Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --M

• Conventionally cited as (Lesson,RP) 1830Cent.Zool.[Lesson,RP] p.33 pl.7O.D.
• However, Benjamin Lamb, who recently bought a copyof the Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie (Ferussac.), noted that this publication contains a summary of the the first two livraison of Lesson's Centurie Zoologique, and is held to have appeared before Lesson's livraison. For this reason Ferussac's Bulletinis given as the citation forLipaugus ater which appears on the same page asCacicus montezumae.
• I am unaware of any arguments that would support the date and citation for one but not the other.

• In Systema avium Austr. p.771 where this genus is erected,Mathews references Bull.Br.Orn.Cl.45:93 1925 asthe citation.
• Not for the first or the last time is Mathews' active imagination at work. The name isnot to be found there. (v.i.)
BBOC page cited by Mathews. BHL image

• Antigone Reichenbach 1852 is recently proposed as a genus group name to deal with the paraphyly identified inGrus. (See Krajewski,et al.; Auk127:440-452 & NACC 2016-C4)
• HoweverAntigone was used by J.E. Gray (1847) in a list of molluscs.PZS15:184
• Iredale (1911) discussed the possible use ofAntigone, and proposedMathewsiawith the typeArdea rubicunda Perry 1817.(Iredale's 1911 BBOC article can be seen here:BBOC27:47)
• However, in 1914 (Austral.Av.Rec. 2 no.5 p.81) Iredale noted that a Coleopteran genus "Mathewsia" had been erected in 1868, and he proposed a replacement nameMathewsena with the same type.The 1914 Austral.Av.Rec. article can be seen here:AAR1914_81 &AAR1914_82
• Wolters (1982) listsMathewsena as a subgenus ofGrus.
• I presume the gender here is feminine.
• In the NACC proposal to useAntigone I do not find any discussion of the molluscan use of the name, or of Iredale's proposed use ofMathewsena

• Bonaparte first (1856) used "major" as one of two variants ofPagodroma nivea. In Consp.Gen.Av.II:192major andminor are simply listed as "a." and "b." with no description. In C.R. Acad.Sci.42:768 Bonaparte lists onlyPagodroma nivea and does not include the "major" and "minor" forms.
• Schlegel (1863) in Mus.Hist.Pays-BasRev.Meth.Crit.Coll. livr.4 no.22 Procellariae p.15,16 listed components ofProcellaria nivea including Bonaparte'smajor, and here includes measurements and specifying descriptive features.
• I interpret Schlegel as using this name as a subspecies within Procellaria nivea, and being the first to meet therequirements for a valid description. Therefore, I list theauthority in parentheses.

• Cited by Peters CLXIII:92 to "p. 2", and this pagination is also givenin HBW16:813.
.
• In this volume, the first page with text (and containing the beginning of the description)is p.3

• In J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc. 28 no.2 Ticehurst spells thenamemesopotamiae and in referring to the original description, notes:"By a printer's error speltmesopotamia."
• My interpretation is that this satisfied the requirements of ICZN 33.2.1.

   "A change in the original spelling of a name is only to be interpreted as "demonstrably intentional" when in the work itself, or in an author's (or publisher's) corrigenda, there is an explicit statement of intention, or when both the original and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in place of the former, or when two or more names in the same work are treated in a similar way."

• Clearly spelledmedianns in the original description, as seen here:Pseudocolaptes boissonneautii medianns Original Description
• The current spelling (medianus appears to be adopted on the basis of James Peters' (reasonable but unsupported) interpretationthat this is a typographic error. (ref. Peters Checklist7:121).

• Usually dated to 1853 (the year number for volume 26).
• Page 296 of no.4 of that volume indicates that the publishing date is 9 Feb 1854. This is, of course, an old style date, the new style date would be 28 Jan 1854.

• For resolution asAmazona mercenarius, 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.)

• Usually cited to Dresser alone, but on p.[xxiii] it is made clear thatthe editor made an error by leaving Salvadori out of the authority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Previously as
  • Aratinga pintoiSilveira, LF,De Lima, FCT &Hofling,E 2005Auk 122FrontCover,backofFrontCover,p.293,294
• See Nemesio A & Rasmussen C. 2009. "The rediscovery of Buffon's "Guarouba" or "Perriche jaune":two senior synonyms ofAratinga pintoi Silveira, Lima & Höfling, 2005 (Aves: Psittaciformes)Zootaxa2013:1-16 for a discussion of this taxon.

• Peters Checklist14:42 (= Lowery 1962) gives the page numberas 222, however the name and diagnosis first appear on p.219 in the key.

• Usually referred to asKaupifalco monogrammicus meridionalis
• The original description can be seen here:Micronisus monogrammicusvar.Merid. Original Description
• As Hartlaub states that he thinks this is a "southern local race", it is understandablethat the interpretation has been made that "Merid." quite probably standsfor "Meridionalis". Probable, but not certain.
• The ICZN has dealt with other names presented in an "abbreviated" form,for examplePsittacus haematod. which is dealt with in Declaration 82 (1957 [not seen yet]. In that instance they establish "haematodus" as the specific epithet.
• This is particularly important as there are other names in apparently "abbreviatedform" that arenot explicitly dealt with by the ICZN. This suggests to me thatunless names in abbreviated form are specifically and particularly dealt with by the ICZN, then the abbreviated form must be used in the abscence of action by the Commission.
• It is possible, I suppose, that Declaration 82 makes a broader statement regardingtreatment of names in apparently abbreviated form, but since the "haematod." case was dealtwith so specifically, I think this is unlikely.
• It is possible, that there could be a "first reviser" type situation for names in abbreviated form.
• From Bob Dowsett I learned [2009.08.06] that both "merid" and "meridionalis" have been used in the Afroavian literature.
• It would appear to me that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to usespelling other than that originally employed.

• Peters Checklist14:353 (= Mayr 1962) gives the original combination asAegintha temporalis minor. Thisis incorrect, it was originally proposed as a binomenÆ[gintha] minor.

• Conventionally cited to 1863.
• This is contained in the signature comprised of pp.289-304, and the acknowledgment of the signature that preceeds this one (pp.273-288) was acknowledged as received at the Amerinan Philosophical Society on 27 January, 1864. Hence I date this to 1864.
• Thanks to Roy McDiarmid for his work on working out the dating mysteries of this serial,and thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this problem to my attention.

• Steinheimer 2005 "The nomenclature of Eduard Rüppell's birds from north-east Africa." BBOC125(3):193-194,210, discusses the nomenclature of this name, and correctly points out that modern authorsall apparently overlooked this description by Rüppell.
• These modern authors also overlooked Richmond's having recognized andrecorded Rüppell's publication of this taxon in his Card Index.

• The original orthography of this name appears to have been "mjöbergi.
• Peters Checklist11:345 (= Mayr 1986) lists the subspecific epithet asmjoeberi
• H&M 3^rd:694, and HBW11:137 spell theepithet as "mjobergi".
• I believe the "mjobergi" orthography is correct, as this is named afterDr Eric Mjöberg (1882-1938) who was Swedish, and not German. He was thecurator of the Sarawak Museum in Borneo from 1922-1924, and was notorious for hisunethical treatment of aboriginal materials in his attempt to prove a "Darwinian" theory of human evolution.

• Peters Checklist10:107 (= Ripley 1964) cites this as

  Muscicapa maura Pallas, 1773, Reise versch. Russ. Reichs,2 p.428.

• Sherborn's Index Animalium gives no such citation, but listsMotacilla maura fromp.708
• The Richmond Index has a card forMotacilla mauraRichmond Index CardMotacilla maura that says this same bird is called "Muscicapa" maura on p.428, and note that the locality on p.428 ("swampy plains about Ischim river") correlates with the text in Peters10:107.
• Ripley apparently was unaware of, or chose not to indicate the citational confusion here.

• Peters Checklist10:176 (= Ripley 1964) dates this to 1902, suggestinghe did not consult Zimmer 1926.
• Subsequent authors (H&M 3^rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8);HBW10 (2005)) appear to simply follow the Peters Checklist.
• The Richmond Index, and Zimmer (1926) make it clear that this portion of the workwas published in 1900.
• The spelling is often changed to "melanoplurus", however I understand that Normand David has determined that In this particular case

   the name is not a Latin or latinized word, buttransliterated directly from the Greek, and art. 31.2.3 specifies thatsuch names are indeclinable.

  .
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for bringing this to my attention.

• The Peters Checklist authors9:364 (= Davis & Miller 1960) omit mention of the plate.

• Peters Checklist12:364 (= Salomonsen 1967) cites this name to p.4 and pl.5,which makes no sense to me. The name occurs on p.7 and is associated with pl.3 (thoughthe name does not occur on the plate). Page 4 is the final page of the preface, and reads

  4deviating from the usual practice of Ornithologists, we shallnot be condemned as having improperly lessened the expenceof the Work.  Sure we are that such a body of dry descrip-tion as usually accompanies the little quantity of useful NaturalHistory which is generally given with each Species, is both tedious and disgusting, and so unmeaning to the generalReader as to make Ornithology appear pedantic; whereas inour way of treating the subject, we flatter ourselves that the Ornithologist will more easily identify the Species, the generalReader will peruse the Letterpress with pleasure, and thisbranch of the Sciences will obtain admirers and advocates.THOMAS LEWIN

• Plate 5, as cited by Salomonsen, does depictMeliphaga chrysotis which is given by Salomonsen as the type ofMeliphaga. The section on p.7 entitled "Gen. MELIPHAGA"and giving the "Character of the Genus" is followed by the description ofMeliphaga phrygia, which, in turn is depicted on pl.3.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• I previously listed this as a full species, and the very strong supportfor that position has continued to grow, however no mention of thisis currently made by H&M 3^rd:640, orthe IOC World Bird List (2.1).

• Peters Checklist11:226 (= Traylor 1986) spells the originalcombination incorrectly asCryptolopha mackensiana. It wasoriginally spelledCryptolopha mackenziana.
• This error was then copied by others (e.g. H&M 3^rd:589 (through Corrigenda 8),HBW11:648 (2006), and myself until now.)
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist9:411 (= Paynter 1960) cites this to "p. 280, pl.1, fig.2" of the 1884 volume of J.Orn., and indeed it does occur there.
• That description and plate are in "No. 167 u. 168". However, the RichmondIndex notes that the name is introduced on p.249 of No.166, and indeed there thename isintroduced, and the form is compared to "Th. rufalbo Lafr. etThr. sinaloa Bd."

• Held by H&M 3^rd:637 as a subspecies ofThryothorus genibarbus - without comment.
• Sibley & Monroe (1990) held this as a species distinct fromThryothorus genibarbus citing Ridgely and Tudor 1989:75-76, where morphologic, vocalization, and ecological requirement differences are noted.
• IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (early 2009) also holds this as distinct at the species level.

• Peters Checklist9:382 (= Paynter 1960) dates this to 1851.
• H&M 3^rd:633 follows this dating (through Corrigenda 8) without note or comment. This date is entirely inconsistent with many of the other dates supplied for this work (e.g.Leptocoma from p.104 of Mus.Hein. (!) is dated by H&M 3^rd:707 to 1850.
• It would appear that the authors of H&M 3^rd were either unaware of the dating issues here, or were unwilling to acknowledge them.

• Oceanites is masculine, andmaoriana is adjectival, so the combinationshould, it appears, beOceanites maorianus as it is held in the IOC World Bird Names 2.0.
• Thanks to Colin Jones, Normand David, and David Donsker on this one.

• Peters Checklist12:388 (= Salomonsen 1967) spells thiswith a single -i ending (meyeri), and incorrectly showsthis same single -i ending for the original combination.
• The original combination wasXanthotis meyerii.
• H&M 3^rd:431 iterates the error from Peters Checklist.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:632 as a subspecies ofRegulus ignicapilla without comment.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:630 as a subspecies ofZosterops borbonicus without comment.

• H&M 3^rd:625 submergesArcanator orostruthus inModulatrix.
• I follow IOC World Bird list 2.0 (2009.02) here.

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Paradoxornis margaritaeis split fromP.gularis (Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:624 (through Corrigenda 8; late 2008).

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Alcippe manipurensisis split fromA.cinereiceps (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005;Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:619 (through Corrigenda 8; late 2008).

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

• Peters Checklist9:140 (= probably Mayr 1960) spells thespecific epithetmadaraspatensis. Though this isincorrect.
• H&M 3^rd:741 has the correct spelling --maderaspatensis.
• Thanks to Dr David Donsker for pointing this out.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Numida meleagris mitratusPallas 1767Spic.Zool. 1 fasc.4 p.18 pl.3
• Evidently Rookmaaker and Pieters 2000 published a notice indicatingthat this is a junior synonmym for Pallas' 1764 publication ofMeleagris mitrata.
• This confirms what Charles W. Richmond noted early in the 20th century, and whichwas published in his Richmond Index in 1992.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• The Genus and the speciespulchra are often cited to Ibis(7)III no.10 1897 p.251 pl.VIII.
• The Ibis material was published in April of 1897, but this species was first described and the genus group nameused in Jan. 1897 in a brief note in the BBOC, where it is indicated that DeVis was responsible for the name and the description.
• The actual wording of the BBOC report is:

  Mr. Sclater exhibited a specimen of a new Paradise-bird sent to be figured in 'The Ibis' by Mr. De Vis and proposed to be namedMacgregoria pulchra. It had large eye-wattles likeParadigalla carunculata, but quite different in shape, and the front was not naked, but covered with erect bristles. This species had been discovered by Sir William Macgregor on Mount Scratchley during his recent expedition across British New Guinea at an altitude of from 10,000 to 12,000 feet.

• The grammar here is short of ideal, but I think it is reasonable to interpret the firstsentence as: "Mr. Sclater exhibited a specimen of a new Paradise-bird sent to be figured in 'The Ibis' by Mr. De Vis and proposed [by him] to be namedMacgregoria pulchra.
• Thanks to Edward Dickinson for bringing this to my attention and for his communication of Richard Schodde's interpretationof the matter (which also supports De Vis as the author, and the BBOC as the citation).

• OriginallyCriniger mysticalis, but misspelledCriniger mystacalis by Sharpe 1881 CBBM685,414.
• This incorrect spelling was then followed by Peters Checklist9:289 (Deignan 1960), and H&M 3^rd:574 (but corrected in Corrigenda 6).
• HBW10:237 (2005) employs the correct spelling.

• Originally spelledChrysococcyx meyerii, with an -ii ending.
• Most authors spell this with a single -i ending, and Peters Checklist4:34 rendersthe original combination incorrectly asChrysococcyx meyeri.
• Undoubtedly these authors are repeating the spelling from the CBBM19:293 wherethis incorrect spelling occurs.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Originally spelledmelanolaema.
• H&M 3^rd:497 spells thismelaenolaema without comment.This appears to be an incorrect subsequent spelling.

• Originally spelled "melanoramphos"not "melanorhamphos".
• Sharpe in CBBM3:148 incorrectly lists the original combination as "Coracias melanorhamphos"and the error may well have started there.
• Peters Checklist15:160 (= Mayr 1962) perpetuates this error, suggesting that the originaldescription was never rechecked.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

2015.06.29

• Evidently Vieillot's spelling was held to be unsatisfactory by the moderns. Who held thatthe incorrect subsequent spelling "melanorhamphos" should be conserved allegedly on the basis of"prevailing usage", though no data whatsoever appears to have been presented in support the assertionthat the "melanorhamphos" spelling did, in fact, meet the definitional requirements of "prevailing usage".(ref. ICZN Article 3630.
• The Abstract of the Article reads as follows:

  The purpose of this application, under Articles 81.1, 81.2.3.2, 23.9.3 and33.3.1 of the Code is to (1) conserve the family name CORCORACIDAE Mathews, 1927for the Australian bird family known as mudnesters; and (2) conserve melanorhamphosVieillot, 1817 as the correct spelling of the valid name for the type species of thetype genus of CORCORACIDAE. At family or subfamily rank, CORCORACIDAE has been inprevailing use for the mudnesters for over 50 years. Reversal of precedence for thecompeting name STRUTHIDEIDAE Mathews, 1924 under Article 81.2.3.2 of the Codewill maintain stability in nomenclature. The species-group name melanorhamphos, anincorrect subsequent spelling of Coracia melanoramphos Vieillot, 1817, has also beenin prevailing use for the type species of the type genus of CORCORACIDAE for over 50years. Deeming melanorhamphos as the correct original spelling under Article 81.1and in accordance with Article 33.3.1 will also maintain stability in nomenclature.

• Often (Peters Checklist4:90; H&M 3^rd:221) cited as:
  • Otus scops mallorcaeVon Jordans 1924J.Orn. 72p.407
• The Falco 1923 description however has priority as is correctly recognizedin HBW5:163.

• Peters Checklist11:294 (= Watson 1986) chooses to spell the author's name "Menzbir", despite the fact that "Menzbier" is mostly used.He may have decided to follow the orthography in the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (N.H.).

• HBW9:647 (Turner,AK 2004) states:

  Namepaludibula has priority overminor but the formerhas been in use since at least 1894 and thus retained by virtually allrecent authors

• Cotyle paludibula Ruppell 1840 NeueWirbelth.Vog. p.106 doesindeed antedateCotyle minor Cabanis 1850 Mus.Hein. 1 p.49.

• Peters Checklist12:350 (= Salomonsen 1967) cites this to p."318",while the correct page number is p.316.
• This appears on initial examination to simply be an error on Salomonsen's part, asthe CBBMIX:128 has the page listing correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist15:266 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this toJ.Orn. 12 p.407. However, that page number is in no.72 which was not publisheduntil 1865. Further it is clear that the J.Orn. publication was not the firstappearance of the name, which apparently actually did appear in 1864 in the Natuurk.Tijdschr.Neder.Ind.So the Peters Checklist authors appear to have gotten the citation wrong, butserendipitously their date is correct.

• I do not find any discussion of the nameGarrulus americanus ouminor Dumont 1822,but it appears from the Richmond Index that it was anomen nudum, and even if that were not the case it certainly must be anomen oblitum.

• See Schodde R, & Dickinson EC. 2005. "The valid name for the north-westAustralian subspecies of the Shining FlycatcherMyiagra alecto (Monarchidae)".BBOC125(1):47-48 for action as first revisers in selecting this name.
• In the BBOC article Schodde & Dickinson do not include the specific pagenumber where Anonymous [= Mathews] uses this name.The page number (p.42) is supplied from Peters Checklist11:524 and confirmed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist11:570 (= Mayr 1986) cites this to 1894.
• H&M 3^rd:519 follows this dating.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1893, noting that the preface toIVno.3 is dated Mai 1893.
• The H&M Corrigenda6 corrects their date to 1893, citing Quaisser& Eck 2006. The earlier date is followed here.

• Peters Checklist15:134 (= Greenway, 1962) spells thismadaraspatanuswhich is incorrect. The original spelling ismaderaspatanus.
• Interestingly, the taxon does not make it into the Peters Checklist Index (vol.XVI)spelled either correctly or incorrectly.
• TheRichmond Index card shows the correct spelling OriolusMaderaspatanus
• Thanks to Theo de Kok and to Edward Dickinson for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist7:18, cites this to Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash.30, 1917.
• This appears to be the source for H&M 3^rd: 420, which citesthis to 1917 without comment.
• Colin Jones correctly noted that this was published in volume32 in 1919, and, aswould be expected, the Richmond Index shows the correct citation.
• Worthy of note HBW8:405 (2003) correctly cites this to 1919 as does Hellmayr1925 (for which, thanks to Normand David).
• RichmondIndex

• Commonly cited to 1890 without comment (e.g. Peters12:16 (= Mayr1967)).
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one citing it to p.230 and 1890, and theother citing it to p.104 and 1889. Whether these were printed separately (as implied by thediffering page number) and issued at different dates is not clear. In this case I follow thepagination and earlier date as listed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist12:20 (= Mayr 1967) cites this name to

  "Contrib. Ornith. II, p.91"

  which (other than the "II") appears tobe patterned after the CBBM8:186 (= Gadow 1883), althoughMayr does not list the plate (pl.30) and Gadow does.
• The Richmond Index has this in "no.5" of the Contributions toOrnithology and reflects the peculiar pagination scheme that was actuallyemployed there.

• Peters Checklist12:20 (= Mayr 1967) correctly lists theoriginal combination asPachycephala macrorhyncha, but inexplicablylists the name asPachycephala macrorhynchus (!).
• Again (v.s.) this may be patterned after the CBBM8:185-187 (= Gadow 1883), where a mixture ofmacrorhyncha/macrorhynchus is used.
• Seemingly, this "tradition" is continued, as H&M3^rd:476 (through Corrigenda 6) lists the taxon as"Pachycephalamacrorhyncha" and yet in the footnote #2 states:

   ...macrorhynchus is an older name.

• H&M 3^rd:471 follows the Peters Checklist9:206 by putting the authority in parentheses.
• Jackson described this bird inCampophaga and that spelling is held by published authors (Neave, Richmond) to be simply an Agassiz emendation ofCampephaga Vieillot. Therefore, adherence to the Code would indicate that theauthority should not be in parentheses.

• 51.3.1. Parentheses are not used when the species-group name wasoriginally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (thisapplies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its own authorshipand date [Art. 33.2.3]).

• Colin Jones helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.09.09) that this was describedinPoeocephalus and that this is merely an Aggasiz emendation ofPoiocephalus and thus no parentheses are needed for the ciation.

• Peters Checklist9:328 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this to"Rev.Mag.Zool." which is an error. This is found in "Rev.Zool.".
• Mayr and Greenway appear to have been unaware of, or confused by the publishinghistory of these serials. It certainly appears that they did not examine the originalmaterials.
• Of interest, two years (1962) later Mayr & Greenway15:57 get the citationcorrect forSycobius st. thomae which is found on p.109 of this serial.
• Sclater in Syst.Av.Aethiop.II:620 has the citation correct for thistaxon. As does Gadow CBBM8:136.

• For the species order within genus, I follow Beehleret al.. 2007."A new species of Smoky Honeyeater (Meliphagidae:Melipotes) fromwestern New Guinea". Auk.124(3):1000-1009.

Previously as

Spizastur(m.)Gray,GR 1841ListGen.BirdsEd.2 p.3

• Spizastur melanoleucus (Vieillot) 1816Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 4 p.482

however, the AOU CL 48^th Supplement (p.1112)notes that DNA studies (Helbig AJ, Kocum A, Seibold I, & Braun MJ.2005. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.35:147-164) show thatmelanoleucus is the sister species toSpizaetus ornatus.

• Most workers attribute this name to Lawrence (e.g. Sclater CBBM15:131; Peters Checklist7:44; Deignan USNM Bull. 221:239;H&M 3^rd:424 ; HBW8:432 and thisinterpretation is understandable when it is based on either a casual andpartial review of the original description, or more commonly when theattribution simply results from uncritically reproducing the work ofothers (as I did until looking into this matter in more detail).
• The name is usually listed as a "Baird MS" name except in the case ofthe Richmond Index where the name is listed as

  Baird in G. N. Lawrence

  so the question arises: whatare the facts of the matter?
• First, Lawrence's note at the end of the article (p.482) must be heeded, it reads:

  Note.— I recently found in certain families of birds in thecollection of the Smith. Institution, several new species, and among others some with MS. names given by Prof. Baird,which I have adopted; these are the five last described in theabove paper. Prof. Baird kindly furnished me with his notes,made a few years since when he received the birds, with hispermission to use them and to make such alterations as Imight deem necessary;his notes are indicated by quotation marks.

  (emphasis supplied).
The description that preceeds this is:

19. Dendrornis mentalis, Baird, MS."This species has a very close resemblance toD. eburneirostrisin the reddish brown wings, tail and rump, the cential brownishyellow shaft streaks of the feathers of back and belly becomingshorter and more oval on the upper part of head and neck, andstill wider on the breast; the feet, however, are larger, and thetarsus shorter, so that the former exceed the latter, while in _eburnirostris the tarsus is longer than or at least nearly equal tothe middle toe and claw; the shade of reddish brown on wings and tail is lighter, the shafts of tail-feathers are light yellowish rufous,instead of very dark reddish brown; the chin and upper part ofthe throat ineburneirostris are uniform clear buff yellow, in thenew species these parts are lighter in color, and the feathers are margined with brown, as are those a on the lower part of thethroat; the yellowish of the shaft streaks in the head and back ismuch paler; bill pale horn color, clouded; iris red; legs darkbrown."Length 9.25; wing 4.34; tail 3.90; bill above 1.70, from nostril1.28, gape 1.67; tarsus .88; middle toe and claw 1.00, middle toealone .70."Habitat.— Mexico, Mazatlan Collected by J Xantus. No. of type, 23,859."Four specimens compared with a like numbem ofeburneirostris, showthe peculvinties above referred to, in the pale colors, large feet and dusky marginsto the feathers of the chin."I find no mention of anyDendrornis in Eastern Mexico, north of Cordovaor Xalapa, and of none in Western Mexico at all. The present species exhibits a rangeconsiderably further to the north than any other of the genus."

• Article 50.1.1 of the Code (1999) reads:

  50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other than anauthor of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying thecriteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is theauthor of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in thework itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.

  I hold that given the details of this matter and given Art. 50.1.1 that Baird is theauthor here.

• Peters Checklist13:219 (Paynter, 1970) lists the original combination asGuiraca melanocephalus.
• The original combination (as shown by the Richmond Index, as well as by CBBM12:62) wasGuiraca melanocephala.

• Treated by Peters Checklist1(2):104 (Jouanin & Mougin, 1979) as asynonym ofOceanitis exasperatus Mathews, 1912, andH&M 3^rd:77 similar regards it as simply a colormorph.These positions may be correct and further review is needed.
• However other publications treat this as a full species. Tentative inclusion atthis time.
Recent publication treating this as a full sp. include:
• Saville, Sav, Brent Stephenson, Ian Southey. 2003 [Apr]. A possible sighting ofan 'extinct' bird - the New Zealand storm-petrel. Birding World16(4):173-175
• Flood, Bob. 2003 [Nov]. The New Zealand storm-petrel is not extinct. BirdingWorld16(11):479-482
• Carter, Mike. 2003 [Dec]. A contribution to the discussion re theseparation of white-bellied storm-petrel, the white-bellied 'morph' ofblack-bellied storm petrel and NZ storm-petrel. Australasian SeabirdBulletin41:19-21
• Bourne, W. R. P. 2004. The origin of specimens of New Zealand stormpetrel (Pealeornis maoriana Mathews, 1932). Notornis51(1):57-58
• Stephenson, Brent. 2004 [Jun]. Return of the New Zealand storm petrel.Wingspan14(2):20-21, 23
• Weimerskirch, Henri. 2005. Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World.Marine-Ornithology33(1):73
• Thanks to Dave Nicolson for much of the information on this.

• Peters Checklist7:239 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist13:195 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to 1870.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show that this was published in April of 1871.

• Peters Checklist14:221 shows the date as a transposed number -- "1859" (sic) adate which is impossible for the BBOC.

• The citation as given here, is that given by Peters Checklist14:203 (Mayr) and isquestionable.
• The Richmond Index on the card for this citation has a note at the end stating:

  At the end of the article in which this name occurs it says:"Extrait du Journal l'Institut, 1me section, 1859, p.45."

• The L'Institut citation may very well have precedence.

• Peters Checklist11:111 (Traylor, 1986) cites this to
  • Dryodromas melanurusCabanis 1882J.Orn. 30 no.159 p.349
• Steinheimer FD &Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa1387:13 point out that this was initiallypublished in the Orn.Centralblatt7 on June 1 (no.11&12),while the J.Orn. was article was not published before July of 1882.

• Peters Checklist4:21 (Peters, 1940) cites this to
  • Cercococcyx mechowiCabanis 1882J.Orn. 30 no.158 p.230
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa1387:6 point out that this was initiallypublished in the Orn.Centralblatt7 in March (no.5&6).

• Peters Checklist1(2):322 (Stresemann & Amadon, 1979) cite thisto
  • Melierax metabates mechowiCabanis 1882J.Orn. 30 p.229
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa1387:4 point out that thiswas initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt7 in March(no.5&6).

• Webb, E. A., and C. E. Bock. 1996. Botteri's Sparrow (Aimophila botterii). In The Birds ofNorth America, No. 216 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. indicates thatA.b.botteriiandA.b.mexicana appear to be inseparable. In support the authors cite:
  1. J. T. Marshall, R. B. Clapp 1985. Status report:Aimophila botterii texana Phillips.Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Survey Section, andSmithson. Inst., Washington, D.C.
  2. E. A. Webb 1985. Distribution, habitat and breeding biology of the Botteri's Sparrow(Aimophila botterii arizonae). Master's thesis, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.
• No mention is made of this issue in H&M 3^rd:786

• Often cited to either:
  1. Ammodramus xanthornusGould 1839Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin]pt11 p.90 pl.30
  2. Ammodramus xanthornusDarwin 1839Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin] pt11 p.90 pl.30
  and of these, the Gould citation appears to be correct, as the publication of Gould's plateevidently preceeded the publication of the text by four months. (ref. Steinheimer, Dickinson,& Walters. 2006. "The zoology of the voyage of the HMS Beagle. Part III. Birds: newavian names, their authorship and their dates" BBOC126(3):171-193.).
• However, I am not convinced, as Steinheimeret al. appear to be, that the correctname for this subspecies isMyospiza humeralis xanthornus (Gould). Rather, it appearsto me thatMyospiza humeralis manimbe (Lichtenstein, 1823) may be correct. Steinheimeret al. state that the "substitute nameAmmodramus manimbe (Gray, 1839) is a juniorsynonym." but this statement has problems of its own.
  1. The reference "(Gray, 1839)" is not clear to me -- are they referring to Gray'scontribution to the "Zool.Voy.Beagle" ?? (the only Gray reference they cite is Gray 1840List of Genera of Birds.
  2. It is not clear to me why this is a "replacement name", but I have not seen Gray'sentry.
  3. From various sources including the CBBM12:691, it appears likely that thecombination used by Gray wasAmmodramus manimbe and thus the use of parenthesesaround the date and Gray's name here would be incorrect.
  4. It does not address the more important issue of the status ofFringilla manimbeLichtenstein, 1823.
  Additionally it must be noted that the card in the Richmond Index forAmmodramusxanthornus Gould has a note saying:

  Suppressed in favor ofA.manimbe.

  though I can so far find no evidence of this suppression.
• Lichtenstein's 1823 name is cited by Ridgway 1898 as the type forMyospiza, and isusually cited appropriately as a junior synonym ofTanagra humeralis Bosc 1792. This factalone does not make the name unavailable for a subspecies.
• The question then becomes if the Lichtenstein name can be applied to the same population asthe Gould name, and if so it clearly has priority by 16 years.
• The Lichtenstein specimen is listed as coming from "Bahia", and it is difficult to knowexactly what that meant in 1823. Today, it refer to a State in central to southern Brazil.
• Chapman 1912 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. vol.31 Article XVI p.162 describes specimens ofMyospiza manimbe maninbe both from Bahia (the type locality) and much farther south andwest from Chapada in the state of Matto Grosso, fairly close to and actually south of northeastern Bolivia, which is the range indicated by H&M 3^rd:785forMyospiza humeralis xanthornus Gould.
• It appears to me that thesystematic problem with this species is great, andresolution of the nomenclatural issues must await progress on the systematic front.
• The Gouldxanthornus name may well be the appropriate one for this population, butonly ifmanimbe Lichtenstein is shown to be a synonym ofhumeralis Bosc, andnot a senior synonym ofxanthornis Gould.

• H&M 3^rd:776 dates this to 1881. In this they appears to be simply followingPeters Checklist14:88. It must be an oversight, as it does not followDickinson's own publication of the dates for this serial (J.Zool. (2005)266:427-430).The H&M authors also do not appear to have checked the CBBM as Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.11:38(Sclater, 1886) also dates this to 1880.
• The Richmond Index indicates the date for this is Aug. 1880, which I follow

• I follow the 2002 treatment by Arcese P., Sogge MK, Marr AB, & Patten MA. 2002. SongSparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America,No. 704 (Poole A & Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
• The treatment by H&M 3^rd:781-782 essentially follows Peters Checklist13 (1970),and contains these taxa:

  Melospiza(f.)Baird,SF1858Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9p.xx,xl,440,476

  • Melospizamelodia (Wilson,A) 1810Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia adustaNelson 1899Auk 16 p.28
  • Melospiza melodia amakaGabrielson&Lincoln 1951Condor 53 p.253
  • Melospiza melodia atlanticaTodd 1924Auk 41 p.147Type locality
  • Melospiza melodia aztecaDickerman 1963Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia caurinaRidgway 1899Auk 16 p.36
  • Melospiza melodia clementaeTownsend,CH 1890Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia cleonensisRidgway 1899Bull.CooperOrn.Club 1p.87
  • Melospiza melodia cooperiRidgway 1899Auk 16 p.35Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia coronatorumGrinnell &Daggett 1903Auk 20 p.34Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia euphoniaWetmore 1936Smiths.Misc.Coll. 95 no.17p.1
  • Melospiza melodia fallax (Baird,SF) 1854Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 7 p.119
  • Melospiza melodia fisherellaOberholser1911 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash.24 p.251Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia goldmaniNelson 1899Auk 16 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia gouldiiBaird,SF 1858Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9p.477,479
  • Melospiza melodia gramineaTownsend,CH 1890Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139
  • Melospiza melodia heermanniBaird,SF 1858Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.477,478
  • Melospiza melodia inexspectataRiley 1911Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 24p.234
  • Melospiza melodia insignisBaird,SF 1869Trans.ChicagoAcad.Sci.1 p.319 pl.29 fig.2
  • Melospiza melodia juddiBishop 1896Auk 13 p.132Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia kenaiensisRidgway 1900Auk 17 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia mailliardiGrinnell1911Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool.7 p.197Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia maxillarisGrinnell1909Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool.5 p.265
  • Melospiza melodia maximaGabrielson&Lincoln 1951Condor 53 p.251
  • Melospiza melodia melodia (Wilson,A) 1810Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia merrilliBrewster 1896Auk 13 p.46
  • Melospiza melodia mexicanaBaird,SF 1874Hist.N.Am.Birds[Baird,Brewer,Ridgway] 2 p.18,note
  • Melospiza melodia micronyxGrinnell 1928Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 41 p.37Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia montanaHenshaw 1884Auk 1 p.224
  • Melospiza melodia morphnaOberholser1899Auk 16 p.183Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia niceaeDickerman 1963Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia pusillulaRidgway 1899Auk 16 p.35
  • Melospiza melodia rivularisBryant,WE 1888Proc.Cal.Acad.Sci.(2) 1 p.197
  • Melospiza melodia rufina (Bonaparte) 1850Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.477
  • Melospiza melodia saltonisGrinnell 1909Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 5p.268Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia samuelis (Baird,SF) 1858Proc.BostonSoc.Nat.Hist. 6 p.379
  • Melospiza melodia sanakaMcGregor 1900Condor 3 p.8Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia villaiPhillips,AR &Dickerman 1957Auk74 p.380
  • Melospiza melodia yuririaPhillips,AR &Dickerman 1957Auk74 p.381Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia zacapuDickerman 1963Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.40Systematics

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

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

  Weak clinal variation from south to north involving reduced grayish fringes to mantle-feathers and reduced brown betweenblack medial streak and fringe; birds called "mailliardi" and "cooperi" cannot be told fromheermannisensu stricto, nor from each other.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospizamelodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F.Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. comment:

  Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser, 1899. Name given as new name to replace preoccupiedFringilla cinerea (not of Gmelin) Audubon, 1839.

• ActuallyFringilla cinerea is nowhere mentioned by Oberholser in his 1899 Auk note, where he writes:

  Fringilla guttata Nuttall (Man. Orn., ed. 2, 1840, I, 581), which is nowMelospiza fasciata guttata, is debarred byFringilla guttata Vieillot(Nouv. Dict. d'Hist. Nat., 1817, XII, 233), for an Australian Weaver-bird.As the Rusty Song Sparrow seems to have no other name, it may becalledMelospiza melodia morphna.

• The place the nameFringilla cinerea Audubon plays in this story appears to be as follows.The type ofMelospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is specimen #1860 in the USNM collection. It was collected by JohnK.Townsend, and received into the collection from Spencer Baird. It was in Baird's private collection and he hadin turn acquired it from Edward Harris, who had himself gotten it either from Audubon or Townsend. AdifferentTownsend specimen from his "Columbia river" material (tag # 1942) had also been in Baird's private collection, and Baird hadwritten on the label

  "Fringilla cineara of Audubon. Type of his description and figure."

• Friedmann's summary (p.664) is:

  Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is a new name forguttata Nuttall,preoccupied inFringilla, and is based on the same type specimen(s).  In summary, No. 1860 is a cotype ofFringilla cinerea Audubon, and alsoa probable cotype ofFringilla guttata Nuttall and ofMelospiza melodia morphnaOberholser; No. 1942 is a probable cotype ofFringilla cinerea Audubon, but presumably has no connection with the other two names.

• Originally described asZonotrichia musica
• Emberiza musica Kittlitz, 1836 is anomen nudum.

• Conventionally cited as

  MicrocerculusSclater,PL 1862Cat.Coll.Am.Birds p.19

• The difficulty is that if this is cited to 1862, then MicrocerculusSalvin 1861 PZS Pt2 p.202 would appear to have priority.
• Zimmer (p.560) presents evidence (but not proof) that pp.1-192 ofSclater's work this work may have appeared in 1861. If that is true thenthe conventional citation (with the date changed to 1861)may becorrect, but would depend on establishing that the portion of Sclater'spublication actually preceeds Salvin's.
• Edward Dickinson and Steven Gregory kindly provided additionalinformation on this (in litt. 2006.12.09) showing that:
  From CBBM, vi, p. 295:

  Microcerculus,Baird, Review Amer. B. p. 113 (1864,exSclater, Cat. Amer. B. p.19, 1862).[Type] M. bambla. Cf.Salvin & Godman, Biol. Centr.-Amer., Aves, i, p. 76.

  In the Salvin & Godman reference we find:

  Microcerculus (section ofCyphorhinus), Sclater, Cat. Am. B. p.19 (1862); Baird, Rev. Am. B. i.  p.113 (1864).(TypeTurdus bambla, Bodd.)

  [Steven notes]:Somewhat circular, and no mention of 1861. I also note that Boddaert'soriginal combination wasFormicarius bambla, which should be included inthe citation for the genus, and not just Baird's "Turdus bambla".
• Steven also notes that Schulzeet al. (as well as Neave) cite Salvin as the author of the genus.
• Michael Rieser provides (in litt. 2007.09.15) the description from the PZS:

      1. CYPHORHINUS PHILOMELA.    Long. tot. 4, alæ 2-3, caudæ 1 poll. angl. et dec.Hab. In Prov. Veræ Pacis sylvis montium.Obs. AffinisCyphorhino bamblæ ex Cayenna, sed tectricibus alarummaculatis et non albo vittatis facile notabilis.    This Wren belongs to the division of this genus which Dr. Sclaterhas classed under the name ofMicrocerculus. It is known to thenatives as the 'Ruiseñor, ' or Nightingale -- a name it has acquired from itsgreat vocal powers.

• This description is suggestive of the possibility that the name had already beenpublished, but it certainly does not prove that to be so.

• van Rossem's note on p.223 reads:

  Named for Messrs. John W. and Joseph Mallliard, in appreciationof their valuable work with the Redwinged Blackbirds of California.

  Joseph Mailliard was (at thattime) the Curator Emeritus of Ornithology at the California Academy of Sciences. I presume, but don't knowfor sure than John W. was his brother.
• I can not restrain from adding some additional notes of interest here. My father-in-law knew JosephMailliard and his son William Somers Mailliard, who was a congressional representative for California from1953-1974. It is my understanding that Joseph Mailliard had ancestry that included paternity by CharlesLucien Bonaparte.
• Joseph Mailliard was a member of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, and wrote a book "Birds of theBohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California". 1931. Published by A Friend of Bohemia. The eponymous subspeciesis included in the list (p.48).
• Subsequently, another book entitled "Birds of the Bohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California" 2003. waswritten (and illustrated) by Hermann Heinzel. Published by A Member of the Old Guard. The bird is theredescribed and illustrated (p.70) though interestingly no mention is made of the association withMailliard.
• The subspeciesmailliardorum does occur in the Bohemian Grove (I have seen it there), thoughthe type was collected 28 April, 1901 in Palo Alto, California by Theodore Jesse Hoover (1871-1955).Theodore J. Hoover, one of the founding members of the Cooper Ornithological Society, was later to becamethe Dean of the School of Engineering at Stanford. He would have been in his senior year at Stanford whenhe collected the bird.
  It seems to me that Theodore Jesse Hoover must be the brother of president Herbert Hoover, though Ihave yet to find this actually stated. Both Theodore and Herbert were born (T. - Jan. 28, 1871; H. - Aug.10, 1874) in West Branch, Iowa, and Herbert's father was named Jesse, so it seems extremely likelythat they were brothers. After his parent's death, Herbert was sent to Newburg, Oregon where he grewup in his uncle's house. The possible separation of the boys may explain why their brotherhood maynot receive much emphasis.
• Herbert Hoover was an ardent Bohemian, and I would guess that it is likely that Theodore was as well,though I find no evidence of this.

• Cited by Peters Checklist14:145 (Blake) as published in1864, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:769(and corrected in Corrigenda 2.1).
• The Richmond Index shows that this portion of the PZS was publishedin Feb. 1865

• In a minor infelicity, Fjeldsaet al. get the page number wrongwhen listing the citation forBatis mixta Shelley. [=Pachyproramixta Shelley]. They list (p.588) the page number as "259"; PetersChecklist11:379; Sclater Syst.Av.Aethiop.2:420; and the RichmondIndex all list the page number as 359.
• Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK, Kiure J. 2006. "The forest batisBatis mixta, is two species: description of a new, narrowlydistributedBatis species in the Eastern Arc biodiversity hotspot."J.Orn.147:578-590.

• Previously listed as
  • Acanthiza pusilla archibaldiMathews1910Novit.Zool. 17 no.3p.501
  andAcanthiza pusilla archibaldi is the name used by H&M 3^rd:448 {and through Corrigenda #5} (without further discussion).
• Colin Jones points out that Schodde in the CSIRO checklist of Australian birds, holdsA. p.archibaldi to be a junior synonym ofA. p. magnirostris Campbell. This can currently(2006.10.07) be found athttp://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/abrs/fauna/tree.pl?pstrVol=AVES&pintMode=1

• Zimmer in Am.Mus.Novit. 1933 no.668 p.1 lists:

  Thamnophilus melanurus SCLATER, 1855 (April), Edinb. N. Philos. Journ.(N.S.) I, p. 233-part; River Ucayali, e. Perú;♂ imm.; British Mus.

• It would be interesting to know how Zimmer knows that this work was published in April, butthis fact (if correct) is the reason the name is cited here rather than to Gould in PZS pt23no.288 p.69 (published May 16, 1855) or to Gould Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(2)15 no.89 p.345 (publ.May1855).

• The Richmond Index suggests the possiblity that this bird may have been described by Hodgson in Gray'sZoological Miscellany p.81 (which would be 1844).
• Thanks to Daria Wingreen-Mason of the Cullman Library, I have examined an image of page 81 ofGray's Zoological Miscellany. Gray uses the name "F. milvipes" which is followed by the number"26". The number "26" refers either to a picture, or a specimen sent by Hodgson to the BritishMuseum. Therefore with some confidance I interpret the Gray publication of this name in 1844 asnot satisfying the requirements for it to be the citation for the taxon name.

• Peters Checklist1(2):408 (1979,Stresemann & Amadon) cite this name to 1919, and thisis followed by others (e.g. HBW2:260; H&M 3^rd:95).
• All these works correctly list the volume of the Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. as54, however thiswas published Nov. 2, 1917, not in 1919.
• The correct date is shown in the Richmond Index, and confirmed by the "List and Index of thePublications of the United States National Museum (1875-1946)" p.154.

• Peters Checklist1(2):185 lists the author of this taxon as Heuglin.
• The Richmond Index listed the author as Hartlaub, so naturally I was interested to determine which was correct.
• Edward Dickinson examined the original description and confirmedRichmond's indication that Hartlaub was theauthor. As a result of this the correction was made in Corrigenda #5.
• HBW1:324 also listed Heuglin as the author of this taxon. I presumed that they (like H&M) had simplyfollowed the Peters Checklist without troubling to confirm the authority -- as this is the conventional (though lazy)practice.
• Of interest, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.26:431 is where all this may have started, as there Ogilvie-Grant lists Heuglinrather than Hartlaub as the author. Despite the charming belief to the contrary, it appears that for a large number oftaxa, the authors of the Peters Checklist merely accepted the listings from the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. as "holy writ" much theway most authors today regard those from the Peters Checklist. Richmond was a worker who attended to quite a different andhigher standard.
• Also worthy of mention is not only the 1931 publication of Mathews ∧ Iredale (A Manual of Birds of Ausltrlia), butthe work by Pittman and Jehl (Pittman RL, Jehl JL Jr., 1998. The Wilson Bulletin110(2):155-170.).Pittman and Jehl quote the Mathews & Iredale work which appears to correctly hold Hartlaub as the author ofSulamelanops.

• The authority here is often attributed to Vigors & Children (as opposed to Children & Vigors).See, for example, Peters Checklist (1979)1(2):201 (where it is listed as "Anon. = Vigors & Children"). Ispeculate that here the example of CBBM (1898 [=1899])26:70 is being followed.
• H&M 3^rd lists this initially as Vigors & Children, but adopts Children & Vigors in theCorrigenda 2.1 which I follow.
• Bob Dowsett informs me that review of the original descriptions and additional supporting evidence ( includingZool.J. 1827 p.452) argues for Children & Vigors as the proper authority for the taxa named as new in this work.

• When inZanclostomus listed as
  • Zanclostomus curvirostrisborneensis (Blasius,W &Nehrkorn) 1881Jahrb.Ver.Naturwiss.Braunschwieg(1880-1881)p.125
• InPhaenicophaeus this name is preoccupied by
  • Rhopodytes borneensisSalvadori 1874Ann.Mus.Civ.Stor.Nat.Genova 5 p.72
  which is now held to be inPhaenicophaeus
• It is replaced by Berlepsch's name (which in Peters Checklist4:56 wasreplaced by the Blasius & Nehrkorn name).
• Many thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention (2006.06.03),and pointing out the proper replacement name.
• Initially I had the authority listed in parentheses, but Colin Jones pointed out (in litt. 2009.04.26),quite correctly, that it was originally described inPhoenicophaes which is merely an emendation.

• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1926.02.23) Richmond indicatesthat this name occurs as bothMyrmornis andMyrmornithion (orMyrmornithon -- it is slightly illegible) occuring in another portion of thework. No one else seems to mention this fact.
• Normand David (in litt. 2006.07.26) has looked into and resovled this matter. He writes:

   ... here are the citations from Hermann's Tabula affinitatum animalium (1783), of which I have a photocopy of the relevant pages before my eyes:page 188 (not 180 as sometimes given)Myrmornithispage 189MyrmornithumMyrmorninpages 210- 211Myrmorni- thempage 235MyrmornisThe nominative singular isMyrmornis; all other instances have different case endings according to Latin grammar, that must be corrected to the nominative singular (arts. 11.8.1 and 32.5.2.7).

• The Peters Checklist7:255 (1951) footnotes the variantsMyrmornithis,Myrmornithem and interprets them as "not available under Opinion 183".
• The Peters Checklist erroneously lists the page as "p.180"; the Richmond Index shows the page as "188", as Normand David has confirmed.

• There is some confusion regarding this citation.
  1. Peters Checklist5:22 gives "Guide du Naturaliste2p.7"
  2. The Richmond Index gives "Guide du Naturaliste No. 1, Jan. 1880,page 8."
  3. Schulzeet al. p.2018 give vol.2 and p.7
  so I initially followed the consensus (vol.2 p.7).
Additionally, both the Richmond Index, andSchulzeet al. note that the name alsooccurs in 1880 in Annuire Mus. Caen vol.1:224. Peters seems to have beenunaware of this second source, and which actually had priority was unknownto me.
• Previously cited as

  Melanotrochilus(m.)Deslongchamps 1880GuideNat. 2 p.7

• Subsequently (2006.10.16) Michael Rieser brought to my attention anarticle by Bob Mengel directly addressing this situation.

  Mengel RM. 1960. "Errors concerning the date and source of the nameMelanotrochilus Eudes-Deslongchamps (Trochilidae)." Auk77:87-88.

  Mengel brings attention to the fact that Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus3:90, 1940) correctly indicates that the name was published earlier.Deslongchamps (Eudes Deslongchamps) published a diagnosis of the genus and afull account ofMelanotrochilus fuscus (Trochilus fuscusVieillot, Nouv.Dict.Hist.Hat.7:348, 1817). This apparently was firstpublished in 1879 in Deslongchamps. "Catalogue descriptif des oiseaux duMusée de Caen appartenent a la famille des Trochilidés ouOiseaux-Mouches". Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne deNormandie, ser.III, tom.III pp.8-325 (for 1878-1879, dated 1879 on titlepage), and ser.III tom.IV (pp.324-325: noted by Mengel to be misnumbered224-225). The genus is erected on p.314, and thus the date of 1879 isappropriate.

• Mengel also notes additional details, including the fact that thearticle was reprinted at least twice with slight changes.

• Peters Checklist13:158 (Paynter) lists this as published in

  1919 Smiths.Misc. Coll.,81(13), p.4

  . Casual inspection suggests thateither the date or the volume number is way off.
• This date is followed by H&M^rd:795 and is uncorrected at leastup to Corrigenda 5.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in 1929, not 1919; a date forwhich the volume number makes sense.

• This name was clearly spelledmelanophris by Temminck in 1828.
• Peters Checklist1(2):54 includes a footnote saying

  Corrected tomelanophrys, Temminck, 1839, Planches Color.,Tableau Méthod., livr. 102, p.76. C.J. and J.-L. M.

• Of course it is interesting to know of this correction, but the question is notwhether it was corrected, but whether the correction satisfies the Code requirementswith regards emendations. It may very well be that the correction does satisfythese, but in the abscence of a specific indication in that regard I retain theoriginal spelling.
[2010.07.01]
• H&M 3^rd:72 adopt the spelling employed by the Peters CL,and comment (footnote #7) that this spelling is "judged to be in prevailing usage", thoughno data in support of this judgement is provided.
• The issue is resolved by Opinion 2252 (Case 3449) BZN 201067(2):194-195.Which ruled as follows:

  Ruling

  1. The Commission hereby rules to confirm thatmelanophris Temminck, 1828, aspublished in the binomenDiomedea melanophris, is the correct original spelling.
  2. The namemelanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomenDiomedea melanophris, as ruled in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
  3. The namemelanophrys Temminck, 1839, as published in the binomenDiomedea melanophrys (incorrect subsequent spelling ofDiomedea melanophris Temminck, 1828, correct original spelling as ruled in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the originaldescription is as follows:

   Olive, head and throat black; body white;sides and vent ferruginous; wings, and lateral tail feathers (in one sex)with yellow spots.Table land. Real del Monte. Temiscaltipec.Total length, 9 inches: wings, 3½;tail, 4¾ tarsi,1 1/10; hind toe and claw,9/10.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original description is as follows:

  Olivaceous brown; head and throat black; body white; sides and vent rufous;back, wings, and lateral tail feathers with white spots.Table land. Real del Monte.Total length, 8½: wings, 3½; tail, 4; tarsi,1 1/10;hind toe and claw, ¾.

• As this O.D. is not readily available to most workers, and there is debate aboutthe validity of this as a subspecies, I thought it might be useful to reproduce thedescription here (copied from the Richmond Index).

• Caput & dorsum fusco & ferrugineo varium, pennis fuscis ferrugineomarginatus. Tectrises alarum & et caudæ fuscæ apicus limboferrugineo. marginatis Remiges omnes fuscæ fasciis pluribus obscuriscribus apice albo-ferrugineo. Rectrices fuscæ fasciis quatuorlatis fusco-nigrescentibus albo utrinque marginatis, apice albo.Corpus inferne totum ferrugineum masulis longitudinalibus, subovatis,fuscis, pennis singularis ferrugenis, scapo, & utrinque ascapo fuscis, Cauda inferne albescens fassiis transparentibus.Cera cærulescens. Pedes lutei. Magnitudo Gallinæ.

• Originally namedAstur macrocelides in the 1855 J.Orn. publication (fidePeters Checklist1(2):325; and The Richmond Index).
• This is spelledmacroscelides by the Peters Checklist and this spelling is followed by H&M 3^rd:105 without comment.
• HBW2:145 is either unaware of this nomenclatural issue, or chooses to make no comment on it.
• The validity of this emendation is unknown to me, and as this issue is not addressed by these authors I elect to use the original spelling, until I am shown that this is incorrect.
• Normad David has investigated this matter, and writes (2006.03.10) that the original indeed ismacrocelides, and further that this was employed by the Peters Checklist vol. 1 in the first edition.The issue then would appear to me to descend into the unfortunate and unsatisfactory realm of "prevailing usage".

• Cited by Peters Checklist4 to Lesson, Voy. 'Coquille,' Atlas, 1827,pl.22;Zool. 1830, p.647.
• Previously, I had as
  • Hemiprocne mystacea (Lesson) 1827Voy.Coq. Atlas pl.22; 1830 Zool. p.647
• Zimmer (p.187) dates the publication of pl.22 to Oct. 27.
• The Richmond Index lists this name, with the authority of Lesson & Garnot toFerrusacs Bulletin for May of 1827 (where pl.22 of the Coquille Atlas is quoted).
• This is all very confused, and it seems that both Zimmer and Richmond can't both be right.Richmond does not list the Voy.Coq. citation here, and apparently believed that the Ferrusac's bulletinentry had priority. I defer to Richmond here.
• H&M 3^rd:255 lists this to Lesson, 1827. Presumably this follows the PetersChecklist, though in other instances for this source the decision appears to have been takento attribute authority to Lesson & Garnot (!!). Very confusing.
• HBW5:465,685 also attributes this to Lesson in Voy.Coq. and it appears that Wells is simplyreproducing the Peters material without critical evaluation.

Hemipodius melanogaster Gould, Syn. Bds. Austr., pt. 2, 1837, pl..[31]

Hemipodius melanogaster John Gould 1837.Synopsis of the Birds of Australia and the Adjacent Islands, Part II, April, 1837, Pl.[12], text.

melanogaster  Hemipodius, J. Gould, Syn.Birds.Austral. (2) Apr. 1837.

• Considered by many to be a full species, rather than a subspecies ofLarus cachinnans.
• AOU CL to adopt full species status in 48^thSupplement to the CL (to be published July 2007); (ref. Dick Banksinlitt. 2007.04.18).

• The basis for recognition of this as a valid subspecies is currentlyunknown to me.
• HBW3:618 says "Two subspecies recognized." Bywhom this recognition occurs, or on what basis is not indicated. Althoughsuperb, HBW is emphaticallynot a taxonomic work, though it isoften mistaken for one.
• H&M 3^rd:148 cites HBW3 as the basis forrecognition as a subspecies.
• The Richmond index lists this taxon as "[Atricilla] megalopterusBruch", suggesting that the bird was not actually described inLarus.

• Regarding the spelling/emendation of this name, Normand David writes (2005.12.23):

    ... the originalmatsudariae, Ibis 1922:311was universally corrected (see PetersI:117) tomatsudairaeIt seems that, because Viscount Matsudaira is cited several times in the paper as collector(but no formal dedication), subsequent authors saw sufficient reason under 32.5.1(inadvertent error) to bring about a "justified emendation".

• The author's name on this article (Auk 193653:194) is listed as

  Leonidas Partenko

• I believe that the same individual more commonly gives his name as

  Leonidas Portenko

  or

  Leonid Aleksanrovich Portenko

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:133 as a subspecies ofHimantopushimantopus. The foot note (#7) on p.132 indicates, and EdwardDickinson confirms (in litt. 2005.09.21), that the systematiclistingfollows that of HBW3. The basis for this would appear to boil downto an introductory note by Pierce on p.332, where the difficulties of theproblem are presented, and the decisions taken appear to be on the basis that

   Most authors have preferred to accept only two species, the Black-wingedStilt (Himantopus himantopus) and Black Stilt (Himantopus novaezelandae), although some consider these two forms conspecific.

  This statement is made without any citations, references, or supportingdata. Whom "most authors" are is not indicated, and this appears to me to be anerroneous extension of "prevailing usage", as applied to nomenclature, to systematics.Perhaps in the future we can look forward to establishment of systematic relationships by aprocess of popular vote.
• The AOU Checklist Committee considersmexicanus to be aspecies in the absence of any published taxonomic treatment to thecontrary. (Dick Banks,in litt. 2005.08.31)
• In sharp contrast to the standards of the AOU Checklist Committee, theHBW and its followers appear to enjoy the freespirited pleasures of beingunencumbered by the tedium of requiring published scientific supporthere. Whether this philosophy is restricted to this problem, this author,just this volume, or to the whole series is unknown to me.

• Cited by Peters Checklist25:174 (Mayr) to 1874, and this wasinitially followed by H&M 3^rd:427.
• This portion of the PZS was published in April of 1875, and this datewas subsequently corrected in the H&M Corrigenda 2.1.

• Peters Checklist25:174 (Mayr) gives this date for this taxonas 1882.
• The correct date of 1883 was published in the Richmond Index(1992).
The incorrect 1882 date was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:427,and then corrected in Corrigenda 3.2
• Of interest, the citation forAegotheles bennettii plumiferusis given by Peters Checklist4:183 for 1883, and it comes from 4pagesprior to the description ofAilurodeusmelanocephalus.

• This name is attributed to Boie in 1844 Isis37 col.188, note. and it appearsthat this tradition of reference was established by Saunders in Cat.B.Br.Mus.25:145 and followed byMathews.
• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1915.02.05) some interesting questions are raised.
  1. Richmond indicates that Boie describes aSterna minutus from the collectionof Prince Essling (and from some British Museums) "which is a species ofAnous orMicronous."
  2. Richmond also asserts that the Essling specimen is allegedly from California and thus may not be Australian.
  3. Richmond indicates that Boie lists his species ofAnous with the abbreviationSt. and "dittos" all the species which suggests to Richmond that Boie intended to call his new speciesSterna minutus (a name which is, of course, preoccupied bySterna minutaLinnaeus 1766 =S. albifrons Pallas 1764). -- but see below regardingSt..
  4. Richmond regards the Essling specimen as the type (as it is the only "definite one" that Boie mentions).
  5. If the Essling specimen is from California it is possibly not related to the form that Matthews has in mind.
  6. If the specimen does relate to one of the forms Matthews has in mind, the name may be preoccupied,and Richmond suggests in such a caseAnous leucocapillus Gould may be the appropriate available name.
• The Richmond Index, in fact, lists a card forAnous minutus Boie (!), but it does notappear to be in Richmond's hand, and cites the type locality as determined by Mathews.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium has a listing (p.4100) as follows:

  minuta  Sternula (L.), F. Boie, Isis (Oken), 1822, 563. -- Sterna, 1766.

  Suggesting that Boie may also possibly have been referring to his previous use ofSternula minuta.
• The Richmond Index has a card for the genus group nameSternula F. Boie Isis (Oken) Bd. X Heft V, col.563 1822, and gives the type as "minuta".
• So all this is somewhat confusing, but it appears to me (without having seen any of the primary sources) [but see below]that Boie in 1844 was listing the species ofAnous and included there names that he had previously held to be in "St." -- presumably hisSternula. Thus it may well be appropriate to list the authority withoutparenthesesif the type specimen is in factnot from California, as the Essling specimen would appear to be.
• If the type specimen for this name is not from the Australasian region the entire taxonwould appear to be problematic.
• It appears to me that further investigation of this matter is appropriate.
2013.09.20
• Boie's original is seen here:St. minutus Isis von Oken1844 Original Description

• The specific epithet is spelledmocino by Peters Checklist5:148.
• Originally spelledMocinno but in honor of José Mociño, as correctlyshown by the Richmond Index.
• Peters thereby introduced an incorrect subsequent spelling.
• These points are of slight historical interest, as the ICZN ruled that the correctspelling ismocinno (Direction #43), and placed the name in the Official approved list.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking up this spelling issue, and to Normand David and Edward Dickinsonfor helping to establish the confirmatory details.

• Originally described inPtinilopus and forthis reason Peters Checklist3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175.
• It appears to me thatPtinilopus is an 1831 BonaparteGiorn. arcad.,49:52 emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
• H&M 3^rd:175 clearlymust interpret Bonaparte's name to be something other than an emendation, though the support for such an interpretation is not presented. Such support would be particularly interesting to know of, as it is appears that in the Voy.Pol.Sud. work the name is "SpelledPtinilopus in all places here." (to quote the Richmond Index), and evidently is corrected in Arch.Mus.Hist.Nat.,VII, 1855 p.365(note) (again from the Richmond Index).

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist3:26places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist3:26 lists this being found in volume1,and this is copied by HBW4:614.
• The name is found in volumeII (of the first series) of this work.

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist3:34places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176and by HBW4:217.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
• HBW4217 dates this citation to 1873. Understandableconfusion as this volume, in twelve issues was published from 1871 to1873. This portion of the volume was clearly issued in 1871 and the HBWcitation is incorrect.

• CW Richmond comments in Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 190226:691 thatLaticauda Lesson 1843 L'Echo du Monde Savant ser.2 VIII, Oct. 22, 1843col.758 "has priority over and should replaceMetallura Gould, 1847."
• In this he would appear to be ignoring the presence ofLaticaudaLaurenti, 1768. Syn. Rept. p.109 (a genus group name still in use for a Colubridsea-snake).

• Peters Checklist8:169 (Traylor) gives the citation as:
  • Sylvia maclovianaGarnot 1829 Voy,'Coquille,'Zool.1(2), p.540
  There are a number of apparent problems with this citation, as it appears to me that the date, volume, number, and page rendering do notappear to correlate with the actual structure of the publication as Iunderstand it.
• More important, the Richmond Index indicates there is a publication ofthis name by Garnot three years prior to the date given by Traylor.

• These citations are problematic and contoversial. The dates of livr.5 do not appear to have been established with certainty and it is variously cited to1830 or 1831.
• Of interest in his description ofMerulaxis ater evidently Lesson notes:"Cent. Zool., pl.30" (data from Richmond Index). The Richmond Index dates that portion ofCent. Zool. to 1831, and speculates that Lesson's note would make it likely that thedescription ofM. ater appeared first in Cent. Zool. If this were established to be true, and if the 1831 date is accepted for livr.IV of Cent. Zool., then it would appear quitecertain that at least the latter pages of livr.5 of TraitedOrn. should be dated to 1831, andnot 1830.
• However, it must be noted that at this time Lesson was working on multiple works and a confusingnumber of internal references exist, so that we can not be sure he is referring topublished material when he cites "Cent.Zool.".

• Currently (2004) there is much debate and less consensus regarding thesystematics of this group. Changes in systematics can be expected to continue.
• Recent publications include:
  1. Voelker G. 2002. "Systematics and historical biogeography of wagtails:Dispersal versus vicariance revisited." Condor104(4):725-739.
  2. Alström K, Mild K, & Zetterström. 2003. Pipits and Wagtails ofEurope, Asia and North America. Christopher Helm, London.
  3. Pavlova A,et al.. 2003. "Phylogeographic patterns inMotacillaflava andMotacilla citreola: Species limits and population history."Auk120(3):744-758.
  4. Banks RC,et al. 2004. "Forty-fifth Supplement to the AmericanOrnithologists' UnionCheck-list of North American Birds." Auk121(3):992.

• Peters Checklist4:195 lists the page number for this taxon as "p.88". HBW5:[683] lists the pagination as "87-88".
• The name and description occur on p.89, as is correctly indicated in the AOU CL's6^th & 7^th Edns.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

• Originally spelledmelanoleueus by Smith (fide CWR, Sherborn "M,N";3967; and Willughbyreprints of Smith's work).
• Apparently interpreted to be an error (at least by Peters1(2):346 to be an error, thoughthe rationale for that is not explicated).
• Therefore, as near as I am able to determine, this appears to be an emendation which has not been questioned, and even if not supportable now resides cheerfully in the cesspool of prevailingusage.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing the issue of the original spelling to my attention.

• Peters Checklist3:168 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.
• Unfortunately, the HBW4:365 has "1875" for the date, perpetuatingthis common error.

• Bonaparte's note reads:

  Genus dicatum Aloysio Masiomeo, Italicis-simo, exuli etiam cariori, amplitudine in-genii, animi virtute, lacertorum vigoreaeque praeclaro! ... Utinam multos talesfilios Italiaet vel Gallia progenuerint! ....

• This is translated by Jobling (1991) as:

  My genus is dedicated to Aloysius Masi, the very essence of Italy,exiled yet dear, talented, intellectual, energetic, and distinguished!Would that Italy of France could always produce such sons!

• Jobling goes on to comment: "The only candidate for this eulogy(here freely translated from the original Latin) would seem to bethe republican Colonel Masi, a supporter of Garibaldi, but no furtherdetails are provided."
• Jobling must be correct in this. Of interest,Luigi Masi of Perugia, Italy was initially hired by Bonaparte as the tutor of his children. Masicontinued with the family for many many years and became Bonaparte's personal secretary, travelling with him to many meetings. Luigi (who would appearnot to be Aloysius)is mentioned many times in Stroud's 2000 Biography of Bonaparte. Aloysius Masi is not mentioned.

• Peters Checklist8:322 (Mayr) renders this "Pitta mülleriin the original description, and thus spells it "Pitta sordidamuelleri". Thiswould be appropriate, if in fact Bonaparte hadspelled it with an umlaut and the name was either German or indeterminateas to origin.
• I have checked two copies of the Consp.Gen.Av. and the name is spelled"(Pittamulleri, Bp.)", and thus "ue" is incorrect.
• H&M 3^rd:338 renders this name correctly.
• Bonaparte describes this name inBrachyrus even though thebinomen listed is "Pittamulleri,Bp.". I interpretthis to be a Bp. manuscript name, but published first here.
• H&M 3^rd:338 apparently follows PetersChecklist8:322 (Mayr) in listing this without parentheses. Mayrdoes not appear to have attended to either the actual spelling of the nameor the overall structure of Bonaparte's work.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out my error in following H&Mand Peters.

• SpelledPicus mineaceus by Peters Checklist6:142
• H&M 3^rd:327 spells the specific epithetminiaceus, andthis follows what is given in the Richmond Index, Sherborn and HBW7:537.

• Spelledmiddendorffi with only one terminal "i" in the RichmondIndex.
• Edward C. Dickinson checked the original description and confirms that thename is spelled with an-ii ending. (in litt. 2004.03.21).

• Peters Checklist5:78 gives55 as the volume number.
• Both the Richmond Index and HOLLIS Catalog (http://holliscatalog.harvard.edu/) show that thename in question appears in volume65.

• An interesting nomenclatural situation applies to this name as described by Zimmer, 1926 p.158

  The generic names of some of the new species have been altered toaccord with generic changes proposed herein by Gray, as, for example,Myiobius magnirostris, p.48 pl.VIII. Gould's manuscript name,Tyrannula magnirostris, is cited in synonomy but appears onthe plate, while the new combination is given without authorityother than that it follows Gray's proposal ofMyiobius forTyrannula of Swainson. In this case, the authorship of the species mayremain with Gould since the plate has priority over the text (see below), butDarwin appears to be properly the author of the new combination of names.

• Peters Checklist9:88 (Mayr & Greenway) date this to 1838, andthis if followed by H&M 3^rd:533.
• Sherborn showed (in 1897 Ann.Mag.Hist.Nat. (6)20:483) that this partwas published in July 1839, a fact also listed in Zimmer and Sherborn's IndexAnimalium, as well as the Richmond Index.

• The date of this citation raises a problem.
  • The Peters Checklist5:249 dates this to 1860. (This is followedby H&M 3^rd:297, and HBW6:410.)
  • Peters may be following Sclater 1924Systema Avium Ethiopicarum1:232 who gives 1860.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1859, and notes that the signature isdated "Dec. 12, 1859".
• The relatively late date of the signature imprint certainly suggests thatits publication could have been delayed until 1860, though Peters gives nodetails or support for this date, and himself dates taxa from earlier in thevolume to 1859.
• To date I do not have data from the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. (where I suspectSclater may have gotten his date for theSyst.Av.Aethiop.).
• If 1860 is correct (which I suspect may well be the case) the implicationhere is that either Th.II was issued in parts (presumably signatures) or theentire volume would have to be dated to 1860. This last case would affect quitea few taxa, and might have substantial priority implications.

• The date given for this by Peters Checklist7:93, and H&M 3^rd:410 is1874.
• Foster, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was in no.6-7 of VolumeX and thesewere published in the period of March to May of 1872.
• I choose to follow the Richmond Index, and Foster here. The dates of this publication are,however quite problematic.

• The Richmond index gives a copy of the description:

  "cauda rotundata, nigro maculata, supra testaceussubuts albus fasciis transversis subundulatis nigris,remigum apicibus nigris testaceo marginatis."

• A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist4:22 gives the date as 1804, but providesno data, discussion, or support for that date. And HBW4:559 appears to followthe Peters Citation.
• The Richmond index gives a date of 1803 and notes "(4^th quarter)" of 1803.A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist6:7 lists this as 1853, giving no notes, discussion ofdetails, or basis for using that date. This date is followed by HBW7:96, againwith no discussion of the date.
• The Richmond Index lists this as 1852, with a note that the "Article is dated April 16,1852" [this may, however be a printers date - APP].
• Zimmer lists the dates for this publication as ending in 1852, but with no further details.
• Sclater (the author of the taxon) lists the date as 1852 in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.19:166.[though I think this is relatively weak date evidence].
• Murray Bruce's research on this publication would appear to support 1852 for all but the last 21pages of the Contributions. [see note on Contr.Orn. for details].
• I interpret the evidence to supports 1852.

• Considered by Marshall (1967) and H&M 3^rd to be included in theirOtusk.bendirei.
• Cannings RJ & Angell T. 2001. Birds of North America. No. 597 Western Screech Owl. p.3refer to size and plumage coloration differences and hold it to be a separate race. They includetabular data (p.16) which show themacfarlanei weights and wing-lengths to be substantiallythe largest.
• The type formacfarlanei was collected in my home town (Walla Walla, WA). [[2010.06.12] Initially I thought this was collected by Wm. Brewster, but I think Brewster was probablynot in Walla Walla in 1881. Brewster comments in his Bull.Nutt.Orn.Club article on birdsof the Fort Walla Walla vicinity, that Bendire sent him his collection of birds from that region, and encouraged Brewster to publish any findings of interest.] The bird was collectedon Oct. 22 1881, by Capt. Charles Bendire.Capt. Bendire was stationed at Ft. Walla Walla from June 1878 until May 1882. (Fort Walla Walla, given as the type locality fora number of subspecies, actually occupied 3 locations, from its inception to the current day. WhenCapt. Bendire served there it was located at it's current location where itnow functions as a Veterans Administration Hospital, and where Western Screech Owls -- quite abundant in Walla Walla -- can be heard to this day on the grounds.)
• The bird was named for "Mr Robert Macfarlane who, as is well known, was a personal friendof Robert Kennicott and an enterprising and accomplished field ornithologist."
• Coues (KeyN.A.Birds p.634) lists Macfarlane as a member of the Hudson Bay Company.

• The original description occurs as a footnote toOTUS MEXICANUS G. Cuvier. and reads:

  *) Otus midas, Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Mus. Berol., p. 6, est foudé surun individu femelle d'un hibou sous tous les rapports sembable an mexicanus,mais d'une taille plus considérable.  Il a été tué dans les environs de Monté-video.  Longuer totale 18 pouces.  Aile 11 pouces 6 lignes.  Pointe de l'aile2 pouces. Queue 5 pouces 9 lignes.  Aigrettes 33 lignes.  Hauteur de la man-dible supérieure 5 lignes.  Oiel 5 lignes de demie. Tarse 26 lignes.  Doigt dumilieu 19 lignes.

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist2:226; HBW3:[725]) given as

  MicroparraCabanis 1877J.Orn. 25 p.349

• The Richmond Index gives a date of July, 1877 for that volume and number of theJ.Orn., howevertheOrn.Centralblattalso containing the erection of this genus was issued on June 15, 1877.

• The original description reads

  GenusMALACOPTERON, n.g.Rostrum ferè capiti æquale, altius quà latum, ad apicem incisum,  ultraque nares compressum, ad basim setis armatum; mandibulâ  inferiore ad basim tumidâ.Tarsi mediocres;digiti externi vix longiores quàm interni, poste-  riores medios æquantes;ungues compressi posteriores longissimi;scuta tarsi vix divisa.Alæ breves, rotundatæ; pennis secondariis primarias ferè æquantibus;  primâ pennarum spuriâ, secundâ breviore tertiâ quæ longissima  est.Cauda paucarum pennarum composita, rotundata; tectricibus supe-  rioribus mollibus et longis.Obs. This genus is allied toMicrotarsus in some particulars andtoBrachipus in others; it agrees with both in the soft and downynature of the tail coverts.

• The original description reads

  CORYTHAIX MACRORHYNCHUS.Cor. rostro prægrandi aurantico,    ad basin sanguineo; capite, cristâ, collo pectoreque viridibus;    cristâ ad apicem albâ et purpureo notatâ, lineâ albâ infra oculos    excurrente; dorso alisque metallicè purpureis; primariis san-    guineis nigro marginatis; caudâ supernè metallicè viridi; femo-    ribus caudâque subtù nigris tarsis nigris.  Long. tot. 14 poll.;rostri, 1¼;alæ 6;caudæ 6;tarsi, 1¼.Hab. ---?  This species of Corythaix lived for some time in the Society'sMenagerie, having been purchased from a dealer who was unac-quainted with its locality.  Compared with the known species of the genus, it approachesmost nearly to theCorythaix Persa of authors, but from this it mayreadily be distinguished by its smaller size; and the form, compara-tively large size and colouring of the beak.  The colouring of theplumage also differs in some respects: likeC. Persa, the head, neckand breast are green, but the feathers on these parts are of a deeperhue than in that species; the feathers of the crest, instead of beingsimply tipped with white, having a white transverse line near theapex, butat the apex they are purple-black.  Minute black feathersencircle the eye, and a white stripe extends from beneath the eyeon to the ear.  The beak is much arched above, and somewhat in-flated at the base; the nostrils are very large, and not hidden, as inC. Persa, by the decumbent feathers, these extending only to theposterior angle of the nostril.  The upper mandible is of a bright yellow color, excepting all that portion which lies below and be-hind the nostrils, which is of a brilliant red colour; the lower mandi-ble is of the same red tint, but tipped with yellow.  Both mandi-bles present simple sharp-cutting edges, in this respect exhibiting adifferent structure from that observable in the the allied species,C. PersaandC. Buffonii, in which the mandibles have their cutting edgesserrated.  The back and upper surface of the wings are of a deeppurple-blue tint, exhibiting in certain parts greenish reflections.The primaries (with the exception of the first quill) and second-aries (with the excpetion of the three of four innermost quills) arered, margined with black; the shafts of these feathers are also black.The outer primary is black, and the two or three following feathersare broadly margined externally with the same colour.  All the wing feathers are black at the base; on the outermost feathers theblack colouring occupies but little space, but in each successivefeather it increases in extent.  The feathers of the tail are of a verydark green colour above, inclining to black; beneath they are black,but exhibit indistinct purple reflections.  The rump, upper and un-der tail-coverts, thighs, and vent are black, obscurely tinted withpurple or green in parts.  The tarsi are black.  The eyes are hazel,and the naked, or almost naked space around the eye, is of a crimsoncolour; not carunculated, as inC. Buffonii andC. leucotis.

• Originally spelled with one "i" by Baird (fide in original).
• Spelled with one "i" in Peters Checklist2:19 and Cat.B.Brit.Mus.22:512, and the RichmondIndex.
• HBW2:342(plate),343 spell this asmccallii (note double "i"), and this isrepeated in H&M 3^rd Ed. p.37.
• I interpret one "i" to be correct.

• Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist2:4; HBW2:309; H&M 3^rd Ed.:37)
This part was published in Feb. 1862.

• Peters1(2):21 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
• HBW1:128 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.31 also perpetuates this error.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprintdate indicates.

• Cited by Peters Checklist25:15 (Moreau & Greenway) as:
  • Passer motitensisSmith,A 1848Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.114
• However, as Bob Dowsett pointed out, this is pre-dated by the 1836 Rep.Exped.Centr.Afr.which I reproduce here.

Pyrgita Motitensis.   Top of head and back of neck grey;  eyebrows, sides of neck, and back, chestnut; the interscapu-  lars dashed with dark black-brown; eyeband, chin, and  throat, black; cheeks white; breast and belly rusty white.  Length 6¼ inches. Inhabits the country about Old Latakoo.

• Peters Checklist12:337 (Moreau) spells thisS. melenocephala, as Gray composed the name.
• However, all compound names ending in-ops are manditorily masculine, regardlessof their derivation or their treatment by their authors (ICZN 1999:Art. 30.1.4.3.ThisSpeirops is masculine andmelanocephalus should also be.

• There are interesting uncertainties here regarding the spelling ofthis name.Macronous vs.Macronus
• To date (2003.05.02) best summarized by this portion ofan email from Normand David:

  Macronus/Macronous Jardine & Selby (Illustrations of Ornithology, 1835, Vol. III, pl.150) The plate hasMacronus and the the text hasMacronous.The index of volumeIII (the only vol. of four that has an index) in which the plate wasbound hasMacronus.All references cited by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. that I have seen haveMacronus (from Gray´s 1841 "Genera..." to Sharpe's 1903 "Handlist ..." + various minor papers inIbis, PZSL, BBOC), except for Blyth 1842 (JASB11:795) and Blyth 1849 (Cat. Birds Mus As. Soc.).All indications show thatMacronus was in overwhelming use from 1835until 1963 and 1964, when Deignan (1963, Check-list Birds Thailand) usedMacronous with no explanation); in Peters (1964)X:318, he (Deignan) invoked Blyth's 1842 "Macronous" as a First Reviser action (but it does not meetthe requirements of the Code), despite the fact that "the editors wouldprefer to maintain this more frequently used spelling [=Macronus]".Did anyone else acted as First Reviser?Perhaps the answer lies in Proc. Biol. Soc Wash. (1905)18:4, whereMearns establishedMacronous mindanensis montanus; or Chasen 1935, AHandlist of Malaysian Birds (Bull Raffles Museum11:1-389), or Deignan1950 (Bull Raffles Museum23:127-129, where he introducedMacronusstriaticeps mearnsi.These publications [must still be checked]...I note that Wolters (1982, Vogelarten der Erde) usedMacronus instead of"Macronous" (which he cites).Unless we find something else, it seems that Deignan was the firstauthor to useMacronous consistently at one point in time. I think nowthis is unfortunate becauseMacronus was much more frequent and closerto the etymology (onyx, claw; notous, ear).On the other hand, can we say that Deignan in Peters acted as FirstReviser? He citedMacronous (text to plate) andMacronus (plate), andusedMacronous. I am not sure yet if this meets [the] Art. 24.2.3 phrase "selected one spelling as correct".

• A confusing situation here. Discussed by:
  1. Deignan, 1955Deignan HG. 1955. "The Identity ofCollocalia maxima Hume." BBOC75(6):82.
  2. HBW5:433.

• Peters Checklist1:73 gives the page number as "179".
• This error is repeated in HBW1:632.
• The description ofPterodroma mollis maderia subsp. nov. is on p.161 of no.CCCLXXVIII. The nameis in fact used on p.179 (which is in the following number - no.CCCLXXIX), but it is not new there.
• The Richmond Index gives the citation properly as p.161.

• Peters Checklist2:130 gives the page number as "68".
• This error is repeated in HBW2:573 (McGowan)
• The description starts on p.122.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

• N. 144 FRINGILLA (macroura) supra nigra, maculahumerali subtusque alba, recticibus quatuorintermediis longissimis, lateralibus interius o-blique albis.  Magnitudo Spini.

• Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birdsin Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):336.
• The locality (taken from theCatalogue, not theAdumbratiunculae) isgiven as "Oostindie." = East Indies.
• Peters Checklist14:395 indicates "East Indies; error, emended to Angola by Gmelin, 1789, Syst.Nat.1(2), p.883."

• The citation was given as conventionally cited
  • Struthio molybdophanesReichenow 1883Mitt.Orn. p.202Concept
  however there is some uncertaintyhere. Using bibliographic tools and library searches, I have not identified withcertainty the entity "Mittheilungen des Ornithologischen Vereins [Vereines] in Wien". Isuspect that this may be the title of a subsection of a larger work.
• The Richmond Index gives the source as:
  • "Sonntagsb. d. Norddeutsch. Allgemein. Zeitung no.37, 16 Sept. 1883"
    with a note saying:
    'orig. diag. ? repr. in J.f.O. 1883, 399.
    Mitth. des Orn.. Vereines in Wien, VII, no.10 Oct., 1883 p.202 (in text).'
  • On a second card detailing the J. fur Orn. 1884 listing is a note in Richmond's handstating:
    'probably first described in a newspaper - "Norddeutschen Allg. Zeitung."
    no.37 of Sept. 16, 1883!'
    This "probably" is written above a "possibly" which is crossed out.
• There was a German newspaper "Norddeutsche allgemeine Zeitung" published 1870-1942 whichwould appear to be the paper referred to.
• By date, this would certainly appear to have priority, and if it satisfies therequirements for adequacy of description would appear to be the appropriate citation.
• My guess is that Richmond did not actuallysee the Norddeutsh. Allg. Zeitungentry. His changing "possibly" to "probably" suggests he got some additional information, butNOT certainty regarding this question.
• Norbert Bahr helpfully writes (2009.12.13):

   In his work "Die Vögel Afrikas", Reichenow cited first his publication in the newspaper `Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung", supporting that that article has priority over the description in Mitt. Orn. Ver. Wien, and perhaps the source on which Richmond based his change from `possibly' to `probably' (?).

• The No.37 Sonntagsblatt evidently has an imprint date of16 Sept. 1883 (a Sunday), but was published on Saturday15 Sept. 1883, based on Reichenow's note in the DieVog.Afr. (vol.1p.12).

• I previously followed the AOU. 42^nd supplementto the AOU Checklist Auk 2000. 117(3):850. for the citation, which was:
  • Centrocercus minimusBradbury&Vehrencamp1998PrincipalsAnimalCommunication cover p.iv,770
• I now follow the AOU. 43^rd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2002.119(3):899.
• A complex and unfortunate situation exists here. Iunderstand this name, though unpublished, was used informally forsome time. The Bradbury and Vehrencamp publication of the namewas not intended as the species description, but nonetheless wasinterpreted by Banks, and others who have reviewed the data andthe applicable rules, as satisfying the ICZN rules then ineffect, and was thus, whether advertent or not, a valid speciesdescription.
• Shortly after that publication, the new 4^th ICZN rules came intoeffect and the description wouldNOT then have satisfied the criteria.
• Those who worked on recognition of the taxon published their work in the last 2000 issueofThe Wilson Bulletin, where they described it as as "new species", and didNOT cite the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work,OR the AOU checklist update's useof the name as a Bradbury and Vehrencamp taxon.
• I understand that there was some consideration to petition theICZN to suppress the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work (which hadunquestioned priority) and thus have their work (being the nextavailable) as the citation.
• The action of the AOU Checklist Committee may make this moot.The Checklist Committee held that the name was used by Vehrencampand Bradbury as "a means of temporary reference and not forformal taxonomic use as a scientific name in zoologicalnomenclature," and thus was excluded under ICZN 1985 Art.1(b)(6)and ICZN 1999 Art. 1.3.5.
• This would appear to be a lesson and a motivator to remember theimportance of publishing and establishing valid names so they canbe used by the scientific community in a uniform and consistentmanner.
• An additional point:
  • I can not understand Younget al.'s motivation forNOT mentioning eitherBradbury & Vehrencamp,OR the initial findings of the AOU Checklist Committee intheir WilsonBull. article of description. Ican understand their disappointment, andconcern over the problem, but by not mentioning the issue in their WilsonBull. paper theyensure that the nomenclatural issue will be more difficult to understand when people in thefuture look back on this name. In addition, in my view, it produces the possibility of aninterpretation of petulance, rather than a desire to resolve and clarify a nomenclaturalissue.

• Listed by Peters Checklist7:282 as a full species.
• Sibley & Monroe suggest possibly a full species, (and use theformM. maranonica).
• The genus group nameMelanopareia ends in the transliteratedGreek wordπαρεια [pareia:cheek] which is feminine. Thus Sibley & Monroe's interpretation thatthe form should bemaranonica. However the specificepithet is based on the Rio Marañon, and thus may be a noun inapposition. Chapman described the species asmaranonicus but forthe moment I usemaranonica.
• This approach is supported by Normand David who writes (2002.10.23):"Although formed from the Rio Marañon, the namemaranonicus of Chapman is necessarily adjectival because endingin the adjectival suffix-icus, just likeamazonicus/amazonica from the Amazon River. BecauseMelanopareia is feminine,maranonicus needs the mandatorycorrection tomaranonica."
• Has been treated as a subspecies ofM. elegans, but theydiffer morphologically and are allopatric (see Rigdely & Tudor,1994, and Sibley 1996).

• Often speltS. magnirostris. Originally described asAcanthizamagnirostra Gould, 1838.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):38 discuss this. They indicate that: "To changemagnirosta tomagnirostis would turn and invariable noun phrase into a variable adjective."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationSericornis magnirostris occurs 3 times in theZoo. Rec.;Sericornis magnirostra does not occur.

• Often placed in the monotypic genus

  EupetomenaGould 1853Monogr.Trochil. pt6 pl.1,text

• HBW5:554 (Schuchmann) notes: "song structure and enlarged shaft of primary in [the]male support [the] present treatment inCampylopterus.

• Often speltC. melancorypha. Originally described asAnasmelancorypha Molina, 1782. (Notmelanocorypha).
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):27 discuss this. They indicate that: Sibley & Monroe (1990) weremistaken in regarding this name as a noun in apposition (which they did because of thecapitalization). The state: "Molina's name is feminine and agrees in gender with the genusAnas, we conclude thatmelanocorypha can only be the correct latinization of theGreek adjectivalμελαγκορυφος[melagkoruphos; black-headed], as diagnosed by Molina (1782,234), and not the latinizedmasculine nounμελαγκορυφος[ melagkoruphos: tit or warbler]."
• μελαγ-κορυφοςis defined by Liddell & Scott as "a bird,the black-cap, Motacilla atricapilla L.; or(as Sundevall)Parus palustris, the marsh tit. Ar. Av. 877, Arist. H. A. 8. 3, 5., 9. 15,2; acc. to Plin. 10. 44, theμ was the same bird as theficedula(συκαλις), the latter name being givenit during the fig season.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationsC. melanocorypha andC.melancoryphaoccur twelve times each in theZoo. Rec..

• Often speltP. melanospila. Originally described asJotreronmelanospila Salvadori, 1875.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC.122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The namemelanospilais latinized from the Greek adjectiveμελανοσπιλος[melanospilos; black-spotted].Jotrereon Bonaparte, 1854, ending in the transliterated(masculine and feminine) Greek adjectiveτρηρον[treron:shy], is masculine because it was not established in combination with a feminineadjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.2)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationP. melanospila occurs twice intheZoo. Rec..

• See Smith, PW. "The history and taxonomic status of theHispaniolan Crossbill Loxia megaplaga." BBOC. 1997(1998).117(4):264-271.
• Peters Checklist14:293 lists this as a subspecies ofLoxialeucoptera.

Scytalopus micropterusSystematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:284.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg(Remsen, 1998)

Scytalopus meridanusSystematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Vol.7 p.286.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg(Remsen, 1998)

• Usually cited as 1776.
• SeeTyrberg. BBOC 118(1):56-7. 1998.

Hemignathus munroiAuthor Douglas Pratt

• The Richmond Index, lists the author as Douglas, an error forDouglas Pratt.
• Further confusion with this taxon is possible because of the 1919Perkins taxonDysmordrepanis munroi.

• Peters Checklist9:169 has 1831.
• Uncertainty exits about the date of publication of livr.5; Ifollow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
• The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and hence 1859 is conventionallyused.
• The accession number for the British Museum Library copy of thiswork is "60.3.-7.2" penciled on the back of the title page.
• The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
• I regard the preponderance of evidence as supporting 1860 as thepublishing date.

• Peters Checklist15:183 does not mention the Appendix, and lists"p.62".
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

Vanellusmacropterus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

• Peters Checklist1:341 gives 1834 and p.282-83.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates 1833, p.80, and checking afacsimile of the papers indicates the Peters Checklist is in error.
• The author is usually given as Smith (Peters Checklist1:341; HBW2:157)The Richmond Cardex has Peters crossed out, and "Verreaux" written in. Apparently fromindependant information H&M 3^rd Corrigenda concurs with the Richmond Index, andlists Verreaux as the author of the taxon.
• In further support of this possibility, Strickland 1855 Ornithological Synonyms p.114 lists the authorof the taxon as "Smith, Verreaux", but lists the date as "1830" (!).

• Peters Checklist6:232 lists the date as 1828.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is1827.
• HBW7:533 (Short & Horne) gives 1828, evidently following the PetersChecklist.

• Peters Checklist15:187 does not list the plates or figure, whichare from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist6:63 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of thework.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1828.
• The date proposed by Peters not only appears most unlikely but it suggeststhat Peters did not actually examine this rare and confusing work during thepreparation of this portion of the Checklist. Unpublished notes by CW Richmondindicate that on p.30 of this work (where this bird is described) the date of"Sept. 1827" is mentioned, so this portion of the work (which is Hefte 7)certainly had to be published subsequent to that time.

• Peters Checklist3:101 lists 1811. See {Browning and Monroe,1991}.

• Peters Checklist8:97 has a question on the date.
• {See Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist10:239 has 1873.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist7:217 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci.St. Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist6:188 gives 1826 which is the imprint date ofthe work.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1829.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} notes on the card that Ruppell in NeueWirbelth. Vog. gives 1827 as the date for this species.

• Peters Checklist1:333 has 1875. See {Poggi, 1996}.

• Not used by Peters Checklist.
• Originally described in Mimeta.

• Peters Checklist14:108 has "1851?"
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist11:511 lists this as vol."2", evidently atypographic error.

• Peters Checklist15:166 has 1876, but see {Poggi R, 1996}.
• H&M 3^rd:463 cites this to 1876 without comment (throughCorrigenda 6). However, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 cites Poggi inother instances (e.g. forPachycephala leucogastra which appears on p.822 ofvol. 7. The Corrigenda cites Poggi 1996 as reason to change the date ofP.leucogastra from 1875 to 1876 (!!!). Poggi makes it clear (pp.102-103) that theimprint date of Volume 7 is "1875" and that pp.1-796

  "belong to 1875 and pages 797--895 most likely belong to 1875".

• My understanding of the Code suggests that 1875 must be used as the date ofpublication unless and until there is more evidence or proof of delay.
• The Richmond Index notes that this "article [is] dated Nov. 21"; while it is probablethat theremay have been delay, certainly this date or the volume date of 1875 mustbe regarded as the "date specified", and treated as correct until shown to be wrong.

• Peters Checklist6:142 lists the date as 1825 and this is followed by HBW7:538.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1826.
• The data listed byDickinson, 2001. Zool.Verh. 335 also indicates 1826 iscorrect.

Elaenia mesoleucaAuthor

• Peters Checklist8:31 lists Lichtenstein as the author, but see{Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
• Deppe

• Peters Checklist1:417 gives 1851 in agreement with {Sherborn, 1902}and {Richmond, et al. 1992}, however, {Browning and Monroe, 1991}show 1850 to be correct.

• Peters Checklist12:16 has 1890, I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• The Peters Checklist1:395 has List.Gen.Birds, which is correct, but this genus was not described until the second edition, which was published in 1841, the date shown in the Checklist.

• Peters Checklist5:117 has 1839. {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1840".

• Peters Checklist8:266 attributes this to Shaw and Nodder, my understanding is that Nodder did not actually contribute to these descriptions.

• Peters Checklist8:266 lists 1808, {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates Feb. 1809.
• Of greater interest is the fact that Sherborn's 1895 Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist article, discussing the dates ofpublication of the Nat.Misc., indicates that this plate would have been published in 1808.This Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. article is often cited as the final word on the dates of publication for the Nat.Misc. However, Sherborn himself clearly didn't think so, as in the Ind.Anim. 1928 p.4064 he citesthis taxon to 1809.
• Nevertheless, this taxon is usually cited to 1808 (e.g. Peters Checklist8:266 (Traylor)and H&M 3^rd:340. The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 proposes changing the authorityto Shaw, as opposed to Peters "Shaw & Nodder" but leaves the date issue unaddressed.
• Not surprisingly, the Richmond Index dates this to Feb. 1809, a date that Sherborn himself waseventually able to understand himself was correct; a vision that yet awaits the Peters Checklist and itsfollowers.

• Peters Checklist6:59 has "1817 (1816)" which in this volume means an imprintdate of 1817, and a date of availability of 1816.
• HBW7 (Short & Horne) give "1817" on p.195, though the citation given on p.[559]of that work is 1816. Of some interest, the same authors (Short & Horne) date Cuvier'ssame work correctly in the citation forMegalaima flavifrons on p.205 !
• see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}. for data supporting 1816 as the date of availability.

• Peters Checklist14:118 has 1860.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show that this was published in March 1861.

• Peters Checklist12:424 has 1831
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as this is in livr.4 of the work.
• H&M 3^rd:431 also dates this to 1831, in the text andargues, without providing any supporting data, in the Corrigendas 3& 4 that 1831 is correct. A conclusion that must have beencarefully considered, but with which I can not agree.

• Peters Checklist11:460 has 1835.
• There is much uncertainty about this date, and I do not find an entry in {Richmond, et al. 1992}. I follow Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist11:381 has 1850.
• This work was issued from 1818 to 1836, and reissued in 1850. This plate and description were published in 1836 according to {Richmond, et al. 1992}, Sherborn, and Zimmer.

Artamus monachus1850

• Peters Checklist15:163 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist1:305 has truncated the citation, listing pl.22 (sic).

Brachypteryx montana1821

• Peters Checklist10:18 has 1822.
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist4:253 attributes this to "Rev. Zool." which did not commence until 1838.

• Peters Checklist4:8 has a 1789 date and a different source
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist8:71 lists "Aves Nuevas Paraguay"
• Aves Nuevas Del Paraguay are reprints from An.Cient.Paraguayos. I know of no indicationthat they preceeded the journal.

• Peters Checklist2:98 shows a date of 1880. However, on p.129 of the same volumeit gives a date of 1881 for a taxon (Callophasis humiae) from an earlier page of thesame volume.
• Sept. 1881 is indicated for this taxon by Richmond, et al. 1992.

• Peters Checklist6:59 has "Ber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin".
• I follow the orthography of Richmond, et al. 1992, which is consistant with othersimilar citations.

• Peters Checklist8:326 has 1845.
• The Richmond Index lists these as "1839 ?40".
• Sherborn lists these as 1840.
• SeeE.C.Dickinson "Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 5 Types of the Pittidae" p.108 note 8.. He indicates that pp.1-12 and 3 plates appeared in 1839 and pp.13-24 appeared in 1845 along with formal descriptions of all species

• The dates of livr.5 are uncertain.
• Peters Checklist8:186 has 1831, which may be right.
• My researches favor 1830.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:189.
• See Isler ML, Ilser PR, Whitney BM. 1999. Auk116(1):83-96.

Amblyornis macgregoriaeCitation

Peters Checklist15:176 leaves out reference to the Appendix.

• Peters Checklist11:69 has 1788.
• The Richmond Index, and Sherborn both give 1786, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist9:411,412 (= Paynter 1960) has 1860.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the latter portion of Vol. 8 of J.Orn. (at least after p.323) was not published until Jan. of 1861.

Anthoscopus minutusAuthor

Peters Checklist12:68 has Shaw and Nodder. It is my understanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.

Amaurornismagnirostris

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Molothrus oryzivorusGeneric placement

See Johnson KP & Lanyon SM. 1999. Auk 116(3):759-768. for a discusson of grackle/ally systematics, and the proposal to placeoryzivorus inMolothrus, thereby eliminating the monospecific genusScaphidura.

Pseudobulweriamacgillivrayi

The original citation reads:(formatting as in original)

 THALASSIDROMA (BULWERIA) MACGILLIVRAYI.B.M. Like T. Bulweri, but with bill rather larger; and it is withoutthe sooty-brown on the wings. Feejee Islands (Ngau).

• Considered as likely a full species by many authors.
• Freitag, S and Robinson, TJ. 1993. Auk110(3):614-622. "PhylogeographicPatterns in Mitochondrial DNA of the Ostrich (Strutio camelus)."presents an analysis of the genus. I interpreted them to argue that the geographical, morphological,and genetic evidence supported the treatment ofmolybdophanes as a full species. This wasbased mainly on their statement (p.621)

   "Furthermore, in addition to these adaptational differences, there are reportsindicating interbreeding difficulties between them (Brown et al. 1982, Lewis and Pomeroy 1989). Thissupports published suggestions thatmolybdophanes is phenotypically the most distinct ofthe Ostrich subspecies, and that separate species status may be warranted (Brown et al. 1882, Lewisand Pomeroy 1989), an observation which is strengthened by the magnitude of sequence divergencebetweenmolybdophanes and other Ostrich lineages detected in our study."

• H&M 3^rd ed. p.34 has a note stating:

  "Freitag & Robinson (1993) reviewed molecular evidence for treatment of this as one species ortwo. We interpret the authors to be supportive of single species treatment."

• My interpretation would still be that Freitag & Robinson favored specific recognition ofmolybdophanes.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist1:11.
• Not treated by Sibley & Monroe.
• Baker et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 1995, 8254-8258)found that two species of Brown Kiwis should be recognized:
• Apteryx mantelli on North Island and Okarito on the SouthIsland of NZ;
• A. australis on southern South Island and Stewart I.
• They found differences in mtDNA, Allozymes, morphology,and feather lice

• Treated by Peters Checklist as a subspecies.
• Sjoerd Maijer (Auk 113, 1996, 695-697) described significant differences in the voices of the two subspecies of the Red-winged Tinamou Rhynchotus rufescens.
• He proposed reinstating R. maculicollis Gray, 1867 as a good species based on voice, morphology and ecology.
• The HBW vol.1 1992, still treated the form as a subspecies.

Myophonusspelling

I include below (a slightly edited) text of Rolf de By's discussion of the spellingof this name. [98.02.16]

Myiophonus speciesMyophonus species ** S/M has Myiophonus; Peters X p. 140 disc. spell.What I write here, is the outcome of a discussion I helpedorganize, but the hard work (literature review) was done by others.  Clearly,there have been four ways of spelling. On the issue of My[i]ophon[e]us, S&M write:"This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus,Myophonus, and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used thecorrect spelling."  Issue settled, it seems.  Not so.  BTW, all spellings are inregular use, it seems.  Utter confusion.If it's any help, according to my interpretation the three possible names mean:  Myophonus"Mouse-voiced"  Myiophonus"Fly-voiced"  Myiophoneus"Fly-murderer"I know, this is no proof, but I do feel (if you know the birds; largish blue thrushes)the top translation makes most sense.  Here's what Tim Inskipp eventually wrote,and what to my eyes seemed the killer:> The genus was described by Temminck in 1822 in Nouveau receuil de planches > coloriees d'oiseaux. > > Sibley & Monroe (1990, Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world) used > the spelling Myiophonus, stating that:> > `This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus, > Myophonus and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used the > correct spelling.'> > However, Biswas (1961) used the spelling Myiophoneus, explaining in a > footnote that:> > `Vaurie (1959a, p. 415) has reverted back to the spelling Myophonus. It is > true that on the explanation of pl. 170 of Temminck & Laugier's Planches > color., livr. 29 (1822) the generic name is spelt as Myophonus, but two pages > preceding it, where the genus is described, it is spelt as Myiophoneus.'> > Ripley (1964, Subfamily Turdinae in Check-list of birds of the world, 10) > gave the citation for the genus as:> >  'Myiophoneus Temminck 1822, Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170. Type, by original > designation, Turdus flavirostris Horsfield.'> > He explained in a footnote that:> > 'Temminck (ibid.), in his generic description, spells the new genus > Myiophoneus, and on the following page accompanying plate 170 spells it > "Myophonus."'> > Deignan (1965) gave a characteristically detailed summary of the situation: > > 'The first citation for Genus Myophonus Temminck should read: Myophonus > Temminck, 1822 (Dec.) Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170 and text. Type, by > monotypy, Myophonus metallicus Temminck. (The plate is lettered Myophone > luisant).>    The name next appears in literature as Myiophonus Boie, 1829, Isis, p. > 1029, lapsus or nomen emendatum.>    Its third guise, accompanied by a proper generic diagnosis, is Myiophoneus > Temminck, 1832 (post Mch. 2), Pl. col., livr. 29, p. [211].>    At this third appearance the genus is expanded to include, in addition to > M. flavirostris (Horsfield), 1821 (May), with which M. metallicus Temminck, > 1822, is now synonymized; also:->    (1) Myophonus Horsfieldii Vigors, 1831 (Mch. 2), corrupted to Myiophoneus > [sic] Horsfeldii [sic];>    (2) Myophonus Temminckii Vigors, 1832 (Mch. 2), changed to Myiophoneus > [sic] Temminckii;>    (3) Pitta glaucina Temminck, 1823 (Apr.), here listed as Myiophoneus [sic] > glaucinus and cited from pl. 190 [sic] (correctly, pl. 194).>    The footnote on page 140 of Peters' Volume X states that the generic name > should be "Myiophoneus," because it so appears, emendated from Myophonus, on > the page (properly sheet) preceding the description of Myophonus metallicus > Temminck, 1822.>    Since, however, that preceding sheet cites species named in April 1823, on > 2nd March 1831, and on 2nd March 1832, it could not have been issued prior to > 2nd March 1832 (as a replacement of an earlier and discarded sheet?). There > is then no such name as "Myiophoneus Temminck and Laugier, 1822", as supposed > by Delacour (Auk, 1942, p. 246) and by the revisor of the whistling-thrushes > for Peters' Check-list.>    To complete the confusion, we find Temminck using, in the Tableau > Methodique of January 1839, which summarizes the Planches Coloriees, both > Myophonus and Myiophoneus on the same page 15!>    If stability in ornithological nomenclature be considered desirable, why > are we asked to use a so-called emendation (in fact a wholly new generic > name!) that first appeared in print some ten years after the simple, easily > spelled and easily pronounced Myophonus Temminck of 1822?'> > I have cited all this because it is a good example of how often authors > misquote or misinterpret previously published works. Note that Deignan's plea > was apparently ignored by many recent world checklists: Clements (1991: > Myiophonus), Howard & Moore (1980, 1984, 1991: Myiophoneus), Walters (1980: > Myiophoneus).>

• Systematics and taxonomy of the megapodes from
  Jones, D. N., R. W. R. J. Dekker & C. S. Roselaar. 1995. The Megapodes Megapodiidae. Oxford Univ. Pr., Oxford, New York, Tokyo.

• Long treated as a color morph ofC. auriceps
• Recent evidence (Triggs, SJ & Daugherty, CH. 1996. Bird ConservationInternational6:89-101) suggests assortive mating amoung the few remainingbirds and species status is proposed.

• Listed in Peters Checklist3:209 asT. melanonotus.
• Listed in Sibley & Monroe p.128 asT. melanonotus, without comment onthe spelling.
• Collar in HBW4:456 list this asT. melanonota alsowithout comment on the spelling.
• Treatment of otherTouit names suggests the genus is regarded as feminine. Thespecific epithet here does not appear to be a noun in apposition.

• Not listed in Sibley & Monroe; Peter Checklist 7:230 lists asa subspecies of P. rufifrons;
• Capparella et al (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 165-170provided reasons for splittingPercnostola minor fromP.rufifrons.

• The always helpful Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.14):
  "In a revision of the genusAmytornis, Les Christidis (Austr. J. Zool.47(1999): 113-124) found thatA. striatus in fact represents twospecies:A. striatusGould, 1840, andA. merrotsyi Mellor, 1913; based ongenetics and morphology.

• I previously attempted to followVeron G, Winney BJ. 2000. Ibis142:446-456. "Phylogenetic relationships within the turacos(Musophagidae).". A few points to note in that regard: there are some small discrepancies inspelling of specific epithets, and Veron & Winney do not analyse, treat, or discussT. ruspolli orT. bannermani, hence their placements in thegenus is my speculation.
• Currently, the listing follows H&M 3^rd which is more similar to the PetersChecklist arrangement, though substantial differences exist. H&M 3^rd does notdiscuss Veron & Winney.

• The last known individual of this species died on September 1, 1914 in the CincinnatiZoological Gardens, Ohio.

• SeeRasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F and Voninavoko R. 2000. "Geographicvariation in the Malagasy Scops-Owl (Otus rutilus auct.): the existence of an unrecognizedspecies on Madagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa. BBOC.120:75-102.

Otusmayottensis

• SeeRasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F and Voninavoko R. 2000. "Geographicvariation in the Malagasy Scops-Owl (Otus rutilus auct.): the existence of an unrecognizedspecies on Madagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa". BBOC.120:75-102.
• The name is derived from Mayotte, an island in the Comoro group.

• In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum27:563 Salvadori lists thisspecies asNothura media.
• The citation is given as: Tinamus mediusSpix 1825Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.81
• Thesecond name listed in synonomy is:Tinamus minorSpix 1825Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.82
• A footnote states: "Mr. Oglilvie Grant says the Turnix variegatus Vieill. (N.D. xxxv. p.47; Enc. Meth.i. p.330, pl.232. f.4), is probably a Tinamou (Nothura media), but I cannot find thateither the description or the plate agrees with the latter bird."
• "Nothura minor,Darw. (nec SpixZool. Voy. 'Beagle,' iii p.119(Bahia Blanca) (1841);Gould, Voy. of 'Beagle' Birds, p.119 (1841)." is given inthe synonomy ofNothura darwini. on p.562
• Why the name isnotNothura media rather thanN. minor is not clearto me, but this point is not likely to have been overlooked by previous workers.

• Gaucher et al. separateC. macqueenii fromC. undulatus on the basis ofmale reproductive behaviour and cytochrome b gene analysis. Gaucher P, Paillat P, Chappuis C, Saint Jalme M, Lotifkhah F, Wink M. 1996. "Taxonomy of the Houbara BustardChlamydotis undualta subspecies considered on thebasis of sexual display and genetic divergence." Ibis138:273-282.
• The HBW3:265 doesnot splitC. macqueenii but mentions that "itmay merit treatment as a separate species."
• Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Sibley and Monroe spell this "malachorhynchus"
• It was originally spelt "malacorhynchos" and most authors now spell itso.

• Previously as:
  • Burhinusgiganteus (Wagler) 1829Isis 22 col.647[Charadrius]
• HBW3:350 has a discussion of the confusing nomenclature.

Micrastur mirandolleiSystematics

• Schelgel's entry reads:"

  ASTUR MIRANDOLLEI, Schelgel dans le Nederl. Tigdsch. v.d.Dierkunde,I, p.130.  Tarses rêvetus d'écailles hexagonales, longs de 3 pouces,jaunâtres. Aile 8 pouces 6 lignes. Queue 6 pouces 3 lignes.Hauteur de la mandibule supérieure 7 lignes.  Doigt du milieu15 lignes.  Dessus gris, dessous blanc à baguettes des plumesnoirâtres.  Queue d'un brun noir avec 5 barres claires.  Observe a Surinam.1. Adulte, Surinam, présenté par Mr. Mirandolle: idividutype, figuré dans l'ouvrage cité."

• Mr. Mirandolle was a resident of Surinam.
• The units of measurement here are of interest.Pouce is a unit of length used in 14^th to 18^th century France.Replaced by the metric system during the Revolution. France, however, fairly quickly abandoned the metric system under Napolean, reverting (as we see here) to old systems of measurement.
• Pouce is derived from the word for "thumb";ligne meansline and is a watchmaker's measeure for the thickness of a watch movement.
• Pouce = 1.0657 inches, 27.07 mm. 12 pouces = 1 pied-de-roi.
• ligne = 2.256 mm; 12 douziemes; that is, 12 ligne to a pouce.
• S.F. Baird on p.XVI of vol.IX of the Pac.RRReports has a note reading:
  "The English inch is about equal to 11.26 French lines, .9389 French inches, orto 25.40 Millimetres."
• This would suggest there may be some variability in the conversion.

• HBW4:360 lists the date here as 1873.
• Collar is consistent in citing this volume as 1873, however this portion was published in1871.
  See the details atNederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

• Sibley & Monroe haveA. moluccanus
• This is followed by HBW3:181 where they do not comment on the spelling.
• Amaurornis is feminine andmoluccana is correct.

• Normand David writes (2001.01.05)

  "Ierax melanoleucos Blyth, 1843, must be listedMicrohierax melanoleucos [asper Peters (1931), Wolters (1982)], and should not be changed toM. melanoleucus [as in Peters (1979a), etc.]. I have checked the originalreference."

• Peters Checklist3:74 and HBW4:132 place this in a monotypic genus:
  • NesoenasSalvadori 1893Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.21 p.240,327
• HBW characterizes the "true taxonomic relationships uncertain", so I initiallyleft it inColumba.
• Johnson et al. "A molecular phylogeny of the dove generaStreptopeia andColumba". 2001. The Auk118(4):874-887.present zoogeographic as well as nuclear and mitochondrial genetic evidence supporting their proposal to mergeNesoenas intoStreptopelia.
• Peters felt the form was extinct, however in 1994 the number of free livingindividuals on Mauritius was counted as 77.

• A complex systematic and nomenclatural situation.
• Recently summarized (in litt. 2004.05.15) by Norbert Bahr, who reviewed and translatedtwo of the recent papers relating to these questions.For the present, I interpret the implications of these works (v. i.) to favor theintepretation thatBubo magellanicus should be held to be a species distinct fromBubovirginianus.
• Norbert's email (with slight editing) is below, and is followed by my previous notes on thistaxon.

   ... I can help you with translations of the König et al. (1996) as wellas the Weick (1999) articles on American Bubo, as I have both these papers athand. I will start with an extended summary of the paper by König et al. (1996).
  König, C., P. Heidrich & M. Wink (1996): Zur Taxonomie der Uhus (Strigidae: Bubospp.) im südlichen S¨damerika. Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk., Ser. A, Nr. 540, 1-9[Taxonomy of Great Horned Owls (Strigidae: Bubo spp.) in southern South America.]According to Amadon & Bull (1988) there is only oneBubo species in the wholeAmerican continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego:Bubo virginianus. Traylor[Auk 75: 143-148 (1958)] studied variation and races of the Great Horned Owl in South America and came to the conclusion that the form east of the Andes must beBubo virginianus nacurutu, whereas the birds of Patagonia, Chile, and of theAndes from Tierra del Fuego to Peru should be calledB. v. magellanicus. Indeed,nacurutu andmagellanicus are rather different: they have very obviousdifferences in bill and foot dimensions, and in the barring of the underparts. Fjeldsa & Krabbe (1990) used the namemagellanicus for the smaller taxon fromPatagonia and the southern Andes.It would be a surprise that a subspecies occuring in sub-arctic Patagonia and the High Andes is smaller than a [sister] subspecies living in warmer climaticconditions, and indeed, compared to other subsp. ofvirginianus,magellanicus isa dwarf form. Besides these morphological differences, the vocalizations of both Bubo forms are quite distinct. The Great Horned Owl is called 'nacurutú' inArgentinia, but 'tucúquere' in Chile, apparently an onomatopetic transcriptionof the calls of these birds.Morphologic and bioacoustic comparison of the formsmagellanicus andnacurutu.B. magellanicus is small, has a relatively small bill (culmen under 43 mm) andcomparatively small feet. Below, this taxon [is] barred very narrowly light and dark.There are light morphs showing much white, but there are also rather dark morphs with a brownish main color.The wings are, according to Traylor, in males from Chile and Argentinia on average 329,0 mm (318-339), in females 342,9 mm (330-358). Birds from the Andes of Bolivia and Peru are somewhat larger (wings 351-380 mm); the bill is on average 38,0 mm in males and 39,3 mm in females. Birds in the Stuttgart collection agree with these measurements.If one compares living birds side by side, so the different culmen and talon measurements are very obvious [ther are photos of pairs of both forms in the paper which show these differences very impressive!]. Further on, both taxa have different 'faces' and feather ears (longer innacurutu).Still more impressive are the differences in songs of both taxa. Both sexes ofmagellanicus sing in duet, the male uttering a double-call "wu-búh" with aquiet tremolo on "o": "wu-búh-worrrr". 'Tucúquere' is a good circumscription of this vocalization. The female sings similarily, but the tremolo is a little longer.Thenacurutu subsp. ofvirginianus is a little larger thanmagellanicus, withlarge feet and a stronger bill. Barring is not as narrow and the facial expression is more "wild", caused by the longer feather ears and the strong bill.Wing length in 15 males is 341,4 mm on average (330-354), in 21 females 363,1 mm (240-376); the strong bill is about 45,6 mm in 14 males and 48,8 mm in 20 females.Pairs vocalize in duets also. The song of males is like "wu-bubú buh buh" infemales like "wu-bububú" followed by a drawn-out "buh". The first part of thefemales song is fairly good circumscribed with 'nja-curutú'.Molecular biological resultsHeidrich and Wink conducted a sequence analysis of the mt cytochrome b genes in their laboratory. Material was used from blood and feathers and by PCR they amplified 960 base pairs. Nucleotide sequences differed in 15 positions (1,6%), according to about 800 000 years when using the 2% rule. Both taxa are apparently sibling species, comparable to the differentiation of Spotted and Lesser Spotted Eagles (Aquila clanga,A. pomarina) or the Imperial and SpanishImperial Eagles (A. heliaca,A. adalberti).DiscussionAs vocalizations are likely the most important mechanisms of isolation in owls, it seems highly probable thatB. magellanicus andB. virginianus are goodspecies. Genetic distances not only confirm this assumption, but also confirm the hypothesis that vocalizations in owls are of special importance for owl taxonomy.The formnacurutu apparently represents a subspecies ofBubo virginianus,distributed in North and most of South America. It occurs in southern South America east of the Andes, where it has its southern limits in the Province of Buenos Aires.Bubo magellanicus is relatively common in Tierra del fuego and Patagonia, whereit lives in mountainous habitats. There it occurs in loosely wooded areas of southern beech as well as in mountains. It is distributed northward on thePacific slope (Chile) as well as in the central part (high-andine) of the Andes of Peru, agreeing with Traylor's findings ofmagellanicus. In the eastern slopesof the Andes an overlapping zone of both species may be found, whereB.magellanicus apparently prefers rocky areas.
  Weick, F. (1999): Zur Taxonomie der Amerikanischen Uhus (Bubo spp). UnterBerücksichtigung eines größtenteils parallel variierenden Polymorphismusinnerhalb der Subspecies. Ökologie der Vögel 21: 363-387[Taxonomy of the American Great horned Owls (Bubo spp) with consideration of a mostly parallel variation within the polymorphic subspecies.]The author was studying specimens of New WorldBubo in preparation for theplates of König et al. (Owls) in several museums, where he found a enormous variability  in plumages within populations. The evident polymorphism is obvious in most subspecies and varies parallel among taxa. Without knowledge of the locality of collection, many specimens are impossible to classify correctly. Original descriptions of subspecies are of little help, as they were often based on too few specimens of the same color morph. Most authors do not mention color morphs in Great Horned Owls at all, an exception is Oberholser's paper of 1904.Comments on taxonomyNew World Bubo are an interesting group with a complicated taxonomy, determined by the following factors:
  a. with some exceptions, there is relatively few material of these birdsavailable. In zoos and in private collections of living birds the number of individuals and subspecies is limited.
  b. polymorphy, the existence of two or more color morphs, shows parallelvariation among subspecies; this means that there are very similarely coloredbirds in different distrubutional areas. The scale light-intermediate-dark birds is often shifted from one subspecies to the other. The light morph of one subsp. can be similar to the intermediate or dark morphs of another subsp.
  c. a number of well described subspecies, of relatively small populations, issurrounded often by a number of variants occupying a larger area.
  d. there are broad zones of intergradation with intermediate populations betweenraces.
  Comments on distribution, size and colorationThe species is distributed from the west coast of Alaska, over subarctic boreal areas of Canada, parts of the tundras of Canada and Labrador, to Middle and South America and Tierra del Fuego. It is lacking on the Queen Charlotte Is., the West Indies, and larger areas of the South American lowland rain forests.Some insular areas of occurence within these areas are little known. There are some obvious clines in size and coloration in agreement with Bergmann's and Gloger's rules.Color morphs and intermediate populationsAs mentioned above, each subspec. has its typical morph, but there are one or more other morphs detectable. Often these morphs agree well with morphs of other subsp., but not always in size and proportions. There are two color plates showing the different morphs and subspecies, and two maps depicting the distribution of the subsp.Checking of the collecting localities and breeding places revealed that several described subsp. are only morphs of other subsp. So islagophonus only a synonymofsaturatus (the latter is given as restricted to a small coastal area inwestern North America, but it occurs also in the interior of Brit. Columbia). Weick found large areas of secondary contact between the formswapacuthu,heterocnemis, occidentalis andvirginianus, where intermediate populations arefound. Smaller areas of introgrssion are known betweenvirginianus andpallescens,pallescens andpacificus, andpacificus andsaturatus.Comments on earlier publicationsWeick has reviewd the literature on Amer. Bubo (Oberholser 1904; Kelso & Kelso 1934, Eck & Busse 1973, Voous 1988, Peters 1940 and many more; Karalus & Eckart 1974 listed all what is known on described subsp., resulting in up to three subsp. for one and the same area!)Revision of the complexAfter giving material and methods, Weick lists the following subsp. as valid, with synonyms , morphs, distribution
  Bubo virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)
  B. v. saturatus (Gmelin, 1788)   syn.lagophonus; algistus; leucomelas   coastal areas of w Alaska, parts of interior Alaska, Yukon Valley, coasts of   SE Alaska to Washington, parts of NE and W Oregon, Brit. Columbia, NC Alberta,    intergradation zone in N California.   4 morphs (dark; intermediate; light; black-and-white)
  B. v. pacificus Cassin, 1854   syn.icelus   SW USA northward to S Oregon, eastwards to W & C Nevada,    south to NW Baja California;    intergradation zone withsaturatus   2 morphs (grey; dark; no light morph;    intermediate birds are mixed withsaturatus?)
  B. v. wapacuthu (Gmelin, 1788)   syn.arcticus; subarcticus; scalariventris   Canada from James Bay and N Lake Superior to the Rocky Mts. and the Mackenzie    Valley, southwards to N. alberta, Saskatchewan, C Manitoba and N Ontario;   there is a wide area of of introgression withheterocnemis and nominatevirginianus in eastern Canada, where also birds of all three subsp. may occur    without introgression.   4 morphs (light, almost white birds occure in the more southern parts of the    range; intermediate; dark; black-and-white, similar tosaturatus)
  B. v. heterocnemis (Oberholser, 1904)   syn.neochorus; scalariventris   E North America: Ungava Peninsula, Labrador, [APP: Newfoundland], Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,   Ontario, N Maine; introgression zone withwapacuthu   4 morphs (light, rare in this taxon; intermediate grey; dark, typical;    black-and-white)
  B. v. occidentalis Stone, 1896   C Alberta, S Saskatchewan, S Manitoba in the North southwards to    NE California, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, W Minnesota;    introgression withwapacuthu in N, and withvirginianus in E.   1 morph (grey, typical birds, lighter than nominate, with lighter and finer    barring; intermediate birds are probablyoccidentalis xwapacuthu)
  B. v. virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)   S Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, southwards to the Gulf Coast,    Florida, w to E Minnesota, SE South Dakota, E Kansas, Oklahoma, E Texas;   introgression zones in N withheterocnemis, in W withoccidentalis   andpallescens.   2 morphs (similar in barring and markings tooccidentalis, but with    significantly chestnut to orange-brownish ground color, also these tones in the face;    light, rare and probably introgression withpallescens)
  B. v. pallescens Stone, 1897   SW USA, SE California, S Arizona, S New Mexico, S Texas, NE Baja California,    and Mexico south to Guerrero, Morelos, W Veracruz;    introgression zone in N  withpacificus, in C and SE Texas withvirginianus   4 morphs (light brown/ochre; intermediate; grey; black-and-white with broad    barring on the underside)
  B. v. elachistus Brewster, 1902   Baja California south of 30°N   smallest subsp., 2 morphs (light; dark)
  B. v. mayensis Nelson, 1901   syn.mesembrinus; melancercus   Middle America   4 morphs (grey; intermediate with light ochre, especially in the face; dark brown;    black-and-white, but with narrower barring thanpallescens)
  B. v. nacurutu (Vieillot, 1817)    syn.scotinus; elutus    tropical lowlands of South America e of the Andes, there is little knowledge     about its distribution in E Argentina, Uruguay and E Brasil.    4 morphs (light grey, rare; brownish grey with pale face and breast patches    of various browns; dark with very dark face, similar tonigrescens but     with totally different barring and withoutnigrescens' white patches;     black-and-white)
  B. v. deserti Reiser, 1905    northern C Bahia; birds from Barra (Bahia) and Santarem are of uncertain subspecies    2 morphs ( grey with much white above and below, white tips to the feather ears,     white barring on upper tail coverts; intermediate with narrow and fine    barring below and somewhat light upperside)
  B. v. nigerscens von Berlepsch, 1884    syn.colombianus    moderate temperature zones of the Andes from NW Peru to Ecuador and Colombia    darkest form with dark patches on breast, almost no barring recognizable     above, but with strongly contrasting white patches, tail very dark; no morphs
  Bubo magellanicus (Lesson, 1828)syn.andicolus Tierra del Fuego, S and W Argentinia, Chile, Bolivian Highlands, temperate zones of C Peru considered a different species here; extremely small bill and feet 3 morphs (light with white or yellowish belly, above light greybrown; intermediate [brown]; dark, similar tonacurutu in color, but with breat patches and markings darker)

There are two color plates showing standardized birds of the different morphs, accompanied with a list of all the morphs and in which subsp. they can be found.Address of author:Friedhelm WeickPommernstr. 34D-76646 Bruchsal-UntergrombachGermany

[Begin previous Notes]

• Peters Checklist (George Watson)11:13 gives Horsefield and Moore as the authors.I follow the Richmond Index which cites Moore as the author here.

• Peters Checklist (Reginald E. Moreau)12:336 gives the date as "1866".
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in 1867.

• Peters Checklist2:54 gives the author as "Gould", the date as "1860" andp.382.
• The Richmond index has the same page ("p.382")but:
  • gives the author asG.R. Gray, and
  • gives "pt. III" and the date as "Mch. 1861".
• For the volume year "1860" part iii was issued "Between August 1860 and March, 1861" (PZS 107(a):72).
• The Richmond index lists the type as in the "Gould Colln."
• HBW2:429 lists "Gould" and "1860", appearing to reflect the Peters citation.
• Roy McDiarmid checked the PZS paper for me, and saw no indication that GR Gray was theauthor of the taxon (JE Gray was the chair of the meeting where the Gould paper was read).
• This paper occurs in signature no.440 which includes p.369-384.

Forpus modestusNomenclature

• Previously cited as:
  • Forpus sclateri (Gray,GR) 1859ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt3 sect.2 p.86
• Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2006. "Mandatory changes to the scientific names of threeNeotropical birds" BBOC126(3):242-244. suggest that the use ofsclateri was based on Peters belief thatPsittaculamodesta Cabanis 1848 was a secondary junior homonym ofPsittacula modesta (Fraser, 1845). The latter is, of course,actuallyPalaeornis modestus Fraser 1845 PZS Pt13 no.144p.16., though Pachco & Whitney do not give the originalcombination.
• Pacheco & Whitney hold
  • Forpus modestus eidosPeters,JL 1937Check-ListBirdsWorld 3 p.205
  to be a synonym ofForpus modestus modestus.
• Thus we have:
  1. Palaeornis modestus Fraser 1845 PZS Pt13 no.144p.16.
  2. Psittacula modestusCabanis 1848ReisenBrit.-Guiana[Schomburgk] 3 p.727
  3. Psittacula sclateriGray,GR 1859ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt3 sect.2 p.86
  4. Psitacella [sic]modestaSchlegel 1871Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. 4 p.36
• Pacheco and Whitney indicate that Fraser's name and Cabanis' name"appl[y] the namemodesta to different nominal genera(PsittaculaCuvier, 1800 [type:Psittacus alexandriLinnaeus] andPsittacula Illiger, 1811 [type:Psittacuspasserinus Linnaeus])"
• I am still working to understand if this rationale is correct.
• Thus it seems that:
  1. 1845 Fraser describedPalaeornis modesta, this bird hasno type locality (it was a caged bird) but is presumed (based onwho knows what?) to be an Australasian parrot from EnganoIsland.
  2. This taxon was subsequently (?when ?by whom) placed inPsittacula, and at least some believe that thisPsittacula was felt to bePsittacula Illiger 1811 (howis this known?).
  3. 1848 Cabanis described a South American (eastern Venezuela)parrot asPsittacula modesta, and evidently there is somebelief that thePsittacula that Cabanis had in mind wasPsittacula Cuvier, (how is this known?).
  4. 1859 Gray describedPsittacula sclateri for a parrot from Rio Javari, Peru.
  5. Peters held thatPsittacula modesta Cabanis waspre-occupied byPsittacula modesta (Fraser). and erectedForpus slateri eidos as a new name forPsittaculamodesta Cabanis. He supported this decision with Hellmayr'sdiscussion of the character and distribution of the races ofForpus sclateri Hellmayr. 1910. Novit.Zool.17:404-405 (a work which is not referenced by Pacheco& Whitney 2006).

2006.10.08;2006.10.19;2006.10.21; 2010.02.12

---

Thamnophilus murinusDate

• Peters Checklist7:171 lists the date as 1867.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.

---

MelidectesDate

• Peters Checklist12:415 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Melidectes torquatusDate

• Peters Checklist12:419 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

MelipotesDate

• Peters Checklist12:420 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Melipotes gymnopsDate

• Peters Checklist12:420 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Coracina mindanensisDate

• Peters Checklist9:190 (Mayr & Greenway) gives this date as 1878.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1879.

---

Turdus maculirostisDate

• Peters Checklist10:221 (Ripley) gives this date as 1883.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

---

Ficedula mugimakiDate

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist11:339,Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)'Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

---

Bradypterus majorCitation

• Often given asBradypterus major (Brooks,WE) 1872J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 41 p.77 (e.g. Peters1(2):27 (Mayr)).
• This description was published twice by the Society, and the Proceedingspublication (Sept. 1871) antedates the Journal (May 1, 1872). [Dates from CWR].
• The work of Aasheesh Pittie and Edward Dickinson brought this fact to my attention.

---

ManacusCitation

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist8:260 (DW Snow)) listed as:
  • Manacus Brisson 1760Orn. 4 p.442
• The name is first used in vol.1 where it is available as abinomial.
• Thanks to Steven Gregory for this understanding.

---

Puffinus mauretanicusConcept

• Sangster G, Knox AG, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT. 2002. "Taxonomic recommendations forEuropean birds" Ibis144:153-159.
• Differs fromP. yelkouan in anatomy ofthe skull and genetically. Genetic analysis is interpreted todemonstrate separate monophyly fromP. yelkouan and "independant evolutionary tracks for a considerable time."
• "despite close proximity of breeding colonies, there are noreports of interbreeding between [P. mauretanicus] and [P.yelkouan]." And one infers that this has, in fact, been lookedfor.

---

Lanius meridionalisConcept

• Listed by Peters Checklist9:357 (Mayr & Greenway) as asubspecies.
• Sangster G, et al. 2002. Ibis144:156 argue forelevation to specific status based on diagnostic plumage, behaviour,habitat, and demonstration of no interbreeding in contactzones.

---

Threskiornis moluccusNomenclature.

• For resolution asmoluccus, see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group namesunder Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC131(2):103-115. (See p.114.)

....; 2011.10.16
• But wait!! now held to be a noun in apposition (seeSchodde & Bock 2016).

2011.10.16; 2017.09.01

---

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

Last updated 2024.08.16

---

[8]ページ先頭

---

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp