Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --G

• Cited by many to Rothschild and Hartert (e.g. IOC 11.2; Josephet al.2020).
• This is understandable as the article containing this name/lapsus is indeed by thosetwo men.
• However, at the beginning of the article on p.530 nomeclatural responsibility is assignedto Rothschild for some groups and Hartert for the rest. Parrots are not in the groupsassigend to Rothschild.
• Assignation of responsibilities
• My interpretation is that this name should be attributed to Hartert. Richmond appearsto have thought so as well, judging for his card for this genus group name.
• Richmond IndexGenus group card.
• Also note that PetersIII:152 cites the name to p.552. It appears to me that p.532 is correct.

• Long cited to Oberholser 1918 with the specific epithetepia /epius.
• See David, Elliott, & Bruce. 2021 BBOC141:50-58 for an excellentdiscussion of this name, and an example of how consideration of "prevaling usage" should be undertaken.
• David, Elliott, & Murray article pdf
• Author's who simply take a position that something represents "prevailing usage", and take that position without data supporting and documenting their evaluative study should be (at minimum) ignored. Such pronouncments generally speak to the individual experience of the person making the statment. No doubt this experience is interesting and important to them, but by itself and without context is of limited value, and less interest more generally. It is a numerator without a denominator.

• Originally spelledYourdini, an incontrovertible truth.
• Subsequently most authors spell thisgourdini though they have been unwilling or unable to give any justification or rationale for this emendation.
• [2019.02.14]: The "rationale" subsequently given is "prevailing usage" though I am unaware of anyone, anywhere undertaking and publishing the analysis to support this position. Rather it appears more an "opinion" which self appointed and self-important savants think is "good enough". In this, they quite clearly are taking abreak from being scientists, but have donned the robes of high priests issuing fiats, bullsand fatwas.
• My opinion of this kind of action has been quite low,very low, in fact. But I am changingmy mind. Such actions, which necessarily degrade the inherent quality of the informationmust be recognized as a useful indicator of the inherently non-scientific process at play.

• Spelled "ginanensis" on p.10, but spelled "guianensis" in the table listing taxa in the volume.

• Conventionally (e.g. PetersV:188) cited as
  • Pelargopsis capensis gouldiSharpe 1870PZS Pt1 p.62,63
• The Richmond Index indicates that the PZS description was published in May, whilethe portion of the Monogr.Alced. containing the plates and description was published in April.

• This name appears to be incorrect. The subspecies (Aulacorhynchus griseigularis phaeolaemus (Gould) 1874) has priority over the nominate.
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for pointing out that this issue was raised in Birdforum.

• For resolution asguttuliger, 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.)

• The authority is often attributed to Schlegel (e.g. Peters Checklist6:60; CBBM19:106 (=Shelley 1891);HBW7:175 (2002).
• However, the livraison where this is named and described is by Goffin, and there is no indication that Schlegel was responsible for the description.Schlegel's name is listed following the name. It may well be that Schlegel providedthe name as a manuscript name, but his role in the matter is not stated or defined.Therefore, I attribute the name to the author of the work, which in this case isGoffin.

• Peters ChecklistI(2):551 (= Amadon 1979) cites this to "col. 143",which is incorrect.
• The genus is introduced in cols. 43, and 183.
• HBW2:573 (1994) does not allow for the identification of individualcitations, but does not list 43, 183,or 143!.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• This name is spelled, almost universally with a double -ii ending (greyii).
• Examination of the original work (on-line http://nat.pictura-dp.nl)shows the original spelling to begreyi both on the plateand in the text.
• Usually in cases such as this, the emendation results from authors followingthe CBBM, but remarkably in this instance CBBM21:85 spells the name"Ptilinopus greyi", with the single -i ending! However confusion is added bythe synonomy listing where the original description by Bonaparte is listed(with others) as "Ptilinopus greyii".
• In the original description, the only individuals mentioned in the text arenamed Gray, but as the name is cited to the plate, this fact may have nobearing on the matter.

• Peters ChecklistX:200 (= Ripley 1964) gives the spelling as

  Merula Gouldi

  and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:669 (through Corrigenda 8).
• There is no question that the name was originally spelled with an -ii ending, as shownin the Richmond IndexRichmond Index card Merula gouldii.
• The original citation can be seen here:Merula Gouldii original description
• Interestingly, in their discussion of "The authorship and date ofTurndu rubrocanus" (SNAB 56. Dickinson EC & Walters M. 2006), the specific epithet is also spelledwith the incorrect single -i ending.
• HBW10:649 also employs the incorrect-i ending.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Substantial confusion surrounds the citation of this genus regardingthe date, and the authority.
• I follow Gregory SMS. 2006. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 57. The authorship of the generic nameGymnoris."Zoologische Mededelingen. Leiden 80-5 (December 2006).
• Of note, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 cites Hodgsonrather than Blyth, and 1844 rather than 1845, and then in Corrigenda 8 refersto Gregory's article, but does not appear to change either the author or the datefor this taxon. The note that reads "Re above see Gregory (2006) [SNAB 57]." may imply that Gregory's approach is to be followed.

• Edward Dickinson's work has clarified at least part of the troublesome work "Gal.Ois.".
• Peters ChecklistVII:190 gives the citation for this taxon as:

  Myrmothera guttata Vieillot, Galeris Ois.2,ca. 1825, p.251, pl.155

• In contrast the CBBM15:232 gives the citation as:

  Myrmothera guttata,Vieill. Gal. Ois. i. p.251, pl.155

• H&M 3^rd:648 dates this to 1852, without comment.This is unusual for several reasons: first, Peters Checklist9:443dates this to 1851, and second, H&M 3^rd:450datesPomatostamous from the very same page of this workto 1851.

• Alcippe grotei (originallyAlcippe nipalensis grotei) is treated as a full species in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]). Where it is noted:"Alcippe grotei is split fromA.peracensis (Robson 2000,Collar 2006a, BLI)".
• It is treated in H&M 3^rd::620 as a subspecies ofAlcippe poioicephala.

• As noted in the IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02)"MOVEGraminicola fromMegaluridae toTimaliidae positioned nearPellorneum (Alström 2006, Johanssonet al. 2008)"

• Garrulax gularis is treated as a full species 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). It is treated there as a subspecies ofGarrulax delesserti.

• Peters Checklist10:305 (= Deignan 1964) list this in vol.14 of BBOC and dates this to "1930". Clearly this is a transcription error for the correct date, which is 1903.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Accipiter griseiceps (Schlegel) 1862Mus.Hist.Pays-BasRev.Meth.Crit.Coll.livr.1 no.4 Astures p.23,24
• In van den Hoek Ostende LW, Dekker RWRJ, & Keijl GO. 1997. "Type-specimens of birdsin the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Part 1. Non-Passerines." NNM Tech.Bull.1:1-248, the authors indicate (p.22) that "This name is usually, but incorrectly, attributed to Schlegel (1862c)". They cite "(Kaup, 1848)".
• Their references list (p.195) appears to have a problem of its own.The reference reads: "Kaup, J., 1848. Zusage zu dem GenusAstur. -- Isis (Oken) 26:774."The number "26" does not seem to me to be possible for the volume of 1848. My tally of volumes indicates thatthis would be in volume "41", and I have a number of Kaup citations to 1848 and volume 41.In his history of the journal Isis von Oken, Kertesz GA. 1986. Isis77(3):497-503refers (p.503) to "Isis von Oken, 1844,37, cols. 49ff." which furthersupports the idea that the volume number "26", as proposed by van den Hoek Ostendeet al., is an error.
• The other parts of the citation look adequately appropriate that they seem reasonable to accept, though I am a little hesitant, not being able to otherwise confirm a citation thatitself does not appear to have been carefully reviewed.
• In his Corrigenda no.8 for H&M 3^rd, Dickinson refers tovan den Hoek Ostende as van der Hoek Ostende.

• As noted in the Richmond Index this is spelledgundlachii on p.194 (key)andguindlachi on p.197 (in text).
• This spelling difference goes un-noted in the AOU CL 1957 (p.489); Peters CL14:16 (1968); orDeignan (1961) (p.531,532).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
• Normand David informs me (in litt.) that Baird acted as the first reviser by his subsequent use ofgundlanchi (ICZN 1999 24.2.4).

• This bird, like many sunbirds, was described inAnthothreptus a name generallyheld to be a Cabanis emendation of Swainson's nameAnthreptes.Some confusion results from the fact that Gadow in CBBM8 usesAnthothreptes as the genusname and does not appear to regard it as an emendation.
• Peters Checklist12:209 (= Rand 1967) amplifies confusion with an error of his own.Rand lists:

  Anthreptes Swainson, 1832, in Swainson and Richardson, Fauna Bor. Amer.,2 (1831) , p. 495....Anthothreptes Swainson, 1837, Class. Birds,2, p.329.

  Which is incorrect, but creates the impression that Swainson erected or treatedAnthothreptesas a genus group name in its own right. If true this would require the use of parentheses aroundauthorities for taxa described inAnthothreptes but now held inAnthreptes.Rand's reference is nonesense, Swainson's p.329 of Class. Birds2 has no use ofAnthothreptesas can be seen here:Swainson's Nat. Hist. Birds 2 p.329
• [2010.11.29] Gastone Rabascini helpfully points out, that I had not spelled the genus group nameAnthothreptus correctly,and more importantly Sundevall used the name (Anthothreptus) in 1872, apparently as an emendation of Swainson's name (Anthreptes).

• Peters Checklist9:114 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) show the dateas 1851.
• Dating names from this work is always problematic. The Richmond Index showsthe date as 1852, which I follow.
• Richmond Index card.
• The unpublished notes by CWR on Dates of Publication has a card stating that"Pt. 5+6 (as one) 1851. Notpubl. till 1852. T.p. bearsthis date.
• I follow the Richmond data on this in the abscence of other evidence.

• Peters Checklist15:225 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) show the typelocality as "Forth Brown, Texas".
• This is a typo for Fort Brown, as confirmed by the Richmond Index, and Deignan p.333.

• Peters Checklist11:503 (= Mayr 1986) has 1885
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1884 and a note "July or later".
• Peters Checklist3:234 citesGeoffroyus geoffroyi timarlaoensisfrom p.15 of this work to 1884, but Peters Checklist12:406 citesPhilemoncitreogularis kisserensis from p.41 of the work to 1885. However, all these namesare in Heft 1 of the Sitzungberichte.
• Presumably 1884 is the date specified (imprint date) on Heft 1 of the work. Thusit appears to me that in abscence ofproof of delay, 1884 is to befollowed.
• H&M 3^rd initially followed Peters Checklist and itsinconsistencies in this matter without comment. However starting with Corrigenda 6,the date was corrected to 1884, citing Quaisser & Eck 2006 apparently confirmingwhat Richmond had found out over 100 years before and which has been publishedsince 1992.

• Commonly cited to 1890 which may very well be correct.
• This material, which apparently was issued in two forms, with different pagination, andseemingly different dates of availability, is very troublesome and confusing. This difficultyis increased by the fact that there appears to be little recognition of the problem and thepossibilities of 1889vs 1890.
• The Richmond Index is usually helpful in this matter, but in this instance has only onecard, which lists the two versions of publication, but in this instance (contrasting withothers) lists only the 1890 date.
• My citation, which should be considered provisional, includes "pt.1" following theRichmond Index. This makes it seem almost certain to me that the date must be 1889, and not1890. The page number I provide for the Aggiunte ("p.94") is given byPeters Checklist15:151, but isnot given in the Richmond Index.
• Consistency in the format of these citations does not seem to be found (including in theRichmond Index) and my listings are my best attempt to accomadate the various citations I havefound.

• Originally spelledCorethrura Gautemalensis.
• "Corrected" toguatemalensis by Peters and others.
• I understand from Normand David (in litt. 2008.01.10) that thereare internal indications in the original description (not seen) that make thecase for "Guatemalensis" being what was intended, and that the emendation to"Guatemalensis" appears justified.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist12:12 includes a footnote by Ernst Mayr that states:

  Tephrodornis grisola Blyth, 1843, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal,16, p. 121 -- Calcutta is unidentifiable. -- E.M.

• Mayr's citation is problematic. Volume16 of this Journal was not published until 1847, soit appears that Mayr was confused or misinformed.
• It appears from the Richmond Index, that some peculiarities may exist with this name: there is anentry for J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal12 PtI no.134 "Feb" 1843 p.180 and an added note that says:

  For descr. see vol. XI, p.799.

• Parkes 1989Nemouria article may discuss this, but that article is not available to me.

• Described inCoccyzusa which is a Cabanis emendation ofCoccycua.

• Peters Checklist2:177, cites this to "p. 234" which is atranspostion for p.243 where it is actually found.
• Peters' error is replicated in HBW3726.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Often held to be a subspecies ofButeogallus anthracinus.
• Elevated to species level by the AOU CL 48^th Supplement(p.1112) on the basis of a lack of demonstrated reason to have demoted it tosubspecies status, as well as on the basis of size, morphology and voice.

• Peters Checklist7:302 (Index) transposes letters, rendering thename "guiaquimiae" where "guaiquinimae" must have been intended.

• This 2005 taxon is not discussed in H&M 3^rd throughCorrigenda 6 (2006.12).
• I tentatively include it here

• Peters Checklist13:346 (=Storer, 1970) cites this to 1860, which isfollowed without comment by H&M 3^rd:821.
• The Richmond Index notes for this taxon, that the number (for Sept.) waspublished in Jan. 1861, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist14:184 dates this to 1849. Other taxa from this volume are dated by PetersChecklist authors to both 1849and 1848 without discussion or comment. The dates of publication of this work are problematic and theauthors of the later volumes of the Peters Checklist would seem to be amoung those least motivated to tryto understand or resolve the difficulties. They may, however be correct here.
• I currently date all taxa from vol.3 of this work to 1848, though this may change.
• H&M 3^rd dates some taxa from this volume to 1848 and other to 1849,essentially parroting the inconsistency of Peters Checklist without additional comment.
• How knows how it will all end up...

• 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 p.380. But this error is notcorrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW8:561 has the date correct as 1868.

• Apparently universally date to 1848.
• This volume (4) had portions issued in 1848 and 1849, so the problem is to determine when the"year break" occured.
• This was published in No.5 reporting the meeting of Oct. 31, 1848 (a Tuesday). Reciept wasacknowledged by the Boston Society of Natural History on March 31, 1849, so I take that as the firstdate the publication is proven to be available.
• However, I am eager to know of any information that woulddemonstrate publication priorto that time.

• Peters Checklist1(2):361 (=Stresemann & Amadon) cite thisto 1873, giving the citation as:

  [Buteo (Rupornis) magnirostris] var.griseocauda Ridgway,1873, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist.,16, pp.87 (in key),88

  This date (1873) isfollowed by HBW2:179 and H&M 3^rd:110 (throughCorrigenda 6).
• The Richmond Index gives the date as 1874, which I follow.
• For this Journal volume, 1874 appears more likely than 1873; volume 14(for 1871) wasnot published (at least the latter portions) until 1872. Volumes often extendedacross more than one year, and it appears delays were common. This bird is describedin part I of volume 16, and volume 17 came out in 1875, so 1874 appears likely.
• The Harry Harris compilation of Ridgways publication (Condor30:73-74) dates these pages (pp.43-72, Appendix, pp.73-106) toDecember, 1873,; The Richmond Index forRhynchofalco (from p.46 ofthis serial) says "Sig. datedNov. 1873". Though the Richmond cardindicates that the imprint date for Part I of this volume is "1874".
• I can not exclude the possibility that this portion of the serial cameout in 1873, but as the imprint date seems to be "1874" I use that as thedate until there is demonstration that it was available earlier.

H&M 3^rd:149 merges this intoSterna, the justification forthis would appear to be the footnote #3 on that page, which reads:

3 In contradiction to our treatment of the gulls we here take a broadview of the genusSterna.

The basis for, and exact meaning of this "broad view" is not given. Additionally, Ipresume that the wordcontrast was intended whencontradiction wasemployed.
• Most author's treatnilotica inGelochelidon and this approachcontinues to receive support (SACC 2005; Bridge ES, Jones AW, Baker AJ. 2005. "Aphylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences:implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution.." Mol.Phylogen.Evol.35:459-469); it is the approach I take as well.

• Described asGelochelidon nilotica grönvoldi and nowconventionally spelledgroenvoldi (e.g. H&M 3^rd:149;HBW3:645).
• The substitution of the-ö- by-oe- in thisinstance implies either uncertainty about the derivation of the word, orthe belief that it is based on a word of German origin.
• The ICZN Code 1999 Art. 32.5.2.1 states:

  In the case of a diacritic or other mark, the mark concerned is deleted, except that in a namepublished before 1985 and based upon a German word, the umlaut sign is deleted from a vowel andthe letter "e" is to be inserted after that vowel (if there is anydoubt that the name is based upon a German word, it is to be so treated).

• Clearly this bird is named for Henrik Grönvold, orGrønvold. Dr David Donsker informs me (in litt. 2006.01.07)that Henrik Grønvold was the illustrator for Mathews's Birds ofAustralia, and was Danish.
• I do not find any German word or words that correlates withGrövold, and find only Scandinavian correlates.
• If the rules of the ICZN Code 1999 are to be heeded, thismust be spelledgronvoldi.
• Normand David offers his current iterpretation (in litt. 2006.01.14):

  Art. 32.5.2.1 does not expressly ask that the origin (German or non-German) of a name be stated in theoriginal description. In other words, all sources of information can be used to apply the rule. I feel that D.Donsker provide enough information to conclude that Grönvold is not a German name, andthat the correct spelling of grönvoldi Mathews 1912 is gronvoldi under 32.5.2.1 -the spelling used byH&M 2 under the 1985 Code.At this moment, I see that Blake (1979, Neotropical Birds) and HBW3:645 have "groenvoldi", bothbeing Incorrect subsequent spellings. Perhaps an Unjustified emendation was also introduced somewhere -theHellmayr series or a Brazilian reference such as Pinto may provide a clue. But, wether an ISS or an UE, weare again faced with the "prevailing usage" issue, the assessment of which has yet to becompleted.

• In a letter from CWR to Witmer Stone (Dec 8, 1929), Richmond discussesthe issue of authors "stealing" names, and comments:

   ... Neither did Baird think he was robbing Coues by publishing adescription ofDendroica graciae about a year before Coues did. Infact, they thought so little of it that Baird'stype was exchangedwith Maynard about 1871, while Coues' "type" was carefullypreserved!

• Peters Checklist12:426 (Salomonsen) lists the genus nameas

  Gliciphila Swainson ... Emended toGlyciphila.

• Glyciphila is used by H&M 3^rd:440 with a noteindicating that the nameGlyciphilus (!) was used in the previousedition. The reference given is to Christidis & Boles 1994Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories. RAOU.(Note that the date of this publication as given by Boles on his websiteis 1995, not 1994; it is listed asChristidis, L. and W.E. Boles. 1995. Taxonomy and Species of Birds ofAustralia and its Territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union,Melbourne. 112 pp..
• I am unsure of the status of the "emendation", though this may verywell be discussed in Christidis and Boles 1995.Glyciphila is infact an 1840 emendation by G.R. Gray in his "A list of the Genera ofBirds" p.15. Given that the fact thatGlyciphila is anemendation and this fact is not mentioned or addressed in H&M3^rd:440, I chose to use the Swainson generic name until it isdemonstrated that the Gray 1840 emendation is valid.

• Previously as
  • Cacatua goffini (Finsch) 1863Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. 1 p.XXIII
• Cacatua goffini is renamedCacatua goffiniana. ref. Rosellar & Michaels. 2004 Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden350:183-196.
• Thanks to Jirka Schmidt for bringing this to my attention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:378 as

  Ptilotis germana Ramsay, 1879, Proc.Linn.Soc. New South Wales, 3(1878), p.2

  This date is followed by H&M 3^rd:433,and does not appear to be corrected as far as Corrigenda 4.0.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was published in Sept. of1878, which I follow.
• Peters Checklist8:319 datesPitta erythrogasternovaehibernicae (from p.73 of volme 3 of the Proceedings) to1878.

• Peters Checklist2:20 gives the citation as:

  Phasianus garrulus Humboldt, in Humboldt and Bonpland, "Rec. d'Observ. Zool. et d'Anat. Comp.," 1805, p.4, note

• This work evidently has an imprint date of 1811, but was issued in parts.The Richmond Unpublished notes on dates of publication has a card indicatingthat the premier cahier "paraitra" in May. [APP: paraitra = "will appear"(future tense of paraitre] This is noted in Journal Typographique, VIII, no.xxxiv 5 Germinal, an 13 [1805], p.270
• Both Richmond and Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.2636) give the pagination asp.12,47, as opposed to Peters' "p.4, note"
• Evidently Peters was taking his citation from Cat.B.Br.Mus.22:515which gives p.4 for this taxon. This in turn may have been following Gray1844. (Thanks to Dr Dave Donsker for the CBBM and Gray information).
• Colin Jones pointed out (2005.11.13) that the on-line version of thiswork shows without question the description on p.4 in a footnote, and thename occuring again on p.12. Why Richmond and to Sherborn list the matterotherwise is a mystery.

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason PetersChecklist3:37 places the authority in parentheses. This isfollowed by H&M 3^rd:177 and by HBW4:221.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Stricklandemendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appearsto me that it implies that the authority here should not be inparentheses.

• Originally described inPtilonopus and for thisreason Peters Checklist3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed byH&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW4:217.
• It appears to me thatPtilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority hereshould not be in parentheses.

• Two issues here: the order of the authors, and whether the authority should be listed inparentheses.
• Regarding the order in which the authors are listed I follow the Richmond Index, whichlists the authors explicitly in this order for this taxon. The card prepared is such that itwould have been easier to list the authors in the other order, so I interpret that this orderrepresents a conscious decision on Richmond's part. While I do not have the material to handto address the facts of the matter, it is unlikely that Richmond wasless careful withregard to this matter than other workers have been.
• [2020.08.14] Colin Jones confirms that the order Albertis & Salvadori is seen in the original.
• Regarding the need for placing the authority in parentheses, the taxon was described inPtilonopus (c.f.Ptilinopus), a name evidently first used by Selby in1833 for the Swainson 1825 name. (Swainson himself usedPtilinapus in 1837,further confusing the matter).So the question becomes isPtilonopus simply an emendation ofPtilinopus, in which case no parentheses are needed, or is it a genus group name in its own right?The Richmond Index listsPtilonopus "Swainson" Selby as an emendation forPtilinopus Swainson; Neave saysPtilonopusproPtilonopus. SoI interpret one name to be simply an emendation of the other, and thus notrequiring parentheses.
• Peters Checklist3:39 lists the authority in parentheses, and this is followed withoutcomment by H&M 3^rd:175.
• HBW4:209 lists the authority without parentheses, evidently interpretingPtilonopis to simply be an emendation.

• Peters Checklist3:82 lists the authority in parentheses, presumablybecuase Hartert described this inReinwardtoenas.
• H&M 3^rd:163 departs from Peters Checklist without comment ordiscussion.
• I believe the H&M checklist is correct, in that I interpretReinwardtoenas tobe an emendation.
• Of interest, Sharpe's Handlist 18991:75 spells the specific epithetgriseitincta notgriseotincta. I have not seen how it is actually spelled inthe CBBM. The Richmond Index indicates that Hartert spelled itgriseotincta

• Peters Checklist8:29 (Lowery & Monroe) lists thisdate as 1858.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1859.
• H&M 3^rd:351 lists the date as 1858, but this is corrected inCorrigenda 2.

• Originally spelledGypaëtus.
• I had originally, and incorrectly, interpreted the two dots abovethe "e" to be an umluat. Rainer Massman (2005.08.06) very helpfullypointed out my error here, and I have learned that he is correct thatformally all "double dots" over a letter are not umlauts (!). Umlautsdesignate the partial assimilation to a succeeding sound --particularly that of a back vowel (a,o,u) caused by a (front) "i" or"j" originally standing in the following syllable, but now lost. Thisdefinition would not seem to apply to the "double dot" appearing overthe "e" in this instance, and I am not sure what this diacritical markshould be called, it is clear that it should be dropped from thebinomen.
• Jobling 1991 p.101 suggests that the name is based on "Gr.gupaietos acorrupt version ofhupaietos), an eagle or vulture."
• Liddell & Scott listγυπαετος as a variant,so it seems Jobling's assertion is well supported, and the name is best regarded asGreek in origin.

• Peters Checklist8:242 (Snow) cites the page number to "p.262", thisdescription occurs on p.263.

• The author here is usually given as McClelland. (e.g. PetersChecklist6:147; HBW7:549).
• Dickinson treats the question of authorship in some detail, anddetermines that authorship by Horsfield is correct. {Dickinson EC. 2003. "Systematic notes on Asian Birds.38. TheMcClelland drawings and a reappraisal of the 1835-36 survey of the birdsof Assam." Zool.Verh.344:63-106}.

• It appears this is universally dated to 1848.
• This appeared in Vol.4, no.5; a volume with parts appearing in both 1848 and1849. So the problem is determining when the "year-break" occurs.
• In general those that date this taxon to 1848 have little understanding of,or interest in the problem of the publishing history of this serial. TheRichmond Index indicates that this no.5 pubished material from the meeting ofOct.31, 1848. The receipt of this no.5 was acknowledged by the Boston Soc. Nat.Hist. on 31 March, 1849, and there is "evidence of delay" in that these numberswere certainly not published on the day of the meeting, and other numbers haveproof of delay of some months.Therefore, I date this to 1849, but am eager to know of any evidence showingthat this material was available in 1848.

• Spelledguayquinimae without comment in H&M3^rd:258.
• H&M uses the spellingguaiquinimae on p.401 for asubspecies described in the same work asCampylopterus duidaeguaiquinimae.
• The Richmond Index showsguaiquinimae to be correct.
• HBW5:554 has the correct spelling "guaiquinimae"[APP]
• Original spelling confirmed to beguaiquinimae (original examined). [APP]

• H&M 3^rd:317 lists the authority without parentheses.
• This was described inPolipicus.

• I find this work bibliographically confusing. Sherborn(Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist., 1897 (6)20:483) gives a listing forthe parts, which by his tally number 19. Zimmer describes the work as issued as" 5 pts in 3 vols" and later in his work refers to Parts with roman numerals ashigh as VI and arabic numbers as high as 15.
• Peters Checklist3:gives this citation as "pt. 9, 1839, p.115;pt. 15, 1841, pl.46"
• The Peters citation does not comport with the Sherborn or Zimmer listingsor the entry in the Richmond Index. Pt.9 (as cited by Peters) according toSherborn includes pp.33-56 (c.f. p.115).
• The Richmond Index listing says "pt. III,Birds, no.XV, Mch 1841,115, pl.46". This "pt. III" must be referring to the larger sections in whichthis work was published, and the "no.XV" corresponds to what Sherborn calls"Part 15".
• Since the Peters citation does not seem to make sense (although it isfollowed by HBW4:612), I follow the Richmond Index implying 1841, not1839 as in Peters.
• Sherborn in Index Animalium also dates this name to 1841.
• H&M 3^rd:166 also follows the Peters citation and uses1839.

• Peters Checklist6:72 lists Chapman's name in parentheses,respondingto the fact that he described this subspecies inAulocorhynchus[sic].
• HBW7:251 and H & M 3^rd:301 do not place Chapman'sname in parentheses. I presume, that they interpret (as I do) Chapman's spellingto be simply a variant, and not a proposed alternate genus.

• Originally spelled "gambelli" (with two l's).
• Usually "corrected" to "gambeli" (e.g. Peters Checklist1(2):438, HBW1:581)
• H&M 3^rd:62, treats "gambeli" as prevailing usage following ICZN 33.3.3.1.
• The CBBM27 spells spells the name incorrectly with the single "l".
• The AOU CL, 5^thEd. p.65 spells the epithet as "gambelli" and "Gambelli"; in the Index (p.669) it spells it "gambeli".

• Taxon is dated to 1873 by Peters Checklist4:80; the Richmond Index, and Harris' 1928 Condor30:73, and Deignan's 1961 Type specimens of Birds in the U.S. Natl. Museum p.138.
• HBW5:71,686; H&M 3^rd Ed.:219 date this to 1874.
• It appears this number of volume 5 of the Bull.EssexInst. isdated December, 1873,butBanks & Browning 1979. "Correct citations for some North American Bird Taxa." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash.92(1):195-203 demonstrate that the latter numbers of this volume were not available until 1874.

• Often cited as 1889 (e.g. Peters Checklist1:475; H&M 3^rd Ed.:67; HBW1:611).
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in Feb. 5, 1890
• The date of Feb. 5 is also given in Harris' extensive review of Ridgway andhis publications in the Condor 192830:100.

• Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist2:4; H&M 3^rd Ed.:36)
This part was published in Feb. 1862.

• Sometimes (e.g. HBW7:469 (Winkler & Christie)) split into two species withDendropicos spodocephalus recognized as distinct.
  • Dendropicos spodocephalus (Bonaparte) 1850Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.125
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.04.03):

  Based on his special study of this family, Short considered there is no goodevidence that this is really specifically distinct fromD. griseocephalus:Short L.L., Horne J.F.M. & Muringo-Gichuki C. 1990. "Annotated check-list of the birds of East Africa." Proc. Western Found. Vert. Zool.4:61-246.

• The first bird in Linnaeus' Syst. Nat.
• The citation from the 10^th Ed. reads:

  Gryphus. I. V. maximus, caruncula verticali longitudine capitis.†   Vultur Gryps Gryphus.Klein. av. 45.   Cuntur.Raj. av. II.Habitare fertur Chili.Rara avis in terris; mihi ignota; videſis Kleinium.

• The citation from the 12^th Ed. reads:

  Gryphus. I. V. maximus, caruncula verticali longitudine capitis.     gula nuda.†   Vultur Gryps Gryphus.Klein. av. 45.Briſſ. av.     I.p. 473.   Cuntur.Raj. av. II.Habitat in Chili, Peru.Prædatur Vitulis, Ovibus,   immo Pueris decennibus; binæ aves Vaccam dilace-   rant veranique; in terrain devolans ſuſarro attoni-   tos & ſurdos fere reddit homines.Alæmaximae, intra quarum extremitates ped. 13 ſ.16.Remex longitudine ped. 2½craſſitic digit. I½    Corpusnigrum, ſubtus fuſcum.  Capitnudum fu-   ſca lanuguine, carunculaque longitudinalis. Gulanu-   da, rubens.  Roſtrum &Pedes nigri.  Unguesre-   Etiuſculi ne nimium ſaviant.

• [NOTE: I can't quite make out the orthography of the word continued on the last line, the first character lookslike a backwards "B".]
• Initially I was uncertain of the meaning of the dagger (†) which occurs many places in the text. Both Martin Spies and David Nicolson provided substantial instruction on this point. The dagger in this context means a form that Linnaeus is describing without having seen the animal or a musuem specimen himself.See the entry for Syst.Nat. for further details.

• Peters Checklist10:309 (Deignan) has "1827" and"livr.74"
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75)extremo1827".
• 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'

• HBW1:631 gives the page number as "134:.
• I follow the Richmond Index, and Peters Checklist1(2):228 here.

• Given by Peters Checklist13:272 (Storer) as "p.355".
• This occurs on p.335.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N.  60 TROCHILUS (guainumbi) curvirostris, viridissericeus, remigibus atris, rectricibus laterali-bus apice albidis.

• The locality (taken from theCatalogue, not theAdumbratiunculae) isgiven as "Cabo de goede Hoop." with a footnote stating:
• 'Called "Bloemzuigertje Ronkertje of Kolibrit" in the "Catalogue."'
• Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birdsin Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):334.
• Peters Checklist5:58 gives the type locality as "(Cape of Good Hope, error =Surinam,cf. Richmond, Smiths. Misc. Coll.,47, 1905, p.344."
• The text from Richmond reads:

  This is evidently a hummingbird and not a sunbird.  The locality is wrong and should probably be "Surinam."The description agrees very closely with the species nowcalledPolytmus thaumantias (LINNÆUS, 1766).

• Jobling, 1991 p.99 gives the derivation of the name as:

  guainumbi  Tupi (Brazilian) Indian nameguainumbi orguinambi for a typeof hummingbird.

  It is interesting that Pallas would use a Brazilian indian name for a bird he felt came fromthe Cape of Good Hope. This suggests to me that the name must have been associated with thespecimen, and that Pallas may not have known what it meant.
• The Richmond Index cards are of some interest here:
• the first card lists the typelocality as '"Cabo de goede Hoop" [=Surinam ?]' [APP -- note the question mark].
• The second card gives the description from Vroeg's catalogue as:

  "60Bloemzuigertje,Ronkertje, ofKolibrit., (Guainumbi).Lin. Sp. o.  De kleur is groenagtig en als vergult.De veertjes van onderen het lyf, en de staart, zynmet witte randjes omzet, de vleugels zyn vaalblaauwachtig. Cabo de goede Hoop is deszelfs woomplaats."

• Malurus campbelliSchodde &Weatherly 1982Fairy-Wrens p.32 pl.3 Oftentreated as a full species.
• Marek Kuziemko writes: "M. campbelli Schodde & Weatherly 1982. Often treated as aseparate species, but Rowley & Russel (1997, Bird Families of the World: Fairly-wrens andGrasswrens Maluridae, Oxford UP) treated it as race ofM. grayi -based on LeCroy & Diamond(1995, Emu,95, 185-193).

• Treated as a subspecies ofM. alpina by Peters Checklist8:171.
• Chesser, R. T. 2000. "Evolution in the high Andes: The phylogenetics of Muscisaxicolaground-tyrants." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution15:369-380. Abstract:
  "Phylogenetic relationships within the genusMuscisaxicola, a primarily Andean group oftyrant-flycatchers, were studied using complete sequences of the mitochondrial genes COII andND3. Relationships amongMuscisaxicola species were found to differ substantially fromthose of previous views, suggesting convergence in traditional avian taxonomic characters withinthe genus. The 11 species of large, gray, "typical" Muscisaxicola flycatchers (includingM.grisea, newly restored to species status) formed a distinct clade, consisting of two majorgroups: a clade of 6 species breeding primarily in the central Andes and a clade of 5 speciesbreeding primarily in the southern Andes. The other 2 species traditionally placed in this genus,M. fluviatilis, an Amazonian species, andM. maculirostris, were both ratherdivergent genetically from the typical species, althoughM. maculirostris may be thesister taxon to the typical clade. The patterns of sympatry exhibited byMuscisaxicolaspecies in the high Andes appear to be the consequence of speciation and secondary contact withinregions of the Andes, rather than a result of dispersal between regions. Diversification of thetypicalMuscisaxicola species appears to have occurred during the middle and latePleistocene, suggesting generally that taxa of the high Andes and Patagonia may have been greatlyinfluenced by mid-to-late Pleistocene events. There were likely several independent developmentsof migration within this genus, but migration is probably ancestral in the southern clade, withsubsequent loss of migration in two taxa.

• Usually cited as 1849, but {Mathews 1925} demonstrates this is1852.

• In Direction 39 the ICZN, on 17 September 1956, declared Brissonthe author of the genus.
• Not used by the Peters Checklist2:274,whereCapella Frenzel is used forGallinago Koch, 1816.

• This date is somewhat uncertain: Peters Checklist2:306has 1830, {Richmond, et al. 1992} notes "may have appeared in1830", {Sherborn 1902} says "ante March 1831".

• Peters Checklist4:65 lists this as "pl.(sic) 50".

• Peters Checklist12:406 has "1851?"; see {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.

• The Richmond Index gives Rev.Mag.Zool Feb. 1851 p.96, which mayhave priority. Peters Checklist5:109 has Compt.Rend. 32 1851p.186. {Richmond, et al. 1992} has Bourcier 1851 Rev.Mag.Zool. p.96, Feb. 1851. I am uncertain which has priority.

• This taxon seems to attract citation problems. The two areas ofdifficulty are:
  1. what is the correct plate number?
  2. when was it published
• What is the correct plate number?
Secondary sources cite this taxon as follows:
1. Ardea goliathCretzschm. in Rüpp. Atlas, p. 39, pl. 36(1826) [Sharpe 1898 CBBM26:66 ]
2. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar, in Rüpp. Atlas, p. 39, pl. 36,1826 [Sclater 1924 Syst.Av.Eth.1:24] [APP: lookinglike essentially a copy of Sharpe.]
3. Ardea Goliath Ph. J. Cretzschmar 1829 in E. Rüppell: Atlas zuder Reise im nördlichen Afrika. 2, Vögel, Heft 14, 1829, 39, pl. 26[Richmond Index]
4. goliath Ardea P.J. Cretzschmar in Atlas au Rueppell,Reise (Senckenb. Nat. Ges.) Vögel (14) 1829, 39. [Sherborn 1926Ind.Anim.:2753]
5. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar, 1827, in Rüppell, Atlas ReiseNördl. Afrika, Vögel (1826) p. 39 pl.26 [Peters Checklist 19791(2):202 (= Robert B. Payne).]
• So we have pl.36 or pl.26, (and 1826, 1827, 1829).
• Ms Daria Wingreen of the Cullman Library, Smithsonian Institution,checked the copy held in the Dibner Rare Book Library, and confirmed(2004.07.08in litt.) that the Tab. (plate) is no.26, pl.36 (sic),as listed by Sharpe and Sclater would appear to be a typographicerror.
• What is the correct year, 1826, 1827, or 1829 ?
• Steinheimer (in press) refers to a work that dates theportions of this publication.Steinbacher, J. 1949. "Typen undTypoide des Natur-Museums Senckenberg. 3 - Kritisches Verzeichnis vonEduard Rüppell's und Ph. J. Cretschmar's Vogel-Typen."Senckergiana30(1/3):99-120. (not seen), which woulddate the relevant portion of this work to 1829, confirming Sherborn'sand Richmond's dates.
• Zimmer has a note (p.535) indicating that Ruppel in "NeueWirbelthiere" p.50 quotes pl.28 as 1827, and this fact maybe the basis of the 1827 date given by the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist lists 1817
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates Dec. of 1818 which I follow. (AOU 1983 Checklist has 1818).

Burhinusgrallarius

Not used by Peters Checklist2:297.

• Peters Checklist7:198 lists 1935. Ms. Robin Sinn,librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that thisportion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.

• Most frequently attributed to Pallas 1766. (see for example AOU1983 Checklist; H&M 3^rd:128;HBW3:85)
• However in Direction 55 the ICZN, on 20 December 1956 (almost 40 yearsago now), declared Brisson the author of the genus, and designated Pallas'name as a junior synonym.
• The AOU 1999 CL corrected this citation.
• H&M corrects the citation in Corrigenda 3.2

• Peters Checklist3:186 erroneously lists this as part 2.

Hellmayrea gularisCitation

Peters Checklist7:93 has "p.390"; I follow {Richmond, etal. 1992} using p.290.

• Peters Checklist4:188; HBW5:334,335 have 1856.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} states "Read 22 Dec. 1856, sig. dated Dec. 1856, but prob. notpubl. till early 1857".
• {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1957 p.296} has 1857 forC. texensis, and {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1989 p.268} has 1857 forC. gundlachii1857.
• L.S. Foster. 1892. Bull.U.S.Nat.Mus. no.40"Bibliographies of American Naturalists: IV The Published Writings of GeorgeNewbold Lawrence, 1844-1891." pp. v-xi, 1-124 does not provide a specific datefor this no. of the Annals.

Aerodramus germanus1876

This citation, from the Richmond Index, antedates that given byPeters Checklist4:223. A note on Richmond's card says 'Sig.marked "Extrait de l'Institut, 1876"; prob first publ. there.'

Galloperdix1845

Peters Checklist2:106 lists this as 1844. Vol. 13 pt.2(II) shows a printed date of 1844. Richmond, et al. 1992 indicatethat this number contains notes from the Dec. 17 meeting and mayhave not been published until 1845.
My collation of citations from this Journal suggests 1845 appearslikely, though uncertainty remains.

Sulagranti

Treated as a subspecies in Peters Checklist1:185.
For treatment as a full species seePittman RL, Jehl JL Jr.,1998. The Wilson Bulletin110(2):155-170.

Campylorhynchus gularis1861

Peters Checklist9:380 has 1860. This protion of the PZSwas published in 1861.

Campylorhynchus griseus1838

Peters Checklist9:382 has 1837, but see {Browning andMonroe, 1991}. The AOU Checklist 7^th ed. p.472 has a note referingC. griseus in the entry forC. chiapensis anderroneously uses the date 1837.

Thryothorus genibarbus1838

Peters Checklist9:402 has 1837, but see {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.

Glaucidiumgnoma

Considered by Robbins and Styles Auk 116 p.313, 1999 to be partof a superspecies withG. nubicola,costaricanum, andgnoma.

• Previously placed inAratinga.
• Collar places in this monotypic genus in HBW 4.

Hemitriccusgrisepectus

Cohn-Haft et al. (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 205-235gave reasons for splittingHemitriccus griseipectus fromH. zosterops.

Platylophus galericulatus1816

Peters Checklist15:205 has 1817. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.

GymnoglauxSystematics

Used by Peters Checklist vol.4 p.146.
Not used by Sibley & Monroe.
Used by HBW vol.5 p.182 "separated from [Otus nudipes] atgeneric level by very different morphology and vocal patterns."

• Originally described inScops.
• Previously treated as conspecfic withO. vermiculatus butappears to be vocally distinct.
• Treated as a full species by the AOU CL 7^th ed. but they do notresolve the issue of its relation toO. vermiculatus andO. atricapillus.
• HBW5:180 treats all these as distinct.

• HBW4:365 lists the date here as 1873.
• Collar is consistent in citing this volume as 1873, however thisportion was published in 1871.
• See the details atNederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

• In HBW5:540 Dr. C. Hinkelmann give the date of authorityas 1832. Peters Checklist5:8 gives a date of 1833.
• The publishing history of this work has been controversial andconfusing. The work can be examined on-line at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ ;however it must be noted that examining the work there will onlyre-inforce an erroneous impression regarding the dates of publication ofthe component parts. On the French National Bibliographic site, the workis presented in "logical" rather than historical sequence; this isentirely appropriate for non-nomenclatural use of the work. For anunderstanding of the publishinghistory of this work (which isnot the goal or intention of the French National Bibliotheque site) Ihave turned to the works of Sherborn, and Zimmer. The Bibliographie dela France records the dates of publication and availability for thiswork and makes it clear that pp.1-112 were published in 1832, and theremainder in 1833. The Index (confusingly presentedfirst on theGallica BNF site) wasactually published subsequent to the text,commencing in the 11^th or 12^th Livraison, despitethe imprint date of Dec. 1832.
• The correct date for this taxon is 1833, not 1832.

• Traditionally cited as:
  • Treron griseicaudaWallace 1863PZS(1862) p.344
    (e.g. Peters Checklist3:16)
• HBW4:612 cites:
  • Gray,GR 1856ListBirdsBrit.Mus. Columbae p.10
    (although their listing makes it look like p.32).
• H&M 3^rd:173 f.n. 2 indicates thatgriseicauda Gray 1856 is "preoccupied by Bonaparte's use of the name."
• The paper by Mees 1973 clarifies how this comes about. He applied the Code as it existed at that time, but the same reasoning applies under the current Code.(ref. Mees GF 1973 "Once more: the identity and authorship ofTreron griseicauda." BBOC.93(3):119-120.).
  • Bonaparte's 1864 lists the name as a junior synonym ofT. aromaticus (Gmelin) and does not use the name (as noted by the Richmond Index) or include a description.
  • The Code (1999) Article 11.6.1 reads:

    11.6.1 However, if such a name published as a junior synonym had   been treated before 1961 as an available name and either adopted  as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym, it is made  available thereby but dates from its first publication as a synonym...

    Mees points out that Sims RW & Warren RML 1955 BBOC75:96-97 usegriseicauda Bonaparte 1854 as a valid name. Their text at end of articlereads:

    In out opinion the nomenclature should be as follow:(1)Treron pompadora griseicauda Bonaparte, 1854 (nec of Gray, 1856). —Java. Syn.Treron pulverulenta Wallace, 1863.(2) Treron pompadora wallacai (Salvadori), 1893. —  Celebes.

    The spelling "wallacai" appears to be alapsus forwallacei, which is how the name is actually spelled in Cat.B.Brit.Mus.21:42. (fide Dave Donsker).

• The citation as given by theOfficial Lists and Indexes of Names and Works inZoology. ICZN. p.100 ("p.374-391") appears ridiculous to me.
• The Richmond Index gives "p.375,378"; it is more supported bylikelihood, and less by statuatory force than the ICZN listing.
• Colin Jones tells me that on checking the original material, the range of pages given inthe ICZN citation address all species in the genus. The material was indicated as "notgeneric" by Richmond in his index. I cite only the page where the genus is first used.
• The AOU 1999 CL cites p.374
• Grus Moehring 1758 (Aves) is not available because as Rainer Massmann points out (in litt. 2008.08.16)

    The name is not available as of Moehring, as that work originally dates from 1752. It was translated into Dutch in 1758 by Nozeman and Vosmaer, but this translation has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology (with Nozeman and Vosmaer as authors) "because the names therein were not reinforced by adoption or acceptance" (Opinion 241).

Zimmerius gracilipes1868

Peters Checklist8:10 lists 1867 as the date.
This protion of PZS (for 1867) was published in 1868 (fideCWR).

Phyllomyias griseocapilla1862

Peters Checklist8:6 lists the date as 1861. As verified inthe RichmondIndex, this was published Feb. 1, 1862.

• ICZN 1999 30.1.4.3 states that genus-group names ending in -ops aretreated as masculine.
• gabela I interpret to be a noun in apposition, as it is thename of a town, and hence is not speltgabellus.
• There is no Latin wordgabela orgabellus that I find.

Podiceps grisgenaConcept

Often a form is separated as a full species:

• Podiceps holboelliiReinhardt 1853Vidensk.Medd.naturhist.Foren.Kjobenhavn.p.76
  HBW 1:192 (1992) regards this as a subspecies, as does AOU CL 7^thed.

Normand David's note regarding this issue reads:

"A case has been made for placingColymbus majorBoddaert, 1783 (=Podiceps major) in the newly establishedmonotypic genusPodicephorus Bochenski, 1994.

Bochenski, Z. B. 1994. The comparative osteology of grebes(Aves: Podicipediformes) and its systematic implications. Actazool. cracov. 37 (1): 191-346.

The summary reads: "...a revision of the genusPodicepsis proposed, to the effect that 1) the species "Podiceps" major isplaced in a new monotypic genusPodicephorus, and 2)Podiceps grisegena grisegena andP. g. holboellii arerestored to their species status".

So it appears on the basis of osteological evidence this iselevated to full species status.

Note however, that the AOU CL 7^th ed. notes (p.8) that Storer1996 Auk 113: 974-975 in a review argues against this split.Bochenski argued for separation based on hisnot findingsexual dimorphism in the Old world form ofP. grisgena. Itappears that Bochenski's data were not representative, obtainedfrom birds far from the breeding grounds. Storer indicates thatsexual dimorphismis found in grebes whenever sufficientmaterial is available.

In his review he includes raw data, provided by Jon Fjeldsa forEuropean forms ofP. grisgena that appear to stronglysupport the idea that sexual dimorphism (felt by Bochenski to beabsent) is present.

Storer in his review lists data (below) from Jon Fjeldsa forculmen measurements of EuropeanP. grisgena obtained on thebreeding gounds (contra the data that Bochenski used, whichwas many regions, and often not on the breeding grounds.

The data as presented by Storer are:

Culmen measurements (as presented by Storer):

Kazakhstan & Obj lowlands W. Siberia:
F: 35.1 35.8 36.1 36.2 37.2
M: 40.2 41.6 41.6 43.5
Denmark:
F: 31.5 33.3 35.0 35.0 35.9 36.0 36.1 36.4 36.8 36.8 36.8 37.1 37.238.2 38.5 38.6
M: 38.0 38.0 39.0 39.2 39.5 40.0 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.6 41.5 42.0 42.143.2
Arkhangelsk and Kola:
F: 38.1 40.1 40.1 40.3
M: 40.2 41.5 41.6 43.2 44.2

These raw data are convincing, and even more convincing is aboxplot of the data, partitioned by gender.

These specimens are clearly sexually dimorphic with regard toculmen length.

• Peters Checklist1:333 gives a date of 1860.
• HBW 2:197 also gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of March 1861.
• Duncan PZS 1937 says this section of the PZS was "Issuedbetween August 1860 and March 1861."
• I follow Richmond here.

• Peters Checklist11:517 (Mayr) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of thisyear.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist13:402 (Paynter) gives a date of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1871.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS showsthis was issued in 1871.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Peters Checklist13:267 (Paynter) gives a date of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1871.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS showsthis was issued in 1871.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g.Peters Checklist1:232, HBW1:420, 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".

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g.Peters Checklist9:365, 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".

• Not in HBW.. or Peters.
• My summary of discussion from Edward C. Dickinson, MichaelWalters, and Normand David:
  There is "widespread" Australian recognition of the race from theRecherche islands off Western Australia with evident consensusthat this constitutes a species.
  Two references seem to have been used for this taxon:
  • Vieillot (1816), based on Vieillot, L.P., 1816. NouveauDictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle: 5 CAL-CEZ. 1-614., Paris. Inthis, on p.516, is found Le Céreopsis Gris,Cereopsiscinereus. terra typica is Novae Hollandiae.
  • Here (p.516 of vol.5), Vieillot designatesCEREOPSIS, which he says is an order of "echassiers"(long-legged waders). The one species: Le Céreopsis Gris,Cereopsis cinereus, would appearnot tobe the goose in question,and appears to be indeterminate.
  • Vieillot (1818), based on: Vieillot, L.P., 1818. NouveauDictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle: 23. NIL-ORC. 1-612. --,Paris.
    
  • In this 1818 material on p.336 is found L'Oie Grise,Vieill. The terra typica is La terre de Diémen. Thecollector is cited as de Labillardière who took thisspecimen during the voyage of M. de Lapeyrouse. Presumingthat this implies that it was taken in Tasmania (VanDiemen's Land) it would appear to be a synonymofnovaehollandiae Latham, 1801(2).
  • However, p. 336 of vol. 23, is part of a long essay on OIE(Geese). One of these is: L'oie Grise,Anser griseus,Vieill. la Terre de Diemen.
  • Thus the name appears to arise fromAnser griseusVieillot,1818.
  • Cereopsis is feminine so the specific epithet isgrisea.

• Often speltgranatina. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, andPeters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avianspecies names." BBOC.122(1):17 discuss this. Theyindicate that: "The adjectivegranatina is derived from the Latinnoungranatum,-i [garnet, pomegranate] to which theadjectival suffix-inus, (a, -um) was added, in referenceto the red colour of the bird."
• Cabanis lists the form "U. granatinusNob. -" inMus.Hein. 1(1850) p.171, the page where he erects the genusUraeginthus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationUraeginthusgranatina occurs in theZoo. Rec.; it occurs 5 timesbetween1981 and 1986.

Comments&Suggestionsto Data Steward