• This name is published in the December number of the Rev.Mag.Zool., and it is a near certainty that ALL the December numbers were not published until January of the following year.
• This implies that almost certainly this name should be dated to 1853 rather than 1852. However, the level of "proof" is perhaps not quite enough to make the change, unless or until additional data becomes available.

• It is understandably easy to make the error of citing this Genus group name to 2019, not least because it is published in No.1 of the 2019 volume of this serial.
• This is both understandable and wrong, as the notice given by the journal itself gives this indication:

  Phenotypic similarity leads to taxonomic inconsistency: A revision of the lowland's antpittas
  Lincoln Carneiro
  Gustavo A. Bravo
  Alexandre Aleixo
  First published: 24 November 2018
  https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12324

  [Version of Record, published online on 24 November 2018: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BDD3A461-3253-492C-91F0-C76D2901FF5F]

• There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the typification of this Genus.
• The AOU CL 6^th 1983 and 7^th 1998 give "Type, by monotypy, Chlorostilbon prasinus Gould (not other authors) = Trochilus pucherani Bourcier = Ornismya aureo-ventris d'Orbigny and Lafresnaye."
• Then in 2017 we have "The generic classification of the Trochilini (Aves: Trochilidae):Reconciling taxonomy with phylogeny" 2017. Stiles,FG; Remsen,JV; & McGuire, JA. Zootaxa 4353:401-424, where they list (Appendix 1. p.418) the type as "Ornismya prasinus (sic) Lesson, 1830, Hist.Nat.Ois.Mouch., 188 (=Trochilus mellisuga Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat.,ed. 10, 121


• Before proceeding to the disagreement, I address one minor detail.
• Lesson's taxon is Ornismya prasina, not Ornismya prasinus This can be seen here: Hist.Nat.Ois-M. p.188. This fact (commonly confused, and indeed confused by Gould) has no effect on the subsequent considerations.


• In addressing the matter of the type, the Stiles group appears (to me) to be following the arguments of John Todd Zimmer. They cite two papers by Zimmer in the Am.Mus.Novitates, "Studies of Peruvian Birds, nos.58 & 59." In the first of these Am.Mus.Novitates 1474 (not 1473, as they list it), Zimmer has a long argument in which he states that Lesson's bird, can in fact be identified as the bird that Linnaeus called Trochilus mellisugus.
  • He states (p.5) "I have no hesitation in placing Ornismya prasina of Lesson as a synonym of Trochilus mellisugus of Linnaeus..."
  • But in my view, assigning the specimen that Lesson called Ornismya prasina to Trochilus mellisugus Linnaeus, based on the Linnaeus and Lesson descriptions is important only if Gould erected his genus based on that specimen.
  • In fact, Gould apparently based his genus on some specimen, that some collector called Ornismya prasina, apparently a commonly used name with unknown relation to Lesson's concept.
  
  
• Thus the point, apparently missed by Zimmer (!) and the Stiles group, is that the type of Chlorostilbon Gould 1853, while intended to be Ornismya prasina Lesson, may or may not have been that species, but rather Gould simply applied it to a bird "generally known by that term among collectors..." not a bird necessarily so named by Lesson. In such a situation the phrase "not other authors", is appropriate.
• Zimmer (again on p.5) argues that Gould "misapplied the name to another species, being uncertain as to the precise application...". If Gould was uncertain what bird Lesson applied the name "prasinus" to (v.i.), I do not see how Zimmer could possibly know it was "misapplied" to whatever bird Gould was looking at.


• Other presentations of the type for Chlorostilbon.
  • Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1892 16:44 C. pucherani
  • Cat.BirdsAm. Cory & Hellmayr 2.1:202 Ornismya prasina Lesson
  • BirdsMiddleN.AM. Ridgway 5:547 Ornismya prasina Lesson
  • Peters CL Birds of the World Peters,JL 1945 5:36 Chlorostilbon prasina Gould, not of authors = Trochilus pucherani Bourcier.
  
  
• In Gould's Monograph of the Trochilidae, he discusses this bird (p.cx), indicating it was "impossible to determine to what bird Lesson had given the name prasinus (sic)"
  He (Gould) applied it to a bird "generally known by that term among collectors..." "From Dr. Cabanis we learn that it has been named Trochilus nitidissimus by Lichtenstein in the Museum of Berlin, and Trochilus lamprus, Natt. in the Museum of Munich ; but had either of these names been published to the world before Dr. Cabanis included it in his 'Museum Heineanum' under the name of Chlorostilbon nitidissimus ? If not, and prasinus be rejected, that term must certainly give place to M. Bourcier's previously published one of Pucherani, which I find, from the type specimen now before me, was given to a young male of this species. Refer to my account of this species, and of C. Atala."


• So from Gould's perspective Pucherani was conditionally the type, if two conditions are met:
  • 1. prasin[a,us] Lesson not being identifiable (Gould says it was not identifiable to him)., and
  • 2. Trochilus nitidissimus having not been published previous to Gould use. . (I find no evidence that it was).
• Does it now turn on were met vs. are met, and does it make Gould's inability to identify whether or not the bird was Lesson's Ornismya prasina unimportant?

• Stiles, et al. in considering Chlorostilbon do not seem to discuss the treatment of the matter by Cabanis and Heine. In Mus.Hein. III 1860 pp.46,47 f.n. where we find this text:


• "Wir beschränken hier die Gattung Chlorostilbon Gould auf ihren ursprunglichen Typus C. prasinus Gould (nec Lesson) und verbinden damit die kaum generisch zu sondernde Gattug Cyanophia Rchb., wärhrend wir die von Gould später zu Chlorostilbon gestellten feinschnäbligen Arten ais eigene Gattung Chlorolampis weiter unten auffürhen."

Trans. (thanks to Frank Rheindt).


• "We here restrict the genus Chlorostilbon Gould to its original type C. prasinus Gould (nec Lesson) and unite with it the genus Cyanophia, which can hardly be separated from it, while below it we list the slender-billed species that were later attributed to Chlorostilbon by Gould as belonging to a separate genus Chlorolampis."


• Also in 1863, Heine again refers to this matter in J.Orn. 1863 11 p.196,197

• "Gen. Chlorostilbon Gould: Wie bereits früher (Mus. Heine III. p.46 - 47) geschehen beschränke ich auch ferner diese Gattung auf die dem Typus C. prasinus Gould (nec. Less.) unmittlebar und untrennbar verwandten grössern dick- und starkschnäbelingen Arten, deren Zahl sich indessen seit jener Publication des Cataloges der Sammlung meines Vaters bedeutend vermehrt hat, und deren damals als einzig aufgefuhrte beide Species besser und richtiger unter einem andern specifischen Namen fortan im System figuriren werden. Ich zähle jetzt nämlich die folgenden sechs Arten hierher:"

Trans. (thanks to Frank Rheindt).
• "Gen. Chlorostilbon Gould: As already done earlier (Mus. Heine III. p.46 - 47) I limit this genus to the large thick- and strong-billed species, which are indissolubly and inseparably related to the type C. prasinus Gould (nec. Less.), the number of which has increased considerably since the publication of the catalog of my father's collection, and the two species, which were the only ones listed at that time, will henceforth better and more correctly appear in the system under a different specific name. I now include the following six species here:"
• I interpret the type of Chlorostilbon to be as interpreted by the AOU Cl. to wit, Trochilus Pucherani Bourcier (?Bourcier & Mulsant), which is now a subspecies of Chlorostilbon lucidus Shaw 1812.

• Previously as:
  • Passer rutilans (Temminck) 1836 Pl.Col. livr.99 pl.588 fig.2 Citation
• It is established, however that Gould's PZS publication (8 April 1836) has priority over Temminck's, which occurred in 1836, but with somewhat uncertain date and thus dated to 31 Jan. 1836.
• Thanks to David Donsker for bringing this to my attention, as well as directing me to Laurent Raty's discussion of this matter.

• Conventionally spelt cyanicollis
• Colin Jone checked the original and demonstrated the presence of "o" rather than "i".
• Thanks to Dave Donsker for this information.

• Usually cited to Bonaparte 1850.
• Bonaparte in Consp.Gen.Avium p.312 refers to Du Bus de Gisignies work Equiss.Orn. t.34 (and gives a date of 1850).
• The Richmond Index has a card indicating that Sclater in 1855 in PZS p.66 says that this plate "unless I am very much mistaken, is still unpublished".
Both the Richmond Index and Sherborn's Index Animalium credit the name to the plate (name and figure alone) with the indication that it was published in 1849.
• The work "Equiss.Orn" is dated to 1845-1848 (not 1849). Supporting the possibility that the plate alone was subsequently produced (1849), and not surprisingly many, most, or possibly all of the volumes may not now have the associated plate.
• It is, of course, possible, that the production of the plate did not meet the criteria for "publication". We know, however, that Bonaparte saw, or was aware of the plate, and Sherborn seems to have found a copy. It further seems unlikely (at least to me) that only a single copy of the plate would have been produced.
• My interpretation favors following Sherborn and Richmond with regards to the authority for the name and for its date.
.

• Conventionally cited to 1892.
• The number in which this appears (no. 200 "October") includes a dateline on p.443 of

          "25. December 1892"

  So the imprint date of "October" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
• The first evidence is somewhat uncertain. On the front wrapper of my cover is lightly written in pencil

  Issued Ap.3/93

• Unless and until other evidence becomes available I will treat that as the date of availability, but other data is eagerly sought.

• Often cited to Mearns, in the same journal on p.356.
• The Richmond Index indicates that McGregor's description "has anteriority".
• It appears that both descriptions were published in October of 1907, in the same number and section of the Journal.

• For resolution as crumenifer , see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.105.)

• For resolution as cruciger, see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.105.)

• For resolution as coryphaea , see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.108.)

• The ICZN apparently tried to deal with this name in Opinion 784 (Bull. 23:201-201 (Dec 20 1966) (not seen 2011.03.15).
  There they suppress Jarocki's 1821 use of the name, and hold Bonaparte as the author. However, in the ICZN listing, they do not cite the earliest generic use of this name by Bonaparte.
• The ICZN cites the name to PZS["1837"] 1838 Pt5 no.59 p.111. That work was published in 14 June, 1838, and Bonaparte used the name in combination with a specific epithet in his Geograph.Comp. on p.32. That work was published 14 April, 1838, and can be seen here:
  Geographical and Compar. List Birds Europe and N. Am. p.35
• Bonaparte previously used the name in 1831 in the G.Arcad. p.52. In that location it was only shown in a list of genera, and I interpret it to be a nomen nudum there.
It can be seen here: G.Arcad.Sci.Lett.Arti 1831 p.52
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for picking this up.

• The authority here is attributed by almost all authors to J.R. Forster.
• Rainer Massman point out (2011.01.09 in litt.) that the authority is correctly attributed to the son, Georg Forster, and indeed as Massmann points out, the Richmond Index correctly indicates this as so.
• Richmond Index Certhia coccinea G. Forster Card
• Massmann provided a link to the orginal description thusly:

  The description appeared in the "Göttingisches Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratur", which was digitized by Bielefeld University Library (http://www.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/diglib/aufkl/goettmag/goettmag.htm). Click on "1.Jg.,4.St., 1780", then scroll down to find "Beschreibung des rothen Baumläufers von der Insel O-Waihi" on p.346-351.

• A bewildering situation here. The resurrection of this name is proposed by Penhallurick and Robson who present their arguments regarding the nomenclature in Forktail (2009): 25:137-141.

• Peters Checklist 15:173 (= Mayr 1962) does not list the plate.
• The CBBM VI:385 does list the plate ("Taf. 10") which is of possible importance only because the CBBM appears to date the plate to 1810.

• The citation is often (e.g. H&M 3^rd:271; HBW 5:631,684 given as "1854", implying the citation as here:
  • Amazilia franciae cyanocollis (Gould) 1854 PZS["1853"] Pt21 no.251 p.61
  However, this was published July 25, 1854.
  • The name was published April 16, 1853 in No. 1329 of the Athenaeum. This fact was discussed several decades ago and the description there reproduced (Bruce & McAllen 1990 p.463) though this literature apparently has been ignored by current workers. I believe that description, having priority, is correct. I find no discussion of this in H&M 3^rd.

• David & Gosselin BBOC 2002 122(1):38 (#171) indicate that this is a noun phrase, it should be spelled castaneocapilla and should not be changed to castaenocapillus.

• Conventionally, and understandably, spelled "cachinnans".
• The original spelling (or mis-spelling) is clearly "cachinnaus", and can be seen here: Crateropus cachinnaus original description
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
• [2010.12.26] Dr David Donsker raises the interesting possiblity that the apparent "u" might be an "n" set upside down. Close examination neither supports nor disproves this possibility.
• It does seem virtually certain, however, that "cachinnans" can be presumed to have been intended.

• Usually cited as

  Calyptomena (f.) Raffles 1822 Trans.Linn.Soc.London(1) 13 p.295

• See Wells, DR & Dickinson, ECD. 2010. "Authorship of the broadbill genus name Calyptomena and the correct citations for this and Calyptomena viridis Raffles." BBOC. 130:143-145. They discuss the timing and status of the material published by Raffles and Horsfield.

• Originally spelled cosobrina, not consobrina as it has been frequently incorrectly rendered.
• Richmond Index Foudia cosobrina Card
• Compte Rendu v.101 p.222
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
• CBBM 13:484 (= Sharpe 1890) shows the original combination incorrectly as "Foudia consobrina" and this is replicated without comment by Sclater Syst.Av.Aeth. II:756, and by Peters Checklist 15:63 (= Moreau 1962).
• The current enthusiasm for grammatical virtue deigns to regard the original spelling as a misspelling, and they are no doubt correct. Therefore it is now "corrected". What was actually published is unimportant now that we have sages to correct errors of the past, while we all add our own errors.

• Usually cited to 1920, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• However, Colin Jones points out (in litt. 2010.04.20), that the cover for no.2 notes that it was issued in March 1921.

• The citation here is a bit of a puzzle.
• Peters Checklist 9:161 (= White 1960) gives it as:

  Anthus Coutellii Audouin, 1828, in Savigny, Descr. Egypte, 23,
  	p. 360, pl. 5, fig. 5

• I suspect that White is merely following the citation and date as given in the CBBM 10:593 (= Sharpe 1885).
• Examining a copy of Descr.Egypte on-line (Gallica) shows the name and description as indicated in the CBBM/Peters citations.
• However, both the Richmond Index, and Sherborn give an entirely different citation and an earlier date (1826 as opposed to 1828).
• The Sherborn citation is given as follows (p.1587):

  coutellii  Anthus, V. Audouin in Savigny, Egypte, I (4) (Expl. pls. Ois.) 1826, 281.

• The Richmond Index citation is essentially the same and can be seen here: Richmond Index Card Anthus coutellii
• Zimmer (p.549) explains:

  The description of the species figured on the plates was afterwards undertaken by Audoin (sic),
  who, in 1826, published his "Explication Sommaire des Planches d'Oiseaux de l'Égypte et
  de la Syrie" in Part 4 of Vol. I of the Hist. Nat. of the Description de l'Égypte."

• A nomenclatural act in the 1826 publication would have priority over the subsequent 1828 publication cited by Peters and followed by many authors.
• It does seem quite clear that Zimmer, Richmond, and Sherborn all understood the situation better than White, or Sharpe. While uncertainty remains, I follow the use of the presumptively 1826 citation until that is shown to be wrong.
• [2010.03.28] Michael Rieser points out that the Willughby reprint includes an index that shows this taxon as present on p.281 in the folio edition, and p.380 in the 8vo. edition.
• The folio edition is evidently undated (Willughby reprint p.vii), but Newton states (p.vii) that

  it may be presumed to have appeared not earlier than 1826.

• These facts support "1826" and certainly indicate that the octavo edition (as cited by Peters) is not likely to be the publication with priority.

• Originally spelled with a double i (-ii) ending.
• CBBM 21:560,561 (Salvadori 1893) may be one source that has been followed for the incorrect single i (-i) ending.
• Most authors (including Peters CL III:127, H&M 3^rd:169 and HBW 4:171) show the -i ending.
• The Richmond Index and Hellmayr and Conover Birds of the Americas 1.¹:566-568 show the correct ending.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Conventionally cited as:

  Coturnix (f.) Bonnaterre 1791 Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 1 p.lxxxvii Type

• However, see Welter-Schultes FW, Klug G. 2009. Bull.Zool.Nomen. 66(3):225-240

• H&M 3^rd:698 lists the date for this taxon as 1860. Then in Corrigenda 2.1 changes the date to 1861 (sic), citing Duncan 1937.
• This appears to me to be an error. This name was published in Part XVII Part III (which is comprised of sheets 406-416, pp.353-521). The initial portions of Part XVII were published in 1859, and part III was published in February of 1860.
• H&M 3^rd (including the Corrigenda) cite many taxa from Part XVII Part III to 1860 (e.g. Crypturellus boucardi) so an explanation would be required to cite one name from this Part to 1861, and all the others to 1860.

• Penhallurick & Robson. 2009 ("The generic taxonomy of parrotbills (Aves, Timalidae)" Forktail 25:137-141) Date this genus name and the included species to 1842, as

  Conostoma Hodgson, 1842 ['1841'],Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 10:856

• Deignan 1964 (Peters Checklist 10:431) gives:

  Conostoma Hodgson, 1841 or 1842, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 10, p. 856

• The dating of this volume (X of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal) has long been a question. Sherborn, in Index Animalium for example, questioned whether it may have been published in Jan. 1842. But it is not clear what convinced Penhallurick and Robson that 1842 was correct -- that is, whether evidence of delay for this number (no.119) was found. [Note: that Penhallurick and Robson do not indicate the number (no.119) in which this genus is erected, though in this particular instance this fact could be important.]
• Vaurie 1954 Am.Mus.Novitates 1669 p.10 also dates this to 1841.
• Most recently Dickinson & Pittie 2006 "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 51. Dates of avian names introduced in early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" discussed this, and explicitly considered the problem of dating the name Conostoma (see p.118). They present evidence and arguments against this number (no.119) of volume X being delayed until 1842.
• Past speculation of the possibility of delay into 1842 is not, in my opinion, sufficient under the Code to accept 1842 as the date.
• As the Richmond Index notes this was not published before December, as it contains a report of the December meeting. Richmond Index Card Conostoma
• I will continue to use 1841, but will be happy to adopt 1842 if appropriate evidence is brought forward.

• H&M 3^rd:664 gives the author as "Latimer", apparently following the Peters Checklist 10:684. The author of this name, who apparently may have published this under the name "Latimer" is Marjorie Eileen Doris Courtenay-Latimer, and as she was referred to as "Miss Courtenay-Latimer" well before this 1961 publication, I use her hyphenated last name. She is, of course, famous for obtaining the first specimen of Coelocanth on 22 Dec. 1938, and the genus group name Latimeria honors her and her contribution to biology.

• Held to be monotypic by HBW 10:750 (Collar 2005).
• Collar's treatment is not mentioned by H&M 3^rd:675 (through Corrigenda 8).

• This taxon is not found in Peters Checklist.
• Originally described in Geocichla.

• Peters Checklist X:16 (= Ripley 1964) gives the page numer as "p. 929".
• HBW 10:[811] also gives "929".
• CBBM VII:27 gives "934" (!).
• I follow the Richmond Index and Sherborn's Index Animalium and cite this to p.933.

• Peters Checklist IV:134 gives the citation essentially as I did previously:
  • Glaucidium castanotum (Blyth) 1852 Cat.BirdsMus.As.Soc. p.39
• HBW 5:683 also lists the emended spelling and the later 1852 citation.
• Similarly, H&M 3^rd:232 (through Corrigenda 8) lists the name to 1852.

• Spelled Turdus cyanotis on p.[119} and Turdus cyanotus on the plate.
• To date (2009.06.27) I do not find any recent comments on this in the literature, other than Richmond's note in the Richmond Index.

• H&M 3^rd:499 (Corrigenda 8) appropriately corrects the spelling of the subspecific epithet from comoroensis to comorensis.
• It appears that the incorrect spelling was initiated by Peters Checklist XI:491 [= Traylor 1986].
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Soto, Monteros, and Zink. 2007. Condor 109:456-463 make it clear that T. curvirostre is composed of two or possibly three species.
• This fact is currently not reflected in or mentioned by either H&M 3^rd, or IOC World Bird Names.
• The paper by Sota, et al. does not make it clear (at least to me) how the subspecies (if they are valid) should be distributed in the curvirostre, palmeri, and insularum taxa. So for the present I leave the taxon as rendered in H&M 3^rd:650.

• Most recent authors (e.g. Peters CL 4134 (1940), HBW 5:222 (1999), H&M 3^rd:232 -through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008)) give this names as Glaucidium castanonotum. This spelling is not discussed, justified, or supported.
• The original combination is Ath[ene] castanotus.
• Undoubtedly these errors result from Sharpe's 1875 CBBM 2:215 treatment where he gives the original combination incorrectly as "Athene castanonota", while "Athene castanotus" would in fact be correct.
• The errors of our predecessors should be corrected rather than reveared and fossilized. We should also hope that our many errors similarly are corrected.
• Thanks to the remarkable Colin Jones for picking this up.
• [2010.01.03] Further consideration, not surprisingly, makes me less sure of this postion.
• Perhaps the Cat.BirdsAs.Soc. citation is correct. The 1850 name (according to the Richmond index) is a new name for a Ceylonese bird (Athene castanoptera from J.A.S.B. 15 p.280.
• More work needed here.

• Peters Checklist dates this volume to 1881.
• This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of 1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

• H&M 3^rd: treats this as a subspecies of O. guttata without comment.
• IOC Worldbird list holds this as a full species, citing Sick 1993, a citation not mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
• It appears the SACC has not yet acted upon this.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:629 as a subspecies of Zosterops pallidus without comment.

• This taxon is referred to by H&M 3^rd:629 as Z. l. westernensis (Quoy & Gaimard 1930) ["1930" is an error corrected to 1830 in Corrigenda 7].
• Peters Checklist 12:316 (= Mayr 1967) holds this taxon (Dacnis westernensis) to be a synonym of Sylvia lateralis Latham.
• This basis for holding westernensis to be a valid subspecies of Z. lateralis is not clear to me, but may well be in the many notes on Zosterops species in H&M 3^rd.
• However, the seniority of the Quoy and Gaimard name appears to be a question, and one not addressed by H&M 3^rd. The Richmond Index indicates that Quoy and Gaimard's name is a synonym of Latham's 1801 [=1802] Certhia caerulescens, collected in New South Wales, and with a type which is "Watling drawing no.110, now in the B.M.".
• Thus it appears to me that the Quoy & Gaimard name is a junior subjective synonym of Latham's name.
• Until it is demonstrated that this assertion by Richmond is incorrect, I follow it.

• Originally spelled Trochalopterum erythrocephalum connectans by Delacour.
• Peters Checklist 10:377 (= Deignan 1964) emends this to connectens without offering any justification or explanation.
• This emendation is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:671 (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).
• I am aware of no justification for this emendation and employ the spelling used by Delacour.

• Garrulax chrysopterus is split from Garrulax erythroceophalus by Rasmussen and Anderton 2005, and 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).

• Garrulax courtoisi is split from Garrulax galbanus 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).

• Garrulax castanotis is split from Garrulax maesi 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).

• Garrulax calvus is split from Garrulax lugubris 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).

• Originally spelled Mixornis rubricapilla connecteus, and usually emended to connectens.
• Later in this segment of the article the birds name is spelled "M. r. connectens, so the interpretation that "connecteus" is an error seems well supported.

• I follow Boon WM, Kearvell JC, Daugherty CH, & Chambers GK. 2001. "Molecular systematics and conservation of kakariki (Cyanoramphus spp.)". Science for Conservation no.176., Wellington, N.Z.
• It must be stressed that this work employs the phylogenetic species concept.
• This work is not mentioned in H&M 3^rd.
• Thanks to Harrie van der Linden for bringing this to the attention of ITIS.

• Previously cited as
  • Pterodroma leucoptera caledonica Naurois 1978 Compt.Rend. ser.D 287 p.269
• Still usually cited to Naurois 1978, for example by H&M 3^{rd< /small>}:75 (through 2008 Corrigenda 8).
• See Palma RL, Tennyson AJD. 2005. Notornis 52:247-248 for an explanat ion why Naurois' use of the name was both an error and a nomen nudum, and why the citation should be to Im ber and Jenkins.
• Thanks to Mathew Louis and Wayne N.W. Longmore for help with this.

• Spelled by Peters Checklist 1(2):416 "Falco Cuvieri" (note -i).
• I expect that this follows (without additional examination) Sharpe. Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 1874 1:400 where the name is listed with an "-i" ending.
• Sharpe in CBBM 1 may well have been following Gray's Hand-List of Birds I:20 where it is spelled Cuvieri.
• My facsimile collection of Smith's works (Willoughby Society, 1880) shows the name clearly as

  FALCO CUVIERII

• The listing in the Richmond Index spells the name with the -ii ending.
• The single -i spelling seems to be commonly, but not universally, met with. Wolters (1975) in Die Vogelarten der Erde p.78 spells the name Falco cuvierii.
• Similarly, Sherborn in Index Animalium p.1712 (a work that was certainly readily available to the authors of the Peters Checklist) spells the name cuvierii.
• HBW 2:268 lists the name correctly as Falco cuvierii.
• Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2006.08.03) that the first edition of Peters Checklist (1931) uses Falco cuvierii.
• In further additional information due to Bob Dowsett's efforts, it is established that the Willughby Reprint of Sir Andrew Smith's Miscellaneous Ornithological Papers accurately reflects the original spelling (FALCO CUVIERII) of the name. This was established by Margaret Sandwith kindly providing a scan of the original material.

• Usually cited to 1838 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1(2):159), and this appears to be conventionally followed.
• The entry in the Richmond Index clearly and strongly shows a 9 overwriting the final "8" in 1838. So Richmond dates this to 1839, not 1838.
• Dates for this early Russian Serial are problematic. Sherborn in his listing for this name, includes the Mém.Acad.Imp.Sci. St. Petersburg which Peters shows as an 1840 version of the description published earlier in the Bulletin.
• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:450-459 has a number of entries of interest. For Phaëthon catesbyi (p.457) only the 1840 Mém. of the St. Petersb. Academy is listed. Yet the listing for Phaëthon flavirostris (p.454) cites "Bull.Acad. St. Pétersb. ii p.349 (1837)" so some study of the Bulletin occured in developing these names.
• The AOU CL 5^th (1957):27 lists the Bulletin and dates it to 1838.
• HBW 1(1992):289 (J. Orta) dates this taxon to 1840 Bulletin with a citation that appears to be a strange combination of data from various sources. I am confused enough by this early Russian periodical that I can not say anything is necessarily wrong, but the HBW citaion (p.[631]) doesn't fit easily with any of the other citations I have examined.
• For this taxon, 1838 certainly appears possible. The collation of data for the Bulletin suggests a good measure of confusion simply regarding the orderly nomenclature of the publication (even ignoring the problem of establishing the exact date). See the entry for Bull.Sci.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. for some details in this regard.
• From my perspective, in the abscence of very little in the way of definite data, the choice is between the convention , or reliablity. I choose the latter (i.e. CWR).
• It must also be noted that Mathews has written on the matter of this name (Mathews. 1915. Auk 32(2):195-197). Mathews takes what seems to me to be a high-handed, and imperious attitude in his article. Consistent with much of his work, his data are incomplete, there is at least one typographic problem (perhaps not his fault), and the clarity of his position is not what it might be. The citation he gives for Brandt's use of the name does not appear to be the earliest one available.

• Spelled Furnarius Commersoni in the listing on page 34.
• Spelled Furnarius Commersonii in the note no.2 on page 34.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:242 to 1843 and this appears to be followed universally.
• Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981. "War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist's Library, 1833-1843." ISIS 72:50-72. addresses this work in detail. From her study of Jardine's correspondence she determines that this work was published in Dec. 1842.
• I am unaware of any reason not to believe her interpretation, which appears to have been universally ignored by the ornithological community.
• Iredale also published on this work (Iredale. 1951. "'The Naturalist's Library: an Essay in Bibliography.' Australian Zoologist 11:322-332.) and Edward Dickinson kindly provided me a copy to study. It is clear that uncertainty remains as to whether this volume was published in Dec. 1842, or in 1843. Possible explanations can be provided for either case. The appearance (but not the certainty) is that Sheets-Pyenson may have dated this based on information in the Jardine correspondence (which was material unknown to Iredale), and Sheets-Pyenson was fully aware of and relied partly Iredale's work when she published her paper. For the present time I am employing the dating she published on p.72 of her work.

• My intention and attempt here is to follow the systematics of Sorenson MD & Payne RB. 2005. "Molecular systematics: cuckoo phylogeny inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences" Pp. 69-94 in R.B. Payne. Bird Families of the World (15): Cuckoos. Oxford University Press. as followed by the AOU CL 47^th Supplement. 2006.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):74 lists the plate as "pl.10"; the Richmond Index lists the plate as "pl.XI".
• A point such as this may seem overly picky, but Richmond additionally notes that the name is spelled "caribaea" on the plate. Attention to detail and fidelity are not the strong points of the post-Peters volumes of the Checklist.
• HBW 1:[631] is unaware of, or chooses not to include reference to the plate.

• The nomenclature and systematics of this species is complicated and confusing. I follow the recent paper by Tennyson and Bartle (2005) with regards the nomenclature and systematics.
• ref. Tennyson AJD, Barlte JA. 2005. "A scientific name for fulmar prions nesting at Auckland and Heard Islands." Notornis. 52:47-55.
• Thanks to the always helpful Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):369 as:

   
  	Buteo calurus Cassin, 1856, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel- 
  	phia, 7(1855), p.281

  .
• The citation to "1856" is followed (without comment) by HBW 2:184 and H&M 3 ^rd:111; although the AOU CL 5^th:106 dates this to May 22, 1855, and the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1:189 dates this to 1855 as well.
• This paper was presented at the Meeting of Feb.27, 1855 and appeared in no.VII of volume VII. Receipt of "no.VII" for that volume was acknowledged by the Boston Society of Natural History Library on May 22 of 1855. Thus 1855 is the proper date for this taxon.
• Undoubtedly the "May 22, 1855" date as listed in the 1957 AOU CL 5^th: 106 comes from this acknowledgement of receipt. It seems peculiar that Stresemann and Amadon in preparing this portion of the Peters Checklist did not take the trouble to see what the AOU Checklist committee had resolved, especially as Amadon himself was on that Committee.
• However, perhaps this is not so strange, as consulting the AOU Checklists seems these days to be the exception rather than the rule.

• Peters Checklist 8:180 (Traylor) cites this to 1827. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:373 and HBW 9:405
• The actual date here is a bit of a mystery. Zimmer p.154 discusses the problem of dating names from this work in detail, including details provided by both Sherborn (Ind.Anim Pt.2 p.xli and Mathews Bibliography of the Birds of Australia p.63). It appears that certainty with regards dates is not to be had.
• Mathews writes:

  We have therefor for the volumes as generally met with, Vol. I. before Aug.6th, 1828;
  Vol. II., before May 21st, 1829; Vol. III before Jan. 23rd, 1830.

• The volume numbers are, of course themselves confusing. There were 16 vols. Vol.VI (Aves I); Vol.VII (Aves II) and Vol.VIII (Aves III). Note that Zimmer p.154 appears to have an error listing

   Vol.III (Aves III)

  but lower down referring to

  At the close of Vol.VIII (Aves III).

• With nothing better to proceed on, I accept Mathews' dates, and date Vol.VI (Aves I) to 1828.

• Conventionally listed as published in 1891, which is the imprint date.
• James Jobling has noticed that Zimmer (p.97) notes (quotes are Zimmer's)

  	"It was completed in December last, and is dated 1891, though it was not
  	actually accessible to the public until the middle of last March"
  	(Ibis, July 1892).

• Of interest, of a number of taxa from this source checked in the Richmond Index, one (Neophema) is dated "1891?".
• Based on the data Zimmer quotes from Ibis, I dated all taxa from this source to 1891. Other interpretations are, however possible. If multiple copies not "accessible" to the public were distributed (say at the Museum) during 1891, then the publication date would be 1891 so this date is based on speculation. Arguments can be made for either date. "Completion" is not the same as publication, and this approach argues for using 1892. My general approach has been in controversial issues to default to following the Richmond Index, which here would also appear to favor 1891. However published material including specific details (i.e. The Ibis note) appeared to support 1892.
• Additional reflection prompted me to change back to 1891, based on the distinction between "accessibil[ity] to the public" and "publication". That is material may be published, yet not "accesible to the public".
• Who knows, I may change my mind again.

• Peters Checklist 2:254 gives the citation here as

  	Eudromias crassirostris Severtzov, Izvest. Imp. Obsch. Estestr. Antr. i
  	Ethnogr. Moskva, 3, no. 2 ["Turkestanski Jevotni"], 1873, p.146.

  All other taxa cited to this source (and some to Turk. Jevotni) are cited to volume 8 not 3. I have no independant confirmation of the volume number, but fully expect that it is a typographic error (a common one) substituting 3 for 8.

• Evidently based on a bird, of questionable identity, referred to in the Vulgate Bible.
• My researches suggest that the occurance is in Leviticus Chapter 11 where it is indicated which birds may be eaten and which are to be detested, held in abomination and not eaten.
• The relevant text of the Vulgate Bible (note line # 19) is:

  Leviticus
  	Chapter 11
  1 locutus est Dominus ad Mosen et Aaron dicens
  2 dicite filiis Israhel haec sunt animalia quae comedere debetis de cunctis animantibus terrae
  3 omne quod habet divisam ungulam et ruminat in pecoribus comedetis
  4 quicquid autem ruminat quidem et habet ungulam sed non dividit eam sicut camelus 
  	et cetera non comedetis illud et inter inmunda reputabitis
  5 chyrogryllius qui ruminat ungulamque non dividit inmundus est
  6 lepus quoque nam et ipse ruminat sed ungulam non dividit
  7 et sus qui cum ungulam dividat non ruminat
  8 horum carnibus non vescemini nec cadavera contingetis quia inmunda sunt vobis
  9 haec sunt quae gignuntur in aquis et vesci licitum est omne quod habet pinnulas 
  	et squamas tam in mari quam in fluminibus et stagnis comedetis
  10 quicquid autem pinnulas et squamas non habet eorum quae in aquis moventur 
  	et vivunt abominabile vobis
  11 et execrandum erit carnes eorum non comedetis et morticina vitabitis
  12 cuncta quae non habent pinnulas et squamas in aquis polluta erunt
  13 haec sunt quae de avibus comedere non debetis et vitanda sunt vobis aquilam 
  	et grypem et alietum
  14 milvum ac vulturem iuxta genus suum
  15 et omne corvini generis in similitudinem suam
  16 strutionem et noctuam et larum et accipitrem iuxta genus suum
  17 bubonem et mergulum et ibin
  18 cycnum et onocrotalum et porphirionem
  19 erodionem et charadrion iuxta genus suum opupam quoque et vespertilionem
  20 omne de volucribus quod graditur super quattuor pedes abominabile erit vobis
  21 quicquid autem ambulat quidem super quattuor pedes sed habet longiora retro crura 
  	per quae salit super terram ...

• An unusual situation here, where the genus group name is published prior to the scientific description of any of the component species.
• Peters Checklist 2:308 comments that J.R. Forster has

  Diagnosis only, no species included.

• The first species described, and subsequently included in the genus is Vaginalis alba Gmelin 1789. A name based on Latham's work. Essentially all that Gmelin did was assign binomina and Latin descriptions to birds that were described (without Latin binomina) by Latham. Thus it is my speculation that Forster was able to write a diagnosis for Chionis based on Latham's description and illustration and lacking only a Latin binomen. The binomen was subsequently supplied by Gmelin.

• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 p.10 indicates that the date fro this taxon is 1811 and not 1808 as conventionally given. The rationale for this decision is not given, but the note references a 1953 Stresemann article in Mitt.Zool.Mus.Berlin 29(1):75-106 (not seen), and an article in prep. It will be interesting to learn of the details here.

• Peters Checklist 8:320 (Mayr) lists this as

   	Pitta coccinea Eyton, 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. London,
   	p.104

• The Richmond Index listing is:

   	Pitta coccinea J.C.Eyton 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.,
   	part VII, no. LXXVIII, Nov. 1839, 140

• So the problem is p.140 or p.104 ? A question that should be easily resolvable by checking the original description. Richmond's listing of "no.LXXVII" does provide an additional clue. no.LXVIII for this volume is listed by Duncan as including pp.93-110, and being published in November. Page 140 is listed as occuring in no.LXXXII which was not published until March of 1840.
• It appears to me that the Peters (Mayr) listing is correct, and that this is a rare example of a transposition error by Richmond.
• HBW 8:792 lists the page as 104.
• [2010.09.05] Fred Ruhe confirms that it is p.104.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:397 (Mayr) cited as
• Malurus cyaneus cyaneus (Latham) 1783 Gen.Syn.Birds 2 p.501
However Ellis's description would appear to antedate this.
• Priority of Ellis's description depends on the date actually being 1782; all the copies of this work I have found in library Catalogues, have been of the second edition, with a publication date of 1783.
• The 1782 version is cited by the Richmond Index, and by Sherborn.

2020.11.08

• A letter from Richmond to Witmer Stone (July 21, 1930) contained in the Archives of the Acadamy of Nat. Sci. Phila. states:

  	I have sent for Cook's Voyages and when they come will look up the
  		refs. for Giant Fulmar and Dark Gray Petrel and send on to you.
  	      I think it will be perfectly proper to put the date (the particular
  		date of the page) after the page reference, thus indicating it to be
  		the date of the page only and not of the volume.
  	

• Mathews in his Bibliography of the Birds of Australia (1925) dates both volumes to 1782 -- which is at variance with most other bibliographic listings of this work. He comments:

  Motacilla cyanea has been quoted from this book where it is merely a nomen nudum.
  	Ellis's drawings of Natural History are preserved in the British Museum (Natural 
  	History) and were reported on by Sharpe, Hist. Coll. Nat. Hist. Brit. Mus., Vol II
  	pp. 199-208, 1906.
  
  	[Painting]
  	No. 95 is the Superb Warbler of Tasmania, Motacilla cyanea Ellis, n.n. then of Latham
  	and Gmelin.

• Sherborn dates this name to 1782.

• The Richmond Index give the original description as follows:

  A small bird of the Motacilla genus with a bright blue head, which we, on
  that account, called Motacilla cyanea.

• This is the original description, according to Mathews, Aust.Av.Rec. I, 1912, p.93.

• Peters Checklist 11:392 (Mayr) cites this as:

  Todopsis coronata Gould, 1878, Birds Australia, pt. 8

• Birds of Australia pt. 8 was, of course, published in September of 1842 some 35 years before this name was published.
• Presumably Dr Mayr, or whoever actually wrote this section for him, confused "The Birds of New Guinea and the Adjacent Papuan Islands" with "The Birds of Australia".

• Originally spelled columbiana (according to Peters Checklist 2:212; The Richmond Index; HBW 3:207).
• H&M 3^rd:126 spells this colombiana which makes more sense, but is incorrect.

• Originally spelled Neocrex colombianus by Bangs.
• Misspelled Neocrex columbianus by Peters Checklist 2:194; and this error has been repeated (e.g. H&M 3^rd:124) sometimes, and the name has been rendered correctly sometimes (e.g. HBW 3:191).

• Originally spelled Rallus Corrius in Vol.3 no.3 Jan. 15, 1887 p.33.
• Spelt Rallus Coryi in corrected description in Vol.3 no.6, Feb. 5, 1887 p.69
• Whether this satisfies the Code requirements for a "demonstrably intentional" change is, in my view, slightly uncertain given the uncertainties in Art. 33.2.1, and the lack of an opportunity to examine the original description and subsequent corrected description. However, it appears very likely that the case does satisfy the Code requirements, and it has been treated as an accpeted emendation for many decades.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 10:232 (Deignan) to "Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.", and in this Deignan appears to be following the Richmond Index, which also lists this as the source.
• Evanhuis' detailed presentation regarding this publication (Evanhuis) indicates that this must have been in Ann.Nat.Hist.
• Sherborn (p.1131) incorrectly cites this to the later publication in 1841 in the PZS.

• Originally spelled "castanotus" by Gould.
• This has been corrected to castanotum.
• Basis for and validity of this correction uncertain at present (2006.04.08).

• Not recognized as a species by H&M 3^rd.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:25 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174 and by HBW 4:206.
• 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.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:33 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.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:29 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW 4:215.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus (as well as a genus group name used in insect taxonomy). As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 3:13 dates this to 1823.
• The Richmond Index dates this to July of 1822, as does Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.1052)

• Usually cited to the J.As.Soc.Bengal
  • Peters III:16 cites to J.A.S.B. 14, 1840 p.852 -- the 1840 must be a lapsus for 1845 or 1846, as it makes no sense for vol. 14.
  • H&M 3^rd:172 puts the date (more reasonably) at 1846.
  • HBW 5:195 uses 1846 and points to J.A.S.B. 14:852.
• CWR, has a J.A.S.B. card for

  Tr[eron] chloroptera  J.A.S.B. XIV, pt.II, no.168; n.s. no.84, Dec, 1845, 852, in text.

  and a note "Blyth's paper is Dated May 22, 1846" -- dating the taxon to 1846.
• Prior to that he has a card as follows. (quotes " " are Richmond's)

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Treron chroloptera         "B"
  India Sporting Review, II, no.3, Sept., 1845, 28 (in text).
  
      " A fifth Hurryaul, [APP: not completely sure of this word, possibly Hurryanl? ]
  of superior dimensions, but otherwise
  much resembling the pompadora, has lately been received
  by the Museum of the Asiatic Society from the Nicobar
  Islands, and is named by the Curator - Treron chloroptera." (full ref.)
  
                           (Book in Dept. Agr. library).
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Blyth was the Curator of the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from ca. 1841-1861.

• Peters Checklist 3:143 notes that Chalcopsittacus is an emendation by Salvadori and Sharpe of Chalcopsitta Bonaparte. Thus Peters does not place taxa descr. in Chalcopsittacus but now held in Chalcopsitta in parentheses. (duivenbodei and syringanuchalis).
• Of the recent sources available to me it appears that HBW 4:341 (Collar. 1997) started the interpretation of not accepting Chalcopsittacus as an emendation of Chalcopsitta and thus putting the authority in parentheses. This then seems to have been followed, or should I say parroted, by H&M 3^rd:184 (2003).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Taxa from this source are almost universally dated to 1846, the imprint date.
• Regarding the date of publication, Roy McDiarmid writes (2005.01.11)

  	In 1926, C. Davies Sherborn, Ann Mag Nat Hist ser. 9, vol.
  	17:271-272 published a brief note titled: Dates of Publication of
  	Early Catalogues of Natural History issued by the British Museum. In that
  	work Sherborn attributes the Catal. Spec. and Drawings .... by Hodgson to
  	G. R. Gray, 1846 with the bracketed date [9 January 1847].  In the text he
  	states that 'Information supplied from the Records by permission of the
  	Trustees of the British Museum.'  Further, he stated that many difficulties
  	have arisen in question of priority and that it is impossible to recover the
  	exact date they were offered for public sale. He continues that " ... we
  	must be contented to recover the exact day on which they were 'laid on the
  	table' of the Trustees, a preliminary to the issue to the public.' He
  	notes that these are the dates he used in the Index Animalium.

• This is cited by Peters Checklist 6:140 to 1844.
• This is initially followed by H&M 3^rd:318 (but corrected to 1845 in Corrigenda 3).
• HBW 7:537 (Winkler & Christie) evidently follows Peters Checklist and uses 1844 without comment.
• The Richmond Index dates this taxon to 1845, noting "Ref. to Madr. paper of Aug. 9, 1845 in this no.!"

• Originally published as Capsiempis flaveola cerula as shown by the Richmond Cardex, as well as by Deignan 1961 p.293 and HBW 9:287.
• Listed by H&M 3^rd:354 as C. f. cerulua
• Corrected by H&M 3^rd: Corrigenda 3 to C. f. cerula

• The authority for this genus seems to perpetually change, attributed to 1826, then to 1825; to Vigors and then to Swainson.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 takes the position that the authority is Swainson in Vigors, and dates it to 1825. The basis for this assertion is given as ICZN decision 67.
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1987. p.71 lists:

  Colaptes Swainson, 1825, in Vigors, Trans. linn. Soc. London
  14(3): 457 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy
  :Cuclus auratus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:
  112) (Aves) 0.67

• This Official 1987 act by the ICZN seems to be largely ignored, and see below for excellent reasons to do this. The AOU CL 7^thEd. (1998) p.343 lists Vigors as the author, as does HBW 7:510 (2002).
• The 1825 Vigors citation, which the ICZN chose as the basis for this genus is of interest. The Richmond Index card for this includes the following notes (quotes are Richmond's).

  "This group forms the genus Colaptes of Mr. Swainson."
  (this is the only "orig. diag." given by Vigors

  (The parentheses are unclosed in the original.)
• The type is apparently indicated as Cuclus auratus Linn. by monotypy, so what constitutes the "group" is not clear, not having seen the paper.
• Swainson's role in this nomenclatural act appears to me, at least, to be minimal and well below that which should afford him status as the author of the genus. Richmond lists the name Colaptes as a "[Swainson MS.]" name.
• Roy McDiarmid kindly provided a copy of text of Opinion 67 (Smith.Ins. Publ. no.2409. April, 1916). This constitutes 102 bird names placed in the Official List of Generic names. In this list, the name Colaptes is listed as follows.

  Colaptes (Swainson MS.) Vigors, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 14, iii, 1825, 457.
  	Mt., Cuculus auratus Linn.

  The author of this taxon is clearly held by Opinion 67 to be Vigors, and not Swainson, and while it may be interesting, it is useless to speculate on the basis for this error. However, error it is, and one now enshrined in the "Official Lists...". From my point of view the intention of this part of Opinion 67, while extremely clear to me, escaped the understanding of the authors of the 1987 "Official List....". I follow the original intention and action of Opinion 67 and list the author as Vigors.

• This occurs in the "1994" volume of Orn.Neotrop.
• I learn from Normand David (in litt. 2004.11.19) that the back cover of this number (no.2) shows "10 May, 1995", so that must be taken as the date for the taxon.

• Peters Checklist 8:122 (Traylor) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• The Peters Checklist 8:26 (Traylor) lists the volume number as "15 no.362" this is inconsistent with his orthographic representation of this work, which he represents as 15(362) on p.70 of the same volume of the Checklist.
• A comparison of other citations to this serial makes the combination of no.362 and vol.15 appear unlikely, and this peculiarity would appear to be explained by the note in the Richmond Index for this taxon. That note has "XV" scratched out and "XIV" written in above it. The note (in CWR's hand) says

   misprinted vol. "XV" on this no.!

• Another taxon from this same volume and number is Sclerurus salvini, which Jim Peters lists (7:152) as from vol.14 no.362. The Richmond Index for this taxon has the same note concering the misprinted volume number for this number. It appears to me that Traylor was unwilling, unable, or disinclined to make his citation consistent with others either of his own or elsewhere in the Peters Checklist Series. I fight my own battles with unwillingness, inability, and disinclination, and know that it is not an easy fight.

• The original description of the genus reads:

  CHRYSOMUS, SW. (fig. 243.)  Bill resembling Zanthor-
  nis; but the margin of both mandibles inflexed.  Wings moderate; the first quil
  rather shorter than the second. Tail rounded. Feet formed for walking. Toes large,
  very long, and slender : middle toe longer than the tarsus; lateral toes equal; 
  hinder toe shorter than the tarsus. Claws long, very slender, and but slightly 
  curved.
  
  icterocephalus. Edw. pl.323. zanthopygius. Part 5. No. 190.
  

• I am somewhat uncertain about this citation.
• N.J. Collar says in HBW 4:456 (1997).

  NE Brazilian population, if proven racially distinct, must be known as
  chryseura (Swainson, 1820), not ruficauda Berla, 1954.

  Though the specific Swainson citation is not given in HBW 4.
• The only citation I can find for this name is from the Richmond Index

  Psittacus chryseürus Wm. Swainson 1823
  Zoological Illustrations, ser.1, 3, no.28, Jan. 1823. pl.141 + text

  I do not find it in Sherborn, it is not in Peters Checklist, and it is not in the Hand-List of the Genera and species of Birds edited by Ogilvie-Grant and Sharpe, so I presume it is not in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. XX (not examined 2004.09.12).
• I suspect (but do not know) that the correct date for this name should be 1823, and cited as above.

• The original description reads (emphasis added for cyanochlora):

    PISTTACULUS SANCTI THOMAE. __ Psittacus (Psittacula) St.
  Thomae, Kuhl. -- Psittacus gregarius fem. Spix, pl.34, fig.
  2 et 3.
    Très semblable au passerinus, mais à teintes beaucoup plus
  claries et passant, dans le premier plumage, au jaune sur le front
  et le devant de la tête en général. -- Aile 2 pouce 9 lignes
  à 2 pouces 11 lignes; queue 16 à 17 lignes; hauteur de la
  mandibule supérieure 3 lignes, largeur de l'inférieure 4 lignes.
    Observé sur les bords du fleuve des Amazones et du Rio
  branco.
    1. Mâle en habit de passage, tué le 28 Déc. 1831, Forte
  do Rio branco, Guyane portugaise, voyage de Natterer; obtenu 
  en 1864 du Musée de Vienne sous le nom de Psittacula cya-
  nochlora, Natterer. -- 2. Femelle au premier plumage, tuée
  le 24 Mai 1822, Foret de Rio branco, Natterer, du Musée de
  Vienne, 1864, sous le nome de Psittacula cyanochlora. --3.
  Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck. -- 4.
  Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck, éti-
  quette de la main de Kuhl mème: Psit. St. Thomae. -- 5.
  Individu au premier plumage, acquis en 1860.
  

• Often cited as:
  • Eclectus roratus cornelia Bonaparte 1850 PZS(1849) Pt17 no.198 p.143 pl.11
• Peters Checklist 3:231 includes a note that says:

  "The description may have first appeared in Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 
  Paris, 30, Feb., 1850, p.135."

• The dates of publication of the PZS number are uncertain -- listed by Duncan and CWR as "Ja-Je" for 1850. This number (6) of the Compt.Rend. is for the Séance du Lundi 11 Février 1850.
• It is my guess that this number of the Compt.Rend. was published before the no.198 of the PZS. My logic here is that no.198 of the PZS is the fifth number of this volume of the PZS that is designated as occuring in the "Jan. - June" period. Thus, it appears likely that it may have been later than the middle of Feb. It is not impossible that the PZS publication appeared earlier.
• I do not know what (if any) imprint dates may be on this number of the PZS, or on the wrappers in which it was delivered.
• It also is of interest that Peters Checklist 3:231 lists the plate in the PZS as "pl.11". The Richmond Index lists the plate in the PZS as

  Aves, pl."X".

  The implication of the quotation marks around the plate number are not immediately clear to me, but suggest the possibility that it is incorrectly numbered.
• HBW 4:[611] lists the PZS citation, including the page number but not the plate.
• Most workers are apparently unaware of and thus do not reference Bonaparte's use of Eclectus cornalia in Athenaeum no.1155, Dec. 15, 1849 p.1277, but according to the Richmond Index the name there is a nomen nudum.

• Not P. grisola.
• ref M.P.Walters, 2003. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 39. "The correct name for the Mangrove Whistler Pachycephala cinerea (Blyth)". Zool. Verh. Leiden, 344:107-109.

• Cited by Peters 7:4 to 1840; and this is followed by H&M ^rd:335.
• HBW 8:83 lists the date as 1839. This is supported by Sherborn C:1058, as well as Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Ethiop. 2:305, and the Richmond Index, where it is noted that this is from "Part VII" with a date of Sept. 2, 1839. Additionally, taxa described on subsequent plates 28,30 & 32 (Bradornis infuscatus, Ploceus subaureus, & Microparra capensis) are all dated to 1839 by Peters, Sherborn, Richmond, and H&M.

• Peters Checklist 5:197 lists the original combination as Halcyon cyanoventris and this is also followed by HBW 6:207.
• Sherborn Ind.Anim. C:1733, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was initially described in Alcedo. This interpretation is represented correctly in H&M 3^rd:286.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:317 (Mayr) as 1860.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in March of 1861, a fact confirmed by Duncan.

• The date here is a bit of a mystery. Peters Checklist 6:223 show the date as 1830, as does the Richmond Index and HBW 7:552.
• Sherborn lists the date as "ante May 1832", and a later date seems to make much more sense given the page and plate numbers.
• With some trepidation I adopt 1832 until additional understandings become available.

• Peters Checklist 3:205 cites this to Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév. découv., 1847 p.251 with a note that he is "unable to verify this reference." This note is appropriate as this name occurs nowhere on p.251 of the cited reference.
• The exact correct citation is still a bit of a mystery. The citation I give here is from the Richmond Index, though Richmond has a note that the Lesson 1847 article quotes "Echo, 1844, t.2" Peters refers to that citation, but says "the name does not appear there" -- implying he examined the extremely rare L'Echo du Monde Savant but did not examine the much more readily available Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév. découv.
• It is clear that there is uncertainty with regard to the citation for this taxon.
• Great thanks to Michael Rieser for checking the page cited by Peters and demonstrating that the name is not present there.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 3:207 to Salvadori, and this is followed by HBW 4 :451 and H & M 3^rd:201.
• Vitor Piacentini communicates (2004.03.03)

  J. F. Pacheco [indicated] that the correct author's name is (Pelzeln, 1870).
  There is a note in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) that deals with it. 
  According do Olivério Pinto (1978. Novo catálogo das aves do Brasil), the basonym is:
  Sittace cyanoptera Pelzeln, 1870, Orn. Bras., (3), p.260 (in the synonymy of
  "Brotogeris jugularis")

• H&M 3^rd:268 spells this circumventris without comment.
• The original name is Colibri amethystinus circumventus (verified).

• This citation is currently a bit of a guess on my part. Peters Checklist 6:195 cites this as
  "Dendrocopus minor comminutus Hartert, Bds. Brit. Isles, 1907, p. 22"
  
• I can find no work by that title for that date, and presume that the reference is to the serial entitled British Birds which commenced in 1907.
• Olav Runde confirms (in litt.2008.05.16) that this was published in British Birds but that it is described on pp.221-222 not on "p.22".

• Peters Checklist 5:23 gives 39 as the volume number. HBW 5:688 follows Peters in this.
• Peters' citations for four taxa described alongside C. t. crissalis (namely, Lepidopyga luminosa phæochroa, Amazilia chionopectus orienticola, Amazilia fimbriata elegantissima, and Ocreatus underwoodi polystictus) have 29 as the volume number. Reference to Todd's work on pages 5 and 36 also use that number.
• The Richmond Index confirms that volume 29 is correct.

• Peters Checklist 9:32 (Mayr & Greenway) lists the date here as 1841.
• The Richmond Index, Zimmer, and Sherborn all show that this part was published in Nov. 1839.

• H&M 3^rd:409 cites 1916 for this taxon. 1916 is the year that Cherrie described Synallaxis rufogularis. But due to Synallaxis rufogularis Gould 1839, a replacement name was required and supplied by Gyldentolpe in 1930.
• HBW 8:280 has the correct date and citation.

• Peters Checklist 5:267 attributes pl.530 to livr.88 and thus to 1831. HBW 6:499 follows Peters in this.
• The Richmond Index shows that this plate occurs in livr.89, and thus dates it to Feb. 1832
• Dickinson 2001. also determines pl.530 to be in livr.89 and he dates it to Feb. 11, 1832

• H&M 3^rd:416 misspells this colombianum.
• It originally was P[hilydor] columbianus.

• The specific epithet is spelled columbiana by Peters Checklist 7:87 and by the Richmond Index.
• H & M 3^rd:409 makes the understandable error of spelling it with an "o" (colombianus) instead of with a "u".

• The specific epithet is spelled columbiana by Peters Checklist 7:68; but David & Gosselin BBOC 2002 144:277 indicate that this must be spelled columbianus in accordance with the current (1999) ICZN approach.
• H & M 3^rd:403 appropriately notes the correct spelling of the end of the subspecies epithet, but makes the error of spelling it with an "o" (colombianus) instead of with a "u", as both the Peters Checklist, and the Richmond Index indicate it was spelled.

• Conventionally cited to Gurney 1868. (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:137; HBW 2:565; H & M 3 ^rd:40)
• This citation is not discussed, and thus would appear to be based more on convention than understanding.
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one discussing the Gurney name, and its relationship to the previous use by Gray, and another that refers to a name by PLS Muller. That card contains this information:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Numida coronata "Pallas" Phillipp (Ludwig Statius) Müller. 1776
  Vollständigen Natursystems Supplements-und Register-Band} 1776, 126.
  [Pall. Spic. Zool. IV p.18 ?]
  (See Cassin. Proc. Acad. N.S. Phila 1864, 247)
  "Es fuhret gleichaur eine kegelförmige Bischofs-
  mütze oder Pabstkrone auf dem Kopfe, und die Kehle
  haf eine Falte. Die Fürsze sind schwarze. Diese Art kommt
  aus Africa. Pallas Miscell." (full descr.)
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Why this citation is not used, referred to, or discussed is not known to me. In addition the standing of the Pallas citation is uncertain, but intriguing as the Pallas subspecies Numida meleagris mitratus is cited to the same page (p.18) (though with a plate).

• Conventionally spelt coyolocos.
• It seems clear that the original spelling was Coyleos.
• The name is interpreted to have been based on "le Coyolcos" of Buffon, and workers have felt uninibited in their recognition of Statius Miller's intent.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:132 to Neumann, and this is repeated by HBW 5:223, and H&M 3^rd:232.
• The Richmond Index indicates the author is Reichenow, and I follow this.

• In HBW 2:510,573 the Mayr & Rand subspecies of Coturnix ypsilophora are cited as "1937 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 73".
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that the correct citation is 1935 and Am.Mus.Novit.

• HBW 2:513 list the authors of as Whistler & Kinnear.
• The Richmond Index lists only Hugh Whistler as the author.

• Authorship frequently given as Vigors & Horsfield (e.g. Peters Checkist 7:7).
• Thanks to Murray Bruce's work on this it is clear that Vigors was the author of the bird descriptions in the catalogue attached to the Memoir by Lady Raffles. This sole authorship was indicated by the Marquis Tweddale in Ibis 1877 (4)1:284.
• Bruce indicates that the likelihood is that Gray attributed authorship to Vigors & Horsfield based upon their names in attribution for a plate in the work.

• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.38 spells this colombiana, which makes logical sense, but does not follow the spelling as given by the Richmond Index, Peters Checklist 2:18, and HBW 2:345.

• Correct original spelling is camaronensis (as pointed out by Bob Dowsett, and confirmed in the Richmond Index).
• As Dowsett also points out, this spelling is supported by the spelling "Camaroons" in the title of the paper.
• Peters Checklist 10:153 (S.D. Ripley) spells this cameronensis.

• Given by Peters Checklist 9:318 (Mayr & Greenway) list this as:
  • Dryoscopus cubla (Shaw) 1809 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 7 pt2 p.328
• Bob Dowsett tell me (2003.05.05) that Latham's name has priority here.
• I presume that Latham's name (based on Le Vaillant Ois. d'Afr. pl.72 f. 1 & 2) is therefor a senior synonym to Shaw's name (presumably based on the same work?).

• Pallas' original description, reproduced by Sherborn, is reproduced here:

 N.  78 COLUMBA (cristata) cœrulescens, capitis
        crista maxima compressa diffusa cirrhosa.  Mang.
	supra Phasianum.  Rostrum columbinum.  Corpus
	plumbeo cœrulescens antrorsum dilutius.  Fascia
	nigra a rostro ducta, oculos includens.  Irides
	fulvæ.  Dorsum medium humerique tinctura
	transversa punicea, antice abrupte terminata,
	postice obsolescente.  Tectrices secundariæ albæ,
	extremitate puniceonigræ.  Cauda plumbeo-
	fusca, apicibus rectricum dilutioribus. Phasia-
	nus cristatus Brissonii Spec. 6.     [Banda.]

• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):334.

• The Richmond index gives Temminck 1807 Cat.Syst.Cab.Orn.Quad. p.162; it is not clear to me why Richmond's citation is not correct.
• Subsequent to my original note (the line above ante 1988) this matter has been investigated more fully, and there appears to be agreement that the 1807 use of this name is valid and sufficient.
• The original spelling unquestionably is "coerulescens" and not "caerulescens".
[2010.07.11]
• Richmond Index Otis coerulescens Card

Deppe

 PTILONOPUS CHALCURUS			B.M.

 Ptilononpus chalcurus, G. R. GRAY.

 Cook's Islands (Harvey or Hervey Island).
 Very similar to the Ptilonopus coralensis, but the front and top
of the head shining greyish-purple.

• It is often suggested to me that this is two species, and it may well be. The basis for the suggestion is the paper by Zink et al. Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, and Dittmann DL. 1995. "Trans-Beringia Comparisons of Mitochondrial DNA Differentiation in Birds." The Condor. 97(3):650-662.
• The relevant paragraph states.

  "Our Larus canus sample represented the subspecies kamtschatschensis (Russia) and brachyrhyncus (U.S.), which are separated only by the Bering Sea. Larus c. kamtschatschensis is a larger and heavier-billed form than North American brachyrhynchus , and slightly darker dorsally, especially in juvenile plumage; tail patterns differ in first basic plumages (Cramp and Simmons, 1983). The mtDNA data suggest that two species are represented, a possibility also raised by Sibley and Monroe (1990). previous molecular studies revealed little differentiation over a large area in a gull species (e.g. Bell 1992). Although gulls tend to wander, there are no North American records of L. c. kamtschatschensis. The species level mtDNA differentiation of p=0.02 was consistent with the morphological differentiation of the east Siberian form."

• They did NOT look at the nominate subspecies Larus canus canus, and did not address the issue of intergradation as raised by Sibley and Monroe.
• To date I do not find the argument totally convincing for a separation of species. I expect the argument will be made convincing with more data.
The subspecific forms are:
• Larus canus canus Linnaeus 1758 Syst.Nat.ed.10 p.136
• Larus canus kamtschatschensis Bonaparte 1857 Consp.Gen.Av. 2 p.224
• Larus canus brachyrhynchus Richardson 1831 Am.Orn.[Jamesoned.] 4 p.352

Hence Cisticola is a male gender genus-group name; nana becomes nanus, incana to incanus &c.

---

Ptilorrhoa caerulescens Date

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 10:236, 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".

---

Cotinga Citation

• Usually (e.g. Peters 8:297 (DW Snow)) listed as
• Cotinga Brisson 1760 Orn. 2 p.339
• However, it occurs first in vol.1 Ornithologia (Tabula synoptica) where I understand from Steven Gregory it is available as a binomial name.

---

Anas carolinensis Concept

• Sangster G. et. al. 2002 Ibis 144:154 argue that plumage, courtship behaviour and molecular phylogenetic analysis aruge that this be elevated to full species status, separate from A. crecca.

---

Aramides cajaneus Nomenclature.

• For resolution as cajaneus, see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.114.)

....; 2011.10.16

2011.10.16

---

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

Last updated 2021.06.01