Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --E

• Generic revisions, motivated and guided predominantly by molecular studies have resulted in this name being returned to use.
• These recent careful studies appear to have restricted their attention totaxonomic matters.
• It seems that the nomenclatural research was restrictedto looking the name up in its listing in synonomy in PetersIX:168 1960 (apparently Mayr), where the name, in a synonomic listof 22 (!) genus group names, has the authority listed as "Jacquin and Pucheran".
• Apparently overlooked then, and certainly now, is Zimmer's 1932 treatment (p.186) of this work, where he notes:

  "Although Jacquinot's name appears on the subtitle page, a statement in the introduction (obviously by Pucheran although unsigned) announces that neither Hombronnor Jacquinot is to be held responsible for errors in the nomeclature adopted in the succeeding text for which he (Pucheran) is alone to blame. It is evident that Pucheran must be quoted as author of the ornithology and mammalogy."

• AOU CL Suppl. #55

  GenusEUPSITTULA Bonaparte

  GenusEUPSITTULA Bonaparte
  Eupsittula Bonaparte, 1853, Compt. Rend. Ac. Sci. Paris 37: 807.
  Type, by monotypy,Psittacus petzii Leiblein =P. canicularis Linnaeus.

• Bonaparte 1853 Compt. Rend. Ac. Sci. Paris 37: 807.
• Ridgway 1916 BirdsMiddleNorth Am.7:162
• Wagler 1832 Wagler 1832 Monogr.Psitt.

• Rallus elegansCitation
• Description (1835) inOrn.Biogr. 3 p.27.

• Conventionally spellederythrorhynchyus. Most authors evidently following the Cat.B.Br.Mus. or Peters CL.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the original spelling waserythroryncha.
• I have not been able to find an example of the original 1814 edition, but the spelling is certainlyerythroryncha in the 1816 American edition.
• Indeed, it appears the original spelling iserythroryncha as seen in this Google books image of the first edition. https://books.google.com/books?id=QzGKBkUTLrkC&pg=PR59
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for finding this.

• 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 incorrectly spelled "elizabeth".
• This may have started with Peters ChecklistV:201 where the name not spelled correctly.
• Additionally it can be noted that the author is F. Heine Jr, who should be distinguished from his veryproductive father F. Heine.

• This taxon is often calledTurdus poliocephalus carbonarius Mayr & Gilliard1951.
• The nomenclature is discussed in detail by Mary LeCroy in her AMNH Type list Part 62005 p.43

• IOC uses this name based on a revision of this group by Irestedtet al."Nuclear DNA from old collections of avian study skins reveals the evolutionary history of the Old World suboscines (Aves, Passeriformes)" Irestedt M, Ohlson JI, Zuccon D, Källersjö M, & Ericson PGP. Zoologica Scripta35(6):567-580, November 2006 (APP: not seen 2010.09.19)
• So far I find this name problematic. If it is to be cited to Bonaparte, 1854 the name appears to me to be anomen nudum. (Bonaparte's 1854use of the name can be seen here:Ann.Sci.Nat. 1854 p.135)
• If the citation is to a source other than Bonaparte 1854, I do not know what it is.

• Usually spelled "erythrorhynchos".
• Colin Jones points out (in litt. 2020.01.23)that the original spelling is "erythrorynchos"
• The page can be seen on the excellent GDZ Göttinger Digitalisierungszentrumsite.
• The addition of the extra "h" may generally follow theCBBM10:48 (=Sharpe 1885) entry.
• Peters Checklist12:186 (=Salomonsen 1967) liststhe spelling with the extra "h". Salomonsen does not appear to have consulted Sherborn'sIndex Animalium (Sect 2 Part 3 p.338 ID 12783) where the correct spelling"erythrorynchos" is given.
• Normand David writes (in litt. 2010.01.23) that the nameis spelled "erythrorhynchos" in the index, allowing the action thatDavid, Dickinson, and Gregory took as first revisers to select themore common "erythrorhynchos" spelling.

• Often spelled "erythrorhyncha".
• The original is spelled "erythrorynchus"
• Normand David writes (in litt. 2010.01.19) "NOTE: under 32.5.1, the original erythrorynchus (= erythroryncha) cannot be corrected, since " incorrect transliteration or latinization .. are not be considered inadvertent errors,and thus is not to be corrected.

• Peters Checklist15:61 (= Moreau 1962) cites this to "pl.109".
• The name occurs onpage 109, and there isno plate.
• Sclater WL. 1930 Systema Avium Aethopicarum p.758 cites this nameto "pl.109", while Sharpe. 1890 CBBM13:255 correctly cites it to "p.109".Similarly Sherborn in Index Animalium cites this name to "109" and would havespecifically designated it as a plate if he felt it was a plate.
• It appears likely that Moreau, at least in this instance, looked at only onesecondary source, and did not evaluate either the original materialor other easily available citations for this name.
• This, of course, is common practise, and understandably so. In my own caseit is infrequent that I am able to check the original material though increased availability of material on the internet is changing this. I do think, however,that it is unwise to consistently rely on onlyone secondary source.

• Peters Checklist14:378 (= Paynter 1968) gives the original combination as:

  Orycerca everetti

  .
• I don't think the genus group nameOrycerca exists in zoology.
• No doubt this is alapsus forOxycerca, the correct name here.

• The authority here is conventionally cited to Hartlaub alone, approach whichseems to me to follow tradition rather than the Code.
• This name is brought forward as new in an article by Hartlaub, howeverin the footnote where this name occurs, the entire description and diagnosisoccurs asquoted text specifically attributed to "(Emin Bey MS.)"
• It seems clear enough to me that Dr Edouard Schnitzer (who styled himself"Emin", "Emin Pasha", or "Emin Bey") has standing in the authority.
• It is not so clear to me whether the authority should be[Schnitzer/Emin] in Hartlaub, [Schnitzer/Emin]in Hartlaub, or Hartlaub & [Emin/Schnitzer]
• The page can be seen here.Zoolog. Jahrb. 1887 p.320

• Peters Checklist3:271 lists the page number for this taxon as "p. 426".
• Colin Jones points out that the name actually occurs on p.526, a fact that isshown correctly in CBBM20:586.
• HBW4 does not give a page number in the citation.

• Originally spelledCoracias erythroramphos. (Confirmed by Colin Jones)
• Peters Checklist15:258 (= Vaurie 1962) includes this spelling, but evidentlyfelt compelled to change the spelling toerythrorhamphos.
• Normand David feels (in litt. 2008.12.18) that article32.5.1 holds that the original spelling is to be maintained.
• [Art. 32.5.1: If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.]

• H&M 3^rd:54 lumpsExcalfactoria inCoturnix (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).
• IOC World Birdlist 2.0 (2009.02) splitsExcalfactoria noting:"King Quail and Blue Quail are moved from Coturnix to Excalfactoria (Crowe et al 2006, Christidis & Boles 2008)"; these works are not mentioned by H&M 3^rd in this matter.

• Treated as a full species in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• It is treated in H&M 3^rd::620 as a subspecies ofYuhina castaniceps.

• Regarding the spelling of this name, Normand David writes (2008.11.14):

  We have here:erihthachorides (p. 283) /erithachorides(p. 979) Baird, 1858.The name was explicitely established in connection with the cited pre-LinneanChloris erithachorides, indicating that "erihthachorides" was an inadvertent error. Lowery & Monroe (1968: 20) cited "erihtachorides (sic)", and usederithachorides, the correct original spelling.Dendroica erithachorides =Dendroica petechia erithachorides [Dickinson, 2003: 761].In fact, two original spellings in the same work. A First Reviser is needed, but the one choice open to him iserithachorides on account of the internal information.

• Cited by Peters Checklist11:133,144 (= Mayr 1986) to volume44
• The Richmond Index lists these in the extra number in volume43.
• HBW11:720 also lists this to volume44.
• Which is correct, I do not know, though usually the Richmond Index is vastly more likelyto be correct in such instances. Neither the CBBM7 nor Walden/Tweeddale's compilationgives a volume number for this publication.

2020.05.31

• The volume in questionlacks a volume number, but is "Pt. II, Extra number. August 1875"
• The convention, is that this is an Extra to vol. 44. (contra above).
• The Biodiversity Heritage Library copy is catalogued by them as a "Suppl." (which by name it is not) to vol.44,The pencil notes on the title page from the American Museum copy (which it is) has it listed as"AS472.A8J59 V.43 1875 Suppl." I am aware of no justification given for the change the BDHL made.
• All the avian taxa described as new in this Extra number are attributed to Walden, and there are some indicationsthat this is appropriate. He is mentioned in the introduction, and his name appears at the end of the work.

• Cited by Peters Checklist9:76 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) to volume 23 of the Proceedings.
• This is incorrect, it is found on volume 24, as Mayr & Greenway were correctly able to indicate forEremophila alpestris arctiocola described by Oberholser in the same article and listedby Mayr and Greenway on the same leaf (!) asE. a. enthymia.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:236 to 1843 and this is 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.

• H&M 3^rd p.622 evidently interpretsHerpornis to be a valid genus independant ofErpornis, and not anAgassiz 1846 emendation of Blyth's 1844 name.
• My work suggests that Neave, Schulze (et al.), Richmond, Gray (1869Hand-List Genera and Species of birds Part 1 p.315), and Salvin (1882Cat.Coll.Birds. Hugh Strickland p.73) all see the originalErpornis spellingas subsequently modified (emended). I follow these authors and interpretHerpronis to be an emendation ofErpornis, and thus no parenteses forthe authority are required if the original combination was made inHerpornis.(Code 1999 Art. 51.3.1).
• Scudder Nomenclator Zoologicus Part II p.146 lists "Herpornis Hodgs. Aves1844", but I believe this is an error.

• Peters Checklist10:238 (Deignan, 1964) treatsEupetes in theMUSCICAPIDAE and places it followingPtilorrhoa.
• Jonssonet al. 2007. Biol. Lett. find that somewhat surprisingly,Eupetes is a sister taxon toChaetops andPicathartes. Thediscussthe possible basis for this unusual and apparently relictual geographicaldistribution.Jonsson KA, Fjeldså J, Ericson PGP, & Irestedt M."Systenatic placement of an enigmatic Southeast Asion taxonEupetes macrocerusand implications for the biogeography of a main songbird radiation, the Passerida."Biology Letters Phylogeny (Royal Society). pp.1-4. (onlinedoi:10.1098rsbl.2007.0054).
• Some nomenclatural difficulties arise as the H&M Checklist include a familyEupetidae that containsAndrophobus,Psophodes,Ptilorrhoa andEupetes. It seems this polyphyleticassemblage is based on the convenience of geographical and superficial morphologicalsimilarity, and that the actual phylogeny is quite different.

• Peters Checklist13:108 (Paynter 1970) gives the citation as:
  • Phrygilus alaudinus excelsusBerlepsch 1906Ornis13 p.127
  While the Richmond Index gives the citation as:
  • Phrygilus alaudinus excelsusBerlepsch 1907Ornis 14 p.351
• The Peters Checklist citation may be correct, but I believe that parts ofvol.13 were published in 1909 and 1910, and may have been published aftervol.14.
• For now I am following the Richmond Index, but the Peters citation may becorrect.

• Described by Rothschild inRhytidoceros which is an 1860 Cabanis & Heine emendation ofReichenbach'sRhyticeros. 1849 as seen here.It is my interpretation that the authority therefor should not be in parentheses.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up and supplying the image of the relevant portion of thetext.
DATE:
• This occurs in no.4 of J.Orn. for the year 1897.
• Page 395 in that number includes a reference to Naumannia 1898.J.Orn.45:395
• J.Orn. No. 4 (at least) must be dated to 1898, unless and until demonstratedotherwise.
• Peters does not list any taxa in synonomy for this name, so it appearsunlikely that there are any priority concerns.

• Originally described as a subspecies ofPampa pampa.
• The question here is full species, versus subspecies ofCampylopterus curvipennis?
• In favor of ssp.
  • Peters (1945)5:19
  • Wolters (1976) lief.2 p.127
  • HBW (1999) 5:550; H&M 3^rd p.258 -- citing HBW5:550 as the basis.
• In favor of sp.
  • AOU CL 6th (1983) p.329
  • AOU CL 7th (1998) p.285
• Lowrey & Dalquest. 1951 U.Kans.Publ.Mus.Nat.Hist.3:583-586 appears to be the main published materialaddressing the question of the appropriate level of this taxon. It is cited both by authors who hold this to be a full species,and those who hold it to be a subspecies.
• In my view, HBW is not a primary taxonomic/systematic work, and it is of note that in this matter it, like H&M3^rd, does not reference the AOU CL, whichIS a primary taxonomic/systematic work, and which I followhere.
• IOC 14.1 notes: "Long-tailed Sabrewing Pampa excellens is lumped with Curve-winged Sabrewing based on gene flow, similar vocalizations, and response to playback (NACC 2022-A-5; Chesser et al. 2022)."

• Formerly considered conspecific withCalonectris diomedea.
• Patterson JB, Armistead G. 2004. "First record of Cape Verde Shearwater(Calonectris edwardsii) for North America." North American Birds58:468-473. present discussion of the rationale for recognition of this taxonat the species level. Morphologic and vocalization differences are felt to beconvincing for its distinction as a species.
• Neither the 47^th Supplement to the AOU Checklist, nor Patteson &Armistead 2004 cite Bourne's 1986 discussion of this taxon and the possibility ofit's being a full species.Bourne, WRP. 1986. "Recent work on the origin andsuppression of bird species in the Cape Verde Isands, especially the shearwaters,the herons, the kites and the sparrows." BBOC106(4):163-170.. In thatwork Bourne treats the form as a subspecies and suggests that there is clinalvariation in the morphology, and that the birds are "all very similar in behaviourand ecology."
• In the 1986 paper, Bourne misspells the (sub)specific epithet "edwardsi"with only one "-i".

• Cited by Peters Checklist1(2):364 as:

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

  .
• The citation to "1856" is followed (without comment) by HBW2:179 and H&M3^rd:110; although the AOU CL 5^th:107 dates this to May 22,1855, and the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.1:192 dates this to 1855 as well.
• This paper was presented at the Meeting of Feb.27, 1855 and appeared in no.VIIof volumeVII. Receipt of "no.VII" for that volume was acknowledged by theBoston Society of Natural History Library on May 22 of 1855. Thus 1855 is the properdate for this taxon.
• Undoubtedly the "May 22, 1855" date as listed in the 1957 AOU CL 5^th:107 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.

• This taxon was previously listed as:
  • Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay) 1910Orn.Monatsb. 18 p.148Concept
• With a note indicating:
  • Described by Kollibay as subspecies ofPisorhinaleucotis.
  • Elevated to specific status. HBW5:183 indicates it differsin DNA and vocal patterns fromP. leucotis.
  • The card in the Richmond index says "New name for (the bird Grantshould? have named, but didn't?) or because preoccupied ?"
• It seems clear, that now that the bird is inPtilopsis,Kollibay's replacement name forleucotis is no longer needed.
• The Richmond index card forScops erlangeri has a note:

  New name for theAsioleucotisleucotis of Erlanger(J.f.O., 1904, 233, pl. XIX, low. fig.), nec Temm. Erlanger renamed thenorthern instead of the southern form.

• The status of this name appears to me to result from a mixture offacts and opinions.
1. The name originally wasMyzomela erythina [noterythrina]
2. Peters Checklist12:354 (Salomonson) says

   Emended toerythrina.

   Though no additional data or rationale is given in support ofthis. Nor is there discussion of the validity of the"emendation".
3. Since 1978 the Zoo.Rec. gives no occurances (that I can find) ofeithererythina orerythrina inMyzomela.
4. H&M 3^rd:441 note 3. states:

   The emended name used here is judged to be in prevailing usage:see Art. 33.2 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999)(1178)and p.828.

   p.828 lists the use oferythrina in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. and inPeters Checklist. The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. is evidently in vol.IXp.140.
5. Dr Dave Donsker has confirmed for me that the spelling in vol.IXiserythrina, so it appears we can attribute the emendationto Gadow.

• This seems a bit peculiar; H&M 3^rd lists two birds(found so far: 2005.09.11) to this and lists the date of the taxon as 1982 for each (Rallina forbesi parva p.118 andAmblyornis macgregoriae amati p.427. One is cited to "Pratt" and the other to "T.K. Pratt". The citation given is:

  1921  Pratt, T.K., 1983. Additions to the avifauna of the Adelbert Range. Papua New Guinea. —Emu, 82(3):117-125 (1982).

• Thus it appears perhaps that the imprint date of this volume of the Emuis 1983, but that no.3 was published in 1982 ? Much easier to imagine the latter part of volume 82 being delayed to 1983, but thenthe date given for the names would certainly have been 1983, and not 1982.
• Edward Dickinson subsequently confirms (2006.04.16) that both names should bedated to 1983.
• Happily, Edward Dickinson pursued this matter and foundthat the

   contents page for the volume dates the issues and this issue isdated 24 Nov. 1982

  so the mystery is solved. I am thankful for hiscommunication of 2006.06.01 explaining this.
• A subsequent additional problem arises (2008.03.23) in that H&M3^rd:495 datesRhipidura albiscapakeasti Ford to 1981, though Peters Checklist11:545 datesthis to 1982 (with the indication that it appears to have been in the"1981" volume.
• Absent additional data, I must follow the date as given in PetersChecklist.

• Previously treated inPorzana as well as in the monotypic genus

  CrecopsisSharpe 1893BBOC 1 p.27,28

• Described inSphenocercus, a point I mention only because I foundthis name very difficult to "sleuth out".
• It is not mentioned in Peters Checklist vol.3, and not listed in Sharpe's Hand-list.
• Dave Donsker has confirmed for me that Salvadori lists it in Cat.B.Br.Mus.21:11, listing itas the last entry in the synonomy ofSphenocercus korthalsi. After the description, Salvadori says

  The specimens in Beccardi's collection from Mount Singalan, W. Sumatra (S. etorques, Salvad.), were most probably not fully adult birds.

• The reason for its inclusion in H&M 3^rd is not disucssed.

• Not listed in Peters Checklist vol.3
• The citation in HBW4:[611] is a confusion listing two volume numbers(40,41) and collection of page numbers (pp.247,658,1110), none ofwhich is close to the correct page number for this taxon.

• Cited by Peters Checklist14:276 as dated to1871, though no evidence or support for this assertion isgiven.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprintdate.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an1871 paper cited this name to 1870. Absent evidence thatdemonstrates a delay of publication the date must be regarded as1870.

• A paper by Colston 1981Colston PR "A newly describedspecies ofMelignomen (Indicitoridae) from Liberia, WestAfrica". BBOC101(2):289-291 includes a footnote thatcaught my attention. The footnote reads:

  *A copy of this paper, proposing a new name, was sent to Dr. M. Louette in October 1980,shortly after it had been submitted for publication. Dr. Louette has since seen fit to describethe new honeyguide without informing us of his intention (Louette 1981, a new species of honeyguide from West Africa,Rev.Zool.Afr. 95:131-135 --Melignomon eisentrauti). Hispaper came to hand while this one was in proof and it has been possible to do little more than delete the proposed name and substituteeisentrauti for it in the text and table.

• I expect there are at least two sides to this story, but one must reflect, that thefame sought is not always the fame achieved.

• This citation from HBW4:278,612 is a puzzle to me. They giveFinsch, 1867, Die Papageien1 -- which hardly looks like a compeltecitation. I do not find the Finsch Papageien citation in Peters3, or inthe Richmond Index.There is, however, another Finsch name, which appears senior to me, though thisname is not discussed in HBW or H&M 3^rd as near as I can find.
• The Richmond Index lists:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[Cacatua] Eleonora Finsch 1863.Nederl. Tijdschrift. Dierkunde, I, Afd.?  1863, 'Berigten' p.xxi{"Ik heb haar, als een blijk mijner hoogachting voor den Heer{Westerman en zijn huisgezin, den naarm zijmer echtgenoote{gegeven."Type locality: unknown.{1 living spn. in Zool. Gardens of Amsterdam.Type: ? Leiden Mus.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2004.06.12) that the CBBM showsthe taxon as due to Finsch in 1863 in the Nederl. Tijd. Dierk.1:xxi.

• Spelledelizabethae by Peters Checklist7:9.
• This is understandable as La Touche named the bird after his daughter Elizabeth, buthe spelled the specific epithetelisabethae and I follow that here, as doesH&M 3^rd:336.

• Spelledefulensis HBW4:591 as well as in H&M 3^rd:216
• Peters Checklist4:73, the Richmond Index and Sclater Systema Avium Aethiopicarum1:185 all spell thisefulenensis.
• Corrected toefulenensis in the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda.

• Cited by Peters Checklist4:145 as 1927, and this is followed byHBW5:237,685, and H&M 3^rd:235.
• The no. of the Am.Mus.Novit. is correctly given as no.364, which is about two hundred numberstoo early for 1927.
• In addition Peters Checklist4:146 citesSpiloglaux roseoaxillaris Hatert to the samenumber of the Am.Mus.Novit. (no.364), but here gives the year (correctly) as 1929.
• The Richmond Index shows the year for this publication as 1929, which fits more appropriatelywith the no. of the Am.Mus.Novit.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist13:5 gives the page number for this as "p.177".
• It occurs on p.176
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett for picking this up.

• Previously
  • Lophura imperialis (Delacour &Jabouille)1924BBOC 45 p.29
  was held to be a species but shown to be a hybird ofL.edwardsi (M) XL. nycthemera (F).Garson. 2001. Oriental Bird Club33:52

• Peters Checklist10:293 (Deignan) has "1827" and "livr.74".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75)extremo 1827".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve theissue, demonstrating that the "74" is most likely a misprint for75.
• Livraison 75 makes the date 1828 rather than 1827.
• 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.52-53'

• Treated by Peters Checklist15:278 as a subspecies ofC. ruficollis.
• Marek Kuziemko writes:
  "Corvus edithae Phillips 1895. Formerly treated as a race ofC. ruficollis. Londei (1995. Bull. B.O.C.115:164-166) reported behaviors similar to those ofC.albus and suggested that edithae is more closely related toalbus than toruficollis. He also noted individualshe considered possible hybrids betweenalbus andedithae. This change is adopted by Fry & Keith (2000,Birds of Africa, vol. VI).

• The form Ceyx rufidorsaStrickland 1847PZS(1846) Pt14no.165 p.99 is often treated as a separate species.
• HBW6:229 (Woodall) states: This distinctiverufus-backed form, while treated as a species in the past, in someregions hybridizes, and is better treated as a color morph.

• Often spelt erithacus. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, andPeters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2000. "The supposedsignificance of originally capitalized species-group names." BBOC.120(4):262 discuss this issue in detail and indicate thatthe name is neologism and not a Latin adjective, or adjectivalform. "The current correct spelling ... isCeyx erithaca,and not "Ceyx erithacus".
• HBW6:229 (Woodall) states: "[The] Original species nameerithaca is a noun, and therefore remains unchanged,irrespective of [the] gender of the genus in which [it is] placed."This is incorrect, as David & Gosselin point out, the noun iserithacus noterithaca.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationCeyxerythacus occurs in theZoo. Rec.; it occurs 4times.

• Often spelterythrogaster. (e.g. Peters, Sibley& Monroe)
• Originally asMotacilla Erythrogastra Guldenstadt,1775.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):31 discuss this.They indicate that "The nameerythrogastra is latinized fromthe Greek adjectivalερυθρογαστρος,[eruthrogastros: red-bellied]."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationPhoenicurus erythrogaster occurs in theZoo.Rec.; it occurs 6 times.

• Listed in Peters Checklist9:359 as "1847".
• This volume of theVoy.Abissinie evidently cameout from 1847 to 1850. The entry from the Library of the BritishMuseum (Nat. History) states:
  • "General Note: Vol.3 seems to have been published in parts, atdifferent dates, probably as follows: Geology, p.1-84, 1947 (sic);Plantae, Mammalia and Aves as far as p.224, 1848; rest of Aves withInsecta, 1850"
  • "Publs. about item: For dates of issues of the natural historyportion 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 nodate on what I looked at. This, with a sub-title "QuatrièmeParties // Histoire Naturelle. -- Zoologie." was TomeSixième. It contains pp. 1-398 (except that it also haspages 161-182 repeated with asterisks by the numbers). I do notunderstand why 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 ofpublication of the natural history portions of some French voyages.Part 2. Ferret and Galinier's 'Voyage en Abyssinie'; Lefebvre'sVoyage en Abyssinie'; 'Exploration scientifique del'Algérie'; Castelnau's 'Amérique du Sud'; umontd'Urville's 'Voyage de l'Astrolabe'; Laplace's 'Voyage sur laFavorite'; Jacquemont's Voyage dans l'Inde'; Tréhouart's'Commission scientifique d'Islande'; Cailliaud, 'Voyage àéroé'; 'Expédition scientifique deMorée'; Fabre, 'Commission scientifique du Nord'; Duetit-Thouars, 'Voyage de la Vénus' and on the dates of the'Faune Française'. -- Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7)8:161-164.

    They date the section containing pp.1-170 as 1847 and then arguethat the distinct crowded smaller type pages of 161*-176*, 177-192,and 177*-192* seem to show that these parts were delayed. They datethese 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 difference rule although I am not entirelysure this is safe as we deal with vowels connecting two syllables).

    The correction that the third offers relating to the secondstrengthens the argument that these [p]ages were delayed.

• As if this were not confusing enough, the Richmond Index card for thisname cites "Voyage au Abyssinie III, "1847", 195 (text)". and cites theauthors as Guérin-Méneville & Lafresnaye (!). So he citesa different page (p.195 as opposed to p.99) and entirely different authors.[2008.01.01]
• [2010.01.05] If the "correction" is accepted as being part of the original description,it should stand.
• Accepting the correction (as I provisionally do here) then necessitated (it seemed to me)the date of 1851 rather than 1847 (as shown with the "corrected" name in HBW13:788, forexample).
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for bringing this to my attention.
• [2010.01.06] Normand David writes, and helpfully points out that the ICZN Code, in the case ofa Corrigendum (which this instance meets by the glossary definition) the corrected name retains the authorship and date of the original spelling [Art. 18.2].

• As noted by Murray Bruce (email 2001.05.11) if the genus groupnamePitta is feminine, why is this not spellederythrogastra?
• Normand David provides the answer (2002.06.17):
  • "Because inPitta erythrogaster Temminck, 1823 (theoriginal combination), the nameerythrogaster ends in atransliterated Greek word (gaster), and is thus invariable(ICZN Art. 31.2.3).
  • The same rule applies to several other names ending in-gaster, includingSula leucogaster, fromPelecanus leucogaster Boddaert, 1783."

• Often spelterythronota. (e.g. Sibley &Monroe)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):24 discuss this.They indicate that "The nameerythronota is latinized fromthe Greek adjectivalερυθρονωτος,[eruthronotos: red-backed]." Thus Sibley & Monroe's argumentfor the name being a noun in apposition does not appear tostand.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationPhoenicurus erythronotus occurs in theZoo.Rec.; it occurs 3 times in 1986.

• Peters Checklist Vol.3 does not useEclectus.
• Use ofLorius is discussed in a footnote of p.231.

• Peters Checklist cites this title differently ("Monatsb. K.Akad. Berlin").
• I checked the original at the library of the American Museum ofNatural History, and cite it as I found it there.
• In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum vol.23, Sharpesimilarly lists the citation as: "MB. k. Akad. Berlin, 1854,p.134".
• Peters may have confused two similarly titled journals, or mayhave simply followed Sharpe.

• Peters Checklist3:112 lists 1810.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist3:68 lists 1833.
• See Duncan, 1937.

• Peters Checklist15:264 has 1822.,
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show this was published in May1821.

• Peters Checklist5:104 has 1839.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} taxon says "publ. 1840".
• Peters Checklist misspells Boissonneau here and in severallocations, leaving out one of the n's. This error was reproduced inseveral locations in {Sibley and Monroe, 1990}, but corrected inthe Supplement.

• Peters Checklist11:461 has Ephthianura.
• This was changed in {Sibley and Monroe, 1993} toEpthianura.
• Bruce and McAllan, 1990 p.479 discuss these names in somedetail reaching the decision thatEphthianura Gould 1838 isa junior objective synonym ofEpthianura Gould 1838.
• This decision appears consistent with the data in {Richmond, etal. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist1:482 has 1832 as does HBW1615 and H&M 3^rd:68.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {Zimmer, 1926}, and Sherborn all indicate 1833 is the date. Greenwayin his 1973 Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History Part.1 p.253 also lists this as 1833.
• Use of the 1832 date may well have started with Salvadori's listing in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. 1895.27:353.
• As this name occurs towards the end of the 2^nd part of the 4^th volume (whichcomprises the 5^thphysical volume as the work was published), the date must be 1833, as all workers who deal with this work (Richmond, Sherborn, Cat.Books.Brit.Mus.) seem to agree that at least some part of the work was published in 1833. I am unaware of any publishedevidence for using1832 as the publication date for this second Part of vol.IV.

• Peters Checklist5:138 shows Mulsant & E.Verreaux asthe authors.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has Mulsant in Mulsant &Verreaux.

• Peters Checklist5:175 does not include the pagenumber.

• The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
• The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and 1859 is conventionallyused.
• The accession number for the British Museum Library copy ofthis work is "60.3.-7.2" pencilled on the back of the titlepage.
• The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
• I regard the preponderance of evidence as pointing to 1860 asthe publishing date.
• This argument has been accepted by the AOU Checklist Committeefor the 7^th ed.

• SeeViolani CG and Barbagali F. 1999. BBOC.119(3):189-192 for a discussion of the name, and the statusof this taxon as a species.
• Alstrom, P. 1998. Taxonomy of the Mirafra assamicacomplex. Forktail 13:97-107 discusses the status of thetaxon and argues that the name should beM. marionae.
• I agree with Violani's argument.

• Proposed to be split fromC. cubanensis on the basis ofsong byGarrido & Reynard, The Greater AntilleanNightjar: is it one species?, El Pitirre 7, 1 (1994):5..
• See alsoGarrido, OH & Reynard, GB. 1999. Ornithol.Neotropical 9:1-12.
• Lonnberg described it inAntrostomus.
• Note: this is often misspelteckmani. See,for example,J. Field Orn. 1999. 70(4):603. It wasnamed after the collector Dr. E.R. Ekman.
• Thanks to Rolf de By for helping me with some of the details onthis entry.

• The entire text of the original "description" reads.(formatting follows original)

  DREPANIS (HEMIGNATHUS) ELLISIANACerthis obscura, (nec Gmel.) Vieill. Ois. dor. t. 53 ?Hemignathus obscurus, (nec Gmel.) Licht. Berl.Trans. 1838, t. v. f. 1; Ellis's Icon. ined. 28 (1779).Hemignathus? obscurus, Cass. U.S. Expl. Exped. 1858, p.179. 'Jibi' of the natives. Sandwich Islands (Oahu).

• Heldnot to be a species by Peters Checklist5:75.
• Not treated by Sibley and Monroe.
• SeeWeller, A.-A. 1999. BBOC 119(3):197-202, pl.3. "Ontypes of trochilids in The Natural History Museum, Tring II.Re-evaluation ofErythronota (?) elegans Gould 1860: apresumed extinct species in the genus.".
  Weller discusses the specimen, its morphology, the zoogeography ofthe genus and the implications regarding this taxon.
• Thanks to Norbert Bahr for reminding me of the implications ofthis paper.

Epimachus1816

• Peters Checklist15:190 correctly lists Dec. 1816.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

An interesting nomenclatural situation.

• Sharpe, the author of this taxon, in theCatalogue ofBirds in the British Museum vol. X p.47 gives the citationas "Dicaeum everettiTweedd. Ann. Nat. Hist. (4) xx p.537(1877)".
• Finn Salomensen in Peters Checklist12:177 gives theTweeddale citation (above) forPrionochilus everetti, andthe Sharpe citation (Dicaeum everetti) on p.185 in thesynonomy forDicaeum hypoleucum pontifex Mayr 1946.
• Mayr, 1946, Zoologica [New York],31, p.8. "Newname for Dicaeum Everetti Tweeddale, preoccupied".

• Name is derived from Enggano Island, the type locality.
• Peters Checklist4:93 has this as a subspecies ofO.umbra (as it was so described by Riley).
• HBW5:168 separates this fromO. umbra on thebasis of vocalizations.

EsacusSystematics

Previously merged inBurhinus The generic distinctionappears largely on the basis of size, and appears to becontroversial.

• Sometimes separated as a distinct species:
• • Anas drygalskiiReichenow 1904Orn.Monatsb. 12 p.47

• Kaup described this as: "Nisus vel Acc. erythronemius"
• vel means "or" in Latin.
• This makes me somewhat uncertain as to whether the author'sname should be in parentheses, though most works print it so.
• A similar case isAccipiter chionogaster described byKaup as:
  "Nisus (seu Accipiter) chionogaster"
• seu is a complex and subtle Latin conjunction meaningessentially "or if".

• The Richmond index lists a citation for Kuhl, 1820 for thistaxon. It is not clear to me why it does not have priority.

• Peters Checklist7:45 gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:359 also gives a date of 1859.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossedout).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III ofthis year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist2:6 gives a date of 1867.
• HBW2:308 (Elliot) also gives 1867.
• The Richmond Index and Duncan (1937) make it clear this part ofthe publication was available in April 1868.

• Note: At the time Peters published his work (1934) Duncan'swork was not available, and to be aware of Richmond's work one hadto physically travel to the National Museum in Washington, D.C.However, despite the fact that both Duncan's work, and the RichmondIndex are now publicly and universally available, it appears theHBW often proceeds simply by following Peters.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g.Peters Checklist13:22;29, Cat.Birds.Br.Mus.12:497(Sharpe), Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) providesevidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck &Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avisaccompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the"Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries thedate April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thusfrom December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guineain 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis vanZr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl.1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".