Movatterモバイル変換

• Usually cited to 1932, however the colophon at the end ofno.4, and on the final cover (wrapper) reads:

  Angers, Soc. an des Editions de l'Ouest, 40, rue du Cornet -- 1-33-3049

  indicating that this number was printed in January of 1933.

• Peters Checklist14:246 (= Paynter 1968) shows the authority as "Hartert & Rothschild". They are listed in the opposite order, bothin the lead to the note, and in the authorial attribution following the name.
• The listing in the Peters style is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:756
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• As Colin Jones points out (in litt. 2010.04.17) the original spelling of the epithet isobscuriora. So questions arise concerningthe proper rendering of the name when the taxon is held in the masculineGallirallus.
• Normand David notes (in litt. 2010.04.19) that the case isa bit of a puzzle. He indicates that the formobscurior would becorrect as the masculine or the feminine adjectival, but the question is notcurrently resolved as to whether achange toobscurioris in fact correct.

• Peters Checklist14:342 (= Traylor 1968) shows the dateas 1851, which may be correct.
• Dating names from this work is always problematic. The Richmond Index showsthe date as 1852, which I follow.
• Richmond Index card.
• The unpublished notes by CWR on Dates of Publication has a card stating that"Pt. 5+6 (as one) 1851. Notpubl. till 1852. T.p. bearsthis date.
• I follow the Richmond data on this in the abscence of other evidence.

• Peters Checklist15:40 (= Moreau 1962) dates this to 1822, and thisis followed, without comment by H&M 3^rd:720 (throughCorrigenda 8).
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1820, which I follow.
• Richmond Index cardIcterus olivaceus Hahn,CW
• I do not find this taxon listed in Sherborn, however three other taxa from Lief. 6of this work (pll.1-3 ) are dated by Sherborn to 1820.
  1. aurantia Xanthornus, Wagler in C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 1.
  2. flavaxilla Xanthornus, C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 2.
  3. melanocephalus Icterus, C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 3.
• The date of 1822, most probably comes from merely copying the date givenby Sharpe (1890) in the CBBM13:431. The basis for his dating the work to 1822 is unknown to me.

• H&M 3^rd:381 cites the second author as "Hernandez", butcites the same author from the same volume and number of this publication forCampylorhynchus zonatus imparalis (on p.277) as "Hernandez-Camacho".
• Similarly, HBW8:546 cites this second author simply as "Hernandez".
• The Richmond Index cites the author of this taxon as "Hernandez C."

• Originally described as a subspecies ofXenoperdix undzungwensis, butin 2005, Bowie and Fjeldså presented evidence and arguments for elevationto species level.
• GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR TWO SPECIESIN THE UDZUNGWA FOREST PARTRIDGEXENOPERDIX UDZUNGWENSIS Rauri C.K. Bowie & Jon Fjeldså
• No mention of this systematic issue is made in H&M 3^rd:55, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• The nameMalacocircus orissae is not easily found, being absent fromPeters Checklist, The Richmond Index, and CBBM. Edward Dickinson helped me byindicating that it is found in Jerdon's Illustrations of Indian Ornithology.
• H&M 3^rd:610 cites this taxon to 1847, but citesthe surrounding taxa (Turdoides striata malabarica, Turdoides striata orientalis, andTurdoides affinis from the same sourceto 1845.
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2009.03.05) that 1847 is an errorand should be 1845.

• See: Martens, J., Sun, Yue-Hua & M. Päckert. 2008. "Intraspecific differentiation of Sino-Himalayan bush-dwelling Phylloscopus leaf warblers, with description of two new taxa. (P. fuscatus, P. fuligiventer, P. affinis, P. armandii, P. subaffinis). Verterbrate Zoology58(2):233-265.

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

• Peters Checklist15:184 (= Mayr 1962) dates this to 1864, andthis is followed without comment in H&M 3^rd:515.
• This same number of the J.Orn. (no.72) is listed as published in1865 by Peters Checklist3:222 (Amazona ochrocephalanattereri).
• The Richmond Index indicates "Publ. in 1865? cf. p.466" wherereference is made to an Index of Consp.Gen.Av. published by E.J.Brill in1865.
• See R.W.R.J. Dekker & C. Quaisser, 2006."Type specimens ofbirds in the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Part 3. Passerines:Pachycephalidae - Corvidae (Peters's sequence)." NNM Technical Bulletin9:1-77 (see pp.28-29). The authors discuss the actual date ofpublication of J.Orn. 12 no.72, concurring that it is most likely 1865.

• I found the H&M 3^rd treatment ofOriolus problematic. In some instances (e.g.the treatment ofSphecotheres viridis, hypoleucus, vielloti, flaviventris) the nature of agreement with anddeparture from the Peters Checklist treatment is explained and referenced. In other instances (e.g. recognition ofOriolus melanotis, and lack of recognition ofOriolus viridifuscus) changes are not mentioned, discussed or referenced.In these cases it is not clear if the change results from nomenclature or whether the changed listing represents a systematicdecision. I believe that H&M 3^rd does not pretend to be, and can not be regarded as asystematic work.
• Edward Dickinson (in litt. 2008.01.26) indicates that the treatment ofOriolidae follows the presentation inDickinsonet al. SNAB 42 & 43, though this is not mentioned in H&M 3^rd.

• This taxon is not included in Peters Checklist14 (1968).
• H&M 3^rd:483 (through Corrigenda 72007) gives no justification or rationale for its recognition.

• Peters Checklist14:106 (= Blake 1968) renders the journal name as"Arkiv f. Naturg.", while by all indications it is "Archivfür Naturgeschichte" (-ch- not -k-).
• In most other locations throughout the Peters Checklist the correct -ch-is used.

• Peters Checklist1(2):431 (= Johnsgard 1979) citesthis to "p. 502".
• HBW1:632 does not give a page number for this citation.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this taxon occurs on p.501, a fact that is verified byColin Jones (in litt. 2007.12.03).
• The erroneous Peters probably stems from the citation in the CBBM27:35 (= Salvadori 1895), who lists "p. 502". It appears that Johnsgard did not actually check the original.

• Rediscovered, and validated as a distinct species. (ref. Krabbeet al., 2005. Orn.Colombiana3:28-35).

• H&M 3^rd:389 footnotes this taxon with the notereading:

  2Perhaps 1927 see J.f.Orn. (1930:134)

• Turning to J.Orn.78 Heft 1 pp.133-134 we find the "WissenshaftlichArbeiten Dr. Emilie Snethalge's" and on p.134 the listing for 1927 includestwo works:
  1. Bemerkungen ... Journ. f. Orn. 1927, S. 371-374.
  2. "Novas especies e Subspecies de Aves do Brasil Central. Boletim do MusenNacional, Rio de Janeiro, vol. IV , 2, S.1-8.
  The first article is indeed found in the 1927 volume of the J.Orn., in the"April" Heft.2. So what are we to do with the suggestion that the Boletimaritcle may date to 1927 rather than 1928?
• My working notes on taxa from this source are as follows:

  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.1 Knipolegus aterrimus franciscanusSnethlage,EH&M p.369 "Probably 1927"CWR has J.Orn cite and note: "Originally described in Boletim de MuseumNacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.1"Collected Snethlage June 21, 19261928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.2 pl. Phylloscartes roquetteiSnethlage,EH&M p.357 "Probably 1927"CWR has J.Orn cite and note: "Previously described in Boletim de MuseumNacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.2"Collected Snethlage July 3, 19261928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.5 Thamnophilus caerulescensochraceiventer Snethlage,EH&M p.382 NO footnote mentioning date.CWR has J.Orn cite and note: "Previously described in Boletim de MuseumNacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.5"Collected Snethlage May 17, 19271928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.6 Cercomacra nigrescens ochrogynaSnethlage,EH&M p.389 "Perhaps 1927"CWR has J.Orn cite and note: "Probably described in Boletim de MuseumNacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.6"Collected Snethlage Sept. 14, 19271928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.6 pl. Cercomacra ferdinandi Snethlage,EH&M p.389 "Perhaps 1927"CWR has J.Orn cite and note: "Probably described in Boletim de MuseumNacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.6"Collected Snethlage Sept. 21, 1927
  

• Richmond's data seems to suggest these appeared in "no.2" which is the "June1928" number of the Boletim. For them to have appeared as much as 6 monthsprior to the imprint date would seem to require a preprint, or author'sseparate, but no suggestion of such an entity is made. It must be noted thatH&M's treatment of these possibilities is inconsistent ("Probably","Perhaps", or no mention of the issue of dating to 1927).
• From my point of viewmuch more substantial evidence and documentationis required before a date of "1927" can be seriously considered. I expect thelisting in the J.Orn. bibliography is simply an error with regard to the yearlisting.

• Cited by Peters checklist first as
  • Thamnophilus caeruleus ochraceiventerSnethlage,E 1928J.Orn. 76 p.585
  and then to the Boletim.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the Boletim is the June number, while Heft 3 of the J.Orn. isfor July and that the Boletim publication preceeded the J.Orn.
• HBW8:796 cites only the J.Orn. publication (though it cites the Boletim4 no.2for twoCercromacra taxa !!).

• Usually cited as
  • Poospiza ornata (Leybold) 1865J.Orn. 13 no.78 p.405
• There are several problems with that citation. First, that portion of the J.Orn. was notpublished until 1866 (fide The Richmond Index), but mor importantly, Landbeck published thematerialin the F. Leybold publication in the Anales Universidad Chile (no.6 Junio).
• Therefore, I follow the Richmond Index in this case.

• Cited by Peters Checklist12:245 to 1843 and this is followed universally.
• Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981. "War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist'sLibrary, 1833-1843." ISIS72:50-72. addresses this work in detail. From her study ofJardine's correspondence she determines that this work was published in Dec. 1842.
• I am unaware of any reason not to believe her interpretation, which appears to have beenuniversally ignored by the ornithological community.
• Iredale also published on this work (Iredale. 1951. "'The Naturalist's Library: an Essay in Bibliography.'Australian Zoologist11:322-332.) and Edward Dickinson kindly provided me a copy to study. It is clear thatuncertainty remains as to whether this volume was published in Dec. 1842, or in 1843. Possible explanations can beprovided for either case. The appearance (but not the certainty) is that Sheets-Pyenson may have dated this based oninformation in the Jardine correspondence (which was material unknown to Iredale), and Sheets-Pyenson was fully aware ofand relied partly Iredale's work when she published her paper. For the present time I am employing the dating shepublished on p.72 of her work.

• Cited by Peters Checklist4:141 to 1873, and this is followed by H&M3^rd:234; HBW5:233.
• Confusion here may have been amplified by the fact that the CBBM2:177lists no date for the citation.
• The first part of this journal was published in 1872; the Richmond Index showsthis first part to have come out in Nov. of 1872.

• Cited by Peters Checklist1287 as
  • Pernis ptilorhyncus orientalisTaczanowski 1891Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb.(7) 39 p.50
  They are equivalent. This work was part of the Series of theMemoires.

• Even the most idle speculation suggests that this bird is named forA. d'Orbigny. Its spelling with a "y" instead of "i" does note appearto result from "incorrect latinisation" and correction toorbignesius wouldappear appropriate.
• However, Normand David has investigated this and writes(2006.02.10):

  The originalorbygnesia Souancé 1856 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2)8: 63-64) has no internal indication whatsoever. I see no solid groundfor a correction (but of course  =orbygnesius when combinedwith a masc. genus).

• This genus is proposed for resurrection by Bridge ES, Jones AW, & BakerAJ. 2006. "A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred frommtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution."Mol.Phylogenet.Evol.35:459-469.
• The name ends in prion, (πριων) [trans. saw orsawyer] which is masculine, and the 1999 Code (Art. 30.1.2) indicates thatthe genus group name is thus masculine.
• If I am correct in my interpretation of the gender forOnychoprion, then it seems to me the specific epithets should befuscatus,lunatus, andaleuticus (anaethetusshould stand).

• Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason H&M3^rd:175 and HBW4:209 place the authority inparentheses.
• It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Stricklandemendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appearsto me that it implies that the authority here should not be inparentheses.

• There are a number of unusual features here.
  1. The date of the genus antedates the date of the type species.
  2. As is implied by #1, the genus apparently was erected with no componentspecies, or any designated type species.
  3. The type species was described in a genus spelledOxyrhyncuscontraOxyruncus. And this name is interpreted to be an emendationof Temminck's genus. The Richmond Index says the emendation "must be presumed tobe an error of the press." (CWR appears to be quoting someone else's text here).
  4. The Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.14:280 has this genus asOxyrhamphusStrickland 1841, and has "Oxyrhynchus Temm. Pl.Col. t. 125 (1823)",suggesting they were unaware ofOxyruncus Temm. Man.Orn. 1820 ?O. flammiceps Temm. is listed as the type. Sclater does not give adate fro this taxon in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. but the plate number wouldindicate a date of April 1822 according to the Richmond Index, andconfirmed by Dickenson's 2001 published analysis (p.47) of the Pl.Col.publishing history.
  5. Swainson usedOxyrhyncus in Zool.Ill. 1821, evidently as anemendation for Temminck's 1820Oxyruncus, though as noted above thisappears to possibly have been interpreted as a printing error.

• Often cited to 1864 (e.g. Peters Checklist3:189; HBW4:435; H&M 3^rd:197).
• This portion of the PZS was published in 1865.

• A confusing situation exists regarding the relationship betweenOrtalis andOrtalida.
• It appears that both names can be attributed to Merrem in 1786, thoughOrtalida is also attributed to Cuvier 1817 (=1816) and J.J. Fleming 1822.
• The cards in the Richmond Index, include entries for bothOrtalida andOrtalisattributed to Merrem. There is a note stating "properly used in the nominative formofOrtalis. Additionally one card forOrtalis Merrem, has a note"(not in Germ. Ed.!)".
• Thus it appears thatOrtalis andOrtalida can be regarded as different grammaticalforms of the same word, and further that some confusion may result from one form (Ortalis) not being present in some editions (while present in others).
• Ortalis mccalli Baird, andOrtalis cinereiceps Gray, were both describedinOrtalida, which for nomenclatural purposes, I regard as equivalent toOrtalis.

1. Ortalida albiventris Berlepsch 1885
2. Ortalida bronzina Gray,GR 1867
3. Ortalida Carraco Wagler 1832
4. Ortalida cinerieceps Gray,GR 1867
5. Ortalida Frantzii Cabanis 1869
6. Ortalida Goudotii Lesson 1828
7. Ortalida montagnii Bonaparte 1856
8. Ortalida plubeiceps Gray,GR 1867
9. Ortalida ruficauda Jardine 1847
10. Ortalida ruficrissa Sclater & Salvin 1870
11. Ortalida superciliaris Gray,GR 1867
12. Ortalida Wagleri Gray,GR 1867

" ... Observaui etiam in diuresis Cracibus, hactenus quidem descriptis, agrandi inde Cracis Alectoris cera ad plane deficientem, inque caeteris con-generum auium speciebus a cutis nudae, sub gutture pendulae, genarumque nud-arum, papillosarum, et reliquorum capitis ornamentorum, tam carneorum quampennaceorum praesentia, ad harum vaque rerum defectum, tot vix animaduerten-endos adesse gradus, qui impediant, quo minus generum characteres certi indepossint depromi; multasque adeo volucrum species, multis modis a systematumconditoribus aut separartas aut coniunctas, tam propinqua cognatione inter seesse connexas, vt omnes ad vnum idemque genus,Alector (germaniceHocko) nom-inandum, referendae sint, sitque adeo verisimile, eas, nisi magnitudo impe-diat, generatione hybrida pullos procreare posse: Quod genus, cum multas sanespecies comprehendat, in plures phalanges diuidenum videtur, quarum primam cumLinnaeo atqueBrissioCracem, eam, ad quam nostra pertinet species,Penelopen,tertiam, ad quam Phasianus Motmot et similes ei referendae sunt aues,Ortalidaappello. A Gallopauone Iacupema nostra, omnium internarum externarumque par-tium figura differt: a Phasianis quoque cum congeneribus separanda rectricumnumero duodeno, earum figura, defectu calcarium in maribus, partiumque in-ternarum structura.

• Usually called
  • Cuculus horsfieldiMoore1858Cat.BirdsMus.East-Ind.Co.[Horsfield &Moore] 2 p.703Concept
• Gould's adult-male of the type specimenoptatus, formerly considered to beaC. saturatus and thus used as a subspecies name, is actually referrable toC. horsfieldi. Thus it is a senior synonym.
• Higgins PJ. 1999. "Handbook of Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctic Birds."4.

• Peters Checkslist15:38 gives the citation as:
  • Ploceus ocularisSmith,A 1839Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.30
• Bob Dowsett points out that this is antedated by the 1838 S.Afr.Comm.Advertiser publication.

• Originally spelled "Ocrophus" by Linnaeus, and this spelling is followed by Peters Checklist2:267 (1934).
• It appears there was concern about the spelling for some time, as for example Mathews in 1913published the trinomenTringa ochropus assami (Austr.Av.Rec.1:188).
• However,ochropus has been officially recognised andocrophus officially rejected by ICZN under their Direction 17 of 14 July 1955 (erroneously listed by Sibley & Monroe, 1990:237 as 1952 [sic]).
• One notes, with some amusement that the now accepted spelling (ochropus) is that which Gmelin employed in 1789, but Linnaeus still gets awarded the authority.
[2015.01.06]

• Listed by Peters Checklist11:79 as a subspeciesofH. pallida.
• Elevation to species status proposed by the BOU.Knox AG,Collinson M, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT & Sangster G. 2002. "Taxonomicrecommendations for British Birds." Ibis144(4):708-709.

• Peters Checklist6:98 and HBW7:436 give1836.
• The dates of issue of the J.As.Soc.Bengal are problematic. BothSherborn and Neave give 1837 for this volume of the Journal. TheRichmond Index gives a date of "Dec. 1836"
• 1836 may be correct, and the conflict is not easily resolved atthe moment. I will not be surprised if the date ends up being 1837,as indicated by Sherborn and Neave.

• Possibly a hybrid, probably extinct. SeeLivezey. 1997. APhylogenetic Calssification of Waterfowl, including selected fossilspecies. Ann.CarnagieMus.66(4):477,483. .

• The 1983 AOU Checklist lists this as 1878, though this specieswas published in 1877.

• Peters Checklist1:112 gives a different title for thesource; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist11:383 has 1871. Zimmer's studies on thedates of publication for this work indicate 1870, which I followhere.

• Peters Checklist15:275 has 1851. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.

• Used by Sibley & Monroe.
• Not used in Peters Checklist Vol.4. AsClamator.
• Not used in HBW Vol.4. AsClamator. The commentthere indicates that separation fromClamator was based ondifferences in wing-shape and plumage.

• Peters Checklist2:200 hasolivacea whichis correct.
• OriginallyGallinula olivacea.
• Amaurornis is feminine.
• HBW3:181 hasA. olivaceus with no commenton the spelling.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4. Thanks to Rolf de By for bringingthis to my attention.

• SeeJohnson KP & Lanyon SM. 1999. Auk116(3):759-768. for a discussion of Grackle/allysystematics, and proposal to placebadius inOreopsar, rather than inMolothrus.
• SeeLowther PE. 2001. BBOC 121:280,281 for thenomenclature of the genus name.

• Although an alternative treatment of this confusing group waspublished by Altrom and Olsson, where they described a new speciesSeicercussororAlstrom &Olsson 1999Ibis 141 p.556-557 thepaper by Martens et. al apparently preceeded it by several days.
• This taxon was described there, and the form considered asS. soror by Alstrom & Olsson apparently is treated asS. latouchei by these authors.
• Alstrom & Olsson in a letter to the Ibis 2000. 142:495-500.Further discuss the systmatics here. They recognizeS.omeiensis, but disagree in some other interpretations.

• Not in Peters Checklist, or Sibley and Monroe.
• Described by Short as a "race" ofC. spectabilis.Whittaker andOren. 1999. BBOC. 119(4):235-260. "Important ornithological recordsfrom the Rio Jurua, western Amazonia, including twelve additions tothe Brazilian avifauna". present arguments based onmorphology, plumage, range, and habitat for elevation to fullspecies status.

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

• Two species listed in Sibley & Monroe are demoted tosubspecific status by Collar, in Handbook of Birds of the World,4:473.
• These taxa are held at species level by the Howard& Moore Checklist 3^rd Ed.
• Amazona oratrixRidgway 1887Man.N.Am.Birds p.587
• Amazona auropalliata (Lesson) 1842Rev.Zool. 5 p.135

• Placed by Peters and Sibley and Monroe inLonchura.
• Baptista et al. (1999) published on the relationships of somemannikins and waxbills in the Estrildidae (J. Orn. 140:179-192), based on downy plumes, nestling palate markings,begging vocalizations, agonistic and courtship behavior, andallozymes. They proposed that the generaPadda andEuodice be merged withLonchura.

• Not in Peters Checklist or Sibley and Monroe.
• The name honorsAlfonso Manuel Olalla, who with his familycollected over 70,000 specimens of Neotropical birds.
• Placement within the genus is tentative.
• Coopmans and Krabbe comment that the three recognized subspecies ofM. caniceps may be candidates for species rank.
• They are:
  • Myiopagis caniceps cinerea (Pelzeln) 1868 Orn.Brasil.pt.2 p.108,180
  • Myiopagis caniceps parambae (Hellmayr) 1904 BBOC 14p.54
  • Myiopagis caniceps absita (Wetmore) 1963Smiths.Misc.Coll. 145 p.7

• Previously as:
  • Apteryx oweniiGould 1847PZS Pt15 no.175 p.94
• Note that the page number is given as "93" by Peters Checklist, andSherborn, and as "94" by The Richmond Index, and Salvadori'sCatalogue of Birds of the British Museum, vol. 27.
• However McAllen IAW. 2004 "Corrections to the original citations andtype localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from NewZealand." Notornis51:125 notes that the PZS publication waspreceeded by both the Athenaeum and the Literary Gazette, and that McAllenand Bruce, acting as first revisers, selected the Lit.Gaz. as the originalpublication of the name.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Garcia-Moreno J, Arctander P. Pre-Pleistocenedifferentiation among Chat-Tryants. 1998. Condor100(4):629-640.
• A phylogenetic study using mtDNA, geographic and morphologicdata concludes that "Becuase of the incomplete resolution of thephylogeny, we do not think that a sufficiently strong case existsfor includingTumbezia salvini inOchthoeca (as doneby Lanyon 1986). Instead, we suggest maintaining it as a monobasicgenus in the chat-tyrant assembly.Tumbezia salvini showssome distincitve pulmage and habitat characteristics not shared bythe Andean chat-tyrants."
• They recommend mergingSilvicutrix withOchthoecaand elevatingO. frontalis,spodionota,O.cinnamomeiventris andthoracica to species rank.

• At present I attempt to follow HBW.
• The confusions, and dynamics of new data and understandings inthis group are considerable, and I expect changes to be frequentand continued.
• I often chuckle when I remember Burt Monroe's exclaimationsabout owl systematics.

Ptilinopus ornatusDate

HBW4:209 gives a date of 1873. See my entry for thecitational source for the indication that the date is 1871.

• HBW4:206 lists Gray andMitchell as the authorsof this taxon.
• David William Mitchell was the secretary to the Zoological Societyof London, and the illustrator of this work. His authorial statushere is not clear to me, however the card in the Richmond indexindicates "... 1844 p.[467. where P. occipitalis G. R. Gray,nomen nudum]". Thus Mitchell may well have authorialstanding.

• HBW 6:110 (N.J. Collar) attributes the original description toTemminckHarpactes oreskios 1823. The genusHarpacteshe attributes to Swainson, 1823. Both cant be right.
• Collar appears to be following Peters5:163. Peters has"(Temminck)" for the authority, supporting the idea that Temminckcouldnot have describedoreskios inHarpactes.
• Sherborn makes it clear that Temminck describedTrogonoreskios in 1823.
• It appears that Gray in 1845 in Gen.Birds App. p.71 lists"Harpactes oreskios Temminck, 1823" and probably thusinitiating the confusion.

• Peters Checklist14:232 (Howell, et al.) gives the dateas 1842.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1843.

• Peters 11:69 (Watson) gives the citation as
  • Salicaria turdina orientalis Temminck and Schlegel,1847, in Siebold, Fauna Japonica, Aves, p.50, pl. 20 B.
• Sherborn gives:
  • turdina-orientalis Salicaria, Temminck & Schlegel,in Siebold F. Japon. (Aves, 1847), 50.
• I don't find a card for this taxon in the Richmond Index.
• Sharpe's Handlist4:187 lists the taxon asAcrocephalus orientalis (Temm. &Schl.).
• If the Sherborn listing is correct, I wonder if currentinterpretations would have resulted in the name beingAcrocephalus turdinaorientalis.
• Murray Bruce sends his helpful input indicating that the Peterscitation is correct. (email 2001.09.30)
• I was somewhat sceptical that trinomial nomenclature occurredthis early, but M. Bruce goes on to indicate

  "Schlegel has been credited with establishing trinomialnomenclature in 1844 in both the commencement of the parts of theornithology of Fauna Japonica and in his little book 'SystematischeUbersicht der Vogel Europas'. Of course, it didn't catch on andSchlegel was inconsistent later, but at the time he did usetrinomials. In fact, in Fauna Japonica, of 201 species listed forJapan, 18 were named trinomially (although a few of these included'var.'). See for example,Prunella rubida (Peters10:12).

  ... referring to Mayr (1942, Systematics and the Origin ofSpecies), on p.110 he states 'H. Schlegel was apparently the firstauthor (from 1844 on) to use trinomials consistently (even thoughhesitatingly) for geographic subdivisions of the species.' As Mayrfurther points out, European ornithologists didn't approve andeventually the Americans adopted it ...".

• Peters Checklist14:135 (Blake) gives a date of1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:359 also gives a date of 1859.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossedout).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III ofthis year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Lowther, PE. 2001. "New name for the Bolivian Blackbird".BBOC.121:280,281. demonstrates:
• • Agelaioides (misspelled in text asAgelaiodes)Cassin, 1866 has precedence overOreopsar Sclater,1939.
  • Placingbolivianus Sclater, 1939 andbadiusVieillot, 1819 in the same genus as proposed byJohnson &Lanyon 1999. Auk 116:759-768. creates a secondary homonomydue to the existence ofMolothrus badius bolivianusHellmayr, 1917.
• Lowther therefor proposes thenomen novumAgelaioidesoreopsar along with resurrecting the genusAgelaioides.

Comments & Suggestionsto Data Steward