Zoological Citation Notes --K

• Peters Checklist 15:231 (= Vaurie 1962) gives the page as "325".
• The CBBM 3:99 (Sharpe 1877) gives the page number as "319".
• My examination of the material online suggests that the correct page is 217 as well as p.325.
• The plate is found in no.3.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for helping me sort this out.

• Peters Checklist 12:332 (= Moreau 1967) gives the date as "1947".
• At the foot of Vol.68 no.5 page 101 where this is described are the words: "Published 25 March, 1948." which I follow.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 15:116 (= Amadon 1962) lists the authority without parentheses, but correctly shows that the original combination was Gracula kreffti.
• H&M 3^rd:653 (through Corrigenda 8) iterates this error, without comment.

• Originally spelled Tetrao kamtschaticus.
• This is rendered correctly in the CBBM 22:60,67, but appears as Tetrao kamschaticus without comment in Peters Checklist 2:26.
• It appears that this spelling has been then followed by many subsequent authors, HBW 2:406, H&M 3^rd:46, and myself until this fault was pointed out by Colin Jones.
• Peters Checklist 2:26 cites the name to "p. 353", though the name does not appear there. The name is found on p.354, though the preceeding page (p.353) has an untitled figure of the bird.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:630 as a subspecies of Zosterops poliogastrus.

• As noted by the IOC World Bird Names 2.0 "Alcippe klossi is split from A.castaneceps (Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0).
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:619 (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).

• As noted by the IOC World Bird Names 2.0 "Kakamega is not a babbler (Cibois et al. 2003); it is sister to Arcantor (Johansson et al. 2008)".

• In an interesting sidelight, The citation as give by Deignan in Peters Checklist 10:391 is a little peculiar. It is given as

  	A[ctinura]. kansiana Godwin-Austen, 1876, Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 45, p.76

  of course this is usually given as the Journal of the Asiat. Soc. of Bengal (see for example Peters Checklist 10:246). This would be of minor interest except for the fact that Deignan almost (I stress almost) exactly reproduces the anomalous entry given in the Richmond Index, where the citation is given as

  	A[ctinura] kansiana  H.H.Godwin-Austen, 1876, Asiat. Soc. Bengal 
  	Journal, Vol.45 Pt.2 no.2, p.76

  Note that in the Richmond Index "Journal" is added at the end of the string, instead of in it's usual position.
• It is probable that Deignan, working at the Smithsonian, took advantage of the Richmond Index, a possibility supported by this finding.
• No mention of the Richmond Index is made in the Introduction to this Volume of Peters. This would hardly be the first (or the last) time that authors have paraded the findings from the Richmond Index as being the results of their own labors and understandings.

• The facts of the matter are as follows:
  1. The description of this taxon in BBOC 1920 Nov. 9th issue 41:12 is in the report of a meeting. The description was preceeded by text reading:

     	Mr. Stuart Baker on behalf of Mr. Robinson also described:--
         Molpastes atricapillus klossi subsp. nov. 
     

     a description and additional information follows, and note is made that Nils Gyldenstolpe collected the type on the 10th May, 1914.
  2. The text is as follows:
  3. Then, a little over a year later, in the Nov. 29th, 1921 issue of the Bull.Brit.Orn.Cl. 42:32 there is an Erratum reading as follows:

     "Erratum. -- Count Nils Gyldenstolpe writes to point out
     that, through an error on the part of Mr. Stuart Baker, his
     description of Molpastes atricapillus klossi was attributed to
     Mr. H. C. Robinson (cf. Bull. B. O. C. xli. p. 12, 1920)."

     .
• I had confusions over authorial attribution here and was helped by Laurent Raty (email 2008.11.08) who pointed out that as this could be interpreted as occuring in the report of a meeting. This issue is addressed by Article 50.2. :

  50.2.Authorship of names in reports of meetings. If the name of a taxon is made available by publication in a report 
  or minutes of a meeting, the person responsible for the name, not the Secretary or other reporter of the meeting, 
  is the author of the name.

  Baker, was a participant in the meeting (not the Secretary, or other reporter) but it may be reasonable to see the issue as one of determining who is "responsible for the name", and it is further reasonable to hold this to be Gyldenstolpe. Though it must be noted that this case does not appear to be specifically the kind of problem intended to be addressed by 50.2

• Treated by Peters Checklist 11:167 (= Traylor 1986) as a subspecies of A. porphyrolaema. and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:561.
• In a published treatment more recent than Peters 1986 (Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.599) the status of this taxon is discussed, and it is interpreted there to be an allospecies. No mention of this interpretation is made by H&M 3^rd.

• Peters Checklist 9:35 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) spells this kollmanspergeri, (with a single "n") which I believe is incorrect, based on the Richmond Index card for this taxon.

• It appear to be clear from Peters Checklist 14:284, as well as from the Richmond Index that the original spelling of this name was:

  kamtschathensis and not kamtschatkensis.

• However, I am told (Normand David (in litt. 2007.04.07) that the author makes correct spelling references in the text to the locale, and also treats other specific epithets correctly. Thus the correction is justified under ICZN Code 1999 32.5.1.

• Not in Peters Checklist 14.
• H&M 3^rd p.751 list this based on Cramp et al., 1994, however the authority is not listed in parentheses. This is an error because the Richmond Index shows that this was described in Cannabina.
• Dr David Donsker informs me (in litt.) that the Cramp, 1994 citation is correct.

• Often (Peters 4:71, H&M 3^rd p.216, HBW 4:589) spelled kangeanensis (with one "g").
• As Oscar van Rootselaar pointed out, the original spelling (which occurs multiple times in the text) is kangeangensis (with two g's). This same spelling is also employed on p.188 for another species name.
• Some may wish to consider "prevailing usage" as supporting the incorrect spelling "kangaensis". I consider the "prevailing usage" of the ICZN 1999 to be a very poor, and poorly thought out idea. But that is not important. If "prevailing usage" is to be invoked here it can be so only on the basis of a published argument with adequate supporting data. To my knowledge, no such published position exists and thus the original spelling is appropriate to use.
• Normand David helpfully points out that the Type list for birds in the Natural History Museum Leiden explicitly indicates that the spelling "kangeanensis" is an error (p.130 of the Type list).

• Spelled Buteo lagopus kamchatkensis in H&M 3^rd:112.
• It is spelled Buteo lagopus kamtschatkensis in the entry in the Richmond Index.
• Peters Checklist 1(2):375 spells the name

  Buteo lagopus kamtschatkensis

  in the main subspecies entry, but

  Buteo lagopus kamschatkensis

  in the citation listing underneath.
• HBW 2:188 spells this Buteo lagopus kamtschatkensis.
• I follow the Richmond Index here. Peters Checklist is internally inconsistent, and H&M 3^rd employs a spelling which, to date, I find nowhere else.

• Cited by H&M 3^rd:490 to Lesson and Garnot
• Cited by the Richmond Index to Lesson alone.
• Zimmer (p.188) notes that some names attributed to plates must be cited to Lesson and Garnot, but it is not clear whether all names that appear on plates from this work must be cited to both authors.
• In my view the authority here; Lesson vs. Lesson & Garnot is uncertain.

• Previously cited to 1996, in which I followed H&M 3^rd:196.
• Thomas Arndt (in litt. 2005.12.04) indicates the correct date is 1995, which is when part 7 of this publication was available.
• The work is unpaginated.

• Authority for this name is given variably to de Sparre or to "G.S.=Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire".
• Edward Dickinson has carefully pursued this matter, and has determined that the earlier convention of crediting de Sparre is supportable. The inclusion of Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire into the mix (though there is confusion about whether it is Isadore or Etienne) results from apparent misinterpretation of the initials "G. S."
• Dickinson's details are in press, and we can be glad that he has cleared up this confusion.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 5:124 as Aglaiocercus kingi (with one -i), and this is followed by HBW 5:659.
• Peters Checklist 5:124 lists the original combination as Trochilus kingi Lesson, though in fact the orginal combination appears to be Ornismya kingii (with a double -i). This apparent error looks to have started with Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 16:137 where Salvin lists "Trochilus kingi" in the synonomy of Cyanolesbia gorgo.
• Zimmer lists "Ornismya kingii Lesson" correctly when he proposes it as the type for Aglaiocercus on p.291 of his 1930 FieldMus.Nat.Hist.Pub.Zool.Ser. 17.

• Dates of Malherbe's Monogr.Picidees are frequently problematic.
• Peters Checklist dates this to 1861, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:318, and HBW 7:477,561.
• Zimmer's discussion of this work, and CWR's unpublished notes on the Dates of Publication make it clear that this material was most probably published in 1860.
• See Monogr.Picidees

• Uncertainties remain regarding the dates of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal. However, while Peters Checklist 4:204 dates this "1851 (1852)" and this 1852 date is followed by H&M 3^rd:242, HBW 5:359.
• In the above works several other taxa from the same Journal and later page numbers are attributed to 1851 (e.g. Garrulax cinereifrons).
• The Richmond cardex lists the date as 1851, with a note "Feb. or later".
• It is not certain when the volume was published, and it may end up being 1852 but until more facts become known, I will list this taxon as published in 1851. If 1852 is to be held as the date of publication, other taxa will need their dates of publication changed accordingly.

• Original orthography was Francolinus Königseggi.
• This is followed by Peters Checklist 2:79.
• HBW 2:498 presents this as Francolinus konigseggi, as does H&M 3^rd:52.
• Bob Dowsett points out that as this is a German word, (for a Hungarian Count) the "ö" should become "oe" to comply with ICZN 1999 Art. 32.5.2.1.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):313 gives the page number as "p.17", an error for p.37
• HBW 2:574 lists the correct page number.

• The entry in Gray's 1869 Hand-list reads:

  1167. MALACOPTERON,  Eyton, 1839.
  
  ...
  
  			a. MALACOPTERON.
  
  ...
  
  1168.			b. KENOPIA. Bl. 1855
  
  4732. leucostigma, Müll.					Borneo, Malac.
  	striata, Bl.; maculatus Eyton.
  	

  The Richmond index interprets the striata & maculatus entries to be Gray's representation of synonyms.
• The type for Kenopia was established by Salvadori in 1874, Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova 5 p.223.
• The Richmond index indicates he can't find a Blyth use of Kenopia in J.As.Soc.Bengal for 1855. Hodgson uses Keropia striata in his list of Nepalese birds, but for a Laughingthrush.
• Bonaparte Consp.Gen.Av. 1850 p.218 has:
• "MYIOTHERA leucostigma, Müll. Mus. Lugd. ex Born."
which seems to be a nomen nudum

Micropsitta keiensis 1876

Peters Checklist 3:168 has 1875; see {Poggi R, 1996}.

Crypturellus kerriae Citation

Peters Checklist 1:32 cites "Bull.Amer.Mus.Novit." (sic)

• Peters Checklist 12:406 has 1885
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1884 and a note "July or later".
• Peters Checklist 3:234 cites Geoffroyus geoffroyi timarlaoensis from p.15 of this work to 1884.

• Peters Checklist 6:201 has 1836, but no plate reference. Remarkably this is correct, though the majority of the other Peters entries for this livraison list "1835".
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} for the plate.
.
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence for 1836.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".
• Why Peters got this date right is an interesting mystery.
• HBW 7:475 (Short & Horne) however revert to the erroneous "1835". This suggests they are not uncritically following the Peters Checklist (which is good), though they replicate other errors from that source.

• Peters Checklist 11:238 has as a subpecies
• See Alstrom, Olsson, and Colston BBOC. 1997. 117:172-193 for a discussion of specific status.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 2:131 as a subspecies.
• Inskipp et al. (Annotated Checklist Birds Oriental Region, 1996) showed that Polyplectron katsumatae of Hainan I. has been treated as a subsp. of P. bicalcaratum without valid reasons and they considered it a good species, distinctive in size and plumage.
• H & M 3^rd ed. treats this as a subspecies.

• See Collar and Pittman for a discussion of the validity of the name and the species.
• Collar NJ, Pittman AJ. 1996. Amazona kawallii is a valid name for a valid species. BBOC. 116(4):256-265.

• Peters Checklist 12:269 (Rand) gives this date as 1884.
• Both Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1885.

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