• The original protonym is spelled with a single -m (flamigerus). This fact is recognized by few including Bonaparte (Consp.Gen.Av. p.242) and Richmond in his Index. Even Sherborn is in error on this name, spelling it flammigerus.
• Understandably most authors appear to have been simply following the Cat.Birds.Br.Mus. 11:170,177 (Sclater), and Gray,GR. Sclater spelled the name with two -m's in his PZS papers 1855, 1856, and Gray apparently spelled it with two -m's in his Genera of Birds.
• It is unclear, and unimportant, if this change was "justified" in the 19^th century, but we must ask what we are to do now?
• The ICZN Code currently maintains (Art. 32.5) that if the word is a misspelled Latin word, it must be corrected; however, if the word is incorrectly Latinized or incorrectly transliterated it must remain as original composed.
• In this instance, then, I interpret the original "flamigerus" to be an incorrectly spelled Latin word, and correction to "flammigerus" is mandated.
• Howard & Moore 4^th Ed. has an extensive discussion of this matter ("Appenix 8" on the included DVD) and includes all the relevant examples they found. Interestingly, they seem to have missed this one, perhaps because the standard references (Peters, CBBM, Sherborn) all misspell the protonym.
• Thus, the conventional spelling is "correct", but not for the reason that would seem obvious.
• While the Commission loudly trumpets their enthusiasm for "stability" of nomenclature, their actions demonstrate that they consider grammar to be more important.

• The AOU CL 5th ed. gives the page number as p.273, though the name fortuitus appears on p.274.
• The type specimen was collected by Capt. Ch. Bendire, who sent it to Wm Brewster.
• The page error is replicated in Peters CL XII:81.
• The location of the type specimen is, at the moment unclear. It does not seem to be in the MCZ collection.

• Peters Checklist 9:142 (= White 1960) spells the specific epithet with a double -ii ending.
• It was originally spelled with a single -i ending.
• In the same volume of Peters Checklist, on p.332, Austin Rand is able to get the spelling correct for Dryoscopus feuelleborni also named by Reichenow in the same volume and number of Orn.Monatsb. One would have thought that the juxtapositions of the two different spellings as listed in the Index would have prompted a closer examination of the original descriptions, or even Sclaters Systema Avium Aethiopicarum, where the names are correctly spelled.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• The citation is often (e.g. H&M 3^rd:271; HBW 5:631,684 given as "1854", implying the citation as here:
  • Anthocephala floriceps (Gould) 1854 PZS["1853"] Pt21 no.251 p.62
  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.

• Conventionally given as
  • Pterodroma feae (Salvadori) 1899 Ann.Mus.Civ.Stor.Nat.Genova 40 p.305
• Mathews points out in BBOC (1934) 54:161 that this volume carries the date of 1901 (!), so the Ibis description must be afforded priority.

• See Zootaxa 2217:56-66 (2009) "Justified corrections to avian names under Article 32.5.1.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature" David N, Dickinson EC & Gregory SMS. for a discussion of the spelling here.

• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one gives the citation as conventionally given (pll.90 & 91), and the other gives pl.89! (which is usually cited for Loxia javanensis).
• I presume the card citing pl.89 is an error. [I suspect that it is not written in Richmond's hand, but of this I can not be sure].
• The two cards can be seen here:
  1. Richmond Index card Loxia ferruginosa Sparrman 1789 pll.90,91
  2. Richmond Index card Loxia ferruginosa Sparrman 1789 pl.89
• The Richmond Index card for Loxia javanensis cites pl.89 (as other sources do) making it seem likely that the Loxia ferruginosa pl.89 card is an error. Richmond Index card Loxia javanensis Sparrman 1789 pl.89
• 2009.12.28. Daria Wingreen-Mason has provided me with scans of the plates, and these confirm that pll. 90 & 91 show the taxon listed as "Loxia ferruginosa" -- pl 89 is named "Loxia javensis".

• H&M 3^rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8) treats this in Platycichla without discussion.
• The IOC World Bird names list (2.0) and HBW 10:672 (2005) treat this in Turdus.

• Peters Checklist 9:393 (= Paynter 1960) transposes the numbers of in this citation ("no.672" where no.762 is correct).

• Peters Checklist 12:328 (=Mayr 1967) cites this to p.193; the name first appears on p.192

• 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 cinereus.

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Alcippe formosana is split from A.cinereiceps (Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:619 (through Corrigenda 8; late 2008).

• Garrulax fairbanki is split from Garrulax jerdoni 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 ferrarius is split from Garrulax strepitans 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).

• H&M 3^rd:600 initially has this authority in parentheses, and corrects that in Corrigenda 4, with the instuction to: " delete bracket - described in Trichostoma".
• This action is correct, and the information is partially correct. It was described on p.378 in the genus Trichostoma, but the Richmond Index indicates that the genus group name was spelled Trichastoma on the plate.
• Deignan, when compiling the information for the Peters Checklist 10 apparently made no note of the variant genus group name spelling on the plate.

• A number of names (Hemixos flavala hildebrandi, Hemixos flavala davisoni, Hemixos flavala bourdellei, Hemixos flavala canipennis, Hemixos flavala castanonotus, Hemixos flavala connectens) have the authority given in parentheses in Peters Checklist, and this is initially followed by H&M 3^rd:575.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 5 correctly removes the parentheses from the authority for these names, but gives the wrong reason for this. The Corrigenda states these names were "[described in Hemixos]".
• These names were not described in Hemixos but rather in Hemixus which is an emendation of Hemixos. In such instances the Code (1999 Art. 51.3.1) indicates that that the parentheses should be not be used.
• HBW 10:238,239 (2005) is correct in the nomenclatural treatment of these names.

• Usually cited to 1990, however the Richmond Index card indicates that this was not published until the "second half of January 1991".

• Peters Checklist 12:231 (=Rand 1967) gives the citation as:
  • Cyanomitra fuliginosa (Shaw) 1812 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 8 p.222
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 says "date 1811 not 1812 [RJD in prep]" though I am not aware (2008.07.13) of any published paper addressing this issue and demonstrating a date of 1811 for this portion of Shaw's General Zoology.
• CBBM 9:80 (= Gadow 1884) cites Shaw Gen.Zool. viii. p.222 (1811).
• Given the current uncertainties, is seems to me that this name should be cited to Bechstein 1811, as I have done.

• Peters Checklist 12:110 (= Snow 1967) cites this name to Orn.Monatsb. 20 p.84, which is incorrect. That issue of Orn.Monatsb. was volume XX no.5, and is the May 1912 issue. The name was certainly published in Mess.Orn III no.2 on April 21 (o.s.) which is April 25 1912 New Style.
• The Richmond Index raises the question that it may have been first published in Nasha Ochota (on April 24 New Style), but examining The Bibliography of Russian birds 1881-1917 (publ. Leningrad 1972) shows no suggestion of it being published there. The Mess.Orn. publication is referenced (as Ornitolog. Vestnie) as the citation for this name.
• HBW 12:[753] follows the incorrect citation as given by the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 11:503 (= Mayr 1986) has 1885
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1884 and a note "July or later".
• Peters Checklist 3:234 cites Geoffroyus geoffroyi timarlaoensis from p.15 of this work to 1884, but Peters Checklist 12:406 cites Philemon citreogularis kisserensis from p.41 of the work to 1885. However, all these names are in Heft 1 of the Sitzungberichte.
• Presumably 1884 is the date specified (imprint date) on Heft 1 of the work. Thus it appears to me that in abscence of proof of delay, 1884 is to be followed.
• H&M 3^rd initially followed Peters Checklist and its inconsistencies in this matter without comment. However starting with Corrigenda 6, the date was corrected to 1884, citing Quaisser & Eck 2006 who apparently confirmed what Richmond had found out over 100 years before and which has been published since 1992.

• Peters Checklist 15:129 (= Greenway 1962) gives the type locality as:

  "Siao" [ = Siau].

  In fact the text in the J.Orn. reads:

  auf Siou

• This extremely minor point does not appear to be mentioned in Dickinson et al. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 43. "Types of the Oriolidae".

• The authority for this taxon is usually attributed to Vigors in King (e.g. Sherborn, The Richmond Index, Peters Checklist 15:124.
• H&M 3^rd:487 attributes this to King.
• Dickinson et al. in Systematic notes on Asian birds. 43. "Types of the Oriolidae" p.67 references Mees(1964:29-30) (APP: not seen) for putting the authority to King rather than Vigors. No rationale or data in support of this is given beyond the Mees reference.

• Peters Checklist 14:222 (=Paynter, 1968) cites this to Swainson, which is an error. This error is followed by many workers.

• A peculiar bibliographic situation exists here. The latter portion of Lawrence's paper (with the initial segment on pp.359-361) was continued following the "General Index that occurs at the end of the volume. A footnote at the bottom of the initial page of the continuation states, "This portion of the paper was inadvertantly left out by the editor." The pagination is peculiar in that the final page of the "General Index" has page numbers "428", "429" at the top of the two columns (all other "General Index" pages have only one page number for the two columns). The next page (on which the bird description occurs has no page number imprinted (!), but clearly it should be regarded as the equivalent of "429" as the following page is numbered "430".
• The note at the top of the "continuation" says: "[Continued from p.359]", though it appears to me that it would be more correct to say "[Continued from p.361]", as p.359 at bottom is where the article starts.
• Despite the fact that this name is functionally on p.429, I label it "p.["429" bis]" as it is the second page that bears that number.

• In Rothschild's original description in the Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. ser.6 X no.55 July 1892 p.109 the name is spelled Himatione Fraithii (note the ai and the -ii ending). Normand David has examined this, and tells me (in litt. 2007.02.24) that in that work there is no mention made of the man who is being honored by the name.
• In the next year (1893) Rothschild's Avifauna of Laysans was published; in that work Rothschild refers to his 1892 work with the spelling Himatione fraithii but at the heading of this entry the name is spelled "HIMATIONE FREETHI" (note now the ee and the single -i ending). Reference is made on within this section to Mr. Freeth, who is the governor of the island (Laysan) and the manager of the guano company (facts that are set out in the introduction on p.x).
• Peters Checklist 14:94 (Greenway, 1968) further muddies the water, he lists "Himatione fraithii (lapsus)" for the Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. name but then lists the name as: "Himatione sanguinea freethii Rothschild, thereby creating a combination of the two names ("ee" from one rendering and "ii" from the other) and a text string never employed by Rothschild.
• We can infer that Rothschild intended to honor Mr Freeth, but he does not state this explicitly, and in fact Mr Freeth apparantly is never mentioned when the name is coined.
• My interpretation is that the "freethii" form usually employed (by followers of Peters/Greenway) constitutes an unjustified emendation: changing the original "ai" to "ee".
• Many will disagree but I feel the original spelling must stand.

• Split in Tonnis B, Grant PR, Grant BR, Petren K. 2005. "Habitat selection and ecological speciation in Galápagos warbler finches (Certhidea olivacea and Certhidea fusca)." Proc.R.Soc.Lond. B 272:819-826.

• Originally described in Oryzoborus, the use of parentheses for the authority in H&M 3^rd:793 is an error (fide in litt. ECD 2007.02.11).

• Held to be a distinct subspecies by Peters Checklist 13:47 (1970), and by H&M 3^rd:781.
• Held to be a synonym of M.m.montanus by Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. They cite Patten 2001 (not seen to date 2006.12.25).

• Peters Checklist 13:24 gets the date for this taxon correct.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} shows that this was published in Heft 8, and also includes a plate (25) which is not mentioned by Paynter in the Peters Checklist.

• Originally spelled "franciscae on in the key on p.231, and spelled "francescae" on p.232.
• This was named for "Mrs.Grayson" according to the Richmond Index.
• I presume that "Mrs Grayson" is the wife of Andrew Jackson Grayson, and her name was Frances.

• Peters Checklist 5:155 cites this to 1925.
• The imprint date on Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 is Oct. 31, 1924.
• The Peters Cheklist dates four other taxa from no.141 to 1924
  1. 1924 Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 p. 001 Trogon aurantiiventris flavidior (Griscom)
     Peters V:155 1925
  2. 1924 Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 p. 004 Margarornis rubiginosus boultoni Griscom
     Peters VII:117 1924
  3. 1924 Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 p. 005 Atalotriccus pilaris wilcoxi Griscom
     Peters VIII:75 1924
  4. 1924 Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 p. 010 Pselliophorus luteoviridis Griscom
     Peters XIII:207 1924
  5. 1924 Am.Mus.Novit. no.141 p. 011 Chlorospingus tacarcunae Griscom
     Peters XIII:258 1924

• Several nomenclatural points arise here:
  1. Peters Checklist 7:154 lists the authority in parentheses, and this is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:379, though HBW 8533 (Zimmer & Isler, 2003) lists the authority without parentheses.
  2. The author of the article in question (not seen) is by Nutting, though it was "edited" by Ridgway.
• So the questions are: who is the author of the taxon, and should it be in parentheses.
• The author of the taxon is conventionally given as Ridgway, for this and other taxa described as new in this article, and without seeing the article I am not in a position to say whether there is merit to the convention.
• The Richmond Index shows (in agreement with the Peters Checklist) that the bird was described as Cymbilanius lineatus fasciatus so the question about the use of parentheses turns on the name Cymbilanius. The Richmond Index indicates that this name is an emendation of Gray's name Cymbilaimus and explicitly stating that it is an emendation on three separate cards, and even noting on one that:

  Sclater actually seems to have thought Gray wrote it Cymbilanius as he quotes
  Gray that way!

  (this entry for the PZS 1858 pt.26 no.359 p.206 entry).
• There is still question in my mind as to whether Nutting should be included in the authority, but it seems quite clear that the authority should not be listed in parentheses, as Ridgway was using an emendation.

• Peters Checklist 11:447 has 1885
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1884 and a note "July or later".
• Peters Checklist 3:234 cites Geoffroyus geoffroyi timarlaoensis from p.15 of this work to 1884, but Peters Checklist 12:406 cites Philemon citreogularis kisserensis from p.41 of the work to 1885. However, all these names are in Heft 1 of the Sitzungberichte.
• Presumably 1884 is the date specified (imprint date) on Heft 1 of the work. This work is confirmed by Quaisser & Eck 2005, as having been published in 1884.

• An interesting and confusing situation. I find the following citations:
  
  
  1. Peters Checklist 1(2):418

     Falco Feldeggii Schlegel, 1843, Abh.Gebiete Zool. Vergleich. Anat. Heft 3, p.3 pls.10-11.

  2. HBW 2:574

     Schlegel(1843)  Abh.Gebiete Zool. Vergleich Anat. 3: 3, 8.

     (and remarkably, just beneath that the following)

     Schlegel(1851)  Abh.Gebiete Zool. Vergleich Anat. 3: 15.

     [APP: 1851 in the same Heft !! This is the citation for Falco mexicanus. Possible, I suppose, but remarkable if true! Falco mexicanus is cited by the AOU CL to 1850 from this source.]
  
  
  3. The Richmond Index

     Abhandl. aus dem Gebeite der Zoologie und Vergl. Anatomie Heft 2, 1843, 3 pll. X, XI

  4. Sherborn Index Animalium p.2342

     feldeggii Falco, H. Schlegel, Abh. Gebiete Zool. I (3) 1841, 1.

  5. Strickland Orn.Syn. (1855) p.80

     F. feldeggi Schleg. Krit. übers. p. 12.

     (note the single "-i"; Krit.Uebers. was published in 1844).
  
  
  6. Sharpe. 1874. Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 1:389

     Falco feldeggii, Schl. Abhandl. Geb. Zool. p.3, Taf. 10,11(1841); id.
     & Susem. Vög. Eur. Taf.8a(1841);

  7. Bonaparte. Conspectus Generum Avium 1:24 (1850) has a complex rendering listing the name in the synonomy of Falco lanarius as follows:

     15.Falco lanarius, Schleg. ex Belon. vix L! (fel-
      deggi, Schlegel). Pl. enl. 470. jun. -Naum. t. 14. f. 22.
      Susem. Eur. Vog. t.8. a. - Schlegel, Fauconn.tab. 
      pulcherr. - Abhand. tab. 10 et 11. ex Eur. orient.
      merid. Dalmatia.

     (single "-i" again).
  
  
• Browning & Monroe. 1991. Arch.Nat.Hist. 18(3):390 discuss this situation in detail. They conclude that Falco feldeggii was first published in 1843, in Heft 2 of the Abhandlungen, though accomodating all the evidence requires some speculative scenarios. At issue is the fact that Schlegel in Heft 2 of the Abhandlungen refers to the Übersicht (held to be published in 1844). The Übersicht would thus appear to have priority and be the cited source for this name (as some workers actually do). Browning & Monroe speculate that Schlegel's reference to the Übersicht results from it's being in press or based on his having the manuscript.
In summary, at this point we have a mixture of dates, sources, Hefte, plates, and taxon spellings.

• The date would be the nicest to sort out first. If priority could be determined, much of the rest might follow. For the Abh.Geb.Zool. we have 1841 (Sharpe, Sherborn) and 1843 (Peters, Richmond, HBW); for the Susem.Eur.Vog. we have 1841 (Sharpe); which leads us to a very interesting second card in the Richmond Index. (I do not further pursue the 1844 Krit. Übers.).
• A second card in the Richmond index quotes Hartert. 1915, Novit.Zool. 22:181 as follows:

  "under plate 8a in Vögel Europas von Susemihl mit Text von
  Schlegel (about 1843 or 1844. The plates appeared doubtless 
  later than the plates 8 and 9, as it is printed on different 
  paper, and is not mentioned in the text to the first 
  forty-six plates. it must, however, have appeared before the 
  description in the Abhandlungen [ Geb. Zool. etc. Heft III. 1843
  p.2,3. pl.10 + 11], because it is there quoted on p.3)."

• This would appear to suggest that the citation given by Peters (and followed by most workers) may thus not be correct. Additionaly, mystery and complexity surrounds the publishing history of the Vog.Europas[Susemihl]. It appears it was issued from 1839 to 1851, and as of yet I have not determined if it is possible to determine the limits of the various Lieferung (Hefte), or their dates of issue.
• [2010.05.31]This card also notes that the original spelling on the plate is felddeggii(!), and presumably the plate does not otherwise refer to Baron von Feldegg himself.
• It appears that Schlegel himself was confused here, Sharpe's footnote CBBM 1:389 reads thus:

   8. Falco feldeggii*
  	...
  	...
   *Professor Schlegel named this bird as above, but afterwards reverted to the
  name of Falco lanarius, because he became convinced that it was the Lanner of
  old falconers.  We have, however, to deal with the question of the proper title
  of this species according to the recognized rules of nomenclature.  Falco
  lanarius is Gmelin's title, taken directly from Linnæus's bird of the same name
  (Faun. Suec. p.33 no.62). This is irrecognizable, but looks like a young
  Peregrine; it certainly is not the Falcon now known as the true Lanner. It is 
  likewise mixed up with the Lanier of Buffon (Hist.Nat.Ois. i. p.243), and the 
  Lanneret of Albin (Nat. Hist. of Birds, ii p.7 pl.7). Considering the confu-
  sion in which the specific name is involved, it seems better to adopt the term of
  Falco feldeggii, which undoubtedly belongs to the species.

• Hartert's argument that the relevant plate in Susemihl was published prior to Abh.Geb.Zool. seems worth heeding, and until additional information becomes available I will regard that as the citational source with priority. The problem then devolves to deciding what year should obtain. The published dates for this taxon in the Susemihl work are 1841, and 1843. I adopt 1841, following Sharpe and Sherborn.

• Previously as Falco fuscocaerulescens Vieillot 1817.
• The 23 Supplement to the AOU CL; Auk 1948 65:439 discusses this, referencing Peters in Peters & Griswold. 1943. Bull.Mus.Comp.Zool. 92:294. Evidently Vieillot's name, based on Azara's (Aloncillo) del obscuro azulejo actually refers to Falco albigularis Daudin, 1800. Which in turn is a synonym of Falco rufigularis Daudin, 1800.

• See comments on Phaethon lepturus fulvus Nomenclature for a discussion of the problems here.
• Additionally vexing is the fact that the Richmond Index does not appear to have a card for Phaethon fulvus.

• Treated in Peters Checklist 5:22 in Melanotrochilus.
• H&M 3^rd:258 states (footnote #9)

  9Previously treated in monotypic genus Melanotrochilus.

• No reason for the change is given, no literature is cited, and no data provided. We are left to speculate on the reason for the change. My speculation is that H&M 3^rd is simply following HBW 5:555 where K.L. Schuchmann states:

   Traditionally placed in monospecific Melanotrochilus; inclusion
  in Florisuga based on voice, morphology, anatomy, and reproductive behaviour.

  No data are provided, and it is not clear to me if any of the citations in the Bibliography address this issue. I also am a little confused about the difference between "morphology" and "anatomy".
• I do not regard HBW as a taxonomic work, though it appears that both Schuchmann and H&M do.
• Given the questions and my concerns, I leave fusca in Melanotrochilus.
• Great thanks to Hans-Jürgen Altner for bringing this issue to my attention.

FURNARIIDAE

• Evidence continues to mount in support of the understanding that the Furnariidae is paraphyletic with respect to Dendrocolaptidae. Molecular and morphologic evidence support this suspicion.
• Refs.
  1. Irestedt M, Fjeldsa J, Johansson US, Ericson PGP. 2002. "Systematic relationships and biogeography of the tracheophone suboscines (Aves: Passeriformres)." Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 23:499-512.
  2. Chesser RT. 2004. "Molecular Systematics of the New World suboscine birds." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 32:11-24.
  3. Ihering HV. 1915. "The classification of the family Dendrocolaptidae." Auk 32:145-153.
  4. Ames PL. 1971. "The mophology of the syrinx in passerine birds." Bull. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. 37:1-194. (see pp.20-24; 154).
  5. Feduccia A. 1973. "Evolutionary trends in the Neotropical ovenbirds and woodhewers."
• Dendrocolaptidae is merged into the Furnariidae.

• This specific epithet was originally spelled "Fontainieri", and in the text of the original description, Bonaparte refers to

  M.  Fontainier

  not M. Fontanier. The original text reads:

  » Avant de quitter les Falconides, disons que M. Fontainier vient
  d'en rapporter une espèce qui devra porter son nom (Accipiter
  Fontainieri) si elle est nouvelle. ....

• Peters Checklist 1(2):335 lists this as fontanieri. As is typical for the Peters Checklist, no rationale or justification is given; fontainieri I presume, is interpreted to be an error that justifies emendation. What, if any, understanding of the nature of this problem the authors had will remain uknown to us. The Peters Checkist, of course, is followed without comment or other consideration by most other workers.
• The gentleman in question is listed as "M. Fontanier" as the collector of the specimen in the Richmond Index.
• I sought Normand David's input on this question, who indicates (in litt. 2006.03.12) his interpretation that the Code would require the specific epithet to be fontainieri, consistent with the reference made in the original description.
• This further suggestst that determination of the proper spelling may (regrettably) devolve to the question of "prevailing usage".
• Normand David provided me with a copy of Voisin C, Voisin J-F. 2001. "Liste des types d'oiseaux des collections du Musém national d'Histoire naturelle de Paris. 8: Rapaces diurnes (Accipitridés), première partie." Zoosystema 23(1):173-190. The entry on p.183 is of interest, it reads:

  Accipiter Fontainieri Bonaparte, 1853, Holo-
  type par monotypie.
    Bonaparte, Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des
    Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Paris 37: 810.
    Accipiter superciliaris fontainieri, Bonaparte,
    1853.
    C.G.: 1853-471.
    Autres numéros de catalogues: A.C. n° 653,
    N.C. n° 916.
    Inscriptions sous le socle:
      Santa-Cruz/ M. Fontanier [sic]/juv. ♀/Accipiter
      tinus Lath./Accipiter Fontanierii [sic]. Bp./ Type.
    Inscriptions sur l'étiquette du socle:
      Accipiter tinus (Lath.)/ A. Fontanierii [sic]. (Bp.)
      Type ♀/ M. Fontanier [sic] Santa Cruz.
  
  Bonaparte écrit bien Fontainieri dans sa des-
  cription.

  I interpret socle to refer to the base or plinth on which the specimen was displayed. And I think the étiquette refers to the inscription on the pedistal.
• The work by the Voisin's suggests to me that the previous certainty regarding the correct spelling of the gentleman's name may have been more apparent than real.
• Much of the confusion may result from Sharpe's entry in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1874 1:139 where in the synonomy of Accipter tinus he lists

  	...
  	...
  	Ierispiza fontanieri, Bp. Rev. et Mag. de Zool. 1854 p.538
  	

• I will employ the spelling fontainieri until this is demonstrated to be incorrect, or until there is a published and convincing demonstration that prevailing usage will require fontanieri.

• Cited by H&M 3^rd:154 as

  Cepphus g. faeroeensis (C.L. Brehm, 1831)

• Cramp 1985 (not seen) is cited for the recognition of this taxon.
• HBW 3:711,[725] is unable to come up with more of a citation than

  Naturg. Vögl. Deutsch

  which evidently (and quite remarkably) satisfies their criteria for a citation.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium has only a Brehm faroeensis listing for Somateria faroeensis from p.893 of the N.V.D.
• The Richmond Index, lists that taxon, as well as Cephus faeroeensis Brhem, 1831 in N.V.D. on p.990. Richmond also points to Hartert Novit. Zool. XXV, 1918 p.61.
• Unless or until additional information becomes available, I follow the Richmond Index.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 12:339) cited as
  • Timeliopsis griseigula fulviventris (Ramsay,EP) 1882 Proc.Linn.Soc.NewS.Wales 6(1881) p.718
• I learn from Edward Dickinson (in litt. 2005.12.18) that work by Wayne Longmore demonstrates that this name is first to be found in an earlier work in Nature in the same year.

• Conventionally cited as
  • Lichenostomus frenatus (Ramsay,EP) 1875 PZS(1874) Pt4 p.603
• Colin Jones points out (2005.11.17) that Schodde gives an 1874 citation to the Sydney Mail.
• Indeed the Richmond Index gives the Sydney Mail citation with a date of Aug. 15, 1874 (the PZS citation is dated to April of 1875).
• As Schodde evidently recognized, this issue was discussed in Emu 38 pt1 July 1, 1938 p.64

• The subspecies that occurs north of Panama, is often named
  • Dendrocygna autumnalis discolor Sclater,PL & Salvin 1873 Nomen.Av.Neotrop. p.129,161
• Dick Banks addressed this situation in 1978 "Nomenclature of the Black-bellied Whistling-Duck" Auk 95:348-352. Where he demonstrates that the Sclater and Salvin subspecies name is a junior synonym of D. a. autumnalis.
• The 1947 Friedman name is the earliest available for the northern form.
• Thanks to Norbert Bahr for pointing this out.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:181 (Traylor) as published in 1861. This is followed by HBW 9:405 (J.A. Mobely).
• This 1861 date was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:373, however it was corrected in the Corrigenda 2.1 to 1862.
• The Richmond Index shows that this part of this volume was published Feb. 1, 1862; Duncan also was able to determine that 1862 was the correct year, though he felt that April was the month of publication. Duncan did extremely good work, so good that he often agrees with Richmond's dates. It is my bet that Richmond is correct here.
• No matter how good Richmond's work, or Duncan's work, it seems that in some instances Traylor consulted one (or both) of them, but in other instances, such as this, didn't.

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

• Cited by Peters Checklist 5:237 as 1878, which evidently is the imprint date.
• This is followed by H&M 3^rd:296, and HBW 6:334.
• The Richmond Index indicates that 1879, the actual publication date, was indicated in a Corrigenda.
• Further support for this interpretation comes from by way of Edward Dickinson, who communicates that Saunders in Zool.Rec. 16 Aves p.2 "reports that the Preface is dated 'Calcutta 21st. Dec. 1878' and that as publication was in London this cannot have been before 1879 and he says that 'as a fact [it] was not.'"
• Edward Dickinson further communicates (2004.12.03) that he examined the copy at Tring, which has the Corrigenda bound in. The Corrigenda refers to delay until 1879. In the Tring copy, the Corrigenda was bound into the volume of plates.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:14 (Traylor) as published in 1864.
• As indicated by the Richmond Index, as well as recognized by Duncan, this part of the volume was published in 1865.

• Peters Checklist 3:149 gives the citation as "Avif. Timor", and this is followed by HBW 4:612.
• The title "Avif.[auna von] Timor" is misleading, as this is the first of three parts of a single work entitled "Zoologie von Timor".

• Usually cited as 1851 (e.g. Peters 8:276; Goode 1896 "Published writings of P.L. Sclater":6; H&M 3^rd:342) and this may very well be right.
• The dates of publication for this work are problematic.
• The unpublished notes by CWR on Dates of Publication has a card stating that "Pt. 5+6 (as one) 1851. Not publ. till 1852. T.p. bears this date.
• I follow the Richmond data on this in the abscence of other evidence.

• Spelled fuligidigula in H&M 3^rd:270.
• Gould named this form for its "glittering green throat", hence fulgidigula (from the Latin fulgidus shining + gula throat).

• Originally spelled "Faeroeensis".
• Spelled by H&M 3 ^rd:69 "faroeensis", and I interpret ICZN 58.1 to mean that these two spellings are nomenclaturally equivalent.
  What is gained by departing from the original orthography is not clear to me.

• Taxon is dated to 1873 by Peters Checklist 4:80; the Richmond Index, and Harris' 1928 Condor 30:73, and Deignan's 1961 Type specimens of Birds in the U.S. Natl. Museum p.142.
• HBW 5:174,686 correctly dates it to 1874.
• H&M 3^rd Ed.:223 dates this to 1873 (though dating Tyto alba guatemalae from earlier in the same work to 1874 !).
• This number of volume 5 of the Bull.EssexInst. is dated December, 1873, but Banks & Browning 1979. "Correct citations for some North American Bird Taxa." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 92(1):195-203 demonstrate that the latter numbers of this volume were not available until 1874.

• In the past has been treated as a subspecies of D. obscurus
• Barrowclough GF, Groth JG, Mertz LA, & Gutiérrez RJ. 2004. "Phylogeographic structure, gene flow and species status in blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus)". Molecular Ecology 13:1911-1922 present evidence for its treatment as a full species.

• Almost always cited incorrectly. (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:28; HBW 2:574 (which merely "parrots" Peters)).
• The matter is dealt with in Banks & Browning. 1979. "Correct Citations for some North American Bird Taxa". Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 92(1):199.
• One must note with a sigh, that the Banks & Browning publication antedates the HBW volume by 15 years, but evidently not long enough to come to adequate attention.

• Peters Checklist 10:95 (SD Ripley) spells this Stizorhina finschii and cites the original as Cassinia finschii.
• The original spelling indicated by the Richmond index is Cassinia finschi (note: one terminal "i"). Bob Dowsett brought this to my attention, and confirms that one terminal "i" is correct.
• Since 1978 the Zoo.Rec. includes this name only once, and uses two terminal "i's".

• Leger and Mountjoy (2003) argue that flammulatus may be a separate species from spadiceus, based primarily on vocalization.
  Leger DW Mountjoy DJ. 2003. "Geographic variation in song of hte Gright-rumped Attilla (TYRANNIDAE: Attila spadiceus): Implications for species status." Auk 120:69-74.
• Regarding Lafresnaye's specimen (which evidently is in the collection of the M.C.Z.) the Richmond Cardex makes the following remarks:

  Remarks.--The large size of Lafresnaye's specimen, the dark back,
  heavily streaked pileum, hindneck and sides, without any olivaceous shade,
  the orange-ochraceous rump and sides, the grayish throat and chest, very
  distinctly streaked -- all agree with only the northern form named salvini by
  Ridgway and certainly not with A. citreopygus (Bonaparte), the recorded 
  range of which has recently been extended to western Colombia, by  Chap-
  man (Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., XXXVI, 1917, p.495).

• Treated as a subspecies of Attila spadiceus by H&M 3^rd:379, without comment.
• HBW 9:445 also treats as a subspecies of Attila spadiceus but comments that A spadiceus may well be more than one species.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:95 as "1852, 1853".
• HBW 5:164 lists the year as 1853.
• Murray Bruce determined, by using Hartlaub's series of yearly literature reviews, that only the articles on pp.141-162 in this work were published in 1853. Therefore, this name is referable to 1852.
• I still have some uncertainties regarding this citation. The name Scops flammeola in the Richmond Index is only listed to Sclater's 1858 use in PZS. It is noted there that it is a nomen nudum with a note also indicating it is in "Jardine's Contrib.Orn., 1852, p. 111" without further details, or even mentioning Kaup.
• It is my guess, that in Contrib.Orn. this occurs in "no.6" for 1852.
• Confusingly, the CBBM 2:105 refers to a "Megascops flammeola Kaup, Trans.Z.S. iv p.226" The Transactions of the Zoological Society were published irregularly, and at the moment I don't know the year date for Vol.4 in the series. Vol. 1 was published in 1833/34, so it is not impossible that Kaup's use of the name there antedates the use of Scops flammeola in Contrib.Orn. (!).

• Peters Checklist 6:33 has "1831" and "livr.88"
• HBW 7:203 (Warfolk) also shows 1831.
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} has "[livr.88,]", and 1831.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has "88 1831".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and reaches the conclusion that this plate is associated with livr.89 and was published in 1832. He considers it to have been a plate issued without text of its own.
• 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.43,45'

• Previoulsy Hemixos also included:
  • Hemixos castanonotus Swinhoe 1870 Ibis p.251 pl.9 fig.1
• Following Rand & Deignan. 1960 Dickinson & Gregory. 2003 treat Hemixos as monotypic.

• Often spelled Z. fuscicapillus (e.g. Sibley & Monroe,).
• Originally Zosterops fuscicapilla Salvadori 1875.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):35 indicate the spelling should be Zosterops fuscicapilla . Their argument is that "As a final component of species-group names, -capilla is the Latin noun capillus with a modified ending, and does not include any adjectival suffix. ... [therefore] the original spelling of these names is to be retained, with gender ending unchaged."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Zosterops fuscicapill... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:288.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Peters Checklist 1:85 has p.155.
• {Mayr, 1957} lists only p.160.

Peters Checklist 12:393 has 1831
• Both {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} indicate this was published in 1830.

• This taxon, originally described in Porzana, is not to be confused with Rallina fasciata Raffles 1822, which is the type for Rallina.

• Peters Checklist 1:310 gives Gurney 1861, but see Clancey, 1987 BBOC 107:191-192 for discussion of authorship.
• Clancey argues for Kaup 1850 Contrib. Orinth.
• HBW gives an 1847 Isis von Oken citation, though their representation of citational sources makes it difficult to be certain of the pagination when more than one taxon is listed per source.
• From examination of other taxa from this source I believed that the correct column was "343", however Bob Dowsett informs me that "According to Clancey, 1990, BBOC 110:110 the correct citation is Kaup 1847, Isis (Dec.), col. 954."

• Peters Checklist 3:136 discusses this taxon in footnote 2. It was Dr Mayr's opinion that the name was a synonym for Gallicolumba stairi resulting from confusion over the source of the specimen.

• Peters Checklist 5:268 lists 1852. This was published in no.4 Vol.5, and only no's 6 and 7 were published later than 1850 (in 1851).

• Peters Checklist 15:123 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 3:231 lists "livr.1" which should be livr.3 as indicated by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and Sherborn.

• H&M 3^rd:338 apparently follows Peters Checklist 8:323 (Mayr) in listing this without parentheses. Mayr does not appear to have attended to the overall structure of Bonaparte's work, as the name (while listed as forsteni) is actually described in Brachyurus.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out my error in following H&M and Peters.

• Peters Checklist 2:326 gives 1842.
• The dates here are a mystery to me. Peters and {Richmond, et al. 1992} give 1842, but publishing histories suggest the plates appeared in 1846, which would imply that date for the taxon.
• Perhaps on this basis, the 1983 AOU Checklist gives 1846, which I follow.
• [APP 2011.10.17] Additional review, shows that this is found in livr.2 of the Atlas, and all other taxa from livr.2 are currently listed to 1842, so I change this taxon to 1842 as I find no reason why it should be dated separately from other plates in livr.2 of the Atlas.
• At present [2011.10.19] the taxa I identify as from this source include:

  
  1842 Voy.VenusZool. Atlas livr.1["1846"]
  
   Grallaria squamigera pl.3 Prevost & Des Murs 
  	[Peters VII:262 - 1842; CBBM XV:312 VVZ (undated) ... Lafr. Rev.Zool. 1842:333; Sherborn Rev.Zool. Nov. 1842 p.333]
   Grallaria guatimalensis pl.4 Prevost & Des Murs 
  	[Peters VII:263 - 1842; CBBM XV:312 VVZ (undated); CWR '"1846"[=1842]' Lafr. Rev.Zool. No. 1842 p.334]
   Melozone biarcuata pl.6 (Prevost & Des Murs) 
  	[Peters (Paynter) XIII:181 - 1846; Sherborn - 1849 (not referencing the plate)]
  
  1842 Voy.VenusZool. Atlas livr.2["1846"]
  
   Tangara ruficervix pl.5 fig.1 (Prevost & Des Murs)
   Creagrus furcatus pl.10 (Neboux) [Peters II:326 1842; Sherborn - 1846 (Tab. Planch.);
  
  1849 Voy.VenusZool.["1855"]
  
   Kurukuru Prevost,F & Des Murs 1849 p.220
   Ptilinopus superbus temminckii p. 234,268 (Des Murs & Prevost)
   Ptilinopus mercierii† p.266 (Des Murs & Prevost)
  
  

• Peters Checklist 15:205 has 1817.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Myiagra ferrocyanea Citation

• The Nature publication evidently is anonymous and published in June 5, 1879. Evidently it was written by Ramsay. A more detailed description subsequently appeared in the June 16 issue of the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W. ser.1 Vol. IV p.78.
• (These data derived from the Richmond Index.)

• Pacheco and Whitney. 1998. BBOC 118:259-261 show that this taxon, originally described by Nitzsch [Nitsch], was synonymized to Hydorpsalis (= Macropsalis) creagra by Bonaparte in 1850.
• This name Macropsalis creagra was reintroduced by Peters 4:219.
• Peters designates the type for the Genus " Caprimulgus forcipatus Nitzsch = Hydropsalis creagra Bonaparte (Hartert, Cat. Bds. Brit. Mus., 16 , 1892, p.601)."
• Hartert's treatment of the genus is on p.601, however Nitzsch's name is used on p.603, where Hartert clearly recognizes:
  1. Nitsch [Nitzsch] as the author,
  2. the name as forcipata ,
  3. and Bonaparte's creagra as a synonym.
• The logic of Peters' interpretation is not evident to me.
• H&M 3^rd:245 has a footnote referring to some of these issues. It reads:

  "Cleere (1999:385) used the name forcipata Nitzsch, 1840, but used creagra in Cleere
  (1998). This change, about which see Pacheco & Whitney (1998), is associated with unresolved 
  issues and, although we accept that forcipata is not a nomen oblitum, we defer
  its adoption.

• I speculate that this reservation regarding the adoption of forcipata may turn on considerations of whether creagra constitutes a "prevailing usage" as defined by the ICZN. "Prevailing usage" appears to be applied predominantly to "emendations", and creagra would hardly seem to be an emendation of forcipata. (Leaving aside the virtually unusable ICZN definition of prevailing usage):

  Usage, prevailing, n. Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at
  least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the
  relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.

  The disagreements over "substantial majority", and who constitutes " most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon" are easy to anticipate.
• Without more understanding of Peters' logic, or what issues are "unresolved" I use forcipata.
• Pacheco sent me (2003.12.09) a copy of the 2002 Arajuba note further illuminating the details here Pacheco JF, Whitney BM, & Pioli D. 2002. "Additional notes on Caprimulgus forcipatus Nitzsch, 1840 (=Macropsalis forcipata)." Arajuba 10(2):272-273..
• They argue:
  1. The name focipatus Nitzsch is not a nomen nudum.
  2. Nor is it a nomen dubium and is referable to the name bearing type specimen held in the Institute of Zoology of the Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg.
  3. In summary: "Macropsalis forcipata (Nitzsch, 1840) is the correct name for the Long-trained Nightjar."

• I follow here Griffiths. Griffiths CS. 1999. Phylogeny of the Falconidae inferred from Molecular and Morhpological Data. Auk 116(1):116-130. This differs in part from the AOU 1998 Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 9:382 has 1837, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
The AOU Checklist 7^th ed. p.472 has a note refering C. fasciatus in the entry for C. zonatus and erroneously uses the date 1837.

• Peters Checklist 9:122 gives 1855.
• My collation of citations for this volume suggest 1856 is the likely date, and other lower page numbered citattions for this work are dated 1856 in many places in the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 9:270 lists vol. 1.
• This name is from volume IV no.18, Sept. 15 of the Orn.Centralb.

• Not in Sibley and Monroe.
• Long treated as a race of C. auriceps, but recent evidence shows considerable genetic differences and species status is proposed.
Triggs, SJ & Daugherty, CH. 1996. Bird Conservation International 6:89-101

• Placed by Peters and Sibley and Monroe in Lonchura.
• Baptista et al (1999) published on the relationships of some mannikins and waxbills in the Estrildidae (J. Orn. 140: 179-192), based on downy plumes, nestling palate markings, begging vocalizations, agonistic and courtship behavior, and allozymes. They proposed that the genera Padda and Euodice be merged with Lonchura.

• Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.21)

  Cibois et al (1999. Mol. Phylogen. Evol.  13: 581-595).
  published their results on the systematics of some Malagasy 
  babblers and warblers, based on mtDNA studies ...
  As N. flavoviridis is not related to the other three Neomixis 
  species, it should be known as Hartertula flavoviridis.

• Systematics and taxonomy of the megapodes from Jones, D. N., R. W. R. J. Dekker & C. S. Roselaar (1995): The Megapodes Megapodiidae. Oxford Univ. Pr.,
• Treated as a subspecies by Peters, and HBW.

• This name is found with both single "i" (forsteni) and double "i" (forstenii) endings.
• Recent authors seem to generally use the -ii ending (without comment), while I find earlier works seem to use the -i ending (for example Sherborn's Index Animalium).
• Dr David Donsker informs me that on examining his own copy of the work, it shows that the name is spelled forsteni in the text and forstenii on the plate. At the moment I am not aware of any indication that the plates were published apart from the corresponding text, but in this work with a confusing and not-fully-worked-out publishing history, it seems almost anything is possible.
• Thanks to Dr David Donsker for bringing this to my attention.
• Dr Donsker also subsequently notes, that Gray spelled the name a third way, (forsteri) in the index -- clearly a lapsus. More importantly, Gray, in his Handlist (published later in 1869, uses forsteni with one "i". If no action prior to the publication of Gray's Handlist satisfied the requirements for a first reviser, then Gray's use of the single "i" ending would appear to meet that requirement. Article 24.2.4 of the Code (1999) reads:

   
  24.2.4. Original authors may be deemed to be First Revisers of spellings. 
  When the author, or one of joint authors, of two different original spellings of 
  the same name subsequently uses one of them as valid in a work (including the 
  author's or publisher's corrigenda), and neither had previously been selected as 
  the correct spelling by a First Reviser, the author is deemed to be the First Reviser, 
  whether or not the author cites both spellings together (that used as valid 
  becomes the correct original spelling).

• [2010.01.08] David, Dickinson, & Gregory. 2009. "Contributons to a List of First Reviser actions: ornithology." Zootaxa 2085:1-24 hold Gray to be the First Reviser (p.6) when he used forsteni.

• Both the Peters Checklist and the Richmond Index give "p.471"
• Sharpe in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum Vol.10 p.200 gives "p.470."

• Michael S. Roy, Peter Arctander & Jon Fjeldsa, Speciation and taxonomy of montane greenbuls in the genus Andropadus (Aves: Pycnonotidae). 1998. Steenstrupia 24(1):51-66

• Oftenspelled fulicaria. (e.g. AOU, Sibley & Monroe, and HBW vol.3)
• In HBW 3:532 Drs J van Gils and P. Wiersma state:

  Species name often erroneouslyspelled fulicarius. 

  Though without providing any rationale for their judgement.
• I speculatively presume that they were following the argument of Parkes (1982) who felt the initial capital was indicative of a noun in apposition.
David N & Gosselin M. 2000. "The supposed significance of originally capitalized species-group names." BBOC. 120(4):262 discuss this issue in detail and indicate that the name is not a Latin noun, but is a Latin adjectival name and "is indeed Phalaropus fulicarius, as mandated by Art. 34.2 of the ICZN Code (1999)."

• Often spelled A. flavirostris.
For an explanation, I quote Normand David's explanation of this issue.

names ending in -rostra end in the modified Latin noun rostrum, 
and all are INVARIABLE. 
Adjectives formed on rostrum end in -rostris, -rostratus, 
etc., and are variable.

Things get complicated when the gender of a genus is not properly assessed.

Gallinula flavirostra Swainson, 1837, is known as Amaurornis flavirostra
[as per Sibley & Monroe (1990)], not because Amaurornis is feminine, but
because flavirostra is INVARIABLE; this is why, even though 
Limnocorax is masculine, it is also listed correctly as 
Limnocorax flavirostra [as per Peters (1934)].

Amaurornis Reichenbach 1852 (Av. Syst. Nat, p. xxi) ends in the
transliterated Greek noun ornis, which is masculine as well as feminine,
but was established in combination with olivacea, and is thus 
feminine as per ICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.4.2). 
Peters (1934), and Dickinson et al. (1991)] correctly treated Amaurornis as feminine.

The following spellings are incorrect:

Amaurornis flavirostris [of Dowsett & Forbes-Watson (1993), Urban et al. (1986), del Hoyo et al. (1996)], and
Limnocorax flavirostris [of Wolters (1982)].


To change flavirostra to flavirostris would 
turn an invariable noun-phrase ending in a modified Latin noun into a variable adjective.

• The Zoo. Rec. in the period from 1978-1992 uses only the form A. flavirostris; it occurs once between 1981 and 1992.

• Normand David writes (2001.01.04, 2001.01.09)

  
  According to  Dowsett, R. J. & Dowsett-Lemaire, F.  (1993.  A contribution
  to the distribution and taxonomy of Afrotropical and Malagasy birds.
  Tauraco Res. Rep. 5.  Tauraco Press, Liège), "Accipiter francesiae is the
  correct spelling..., and not francesii..., this lapsus on the part of Sir
  Andrew Smith being corrected by Benson et al. (1976-77)".
  The Benson reference is a series of articles in L'Oiseau & RFO.
  Benson et al. 1976 (Contributiuon à l'ornithologie de Madagascar, Oiseau &
  RFO 46: 103-134) stated (p. 122) that Smith named the bird in honour of a
  woman, and "manifestement, francesii est un lapsus pour francesiae".
  
  I don't know if they were right according to the ICZN 1960 Code, but they
  are according to the 1999 Code - the only one that prevails today.
  
  The bird was named to honour Lady Frances Cole (Jobling 1991), but the
  original name is a masculine genitive (e.g. francesii from Francesius, 
  the latinization of Frances).
  
  However, ICZN 1999 Art. 31.1.2 states "A species-group name, if a noun in
  the genitive case formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be
  formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that
  of a man, ..., -ae if of a woman...; the stem of such a name is determined
  by the action of the original author when forming the genitive".
  
  In the original francesii, Smith used the stem francesi-; 
  therefore the feminine genitive is francesiae. [If Smith had used the 
  stem frances-, from Francesus, the latinization of Frances, 
  then the genitives would have been francesi (masculine) 
  and francesae (feminine)].
  
  I am not familiar with those types of names, but the very clear and
  explicit wording of ICZN Art. 31.1.2 leaves hardly any room for another
  conclusion.
  
  The prerequisite condition is that Smith indication that he wanted 
  to honour a woman in his original description.
  
  --------------------------------------------------
  Normand David, Directeur general
  Association quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues
  4545 Pierre-de-Coubertin
  C. P. 1000, Succ. m
  Montreal, Qc
  H1V  3R2
  

  [End of David's material]
• Following the original description, Smith writes:

  
  To Lady Frances Cole I am indebted for the only specimen I possess 
  of this apparently undescribed species, -- and the name it bears in the 
  South African Museum is an indication of the high respect entertained for
  Her Ladyship as a well known and zealous Patroness of Science.

• Therefore while HBW, Sibley & Monroe, and Wolters use "francesii" I use "francesiae".

• Peters Checklist 5:142 lists this as 1864.
• The Richmond Index confirms that this was published in Feb. 1865.
• F. Gary Stiles corrects Peters' date error and has the correct date in HBW 5:678.

• Peters Checklist 10:214 (Ripley) gives the date as "1857"
• This was not published until Jan. of 1858.

• Peters Checklist 12:334 (Moreau) spells this ficedulina as it was originally.
• The ICZN mandated that generic group names ending in -ops regardless of derivation, are to be treated as masculine.

• Peters Checklist 8:290 (Snow) lists the year as 1858.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1859.

• Peters Checklist 9:404 gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:478 also gives a date of 1859.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossed out).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist 11:56 (Mayr) 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.

• Peters Checklist 8:119 (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.

• Not in Peters Checklist 2.
• HBW 3:156 (PB Taylor) gives a date of 1867 (the imprint date).
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1868.
• Duncan's 1937 indicates Apr. 1868.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan.