Zoological Citation Notes --D

• For the date and authority, see Bruce & Bahr. 2020. Sherbornia 6(1):1-42
• Bruce & Bahr 2020 Sherbornia pdf

• The current version (10.2) of the IOC World Bird Checklist holds Diuca to be monotypic contatining Diuca diuca.
• Some (Peters (=Paynter) and Hellmayr) held the type of Diuca to be while Sharpe (CBBM 12, held the type to be Fringilla diuca Molina.
• Terry Chesser provides the resolution, writing: "This appears to be based on Burns et al. (2016), who stated the following: 'The necessity of allocating diuca and speculifera to different genera reopens the question of the type species of Diuca because the species that is not the type may require a new genus. The issue is resolved by Article 67.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), hereafter the Code. In the first explicit assignment of species to either of the relevant genera Diuca Reichenbach and Hedyglossa Cabanis, Cabanis (1851: 135) listed only one, Fringilla diuca Molina, 1782, which applies to both generic names, irrespective of Cabanis’s treating Diuca as a synonym of Hedyglossa. Under Article 67.2.2 of the Code, Fringilla diuca thus becomes the only species eligible for fixation as the type for either of these generic names, effectively by monotypy (Article 69.3). Consequently, Gray’s (1855) subsequent designation of speculifera as type species of Diuca is irrelevant, and if speculifera is to be assigned to a monospecific genus, a new generic name is needed for it. Accordingly we provide Chionodacryon here.'"
• Chesser also notes that Bonaparte 1850, Consp.Gen.Avium may constitute the typification, in which case possibly three taxa are available for the choice of the type.

• Cited by HBW 2:[571] to p."355".<./li>
• The description and name are found on p.356.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 7:44 to Lafresnaye alone. Examining the original descriptions shows quoted text attributed to Pucheran and Lafresnaye.

• Most frequently spelled desmursii, though that is not how the name was rendered.
• 
• I do not see any internal reference to himself (or to the name) so I believe that the (mis)-spelling must stand as rendered.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.


• Indeed, as pointed out by Dr David Donsker, this matter is discussed by Gregory & Dickinson. Zootaxa (2012) 3340:48-49. There they demonstrate the date is best held to be 1845, and Gay to be the author.
2021.02.24

• Peters Checklist 9:154 (= White 1960) gives the citation as "Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr., 24, p.344".
• Volume 24 would be correct for 1933, the correct volume here is 29.

• Originally spelled Hyphantornis dichrocephala, but the original combination was rendered incorrectly in the Peters Checklist 15:48 (= Moreau 1962), as Hyphantornis dicrocephala.
• This error may have resulted from a hasty reading of Sclater,WL 1930 SystemaAv.Aethiop. 2:749, where Sclater renders the original combination correctly, as Hyphantornis dichrocephala, but in combination with Ploceus, spells it Ploceus dicrocephalus.

• Peters Checklist 15:49 (= Moreau 1962) gives the authority as "Antinori and Salvadori" while the Richmond Index gives it as "Salvadori & O. Antinori"
• I have not been able to find a copy of the original publication, but for the moment follow the Richmond Index.
• Of interest, the CBBM 13:459 cites the authority as "Antin. & Salvad.", but cites this to "Viagg. Bogos, p. 120, pl. 111 (1873)". I am not sure what this might be. I find an 1885 publication entitled "Viaggio nel mar Rosso e tra i Bogos.." which mentions Antinori (but not Salvadori) and does not seem to have the name in it, or any "pl.111".
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:56 as a subspecies of Arborophila cambodiana, without comment.
• Treated as a full species by IOC World Bird Names (2.0) without comment.

• Accepted as a full species by the IOC World Bird List 2.0.

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Alcippe danisi is a proposed split from A.ruficapilla (Robson 2000,Collar 2006a); under review BLI."

• The original spelling was Pomatorhinus Dedekensi and this is conventionally corrected to dedekeni -- having been named in honor of Father Dedeken.
• This change is correct only if Father Dedeken is explicitly and correctly referenced in the article containing the original description. I assume this is so, but do not know it to be true for certain.
• (2009.11.27) Theo de Kok helpfully points out that the original description mentions Father Dedekens (sic). even though the gentleman's name was "Dedeken".
• The original spelling must stand.
• Interestingly, Edward Dickinson notes from his communications with Bert Deignan, that Bert was aware of this problem and apparently wrestled with the decision as to how to proceed.

• Previously represented as follows:
  • Dendroica dominica (Linnaeus) 1766 Syst.Nat.ed.12 p.334
  • Dendroica dominica albilora Ridgway & Baird,SF 1873 Am.Nat. 7 p.606 Nomenclature
  • Dendroica dominica dominica (Linnaeus) 1766 Syst.Nat.ed.12 p.334
  • Dendroica dominica flavescens Todd 1909 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 22 p.171
  • Dendroica dominica stoddardi Sutton 1951 Auk 68 p.28 pl.1
  however, McKay 2008. "Phenotypic variation in the Yellow-throated warbler" Condor 110(3):569-574 demonstrates that in this species phenotypic variation is clinal, and also communicates that a genetic survey showed none of the subspecies qualified as evolutionarily significant units.

• See Moyle RG, Hosner PA, Nais J, Lakim M & Sheldon FH. 2008. "Taxonomic status of the Kinabalu 'linchi' swiftlet." BBOC 128(2):94-100 for a discussion of the status of this taxon.

• In Zootaxa 2008. 1742:61-68 "Phylogenetic relationships within the genus Cynanthus (Aves: Trochilidae), with emphasis on C. doubledayi" GABRIELA M. GARCÍA-DERAS, NANDADEVI CORTÉS-RODRÍGUEZ, MAGALI HONEY, ADOLFO G. NAVARRO-SIGÜENZA, JAIME GARCÍA-MORENO & BLANCA E. HERNÁNDEZ-BAÑOS argue for full species status for doubledayi

• Peters Checklist 15:259 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this name to p.365 only.
• The Richmond Index shows that the description occurs on p.365, but that the name occurs on pl.39.

• The original description for this taxon raises significant questions.
• The remarks section of the description reads:

  Remarks: While working at the FNSF on Ninox owls for the colour plates 
  in König et al. (1999), I discovered this dubious skin between many other 
  Ninox skins, labelled only with the inscription
  "Ninox spec. no. 25238". Subsequent mensural
  analyses of a series of all Ninox species confirmed
  the distinctness of this specimen[.]

• The locality, distribution, and further details are unknown -- dubious indeed!
• Thanks to Alain Guimond for providing details on this.

• Peters Checklist 9:212 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cites this to volume 52, which apparently is a lapsus for the correct volume number, which is 53.

• H&M 3^rd:410 lists the authority in parentheses.
• Michael Rieser indicates in litt. 2006.11.01 that this was described in Cranioleuca, and the Richmond Index confirms this.
• The authority is erroneously placed in parentheses also in HBW 8:291.

• My citation, which I take from the Richmond Index, differs in a number of respects from that given by Peters 7:208, Peters gives it as

  Formicivora deluzea Ménétriés, Mém. Acad. Imp. Sci. St.
  Pétersbourg (6), 3, pt. 2 (Sci. Nat.), 1835, p.484, pl. 5, fig. 2

• The Richmond Index makes it clear that the name is Formicivor deluzae, apparently an error for Formicovora. Additionally his citation seems to make more consistent sense with other Ménétriés' citations from this source.
• The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 15:249 gives the citation as:

  Formicivora deluzæ, Ménétr. Mém. Acad. St.
  Pétersb. sé. vi (Sci. Nat. t. i p.484, pl. 5 fig. 2
  

  with no mention of the misspelling of the genus group name.
• Gonzaga & Pacheco. 1990. "Two new subspecies of Formicivora serrana (Hellmayr) from southeastern Brazil, and notes on the type locality of Formicivora deluzae Ménétriés". BBOC 110(4):187-193 have some discussion of Ménétriés' work. They appear to have examined the work (or had one of their collaborator's examine the work). They do not mention the misspelling of the genus group name, and cite the work

  Ménétriés, E. 1835. Monographie des Myiothètheres
  Mém. Acad. Sci St Petersburg (6th series) III (2):484-485,
  pl.5.

• The question here is should this taxon be held to be a full species or a subspecies.
• Treatment as a subspecies:
  • Peters 5:66 (1945)
  • Wolters lief.2 p.131 (1976)
  • SACC citing Peters, and "Weller (1999)" [?=HBW 5:601] in support.
  • H&M 3^rd:266 with a note:

    Type species of the genus Polyerata still submerged here,
    	pending further publication.

    The full implications of that note are not clear to me.

• Treatment as a species:
  • AOU 7th CL p.298 (1989).
  • Cory 1918 (not seen).
• Weller's note in HBW 5:601 states:

  Race decora sometimes considered a separate species on grounds
  mainly of morphological differences, combined with distribution.

  No data or argument is offered why that is insufficient for holding it to be a full species.
• Consideration of this matter is currently best summarized in an email from F. Gary Stiles (2006.06.30):

  ... I considered it a separate species in the Birds of Costa Rica because of
  differences in plumage, to which might be added differences in body proportions, song 
  behavior and to some extent, ecology. My feeling then and now is that superspecies status 
  for decora+amabilis, with each being considered an allospecies, is most appropriate. 
  The avifauna of the Pacific slope of S Costa Rica and extreme SW Panamá contains 
  a number of forms that differ from their closest relatives on the Atlantic slope, 
  decora vs. amabilis being one such case. These two show differences comparable 
  to those of other such forms currently considered (allo)specifically distinct
  in genera as diverse as Cotinga, Carpodectes, Manacus, Thamnophilus or Thryothorus,
  hence I can see no problem in doing likewise here.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 9:116 (Mayr & Greenway) and Sclater Systema Avium Aethopicarum 2:578 as
  • Hirundo domicella Hartlaub & Finsch 1870 Vog.Ost.-Afr.[Finsch & Hartlaub] p.143
• Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 10:165 lists this citation as well as

  Heugl. Orn. N.O.-Afr. i p.159 (1869-70)

• The Richmond Index lists the Heuglin citation with "Hartl. & Finsch" in quotes (indicating a manuscript name from them). Additionally Richmond notes:

  Antedates Hartl. & Finsch (publ. 1870) [cf.
  Newton, Zool.Rec. VI, 73(note).]

• I follow the Richmond Index here

• The date of this portion of Contrib.Orn. has been a difficult problem, and both uncertainty and different opinions as to how to proceed remain.
• Following the treatment by Murray Bruce (based on Hartlaub's notice of this material for the year 1853) and on Richmond's writing a "3" above the "1852" in his Index, I chose to date this material to 1853.
• The treatment by other workers of the date of this taxon is of some interest, but it is important to recognize that these other workers do not undertake to understand, explain, or acknowledge the basis (if any) for their treatments, and in virtually all works, some unexplained inconsistencies can usually be found.

Voisin & Voisin. 1999. "Liste des types d'oiseaux des collections du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle de Paris. 6. Coucous (Cuculidae)" Zoosystema 21(2):379-402. Date this taxon to 1831.
• This publication was issued in parts, with Livraison 2 published May 8, 1830. The work as a whole, which I imagine the Voisons examined, has an imprint date of 1831, so it is easy for the casual worker to be mislead.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.1900; 1925), Peters Checklist 4:51 (1940) and HBW 4:573 (1997) have the correct date of 1830. Cat.B.Br.Mus. 19:390 has the date incorrect as 1831.
• This is not the only dating mistake made by Voisin & Voisin; they replicate this error with other Lesson taxa:
  1. Bubatus isidori
  2. Bubatus duvaucelii
  3. Centropus pumilus
  all of which should be 1830 and not 1831.

• Peters Checklist 6:94 spells this species epithet d'Orbygnianus, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:313, as well as Short. 1982 "Woodpeckers of the World." pp.83-86.
• The original spelling is d'Orbignyanus at least according to The Richmond Index, Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.4601) and HBW 7:428 where Winkler & Christie explicitly discuss the spelling.
• Also of interest, Bonaparte in Consp.Gen.Av. p.141 drops the initial "d" and has the taxon as P. orbignyanus and on p.401 has the spelling UNCIROSTRUS orbygnii!!.
• CBBM 19:533 (not seen) evidently lists the taxon as Picumnus orbignyanus.
• Great thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 9:54 (Mayr & Greenway) as published in 1820, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:547.
• This work "Faune France" has a complex publishing history, and indeed it commenced in 1820, with publication continuing on until 1830. This name occurs in livraison "9&10" so a publication date of 1820 is unlikely.
• Sherborn in Index animalium p.2051 lists the date as 1824, which I follow. It should also be noted that Sherborn and Woodward 1901 Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7) 8 p.498 published on the dates of publication of the various parts making it clear that this portion was published 28 Feb. 1824 (a Saturday).
• The Richmond Index dates this name to "182 " with the final digit of the date not filled in.
• I do not recognize any priority issues that may result from this date change, and am thankful to Edward Dickinson for pointing out that possibility. To evaluate this possibility I looked at the synonomy in CBBM 13:526 (Sharpe). It appear that according to Sharpe the next available name would be a Temminck 1835 name Certhilauda duponti -- a name not found in Sherborn or the Richmond Index.

• The gender of this name is probably masculine, but the original description must be examined to be sure.

• Works from volume 1 of this work are cited by Peters Checklist 7:124,127 as having been published in 1840. (Note here that the orthographic rendering in this volume of Peters Checklist would appear to indicate the imprint date with no parentheses, and the publication date with parentheses).
• The HBW 8:328,338 (Remsen) confuses both the Peters Checklist representation (which is confusing) as well as the dates from the work in which these taxa are described, listing the date as "1842". Of additional interest the date "1842" evidently NEVER occurs as an imprint date (!), though it is the actual date of completion of volume 2.
• These confusions are reproduced without comment or discussion in H&M 3^rd:414,416.
• The dates of publication of this work were dealt with in detail by Sherborn and Palmer in 1899. Sherborn CD, Palmer TS. 1899. "Dates of d'Orbigny's 'Dictionnaire Universel d'Histored Naturelle,' 1839-1849." Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7) 3:350-352. Sherborn and Palmer's treatment is reflected in subsequent compilations (e.g. Sherborn's Index Animalium, Schulze et al., Neave), and those treatments do not seem to have been consulted by subsequent workers.
• Of interest, Sclater in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 15:105 cites the date 1847 for the genus Anabazenops. 1847 is the imprint date on the title page of the copy in the Zoological Society Library (the B.M. (N.H.) copies have imprint dates of 1861 for this volume). Certainly the most valuable copy, as noted by Sherborn and Palmer, is the copy then in the U.S. National Museum, which was Baird's personal copy and has an imprint date of 1841 for the first volume. 1841 is the date of the completed volume, with the individual livraisons starting to be issued in Dec. 1839.
• Also of note, Sibley & Monroe 1990 is alone in correctly interpreting the dates from Peters, giving the date as "1840" for Anabacerthia striaticollis (p.407) even though that Peters interpretation of the date is wrong. Sibley & Monroe, it appears is not consulted by current workers, even though much of the bibliographic work in it is of very high quality.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:27 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• 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 Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 and by HBW 4:217.
• 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.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 15:28 (Moreau & Greenway) as dated to 1871, though no evidence or support for this assertion is given.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprint date.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an 1871 paper cited this name to 1870. Absent evidence that demonstrates a delay of publication the date must be regarded as 1870.

• Baird in his description refers to specimens from widely separated localities; Fort Steilicoom, WA, and Fort Tejon, CA, a distance of over 870 miles (direct).
• Brodkorb. 1949. Condor 51:39 argues for fixing the type locality to Fort Steilacoom.

• Originally spelled "Dromiceius" on p.54 of Analyse, and spelled "Dromaius" on p.70 in the listing of "Nouveaux noms, tirés du grec, ..." [trans. New names, coming from the Greek], where the listing reads:

  "Dromaius [δρομαιος, velox]."

  Notes:
• δρομαιος [Greek, trans. running at full speed, swift, fleet];
• velox [Latin, trans. swift, rapid, quick, fleet].
• The consistent (and reasonable) interpretation has been that the original spelling was a misprint, or printer's error.
• In much of the 19^th and early 20^th century the name was spelled Dromaeus (e.g. Cat.B.Br.Mus.) where the listing reads:

  		1. DROMÆUS
  	Dromiceius (errore), Vieill. Analyse, p.54 (1816) .. D. novæ hollandiæ Type.
  	Dromaius, Vieill. op. cit. p.20 (1816); id. N. D. [APP note: ?misprint for p.70?]
  		x. p.211 (1817).
  	Dromæus, Ranz. El. di Zool. iii. 1 p.88 (1821) [APP note: ? misprint for p.98 or p.99?]
  	Tachea, Flem. Phil. of Zool. ii. p.257 (1822)  .... D. novæ hollandiæ.
  	Dromiceus, Sw. Class B. ii. p.346 (1837)
  	Dromeicus, A. Newton, Dict. of B. p.213(note)
  		(pt. 1, 1893)

• Alfred Newton, 1896, in his Dictionary of Birds (p.213) includes this note:

  1 The obvious misprint of Dromeicus in this author's work (Analyse &c.,
  p.54) has been foolishly followed by many naturalists, forgetful that he corrected 
  it a  few pages further on (p.70) in Dromaius - the properly latinized from 
  of which is Dromæus.

  [APP: one has to chuckle at the fact that Newton himself misspells Vieillot's original misspelling.]
• As noted by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. listing the Dromæus / Dromaeus rendering is an emendation attributable to Camillio Ranzani. 1821. The Richmond Index provides two listings for this:
  • Dromaeus Elementi di Zoologia, III, Parte 1, p.99
  • Dromoeus Elementi di Zoologia, III, Parte 1, p.98
  So Ranzani, along with Vieillot, and Newton fights for consistency with limited success.
• Ernst Mayr's note in Peters Checklist 1979 1(2):9 reads:

   3The incorrect formation Dromiceius, possibly arising from a
  printer's misreading of the manuscript, and changed to Dromaius by 
  the author a few pages later, was not employed except as a synonym
  of Dromaius until early in the twentieth century. G. R. Gray, as 
  first reviser, 1840, List Gen. Birds, p.63, clearly established Dromaius
  as the correct spelling. Cf. Serventy, Condon, and Mayr, 1965, Bull. 
  Zool. Nomencl., 22, pp.63-65, and  Melville, 1977, Bull. Zool. Nomencl.,
  34, pp.12-13. --E. M.

  I am dissapointed that Mayr does not discuss the use of Dromaeus as prevalent througout the latter 19^th and early 20^th centuries. It does seem reasonable to accept his presentation that Gray, as first reviser, fixes Dromaius as the name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:45 as "1855(1856)" which in this volume means an imprint date of 1855 and a publishing date of 1856. This interpretation is followed by H&M 3^rd:308.
• The Richmond Index notes that this is in "no. VIII" (which apparently is signature no.8) for the meeting of April 24, 1855. The receipt of this signature was acknowledged by the American Philosophical Society on 15 June, 1855.
• Additionally when Ms. Robin Sinn at the Academy Library looked into these dates of publication, she also established that no.8 was published in 1855.
• HBW 7:187 correctly lists 1855 for this taxon.

• Usually held to be a subspecies of nana. (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:278; H&M 3^rd:597.)
• Sangster et al. Ibis. 2004. "Taxonomic recommendations for British birds: second report." 146:156 elevate to species status, based on plumage and song.
• No mention of this publication is made by H&M 3^rd through the late 2008 Corrigenda (8).

• Two points of consideration:
  1. Date:
     • Listed by Peters Checklist 6:40 as published in 1907, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:306 and HBW 7:209.
     • For this volume of Abh.K.Bay.Akad.Wiss. that would seem to be several years too early.
     • The Richmond Index lists the date as 1910 which appears much more reasonable for this volume. I previously followed the Richmond Index here.
     • I have come to understand from Edward Dickinson, that there is unpublished data that indicates that this was published in a separate in 1907, though I have no independant confirmation of this fact.
     • Edward Dickinson writes (2004.10.02):

       	[Murray Bruce appears] to have an original separate dated 1907. 
       	In the Rothschild library there are two copies, the title
       	page is dated 1907 and the wrapper present in one case is also dated 1907. 
       	The whole volume has been examined, in South Kensington, [where] the title page
       	for the volume is 1910; the title page for part I is dated 1906, but at the end
       	of this, the second article in Part I, it reads "Angegeben am 6 November 1907";
       	the BMNH date stamp shows receipt on 26 November 1907.

       The case for 1907 being correct appears to be made.
  2. Nomenclature:
     • Originally described in Megalaema
     • Peters Checklist 6:40 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalaema to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by HBW 7:209 and H&M 3^rd:306, and in neither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
     • ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

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

• Peters Checklist 6:73 cites Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 9:93; and this is followed by HBW 7:561.
• The Richmond Index and Harris. 1928 Condor XXX:93 cite The Auk III:333 with a date of July, 1886, and attribute The Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. publication to Sept. 17, 1886. This may possibly be the imprint date for the signature (6), but if anything the publishing date would be later, and certainly not earlier than that.
• I do not recognize a rationale for citing the Proc. article rather than the Auk article.

• Peters Checklist 5:260 gives the citation as:
  • Buceros (Rhynchaceros) Deckeni (Cabanis) 1869 ReisenOst.-Afr.[Decken] 3 pt1 p.37 pl.6
  • HBW 6:[527] follows this as well.
  • This is also the citation given by Sclater 1924 in Syst. Av. Aethiop 1:228.
  • None mention the citation given by the Richmond Index, which I give here. The date given on the Richmond Index card (probably the imprint date, and quite possibly not the publishing date) is Nov. 1868.
  • This ReisenOst.-Afr.[Decken] citation may well be correct. In my view to establish it so it must be demonstrated that either the J.Orn. description has a problem of nomenclatural character (e.g. nomen nudum) or was published after the Decken publication. To date I am aware of no data to support either condition.
  • A similar situation may involve Hyphantornis bojeri Cabanis, now Ploceus bojeri.

• This taxon is not in Peters Checklist, the Richmond Index, or in HBW.
• My copy of The Ornithological Works of Tweedale. 1881. p.539-540 gives the reference as PZS 1877 p.766. This is the same as that given by the Cat.B.Brit.Mus 22:449.
• Given the page number (p.766) and the fact that the following taxon (from p.767) is in the PZS pt.iv for 1877, which was published in 1878, it seems overwhemlimgly likely that the year this taxon was published is 1878, and not 1877 as given in the above sources and in H&M 3^rd ed. p.36.

• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.32 spells this dellatrei
• The Richmond Index, Peters Checklist, and HBW all show the spelling as delattrii, which I follow.

• Gould's description reads:

  		Typus genericus.
    DENDROCITTA LEUCOGASTRA. Dend. atra; occipite, cervice,
      strigâ transversâ ad remigum basin, abdomineque albis; scapu-
      laribus, interscapulio, tecticibusque  caudæ inferioribus dilutè
      castaneis; rectricibus duabus internis misi ad apices cinereis.
    Hab.
    The shortness and comparative feebleness of the tarsi in Dendro-
  citta, and its more elongated tail, the feathers of which are equally 
  graduated, except the two middle ones which are much longer then
  the others, distinguish it from the typical Picæ, the common Magpie
  for example.  These characters are in accordance with its habit of 
  wandering from tree to tree in search of its food.  It is further di-
  stinguished by the form of its bill.
    All the species yet known are natives of Eastern Asia.

• Gould's description reads:

  		DENDROCITTA.
    Rostrum capite brevius, cultratum, ad basin latum, culmine ar-
  cuato, latribus subtumidis.
    Nares basales, plumis setaceis partim tectæ.
    Alæ mediocres, remigibus 5tâ 6tâque longioribus.
    Cauda elongata, cuneata, rectricibus spatulatis.
    Tarsi brevis debiles.  Digiti mediocres.  Hallux fortis, ungue
  forti, incurvo.
  

• Peters Checklist 6:59 (Peters) gives a date of 1798.
• HBW 7:195,562 (Short & Horne) repeat this error.
• Both the Richmond Index, and Sherborn show this as 1799. The Richmond index, shows it to be no.12 Aug. 1799.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• In the 43rd Supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2002 119(3): 900 the page number is erroneously given as "p.502"

• Described by de Schauensee as a subspecies of Herpsilochmus sticturus.
• Marek Kuziemko writes (2002.07.24) "Often considered to be a race of H. sticturus, but Ridgely and Tudor (1994) treat dugandi as a full species because it is widely allopatric to sticturus and female plumages differ. They are vocally similar. Ref.: Ridgely, R. S., and G. Tudor. 1994. The birds of South America, 2. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.."

• Listed in Peters Checklist 6:62 as "[1847]".
• Listed by Sherborn as "[1847]"
• Listed by HBW 7:176 as "1850".
• This volume of the Voy.Abissinie evidently came out from 1847 to 1850. The entry from the Library of the British Museum (Nat. History) states:
  • "General Note: Vol.3 seems to have been published in parts, at different dates, probably as follows: Geology, p.1-84, 1947 (sic); Plantae, Mammalia and Aves as far as p.224, 1848; rest of Aves with Insecta, 1850"
  • "Publs. about item: For dates of issues of the natural history portion of this work, see Annals and magazine of natural history, ser. VII, vol.8"
  • Edward Dickinson investigated this problem and writes (2002.08.20):
    'I inspected the Tring copy when there in July, but I found no date on what I looked at. This, with a sub-title "Quatrième Parties // Histoire Naturelle. -- Zoologie." was Tome Sixiéme. It contains pp. 1-398 (except that it also has pages 161-182 repeated with asterisks by the numbers). I do not understand why this is ever cited as Vol.3 ...

    The dating of this I have since found discussed by Sherborn & Woodward

    Sherborn, C.D. & B.B. Woodward, 1902. "Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history portions of some French voyages. Part 2. Ferret and Galinier's 'Voyage en Abyssinie'; Lefebvre's Voyage en Abyssinie'; 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie'; Castelnau's 'Amérique du Sud'; Dumont d'Urville's 'Voyage de l'Astrolabe'; Laplace's 'Voyage sur la Favorite'; Jacquemont's Voyage dans l'Inde'; Tréhouart's 'Commission scientifique d'Islande'; Cailliaud, 'Voyage à éroé'; 'Expédition scientifique de Mor´e'; Fabre, 'Commission scientifique du Nord'; Du etit-Thouars, 'Voyage de la Vénus' and on the dates of the 'Faune Française'. -- Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7) 8:161-164.

    They date the section containing pp.1-170 as 1847 and then argue that the distinct crowded smaller type pages of 161*-176*, 177-192, and 177*-192* seem to show that these parts were delayed. They date these pages along with pp.193-238 as 1851.

    On this basis the three taxa that concern us:

    1. Tracyhphonus darnaudii p.99 is 1847
    2. Lanius excubitorides p.99 would be 1847 but
    3. Lanius excubitorius p.170* is 1851.
    The latter name was not used in Peters and is not used in H&M (due to the one letter difference rule although I am not entirely sure this is safe as we deal with vowels connecting two syllables).

    The correction that the third offers relating to the second strengthens the argument that these pages were delayed."

Psarisomus dalhousiae page number

• Peters Checklist 7:11 has p.589, evidently a typographic error.
• for p.389.

Xenopirostris damii 1865

• Peters Checklist 9:366 has 1866.
• Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched the dates of publication for this work. Vol.3 pp.1-180 were published in 1865.

• Peters Checklist 15:150 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:61 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:28 has 1840.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show, this was published in July of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 7:24 has 1853.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1852.

• Peters Checklist 6:45 lists the date as 1856.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and from the Library of the Academy is 1855.

• Peters Checklist 3:176 has Kakatoe ducrops.
• Sibley and Monroe 1990:112 indicate that ducrops Bonaparte is supressed.

• Peters Checklist 14:176 has "1851?".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:82 has 1834.
• All my studies indicate that this work was published in 1832.

• Peters Checklist 9:456 has 1832.
• Zimmer p.614 makes it clear that despite the uncertainties and date confusions surrounding the publication of this work, 1831 appears to be the date for this section.

• Peters Checklist 12:98 lists this as 1844.
• The publishing history of the J.As.Soc.Bengal is uncertain. My researches suggest that in vol.13 of the Journal the changeover from 1844 to 1845 is around p.936.

• This change in ending follows the 7^th AOU Checklist.
• Was Oxyura dominica becomes dominicus in Nomonyx.

• Not used by Peters Checklist, Vol.13.
• Recognized by Bock, 1985 Neotrop. Ornith. Ornith.Monogr. no.36 p.319-332.
• H&M 3^rd:817 has a footnote stating:

  2 We prefer to follow the consensus against recognition of a genus Diglossopsis P.L.
  Sclater, 1856.

  • The error of Diglossopsis for Diglossopis is corrected in the Corrigenda.
    (Though it must be noted that there is a Giebel 1874 emendation of that name to Diglossopsis and the string "Diglossopsis" is widely, though probably erroneously, used in the literature.)
  • I am not sure among whom "the consensus against recognition of a genus Diglossopis" is held. Recent published material [Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003)] employs Diglossopis. Presumably the "consensus against ..." is that of the South American Checklist Committee, where their note (accessed 2007.05.20) suggests they are waiting for more data.
  • For the present time in this case I am following the apparent consensus of material published in the last 22 years.

• Peters Checklist 2:5 gives vol. "31". The Richmond Index gives vol. 21, which I follow.
• Of note Peters Checklist 3:143 cites Chalcopsitta insignis to the same serial in the same year, and lists the volume as 21.

• Normally part of Ara
• I follow the treatment of Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol. 4, by N.J. Collar . Morphology, voice and behaviour are offered as the basis for re-instating the old genus for this form.

• Peters Checklist 10:317 gives 1849 as it is usually cited.
• Mathews, 1925 indicates this is 1852. [Bock 1994 explains: This work was finally published after 1 Sept 1852, although the proof sheets for the bulk of the book were printed in 1849...]

• Peters Checklist 12:174 has 1817.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Listed in the text of Vieillot's work (Analyse) as "Dromiceius" (p.54);
• Listed in index (p.70) as "Dromaius [dromaios (in Greek script), velox]."
• Jobling interprets this as "fleet of foot, swift". "Dromiceius" is interpreted as a printer's misread of the manuscript.
• GR Gray, as first reviser 1840. List.Gen.Birds p.63 establishes Dromaius as the spelling of use.

• Spelt almost universally "darwinii" (note ...ii).
• Salvadori in Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum 27:562 (1895) spells it "Nothura darwini" (note one "i") consistently (3 times). The corresponding plate "XIX", however, spells it "darwinii" with two "i's".

• Ericson PGP, Johansson US, and Parsons TJ. Major Divisions in Oscines Revealed by Insertions in the Nuclear Gene c-myc: A Novel Gene in Avian Phylogenetics. 2000. Auk 117:1069-1078. The authors argue that the motacillids (with vestigial 10th primaries) are more closely related to the New-World nine primaried oscines than previously thought. This hypothesis is supported by their data on unique amino acid insertions in the nuclear gene c-myc.
• They argue that the motacillids belong to a clade with the Emberizidae, Fringillidae, Parulidae and Icteridae.

• Usually placed in Ramphodon.
• In HBW 5:538 C. Hinkelmann takes the position that the morphology "clearly" indicates placement in Glaucis.

• Split from Picoides tridactylus by Zink, et al. despite substantial morphologic similarity on the basis of substantial genetic differentiation.
• Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, & Dittman DL. 1995. "Trans-Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in birds." The Condor 97(3): 639-649
• Held by H&M 3^rd:322 to be a subspecies of Picoides tridactylus

• Spelt as both N. dominica and N. dominicus
• A confusing situation, and perhaps not fully resolved. At present the issue boils down to whether dominica in Linnaeus's original combination Anas dominica was adjectival, or a noun in apposition. Adjectival use would then currently require dominicus; if a noun in apposition it would be dominica.

Linnaeus' original citation reads:

domini- 22. A. rufa. capite anteriore fuliginoso, speculo alarum
  ca.   candido, rectricum scapis alterimus.  Briss. av. 6
    p. 472 t. 41 f. 2.
    Chilcanauhtli.  Hern. mex. 21.   Raj. av. 177
    Chilcanauhtli.  Hern. mex. 44.   Raj. av. 176
    Habitat in America meridionali.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):410 (Stresemann & Amadon) list this as 1864.
• HBW 2:262 (AC Kemp) lists this as 1864.
• This Part of PZS was published in Aug of 1864 according to the Richmond Index.

• HBW 6:496 (Kemp) holds
  • Tockus jacksoni (Ogilvie-Grant) 1891 Ibis p.127
  to be a subspecies of Tockus deckeni.
• Peters Checklist 5:260 held this to be a full species, but questioned that the form jacksoni might represent the young of T. deckeni.

• This specific epithet is spelled in a variety of ways. From 1976 to 1996 the Zoological Record includes these spellings:
• • Perdix daurica
  • Perdix dauricae
  • Perdix dauuriae
  • Perdix dauurica
  • Perdix dauuricae
  • Perdix dauuricus
• Peters Checklist 2:89 gives the original combination as: Tetrao perdix var. daurica [sic] Pallas.
• Vaurie (1965) used dauurica.
• McGowan in HBW 2:505 gives the original combination as:
  • P. d. dauurica (Pallas 1811)
  and used dauuricae.
• Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.15 used "dauuricae", but in the supplement S&M 1993 p.16 wrote: "The correct spelling of the specific name is Perdix dauurica (Stepanyan 1990a)".
• Tetrao perdix is described on p.77 of Pallas' 1811 work, and on p.78 (where "dauuricae" appears) the representation is
  • "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae".
  The first and third words are in italics. A ten line description follows.
• I quote Normand David's discussion of the grammar that applies here:
  "Pallas's wording is "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae". The word varietatis is a feminine noun in the genitive case, and dauuricae is the adjective dauuricus (-a, -um) in the feminine form of the genitive case. The word rupestris is a Modern Latin adjective (derived from the classical noun rupes: rock, mountain, cavern) in the genitive case (the nominative is identical). The literal translation is:
  • in French: "de la variété rupestre daourienne"
  • in English: "of the Daurian rupestrian variety".
  IF dauuricae Pallas 1811 is available, then it falls under ICZN (Code 1999) Art. 11.9.2: dauuricae (genitive) = dauurica (nominative), or fell under ICZN (Code 1985) Art. 11 (h) (ii)."
• The significance of italics and nonitalics remains of interest. I summarize Michael Walters' email note discussing this:
  • Pallas is a binomial work. His species no.226 on p.77 of vol.2 is Tetrao Perdix. Under this work he describes two varieties of the species.
    • "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae"
    • "Varietatem albam" (which is presumably an albino).
    It seems clear from this [second instance] that he was intending to describe a colour variety, not a taxon, thus Michael interprets that Peters' conclusion, though not his citation, [regarding "dauurica"] would appear to be correct, (i.e. that the name was not proposed in a nomenclatural sense). According to Ogilvie-Grant (Cat. Birds, 23, p.192) the only subsequent use of Pallas's name prior to Verreaux & Des Murs name barbata (1863) was Schrenck (1859) Reise. Amur-L., i, p.521.
    [END of summary of Michael's email]
  • "Varietatis" would appear to clearly not be a name in a nomenclatural sense, and is in italics.
  • "rupestris" and "albam" (not in italics) also appear not to be names in an nomenclatural sense.
  • "dauuricae" (in italics) is (now) treated as a name in a nomenclatural sense, though possibly not so intended originally.
  • Thus it would appear that nomenclatural intent in this work, as in many others, can not be inferred simply from the order of the words or the italicization.
• The issue of the number of u's in dauurica appears to have settled upon dauurica as the accepted form, though the basis for the controversy or the resolution is not at the moment known to me.

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