Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
Zoological Citation Notes --P
Mulleripicus funebris parkesiNomenclature (date)- This taxon is dated variably to 1957 or 1958.
- Birds of the World (accessed 2021.11.27) for example dates it to 1957 (the imprint and sequentially expected date for this volume).
- As Dickinsonet al. have shown, the first number of this volume (86) wasnot published until 1 Feb 1958.
- It is a virtual certainty that the publication date for this taxon in 1958.
2021.11.27
Carpodacus pulcuerrimusCitation- Conventionally cited as:
- Carpodacus pulcherrimus (Moore) 1856Proc.Zool.Soc.London["1855"] Pt23 no.297 p.216
- The name is first used by Hodgson in Gray,JE Zool.Misc.3:85.
- This part of the Zool.Misc. is cited for genus group names, but evidentlyis not sufficient for specific names such as this.
20210.10.20
Trachyphonus purpuratusNomenclature- Originally spelled LURPURATUS; noted by Peters CL (and ignored by the CBBM).
- This is taken to be an obvious lapsus, which it probably is.
2021.06.01
PhapsCitation- The date I give (1835) is probably wrong.
- It is apparently published in a re-issued versonfor which the date is uncertain.
2021.04.25
Hylopezus paraensisCitation2020.12.29
Myzomela prawiradilagaeCitation date- A confusing, and in my view an unfortunate situation here
- The portion of the hard copy published J.Orn. containing this newdescription is in the January 2020 issue.
- However, there is a copy of the material online dated 5 Oct. 2019, and a notein the hard copy indicating it was "Published 05 October 2019".
- The online copy ("Published" in 2019) is unpaginated.
- Thus, we end up with an unusual citation discordant between the online versionand the print version. The citation MUST be to the online version.
- I am unclear whether it is appropriate to include the "number" (as is conventionally done).
- It appears to me this is similar to author's preprints that were frequently issued in the19th and early 20th centuries. These often had different pagination from thecopy included in the final published volume, and the taxa involvedmust be citedto the author's preprints.
- The lack of pagination, no doubt seems a triviality to most, but I see it as a seriousdeficiency, and hold myself back from expressing the very strong critical feelings I haveon the matter.
- The note on the website further limits the authors of the taxon to the "(first, second and last of 7)".
2020.10.12
Phasianus cholchicus principalisCitation- Cited by Peters ChecklistII:122 to "p.322 pl.32"
- The correct page and plate citation is p.324 and pl.22, aspointed out by Dr Richard Schodde.
2020.03.12
Rhea pennataNomenclature- This name is cited to 1834 (Peters CLI:7) and Hellmayr & Conover1(1):6. Salvadori (CBBM27:582 gives the date "1835-1838".These all refer to the second volume (Itineraire) of the Voy.Am.merid.
- Note, that this same volume is cited to "ca. 1839" by Peters (PetersIII:200 forArara aymara (also pubished in volume 2 of theItineraire).Cory (Cat.B.Am.II(1):73 cites the parrot to 1839. H&M 4thI:357 cites this name to 1839, though Orbigny'sArara aymara is not discussed by Dickinson & Lebossé (at least not that I find).
- The work by Dickinson & Lebossé (Zoological BibliographyV(1-5) 2017-2018) does not dealthe parrot name or the rhea name; it appears they chose not to investigate the dates of theItineraire (ZB 20175(1):4)even though one and possibly two new taxa are described therein.
- Dickinson and Lebossé's work make it clear that this work (Voy.Am.merid.) overall had mulitple and complex publication delays.
- I speculate that these delays may explain why Orbigny included a note in the April 1837 issue of L'Echo du Monde Savant claiming his authority for this name. It appears he was concerned that a publication by Gould might threaten the priority of his authorship, and indeed later that year (Nov. 21) Gouldpublished a description of the bird with the nameRhea darwinii (PZSV no.li:35)
- Sherborn cites the 1837 Echo du Monde Savant for the nameRhea pennata.
- It appears that as brief as the note is, the 1837 Echo du Monde Savant citation is the authority for the name, unless it is shownthat the volume 2Itineraire was published before 1837. If so this in turn would then require a different date for the parrot name.
- This vexed matter was addressed by Salvadori in CBBMXVII:583 where his note indicates that Des Murs held that Orbigny namedthe bird in 1830 in his correspondence with Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. The 1837 vol.1 (n.s.) of Charlesworth's Magazine ofNatural Hist. (p.504) refers to a letter in which Orbigny claims priority for the name. The letter was published in "one of the Frenchscientific journals", but one that Salvadori was not able to find.
A portion of the Echo text is reproduced here:L'Echo du Monde Savant4 année (N.226) 2e division. - Sciences naturelle et géographiques. No.67.- Samedi 22 avril 1837.p. 58Non-seulement cette dé fut imprimée á cette époquedans les journaux qui relatèeut mes lettres adressées dePatagonie, mais, après un courte description, dans la partiehistorique de mon Voyage (t.2, p.67, notes). Je lui ai donnéle nom latin deRhea pennata, tiré de son principal caractère,d'avoir les tarses emplumés.
The URL for this volume of L'Echo du Monde Savant is:https://books.google.com/books?id=kUY8AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA58&lpg=RA5-PA58&dq=l%27%C3%A9cho+du+monde+savant+1837+pennata&source=bl&ots=KZXOkTER8O&sig=-WblA_hSv3WMyi7ufvm2DrZ0IwM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOr47EjNbfAhULDHwKHchxBUEQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=l'%C3%A9cho%20du%20monde%20savant%201837%20pennata&f=false
2019.01.08
Salpinctes obsoletus pulveriusConcept- Originally separated by Grinnell on the basis of foot size.
- Hellmayr notes (Cat.B.Am.XIII ptVII p.274 n.1"According to Grinnell's recent investigations, neitherS. o. pulverius, of San Nicolas Island, norS.o.proximus, of San Martin Island, are properly separable from the Common Rock Wren.
- This taxon is included in IOC 7.3 without comment
Heterophasia picaoidesNomenclature- Conventionally given aspicaeoides.
- Modern authors appear to be following Cat.B.Br.Mus.7:401 (Sharpe 1883), or Peters CLX:420 (Deignan 1964).
- As noted by both of these sources, the original spelling isPieaoides.
- Sharpe may be basing his spelling on the unpublished plate that is in the collectionof the Br. Mus.
- However, in the cited and published source for the name, not only does the spellingemploy thee rather than thec, but also the text immediatelyfollowing the name states: "Pie-like". This can be seen here:J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 8 p.38
- What Hodgson means by "Pie-like" is not made more explicit. My guess is that it means Pie, as in Magpie,which, of course, is whypica... also seems so appropriate.
- It appearsunlikely that "Pie-like" is a misprint for "Pic-like, which would seem unlikely as an expression in English.
- My interpretation is thatpicaoides is an unjustified emendation. Hodgson's spelling and specific intent are explicit in the original publication.
- The spellingpicaeoides may be acceptible if it is present on the plate, andthe plate is demonstrated to satisfy publication requirements. However, even in this case, Hodgson's published text "Pie-like" seems compelling, and would implies accepting the inference of "pica" for (mag)pie as a basis for the "pica..." spelling.
- In The Zoological Miscellany G.R. Gray lists the names on plates and drawings in the Cat.Nip.Birds, and on p.83 has both "T. ? picaoides, 363" and alsoa name "Alcopus (Sibia) picaoides, 246" so it seems the "c" spelling was used on the plates.
- "pie" was a commonly used name for the magpie in the 18th and 19thcenturies. See for example "The Life of Thomas Nuttall" 1967. J.E. GrausteinHarvard Univ. Press (p.6) where she quotes Nuttall writing about the magpie:
"As might have been anticiapted from his sagacity, the Pie hs been considered as a messenger of fate in the north of Europe..."
.So when Hodgson said "Pie-like", it seems reasonable to interpret that he meant"Pie-like" andNOT "Pica-like", and that this was then represented as "pieaoides". This best argument for a different intention (to my mind) is the "a" in the name.
- There is a long tradition of persons feeling they can recognizeerror, when something does not match their expectation. The Code allowscorrection of obvious errors, but why this is in fact anobvious error is notclear to me.
2020.04.06- I am (at long last) convinced by countervailing arguments.The Latinization of "pie" would PROBABLY be "pic"and the most parsimonious explanationfor this unusual published spelling would be alapsus by the type setter looking at the textand picking up a bit of "e" type, while Hodgson almost certainly would have written "c".
- My strong (perhaps overly strong) preference for original spellings leaves me a bit unsatisfied here.I feel I am uncomfortable dealing with things as they actually happened, rather than rushing aboutre-writing history so that if fits my expectations.
- In ornithological nomenclature this name pops out for the unusual spelling, and thus gets lots of attention.In non-ornithological nomenclature the number of unusual appearing names is substantial, and trying to investigatewhich should be forced to comply with one's expectations seems a silly and bootless task.
2014.12.03; 2019.07.24; 2020.02.14; 2020.04.06
Pionites melanocephalus pallidusCitation- Conventionally cited to 1889.
- The number in which this appears (no. 187 "Juli") includes a dateline on p.321 of
"Hann. Münden, October 1889."
Also on p.326 is the dateline:"Dresden, den 10 November 1889."
So the imprint date of "Juli" is demonstrated to be incorrect. - The first evidence that I know of for this being in existence as a published work is thenotice given in the 1891 Ibis p.616 where this number was noted as rec'd at the Zoological Soc. on Jan. 14, 1890.
2014.04.06
Cacicus haemorrhous pachyrhynchusCitation- Conventionally cited to 1889.
- The number in which this appears (no. 187 "Juli") includes a dateline on p.321 of
"Hann. Münden, October 1889."
Also on p.326 is the dateline:"Dresden, den 10 November 1889."
So the imprint date of "Juli" is demonstrated to be incorrect. - The first evidence that I know of for this being in existence as a published work is thenotice given in the 1891 Ibis p.616 where this number was noted as rec'd at the Zoological Soc. on Jan. 14, 1890.
2014.04.06
Phylloscopus poliocephalusNomenclature- This name appears to be incorrect.
The nominateaPhylloscopus poliocephalus (Salvadori>) 1876 is junior to one of the included subspeciesPhylloscopus poliocephalus maforensis(Meyer,AB) 1874.
2013.04.06
Heliomaster constantii pinicolaNomenclature- Often the authority is given in parentheses.
- The facts as I understand them are these.
- My interpretation is that Gould may well have had "Helioster" on thedrawing while theplate had "Heliomaster".
- "Helioster" was neverpublished as a name, though Gould may have intended it to be.
- If in fact a plate (or text) was published with the name as "Helioster pinicola" and that name were shown to have priority, the matter might be more difficult.
- Based on the facts and my interpretations, I do not place the authority in parentheses.
- Thanks as always to Colin Jones for bringing this matter to my attention.
2011.11.24 (#2)- With additional information, Michael Reiser writes and indeed there was a plate published with the name "Helioster" on the plate, as seen on the plate at gallica.bnf.fr.
2011.11.24
Aegotheles bennettii plumiferNomenclature.2011.10.16
Onychognathus walleri preussiCitation- Conventionally cited as:
- Onychognathus walleri preussiReichenow 1892J.Orn. 40 no.197[=198] p.184,219
- However that number of the J.Orn. was published in April (or perhaps it is moreaccurate to say was not publishedbefore April (the imprint date). Itwas more probably published some good number of months later.This name was also published by Reichenow in theSitz.Allg.Deutsch.Orn.Ges.Berlin which was Ausgegeben on 19 Feb. 1892.
- Peters Checklist15:87 (= Amadon 1862) is probably merely copyingSclater Syst.Av.Aethiop.2:664 (1930).
- Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for picking this up.
2010.11.10
PeucedramusCitation- Conventionally cited to Henshaw, who was the author of the Birds sectionof the U.S. Geographical survey 1875,1876. However the textmakes it quite clear that the name is due to Coues, and Coues' manuscript is explicitly given in quote marks andattributed to Coues.
- The material can be seen here:
- Title page Henshaw 1875
- Henshaw 1875 p.201
- Henshaw 1875 p.202
- It should additionally be noted that there has been some question as towhether this should be dated to 1875 or 1876.Indeed a portion of the work was published in 1876, this section commences a number of pages after this portion, and covers 1875 field work. The sectioncontainingPeucedramus was published in 1875.
- Thanks to Leslie Oversteet for determining the details of the datesof publication for this work.
2010.11.03
Euplectes psammacromiusNomenclature- Peters Checklist15:72 (= Greenway 1961) renders the original combinationincorrectly as "Penthetria psammocromia". He may have been simply following Sclater (Syst.Av.Aethiop. p.766 1930) and most probably did not trouble himselfto check the original description.
- The original description can be see here:Orn.Monatsb. 8 no.3 p.39
- Understandably, subsequent authors, also not checking the original description haveperpetrated this error.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
2010.10.17
Geothlypis poliocephalaCitation- Peters Checklist14:42 (= Lowery 1962) gives the page numberas 225, however the name and diagnosis first appear on p.220 in the key.
2010.07.24
Selenidera piperivoraNomenclature- [2010.06.08] Previously asSelenidera culik with this discussion.
- I have some difficulty making sense of this citation.I follow Peters Checklist6:79, and do not find an entry for this in the RichmondIndex.
- The orthography of the Sherborn entry is a confusion. It reads:
"culik Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I11."
The subscripted "11" tempts me to interpret it as the species number, however the citation forSelenidera reinwardtii is similarly:"reinwardtii Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I11."
Surprisingly, the Sherborn listing forCampethera punctuligera is :"punctuligera Picus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign.211."
(bolding supplied)The Richmond Index list this as "[p.27]".
The Sherborn listing forPteroglossus Humbloti is:"humbloti Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign I9".
The Richmond Index lists this as "[p.9]" so in this instance the p.no and sp.no appear to match.So I remain confused. - Additional difficulties are to be found here:
Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2006. "Mandatory changes to the scientific names of threeNeotropical birds" BBOC126(3):242-244. note that Linnaeus' 1758 name was felt to be "notidentifiable" (by Peters and others), but that the 1766 Linnean entry was adequate. The 1766 Linneanname has additionally been used by multiple authors (from 1907 to 2004) and they felt it must be considered the valid name for this taxon. They would give the citation as:
- However, as noted by Murray Bruce (in litt. 2006.10.19) their points do not change the fact that the (adequately described) Linnaeus 1766 name is preoccupied by the (unidentifiable) Linnaeus 1758 name. Thus it would seem thatculik must stand
- Whitney & Pacheco 2006 do not reference (and may not have seen) an important work in which Peters addresses this matter. I am thankful to Murray Bruce for bringing it to my attention. It is:Peters JL. 1930. "The identity of the toucans described by Linnaeus in the 10th and 12th editions of theSystema Naturae." Auk47:405-408.
- [2010.06.08]: Note now, however Piacentini, Vd, Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2010. "The nameRamphastos piperivora Linnaeusrevisited" BBOC130(2):141-143, where this matter is dealt with in detail.
...., 2004.01.02; 2006.10.19; 2010.06.08; 2010.08.13
Egretta intermedia plumiferaSystematics- Peters ChecklistI(2):209 (= Payne 1979) treats thisas a synonym ofEgretta intermedia intermedia and H&M 3rd:87follows this.
- Dr David Donsker tells me that Kuslan & Hancock. (2005) "The Herons", Oxford University Press recognize the subspecies, and tentatively I follow that.
2010.01.14
Lonchura leucogastra palawanaCitation- Peters Checklist14:378 (= Paynter 1968) cites this to "no.13 p.11" which makesno sense whatsoever. No.13 was published in 1952.
- This "no.13" apparently is alapsus for no.73.
2009.12.17; 2009.12.19
Ploceus pelzelniCitation2009.10.30
PyrgilaudaNomenclature- H&M 3rd:718 notes that they followStepanyan 1990 (not seen) in accepting this genus.
- This may well be correct, but I do have some question here. Twenty years before Verreaux published this name in the Nouv.Arch.Mus.Nat.Hist., Bonapartelisted "Pyrgilauda Verreaux" as a synonom ofPyrrhulauda Smith 1829.
- I do not know if this possible prior use of the name was addressed by Stepanyan or not, but will presume that it was.
2009.10.25
Dicaeum pygmaeumCitation- H&M 3rd:702 (et. Corrigenda through 8) appearsto be confused concerning this and possibly other citations from this source. To date (2009.10.10)I find the following taxa and Corrigenda notes:
- Dicaeum pygaeum Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.2 pl.2
702,"Dicaeum pygmaeum pygmaeum: date, 1835 not 1833 [see Kennedy et al. 1985; also ECD et al. in prep.]"
[Corrigenda 6] - Acrocephalus luscinius syrinx Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.6 pl.8
585, "Acrocephalus luscinius syrinx : date 1833 not 1835 [wrapper says publ. March 1833]"
[Corrigenda 7] - Erythrura trichroa trichroa Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.8 pl.10
733, "Erythrura trichroa trichroa: date, 1833 not 1835 [wrapper says publ. Mars. 1833.]"
[Corrigenda 7]
- It appears to me that #1 was missed in the date revision, as the wrapper presumablyapplies to theentire livraison (1) and the datewould seem to have to apply to this taxon as well as to the others in the same livraison.
2009.10.10
Prionochilus olivaceus parsonsiNomenclature- Peters Checklist12:172 (= Salomonsen 1967) spells the specificepithet "parsoni" (with only one "s") but spells it correctlyin the citation. The citation, however, makes no reference to the plate.
- The Richmond Index indicates that the taxon is named after Mr William Parsons of Manilla.
2009.09.22
Sheppardia bocagei poensisCitation- Peters Checklist10:50 (= Ripley 1964) gives the page numberas "p. 9"
- This is also followed by HBW10:[811].
- On p.9 of vol.XIII of BBOC, I find:
- Cossypha archeri
- Phlexis rufescens
- Cryptolopha leta
- Apalis personata
- The Richmond Index indicates thatCallene poensis is found on p.37, andthat is what I find as well.
2009.08.03
PogoncichlaSystematics- I follow HBW10:729 (2005 Collar) for the subspecies here.
2009.08.03
Turdus flavipes polionota (Platycichla flavipes polionota)Citation- Peters Checklist10:176 (= Ripley 1964) dates this to 1902, suggestinghe did not consult Zimmer 1926.
- Subsequent authors (H&M 3rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8);HBW10 (2005)) seem simply to have unquestioningly followed the Peters Checklist.
- The Richmond Index, and Zimmer (1926) make it clear that this portion of the workwas published in 1900.
2009.07.21
Catharus guttatus polionotusCitation- Peters Checklist10:174 (= Ripley 1964) includes a very smalllapsus giving the name of the serial as "Condon", instead of Condor.
2009.07.19
Parus cinereus planorumNomenclature- Previously as:
- Dickinson 2009. acts as first reviser in selecting this nameto replaceParus nipalensis Hodgson (notParus nipalensis Hodgson).
- (ref. Dickinson, E. C. 2009. A substitute name forParus nipalensis Hodgson, 1837. Indian Birds5(1):16.)
- Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.
2009.06.28; 2010.08.09
Zoothera heinei papuensisCitation- H&M 3rd: Corrigenda (through Corrigenda 8) includes acorrection to this date (from Corrigenda 4), it reads:
662,"Zoothera heinei papuensis: date, 1882, not 1881 [see Sherborn, 1934] {New ref?}"
- This reference must be toSherborn, C. D. 1934. Dates of publication of catalogues of natural history (post 1850) issued by the British Museum. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology, Tenth Series13:308-312.
- The relevant text there (p.309) reads:
Catal. of the Birds. --....V. Passeriformes. By Seebohm, 1881 (30 April, 1881).
- I do not see any logic that would support dating this name to 1882 rather than 1881, based on Sherborn's publication. (It should be noted that Sherborn recognizes thatthe publication date of thefollowing volume (VI) should be 1882, rather than the imprint date of 1881.)
- Also of interest, H&M 3rd:661 (the previous page)dateZoothera dixoni (=Geochicla dixoni) by Seebohm from 3 pageslater in the same Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. volume (V) to 1881, and do not "correct" this date to 1882.
- The cited reference and the context all suggest that the Corrigenda 4 "correction" is simply an error.
- I follow the Sherborn reference evidently cited by H&M 3rd,as well as the Richmond Index, and cite this name to 1881.
- I discuss the dates of these volumes in some detail hereCat.BirdsBrit.Mus.
2009.06.28
Aplonis tabuensis pachyrhampha Nomenclature- The original combination is spelledAplonis tabuensis pachyrhamphus.
- This spelling is followed by Peters Checklist15:77 (= Amadon 1962).
- H&M 3rd:652 (through Corrigenda 8) spells thisA. t. pachyrampha (contrapachyrhampha). Presumably this is alapsus.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.
2009.06.18Microbates collaris paraguensisCitation- In Peters Checklist10:444 (= Paynter 1964) attributes the authority toonly one Phelps.
- H&M 3rd:643 goes further in attributing this name specifically to thesenior Phelps alone.
- The Richmond Index attributes this name to Phelps Sr. and Jr. which is consistentwith other names from this same article. At least some other taxa from this article are attributed by H&M 3rd and Peters to both Phelps's butno explanation is offered for using only the senior Phelps for this particular name.Other taxa from this article include, but are not limited to:
- Synallaxis cinnamomea aveledoi
- Certhiaxis cinnamomeus marabinu
- Sublegatus arenarum tortugensis
- Coereba flaveola frailensis
- I follow the Richmond Index here.
2009.05.29
Troglodytes aedon parkmaniiNomenclature- This bird was named for the famous and wealthy Boston physician, George Parkman (1790-1849). Parkman was the victim of one of the most famous murdersof the 19th century. His fellow Harvard faculty member John Webster (1793-1850) was convicted and executed for the 1849 murder. The case was sensational, controversial, and with repercussions thatlast in the law to this day.
This case is credited with establishing the requirement of proof beyond areasonable doubt, as opposed to "an absolute certainty" (at the time the standardin a murder trial). Other important precedents were set in this trial as well, andthe witnesses included historical figures including Oliver Wendall Holmes, Sr., William T.G. Morton (famous for introducing the use of ether for anesthesia).
Simon Schama published a history of the affair (1991), and a PBS documentary was produced on the subject. While Chief Justice Shaw is noted and quoted for hisinstructions to the jury in the case, that at that time "real time" stenographicrecordings of trials did not exist. Shaw's "instructions", as delivered from the bench, were felt by the reporters present to be garbled and confusing.Shaw seems to have responded by writing down what he felt the instructions were,and these seem to be clear and direct, so it is speculated that his "instuctions"were probably not those that he actually delivered in court. That, at least, is a speculation.
2009.05.17; 2009.05.24
Garrulax peninsulaeSystematics- Garrulax peninsulae 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 3rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).
2009.03.02
Rhea pennataSystematics- Previously as:
- The SACC mergedPterocnemia intoRhea (2008).
- Thanks to the IOC world bird list for notification of this.
2009.02.21
Chrysomma poecilotisSystematics- Treated inMoupinia by H&M 3rd (through Corrigenda 8).
- The IOC World list moves this toChrysomma following Collar & Robson 2007; Rasmussen & Anderton 2005.
2009.02.19
Coracina striata panayensisNomenclature- Steere, describes two taxa with the specific epithetpanayensis on p.14 of this work.
- 125.Artamides panayensis
- 128.Edoliisoma (Graucalus) panayensis
- Both taxa are now held to be inCoracina, withArtamides panayensis = the subspeciesCoracina striata panayensis.
- In 1952 Ripley proposed a new name (Coracina ostenta forEdoliisoma (Graucalus) panayensis) because of the homonomy.
- In Peters Checklist9:251 (= Mayr 1960) has a footnote stating:
1. This name [referring toCoracina ostenta Ripley 1952] is invalid because of the mandatory provision stated in Bull.Zoöl.Nomencl.,4, 1950, p. 265, par. 33 andid.,14, 1957, p.184, Art.24, Sect. 14, which states that "If homonyms are of identical date, one proposed for a species takes precedence over one proposed for a subspecies." cf. p.177, E.M.
This appears to me to be incorrect. Steere proposes both taxa as species (each name is followedby the string "sp. nov.") so the mandatory provision cited by Mayr does not apply in this case. - Thanks to Mathew Louis for bringing this to my attention.
2009.01.30
Phylloscopus affinis perflavusSystematics- 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.
2009.01.26; 2017.12.07
Malacocincla malaccensis poliogenisNomenclature- The Richmond Index indicates that this name is spelledBrachypterux poliogenis in the textandBrachypterux poliogenys on the plate.
- Peters Checklist10:251 (= Deignan 1964) gives only the spelling from the text, with no mention of the alternate spelling on the plate.
- H&M 3rd:601 correct this in Corrigenda 8 of 2008.
2009.01.25
Sporophila palustris Systematics- The taxon was studied by Juan Areta using previously unpublished vocal and habitat data.(Areta JI, 2008. "Entre Rios Seedeater (Sporophila zelichi): a species that never was." J.FieldOrn.79(4):352-363).
- His conclusion was thatS. zelichi is a color morph ofS. palustris
2009.01.03
Arachnothera clarae philippinensisNomenclature- Clements Checklistth ed.:543 misspells this "philippensis.
- Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.
2008.12.27
Oreolais pulcherNomenclature- Nguembocket al. defineOreolais as masculine (p.764) but use thecombination "Oreolais pulchra (sic) in the tree diagram (p.763).The current Rules of nomenclature would requireOreolais pulcher.
2008.10.17
Chalcomitra senegalensis proteusNomenclature- This form has been conventionally referred to as:
- See Steinhimer 2008. "Lectotype designation forCinnyris proteusRüppell, 1840 (Nectarinidae)" BBOC128(2):142-144 and ICZN Opinion2187 for this name.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
2008.09.05
Merops philippinusCitation- Conventionally cited to 1766 (Peters CL5:235; H&M 3rd:296; HBW6:338; Richmond Index).
- Rainer Massmann helpfully points out (in litt. 2008.08.16) that the errata was published in 1767 (fide "A Catalogue of the Works of Linnaeus ... British Museums" 1933. p.11).
- Thus the name must be dated to 1767, rather than to 1766.
2008.08.16
Stiphrornis pyrrholaemusCitation- On p.29 of this publication, the name is given as
Stiphrornis pyrrholaemus sp. nov. (Schmidt & Angehr)
which implies (to me at least) that Schmidt and Angehr see themselves as the author of the taxon.It is interesting that their names are given in parentheses, which are reserved in the Codefor indicating that a "species group name is combined with a generic name other than the original one"(Art. 51.3), and that surely is not the case here.Regarding authority the Code reads
If a work is by more than one person but it is clear from the contents that only one of these is responsible for the name or act, then that person is the author; otherwise the author of the work is deemed to be the author of the name or act.
This statement has obvious logical deficiencies, but lets see if I can apply what I interpret tobe the intent of this portion to this problem. - My guess would be that if thecontent of this work (whatever else the authors may subsequentlysay is immaterial) makes it clear thatonly Schmidt and Angher were responsible "for the name or act"then they would be deemed to be the authors of the name.
- The first sentance of the abstract reads:
We describe a new species of forest robin from ...
This seems to create a problem, as the "we" seeminglymust refer to the authors (all of them) of the paper.If there was a note in the text, or a footnote on the name that said something like "Schmidt and Angehr aloneare responsible for naming this taxon" then the case would be clear -- to me at least. - Probably it is reasonable to interpret the text on p.29 as "making it clear" that Schmidt and Angehr alonewere responsible fornaming this taxon, but it is also reasonable to state that a few words to that effectwould have demonstrated awareness of the applicable Code as well as eliminating any uncertainty.
- I do not see it as entirely unreasonable to interpret the authors of the work as the authors of the name.
2008.08.15
Mirafra poecilosternaCitation- Peters Checklist9:20 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this name to volume 1 of the Orn.Centralb.
- This makes no sense as the Orn.Centralb. started in 1876. Undoubtedly this is a typographic error for "IV" or "4" which is the correct volume.
2008.08.01
Petrochelidon fulva poecilomaNomenclature2008.07.08
Ptyonoprogne obsoleta pallidaNomenclature- H&M 3rd:536 places the authority for this name in parentheses withno comment, though this departs from Peters Checklist9:103 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960).HBW9:673 (= Turner,AK 2004) holds the taxon asPtyonoprogne fuligula pallida anddoesnot place the authority in parenthese. In my view this latter approach is correct.
- It appears, both from the Richmond Index and from the Peters CL rendering, that Hume's original combination was asPtionoprogne Pallida. So the question becomes: was there a proposedgenus group namePtionoprogne published prior to Humes use of the name, or was it simplyan emendation of Reichenbach'sPtyonoprogne?.
The Richmond Index indicates two uses ofPtionoprogne:
- Stoliczka used this name in the June issue of J.Asiat.Soc.BengalXLI Pt2 no.2 p.219,231,though Richmond comments "[proPtyonoprogne Rchb. 1850]" -- indicating it wasan emendation.
- Blanford proposed (or used) a genus group namePtionoprognewhich Geibel quotes as "Ibis 1863 III 214".
This second instance might require the use of parentheses forthe current representation asPtyonoprogne obsoleta pallida. However, Richmond indicates that Blanford'sname was actually published in 1873, which would post-date Hume's use, thus supporting the interpretation thatHume's use was an emendation. In that case compliance with the Code (1999) would require that parenthesesnot be used for the authority.
2008/07.05
Periparus ater pekinensisNomenclature- Peters Checklist12:94 (= Snow 1967) cites this name to
David 1870 Ibis, p.155
which most probably simply parrots the entry in the CBBM8:41. Other authors (H&M 3rd:526; HBW12:722) in turn appear to parrot the Peters entry. - It appears to me that this name was first published in 1868 by J. Verreaux as cited.(data from the Richmond Index). That taxon is linked to material that is (or was) inthe Paris Museum. Whether that material can be now identified with certainty is not known to me.
- As there is a published indication (the Richmond Index) that the first use of the name is due to Verreaux 1868, the burden of proof lies upon those who support the use of a later publication (1870) by a different author (David).
- (2009.08.16) Colin Jones supplied me with the URL to examine this work, the article commences:
Le Muséum d'histoire naturelle a reçu dernièrement d'un de ses correspondants, M. l'abbé A. David, missionnaire eu Chine, un certain nombre d'Oiseaux, parmi lesquels nous avons remarqué les suivants comme constituant des espèces nouvelles pour la science :
- The name is given, followed by "A. David" but there are no quotes aroundthe desription, or any indication that David supplied anything other than the specimenand (apparently) the manuscript name.
- I continue to interpret this matter such that the author of the name is Verreaux, andthe date cited should be 1868, though it must be stressed that this contrasts withPeters, HBW12:722; & H&M 3rd:526 (through Corrigenda 8), whom all list David 1870,and offer no comments or discussion of the matter.
- The 1868 description can be seen here:
- Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(5) 10 p.[68]
2008.06.09; 2008.12.14; 2009.08.16; 2010.07.05
Corvus pectoralisNomenclature- This form is frequently cited toCorvus torquatus Lesson 1830 [APP: actually 1831].
- Eck (1984et. seq.) has brought forward the reminder that Lesson's name ispreoccupied byCorvus monedula torquata Bechstein 1791.
- Thanks to Rob Hickling for suggesting this note.
2008.05.31
Paridae Systematics- With the 7th Ed. of the AOU CL (1998)Poecile,Baeolophus weresplit from the genusParus.
- H&M 3rd:523et.seq, which in contrast to the AOU CL can notbe considered a systematic work (just as this website can not), leavesParus unsplit, and in fact makesno mention, that I can find of this issue. (Some lower level revisions are, however, cited to the 1998 AOU CL).
- The HBW12 also splits the genus, though this fact again is not mentioned by H&M 3rd.
2008.05.23
Garrulus glandariuis pekingensisNomenclature2008/05.08
Porzana paykulliiCitation- Peters Checklist2:186 gives "p.258" and pl.5.
- The Richmond Index on one card gives page "259" and does not give a plate. Another card givesp.258 and pl.5
- Not knowing which is correct, I follow the "majority" -- p.258 and pl.5 .
2008.05.04
Cyanolycra pulchraCitation- H&M 3rd:505 dates this to 1876, but in the Corrigenda #5 changes thisto 1875, referencing "[ECD et al. in prep]" -- though one would expect an "in prep." citation to have beenpublished after these years have passed.
- My data from the Richmond Index, suggests that unless a source other than the Ann.Lyc.Nat.Hist.N.Y. is cited, the nameshould be dated to 1876.
- The Richmond Index notes that the paper was read Oct. 11, 1875, that the signature was dated Nov. 1875,but that the cover for the nos. where this was published (nos. 7-8) is dated Feb. 1876.
- Richmond Index Card Cyanocitta pulchra
2008.05.02
Microeca fascinans pallidaCitation- Peters Checklist11:558 (= Mayr 1986) dates this to 1884. This is followed by H&M3rd:521 without discussion.
- The Richmond Index, however, gives the date as "1885?".
- The date ofRhipidura phasiana, which was first named in the same paper as the presenttaxon, is corrected from 1884 to 1885 in the Corrigenda to H&M 3rd. Curiously,Micraeca[sic] pallida receives no such treatment.
- Also worthy of note here is the date 1885 ascribed toMelithreptus vinitinctus, the third taxonnamed in De Vis's paper, in Peters Checklist12:396 (= Salomonsen 1967).
- Although the justification for citing 1885 in all cases is as yet unclear, it is followed here pendingfurther inquiry.
2008.04.13 (RMR)
Phonygammus keraudrenii purpureoviolaceusNomenclature- Originally described asPhonygama purpureo-violacea, according to PetersCheck-list15:186 (= Mayr 1962).
- The taxon is placed inPhonygammus by Mayr, and he does notinclude parentheses around the author's name in the check-list proper.
- H&M 3rd:516, however, place A.B. Meyer's name inparentheses.
- AsPhonygama Lesson, 1828, is an emendation ofPhonygammus Lesson & Garnot, 1826, the inclusion ofparentheses is unnecessary.
2008.03.29 (RMR)
Lanius meridionalis pallidirostrisCitation- Peters Checklist9:359 cites this taxon to "1852". This isfollowed by H&M 3rd:481 (through Corrigenda 6),though H&M 3rd:460 citesLaniariusaethiopicus sublacteus from two pages later in the same number (no.10) to 1851 (also without comment).
- Until it is demonstrated that no.10 (which contained the material fromthe meeting of Dec. 26, 1851) was not published until 1852 I will try to citeall taxa from this number to 1851.
2008.01.01
Lanius isabellinus phoenicuroidesCitation- Peters Checkist9:346 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite thisto Schalow in J.Orn.23 1875. This is found in no.130, the"April" number of the J.Orn. which according to the pattern that isslowly emerging was probably delayed for a minimum of 3-8 months beforeit actually appeared.
- In Schalow's J.Orn. use of the name he attributes it to Severtzov in1873, also in the J.Orn. where Severtzov uses the nameLaniophoenicuroides p.347 in a list, where it appears to be anomennudum.
- Severtzov also published the nameL[anius] phaeicuroides in theNov. 1875 number of Stray FeathersIII no.5 p.429. Myinterpretation of the Richmond Index card in this case is that Severtzovwas usingL. phaenicuroides forL. phaenicuris (describedin that work at p.144). So the Schalow use of the name may very will bethe first valid instance of use. If not, the date could be a problem asthe Nov. Stray Feathers volume could quite possibly have preceeded the"April" J.Orn. number for that year.
2007.12.30
Coracina lineata pusillaNomenclature- The citation here is given as in Peters Checklist9:178 (= Mayr & Greenway1960).
- The Richmond Index also lists
Graucalus pusillus "Bl." Jerdon 1872 Ibis, ser.3, II, no.VI, April 1872 p.117 (in text). where the name is listed in the synonomyofGraucalus layardi Blyth.
- Mayr and Greenway give no information regarding this name.
2007.09.17; 2007.12.15
Aegithina tiphia philipiCitation- Peters Checklist9:301 (= Delacour 1960) dates this name to 1885. This isfollowed by H&M 3rd:465 (through Corrigenda 6).
- The Richmond Index, giving a much fuller and more detailed citation lists the date as1886, which I follow.
2007.09.06
Cracticus nigrogularis picatusCitation- Peters Checklist15:167 (= Amadon, 1962) cites this as:this appears to be incorrect.
- To determine if this plate 50 was published before the PZS article it isnecessary to know in which part of Birds of Australia it was published. Amadon eitherdid not know, or did not supply that information.
- Mathews in his Suppl. to the Birds of Australia (p.49) indicates thatCracticuspicatus is to be found in pt XXXIV of Gould's Birds of Australia which Zimmer (p.255)indicates appeared on December 1, 1848. Therefore, Amadon's citation is notthe correct one, and the PZS publication (appearing on Nov. 14, 1848) is correct.
2007.09.03
Formicarius analis pallidusNomenclature- Listed by Peters Checklist7:240 with the authority in parentheses, andthe original combination asFurnarius pallidus.
- H&M 3rd:397 (through Corrigenda 6) also lists theauthority in parentheses, presumably following the Peters Checklist
- HBW8:703 similarly places the authority in parentheses (but places thissubspecies inF. moniliger(!) -- Clements 2007 p.303 similarly places thissubspecies inF. moniliger).
- I can not resolve the uncertainty regarding the affinities of this subspecies, orthe species level status ofmoniliger, but I can correct the nomenclaturalerrors. The Richmond Index demonstrates that theoriginal binomen wasindeedFurnarius pallidus, however Richmondhas included notes indicating that
- "The name is corrected to "Formicarius" inindex to thevol.!"
- "in some copies [it is] corrected by a a slip pasted over the name, reading"Formicariuspallidus"
- The Code's discussion of such situations is as follows:
32.5.Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to anyexternal source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as alapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrecttransliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, arenot to be considered inadvertent errors.32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's orauthor's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as acirculated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or workissued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted asclear evidence of an inadvertent error.
I interpret this to mean that the original spellingmust be corrected and theoriginal combination must be regarded asFormicarius pallidus and thus noparentheses for the authority are to be used.
2007.06.23
PasserculusSystematics- Rising discusses the nature and validity of subspecies and revises thePasserculus sandwichensis subspecies accordingly.Rising JD. 2007. "Named subspecies and their significance in contemporaryornithology." Ch. 4 in Ornithological Monographs no.63. Festschrift for Ned K.Johnson: Geographic vatiation and evolution in birds. Orn.Monogr. no.63. Cicero andRemsen eds. pp.43-54..
- The genus previously appeared thus:
2007.06.16
Saltator coerulescens plumbicepsNomenclature- Several issues here
- The original spelling appears to beplumbiceps, based on the Richmond Index.
- Gadow in CBBM11:289 (1886) emends this without comment toplumbeiceps; Lawrence is listed as the author.
- H&M 3rd:824 (through Corrigenda 6) also lists the authoras Lawrence (but with the correct spelling for the species epithet).
- The Richmond Index lists the author as "Baird in Lawrence", which I follow until this is shownto be incorrect.
- Examination of a copy of the original description (kindly provided by Craig Ludwig and Roy McDiarmid of the Smithsonian)clarified many issues. The spelling is clearly as indicated by Richmond in the Richmond Index and the author of the taxon isBaird and not Lawrence.
- Most workers attribute this name to Lawrence (e.g. Sclater CBBM11:289; Deignan USNM Bull. 221:591;H&M 3rd:824; 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 (p.477):
15. Saltator plumbiceps, Baird, MS."Male. Upper plumage grayish olive, the head above and at thesides cinereous; tail olivaceous; quills dark biown edged with ashy gray; beneathwhitish, tinged with gray or brownish gray on jugulum and breast, passing behind onthe remaining under parts into pale fulvous, of which color also are the axillaries;superciliary line reaching to the nape, bend of the wing and broad throat stripewhite, the latter margined with a black line and above this a light gray one; iridesreddish; bill and feet dark brown."Length 8 in.; wing 4.; tail 3.75; bill from nostrils .56, commissure .90;tarsus 1.06."Habitat.— Mazatlan. Collected by J. Xantus, 1863. No. of type,29,372."This species, as far as I can ascertain, is undescribed, and is interestingas being the most northern representative of the genus yet discovered. It approachestheSaltator rufiventris of Vigors (S. vigorsii of Gray, and, perhaps,of Bonaparte, Notes Ornith. 23), and considered perhaps justly to be a synonym ofS. grandis, but appears to be lighter below, the abdomen and crissum by nomeans rufous, and the super ciliary stripe extending far beyond the eye; it resemblestypical specimen ofqrandis in the absence of clear olivaceous on the back andwings; it is, however, much paler beneath,the head lighter, the black stripe bordering the throat narrow, and with a light lineabove it; although the wings are longer, the bill is smaller, narrower, and much lesstumid."Remarks.— In the color of the back this species is much likeS.grandis, but is of a lighter olive, the latter species has the sides of the headbrownish black, the black border to the throat much wider, and the under surface verymuch darker; the new species in its under plumage resembles somewhatS.olivaciens, hut the colors are paler, less cinereous, and the tinge of fulvousmore diffused.
It is noted that only the "Remarks" section is not enclosed in quotes, and thissection must be attributed to Lawrence.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.2007.06.14; 2007.07.03
PirangaNomenclature- Peters Checklist13 (=Storer, 1970) lists the authority in parentheses when taxa were described inPyrangaand are now held inPiranga.
- This is followed, without comment, by H&M 3rd:818 (through Corrigenda 6).
- The published literature (Neave, 1940 p.1057 & The Richmond Index) makes it clear thatPyranga Vieillot, 1817is merely an emendation ofPiranga Vieillot, 1808.
- Therefore, if the published literature and the ICZN Code (1999) is to be followed, the authority should not be inparentheses.
- This problem has been addressed repeatedly and previously, but thesepublished interpretations are apparentlyneglected ; The AOU CL 7th lists all taxa currentlyheld inPiranga but described inPyranga without parentheses for the authority (viz:P. roseogularis,P. bidentata, & P.leucoptera (pp.577-579)). Indeedevery AOU CL. since thesecond (1895!) has consistently listed authorities for taxa described inPyranga without parentheses, even though theyare now held inPiranga.
2007.05.23
Aramadis cajanea plumbeicollisCitation- Mark Brown has brought to my attention some confusion and uncertainty regrading this citation.
- This taxon is often cited (e.g. Peters Checklist2:175 lists this citation to volume "2" of"An. Mus. Nac. Costa Rica", and has a footnote indicating that the name is anomen nudum in "An.Mus.Nac.CostaRica,1, 1887, p.131."
- The Handbook of Learned Societies and Institutes of Americas by the Carnegie Institute suggests two possibilitiesthere is uncertainty about whether the description was published in volume 1 or 2. If published in volume 2 the date ofpublication may well be 1889.
- The Richmond Index (which has the highestprobability of being correct) does not list a volume number, butlists the taxon to p.3 and 1888. This would fit with the scenario (which appears most likely to me) that there wasno volume "2" of the An.Mus.Nac.CostaRica -- which was continued as the "Anales del Instituto Fisico-Geograficoy del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica".
- For now I follow the citation as shown in the Richmond Index.
- Thanks again to Mark Brown for bringing this interesting bit of confusion to my attention.
- Further (and better) understanding comes via Frederick Brammer (in. litt. 2020.12.23) whodirects my attention to Marcondes,Rafael Sobral; Silveira,Luís Fábio (2015): A taxonomic review of Aramides cajaneus (Aves, Gruiformes, Rallidae) with notes on morphological variation in other species of the genus. Zookeys500:111-140.
- They present the publishing history and demonstrate that volume 2, as previously cited, was never in fact publishedwhich obviates its use as an indication for the 1888 name use, which now must be held as anomen nudem.
2005.05.18; 2020.12.23
PercnostolaSystematics- H&M 3rd:391 essentially follows Peters Checklist(1951) though the listing is a mixture of old systematics and some recent taxa added.
- I attempt to follow Isler MLet al. 2001 & 2007 The Wilson Bulletin113&119:164-176 & 53-70.
2007.04.23
Philemon citreogularis papuensisNomenclature2007.04.21
Leucosticte brandti pallidiorCitation- Peters Checklist14:259 [=Howellet al., 1968] dates this to 1909,though as usual no support is given for this date.
- Many other taxa from much later in this serial are dated to 1908 in other parts of thePeters Checklist.
- The Richmond Index dates this to 1908, and provides substantially greaterbibliographic detail, noting that this is in No.1-2 for July of 1908.
- Many of the dates given by Howellet al. in this volume of the Peters Checklistdo not enjoy the support of evidence, documentation, or logic, and this may be anothersuch case.
- With no evidence of delay until 1909, I date this to 1908, following the RichmondIndex.
2007.04.02
Sporophila minuta parvaCitation- Peters Checklist13:145 (Paynter, 1970) list this as:
Spermophila parva Lawrence, 1883, Ann. New York Acad. Sci.,26 (1882), p. 382
- This is volume2, not "26". Nevertheless, Paynter was able to get the date right.This bird is described in no.12 for that volume, the June issue. Richmond's notes indicate thatRidgway's copy was received June 22, 1893.
2007.02.11
Sporophila plumbeaCitation- Peters Checklist13:136 (Paynter, 1970) gives the citation as:
Fringilla plumbea Wied, 1831, Beitr. Naturg. Brasilien, 3(2), p.579
which isincorrect. Part 2 of volume 3 of this work commences on p.637 as demonstrated by Zimmer(p.422). The citation should read:Fringilla plumbea Wied, 1830, Beitr. Naturg. Brasilien, 3(1), p.579
- Therefore, 1830 is the correct date, and is the date shown by CBBM12:97 and theRichmond Index, and other careful workers.
- A useful work for dealing with Wied-Neuwied taxa is Allen JA. 1898. "On the Maximilian Types ofSouth American Birds in the American Museum of Natural History" Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.2(19):209-276. This work does not appear to have been consulted by Paynter in this instance atleast.
....;2007.02.10
Melanerpes pulcherSystematics- The AOU CL 47th Supplement elevates this to species level, basedon Wetmore. 1968. The Birds of the Republic of Panama, part 2. Smiths.Misc.Collections,vol.150, and Stiles and Skutch. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica. Cornell UniversityPress. Ithaca, N.Y.
2007.01.21
Aimophila ruficeps pallidissimaNomenclature- Collins, P. W. 1999. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps).In The Birds ofNorth America, No. 472 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,PA. spells the subspecific epithet with one "s"pallidisima
- Review of the original description confirms the spelling with a double "s" (e.g. PetersChecklist13:98, and H&M 3rd:787) is correct.
2007.01.20
Cincolsoma punctatumCitation- Conventionally cited to 1794 (e.g. Peters Checklist10:231 (Deignan, 1964)).
- The Richmond Index card for this taxon has "1794" with the "4" crossed out and "5" written overit. The basis for this change is not completely clear, but there are apparent problems with the"1794" date. Mathews in Biliography of the Birds of Australia p.124 notes that pt. III was receivedat the Linnean Society (Lond.) on Feb. 4th, 1794, but on the line below notes that the GöttJourn., Vol. I, heft 2, p.143 notes the date of 1795 for pt. III.
- The internal inconsistency of Mathews' dates seems typical to me. His statement that pt. III wasreceived Feb. 4th, 1794 seems particularly problematic as apparently pll. IX, X of this part bearthe date "10/9/94". It is possible that Mathews intended to say the material was received Feb. 4th1795.
- In any event, for the moment I base my date of 1795 on the Richmond Index and the date that isevidently given in the Göttingishes Journal I, heft 2 p.143
2007.01.20
Zonotrichia capensis pulacayensisCitation- There seems to be some question as to whether this was published in 1908 or 1909, basedboth on the entry in Peters Checklist13:58, and the entry in the Richmond Index.
- The H&M 3rd Corrigenda #5 says
date 1908, not 1909 [OD examined]
Edward Dickinson provides additional details on this (in litt. 2007.01.01). he states:Within this volume this paper is found in "No. 7 et dernier" and the date of publication of that isgiven as 24 Nov. 1908. This is not to be seen on the two pages of the paper but as I recall in thecontents list for the volume.
2006.12.31; 2007.01.01
PycnonotusCitation- This genus group name is attributed by Sherborn Index Animalium p.5321 to "H. Boie".
- Edward Dickinson, confirms, by a copy of the original description, that the author of this taxonis in fact "F. Boie".
2006.11.23
Parula pitiayumi pacificaCitation- This citation as given in Peters Checklist14:13 presents a significant challenge.The citation as given in the Peters Checklist is:
Parula pitiayumi pacifica Berlepsch and Taczanowski (exBerlepsch MS), 1885, Proc. Zool. Soc. London,52(1884), p.286
- Very little of that make sense, certainly there is no "volume 52" that occurs during this period,and the only part of the "1884" volume that was published in 1885 was Pt.4 pp.475-645.
- As there were other taxa attributable to Berlepsch & Taczanowski close to this page number (pp.296,299)in the 1884 Pt3, I presume that is the correct portion of the serial to cite.
- H&M 3rd:760 is no help (citing this to "1885") and thisclearly problematic date is not mentioned or discussed in the Corrigenda (up to #8).
- Lowery & Monroe clearly did not treat this citation very effectively, and Paynter's & Mayr's editorial responsibilities appear to have been in full repose when reviewing this entry.
2006.11.21; 2008.11.15
Rhipidura personataCitation- Previously listed as:
- See McAllen IAW. Notornis, 2006, "Fijian birds described in newspapers."53:254-257 for adiscussion of the citation for this name.
2006.11.06
Icterus pustulus pustuloidesCitation- H&M 3rd:771 cites this asI. p. pustuloides (Wagler, 1829)(!!).
- This taxon was described inIcterus by Van Rossem in 1927.
2006.11.02
Tyto alba punctatissimaNomenclature- I previously listed this as dated to 1839, and due to Gray based on the fact thatthe Richmond Index shows that this is in "no.9" of Pt III, and shows a date of July, 1839.
- Zimmer 1926 cites Sherborn's work on this {Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.,(6)20, p.483}where it is shown that this was published in July of 1839.
- However, Steinheimer FD, Dickinson EC, & Walters M. 2006. "The zoology of the voyage ofthe HMS Beagle Part III. Birds: new avian names, their authorship and their dates." BBOC126:(3):171-193, discusses this question in detail. For this taxon the plate (by Gould) wasevidently published first (in 1838) and the text (by Gray) subsequently in 1839.
- Steinheimer, Dickinson, & Walters also argue that the authorship should be Gould &Gray.
2003.10.16; 2006.10.08
Heliodoxa leadbeateri parvulaCitation- Peters Checklist5:88 cites this taxon to 1887, which is the imprint date for thisnumber (No.179) of the J.Orn. This date is followed by most workers (e.g.H&M3rd:269; HBW5:615).
- The Richmond Index notes that this number of the J.Orn. was "Issued in Nov. or later!" andreferences Ibis 1891 p.616, where Sclater indicates that Waterhouse has furnished him with the datesat which parts of the J.Orn. were received at the Library of the Zoological Society of London. Thisnumber was received March 5, 1888, which appears to be the first date at which this number can beproven to be available.
2014.04.04
- Given the information above, the date "1887" is simply not compliant with the rules of the Code. With November information in the "Juli" Heft, that date specified in the work can be characterized as being found to be incorrect. The Code then requires that the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted. The data above would suggest March 5, 1888.
- However, at least part of this work was published as an author's separate, or author's edition.A copy of that separate is found in Ridgway's material and includes notations by Richmond. The cover wrapperincludes the date "Januar" and the hand written note on the wrapper indicates that it was "Rec'd Jan. 30, 1888" (a Monday).(Absent the specification as to day the work would need to have been dated Jan. 31, 1888.)
- A date of 1887 remainspossible but would require specific datademonstrating the Juli Heft as being available as a published workin 1887. I knowof no such data or evidence, and given the publishing history of this serial, expect that it is unlikely.Absent such a demonstration, 1888 is the correct date. Furhtermore, the citation must be to the (repaginated) author's edition, demonstrated to be in existence more than a month before the Heft was received at the ZoologicalSociety.
2006.09.27; 2014.04.04
Rhipidura phasianCitation- There are discrepancies between the citation in Peters Checklist and theRichmond Index. The Peters Checklist cites:
Rhipidura phasiana De Vis, 1884, Proc.Roy.Soc.Queensland,1 p.156
The Richmond Index lists this as:Rhipidura phasiana C.W. De Vis.1885?Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensl., I, pt.? 1885? 158
So the yearmay be 1885 rather than 1884, and the page numbers do not agree (with thegreatest likelihood that the Richmond Index is correct). - The note in the Corrigenda to H&M 3rd states it is 1885, and insupport of this says "[see title page of the volume]" what ison the title page is notstated, nor is it indicated how this proves that the publication dates is 1885. For example is itknow by the author of the H&M note that this was published in parts? A simple authoritativestatement is of some interest here, but I do not find it dispositive.
2006.08.29; 2008.03.24
PhaeochroaSystematics- H&M 3rd:278 follows HBW5 in mergingPhaeochroaintoCampylopterus. HBW does not give published basis or rationale for this treatment.
- Dick Banks informs me (in litt. 2006.08.21) that the AOU CL committee considered andrejected mergingPhaeochroa intoCampylopterus as did the SACC.
2006.08.21
Falco sparverius papuanusCitation Date- Peters Checklist1(2):cites this to 1894.
- H&M 3rd:96 follows this dating.
- The Richmond Index dates this to 1893, noting that the preface toIV no.3 is dated Mai1893.
- The H&M Corrigenda5 cites Eck & Quaisser, 2004 regarding dates from this sourceand changes quite a few dates based on this 2004 paper: a good number were changed so that they didnot agree with the dates I had. These changes did not appear to me to make any real sense atall.
- The H&M Corrigenda5 (2006.01.31) doesnot mention the May 2005 paper byQuaisser & Eck "Korrekturne und Ergänzungen zum Verzeichnis der Typen der Vogelsammlung desMueseums fü Tierkunde in den Staatlichen Naturhistorischen Sammlungen Dresden" Zool.Abhand.(Dresden)55:129-138. The correction table at back (pp.137-138), to my distinctsatisfaction, confirms the dates I had been using all along, often not in agreement with PetersChecklist, but always in agreement with the Richmond Index. I suppose I should anticipate yet MOREinformation becoming available that proves all my dates wrong!!!
2006.07.30
Leptopogon amaurocephalus pileatusCitation- Usually cited to 1865. However, the Richmond Index for this taxon has a note:
"Nov.", 1865 Publ. 1866
The notes on the covers of these issues would support that interpretation.
2006.07.20
Ixobrychus minutus payesiiNomenclature- Two issues must be considered here, the spelling of the subspecies group name and theattribution of authority.
- Regarding the authority
- Sclater in Syst.Av.Ethiop.1:30 attributes the name to Hartlaub, and addingparentheticaly "(ex Verreaux)".
- Sharpe in his Hand-list1:202 attributes the authority to Verreaux with a note"(Cf. O. Neumann J.f.O. 1898 pp.282-284)". In the Hand-list, of course, Sharpe is pointing toCBBM.
- In CBBM26:225 (Ogilvie-Grant) it is attributed toArdea payesi, Hartl.J.f.O. 1858, p.42 (ex J.Verr. MSS.). [APP: note the -i ending here]
- The Richmond Index attributes the name to Verreaux in Hartlaub.
- The relevant text of the article itself reads:
- German
Eine genaue Vergleichung, welche mein Freund Jules Verreaux zwischen der neuen Art ausWestafrica und dem von Bernier herstammenden Exemplar des madagascarischenA. podiceps derPariser Sammlung austellen konnte, ergab auf den ersten Blick die specifische Verschiedenheitbeider.
- Translation
An exact comparison, which my friend Jules Verreuax was able to make out between the new type fromWest Africa and the specimen that stems out of Bernier of the madagascarianA. podiceps ofthe Paris collection, instantly revealed the specific differences of both.
- This does not seem to me to indicate that Verreaux had any real role in publishing the name,so I attribute the authority to Hartlaub.
- Regarding the spelling, the the use ofPayesi with single -i ending in the footnotewould appear to be an incorrect subsequent spelling.
2006.06.24
Drymotoxeres (Campylorhamphus) pucheraniiNomenclature- Often (e.g. Peters Checklist7:54; HBW8:445) listed as
- The name in Des Murs' work, is attributed to Lafresnaye, and the descriptivediagnostic material and the name are, I understand, included in quotes -- showingthat Lafresnaye's text is being used. Therefore, my interpretation is that theauthor of the name is Lafresnaye (or more formally Lafresnaye in Des Murs).
- The spelling ispucherani on the plate, andpucheranii in thetext, additionally Lafresnaye uses the spellingpucheranii in his 1850Rev.Mag.Zool. article.
- Therefore, I attribute the authority to Lafresnaye, rather than Des Murs, andthe spelling aspucheranii.
- [2010.01.20] David, Dickinson, & Gregory. 2009. "Contributons to a Listof First Reviser actions: ornithology." Zootaxa 2085:1-24 hold Lafresnaye to be the First Reviser (p.7) when he usedpucheranii in his 1850, Rev.Mag.Zool. article.
2006.05.27; 2010.11.21
Tachybaptus ruficollis philippensisNomenclature -- spelling- Sherborn, Index Animalium p.742 of the pre 1800 volume, spells thisphilippinensis, notphilippensis as seen elsewhere (Peters, TheRichmond Index).
- Further confusing the matter is the treatment by both the Cat.B.Br.Mus. andSharpe's Handlist.
- Sharpes Hand list Vol. 1 p.113 lists:
2.philippinensis (Bonn.). (p.511.)
but, lists it asphilippensis (Podicipes) i. 113.
on p.142 of the General Index. - Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.26:511 lists:
Colymbus philippensis,Bonnat. Tabl. Encycl. Méth. i. p.58, pl.46.fig. 3 (1790).
So inconsistency and a merry mixture ofphilippensis andphilippinensis results.2006.04.22
Buteo buteo pojanaCitation- Peters Checklist1(2):371 cites this as
Falco pojana Savi, 1822, Nuovo Giornale Pisa,22, p.68
andthis seems to essentially mirror that found in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.1:186. - The actual title of the serial in question varies somewhat in representationamong the few Library Catalogues I have found it in, but generally it is:
Nuovo giornale de' letterati
published in Pisa. - This journal commenced publication in 1822 (ceasing in 1839) making thelikelihood of volume22 in 1822 seem low.
- Sherborn in his Index Animalium.list some 32 taxa to this source, and thereconfirms that this name does in fact occur in volume 22, but the date of that volumeis 1831.
- Carlo Violani very helpfully looked into this for me. The copies of the Journal that areheld in the Univ. Pavia library extend from 1821 to 1835. This taxon occurs in volume22 for1831 (not 1822) and the name first appears on p.63 (not p.68)
- Given the fact that this name was published some 9 years later than it hasgenerally have been considered to be, it is not known to me if there might be asenior synonym that must be considered.
2006.03.26; 2006.09.15
Accipiter novaehollandiea pulchellusCitation- Peters Checklist1(2):332 dates this taxon to 1881.
- This error is repeated by HBW2:149.
- The Richmond Index notes the date of publication as Jan. 26, 1882, and thisis confirmed to be correct by "A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society ofLondon". 1988. Gage AT, Stearn WT. p.215.
2006.03.12
Accipiter novaehollandiea polionotusCitation- The date of this taxon is a problem. Peters Checklist1(2):331,dates it to 1890 without note or comment, and this is followed by H&M3rd:105 as well as HBW2:149.
- The Richmond Index dates this as "1890" with "?89" written above thedate.
- Peters Checklist4:26 datesCacomantis arfakianus from 30pages later in this same work (p.177) to 1889, with a note saying"Reprint, p.49" and a footnote showing the Cuckoo was also published in"Aggiunte alla Ornitologica della Papuasia e delle Molucche".
- The Richmond Index card also has written in "Aggiunte Orn. Pap. pte.I". forUrospizias polionotus and it is my suspicion that that isprobably the correctly cited source.
- If this really was in Pt. I of the Agg. Orn. Pap., it appears it should bedated to 1889.
- This would be quite a bit easier to work out if Peters in vol.4 orStresemann & Amadon in volume 1(2) had taken the trouble to actuallysort out this citation.
- With some trepidation, (more regarding the correct source to cite ratherthan the date) I date this to 1889.
- My strong suspicion is that this should probably be cited to the AggiunteOrn.Pap.Mol., but that almost certainly would have a different page number,than that given here.
2013.12.20- Gastone Rabascini confirmes that this was published in 1879.
- Tommaso Salvadori describes this species in 1889 "Agginte alla Ornitologia della paupasia e delle Molucche, pt. 1, p. 5 (n.n.), p. 19, Sp. 1036 (27 bis), 17 Novembre. (Estratto delle memorie Memorie della Royal Accademia di Torino, Serie II, Tom. XL, p. 147)".
2013.12.22
Calidris alpina pacificaSynonomy2005.12.25; 2006.09.19
Oreophilus ruficollis pallidusCitation- H&M 3rd:137 has 1935.
- Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciencesindicates that this portion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.
2005.12.07
- Described by Rand inCollocalia, and now held to be inAerodramus.
- Priceet al. 2005. "Phylogenetic relationships of the PapuanSwiftletAerodramus papuensis and implications fo the evolutionof avian echolocation." Ibis147(4):790-796. discuss this birdand its relationships. It appears that the Papuan swift probably doesnot belong inAerodramus. Priceet al. indicate thatmolecular data suggests thatpapuensis is the sister taxon toHydrochrous gigas, though unlikeH. gigas itdoesecholocate. It differs from other echolocating "Aerodramus" swifts, inthat not only does it have 3 (as opposed to 4!) toes, but does notappear to nest in caves (the presumed adaptive basis for echolocation ofthe other "Aerodramus" swifts.
- It appears to me, that the Papuan swift belongs in a monotypicgenus.
2005.11.05
Xiphorhynchus fuscus pintoiNomenclature- Previously as
- Longmore and Silveira. 2005. "A replacement name forXiphorhynchus fuscus brevirostiris (Pinto 1938)". BBOC.125(2):153-154. discuss the nomenclature here, and propose areplacement name.
- Thanks to Jirka Schmidt for bringing this to my attention.
2005.11.04
Excalfactoria chinensis papuensis Citation- In HBW2:511,573Coturnix chinensis papuensis Mayr& Rand is cited as "1937Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.73".
- Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that thecorrect citation is 1936 andAm.Mus.Novit.
- The bird was described inExcalfactoria and so the authorityshould be in parentheses if held inCoturnix,contra both HBW2:511 andH&M 3rd:54.
- Thanks to Norbert Bahr for pointing this out.
2003.06.25; 2005.10.31; 2009.05.22
Dendroica pityophilaDatePeters Checklist14:24 (Lowery & Monroe) date this to1858.- The Richmond Index indicates that this paper was read Oct. 22, 1855and the number was published in Oct. 1855.
- Lowrey & Monroe apparently took 1858 (the last date of thevolumeVI) as the date for the entire volume, ignoring the factthat this work was published in parts. Their error has then beenfollowed by most other workers, including the AOU CL 6th and 7theds. as well as H&M 3rd:762.
- The H&M 3rd Corrigenda 5 dates this tentatively to 1856 "indeedpossibly 1855" though no data are given in support.
- See the note forChordeiles gundlachii
2005.10.15; 2006.11.25
Xanthotis polygrammus poikilosternosCitation- This volume (70) of the Stizungsberichte Math-Nat. of Viennaevidently has an imprint date of 1874. An interpretation that derivesfrom the entry in the Richmond Index, as well as the listing in PetersCheclist12:389 (Salomonsen).
- However, Salomonsen apparently interprets the material to have beendelayed until 1875 (the date he gives for the taxon), though noevidence in support of this idea is supplied.
- H&M 3rd:431 follows the dating given by Peters, eventhough the date 1874 is given to other taxa that occurlater inthiswork (e.g.Zosterops minor, mysorensis occuring on pp.115 and116 of the Sitzungsberichte are dated by H&M 3rd to1874. (see p.627).
- I see no reason not to use the imprint date, and thus follow thedate which is published in the Richmond Index for this taxon.
2005.09.20
Piciodes scalaris parvusCitation- Cited by Peters Checklist6:213 as
- As Michael Reiser points out, Bangs indicates in The Auk22:168that the citation with priority is the Proc.Bost.Soc.N.H. which waspublished in 1844. Richmond indicates that the signature for thisportion is dated May, 1844; he also notes that the Bost.J.N.H.publication (as cited by Peters) is dated Jan. 1845. Sherborn, similarlyin the Ind.Anim. p.4779 shows the Bost.J.N.H. as following theProceedings (though he is less certain of the date of the latter,listing it as 1844-1845).
- Interestingly, Ridgway also had trouble with this citation,erroneously listing it to Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila. 1845v:90, inThe Birds of North and Middle America part VI p.249.
2005.05.05
Ptilinopus huttoniNomenclature- Originally described inPtilonopus and for this reason PetersChecklist3:31 places the authority in parentheses. This isfollowed by H&M 3rd:175 but not by HBW4:211.
- It appears to me thatPtilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendationof Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me thatit implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
2005.04.28
Ptilinopus perlatus plumbeicollisCitation- Originally described inPtilopus and for this reason H&M3rd: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.
2005.04.29
PogoniulusCitation- Peters Checklist6:44 correctly cites this taxon to 1842. (inthis volume when there are two dates, the date in parentheses is thedate of publication; the unparenthesized date is the imprint date).
- Not surprisingly, this is misinterpreted by most workers who haveused this as their source of information, and have listed the date as1844 (e.g. H&M 3rd:307, HBW7:182).
- The dates of publication of this work were dealt with in detail by Sherborn and Palmerin 1899.Sherborn CD, Palmer TS. 1899. "Dates of d'Orbigny's 'Dictionnaire Universeld'Histored Naturelle,' 1839-1849." Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7)3:350-352. Sherborn andPalmer's treatment is reflected in subsequent compilations (e.g. Sherborn'sIndex Animalium, Schulzeet al., Neave), and those treatments have beendemonstrably ignored by most subsequent workers.
2005.04.26; 2005.11.11
Ptilinopus rivoli prasinorrhousCitation- Originally described inPtilonopus and forthis reason Peters Checklist3:34 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3rd:176, but not by HBW4:217.
- It appears to me thatPtilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that theauthority here should not be in parentheses.
2005.04.25
Ptilinopus magnificus puellaCitation- The author for this taxon is usually given as Lesson alone. In this,the various authorities appear to be simply copying one another.
- I infer (from Sharpe's Hand-List) that Salvadori in the CBBM21:170 listonly Lesson as the author. [This is confirmed by the work of Dave Donsker2005.04.22]
- Sherbron Ind.Anim. p.5220 also lists only Lesson.
- The Richmond Index lists Lesson & Garnot, which in the abscence ofinformation to the contrary, I follow.
- Dave Donsker additionally noted that Gray in his 1844Genera ofBirdslists only Lesson as the author if this taxon. Thus it is likely that Salvadori maysimply have been following Gray in this regard.
2005.04.22
Treron psittaceusNomenclature- This taxon would appear to be the result of less than complete reseach by Salvadori when he prepared the Columbiformes volume of the Cat.B.Br.Mus. Salvadori cites Temminck & Knip as the authors of this taxon, and this appears to be followed without question or comment by PetersIII:17 and HBW4:198.
- No mention is made ofThough certainly other currently valid taxa are cited to this source.
- The Forster name, would create problems of its own because, at least according to the RichmondIndex it is a synonym ofColumba vernans Linnaeus 1771 (nowTreron vernans). So it appears that the currently used name is a junior primary homonym of a name that is itself a synonym of a taxon now in the same genus (!).
- To the extent I have been able to determine, the senior homonym (Columba psittacea) islikely anomen oblitum unused since 1899. If this name has been used since 1899,I understand from Edward Dickinson that the most likely place for it to have occured would bein the works of Oberholser in his treatment of the Abbott collections from the East Indies. I have not had the opportunity to see if the name is in fact used there, but probably thisshould be pursued, as Oberholser undoubtedly used the Richmond Index, where this Forster name is included. Therefore Oberholser could have easily known of the name.
2005.04.14
Caloenas nicobarica pelewensisCitation- Listed by Peters Checklist3:139 as occuring in volume4.
- The Richmond Index makes no reference to volume structure, and listthis as occuring in "Heft VIII", which I follow.
2005.03.05
Lampornis calolaemus pectoralisNomenclature- This taxon was originally described inOreopyra.
- Corrigenda 3 for H&M 3rd directs the reader to "remove thebracket", though no rationale is given.
- It appears to me that the parentheses are appropriate, and I leave them asis.
2004.01.24
Columba larvatus principalisCitation- The authority is conventionally attributed to Hartlaub, which undoubtedly isat least in part correct.
- The Richmond Index lists the authority as "Hartlaub, in H. Dohrn." raising(at least for me) the question as to whether H. Dohrn has some standing in theauthority.
2005.01.15
Myiarchus cinerascens pertinaxCitation- Often cited to 1859 (e.g. Peters Checklist8:202, H&M3rd:378)
- Cited back in 1957 by the AOU CL 5th Ed. p.339 as published Jan 12,1860.
- H&M 3rd: 167 citesColumbina passerina pallescens from 2pages later in this serial (p.305) to 1860.
- This species description was presented at the meeting of Nov. 27, 1859.
2005.01.09; 2005.02.26
PitangusCitation- Cited by Peters Checklist8:207 (Traylor, 1979) and by Wolters(p.183) as published in 1826; these are either typographic errors or remarkableassertions.
- Nevertheless, this date ("1826") is followed without comment or question byH&M 3rd:374 as well as by HBW9:408 (? J.A. Mobely).
- What this tells us is that none of these authors consulted The RichmondIndex, Neave, Schulze, or such obscure references as the 3rd,4th, 5th, 6th or 7th AOUChecklists where 1827 is the date cited.
- Nilaus from some three pages earlier in the same volume of theZool.Journ. is cited by Peters Checklist9:314 (Peters, Mayr &Greenway, 1960) to 1827, with a notation that suggests it has animprintdate of 1828 (!). Similarly, Wolters (p.230) cites 1827 forNilaus.
- CW Richmond's unpublished notes on Dates of Publication indicates that thetable of contents of the Journal has Vol. III no. X for "April-September, 1827".Furthermore, Richmond notes that the Trans. of the Linn. Soc. of London quotesno.6-10 for the Zool.Journ. as "1825-1827", which would certainly put thisnumber in 1827. Thus it appears that neither Traylor nor Wolters examinedthe original serial or sought any corroborative information regarding thedate
- Subsequent workers, are clearly ready to accept Peters Checklist withoutquestion, or without consideration of sources such as the AOU Checklists.
2004.12.30
Contopus sordidulus peninsulaeCitation- Published in the Auk, no. 2 April, with an author's editionpubished 2 months before, on Feb. 17, 1891 [CWR].
2004.11.27
Tolmomyias sulphurescens peruvianusDate- Peters Checklist8:102 (Traylor) gives this date as1883.
- This is copied by H&M 3rd:363, but corrected in Corrigenda2.1.
- Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.
2004.11.17
Muscicapa pomarea = Pomarea pomareaAuthor2004.11.13; 2008.03.31
PomareaSystematics- The treatment here followsCibois A, Thibault J, Pasquet E. 2004."Biogeography of Eastern Polynesian Monarchs (POMEREA): An endemic genus closeto extinction." The Condor106(4):837-851.
2004.11.13
Leptopogon amaurocephalus perivianusDate- Peters Checklist8:61 lists the date as 1867.
- This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.
2004.11.07
Anairetes agraphia plengeiNomenclature- Listed in H&M 3rd:353 as "A. a. plengei (Schulengerg &Graham, 1981)". However this subspecies was described inAnairetes, so itseems to me that the parentheses are in error.
2004.11.01
Emberiza pusillaCitation- Peters Checklist13:22 cites the page number as "p.647"
- The Richmond Index, The Cat.B.Br.Mus.12:487 list the page number asp.697.
- Thanks to Slim Sreedharan of the Sarawak Museum in Borneo for picking this up.He also indicates that the entry in volume 10 of Handbook of the Birds of India andPakistan (Ali , Salim & Ripley, Dillon S.,) also lists this as p.697.
2004.10.19
PipreolaConcept- The original description reads:
222.SUBGEN.PIPREOLA.SUBGEN.CHARACTER. - Wings moderate; the pri-maries not narrowed: tarsus shorter than the middle toe;lateral toes nearly equal, the inner being scarcely shorterthan the outer; inner, cleft to the base; outer toe con-nected to the middle only as far as the first joint: tailvery short. The peculiar structure of the feet in this bird, so differentfrom that of the typicalPipræ, induces me to consider it asthe type of one of the subgenera;Metopia is probably an-other; and I have an imperfect acquaintance with a third.PIPREOLAchlorolepidota....
2004.10.09
Tyto alba poensisConcept- The nameis often used for Afrotropical forms. However, seeBruce MD & DowsettRJ, 2004. "The correct name of the Afrotropical mainland subspecies of the BarnOwlTyto alba." BBOC124(3):184-187.
2004.09.29
Toxorhamphus poliopterusCitation- Peters Checklist12:342 (Salomonsen) gives the date for this as1883.
- The Richmond Index indicates that this name is in Vol.16, no.92 forApril 6, 1882.
Additionally, the Peters checklist cites other taxa from this volumeto 1882.- Absent any specific evidence that this publication was delayed, Ifollow the Richmond Index, and the other citations from the PetersChecklist and use 1882.
2004.09.19
Pyrrhura molinae phoenicuraConcept- The original description reads:
CONURUS PHOENICURUS, Natterer. Joues vertes; les autres parties de la têtre brunes; plumes descôtés et du dessous du cou, ainsi que du jabot, brunes, maislargement terminées de brun-gris. Rouge du ventre imparfaite-ment prononcé. Bec brun. — Aile 4 pouces 6 lignes à 4 pou-ces 9 lignes; queue 5 pouces 2 lignes; hauteru de la mandiblesupérieure 4 lignes et demie; largeur de l'inférieure 5 lignes etdemie. Habite le Brésil. 1. Mâle, tué en Octobre 1825, Mato grosso, voyage de J.Natterer, du Musée de Vienne, 1864. ‚ 2. Femelle, tuée le3 Juillet 1826, Brésil, voyage de J. Natterer, du Musée deVienne, 1864.
2004.09.09
Aulacorhynchus prasinusCitation- The citation is conventionally given (e.g. Peters Checklist6:71; HBW7:251,560; H&M 3rd:301) as basedupon:
- Aulacorhynchus prasinus (Gould) 1834PZS Pt2 no.19 p.78
- However, this name was also described in the first edition ofMonogr. Ramphast. in part I, which was published in 1833, andshould be cited there.
- I speculate that the confusion arose from the fact that it wasoverlooked that this Monograph was issued in parts, and that the PZSpublication of this name occured at about the same time (or slightlyafter?) the completion of Part II of the Monograph, or even morepossibly the date for the publication of the final part is taken as thedate for the entire work.
2004.06.13; 2004.06.18
Megalaima pulcherrimaNomenclature 2004.05.16
Pitta phayrei/Gecinulus grantia viridisCitation- There is inconsistency in the treatment of dates for taxafrom this volume and number of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal.
- Pitta phayrei (Blyth) 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.343 [H&Mp.337 as 1863]
- Gecinulus grantia viridis Blyth 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.341[H&M p.330 as 1862]
- Peters8:312 [= Mayr] is the source of 1863 forAnthocinclaphayrei. Mayr has it as "1863 JASB 31(1862)" thus indicating that vol.31(for 1862) was not out until 1863. Peters6:147 [=Peters] listsGecinulus viridis to 1862.
- CWR has notes on these taxa, listing both in 1862 in vol.31 with ahandwritten notes indicating "no.3 [notante June]" (A. Phayrei)and "no.3 not earlier than June" (G. viridis).
- This JASB is such an unresolved nightmare, that I am willing to believealmost anything is possible. But especially as these two taxa occur in the samenumber (no.3) of this volume, I would think they should both have the same yeardate (until some story helps us understand otherwise). It appears from CWR'snote, and from Mayr's treatment that there must be some evidence for delay, orat the very least "time uncertainty". As the imprint date would appear to be1862, I am unwilling to put either (or both) of these taxa in 1863 until someonecan demonstrate that 1862 is not possible.
2004.05.15
Halcyon leucocephala pallidiventrisDate- The Richmond Index raises the question that this may have beenpublished in 1881.
2014.04.03.- It appears that this Number (no.152) indeed must have been published in 1881. On p.431 notice is given of apublication printed in Berlin in 1881.
- At this time, the publication of the J.Orn. was generally running 6 months (or more) behind schedule.
2004.04.25; 2014.04.03
PezopetesDate- Peters Checklist13:206 (Paynter) dates this 1860, which is the imprint date for this volume. This is followed by H&M 3rd:799.
- The Richmond Index indicates that no.48 of Volume 8 was published May 30, 1861.
- Neave3:683 also lists this as "[1861]".
- Shulze4(19):2604 dates this "1860 [1861 V]" which would appear to supportthe Richmond Index interpretation for May of 1861."
- I follow the Richmond index, Neave, and Schulze here
2004.04.24
Dryocopus javensis philippinensisNomenclature- Peters Checklist6:153 spells this "philippensis"
- Originally described asThriponax Philippinensis bySteere.
- The emendation tophilippensis may be due to Hargitt, whoappears to have spelled it this way in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.18:305(not seen -- APP) and this appears to have been followed by Peterswithout checking the original description.
- HBW7:527 has the correct spelling and they include a noteindicating that it is frequently spelledphilippensis.
2004.04.17
Picus flavinucha pierreiCitation- The citation here (taken from Peters Checklist6:139) doesn't look likeit can possibly be correct.
- The listings I have for this serial indicate that the second series commenced in 1887, so one would think that this taxon would be in the second series, which would makevolume 11very unlikely for this date. Peters may have confused vol. 11 with no. 11.
- I do not find this taxon in the Richmond Index and thus do not have another reliable sourcefor comparison.
- The HBW7:561 lists this as in volume 11 of Le Natrualiste, and I presume that they are simply parroting the Peters citation.
2004.03.14
Venilornis nigriceps pectoralisCitation- H&M 3rd:322 attributes this name to Berlepsch &Taczanowski, and this should be Berlepsch & Stolzmannaccording to the Peters Checklist and the Richmond Index.
2004.02.07
Campethera nivosa poensisNomenclature- The authority is listed in parentheses by Peters Checklist6:121, butnot by H&M 3rd:316. (Contrast withC.t.taeniolaema etC.t.hausburgi on the same page). It isnot listed in parentheses byHBW7:463.
- Originally described asCampothera poensis so the interpretationby H&M 3rd apparently agress thatCampothera is anemendation ofCampethera and not a distincly described genus.
- I do not findCampothera as a distinctlydescribed genus in The Richmond Index, or in Naeve. ICZN 1999 art. 51.3.1states: "Parentheses are not used when the species-group name as originallycombined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name...",and absent demonstration of a distinctly described genusCampothera Iinclude the authority without parentheses.
2004.01.22
PedionomusNomenclature- The citation given here is that given conventionally and was published inMay of 1841. This name was first published in The Athenaeum in October of 1840.(see The Richmond Index).
- Bruce & McAllan. 1990 "Some Problems in Vertebrate Nomenclature. IIBirds Part 1." p.457 discuss this problem in detail. The recommend suppressingthe 1840 Athenaeum publication for nomenclatural reasons.
- The Zoological Record indicates that between vol.118 and vol.134 they recordPedionomus Gould 1840 used three times, andPedionomus Gould 1841used once.
2004.01.03
PenelopidesSystematics- For the systematics ofPenelopides I follow HBW6:[506]-508.2001 (Kemp).
2003.12.27
Syndactyla guttulata pallidaCitation- Peters Checklist7:126 transposes the numbers of the Am.Mus.Novit.as "1207", the correct number is 1270.
2003.12.13
Leptasthenura fulginiceps paranensisNote- In a rare occurrence this taxon is left out of the index in PetersChecklist7:309. It is present in the Comprehensive Index16:380.
- I have not found it in the Richmond Index inLeptashtenura. It is present as such in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.15:37.
2003.12.02
Nystalus maculatus pallidigulaCitation- Listed by Peters Checklist6:14 as "Am.Mus.Novit., no.6, 1923, p.6"
- no.6 makes no sense for 1923 for this serial. The Richmond Index shows this to be in no.58
2003.10.31
Otus scops pulchellusDate- Peters Checklist4:90 gives the date for this as 1801,(but on page 163 forStryx uralensis Pallas, in the same work,has a date of 1771).
- The Richmond index has a date of 1771, which is consistent withother taxa from this part of the work, and I follow that here.
2003.10.16
Glaucidium brasilianum phaloenoidesSpelling- This subspecific epithet is spelled "phalaenoides" in H&M 3rd:231.
- Peters Checklist4:130 spells this "phaloenoides".
- The Richmond Index gives the spelling "phaloenoides" for the Daudin name,and "phalaenoides" as an 1801 Latham emendation of the Daudin name.
2003.09.06
Myioparus plumbeusAuthor- The author is usually given as Hartlaub (e.g. Peters Checklist11:334).
- The Richmond Index gives the author ofStenostira plumbea as J. Verreaux in Hartlaub.
- Examination of the original description, suggests to me that this is a Verreaux manuscript name. The Latin diagnosis given in Hartlaub's articlegives no indication (thatI can find) that Verreaux providedanything other than the name (and possibly the specimen).
2003.08.30; 2007.12.13
PachycoccyxCitation- Citation usually(e.g. Peters Checklist4:14; HBW3:[611]) given as
- The Richmond Index gives a date of April, 1882 for that volume and number of theJ.Orn.,however theOrn.Centralblattalsocontaining the erection of this genus was issued on March 1, 1882.
2003.08.30
Mirafra passerina1926- This portion of theArk.Zool. was not fully published until 1927, howeverAnte Strand in Stockholm confirms that a preprint was published on 12 Nov. 1926.
2003.08.13; 2003.08.25
Oreortyx picta plumiferaCitation- Cited by HBW2:572 as PZS 1837 (1838) p.42.
- This was published in Pt. V and this part (including p. 42) was published Dec. 7 1837.
- However, as noted by the Richmond Index, this name was also pubished with a plate [9]in the Icones. Av. and this part of that work was published in Aug. 1837, and thus has priority.
2003.05.24
Crypturellus tataupa perivianusNomenclature- Listed in Peters Checklist1(2):34 (Blake) asperuviana and this is followed by many others.
- HoweverDavid N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreementof avian species names." BBOC.122(1):21 discuss Latinizedwords adjectives ending in a Latin adjectival suffix, and indicate thatthis must agree in gender with the Genus group name: henceperuvianus.
2003.05.13
Crypturellus obsoletus punensisCitation- Peters Checklist1(2):25 (Blake) gives the volume for the1917 BBOC as28 (sic), a misprint for38.
- HBW1:[631] perpetuates this error, though of interest inother citations (e.g.2:[571]) they correctly list the 1917volume number as38.
[2010.03.05]- Taxa from this number are usually dated to 1917 (which is the imprint date).
- However, Hartert in Novit.Zool. 1922, p.324 notes in several locations thatthis was not published until Jan. of 1918, though an exact day is not given.
- Novit.Zool. 1922 p.374
2003.05.12; 2010.03.05
Hemipus picatusConcept- Originally asMuscicapa picata
- Original description reads:
44.MUSCICAPA PICATA.Musc. suprà atra, subtùs sordidè alba; strigá a mento ad nucham utrinque extendente, fasciá alarum, uropygio crisso, apicibusque rectricum duarum lateralium albis. Longitudocorporis 5 2/5 unc.caudæ 2 2/5.
2003.04.19
PseudopodocesSystematics- Previously held to be aCorvid.
- Jameset al. use molecular and osteological data to indicatethatP. humilis is aParid and not aCorvid. Theauthors indicate that it may be withinParus but determination ofit's status and relative position must await further work. They offer nohints, suggestions, or help regarding it's position relative to otherparids, and my placement of it followingParus results only fromtheir lack of indications in this matter.
- James HF, Ericson PGP, Slikas B, Lei F-M, Gill FB, & OlsonSL. 2003. "Pseudopodoces humilis, a misclassified terrestrial tit(Paridae) of the Tibetan Plateau; evolutionary consequences of shiftingadaptive zones." Ibis.145:185-202.
2003.04.18
PercnohieraxConcept- Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships inButeo. FindingButeo to be paraphyletic, they propose twoways of resolving this:
- includeParabuteo intoButeo or
- excludeB. leucorrhous andB. magnirostriswhile includingAsturina nitida andGeranoaetusmelanoleucus.
- They chose the second approach because of the general acceptance ofParabuteo as distinct, and on the basis of support from theirmolecular data.
- Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003."Molecular phylogeny of the genusButeo (Aves: Accipitridae)based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution27:328-342.
2003.04.12
Neophron percnopterusSpelling- Linnaeus's original spelling is clearlyPerenopterus.
- This spelling does not seem inadvertant. The specific epithets in Linnaeus' listing are spelled both Perenopterus,and Percnopterus.
- Peters Checklist1(2):304 interprets the name as based on Hasselquist's 1757 Iter Palestinum p.209which does indeed seem to be listed in Linnaeus's entry. It is the third (!) of his entries, the first being"Perenopterus s. Gypaëtos.Aldr. orn. t. 2. c. 10.Raj. av. 8."
- It is not clear to my why this name is determinative of the spelling, while Linnaeus' seems to have intentionally chosen another spelling.
- The text in Linnaeus's Systema Natura 10th Ed. reads:
Pereno- 6. V. remigibus nigris margine exteriore (præter extimas) pterus.canis. Perenopterus ſ. Gypaëtos.Aldr. orn. t.2.c.10.Raj. av. 8. Falco montanus ægyptiacus.Haſſelqv. act. Stockh. 1751.p. 196 Vultur,Percnopterus, capite nudo, gula plumoſa.Has- ſelq. itin. 209. Vultur niger.Raj av. 9. Vultur bæticus.Raj av. 10. Vultur albus.Raj av. 10. Vultur aquilina.Aldr. orn. Alb. av. 2.p. 3.t. 3. Vultur fulvus, bætico bellonii congener.Raj. av. 10.Habitat in Ægypto. Mastotus albus: Remigibusatris margine exteriore ca- nis, exceptis duabus primis unicoloribus: Femina tota fuſca: Remigibusquatuor extimis concoloribus. Ro- ſtrum atrum cera flava. Haſſelqv. Nares perpetuo ſtillant. Raj. Purgat Cairi terram a cadaverum fætore, ſtipendiis al- lectus. Haſſelq.
- However in the 12th Ed. p.123all occurances are spelled with a "c" --percnopterus.
- Rainer Massmann adds additional understanding on this (in litt. 2008.08.16) he "found that both [earlier] authors, in fact, clearly used the spelling 'Percnopterus', so that Linnaeus' citation is incorrect. The ICZN apparently came to the same conclusion and declaredperenopterusto be an incorrect original spelling (Opinion 411) and placed it on the Official Index, whilepercnopterus was placed on the Official List."
2003.04.02; 2008.08.16
Anthus pelopusNomenclature- This bird, the Roseate Pipit, is namedAnthus roseatus in Peters Checklist9:160.The citation is:
- Deignan, 1960 argues that the nameAnthus pelopus Gray, JE. 1846 has priority.
- Deignan HG. 1960. "The Oldest name for the Roseate Pipit". BBOC80:120..
- Peters Checklist (Mayr & Greenway) have a footnote opposing use ofAnthus pelopus Gray 1846, but basethis on the occurance of the name in Gray's Zool.Misc. where they hold it to be anomen nudum.
- The Richmond Index also lists the Zool.Misc. presentation of the name as anomen nudum, but shows the nameappearing twice in the Cat.Mamm.BirdsThibet, once on p.77 (where it is anomen nudum) and on p.154 where it isaccompanied by a description.
- The data and arguments available to me so far would appear to support Deignan's position thatAnthus pelopushas priority and is valid.
2003.03.31
PyrenestesSpelling- Originally speltPirenestes.
- Peters Checklist14:318 (Traylor) in a footnote indicates that:
"Pirenestes" is alapsus forPyrenestes which was used five times in the text and in Swainson, 1837, Class. Birds,2, p.279. --M.A.T."
- "p.279" is alapsus for p.277 which is where the name occurs in Class.Birds2.
2003.03.01; 2003.10.14
Melierax poliopterusCitation- Peters Checklist1:322 (Amadon) gives the citation as:
- This is also followed by HBW2:144,[571] (Thiollay).
- Robert Dowsett pointed out (2002.12.26) the 1868J.Orn. citation is appropriate;this, indeed, is the citation given in the Richmond Index and what I follow here.
2002.12.29
Tachyeres patachonicusCitation- Previously cited as:
- This is also the citation given by HBW1:592,632(Carboneras), and Peters Checklist1:453 (Johnsgard).
- The ICZN "Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoologySupplement 1986-2000" 2001. p.61 indicates that the Zool.J. 1828 name issuppressed according to Opinion 1648 (1991.06.27). This issubsequent to the Peters Checklist1 and prior to HBW1.
2002.12.28
Zosterops pallidaCitation- Peters Checklist12:328 (Moreau) lists the page number asp.295.
- The Richmond Index and Sherborn, as well as the ICZN "Official Listsand Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000." givethe page number as 294.
- Bob Dowsett confirms from his copy that it occurs on p.294
2003.02.09
Casuarius papuanusConcept- Previously held to be a subspecies ofC. bennetti (e.g.Peters Checklist,HBW)
- S. DaviesDavies S. 2002. "Ratites and Tinamous". OUP holds this to be agood species.
- Thanks to Daniel Philippe for bringing this to my attention.
2002.12.28
PilherodiusCitation- Usually (e.g. Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.26:171 (Sharpe); Peters Checklist1(2):195(RB Payne); HBW1:405) cited as:
- The basis for this citation is not clear, though most authors are probably followingPeters, who in turn is following Sharpe. Certainly the Reichenbach citation has priority and is a valid source for thegenus name.
- H&M 3rd:87 cites the genus to Reichenbach and1850 (!). In this citation, no referenceis made to the standard references on genus group names (Neave, Schulze (et al., and Richmond) all of whom datethis to 1852. The dating of these Reichenbach publications is difficult and confusing. Richmond's work (see discussiononNipponia) puts forward strong evidence for 1853,which I follow.
2002.11.28; 2006.06.28
Ducula pistrinariaCitation- Peters Checklist3:48 gives the page number as "p.34".
- The Richmond Index gives the page number as "36", which I follow.
2002.11.27
Xipholena puniceaConcept- Pallas' original description is reproduced here:
N. 99 TURDUS (puniceus) corpore purpureo, alis cau- daque discoloribus. Femina forte haec est, alarumpennis fuscis, uti & cauda. In simillima alia ave,que mas videtur, alarum remiges primarias albasextimas apice nigricantes, tectricesque secundiordinis elongatas, carinatasque observavimus.Brissonio utraque avisCotingis annumeratur,quorum 5. & 6. speciem efficit. Quem hic mareminnuimus Edwardi Tab. 341. exhibet.
The locality (taken from theCatalogue, not theAdumbratiunculae) isgiven as "Zuyd America." Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birdsin Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):334-5.2002.11.15
Phylloscartes paulistaSpelling- Usually spelledPhylloscartes paulistus.
- Fernando Costa Straube helpfully writes (2002.10.30) and explains thestatus of the spelling of the specific epithet. I include here a copy ofthe the paper (with abstract in English) addressing this.
Abstract
Willisornis poecilinotusSpelling- Listed by Peters7:252 asHypocnemis poecilonota
- Both the Richmond Index and Sheborn show the specificepithet spelled poecilinota and it is unlikelythat either or both of them are incorrect in this.
- Special thanks to Michael Rieser for this very good pick up.
- David N, Gosselin M. 2002. "The grammatical gender of aviangenera." BBOC122(4):257-282 discuss the gender ofHylophylax on page 264.Hylophylax Ridgway, 1909 was not combined with a species epithetwhen it was originally established, and thus is masculine.
2003.01.18; 2008.03.29
Automolus paraensisConcept- Listed by Peters7:134 as a subspecies ofA.infuscatus
- Zimmer KJ. 2002. "Species limits in Olive-backed foliage-gleaners(Automolus:FURNARIIDAE)." WilsonBull.114(1):20-37. argues that this formmerits full species status based on morphology, plumage, and most especially vocalizations.
2002.10.17
PasserinaSystematics- Order of species within genus follows AOU Checklist Supplement43. July, 2002.119(3):904
- SeeKlicka J, Fry AJ, Zink RM, Thompson CW. "ACytochrome-b perspective onPasserina BuntingRelationships." 2001. Auk118(3):611-623.
2002.09.17
Hedydipna pallidigasterSpelling- Originally described asAnthreptes pallidigaster bySclater and Moreau, 1935.
- In his recent revision of the Sunbirds,Irwin. 1999 "Thegenus Nectarinia and the evolution and diversification of sunbirds:an Afrotropical perspective." Honeyguide45: 49.spells the specific epithet"pallidigastra". Presumably because thegenus of the genderHedydipna is feminine.
- HoweverDavid N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreementof avian species names." BBOC.122(1):30 discussLatinized Greek adjectives ending in -GASTRA and indicate that"Original names that end in-gaster and that have Latininitial components (such asflavigaster,rufigaster,etc.) are noun phrases that end in the classical Latin noungaster, and are to be treated as nouns in apposition, withgender ending unchanged (ICZN 1999, Art.31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1,Glossary:noun phrase)."
- Thus I interpret the correct form to beHedydipnapallidigaster.
2002.09.13
Oropendola[Psarocolius, Gymnostinops, Ocyalus]Concept- Molecular and song character analysis of the OROPENDULAS byPrice and S. Lanyon (Evolution. 200256(7):1514-1529)suggest some systematic revision of the OROPENDULA group is needed(ABSTRACT):
- WithinP. angustifrons the subspeciesP. angustifronsatrocastaneus differs substantially from the otherP.angustifrons subspecies. Price and Lanyon do not specificallypropose elevating this to species status, though in recent yearsmany others have elevated subspecific taxa to species level withmuch, much less support, and I anticipate that many (though notnecessarily Price and Lanyon) will take this of proof of its statusas a species. If held to be a species, the taxon would be:
- There is strong support for excludingPsarocolius oseryifrom the genusPsarocolius, but Price and Lanyon state(p.1523) "However, we have yet to determine this species' closestallies within the oropendula-cacique clade, so we await a moredetailed analysis of cacique phylogeny before suggesting a revisedclassification." Recent listings (e.g. Gill & Wright 2006 and Lanyon in "The treeof life") list this asClypicterus oseryi. Within
- The song based estimates of phylogeny positionedPsarocoliusviridis withinGymnostinops, and suggested it was mostclosely related toGymnostinops bifasciatus (!). Furthermolecular studies are underway to clarify this situation.
2002.09.07; 2006.10.22
PipridaeSystematics- I largely try to follow Prum's treatment of the Manakins.Prum RO. 1994. "Syringeal Morphology, Phylogeny, andEvolution of the Neotropical Manakins (Aves: Pipridae)".Am.Mus.Novit. no.3043 p.1-65".
- Currently unresolved (2002.08.11) Prum does not listCorapipo altera Hellmayr 1906. I have not yet seen all ofthe Am.Mus.Novitates in which he discusses this, and don't know ifhe deals with the question of the status ofC. altera.
2002.08.11
PlatyspizaSystematics- Often (Peters Checklist13:164; Sibley & Monroe)included inCamarhynchus.
- Recently placed in the monospecific genusPlatyspizaSato A, O'huigin C, Figueroa F, Grant PR, Grant BR, Tichy H,& Klein J. 1999 "Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed bymtDNA sequences." PNAS USA96:5101-5106,BurnsKJ, Hackett SJ, & Klein NK. 2002. "Phylogenetic relationshipsand morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and theirrelatives." Evolution56(6):1240-1252.
- The systematics of this group remains somewhat uncertain. Iasked Kevin Burns about this and his email reply (2002.08.07) withexplanation includes this discussion:
- "The Sato et al. paper reported the Darwin's finches sequencesthat I used and the vegetarian finches they used were labeled withthe genus namePlatyspiza. Likewise, the genbank recordsalso usedPlatypsiza. Therefore, I thought it would avoidconfusion if I followed the taxomony used in the Sato et al. paper,although they didn't explicitly justify their taxomony.
However, based on their results, one could make a case forresurrectingPlatypsiza (including only the VegetarianFinch). In their trees, they showCerthidea branch[ing] offfirst, followed byPlatypsiza, followed by a cladecontaining unitingGeospiza withCamarhynchus andCocos Is. finch. Interestingly, theCamarhynchus speciesthemselves (excludingPlatypspiza) do not show up asindividual, monophyletic species. That is, morphologicallyidentified species of tree finches are intermingled. This eithermeans that something very unusual is going on in sequence evolutionwithin the tree finches or the species of tree finches are notdescribed properly. In any case,Platypspiza is clearlydistinct from this cluster ofCamarhynchus individuals."
Lamprotornis purpuropteraSpelling- Often spelledL. purpuropterus (e.g. Peters,Sibley & Monroe ).
- Peters Checklist15:97 (Dean Amadon) gives the original formasLamprotornis purpuroptera Rüppell 1845.
- The Richmond Index gives the original form asLamprotornispurpuropterus Rüppell 1845.
- David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian speciesnames."BBOC 2002.122(1):39
- "Some names (such aspurpuroptera, nigricephala, etc.)may look like latinized Greek adjectives at first glance, but theirLain initial components cannot be part of Greek adjectives. Sincethey end in a latinized Greek noun, such names are noun phrases,and the origianl spelling is to be retained, with gender endingunchanged. (ICZN 1999, 31.2.1,32.3,34.2.1). " ... The componentptera is the Greek nounπυτερον [pteron:wing] latinized with a feminine ending. The adjectival form wouldhave beenpurpuralaris (Latin), orporphyroptera(latinized from Greek)."
- They indicate the spelling should beLamprotornispurpuroptera.
- During the period of 1978-1992 I only find the combinationLamprotornis purpuropterus (once) in theZoo.Rec.
2002.07.18; 2003.05.10
Zosterops poliogastrusSpelling- Often speltZ. poliogastra. Originally describedasZosterops poliogastra Heuglin, 1861.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):31 discuss this.They indicate that "Zosterops is masculine. (ICZN 1999, Art.30.1.4.3). The namepoliogastra is latinized from the Greekadjectivalπολριογαστρος[poliogastros: grey-bellied]."
- During the period of 1978-1992 I find only the combinationZosterops poligaster in theZoo. Rec.
2002.07.10
TrichixospyrrophygusSpelling- Often speltT. pyrropyga. Originally described asTrichixos pyrropyga Lesson, 1839.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):29 discuss this.They indicate thatTrichixos is masculine.
- The word is evidently transliterated from the Greekτριχ [trich:hair] andιχος [ixos: birdlime ormistletoe]. Thoughτριχας[trichas: "a bird of thethrush kind" (Liddell & Scott)]would also perhaps be a possibility for the stem of the first partof the word.
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combination does not occurin theZoo. Rec.
2002.07.09
Bubo poensisDate- Peters Checklist4:119 lists this date as "1853".
- This volume of the PZS was for 1853, however all numbers ofthis were published in 1854 and 1855.
- The Richmond index correctly shows the 1854 date.
- HBW5:188,684 (Holt et al.) perpetuates the 1853error.
- Of interest HBW7:132 (Rasmussen & Collar) use"1854" (the correct date) for a taxon (Malacoptilafulvogularis) from this same volume of the PZS.
- Additionally, H & M 3rd:226 shows the date as 1853.
02.06.27;2003.08.31
Todiramphus pyrrhopygiusSpelling- Often speltT. pyrrhopygia. Originally describedasHalcyon pyrrhopygia Gould 1840.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):24 discuss this.They indicate that: "...Halcyon is indisputably feminine(ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.1); moreover, the undisputed adjectivalsuffix-ιος [-ios:-ius(Woods 1944: xii)], inπυρροπυγιος[purropugios; red-rumped], correctly latinized inpyrrhopygius (-a, -um) leaves no doubt that we aredealing with an adjective." [And thus variable].
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationsHalcyonpyrrhopygia andTodirhamphus pyrrhopygia occur in theZoo. Rec..
Emblema pictumSpelling- Speltpicta. (e.g. Peters), as Gould originallydescribed it (inEmblema), orpictum (e.g.Sibley & Monroe).
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):20 discuss this.They indicate that "Emblema picta Gould, 1842, must becorrected toEmblema pictum .Emblema isneuter (ICZN 1999, Art.30.1.1)"
- The relevant portion of 30.1.1 -- "a genus-group name that isor ends in a Latin word takes the gender given for that word instandard Latin dictionaries"; here (Glare, 1983) gives:
- "emblema ~atisn. ... 1. An inlaid pavement,mosaic, 2. An inlaid relief attached to the inside of a silver bowlor sim."
- "pictus ~a ~um,a. ... Painted."
- Thus "Emblema" is, neuter as noted by Sibley &Monroe (following McAllan & Bruce, 1988), and "picta /pictus" is an adjective in the nominative singular. Doesthat meanpicta (the feminine form) "must" becorrected?
- "31.2Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if itis or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in thenominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic namewith which it is at any time combined."
- Are there arguments that would supportEmblema picta?
- Should it be maintained on the basis of "prevailing usage"?
- During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationEmblemapicta occurs in theZoo. Rec.., where I find it12 times. It would thus appear to be a contender for maintenance onthe basis of "prevailing usage".
- However, Article 33.3.1 that deals with prevailing usagepertains to "incorrectsubsequent spellings [whichare] in prevailing usage and [are] attributed to the publication ofthe original spelling" in prevailing usage and [are] attributed tothe publication of the original spelling". (emphasis added).
- I interpret "Emblema picta" to be a "correct original spelling"as follows:
- Article 32.2Correct original spelling. states: "Theoriginal spelling of a name is the "correct original spelling",unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article32.5."
- 32.5 states: "Spellings that must be corrected (incorrectoriginal spellings).
- 32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, withoutrecourse to any external source of information, clear evidence ofan inadvertant error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's orprinter's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration orlatinization, or use of and inappropriate connecting vowel, are notto be considered inadvertant errors."
- Thus, 32.5.1 is not applicable (no such specific inadvertanterror has been proposed), and I don't recognize any of the othersubparts of Article 32.5 as applying. The original spelling (whileincorrect by thecurrent code) would appear to be a "correctoriginal spelling" (sensu Article 32.2) [it is the originalspelling, and it is not "demonstrably incorrect as provided inArticle 32.5"]. This makes sense; it would be inappropriate andnunc pro tunc to deem Gould's construction "incorrect" byrules that were not in existance at the time he formed thename.
- As it is not an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (as treated inArticle 33.3.1) "picta" does not benefit from protection onthe basis of prevailing usage.
- Emblema picta is a "correct original spelling"(emphasis added); 33.1.1 does not apply and it must agree in genderwithEmblema.
- Thus David & Gosselin's argument appears consistent withICZN 1999 Article 34.2 "The ending of a Latin or latinizedadjectival or participal species-group name must agee in genderwith the generic name with which is is at any time combined [Art.31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changedaccordingly (the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Art.50.3.2])."
2002.06.09
Buteopolyosoma- Separation intoB. poecilochrous andB. polyosoma hasbeen controversial.
- The taxonis regarded by some as a subspecies ofB. polyosoma.
- Initially separation was proposed primarily on the basis of winglength and "Stresemann's wing formula."
- SeeFarquhar CC. 1998. "Buteo polyosoma and b.poecilochrous, the 'Red-Backed Buzzards' of South America areconspecific" Condor100:27-43.
Farquhar's findings:- "at least 27 distinct adult plumage morphs (formerly five) in thisspecies group, ... with no relationship to morphometric variables andonly minor geographic variation."
- Immature plumages and vocalizations are "similarly ineffectivein diagnosing taxa".
- "... neither of the currently accepted morphometric charactersexamined here serve to separate taxonpolyosoma from taxonpoeciolochrous."
- Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships inButeo. WithinButeo they
"detected an average distance of 1.28% between the subspeciespolyosoma andpoecilichrous in ΨCR1, whereas nogenetic variability was found in an unpublishedcytb data set of606 bp (C. Farquhar, pers. comm.)."
They treat the two as conspecific, an interpretation that appears toenjoy increasing support from published data and associated analyses. - Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003."Molecular phylogeny of the genusButeo (Aves: Accipitridae)based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics andEvolution27:328-342.
- However, the pendulum for the moment now (2003.11) swings back in the other direction.Cabot & de Vries, 2003, BBOC123:190-207 interpret Farquhar's workto be in error and argue for regard as a full species.
- This matter is further complicated by uncertainty regarding the typelocality, Gurney indicating that the bird came from "Yauayacu" inEcuado; no such locality has been identified. This matter is discussedbyCabot & de Vries, 2005, BBOC125:147-148. In agreement with Conover (1949) theyconsider the type locality to be Yanayacu, Ecuador.
2003.04.13; 2003.11.15; 2005.11.05
Cercomacra parkeri- Placement withinCercomacra is uncertain, and should not beafforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it at the end ofthe Genus, absent any information.
Phylloscartesparkeri- Placement within Phylloscartes is uncertain, and should not beafforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the endof the genus.
Scytalopusparkeri- Placement within Scytalopus is uncertain, and should not beafforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the endof the genus.
Scytalopusparvirostris
- Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:284.
- Elevated to species level by Krabbe and SchulenbergRemsen, 1998
Formation of Family group name- Controversy here.
- Pteroclididae, I believe satisfies the ICZN requirementsfor family group name formation.
- However,Bonaparte. 1831. Saggio di una distribuzionemetodica degli animali vertibrate. forms the name asPteroclidae. This obviously antedates the formulation of theICZN rules.
- The question then is: what basis exists for accepting orrejecting family group names published prior to the current rulescoming into effect?
- Those with more knowledge and experience than I disagree onthese matters.
Tympahnuchus pallidicinctusCitation- Peters Checklist2:41 has Bull. Essex Inst. 5 p.199; butsee {Banks and Browning, 1979}.
Charadriuspallidus ....;2005.12.11
Microdynamis parva1876- Peters Checklist4:36 has 1875; see {Poggi R, 1996}.
PelagoromaCitation- Peters Checklist1:105 gives a different title for thesource; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Falco peregrinusAuthor Citation- Previously cited asAs Tunstall's work has been declared by the ICZN unavailable as a publicationfor binomina. However, (as pointed out byDr Jiri Mlikovsky of the National Museum of the Czech Republic) the ICZN madeexception for some specific names,Falco peregrinus among them.
- "peregrinus, Falco [Tunstall], 1771,Ornithologia britannica:1. (Aves) 0. 882" is listed as a name on the Official list. (ICZN1987:274).
- See alsoHolthuis IB, Junge GCA. 1958. The specific names inTunstall's Ornithologia Britannica 1771.Ardea. 46 (3/4)p.167-170.
....; 2004.01.10
Turdus pelios1850- Peters Checklist10:180 has 1851. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.
PenelopinaCitation, year- Peters Checklist2:21 gives 1862 Av.Syst.Nat.Columbariae p.152.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.
Glaucidium perlatum1817- Peters Checklist4:131 has 1818.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} use 1817.
Puffinus lherminieri persicus1872- Peters Checklist1(2):99 has 1873; this publication started in1872.
- Most authors follow the listing in Peters Checklist
Petroica1829- Peters Checklist11:562 has 1830; {Richmond, et al. 1992}and {Sherborn, 1902} both indicate 1829.
PhacellodomusAuthor- Peters Checklist7:111 makes a typographic error in thefull citation,substituting Reichenow for Reichenbach.
Pachycephala phaionota1850- Peters Checklist12:13 has "1851?" See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.
Streptoprocnephelpsi
- Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
- Previously placed inCypseloides
- but seeMarin AM snd Stiles GF. 1992. "On the biology offive species of swifts in Costa Rica." Proc. West. Found. Vert.Zool., 4:287-351.
Vireo philadelphicusCitation- Peters Checklist14:121 gives "pl.10 fig.2" as part ofthis citation, as do the AOU 1983 and 1957 checklists. An engagingfiction.
- There is no pl.10 in the volume in which this bird isdescribed,
- nor is there reference to the plate in the originaldescription.
- Ralph Browning and Dick Banks determined for me that the plateis actually pl.1 of the next volume (6), where the Philadelphiavireo is fig.2.
PhilepittaCitation- The Richmond Index gives the following:
- L'Institut VI no.226 April 1838 p.128
- Rev.Zool. 1 no.4 for April 1838 p.49
- Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(2) IX 1838 p.137.
- Sherborn Ind.Animal. p.4907 gives:Mag.Zool.(2) 1839 1 pl.3
- Neave3:708 goves:
- Institute6 1838 p.128
- Mag.Zool.(2) 1 1839 pl.3
- Schulze4(19):2631 gives: Institutev.6 p.1281838
- Cat.BirdsBr.Mus.14:409 cites Mag.Zool. 1839, pl.3.
- I do not pretend to understand the reason why Peters (= Amadon) isalone in citing the Compt.Rend. and I am very skeptical that it iscorrect.
....; 2004.04.17
Spizaetus philippensisauthor
PhoebetriaCitation- Peters Checklist1(2):57 gives a different title for the source;I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Phylidonyris1830- Peters Checklist12:425 has 1831; {Richmond, et al. 1992}and {Sherborn, 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as thisis in livr.4 of the work.
Oreortyx pictusCitation- Peters Checklist2:43 gives the Philos. Mag. n.s.citation;
- {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION,1983}, and {Baird, 1858}indicate that this Trans.Linn.Soc.Lond.citation has priority.
2015.05.12- Gastone Rabascini points out that the Trans. appears to have been published in mid February, while the Philos.Mag. is dated "January".
- The AOU CL 7th ed. cites the taxon to the Philos.Mag.
Climacteris picumnusAuthor- Peters Checklist12:163 has Temminck and Laugier 1824Pl.Col. p.281.
- This should be livr.47 pl.281 fig.1 (not page 281).
- In addition, I follow Zimmer's position that no taxa should beattributed to Laugier.
- The 1820 Man.Orn. citation is given by Sherborn, with theappended note that Mathews has verified this.
Ptilogonys- Swainson's 1824 work, in which this spelling was used, wasnot published. (SeeBrowing, 1989).
- The 1827 work cited here uses the spelling "Ptiliogonys"in contradistinction both to the common use of the name, andapparently to Swainson's subsequent use.
- On this basis Ptiliogonys is regarded as an incorrectoriginal spelling, andPtilogonys a justifiableemendation.
Pipreola1838- Usually listed as 1837, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Ducula pistrinaria1854- Peters Checklist3:48 lists 1855.
- The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71according to taxa listed in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.
- Mathews suggests p.1-160 of volume 2 are from 1855.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here, though 1855 may beright.
Pitangus1827- Peters Checklist8:207 lists 1826.
- The dates of publication of the Zool.J. are confusing, but theevidence seems good for most of vol.3 being published in 1827 withsome latter portions perhaps in 1828.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS'UNION, 1983 Checklist, and {Sherborn, 1902} here.
Charmosyna placentis1835- Peters Checklist3:159 gives 1834 for this entry.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} both give 1835,which seems more appropriate for livr.93.
Pseudalethe poliocephala1850- Peters Checklist10:63 has 1851. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.
....; 2009.08.01
Columba pollenii1865- Peters Checklist3:71 lists 1866.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists "1866?".
- Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched thedates of publication for this work.
- Vol. 3 pp.1-180 were published in 1865.
Pomatostomus1850- Peters Checklist10:279 has 1851. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.
Ptilinopus porphyreus1822- Peters Checklist3:27 lists 1823. Livr.18 was publishedin 1822 {Zimmer, 1926}.
Chlorocichlaprigoginei- Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4. In {Mayr, 1957} the citation is listed as p.424.
- Bob Dowsett confirms (2003.02.08) that it is from p.328
2003.02.09
PseudocolopteryxCitation- Peters Checklist8:50 lists p.48; {Richmond, et al. 1992}indicates "pp.38, 45" which I follow.
Psittacella1871- Peters Checklist3.:251 has 1873; {Richmond, et al. 1992}shows this date as 1871.
- Schulzeet al. Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum4(21):2938 show a published date of 1871, and an imprint date of 1873.
- The listing given me by Florence Pieters also supports a date of 1871 forthis.
....;2004.09.20
Guttera pucherani1861- Peters Checklist2:139 has 1860; {Richmond, et al. 1992},notes this was published in Jan. of 1861.
- H&M 3rd:40 follows Peters in using 1860, as does HBW2:566.
....;2004.04.24
Pardalotus punctatusAuthor- Peters Checklist12:203 has Shaw and Nodder. It is myunderstanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.
Lycocorax pyrrhopterus1850- Peters Checklist15:184 has 1851. See {Browning andMonroe, 1991}.
Crypturellus parvirostrisCitation- Peters Checklist1:34 does not list a page for thiscitation. The page number here is from (Richmond, et al. 1992).
Myrmotherulapacifica- Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist7:189.
- SeeIsler ML, Ilser PR, Whitney BM. 1999. Auk116(1):83-96.
Trichixos pyrropygaCitation- Peters Checklist11:73 gives "Rev.Mag.Zool." whichcommenced in 1849. Rev.Zool. constitutes series 1 forRev.Mag.Zool.
Aplonis panayensis1786- Peters Checklist15:84 has 1783. The first part of thiswork was published in 1786.
(prior to 2002)
Lamprotornis purpureus1776
Peters Checklist15:92 has 1766, alapsuscalami for 1776.
Cistothorus palustris1810
Peters Checklist9:394 has 1807. This volume waspublished in 1810.
PhedinaCitation
- Peters Checklist9:100 lists Bonaparte 1857,Riv.Contemp.Torino 9 p.210.
- I follow the Richmond Index, Neave and Schulzeet al. (p.2642).
....;2008.06.30
PsaricoliusCitation
- The exact citation here is a puzzle to me.
- Peters Checklist14:138 (Blake) lists "sig. 22[=23]".
- The Richmond Index has "[p.337]." with a pencilled note,seemingly in Richmond's hand, saying: "{also 323 under #24 + #5 +p.125 #5}".
- Sherborn lists "sign. 221". The subscript means the1st page of the 22nd signature.
- With 16 page signatures, which Murray Bruce tells me this workhas, this would equal p.337.
- The Richmond citation seems to suggest that at there is somecomplexity to the problem.
- I am not sure on what basis the Peters authors suggest thatthis signature is misnumbered.
Glaucidiumparkeri
Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
Thanks for Rolf de By for bringing this to my attention.
Propyrrhura
- Normally part ofAra
- I follow the treatment of Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol.4, by N.J. Collar.
- Morphology, voice and behaviour are offered as the basis forre-instating the old genus for this form.
Pionopsitta forvulturina.
- Usually placed inGypopsitta.
- Collar in HBW 4:457 states the character of bare head in theadults is "probably of little or no taxonomic significance; inother respects clearly belongs inPionopsitta..."
Psittacula
- A form in this genus (Psittacula intermedia) waspreviously listed as a full species, and is so listed by Collar inHBW 4:400.
- Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild) 1895Novit.Zool. 2 p.492
- However, it is of hybrid origin (P. himalayana x P.cyanocephala) and not a species.Rasmussen, P. C. & N. J.Collar (1999): Bull. Oriental Bird Cl. 29: 36-41.
Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.
Thamnophiluspelzelni- Not in Sibley & Monroe.
- Treated by Peters Checklist7:173 as a subspecies.
- Isler et al. (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 355-381revised theThamnophilus punctatus complex, recognizing thefollowing species as the components:
punctatus; stictocephalus; sticturus; pelzelni;ambiguus. - Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.
Corythaixoidespersonatusspelling
Campephilus principalisLong considered most probablyextinct- The last confirmed sightings of this species in the U.S. werein Louisiana's Singer Tract in 1943-1944
- the last confirmed sighting in Cuba was on March 16, 1987 inOjito de Agua.
- Then confirmation of sighting of a male in 2005 in Arkansas.
....;2005.04.28
Otuspembaensis- SeeRasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F and VoninavokoR. 2000. "Geographic variation in the Malagasy Scops-Owl (Otusrutilus auct.): the existence of an unrecognized species onMadagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa. BBOC.120:75-102.
Otus pembaensisCitation- Peters Checklist4:95 lists the volume of the BBOC as"37". This is volume57.
Tinamotis pentlandiiSpelling- Spelt almost universally "pentlandii" (note two "i's").
- Salvadori in the Catalogue of Birds in the British MuseumVol.27 p.568 (1895), has a mixture of spellings - using one "i" forthe listing, and the citation, but two "i's" under the synonomiesTinamus pentlandii andEudroma pentlandii.
- Andrew and McAllan in "Nomina" (1997) have the following noteunderT. pentlandii, (though they do NOT include a listingof the name with only one "i").
- "Masculine eponymous species-group names have been spelled witheither the single -i (or -ei) or double -ii termination. The ICZNsettled for original usage but the case is not necessarilyresolved. Dundee & Smith (1989 Syst. Zool. 38:279-283) arguethat if there is no clear evidence of latinisation of the person'sname then the species-group name should be spelled with the single-i termination."
Granatellus pelzelniCitation- Sharpe 1885. Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol.10p.370 gives the page number as 607.
- The Richmond Index and Peters Checklist14:80 givep.606.
Cuculus pectoralissystematics
- Previously treated as a subspecies ofC. fugax.
- More recently song analysis has been weighted more heavily incuckoo-specification considerations, and the HBW4:512thereby argues for elevation to full specific status.
Pyrrhua perlataSystematics/Nomenclature
A confusing situation:
- The type of the nameperlata is an immature of:
- This makes that name a junior synonym ofP. perlata
- The form previously known asP. perlata now becomesP. lepida.
Otus petersoniSystematics- Held by HBW5:179 to be a full species.
- There has been, and is, debate on this point.
PyrroglauxSystematics
- Used by Peters Checklist4:109.
- Not used by Sibley & Monroe.
- Used by HBW5 where Dr Schuchmann states: "appears moredistantly related."
PtilopsisSystematics- Not used by Peters Checklist4 or Sibley & Monroe.
- Generic separation fromOtus on the basis of eye-size,and "molecular-biological studies" (HBW5:182).
- Type is currently uncertain. No type given by Kaup in erectionof genus. He included two species "Scops leucotis Sw." and "Scopsmegalotis Gray" according to the Richmond Index entry. I have yetto determine (2001.10.27) which species is the type.
PhalacrocoraxpygmeusSystematics- Originally described inPelecanus and spelt"pygmeus".
- Often spelt "pygmaeus" (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, 1990-- corrected in Supplement 1993).
- HBW1:353 list it as "pygmaeus".
- It appears to me that this (as previously) is an unjustifiedemendation.
- 2019.02.09: In the current time, a vast frenzy of grammatical and linguistic "tidying up" is beingforced on the world of biological nomenclature. I think this is foolish, wrong headed and putsscientific considerations secondary to notions of grammatical and linguistic purity. There isNOquestion that is eventuates not only in nomenclatural instability, but ensures future instability.
- I imagine this process may seem reasonable to those carrying out "linguistic cleansing" of avian nomenclature, They have their work cut out for them with insect names. If they are NOT willing to undertake this cleansingin other taxonomic groups, perhaps the whole idea needs to be reconsidered.
- Nevertheless, forces that I consder to be effectively anti-scientific are found increasingly present these days, and it appears to methat this influence has spread to biological nomenclature.
- Under the current regime, this name is to be speltpygmaeus.
- I am reminded of when I asked a knowledgable Latin scholar to help me translate the Intoduction to Bonaparte's Consp.Gen.Av. -- all thetranslator could talk about was how "poor" Bonaparte's Latin was.
....;2019.02.09
Charadrius peroniiConcept- Schlegel's description reads:
"CHARADRIUS PERONII. Temminck.En general semblable au Charadrius cantianus, mais d'unetaille beaucoup moins forte, a tarses par contre plus allonges,aux taches laterales noires du jabot prolongees, en guise delarge band, a travers le devant du manteau, et a tarses d'unbrun rougeatre. Aile 3 pouces 4 lignes a 3 pouces 7 lignes;queue 18 lignes; bec 6 lignes a 6 lignes a trois quats; tarse11 lignes et demie a 12 lignes et demie; partie nue de lajambe 6 lignes; doigt du milieu 6 lignes et demie.Observe dans l'Archipel Indien.1,2 Males adultes, Banjer a Borneo, voyage du Dr. S.Muller. -- 3,4 Males adultes, tues le 8 Juin 1844, Tabenaa Borneo, voyage du Dr. Schwaner. -- 5. Male adulte, tuele 11 Septembre 1844, Papattan a Borneo, Schwaner. -- 6.Adulte, Borneo, voyage du Dr. Croockewit. -- 7. Maue auplumage imparfait, Borneo, S. Muller. -- 8 Male adulte,Java, voyage de Kuhl et van Hasselt. -- 9. Femelle au plu-mage imparfait, Java, Kuhl et van Hasselt. -- 10., 11. Indi-vidus au plumage impartait, voyage du Prof. d Vriese, Java,1862. -- 12. Male adulte, tue en Mars 1828, ile de Semaopres de Timor, voyage de S. Muller. --13. Femelle au plu-mage imparfait, tuce en Mars 1828, Semao, S. Muller.
- The units of measurement here are of interest.
Pouce is a unit of length used in 14th to 18th centuryFrance. It was replaced by the metric system during the Revolution.France, however, fairly quickly abandoned the metric system underNapolean, reverting (as we see here) to old systems ofmeasurement.
Pouce is derived from the word for "thumb";lignemeans line and is a watchmaker's measure for the thickness of awatch movement.Pouce = 1.0657 inches, 27.07 mm. 12 pouces = 1pied-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.
Prioniturus platenaeAuthor
- In HBW 4:391 and in the references, Collar gives Blasius'sinitials as "A.W.H."
- I understand his name to be Wilhelm August Heinrich Blasius,and most generally referred to as Wilhelm Blasius.
PterodromaSystematics- Previously four species:P. aterrima,becki,rostratus,&macgillivrayi were held by Sibley & Monroe to beinPseudobulweria.
- HBW1 (Carboneras) does not recognizePseudobulweria.
- Carboneras does not seem to me to give a very explicitdiscussion of his rationale for not including it as a genus.
- It is also worthy of note, that while the index of HBW1:694 listsonly pages 237,248 under the headingPseudobulweria the greatest and mostuseful presentation regarding the genus occurs on p.217.
- Previously the genus was:
Ducula poliocephalaCitation HBW 4:206 listsGray andMitchell as the authors of this taxon.
- David William Mitchell was the secretary to the ZoologicalSociety of London, and the illustrator of this work. His authorialstatus here is not clear to me.
- However the card in the Richmond index indicates "... 1844p.[469. where C. poliocephala G. R. Gray,nomennudum]"....
- Thus Mitchell may well have authorial standing.
PodicephorusStatus
- Often treated inPodiceps.
- Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention. Hisnote reads:
"A case has been made for placingColymbus majorBoddaert, 1783 (=Podiceps major) in the newly establishedmonotypic genusPodicephorus Bochenski, 1994.Bochenski, Z. B. 1994. The comparative osteology of grebes(Aves: Podicipediformes) and its systematic implications. Actazool. cracov.37 (1):191-346.The summary reads: "...a revision of the genusPodicepsis proposed, to the effect that 1) the species "Podiceps" major isplaced in a new monotypic genusPodicephorus, and 2)Podiceps grisegena grisegena andP. g. holboellii arerestored to their species status".
....;2006.04.24
Xanthotis polygramma1862- Peters Checklist12:388 (Finn Salomensen) lists this as1861.
- The Richmond Index shows that it was published in Feb.1862.
Aramidopsis plateniCitation
- HBW3:175 gives the author as "A.W.H. Blasius";
- HBW3:725 gives the citation as "(1886). In: Russ'Isis:103"
- Peters Checklist2:176 gives the citation as "Blasius,in Russ' Isis p.103 [also Braunschw. Anz., 3 March, 1886...]"
My researches indicate:
- The author's is: Wilhelm August Heinrich Blasius M.D. Ph.D.[1845-1912], so why the initials "A.W.H." are used in that order isnot clear to me.
- The Richmond index indicates the Russ'Isis waspublished in "Apr, 1 1886" and the Braunschw. Anz. source wouldappear to have priority.
- I dont find a card in the Richmond Index giving more details ofthe Braunschw. Anz. publication of this name.
PrimoliusConcept Nomenclature
- Previously part ofAra
- In the HBW 4, N.J. Collar offers morphology, voice andbehaviour as the basis for re-instating the old genus for thisform, and there it is treated inPropyrrhura.
- For a discussion of the nomenclature, seePenhallurick J. 2001"Primolius Bonaparte, 1857 has priority overPropyrhura Ribero, 1920." BBOC121:38,39.
PhylloscopusSystematics- A very complex and confusing genus, with many cryptic species.Recent comprehensive study of many of the cryptic species is:Irwin DE, Alstrom P, Olsson U & Benowitz-Fredericks ZM.2001. "Crytpic species in the genusPhylloscopus (Old Worldleaf warblers). Ibis143:233-247.
PterocnemiaSystematics
- Often included inRhea.
- Separated fromRhea by HBW1:89. and in this theyfollow Peters Checklist1:6.
- I am not aware of the argumentspro andcon itsstatus as a monotypic genus.
Phoeniculus purpureusCitation
- Richmond says "Miller inShawCimeliaPhysica 1796 pl.LII"
Phoeniculus purpureusConcept
- PreviouslyPhoeniculus damarensis (Ogilvie-Grant) 1901BBOC 12 p.37 ( the Violet Woodhoopoe) was considered a distinctspecies.
- SeeCooper MI, Cunningnham M, Cherry MI. 2001. "Taxonomicstatus of the Namibian Violet WoodhoopoePhoeniculusdamarensis as determined by mitochondrial DNA". Ibis143(4):572-579.They argue minimal genetic differences between the forms (less than most intraspecificvalues) and the lack of evolutionary independance or a clear phenotypic diagnosis, indicatethe Violet Woodhoopoe should be synonomized with the Green Hoopoe (P.purpureus).
Heteromunia pectoralisSystematics Citation- Originally described inAmadina
- Peters Checklist14:387 (Paynter, Mayr, Traylor) placeinLonchura in the subgenusHeteromunia.
- Their citation includes alapsus as it reads "Gould,1841, Proc.Zool.Soc.London, 8 (1940)..." (emphasissupplied).
PsuedodacnisConcept
Sclater's text reads:11.Pseudodacnis, gen. nov.General characters ofCalliste, but bill rather longer andmore slender. Wings rather long, first four primaries equal and longest.Plumage ofDacnis.
- Calliste Boie 1826 =Tangara Brisson 1760
Previously a monotypic genus.- SeeKlicka J, Fry AJ, Zink RM, Thompson CW. "ACytochrome-b perspective onPasserina BuntingRelationships." 2001. Auk 118(3):611-623.
- They argue based on data from a variety of phylogeneticmethods, thatGuiraca nests withinPasserina. Theydiscuss the basis for the size difference (Guiraca beingmuch larger thanPasserina).
Elaenia pallatangaeDate- Peters Checklist8:34 (Traylor) lists the date as1861.
- Pt3 of this volume was published in Feb. 1862 according to theRichmond Index.
- Duncan (1937) lists this Part as published in April 1862.
Nephelomyias pulcherDate- Peters Checklist8:121 (Traylor) gives a date of1860 for Myiophobus pulcher.
- The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
- Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says"Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of thisyear.
- I follow the Richmond Index here.
....;2009.12.01
Lonchura pallidaDate- Peters Checklist14:382 (Mayr,Paynter,Traylor) gives thedate as 1863.
- This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1864according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
Zoothera princeiDate- Peters Checklist10:153 (Ripley) gives the date as1873.
- This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1874according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
Locustella pleskeiDate- Peters Checklist11:54 (Mayr) gives the date as1889.
- This was published in Pt4 of the volume which came out April 1,1890 ccording to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
AethopygaprimigeniaSpelling- Often speltprimigenius. (e.g. Sibley &Monroe, Peters, HBW)
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement ofavian species names." BBOC.122(1):18 discuss this.They indicate that "Philippinia primigenius Hachisuka, 1941,must be speltAethopyga primigenia, notA.primigenius.Phillipinia Hachisuka, 1941, however ismasculine because it was originally established in combination witha masculine adjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.2.3)."
- primigenius ~a ~um is a classical Latin adjectivemeaning: 1.) earliest to be born. 2.) original, primitive; servingas a base for derivatives. It is in this latter sense evidentlythat Hachisuka used the word. Jobling (1991) indicates Hachisukafelt the species was a primitive species linkingAethopygaandCinnyris.
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationAethopygaprimigen... does not occur in theZoo. Rec..
Comments & Suggestions to DataSteward
Alan P. Peterson, M.D.POB 1999Walla Walla, WA 99362-0999Last updated 2023.03.15
[8]ページ先頭