Zoological Citation Notes --L

• The authority is conventionally attributed to Gould
• The original description can be seen here:PZS 1831 p.12.
  and it states:

   
  	Mr. Vigors exhibited several species of Humming-birds from the collection
  	of Mr. John Gould, one of which, previously undescribed, had been dedicated to Mr. George Loddiges, F.L.S., &c.
  	It approaches most nearly to the Trochilus Lalandei, Vieill., but may be distinguished
  	from that bird... by the following characters: ..."

• The Code states: "...if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act."
• Gould's role here is not "clear": did he attribute the name "loddiges? Clearly he did, given Vigors' attribution. Did he recognize the differences in plumage? Probably he did. Did he prompt the "nomenclatural act" (the publication of this name and description)? This is not clear. In 1831 Gould was emphatically not in the habit of publishing his taxa, and particularly not in serial literature. (His first publication containing new names was, in fact, in 1831, in the book Cent.HimalayanBirds (with an imprint date of 1832). His first publications in PZS were in 1832.
• Thus, my interpretation is that in the abscence of clarity regarding Gould's role, Vigors is the author of the name.

• Conventionally cited to 1889.
• The number in which this appears (no. 187 "Juli") includes a dateline on p.321 of

  	"Hann. Münden, October 1889."

  Also on p.326 is the dateline:

  	"Dresden, den 10  November 1889."

  So the imprint date of "Juli" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
• The first evidence that I know of for this being in existence as a published work is the notice given in the 1891 Ibis p.616 where this number was noted as rec'd at the Zoological Soc. on Jan. 14, 1890.

• Rendered as "lugeus" on p.176, but as "lugens" on p.244.
• Close examination suggests that he "u" in "lugeus" does not appear to be an upside down letter "n".
• On p.244 the name occurs not in a article by Böhm, but in "Bericht über die Januar-Sitzung." with Golz, Schalow, and Cabanis as authors.

• Often cited to Lonnberg and Rendahl.
• The first part of the article in question here states (p.[1]):

  [the collection] was classified and named by LÖNNBERG.
  
        so more formally I would interpret this name to be "Lonnberg in Lonnberg
   and Rendahl", and
        by convention here as merely "Lonnberg".

• Ark. Zool. 14 no.25 p.[1].

• Named by Ripley for Wilmarth S. Lewis (1895-1979), who is now know mostly for his collection and study of Horace Walpole materials. Lewis created, developed and provided endowed support for the Lewis Walpole Library. Located at the site of Lewis's home in Farmington, CT., the library is now part of Yale University.

• If cited to Rev.Zool. the original description can be seen here: Rev. Zool. 1842 p.174.
• Many authors spell the epithet lessoni with a single -i ending. In this they are probably following CBBM 17:324, but not Peters 5:226, which has the correct -ii spelling.
• Cory 1918 in CBA 2 no.1 p.113 renders the original combination incorrectly as "Momotus lessoni" but lists the combination as "Momotus lessonii" (without comment).

• Most frequently spelled incorrectly as "laotinus" (e.g. Peters Checklist III:11; H&M 3^rd:173; HBW 4:202 (1997).
• We will have to see if those who embrace error because of their personal and parochial sense of familiarity will attempt to invoke "prevailing usage" in support of what appears to be a casual and understandable blunder. Desperation may invoke calls for nomenclatural "stability" (which is never defined) in support of a "pet name", wrong as it may be.

• Peters Checklist 12:196 (= Salomonsen 1967) gives the page number for this taxon as "p. 1" while infact it is "p. l" as in lower case "L" - Roman numeral for 50.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
• HBW 13:802 (2008) to their very great credit, have the page number correct.

• Often cited as
  • Peneoenanthe pulverulenta leucura (Gould) 1869 BirdsAustr.Supp. pt5 pl.,text
  as I did previously.
• Colin Jones points out (2010.03.13) that Dick Schodde noted that this name was published essentially simultaneously in two locations, and that Salvadori acted as first reviser in 1881. Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche 2:88 in selecting the Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. nomenclatural act.

• Often spelled leucophoeus, although in the original description the spelling is leucophaea.
• The original combination is spelled correctly in the CBBM 9:200 (= Gadow 1884). Sclater's Syst.Av.Aethiop. 2:681 spells the current combination Speirops leucophaeus, but makes the diphthong look like "-œ-" in the original combination.
• Peters Checklist 12:337 (= Mayr 1967) may have established the current incorrect spelling fad.
• Thanks for Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention, and to Normand David for confirming the appropriate current spelling.

• Previuosly (and conventionally) spelled "leuconotus" though the original spelling is "leuconotos".
• This error may well have started with Sharpe 1890 CBBM 13:413, where the original combination is incorrectly listed as "Ploceus leuconotus".
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Previuosly (and conventionally) listed as:
  • Tachycineta meyeni (Cabanis) 1850 Mus.Hein. 1 p.48
• See Mlikovsky & Frahnert 2009. "Nomenclatural notes on Neotropical swallows of the genus Tachycineta Cabanis (Aves: Hirundinidae)" Zootaxa 2209:65-68. for a discussion of this name.

• Peters Checklist XV:96 (= Amadon 1962) cites this as:

  		Judia Lessoni Pucheran, 1859, Rev.Mag.Zool. (1858), p.259

• The basis for Amadon's belief that this portion of Rev.Mag.Zool. was delayed until 1859 is not clear. Note that no volume number is given in the citation, which suggests the possibility that this citation was taken from CBBM XIII:173, though the citation there is given (without volume number) to 1858.
• So far I do not find this citation in the Richmond Index.
• This name occurs in the "Juin 1858" number, and definite evidence that it was delayed into 1859 would be required to accept that date.

• The authority for bird names in this work is traditionally attributed to William Elford Leach. Probability suggests that Leach is responsible for the names but my reading of the work and of the ICZN Code suggests that attribution solely to Leach does not seem to fully comport with the meaning of the Code. More correctly the authority might be attributed to Leach & Koenig,KD, or possibly to Leach, Koenig,KD & Brown, or less probably Tuckey, Leach, Koenig,KD & Brown.
• Page lxxxii of Tuckey's Narrative (1818) includes the following (note that the bird names are in Appendix 4):

  	The papers, No.2 and 3 in the Appendix, by Doctor
  	Leach, and Sir Everard Home, respecting the parasitic
  	Vermis....
  		The other papers in the Appendix, illustrative of those 
  	subjects in the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms
  	which occurred along the lines of the Zaire, as far, at least,
  	as the materials sent home would admit, were obligingly
  	drawn up by Doctor Leach and Mr. Koenig of the British
  	Museum, and by Mr. Brown, Secretary to the Linnean
  	Society, and Librarian to Sir Joseph Banks; ...

• The relevant portion of the Code is:

  	50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other 
  	than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act 
  	and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, 
  	then that other person is the author of the name or act. 
  	If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the work itself, 
  	then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.

• The "author" of this work is largely Tuckey, though he died well before it was published. The "Appendix" is essentially a separate work with multiple authors as designated in the "Contents" and "Introduction", though responsibility for who did which part is not "clear" from the contents. All in all, attribution of authority is not clear (at least to me) from the wording of the Code.
• Therefore, it seems clear that Leach, Koenig, Home, and Brown are the authors of the Appendices; Leach and Home are designated as the authors of the reprinted material (App.2&3), Brown is designated as the author of the Botanical material, and Leach and Koenig are the authors of the rest -- including Appendix 4 where the new names appear.
• It is reasonable to speculate that Leach is the author of the bird names, but it is only a speculation, and is not clear from the contents of the work alone. Therefor I attribute the authority for these names to the author(s) of the work (i.e. the Appdeniceal material that is not otherwise specified as to author.

• As noted by the IOC World Bird names 2.0 (2009.02): "Cutia legalleni is split from C.nipalensis (Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)".
• H&M 3^rd:617 makes no mention of this (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).

• Originally spelt lopezi.
• H&M 3^rd:580 fn.7 refer to the lopesi spelling as an "emended" name, without comment on whether the "emendation" is justified or not. The opinion is offered that this "emended" spelling is "judged to be in prevailing usage".
• Through Corrigenda 8 (2008) no reference it made to published data in support of this judgement, no indication is made of how this judgement was formed or on what data it is based, and no argument is offered as to why this particular unsupported judgement should be accepted.
• I note and ignore this opinion.
• HBW 11:600,601 uses lopezi and discusses the spelling. The opinion is rendered there (though again unsupported) that "prevailing usage also appears to be heavily in favor of retaining "lopezi" as the correct name.
• In such a situation the only remotely reasonable course, it appears to me, is to use the original spelling.

• Originally spelt lopezi.
• Subsequently Alexander "corrected" this to lopesi and this subsequent spelling has been used by some authors.
• H&M 3^rd:565 fn.3 refer to this subsequent spelling as an "emended" name, without comment on whether the "emendation" is justified or not, and go on to put forward the opinion that this "emended" spelling is "in prevailing usage".
• No reference it made to published data supporting this opinion, and no indication is made of how this opinion was formed.
• I note and ignore this opinion.

• The Peters Checklist 9:61 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) give the original combination as Galerida leautungensis which is incorrect. It was described as Alauda leautungensis.

• H&M 3^rd:539 shows this as a feminine genus group name.
• David & Gosselin. 2008. Dutch Birding 30:19 discuss this and hold the name to be treated as masculine.

• The Peters Checklist 12:216 (= Rand 1967) cites this name as

  	Cinnyris longuemarei Lesson, 1831, Illustr. Zool., pl. 23.

  and the name does occur in that work in the text to pl.23. It is in livr.8 of Illustr.Zool. which most probably was published in 1833 -- a fact probably not known to Rand.
• Gadow (1884) in CBBM 9:115 cites this as:

  	Cinnyris longuemarii Less., Bull.Soc.Nat. XXV. p.242 (1831); id
  		Ill. Zool. pl. 23 (1831).

  . While Gadow gets the spelling of the name wrong, he does note it's presence in Bull.Soc.Nat. -- which it seems Rand did not investigate.
• The name is in Bull.Soc.Nat. 25 on p.342, and published in June of 1831.
• Thus the Peters citation is incorrect, and those who change the date to 1833 (the correct date for Ill.Zool.) are giving the wrong date, and implying the wrong citation.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• H&M 3^rd:515 initially follows the incorrect spelling laurenci -- apparently following Cramp 1994 (not seen). But this is corrected in Corrigenda #3.
• The Peters Checklist 15:281 has the spelling correct.
• Of interest, the CBBM 3:15 (= Sharpe 1877) spells this lawrencii (!) even though it appears that the text of the work indicates that this was named for "Laurence, a late Viceroy of the Panjab" (Richmond Index).
• The only appropriately named fellow I can find, however, is John Laird Mair Lawrence, 1st Baron Lawrence, GCB, GCSI, PC (4 March 1811 - 27 June 1879) an Irishman who became a prominent British pro-consul and imperial statesman. He served as Viceroy of India from 1864 to 1869, having earlier earned the sobriquet "Saviour of the Punjab". He was raised to the peerage as Baron Lawrence, of the Punjaub and of Grately in the County of Southampton.
2013.09.27
• The Richmond Index suggests that Hume's name is spelled both as laurencei and as lawrencei and further that the name is a junior synonym to Severtzov's "1872" name. Severtzov says he suspects that Hume's Corvus lawrencei (his spelling) is his own Corvus subcorax "published in Dec. 1827" (though he doesn't say WHERE it was published).

• I am uncertain exactly which publication has priority for this name. Peters Checklist 15:233 cites "Proc.As.Soc.Bengal, p.106" with no indication of knowledge of any possible uncertainty in the matter.
• The Richmond Index primarily lists "Stray Feathers II, 1874, no.4 June, 1874 p.443" with a note beneath indicating it was read at the meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal on May 18th.
• Given the present uncertainty as to when the relevant issue of the Proc.As.Soc.Bengal was published, I defer to the the June number of Stray Feathers, but subsequent data may support the alternative case.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Henicopernis longicauda (Garnot) 1828 Voy.Coq. Atlas 1 livr.7 pl.10
• My work indicates that the name Falco longicauda Garnot 1828 (or Lesson & Garnot 1828) appears to be preoccupied by Falco longicaudus Wilkes 1805. Richmond Index card.
• The Wilkes name is listed in Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.3639, 1927) and the name is listed in Cassin's 1867 (PANSP) discussion of the Encyc.Lond.
• Wilkes was describing an African bird, and his name was a junior synonym of Falco albescens Daudin 1800, which in turn was junior to Falco albescens Boddaert 1783.
• CBBM 1:341 in the synonomy of Henicopernis longicauda lists "Daedalion longicauda Lesson Traité p.67 (1831)"; this is also listed in Strickland's Orn.Syn. (1855) where that name is listed in the synonomy of Astur longicaudus (p.120).
• Lesson's entry in Traité Orn. can be seen here: Daedalion longicauda Lesson.
• Steven Gregory has helped me greatly in understanding this problem, and points out that absent the listing in Sherborn (and I add in the Richmond Index) no use of Wilkes' name is found -- which renders it a nomen oblitum, so the name remains cited to Lesson & Garnot, and remains as the type.

• For elevation to species status, see Zimmer,KJ. 2008. "The White-eyed Foliage-Gleaner (FURNAIDAE: AUTOMOLUS) is two species." WilsonJ.Orn. 120:10-25.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):300 cites this to p.454 and volume I.
• As Jan Kaiser noted (in litt. 2007.12.15) volume one of this publication includes pp.1-384 so this could not be in "vol. 1".
• The Richmond Index indicates that this is first described on p.377, which would be in vol. I.
• Undoubtedly, the authors of this portion of the Peters Checklist (Stresemann and Amadon) merely copied the citation and did not trouble to check it. The CBBM I:308 may be the source of this erroneous citation. Sharpe gives the citation there as:

  Aquila leucorypha. Pall. Reis. Russ. Reichs.  i p. 454 (1771).

  Sharpe in turn may have attempted (without success) to follow Strickland 1855 Ornithological Synonyms. p. 52, where he has:

  Aquila leucorypha, Pall. Voy. ii. p. 454. sp.5 ...

• Peters Checklist 9:333 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this to "Rev.Mag.Zool." which is an error. This is found in "Rev.Zool.".
• Mayr and Greenway appear to have been unaware of, or confused by the publishing history of these serials. It certainly appears that they did not examine the original materials.
• Of interest, two years (1962) later Mayr & Greenway 15:57 get the citation correct for Sycobius st. thomae which is found on p.109 of this serial.
• Sclater in Syst.Av.Aethiop. II:617 has the citation correct for this taxon, as does Gadow CBBM 8:132.

• I incorporate the interpretations of Collar NJ, 2007. "Taxonomic notes on some insular Loriculus hanging-parrots." BBOC 27(2):97-107.

• Peters Checklist 13:379 (= Storer, 1970) lists the authority in parentheses. However, Hellmayr established the replacement name (lutleyi) in Tangara so no parentheses are needed.
• H&M 3^rd:812 correctly lists the authority without parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 13:60 (= Paynter, 1970) gives the page number as "p. 340" which is demonstrably ridiculous. In this volume, p. 340 is in an article about the Sieve of Eratosthenes and is not by Forster. Presumably, Paynter transposed the digits of p.403, where this description first occurs (it is repeated on p.426).
• The AOU CL, had the citation largely correct from editions 2 thru 5, citing p.426, but with the 6^th Ed. copied Paynter's error.
• The Richmond Index shows the page as "426 (+ 403)"

• Peters Checklist 14:247 (=Howell et al., 1968) cites this to 1852, a date which is not supported by any other authority. Howell et al. are unable or unwilling to provide a rationale for this date, which conflicts directly with other dates for this article given in other volumes of the Peters Checklist.
• H&M 3^rd:751 follows this same dating, without comment.
• Many sources, that evidently were not consulted by the Peters Checklist authors show this date as 1850 -- a date supported by both logic and evidence.

• Peters Checklist 2:333 gives the citation essentially as
  • Sterna hirundo longipennis Nordmann 1835 Verz.ThierenPflanzenReiseErde p.17
• However all the other Nordmann citations from 1835 differ from this. Sherborn's Index Animalium confirms that this bird occurs in the same work as all the other Nordmann taxa, and I list it accordingly.

• Fishpool LDC. 2006. "Is the bulbul Phyllastrephus lorenzi a good species?" BBOC 126(4):310-323. presents morphologic, zoogeographic, and behavioural evidence in support of his argument that P. lorenzi is probably a melanic form of P. icterinus (Bonaparte 1850).
• H&M 3^rd (through Corr. 8 December 2008) has no comment in this issue.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 13:308 with the authority in parentheses, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:819.
• Trudeau described this in Pyranga which is an 1816 Vieillot emendation of his 1808 name Piranga. (See for example Neave Nomenclator Zool.).
• My interpretation is that the authority should not be in parentheses, as apparently interpreted by the AOU CL. (1983 6^th:660; 1999 7^th:579).
• The Richmond Index questions the date of publication for this, 1840 versus 1839, and raises the question that an "author's separate" may have been issued in 1839.
2009.08.01
• This taxon is dated by Peters Checklist 13:308 (= Paynter 1970) to 1839 without comment, discussion, or presentation of evidence in support of this date. This date is also used by the AOU CL (6^th & 7^th), similarly without discussion or comment. Sherborn's Index Animalium lists the date as 1840.
• This portion of the Journal (volume 8 Part I) was Presented to the Academy meeting on May 5, 1840, which does not explicitly support a date of 1839.
• The Richmond Index raises the question of a possible author's separate, which may have been published in 1839.
• However, until the presence of this putative author's separate is demonstrated an argument can be made for using the date 1840 (and thus following Sherborn).
• More work needed.

• H&M 3^rd:769 cites this to 1844, but cites other taxa from the same work (and same page) to 1845.
• The confusion arises from the confused and inconsistent rendering of dates in the Peters Checklist. In this instance Blake (14:147) lists two dates 1844 and 1845 but does not follow the convention of putting one in parentheses.
• It may be that an imprint date of "1844" exists, in which case the string ["1844"] would need to be added to all the citations from this source.
• See AttiSestaRiun.Sci.Ital. for a discussion of this publication.

• The "Glittering-bellied Emerald" is usually refered to as Chlorostilbon aureoventris; I had the citation as:
  • Chlorostilbon aureoventris (Orbigny & Lafresnaye) 1838 Mag.Zool. 8 cl.2 p.28
• Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2006. "Mandatory changes to the scientific names of three Neotropical birds" BBOC 126(3):242-244. note that Trochilus lucidus was used since 1899, and is the valid name for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 11:410 spells this name litoralis (APP note: -t-) and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:443.
• The Richmond Index lists this name as:

  "[Sphenura] littoralis" (APP note: -tt-).

• Murray Bruce confirms (in litt. 2006.08.14) that the spelling in the copy of the original that he examined has one -t- litoralis.

• This original description is remarkably rare, and appears to have been seen by very few of even the most industrious ornithological nomenclaturalists. The laudable and effective efforts of my colleagues at "The Owl Project" have persisted and have a copy of the original description, it is here provided, thanks to their efforts. Strix_uralensis_liturata.pdf

• There may be problems with this name, and it appears that Pyrrhura anaca (Gmelin 1788) may have priority and be the valid name.
• Denis Lepage noted (2006.07.26) that a 1991 publication dealt with the problem of this name, and apparently found the Gmelin 1788 name to be valid and available for this taxon. The publication is:

  Teixeira, D. M. (1991) Revalidação de Pyrrhura anaca (Gmelin, 1788) do
  nordeste do Brasil (Psittaciformes: Psittacidae). Ararajuba 2:103-104. [In
  Portuguese]

• The status of the name will necessitate confirming its availability, whether prevailing usage is an issue, and what disposition of the component subspecies will be appropriate.

• Peters Checklist 12:223 dates this name to 1851.
• This portion of Mus.Hein. has been interpreted as published in 1850, though further research on this point may be of interest.
• Schulze et al. for example, clearly date this to 1851, and it appears that the 1850 interpretation (due I believe to Browning and Monroe) may result from data on a signature date, rather than actual evidence of publication.
• The Richmond Index dates this as 1850, with the "0" crossed out with a "1" over written.

• A very minor, but (possibly) interesting point. Disagreement over the month date of this publication:
  1. Duncan dates Part 1 to June, 1865
  2. CWR dates Malurus leucopterus leuconotus (in Part 1) to May, 1865
  3. Peters Checklist 11:396 (Mayr) to June, 1865 (? suggesting that in this instance he referred to Duncan?
• Richmond also notes that the description was reprinted in July of 1865, in Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. ser.3 16:60.
• Similarly, the Richmond Index dates Artamus melanops (from the same page) to May; Mayr in Peters Checklist 15:164 does not provide a month date for this citation.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the full text of Ledru's description is:

  La faunette à tête noire et à bord des yeux rouge.
  Motacilla leucogastra. (Mus. Paris.)

  I have examined a scan of the original document and confirm that this is correct. [APP 2005.10.08]

• Not surprisingly, there is confusion and uncertainty regarding the citation for this name.
• The citations I have identified are:

  1. Peters Checklist 2:221 :

     Lophotis Reichenbach, Syn. Av., no.3, Gallinaceae, 1848, pl.256, f.2175.
     	Type, by monotypy, Otis ruficrista A. Smith

  2. Neave 2:997 :

     	Lophotis Reichenbach 1848, Synop. Avium, No. 3, [4]. — Aves

  3. The Richmond Index :

     	Lophotis Reichenbach	1848
     	Synopsis Avium, No. III, Feb. 1848, p.[4]
     	Type by monotypy Otis ruficristata.

     [APP: note ruficristata not ruficrista; apparently a lapsus on the part of Richmond, as the Smith name is ruficrista in the Richmond Index, as well as in my facsimile copy of Smith's paper.]
  4. Sherborn p.3671 :

     	Lophotis H.G.L. Reichenbach, Synop. Avium, No. III. Feb. 1848 [4]. — A.
     	

  5. Schulze et al. p.1897:

     	Lophotis [Subg.] ad Otis C.
     	Linné | L. Reichenbach
     	Handb. Orn. — Syn. Av. 
     	nr. 3 p.[6] 1848 II Av. Grall.

     [APP: note p.[6] not p.[4].]
  6. A.B. Meyer in his 1879 Index of Reichenbach's works pp.6,42,123 (index):

     1. Lophotis XXXI

     2. 2175. Lophotis ruficrista Sm. CCLVI. Ras.

     3. Lophotis ruficrista Sm. CCLVI 2175

     [APP: It appears that this may be where Peters got his information. My guess is that the "XXXI"" refers to Reichenbach's use of the name in 1849 in Av.Syst.Nat. where it occurs on pl.XXXI (and with no specific names associated).]
  7. HBW 3:727 :

     	Reichenbach (1848) Syn. Av. 3: 6, pl.256.

     [APP: an interesting combination, looking like a combination of Shulze et al. and Peters]

• The greatest agreement would appear to be found between Sherborn, Neave, and the Richmond Index, though this certainly does not mean they are correct.

• Originally spelled leucocephalos by S.G. Gmelin.
• Peters Checklist 13:8 (Paynter) spells this leucocephala without comment, even though the original spelling is correctly listed. One very likely possibility is that Paynter is following Sharpe Cat.B.Br.Mus. 12:549.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):41 indicate that as this is neither Latin, nor a Latinized word it must remain as originally spelled.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:36 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177 and by HBW 4:221.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:27 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174, and by HBW 4:205.
• 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.

• Conventionally cited to 1878.
• The Bull. #193 of the Smithsonian Institution (p.40) indicates that "the exact date of publication unknown."
• The Richmond Index lists this date as "1879?" and indicates that this number (39) was published in "Jan. 1879?". The rendering of the question mark (?) looks like it might be an exclamation point (!) in one instance, but in others is clearly a question mark.
• Deignan (1961) p.245 dates this to "January? 1879?" and in this would seem to be reflecting the availability of the Richmond Index when he was preparing his Type list.
• I have not seen this number in person, but it appears reasonable to assume that the imprint date is "1878". 1878 has been conventionally used, and the current ICZN rules suggest that it may be required here. Richmond's interpretation, as well as the pattern of publication of the Proceedings, suggest that Jan. 1879 is very much more likely. Historical likelihood, however, appears to be of less interest to the ICZN than "stability", which remains undefined.

• Peters Checklist 3:115 cites the page number as "p.78", and this is followed by HBW 4:612.
• The Richmond Index cites the page number as "p.79", which I follow.

• I am uncertain what the situation is on this taxon. My citation (roughly) follows Peters Checklist 8:166 (Traylor).
• HBW 9:395 (A. Farnsworth & G.M. Langham) feel that the race leucurus is indistinguishable from maritimus.
• The British Museum list of types gives a citation for this name similar to what I use (differing in the representation of the part/volumes of the work).
• W.E.D. Scott in 1900 described Agrriornis leucurus for this bird in BBOC X no.LXXI p.lxiv, evidently in the belief that Gould's namd was a nomen nudum.
• Those are a few of the confusing details I know of. In summary I am confused and uncertain as to the status of the taxon and its nomenclature.

• Peters Checklist 14:49 (Lowrey & Monroe) lists this date as 1877.
• Duncan and CWR show that this portion of the Proceedings was publishd in June of 1876.
• H&M 3^rd:764 lists this as 1877, but it is to be corrected in Corrigenda 3.

• Originally described by Neumann as Diopsitta nobilis longipennis and now held to be in the genus Diopsittaca Richmond. This has understandably created confusion as to whether the authority should be place in parentheses. [HBW 4:426 does not place the authority in parentheses, but H&M 3^rd:196 places the authority in parentheses.]
• However, to date (2004.09.27) there is no evidence that anyone ever erected a genus Diopsitta. If this is true then Neumann's rendering can be regarded as a misspelling or an unjustified emendation. The ICZN Code (1999) 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).

• Certainty in this matter would be aided by examining the original description (not seen).
• In consideration of this problem, Steven Gregory adds useful additional understandings (in litt.2004.09.27):

  I think I can give another twist to this -- 
  the date of Neumann's introduction of the combination "Diopsitta" nobilis
  longipennis (1931) is instructive, in that it is too late to introduce a new
  generic name by means of a new binomen (or trinomen) alone. In other words there,
  presumably, is no 'Intent to differentiate' as defined by Recommendation 13A, nor
  (again presumably) is there the express fixation of a type species as required by
  Art. 13.3.
  
  I would therefore conclude that "Diopsitta" is an incorrect subsequent
  spelling of Diopsittaca and that brackets should not be used.
  
  The caveat is, of course, unless the original paper introducing
  longipennis gives a contraindication to this assessment!

  122. Amazona (psittacus) Lilacina,

		Lesson, esp. nouv.

	Corpore viridi; fronte rubro, sincipite
lilacino; abdomine, tectricibusque inferio-
ribus viridiluteus; speculo igneo super alas
et remigum parte terminali nigro cœruleo.
Gayaquil.

  Le perroquet à occiput couleur de lilas,
appartient à la tribu des Amazones, petite
coupe que Swainson a nommée Chrysotis en
1837, et qui répond à la majeure partie des
Androglossus de Vigors. Les perroquets ama-
zones appartiennent à l'Amérique équatoriale
et celui que nous décrivons ici, vit aux alen-
tours de Gayaquil, sur les rivages de l'Océan
pacifique.
  De perroquet mesure 32 centimètres de 
longueur totale. Son bec a le ruban de son
aréte convexe assez étroit. Il est renflé sur le
côté, et de nuance brunâtre ou de corne, ses
tarses courts et robustes sont noirâtres ainsi
que les ongles.
  La forme du corps ne diffère point de celle
des autres amazones. Les ailes atteignent le
milieu de la queue, et celle-ci est courte et
légèrement arrondie au sommet.
  Le plumage des parties supérieures du &c. &c.

breaks the nexus between the Latin Supplementum and a single issue of the English Supplement II.

	*A little time prior to the publication of the Second Supplement, on finding it very
	inconvenient to confer with my Booksellers so often as I had been accustomed to do, from the
	great distance I then lived from London, I agreed to put the remaining copies of the Seven
	Volumes, then published, into their hands, at a fair valuation; and finding it to be their wish
	that I should form an Eighth Volume, from the additional material I had collected since the
	publication of my first Supplement, I furnished it to them, to be printed at their own cost;
	but not long after, I learned, to my surprise, that instead of 500, the number of copies
	printed of the former Volumes, only 250 were struck off. What end this was to answer was
	known only to themselves, and I think it right to mention the circumstance here, to exculpate
	myself from the blame which has attached to me on that procedure, and which from that
	Volume not being then my property, it was not in my power to prevent.

The details of that matter I understand as follows:

• Major-General Thomas Davies presented a description of the genus Menura and described Menura superba. this was read November 4, 1800, and published in volume VI of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 24 May to 27 May 1802. In this paper he refers to a speciemn sent to Lady Mary Howe as a gift, as well as two specimens in the possession of Sir Joseph Banks, that were apparently subsequently depositied in the British Museum. [Lady Mary Howe, was Lord Howe's wife, Lord Howe is known (among other things) for his defeat of the French Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse in the Battle of the Glorious First of June, 1794, the first major naval battle in the war with revolutionary France. He (Richard) is also the brother of Lord William Howe, whose tactical and strategic decisions enabled British defeat in the American Revolutionary War.] The paper that Davies read on 4 November is appended by an expanded written description from additional specimens. This expanded description is dated 19 June 1801. Whether or not Latham was aware of the paper as read, or the material to be published is currently unknown to me. Davies (understandably) makes no mention of Latham, and Latham makes no mention of Davies, the paper he read, or the publication by the Linnean Society.
• Latham is slightly less helpful regarding the provenance of his specimens. I do not recognize any specimen-source information in the Latin Supplementum; the English General Supplement II gives no provinance for the main specimen described, but he does refer to a specimen in the British Museum (? possible one of the Banks specimens?), and two specimens from "Mr Thompson of Saint Martin's Lane".

[the presence of multiple states of
the English Supplementum II] is evidence that there were at least two issues 
of that work, so breaking the nexus between the Latin Supplementum and a single
issue of the English Supplement II (emphasis added).

[2010.11.25; 2011.01.29]

Additional facts developed in this matter:

• With the help of Laurel Peterson (my daughter) I searched the British Newspapers from 1800 to 1803 using the text strings "Latham" and "birds" (case insensitive), using the Online 19th Century British Library Newspaper Print Data. This resulted in 40 "hits", which we reviewed.

  During this period the very first mention of the General Synopsis is found in the March 29, 1802 issue of The Morning Post and Gazateer (Issue 10445, unpaginated) it reads:

  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  LATHAM'S GENERAL SYNOPSIS OF BIRDS.
  This Day is published, in One Volume, Quarto, with
      Twenty-four elegant Coloured Plates, price 2l. 7s. 6d. in
  boards.
  SUPPLEMENT SECOND, or VOL. VIIIth.
          By JOHN LATHAM, M.D., S.R.S.
      Printed for Leigh, Sotheby, and Son, York-street, Co-
  vent-garden.
      N.B. Any Gentleman possessing the former Volumes,
  may have their Sets completed, by an early application.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

  Again, it must be emphasized that this is the very first notice of publication of this work we were able to find. And of interest this notice does not mention the Latin Supplementum. Presumably this is an oversight, as we know that Latham presented a copy to the Royal Society 3 days later that included the Latin Supplementum. But we thus infer, rather than prove the existence of the Latin Supplementum as a published work on March 29.

• March 29, 1802 (given as "Sunday" by the Gale document, but given as a Monday by the perpetual calendars I have checked) is the Monday immediately preceeding the Thursday when Latham presented a copy to the Royal Society (April 1).
This is the first, but not the only entry announcing this publication. For those who are new to the study of advertisments in early 19th cent. British Newspapers, it should be emphasized that such announcements are often repeated, and indeed, on August 5, 1802 is a similar announcemnt The Morning Chronicle (London, England), Thursday, August 5, 1802; Issue 10362.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LATHAM's GENERAL SYNOPSIS of BIRDS.
This Day is published, in One Vol, Quarto, with 24 elegant co-
	loured Plates, price 2l. 7s. 6d. bds 
SUPPLEMENT SECOND: with INDEX OR-
  NITHOLOGICUS, Continued.  
	By JOHN LATHAM, M.D. F.R.S.
 Printed for Leigh, Sotheby and Son, York ſtreet, Covent-
garden.		Of whom may be had,
 Latham's General Synopſis of Birds, in Eight Vols. in quarto,
complete, with 143 Plates, beautifully coloured, price 11l. 12s.
in boards.
  Latham's Index Ornithologicus, Two Vols. quarto, price 1l
1s. 6d. in boards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This notice explicitly mentions the Latin Index Ornithologicus, and of interest, indicates that it is also available as a distinct 2 vol. work (separate from the General Synopsis). On August 11, 1802 this is repeated. The Morning Chronicle (London, England), Wednesday, August 11, 1802; Issue 10367.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LATHAM's GENERAL SYNOPSIS of BIRDS.
This Day is published, in One Vol, Quarto, with 24 elegant co-
	loured Plates, price 2l. 7s. 6d. bds 
SUPPLEMENT SECOND: with INDEX OR-
  NITHOLOGICUS, Continued.  
	By JOHN LATHAM, M.D. F.R.S.
 Printed for Leigh, Sotheby and Son, York ſtreet, Covent-
garden.		Of whom may be had,
 Latham's General Synopſis of Birds, in Eight Vols. in quarto,
complete, with 143 Plates, beautifully coloured, price 11l. 12s.
in boards.
  Latham's Index Ornithologicus, Two Vols. quarto, price 1l
1s. 6d. in boards.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Also of some interest, this work is first mentioned in the Critical Review or Annals of Literature vol.37 March in 1803. (Articles IX,X,XI [three articles in one] pp.318-327). There (p.319) it states:

  	To the second Supplement, which is accompanied by a
  Supplement to the Index, we now proceed.

  This statement, and the later notices of publication suggest that the Latin Supplementum was available either with the General Synopsis II, or separately. There is some uncertainty as to whether it was a two volume set or one volume set, and there appears to be a discrepancy regarding the price of the Latin Supplementum -- possibly a typographic error in one case or the other. No combination of searching with "Index", "Indicus", "Latham", "Ornithologicus" yeided any notices of pubication earlier than those already found.

  Additional notes regarding Leigh, Sotheby & Son

  • Leigh, Sotheby & Son published (but did not print) this work. I wished to learn something of their pattern of activity during this period, to try to understand what kind of priority this publication had. Leigh, Sotheby & Son were primarily developing their auction/booksale activities and there "publishing" activities were very minimal indeed. During the period 1800 to 1806, other than an auction catalogue, I could find only one other work besides the Latham material that was "printed for Leigh, Sotheby & Son" is "The Wiccamical chaplet", George Huddesford, ed. 1804.
  • This suggests the possibility that for this busy firm, publishing was a very minor part of their buisness, and possibly a low priority.

  [BEGIN OLD NOTES]

  • Conventionally cited in the literature as 1801, but interpreted by Browning and Monroe, 1991 to be 1802. Which I followed until 2003.05.21. At which time I felt the arguments of Murray Bruce (v.i.) were convincing, and that 1802 was speculative without actual supporting evidence provided.
  • Subsequently, upon examination of CW Richmond's unpublished notes on Dates of Publication the following evidence came to my attention. Richmond has a handwritten card that presents the following :

    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Latham, Suppl. Ind. Orn.
     
    dated 1801, But he quotes an article in App. II, 
    of his General Synopsis which is dated 1802,
    it must therefore have been issued later than 1801.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    

  • I have now (2004.02.24) examined the General Synopsis, and have a clearer understanding of the problem, though at the moment a clear resolution is not evident. Similarly it appears I will want to re-examine the work above. Initially I had interpreted the note to mean that "he" (Latham) "quotes an article" (of the Suppl.Ind.Orn.) in the General Synopsis -- but this of course makes no sense with regard to fixing the date for the Suppl.Ind.Orn. I now think the Richmond card means that within the Suppl.Ind.Orn. that Latham quotes an article which is in his General Synopsis. Richmond's thinking then is that if the General Synopsis is dated as published in 1802 (even though many copies bear the imprint date of 1801), then it implies that the Suppl.Ind.Orn. came out at the same time or later than the General Synopsis.
  • I think this argument is not unreasonable, but there is the possibility, that as Latham is the author of both works, he could possibly quote and article of his own, that he had written but that had not yet been published.
  • For the moment, I leave the confused and convuluted notes below I have written on this subject.
  The full facts of the publication history do not appear to be fully resolved with certainty, but my current interpretation is as follows.
  • It appears to be established with a high degree of certainty that at least the English version of this work, was delayed in publication until 1802. I believe it was the discovery of this delay, that prompted Browning and Monroe to revise the date to 1802. Browning and Monroe noted that "some copies of the work" are dated "MDCCCI" and some "MDCCCII" but did not clearly distinguish between the Latin and English versions.
  • The fact that the imprint date of the English version was modified to reflect the delayed publication and that the imprint date of the Latin version shows 1801 argues for its not having been delayed until 1802.
  • If a Latin version of the work was shown have have an imprint date of "MDCCCII" I would revert to the interpretation that 1802 would need to be followed for all taxa cited from the work.
  • Usually cited as 1801, but see Browning and Monroe, 1991. "Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds." Archives of Natural History 18(3):385-386..
  • The Handbook of Birds of the World, (at least in volumes 1-6) continues to list the date as 1801.
  • Murray Bruce offers strong arguments in favor of 1801. (2001.05.11) which I include here:

    [BEGIN M. BRUCE]

    Latham 1801 vs 1802:
    I agree with Browning & Monroe 1991 that the English version of Latham's second supplement to his 'Synopsis' apparently was delayed until 1802, but disagree that the Latin version was "probably available that same year" (my italics).

    Following Art. 21.2 of the Code, with reference to Art. 21.3, the date of publication of the Latin version is specified in the work as 1801 and can be dated to 31 Dec. 1801.

  • • [APP: ICZN "21.2 Date specified. The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the abscence of evidence to the contrary."]
    • [APP: ICZN "21.3 Date incompletely specified. If the day of publication is not specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of publication, but in the absence of such evidence the date to be adopted is
      • 21.3.1 the last day of the month, when month and year, but not day are specified or demonstrated, or
      • 21.3.2 the last day of the year when only the year is specified or demonstrated
      ]
    There is no proof it came out in 1802, only proof indicating a delayed publication of the English version.

    As early as 1787 (introduction to the first supplement) Latham was quite clear that Latin diagnoses of the birds described in his English works needed to be published separately "to be of real utility". His 1790 Index was the Latin version of his 'Synopsis' and first supplement, plus some recent discoveries, notably from Australia. The delayed publication meant Gmelin got the credit for nearly all his new birds in the 'Synopsis'.

    In the introduction to the 1790 Index Latham complained of what Gmelin had done and it is apparent that he reluctantly accepted most, but not all, of Gmelin's names. With increasing competition from other publications, I hardly think Latham would allow himself to have his names usurped a second time. Both versions of the second supplement were clearly intended to be published in 1801 and the easier to produce Latin version would have appeared first, while the English version was delayed (most probably due to the production and printing of plates). I think the English version was the only one announced by the Royal Society because it was more expensive to produce and the publishers were keen for a return on their investment, and also because the source of the Latin names came out after the Latin version.

    The 1801 text is full of new discoveries from Australia, even with competition from others, notably the works of George Shaw, and delays could have cost Latham priority for some of them.

    In my opinion, I don't understand how a date change has been accepted without any proof to justify the change.

    [END M. BRUCE]

  • Additional thoughts from Murray Bruce (2003.05.17):

    A paper I sought to use when working on the bird classification history
    turned up too late.  This is W.L. Sclater's excellent little historical
    overview of early African ornithology published in the Hartert Festschrift
    (J. f. O. 1929).  In a concluding section on Latham he stated: "His first
    work 'A General Synopsis' was issued in three volumes with two supplements
    between 1781 and 1802" and a little later "In a second work 'Index
    Ornithologicus' in two volumes published in 1790 with a supplement issued in
    1801".  This distinction between the two is clearer in older sources and I
    think the confusion for some has been because they were often bound together
    and obviously connected by subject.
    
    

  • Murray Bruce has continued to send additional arguments and indications in favor of 1801 contra 1802, and on long reflection I remain undecided (2003.05.17). The ICZN Code certainly does not seem to settle the case. A literal reading of the Code would suggest that any evidence against the specified publication date, would render that date invalid irrespective of the quality or character of the evidence.
  • As I see it, in the abscence of proof that both the Latin, and the English versions of the Supplement were delayed until 1802, it is appropriate to defer to the imprint date of 1801. The probability that both Latin and English versions were delayed until 1802, given only that we know for sure that the English version was delayed, can not be established, and the imprint date.
  [END OLD NOTES]
  • Of possible interest, but uncertain application in this issue comes the following understanding from Gaskell P. 1995. "A New Introduction to Bibliography". Oak Knoll Press. Delaware. on p.317-318 he notes.

    'The Rule in general observed among Printers,' wrote Nichols concerning 
    eighteenth-century practice, 'is, that when a Book happens not to be
    ready for publication before November, the date of the ensuing year is
    used.'

    ref. Nichols, J. Literary anecdotes, London 1812, iii, p. 249 n.

• Split from C. tyrannina by: Bierregaard, R. O.,Jr., Cohn-Haft, M. and Stotz, D. F. (1997) "Cryptic biodiversity: an overlooked species and new subspecies of antbird (Aves: Formicariidae) with a revision of Cercomacra tyrannina in northeastern South America." Orn.Monogr. 48: 111-128.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.
• Spelling is a confusion here. Originally spelled by Smith as given here.
[[2010.07.11]
• I have not seen a copy of the extremely rare original publication by Smith. The evidence for this original spelling is as follows:
  • The Richmond Index card (based most probably on examination of the original material): Richmond Index card Perdix levalliantoides
  • The Osbert Salvin 1880 reproduction of the original description: Rep.Exped.Centr.Afr. p.55. I also note, that in the index of Salvin's work the spelling is changed to "levaillantoides", as seen here: Salvin's Index to Smith's work
  • The original spelling has certainly been in use, for example see Richmond Index card Francolinus levalliantoides wattii MacDonald 1953
  ]
• Spelt levaillantoides, understandably, in many locations.
• My interpretation is that levaillantoides is an unjustified emendation. Not all agree with this.
• This is an example of a name which might be approached by the ICZN Prevailing Usage "concept". If so, this should be fun to watch. Prevailing usage is defined as

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

  So it needs to be established and presented
  1. That the "authors" in question are "published"
  2. That the proposed authors "concerned" with the taxon.
  3. That they are the "most recent"
  4. That their number constitutes a substantial majority (which in itself is undefined, but clearly a simple majority will in no way suffice -- if it had they would have used that explicit terminology).
• I presume that these data will require formal presentation and publication, and that simply the "considered opinion" or "estimation" of some concerned individual would not suffice.
• This barrier is sufficiently high, that for birds (at least) it is tantamount to establishing "original spelling" as the requirement.

2013.04.06
• Another, deeper problem exists with this name. The nominate (Scleroptila levaillantoides (A. Smith) 1836) is junior to one of the component supspecies (Scleroptila levaillantoides gutturalis (Ruppell) 1835) which it seems should be the nominate form.
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for pointing out this issue that was raised in Birdforum.

• Peters, Sherborn, and Richmond, et al. 1992 list this as 1840.
• However {Richmond, et al. 1992} card for [Haematornis] luteolus which is published on p.354 notes "Publ. in 1841". So I interpret this date as 1841 as well.
• Shulze et al. Band 3 lief. 13 p.1764 lists the date for this taxon as "1840 [1841]", indicating an imprint date of 1840 and a publication date of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 8:296 lists this as "p.156".
• {Richmond, et al.} indicates it is col.156.

• Peters Checklist 2:344 gives 1849 as it is usually cited.
• Mathews, 1925 demonstrates this is 1852.

• Peters Checklist 3:121 lists 1810.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Reichenow's name is usually not enclosed with parentheses (see Peters Checklist 15:181) but this was originally placed in Chlamydodera.
• Chlamydodera however, appears to be an emendation of Chlamydera Gould, which is Gould's emendation of Calodera Gould (preoccupied).
• However, the issue is (in my mind) still in question, as:
  1. The portion of Birds of Australia where Gould erects his emendation "Chlamydera" is (according to the Richmond Index) "suppressed".
  2. There is a Chlamydodera in Agassiz's Nomen. Zool. Index 1846, which is an emendation pro Gould's Chlamydera.

• Peters Checklist 10:16 (Ripley) has "leucophrys Temminck, 1827, Pl.Col., livr. 76 pl.448, fig.1". But as Dickinson points out, the same plate is refered to as livr.75 by Deignan in the same volume on pp.293,309
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, and {Sherborn, 1902} indicate the name is "leucophris".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75)".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, demonstrating that the "74" is most likely a misprint for 75.
• Livraison 75 makes the date 1828 rather than 1827.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.52-53'

• Peters Checklist 6:187 gives 1870.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} gives 1871, indicating it was published 15 Jan.
• HBW 7:486 (Short & Horne) give 1870, evidently following the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 7:70 does not include the figure and number information, which I take from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 9:179 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:344 has 1840.
• See {Zimmer, 1926}.

• Peters Checklist 2:173 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 12:7 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996.}

• Uncertainty remains regarding the publishing history of this work.
• Peters Checklist 6:189 has 1803.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists this taxon as published in 1802
• Mathews lists all of Vol.1 as 1802
• {Zimmer, 1926} indicates that at least some of Vol. 1 was published in 1802.
• HBW 7:483 (Short & Horne) give "1803", and in this they most probably are simply following Peters Checklist.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol. 4.
• Often placed in Oxylophus.
• Dr R.B. Payne in HBW vol.4 does not recognize Oxylyphus.

• Peters Checklist 15:235 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The Peters Checklist 2:259 does not include reference to the plate.

• The Peters Checklist 1:417 has 1837, which agrees with Sherborn.
• However {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates a date of Jan.1 1838, which I follow here.

• Peters Checklist 1:262 gives a different title for the source.
• H&M 3^rd:83 cites this to 1853, but cites another genus (Nipponia) on the preceeding page of H&M (p.82) and from the very same page of Reichenbach's work to 1850(!).
• I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}, and Zimmer, and other authors who recognize that lifr. 3 of this work (containing the names) was issued in 1853.

• Peters Checklist 5:126 has 1838.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has "publ. 1839".
• This occurs in no.12 (for Dec. 1838). Regarding the December numbers of the Rev.Zool. it is certain that some of these were not published until the year following the imprint date, and it is possible that the December numbers were never published in the imprint year.

• Peters Checklist 1:231 lists the page as 33
• It is species 33 and is on unnumbered page 189.

• Peters Checklist 4:35 includes only p.22.
• The additional page is referenced in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 8:73 has 1883.
• This latter part of the Proceedings was not published until 1884 according to the Richmond Index, and also subsequently determined by Duncan.
• While other taxa from this part of the PZS have been corrected from 1883 to 1884 in the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 (e.g. Carduelis siemiradzkii H&M p.750), Lophotriccus is not corrected.

• Peters Checklist 5:64 has 1867, as do the AOU Checklists.
• All pages of this volume of the Proceedings prior to p.113 were published in 1867. Part 4 (p.113 to end) were recieved by the Entomological Society of Philadelphia prior to May 11, 1868.
• Therefore I interpret 1868 to be the likely date, though 1867 is not impossible. (Part 3 was received by the Smithsonian on Nov. 1, 1867.)

• Peters Checklist 14:176 conisders this to be synonymous with militaris.

• Peters Checklist 9:415 has 1818.
• Vol.34 of this work was published in 1819, according to the researches of Richmond and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 9:263 transposes the numbers in indicating the page numbers ("p.238" for p.328), and lists the publication year as 1856.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Philadelphia Academy has confirmed for me the page number, and that this portion of Vol.7 was published and available in 1855.

• Not in Sibley and Monroe as a species.
• Listed in Peters Checklist Vol.1 as subsecies.
• See Dove and Banks. 1999. A Taxonomic study of the Crested Caracaras. The Wilson Bullentin 111(3):330-339. for a discussion of Caracara taxonomy, and the recommendation for elevation to species status.
• Often misspelt C. lutosus (for example in AOU CL, Dove & Banks, 1999 and HBW vol.2 p.250) However, corrected to C. lutoa, in the supplement to the Checklist Auk 117(3).

• By one interpretation, this taxon is regarded as the same as Seicercus soror Alstrom & Olsson 1999 Ibis 141 p.556-557.
• The publication Martens, Eck, Packert & Sun, 1999 Zool. Abhandlungen Staatliches Mus. fur Tierkunde Dresden 50, 281-327 ( The Golden-spectacled Warbler Seicercus burkii - a species swarm (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae) Part 1). appeared several days before that of Alstrom & Olsson and proposed at least 6 species in the S. burkii complex (incl. S. soror): distinctus, valentini, omeiensis, soror (under the name "latouchei"),whistleri, burkii.
• However, the taxonomic and systematic considerations are not equivalent between Martens, et al., and Alstrom and Olsson. Further resolution of the issue may occur, but the most complete consideration at this time (2000.10.07) is the letter to Ibis by Alstrom and Olsson "Golden-spectacled Warbler Systematic" Ibis 2000. 142:495-500. They hold S. latouchei to be a subspecies of S. valentini.

• Treated as a full species by J.P. Carroll, in: Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2, J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (eds.), Barcelona, 1994

• Extinct. The last known specimen of this species was taken on December 12, 1878 in Elmira, New York.

• The AOU Checklist 42^nd supplement changes the spelling of three specific epithets of chickadees that were in Parus and are now in Poecile.
• It appeared to me that this name should perhaps be "lugubra".
  Hoever, as Armand David pointed out to me:

  " the -is ending never changes to -a; the -is ending is masculine as well as feminine, and the -e ending in neuter.

• A confusing situation:
• The type of the name perlata is an immature of:
  • Pyrrhura rhodogaster (Sclater,PL) 1864 PZS p.298 pl.24
• making that name a junior synonym of P. perlata.
• The form previously known as P. perlata now becomes P. lepida.
• Originally described by Wagler in Sittace

• Most often spelt "lumachellus".
• Prof. K. L. Schuchmann argues that the original spelling "lumachella" "comes from Italian and thus [is] invariable in scientific nomenclature." HBW 5:660.

• Described in Scops
• Peters Checklist 4:98 has as a subspecies of Otus bakkamoena
• Sibley & Monroe treat this as a "group".
• HBW 5:158 holds it to be a species, predominantly on the basis of vocalizations.

• Originally described in Srix [sic].
• Held by Peters Checklist 4:99 to be a subsepcies of O. bakkamoena.
• Held by Sibley & Monroe to be a species, then moved to "group" status in the Supplement.
• Held by HBW 5:158 to be a full species, evidently predominantly on the basis of vocalizations.

• This taxon was spelt "leuconotus" by Eyton (who also is the author of the genus).
• This spelling is correctly given in the HBW 1:577 in their "taxonomy" listing.
• However, the name is spelt "leuconotos" two lines above this in the species listing.
• The nominate subspecies is listed as T. l. leuconotus.
• I do not find discussion of the spelling, or justification for change in the text.
• The "Errata" (tipped in separate leaf, dated Barcelona, March 1993) discusses other issues on this page (p.577) but not this.
• I interpret this to be an editorial lapsus; if not it would appear to me to be an unjustified emendation.

• Previously listed as:
• Lorius Boddaert 1783 TablePlanchesEnlum. p.42
• However, the Vigors name is the officially listed name for the Genus by the ICZN, the Boddaert name evidently suppressed in a 1970 decision. (ref. N.J. Collar in HBW 4:348).

• Brown DM, Toft CA. 1999. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Cockatoos (PSITTACIFORMES: CACATUIDAE). AUK 116(1):141-157. argue that this perhaps should be returned to the monospecific genus
• • Lophochroa Bonaparte 1857 Compt.Rend. 44 :537

• HBW 4:240 gives 1823.
• Zimmer indicates the date for this livraison is 1822.

• HBW 4:241 gives 1825.
• Zimmer indicates the date for this livraison is 1824.

• Listed as 1856 by Peters Checklist 14:374.
• This is in the second volume of the work with an imprint date of 1856. 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).
• HBW and Peters usually list taxa from this volume as 1856 or 1857.

• HBW 1:428 gives Montagu as the author of this taxon, as does (I am told) the recent Heron Handbook.
• Montagu was given as the author by the AOU CL 4^th ed. (1931), and changed to Rackett in the AOU CL 5^th ed. (1957), and has remained so in subsequent editions.
• Peters 1(2):243 also lists Rackett.
• No mention of the issue of authorship is made in HBW.
• I presume that the AOU changed from Montagu to Rackett on the basis of some positive information, and thus I follow the AOU here.
• Alan Knox; Historic Collections; University of Aberdeen King's College; Aberdeen very helpfully provided more information on this (in litt. 2006.06.02).
  Twenty-eighth Supplement to The American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds. Auk 70 (1953): 359-361.

  Botaurus lentiginosus, formerly accepted as based on Ardea lentiginosa
  Montagu, Suppl. Orn. Dict., 1813 (preface dated June), not paged, is now taken from
  the earlier description by Rackett of the same specimen: Ardea lentiginosa,
  in Pulteney, Cat. Birds, Shells, and some of the more rare Plants of Dorsetshire,
  second edition (enlarged), May, 1813, p. 14. (Parish of Piddleton, Dorsetshire,
  England.) The name will be cited as Botaurus lentiginosus (Rackett), with the
  reference as given above. See Macdonald and Grant, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, vol. 71,
  no. 5, June 22, 1951, p. 30.

• In turn, Macdonald and Grant's 1951 paper shows that the problem turns upon establishing priority for the two publications. Macdonald and Grant indicate that internal evidence suggests Montagu's work has priority, other evidence suggests that Rackett's work was published first.
  1. Rackett's work states (p.14)

     Mr Montagu has obligingly communicated the
     description of this new species.

     and he refers to Monatgu's "Supplement"
  2. However, the fly leaf of the copy of Rackett's work that is held in the library of the Linnean Society has an inscription in Rackett's handwriting, dated "May 24th, 1813".
  3. The Introduction to Montagu's work is dated June 1813, so it appears Rackett's work has priority.

• Authorship often attributed to Kaup. As in Peters (1940) 2:279 and AOU CL 7^th(1998):176.
  • Lymnocryptes Kaup 1829 Skizz.Entwick.-Gesch.Europ.Thierw. p.118
• HBW 3:491 gives the Boie citation, as does Sherborn.
• The Archives of the Academy of Natural History in Philadelphia contain a letter from CWR to Witmer Stone (1927.04.23) in which he points out that the Boie citation is earlier than the Kaup.
• The Boie citation is listed in the 1931 AOU 4^th Checklist (p.111). It is of some interest that Peters cites Kaup, almost 9 years after the AOU CL, and makes no mention of the Boie citation.
• The AOU CL 5^th(1957):180 changes to the 1829 Boie citation without comment, and this is continued in the AOU CL 6^th(1983):204.
• Lymnocryptes does not seem to appear in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. Presumably the change in the AOU CL 4^th resulted from following Peters Checklist.

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

  "leucoryn. LANIUS niger, rostro pectore abdomine uropygioque
            albis.
          Lanius manillensis. Briss. av. 2. p. 180. t. 18. f. 2.
            Aub. misc. t. 9. f. 1.
          Habitat in Manillis.
          Cauda aequalis."
  

• See MantissaPlant. for a discussion of the significance of the period following the specific epithet.
• Peters Checklist (Mayr) 15:161-3 has the following (selected appropriate entries):

  "Artamus leucorhynchus leucorhynchus (Linnaeus)
          Lanius leucoryn[chus] Linnaeus, 1771 ... .
  
          Artamus      leucoryn. macroterus Oberholser, 1932 ... .
  
  ?Artamus leucorhynchus amydrus Oberholser
          Artamus leucoryn amydrus Oberholser, 1917 ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus humei Stresemann
          Artamus leucorhynchos humei Stresemann, 1913 ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus celebensis Bruggermann
          Artamus leucorrhynchus (L.). var. celebensis Bruggermann, 1876 ...
  ... .
  ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus leucopygialis Gould
          ... .
          ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus parvirostris Hartert, 1899 ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus harterti Mathews, 1912 ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus melvillensis Mathews, 1912 ... .
  
  ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus tenuis Mayr
          Artamus leucorhynchys tenuis Mayr, 1943 ... .
  
  ... ."
  

  We have:

  • leucoryn. Linnaeus 1771
  • leucorrhynchus Bruggemann 1876
  • leucorhynchus Hartert 1899
  • leucorynchos Stresemann 1913
  • leucoryn Oberholser 1917
  • leucoryn. Oberholser 1932
  • leucorhynchus Mayr 1943
  • leucoryn[chus] Mayr (pro Linnaeus) 1962
• If the name "leucoryn" 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 of the period "." at the end of the name in the original publication (see Mantissa Plantarum details).
• If some some argument exits why Linnaeus intended a longer name, there must be evidence why he had the extension "-chus" rather than "-chos" in mind, and why he did not intend longer names for others he published.
• However, the ICZN has held in Opinion 2455 that mascarinus is a valid emendation of "mascarin." as the name was originally published.

Lophornis Nomenclature

Normand David writes an explanatory note (2001.04.28):

Lophornis spelling

The Greek noun ornis [bird] is masculine as well as feminine (Liddell & Scott 1996, Greek-English Lexicon). Accordingly, names ending in -ornis do not end in a transliterated Greek word of fixed gender (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.2), but end in a word of common gender (ICZN 1999, Arts. 30.1, 30.1.4.2). ICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.2, Examples) stated that "Ichthyornis, ending in -ornis (ornis), is masculine", but examples "do not form part of the legislative text of the Code" (ICZN 1999, Art. 89.2). Actually, Ichthyornis Marsh, 1872, is masculine because it was established in combination with dispar (a Latin adjective not indicative of a particular gender) not because it ends in -ornis.

A name that is or ends in a Latin or Greek word of common gender is feminine only when it is established in combination with one or more feminine Latin or latinized adjectives; it must be treated as masculine in all other situations (ICZN 1999, Arts. 30.1, and 30.1.4.2).

Indeed, Anthornis Gray, 1840, which was established in combination with the feminine latinized adjectives melanura and caeruleocephala, is presently treated as feminine (as per Peters 1964, etc.), and Torreornis Barbour & Peters, 1927, which was established in combination with the feminine Latin adjective inexpectata, is also treated as feminine (as per AOU 1998, etc.).

Therefore:

Lophornis Lesson, 1829, was established without a name in combination [Lesson listing seven species names in combination with Ornismya], and is thus MASCULINE.

Consequently HBW 5 has the correct spellings for the adjectival names combined with Lophornis.

--------------------------------------------------
Normand David, Directeur general
Association quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues
4545 Pierre-de-Coubertin
C. P. 1000, Succ. M
Montreal, Qc
H1V  3R2

• N.J. Collar HBW 3:263 spells this man's name "Le Mahout".
• I understand this man to be Emmanuel Le Maout [1800-1877].
• He is listed as "Le Maout" in the Catalogue of the Books of the British Museum, and his name is spelt "Le Maout" on the title page of works such as:

  Le Maout, Emmanuel & Joseph Decaisne: Traité général de botanique descriptive et analytique. Première partie: abrégé d’organographie, d’anatomie et de physiologie. Deuxième partie: iconographie, description et histoire des familles. Paris, F. Didot, 1868, 1. ed., pp. x, 746, 5500 engraved text-illustrations by Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil and Alfred Riocreux, small folio (217 x 314 mm).

• I agree with the suggestion that the spelling "Le Mahout" most probably results from the inadvertant result of "spell-checking".

• Separated from its allospecies P. ruficeps on the basis of facial markings, belly color, and song.
• Type Location: Peru, Departmento Amazonas, 3.5 road mi. (5.63 km) SE of Corosha. 6900 ft.

  Corosha

• Originally spelt "Lipangus" by Boie.
• Peters Checklist 8:293 (Zimmer) includes a note indicating
  • 'The cited classical derivation, "λιπαυγσς = splendore deficiens," indicates a correctible error. -- J.T.Z.'
  • The subject of "correctible errors" is not inappropriate here, as the Greek orthography in this volume of Peters appears to have been a challenge for the M.C.Z. press. Their rendering of the Greek appears problematic on two accounts.
    • The attempt at the Greek letter υ looks clearly like the use of a lower case Gothic "u" to appear υ-like.
    • Even accepting the attempt at rendering the upsilon, the word appears to be spelled incorrectly -- as written it ends in two sigma's, the usual sigma and the final sigma. The Greek word in fact is λιπαυγης [=deserted by light, dark, sunless; blind] In the Richmond Index, this is rendered λιπαυγος
• The Richmond index cites Cabanis Arch. fur Naturgesch. 1847 Band I p.233 (footnote) for the initial emendation.
• Normand David has investigated this matter further and writes (2005.12.09):

  
  I had the opportunity to take a look at Boie 1828 (Isis, p. 318)
  
  The original is Lipangus [sic], with a footnote that reads: "Lipangos, splendore
  deficiens". Lipangos is written with Greek letters. The difference between "n" and "u" is slight
  but visible. The Greek word "lipangos" does not exist, but there is the adjective lipanges
  [dark, deserted by light; =the Latin splendore deficiens/lacking light].
  
  Is the error correctible under 32.5.1? Meaning that we have an inadvertent error as indicated by
  internal information in the OD. A purist would say that Lipauges should be the correct
  form of the genus. Others would argue that Boie thought that lipaugos was the classical
  Greek form, that he latinized correctly,  but inadvertently with "n" instead of "u" both in
  Greek and in Latin.
  
  One thing for sure, if the spelling Lipaugus is not accepted as a justified emendation of
  "Lipangus", it is an unjustified emendation in prevailing usage.
  
  Note that the name is cited Lipaugus Boie 1828 -not Lipaugus Cabanis 1847
  (33.2.3)-; and now, under 33.2.3.1, when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage AND is
  attributed to the original author and date, it is deemed to be a justified emendation!
  
  Well, as far as I can SEE,  Lipaugus it is, no matter how!
  ND 

• Peters 8:293 (Zimmer) lists "p.318.
• This work is cited by columns; there are two per side of a (physical) page.

• Peters 8:267 (Zimmer) lists "p.931.
• This work is cited by columns; there are two per side of a (physical) page.

• Peters Checklist 2:191 gives a date of 1868.
• HBW 3:157 (PB Taylor) gives a date of 1868.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1869.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives March 1869.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:89, AOU CL 7^th ed. p.17, HBW 1:251, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool.Bijdr.Leiden 40:1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

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