Movatterモバイル変換

Zoological Citation Notes --R

• Peters ChecklistX:163 (1964) is confused and confusingin this area, and has a citation for this taxon thatdoes not seem to match the publication of the name.
• The top of page heading changes from "Family MUSCICAPIDAE"to "Subfamily TURDINAE" in the middle of the genusCercomela.
• The citation forPhaeornis rutha is given as "Occ. Papers Bishop Mus. [Honolulu],4, pp. 43; 81"
• This serial has peculiar pagination, with through pagination for the volume andindividual pagination for the component numbers.
• The description for this bird is on p.171 of the volume, and p.81 of part 2.
Occ.Pap.BishopMus.4 no.2 p.171 / 81

• PetersXII:285 and others cite this to 1845
• The name first appeared on the plate in no.11 in 1845.
• See, for example the Richmond Index card for this taxon.R I Card Arachnothera robusta
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Conventionally cited to Derjugin & Bianchi (e.g. Peters CLXIV:298, Howard & Moore 3^rd:757, HBW.)
• My review of the original article indicates that Bianchi suggested a provisional name (Pyrrhula pyrrhula rossikowi), if the form in question proved to be adequately distinct.
• My interpretation is that Derjugin alone is thus the author of the name.

• See Dickinson and Dickinson & Jones; Priority! 2011 (CD Plate LXVI); Zoological Bibliography 2(1):41; Zoological Bibliography 2(2):80 for data on this confusing situation.

• The citation as given conventionally and as give here to J.Orn. 26 p.209 is almostcertainly the incorrect citation.
• The evidence is overwhelming, but not absolute, that the correct citation is more likelyto be:
  • Illadopsis rufescens (Reichenow) 1878Orn.Centralbl. 3 no.9 p.71
• During this period, the J.Orn. seems to have been consistently late in publication,usually about 5 to 7 months after the nominal date. The no. that follows that containingTurdoides rufescens (no.143), which is nominally the "Juli" number, includes anarticle by Nehrkorn that is noted "Riddagshausen im Nov. 78." at the end, making "Juli"clearly incorrect. I do not find specific evidence of delay for no.142 (the "April" number), but given the fact that the surrounding numbers were late, it is unlikely that no.142 was published on time.This taxon was also described in the May number (no.9) of the Orn.Centralblatt for 1878. To date I know of no evidence for delay of publication in Orn.Centralblatt so it is extremely likely that the "May" numberfor that serial was published well before the "April" number of J.Orn.

• The original spelling is clearly "rubicapilla", though this is oftenrendered "rubricapilla"
• The original can be seen here:J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal2 no.23 p.576

• Cited by Peters ChecklistXIV:344 (= Traylor 1968) as:
  • Estrilda astrild rubriventris (Vieillot) 1823Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 livr.93 p.992
• Trayor includes a discussion of the correction of the type locality by Sclater, WL,but does not appear to be aware (as Sclater evidently was not) of the publication of thisname in 1817.
• The 1817 use can be seen here:Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat.12 p.184
• This name is listed in Sherborn's Index Animalium, which, though readily availableappears to have been rarely, if ever, consulted by the later authorsof the Peters Checklist.
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for pointing this out.

• Peters Checklist7:10 gives the page number for this taxon as "p. 1" while infact it is "p. l", lower case "L" - Roman numeral for 50.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
• HBW8:793 (2003) perpetuates the error of page "1".

• Originally spelledrubiginosis,notrubiginosus as it has been frequentlyincorrectly rendered.
• Richmond Index Card Calamanthus rubiginosis
• Victorian Naturalist v.16 p.3
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Conventionally cited to 1871.
• Zimmer 1926 p.301 lists his best determination of thedating of the parts of this publication. He lists

   pp. ? - 656 pll. VII and XXVb, before Oct. 3, 1870

• Schultzeet al. p.3034 give the date for this as "VII 1871"(= July 1871). So clearly some uncertainty remains.

• Usually listed as "rufopalliatus" (e.g. by CBBM, Peters CL, AOU CL, H&M 3^rd:672.) however the original orthography is clearly "rofopalliatus". (and as shown by Sherborn's Index Animalium p.5538). The original can be seen here:Rev.Zool. 3 p.259Rev.Zool. 3 p.260
• The name, however, (as helpfully pointed out by Normand David) is listed as "rufopalliatus" in the index, which can be seen here:Rev.Zool. 3 p.377
• Bangs and Penard, in 1919 (Bull.Mus.Comp.Zool.63:31) include bothspellings, and implicitly have chosenrufopalliatus. This can be seen here:Bull.Mus.Comp.Zool. 63 p.31
• I initially interpreted Bangs and Penard as having functioned as first revisers in this matter, and use the name asrufopalliatus. However, Norman David again helpfully points out, that in the example of a Journal (such as Rev.Zool.)the Index presumably is not made up by the author(s) of the articles that composethe volume. This would suggest that a first reviser action may not be possible in this case.
• Additionally, I note that the Rev.Zool. Index is included with the December number, whilethe namerofopalliatus is to be found in the September number, and these separately issued numbers are viewed as separate works by the Code. Thus a"clear indication" of error, orlapsus, can be sought only in theSeptember number. In the description, the wordroussâtre is usedtwice, and the phrasebroun roux assez vif occurs once. These words(and the appearance of the bird) are strong indications that the "reddish" orrufo- "idea" is appropriate. An incorrectlatinization on Lafresnaye's part is unlikely (though one has to rely on externalevidence for this fact) so alapsus calami is an acceptable interpretation, andcorrection torufopalliatus can be employed.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Most often spelled with a double -ll (rueppellii).
• Colin Jones points out that the original is spelled with one -l(Rüppelii) and I note that no mention of Rüppell ismade in the article. So I employ the spelling as originally published.
• I suppose this lack of specific reference raises a question as to whether the epithet should be spelledruppelii rather thanrueppelii.
• The original description can be seen here:Cinclus cinclus rufiventrisCitation
  • Conventionally (and without any discussion) dated to 1884(see for example Peters ChecklistIX:376 (= Greenway 1960); H&M 3^rd:698, HBW10:353); Cat.Libr.Brit.Mus.(N.H.):2142).
  • 1884, may be correct, but as the foot of the title page sayshas an imprint date of 1885. Unless and until documentation ofpublishing in 1884 is brought forward, I follow the ICZN Code (1999) and use the date specified.
  • The Survey of Western Palestine (Title Page) 1885
  
  2013.06.30
  • However, other copies evidently show1884 at the foot of the title page!.
  • The Survey of Western Palestine (Title Page) 1884
  2009.09.20; 2013.06.30

  ---

  Tarsiger rufilatusNomenclature
  • Peters Checklist10:48 (= Ripley 1964) lists the originalcombination asNemura rufilata.
  • The Richmond Index lists the original combination asN[emura] rufilatus
  • Richmond Index Card N[emura] rufilatus
  • This PZS entry is also noticed in Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.5635), which in addition notes the name in 1844 in J.E. Gray's Zool.Misc. onp.83 (where apparently it is anomen nudum).
  2009.08.08

  ---

  Turdus poliocephalus ruficepsCitation
  • See McAllen IAW. Notornis, 2006, "Fijian birds described in newspapers."53:254-257 for adiscussion of the citation for this name.
  2009.07.26

  ---

  Zoothera piagiae ruwenzoriiCitation
  • H&M 3^rd:661 gives the date for this taxon as 1985,(through Corrigenda 8) but gives the date as 1984 (!!) in the list of taxa publishedafter the Peters Checklist, where the entry reads:

     * Zoothera piaggiae ruwenzorii Prigogine, 1984   Prigogine, A. Les populations occidentales de la Grive Terrestre d'Abyssinie,Zoothera piaggiae, et description d'une nouvelle sous-espFce du Ruwenzori. Gerfaut, 74: 383-389. See p. 386.

  • It is not clear which of these entries is correct, but the 1984 date wouldseem to fit the pattern of publication. It also agrees with the entry in the Richmond Index.
  • Richmond Index CardZoothera piaggiae ruwenzorii
  2009.06.27; 2009.06.28

  ---

  Stizorhina fraseri rubicundaCitation
  • Peters Checklist10:95 (= Ripley 1964) cites this to"Rev.Zool. [Paris]" in 1860, which is incorrect.
  • The last volume of Rev.Zool. (11) was published in 1848. This was publishedin the second series of Rev.Mag.Zool.
  2009.06.25

  ---

  Onychognathus morio rueppelliiCitation
  • I initially gave the citation here as given in Peters Checklist15:89 [= Amadon 1962]. I am suspicious about the date ("1865"), though it may be correct.
  • This work is, so far, a bit of a mystery, and appears to have been frequently re-issued with title pages bearing different dates. I suspectthat the publishing history is complex, and may be largely unknown.
  • I wonder what basis Amadon had for the date of 1865 for this name.
  • Colin Jones points out (2009.06.22) that I had overlooked the Corrigendanote indicating that apparently data have been found indicating that the correctdate is "1856" based on information in the Biblio. de la France. It will be interestingto see what is brought forth on this.
  2009.06.21

  ---

  Mino anais robertsoniiCitation
  • Peters Checklist15:115 (= Amadon 1962) cites thisto Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova10:12, and spells the namewith a single -i ending.
  • The Richmond Index indicates the Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova issuewas published May 3, 1877, but this included the manuscript ofan article in the Sydney Mail, published on Saturday Feb. 24, 1877.
  • The Richmond Index indicates that the name in the Sydney Mail, and the Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova was spelled with a double -ii ending.
  • The CBBM13:115 entry lists this name with the double -ii ending,but also says the name was published in Ibis in 1877. That article also notesthat it was reprinted from the Sydney Mail Feb. 24, 1877 (see footnote on p.363).Of interest in this printing, the name is spelled with a single -i ending.
  • I believe the Sydney Mail publication clearly has priority (contra Peters),and employs the double -ii ending. (contra Peters, and H&M 3^rd:653).
  2009.06.14

  ---

  Certhia himalayana ripponiNomenclature
  • Peters Checklist12:158 (= Greenway 1967) gives the originalcombination asCerthia himalanya ripponi which is incorrect.
  • I have the original description before me and the original combination isCerthia familiaris ripponi.
  • Similarly, Greenway misrepresents, or did not understand what washappening in the replacement name situation. The replacement name is givenforCerthia familiaris intermedia not "Certhia h. intermedia Kinnear", as rendered by Greenway.
  2009.06.08

  ---

  Salpornis spilonotus rajputanaeCitation
  • Peters Checklist12:160 (= Greenway 1967) cites Meinertzhagen alone as the author, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:648.
  • At the head of the page where this (and other) taxa are described it reads:

    Col. and Mrs.MEINERTZHAGEN forwarded the descriptionsof six new races of birds from India and the Himalayas :-

    .
  • The Richmond Index also shows both Meinterzhagens as the authors of this taxon.
  • If a rationale exists for citing only Col. Meinertzhagen for this name, it is unknownto me.
  2009.06.07

  ---

  Tchagra senegalus remigialisCitation
  • Peters Checklist9:321 (= Rand 1960) cites this to "p. 370").
  • It is found on p.340, and the authority, given there, is to Hartlaub & Finsch.
  • CBBM8:128, has the page number correct
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
  2009.05.11

  ---

  Pheugopedius coraya ridgwayiNomenclature
  • The Richmond Index indicates thatThryothorus ridgwayi Berlepsch 1888is =T. griseigula (Lawr.), citing Nov.Zool. 1913 20 p.229 (not seen).
  "T. griseigularis (Lawr.) is almost certainlyFormicovorus griseigula.Lawrence 1883. Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci. 2 no.12 June 1883 p.382.
  • Peters Checklist9:403, makes no mention of this, and presumablyPaynter was unaware of this matter.
  
  2014.04.06
  • 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.
  2009.05.05; 2014.04.06

  ---

  Campylorhynchus rufinucha rufusCitation
  • This taxon is not listed in Peters Checklist9, but is included in H&M 3^rd:634. It is accompanied only with a note in Corrigendum 6 indicating the subspecific epithet should be held as "rufus, notrufum because of "gender concordance".
  • It does not appear to me to have been carefully considered, or well worked out.
    1. The name is listed as

       C.r.rufum Nelson 1897

    2. As near as I can find, Nelson never described a "rufum/rufus" taxoninCampylorhynchus, but did describeHeleodytes humilis rufusin 1897 (Auk14:69), and I presume this is the taxon in consideration here.
    3. A.R. Phillips "The Known Birds of North and Middle America Part I" (1986) is not directly referenced by the authors of H&M 3^rd in relation to this taxon, but they may have consulted. Phillips (p.122) who cites:

       (?)C. r. rufum (Nelson) 1897, Auk 14:69

       and notes "A poorly markedrace, if indeed recognizable."
    4. Thus Phillips, unlike H&M 3^rd, understood that the bird was not described inCampylorhynchus and he appears to have been skeptical as its standing.
    5. Of interest, H&M 3^rd:634 listsCamplylorhynchus rufinuchus nigricaudatus with the authority as"(Nelson, 1897)" suggesting that Nelson described two taxa, now held assubspecies of the same species, but described them in different genera in thesame year! Certainly not impossible, but it does suggest to me at least that additional investigation is appropriate if a high standard of nomenclatural accuracy is one's goal.
    6. If additional published information is available regarding the status andstanding of this taxon, H&M 3^rd does not supply us with any information in that regard.
    7. I am left with the impression that this taxon may not be well worked up with apparently minimal support in the literature.
  2009.04.21; 2009.04.22

  ---

  Ortalis ruficepsSystematics
  • H&M 3^rd: treats this as a subspecies ofO. guttata without comment.
  • IOC Worldbird list holds this as a full species, citing Sick 1993, a citationnot mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
  • It appears the SACC has not yet acted upon this.
  2009.04.02Liocichla ripponiSystematics
  • Liocichla ripponi is split fromLiocichla pheonicea by Collar & Robson 2007 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
  • No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).
  2009.03.02

  ---

  Garrulax ruficepsSystematics
  • Garrulax ruficeps is split fromGarrulax albogularis by Collar 2006 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
  • No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).
  2009.02.23

  ---

  Streptopelia turtur rufescensCitation
  • Often cited to 1855 (e.g. HBW4:133; H&M 3^rd:160 (but corrected to 1845 in Corrigenda 4).
  • The Richmond Index shows the correct citation as 1845.
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
  2009.01.25

  ---

  Acrocephalus rufescensCitation
  • Peters Checklist11:74 (= Traylor 1986) gives the date for this taxon as 1876.
  • This is followed by H&M 3^rd:584 and by HBW11:633.
  • The Richmond Index indicates that this portion of volume 1 of the Bull.Soc.Zool.Fr.(from the meeting of Dec. 15) was published in Jan. 1877, and I follow that date.
  2008.12.25

  ---

  Automolus rufipectusSystematics
  • See Krabbe N 2008. " Vocal evidence for restitution of species rank to a SantaMarta endemic:Automolus rufipectus Bangs (Furnariidae), with comments on its generic affinities."BBOC128(4):219-227. for reasons for elevation to species rank.
  2008.12.18

  ---

  Calandrella rufescensCitation
  • Peters Checklist9:48 (= Peters 1960) gives the citation as:
    • A[lauda] rufescensVieillot 1820Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 p.322
  • Why the earlier description is not cited is unknown to me.
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
  2008.12.04

  ---

  Syndactyla roraimaeSystematics
  • Previously placed inAutomolus.
  • See Zimmer KJ,et al. 2008 "Taxonomy, vocalisations, syringeal morphologyand natural history ofAutomolus rorarimae (Furnariidae)." BBOC128(3):187-206.for a discussion of this taxon.

    Note that the gender of the genus groups differ and it is possible that some of the subspecific epithets might need change in this regard.However, they appear correct to me.

  • Zimmeret al. do not discuss the validity of the subspecies here, and I presume they should best be considered questionable.
  2008.10.05

  ---

  Aegithalos caudatus rosaceusNomenclature
  • Peters Checklist12:53 (= Snow 1967) gives the date forthis taxon as 1937, and this date is also given without comment or discussionby H&M 3^rd:538 (throught Corrigenda 7), presumably merely copying the Peters citation.
  • Remarkably, H&M 3^rd:274 citesOreonympha nobilis albolimbata Berlioz,which is published on the very same page of this journal to 1938. Very clearlyboth can not be correct.
  • My study of the publishing history of the BBOC, communicated in this website, shows that this portion of the BBOC was published in 1938, a date agreeing with that published in the Richmond Index for these taxa.
  • Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2008.07.10) that he has this correction in his Corrigenda -- though I still can not find it there.
  • Edward Dickinson subsequently informs me (in litt. 2008.07.15) that hethought he had made thiscorrection in the Corrigenda, but that he had not.
  2008.07.09; 2008.07.10; 2008.07/22

  ---

  Anthoscopus caroli roccattiiNomencalture
  • Peters Checklist12:66 (= Snow 1967) lists the original combination as

    Anthoscopus roccatii

    which is incorrect.
  • The Richmond Index indicates the name was originally published as

    Anthoscopus Roceatii

    (noting that this is a misprint for Roccatii).
  • Misprint or not, it must be determined if specific and adequate reference to Dr A. Roccati is madein the article to justify "correction" of the name toroccatii.
  2015.05.13
  • Checking the original demonstrates that Dr Roccattiis explicitly mentioned. I agree therefor the correction is justified.
  2008.06.25

  ---

  Cyanistes caeruleus raddeiNomenclature
  • Peters Checklist12:115 (= Snow 1967) lists the original combination as

    Parus caeruleus raddei

    though for a number of reasons this is extremely improbable.
  • The Richmond Index lists the original combination as

    Cyanistes coeruleus raddei

    which ismuch more probable, and what I follow.
  • HBW12:747, and H&M 3^rd:526 both list the authority as if it the taxonwas originally described inParus, and it is unlikely in both these instances that any futher investigations occured beyond "looking it up in Peters".
  2008.06.19

  ---

  Petroica rodinogasterCitation
  • Most often (e.g. Peters Checklist11:566; Sherborn Ind.Anim. p.5503; Richmond Index) cited to1819. Sherborn cites December 1819.
  • H&M 3^rd:521 (through Corrigenda 6) cites this to 1820, withoutdiscussion, documentation or comment.
  • As H&M 3^rd give no reason, supporting data or supporting references for "1820", I follow the published authorities listed above.
  • Further problems attend this citation. Peters Checklist11:566 cites "p.341 pl.29" thoughthe Richmond Index cites p."340 pl.XXX"; Sherborn cites p."341" and does not cite, or is unawareof the plate. I choose to follow the Richmond Index unless or until additional data are brought forward.
  • Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2008.04.20) that having examined the article (which beginson p.340, that name appears on p.341. The plate is referred to in the text as "Pl. xxix" but is actually numbered "XXX".
  2008.04.18; 2008.04.20

  ---

  Lanius senator rutilansCitation
  • This taxon is given as due to "Temminck 1840" by H&M3^rd:481 (with no correction through Corrigenda 7);the taxon is not listed by Peters Checklist9.
  • The Richmond Index lists this to Pl.Col. Tabl. Methodique p.18.
  • Edward Dickinson kindly looked into this and determined that the 1840citation appears to come from Hartert's Vogel der Palaarktischen Fauna.
  • Dickinson writes (in litt. 2008.01.04)

        The Tabl. Máth. is Livr. 102 and dates from 1839.     I attach p. 14 from the "in folio" edition which shows what you would expect;     I would guess that p. 19 is CWR correctly citing it from the "in quarto" edition.     No information is known to me about which edition appeared first, it    seems they are believed to have been produced alongside each other. If    you wish your page number to be accurate you will need to cite the    edition.    I agree the citation needs to be from here, and not from 1840.

  2008.01.12

  ---

  Iridosornis reinhardtiNomenclature
  • Cited by Peters Checklist13:338 (= Paynter 1970) with theauthority in parentheses, and this is followed without comment ordiscussion by H&M 3^rd:809 (and throughCorrigenda 6).
  • This was described by Sclater inIridornis which I interpretto be an 1854 Bonaparte emendation (Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(4)1:27)of the Lesson 1844 nameIridisornis.
  • In such an instance, it is my understanding that if the Code is tobe followed then the authority should not be in parentheses.
  • If parentheses are to be employed it must be demonstrated thatIridornis Bonaparte is NOT simply an emendation ofIridisornis Lesson.
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
  2007.11.02

  ---

  RhinopomastusNomenclature
  • Note that this name is wrongly shown in Peters ChecklistXVIComprehensive Index p.424 as "Rhinopomatus" where "Rhinopomastus" iswanted.
  2007.08.22

  ---

  Atlapetes rufigenisCitation
  • Peters Checklist13:199 (= Paynter 1970) shows this in vol.5pl.1 fig.1 (the exact same citation as forBuarremon baroni).
  • The Richmond Index cites this to pl.1 fig.2, which appears much morelikely to be correct.
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
  2007.07.31

  ---

  RhinocryptaCitation
  • A confusing selection of citations are given for this genus group name, and itappears the majority of them are in error.
  1. Peters Checklist7:279 (1951) cites this to:

     Rhinocrypta G.R. Gray, List Gen. Bds., 1840, p.25

  2. Sclater, 1890 CBBMXV:347 gives:

     Rhinocrypta, Gray, List of Gen. 1841, p.25

  3. Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.5499) and Neave (Nom.Zool.4:44) give

     Gray 1841 List Gen. Birds 2nded. p.25

  4. The Richmond Index includes a card that shows this name present in the List Gen.Birds 2^nded. p.25, but has an additional card listing thename to

     Zoology Voy. H.M.S. Beagle pt.III, Birds, no.15 Mch., 1841,corrigenda.

  5. This Zoology Voy. H.M.S. Beagle citation is also given by Schulzeet al.Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum. 1936. Band 4 lief. 21 p.3033.
  • The question then becomes which publication has priority, Gray's Corrigenda tothe Zool.Voy.Beagle or the 2^nd Edition of Gray's ListGen.Birds?
  • Steinheimer, Dickinson, and Walters .2006. BBOC126(3):171-193 wrote adetailed discussion of nomenclatural issues from the Zoology of the Voy. of theBeagle. So I contacted Frank Steinheimer to see if he could shed light on thisproblem.
  • Steinheimer indicates that they had overlooked the nomenclatural importance ofthis name on the Corrigenda page (though they do discuss (p.189) the genus group nameEinicoris which appears on the Corrigenda).
  • Steinheimer indicates (in litt. 2007.06.24) that the preface to the2^nd ed. of Gray's List Gen. Birds is dated1^st Aug. 1841, so it had to be published after this (andafter the Corrigenda to the Zool.Voy.Beagle).
  2007.06.24

  ---

  Saltator atriceps raptorCitation
  • Peters Checklist11:228 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to "Journ. Boston Soc.Nat. Hist."
    this is incorrect, it is in the "Boston Journal of NaturalHistory".
  • Paynter's attempt to give the correct citation fell short in this instance,though Bob Storer (in the same volume) was able to correctly cite this serial onp.306 (Pyranga roseogularis).
  2007.06.11; 2007.06.14

  ---

  Chlorostilbon russatusCitation
  • Peters Checklist5:40 gives the page number for this as p.587 ofthe 1881 Ibis.
  • Colin Jones points out that the British Museum type listing givesp.597r.
  • In addition to the Br.Mus. type listing, the Richmond Index, and the CBBM16:71 (Salvin) give p.597.
  • HBW5:687 also cites p.587, presumably following the PetersChecklist.
  2007.04.24

  ---

  Carduelis flammea rostrataCitation
  • Peters Checklist14:251 (=Howellet al., 1868) dates this to 1862 butgives no evidence or logical argument in support of this.
  • H&M 3^rd:751 follows this date without question orquery.
  • The AOU CL 5^th:569 appears to date this to March 31,1862. This dating appears to be based on assuming the article was present insignatures "26-36" (as stated in the AOU CL). Signatures 26-36 were acknowledged inreceipt at the Boston Society of Natural History on 31 March, 1862, and this fact nodoubt accounts for the dating given in the AOU CL.
  • However, this taxon appears on p.378, and p.378 is to be found in signatures 22-25which include pages 329-384. (This includes the report of the meeting of Nov. 26, 1861).Signatures 22-25 had their receipt acknowledged at the Boston Soc. of Natural History on31 Dec., 1861 and thus the publication is proven to be in existence in 1861 and was notdelayed until 1862.
  • The acknowledgement of receipt and the range of pages involved is published on p.xiiof the 1913 "Dates of Publication" article from the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci. Phila.
  2007.03.27;2007.03.28

  ---

  Atrichornis rufescensCitation
  • Conventionally given as:
    • Atrichornis rufescens (Ramsay,EP) 1867PZS(1866) Pt3p.438
  • Colin Jones helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.02.06) that Schoddegives this Newspaper citation as the place where the name and description first occured.The number (362) suggests that it may well have been late in December of 1866.
  2007.02.06

  ---

  Aimophila ruficeps rupicolaSystematics
  • I find the systematic situation somewhat confusing, with uncertainty regarding the validity ofthe taxon:
    1. It is listed as a questionable taxon by Peters Checklist13:99; preceeded by a "?"and with a foot note suggesting it may not be separable fromsimulans.
    2. Collins, P. W. 1999. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps).In The Birdsof North America, No. 472 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.,Philadelphia, PA. does not mention the taxon, but listssimulans as a "Mexicansubspecies" -- I mention this only becuase the type ofrupicola was collected in Arizona,so ifrupicola andsimulans are synonomous, thensimulans would appear tobe a US & Mexican subspecies and I would expect it to be listed in the "Southwest desertgroup".
    3. H&M 3^rd:787 (incl. Corr. 6) lists the taxon withoutcomment regarding its validity, and thus appear to have accepted the taxon but give nosupport for this.
  2007.01.20

  ---

  Passerculus rostratusSystematics
  • Treated as a subspecies ofPasserculus sandwichensis by most works.
  • Zink 1991 presents considerable data in support of a substantial difference between this formand other forms ofP. sandwichensis.
  • Despite a reasonable amount of literature and discussion on this point, H&M3^rd makes not mention of this.
  2007.01.09; 2007.01.20<

  ---

  Curaeus curaeus reynoldsiNomenclature
  • H&M 3^rd:772 lists the authoritywithout parentheses.
  • Peters Checklist14:183 indicates that this bird wasdescribed inNotiopsar, and this is confirmed by the RichmondIndex.
  • When placed inCuraeus the authority should bein parentheses.
  2006.11.04

  ---

  Rupicola magnirostris ruficaudusNomenclature
  • This taxon was previously listed as
    • Rupornis magnirostris petulans (Van Rossem) 1935Condor 37 p.215
    The van Rossem name served as a replacement name when this taxon was inButeo; thereplacement name being necessary due to the preoccupation byButeo ruficaudus Vieillot 1807.
  • When held inRupornis the replacement name is not required and Sclater and Salvin's namehas priority.
  • Thanks (again) to Colin Jones for this excellent pick-up.
  2006.10.01

  ---

  Nemosia roureiCitation
  • This name was published in the "Nov." Heft for 1870. Theprobability that it was actuallypublished in 1870 is very very low. The delay for this last number during this period wasgenerally a minimum of 3 months. However, as of yet, no proof of this delay is known to exist.
  2006.09.28

  ---

  Falco columbarius richardsoniiCitation
  • Published in the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia"for 1870" (which I infer is tantamount to vol.22, though I expect no "Vol. XXII" is to be found on the wrappers.
  • The falcon name was published in number which included material from the Dec. 27, 1870 meeting(a Tuesday).
  • The 5^th AOU CL dates this to March 14, 1871, and this is the date given by the 1913Index published by the Academy. This date would appear to derive from the fact that at the meetingof March 14, 1871 there was discussion of the fact that the Sept.-Dec. number had been published.Thus it is likely the actual date of publication preceeds March 14, 1871, but it seems reasonable toaccept that as a date when it was proven to be available.
  2006.07.30

  ---

  Falco tinnunculus rufescensNomenclature
  • Originally spelled "rufusecens" (actually apparentlyFalcon rufuscens according to the Richmond Index).
  • Peters Checklist1(2):407 lists the original combination as "Falco rufuscens[sic]" evidently aware of the specific epithet spelling, but not that of the genus group.
  • HBW2:259 lists the taxon asFalco rufescens without note or comment.
  • Sherborn (p.5612) lists the taxon as:

    rufuscens(sic) Falcon(sic), ...

  • Sharpe Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.1:426 refers in text to:

    ... a dark Kestrel that Swainson namedFalco rufescens.

  • It appears to me that the overwhelming likelihood is that Sherborn and Richmond are correct,Peters is partly correct, and Sharpe and HBW are wrong with regards the initial spelling.
  • Normand David addresses the matter of this name (in litt. 2006.07.28) thus:

    rufuscens, Swainson, 1837, Birds W. Afr1:109 PetersI:407 cites "rufuscens [sic]" and usesrufescenswith at least 34 other similar cases.  They are "defective" or misspelled Latin words. Now art.32.5.1 says "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel,are not to be considered inadvertent errors";  but since only foreign (non-Latin) words can betransliterated or latinized (see definitions in the Glossary), it follows that "defective" Latinwords can be viewed as inadvertent errors.As far as I can see, this is why "rufuscens" was corrected torufescens (thecorrection is good Latin). Here I advocate the use of correction (see the title of 32.5: Spellingsthat must be corrected...);  and the Code creates confusion by using "justified emendation" (33.2.2)-it should be mandatory correction, and the concept of (unjustified) emendation should be appliedonly to deliberate changes (33.2.1).Good news: the correction to rufescens does not fall prey to PU: PU preys upon subsequent spellingsnot original spellings.

  2006.07.28

  ---

  Phalacrocorax aristotelis riggenbachiNomenclature
  • Usually cited with Hartert alone as the author.
  • The Richmond Index (1992) shows the authority as Hartert &F.C.R. Jourdain.
  • Edward Dickinson kindly investigated this and determined that thearticle in question is written by Hartert "Assisted by F. C.R. Jourdain", and as Dickinson noted, the discussion of the form isall in the first person singular -- presumably Hartert.
  • Workers citing Hartert alone include Peters Checklist1:172 (Dorst & Mougin); H&M 3^rd:92;HBW1:346; BWP.
  • My reading suggests that Code is not exactly clear aboutinterpreting such an instance, but it seems reasonable to followconvention, as well as what the Code probably holds, and list onlyHartert in the authority.
  2006.07.13; 2006.07.14; 2006.09.15

  ---

  Sylvia ruppeliNomenclature Spelling
  • Originally spelled "Sylvia ruppeli" (previously I had this wrongly spelledmyself as "ruppelli", but the Richmond Index card makes it clear it has only one "l" -2008.06.28) by Temminck,according to the Richmond Index, and confirmed by Normand David and Edward C. Dickinson, whoexamined the original description (in litt. 2006.05.10)
  • Often, in fact usually, spelled "rueppelli", based understandably on the fact thatit is named after Rüppell, who was German and spelled his name with an "ü". Spellingthe specific epithetrueppelli would be correct if Temminck had rendered itrüppelli (which he clearly did NOT).
  2006.05.11; 2008.06.28

  ---

  Eurocephalus ruppelliNomenclature Spelling
  • Originally spelled "E[urocephalus] ruppelli" by Bonaparte, according to the RichmondIndex, and confirmed by Normand David, who examined the original description (in litt.2006.05.10
  • Often, in fact usually, spelled "rueppelli", based understandably on the fact thatit is named after Rüppell, who was German and spelled his name with an "ü". Spellingthe specific epithetrueppelli would be correct if Bonaparte had rendered itrüppelli (which he clearly did NOT).
  • It may be that "prevailing usage" will be inovked as a basis for persisting with therenderingrueppelli. For now I employ the original spelling, as it is in no wayclear to me that "prevailing usage" applies in this case.
  • There is no discussion of the spelling as late as the 2007.12 Corrigenda7 for the H&M 3^rd CL. [APP: 2007.12.30]
  2006.05.11;2007.12.30

  ---

  RupornisNomenclature
  • With Normand David's kind help, I have come to understand that the genus ofRupornis is masculine.
  • The-ornis ending is, in itself, variable (masculine or feminine), so Iturned to evaluating the gender of the specific epithet with which it was originallycombined. Kaup combined it withmagnirostris and-rostris is a Latinadjectival form that is also of common, or variable gender. In such instances, whenan adjective is not indicative ofa particular gender it is held to be masculine(Art. 30.1.4.2).
  2006.03.25

  ---

  Aviceda subcristata reinwardtiiCitation
  • Peters Checklist1(2):282 (Stresemann & Amadon) datesthis to 1841, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:98 and HBW2:107.
  • The Richmond Index indicates that this was published in "Afl. 5" oftheZoologie (Aves) portion of this. Richmond also notes thatGray in Gen. Av.I:23 notes that it is in "no.5".
  • Sharpe in Cat.B.B.M1:358 dates this to "1839-44" andcuriously cites it to "p.35, tab.5", while others consistently citep.37.
  • Strickland in Orn.Synonyms1:127 dates this to 1839.
  • If we accept this as occuring in "no. 5" thenHusson AM,Hothuis LB. 1955. Zoologishce Mededelingen Uitgegeven Door HetRijksmuseum Van Natuurlijke Historie te Leiden. XXXIV(2):17-25. 17 Oct1955. confirm a date of 1841 (October 11).
  2006.02.12

  ---

  ROSTRATULIDAECitation
  • Bock 1994 Bulletin Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.222 pp.137,247 lists this to Mathews Birds Australiaand gives "1913-1914".
  • The exact location where this name is used is not known to meand I am therefore uncertain as to the exact date.
  2005.12.11

  ---

  Pionus menstruus reichenowiNomenclature
  • Described inPionias which is an 1867 unjustified emendation byFinsch ofPionus Wagler 1832.
  • Thanks to Steven Gregory for looking into this, and to Colin Jones forpersistance in seeing the resolution through.
  2005.11.25

  ---

  Myzomela obscura rubrobrunneaCitation
  • SeeSitz.K.Akad.Wiss.Wienfor a discussion of the dates and inconsistency of citation for thisserial.
  • Of interest the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3 corrects the dateforMyzomela cruentata (on p.202 of this serial) from 1875 to 1874but make no mention of the date forMyzomela rubrobrunnea which ison the following page (p.203).
  • Dates for this serial were published by the Society in 1929, andI am thankful to Edward Dickinson for providing me with a copy ofthat Index.
  2005.11.05

  ---

  Campephilus guatemalensis regiusCite
  • Ridgway in Bull.U.S.Natl.Mus. no.50 pt6 p.179 gives pl. 694 (which would be DCXCIV)
  • I follow Peters Checklist6:228 and the Richmond Index, which give DCXLIX = 649.
  • AB Meyer's 1879 Index to Reichenbach's work also lists the plate number as"DCXLIX". Addtionally Meyer's Index attributes this name to Lichtenstein(probably as a manuscript name), The Richmond Index notes '"Lichtst."MS.', though Peters Checklist6:228 does not trouble itself withthis level of accuracy and detail.
  • Thanks to Michael Reiser for picking this up.
  2005.05.02

  ---

  Ptilinopus richardsiiNomenclature
  • Originally described inPtilopus and for thisreason H&M 3^rd:176 and HBW4:212 place the authority inparentheses.
  • It appears to me thatPtilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson'sPtilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority hereshould not be in parentheses.
  2005.05.01

  ---

  Gallicolumba luzonica rubiventrisCitation
  • Often cited to 1983 (e.g. HBW4:179,612; H&M 3^rd:170).
  • The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 notes that the first edition of thiswas published in 1979, and refers to Ibis. 1981123:575 for details.
  2005.03.06

  ---

  ReinwardtoenaNomenclature
  • A genus-group name with spelling like this is an obvious sourceof potential spelling and emendation problems. Peters Checklist3:81,82 gives only a slight hint of this. The Checklist puts theauthority forReinwardtoena griseotincta in parentheses, indicatingthat Peters felt that as it was described inReinwardtoenas thatparentheses were appropriate.
  • What in fact do we have for renderings of this genus group name?
    1. Reinwardtoena Bonaparte 1854 CompteRendu 39 p.1112
    2. Reinwardtaenas Bonaparte 1854 Ann.Sci.Nat.(4) 1 p.140(evidently anomen nudum)/
    3. Reinwardtaena Gray,GR 1856 ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt4 p.40
    4. Reinwardtoenas Salvadori 1892 Mem.R.Accad.Sci.Torino(2)42(1891) p.60
    5. Reinwardtoenas Salvadori 1893 Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 21 p.365
  • H&M 3^rd:163 must evidently interpretReinwardtoenas to simply be an emendation, as it differs from thePeters Checklist with regard to parentheses for the authority, but givesno rationale or support for the position taken.
  2005.01.30

  ---

  Anthus roseatusNomenclature
  • This bird is often referred to as
    • Anthus pelopusGray,JE &Gray,GR1847Cat.Mamm.BirdsNepalThibet[Gray,JE] p.154NomenclatureNomenclature(Date)
    • See, for example, Deignan HG, 1960. "The Oldest name for the RoseatePipit". BBOC80(7):120.
    • However, as Edward Dickinson pointed out to me, the nameAnthusroseatus was established as the approved name by the ICZN in Opinion 803,(1967.03.06) so considerations of priority and the mysteries of publishinghistory become moot with regard to this name.
    2005.01.22; 2007.08.18

  ---

  Dromaius novaehollandiae rothschildiNomenclature
  • Described by Mathews inDromiceius which is the way this namewas spelled in Vieillot'sAnalyse on p.54, but spelledDromaius on p.70.(seeNomenclature)
  • As Gray's action as first reviser establishesDromaius as the correct form,Mathews' use ofDromiceius appears to me to constitute the use of an incorrect spelling,and thus the authority should not be in parentheses according to ICZN 1999 Art. 51.3.1
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
  2004.11.13

  ---

  Archibuteo regalis = Buteo regalisNomenclature
  • Usually cited, as here, to the first edition of Gray's Gen.Birds.which has an apparent publishing date of May, 1844.
  • Several points of interest are raised in the Richmond Index.
    1. The second edition of pages 11-12 of this work was issued in June,1849, and the name there is changed toA. ferrugineusLichtenstein.
    2. The nameArchibuteo regalis may first have been used in apublication "List Accip.", published ostensibly Feb. 12, 1844(evidently the imprint date), where the name appears to have been anomen nudum.
    3. It appears that the List Accip. was reviewed in Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.for May of 1844, which would suggest that it may have preceeded theMay publication of the First edition of the Gen.Birds.
    4. The Richmond Index also includes a note that the first Ed. ofGray's Gen.Birds was suppressed -- the note reading "[ed. 1suppressed],".
  2004.10.09

  ---

  Apteryx rowiConcept
  • Recently described as a separate species. An abstract of the publicationindicates

    The new species differs only slightly from the other brown kiwis. Differencescan be found in plumage colour and colouration of bare parts, which are allpaler than in other brown kiwis with the head, neck and belly feathersnoticeably grey (often with some white on the head), the softness of thefeathers (softer when stroked backwards than in Tokoeka), the shorter bill andthe barred outer wing feathers (not present in the other brown kiwis). Apartfrom the holotype, only six specimens (paratypes) of the new species are known.

  • Additionally there are comments on the name

    The existence of more than one species of brown kiwi had already been deducedfrom molecular studies in 2001 and was published two years later (Burbidge, M L,Colbourne, R M, Robertson, H A & Baker, A J 2003. Molecular and other biologicalevidence supports the recognition of at least three species of brown kiwi.Conserv.Genet.4: 167-177). However, the name 'Apteryx rowii' usedin this publication does not comply in every aspect with the rules set by theInternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the same applies toearlier descriptions of this taxon, all leading to invalid scientific names(nomina nuda). Anomen nudum ('naked name') implies that the givenname has no official status (is invalid) and should not be used to refer to thetaxon involved. Considering the urgent need for a properly establishedscientific name for the new species, Tennyson et al (2003) decided that it wasbest to quickly name and describe the new species in a separate publication.Tokoeka is a polytypic species with at least three different 'lineages', nowgrouped into two subspecies. Further studies may reveal that more subspeciesshould be recognized or that subspecies should also be awarded species status.More information on the status, population and distribution of all five kiwispecies, including colour photographs of each species, can be found at the kiwirecovery website (www.kiwirecovery.org.nz/Kiwi/Home/).

  • Thanks to Murray Bruce for bringing this to my attention and providing thedetails.
  2004.05.21

  ---

  Pitta sordidus rosenbergiDate
  • Listed by Peters Checklist8:317 (Mayr) as 1874.
  • Florence Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek has confirmed the dates for the various parts of this work. Her compilation shows this to have beenpublished in 1871.
  2004.05.08

  ---

  Pitta erythrogaster rufiventrisDate
  • Listed by Peters Checklist8:317 (Mayr) as 1859, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:338
  • The Richmond Index lists this as from 1860 and suggestst that evidence on p.463of that volume and number (not seen) indicate that it could not have been published beforeJan. 22, 1860.
  • The Peters Checklist, and H&M are inconsistent in treating the dates of taxa fromthis volume and number of J.Orn., dating most to 1859 (which is the imprint date) and at leastone other (Illadopsis) as 1860.
  • Neave and Schulze treatIlladopsis as being published in 1860, and in fact Schulzesuggests that it was published "1860 VII", which I interpret to be July (!) of 1860.
  2004.04.23

  ---

  Reisen-Brit.GuianaDate
  • Dating of Bd.III (which has an imprint date of 1848)is variable and inconsistent among and within various workers.
  • The unpublished CW Richmond Dates-of-Publication cards addressthis issue (see entry under Reisen-Brit.Guiana), and while theydo not fully resolve the question, I interpret the preponderanceof evidence to support 1849 for Bd.III.
  2004.02.26

  ---

  Dendropicos gabonensis reichenowiNomenclature
  • Originally described inDendropicus
  • Peters Checklist6:180 puts the author's name in parentheses,interpretingDendropicus to be a generic entity different fromDendropios. This isnot followed by HBW7:467 norby H&M 3^rd:317.
  • ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

     51.3.1 Parentheses are not used when thespecies-group name was originally combined with an incorrect spelling or anemendation of the generic name (this applies even though an unjustifiedemendation is an available name with its own authorship and date [Art.33.2.3]).

  • The relationship betweenDendropicos andDendropicus is aninteresting one, and undoubtedly has been fully worked out, though to date(2004.01.24) I can't find documentation of this. What I do know is that:
    1. Both names are due to Malherbe in 1849.
    2. DendropicosMalherbe 1849Mem.Acad.R.Metz 30 p.316,338 is dated by Sherborn to "(postMay)" of 1849. It is probably this finding of Sherborn's that is reflected inPeters "(after may 1849)".
    3. The date ofDendropicus is more of a problem. It was published in
    4. DendropicusMalherbe 1849 Rev.Mag.Zool.(2) 1 p.532. This is the same source and page given as the citation forDendropicos hartlaubii. Thus it is not clear whetherDendorpicusis alapsus, an emendation or a new genus description, though the latterseems unlikely.
    5. Sherborn has these entries

       Dendropicos A.  Malherbe, Mém. Ac. Metz., XXX (post May) 1849, 338. -A.Dendropicus  Malh. 1849;teste Waterhouse, Dendropicosest. q.v.

       ("q.v." =quod vide = for which see).
       I interpret Sherborn to interpretDendropicus to be an emendationofDendropicos, or possiblyvice versa if the Rev.Mag.Zool.publication antedates the Mem.Acad.R.Metz.
    6. The issue of dates of theRev.Mag.Zool. is problematic. Richmond has many notes on this problem in hisunpublished notes on Dates of Publication. Perhaps most salient is his notesaying:

       Revue Zoologique.Important! The nos. of theRev.Zool.prob. never came outduring themonth mentionedon the 1st. page of no.

  • In summary, I interpretDendropicus to be an emendation ofDendropicos.
  2004.01.24

  ---

  Megalaima franklinii ramsayiNomenclature
  • Originally described inMegalæma
  • Peters Checklist6:35 puts the author's name in parentheses,interpretingMegalæma to be different fromMegalaima. This is followed by HBW7:205 and H&M3^rd:305, and in neither case does this appear to warrantdiscussion.
  • ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

     51.3.1 Parentheses are not used when the species-group name was originallycombined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (thisapplies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its ownauthorship and date [Art. 33.2.3]).

  • Thus it appears that at least HBW and H&MconsiderMegalæma to be something other than an emendation orincorrect spelling.
  • To date, I am unable to find any indication thatMegalæma wasproposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendationand do not use parentheses around the author's name. Sherborn listsMegalaema (without ligature) as an Agassiz "emend. pro Megalaima,Gray.", and Schulze "Nomen. animalium gen. et subgen." p.1995 also has thisinterpretation.
  • IfMegalæma was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not amisspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know of the facts supportingthat case as it appears to be unknown to Sherborn, Richmond, or Schulze, etal.
  2004.01.08

  ---

  Megalaima lagrandieri rothschildiNomenclature
  • Originally described inMegalæma
  • Peters Checklist6:32 puts the author's name in parentheses,interpretingMegalæma to be different fromMegalaima. This is followed by HBW7:200 and H&M 3^rd:305, and inneither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
  • ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

    51.3.1 Parentheses are not used when the species-group name wasoriginally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation ofthe generic name (this applies even though an unjustifiedemendation is an available name with its own authorship and date[Art. 33.2.3]).

  • Thus it appears that at least HBW and H&M considerMegalæmato be something other than an emendation or incorrect spelling.
  • To date, I am unable to find any indication thatMegalæma wasproposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendationand do not use parentheses around the author's name. Sherborn listsMegalaema (without ligature) as an Agassiz "emend. pro Megalaima,Gray.", and Schulze "Nomen. animalium gen. et subgen." p.1995 also has thisinterpretation.
  • IfMegalæma was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not amisspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know of the facts supportingthat case as it appears to be unknown to Sherborn, Richmond, or Schulze,et al.
  2004.01.07

  ---

  Ninox philippensis reyiCitation
  • The citation given by Peters Checklist4:143 is for volume1 of the second seriesof the Bull.Hebdo.Assoc.Sci.France.
  • HBW5:686 duplicates this reference to volume1.
  • The Richmond Index, indicates that this is volume2 of the second series, and thisis more consistent with other citations for taxa described by Oustalet on the same page.The Peters Checklist5:267 listsBuceros montani from p.205 of volume2 of the same series and in the same year. HBW6:528also lists this as from volume2.
  • I follow the Richmond index, and use volume2.
  2003.09.20

  ---

  Ninox connivens rufostrigata Date
  • Peters Checklist4:137 gives a date of 1860.
  • HBW5:231 also gives a date of 1860.
  • The Richmond Index gives a date of March 1861.
  • Duncan PZS 1937 says this section of the PZS was "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861."
  • I follow Richmond here.
  2003.09.18

  ---

  Dinopium rafflesiiAuthor
  • Authorship frequently given as Vigors & Horsfield (e.g. PetersCheckist6:146; HBW7:545).
  • Thanks to Murray Bruce's work on this it is clear that Vigors wasthe author of the bird descriptions in the catalogue attached to theMemoir by Lady Raffles. This sole authorship was indicated by theMarquis Tweddale in Ibis 1877 (4)1:284.
  • Bruce indicates that the likelihood is that Gray attributedauthorship to Vigors & Horsfield based upon their names inattribution for a plate in the work.
  2003.06.01

  ---

  Tinamus major robustusCitation
  • A complex nomenclatural situation:
    1. Name first published by Sclater without a description in PZS1860 p.253.
    2. Name published with a description of the skeleton by Parker in 1866(Trans.Zool.Soc.London5(1864) p.205-232.
    3. Name also listed (sometimes with details of anatomical parts) byOwen (1861), Salvin (1861,1865), Parker (1862), GR Gray (1867), andHuxley (1867).
  • The publication in ExoticOrn. is held to be the first withsatisfactory description. That citation is as follows:
    • Tinamus major robustusSclater,PL &Salvin 1868ExoticOrn. Pt6 p.87 pl.xliv
  • [2010.05.26] Colin Jones has helpfully pointed out that while the initial description in PZS isanomen nudum, the name was, in the Ibis in 1861, also linked with a egg, with an associateddescription.
  • It appears to me that this satisfies the requirements for the original description. This apparently valid nomenclatural act is not acknowledged or discussed by recent authors to my knowledge.
  2003.05.11; 2010.05.26

  ---

  RupornisConcept
  • Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships inButeo. FindingButeo to be paraphyletic, they propose twoways of resolving this:
    1. includeParabuteo intoButeo or
    2. excludeB. leucorrhous andB. magnirostris whileincludingAsturina nitida andGeranoaetusmelanoleucus.
  • They chose the second approach because of the acceptance ofParabuteo as distinct, and on the basis of support from theirmolecular data.
  • Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003."Molecularphylogeny of the genusButeo (Aves: Accipitridae) based onmitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution27:328-342.
  2003.04.12

  ---

  Aquila rapaxCitation
  • Peters Checklist1:380 (Stresemann & Amadon) theRichmond Index and Sherborn have livr.76 pl.455. Sherborn adds anote "extremo 1827".
  • HBW2:575 replicates the error, most probably following thePeters citation.
  • Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve theissue, demonstrating that the "76" is most likely a misprint for77. A misprint being more likely than the plate having beenissued with the wrong livraison.
  • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The"Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier(1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.52'
  2003.03.08

  ---

  Caprimulgus ruwenzoriiDate
  • Listed by Peters Checklist4:210 as 1908. HBW5:370 (Cleere) repeats this error.
  • While the initial numbers of BBOC23 were published in 1908,no. CLII containing the description ofCaprimulgus ruwenzoriiiwas published June 10, 1909.
  • Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
  2003.03.07

  ---

  Tringa ruficollisConcept
  • Pallas' original description isreproduced here:

   N.  281 COLYMBUS (ruficollis,) fuscus, collo subtusrufo.  Magn. infra Alcam Allen.  Totus fuscus,subtus albicante nebulosus.  Collum totum subtuslate ferrugineo-rufum in Mare; in femina ob-soletius, eique gula albo fusoque nebulosa, &truncus subtus medio albo argentatus.  Rostrumnigrum, basi subtus oblique flavum.

  • The locality looks problematic to me, and the Sherborn aritcle has what I interpret tobe a note, added in brackets and reproduced exactly here:

    "[Is the female of 280, which is called"  ruficollis,""zeer zeldzaam in onze Meiren."]"

  • Data taken fromSherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds inVroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.47(3):339-340.
  • The italicized species epithet in parentheses "(ruficollis,), has a commafollowing the species epithet. This occurs in some, but a minority, of the representationsin Sherborn's article. I have no idea if there is any significance to this, and in fact ifit represents the actuality of the text as printed.
  2002.11.14

  ---

  Phoenicopterus roseusConcept
  • Listed by Peters Checklist1:270 and HBW1:525 (del Hoyo) as a subspecies ofP. ruber.
  • Elevation to species status proposed by the BOU.Knox AG,Collinson M, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT & Sangster G. 2002. "Taxonomicrecommendations for British Birds." Ibis144(4):707-708., based on plumage, coloration,displays, and vocalizations.
  • Elevated to species level by AOU CL 49^th Supplement 2008 p.760
  2002.11.03; 2008.08.03

  ---

  Scolopax rosenbergiiConcept.
  • Listed by Peters Checklist2:278 and HBW3:489 (vanGils & Wiersma) as a subspecies ofS. saturata.
  • Marek Kuziemko brought to my attention a recent revision of thisspecies. I quote his email (2002.07.24)
  • "Recently Kennedy et al. (2001) separatedrosenbergi fromS. saturata as a separated species. They argue thatrosenbergii, compared tosaturata, is:
    1. isolated from the other form by at least 2,500 km, which fora sedentary population is expected to mean negligible gene flowbetween them;
    2. significantly larger in wing, tail, tarsus and culmenlength;
    3. strikingly different in plumage: upperparts much darker andmore loosely barred; conspicuous and well-developed white spotson malar, supraloral and chin; darker throat, breast andbelly with latter barred with white.
    Ref.: Kennedy RS, Fisher TH, Harrap SCB, Diesmos AC & ManamtamAS. 2001. "A new species of woodcock (Aves: Scolopacidae) from thePhilippines and a re-evaluation of other Asian/Papuasian woodcock."Forktail17: 1-12."
  2002.08.03

  ---

  Phylloscopus ruficapillaSpelling
  • Often spelledR. ruficapillus (e.g. Peters).
  • OriginallyPogonocichla ruficapilla Sundevall 1850.
  • David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian speciesnames." BBOC 2002. 122(1):38 discuss this.
  • "As a final component ofspecies-group names,-capilla is the Latin nouncapilluswith a modified ending, and does not include any adjectival suffix.Adjectival names derived fromcapillus would end in arecognizable suffix (-capillata,capillosa, etc.).Original names ending incapilla [the modified Latin nouncapillus] are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns inapposition."
  • They indicate the spelling should bePhylloscopusruficapilla. Their argument is that it " should not be changed toP. ruficapillus.
  • During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationPhylloscopus ruficapilla occursonce andPhylloscopus ruficapillus occurs twice theZoo. Rec..

  ---

  Upucerthia ruficaudusSpelling
  • Often spelledU. ruficauda (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe).
  • OriginallyOchetorhynchus ruficaudus Meyen 1834.
  • David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002.122(1):37 indicate the spelling should beUpucerthia ruficaudus. Their argument isthat "-caudus is derived from a noun, but is not adjectival; if it were adjectival itwould end in-caudatus. "Although-us (-a, -um) can be a Latin adjectivalsuffix, it is only when added to a noun that ends in a consonant." Rather, the name is a nounphrase, that must be treated as a noun in apposition, with the original spelling retained.
  • During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationUpucerthia ruficauda occurs oncein theZoo. Rec..
  2002.07.14

  ---

  Eolophus roseicapillaSpelling
  • Often spelledE. roseicapillus (e.g. Peters).
  • OriginallyCacatua roseicapilla Vieillot 1817.
  • David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002.122(1):38 "As a final component ofspecies-group names,-capilla is the Latin nouncapilluswith a modified ending, and does not include any adjectival suffix.Adjectival names derived fromcapillus would end in arecognizable suffix (-capillata,capillosa, etc.).Original names ending incapilla [the modified Latin nouncapillus] are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns inapposition."
  • They indicate the spelling should beEolophus roseicapilla.Their argument is that it " should not be changed toE.roseicapllus.
  • During the period of 1978-1992 the combinationEolophus roseicapllus occurs 54times in theZoo. Rec.;Eolophus roseicaplla occurs 5 times duringthat period.
  2002.07.14

  ---

  Cyornis rufigastraSpelling
  • Often spelledC. rufrigaster (e.g. Sibley & Monroe).
  • OriginallyMuscicapa rufigastra Raffles 1822.
  • David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian speciesnames." BBOC 2002.122(1):37 indicate the spelling should beCyornis rufigastra. Their argument is that"-gastra is derived from a noun, but is not adjectival. Rather,the name is a noun phrase, that must be treated as a noun inapposition, with the origial spelling retained.
  • During the period of 1978-1992only the combinationCyornis rufigastra occursin theZoo. Rec..
  2002.07.14

  ---

  Cyornis ruckiiSpelling
  • Peters Checklist11:361 uses the spellingruecki noting that thiswas an emendation made by Sharpe in his Hand-list of Birds, 19013:214.
  • Sibley & Monroe hold this to be an unjustified emendation.
  • The taxon is named after M. Rück. Rück collected the specimen in Malacca (type -- 2specimens -- in the Paris Museum). However the Richmond Index indicates that Oustalet's spellingof the species epithet isRuckii.
  • Sharpe's spelling in his Hand-List is, in fact,ruecki as Peters indicates.
  • During the period of 1978-1992 the species epithetru[e]cki[i] does not occur in theZoo. Rec..
  • [2009.09.14] The question, of course, is: was M. Rück German, or (more probably) Dutch?If he was Dutch, the spellingruckii would be appropriate if German or if it is uncertain, then the umlaut may be appropriate.
  • In Corrigenda 8 Dickinsonet al. may have the correct decision, but their factsappear to be simply wrong. They write:

    Cyornis ruecki [M. LeCroy 2008, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist 313 p. 94 found the original spelling to be rückii and lacking evidence for whether the name was based upon a German word retained the spelling ruecki; she appears to have not retained -ii due to prevaiing usage. We may use rueckii in next Edition.]

    My reading of Mary LeCroy's finding is different, she says (p.94):

    Originally, the current name of this form was spelledSiphia ruckii, without an umlaut(Oustalet, 1881: 78),...

    The phrase "without an umlaut" indicates to me that she didnot"f[ind' the original spelling to be rückii" so if the umlaut is "retained" it is retained from the emendation and certainly not from the original description.
  • Dickinsonet al. appear to be proceeding on the basis of incorrect facts (Mary's finding). Ideally we would determine the nationality of M. Rück; like Mary, I have so far not been able to do this.
  • Given the confusion (and error) here I retain theoriginal spelling "ruckii" for the present.
  • [2009.09.15] One factor that may add to the confusion here is that the diagnosis was "reproduced" by Reichenow and Schalow in J.Orn.32:398 (1884); in that location the binomen is rendered

    301.Siphia Rückii.

  2002.07.14; 2009.09.14; 2009.09.15

  ---

  Megalaima rubricapillusSpelling
  • OriginallyBucco rubricapillus Gmelin, 1788.
  • Often speltM. rubricapilla. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe,Peters).
  • David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avianspecies names." BBOC.122(1):35 discuss this. Theyindicate that "The wordcapillus is and always has been a noun.Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin nouncapillusare noun phrases to be treated as nouns in apposition."
  • During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinationMegalaimarubricapill... does not occur in theZoo. Rec..
  2002.07.13

  ---

  Scytalopus robbinsi

  Placement within Scytalopus is uncertain, and should not be affordedany authority.I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end of the genus.

  ---

  Sylvia lugens 1840

  Usually cited as 1840, though some evidence suggests 1839 is possible.
  Peters Checklist11:287 has 1804(sic).

  ---

  Streptopelia risoriaSystematics
  • Streptopelia risoria not afforded specific status by Peters, Sibley& Monroe, H&M. 3^rd orHBW4.
  • This taxon is of some importance, as it is the type forStreptopelia, but theconfusions are considerable, and largely unaddressed in recent works.
  • The AOU Cl 7^thed. p.222 says:

     Notes. -- Also known as Barbary Dove. This widely domesticated and locally introducedform is now deemed to be derived from the AfricanS. roseogrisea(Sundevall, 1957 [sic = 1857])[African Collared-Dove] rather thandS. deccaocto (Goodwin 1983).  ... There is con-troversy whether the namerisoria can be applied to any wild population at all (Sibley andMonroe 1990).

    Goodwin D. 1983. Pigeons and Doves of the world, 3rd ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NewYork..
  • AOU CL 7^th ed. also recognizesStreptopelia decaocto, which HBW would appear toregard as a synonym ofS. risoria.
  • This seems to be a complicated and difficult situation, made more so by what appear to be the largelyignored implications regarding estblishing the type forStreptopelia.
  • Previously included:
    • Streptopeliarisoria (Linnaeus) 1758Syst.Nat.ed.10 p.165Concept
    but it has been felt appropriate to use the name of the wild species in place of aname based on domesticated birds.
  ....; 2005.01.29; 2006.04.20

  ---

  Turdus reevi1869
  • Peters Checklist10:212 has "1870".
  • I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} which indicates June 1869.

  ---

  Balearica regulorumAuthor
  • Both {Sherborn, 1902} and Peters2:154 attribute this toBennett., and Sherborn indicates it is E. T. Bennett.
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists Gray (without designating which Gray)for this citation.
  • Both Sherborn 1902 and {Richmond, et al. 1992} note "Ex Licht.".
  • I am uncertain what standing Gray has in this matter, though G.R.Gray used the nameBalearica regulorum in 1844 in hisList of Birds of the British Museum, where again it is "Ex. Licht.".
  • The article in the PZS (a segment called "On several animals recently addedto the Society's Menagerie." is attributed in the table of contents (p.[iii]) toE.T. Bennett, Esq. However, the text of the material makes note of pointsmade by "Mr. Gray" regarding the morphology of the birds and those implications,thus suggesting that it may be Gray who is establishing the material.
  • The text of the matter reads:

     The two species may thus be distinguished:GenusANTHROPOÏDES, Vieill. *Occipite cristato, cristâ erectâ, effusâ e plumis setaceis constante.ANTHROPOÏDES PAVONINUS, Viell.Anth. genis nudis, supernè  albis infernè latè roseis; paleari minimo; gutturis plumis elon-  gatis nigriescentibus.Ardea pavonina,Linn. et Auct.Hab. in Africâ Septontrionali et Occidentali.ANTHROPOÏDESREGULORUM.Anth. genis nudis, albis supernè  roseis; paleari magno; gutturis plumis elongatis pendulinis cæru-  lescenti-cinereis.  Grus Regulorums,Licht.Hab. in Africâ Meridionali.  It is probable that this latter species has been figured by Petiverand by Kolbe; but their representations are by no means sufficientlydefined to authorize a postivie reference to them.  Mr. Gray took occasion to remark that the oval form of thenostrils in thecrowned Cranes, added to other distinguishing cha-racters which have frequently been pointed out, might be regardedas indicating a generic difference between them and theDemoiselleandStanley Cranes, in which the nostrils have the lengthened formusual in the genusGrus, a genus from which they scarcely differexcept in the comparative shortness of their bill.  For the groupincluding thecrowned Cranes the name ofBalearica might, he thought, be retained; and that ofAnthropoïdes be appropriated tothe one comprehendingAnth. Virgo, Vieill. andAnth. paradisæus,Bechst.

  • Thus, while it appears there are clearly indications of Gray's involvement, thefull extent is not (to me) evident, and I continue to treat Bennett as the author.
  2003.04.19

  ---

  C. respublicaCitation
  • Peters Checklist15:199 lists "p.131-291".
  • I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

  ---

  Meliphaga reticulata1820
  • Peters Checklist12:369 has "1824".
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} have 1820, which is morebelievable for livr.5 of this work.

  ---

  Lamprolaima rhami1839
  • Peters Checklist5:84 has "1838".
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} says Rev.Zool I, [no.12] for Dec. 1838, witha note "publ. 1839".

  ---

  Berlepschia rikeri1887
  • Peters Checklist7:121 lists "1886".
  • {Harris, 1928} and {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicate, this waspublished Feb. 14, 1887.

  ---

  Campephilus robustus1818
  • Peters Checklist6:230 lists the date as 1819 with a footnoteto the citation saying "So cited by Sherborn".
  • Wolters (p.162) lists the taxon as 1819.
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} list the date as1818.
  • Which publication of Sherborn's Peters refers to is notindicated.
  • HBW7:532 (Short & Horne) list 1819, evidently followingthe Peters Checklist.
  [2010.07.05]
  • Peters Checklist2:205 cites a taxon from later in the same work (Crex galeata p.36) to 1818.
  2002.06.30; 2010.07.05

  ---

  Galbula ruficauda1816
  • Peters Checklist2:7 has "1817".
  • See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

  ---

  Macropygia ruficeps1835
  • Peters Checklist3:78 lists "1834".
  • Livraison 95 was published in 1835, as Peters correctly cites forother taxa in Vol. 3.

  ---

  Sclerurus rufigularis1868
  • Peters Checklist7:151 indicates "1869".
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates this was "(pub. late Sep.,1868)".

  ---

  Buteo rufinus1829
  • Peters Checklist1:373 has "1827".
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates the publishing date is 1829.

  ---

  Strix rufipes1827
  • Peters Checklist4:163 lists "1828", as does Wolters.
  • HBW5:200 (I. Heynen), also gives "1828".
  • {Richmond, et al. 1992} has December, 1827 which I follow.
  2002.06.29

  ---

  Conopophilia rufogularisCitation
  • Peters Checklist12:435 has "p.13" apparently a typographictruncation of p.137.

  ---

  Otus roboratusCitation
  • Peters Checklist4:105 shows this as Vol. "40"
  • It is Vol. 35.

  ---

  Agelaius ruficapillus a1819
  • Peters Checklist14:175 leaves the date out of thecitation

  ---

  Enicurus ruficapillus1832
  • Peters Checklist10:86 has "1823" a transpostion for 1832, thedate when this volume was published.

  ---

  Troglodytesrufocilatus

  • Peters Checklist9:427 treats as a subspecies ofsolstitialis.

  ---

  Troglodytes rufocilatus1882
  • Peters Checklist9:427 has 1881.
  • This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

  ---

  Amaziliarondoniae
  • Not in Peters Checklist Vol.5. Not in Sibley & Monroe.

  ---

  Rougetius rougetiispelling
  • SpeltRougetius rougetii in Peters Checklist, by Sibley& Monroe, HBW, H&M 3^rd, and in the Richmond Index..
  • In The Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum23:163 thename is speltR. rougeti with only one "i".

  ---

  Rhynochetosspelling
  • Spelt variouslyRhynochetos,Rhinochetos,Rhinochetus.
  • Sharpe uses "Rhinochetos" in the Cataloge of Birds in the BritishMuseum23:246.

  ---

  Basileuterus rufifronscitation
  • Sharpe, 1885. in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum10:396 gives p.249.
  • Sherborn and Richmond give p.294, which I follow.
  • This is supported by my copy which has the name on p.294.
  ....; 2006.12.10

  ---

  Phyllomyiasreiseri
  • See Cardoso da Silva JM, New data support the specific statusof Reiser's Tyrannulet, a central Brazilian endemic. 1996. BBOC116(2):109-113.

  ---

  Vidua raricolasystematics
  • Species limits and definitional issues are difficult in theViduae. Species status is afforded based on genetic andmorphologic differences.Payne RB, Payne LL. Song mimicy andspecies associations of west African indigobirdsVidua withQuail-finchOrtygospiza atricollis. GoldbreastAmandavasublflava and Brown TwinspotClytospiza montieri. Ibis. 1994136(3):291-304.

  ---

  Zosterops rotensissystematics
  • Mitochondrial sequence data supports previous suggestions thatZ.rotensis is a species distinct from other Bridled White-eyes in the Marianas.Slikas B, Jones IB, Derrickson SR, Fleischer RC. Phylogenetic relationships of Micronesian White-eyes based on mitochondrial sequence data.2000. Auk117(2):355-365.

  ---

  Poliocephalus rufopectusCitation
  • The authority is listed without parentheses by Peters Checklist1:148.
  • The taxon was originally described by Gray as "Podiceps(Poliocephalus) rufopectus".
  • The ICZN 1999 article 51 c (i) states: "This use of parenthesesapplies only to changes in the name of the genus with which thespecies-group name is combined; it is not affected by the presence ofa subgeneric name ..."
  • Therefore I list the authority in parentheses.
  Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

  ---

  Aegolius ridgwayiSystematics
  • Recognized as a full species by Peters Checklist4:174.
  • Not recognized as a full species by Sibley & Monroe.
  • Recognized as a full species by AOU Checklist 7^th ed.
  • Recognized as a full species by HBW5:229.
  • Considered by all who discuss it topossibly be a conspecificwithA. acadicus. True status and relationships appear somewhatuncertain.

  ---

  Carpococcyx radiceusSpelling
  • As Peters Checklist4:64 notes: "This is the originalspelling; Temminck wrote itradiatus in Tabl. Meth. 1838, p.53,and the latter name is often used."

  ---

  Reinwardtoena reinwardtiiSpelling
  • Originally spelt reinwardtsi. And is so spelt in PetersChecklist3:81, also so spelt in Sibley & Monroe.
  • HBW4:146 spells it reinwartii, with the note thatTemminck "himself" emended the name. I presume that this refers tohis emendation in Pl.Col. livr.101-2 (probably 1839) p.81 (though I ammade somehwhat uneasy by the fact that the authors of the article do notinclude a specific reference to the emandation article). Whether thatemendation satisfies the ICZN requirements is not known to me.
  • With some unease, I follow the spelling favored by the authors of theHBW article.

  ---

  RheinardiaAuthor
  • HBW2:550 lists the author as "Maingonnat" [sic] which is correct.
  • Peters ChecklistII:132 spells the author's name Maingounat, in thisfollowing Delacour's rendering in Ibis 1929:203(note).
  • Many authors follow the spelling as given in Peters Checklist
  .....; 2010.09.06

  ---

  Charadrius rubricollisSystematics
  • Included by some authors inThinornis.
  • Normand David writes:
    Both HANZAB 2 and Christidis & Boles (1994, RAOU Monograph 2) includerubricollis andnovaeseelandiae inThinornis.

  ---

  Streptoprocnerutilis
  • Previously placed inCypseloides but seeMarin AM sndStiles GF. 1992. On the biology of five species of swifts in Costa Rica.Proc. West. Found. Vert. Zool., 4:287-351. andAuk110(3):678

  ---

  Charadrius ruficapillus1821
  • Peters2:250 and HBW3:432 have 1822.
  • Livr. 8 of this work was published in March of 1821.(seeZimmer p.627).

  ---

  Carpodacus rodochroaNomenclature
  • Sibley and Monroe leave the parentheses off, though Vigorsdescribed this inFringilla.
  • Peters Checklist14:275 (Mayr) spells thisC.rhodochrous and lists the original as "Fringillarodochroa [sic]..."
  • Sibley and Monroe have a note indicating it was consistently speltwithout the "h".
  ....;2007.04.07

  ---

  Carpodacus rodopeplaNomenclature
  • Vigors described this inFringilla.
  • Peters Checklist14:278 (Howellet al., 1968) spells thisC.rhodopeplus and lists the original as "Fringillarodopepla [sic]..."
  • The original spelling is clearly "rodopepla".
  ....; 2007.04.07

  ---

  Histurgops ruficaudataspelling
  • Usually speltHisturgops ruifcauda.
  • I initially interpreted ICZN 1999 30.1.4.3 to state that thegenus-group name is masculine. If so, I believed the species-groupname should beruficaudatus.
  • Normand David corrected me in this (2002.05.29); he writes:

    "The original spellingHisturgops ruficauda Reichenow, 1887is used correctly by Peters (XV:6) and S & M 1990. AlthoughHisturgops is masculine, the species-group nameruficaudais an invariable noun phrase (and needs no change)."

  ---

  Rhinoplax1841
  • Peters Checklist5:271 lists 1842.
  • Pages 1-400 of this work were issued in 1841.

  ---

  Ducula rosaceaDate
  • The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 3:48, HBW 4:234, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
  • Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence tothe contrary.
  • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)'Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
  • To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnantla 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" inLeiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that thedates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumablyfrom after April, and thus from December 31.'
  • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis vanZr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colourpl. 1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

  ---

  Passer rutilansDate
  • The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 15:14, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
  • Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
  • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9.The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)'Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
  • To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leidenandthat this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
  • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op NieuwGuinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van dereis van Zr. Ms. KorvetTriton naar de zuid-west kust vanNieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl.1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpretAvis to mean "a sort of preface".

  ---

  RupicolaCitation
  • Usually (e.g. Peters 8:306 (DW Snow)) listed as:
    • RupicolaBrisson 1760Orn. 4 p.437
  • The name is first used in vol.1 where it is available as abinomial.
  • Thanks to Steven Gregory for this understanding.

Comments & Suggestions to Data Steward