Zoological Citation Notes --G

• Cited by many to Rothschild and Hartert (e.g. IOC 11.2; Joseph et al.2020).
• This is understandable as the article containing this name/lapsus is indeed by those two men.
• However, at the beginning of the article on p.530 nomeclatural responsibility is assigned to Rothschild for some groups and Hartert for the rest. Parrots are not in the groups assigend to Rothschild.
• Assignation of responsibilities
• My interpretation is that this name should be attributed to Hartert. Richmond appears to have thought so as well, judging for his card for this genus group name.
• Richmond Index Genus group card.
• Also note that Peters III:152 cites the name to p.552. It appears to me that p.532 is correct.

• Long cited to Oberholser 1918 with the specific epithet epia /epius.
• See David, Elliott, & Bruce. 2021 BBOC 141:50-58 for an excellent discussion of this name, and an example of how consideration of "prevaling usage" should be undertaken.
• David, Elliott, & Murray article pdf
• Author's who simply take a position that something represents "prevailing usage", and take that position without data supporting and documenting their evaluative study should be (at minimum) ignored. Such pronouncments generally speak to the individual experience of the person making the statment. No doubt this experience is interesting and important to them, but by itself and without context is of limited value, and less interest more generally. It is a numerator without a denominator.

• Originally spelled Yourdini, an incontrovertible truth.
• Subsequently most authors spell this gourdini though they have been unwilling or unable to give any justification or rationale for this emendation.
• [2019.02.14]: The "rationale" subsequently given is "prevailing usage" though I am unaware of anyone, anywhere undertaking and publishing the analysis to support this position. Rather it appears more an "opinion" which self appointed and self-important savants think is "good enough". In this, they quite clearly are taking a break from being scientists, but have donned the robes of high priests issuing fiats, bulls and fatwas.
• My opinion of this kind of action has been quite low, very low, in fact. But I am changing my mind. Such actions, which necessarily degrade the inherent quality of the information must be recognized as a useful indicator of the inherently non-scientific process at play.

• Spelled "ginanensis" on p.10, but spelled "guianensis" in the table listing taxa in the volume.

• Conventionally (e.g. Peters V:188) cited as
  • Pelargopsis capensis gouldi Sharpe 1870 PZS Pt1 p.62,63
• The Richmond Index indicates that the PZS description was published in May, while the portion of the Monogr.Alced. containing the plates and description was published in April.

• This name appears to be incorrect. The subspecies (Aulacorhynchus griseigularis phaeolaemus (Gould) 1874) has priority over the nominate.
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for pointing out that this issue was raised in Birdforum.

• For resolution as guttuliger, see

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

• The authority is often attributed to Schlegel (e.g. Peters Checklist 6:60; CBBM 19:106 (=Shelley 1891); HBW 7:175 (2002).
• However, the livraison where this is named and described is by Goffin, and there is no indication that Schlegel was responsible for the description. Schlegel's name is listed following the name. It may well be that Schlegel provided the name as a manuscript name, but his role in the matter is not stated or defined. Therefore, I attribute the name to the author of the work, which in this case is Goffin.

• Peters Checklist I(2):551 (= Amadon 1979) cites this to "col. 143", which is incorrect.
• The genus is introduced in cols. 43, and 183.
• HBW 2:573 (1994) does not allow for the identification of individual citations, but does not list 43, 183, or 143!.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• This name is spelled, almost universally with a double -ii ending (greyii).
• Examination of the original work (on-line http://nat.pictura-dp.nl) shows the original spelling to be greyi both on the plate and in the text.
• Usually in cases such as this, the emendation results from authors following the CBBM, but remarkably in this instance CBBM 21:85 spells the name "Ptilinopus greyi", with the single -i ending! However confusion is added by the synonomy listing where the original description by Bonaparte is listed (with others) as "Ptilinopus greyii".
• In the original description, the only individuals mentioned in the text are named Gray, but as the name is cited to the plate, this fact may have no bearing on the matter.

• Peters Checklist X:200 (= Ripley 1964) gives the spelling as

  Merula Gouldi

  and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:669 (through Corrigenda 8).
• There is no question that the name was originally spelled with an -ii ending, as shown in the Richmond Index Richmond Index card Merula gouldii.
• The original citation can be seen here: Merula Gouldii original description
• Interestingly, in their discussion of "The authorship and date of Turndu rubrocanus" (SNAB 56. Dickinson EC & Walters M. 2006), the specific epithet is also spelled with the incorrect single -i ending.
• HBW 10:649 also employs the incorrect -i ending.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Substantial confusion surrounds the citation of this genus regarding the date, and the authority.
• I follow Gregory SMS. 2006. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 57. The authorship of the generic name Gymnoris." Zoologische Mededelingen. Leiden 80-5 (December 2006).
• Of note, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 cites Hodgson rather than Blyth, and 1844 rather than 1845, and then in Corrigenda 8 refers to Gregory's article, but does not appear to change either the author or the date for this taxon. The note that reads "Re above see Gregory (2006) [SNAB 57]." may imply that Gregory's approach is to be followed.

• Edward Dickinson's work has clarified at least part of the troublesome work "Gal.Ois.".
• Peters Checklist VII:190 gives the citation for this taxon as:

  Myrmothera guttata Vieillot, Galeris Ois. 2, ca. 1825, p.251, pl.155

• In contrast the CBBM 15:232 gives the citation as:

  Myrmothera guttata, Vieill. Gal. Ois. i. p.251, pl.155

• H&M 3^rd:648 dates this to 1852, without comment. This is unusual for several reasons: first, Peters Checklist 9:443 dates this to 1851, and second, H&M 3^rd:450 dates Pomatostamous from the very same page of this work to 1851.

• Alcippe grotei (originally Alcippe nipalensis grotei) is treated as a full species in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]). Where it is noted:"Alcippe grotei is split from A.peracensis (Robson 2000,Collar 2006a, BLI)".
• It is treated in H&M 3^rd::620 as a subspecies of Alcippe poioicephala.

• As noted in the IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) "MOVE Graminicola from Megaluridae to Timaliidae positioned near Pellorneum (Alström 2006, Johansson et al. 2008)"

• Garrulax gularis is treated as a full species 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). It is treated there as a subspecies of Garrulax delesserti.

• Peters Checklist 10:305 (= Deignan 1964) list this in vol.14 of BBOC and dates this to "1930". Clearly this is a transcription error for the correct date, which is 1903.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Accipiter griseiceps (Schlegel) 1862 Mus.Hist.Pays-BasRev.Meth.Crit.Coll. livr.1 no.4 Astures p.23,24
• In van den Hoek Ostende LW, Dekker RWRJ, & Keijl GO. 1997. "Type-specimens of birds in the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Part 1. Non-Passerines." NNM Tech.Bull. 1:1-248, the authors indicate (p.22) that "This name is usually, but incorrectly, attributed to Schlegel (1862c)". They cite "(Kaup, 1848)".
• Their references list (p.195) appears to have a problem of its own. The reference reads: "Kaup, J., 1848. Zusage zu dem Genus Astur. -- Isis (Oken) 26:774." The number "26" does not seem to me to be possible for the volume of 1848. My tally of volumes indicates that this would be in volume "41", and I have a number of Kaup citations to 1848 and volume 41. In his history of the journal Isis von Oken, Kertesz GA. 1986. Isis 77(3):497-503 refers (p.503) to "Isis von Oken, 1844, 37, cols. 49ff." which further supports the idea that the volume number "26", as proposed by van den Hoek Ostende et al., is an error.
• The other parts of the citation look adequately appropriate that they seem reasonable to accept, though I am a little hesitant, not being able to otherwise confirm a citation that itself does not appear to have been carefully reviewed.
• In his Corrigenda no.8 for H&M 3^rd, Dickinson refers to van den Hoek Ostende as van der Hoek Ostende.

• As noted in the Richmond Index this is spelled gundlachii on p.194 (key) and guindlachi on p.197 (in text).
• This spelling difference goes un-noted in the AOU CL 1957 (p.489); Peters CL 14:16 (1968); or Deignan (1961) (p.531,532).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
• Normand David informs me (in litt.) that Baird acted as the first reviser by his subsequent use of gundlanchi (ICZN 1999 24.2.4).

• This bird, like many sunbirds, was described in Anthothreptus a name generally held to be a Cabanis emendation of Swainson's name Anthreptes. Some confusion results from the fact that Gadow in CBBM 8 uses Anthothreptes as the genus name and does not appear to regard it as an emendation.
• Peters Checklist 12:209 (= Rand 1967) amplifies confusion with an error of his own. Rand lists:

  	Anthreptes Swainson, 1832, in Swainson and Richardson, 
  		Fauna Bor. Amer., 2 (1831) , p. 495.
  	...
  	Anthothreptes Swainson, 1837, Class. Birds, 2, p.329.

  Which is incorrect, but creates the impression that Swainson erected or treated Anthothreptes as a genus group name in its own right. If true this would require the use of parentheses around authorities for taxa described in Anthothreptes but now held in Anthreptes. Rand's reference is nonesense, Swainson's p.329 of Class. Birds 2 has no use of Anthothreptes as can be seen here: Swainson's Nat. Hist. Birds 2 p.329
• [2010.11.29] Gastone Rabascini helpfully points out, that I had not spelled the genus group name Anthothreptus correctly, and more importantly Sundevall used the name (Anthothreptus) in 1872, apparently as an emendation of Swainson's name (Anthreptes).

• Peters Checklist 9:114 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) show the date as 1851.
• Dating names from this work is always problematic. The Richmond Index shows the date as 1852, which I follow.
• Richmond Index card.
• 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.

• Peters Checklist 15:225 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) show the type locality as "Forth Brown, Texas".
• This is a typo for Fort Brown, as confirmed by the Richmond Index, and Deignan p.333.

• 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 apparently confirming what Richmond had found out over 100 years before and which has been published since 1992.

• Commonly cited to 1890 which may very well be correct.
• This material, which apparently was issued in two forms, with different pagination, and seemingly different dates of availability, is very troublesome and confusing. This difficulty is increased by the fact that there appears to be little recognition of the problem and the possibilities of 1889 vs 1890.
• The Richmond Index is usually helpful in this matter, but in this instance has only one card, which lists the two versions of publication, but in this instance (contrasting with others) lists only the 1890 date.
• My citation, which should be considered provisional, includes "pt.1" following the Richmond Index. This makes it seem almost certain to me that the date must be 1889, and not 1890. The page number I provide for the Aggiunte ("p.94") is given by Peters Checklist 15:151, but is not given in the Richmond Index.
• Consistency in the format of these citations does not seem to be found (including in the Richmond Index) and my listings are my best attempt to accomadate the various citations I have found.

• Originally spelled Corethrura Gautemalensis.
• "Corrected" to guatemalensis by Peters and others.
• I understand from Normand David (in litt. 2008.01.10) that there are internal indications in the original description (not seen) that make the case for "Guatemalensis" being what was intended, and that the emendation to "Guatemalensis" appears justified.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 12:12 includes a footnote by Ernst Mayr that states:

  Tephrodornis grisola Blyth, 1843, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 
  16, p. 121 -- Calcutta is unidentifiable. -- E.M.

• Mayr's citation is problematic. Volume 16 of this Journal was not published until 1847, so it appears that Mayr was confused or misinformed.
• It appears from the Richmond Index, that some peculiarities may exist with this name: there is an entry for J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 12 PtI no.134 "Feb" 1843 p.180 and an added note that says:

  For descr. see vol. XI, p.799.

• Parkes 1989 Nemouria article may discuss this, but that article is not available to me.

• Described in Coccyzusa which is a Cabanis emendation of Coccycua.

• Peters Checklist 2:177, cites this to "p. 234" which is a transpostion for p.243 where it is actually found.
• Peters' error is replicated in HBW 3726.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Often held to be a subspecies of Buteogallus anthracinus.
• Elevated to species level by the AOU CL 48^th Supplement (p.1112) on the basis of a lack of demonstrated reason to have demoted it to subspecies status, as well as on the basis of size, morphology and voice.

• Peters Checklist 7:302 (Index) transposes letters, rendering the name "guiaquimiae" where "guaiquinimae" must have been intended.

• This 2005 taxon is not discussed in H&M 3^rd through Corrigenda 6 (2006.12).
• I tentatively include it here

• Peters Checklist 13:346 (=Storer, 1970) cites this to 1860, which is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:821.
• The Richmond Index notes for this taxon, that the number (for Sept.) was published in Jan. 1861, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 14:184 dates this to 1849. Other taxa from this volume are dated by Peters Checklist authors to both 1849 and 1848 without discussion or comment. The dates of publication of this work are problematic and the authors of the later volumes of the Peters Checklist would seem to be amoung those least motivated to try to understand or resolve the difficulties. They may, however be correct here.
• I currently date all taxa from vol.3 of this work to 1848, though this may change.
• H&M 3^rd dates some taxa from this volume to 1848 and other to 1849, essentially parroting the inconsistency of Peters Checklist without additional comment.
• How knows how it will all end up...

• H&M 3^rd:382 dates this to 1869, though this was published in 1868. This error results from lack of understanding of the (changing, confusing and inconsistent) orthography used in the Peters Checklist volumes. Other examples of this erroneous interpretation are corrected (e.g. Frederickena unduligera unduligera on p.380. But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:561 has the date correct as 1868.

• Apparently universally date to 1848.
• This volume (4) had portions issued in 1848 and 1849, so the problem is to determine when the "year break" occured.
• This was published in No.5 reporting the meeting of Oct. 31, 1848 (a Tuesday). Reciept was acknowledged by the Boston Society of Natural History on March 31, 1849, so I take that as the first date the publication is proven to be available.
• However, I am eager to know of any information that would demonstrate publication prior to that time.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):361 (=Stresemann & Amadon) cite this to 1873, giving the citation as:

  [Buteo (Rupornis) magnirostris] var. griseocauda Ridgway,
  1873, Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 16, pp.87 (in key),88

  This date (1873) is followed by HBW 2:179 and H&M 3^rd:110 (through Corrigenda 6).
• The Richmond Index gives the date as 1874, which I follow.
• For this Journal volume, 1874 appears more likely than 1873; volume 14 (for 1871) was not published (at least the latter portions) until 1872. Volumes often extended across more than one year, and it appears delays were common. This bird is described in part I of volume 16, and volume 17 came out in 1875, so 1874 appears likely.
• The Harry Harris compilation of Ridgways publication (Condor 30:73-74) dates these pages (pp.43-72, Appendix, pp.73-106) to December, 1873,; The Richmond Index for Rhynchofalco (from p.46 of this serial) says "Sig. dated Nov. 1873". Though the Richmond card indicates that the imprint date for Part I of this volume is "1874".
• I can not exclude the possibility that this portion of the serial came out in 1873, but as the imprint date seems to be "1874" I use that as the date until there is demonstration that it was available earlier.

H&M 3^rd:149 merges this into Sterna, the justification for this would appear to be the footnote #3 on that page, which reads:

3 In contradiction to our treatment of the gulls we here take a broad
view of the genus Sterna.

The basis for, and exact meaning of this "broad view" is not given. Additionally, I presume that the word contrast was intended when contradiction was employed.
• Most author's treat nilotica in Gelochelidon and this approach continues to receive support (SACC 2005; Bridge ES, Jones AW, Baker AJ. 2005. "A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution.." Mol.Phylogen.Evol. 35:459-469); it is the approach I take as well.

• Described as Gelochelidon nilotica grönvoldi and now conventionally spelled groenvoldi (e.g. H&M 3^rd:149; HBW 3:645).
• The substitution of the -ö- by -oe- in this instance implies either uncertainty about the derivation of the word, or the belief that it is based on a word of German origin.
• The ICZN Code 1999 Art. 32.5.2.1 states:

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

• Clearly this bird is named for Henrik Grönvold, or Grønvold. Dr David Donsker informs me (in litt. 2006.01.07) that Henrik Grønvold was the illustrator for Mathews's Birds of Australia, and was Danish.
• I do not find any German word or words that correlates with Grövold, and find only Scandinavian correlates.
• If the rules of the ICZN Code 1999 are to be heeded, this must be spelled gronvoldi.
• Normand David offers his current iterpretation (in litt. 2006.01.14):

  Art. 32.5.2.1 does not expressly ask that the origin (German or non-German) of a name be stated in the
  original description. In other words, all sources of information can be used to apply the rule. 
  
  I feel that D.Donsker provide enough information to conclude that Grönvold is not a German name, and
  that the correct spelling of grönvoldi Mathews 1912 is gronvoldi under 32.5.2.1 -the spelling used by
  H&M 2 under the 1985 Code.
  
  At this moment, I see that Blake (1979, Neotropical Birds) and HBW 3:645 have "groenvoldi", both
  being Incorrect subsequent spellings. Perhaps an Unjustified emendation was also introduced somewhere -the
  Hellmayr series or a Brazilian reference such as Pinto may provide a clue. But, wether an ISS or an UE, we
  are again faced with the "prevailing usage" issue, the assessment of which has yet to be
  completed.

• In a letter from CWR to Witmer Stone (Dec 8, 1929), Richmond discusses the issue of authors "stealing" names, and comments:

   ... Neither did Baird think he was robbing Coues by publishing a
  description of Dendroica graciae about a year before Coues did. In
  fact, they thought so little of it that Baird's type was exchanged
  with Maynard about 1871, while Coues' "type" was carefully
  preserved!

• Peters Checklist 12:426 (Salomonsen) lists the genus name as

  Gliciphila Swainson ... Emended to Glyciphila.

• Glyciphila is used by H&M 3^rd:440 with a note indicating that the name Glyciphilus (!) was used in the previous edition. The reference given is to Christidis & Boles 1994 Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories. RAOU. (Note that the date of this publication as given by Boles on his website is 1995, not 1994; it is listed as Christidis, L. and W.E. Boles. 1995. Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. 112 pp..
• I am unsure of the status of the "emendation", though this may very well be discussed in Christidis and Boles 1995. Glyciphila is in fact an 1840 emendation by G.R. Gray in his "A list of the Genera of Birds" p.15. Given that the fact that Glyciphila is an emendation and this fact is not mentioned or addressed in H&M 3^rd:440, I chose to use the Swainson generic name until it is demonstrated that the Gray 1840 emendation is valid.

• Previously as
  • Cacatua goffini (Finsch) 1863 Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. 1 p.XXIII
• Cacatua goffini is renamed Cacatua goffiniana. ref. Rosellar & Michaels. 2004 Zoologische Verhandelingen Leiden 350:183-196.
• Thanks to Jirka Schmidt for bringing this to my attention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:378 as

  Ptilotis germana Ramsay, 1879, Proc.Linn.Soc. New South Wales, 3
  (1878), p.2

  This date is followed by H&M 3^rd:433, and does not appear to be corrected as far as Corrigenda 4.0.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was published in Sept. of 1878, which I follow.
• Peters Checklist 8:319 dates Pitta erythrogaster novaehibernicae (from p.73 of volme 3 of the Proceedings) to 1878.

• Peters Checklist 2:20 gives the citation as:

  	Phasianus garrulus Humboldt, in Humboldt and Bonpland, "Rec. d'
  	Observ. Zool. et d'Anat. Comp.," 1805, p.4, note 

• This work evidently has an imprint date of 1811, but was issued in parts. The Richmond Unpublished notes on dates of publication has a card indicating that the premier cahier "paraitra" in May. [APP: paraitra = "will appear" (future tense of paraitre] This is noted in Journal Typographique, VIII, no. xxxiv 5 Germinal, an 13 [1805], p.270
• Both Richmond and Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.2636) give the pagination as p.12,47, as opposed to Peters' "p.4, note"
• Evidently Peters was taking his citation from Cat.B.Br.Mus. 22:515 which gives p.4 for this taxon. This in turn may have been following Gray 1844. (Thanks to Dr Dave Donsker for the CBBM and Gray information).
• Colin Jones pointed out (2005.11.13) that the on-line version of this work shows without question the description on p.4 in a footnote, and the name occuring again on p.12. Why Richmond and to Sherborn list the matter otherwise is a mystery.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:37 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177 and by HBW 4:221.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW 4:217.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Two issues here: the order of the authors, and whether the authority should be listed in parentheses.
• Regarding the order in which the authors are listed I follow the Richmond Index, which lists the authors explicitly in this order for this taxon. The card prepared is such that it would have been easier to list the authors in the other order, so I interpret that this order represents a conscious decision on Richmond's part. While I do not have the material to hand to address the facts of the matter, it is unlikely that Richmond was less careful with regard to this matter than other workers have been.
• [2020.08.14] Colin Jones confirms that the order Albertis & Salvadori is seen in the original.
• Regarding the need for placing the authority in parentheses, the taxon was described in Ptilonopus (c.f. Ptilinopus), a name evidently first used by Selby in 1833 for the Swainson 1825 name. (Swainson himself used Ptilinapus in 1837, further confusing the matter). So the question becomes is Ptilonopus simply an emendation of Ptilinopus, in which case no parentheses are needed, or is it a genus group name in its own right? The Richmond Index lists Ptilonopus "Swainson" Selby as an emendation for Ptilinopus Swainson; Neave says Ptilonopus pro Ptilonopus. So I interpret one name to be simply an emendation of the other, and thus not requiring parentheses.
• Peters Checklist 3:39 lists the authority in parentheses, and this is followed without comment by H&M 3 ^rd:175.
• HBW 4:209 lists the authority without parentheses, evidently interpreting Ptilonopis to simply be an emendation.

• Peters Checklist 3:82 lists the authority in parentheses, presumably becuase Hartert described this in Reinwardtoenas.
• H&M 3^rd:163 departs from Peters Checklist without comment or discussion.
• I believe the H&M checklist is correct, in that I interpret Reinwardtoenas to be an emendation.
• Of interest, Sharpe's Handlist 1899 1:75 spells the specific epithet griseitincta not griseotincta. I have not seen how it is actually spelled in the CBBM. The Richmond Index indicates that Hartert spelled it griseotincta

• Peters Checklist 8:29 (Lowery & Monroe) lists this date as 1858.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1859.
• H&M 3^rd:351 lists the date as 1858, but this is corrected in Corrigenda 2.

• Originally spelled Gypaëtus.
• I had originally, and incorrectly, interpreted the two dots above the "e" to be an umluat. Rainer Massman (2005.08.06) very helpfully pointed out my error here, and I have learned that he is correct that formally all "double dots" over a letter are not umlauts (!). Umlauts designate the partial assimilation to a succeeding sound -- particularly that of a back vowel (a,o,u) caused by a (front) "i" or "j" originally standing in the following syllable, but now lost. This definition would not seem to apply to the "double dot" appearing over the "e" in this instance, and I am not sure what this diacritical mark should be called, it is clear that it should be dropped from the binomen.
• Jobling 1991 p.101 suggests that the name is based on "Gr. gupaietos a corrupt version of hupaietos), an eagle or vulture."
• Liddell & Scott list γυπαετος as a variant, so it seems Jobling's assertion is well supported, and the name is best regarded as Greek in origin.

• Peters Checklist 8:242 (Snow) cites the page number to "p.262", this description occurs on p.263.

• The author here is usually given as McClelland. (e.g. Peters Checklist 6:147; HBW 7:549).
• Dickinson treats the question of authorship in some detail, and determines that authorship by Horsfield is correct. {Dickinson EC. 2003. "Systematic notes on Asian Birds.38. The McClelland drawings and a reappraisal of the 1835-36 survey of the birds of Assam." Zool.Verh. 344:63-106}.

• It appears this is universally dated to 1848.
• This appeared in Vol.4, no.5; a volume with parts appearing in both 1848 and 1849. So the problem is determining when the "year-break" occurs.
• In general those that date this taxon to 1848 have little understanding of, or interest in the problem of the publishing history of this serial. The Richmond Index indicates that this no.5 pubished material from the meeting of Oct.31, 1848. The receipt of this no.5 was acknowledged by the Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. on 31 March, 1849, and there is "evidence of delay" in that these numbers were certainly not published on the day of the meeting, and other numbers have proof of delay of some months.
Therefore, I date this to 1849, but am eager to know of any evidence showing that this material was available in 1848.

• Spelled guayquinimae without comment in H&M 3^rd:258.
• H&M uses the spelling guaiquinimae on p.401 for a subspecies described in the same work as Campylopterus duidae guaiquinimae.
• The Richmond Index shows guaiquinimae to be correct.
• HBW 5:554 has the correct spelling "guaiquinimae" [APP]
• Original spelling confirmed to be guaiquinimae (original examined). [APP]

• H&M 3^rd:317 lists the authority without parentheses.
• This was described in Polipicus.

• I find this work bibliographically confusing. Sherborn (Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist., 1897 (6) 20:483) gives a listing for the parts, which by his tally number 19. Zimmer describes the work as issued as " 5 pts in 3 vols" and later in his work refers to Parts with roman numerals as high as VI and arabic numbers as high as 15.
• Peters Checklist 3:gives this citation as "pt. 9, 1839, p.115; pt. 15, 1841, pl.46"
• The Peters citation does not comport with the Sherborn or Zimmer listings or the entry in the Richmond Index. Pt.9 (as cited by Peters) according to Sherborn includes pp.33-56 (c.f. p.115).
• The Richmond Index listing says "pt. III, Birds, no.XV, Mch 1841, 115, pl.46". This "pt. III" must be referring to the larger sections in which this work was published, and the "no.XV" corresponds to what Sherborn calls "Part 15".
• Since the Peters citation does not seem to make sense (although it is followed by HBW 4:612), I follow the Richmond Index implying 1841, not 1839 as in Peters.
• Sherborn in Index Animalium also dates this name to 1841.
• H&M 3^rd:166 also follows the Peters citation and uses 1839.

• Peters Checklist 6:72 lists Chapman's name in parentheses, responding to the fact that he described this subspecies in Aulocorhynchus [sic].
• HBW 7:251 and H & M 3^rd:301 do not place Chapman's name in parentheses. I presume, that they interpret (as I do) Chapman's spelling to be simply a variant, and not a proposed alternate genus.

• Originally spelled "gambelli" (with two l's).
• Usually "corrected" to "gambeli" (e.g. Peters Checklist 1(2):438, HBW 1:581)
• H&M 3^rd:62, treats "gambeli" as prevailing usage following ICZN 33.3.3.1.
• The CBBM 27 spells spells the name incorrectly with the single "l".
• The AOU CL, 5^thEd. p.65 spells the epithet as "gambelli" and "Gambelli"; in the Index (p.669) it spells it "gambeli".

• 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.138.
• HBW 5:71,686; H&M 3^rd Ed.:219 date this to 1874.
• It appears 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.

• Often cited as 1889 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:475; H&M 3^rd Ed.:67; HBW 1:611).
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in Feb. 5, 1890
• The date of Feb. 5 is also given in Harris' extensive review of Ridgway and his publications in the Condor 1928 30:100.

• Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:4; H&M 3^rd Ed.:36)
This part was published in Feb. 1862.

• Sometimes (e.g. HBW 7:469 (Winkler & Christie)) split into two species with Dendropicos spodocephalus recognized as distinct.
  • Dendropicos spodocephalus (Bonaparte) 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.125
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.04.03):

  Based on his special study of this family, Short considered there is no good
  evidence that this is really specifically distinct from D. griseocephalus:
  Short L.L., Horne J.F.M. & Muringo-Gichuki C. 1990. "Annotated check-list 
  of the birds of East Africa." Proc. Western Found. Vert. Zool. 4:61-246. 

• The first bird in Linnaeus' Syst. Nat.
• The citation from the 10^th Ed. reads:

  Gryphus. I. V. maximus, caruncula verticali longitudine capitis.†
  	   Vultur Gryps Gryphus. Klein. av. 45.
  	   Cuntur. Raj. av. II.
  	   Habitare fertur Chili.
  	   Rara avis in terris; mihi ignota; videſis Kleinium.
  

• The citation from the 12^th Ed. reads:

  Gryphus. I. V. maximus, caruncula verticali longitudine capitis.
  	     gula nuda.†
  	   Vultur Gryps Gryphus. Klein. av. 45. Briſſ. av.
  	     I. p. 473.
  	   Cuntur. Raj. av. II.
  	   Habitat in Chili, Peru.  Prædatur Vitulis, Ovibus,
  	   immo Pueris decennibus; binæ aves Vaccam dilace-
  	   rant veranique; in terrain devolans ſuſarro attoni-
  	   tos & ſurdos fere reddit homines.
  	Alæ maximae, intra quarum extremitates ped. 13 ſ. 
  	   16.  Remex longitudine ped. 2½ craſſitic digit. I½ 
  	   Corpus nigrum, ſubtus fuſcum.  Capit nudum fu-
  	   ſca lanuguine, carunculaque longitudinalis. Gula nu-
  	   da, rubens.  Roſtrum & Pedes nigri.  Ungues re-
  	   Etiuſculi ne nimium ſaviant.
  

• [NOTE: I can't quite make out the orthography of the word continued on the last line, the first character looks like a backwards "B".]
• Initially I was uncertain of the meaning of the dagger (†) which occurs many places in the text. Both Martin Spies and David Nicolson provided substantial instruction on this point. The dagger in this context means a form that Linnaeus is describing without having seen the animal or a musuem specimen himself. See the entry for Syst.Nat. for further details.

• Peters Checklist 10:309 (Deignan) has "1827" and "livr.74"
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75) extremo1827".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, demonstrating that the "74" is most likely a misprint for 75.
• Livraison 75 makes the date 1828 rather than 1827.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.52-53'

• HBW 1:631 gives the page number as "134:.
• I follow the Richmond Index, and Peters Checklist 1(2):228 here.

• Given by Peters Checklist 13:272 (Storer) as "p.355".
• This occurs on p.335.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N.  60 	TROCHILUS (guainumbi) curvirostris, viridis
	sericeus, remigibus atris, rectricibus laterali-
	bus apice albidis.
	

• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Cabo de goede Hoop." with a footnote stating:
• 'Called "Bloemzuigertje Ronkertje of Kolibrit" in the "Catalogue."'
• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):334.
• Peters Checklist 5:58 gives the type locality as "(Cape of Good Hope, error = Surinam, cf. Richmond, Smiths. Misc. Coll., 47, 1905, p.344."
• The text from Richmond reads:

  This is evidently a hummingbird and not a sunbird.  The 
  locality is wrong and should probably be "Surinam."
  The description agrees very closely with the species now
  called Polytmus thaumantias (LINNÆUS, 1766).

• Jobling, 1991 p.99 gives the derivation of the name as:

  guainumbi  Tupi (Brazilian) Indian 
  	name guainumbi or guinambi for a type
  	of hummingbird.

  It is interesting that Pallas would use a Brazilian indian name for a bird he felt came from the Cape of Good Hope. This suggests to me that the name must have been associated with the specimen, and that Pallas may not have known what it meant.
• The Richmond Index cards are of some interest here:
• the first card lists the type locality as '"Cabo de goede Hoop" [=Surinam ?]' [APP -- note the question mark].
• The second card gives the description from Vroeg's catalogue as:

  "60 Bloemzuigertje,  Ronkertje, of Kolibrit., (Guainumbi).
  Lin. Sp. o.  De kleur is groenagtig en als vergult.
  De veertjes van onderen het lyf, en de staart, zyn
  met witte randjes omzet, de vleugels zyn vaal
  blaauwachtig. Cabo de goede Hoop is deszelfs woomplaats."
  

• Malurus campbelli Schodde & Weatherly 1982 Fairy-Wrens p.32 pl.3 Often treated as a full species.
• Marek Kuziemko writes: " M. campbelli Schodde & Weatherly 1982. Often treated as a separate species, but Rowley & Russel (1997, Bird Families of the World: Fairly-wrens and Grasswrens Maluridae, Oxford UP) treated it as race of M. grayi -based on LeCroy & Diamond (1995, Emu,95, 185-193).

• Treated as a subspecies of M. alpina by Peters Checklist 8:171.
• Chesser, R. T. 2000. "Evolution in the high Andes: The phylogenetics of Muscisaxicola ground-tyrants." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 15:369-380. Abstract:
  "Phylogenetic relationships within the genus Muscisaxicola, a primarily Andean group of tyrant-flycatchers, were studied using complete sequences of the mitochondrial genes COII and ND3. Relationships among Muscisaxicola species were found to differ substantially from those of previous views, suggesting convergence in traditional avian taxonomic characters within the genus. The 11 species of large, gray, "typical" Muscisaxicola flycatchers (including M. grisea, newly restored to species status) formed a distinct clade, consisting of two major groups: a clade of 6 species breeding primarily in the central Andes and a clade of 5 species breeding primarily in the southern Andes. The other 2 species traditionally placed in this genus, M. fluviatilis, an Amazonian species, and M. maculirostris, were both rather divergent genetically from the typical species, although M. maculirostris may be the sister taxon to the typical clade. The patterns of sympatry exhibited by Muscisaxicola species in the high Andes appear to be the consequence of speciation and secondary contact within regions of the Andes, rather than a result of dispersal between regions. Diversification of the typical Muscisaxicola species appears to have occurred during the middle and late Pleistocene, suggesting generally that taxa of the high Andes and Patagonia may have been greatly influenced by mid-to-late Pleistocene events. There were likely several independent developments of migration within this genus, but migration is probably ancestral in the southern clade, with subsequent loss of migration in two taxa.

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

• In Direction 39 the ICZN, on 17 September 1956, declared Brisson the author of the genus.
• Not used by the Peters Checklist 2:274, where Capella Frenzel is used for Gallinago Koch, 1816.

• This date is somewhat uncertain: Peters Checklist 2:306 has 1830, {Richmond, et al. 1992} notes "may have appeared in 1830", {Sherborn 1902} says "ante March 1831".

• Peters Checklist 4:65 lists this as "pl.(sic) 50".

• Peters Checklist 12:406 has "1851?"; see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The Richmond Index gives Rev.Mag.Zool Feb. 1851 p.96, which may have priority. Peters Checklist 5:109 has Compt.Rend. 32 1851 p.186. {Richmond, et al. 1992} has Bourcier 1851 Rev.Mag.Zool. p.96 , Feb. 1851. I am uncertain which has priority.

• This taxon seems to attract citation problems. The two areas of difficulty are:
  1. what is the correct plate number?
  2. when was it published
• What is the correct plate number?
Secondary sources cite this taxon as follows:
1. Ardea goliath Cretzschm. in Rüpp. Atlas, p. 39, pl. 36 (1826) [Sharpe 1898 CBBM 26:66 ]
2. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar, in Rüpp. Atlas, p. 39, pl. 36, 1826 [Sclater 1924 Syst.Av.Eth. 1:24] [APP: looking like essentially a copy of Sharpe.]
3. Ardea Goliath Ph. J. Cretzschmar 1829 in E. Rüppell: Atlas zu der Reise im nördlichen Afrika. 2, Vögel, Heft 14, 1829, 39, pl. 26 [Richmond Index]
4. goliath Ardea P.J. Cretzschmar in Atlas au Rueppell, Reise (Senckenb. Nat. Ges.) Vögel (14) 1829, 39. [Sherborn 1926 Ind.Anim.:2753]
5. Ardea goliath Cretzschmar, 1827, in Rüppell, Atlas Reise Nördl. Afrika, Vögel (1826) p. 39 pl.26 [Peters Checklist 1979 1(2):202 (= Robert B. Payne).]
• So we have pl.36 or pl.26, (and 1826, 1827, 1829).
• Ms Daria Wingreen of the Cullman Library, Smithsonian Institution, checked the copy held in the Dibner Rare Book Library, and confirmed (2004.07.08 in litt.) that the Tab. (plate) is no.26, pl.36 (sic), as listed by Sharpe and Sclater would appear to be a typographic error.
• What is the correct year, 1826, 1827, or 1829 ?
• Steinheimer (in press) refers to a work that dates the portions of this publication. Steinbacher, J. 1949. "Typen und Typoide des Natur-Museums Senckenberg. 3 - Kritisches Verzeichnis von Eduard Rüppell's und Ph. J. Cretschmar's Vogel-Typen." Senckergiana 30(1/3):99-120. (not seen), which would date the relevant portion of this work to 1829, confirming Sherborn's and Richmond's dates.
• Zimmer has a note (p.535) indicating that Ruppel in "Neue Wirbelthiere" p.50 quotes pl.28 as 1827, and this fact may be the basis of the 1827 date given by the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist lists 1817
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates Dec. of 1818 which I follow. (AOU 1983 Checklist has 1818).

Burhinus grallarius

Not used by Peters Checklist 2:297.

• Peters Checklist 7:198 lists 1935. Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that this portion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.

• Most frequently attributed to Pallas 1766. (see for example AOU 1983 Checklist; H&M 3^rd:128;HBW 3:85)
• However in Direction 55 the ICZN, on 20 December 1956 (almost 40 years ago now), declared Brisson the author of the genus, and designated Pallas' name as a junior synonym.
• The AOU 1999 CL corrected this citation.
• H&M corrects the citation in Corrigenda 3.2

• Peters Checklist 3:186 erroneously lists this as part 2.

Hellmayrea gularis Citation

Peters Checklist 7:93 has "p.390"; I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} using p.290.

• Peters Checklist 4:188; HBW 5:334,335 have 1856.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} states "Read 22 Dec. 1856, sig. dated Dec. 1856, but prob. not publ. till early 1857".
• {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1957 p.296} has 1857 for C. texensis, and {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1989 p.268} has 1857 for C. gundlachii 1857.
• L.S. Foster. 1892. Bull.U.S.Nat.Mus. no.40 "Bibliographies of American Naturalists: IV The Published Writings of George Newbold Lawrence, 1844-1891." pp. v-xi, 1-124 does not provide a specific date for this no. of the Annals.

Aerodramus germanus 1876

This citation, from the Richmond Index, antedates that given by Peters Checklist 4:223. A note on Richmond's card says 'Sig. marked "Extrait de l'Institut, 1876"; prob first publ. there.'

Galloperdix 1845

Peters Checklist 2:106 lists this as 1844. Vol. 13 pt.2 (II) shows a printed date of 1844. Richmond, et al. 1992 indicate that this number contains notes from the Dec. 17 meeting and may have not been published until 1845.
My collation of citations from this Journal suggests 1845 appears likely, though uncertainty remains.

Sula granti

Treated as a subspecies in Peters Checklist 1:185.
For treatment as a full species see Pittman RL, Jehl JL Jr., 1998. The Wilson Bulletin 110(2):155-170.

Campylorhynchus gularis 1861

Peters Checklist 9:380 has 1860. This protion of the PZS was published in 1861.

Campylorhynchus griseus 1838

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. griseus in the entry for C. chiapensis and erroneously uses the date 1837.

Thryothorus genibarbus 1838

Peters Checklist 9:402 has 1837, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Glaucidium gnoma

Considered by Robbins and Styles Auk 116 p.313, 1999 to be part of a superspecies with G. nubicola,costaricanum, and gnoma.

• Previously placed in Aratinga.
• Collar places in this monotypic genus in HBW 4.

Hemitriccus grisepectus

Cohn-Haft et al. (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 205-235 gave reasons for splitting Hemitriccus griseipectus from H. zosterops.

Platylophus galericulatus 1816

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

Gymnoglaux Systematics

Used by Peters Checklist vol.4 p.146.
Not used by Sibley & Monroe.
Used by HBW vol.5 p.182 "separated from [Otus nudipes] at generic level by very different morphology and vocal patterns."

• Originally described in Scops.
• Previously treated as conspecfic with O. vermiculatus but appears to be vocally distinct.
• Treated as a full species by the AOU CL 7^th ed. but they do not resolve the issue of its relation to O. vermiculatus and O. atricapillus.
• HBW 5:180 treats all these as distinct.

• HBW 4:365 lists the date here as 1873.
• Collar is consistent in citing this volume as 1873, however this portion was published in 1871.
• See the details at Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

• In HBW 5:540 Dr. C. Hinkelmann give the date of authority as 1832. Peters Checklist 5:8 gives a date of 1833.
• The publishing history of this work has been controversial and confusing. The work can be examined on-line at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ ; however it must be noted that examining the work there will only re-inforce an erroneous impression regarding the dates of publication of the component parts. On the French National Bibliographic site, the work is presented in "logical" rather than historical sequence; this is entirely appropriate for non-nomenclatural use of the work. For an understanding of the publishing history of this work (which is not the goal or intention of the French National Bibliotheque site) I have turned to the works of Sherborn, and Zimmer. The Bibliographie de la France records the dates of publication and availability for this work and makes it clear that pp.1-112 were published in 1832, and the remainder in 1833. The Index (confusingly presented first on the Gallica BNF site) was actually published subsequent to the text, commencing in the 11^th or 12^th Livraison, despite the imprint date of Dec. 1832.
• The correct date for this taxon is 1833, not 1832.

• Traditionally cited as:
  • Treron griseicauda Wallace 1863 PZS(1862) p.344
    (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:16)
• HBW 4:612 cites:
  • Gray,GR 1856 ListBirdsBrit.Mus. Columbae p.10
    (although their listing makes it look like p.32).
• H&M 3^rd:173 f.n. 2 indicates that griseicauda Gray 1856 is "preoccupied by Bonaparte's use of the name."
• The paper by Mees 1973 clarifies how this comes about. He applied the Code as it existed at that time, but the same reasoning applies under the current Code. (ref. Mees GF 1973 "Once more: the identity and authorship of Treron griseicauda." BBOC. 93(3):119-120.).
  • Bonaparte's 1864 lists the name as a junior synonym of T. aromaticus (Gmelin) and does not use the name (as noted by the Richmond Index) or include a description.
  • The Code (1999) Article 11.6.1 reads:

    	11.6.1 However, if such a name published as a junior synonym had 
    	  been treated before 1961 as an available name and either adopted
    	  as the name of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym, it is made
    	  available thereby but dates from its first publication as a synonym
    	...

    Mees points out that Sims RW & Warren RML 1955 BBOC 75:96-97 use griseicauda Bonaparte 1854 as a valid name. Their text at end of article reads:

    	In out opinion the nomenclature should be as follow:
    		(1) Treron pompadora griseicauda Bonaparte, 1854 (nec of Gray, 1856). —
    	Java. Syn. Treron pulverulenta Wallace, 1863.
    		(2) Treron pompadora wallacai (Salvadori), 1893. —  Celebes.
    		

    The spelling "wallacai" appears to be a lapsus for wallacei, which is how the name is actually spelled in Cat.B.Brit.Mus. 21:42. (fide Dave Donsker).

• The citation as given by the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. ICZN. p.100 ("p.374-391") appears ridiculous to me.
• The Richmond Index gives "p.375,378"; it is more supported by likelihood, and less by statuatory force than the ICZN listing.
• Colin Jones tells me that on checking the original material, the range of pages given in the ICZN citation address all species in the genus. The material was indicated as "not generic" by Richmond in his index. I cite only the page where the genus is first used.
• The AOU 1999 CL cites p.374
• Grus Moehring 1758 (Aves) is not available because as Rainer Massmann points out (in litt. 2008.08.16)

    
  The name is not available as of Moehring, as that work originally dates from 1752. 
  It was translated into Dutch in 1758 by Nozeman and Vosmaer, but this translation has 
  been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology (with Nozeman and Vosmaer as authors) 
  "because the names therein were not reinforced by adoption or acceptance" (Opinion 241).

Zimmerius gracilipes 1868

Peters Checklist 8:10 lists 1867 as the date.
This protion of PZS (for 1867) was published in 1868 (fide CWR).

Phyllomyias griseocapilla 1862

Peters Checklist 8:6 lists the date as 1861. As verified in the Richmond Index, this was published Feb. 1, 1862.

• ICZN 1999 30.1.4.3 states that genus-group names ending in -ops are treated as masculine.
• gabela I interpret to be a noun in apposition, as it is the name of a town, and hence is not spelt gabellus.
• There is no Latin word gabela or gabellus that I find.

Podiceps grisgena Concept

Often a form is separated as a full species:

• Podiceps holboellii Reinhardt 1853 Vidensk.Medd.naturhist.Foren.Kjobenhavn. p.76
  HBW 1:192 (1992) regards this as a subspecies, as does AOU CL 7^th ed.

Normand David's note regarding this issue reads:

"A case has been made for placing Colymbus major Boddaert, 1783 (= Podiceps major) in the newly established monotypic genus Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994.

Bochenski, Z. B. 1994. The comparative osteology of grebes (Aves: Podicipediformes) and its systematic implications. Acta zool. cracov. 37 (1): 191-346.

The summary reads: "...a revision of the genus Podiceps is proposed, to the effect that 1) the species "Podiceps" major is placed in a new monotypic genus Podicephorus, and 2) Podiceps grisegena grisegena and P. g. holboellii are restored to their species status".

So it appears on the basis of osteological evidence this is elevated to full species status.

Note however, that the AOU CL 7^th ed. notes (p.8) that Storer 1996 Auk 113: 974-975 in a review argues against this split. Bochenski argued for separation based on his not finding sexual dimorphism in the Old world form of P. grisgena. It appears that Bochenski's data were not representative, obtained from birds far from the breeding grounds. Storer indicates that sexual dimorphism is found in grebes whenever sufficient material is available.

In his review he includes raw data, provided by Jon Fjeldsa for European forms of P. grisgena that appear to strongly support the idea that sexual dimorphism (felt by Bochenski to be absent) is present.

Storer in his review lists data (below) from Jon Fjeldsa for culmen measurements of European P. grisgena obtained on the breeding gounds (contra the data that Bochenski used, which was many regions, and often not on the breeding grounds.

The data as presented by Storer are:

Culmen measurements (as presented by Storer):

Kazakhstan & Obj lowlands W. Siberia:
F: 35.1 35.8 36.1 36.2 37.2
M: 40.2 41.6 41.6 43.5
Denmark:
F: 31.5 33.3 35.0 35.0 35.9 36.0 36.1 36.4 36.8 36.8 36.8 37.1 37.2 38.2 38.5 38.6
M: 38.0 38.0 39.0 39.2 39.5 40.0 40.2 40.2 40.3 40.6 41.5 42.0 42.1 43.2
Arkhangelsk and Kola:
F: 38.1 40.1 40.1 40.3
M: 40.2 41.5 41.6 43.2 44.2

These raw data are convincing, and even more convincing is a boxplot of the data, partitioned by gender.

These specimens are clearly sexually dimorphic with regard to culmen length.

• Peters Checklist 1:333 gives a date of 1860.
• HBW 2:197 also gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of March 1861.
• Duncan PZS 1937 says this section of the PZS was "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861."
• I follow Richmond here.

• Peters Checklist 11:517 (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 13:402 (Paynter) gives a date of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1871.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS shows this was issued in 1871.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Peters Checklist 13:267 (Paynter) gives a date of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1871.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS shows this was issued in 1871.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:232, HBW 1:420, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 9:365, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

• Not in HBW.. or Peters.
• My summary of discussion from Edward C. Dickinson, Michael Walters, and Normand David:
  There is "widespread" Australian recognition of the race from the Recherche islands off Western Australia with evident consensus that this constitutes a species.
  Two references seem to have been used for this taxon:
  • Vieillot (1816), based on Vieillot, L.P., 1816. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle: 5 CAL-CEZ. 1-614., Paris. In this, on p.516, is found Le Céreopsis Gris, Cereopsis cinereus. terra typica is Novae Hollandiae.
  • Here (p.516 of vol.5), Vieillot designates CEREOPSIS, which he says is an order of "echassiers" (long-legged waders). The one species: Le Céreopsis Gris, Cereopsis cinereus, would appear not to be the goose in question, and appears to be indeterminate.
  • Vieillot (1818), based on: Vieillot, L.P., 1818. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle: 23. NIL-ORC. 1-612. --, Paris.
    
  • In this 1818 material on p.336 is found L'Oie Grise, Vieill. The terra typica is La terre de Diémen. The collector is cited as de Labillardière who took this specimen during the voyage of M. de Lapeyrouse. Presuming that this implies that it was taken in Tasmania (Van Diemen's Land) it would appear to be a synonym of novaehollandiae Latham, 1801(2).
  • However, p. 336 of vol. 23, is part of a long essay on OIE (Geese). One of these is: L'oie Grise, Anser griseus, Vieill. la Terre de Diemen.
  • Thus the name appears to arise from Anser griseus Vieillot, 1818.
  • Cereopsis is feminine so the specific epithet is grisea.

• Often spelt granatina. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, and Peters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):17 discuss this. They indicate that: "The adjective granatina is derived from the Latin noun granatum, -i [garnet, pomegranate] to which the adjectival suffix -inus, (a, -um) was added, in reference to the red colour of the bird."
• Cabanis lists the form "U. granatinus Nob. -" in Mus.Hein. 1(1850) p.171, the page where he erects the genus Uraeginthus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Uraeginthus granatina occurs in the Zoo. Rec.; it occurs 5 times between 1981 and 1986.

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