times). The correspondingplate "XIX", however, spells it "darwinii" with two"i's".

• Ericson PGP, Johansson US, and Parsons TJ. Major Divisionsin Oscines Revealed by Insertions in the Nuclear Gene c-myc: ANovel Gene in Avian Phylogenetics. 2000. Auk 117:1069-1078.The authors argue that the motacillids (with vestigial 10thprimaries) are more closely related to the New-World nine primariedoscines than previously thought. This hypothesis is supported bytheir data on unique amino acid insertions in the nuclear genec-myc.
• They argue that the motacillids belong to a clade with theEmberizidae, Fringillidae, Parulidae and Icteridae.

• Usually placed inRamphodon.
• In HBW5:538 C. Hinkelmann takes the position that themorphology "clearly" indicates placement inGlaucis.

• Split fromPicoides tridactylus by Zink, et al. despitesubstantial morphologic similarity on the basis of substantialgenetic differentiation.
• Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, & Dittman DL. 1995."Trans-Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation inbirds." The Condor97(3): 639-649
• Held by H&M 3^rd:322 to be a subspecies ofPicoidestridactylus

• Spelt as bothN. dominica andN.dominicus
• A confusing situation, and perhaps not fully resolved. Atpresent the issue boils down to whetherdominica inLinnaeus's original combinationAnas dominica wasadjectival, or a noun in apposition. Adjectival use would thencurrently requiredominicus; if a noun in apposition itwould bedominica.

Linnaeus' original citation reads:

domini- 22. A. rufa. capite anteriore fuliginoso, speculo alarum  ca.   candido, rectricum scapis alterimus.Briss. av. 6p. 472t. 41f. 2.    Chilcanauhtli.Hern. mex. 21.Raj. av. 177    Chilcanauhtli.Hern. mex. 44.Raj. av. 176Habitat in Americameridionali.

• Peters Checklist1(2):410 (Stresemann & Amadon) listthis as 1864.
• HBW2:262 (AC Kemp) lists this as 1864.
• This Part of PZS was published in Aug of 1864 according to theRichmond Index.

• HBW6:496 (Kemp) holds
  • Tockus jacksoni (Ogilvie-Grant) 1891Ibisp.127
  to be a subspecies ofTockus deckeni.
• Peters Checklist5:260 held this to be a full species, butquestioned that the formjacksoni might represent the youngofT. deckeni.

• This specific epithet is spelled in a variety of ways.From 1976 to 1996 the Zoological Record includes these spellings:
• • Perdix daurica
  • Perdix dauricae
  • Perdix dauuriae
  • Perdix dauurica
  • Perdix dauuricae
  • Perdix dauuricus
• Peters Checklist2:89 gives the original combination as:Tetrao perdix var.daurica [sic] Pallas.
• Vaurie (1965) useddauurica.
• McGowan in HBW2:505 gives the original combination as:
  • P. d. dauurica (Pallas 1811)
  and useddauuricae.
• Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.15 used "dauuricae", but inthe supplement S&M 1993 p.16 wrote: "The correct spelling ofthe specific name isPerdix dauurica (Stepanyan 1990a)".
• Tetrao perdix is described on p.77 of Pallas' 1811 work,and on p.78 (where "dauuricae" appears) the representation is
  • "Varietatis rupestrisdauuricae".
  The first and third words are in italics. A ten line descriptionfollows.
• I quote Normand David's discussion of the grammar that applieshere:
  "Pallas's wording is "Varietatis rupestrisdauuricae". The wordvarietatis is a feminine noun inthe genitive case, anddauuricae is the adjectivedauuricus (-a, -um) in the feminine form of the genitivecase. The wordrupestris is a Modern Latin adjective(derived from the classical nounrupes: rock, mountain,cavern) in the genitive case (the nominative is identical). Theliteral translation is:
  • in French: "de la variété rupestredaourienne"
  • in English: "of the Daurian rupestrian variety".
  IFdauuricae Pallas 1811 is available, then it falls underICZN (Code 1999) Art.11.9.2:dauuricae (genitive) =dauurica (nominative), or fell under ICZN (Code 1985) Art. 11(h) (ii)."
• The significance of italics and nonitalics remains of interest.I summarize Michael Walters' email note discussing this:
  • Pallas is a binomial work. His species no.226 on p.77 of vol.2isTetrao Perdix. Under this work he describes two varieties of thespecies.
    • "Varietatis rupestrisdauuricae"
    • "Varietatem albam" (which is presumably an albino).
    It seems clear from this [second instance] that he was intending todescribe a colour variety, not a taxon, thus Michael interprets thatPeters' conclusion, though not his citation, [regarding"dauurica"] would appear to be correct, (i.e. that the namewas not proposed in a nomenclatural sense). According toOgilvie-Grant (Cat. Birds, 23, p.192) the only subsequent use ofPallas's name prior to Verreaux & Des Murs namebarbata(1863) was Schrenck (1859) Reise. Amur-L., i, p.521.
    [END of summary of Michael's email]
  • "Varietatis" would appear to clearlynot be aname in a nomenclatural sense, and is in italics.
  • "rupestris" and "albam" (not in italics) also appear not to benames in an nomenclatural sense.
  • "dauuricae" (in italics) is (now) treated as a name in anomenclatural sense, though possibly not so intendedoriginally.
  • Thus it would appear that nomenclatural intent in this work, asin many others, can not be inferred simply from the order of thewords or the italicization.
• The issue of the number ofu's indauuricaappears to have settled upondauurica as the accepted form,though the basis for the controversy or the resolution is not atthe moment known to me.

Comments&Suggestionsto Data Steward