Zoological Citation Notes --B

• Spelling of the specific epithet long disputed.
• The convincing (to me) resolution comes from David,N et al. 2020 Bull.Zool.Nomen. 77:70-75.
• The original description can be seen here. Das Ausland 118:470

• Named after Col. Bertram Lutley Sclater.
• Apparently the "bertrandi" comes from "Latinization" of "Bertram" as "Bertrandus"
• Bertram Lutley Sclater was Philip Lutley Sclater's son. He died 25 July 1897 in Zanzibar while working as an engineer on the Uganda Railway.
• See also Ploceus bertrandi.

• Named after Col. Bertram Lutley Sclater.
• Apparently the "bertrandi" comes from "Latinization" of "Bertram" as "Bertrandus"
• Bertram Lutley Sclater was Philip Lutley Sclater's son. He died 25 July 1897 in Zanzibar while working as an engineer on the Uganda Railway.
• See also Ploceus bertrandi.

• Conventionally (e.g. Peters V:186) cited as
  • Pelargopsis capensis burmanica Sharpe 1870 PZS Pt1 p.62,67
• The Richmond Index indicates that the PZS description was published in May, while the portion of the Monogr.Aleced. containing the plates and description was published in April.

• Conventionally cited as
  • Houbaropsis bengalensis bengalensis (Gmelin) 1789 Syst.Nat. 1 pt2 p.724
• Rainer Massmann notes (in litt.) that Statius Muller's 1776 description is based on Edwards' plate (which Gmelin's 1789 description is ultimately also based on), and the description by Statius Muller fits the species very well.
• Massmann also notes that Cassin in 1864 attributed this taxon to Statius Muller.
• I also note that this taxon (as Charadrious bengalensis is attributed by Sherborn to Statius Muller in 1776.
• Statius Muller's use of the name is not mentioned by Sharpe when he erected the genus Houbaropsis and when he designated Otis bengalensis Gmelin as the type.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 7:40 to Lafresnaye alone. Examining the original descriptions shows quoted text attributed to Pucheran and Lafresnaye.

• Previously as
  • Buteo refectus Portenko 1935 Orn.Monatsb. 43 p.152 Concept
  with this comment:
  Buteo refectus Concept
  • Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in Buteo.
  • I interpret their work to recognize B. rectecus as a separate species based on their fig.4 (p.337). Refectus is held by Peters Checklist 1:373 to be a subspecies of B. japonicus. HBW 2:185 holds it to be a subspecies of B. buteo.
  • Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003. "Molecular phylogeny of the genus Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:328-342.
  2003.04.13
• Dickinson & Walters 2006. SNAB 54 "Comments on the names proposed by Hodgson (1845) and their priority" 2006 comment that Buteo plumipes should be used instead of Buteo burmanicus. I wondered why Buteo plumipes Dumont 1817 was not consisdered. Dickinson confirms (in litt 2010.10.03) that it was subsequently determined that Buteo plumipes (Hodgson, 1836) was a junior synonym, and that Buteo burmanicus is currently interpreted to be the correct name here.
• Some questions have been raised regarding the spelling burmanicus versus burmannicus. It is clear from the original description that the "single -n" spelling is correct.
• The original description can be seen here Stray Feathers 3 1875 p.30

• Peters Checklist IX:257 (= Rand 1960) gives the page as "p. 44". This is incorrect, it is on p. 4.
• HBW 10:[811] 2005 perpetuates this error.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• 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 that this was not published until Jan. of 1918, though an exact day is not given.
• Novit.Zool. 1922 p.374
• Note that the date suggested by some for publication (1917.12.29) is a Saturday, which does not rule out the possibility that it was published then. Certainly, even slight delay in publication would delay appearance into 1918, as Hartert explicitly states.

• Peters Checklist XIII:111 (= Paynter 1970) gives the original combination incorrectly as "Acanthidops bairdii", while it actually is "Acanthidops bairdi".
• This incorrect spelling is followed by many authors, despite the correct spelling being present in the Richmond Index as well as in the widely availble Type Specimens of Birds in the United States National Museum. 1961.

• H&M 3^rd:92 includes this in synonomy, stating that the relationship is unresolved.
• Orta (1992) HBW 1:350 treats this as a full species, a treatment not mentioned by H&M 3^rd.
• I understant from Dr David Donsker that the IOC list will recognize the subspecies.

• Peters Checklist I(2):202 (= Payne 1979) treats this as a synonym of Ardea purpurata pupurata and H&M 3^rd:87 follows this.
• Dr David Donsker tells me that Kuslan & Hancock. (2005) "The Herons", Oxford University Press recognize the subspecies, and that some even argue for full species status.

• Peters Checklist XIV:361 (= ? Mayr ? Paynter 1968) gives the author as "Grant", though other taxa by this author from the same page of this work are given as authored by "Ogilvie-Grant" in other parts of the Checklist (see Stachyris whiteheadi PCL X:308).
• This article in the BBOC starts with an introduction from Sharpe, in which he states the

  "The following descriptions of new species of Philippine birds
  	have been sent to me by Mr. Ogilvie Grant..."

  and below:

  	"Mr. Ogilvie Grant describes the following species as new:--"

  .

• Peters Checklist XV:29 (= Greenway 1962) cites this to 1877, which makes no sense whatsoever for volume 55 of this work, which was published in 1887. Presumably this is merely a lapsus on Greenway's part.
• This apparent lapsus is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:719 (through Corrigenda 8).

• Peters Checklist XV:25 (= Moreau 1962) gives the citation as I do here, but also has "pl.13 fig.2". These are not mentioned on the Richmond Index citation card, and I do not find them in a digital copy of this serial, though this is certainly not proof that they do not exist.

• The authority is listed by Peters Checklist 2:148 as "Blyth in Hutton", but is listed as "Blyth" without further comment by HBW 5:226 and H&M 3^rd:232 (through Corrigenda 8).
• The CBBM 2:135, Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.634) and the Richmond Index Richmond Index Card Athene bactrianus all show the author as Hutton.

• Peters Checklist XI:206 (= Traylor 1986) gives the citation as:

  Erythrosterna? brunneicauda  A. Newton 1863 Proc. Zool. Soc. London p. 180

  and indeed I believe the description and the name do occur there.
• However, this is Part II (Part I includes pp.1-96) and Part II was published in October of 1863. The name and the diagnosis were also included in the Ibis that year; they are found in the July issue (no.XIX). The July publication has precedence over the October publication.
• The confusion here is understandable, because in the Ibis article E. Newton refers to the name (attributed to his brother A. Newton) and cites "Proc. Zool. Soc., May 12, 1863*" and in a footnote the Editor "subjoins" A. Newton's the name and description as quoted text.
• It is easy to see how this creates the impression that the PZS material had already been published.
• I think it is clear that the "May 12, 1863" refers to the date of meeting where the material was presented, not when it was published.
• The only other possible explanation is that the July Ibis was delayed, and not published until after Part II of the 1863 PZS had been published (in October). To date there is no evidence of such a delay in the Ibis.
• Special thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

• The Richmond Index indicates that there was a separate issued which has "Vol.IV, no.2", and that Ridgway's copy was rec'd June 20, 1887.
• The imprint date for volume 4 nos. 1 & 2 appears to be June, 1887 (judging from the Richmond Index Card) so the separate does not appear to affect the dating of the taxon.

• Some authors and some data appear to strongly support elevation of this taxon to species level status. No mention of this is made, so far, in H&M 3^rd

• The author here is given by Peters Checklist 9:422 as "Fischer"
• Similarly, H&M 3^rd:639, presumably reflecting the level of understanding in Peters CL, gives the author as "Fischer".
• The author here is J.H.C. Fischer who writes from Copenhagen. Quite clearly, this is not Gustav A. Fischer.

• Peters Checklist 9:410 (= Paynter 1960) gives the volume number as "47" for this year of the Auk.
• The correct volume number is 57.
• Interestingly, Paynter cites the same article twice on the same leaf (p.409) where he gives the correct volume number (57).

• The Richmond Index notes that this is spelled brookii on p.222.

• Peters Checklist 15:159 (= Mayr 1962) spells this with a single -i ending (bruijni), and incorrectly shows this same single -i ending for the original combination.
• The original combination was Grallina bruijnii.
• H&M 3^rd:503 iterates the error from Peters Checklist.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist 11:287 (= Watson 1986) cites this to J.Orn. 72;165, and he is correct that it occurs there. However, the Richmond Index indicates that this was published first in Falco in 1923.
• H&M 3^rd:632 evidently is merely following the Peters citation, as it gives the date as 1924 with no comment or discussion.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Conventionally cited to Gmelin, 1789 (e.g. Peters Checklist 12:333; H&M 3^rd:630). Though these authorities make this citation without discussion or supporting arguments. Their "researches", if any, perhaps extended as far as the citation in the CBBM 9:195 (Gadow) which cites the name to Gmelin 1788 (sic).
• Gmelin's 1789 use of the name is based upon Brisson's Ficedula borbonica (Briss., av. 3 p.510 n.60 t.28 f.3), Buffon's "Petite Simon" (Buff. ois. 5 p.280), and Latham's "Bourbon Warbler" (Lath. syn. II p.475 n.92).
• Material that has already been published (The Richmond Index) makes it clear that in 1781 Forster used the name Motacilla borbonica for this bird based on Brisson's Orn. 3, p.510, pl.28 f.3. It is my interpretation that despite the renderings of the above authorities, the available published material makes it clear that Forster's name has priority.

• Treated as a subspecies of P.leucoptera by H&M 3^rd:75.
• Treated as a full species by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02).

• Garrulax berthemyi is split from Garrulax poecilorhynchus 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).

• The Richmond Index notes that this signature of Bull.Soc.Philom is marked "Extrait de l'Institut, 1876" and was probably first published there.

• Garrulax bicolor is split from Garrulax leucolophus 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).

• Split from Macronous gularis following Collar NJ. 2006. " "A partial revision of the Asian babblers (Timaliidae)". Forktail 22:85-112. (see p.100).
• This work, and this split is not mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
• This split is followed by the IOC World List.

• H&M 3^rd:604 (though 2008 Corrigenda 8) cites this to 1949 with no comment, yet corrects Napothera marmorata grandior from the same source to 1950!
• Kees Roselaar confirms (in litt. 2009.02.10) that the entirety of no.4 of Vol.22 was not published until Feb. 1950.

• H&M 3^rd:603 (though 2008 Corrigenda 8) cites this to 1851 with no comment, apparently following Peters Checklist 10:274.
• Accutate dating of this publication is and has been a problem. H&M 3^rd:509 (though 2008 Corrigenda 8) cites Urocissa to 1850 with no comment, though that name occurs three pages later in the work. It cites Anthoscopus from 5 pages later to 1850, and Leptocoma from 21 pages later to 1850.
• H&M 3^rd and Corrigenda to date can not be used as a reliable or a conistent source for dates from this publication.

• The Usual original spelling is büttikoferi.
• Most authors currently spell this buettikoferi, presumably either simply following what others have done, or in the belief that they are following the Code.
• The relevant text of the Code is:

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

  .
• So the question becomes: Is büttikoferi based on a German word?
• This, of course, is an honorific eponym for Dr Johann Büttikofer. Wikipedia (2009.01.25) tells us this:

  	Dr. Johann Büttikofer (August 9, 1850 - June 24, 1927), was a Swiss zoologist.
  
  	Büttikofer was born in Ranflüh im Emmenthal and studied biology at Berne. 
  	In 1879 he joined the staff of the Royal Zoological Museum in Leiden, becoming 
  	curator between 1884 and 1897. He made two trips to Liberia, the first was from 1879 to 1882, 
  	and the second from 1886 to 1887. In 1893-94 he accompanied the Nieuwenhuis expedition to central Borneo.
  
  	Between 1897 and 1924 he was Director of the Zoological Garden at Rotterdam. After his retirement he settled in Berne.
  

• So the name is a Swiss name, not a German name. The Swiss that I know would not be happy about being considered to be "German".
• Is there evidence that this Swiss name is "based on a German word"? I do not find such evidence. The only German words I find in my Langenscheidt German Dictionary (1973) that start with "Bü..." are Büttel [= bailiff or beadle], and Büttenpapier [= handmade paper]; Büttenrand [= deckle edge]; I don't see those as applying here.
• Büttikofer, being Swiss, is absolutely not itself a "German" name, and I find no support for the idea that it is "based upon a German word".
• By my interpretation of the Code, the specific epithets must be spelled buttikoferi, being based upon a Swiss name.
• If compelling evidence is brought forward that Büttikofer is based on a German word (a definitional problem all of its own), then the "-ue-" spelling will be appropriate.
• If the argument is made that "Swiss and German is the same thing", I think the Swiss will be very unhappy.

• Clements Checklist 6^thed. p.534 spells this "borneensis.
• The Richmond Index, H&M 3^rd:704; Peters CL 12:212 & HBW 13:247 all employ the single "e" spelling, which I believe is correct.
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for picking this up.

• Usually cited as

  Bathmocercus (m.) Reichenow 1895 Novit.Zool. 2 p.159

• However this was published in July of 1895, and the use of Bathmocercus with rufus (which is the type of the genus), actually occured in June in the Orn.Monatsb. III no.6. Therefore, I cite the genus to that use.

• This name was published simultaneously by McGregor and Mearns in the Oct. 1907 issue of the Phillipine Journal of Science.
• Mearns' type is now in the U.S.Natl.Mus.; Deignan ("Type specimens of birds in the United States National Museum". 1961 p.366) indicates that McGregor's use of the name was based on 18 specimens in the collection of the Philippine Bureau of Science.
• Dickinson et al.. 2002. Zool.Verh. Leiden 340:115-160 discuss these two names and dismiss the McGregor name stating he "gave no description of his own, merely citing a character given by Mearns and declaring that he could not see this." They go on to indicate that they feel that "Art. 1.3.1 of the Code would seem to apply (ICZN, 1999)."
• Article 1.3.1 of the Code Excludes names proposed "for hypothetical concepts" and an hypothetical concept is defined in the Glossary as

  	"A taxonomic concept that when published contained no animal 
  	then known to exist in nature, past or present, but only in the 
  	mind of the author whether a prediction or not."

  which I think clearly does not apply here.
• Additionally it must be noted that the representation by Dickinson et al. clearly does not represent the situation. McGregor did not "merely cit[e] a character given by Mearns and declar[e] that he could not see this." He cited a character misdescribed by Mearns, and thus was correct in "not see[ing] it.", but agreed that one of the characters proposed by Mearns was present and was, he believed sufficient to serve as a basis for distinguishing the taxon.
• The Richmond Index indicates that McGregor's work has "Little descr. here." though how much, and whose this is, is not clear.
• Not currently having seen the original descriptions, it appears likely to me that Mearns should stand as the author based on article 50.1.1 which states:

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

• It is further interesting that Deignan (1961 p.366) goes on to correct Mearns' description of the bird!!

• This genus group name is brought into use by Cibois A, Slikas B, Schulenberg TS & Pasquet E. "An endemic radiation of Malagasy songbirds is revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequence data." 2000. Evolution 55(6): 1198-1206. (see p.1205). The basis for citing Bonaparte 1854 as the authority for the name is not given.
• Sharpe CBBM 7:529 lists Bernaria, and cites C.R, xxxviii p.11, giving Muscicapa madagascariensis Gm. as the type.
• The Bonaparte citation, as given by Sharpe (and presumably followed by Cibois et al.) is a nomen nudum. So the proposal by Cibois et al. certainly can not stand "as is".
• My colleague Michael Rieser worked out the details on this case noting that "Richmond in Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus., 1917, 53:569 corrects Waterhouse's citation of "Bonaparte, 1854."
• The correct citation is Bernieria J. Pucheran Arch. Mus. Paris v.7 fasc.3 p.369 1854-55 [1855] Av. Passeres.
• H&M 3^rd:588 also incorrectly cites the genus as due to Bonaparte 1854.
• Pucheran 1855 apparently gives Ramphocaenus viridis Lesson as the type for his genus Bernieria, and this bird is listed by CBBM 7:529 as a synonym of Muscicapa madagascariensis Gmelin.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 has this corrected to Bernieria Pucheran 1855.

• Peters Checklist 5:195 gives the page number as "p. 652" while the name actually is found on p.654.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Originally spelled -ila as Alauda brachydactila.
• Sharpe in CBBM 13:580 (1890) misspells the original combination as Alauda brachydactyla.

• Cited by most authorities (Neave, Sherborn, Peters, CBBM, HBW 6:528) as:

  Brachypteracias (m.) Lafresnaye 1834 Mag.Zool. 4 cl.2 textpl.31,32

  this is incorrect.
• The Richmond Index notes that the Echo du Monde publication (dated Sept.5 1834) antedates that of Mag.Zool. (dated "Sept. 1834). This is also reflected in Schinze et al..
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for pointing this out.

• This race was proposed to be named Xiphorhynchus ocellatus weddellii Des Murs 1856 but as Penhallurick and Aleixo point out (Penhallurick J, Aleixo A. 2008 "The correct name of the population of Xiphorhynchus ocellatus (von Spix, 1824) recently named weddellii (Des Murs, 1855)". BBOC 128(2):133-136.) is inappropriate due to problems with the location of the type locality for that taxon. They propose beauperthuysii

• Peters Checklist 11:563 (= Mayr 1986) dates this without comment to 1838, showing an imprint date of 1837. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:521.
• The work in question is cited as published in 1837 by Peters Checklist 1(1):90; 1(2):174 (= Dorst & Mougin 1979) (Carbo Bougainvillii), and 3:172 (Callocephalon).
• The Richmond Index dates Muscicapa boodang to 1837. This is followed here, in the absence of sufficient evidence showing that publication was delayed.

• Originally described as Drymoedus beccarii, according to Peters Check-list 10:29 (= Ripley 1964) and also the Richmond Index.
• The taxon is placed in Drymodes by Ripley, who does not include parentheses around the Salvadori's name in the check-list proper. H&M 3^rd:522, however, place the author's name in parentheses.
• Drymoedus Sundevall, 1872 (original seen) is clearly an unjustified emendation of Drymodes Gould, 1841. Hence the inclusion of parentheses is unwarranted.

• Originally described as Drymaoedus brevirostris (original seen).
• The taxon is placed in combination with Drymodes in the check-list proper by Ripley, who includes parentheses around De Vis's name. H&M 3^rd:522 follow Ripley in this regard.
• Both Neave and Schulze et al. list Drymaoedus Salvadori, 1878, as merely an emendation of Drymodes Gould, 1841. This is followed here pending further investigation; hence parentheses are not included.

• Peters Checklist 11:509 (= Mayr 1986) spells this bernsteini.
• The Richmond Index shows this to be spelled bernsteinii, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 11:507 (= Mayr 1986) has 1885
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1884 and a note "July or later".
• Peters Checklist 3:234 cites Geoffroyus geoffroyi timarlaoensis from p.15 of this work to 1884, but Peters Checklist 12:406 cites Philemon citreogularis kisserensis from p.41 of the work to 1885. However, all these names are in Heft 1 of the Sitzungberichte.
• Presumably 1884 is the date specified (imprint date) on Heft 1 of the work. Thus it appears to me that in abscence of proof of delay, 1884 is to be followed.
• H&M 3^rd initially followed Peters Checklist and its inconsistencies in this matter without comment. However starting with Corrigenda 6, the date was corrected to 1884, citing Quaisser & Eck 2006 who apparently confirmed what Richmond found out over 100 years before and which has been published since 1992.

• A small question arises regarding this taxon. Sharpe's description in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 4:311 raises some questions for me:
  1. He has a short phrase:

     "iris black" (Brenchley)

     which raises the slight possibility that the authority might possibly be Sharpe & Brenchley.
  2. Sharpe cites Gray Cat.BirdsTrop.Isl.Pac. p.17, where Gray in turn cites: Muscicapa ventilabrum Forst. Desce &c pp.87 &256.
  3. Gray's citation is no doubt to Forster, JR Descr.Anim.itin.MarisAust.Terr.ed.Licht., though the correct page there appears to be 86 and not 87.
  Why this name does not have priority and standing is not clear to me, but probably was worked out by Schodde and Mason (1999).

• Often listed as
  • Pachycephala simplex dubia Ramsay,EP 1879 Proc.Linn.Soc.NewS.Wales 4 p.71
  However as Norbert Bahr points out, Wolters noticed that this name was preoccupied by Motacilla dubius Shaw, 1811, and the Ramsay's earlier name Eopsaltria [?] brunnea Ramsay, 1877, was preoccupied by Pachycephala brunnea Wallace 1865.

• Peters Checklist 15:130 (= Greenway 1962) gives the name as broderipii and the date as 1852, citing the PZS.
• In fact the name was used there with that spelling, but had been published 2 years earlier with the spelling broderipi (single -i ending).
• This point is recognized and outlined in Dickinson et al. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 43. "Types of the Oriolidae" p.70 fn.#20.
• In H&M 3 ^rd Corrigenda 3, the spelling is corrected, but apparently due to oversight, the date is left as 1872!!
• The correct spelling is broderipi but the correct date for that name is 1850.

• Bonaparte Consp.Gen.Av. 1:390 (1850) spells this bouruensis while the original orthography is bouroensis (--uru-- vs --uro--).
• CBBM 3:211 (Sharpe, 1877) and Schlegel in Mus.Hist.Pays-BasRev.Meth.Crit.Coll. 4 Coraces p.113 (1865) also employ the altered bouruensis spelling.

Peters Checklist 13:206 (=Paynter, 1970) spells the specific epithet "borelli" (with a single -i ending).
• The Richmond Index shows the specific epithet as spelled borellii as does Sharpe's Hand-List 5:337.
• The original orthography is borellii, the original description reproduced here:

  

• Thanks to Edward Dickinson for providing a scan of the original description (in litt. 2007.04.19).

• Peters Checklist 14:291 (=Howell, et al., 1968) cites this to 1884 but on the preceeding page (p.290) cites L.c.japonica (from the same article) to 1885!!.
• The Richmond Index shows that both were published April 28, 1884.

• This taxon is often attributed to Moore, 1856. Dickinson 2004 points out that the Bonaparte Compte Rendu 41 1855 publication has priority.
• The description there is as follows:

  

• Peters Checklist 14:204 (Mayr, 1968) cites this to volume 9 Sonderheft which makes no sense for 1923.
• The Richmond Index shows that it is volume XIX Sonderheft.

• Peters Checklist 14:102 (Greenway, 1968) lists the original combination as:

  Psittirostra bailleui

  .
• The original combination was Loxiodes Bailleui as shown by the Richmond Index, and Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:49.
• Greenway's error of placing the authority for Loxiodes bailleui in parentheses is repeated by H&M 3 ^rd:758 (through Corrigenda 6 2006.12.13). The error is also repeated by the AOU CL 6^th:757, but is corrected by the 7^th:672.

• Dickinson indicates (H&M 3 ^rd Corrigenda 6; 2006.12), that the wrapper for this no. bears the string "2/35" and dates this to 1935 on that basis.
• Dickinson does not indicate other details of this matter, however, "no.9" is shown by the Richmond Index to the be December issue, so it is certainly believable that its publication may have been delayed into the next year.

• Originally as Muscicapa brasierii.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was named for Mr. Phillip Brasher of Brooklyn, hence, as I understand it, the correction is required.
• There appear to have been a number of Phillip Brasher's in New York, and a town in upstate was named for one. A Phillip Brasher of Brooklyn is mentioned several times in association with birds collected on Long Island in the first half of the 19^th Cent. This, undoubtedly was the acquaintance that Giraud Jr was honoring.
• [2010.12.02]I understand that Brasher's name was misspelled in the article itself, so the original spelling must stand.

• Peters Checklist 14:60 lists the authority in the order Lafresnaye and d'Orbigny.
• I follow the Richmond Index, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:391, and H&M 3 ^rd:766 in employing this order.
• Sharpe's Hand-list 5:124 lists only d'Orbigny
• On a side note, Sharpe in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:391 in the synonomy of Muscicapa bivittata misses the use of Trichas bivittatus in Rev.Zool. 1840 p.231. Though he does recognize Gray's subsequent use as Trichas bivittatus in 1846 Gen.Birds 1:197. (Of course, the Richmond Index provides this more complete information).

• Previously the taxon
  • Nothoprocta kalinowskii Berlepsch & Stolzmann 1901 Ornis 11 p.192
  was held at species level.
• See Krabbe & Schulenberg "A Mystery Solved: the identity and distribution of Kalinowski's Tinamou Nothoprocta kalinowskii BBOC 125(4):253-260, 2005. They show the taxon to be synonomous with Nothoprocta ornata branickii.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Sundevall's name originally appears as barthelemica not bartholemica as it now appears to be universally spelled.
• The title of the article in question is:

  Foglarne på ön S:t Barthelemy, efter de af Dr A. von Goës hemsända samlingarna bestämde.

  The name appears first on p.582 where it is spelled

  Dendroeca petechia, stirps barthelemcia

  (not bartholemica). The name is there followed by a detailed paragraph in Swedish which appear to be at least in part a description. In addition, Sundevall uniformly spells the name of the island "S:t Barthelemy" thoughout his paper.
• In a subsequent paper in the same number (no.6) of the same Journal, Sundevall discusses members of the genus DENDROECA and there on p.607 he has:

  [Dendroeca petechia] a) bartholemica (ex insula S:t Barthelemy).

  with a diagnosis (in Latin).
• Ridgway in 1902 the Birds of Middle and North America (p.520) holds barthelemy from p.582 to be a nomen nudum It appears from Ridgway's remark that the description there is only a description of the eggs.

• Peters Checklist 14:193 [Blake 1968] cites this name to 1866, and this is followed without comment by H&M 3 ^rd:775.
• Both Peters Checklist, and H&M 3^rd cite other taxa from the latter portions of this work to 1867, however.
• The Richmond Index has a note on the card for this name "published 1867".
• Additionally, the draft of the Type list of birds in the ANSP (p.349 of 2006.09.01 draft) lists this as

  Quiscalus brachypterus Cassin, 1867, Proc. ANSP (1866), 18, p. 406

• On the basis of the best information available and on the basis of consistency, I date this to 1867.

• Peters Checklist 14:185 shows the publication date as 1942 without comment or discussion, and this appears to be followed by H&M 3 ^rd:772.
• The assertion that this taxon was published in 1942 rather than 1941 would appear to call for some support. In Peters Checklist, all other taxa I know of from this publication are dated to 1941. My working notes to date show:

  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.13 p.005 Cnemotriccus fuscatus beniensis Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.366	1941
  	Peters 8:147	1941
  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.13 p.006 Cymbilaimus sanctaemariae Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.379	1941
  	Peters 7:154	1941
  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.013 p.007 Hylopezus auricularis Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.400	1941
  	Peters 7:271	1941
  	

• The Richmond Index shows this to be in the June 26, 1941 number (33B no.13).
• The Corrigenda #6 (Dec. 2006) of H&M 3 ^rd has these features:
  1. It corrects the date appropriately to 1941 with a note that the original description was checked where the text "Trykt den 26 juni 1941" is found.
  2. It includes a comment which appears to be an error. The comment following the notation to change the date from 1942 reads:

     		['Peters' was right. OD checked]

     This does not seem to make sense. Peters 14:185, as I indicated, shows the date as 1942 (sic). So the note should read: "['Peters' (=Blake) was wrong].

• H&M 3 ^rd:380 lists the date as 1869.
• Peters Checklist 7:206 shows the publication date as 1868 (though in a manner that confuses many workers). Dickinson in Corrigenda 3 recognized this type of error for the citation for Frederickena unduligera Pelzeln, but seems to have missed it here
• In support of 1868 we also find: The Richmond Index (which notes it was published in late Sept. 1868), and HBW 8:609.

• Follows (at least in part) Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK, Kiure J. 2006. "The forest batis Batis mixta, is two species: description of a new, narrowly distributed Batis species in the Eastern Arc biodiversity hotspot." J.Orn. 147:578-590.

• Some controversy exists as there is no "type specimen" for this taxon. Type material, consisting of a few feathers that had worked loose from the captured (and extensively photographed and documented) specimen.

• The relationship between Basilinna and Hylocharis is of interest. As partial history is as follows. Previously
  1. Basilinna was employed for leucotis and xantusi in the 2^nd AOU CL (1895).
  2. Basilinna was used as a subgenus of Hylocharis in the 4^th AOU CL (1931).
  3. this continued in the 5^th AOU CL (1957).
  4. In the 6^th AOU CL (1983), Basilinna was listed as a synonym of Hylocharis (subgenera not being used).
  5. In 1995 Howell & Webb "A guide to the birds of Mexico and N. Central America" Oxford Press (not seen) Evidently put leucotis and xantusi back in Basillina at genus level.
  6. HBW 5 appears to follow Howell & Webb's treatment.
• Thus, there does not appear to be a good published basis for this treatment. However, unpublished molecular work, as well as studies of the birds themselves are said to support holding Basillina as distinct from Hylocharis (and evidently not even it's sister taxon, despite it's previously being held to be a subgenus of it).
• The use of this genus thus is labelled "tentative" by H&M 3^rd:268.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):260 (Steinbacher), HBW 1:496, and H&M 3^rd:82 to Reichenbach, 1853.
• In this it appears that Steinbacher is following Sharpe, Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 26:18 where Sharpe gives this citation. HBW, and H&M 3^rd in turn may well be following Peters.
• Sharpe appears to have ignored G.R. Gray's 1847 use of the Reichenbach MS name in his Genera of Birds 3:565,566.
• Steinbacher, HBW, and H&M 3^rd in turn, have ingored Sherborn's Index Animalium p.893, and Neave 1:455 which list only Gray's 1847 publication of this name.
• Also one must note that H&M 3^rd on the same page (p.82) cites another name (Nipponia) from the same page of Reichenbach's work but dates Nipponia 1850, and Bostrychia 1853.

• The form bogotensis usually listed as a subspecies of Patagioenas subvinaceous (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:72; HBW 4:128; H&M 3^rd:160).
• Evidently, Hellmayr 1942 in "Catalogue of Birds of the Americas" 1(1):472 indicates that he examined the type of bogotensis and determined it to belong to the plumbea group. (not seen).
• Thus the name Columba ogliviegranti becomes available for the form to which the name bogotensis has been applied.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):329 dates this to 1866, and this is followed without comment by HBW 2:149.
• Florence Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek has confirmed the dates for the various parts of this work. Her compilation shows this to have been published in 1865.

• Often spelt O. brunneicapillum. (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:13 (Traylor)).
• Originally described as Tyrranulus brunneicapillus Lawrence, 1862.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin noun capillus are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition..."
• They indicate (#144)

  Tyrannulus brunneicapillus Lawrence, 1862, must be spelt Ornithion
  	brunneicapillus, and should not be changed to O. brunneicapillum.

• Originally spelled Anabates boissonneautii (note the "t").
• Normand David has examined the original description and writes:

  
  The original is indeed boissonneautii, but the authors write:  "nous la dédions à M.
  Boissonneau." (we dedicate the name to Mr. Boissonneau).

• The Code (1999) indicates (Article 32.5)

  32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).
  
  	32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any 
  	external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a 
  	lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. 
  	Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, 
  	are not to be considered inadvertent errors.

  My initial interpretation was that under the current Code the species group name must be corrected to boissonneauii; arguing that boissonneautii is an "incorrect latinization", and thus requiring it remain the same, seemed unsupportable.
• However, Normand David reflects further on this problem, and writes (2006.02.09):

  Note that art. 31.1.1 gives much latitude to authors. For  example, the name Margaret can be latinized to
  Margarita or Magaretha,  yielding the genitives margaritae or margarethae. Now, can we have
  Boissonneau = boissonneautius = boissonneautii ?  The more I think  about it, the more I am
  inclined to say that "boissonneautii" may not  be correctible.

• The Code, in my interpretation, requires that the decision turns on distinguishing between two kinds of error: an "error of latinisation" versus a typographic error or lapsus calami. It must be noted that the Code provides no guidlines, directions, or instructions on how these two types of errors are to be distinguished. I am amused to speculate as to why no guidelines or further instructions are offered for making this determination. However, as no charitable explanations come to mind I will refrain from including the possibilities that occur to me.
• Peters Checklist 7:63 spells the name employing the "t".
• HBW 8:327 (van Remsen, 2003) employs the "t", as does H&M 3^rd:414 (up at least to Corrigenda 5).

• Listed by Peters Checklist to Mearns, Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash., 19, 1916...
• Volume 19 makes no sense for 1916, and the Richmond index lists this to volume 29, which does make sense.
• Similarly HBW 3:726 also lists this to volume 19 (sic), suggesting that at least in this instance the HBW workers simply copied the citation from the Peters Checklist, which of course is what most of us do. It does seem to suggest that it is unlikely that the original description was actually examined in this instance.

• The Richmond Index (while not having a citational card for this name) has a card that says

  Probably named for Ferdinand Bauer who collected (plants only?) in Australia circa 1805.

• This would be Ferdinand Lucas Bauer (1760 - 1826) a Viennese artist who was a member of the 1801-1803 journey of the HMS Investigator, under the command of Cpt. Matthew Flinders.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):340 (Amadon) lists the date here as 1879.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in May of 1880, a fact supported by the 1929 Index listing dates of publication by the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.Wales.
• H&M 3^rd:107 has the date as 1889, but this is corrected in Corrigenda 2.1

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:37 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177, and by HBW 4:222.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• I feel there is much uncertainty and confusion regarding the citation for this name.
• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):433 to
  • Cygnus Bewickii Yarrell 1830 Trans.Linn.Soc.London(1) 16 p.453 pl.24
  This should have a publication date of May 27, 1830 (ref. Raphael S. 1970. Biol.J.Linn.Soc. 2:61-76).
• Given a publication date of May 27, 1830, the March publication by Yarrell would certainly have priority, and for the moment that is the citation I give.
• Other interesting and confusing considerations here include the following.
• Coues' Orn. Bibliography (Anatidae) p.937 lists
  1. Blackwall, J. "Observations on a newly-described Species of Swan [Cygnus bewickii].
     Zool.Journ., v, 1830, pp.128-130.
  2. "Correspondent" [T.C. Hensham?] Statement regarding the Discovery of the new species of Swan, named Cygnus Bewickii by Mr. Yarrell.
     Philos. mag. viii, Aug., 1830, pp.128-130.
     Original specimen shot by R.R. Wingate, Feb., 1829, neary Haydon Bridge in Northumberland. Mr. Wingate's notice read to the Nat. Hist. Soc. of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oct. 20, 1829; P.J. Selby's description on 16 Feb., 1830; but neither of these papers was published till after June, 1830.
  3. Wingate, R.R. Notice of a [lately] new species of Swan [Cygnus bewickii].
     Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Northumb. and Durh., i, 1830 pp.1,2. Observations by P.J. Selby, pp.17-25.
     [APP: This must be the material published "after June, 1830" (v.s.).
  4. Yarrell, W. On a new Species of Wild Swan [Cygnus bewickii], taken in England and hitherto confounded with the Hooper. Trans.Linn.Soc., xvi pt. ii, 1830, pp.445-454, pll.xxiv,xxv. (Read Jan. 19, 1830; whole vol. dated 1833) This paper like others in the same vol. of the Trans., is often cited as of 1833, date of the completed Vol. XVI; but it was read and in full discussion and reprint in 1830.
  5. [Yarrell, W.] [Notice of his paper on a new species of Wild Swan (Cygnus bewickii).]
     Philos. Mag., vii, Feb., 1830, p.146. Read before Linn Soc., Jan. 19, 1830
  6. Yarrell, W. Specific Characters of Cygnus Bewickii and C. Ferus.
     Philos. Mag. vii, Mar., 1830, p.194
  7. Yarrell, W. Reply to the Statement respecting the Discovery of Cygnus Bewickii, published in the Phil. Mag. and Annals for August.
     Philos. Mag., viii, Sept., 1830, pp.167-169. Personal and controversial, in self-defense against tom cit., pp.128-130.
  8. [Yarrell, W.] Sur une nouvelle espèce de Cygne [bewickii] prise en Angleterre et confundue jusqu'a présent avec le cygne sauvage (Anas cygnus, Gm.); par W. Yarre[l]. … Féruss. Bull. 2^e sect., xxii, 1839, pp.127,128.
     From Linn. Trans., xvi, pt. ii, p.445, pl.
• In addition to the questions and possibilities raised by Coues (and apparently ignored by all subsequent workers) there is an additional set of problems raised by material included in the Richmond Index.

  The timeline suggested by Richmond's cards is as follows:

  1. 1830.01.19 -- paper read at Linn.Soc.
  2. 1830. 03. ?? [ = 1830.03.31] A short abstract, including a description and the name is published in the Edinburgh Journal. no.6 (March).
  3. 1830.05.27 Trans.Linn.Soc. published
• However in the Feb. number (no.5) of the Edinburgh Journ. Nat. & Geogr. Sci. Richmond indicates that the name Anas Cygneus Bewickii is attributable to "Capt. Thos. Brown? or John & Albany Hancock" This note indicates

  "This name and a slight diagn. is quoted in a letter to Capt. Thos. Brown by Messrs. John + Albany Hancock (or one
  of them) an extract from which is given as above".
  

  The Richmond Index card for Anas Cygneus Bewickii
• Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing my attention back to this interesting problem.
• At this point I have more questions than answers, but at least I am aware of the questions.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1979 1(2):432-433 to
  • Cygnus buccinator Richardson 1832 FaunaBor.-Am.[Swainson&Richardson] 2(1831) p.464
• The AOU CL 37^th Supplement 1989 p.533 changes the citation to Richardson in Wilson and Bonaparte, as I have it here. The data in support of this change are not given, however it is a reversion to the citation as given in the 1957 AOU Cl 5^thEd. p.49.
• HBW 1992 1:633 (Carboneras) cites the 1832 Fauna Borealis-Americana source; no mention of the change by the AOU is made.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:175 and HBW 4:207 place the authority in parentheses.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
• Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the Richmond Index indicates that the plate for this bird was published in Afd. 1 (the text is in Afd. 2). This is of some potential import, as there is controversy over the date of publication of the initial portion of this serial, with some suggestion that early parts were available in 1862. Thus, 1862 can not be considered as disproved in this instance, but it appears very unlikely to me. I expect the imprint date for the work is 1863, but have never seen the material myself (2005.04.29).

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:35 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176, but not by HBW 4:217.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Cited by HBW 4:179,615 to 1863 (and with no reference to the plate).
• This portion of the PZS was published in 1864 (April according to Duncan, and Feb. according to the Richmond Index).
• H&M 3^rd:170 cites this to 1863, but corrects this to 1864 in the Corrigenda 2.1 -- though no reference is made to the plate.

• Conventionally dated as 1840, as I do here.
• Dated by the Richmond Index to 1841, with a note that the "Oct." number in which this is described contains Meteorological data from 22 Dec. 1840.
• Clearly, the ostensible imprint date of October, 1840 is wrong, and the earliest possible date of publication is 22 Dec., 1840.
• Richmond's date of 1841 appears the most probable, but without specific information demonstrating the delay of publication was beyond December (as likely as that is) I interpret the "nomenclatural" date to be Dec. 31, 1840.

• Peters Checklist 8:45 gives 1935, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:353
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• The citation is usually (e.g. 2:46; HBW 2:574) given as:
  • Callipepla douglasii bensoni Ridgway 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.148
• Michael Rieser notes correctly, however, that the description in Forest and Stream (March 3, 1887) preceeded that in the Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. (July 2, 1887).

• Peters Checklist 8:241 gives 1837.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The original description reads:

  	18. PSARIS Brasziliensis.
    Cinereous white: head, ears, chin spot, wings and 
  tail black: orbits, naked,: bill black, the marginal
  base red.  Female with the head, ears, and back, dark
  cinereous, striped with blackish: lenght of the wing,
  about five inches.
    Inhabits Northern Brazil.
    Differs from Cayanensis in having the orbits red and naked;
  and from Guinensis in being larger, in the bill being entirely
  black beyond the nostrils, and in the female being without a
  black hood on the head and ears, as in that species.  It is the 
  largest and commonest of Brazil.

• The date for this taxon is variably represented as 1848 and 1849. Peters Checklist 14:59 uses 1849, though the Checklist cites other taxa from later in the same volume as 1848. Neave cites this name to 1849; the Richmond Index lists 1848, but Richmond's unpublished notes present data that may favor, but does not prove 1849.
• The imprint date for the volume in question apparently is 1848, and I am not aware of any of the authors who use 1849 as citing any published support for 1849 (though this date is followed by many).
• I used 1849, primarily based upon CWR's unpublished notes arguing in favor of that date.
• On further reflection, I felt that the case for 1849 is not really "made" and that it remains to be shown that the imprint date "1848" is wrong.

• A complicated and unresolved situation here.
• Psittacus borneus (=Eos bornea) Linnaeus is based on a plate by Edwards, but does not appear to be currently identifiable.
• Michael Walters (to whom I am indebted for all my understanding here) proposed (Forktail. 1998 13:124) that due to Psittacus borneus Linnaeus being unidentifiable, that Psittacus rubra Gmelin 1788 is the appropriate name for this taxon.
• This proposal, however, is complicated by the presence of the name Psittacus ruber Scopoli 1769, which Michael informs me is a synonym for Psittacus erithacus Linnaeus, 1758, and thus not available.
• The manner in which this will be resolved is not currently evident.
• Theo de Kok points out (in litt. 2008.03.22) that the situation is further complicated by the HBW 5:342,615, where a subspecies of Eos bornea is listed (p.342) as

  E. b. cyanothorus (Vieillot, 1818).

  The closest name I find to this is Psittacus cyanonothus Vieillot Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. XXV p.334. The citational orthography of this volume of the HBW makes it impossible to determine which page number they associate with which name, but for the Vieillot names from 1818 (HBW 5:615) they list pp. 346,358,366.
• I list here the taxa I show from Vieillot, 1818 and these page numbers:
  1. Patagioenas cayennensis sylvestris (Vieillot) 1818 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 26 p.366
  2. Patagioenas plumbea (Vieillot) 1818 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 26 p.358
  3. Gallicolumba rubescens (Vieillot) 1818 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 26 p.346
  So the name employed by HBW (and not found in the Richmond Index is mysterious) and I interpret it to be an error for cyanonothus.

• Peters Checklist 4:228 lists the year as 1922, which makes no sense for vol. 38 of the Novit.Zool.
• This was published in that volume in 1932.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 7:12 as published in 1905 and most library listings for this work show it starting publishing in 1905.
• The Richmond Index shows the date for this as 1904, which I follow here. Additionally 1904 is cited and referenced in the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda #2.

• HBW 7:517 (Short) names this bird:

  Celeus brachyurus squamigularis (Sundevall) 1866 Consp.Av.Picinarum p.89

• Edward Dickinson points out in the Corrigenda #2 to H&M 3^rd that Short mistakenly sunk the Raffles name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:231 as published in 1863, and this is followed by HBW 7:534 and H&M 3^rd:327
• The Richmond Index indicates that this material was presented at the meeting for Nov. 24 1863, and shows this as rec'd by the Smithsonian Institution on Feb. 12, 1864.
• The 1913 compilation by the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila indicates that this material was acknowledged in receipt by the Smithsonian Institution Jan. 27, 1864.
• While these two representations differ by about 3 weeks, it seems very unlikely that the material was available almost a month prior to the first acknowledged date of receipt.

• Peters Checklist 5:10 gives p.22 in the citation for Phaëthornis Boliviana.
• The name actually appears on p.42 (original seen).

• This citation comes from Peters Checklist 5:270.
• The Richmond Index seems to indicate this comes from Abth.2. and possibly 1845
• Looking at this work in BHL makes it look like vol.3 abth.3 and probably NOT 1840.

• Peters Checklist 6:23 gives 1935, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:217; (HBW 7:137 does not recognize as distinct).
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• The citation given by Peters Checklist 1(2):436 (Johnsgaard) is
  • Anser brachyrhynchus Baillon 1834 Mem.Soc.R.Emulat.Abbevil.(2) (1833) p.74
  and this is not discussed, footnoted, or commented on.
• This citation is followed by HBW 1:581,[631], and H&M 3^rd:62.
• The Richmond Index gives the year as 1833, as do the unpublished notes by Richmond regarding dates of publication. Similarly, the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 27:103 gives 1833.
• None of the sources giving "1833" make any mention of a second series for this work, and it seems quite early for such a serial to have a second series. Nevertheless, it is possible.
• Sherborn lists this taxon as described 1834 (1833) and thus it would appear he had some indication that the publication date was delayed compared to the imprint date. He gives no indication of a "second series".

2014.
• The basis for dating this to 1834 appears to be as follows:
  • On p.592 the date at the foot of the page is 31 décembre 1833.
  • On p.608 there is a line: "Composition du bureau de 1829 à 1834"
• This appears to be very strong evidence for publication in 1834, but not absolute "proof", as the listing of members in 1834 may possibly have been projected on 31 December 1833 (a Tuesday).
• I believe the evidence is strong enough in this case to regard the date of publication as 1834.

• Peters Checklist 4:160 lists the original combination as Strix biddulphi.
• The Richmond index shows the original combination as Syrnium biddulphi which requires the authority to be in parentheses.
• HBW 5:198, and H & M 3^rd:228 list Scully's name without parentheses, thereby following the Peters citation. I expect the Richmond Cardex is correct and follow that here.
[2015.01.11]
• H & M 4^th:273 includes the authority in parentheses, without comment.

• Spelled Bubo bubo borrissowi in H & M 3^rd:227
• The Richmond Index, and Peters Checklist 4:115 spell this with one "r". In addition the Richmond Index indicates that the taxon is "named for Borisow", so it appears that the correct spelling has only one "r".

• Peters Checklist 11:304 (Traylor) gives the citation as:

  	Dioptrornis brunnea Cabanis, 1886, Journ. Ornith., 34, pl.
  	1, fig. 1, and Bradyornis (Dioptrornis) brunnea Cabanis,
  	1887, Journ. Ornith., 35, p.92

• The Richmond Index gives the J.Orn 35 citation, and has a comment. "Pl.1 fig. 1 [No plate!!]"
• [2009.08.29] Examination of my copy of volume 35 shows the name appearing on the bottom of p.92 as "Bradyornis (Dioptornis) brunnea" and confirms Richmond's comment about the lack of a corresponding plate, but only in this volume. Traylor is correct that the name appears as "Dioptornis brunnea Cab. on plate 1 of the preceeding volume. The dates (and indeed the sequence of publication of the volumes of this serial are a deep and confused mystery, but we must speculate that the January issue of the 1886 volume had a reasonably good chance of occuring in 1886.

• Peters Checklist 9:329 (Mayr & Greenway_have Verreaux as the author here.
• Thanks to Murray Bruce for pointing out (in litt. 2006.12.14) that this was simply a manuscript name employed by Hartlaub, to whom the authority in fact belongs.
• H&M 3^rd:460 correctly attributes the name to Hartlaub.

• The form:
  • Campethera scriptoricauda (Reichenow) 1896 Orn.Monatsb. 4 p.131
  is often treated as a separate species. (e.g. HBW 7:458).
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.02.08): "Short L.L. 1973. 'Remarks on the status of Campethera "scriptoricauda", and related species.' Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club 93:72-74" gave convincing reasons for this being merely a race of C. bennettii, and our own extensive field experience confirms this.

• In his recent revision of the Sunbirds, Irwin. 1999 "The genus Nectarinia and the evolution and diversification of sunbirds: an Afrotropical perspective." Honeyguide 45: 49. spells this "bocagei".
• Shelley spelled this "bocagii".

• Often spelled H. bilopha or H. bilophum (e.g. HBW, Sibley & Monroe ).
• Originally Trochilus bilophus Temminck 1820.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):40
• "Some names (such as purpuroptera, nigricephala, etc.) may look like latinized Greek adjectives at first glance, but their Latin initial components cannot be part of Greek adjectives. Since they end in a latinized Greek noun, such names are noun phrases, and the origianl spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged. (ICZN 1999, 31.2.1,32.3,34.2.1). ... Since the adverbial stem bi- is Latin, it cannot be part of a Greek adjective. The final component lophus is here the latinized Greek noun λοφος [lophos: crest]. The adjectival form would have been bicristatus (Latin), or dilophus (latinized from Greek)."
• They indicate the spelling should be Heliactin bilophus .
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination does not occur in the Zoo. Rec.

• Usually (and understandably) treated as feminine gender (e.g. Peters and Sibley & Monroe).
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names. "BBOC 2002. 122(1):35 indicate " ... that Bleda is the name of Attila's brother and thus Bleda Bonaparte, 1857, must be treated as masculine, as is Atilla Lesson, 1830."
• Bleda and Attila became co-leaders of the Huns in 434 A.D. Bleda was murdered by his brother Attila in 445 A.D., with Attila thereby becoming the absolute ruler of the Huns; he conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, and his repeated attacks fatally weakened the Western Roman Empire.
• Therefore, B. syndactyla (Swainson) 1837, B. eximia (Hartlaub) 1855, B. canicapilla (Hartlaub) 1854, B. notata (Cassin) 1857 become B. syndactylus (Swainson) 1837, B. eximius (Hartlaub) 1855, B. canicapi:w llus (Hartlaub) 1854, B. notatus (Cassin) 1857.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinations Bleda syndactyla, Bleda eximia, and Bleda canicapilla, but not Bleda notata occur in the Zoo. Rec.. If the Zoo. Rec. data were used as the index of "prevailing usage" and ICZN 1999 Art. 33.3.1 is proposed for maintaining the spellings in the literature which incorrectly employ a feminine ending, the rule might conceivably apply to the above 3 examples, but not to Bleda notata. A confused and unpleasant jumble of gender endings within one genus might result.

• Often spelt A. brunneicapilla. Originally described as Rhinopsar brunneicapillus Danis, 1938.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin noun capillus are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition..."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Aplonis brunneicapilla occurs in the Zoo. Rec., it occurs 3 times.

• Commonly treated as a subspecies of H. ruficollis.
• Rasmussen & Collar HBW 7:131 argue for consideration as a full species, though indicate further study is needed.

• Peters Checklist 3:172 interprets Psittacus magnificus as having priority.
• Sibley and Monroe do not discuss this issue.
• Homberger (Senckenberg Buch 70 (1994), 425-434) found the bill morphology and feeding ecology of Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne Schodde, Saunders & Homberger In Schodde, 1988 to be very different from the other taxa in that species and recommended its treatment as a good species.
• Placed by the ICZN in the "Official Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000. 2001. p.9

Alectoris barbara 1791

• Peters Checklist 2:66 has 1792.
• HBW 2:486,571 gives 1792.
• I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 and Sherborn though 1792 is supported by some evidence.

• Peters Checklist 8:321 has 1845, and cites "pp. 10, 15, pl. 2"
• Richmond, et al. 1992 has 1839, with "?40" penciled in, then crossed out, and the date Dec. 18, 1839 written in.
• Sherborn 1902 has 1840.
• As this is published in pt1, I think there is no support for 1845, and I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here.
• Additional evidence has become available to me. Edward C. Dickinson kindly provided (2007.02.18) a reproduction of the article Husson AM, Holthuis LB. 1955. "The dates of publication of the 'Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche Bezittingen' edited by C.J. Temminck." Zool.Meded. 34 no.2 p.17-24. several points become clear from this, including the basis for confusion regarding the dates and the likelihood that the citation given by Peters (=Mayr) is incorrect as to the date as well as some of the pagination.
• Peters (=Mayr, 1979) appears to be simply reproducing the citation as given in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 14:444, where Sclater (spelling the specific epithet baudi with a single -i) cites Muller & Schlegel (without a date) and "pp.10,15, pl.ii" Husson & Holthuis make it clear (p.22) that pt1 (Aves) included pp. 1-12 (sheets 1-3), pll.1-3; so "p.15" for part 1 (Aves) is not possible. Mayr quite possibly relied on Sclater and did not check the original material.
• Regarding Pitta baudii Husson & Holthuis provide interesting details that two sets of plates were published (which they designate "2" and "II"). The second plate evidently published some time later. This is implied by the fact that the motivation for reproduction of the plates was excessive fading, which presumably would not have been evident in the year the first set was published (Dec, 1839).

• Peters Checklist 15:249 attributes to Blyth.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 attributes to Tytler in Blyth.

• The Richmond Index notes that the original misspelling "bazlei" arose because Tytler had no chance to correct the proofs. The name was corrected, by Tytler, on p.464.
• As determined by work of Edward Dickinson and Normand David, this "correction" is at the end of a review of Recent Ornithological publications and is perhaps questionable with regards to standing for nomenclatural purposes. However, as Normand David points out (in litt. 2009.04.18) on p.xiv of the 1863 Ibis, following the Table of Contents, there is an "ERRATA ET EMENDANDA" that includes:

   "Page 119, line 26, for "bazlei" read "bayleii".

  This would seem to satisfy the Code requirements for a correction.
• [2010.02.02] The CBBM 3:82 (= Sharpe 1877) is the source of much of the error here, as Sharpe lists the name as "bayleyi".
• Peters Checklist XV:249 (= Blake and Vaurie 1962) gives the original combination correctly as "bazlei" but then incorrectly holds this as an "error for baileyi", possibly following the CBBM, which itself was in error here.

• Peters Checklist 1:8 gives 1857.
• HBW 1:97 (Jutglar) perpetuates this error.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show a publication date of Jan. 28, 1858, and this is confirmed by the listing by Duncan of the dates of publication.
• Previously given as:
  • Casuarius bennetti Gould 1858 PZS["1857"] Pt25 no.343 p.269 pl.129 Citation
• Norbert Bahr helpfully writes (2009.12.13):

   Bruce & McAllan [Boll. Mus. Reg. Sci. Nat. Torino 8 (1990): 453-485] 
  	showed that Gould described this species 3 times. 
  	The descriptions in The Athenaeum and The Literary Gazette appeared on the same day, 
  	12 Dec. 1857, whereas the description in PZS appeared on 28 Jan. 1858. 
  	They chose the paper in The Athenaeum as original publication of C. bennetti.

Myrmeciza berlepschi

• Peters Checklist 7:217, has Sipia [Pyriglena] berlepschi (Hartert) 1898 BBOC 7 p.xxix and Myrmeciza berlepschi Ridgway 1909 Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 22 p.74 (Vol.7 p.237).
• Sibley and Monroe, 1990 originally had Sipia berlepschi but in the Supplement (p.50) treat Sipia as not distinct from Myrmeciza .
• Thus Myrmeciza berlepschi Ridgway would become a junior homonym.

Amazilia beryllina Deppe

• Peters Checklist 5:69 lists Lichtenstein as the author.
• See Browning and Monroe, 1991.
• In HBW 5:604 Dr. A.A. Weller misattributes this taxon to Lichtenstein.

  Deppe

Streptopelia bitorquata 1809

• Peters Checklist 3:121 lists 1810.
• See Browning and Monroe, 1991.

• Peters Checklist 6:211 has 1807
• HBW 7:491 (Short & Horne) also give 1807 as the date. It is difficult to imagine this is anything other than simply copying the data from Peters.
• The AOU Checklists have, since at least the 4^th edition (1931), indicated that the 1807 imprint date was problematic, and that 1808 or 1809 were more likely correct.
• Browning and Monroe, 1991 resolved this issue as fully as it appears possible. This resolution demonstrates 1809 to be the correct date, as is indicated in the 1998 7^th Edition of the Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 1:260 attributes this name to Reichenbach 1853, I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here.

• Peters Checklist 10:14 has 1822.
• I follow Richmond, et al., 1992 and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 11:296 transposes the digits in the date, as "1874".

• Peters Checklist 3.:251 has 1873.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show this date as 1871.

• Peters Checklist 10:136 has 1938 (sic).

• Richmond, et al. 1992 has two notes here
  1. "Probably not publ. till 1850"
  2. "Plate dated Dec. 1849".
• My guess is that 1850 is most likely.
• Listed by Sherborn as 1849.
• The 1850 "guess" appears to be further supported by data found in CWR's unpublished notes on dates of publication. A card there documents data he extracted 'From a cover of a "separate" of Sclater's "Synopsis of Galbulidae" 1853.' The data are as follows:

   
  1848. "Commenced in the middle of 1848, and in the latter part 
  	of that year, Three parts were Published."  10 pls. Price  9 shillings. 
  1849. "Seven Parts have been Published."  	27 pls.  Price 21 shillings. 
  1850. "Seven Parts have been Published."  	21 pls. Price 21 shillings. 
  1851. "Six Parts have been Published."  	14 pls. Price 18 shillings. 
  1852. "Seven Parts have been Published." 	20 pls. Price 24 shillings.
  As this taxon is plate number 38, and it appears that 37 plates had been published by the
  end of 1849, 1850 would seem the date for this taxon.

• If an imprint date of "1849" is present on this portion of the work (which I have never seen) it might render these speculations moot under the current mode of interpreting the Code.

2009.07.31 Update

• Review of this situation (2009.07.31) was motivated by Edward Dickinson's review of the taxa from this publication. He felt that 1849 was likely. The Richmond Index shows that this was in "no.6+7" and his notes indicate "Seven Parts have been Published" in 1849.
• So 1849 seems supportable as the date for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 4:89 has 1873.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 indicates Nov. 1872.
• this publication started in 1872.

• Peters Checklist 10:29 has 1840.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show, this was published in July of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 1:84 lists pt4 but leaves out vol.2.

• Usually cited as 1849, but Mathews, 1925 demonstrates this is 1852.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:285.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Placed by Sibley & Monroe in Grus, based on DNA-hybridization work by Krajewski.
• Further work by Krajewski, and others Krajewski C and Fetzner JW, 1994 using cyt-b DNA sequences indicates the inclusion into Grus is premature. These relationships require further resolution.

• Peters Checklist 2:153 has 1842, which is the date on the title page of this work.
• See Mathews, for a discussion of dates of publications of the hefte.
• I believe that 1841 is the historically probable date of publication, but that 1842 would appear to be the date nomenclaturally required according to the logic of the 1999 Code. See the citation entry for Gemein.Handb.-undHilfsb. for a discussion of this.

• See Ryan PG, Hood J, Bloomer P, Komen J, Crowe TM. "Barlow's Lark: a new species in the Karoo Lark Certhiluada albescens complex of southwest Africa. Ibis. 1998. 140:605-619.
• Originally a subspecies of C. erythrochlamys.
• Separated on the basis of morphology, vocalization, behavior, and cytochrome b genotype.

• The Nature publication is listed as anonymous and published in June 5, 1879.
• Evidently it was written by Ramsay.
• A more detailed description subsequently appeared in the June 16 issue of the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W. ser.1 Vol. IV (no page given).
• This data derived from the Richmond Index.
• Murray Bruce writes:
  • "'Monachus barbatus': I have a copy of this 1879 Nature article and the names in it are clearly indicated as Ramsay's."

Apus berliozi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.

• Peters Checklist 2:39 lists the volume here as "9" .
• The AOU 5^th edition checklist also lists "9".
• Most other sources list "XI" for the volume; these include Sherborn, earlier (and later) editions of the AOU checklist, and Coues Birds of the Northwest.
• I speculate that "XI" was misread as "IX" and this transposition error repeated in the 5^th Ed. of the AOU Checklist -- then corrected in the 6^th.

• Peters Checklist 6:80 has 1867.
• This volume of the PANSP was published in both 1867 and 1868. Pages up through 112 were published by November of 1867, and after that the remainder in 1868. [See PNAS 1913 An Index to the Scientific Contents fo the Journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia p.xiii]
• The 1913 PANSP Index, would appear to suggest a split in the material from the Sept. 24 meeting -- with some published in 1867 and some published in 1868. I think this is most unlikely.
• I expect that Baillonius was actually published in 1867 as it was presented at the Sept. 24 meeting, and one other taxon from that meeting (Pteroglossus castanotis australis Cassin on p.112) is dated to 1867.
• For the moment, in deference to the 1913 PANSP Index, I leave the date as 1868.

• Peters Checklist 9:239 lists plate 13.
• I follow the Richmond Index.
• Sherborn does not list a plate for this taxon.

• Felt until recently to be extinct.
• Found still living in N. India. See Birding. Abbott, David F., Oct. 1998.

• Attributed (as here) to Blyth.
• C.W. Benson argues "Although Blyth is usually credited with the name bitorquatus, it would appear more correct to attribute it to Jerdon."
  Benson. 2000(1999). Type specimens of Bird Skins in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. United Kindgom. BOC Occasional Publication No. 4. p.44

• Not in Peters Checklist, or Sibley and Monroe.
• Some confusion exists regarding the proper citation for this taxon, as evidently some or all of the description may have been published elsewhere (newspaper, &c).
• The citation given here appears to be currently the accepted one.

• Usually treated as part of Platycercus.
• Collar, HBW Vol.4 includes as a separate Genus.

• The last confirmed sighting of this species was in April 1962 near Charleston, South Carolina.

• Peters Checklist 14:42 (Monroe) includes 1883 in the date.
• I find no evidence to support 1883 for this. The Bulletin no.193 for the U.S.National Museum indicates that this article (no.285) was published on Sept. 11, 1882.
• In the AOU CL's the date was correctly indicated in the 4^th (1931), 5^th (1958), and 7^th Editions, but listed as 1883 in the 6^th (1983). H&M 3^rd:763 follows the unlucky and erroneous path of Peters, and lists the date incorrectly as 1883.
• H&M 3^rd:120 correctly lists Rallus longirostris beldingi (from the following page of this same article) to 1882.

• Treated as a subspecies of C. gallicus by Peters Checklist 1:310.
• Treated as a group with C. pectoralis by Sibley & Monroe.
• Treated as a full species by HBW 2:131
• Clark discusses the relationships and argues for full species status based on morphology and distributional data. Clark WS. Plumage differences and taxonomic status of three similar Circaetus snake-eagles. 1999. BBOC 119(1):56-59.

• Helbig et al. discuss the Phylloscopus collybita complex and postulate phylogenetic hypotheses based on mtDNA (cyt b) and vocalizations. They hold P. brehmii to be a full species and basal in the complex.

  Helbig AJ, Martens J, Seibold I, Henning F, Schottler B, Wink M. Phylogeny and species limits in the Palearctic chiffchaff Phylloscopus complex: mitochondrial genetic differentiation and bioacoustic evidence. 1996. Ibis 138(4):650-666

• Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

• Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

Heliactin bilophus Systematics/Nomenclature

• HBW 5:663 indicates the Temminck name biloph has one year's priority over the previously and widely used name cornuta Wied.
• Heliactin cornuta (Wied-Neuwied) 1821 ReiseBrasil. 2 p.190,note

• Peters Checklist 4:97 has 1876, which is correct. See {Poggi R, 1996}.
• Unfortunately, the HBW 5:167 has "1875" for the date, reviving this common error.

• Usually placed in Ketupa.
• HBW 5:193 indicates that skeletal and skull details appear to be those of a Bubo.

• I include the note from Normand David, bringing to my attention the status of this taxon. I had thought it was described from remains of dead birds -- never taken as living specimens (which would exclude it from my list), but it appears otherwise.

  M N. David writes:

  "I think that Dromaius baudinianus Parker 1984 (BBOC 104: 19-22) should be
  recognized. HANZAB has it, presumably founded on bones (I have not seen
  BBOC 104).
  
  But Jouanin 1959 (Oiseau & RFO 29: 169-203) tells the whole story of
  Baudin's expedition. It is extremely complicated. In short: birds (some
  alive, some dead) were brought back to France from King and Kangaroo
  islands; there are extant specimens to substantiate D. ater (from King I.)
  and at least one (now in Geneva) from Kangaroo I. At the time (=1959), the
  Kangaroo I. specimen had not received a formal name.
  I feel that it could be included in baudinianus Parker 1984.
  
  Parker 1984 (BBOC 104: 19-22) described the species from bone material.
  
  Balouet, J. C. & C. Jouanin. 1990. Systematique et origine geographique des
  emeus recoltés par l'expedition Baudin. Oiseau & RFO 60: 314-318.
  In this paper, they established that:
  
  a Paris museum specimen is D. ater
  the Firenza museum specimen is D. ater
  a Paris skeleton is D. baudinianus
  the Genova skin (boneless, undoubtedly separated from the Paris skeleton) is D. baudiniaus.
  
  From what I know, birds kept alive in Paris, did not bred but lived for over 20 years."
  

• Originally as Lophornis delattrei brachylopha by RT Moore in 1949.
• Treated as Lophornis brachylophus without comment by HBW 5:567.
• Peters Checklist 5:31-32 appears to interpret the genus as feminine: having L. ornata, L. magnifica, and L. stictolopha for example.
• See the comment under Lophornis for a discussion of the gender, and an explanation for the HBW treatment of this name.
• This bird is not in Peters vol.5.

• Peters 1(2):32 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
• HBW 1:132 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
• H&M p.33 also perpetuates this error.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprint date indicates.

• Peters Checklist 4:223 gives the author as Horsfield.
• The Richmond index gives the author as McClelland, which I followed for a while.
• Upon examining the text of the original article, the presentation of McClelland's material was made by Horsfield, and in his introduction his reading McClelland's letter is placed in triple quotes, and the section is followed with text "--Extract from Mr. McClelland's letter to the Secretary of the Bengal Government." The sections where the taxa (mammals and birds) are described include English text contained within quotes and followed by a phrase "--McClelland's MS."
• I interpret the Latin diagnosis to have been composed by Horsfield, and when indicated the English text to be McClelland's.
• The taxon in question has the following text

  			Fam. HIRUNDINIDÆ
  			Genus HIRUNDO, Auct.
    10. HIRUNDO BREVIROSTRIS.  Suprà nigricans nitore olivaceo;
      subtùs fuscescens, alis elongatis; caudâ mediori subfurcatâ; ros-
  	tro brevissimo.
    
    This species agrees with Hirundo fuciphaga in habitat, in propor-
  tional length of the wing, and shortness of beak, and in colour above;
  but it is darker underneath, and more than one third larger: entire
  length six inches.
  

• As there is no appended string saying "--McClelland's MS." I interpret all the text to be Horsfield's
Picture of page

• Evidently the type locality is:
  • 1530 m, 6.5 km east, 2.9 km north of the peak of Mt Kitanglad in the Sawaga (Lalawan) River drainage, Sitio Kinubalan, Barangay Dalwangan, Municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon Province, Mindanao, Philippines.

• Peters Checklist 15:190 (Mayr) gives 1880.
• Bolton's listing of the numbers for this serial indicate volume 9 of this series is in both 1879 and 1880.
• This is p.1 of article #5 so it appears 1880 may be likely.
• The Richmond index lists the date as 1879, with "?80" pencilled in.
• The question of the probability of 1879 vs 1880 turns on the number of articles published per volume. At present I dont have any data on that. (2001.10.20)
• In the abscence of other evidence I use 1879.

• Peters Checklist 4:247 lists this as 1865.
• HBW 5:454 (Chantler) also lists this as 1865.
• The Richmond Index gives March of 1866, which fits the data published by Duncan (1937).

• Peters Checklist 4:234 lists this as 1865.
• HBW 5:422 (Chantler) also lists this as 1865.
• The Richmond Index gives March of 1866, which fits the data published by Duncan (1937).

• The Richmond Index for this taxon appears to contain an error (quite a rare finding in my experience) The listing is:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Monarcha (Piezorhynus) browni  E.P. Ramsay.  1883.
  Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, Part IV, April, 1883, 711.
  Type locality: "Marrabo,"		Solomon Group.
  					Coll. for Rev.
  					Geo. Brown.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Pt 4 in April would imply that the volume is 1882. The April printings were the final part (IV) for the previous years meetings.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 4:121; HBW 5:193,687) cited as:
  • Bubo blakistoni Seebohm 1884 PZS(1883) p.466
• The Richmond Index listing gives: Seebohm Ibis ser.5 Vol.II no.V Jan 1884 p.42
• A note added to the Richmond Index card says: 'First "descr." in PZS "Nov. 1883", 466.' [The quotation marks are, I believe, indicative of Richmond's skepticism regarding the truth of the particulars as stated.]
• For something to be published on p.466 (Pt4) of the PZS in 1884, the earliest it could have been published would be April, which would give the Jan. 1884 Ibis publication priority.
• Therefore, contra to Peters and HBW, I follow the Richmond Index and list the Seebohm Ibis, January 1884 citation.

• Peters Checklist 5:134 and HBW 5:668,687 give 1887.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show that this part was published in April 1, 1888.

• Initially proposed in the monotypic genus Veles by Bangs.
• Usually listed in Caprimulgus (e.g. HBW 5:359) though there has been consideration of its unusual characteristics.
• Cleere N. 2001. BBOC "The validity of the genus Veles Bangs, 1918 (Caprimulgidae)." 121:278-279. proposes that the morphological, vocal, and behavioural differences from other Nightjars, warrants it's treatment in the genus Veles as proposed by Bangs.
• Bonaparte's description is as follows:

  *23. C. binotatus, Temm. Mus. Lugd.  ex Borneo. Nigri-
  	cans, abdomine subtiliter rufo-vermiculatus: colli macula
  	utrinque alba: remigibus fuscis rufo-maculatis: rectricibus
  	omnibus atro rufoque variis, sine maculis albis.
  	

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 15:173, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

• Considerable evidence indicates that Branta canadensis is parphyletic.
• Recent and compelling evidence is in:
  Paxinos EE, James HF, Olson SL, Sorenson MD, Jackson J, Fleischer RC. "mtDNA from fossils reveals a radiation of Hawaiian geese recently derived from the Canada goose (Branta canadensis)." 2002. PNAS 99(3):1399-1404.

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