• Previously cited as
  • Pogoniulus coryphaeus hildamariae (Sclater,WL) 1938 BirdsKenyaUganda[Jackson] 2 p.714
• As Colin Jones points out (2010.12.04) others have commented that there is no reason that Mathews' proposal of a replacement name for Barbatula jacksoni Sclater, 1930, not Sharpe, 1897 is not valid, as it seems to be held by Peters Checklist VI:47.
• 2021.02.25; However ICZN Opinion 138 would appear to indicate that Mathews' replacement proposal is not satisfactorily complete, and thus invalid.

• Peters Checklist V:164 gives the page number as "p. xxvii" (27). This would imply a publication date of 1899.
• The correct page is "p. xxxvii" (37).
• HBW 6:528 (2001) perpetuates the error, listing the page as "xxvii".
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• The AOU CL 5th ed. (p.364) lists the original combination incorrectly as Petrochelidon lunifrons hypopolia ; Oberholser described it as Petrochelidon albifrons hypopolia .

• Usually (and understandably) spelled hypochondria.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the original spelling is with "c" instead of "ch" hypocondria.
• To date I have not been able to see the original rendering on-line, but the Richmond Index is usually fastidiously correct in such matters, while the CBBM, Peters Checklist (the latter volumes) and their followers adopt a more casual and gullible approach.
• For now I follow the orthography as rendered in the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 11:344 (= Watson) shows the correct page number, but has the volume number wrong (giving "12" when in fact it is "XI" = 11.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
Dickinson and Pittie (SNAB 2006 51 p.115) note that a footnote on p.890-891 in this portion is dated 20^th Jan 1843, so this portion must be dated to 1843.

• Originally spelled "C[haurornis] hypnalea".
• The CBBM 19:189 (= Sclater 1891) shows the original combination correctly.
• Peters Checklist VI:13 shows the original combination incorrectly as "Chaunornis hypnelea", and this subsitition of a "e" for the "a" has been followed by many authors since then.
• HBW 7:127 (= Rasmussen & Collar 2002) for example spell it "hypneleus".
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• H&M 3^rd:733 dates this to 1863 without discussion.
• Peters Checklist XIV:362 dates this as "1862-1863", an orthography that is sometimes, but not always, follwed by H&M 3^rd (see for example: Hypargos H&M 3^rd:728 ("1862-63") Taeniopygia H&M 3^rd:733 ("1862-63")). The reason for not following the Peters Checklist orthography in this case is not given.
• Other published works (e.g. Schulze et al.; Neave) show the two genera above as published in 1862, but apparently those works were not consulted by the Peters Checklist authors.
• The Richmond Index citations include which part of Singvogel contains each taxon, which is very useful and supports 1862 as the appropriate date in this instance.

• H&M 3^rd:728 dates this to 1805 without discussion.
• It is difficult to see a logical basis for the date of 1805, as three taxa that occur earlier in the Ois.Chant. are dated to 1807!!
  • Lonchura atricapilla (Vieillot) [pl.LIII] H&M 3^rd:735
  • Lonchura quiticolor (Vieillot) [ p.85, pl.LIII] H&M 3^rd:735
  • Lonchura fuscata (Vieillot) [ p.95, pl.LXII] H&M 3^rd:735
• All these taxa are dated to post 1807 by Sherborn in the Index Animalium, which most probably was not consulted by the authors of H&M 3^rd, or Peters Checklist XIV (= Traylor in this instance).
• The Peters Checklist dating of "1805" quite possibly resulted from uncritically following the CBBM 13:498 citation. I know that, as in my own case, it is difficult to say if blind repetition of previous citations represents mere lazyness, or inappropriate reverence for workers who have come before.

• Conventionally listed with the spelling amatina.
• The Richmond Index shows the card with the diphthong demonstrated and emphasized as -oe-
• Richmond Index Card Loxia hoematina
• Sherborn, in Index Animalium (p.2887) shows the word with the -ae- diphthong.
• I am attempting to have the original work examined to settle this matter.
• (2009.1.211) Daria Wingreen-Mason of the Cullman Library, Smithsonian Institution has kindly looked into this for me. The spelling of the Latin binomen appears to be indeterminate as to -oe- versus -ae-, however it is clearly rendered as -ae- in several locations in the work, so for the moment I accept -ae- as most probably correct.

• Peters Checklist 15:27 [= Greenway 1962] cites this to 1891.
• H&M 3^rd:718 follows this, although other taxa from earlier in this same work are cited to 1892 (e.g. Garrulax henrici from p.274, and cited to 1892 in H&M 3^rd:615).
• The Richmond Index shows for these taxa "1891" (1891 in quotes) and in some instances has 1892 written above the quoted date.
• I employ 1892 for all the taxa from this portion of the work.

• In his Corrigenda 7 to H&M 3^rd Dickinson writes:

  Luscinia megarhynchos golzii Cabanis, 1873 replaces hafizi Severzov, 1873; 
  priority cl[ai]med for the latter based on erroneous presumption that Severzov's 
  work appeared in late 1872. [ECD in press].

  .
• ECD's work was published in 2008 [Dickinson,EC. 2008. "The name of the easternmost population of Common Nightingale Luscinia megarhynchos" BBOC 128(2):141-142] where Dickinson notes that Dementiev (1932) substituted hafizi for golzii evidently based on the Severtsov's claim (1875) that his "Vert...." had appeared in "December 1872".
• Peters Checklist 10:41 (= Ripley 1964) does not appear to have assumed that Severtzov's publication was "late in 1872", as his citation reads:

  Luscinia Hafizi Severtzov, 1873, Veritkal . . . Turkest.
  	Zhivotn., (1872), p. 120

  In this volume of the Peters Checklist, the parentheses "(1872)" indicates the imprint date, but "1873" (without parentheses) is the taxonomic date (i.e. the date of publication). The basis for Ripley assuming Severtzov's priority over Cabanis is not clear to me.
• Severtzov's claim that his publication appeared in "December 1872" is not necessarily inconsistent with an imprint date of 1873. Severtzov would have been referring to and Old Style date, and, for example Dec. 31, 1872 (O.S.) = Jan. 12, 1873 (N.S.). It is a possibility (though a speculative one) that the imprint date might be (N.S.) as the target audience would be predominantly western europeans where the New Style calender had been long adopted. (The N.S. calender was not adopted in Russia until 1918). Additionally, Kees Rooselaar communicates (in litt. 2005.01.05) that his copy of Severtzov's paper (with an imprint date of "1873" also bears the words (heavily underlined) "Izdanie obschestvo" (Изданиз Общество) which means public/general printing/publication. Addiionally Roselaar provides other evidence that this work may have had prior parts or editions published and distributed, and that the 1873 imprint may relate to the summary of all the articles published in this work starting in 1871). Indeed, as Roselaar notes: Gould published in 1872 (Birds Asia pt 25 pl.15) Passer ammodendri that is said (?by whom) to be based on Severtzov's "work".
• The date of Severtzov's publication is only one of the problems here. The date of the Cabanis name (Lwscinia golzii) is also a problem in my view. This name is found in the "January" number (no.122) of the J.Orn. At this time virtually all the numbers of the J.Orn. were delayed and at present I don't know of any that have been demonstrated to have been published during the month stated for the issue. There is much uncertainty as to when the numbers actually appeared. It is overwhelmingly likely that the "Jan." number did not appear in January, and it is probable but not certain, that no.122 appeared before "June or later" of that year when the "Marz" issue (no.122) was published.
• It is a difficult problem resolving priority when both contending publications are uncertain as to the date of publication. One approach would be to consider both publications to be dated to Dec. 31, 1873 (though this seems unreasonable) and the select one of the two.
• For the moment I use the name that appears to me to have substantially the greatest probability of having been published first, but emphasize that uncertanties exist as to both the data and how the Code can, or should, be applied in such an instance.
• Certainly many speculative possibilities exist here concerning the dating possibilities, multiple editions of the work, possible circulation of unpublished manuscripts, &c, &p;c.
• It seems premature to me to imagine that this case is resolved.

• Cited by Peters Checklist II:90 to 1857, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:53 (through Corrigenda 8) follows this as well.
• Dickinson & Pittie. 2006. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 51. Dates of avian names introduced in early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" Zool.Med. Leiden Comment on many of the date issues during this period. However, their paper makes no mention of volume 25 (which includes this name).
• I know of no data demonstrating the delay of this volume, and thus follow the Richmond Index in using the date 1856 for this taxon.

• Cited by Peters Checklist IX:445 (Davis & Miller 1960) to 1863, and this is followed by other modern authors.
• We know that during this periond the numbers of the Philadelphia proceedings were virtually never published on the date specified, so we must try to ascertain the first evidence that it was in existence as a published work.
• The receipt of this number was acknowledged at the Smithsonian Institution on 27 January, 1864.
• The records at the American Philosophical Society are not helpful in this instance, as we only know that numbers 4-6 (this name is in number 6) were received sometime between Sept. 1863 and Feb. 1864. (No.4 is the Jun-Jul '63 number).
• Thus in my view, we know that the imprint date is incorrect, and to date the earliest that we have evidence for this being in existence as a published work is Jan. of 1864. My understanding of the Code would require the use of 1864 for this taxon unless and until additional data comes forward demonstrating it was published in 1863.

• Peters Checklist 15:229 (= Vaurie 1962) cites this to p.231; Colin Jones has examined the original and indicates it is on p.234.

• Peters Checklist 9:382 (= Paynter 1960) cites this to 1856, without comment.
• This is followed, also without comment, by H&M 3^rd:634.
• This taxon is described on p.263 which is in "no. VI" for the year 1856. The evidence is that this was not published until 1857, and indeed both the Peters Checklist and H&M 3^rd cite other taxa from "no.VI" (pp.259-327) to 1857 without comment (see, for example Agelastes niger H&M 3^rd:40; Peters Checklist 2:133).
• One might speculate that H&M 3^rd and Peters Checklist should be ignored for all taxon dates coming from the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. For Peters Checklist, at least, the authors demonstrate their awareness of which taxa are cited to this source. With H&M 3^rd the problem is more challenging, as it is not clear if the authors themselves know which taxa are cited from this serial. One approach would be to hold as uncertain all dates that fall in the range covered by the Proceedings -- currently for my data that covers 1843 through 1959 which seems to be an unworkably large span.
• The difficulty of determining certain dates from the PANSP should not be underestimated, and despite hard work by many careful and knowledgable workers, certainty is not always to be had.

• Treated as a full species by the IOC World Bird List 2.0. (2009.02)

• Turdoides huttoni is split from Turdoides caudata by Rasmussen & Anderton 2005.
• No mention of this treatment is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• I am a bit uncertain as to the author of this taxon. Peters CL 10:262 lists the author as Stresemann, as does the Richmond Index. H&M 3^rd:602 lists the author as Stresemann, but in Corrigenda 2.1 says the author is Grote, not Stresemann and simply says this is an error in Peters, but provides no supporting details or rationale.
• Additionally, H&M 3^rd:255 cites another taxon (Hemiprocne mystacea aeroplanes) from this same page to Stresemann.
• The author may very well be Grote, but until more support for this assertion is available I will list the authority shown in the Richmond Index and in Peters Checklist.
• In a case like this, without primary data available to me, the decision must be made on the basis of authority alone. Those authorities compete here and the burden of proof would appear to rest on H&M 3^rd in its assertion that both Richmond and Peters are wrong.
• In support of the possibility that the author is Grote, is the fact that Crote is afforded the authority for Emberiza affinis vulpecula by Peters Checklist 13:25 [= Paynter], and this taxon if found on the page following Ptyrticus turdinus harterti. In contrast the Richmond Index attributes the authority for the Emberiza to Stresemann.
• So the issue is not resolved for this name, but absent any supporting data, I can not afford authority to H&M 3^rd over both Peters and the Richmond Index.
• Stefan Eckert very helpfully supplied the answer to this (2009.02.06). His scan of the relevant portion of the publication shows that the description was indicated as supplied by Grote.
• Thanks very much to Stefan for solving this.

• Often cited to 1856, and considering the consistently present but variable length delays with this publication that is certainly possible.
• Dickinson EC and Pittie A. 2006. "Dates in the Journal of the Asiat.Soc.Bengal Zool.Med.Leiden" 80:[113]-124 conisder the publishing history in detail, and did not find sufficient evidence to support the interpretation that this portion of the publication was delayed into 1856.

• Spelled Hemixos flavala hildebrandti by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:384.
• The original spelling was Hemixos hildebrandi
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• See Dickinson,ECD & Milne,P 2008. "The authorship of Parus ater hibernicus." BBOC. 128(4):267-268.
• They show that the publication in the Daily Mail, which appeared 3 days before Ogilvie-Grant's BBOC publication suffices as an adequate nomenclatural act, and they show that Sir William Ingram is appropriate to hold as the author.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:25 (= Lowery & Monroe 1968) to "p.[13] pl.[3]" and in this they (or their editor Paynter) appear to be following Hellmayr 1935 VIII p.392.
• Both the Richmond Index, and Deignan 1961 p.536 indicate that this is on p.[11] pl.13 fig.1.
• Coues Pt1 Bibliographical Index p.630 gives "fol.11 pl.3 f.1" making one wonder if the "pl.3" or "pl.13" is correct.
• I follow Deignan and the RI.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 11:176 (= Watson 1986) as a subspecies of A. cucullatus.
• Treated by Peters Checklist 11:176 (= Watson 1986) as a subspecies of A. cucullatus. and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:563.
• In a published treatment more recent than Peters 1986 (Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.617) the status of this taxon is discussed, and interpreted there to be a full species based on communication from Ben King. No mention of this interpretation is made by H&M 3^rd.

• Peters Checklist 10:14 (= Ripley 1964) cites this to Jerdon & Blyth. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:673
• However, Peters Checklist 11:175 (= Watson 1986) cites Orthotomus coronatus from the same article to '"Jerd. & Blyth" Blyth 1961'. H&M 3^rd:563 cites this name to Blyth alone.
• The Richmond Index cites both names from this article to '"Jerd. & Blyth" Blyth 1861'. I have not seen the article but follow the Richmond Index in citing these names to Blyth, rather than to Jerdon & Blyth.
• [2010.02.23] All taxa in this article by Blyth are treated the same way, with the new name followed by "Jerdon & Blyth", though none of the text is in quotes.
• Despite this consistent treatment within the article, H&M 3^rd does not treat these names consistently with regards the authority: Tickellia is attributed to Blyth (p.594) but attributes Orthotomus cucullatus coronatus (p.563) to Jerdon & Blyth (see Corrigenda 2.1); and also treats Brachypteryx hyperythra (p.673) to Jerdon & Blyth.
• Most probably "Jerdon & Blyth" was intended for Tickellia as well, but I believe that a rationale should be provided for including Jerdon's name, given that the article is by Blyth, and no quoted material from Jerdon is included.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 9:30 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this to Ibis 1901 p.286 pl.7
• The bird is described there, but the BBOC citation has priority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Separated from Rostrhamus by AOU CL 49^th Suppl. p.761 on the basis of Clark's work (BBOC 2007 127:110-117).
• Of interest, Bangs and Penard evidently give Falco hamatus Illiger as the type for this genus, though Falco hamatus is usually attributed to Temminck 1821.
• Sherborn, in his Index Animalium, attributes the name to Illiger in Temminck & Laugier. Sherborn also dates this livr. (11) to April of 1822.
• The Richmond Index dates this to June of 1821 and has the interesting note: "Both pll. descr. on same leaf of text!". No doubt this is evidence to the fact that the plates were published before the text. Richmond has "Illiger" (in quotes). I interpret this to imply that Richmond interpreted Illiger's name to be a manuscript name.
• The June date for this livraison (as given by Richmond contra Sherborn) is the date given by Dickinson 2001 SNAB #9 Appendix IV.

• H&M 3^rd:510 attributes this name to Blyth 1865 presumably following Peters Checklist 15:248 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962). They cite this as

   Dendrocitta himalayensis   Blyth, 1865 Ibis, p.45

  with a note concerning Ticehurst's restricting the type to Sikkim (1925, BBOC, 46 p.22).
• H&M 3^rd:510 further has a footnote (#3) indicating Deignan 1963 (not seen) "used himalayana Jerdon, 1864. The case is being investigated separately."
• Ticehurst's 1925 BBOC entry says:

  Blyth described D. himalayensis from "the Himalayas." 
  No hint is given whence his type came, but in his 'Catalogue' he
  mentions specimens from Darjeeling, and therefore I [Ticehurst] restrict the type
  locality of D. himalayensis to Sikkim."

• The Richmond Index has a card for the Jerdon 1864 name in which he quotes Blyth's communication to him about the bird that occurs "throughout the Himalayas, and ... very rarely on the hills of Southern India" Jerdon goes on to say:

  "This is, writes Mr Blyth, distinct from true Dendrocitta
  sinensis, and that naturalist suggests for it the name of 
  Dendrocitta Himalayana, Blyth."

  Richmond Index Card Dendrocitta Himalayana
• It appears that Ticehurst (1925) was unaware of Jerdon's 1864 publication of the name Dendrocitta himalayana, a Blyth manuscript name.
• I intepret Dendrocitta himalayensis Blyth 1865, to be a junior synonym of Dendrocitta himalayana "Blyth MS" Jerdon 1864.

• Two possible sources might be cited for this taxon (Myiolestes heinei).
  1. Myiolestes heinei Finsch & Hartlaub 1870 PZS["1869"] Pt3 p.546
  2. Myiolestes heinei Finsch & Hartlaub 1870 J.Orn. 18 no.104 p.126
  Number 104 of the J.Orn is the "März" volume so the problem becomes trying to determine if that number was published in March, and when the delayed PZS pt3 was published.
• Dickinson 2005. J.Zool. 266:427-430 does not help, in that he only indicates (p.428) that pp.467-698 were published in the "next year" (=1870).
• However the Richmond Index indicates that pt3 of the "1869" volume was published in March of 1870.
• Next we must consider if J.Orn. no.104 was actually published in March -- a probability that is very small. Sure enough, on examining no.104 on p.158, we find a letter footed "Berlin, im April 1870.". So we know it was not published in March, and without further evidence must date it to Dec. 31, 1870.
• Thus the PZS citation, as given by Peters Checklist 11:498 appears to be correct.

• Cited to 1891 in Peters Check-list 15:196 (= Mayr 1962).
• Both the Richmond Index and H&M 3^rd:516 show it as dating from 1897, which is followed here.

• Originally described as Phonygama Hunsteini, according to Peters Check-list 15:186 (= Mayr 1962).
• The taxon is placed in Phonygammus by Mayr, and he does not include parentheses around the author's name in the check-list proper.
• H&M 3^rd:516, however, place Sharpe's name in parentheses.
• As Phonygama Lesson, 1828, is an emendation of Phonygammus Lesson & Garnot, 1826, the inclusion of parentheses is unnecessary.

Peters Checklist 1(2):11 (Mayr, 1979) cites this as:
• Apteryx haastii Potts 1872 Trans.N.Z.Inst. 4 p.204
• The Richmond Index differs in two aspects here:
  1. The spelling of the specific epithet has a single -i ending, as Apteryx haasti
  2. The name apparently was first published (Jan. 1872) in the Ibis on p.35; which preceeded the Trans.N.Z.Inst. 4["1871"] p.204, which apparently was not published until May of 1872.
• Interestingly the CBBM 26:611 has the spelling correct as Apteryx haasti (single -i ending); but perhaps this was not consulted by Mayr.
• In reviewing the original publication in the Ibis (BioDiversity Heratige Site, online 2009.03.10) more details are apparent.
  1. Potts first states

     which the writer proposes the name A. haastii, in compliment to Dr. Haast.

  2. Subsequently, in the formal designation of the name, the text is

     	APTERYX HAASTI, Potts.

• Normand David has reviewed this matter, and interprets Potts, in his subsequent publicatino to have been acting as the first reviser, and the spelling must be haastii.

• Peters Checklist 5:175 cites this as

  Alcedo euryzonia peninsulae Laubmann, Verh. Orn. Ges. Bayern,
  22, 1941, p. 165

  yet Peters 5:168 has

  Chloroceryle americana hachisukai Laubmann, Verh. Orn. Ges. Bayern,
  22, 1942, p. 165

  note that it gives the same volume and same page but different years, so clearly something is not right here.
• The Richmond Index gives Alcedo euryzonia peninsulae Laubmann, Verh. Orn. Ges. Bayern, 22, hft. 1, Jan. 25, 1941, p. 166 (note: 166 rather than 165), but I do not find a citation in the Richmond Index for Chloroceryle americana hachisukai.
• The Richmond Index does list Ceryle americana hachisukai and cites it to Verh. Orn. Ges. Bayern, 22, hft. 1 1941, p. 165, and similarly the AOU CL 5^th:311 cites this to Jan. 25, 1941 and indicates that volume 22 was the "1940" volume.
• H&M 3^rd:292 simply replicates Peters errors, but corrects the date in Corrigenda 6. HBW 6235,243,528 essentially replicates Peters' errors, though in the citation (p.528) take the remarkable step of changing the volume number of the serial to "21" (!!) for peninsulae. It seems clear that someone recognized that the citations didn't make sense for the same volume and page but two different years, but the solution to this problem does not seem to have invovled examining the original material (as I myself have not done) or seeking other sources for resolution. The solution appears to me to have been to fabricate a resolution that was unrestrained by facts.

• Peters Checklist 13:351 (=Storer, 1970) cites this to 1860, which is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:822.
• The Richmond Index notes for this taxon, that the number (for Sept.) was published in Jan. 1861, which I follow.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 13:380 (= Storer, 1970) to 1864, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:812.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1865, noting that the material was presented at the meeting of 27 Dec. 1864 (a Tuesday).
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• This taxon is usually represented as
  • Pyrrhura molinae sordida Todd 1947 Ann.CarnegieMus.Nat.Hist. 30 p.332
• Thomas Arndt points out (in litt. 2007.05.01) that Todd's sordida name is a junior synonym of the 1899 Salvadori name. The Salvadori name was generally ignored as it was felt to simply be a color morph of sordida, (which may very well be the case). However the hypoxantha types were collected from the region occupied by sordida and thus the Salvadori name is senior.

• Peters Checklist 14:266 [=Howell, et al., 1968] cite this to 1891.
• H&M 3^rd:753 follows this, but corrects it to 1892 in Corrigenda 3.
• The Richmond Index shows for these taxa "1891" (1891 in quotes) and in some instances has 1892 written above the quoted date.
• I employ 1892 for all the taxa from this portion of the work.

• There appears to be confusion surrouding this citation. Peters Checklist 14:258 [=Howell et al., 1968] gives the citation as:

  Montifringilla haematopygia 1853 Gould, Proc.Zool.Soc.London, 1851,
  p.115

  This portion of the PZS for 1851 is shown by the Richmond Index to be pt.XIX, no.CCXXVI which was, infact, published April 29, 1853.
• However, as shown by the Richmond Index as well as by the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 12:269, this name was also published in Gould's Birds of Asia, V pt.iii and this was published in June of 1851.
• Of minor interest, the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. citation puts the PZS name on "p. 114" while the Richmond Index (and Peters 14:258 have the PZS citation as p.115.

• Peters Checklist 14:237 (=Paynter & Rand, 1968) list only Stresemann as the authority for this taxon.
• The Richmond Index lists Stresemann & Heinrich.
• Edward Dickinson looked into this matter, and helpfully communicated his findings (2007.03.24). It is clear that the full article is by Stresemann and Heinrich, though Stresemann appears to be responsible for the names. In Stresemann's section of the paper he states "Aus der Ausbeute vom Mt. Victoria habe ich in den folgenden Zeilen als neu bescrieben".

• Sharpe in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 12:133 (1888) spells the specific epithet with a single -i ending

  hicksi

  .
• The Richmond Index indicates that it was spelled

  Spermophila Hicksii

• H&M 3^rd:792 spells the specfic epithet hoffmannii with an -ii ending.
• In the Corrigenda it states

  -- add the brackets; described in Spermophila

• The spelling is not discussed but is incorrect, and the authority should not be placed in parentheses; the error regarding the parentheses may come from following Sharpe in the CBBM 12:133 where he lists the original combination

  Spermophila hoffmanni

  note that the single -i spelling is correct here, though the original genus is not.
• The original description is thus:

• I follow Isler ML, Isler PR, & Whitney BM. 2007. The Auk 124(1):11-28 for the treatment of the Hypocnemis cantator complex.

• H&M 3^rd:777 gives the range as:

  	Greece, SW and SC Asia Minor, Levant

  while the Richmond index notes this text from Brehm's original description:

  Er bewohut das südöstlische Eurpoa,
  verrit sich zuweilen in die Gegend von Wien

  (the second word is slightly hard for me to read). I translate this roughly as: "Resident in SE Europe, straying occasionally into the region of Vienna."

• Mann CF & Cheke RA. 2006. "The validity of the sunbird genus Hedydipna" BBOC 126(3):199-200 argue that Hedydipna is invalid, and that the valid genus group name is Anthodiaeta Cabanis 1850.
• Their argument is that by "position precedence" Anthodiaeta has precedence over Hedydipna; in support they cite "ICZN 1999: 73, 295". Page 295 is in the English Index and lists:

  Precedence (contd.)
  	....
  	"position" (line or page) precedence, 69A.8-10

  Page 73 includes the final portions of Article 69 Fixation of type species not fixed in the original publication.
  • First, it appears to me that the type species is fixed in the original publication for both Anthodiaeta (type = Cinnyris collaris Vieillot) and for Hedydipna where in the footnote "*" it states:

    Typen der Gruppe ist: H. platyura. -- Cinnyris platura Vieill.

    (note the discrpancy in the spelling platyura/platura).
  • Even if Article 69 were apt (and I think it is not) the most applicable portion seems to be Recommentaion 69A Example 69A.10. which reads:

    All other things being equal, preference should be given to the nominal species 
    cited first in the work, page or line ("position precedence").

    This is the only occurance in the body of the Code of the string "position precedence", and it must certainly be what Mann & Cheke are intending to apply here. However this Recommendation example applies only to selection of a type species within a genus, and only when "all other things [are] equal."
  • It seems to me that the validity of the genus Hedydipna turns more on its use by previous authors (Mann & Cheke list at least Zedlitz (1910), Madaràsz (1915), van Someren (1920), Sclater (1930), Mackworth-Praed & Grant (1955), and Irwin (1999)), than on the application of a Recommendation example intended to guide workers in the selection of a type species.
  (2006.10.08)

• Additional work on this mattershows further difficulties with the approach of Mann & Cheke.
• Mann & Cheke (BBOC 2006) overlooked Wolters's actions where he acted as First Reviser in 1977 (Bonn.Zool.Beitr. 28 Hefte1,2 p.86), repeated in 1979 (Die Vogelarten der Erde p.275). Anthodiaeta is available and valid for treating collaris in a separate genus alongside Hedydipna but Hedydipna must be used when collaris and platurus are treated as congeneric outside Anthreptes.

• Tietze DT, Martens J, & Sun Y-H. 2006. "Molecular phylogeny of treecreepers (Certhia) detects hidden diversity." Ibis 148(3):486 cite this taxon to 1873. I expect they are following the Peters Checkist 12:152.
• I follow the citation given in the Richmond Index (1982), the citation there is also followed in Corrigenda 4 of H&M 3^rd.

• Often cited to 1854 (e.g. H&M 3^rd:80; HBW 1:192) and this appears to be following Peters Checklist 1(2):151
• The Richmond Index gives a date of 1853, as does the AOU CL 5^th:4.
• Absent any specific data proving delay of this publication, I follow the Richmond Index and the 5^th AOU CL.

• Originally spelled Podiceps Holböllii.
• This spelling was changed to Podiceps holboellii in Peters Checklist 1(2):151, and this spelling has been followed without question or comment by many others (e.g. H&M 3^rd:80; HBW 1:192; AOU CL 7^th:8, &c.). This bird was named after Capt. Carl Holböll (as indicated in the Richmond Index) and spelling the specific epithet "holboellii" would be correct if the Capt. was German. (ICZN Code Art. 32.5.2.1) otherwise "holbollii" is correct.
• The Mearnses in "Biographies for Birdwatchers" 1988 p.[197] write regarding Carl Peter Holböll :

  	Holböll was a Danish zoologist whose long association with Greenland lasted
  	from the 1820's until his death in 1856, when a ship that was taking him from
  	Copenhagen to Greenland sank and disappeared without a trace. During his visits
  	to the north he travelled extensively and took every opportunity to
  	collect for
  	teh Royal Natural History Museum at Copenhagen. ...

• It appears that Richmond was incorrect about Holböll being a Captain of the ship but quite clearly Holböll was not German. The spelling "holboellii" is inconsistent with the Code.
• The Wikipedia biographical sketch indicates that Holböll was an officer in the Danish Navy.

• A complex situation here, in which it is possible that absolute certainty is not to be had.
• The Richmond index indicates (on the card for Thallasidroma columbinus) that the text portion of the ornithology section was in livraison 63 and gives a publication date of May 1842
• Sherborn speculates that this portion of the work was published in 1841, but appears to be unaware of many of the details of the publishing history.
• Zimmer, likewise appears to be unaware of (or at least does not mention) the fact that some of the plate publications substantially preceeded the letterpress material.
• I follow what I interpret the implications of the Richmond Index material to be and use 1842.

• There are two problems with this citation, the date, and how to cite it.
• Cited by various authors to 1845 or 1846, and it appears that these two may be impossible to distinguish. Citing it as 1846 are
  1. Mathews & Iredale 1922 AustralAv.Rec. 4:167 (not seen)
  2. The Richmond Index (citing Mathews)
  3. Peters 1(2):296 (=Mayr & Cottrell).
  Citing it as 1845 are:
  1. Sherborn 1927; (Ind.Anim. p.2907)
  2. Neave 1939 2:560
  3. Schulze et al. 1930 p.1461.
• Sherborn almost certainly would have been aware of the Mathews & Iredale article, but in his publication five years later appears not to have agreed, either on the basis of logic, or perhaps on the basis of additional information unknown to Mathews & Iredale.
• It is my suspicion that with internal referencing it boils down to Sherborn 1927 versus Mathews & Iredale 1922. Further complicating the matter, this work is not discussed by Zimmer, but is discussed by Mengel 1972 Cat.EllisColl.Orn.BooksU.Kans. 1: 220-222. As one would expect, Mengel's treatment is one that would make Zimmer envious. He appears to interpret Mathews & Iredale as presenting evidence for citing at least part of the work to 1845.
• The imprint date on the work appears to be 1846 but this appears to have been issued with part XII, while the genus group name Hamirostra appears in part VIII.
• Peters Checklist 1(2) cites this name to "pt. 8, p.12." The bibliographic work in this volume of Peters is emphatically not its strong point. No other workers that I know of refer to "p.12", but rather to "sign. B4". In my view this reduces the weight of validity of the Peters (=Mayr & Cottrell) treatment, and thus detracts some weight from favoring the 1846 interpretation.
• I choose to follow 1845, though it is not a clear call. I am most strongly influenced by the fact that later knowledgable workers seem to use 1845 (though they may all simply be following Sherborn).

• This is quite an obscure genus group name, not to be found in the Richmond Index, Naeve, or in Sherborn's Index Animalium.
• The entry in Voy.Coq. Zoologie p.239 is as follows:

  	Diverses sortes de passereaux viennent jusque près des vil-
  lages: c'est ainsi que nous y observâmes une petite mésange,
  plusieurs moucherolles, et entre autres le clignot du Paraguay
  (hymenops nyctitarius, Commers., Dessins inédits), et la mou-
  cherolle à huppe blanche (m. albicilla Vieill.), dont le bec est
  plus effilé que celui de l'espèce de Cayenne; la farlouze de
  Monte-Video de Buffon...

• An approximate translation of the first part may be something like:

  Diverse types of passerine come right up to the villages: in this way we
  have observed a small titmouse ...... (hymenops nyctitarius, Commers.,
  unpublished drawings), and the .............

• Peters Checklist 12:426 (Salomonsen) indicates that the original taxon name here is Meliornis (Lichmera) australasiana subsp. halmaturina.
• The Richmond Index lists the taxon (with the same but more detailed citation) as Meliornis novae-hollandiae [halmaturina],
• It is not impossible, but in my view certainly unlikely, that the Salomonsen representation is correct.
• Of interest, Salomonsen also lists the Meliornis novae-hollandiae halmaturina taxon to the same volume and page and as a synonym of Phylidornis novaehollandiae cambelli (!). My impression is that if all this had any remote relationship to "science", more explanation would be provided. Rather, it give the impression of "truths" handed down from authorities-on-high. (Otherwise known as "fair targets"). I would not be surprised if Salomonsen wanted to provide much more explanation here. He had, however, to deal with a Harvard publication and this was no doubt the very best that they could do.

• Originally spelled Bucco hyperrhynchus, both in the 1855 London Athenaeum No.1464 p.1341 (where it is a nomen nudum and in the 1856 PZS publication of the name. It is also spelled hyperrhynchus in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 19:183 (ex. Sharpe's Hand-List), Wolters Die Vogelarten der Erde p.166, as well as in HBW 7:125 (Rasmussen & Collar).
• Peters Checklist 6:10 lists the name spelled with the "rh" in the citation, but as hyperrynchus in the listing as a subspecies.
• This appears to me to be either a lapsus calami or an emendation which appears to be unjustified.
• The Peters (mis)spelling is followed by H&M 3^rd:332.
• Additionally, as Michael Rieser subsequently pointed out, this misspelling by Peters was addressed by Eisenmann in Auk 1958 75:101
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:33 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177, but not by HBW 4:221.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:30 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:33 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 and by HBW 4:217.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus (as well as a genus group name used in insect taxonomy). As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:31 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175 (Corrigenda 3.1) but not by HBW 4:211. (This is unusual, as the convention in HBW would appear to be to consider Ptinolopus to be am emendations but Ptilopus not to be. Thus this instance would appear to break with that convention.)
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus (as well as a genus group name used in insect taxonomy). As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Recent evaluations of the vocalization and plumage differences between parvulus and heterurus suggest that they both may stand as valid at full species rank.
• They were "lumped" by Paul Schwartz Condor 1968. 70:223-227, where he commented that vocalizations were perhaps the most important distinguishing character, as well as the differences in plumage he noted. Relatively little was known of the vocalizations, it appears.

• Peters Checklist 3:134 cites this taxon to "1867 (1866)", however, Rynchaenas Schlegeli (now in Henicophaps) from one page earlier in the work (p.143) is cited by Peters 3:116 from 1866, with no suggestion of an 1867 publicaton date.
• This volume of Peters Checklist (III) employs the convention that when two dates are given, the publication date is in parentheses and the imprint date has no parentheses. Thus, Peters is indicating a publication date of 1866, though it is very easy to misinterpret this (e.g. HBW 4:180; H&M 3^rd:170).
• Edward Dickinson kindly confirmed (in litt.) that the Zoo.Rec. for 1866 confirms that this was published in 1866.

• This is cited by Peters Checklist 6:203 to 1844.
• This is initially followed by H&M 3^rd:318 (but corrected to 1845 in Corrigenda 3).
• The Richmond Index dates this taxon to 1845, noting "Ref. to Madr. paper of Aug. 9, 1845 in this no.!"

• Fort Tejon, CA

• Often (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:265, HBW 4:378) cites as:
  • Northiella haematogaster haematorrhous (Gould) 1865 Handb.BirdsAustr. 2 p.62
• Schodde et al. present this as

  Psephotus haematorrhous Bonaparte, C.L. (1856).  
  	Beilage Nr .1. Tabellarische Uebersicht der Papageien. Naumannia 1856: Beilage 1a [col. 13,
  	n.198] 
  	[publication date, see Mathews, G.M. (1920). Dates of ornithological works. Austral
  	Avian Rec. 4: 1-27; Mathews, G.M. (1925). The Birds of Australia. Supplements 4 & 5.
  	Bibliography of the Birds of Australia Pts 1 & 2. London: H.F. & G. Witherby viii 149 pp.]
  	

  The Naumannia citation appears to be correct.
• However, the Naumannia citation comes from the August number of that journal, and the name appeared in Comptes Rendu from the May 19, 1856 Seance. Thus it appeared to me that the Comptes Rendu citation has priority.
• That citation was:
  • Northiella haematogaster haematorrhous (Bonaparte) 1856 Compt.Rend. 42 p.956
• By email with Dick Schodde (2004.11.29) it appears additional complications may exist. Dick writes:

  Well, you have opened up a can of worms on  Psephotus haematogaster
  Gould. Your PDF down-loaded OK; and I know now that I overlooked this
  reference in the CR when compiling the Zoo. Cat., otherwise I would have
  made mention of it towards clearing up the authority and place of
  publication of what we currently know as N. h. haematorrhous
  (Bpte).
  
  What the ref in the CR does is to propose a new name for Ps.
  haematogaster Gould, a name which Gould first applied to the
  yellow-vented Bluebonnet in 1838 and then to the red-vented Bluenbonnet in
  1848 (or earlier part) in The Birds of Australia.  The trouble is,
  Bonaparte's text does not make it clear to which of those two taxa his
  nomen novum applies. One could assume that he means the red-vented
  form, both from the meaning of haematorrhous and the fact that he
  described the yellow-vented form as xanthorrhous in 1850. But this
  is not specified, a lack made more significant by the fact that Bonaparte
  says in the CR reference that haematogaster Gould is a
  misidentification for Platycercus flaveolus Gould instead.
  
  Because of this, it would be reasonable if not natural to interpret
  haematorrhous Bpte, May 1856 in the CR as a new name for
  haematogaster Gould 1838 (= yellow-vented form), with the same
  type, in which case haematorrhous Bpte, August 1856 in Naumannia 
  (where it is based by reference on the red-vented form in Gould's Birds of
  Australia 1848 - as I recall checking?) would be a junior homonym.  This
  means that a later synonym of haematorrhous Bpte, August 1856 would
  be needed as the valid name for the red-vented form!   N. h. zanda
  Mathews, 1913, would be that name - yuk.
  
  I still have to check again that the reference for haematorrhous in
  Naumannia is specific for the form in Gould's Birds of Australia.  But in
  the interim, I think the wisest course to maintain stability is to
  treat Psephotus haematorrhous Bpte in the CR as a nomen
  dubium and, like names for hybrids, not valid for any
  taxon.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:63 to be a subspecies of Branta canadensis.
• The 2004 45^th AOU CL supplement p.987 elevates this to full species status.

• I am quite skeptical of this citation. I find it only in Peters, and don't find it in Sherborn Ind.Anim. or in the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 2:323 cites this as "Larus (Gavia) Hartlaubii Bruch, J.Orn. 1 1853, p.102"
• The Richmond Index cites this as "[Gavia] Hartlaubii Bruch, 1855, J.Orn., 3, no.16, July, 1855, 286"
• As the Richmond Index has other taxa listed from the same volume and number that Peters gives for Hartlaubii but does not list Hartlaubii from that source, I choose here to follow the Richmond Index.
• [2010.01.03] Thanks to Dr David Donsker for redirecting my attention to this issue. The availability of the early J.Orn. online makes it clear that the 1853 Bruch citation is correct after all.

• Peters Checklist 2:314 cites this as "Larus (Adelarus) Hemprichii" and published in J.Orn. 1 1853 p.106
• The Richmond Index lists this taxon as: "[Adelarus] Hemprichii "Bp." J.Orn. 1 no.2, March, 1853, 106"
• Peters appears to interpret that Bruch held the species in Larus, while it appears to me that Richmond interpreted him to hold it in Adelarus. I presume that Peters interpreted Bruch's use of Adelarus to be as a subgenus. Edward Dickinson informs me that Bruch is indeed using the name as a subgenus of Larus.

• This taxon has been listed as 1990 (and I had it previously listed so).
• Edward Dickinson pusued this problem and received confirmation by email, that the publication indeed was available in 1989. The relevant portion of his email of 2004.04.03 is

  One of you, I cannot now find which, asked me whether this name dated from 1989 or 1990.
   
      It appeared in the Revista Bras. Zool. 
   
      I have been in contact with Vitor Piacentini about this 
      and he has been in touch with the current Editor and wrote:  
   
  	I've just received an e-mail from Mirna Casagrande, current editor
  	of Revista Brasileira de Zoologia. She says that the issue from 1989
  	was indeed release in that year, in the week between Christmas and
  	New Year. The date presented in the cover is the last day of the
  	trimester. She also says that since the editor in that time was Dr.
  	Albino, a taxonomist and professor of the ICNZ, he would not let the
  	journal be printed with a date prior to its release.
   
      There is some evidence to show that some copies were received
      surprisingly late but in the face of the above e-mail (and I gather
      the testimony of Jacques Vielliard) I believe that the official date
      must be accepted.
   
      By copy of this my grateful thanks to Vitor (and I believe he has
      had inputs from JF Pacheco and thanks go to him too).

  [end of email from Dickinson]

• Peters Checklist 6:182 gives a date of 1908, and this is followed by HBW 7:484,561.
• The Richmond Index lists this as 1907, Dec.
• Edward Dickinson checked an example of the original of this work, and noted that the description occurs on p.11 of the first 12 page issue. p.1 of that issue bears the date Feb. 1908. (in litt. 2004.07.20).
• The basis for Richmond regarding the date to be Dec. 1907 is not clear.

• Peters Checklist 5:17 gives p.45 in the citation for this taxon. HBW 5:684 follows Peters in this.
• The Richmond Index, Ridgway (1911, Bull.U.S.Natl.Mus. no.50 pt5 p.311) and Hellmayr (Cat.BirdsAm. Pt2(1):166) give p.456, which matches the page number in the citation for E. a. salvini in several sources (including Peters [5:16]).
• It seems unlikely that E. a. salvini and E. a. heterurus were described on such distant, yet numerically similar, pages in the same publication. Thus the p.45 of Peters is here considered a lapsus for p.456.

• The authority is listed in parentheses by Peters Checklist 6:120, and by H&M 3^rd:316. It is not listed in parentheses by HBW 7:463.
• Originally described as Campothera huasburgi so the interpretation by H&M 3^rd apparently is that Campothera is not an emendation of Campethera but is a distincly described genus.
• I do not find Campothera as a distinctly described genus in The Richmond Index, or in Naeve. ICZN 1999 art. 51.3.1 states: "Parentheses are not used when the species-group name as originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name...", and absent demonstration of a distinctly described genus Campothera I include the authority without parentheses.
• This is corrected in Corrigenda 2 for H&M 3^rd.

• Originally described in Megalaimus
• Peters Checklist 6:33 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalaimus to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by HBW 7:200 and H&M 3^rd:305, and in neither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

• Thus it appears that at least HBW and H&M consider Megalaimus to be something other than an emendation or incorrect spelling.
• To date, I am unable to find any indication that Megalaimus was proposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendation and do not use parentheses around the author's name. If Megalaimus was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not a misspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know of the facts supporting that case. I do not find Magalaimus in Sherborn, Naeve, Richmond, or Shulze.

• Not in Peters Checklist 7.
• H&M 3^rd:406 attribute this name to Dabenne (sic) - corrected to Dabbene in the Corrigenda- and in a footnote say "For recognition see Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990)".
• Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990):372 give no discussion, but refer to Hornero 12(1986):262-273" (author not given). However, Fjeldså & Krabbe give Oustalet (not Dabenne) as the author of the taxon.
• I can find the Oustalet taxon (Siptornis hilereti from Tucuman Prov., but am not sure what (if any) Dabbene taxon is involved here.

• Treated as a subspecies of Crossoptilon crossoptilon by Peters Checklist 2:111, HBW 2:539, and H&M 3^rd:59.
• R. Jayapal noted that both the World Pheasant Association and Birdlife International recognize this as a full species based on Madge & McGowan, 2002. [Ref: S. Madge & P. McGowan, 2002. Pheasants, Partridges, and Grouse: A Guide to the Pheasants, Partridges, Quails, Grouse, Guineafowl, Buttonquails, and Sandgrouse of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA.].

• Often cited (unhelpfully) as "Fortpfl. Vög. Eur." (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:32, and copied by HBW 2:575
• I found it to be a substantial challenge to identify this work given that abbreviation.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):25 (Blake) indicates that the original spelling was Crypturornis hynochracea.
• The nature and status of the correction is unknown to me.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):17 discuss the ending (-chracea vs. -chraceus) but do not discuss the correction of the apparent lapsus ("n" for "p").

• Gould's description reads:

    PTEROGLOSSUS HYPOGLAUCUS. Pter. olivaceo-brunneus, subtûs
      cœruleo-canus; vertice, occipite, caudâque nigris, rectricibus qua-
      tuor intermediis ad apicem brunneis; remigum pogoniis externis
      viridibus, internis brunneis; uropygio lutescente; tectricibus
      caudæ superioribus viridi-olivaceis.
    Long. 18¼ unc,; caudæ, 7; alæ 6¾ tarsi, 1¾. Rostri long. 4;
  alt., 1¼ lat. ad basin, 1¼.
    Hab.
    The varied colouring of this bird, and particularly the uniform
  slivery bluish grey of its under surface, afford a ready distinction
  of it from all the other Toucans.  Its upper mandible is edged on
  its basal aspect by a narrow line of yellow, succeeded by a tri-
  angular spot of black; the follows an irregular mark of yellow
  edged by a narrow irregular black line; the rest of the upper
  mandible throughout the whole of its culmen and sides is deep blood
  red : the lower mandible, for the basal half of its length, has the 
  yellow and black colouring of the upper, but instead of terminating
  in red, this colour is exchanged for deep black.

Vigors' description reads:

MYOPHONUS HORSFIELDII. Myoph. cœrulescenti-ater, fronte
	humeris, marginibusque plumarum pectoris splendidè cœruleis.
Statura Myoph. cyanei, Horsf.

• Note it is described in Myophonus not Myiophonus.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N. 156 	MOTACILLA (hypoleuca) fusca subtus alba.
	remigibus intimis, rectricubusque tribus late-
	rabius exterius albis.  Magn. fere Lusciniæe.  Su-
	pra nigro fusca femina, mas nigrior.  Frons
	prima, subtusque tota alba.  Remiges 2, tectri-
	cesque intimæ maximam partem albæ.  Rectri-
	ces utrinque 3. exterirus longitudinaliter ver-
	sus basin albæ.
	

• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Hier." which is Dutch for here.
• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):336.

• Often given as 1834 (Peters Checklist 1:379; HBW 2:192 (Thiollay)).
• This work was published in parts from 1831 to 1846. The zooligical part was completed in 1834, and hence this date is often given for the work. However, the Ornithology section ("Oiseaux") was published in 1831 and 1832 as noted by multiple workers (including the Cat.BooksLibr.Brit.Mus.(Nat.Hist.) vol.2 1904). Sherborn and Woodward established dates for the various livraison. The Richmond Index shows the date as 1831 for this portion of the work (livr.3)."
• Parry SJ, Clark WS, & Pakash V. 2002. "On the taxonomic status of the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata." Ibis 144(4):665-675. use the date 1834, without discussion.
• Väli Ü. 2006. "Mitochondrial DNA sequences support species status for the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata." BBOC 126(3):238-242 presents arguments for elevation to species status.
• Of mild interest, Väli erroneously, but understandably, cites the taxon to 1834.

• Use as a genus is supported by Voelker G & Edwards S. 1998. "Can Weighting improve bushy trees? Models of cytochrome b Evolution and the molecular systematics of the Pipits and Wagtails (Aves:Moticillidae)." Systematic Biology 47(4):589-603., and Voelker G. 1999. "Molecular Evolutionary relationships n the Avian Genus Anthus (Pipits: Motacillidae)." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 11(1):84-94..
• The genus group name ends in the transliterated Greek work ονυξ which is masculine.
• The specific epithet here is a transliterated Greek noun, and is invariable

• Cabanis indicates that this is based on the Greek word ηδυδειπνος [hedydipnos: dainty-supping (the name of a parasite)]
• He designates the type as "H. platyura. -- Cinnyris platura Vieill."
• Note Cabanis's spelling "platyura" I interpret this to be an emendation; Sherborn lists the name with the spelling Hedydipnus platyurus and attributes it to Cabanis as a name for Cinnyris platura Vieill.
• I interpret the gender to be feminine.

• Usually given as 1961.
• The listing in the front of vol. 55 gives the date:
  "[Hefte] 4 ([side] 177-243 & I-VIII): 10. jan. 1962."
• Thanks to the useful and diligent efforts of Edward Dickinson and Jon Fjeldså the story here becomes more complex.
• Edward Dickinson has a copy of a separate of this article. The presence of a separate raises the possibility that it was issued prior to the completed number of the journal, and in support of this the cover of the separate has listed below the title:

  	Dansk Ornithologisk Forenings Tidsskrift, 55, 1961, p.219

• The "1961" could be interpreted as a publication date, or as a "volume date".
• Jon Fjeldså has determined several facts of importance: Evidently at this time it was common to delay the mailing of these journal materials so that all the Christmas mail could be processed. This would appear to account for the delay (until 10 Jan. 1962) for the final number of this volume. However, in addition there was significant urgency attached to distributing the first reports of these expeditions, and this urgency would have been particularly strong in this instance. Jon writes (2005.11.23)

  	I spoke with Dr. Torben Wolff (editor of  papers from the two "large"
  	Danish collecting efforts in the Indo-Malayan area, Galathea in 1950-52
  	and Noona Dan 1961-62). He does not have any record of when reprints
  	were sent out and he doubts very much that Finn would have kept a
  	record of this. But he does remember that high priority was given to
  	rapidly produce reprints with the first results of the expedition. As
  	is apparent from the front page of the reprint, this was the first
  	"Noona Dan paper". This paper may have been particularly urgent since
  	the collector, taxidermist Erik Pedersen, died during the field work on
  	Palawan. Collected material was sent home together with the coffin, and
  	Finn was eager that EP's new bird was rapidly published, before Finn
  	had to leave DK himself to join the Melanesian part of the expedition
  	in 1962.  
  	It is therefore likely that reprints were produced and mailed
  	out before the issue of Dansk Orn.Foren.Tidsskr. was mailed out.
  	However, it is not possible to provide documentation for this.

• Subsequently, Dickinson has found a preprint with a wrapper dated 1961, and while it is possible that it may not have been issued until 1962, I agree that this dated wrapper makes it most reasonable to date the taxon to 1961.

• Elevated to species level by King BF. 2002. "The Hierococcyx fugax, Hodgson's Hawk Cuckoo, complex." BBOC 122(1):74-80 on the basis of calls, morphology, and zoogeography.
• Treated as a subspecies by HBW 4:549. (Willis).

• Often spelt C. hybridus. Originally described as Sterna hybrida Pallas 1811.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):32 discuss this. They indicate that: "Childonias is masculine, and the Latin word hybrida is a masculine noun, not a feminine adjective. The fact that hybridus (-a, -um) has been used as an adjectuve in modern scientific nomenclature is irrelevant here because modern scientific Latin is not included in the definition of Latin by ICZN (1999, Glossary: Latin). Mees (1977:49) admittedly advocated the use of hybridus against the advice of a scholar."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Childonias hybrida occurs 94 times and the combination Childonias hybridus occurs 20 times in the Zoo. Rec..
• HBW 3:663 (M. Gochfeld & J. Burger) use C. hybridus without any discussion of the nomenclature.

Ptilonopus hyogastrus Spelling

• Often spelt P. hyogastra and P. hyogaster.
• HBW 4:222 (I. Rowley), where it is spelt hyogaster comments: "Species name often erroneously given as hyogastra, but maintenance of original gender is unjustified."
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):31 discuss this. They indicate that "The statement [of Hoyo et al. as above] is incompatible with the fact that the ending gaster is a feminine substantive (the Greek noun γαστηρ [gaster: belly], claimed by del Hoyo et al. to be a masculine latinized adjective (from ιογαστος [iogastros: violet-bellied])."
• [APP note: From my study, I am not able to recognize gaster as a feminine substantive, nor can I argue that it is not. Whether right or wrong, it is clear that David and Gosselin have more knowledge and expertise in this area than I. Indeed, I am motivated to wonder if the ICZN has the expectation that knowledge of and ability to recognize the feminine substantive is to be routinely expected among biologists.]

Peters Checklist 1:226 gives a different title for the source. I follow Browning and Monroe, 1991

Pomatostomus halli

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.10.

Chloropsis hardwickii spelling

• Peters Checklist 9:306 spells hardwickei, though shows as Hardwickii in the citation.
• No comment is made regarding this emendation (? by Delacour), and I follow the original, {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {Sibley and Monroe, 1990} ,and my interpretation of the rules of the ICZN in using hardwickii.

Glaucidium hardyi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.

Pternistis hartlaubi Citation date

• The dates of J. Sci. Lisboa are somewhat mysterious.
• The Peters Checklist 2 uses 1869.
• However, the title page of Tomo II Says 'AGOSTO DE 1868-DEZEMBRO DE 1869' and has an imprint date of 1870.

Lophura hatinhensis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Coeligena helianthea 1839

Peters Checklist 5:101 has 1838. {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1839".

Campylopterus hemileucurus Author

• Peters Checklist 5:20 lists Lichtenstein as the author, not Deppe.
• see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
• This error is repeated in HBW 5:551 where Gary Stiles misattributes the name to Lichtenstein.

Chalcostigma heteropogon 1840

Peters Checklist 5:122 has 1839. {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1840". Boissonneau is misspelled in Peters Checklist here.

Heteroxolmis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.8.

• Peters Checklist 6:188 gives 1835.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} give 1831 and in this agree with Zimmer's detailed exposition of the dates of publication.
• HBW 7:486 (Short & Horne) give 1835, which is consistent with their generally following the Peters Checklist.

Lichenostomus hindwoodi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.12.

Drepanoptila holosericea 1869

Peters Checklist 3:41 lists 1810, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 14:121 gives "pl.10 fig.1" as part of this citation, as do the AOU 1983 and 1957 checklists. This is an engaging fiction. There is no pl.10 in the volume in which this bird is described, nor is there reference to the plate in the original description. Ralph Browning and Dick Banks determined for me that the plate is actually pl.1 of the next volume (6), where Hutton's vireo is fig.1.

Hymenops Citation

I am uncertain about this name and citation, I do not find it in {Richmond, et al. 1992}, Sherborn, or Naeve.

Cranioleuca henricae

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.7.

Ficedula hodgsonii 1870

Peters Checklist 11:340 has 1871. There is uncertainty regarding the dates of publication of vol.6 (and others) of this serial. I follow the Richmond Index here, though can not rule out 1871.

Culicicapa helianthea Citation

• Peters Checklist 11:375 has "Wallace" without parentheses, indicating this was described in Culicicapa.
• Culicicapa is a Swinhoe genus, erected in 1871 while helianthea was described in 1865.
• Murray Bruce indicates (2001.05.10) that this was described in Muscicapa, so parentheses are appropriate.

Namibornis herero 1932

• Peters Checklist 11:27 has 1931.
• Ms. Robin Sinn at the Library for the Academy indicates to me the publishing date for this entire volume is 1932.

Henicorhina leucoptera

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.9.

Psalidoprocne holomelas

• Peters Checklist 9:128 spells this holomelaena.
  
• The note in Sibley & Monroe on p.581 states: 'The original spelling "holomelas" must stand; the International Code is specific in this case.'

Andropadus hallae

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.9.

Phylloscopus hainanus

Not in Peters Checklist, Sibley and Monroe, or Sibley and Monroe supplement.

• The AOU Checklist 42nd supplement changes the spelling of three specific epithets of chickadees that were in Parus and are now in Poecile.
  
• The original combination Parus hudsonicus indicates that the specific epithet was adjectival.

Dicaeum hirundinaceum Author

• Peters Checklist 12:195 has Shaw and Nodder.
• It is my understanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.

Pterodroma heraldica

• Brooke and Rowe. 1996 treat the Pterodroma arminjoniana/heralidca group. Their proposal is based on behavioral and molecular evidence.
  • Brooke M de L, Rowe G. Behavioural and molecular evidence for specific status of the light and dark morphs of the Herald Pterodroma heralica. 1996. Ibis 138:420-432.
• The HBW 1:242 does not recognize atrata as a species, and treats heraldica as a race.

Anas hottentata Citation

• Peters Checklist 1(2):476 lists the author Eyton without parentheses.
• The taxon was described in Querquedula as is correctly indicated in the synonomy and the footnote on that page.

Leucippus hypostictus Systematics

Previously as:

• Taphrospilus hypostictus (Gould) 1862 PZS p.124

Otus hoyi Systematics

Held by HBW 5:180 to be a full species. There the authors are listed as Konig and Stranek, 1989.

In support of the species status, Rolf de By gives the citation: Heidrich P, Konig C & Wink M. Molecular phylogeny of South American Screech Owls of the Otus atricapillus complex (Aves: Strigidae) inferred from nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, Section C, Biosciences 50, 3-4 (1995): 294-302

Glaucidium hoskinsii Systematics

Formerly treated as a race of G. gnoma (as it was described by Brewster), but recently separeted on the basis of vocalizations.

Gallicolumba hoedtii 1871

HBW 4:186 gives the date for this citation as 1873.
The date is 1871, see entry at Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

Podiceps holboellii systematics

Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention. His note 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.

• Peters Checklist 1:454, Sibley & Monroe p.32 and HBW 1:597 list the date as 1859.
• This volume was not published until 1860.

• Listed as 1857 by Peters Checklist 4:19. and by HBW 4:555.
• This is in the second volume of the work, and all the indications I find show that to have been published in 1858, the date given by the Richmond Index and Mathews' Bibliographic listing of this work (June 30, 1858).

• Listed as 1857 by Peters Checklist 4:19 as a subspecies of C. saturatus.
• HBW 4:555 argues for separation on the basis of song.

• Norman JA, Christidis L, Westerman M, Hill FAR. 1998. Molecular data confirms the specific status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox natalis. Emu 98:197-208.
• These author recognize Ninox hypogramma.
• Peters Checklist 4:143 has as a subspecies, as does HBW 5:235, though they discuss the possibility of more species than they recognize.

• The citation is a bit of a confusion, Peters (Traylor) 11:219 gives:
  • Hyliota Swainson 1837 Class.Birds 2 p.260 fig.229h
    • Hyliota flavigaster Swainson 1837 Class.Birds 2 p.260
    • ...
• It seems unlikely that the figure pertains to the Genus, and not the species as the opposite is usually the case.
• The Richmond Index and Sherborn both give Birds of W. Africa as the source, and are thus not helpful in resolving this detail.
• Based on likelihood and similar reversal errors in Traylor and Mayr's listings I associate the figure with the species and not the genus.

• The specific epithet "haematodus" as it is usually given would appear to be an unjustified emendation.
• The full and formatted text of the original DESCRIPTION IS:

  "hematod. PSITTACUS macrourous viridis, pectore rubro, facie 
  	  cerulae.
  	Psittacus pectore rubro. Edw. av. 45 t. 232.
  	Plittaca amboinensis varia Briss. av. 4. p. 364.
  	Habitat in Amboina.
  	Corpus mediae magnitutdinis. Torquis lutea."
  

• See MantissaPlant. for a discussion of the significance of the period (.) following the specific epithet.
• Peters Checklist 3:148-9 gives "haematod".
• If the name "haematod." is interpreted as an abbreviation, or in some way requiring completion then the rationale for that must be given. It is not supportable on the basis or the period "." at the end of the name in the original publication (see Mantissa Plantarum details).
• However, Normand David writes (2002.10.23): " the spelling haematodus (vs haematod) was adopted by Direction 82 of the ICZN."

• Peters Checklist 13:154 (Paynter) lists this date as 1858.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1859.

• Peters Checklist 7:17 gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:355 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 14:118 (Blake) gives the date as 1862.
• This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1863 according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.

• Zimmer (1926) argues that due to Hemprich's death in the field in 1825 no taxa should be attributed to him. I (and others) followed this convention, while others listed him as an author.
• Prompted by Edward Dickinson's queries I reconsidered Article 50 of the ICZN (1999). I have not had the opportunity to examine the work in question (Symb.Phys.Aves), but absent any compelling evidence to the contrary feel it is appropriate to include Hemprich. The Code would appear to require clear evidence in the text of the article that only Ehrenberg was involved in publishing the names. Zimmer does not present any such evidence, or even imply that it exists. His standing would appear to be based on the long time between Hemprich's death and the publishing of the work.

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