Zoological Citation Notes --I

• Conventionally dated to 1893.
• Benjamin Lamb indicates (in. litt. 2024.07.20) that he purchased Alfred Newton's copy of this volume, and received it bound with wrappers in place, with Newton's stamp, and with included additional material (advertisements and catalogues) within the wrappers. Notable at the head wrapper of the first part (pp.[1]-164) is the annotation "Recv'd Dec 30 / 92".
Ibis XVII no.17 image
• Taxa held to be new in this part have been conventionally dated to 1893, but should be dated to 1892.
• At present the impact is greatest for some African taxa, as well as some Hawaiian birds and one genus.
• Lybius torquatus zombae (Shelley) p.10
• Stactolaema whytii (Shelley) p.11 pl.1
• Stactolaema whytii whytii (Shelley) p.11 pl.1
• Turdus olivaceus milanjensis Shelley p.12
• Arizelocichla fusciceps (Shelley) p.13
• Cossypha anomala (Shelley) p.14
• Cossypha anomala anomala (Shelley) p.14
• Apalis flavigularis Shelley p.16
• Bradypterus cinnamomeus nyassae Shelley p.16
• Batis capensis dimorpha (Shelley) p.18
• Ploceus bertrandi (Shelley) p.23 pl.2 fig.2
• Hemignathus affinis Rothschild p.112
• Loxops ochraceus Rothschild p.112
• Palmeria (f.) Rothschild p.113
• The potential implication here is considerable. Is this a sole occurance, or are there other parts of Ibis whose publication date pre-dates the imprint date?
• Richmond appears to have been alert to this possibility, as one of his "Notes on publication" states: "Ibis. for Oct., 1873, is reviewed in 'Nature', viii, for Oct. 16, 1873, p.519. + Thus publ. before that date."
• Lamb's copy shows that no.18 for this year (the "April" issue) was received "24/3/93" so more than a week before the imprint date.

• Originally spelled "inexspectata"
• The original text (and spelling) can be seen here:
  Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 10:587
  Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 10:588
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for reminding me of this.

• Described in Cyclopsittacus, which I interpret to be a Sundevall 1872 emendation of Reichenbach's Cyclopsitta.
• If this case, no parentheses are required around the authority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

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

• Previously as
  • Columba larvata hypoleuca (Salvadori) 1903 Mem.R.Accad.Sci.Torino(2) 53 p.96
• As Dr David Donsker helpfully points out (in litt. 2010.01.22):

  	2. Columba larvata hypoleuca (Salvadori) 1903.  H&M uses this subspecific 
  	epithet because they say that when moving C. larvata to Columba from 
  	Aplopelia, that C. larvata inornata was preoccupied by Columba inornata.
  	However with the reassignment C. inornata to Patagioenas, isn't 
  	Columba larvata inornata (Reichenow, 1892) once again available?

• Peters Checklist 15:25 (= Moreau or Greenway 1962) cites this to volume 1 of the Novitates Zoologicae, which makes no sense, as Volume I was published in 1894.
• Volume VIII is the correct volume number here.

• Peters Checklist 15:11 (= Greenway 1962) cites this to 1835, and this appears to be followed by H&M 3^rd:716. The basis for this dating by Greenway is not made clear.
• Dating taxa from Jardine and Selby's Ill.Orn. is problematic; the CBBM 12:309, for example, dates this name to "(c. 1848)". However Sherborn worked on this problem and his findings are published in the Ibis, and in his Index Animalium.
• The Richmond Index also shows the date as 1831.
• H&M 3^rd:320 dates Dendrocopos himalayensis from pl.116 to 1831 (rather than 1835, as shown in Peters CL) and cites Sherborn 1894 for this. Passer domesticus indicus appears to have been missed in this regard.

• Originally as Copsychus inexspectatus.
• Peters Checklist 10:69 (= Ripley 1964) mispells this as inexpectatus both for the original combination and as the subspecific entry.
• Ripley, or the editor(s) perhaps did not bother the check the original publication and may have been following Shelley, Birds of Africa II, pt2 p.344 (1900) where the incorrect emedation to inexpectatus may have occured first.
• W.L. Sclater Systema Avium Aethiopicarum II p.489 (1930) also perpetuates this error, as does HBW 10:763 (= Collar 2005)
• I also perpetuated this error, until Colin Jones pointed it out. Colin, unlike the rest of us, looked at the original paper.

• Peters Checklist 10:87 (= Ripley 1964) cites this to volume 1909.
• Of interest on the preceeding page (p.86) he cites the taxon from the following page of this work (p.761) (Microchichla scouleri fortis) correctly to 1910!
• H&M 3^rd:683 initially followed the error in the Peters Checklist, but corrected this in Corrigenda 5, when apparenly Mary LeCroy pointed out the error.
• It appears that Ripley did not take advantage of the Richmond Index in this instance which shows the correct date of 1910. The Richmond Index would have been available to Ripley when he was working on this section of the Peters Checklist, and then was generally available when it was published in 1992 in microfiche.

• Peters Checklist 10:147 (= Ripley 1964) cites this to volume 15 and 1846.
• The 1846 date would be correct if this was in volume 15, but the Richmond Index shows that this was in volume XVI for Feb. 1847.
• H&M 3^rd:660 appears to follow the Peters Checklist in dating this to 1846.
• I follow the Richmond Index for this.

• Peters Checklist 15:118 (= Amadon 1962) has difficulty with this citation, giving the volume wrong as "8" when in fact it is 13. Probably Amadon misread "XIII" as "VIII". Therefore he dates it to 1844, though even this makes no sense, as volume 8 of this serial would have been published in 1838. Amadon also gets the original binomen wrong, listing it as "Gracula intermedia" where "Gracula intermedius" is correct.
• This was the "December" issue for 1844, and was not published until 1845. As the Richmond Index notes, it contains reference to a Madras paper of Aug. 9, 1845 (!).
• H&M 3^rd:654 has the date correct, but appears to base this on the date given in Tweeddale's Collected Ornithological works. Tweeddale (= Arthur Hay) is indeed the author of the taxon, but his Collected Ornithological Works is not a reliable source for dating his publications.

• Garrulax imbricatus is split from Garrulax lineatus by Rassussen and Anderton 2005, and Collar 2006 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Both Peters Checklist 10:204 (= Ripley 1964) and H&M 3^rd:669 cite this taxon to Linnaeus 1766.
• Rainer Massmann points out (in litt. 2008.08.16) that this name is on the Official List (Opinion 551 [1959.04.14]) 1987 p.243 where it is cited to 1758.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 corrects this to 1758.
• The Official List citation is concordant with the corresponding card in the Richmond Index.

• Both Peters Checklist 12:54 (= Snow 1967) and H&M 3^rd:538 list the authority in parentheses, though no explanation is given for this in either case. Snow, remarkably, lists the original combination (incorrectly) as Aegithalos caudatus italiae. The original orthography of the name was ÆGITHALUS CAUDATUS ITALIAE (note: "us" not "os").
• The use of parentheses by these authors, would suggest that they interpret Aegithalus to be not only a genus distinctly proposed from Aegithalos but to be the one Rev. Jourdain had in mind when describing this bird, though in Snow's case this argument seems weakened by the fact that he was not able to get the actual orthography of the original description correct.
• Aegithalus was a genus group name proposed by Boie in 1822, and he included both pendulinus and caudatus in it. Vigors also used Aegithalus in 1825 (Zool.J. 2 no.7 p.397 footnote) as a monotypic genus containing pendulinus. In 1828, Billberg used the name Aegithalus for Parus biarmicus Linnaeus. Certainly there is confusion here, and it is not clear to me what Jourdain knew, or understood when he was proposing this name. Certainly Snow and his editors were not able to convey the facts of the case correctly.
• Given the real possibility that Jourdain might have had Aegithalus Boie in mind, I will leave the authority in parentheses.

• The Richmond Index raises the question that this may have been published in 1881.

2014.04.03
• It appears that this Number (no.152) must have been published in 1881. On p.431 notice is given of a publication printed in Berlin in 1881.
• At this time, the publication of the J.Orn. was generally running 6 months (or more) behind schedule.

• Peters Checklist 15:274 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this to

  	1859 Proc. Zool. Soc. London, p.471

  and this would appear to be nonsense. "p.471" of the "1859" volume would appear in Pt.27 pt.IV (pp.353-521) which was published in Feb. of 1860 so either the page, or the year supplied by these authors is incorrect.
• The Richmond Index shows this to have been published on "p.171" which would place it in Pt.27 p.II (pp.129-352) of the 1859 volume.
• Not having seen the original, I chose to follow the more reliable source and cite this to 1859, and p.171.
• Sharpe CBBM 3:20 (1877) cites this name to "p.297" of the 1859 PZS, which also makes no sense that I can understand. It appears to be a copying error from the page in Jerdon's B.Ind. 2 where the name apparently is found on p.297.
• After completion of this note, I find that Dickinson, Dekker, Eck, & Somadikarta (Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 45. Types of the Corvidae. 2004.) on p.124 note the error on the Peters author's part, and correctly cite the bird to p.171.

• Previously listed as extinct.
• Adults and chicks seen in 2006. See News release
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Conventionally given as 1935, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• My understanding is that the entire volume 87 for 1935 was not published until 1936. This understanding is from a letter sent my by Robin Sinn, Public Affairs Librarian for the Academy (May 16, 1994).

• H&M 3^rd:381 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 the previous page (p.380). But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:553 has the date correct as 1868.

• Peters Checklist 7:154 lists the authority in parentheses, and this is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:379, though HBW 8533 (Zimmer & Isler, 2003) lists the authority without parentheses.
• The Richmond Index shows (in agreement with the Peters Checklist) that the bird was described as Cymbilanius lineatus intermedius so the question about the use of parentheses turns on the name Cymbilanius. The Richmond Index indicates that this name is an emendation of Gray's name Cymbilaimus and explicitly stating that it is an emendation on three separate cards, and even noting on one that:

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

  (this entry for the PZS 1858 pt.26 no.359 p.206 entry).
• It seems quite clear that the authority should not be listed in parentheses, as Hartert and Goodson were using an emendation.

• There is some confusion and uncertainty here
• Peters Checklist 1(2):324 cites this to

  	Bengal Sporting Mag., n.s., 8, p.177

  this mirrors the citation in the Richmond Index, though there the "8" is written in a very heavy hand and appears to be overwriting another number.
• Sherborn in Ind.Anim. p.3170 cites the name to volume VII no.28 for Oct.
• Which is correct, I have no idea.

• Originally spelled Icthyophaga not Ichtyophaga.
• Stresemann and Amadon in Peters Checklist 1(2):302 list this as:

  Icthyophaga [sic] Lesson ...

  There is no disucssion of the spelling, nor support given for their interpretation that it is an error. [APP 2010.01.17: note, my statement here was incorrect. "sic" does not indicates something is an error, but rather means "thus", in instances such as this bringing attention to the fact that it was spelled "thus".
• H&M 3^rd:101 also mirrors the Peters Checklist.
• HBW 2:122, also spells it Ichthyophaga without dicussion or comment.
• Normand David has investigated this and writes (2006.04.05):

  Richmond 1917 (Proc. US. Nat. Mus., vol. 53 p. 570, footnote) 
  correctly cites both spellings from Écho, and adds: "Icthyophaga Lesson 
  should replace Poliaëtus Kaup 1847".  
  I see here a First Reviser selection under 24.2.3.

  .
• Thus all the works above have ignored or been unaware of Richmond's work on this issue.

• Peters Checklist 11:456 (Mayr) lists the date for this taxon as 1879.
• The Richmond Index dates this to December of 1878. This is the date given for the receipt recorded for this part (Pt 2) by the 1929 Index of the Proceedings of the Linn. Soc. of New South Wales.
• H&M 3^rd:447 correctly gives the date as 1878.

• Peters Checklist 11:456 (Mayr) lists this as "Gerygone insularius [sic]" and in fact the Richmond index confirms that the original spelling was insularius; Mayr does not share with us the basis for his belief that the original spelling was incorrect, if in fact it was.

• Conventionally given as 1935, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• My understanding is that the entire volume 87 for 1935 was not published until 1936. This understanding is from a letter sent my by Robin Sinn, Public Affairs Librarian for the Academy (May 16, 1994).

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:34 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.

• Two questions here: should the authority be in parentheses, and how should the specific epithet be spelled?
• 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:175, 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.
• The name was originally spelled iobiensis and the indication is that it is named for the island "Jobie", now spelled "Jobi", "Japen", "Yapen" &c.
• I am not absolutely certain how the rules should be applied to the specific epithet spelling but for the moment follow the original orthography.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:34 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176, 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 Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:25 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174, and by HBW 4:206.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilopus 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 Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Cited by Peters Checklist (multiple locations) to "Izvestia Imp. Obschestva Liubitelei Estest. Antrop. Etnogr., Moscow, 8 pt.2 (1872)"
• This work is also frequently cited by a transliteration of the title of the article, seen as variants of "Vertik. Horiz. Turk."
• A copy of the title page of this work (kindly provided by EC Dickinson 2005.01.01) shows that "1872" appears nowhere on the page; "1873" is at foot of page].
• The "1872" may refer to the fact that Severtsov indicated (in Stray Feathers III:420) that this material was published in Dec. 1872. In 1872, Russia had not yet adopted the Gregorian Calender (they did so in 1918), so a work would have to be published on or before Dec. 12, 1872 (o.s.) to be published in 1872 (n.s.). Anything later would have appeared in 1873 (n.s.). I do not believe Severtsov specifies a particular day in December of "1872"; the ICZN rules might be interpreted to require the consideration of that (o.s.) date to be "Dec. 31, 1872 (o.s.) which is Jan. 13, 1873.
• This logic (if I may glorify it with that term) in addition to the imprint date of 1873 would suggest that 1873 be regarded as the date of publication. As to whether it should be considered Jan. 31, 1873, or Dec. 31, 1873 is another matter. The historical likelihood would strongly favor Jan. 31, 1873; the formal interpretation of the Code might require Dec. 31, 1873.

• Peters Checklist 8:26 (Traylor) lists the date as "1861".
• H&M 3^rd:351 also gives a date of 1861 but corrects this to 1862 in Corrigenda 2.
• The Richmond Index gives Feb. 1 1862 for this Part of the volume.
• Duncan (1937) lists April 1862 for this part.

• Previously listed as
  • Myrmotherula obscura Zimmer 1932 Am.Mus.Novit. no.523 p.2
  and is so listed by H&M 3^rd:384.
• The AOU 45^th Supplement Auk 2004 121(3):990 indicates that the Griscom name is a taxon conspecific with obscura and has priority over the Zimmer name.
• Status as a species versus subspecies of M. brachyura is uncertain.

• Often misdated, especially by Peters Checklist volumes where many inconsistencies can be found (e.g. see 12:275,277,282). See Ind.Rev.

• The original description is not often consulted by busy ornithological workers, occupied as they are with matters that they understand to be more important. For those who may wish to understand what was proposed, I reproduce the original desctription here.

  XL. Iridosornis rufivertex, Lesson, genre
nouveau.
  Le type de ce genre, bien distinct dans
la tribu des tangaras, a ete descrit par M.
Florent Prevost sous l'nom d'arremon ru-
fivertex (Zool. de la Venus, et Revue zool.,
1842, p.335).
  Cet oiseau n'a rien des arremons, ni la
coloration du plumage, ni les charactéres
du bec, des ailes et de la queue. C'est un 
type net et tranché, voison des aglïa et
conduisont des tangaras aux pie-grièches;
son bec est méme exclusivement celui
d'une pie-grèche.
 Les charactérs de cet petit geure [APP: ?genre] seront:
un bec comprimé sur les côtés convexe, à
a mandibule supérieure recourbée. très cro-
chure à la pointe, masqué d'une dent forte,
à bords lisses. La manible inferieure
trés aigue au somment et échancrée sur les
côtés; des soics [APP: ? soies] à la commissure; narines
entiéement cachées par des plumes fron-
tales retombantes; ailes atteignant le mi-
lieu de la queue, à premiére penne courte,
les troisième, quatrième, cinquième et
sixième égales et les plus longues; queue
médiocre, arrondie, a pennes légèrement
acumineées aubout; tarses médiocres, à
scutelles peu apparentes; ongles recour-
bés, trè comprimés. Nidification? œufs?
Mœurs? plumage à vive coloration et à re-
flets m´tallisés.
  L'iridosorne à nuque mordorée, mesure
14 centimètres. Il a la taille d'un tangara
septicolor. Son bec est noriatre et ses tar-
sis brun-carné. Un noir-velours teint le
front, les joues et le con deans son entier.
Ce noir est coupé par une large plaque
mordorée, à éclat vif et lustré, qui règne
depuis le rebord noir du front jusqu au
haut de cou. Une large ceinture bleue à
reflets d'indigo traverse le thorax, et ce 
blue s'étend sur les côtés du corps en se
mélant au noir du ventre. Les couvertures
inférieures de la queue sont d'dun rouge
ferruginaux intense. Le manteau et les
épaules sont de ce même blue luisant du
thorax. Le bas du dos est noir glac´ de
blue. Les ailes et la queue sont noires avec 
du bleu sur les couvertures moyennes et
du bleu sur le bord externe des rémiges et
des rectrices externes.
  Cet oiseau est de la Bolivie.

• The Richmond Index includes some interesting discussion of this name as follows:

  By an error this is called P. irena, instead of P. elegans. The
  P. elegans ("Breve Irène") on preceeding p. of text (+ fig. on pl.591) is 
  the P. irene of authors + of Temm. later (Tabl. Méth.. p.16, where he reverses
  the two names, making P. irena the one figured and P. elegans the one not fig.).
  

• Peters Checklist 5:41 gives 39 as the volume number. HBW 5 follows Peters in this.
• Peters' citations for four taxa described alongside C. s. ignotus (namely, Lepidopyga luminosa phæochroa, Amazilia chionopectus orienticola, Amazilia fimbriata elegantissima, and Ocreatus underwoodi polystictus) have 29 as the volume number. Reference to Todd's work on pages 5 and 36 also use that number.
• The Richmond Index confirms that volume 29 is correct.
• Volume 29 confirmed to be correct (original examined). [APP]

• Peters Checklist 5:15 gives 24 as the volume number.
• All of Peters' citations for taxa described alongside P. s. ignobilis (namely, Agyrtria hollandi, Saucerottia tobaci monticola, Metallura tyrianthina oreopola, Microstilbon, and Microstilbon insperatus) have 26 as the volume number.
• Both the Richmond Index and HBW 5 confirm that volume 26 is correct.
• I (APP) have examined the original, and it is volume 26.

• The Author is given by Peters Checklist XV as Pennant.
• The Richmond Index, and Zimmer p.374,375 make it clear that the authorship of new names in this version should be attributed to JR Forster.

• Peters Checklist 11:246 (George Watson) lists the date as 1882.
• This appears to be a typo for 1892, the year this work was published. It came out Sept. 15, 1892 according to Wetmore's 1945 bibliographic collation in the Nat.Acad.Sciences Biographical Memoir IV:181.
• The U.S.National Museum Bulletin no.193 p.77 shows that this was published Sept. 19, 1892.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):23 gives 1935, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:32 and HBW 1:128.
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• The date for this taxon given by Peters Checklist 7:111 is 1887 (1888), and this is followed without comment by H & M 3 ^rd:412.
• The basis for indicating that it was not published until 1888 is not known to me, and appears inconsistent with many other taxa from this volume of the Proceedings, where, with later page numbers, the date given is 1887. These taxa include
  :
  1. Megascops vermiculatus Ridgway 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.267 {H&M p.224 1887}
  2. Megascops guatemalae hastatus Ridgway 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.268 {H&M p.224 1887}
  3. Nyctanassa Stejneger 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.295 {H&M p.86 1887}
  4. Phrygilus punensis Ridgway 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.434 {H&M p.788 1887}
• The Richmond Index gives the date as "July 2, 1887", and as no documentation or argument in favor of "1888" is given either by Peters Checklist or by H & M 3^rd, I follow The Richmond Index.
• The date of "1888", if true, would have implications for a significant number of taxa, including but not restricted to, those listed above.

• The citation here is usually given as p.679 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:431, HBW 1:633; and John Penhalurick's website.
• Richmond cites his work to p.678, which I follow. It may be that the name does not appear until p.679, but I doubt that.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 2:99 as 1856. This may be right; it is followed by HBW 2:517 as well.
• It appears that the later portion of volume 24 of the J.AsiaticSoc.Bengal came out in 1856 but the initial portion of that volume was issued in 1855. This taxon is in Vol. 24 no.3, and other taxa from that no. are often cited as 1855.
• The Richmond Index gives 1855 for this taxon, and I follow that date here.

• Peters Checklist 10:145 (Ripley) has "1826, Pl.Col., livr. 78 pl.458".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.75. "late 1827".
• {Sherborn, 1902} has 75 "extremo 1827".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, reaching a different conclusion regarding the livraison number and the date. His text reads:

  Plate 458(livraison 77; Apr. 23, 1828) Turdus interpres 'Kuhl' Temminck: text is on the
  reverse of that of plate 445 of Turdus citrinus Latham, which appeared in livraison 75
  ("Dec. 31", 1827)[fn: Cited as "[late in] 1827" by Deignan (1963)]. Within the lead-time; however, as in 
  the case of plate 434 it seems appropriate to presume that an original text on one side was suppressed and
  replaced by a text on two sides showing the earlier livraison number. Now Zoothera 
  interpres (Temminck, 1828). [fn: Wrongly dated 1826 by Ripley (1964); here in the context of 1828, 
  based on the presumption the text did not appear before the plate.]
  

• 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.38'

• Placement within Synallaxis is uncertain, and should not be afforded much signficant authority. Paul Salaman (pers. comm.) has suggested it should be placed "between ruficapilla and infuscata".
• I have arbitrarily placed it immediately before infuscata.

• Not in Peters Vol.7. and it not discussed.
• Treated as a full species by Krabbe and Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Peters Checklist 1:377 has Vol."2", a misprint for vol.12.

• Peters Checklist 2:117 gives 1797, as does {Sherborn}.
• Dates of pub. discussed in Sherborn CD, Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(4) 1895 15 p.375.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, says Feb. 1798 for this taxon. As it is published in No.6 of Volume 9, Feb. of 1798 makes sense.

• {Richmond, et al. 1992} gives a 1781 citation in Icon.Animalium, p.41 with a note that it is a nomen nudem ; and gives a 1782 citation as here.
• Note that the plate number matches that which Peters Checklist 2:225 attributes to Icon.Animalium.

• Peters Checklist 4:182 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 1:237 lists "ed.2".
• This name is described in part 2; I find no evidence for a second edition, and interpret "ed.2" as an error.
• The citation is further supported by a letter from CWR to Witmer Stone (1907.02.05).

• Peters Checklist 2:201 has Amaurornis isabellina.
• Blasius evidently first placed this in Amaurornis. His composition was Amaurornis isabellina, Blasius. Zeitsch.ges.Orn. 3 p.158. 1886.
• Sibley & Monroe use Amauarornis isabellinus and this is followed by HBW 3:181 without comment on the spelling.
• To quote Normand David:

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

• As Daptrius by AOU 1998 Checklist.
• I follow Griffiths CS. 1999. Phylogeny of the Falconidae inferred from molecular and morphological data. Auk 116(1):116-130..

• Peters Checklist 12:58 lists this as 1844.
• The publishing history of the J.As.Soc.Bengal is uncertain. My researches suggest that in vol.13 of the Journal the changeover from 1844 to 1845 is around p.936.

• Peters Checklist 13:115 lists this as 1866.
• The latter portions of this volume (after p.280) were not published until 1867.

• Peters Checklist 13:115 lists this as 1866.
• The latter portions of this volume (after p.280) were not published until 1867.

• Not in HBW vol.5.
• Systematics and affinities uncertain. Position within Ninox speculative.
• Initially known and described from only one specimen. This varied substantially from congeners in a number of morphologic features which were felt to not be anomalous.
• See: Lee RJ, Riley J. 2001. "Morphology, plumage, and habitat of the newly described Cinnabar Hawk-Owl from North Sulawesi, Indonesia." WilsonBull. 113(1):17-22. Discussion of features of the second individual examined.

• Treated by Peters Vol.9 in Iole and Hypsipetes; Ixos not mentioned in Peters, and reason for generic revision not discussed by Sibley and Monroe.

• Usually given as 1856 (Peters, Richmond, Sibley & Monroe).
• This occurs in vol. VIII, no. 5. The listings from the Academy indicate that no.5 receipt was acknowledged April 25, 1857 by the Boston Society of Natural History.
• However, Roy McDiarmid has ascertained that the accession record of the American Philosophical Society shows this number was received there 1856.12.19

• The last two known individuals of this species were killed on June 3, 1844 on Eldey Island, Iceland.

• See Rasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F and Voninavoko R. 2000. "Geographic variation in the Malagasy Scops-Owl (Otus rutilus auct.): the existence of an unrecognized species on Madagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa. BBOC. 120:75-102.

• Schlegel's description reads:

  "RALLINA ISABELLINA. -- Gallinula isabellina, Temminck. --
  Euryzona isabellina, Temminck.
    Taille de la poule d'eau commune.  Haut sur jambes. Dessus
  d'un grun-gris olivatre. Dessus jusque sur les cotes du cou
  et de la tete d'un roux rougeatre fauve.  Bee verdatre. Aile
  6 pouces a 6 pouces 5 lignes; queue 2 pouces 7 lignes a 2
  pouces 10 lignes; bec 15 a 16 lignes; tarse 28 a 50 lignes;
  partie nue de la jambe 15 a 16 lignes; doigt du milieu 24
  linges.
    Observee a Celebes.
  1, 2. Male et feelle adultes. Gorontalo a Celebes, voyage
  du Dr. Forsten: type de l'espece. -- 3,4. Males adultes
  tues le 24 Aout 1863, Ayer=pannas a Celebes, voyage de Mr.
  von Rosenberg. -- 5. Jeune male, revetu en patie de duvet,
  tue le 12 Mai 1865, Modelido, Celebes, von Rosenberg."

• The units of measurement here are of interest.
  • Pouce is a unit of length used in 14^th to 18^th century France. Replaced by the metric system during the Revolution. France, however, fairly quickly abandoned the metric system under Napolean, reverting (as we see here) to old systems of measurement. Pouce is derived from the word for "thumb".
  • ligne means line and is a watchmaker's measure for the thickness of a watch movement.
  • Pouce = 1.0657 inches, 27.07 mm. 12 pouces = 1 pied-de-roi.
  • ligne = 2.256 mm; 12 douziemes; that is 12 ligne to a pouce.
• S.F. Baird on p.XVI of vol.IX of the Pac.RRReports has a note reading:

  "The English inch is about equal to 11.26 French lines, .9389 French inches, 
  or to 25.40 Millimetres."

• This matches the conversion I found as it indicates 2.256 mm/ligne

• Separated by voice from Suiruri suiruri affinis.

• Peters Checklist 2:217 (Ripley) gives the date as 1857.
• This was not published until Jan. of 1858.

• Peters Checklist 10:142 (Ripley) 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.

• Peters Checklist 12:193 (Solomonsen) gives the date as 1863.
• This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1864 according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.

• See Walters M. 2001. BBOC. "The correct scientific name of the White-bellied Heron." p.234-236. for a discussion of why Hume rather than Hodgson or imperialis Baker, 1928 is correct.

• Previously listed as:
• Phylloscopus brehmii (Homeyer) 1871 Errinerung.Ver.Deutsch.Orn.(1870) p.48
• See Svensson L. 2001. "The correct name of the Iberian Chiffchaff Phylloscopus ibericus Ticehurst 1937, its identification and new evidence of its winter grounds." BBOC 121:281-296.
• Svensson argues that P. brehmii is a synonym of P. collybita collybita, and that the correct name for the Iberian Chiffchaff is P. ibericus Ticehurst.
• The type for P. ibericus Ticehurst (BM(NH) 1934.1.5045) was collected near Coimbra, Portugal, 23 May 1920.
• Reaching the same conclusion regarding brehmii vs. iberica, and with more detailed specimen analysis is: Salomon M, Voisin J-F, Bried J. 2003. "On the taxonomic status and denomination of the Iberian Chiffchaffs." Ibis 145(1):87-97. Of some interest in this work, they acknowledge discussions with Dr Svensson, but do not cite his 2001 BBOC paper.

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