Zoological Citation Notes --M

• Conventionally cited as (Lesson,RP) 1830 Cent.Zool.[Lesson,RP] p.33 pl.7 O.D.
• However, Benjamin Lamb, who recently bought a copy of the Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie (Ferussac.), noted that this publication contains a summary of the the first two livraison of Lesson's Centurie Zoologique, and is held to have appeared before Lesson's livraison. For this reason Ferussac's Bulletin is given as the citation for Lipaugus ater which appears on the same page as Cacicus montezumae.
• I am unaware of any arguments that would support the date and citation for one but not the other.

• In Systema avium Austr. p.771 where this genus is erected, Mathews references Bull.Br.Orn.Cl. 45:93 1925 as the citation.
• Not for the first or the last time is Mathews' active imagination at work. The name is not to be found there. (v.i.)
BBOC page cited by Mathews. BHL image

• Antigone Reichenbach 1852 is recently proposed as a genus group name to deal with the paraphyly identified in Grus. (See Krajewski, et al.; Auk 127:440-452 & NACC 2016-C4)
• However Antigone was used by J.E. Gray (1847) in a list of molluscs. PZS 15:184
• Iredale (1911) discussed the possible use of Antigone, and proposed Mathewsia with the type Ardea rubicunda Perry 1817. (Iredale's 1911 BBOC article can be seen here: BBOC 27:47)
• However, in 1914 (Austral.Av.Rec. 2 no.5 p.81) Iredale noted that a Coleopteran genus "Mathewsia" had been erected in 1868, and he proposed a replacement name Mathewsena with the same type. The 1914 Austral.Av.Rec. article can be seen here: AAR1914_81 & AAR1914_82
• Wolters (1982) lists Mathewsena as a subgenus of Grus.
• I presume the gender here is feminine.
• In the NACC proposal to use Antigone I do not find any discussion of the molluscan use of the name, or of Iredale's proposed use of Mathewsena

• Bonaparte first (1856) used "major" as one of two variants of Pagodroma nivea. In Consp.Gen.Av. II:192 major and minor are simply listed as "a." and "b." with no description. In C.R. Acad.Sci. 42:768 Bonaparte lists only Pagodroma nivea and does not include the "major" and "minor" forms.
• Schlegel (1863) in Mus.Hist.Pays-BasRev.Meth.Crit.Coll. livr.4 no.22 Procellariae p.15,16 listed components of Procellaria nivea including Bonaparte's major, and here includes measurements and specifying descriptive features.
• I interpret Schlegel as using this name as a subspecies within Procellaria nivea, and being the first to meet the requirements for a valid description. Therefore, I list the authority in parentheses.

• Cited by Peters CL XIII:92 to "p. 2", and this pagination is also given in HBW 16:813.
.
• In this volume, the first page with text (and containing the beginning of the description) is p.3

• In J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc. 28 no.2 Ticehurst spells the name mesopotamiae and in referring to the original description, notes: "By a printer's error spelt mesopotamia."
• My interpretation is that this satisfied the requirements of ICZN 33.2.1.

   
  	"A change in the original spelling of a name is only to be interpreted as 
  	"demonstrably intentional" when in the work itself, 
  	or in an author's (or publisher's) corrigenda, there is an 
  	explicit statement of intention, or when both the original 
  	and the changed spelling are cited and the latter is adopted in 
  	place of the former, or when two or more names 
  	in the same work are treated in a similar way."

• Clearly spelled medianns in the original description, as seen here: Pseudocolaptes boissonneautii medianns Original Description
• The current spelling (medianus appears to be adopted on the basis of James Peters' (reasonable but unsupported) interpretation that this is a typographic error. (ref. Peters Checklist 7:121).

• Usually dated to 1853 (the year number for volume 26).
• Page 296 of no.4 of that volume indicates that the publishing date is 9 Feb 1854. This is, of course, an old style date, the new style date would be 28 Jan 1854.

• For resolution as Amazona mercenarius, see

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

• Usually cited to Dresser alone, but on p.[xxiii] it is made clear that the editor made an error by leaving Salvadori out of the authority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Previously as
  • Aratinga pintoi Silveira, LF, De Lima, FCT & Hofling,E 2005 Auk 122 FrontCover,backofFrontCover,p.293,294
• See Nemesio A & Rasmussen C. 2009. "The rediscovery of Buffon's "Guarouba" or "Perriche jaune": two senior synonyms of Aratinga pintoi Silveira, Lima & Höfling, 2005 (Aves: Psittaciformes) Zootaxa 2013:1-16 for a discussion of this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 14:42 (= Lowery 1962) gives the page number as 222, however the name and diagnosis first appear on p.219 in the key.

• Usually referred to as Kaupifalco monogrammicus meridionalis
• The original description can be seen here: Micronisus monogrammicus var. Merid. Original Description
• As Hartlaub states that he thinks this is a "southern local race", it is understandable that the interpretation has been made that "Merid." quite probably stands for "Meridionalis". Probable, but not certain.
• The ICZN has dealt with other names presented in an "abbreviated" form, for example Psittacus haematod. which is dealt with in Declaration 82 (1957 [not seen yet]. In that instance they establish "haematodus" as the specific epithet.
• This is particularly important as there are other names in apparently "abbreviated form" that are not explicitly dealt with by the ICZN. This suggests to me that unless names in abbreviated form are specifically and particularly dealt with by the ICZN, then the abbreviated form must be used in the abscence of action by the Commission.
• It is possible, I suppose, that Declaration 82 makes a broader statement regarding treatment of names in apparently abbreviated form, but since the "haematod." case was dealt with so specifically, I think this is unlikely.
• It is possible, that there could be a "first reviser" type situation for names in abbreviated form.
• From Bob Dowsett I learned [2009.08.06] that both "merid" and "meridionalis" have been used in the Afroavian literature.
• It would appear to me that the burden of proof lies on those who wish to use spelling other than that originally employed.

• Peters Checklist 14:353 (= Mayr 1962) gives the original combination as Aegintha temporalis minor. This is incorrect, it was originally proposed as a binomen Æ[gintha] minor.

• Conventionally cited to 1863.
• This is contained in the signature comprised of pp.289-304, and the acknowledgment of the signature that preceeds this one (pp.273-288) was acknowledged as received at the Amerinan Philosophical Society on 27 January, 1864. Hence I date this to 1864.
• Thanks to Roy McDiarmid for his work on working out the dating mysteries of this serial, and thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this problem to my attention.

• Steinheimer 2005 "The nomenclature of Eduard Rüppell's birds from north-east Africa." BBOC 125(3):193-194,210, discusses the nomenclature of this name, and correctly points out that modern authors all apparently overlooked this description by Rüppell.
• These modern authors also overlooked Richmond's having recognized and recorded Rüppell's publication of this taxon in his Card Index.

• The original orthography of this name appears to have been "mjöbergi.
• Peters Checklist 11:345 (= Mayr 1986) lists the subspecific epithet as mjoeberi
• H&M 3^rd:694, and HBW 11:137 spell the epithet as "mjobergi".
• I believe the "mjobergi" orthography is correct, as this is named after Dr Eric Mjöberg (1882-1938) who was Swedish, and not German. He was the curator of the Sarawak Museum in Borneo from 1922-1924, and was notorious for his unethical treatment of aboriginal materials in his attempt to prove a "Darwinian" theory of human evolution.

• Peters Checklist 10:107 (= Ripley 1964) cites this as

  	Muscicapa maura Pallas, 1773, Reise versch. Russ. Reichs, 2 p.428.

• Sherborn's Index Animalium gives no such citation, but lists Motacilla maura from p.708
• The Richmond Index has a card for Motacilla maura Richmond Index Card Motacilla maura that says this same bird is called "Muscicapa" maura on p.428, and note that the locality on p.428 ("swampy plains about Ischim river") correlates with the text in Peters 10:107.
• Ripley apparently was unaware of, or chose not to indicate the citational confusion here.

• Peters Checklist 10:176 (= Ripley 1964) dates this to 1902, suggesting he did not consult Zimmer 1926.
• Subsequent authors (H&M 3^rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8); HBW 10 (2005)) appear to simply follow the Peters Checklist.
• The Richmond Index, and Zimmer (1926) make it clear that this portion of the work was published in 1900.
• The spelling is often changed to "melanoplurus", however I understand that Normand David has determined that In this particular case

   the name is not a Latin or latinized word, but
  transliterated directly from the Greek, and art. 31.2.3 specifies that
  such names are indeclinable.

  .
• Thanks to Theo de Kok for bringing this to my attention.

• The Peters Checklist authors 9:364 (= Davis & Miller 1960) omit mention of the plate.

• Peters Checklist 12:364 (= Salomonsen 1967) cites this name to p.4 and pl.5, which makes no sense to me. The name occurs on p.7 and is associated with pl.3 (though the name does not occur on the plate). Page 4 is the final page of the preface, and reads

  			4
  	deviating from the usual practice of Ornithologists, we shall
  	not be condemned as having improperly lessened the expence
  	of the Work.  Sure we are that such a body of dry descrip-
  	tion as usually accompanies the little quantity of useful Natural
  	History which is generally given with each Species, is both 
  	tedious and disgusting, and so unmeaning to the general
  	Reader as to make Ornithology appear pedantic; whereas in
  	our way of treating the subject, we flatter ourselves that the 
  	Ornithologist will more easily identify the Species, the general
  	Reader will peruse the Letterpress with pleasure, and this
  	branch of the Sciences will obtain admirers and advocates.
  
  						THOMAS LEWIN

• Plate 5, as cited by Salomonsen, does depict Meliphaga chrysotis which is given by Salomonsen as the type of Meliphaga. The section on p.7 entitled "Gen. MELIPHAGA" and giving the "Character of the Genus" is followed by the description of Meliphaga phrygia, which, in turn is depicted on pl.3.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• I previously listed this as a full species, and the very strong support for that position has continued to grow, however no mention of this is currently made by H&M 3^rd:640, or the IOC World Bird List (2.1).

• Peters Checklist 11:226 (= Traylor 1986) spells the original combination incorrectly as Cryptolopha mackensiana. It was originally spelled Cryptolopha mackenziana.
• This error was then copied by others (e.g. H&M 3^rd:589 (through Corrigenda 8), HBW 11:648 (2006), and myself until now.)
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist 9:411 (= Paynter 1960) cites this to "p. 280, pl.1, fig.2" of the 1884 volume of J.Orn., and indeed it does occur there.
• That description and plate are in "No. 167 u. 168". However, the Richmond Index notes that the name is introduced on p.249 of No.166, and indeed there the name is introduced, and the form is compared to "Th. rufalbo Lafr. et Thr. sinaloa Bd."

• Held by H&M 3^rd:637 as a subspecies of Thryothorus genibarbus - without comment.
• Sibley & Monroe (1990) held this as a species distinct from Thryothorus genibarbus citing Ridgely and Tudor 1989:75-76, where morphologic, vocalization, and ecological requirement differences are noted.
• IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (early 2009) also holds this as distinct at the species level.

• Peters Checklist 9:382 (= Paynter 1960) dates this to 1851.
• H&M 3^rd:633 follows this dating (through Corrigenda 8) without note or comment. This date is entirely inconsistent with many of the other dates supplied for this work (e.g. Leptocoma from p.104 of Mus.Hein. (!) is dated by H&M 3^rd:707 to 1850.
• It would appear that the authors of H&M 3^rd were either unaware of the dating issues here, or were unwilling to acknowledge them.

• Oceanites is masculine, and maoriana is adjectival, so the combination should, it appears, be Oceanites maorianus as it is held in the IOC World Bird Names 2.0.
• Thanks to Colin Jones, Normand David, and David Donsker on this one.

• Peters Checklist 12:388 (= Salomonsen 1967) spells this with a single -i ending (meyeri), and incorrectly shows this same single -i ending for the original combination.
• The original combination was Xanthotis meyerii.
• H&M 3^rd:431 iterates the error from Peters Checklist.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
• Treated by H&M 3^rd:632 as a subspecies of Regulus ignicapilla without comment.

• 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 borbonicus without comment.

• H&M 3^rd:625 submerges Arcanator orostruthus in Modulatrix.
• I follow IOC World Bird list 2.0 (2009.02) here.

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Paradoxornis margaritae is split from P.gularis (Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:624 (through Corrigenda 8; late 2008).

• The IOC World Bird Name list 2.0 (2009.02) notes: "Alcippe manipurensis is split from A.cinereiceps (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005;Collar 2006a, BLI 1.0)
• No mention of this systematics issue is made in H&M 3^rd:619 (through Corrigenda 8; late 2008).

• Garrulax melanostigma is split from Garrulax erythrocephalus by 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).

• Peters Checklist 9:140 (= probably Mayr 1960) spells the specific epithet madaraspatensis. Though this is incorrect.
• H&M 3^rd:741 has the correct spelling -- maderaspatensis.
• Thanks to Dr David Donsker for pointing this out.

• Conventionally cited as:
  • Numida meleagris mitratus Pallas 1767 Spic.Zool. 1 fasc.4 p.18 pl.3
• Evidently Rookmaaker and Pieters 2000 published a notice indicating that this is a junior synonmym for Pallas' 1764 publication of Meleagris mitrata.
• This confirms what Charles W. Richmond noted early in the 20th century, and which was published in his Richmond Index in 1992.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• The Genus and the species pulchra are often cited to Ibis(7) III no.10 1897 p.251 pl.VIII.
• The Ibis material was published in April of 1897, but this species was first described and the genus group name used in Jan. 1897 in a brief note in the BBOC, where it is indicated that DeVis was responsible for the name and the description.
• The actual wording of the BBOC report is:

  	Mr. Sclater exhibited a specimen of a new Paradise-bird sent to be figured in 'The Ibis' 
  	by Mr. De Vis and proposed to be named Macgregoria pulchra. It had large eye-wattles 
  	like Paradigalla carunculata, but quite different in shape, and the front was not naked, 
  	but covered with erect bristles. This species had been discovered by Sir William Macgregor 
  	on Mount Scratchley during his recent expedition across British New Guinea at an 
  	altitude of from 10,000 to 12,000 feet.

• The grammar here is short of ideal, but I think it is reasonable to interpret the first sentence as: "Mr. Sclater exhibited a specimen of a new Paradise-bird sent to be figured in 'The Ibis' by Mr. De Vis and proposed [by him] to be named Macgregoria pulchra.
• Thanks to Edward Dickinson for bringing this to my attention and for his communication of Richard Schodde's interpretation of the matter (which also supports De Vis as the author, and the BBOC as the citation).

• Originally Criniger mysticalis, but misspelledCriniger mystacalis by Sharpe 1881 CBBM 685,414.
• This incorrect spelling was then followed by Peters Checklist 9:289 (Deignan 1960), and H&M 3^rd:574 (but corrected in Corrigenda 6).
• HBW 10:237 (2005) employs the correct spelling.

• Originally spelled Chrysococcyx meyerii, with an -ii ending.
• Most authors spell this with a single -i ending, and Peters Checklist 4:34 renders the original combination incorrectly as Chrysococcyx meyeri.
• Undoubtedly these authors are repeating the spelling from the CBBM 19:293 where this incorrect spelling occurs.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Originally spelled melanolaema.
• H&M 3^rd:497 spells this melaenolaema without comment. This appears to be an incorrect subsequent spelling.

• Originally spelled "melanoramphos" not "melanorhamphos".
• Sharpe in CBBM 3:148 incorrectly lists the original combination as "Coracias melanorhamphos" and the error may well have started there.
• Peters Checklist 15:160 (= Mayr 1962) perpetuates this error, suggesting that the original description was never rechecked.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

2015.06.29

• Evidently Vieillot's spelling was held to be unsatisfactory by the moderns. Who held that the incorrect subsequent spelling "melanorhamphos" should be conserved allegedly on the basis of "prevailing usage", though no data whatsoever appears to have been presented in support the assertion that the "melanorhamphos" spelling did, in fact, meet the definitional requirements of "prevailing usage". (ref. ICZN Article 3630.
• The Abstract of the Article reads as follows:

  	The purpose of this application, under Articles 81.1, 81.2.3.2, 23.9.3 and
  	33.3.1 of the Code is to (1) conserve the family name CORCORACIDAE Mathews, 1927
  	for the Australian bird family known as mudnesters; and (2) conserve melanorhamphos
  	Vieillot, 1817 as the correct spelling of the valid name for the type species of the
  	type genus of CORCORACIDAE. At family or subfamily rank, CORCORACIDAE has been in
  	prevailing use for the mudnesters for over 50 years. Reversal of precedence for the
  	competing name STRUTHIDEIDAE Mathews, 1924 under Article 81.2.3.2 of the Code
  	will maintain stability in nomenclature. The species-group name melanorhamphos, an
  	incorrect subsequent spelling of Coracia melanoramphos Vieillot, 1817, has also been
  	in prevailing use for the type species of the type genus of CORCORACIDAE for over 50
  	years. Deeming melanorhamphos as the correct original spelling under Article 81.1
  	and in accordance with Article 33.3.1 will also maintain stability in nomenclature.
  	

• Often (Peters Checklist 4:90; H&M 3^rd:221) cited as:
  • Otus scops mallorcae Von Jordans 1924 J.Orn. 72 p.407
• The Falco 1923 description however has priority as is correctly recognized in HBW 5:163.

• Peters Checklist 11:294 (= Watson 1986) chooses to spell the author's name "Menzbir", despite the fact that "Menzbier" is mostly used. He may have decided to follow the orthography in the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (N.H.).

• HBW 9:647 (Turner,AK 2004) states:

  	Name paludibula has priority over minor but the former
  	has been in use since at least 1894 and thus retained by virtually all
  	recent authors

• Cotyle paludibula Ruppell 1840 NeueWirbelth.Vog. p.106 does indeed antedate Cotyle minor Cabanis 1850 Mus.Hein. 1 p.49.

• Peters Checklist 12:350 (= Salomonsen 1967) cites this to p."318", while the correct page number is p.316.
• This appears on initial examination to simply be an error on Salomonsen's part, as the CBBM IX:128 has the page listing correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 15:266 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this to J.Orn. 12 p.407. However, that page number is in no.72 which was not published until 1865. Further it is clear that the J.Orn. publication was not the first appearance of the name, which apparently actually did appear in 1864 in the Natuurk.Tijdschr.Neder.Ind. So the Peters Checklist authors appear to have gotten the citation wrong, but serendipitously their date is correct.

• I do not find any discussion of the name Garrulus americanus ou minor Dumont 1822, but it appears from the Richmond Index that it was a nomen nudum, and even if that were not the case it certainly must be a nomen oblitum.

• See Schodde R, & Dickinson EC. 2005. "The valid name for the north-west Australian subspecies of the Shining Flycatcher Myiagra alecto (Monarchidae)". BBOC 125(1):47-48 for action as first revisers in selecting this name.
• In the BBOC article Schodde & Dickinson do not include the specific page number where Anonymous [= Mathews] uses this name. The page number (p.42) is supplied from Peters Checklist 11:524 and confirmed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 11:570 (= Mayr 1986) cites this to 1894.
• H&M 3^rd:519 follows this dating.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1893, noting that the preface to IV no.3 is dated Mai 1893.
• The H&M Corrigenda 6 corrects their date to 1893, citing Quaisser & Eck 2006. The earlier date is followed here.

• Peters Checklist 15:134 (= Greenway, 1962) spells this madaraspatanus which is incorrect. The original spelling is maderaspatanus.
• Interestingly, the taxon does not make it into the Peters Checklist Index (vol.XVI) spelled either correctly or incorrectly.
• The Richmond Index card shows the correct spelling Oriolus Maderaspatanus
• Thanks to Theo de Kok and to Edward Dickinson for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 7:18, cites this to Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 30, 1917.
• This appears to be the source for H&M 3^rd: 420, which cites this to 1917 without comment.
• Colin Jones correctly noted that this was published in volume 32 in 1919, and, as would be expected, the Richmond Index shows the correct citation.
• Worthy of note HBW 8:405 (2003) correctly cites this to 1919 as does Hellmayr 1925 (for which, thanks to Normand David).
• Richmond Index

• Commonly cited to 1890 without comment (e.g. Peters 12:16 (= Mayr 1967)).
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one citing it to p.230 and 1890, and the other citing it to p.104 and 1889. Whether these were printed separately (as implied by the differing page number) and issued at different dates is not clear. In this case I follow the pagination and earlier date as listed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 12:20 (= Mayr 1967) cites this name to

  "Contrib. Ornith. II, p.91" 

  which (other than the "II") appears to be patterned after the CBBM 8:186 (= Gadow 1883), although Mayr does not list the plate (pl.30) and Gadow does.
• The Richmond Index has this in "no.5" of the Contributions to Ornithology and reflects the peculiar pagination scheme that was actually employed there.

• Peters Checklist 12:20 (= Mayr 1967) correctly lists the original combination as Pachycephala macrorhyncha, but inexplicably lists the name as Pachycephala macrorhynchus (!).
• Again (v.s.) this may be patterned after the CBBM 8:185-187 (= Gadow 1883), where a mixture of macrorhyncha/macrorhynchus is used.
• Seemingly, this "tradition" is continued, as H&M 3^rd:476 (through Corrigenda 6) lists the taxon as "Pachycephala macrorhyncha" and yet in the footnote #2 states:

   ...
  macrorhynchus is an older name.

• H&M 3^rd:471 follows the Peters Checklist 9:206 by putting the authority in parentheses.
• Jackson described this bird in Campophaga and that spelling is held by published authors (Neave, Richmond) to be simply an Agassiz emendation of Campephaga Vieillot. Therefore, adherence to the Code would indicate that the authority should not be in parentheses.

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

• Colin Jones helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.09.09) that this was described in Poeocephalus and that this is merely an Aggasiz emendation of Poiocephalus and thus no parentheses are needed for the ciation.

• Peters Checklist 9:328 (= 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:620 has the citation correct for this taxon. As does Gadow CBBM 8:136.

• For the species order within genus, I follow Beehler et al.. 2007. "A new species of Smoky Honeyeater (Meliphagidae:Melipotes) from western New Guinea". Auk. 124(3):1000-1009.

Previously as

Spizastur (m.) Gray,GR 1841 ListGen.BirdsEd.2 p.3

• Spizastur melanoleucus (Vieillot) 1816 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 4 p.482

however, the AOU CL 48^th Supplement (p.1112) notes that DNA studies (Helbig AJ, Kocum A, Seibold I, & Braun MJ. 2005. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 35:147-164) show that melanoleucus is the sister species to Spizaetus ornatus.

• Most workers attribute this name to Lawrence (e.g. Sclater CBBM 15:131; Peters Checklist 7:44; Deignan USNM Bull. 221:239; H&M 3^rd:424 ; HBW 8:432 and this interpretation is understandable when it is based on either a casual and partial review of the original description, or more commonly when the attribution simply results from uncritically reproducing the work of others (as I did until looking into this matter in more detail).
• The name is usually listed as a "Baird MS" name except in the case of the Richmond Index where the name is listed as

  Baird in G. N. Lawrence

  so the question arises: what are the facts of the matter?
• First, Lawrence's note at the end of the article (p.482) must be heeded, it reads:

    Note.— I recently found in certain families of birds in the
  collection of the Smith. Institution, several new species, and 
  among others some with MS. names given by Prof. Baird,
  which I have adopted; these are the five last described in the
  above paper. Prof. Baird kindly furnished me with his notes,
  made a few years since when he received the birds, with his
  permission to use them and to make such alterations as I
  might deem necessary; his notes are indicated by quotation 
  marks.

  (emphasis supplied).
The description that preceeds this is:

	19. Dendrornis mentalis, Baird, MS.
	
  "This species has a very close resemblance to D. eburneirostris
in the reddish brown wings, tail and rump, the cential brownish
yellow shaft streaks of the feathers of back and belly becoming
shorter and more oval on the upper part of head and neck, and
still wider on the breast; the feet, however, are larger, and the
tarsus shorter, so that the former exceed the latter, while in _
eburnirostris the tarsus is longer than or at least nearly equal to
the middle toe and claw; the shade of reddish brown on wings and 
tail is lighter, the shafts of tail-feathers are light yellowish rufous,
instead of very dark reddish brown; the chin and upper part of
the throat in eburneirostris are uniform clear buff yellow, in the
new species these parts are lighter in color, and the feathers are 
margined with brown, as are those a on the lower part of the
throat; the yellowish of the shaft streaks in the head and back is
much paler; bill pale horn color, clouded; iris red; legs dark
brown.

  "Length 9.25; wing 4.34; tail 3.90; bill above 1.70, from nostril
1.28, gape 1.67; tarsus .88; middle toe and claw 1.00, middle toe
alone .70.

  "Habitat.— Mexico, Mazatlan Collected by J Xantus. No. 
of type, 23,859.

  "Four specimens compared with a like numbem of eburneirostris, show
the peculvinties above referred to, in the pale colors, large feet and dusky margins
to the feathers of the chin.
  "I find no mention of any Dendrornis in Eastern Mexico, north of Cordova
or Xalapa, and of none in Western Mexico at all. The present species exhibits a range
considerably further to the north than any other of the genus."

• Article 50.1.1 of the Code (1999) reads:

  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.

  I hold that given the details of this matter and given Art. 50.1.1 that Baird is the author here.

• Peters Checklist 13:219 (Paynter, 1970) lists the original combination as Guiraca melanocephalus.
• The original combination (as shown by the Richmond Index, as well as by CBBM 12:62) was Guiraca melanocephala.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 1(2):104 (Jouanin & Mougin, 1979) as a synonym of Oceanitis exasperatus Mathews, 1912, and H&M 3^rd:77 similar regards it as simply a color morph. These positions may be correct and further review is needed.
• However other publications treat this as a full species. Tentative inclusion at this time.
Recent publication treating this as a full sp. include:
• Saville, Sav, Brent Stephenson, Ian Southey. 2003 [Apr]. A possible sighting of an 'extinct' bird - the New Zealand storm-petrel. Birding World 16(4):173-175
• Flood, Bob. 2003 [Nov]. The New Zealand storm-petrel is not extinct. Birding World 16(11):479-482
• Carter, Mike. 2003 [Dec]. A contribution to the discussion re the separation of white-bellied storm-petrel, the white-bellied 'morph' of black-bellied storm petrel and NZ storm-petrel. Australasian Seabird Bulletin 41:19-21
• Bourne, W. R. P. 2004. The origin of specimens of New Zealand storm petrel (Pealeornis maoriana Mathews, 1932). Notornis 51(1):57-58
• Stephenson, Brent. 2004 [Jun]. Return of the New Zealand storm petrel. Wingspan 14(2):20-21, 23
• Weimerskirch, Henri. 2005. Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World. Marine-Ornithology 33(1):73
• Thanks to Dave Nicolson for much of the information on this.

• Peters Checklist 7:239 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 13:195 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to 1870.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show that this was published in April of 1871.

• Peters Checklist 14:221 shows the date as a transposed number -- "1859" (sic) a date which is impossible for the BBOC.

• The citation as given here, is that given by Peters Checklist 14:203 (Mayr) and is questionable.
• The Richmond Index on the card for this citation has a note at the end stating:

  At the end of the article in which this name occurs it says:
  "Extrait du Journal l'Institut, 1me section, 1859, p.45."

• The L'Institut citation may very well have precedence.

• Peters Checklist 11:111 (Traylor, 1986) cites this to
  • Dryodromas melanurus Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 no.159 p.349
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:13 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 on June 1 (no.11&12), while the J.Orn. was article was not published before July of 1882.

• Peters Checklist 4:21 (Peters, 1940) cites this to
  • Cercococcyx mechowi Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 no.158 p.230
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:6 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 in March (no.5&6).

• Peters Checklist 1(2):322 (Stresemann & Amadon, 1979) cite this to
  • Melierax metabates mechowi Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 p.229
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:4 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 in March (no.5&6).

• Webb, E. A., and C. E. Bock. 1996. Botteri's Sparrow (Aimophila botterii). In The Birds of North America, No. 216 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. indicates that A.b.botterii and A.b.mexicana appear to be inseparable. In support the authors cite:
  1. J. T. Marshall, R. B. Clapp 1985. Status report: Aimophila botterii texana Phillips. Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Survey Section, and Smithson. Inst., Washington, D.C.
  2. E. A. Webb 1985. Distribution, habitat and breeding biology of the Botteri's Sparrow (Aimophila botterii arizonae). Master's thesis, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.
• No mention is made of this issue in H&M 3^rd:786

• Often cited to either:
  1. Ammodramus xanthornus Gould 1839 Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin] pt11 p.90 pl.30
  2. Ammodramus xanthornus Darwin 1839 Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin] pt11 p.90 pl.30
  and of these, the Gould citation appears to be correct, as the publication of Gould's plate evidently preceeded the publication of the text by four months. (ref. Steinheimer, Dickinson, & Walters. 2006. "The zoology of the voyage of the HMS Beagle. Part III. Birds: new avian names, their authorship and their dates" BBOC 126(3):171-193.).
• However, I am not convinced, as Steinheimer et al. appear to be, that the correct name for this subspecies is Myospiza humeralis xanthornus (Gould). Rather, it appears to me that Myospiza humeralis manimbe (Lichtenstein, 1823) may be correct. Steinheimer et al. state that the "substitute name Ammodramus manimbe (Gray, 1839) is a junior synonym." but this statement has problems of its own.
  1. The reference "(Gray, 1839)" is not clear to me -- are they referring to Gray's contribution to the "Zool.Voy.Beagle" ?? (the only Gray reference they cite is Gray 1840 List of Genera of Birds.
  2. It is not clear to me why this is a "replacement name", but I have not seen Gray's entry.
  3. From various sources including the CBBM 12:691, it appears likely that the combination used by Gray was Ammodramus manimbe and thus the use of parentheses around the date and Gray's name here would be incorrect.
  4. It does not address the more important issue of the status of Fringilla manimbe Lichtenstein, 1823.
  Additionally it must be noted that the card in the Richmond Index for Ammodramus xanthornus Gould has a note saying:

  		Suppressed in favor of A. manimbe.

  though I can so far find no evidence of this suppression.
• Lichtenstein's 1823 name is cited by Ridgway 1898 as the type for Myospiza, and is usually cited appropriately as a junior synonym of Tanagra humeralis Bosc 1792. This fact alone does not make the name unavailable for a subspecies.
• The question then becomes if the Lichtenstein name can be applied to the same population as the Gould name, and if so it clearly has priority by 16 years.
• The Lichtenstein specimen is listed as coming from "Bahia", and it is difficult to know exactly what that meant in 1823. Today, it refer to a State in central to southern Brazil.
• Chapman 1912 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. vol.31 Article XVI p.162 describes specimens of Myospiza manimbe maninbe both from Bahia (the type locality) and much farther south and west from Chapada in the state of Matto Grosso, fairly close to and actually south of north eastern Bolivia, which is the range indicated by H&M 3^rd:785 for Myospiza humeralis xanthornus Gould.
• It appears to me that the systematic problem with this species is great, and resolution of the nomenclatural issues must await progress on the systematic front.
• The Gould xanthornus name may well be the appropriate one for this population, but only if manimbe Lichtenstein is shown to be a synonym of humeralis Bosc, and not a senior synonym of xanthornis Gould.

• H&M 3^rd:776 dates this to 1881. In this they appears to be simply following Peters Checklist 14:88. It must be an oversight, as it does not follow Dickinson's own publication of the dates for this serial (J.Zool. (2005) 266:427-430). The H&M authors also do not appear to have checked the CBBM as Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 11:38 (Sclater, 1886) also dates this to 1880.
• The Richmond Index indicates the date for this is Aug. 1880, which I follow

• I follow the 2002 treatment by Arcese P., Sogge MK, Marr AB, & Patten MA. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (Poole A & Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
• The treatment by H&M 3^rd:781-782 essentially follows Peters Checklist 13 (1970), and contains these taxa:

  Melospiza (f.) Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.xx,xl,440,476

  • Melospiza melodia (Wilson,A) 1810 Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia adusta Nelson 1899 Auk 16 p.28
  • Melospiza melodia amaka Gabrielson & Lincoln 1951 Condor 53 p.253
  • Melospiza melodia atlantica Todd 1924 Auk 41 p.147 Type locality
  • Melospiza melodia azteca Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia caurina Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.36
  • Melospiza melodia clementae Townsend,CH 1890 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia cleonensis Ridgway 1899 Bull.CooperOrn.Club 1 p.87
  • Melospiza melodia cooperi Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.35 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia coronatorum Grinnell & Daggett 1903 Auk 20 p.34 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia euphonia Wetmore 1936 Smiths.Misc.Coll. 95 no.17 p.1
  • Melospiza melodia fallax (Baird,SF) 1854 Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 7 p.119
  • Melospiza melodia fisherella Oberholser 1911 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 24 p.251 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia goldmani Nelson 1899 Auk 16 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia gouldii Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.477,479
  • Melospiza melodia graminea Townsend,CH 1890 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139
  • Melospiza melodia heermanni Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.477,478
  • Melospiza melodia inexspectata Riley 1911 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 24 p.234
  • Melospiza melodia insignis Baird,SF 1869 Trans.ChicagoAcad.Sci. 1 p.319 pl.29 fig.2
  • Melospiza melodia juddi Bishop 1896 Auk 13 p.132 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia kenaiensis Ridgway 1900 Auk 17 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia mailliardi Grinnell 1911 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 7 p.197 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia maxillaris Grinnell 1909 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 5 p.265
  • Melospiza melodia maxima Gabrielson & Lincoln 1951 Condor 53 p.251
  • Melospiza melodia melodia (Wilson,A) 1810 Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia merrilli Brewster 1896 Auk 13 p.46
  • Melospiza melodia mexicana Baird,SF 1874 Hist.N.Am.Birds[Baird,Brewer,Ridgway] 2 p.18,note
  • Melospiza melodia micronyx Grinnell 1928 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 41 p.37 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia montana Henshaw 1884 Auk 1 p.224
  • Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser 1899 Auk 16 p.183 Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia niceae Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia pusillula Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.35
  • Melospiza melodia rivularis Bryant,WE 1888 Proc.Cal.Acad.Sci.(2) 1 p.197
  • Melospiza melodia rufina (Bonaparte) 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.477
  • Melospiza melodia saltonis Grinnell 1909 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 5 p.268 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia samuelis (Baird,SF) 1858 Proc.BostonSoc.Nat.Hist. 6 p.379
  • Melospiza melodia sanaka McGregor 1900 Condor 3 p.8 Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia villai Phillips,AR & Dickerman 1957 Auk 74 p.380
  • Melospiza melodia yuriria Phillips,AR & Dickerman 1957 Auk 74 p.381 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia zacapu Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.40 Systematics

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussing M.m.graminea place M.m.micronys in synonomy.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussing M.m.heermanni place M.m.mailliardi in synonomy and comment:

  Weak clinal variation from south to north involving reduced grayish fringes to mantle-feathers and reduced brown between
  black medial streak and fringe; birds called "mailliardi" and "cooperi" cannot be told from heermanni
  sensu stricto, nor from each other.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. comment:

  Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser, 1899. Name given as new name to replace preoccupied 
  Fringilla cinerea (not of Gmelin) Audubon, 1839. 

• Actually Fringilla cinerea is nowhere mentioned by Oberholser in his 1899 Auk note, where he writes:

  Fringilla guttata Nuttall (Man. Orn., ed. 2, 1840, I, 581), which is now
  Melospiza fasciata guttata, is debarred by Fringilla guttata Vieillot
  (Nouv. Dict. d'Hist. Nat., 1817, XII, 233), for an Australian Weaver-bird.
  As the Rusty Song Sparrow seems to have no other name, it may be
  called Melospiza melodia morphna.

• The place the name Fringilla cinerea Audubon plays in this story appears to be as follows. The type of Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is specimen #1860 in the USNM collection. It was collected by John K. Townsend, and received into the collection from Spencer Baird. It was in Baird's private collection and he had in turn acquired it from Edward Harris, who had himself gotten it either from Audubon or Townsend. A different Townsend specimen from his "Columbia river" material (tag # 1942) had also been in Baird's private collection, and Baird had written on the label

  "Fringilla cineara of Audubon. Type of his description and figure."

• Friedmann's summary (p.664) is:

    Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is a new name for guttata Nuttall,
  preoccupied in Fringilla, and is based on the same type specimen(s).
    In summary, No. 1860 is a cotype of Fringilla cinerea Audubon, and also
  a probable cotype of Fringilla guttata Nuttall and of Melospiza melodia morphna
  Oberholser; No. 1942 is a probable cotype of Fringilla cinerea 
  Audubon, but presumably has no connection with the other two names.

• Originally described as Zonotrichia musica
• Emberiza musica Kittlitz, 1836 is a nomen nudum.

• Conventionally cited as

  Microcerculus Sclater,PL 1862 Cat.Coll.Am.Birds p.19

• The difficulty is that if this is cited to 1862, then Microcerculus Salvin 1861 PZS Pt2 p.202 would appear to have priority.
• Zimmer (p.560) presents evidence (but not proof) that pp.1-192 of Sclater's work this work may have appeared in 1861. If that is true then the conventional citation (with the date changed to 1861) may be correct, but would depend on establishing that the portion of Sclater's publication actually preceeds Salvin's.
• Edward Dickinson and Steven Gregory kindly provided additional information on this (in litt. 2006.12.09) showing that:
  From CBBM, vi, p. 295:

  Microcerculus, Baird, Review Amer. B. p. 113 (1864, ex Sclater, Cat. Amer. B. p.19, 1862).
  [Type] M. bambla. Cf. Salvin & Godman, Biol. Centr.-Amer., Aves, i, p. 76.

  In the Salvin & Godman reference we find:

   
  Microcerculus (section of Cyphorhinus), Sclater, Cat. Am. B. p.19 (1862); Baird, Rev. Am. B. i.  p.113 (1864).
  (Type Turdus bambla, Bodd.)

  [Steven notes]:Somewhat circular, and no mention of 1861. I also note that Boddaert's original combination was Formicarius bambla, which should be included in the citation for the genus, and not just Baird's "Turdus bambla".
• Steven also notes that Schulze et al. (as well as Neave) cite Salvin as the author of the genus.
• Michael Rieser provides (in litt. 2007.09.15) the description from the PZS:

      1. CYPHORHINUS PHILOMELA.
      Long. tot. 4, alæ 2-3, caudæ 1 poll. angl. et dec.
      Hab. In Prov. Veræ Pacis sylvis montium.
      Obs. Affinis Cyphorhino bamblæ ex Cayenna, sed tectricibus alarum
  	maculatis et non albo vittatis facile notabilis.
      This Wren belongs to the division of this genus which Dr. Sclater
  	has classed under the name of Microcerculus. It is known to the
  	natives as the 'Ruiseñor, ' or Nightingale -- a name it has acquired from its
  	great vocal powers.

• This description is suggestive of the possibility that the name had already been published, but it certainly does not prove that to be so.

• van Rossem's note on p.223 reads:

  Named for Messrs. John W. and Joseph Mallliard, in appreciation
  of their valuable work with the Redwinged Blackbirds of California.

  Joseph Mailliard was (at that time) the Curator Emeritus of Ornithology at the California Academy of Sciences. I presume, but don't know for sure than John W. was his brother.
• I can not restrain from adding some additional notes of interest here. My father-in-law knew Joseph Mailliard and his son William Somers Mailliard, who was a congressional representative for California from 1953-1974. It is my understanding that Joseph Mailliard had ancestry that included paternity by Charles Lucien Bonaparte.
• Joseph Mailliard was a member of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, and wrote a book "Birds of the Bohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California". 1931. Published by A Friend of Bohemia. The eponymous subspecies is included in the list (p.48).
• Subsequently, another book entitled "Birds of the Bohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California" 2003. was written (and illustrated) by Hermann Heinzel. Published by A Member of the Old Guard. The bird is there described and illustrated (p.70) though interestingly no mention is made of the association with Mailliard.
• The subspecies mailliardorum does occur in the Bohemian Grove (I have seen it there), though the type was collected 28 April, 1901 in Palo Alto, California by Theodore Jesse Hoover (1871-1955). Theodore J. Hoover, one of the founding members of the Cooper Ornithological Society, was later to became the Dean of the School of Engineering at Stanford. He would have been in his senior year at Stanford when he collected the bird.
  It seems to me that Theodore Jesse Hoover must be the brother of president Herbert Hoover, though I have yet to find this actually stated. Both Theodore and Herbert were born (T. - Jan. 28, 1871; H. - Aug. 10, 1874) in West Branch, Iowa, and Herbert's father was named Jesse, so it seems extremely likely that they were brothers. After his parent's death, Herbert was sent to Newburg, Oregon where he grew up in his uncle's house. The possible separation of the boys may explain why their brotherhood may not receive much emphasis.
• Herbert Hoover was an ardent Bohemian, and I would guess that it is likely that Theodore was as well, though I find no evidence of this.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:145 (Blake) as published in 1864, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:769 (and corrected in Corrigenda 2.1).
• The Richmond Index shows that this portion of the PZS was published in Feb. 1865

• In a minor infelicity, Fjeldsa et al. get the page number wrong when listing the citation for Batis mixta Shelley. [=Pachyprora mixta Shelley]. They list (p.588) the page number as "259"; Peters Checklist 11:379; Sclater Syst.Av.Aethiop. 2:420; and the Richmond Index all list the page number as 359.
• Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK, Kiure J. 2006. "The forest batis Batis mixta, is two species: description of a new, narrowly distributed Batis species in the Eastern Arc biodiversity hotspot." J.Orn. 147:578-590.

• Previously listed as
  • Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi Mathews 1910 Novit.Zool. 17 no.3 p.501
  and Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi is the name used by H&M 3 ^rd:448 {and through Corrigenda #5} (without further discussion).
• Colin Jones points out that Schodde in the CSIRO checklist of Australian birds, holds A. p. archibaldi to be a junior synonym of A. p. magnirostris Campbell. This can currently (2006.10.07) be found at http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/abrs/fauna/tree.pl?pstrVol=AVES&pintMode=1

• Zimmer in Am.Mus.Novit. 1933 no.668 p.1 lists:

  Thamnophilus melanurus SCLATER, 1855 (April), Edinb. N. Philos. Journ.
  (N.S.) I, p. 233-part; River Ucayali, e. Perú; ♂ imm.; British Mus.

• It would be interesting to know how Zimmer knows that this work was published in April, but this fact (if correct) is the reason the name is cited here rather than to Gould in PZS pt23 no.288 p.69 (published May 16, 1855) or to Gould Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(2) 15 no.89 p.345 (publ. May 1855).

• The Richmond Index suggests the possiblity that this bird may have been described by Hodgson in Gray's Zoological Miscellany p.81 (which would be 1844).
• Thanks to Daria Wingreen-Mason of the Cullman Library, I have examined an image of page 81 of Gray's Zoological Miscellany. Gray uses the name "F. milvipes" which is followed by the number "26". The number "26" refers either to a picture, or a specimen sent by Hodgson to the British Museum. Therefore with some confidance I interpret the Gray publication of this name in 1844 as not satisfying the requirements for it to be the citation for the taxon name.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):408 (1979,Stresemann & Amadon) cite this name to 1919, and this is followed by others (e.g. HBW 2:260; H&M 3^rd:95).
• All these works correctly list the volume of the Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. as 54, however this was published Nov. 2, 1917, not in 1919.
• The correct date is shown in the Richmond Index, and confirmed by the "List and Index of the Publications of the United States National Museum (1875-1946)" p.154.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):185 lists the author of this taxon as Heuglin.
• The Richmond Index listed the author as Hartlaub, so naturally I was interested to determine which was correct.
• Edward Dickinson examined the original description and confirmed Richmond's indication that Hartlaub was the author. As a result of this the correction was made in Corrigenda #5.
• HBW 1:324 also listed Heuglin as the author of this taxon. I presumed that they (like H&M) had simply followed the Peters Checklist without troubling to confirm the authority -- as this is the conventional (though lazy) practice.
• Of interest, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:431 is where all this may have started, as there Ogilvie-Grant lists Heuglin rather than Hartlaub as the author. Despite the charming belief to the contrary, it appears that for a large number of taxa, the authors of the Peters Checklist merely accepted the listings from the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. as "holy writ" much the way most authors today regard those from the Peters Checklist. Richmond was a worker who attended to quite a different and higher standard.
• Also worthy of mention is not only the 1931 publication of Mathews ∧ Iredale (A Manual of Birds of Ausltrlia), but the work by Pittman and Jehl (Pittman RL, Jehl JL Jr., 1998. The Wilson Bulletin 110(2):155-170.). Pittman and Jehl quote the Mathews & Iredale work which appears to correctly hold Hartlaub as the author of Sula melanops.

• The authority here is often attributed to Vigors & Children (as opposed to Children & Vigors). See, for example, Peters Checklist (1979) 1(2):201 (where it is listed as "Anon. = Vigors & Children"). I speculate that here the example of CBBM (1898 [=1899]) 26:70 is being followed.
• H&M 3^rd lists this initially as Vigors & Children, but adopts Children & Vigors in the Corrigenda 2.1 which I follow.
• Bob Dowsett informs me that review of the original descriptions and additional supporting evidence ( including Zool.J. 1827 p.452) argues for Children & Vigors as the proper authority for the taxa named as new in this work.

• When in Zanclostomus listed as
  • Zanclostomus curvirostris borneensis (Blasius,W & Nehrkorn) 1881 Jahrb.Ver.Naturwiss.Braunschwieg(1880-1881) p.125
• In Phaenicophaeus this name is preoccupied by
  • Rhopodytes borneensis Salvadori 1874 Ann.Mus.Civ.Stor.Nat.Genova 5 p.72
  which is now held to be in Phaenicophaeus
• It is replaced by Berlepsch's name (which in Peters Checklist 4:56 was replaced by the Blasius & Nehrkorn name).
• Many thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention (2006.06.03), and pointing out the proper replacement name.
• Initially I had the authority listed in parentheses, but Colin Jones pointed out (in litt. 2009.04.26), quite correctly, that it was originally described in Phoenicophaes which is merely an emendation.

• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1926.02.23) Richmond indicates that this name occurs as both Myrmornis and Myrmornithion (or Myrmornithon -- it is slightly illegible) occuring in another portion of the work. No one else seems to mention this fact.
• Normand David (in litt. 2006.07.26) has looked into and resovled this matter. He writes:

   ... here are the citations from Hermann's Tabula affinitatum animalium (1783), 
  of which I have a photocopy of the relevant pages before my eyes:
  
  page 188 (not 180 as sometimes given)
  Myrmornithis
  
  page 189
  Myrmornithum
  Myrmornin
  
  pages 210- 211
  Myrmorni- them
  
  page 235
  Myrmornis
  
  The nominative singular is Myrmornis; all other instances have different case endings 
  according to Latin grammar, that must be corrected to the nominative singular 
  (arts. 11.8.1 and 32.5.2.7).

• The Peters Checklist 7:255 (1951) footnotes the variants Myrmornithis, Myrmornithem and interprets them as "not available under Opinion 183".
• The Peters Checklist erroneously lists the page as "p.180"; the Richmond Index shows the page as "188", as Normand David has confirmed.

• There is some confusion regarding this citation.
  1. Peters Checklist 5:22 gives "Guide du Naturaliste 2 p.7"
  2. The Richmond Index gives "Guide du Naturaliste No. 1, Jan. 1880, page 8."
  3. Schulze et al. p.2018 give vol.2 and p.7
  so I initially followed the consensus (vol.2 p.7).
Additionally, both the Richmond Index, and Schulze et al. note that the name also occurs in 1880 in Annuire Mus. Caen vol.1:224. Peters seems to have been unaware of this second source, and which actually had priority was unknown to me.
• Previously cited as

  Melanotrochilus (m.) Deslongchamps 1880 GuideNat. 2 p.7

• Subsequently (2006.10.16) Michael Rieser brought to my attention an article by Bob Mengel directly addressing this situation.

  Mengel RM. 1960. "Errors concerning the date and source of the name Melanotrochilus Eudes-Deslongchamps (Trochilidae)." Auk 77:87-88.

  Mengel brings attention to the fact that Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus 3:90, 1940) correctly indicates that the name was published earlier. Deslongchamps (Eudes Deslongchamps) published a diagnosis of the genus and a full account of Melanotrochilus fuscus (Trochilus fuscus Vieillot, Nouv.Dict.Hist.Hat. 7:348, 1817). This apparently was first published in 1879 in Deslongchamps. "Catalogue descriptif des oiseaux du Musée de Caen appartenent a la famille des Trochilidés ou Oiseaux-Mouches". Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, ser.III, tom.III pp.8-325 (for 1878-1879, dated 1879 on title page), and ser.III tom.IV (pp.324-325: noted by Mengel to be misnumbered 224-225). The genus is erected on p.314, and thus the date of 1879 is appropriate.

• Mengel also notes additional details, including the fact that the article was reprinted at least twice with slight changes.

• Peters Checklist 13:158 (Paynter) lists this as published in

  1919 Smiths.Misc. Coll., 81(13), p.4

  . Casual inspection suggests that either the date or the volume number is way off.
• This date is followed by H&M ^rd:795 and is uncorrected at least up to Corrigenda 5.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in 1929, not 1919; a date for which the volume number makes sense.

• This name was clearly spelled melanophris by Temminck in 1828.
• Peters Checklist 1(2):54 includes a footnote saying

  Corrected to melanophrys, Temminck, 1839, Planches Color.,
  Tableau Méthod., livr. 102, p.76. C.J. and J.-L. M.

• Of course it is interesting to know of this correction, but the question is not whether it was corrected, but whether the correction satisfies the Code requirements with regards emendations. It may very well be that the correction does satisfy these, but in the abscence of a specific indication in that regard I retain the original spelling.
[2010.07.01]
• H&M 3^rd:72 adopt the spelling employed by the Peters CL, and comment (footnote #7) that this spelling is "judged to be in prevailing usage", though no data in support of this judgement is provided.
• The issue is resolved by Opinion 2252 (Case 3449) BZN 2010 67(2):194-195. Which ruled as follows:

  Ruling

  1. The Commission hereby rules to confirm that melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, is the correct original spelling.
  2. The name melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, as ruled in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
  3. The name melanophrys Temminck, 1839, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophrys (incorrect subsequent spelling of Diomedea melanophris Temminck, 1828, correct original spelling as ruled in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original description is as follows:

   
  Olive, head and throat black; body white;
  sides and vent ferruginous; wings, and lateral tail feathers (in one sex)
  with yellow spots.
  Table land. Real del Monte. Temiscaltipec.
  Total length, 9 inches: wings, 3½;
  tail, 4¾ tarsi,1 1/10; 
  hind toe and claw, 9/10.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original description is as follows:

  Olivaceous brown; head and throat black; body white; sides and vent rufous;
  back, wings, and lateral tail feathers with white spots.
  Table land. Real del Monte.
  Total length, 8½: wings, 3½; tail, 4; tarsi,1 1/10;
  hind toe and claw, ¾.

• As this O.D. is not readily available to most workers, and there is debate about the validity of this as a subspecies, I thought it might be useful to reproduce the description here (copied from the Richmond Index).

• Caput & dorsum fusco & ferrugineo varium, pennis fuscis ferrugineo
  marginatus. Tectrises alarum & et caudæ fuscæ apicus limbo
  ferrugineo. marginatis Remiges omnes fuscæ fasciis pluribus ob
  scuriscribus apice albo-ferrugineo. Rectrices fuscæ fasciis quatuor
  latis fusco-nigrescentibus albo utrinque marginatis, apice albo.
  Corpus inferne totum ferrugineum masulis longitudinalibus, subovatis,
  fuscis, pennis singularis ferrugenis, scapo, & utrinque a
  scapo fuscis, Cauda inferne albescens fassiis transparentibus.
  Cera cærulescens. Pedes lutei. Magnitudo Gallinæ.

• Originally named Astur macrocelides in the 1855 J.Orn. publication (fide Peters Checklist 1(2):325; and The Richmond Index).
• This is spelled macroscelides by the Peters Checklist and this spelling is followed by H&M 3^rd:105 without comment.
• HBW 2:145 is either unaware of this nomenclatural issue, or chooses to make no comment on it.
• The validity of this emendation is unknown to me, and as this issue is not addressed by these authors I elect to use the original spelling, until I am shown that this is incorrect.
• Normad David has investigated this matter, and writes (2006.03.10) that the original indeed is macrocelides, and further that this was employed by the Peters Checklist vol. 1 in the first edition. The issue then would appear to me to descend into the unfortunate and unsatisfactory realm of "prevailing usage".

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4 to Lesson, Voy. 'Coquille,' Atlas, 1827, pl.22; Zool. 1830, p.647.
• Previously, I had as
  • Hemiprocne mystacea (Lesson) 1827 Voy.Coq. Atlas pl.22; 1830 Zool. p.647
• Zimmer (p.187) dates the publication of pl.22 to Oct. 27.
• The Richmond Index lists this name, with the authority of Lesson & Garnot to Ferrusacs Bulletin for May of 1827 (where pl.22 of the Coquille Atlas is quoted).
• This is all very confused, and it seems that both Zimmer and Richmond can't both be right. Richmond does not list the Voy.Coq. citation here, and apparently believed that the Ferrusac's bulletin entry had priority. I defer to Richmond here.
• H&M 3^rd:255 lists this to Lesson, 1827. Presumably this follows the Peters Checklist, though in other instances for this source the decision appears to have been taken to attribute authority to Lesson & Garnot (!!). Very confusing.
• HBW 5:465,685 also attributes this to Lesson in Voy.Coq. and it appears that Wells is simply reproducing the Peters material without critical evaluation.

Hemipodius melanogaster Gould, Syn. Bds. Austr., pt. 2, 1837, pl..[31]

Hemipodius melanogaster John Gould 1837.
Synopsis of the Birds of Australia and the Adjacent Islands, Part II, April, 1837, Pl.[12], text.

melanogaster  Hemipodius, J. Gould, Syn.Birds.Austral. (2) Apr. 1837.

• Considered by many to be a full species, rather than a subspecies of Larus cachinnans.
• AOU CL to adopt full species status in 48^th Supplement to the CL (to be published July 2007); (ref. Dick Banks in litt. 2007.04.18).

• The basis for recognition of this as a valid subspecies is currently unknown to me.
• HBW 3:618 says "Two subspecies recognized." By whom this recognition occurs, or on what basis is not indicated. Although superb, HBW is emphatically not a taxonomic work, though it is often mistaken for one.
• H&M 3^rd:148 cites HBW 3 as the basis for recognition as a subspecies.
• The Richmond index lists this taxon as "[Atricilla] megalopterus Bruch", suggesting that the bird was not actually described in Larus.

• Regarding the spelling/emendation of this name, Normand David writes (2005.12.23):

  
    ... the original matsudariae, Ibis 1922:311
  	was universally corrected (see Peters I:117) to
  	matsudairae
  
  	It seems that, because Viscount Matsudaira is cited several times in the paper as collector
  	(but no formal dedication), subsequent authors saw sufficient reason under 32.5.1
  	(inadvertent error) to bring about a "justified emendation".

• The author's name on this article (Auk 1936 53:194) is listed as

  Leonidas Partenko

• I believe that the same individual more commonly gives his name as

  Leonidas Portenko

  or

  Leonid Aleksanrovich Portenko

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:133 as a subspecies of Himantopus himantopus. The foot note (#7) on p.132 indicates, and Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2005.09.21), that the systematic listing follows that of HBW 3. The basis for this would appear to boil down to an introductory note by Pierce on p.332, where the difficulties of the problem are presented, and the decisions taken appear to be on the basis that

   
  Most authors have preferred to accept only two species, the Black-winged
  Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) and Black Stilt (Himantopus novaezelandae), 
  although some consider these two forms conspecific.

  This statement is made without any citations, references, or supporting data. Whom "most authors" are is not indicated, and this appears to me to be an erroneous extension of "prevailing usage", as applied to nomenclature, to systematics. Perhaps in the future we can look forward to establishment of systematic relationships by a process of popular vote.
• The AOU Checklist Committee considers mexicanus to be a species in the absence of any published taxonomic treatment to the contrary. (Dick Banks, in litt. 2005.08.31)
• In sharp contrast to the standards of the AOU Checklist Committee, the HBW and its followers appear to enjoy the freespirited pleasures of being unencumbered by the tedium of requiring published scientific support here. Whether this philosophy is restricted to this problem, this author, just this volume, or to the whole series is unknown to me.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 25:174 (Mayr) to 1874, and this was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:427.
• This portion of the PZS was published in April of 1875, and this date was subsequently corrected in the H&M Corrigenda 2.1.

• Peters Checklist 25:174 (Mayr) gives this date for this taxon as 1882.
• The correct date of 1883 was published in the Richmond Index (1992).
The incorrect 1882 date was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:427, and then corrected in Corrigenda 3.2
• Of interest, the citation for Aegotheles bennettii plumiferus is given by Peters Checklist 4:183 for 1883, and it comes from 4 pages prior to the description of Ailurodeus melanocephalus.

• This name is attributed to Boie in 1844 Isis 37 col.188, note. and it appears that this tradition of reference was established by Saunders in Cat.B.Br.Mus. 25:145 and followed by Mathews.
• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1915.02.05) some interesting questions are raised.
  1. Richmond indicates that Boie describes a Sterna minutus from the collection of Prince Essling (and from some British Museums) "which is a species of Anous or Micronous."
  2. Richmond also asserts that the Essling specimen is allegedly from California and thus may not be Australian.
  3. Richmond indicates that Boie lists his species of Anous with the abbreviation St. and "dittos" all the species which suggests to Richmond that Boie intended to call his new species Sterna minutus (a name which is, of course, preoccupied by Sterna minuta Linnaeus 1766 = S. albifrons Pallas 1764). -- but see below regarding St..
  4. Richmond regards the Essling specimen as the type (as it is the only "definite one" that Boie mentions).
  5. If the Essling specimen is from California it is possibly not related to the form that Matthews has in mind.
  6. If the specimen does relate to one of the forms Matthews has in mind, the name may be preoccupied, and Richmond suggests in such a case Anous leucocapillus Gould may be the appropriate available name.
• The Richmond Index, in fact, lists a card for Anous minutus Boie (!), but it does not appear to be in Richmond's hand, and cites the type locality as determined by Mathews.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium has a listing (p.4100) as follows:

  minuta  Sternula (L.), F. Boie, Isis (Oken), 1822, 563. -- Sterna, 1766.

  Suggesting that Boie may also possibly have been referring to his previous use of Sternula minuta.
• The Richmond Index has a card for the genus group name Sternula F. Boie Isis (Oken) Bd. X Heft V, col.563 1822, and gives the type as "minuta".
• So all this is somewhat confusing, but it appears to me (without having seen any of the primary sources) [but see below] that Boie in 1844 was listing the species of Anous and included there names that he had previously held to be in "St." -- presumably his Sternula. Thus it may well be appropriate to list the authority without parentheses if the type specimen is in fact not from California, as the Essling specimen would appear to be.
• If the type specimen for this name is not from the Australasian region the entire taxon would appear to be problematic.
• It appears to me that further investigation of this matter is appropriate.
2013.09.20
• Boie's original is seen here: St. minutus Isis von Oken 1844 Original Description

• The specific epithet is spelled mocino by Peters Checklist 5:148.
• Originally spelled Mocinno but in honor of José Mociño, as correctly shown by the Richmond Index.
• Peters thereby introduced an incorrect subsequent spelling.
• These points are of slight historical interest, as the ICZN ruled that the correct spelling is mocinno (Direction #43), and placed the name in the Official approved list.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking up this spelling issue, and to Normand David and Edward Dickinson for helping to establish the confirmatory details.

• Originally described in Ptinilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175.
• It appears to me that Ptinilopus is an 1831 Bonaparte Giorn. arcad., 49:52 emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
• H&M 3^rd:175 clearly must interpret Bonaparte's name to be something other than an emendation, though the support for such an interpretation is not presented. Such support would be particularly interesting to know of, as it is appears that in the Voy.Pol.Sud. work the name is "Spelled Ptinilopus in all places here." (to quote the Richmond Index), and evidently is corrected in Arch.Mus.Hist.Nat., VII, 1855 p.365(note) (again from the Richmond Index).

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:26 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• 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.

• Peters Checklist 3:26 lists this being found in volume 1, and this is copied by HBW 4:614.
• The name is found in volume II (of the first series) of this work.

• 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:176 and by HBW 4:217.
• 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.
• HBW 4217 dates this citation to 1873. Understandable confusion as this volume, in twelve issues was published from 1871 to 1873. This portion of the volume was clearly issued in 1871 and the HBW citation is incorrect.

• CW Richmond comments in Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 1902 26:691 that Laticauda Lesson 1843 L'Echo du Monde Savant ser.2 VIII, Oct. 22, 1843 col.758 "has priority over and should replace Metallura Gould, 1847."
• In this he would appear to be ignoring the presence of Laticauda Laurenti, 1768. Syn. Rept. p.109 (a genus group name still in use for a Colubrid sea-snake).

• Peters Checklist 8:169 (Traylor) gives the citation as:
  • Sylvia macloviana Garnot 1829 Voy,'Coquille,'Zool. 1(2), p.540
  There are a number of apparent problems with this citation, as it appears to me that the date, volume, number, and page rendering do not appear to correlate with the actual structure of the publication as I understand it.
• More important, the Richmond Index indicates there is a publication of this name by Garnot three years prior to the date given by Traylor.

• These citations are problematic and contoversial. The dates of livr.5 do not appear to have been established with certainty and it is variously cited to 1830 or 1831.
• Of interest in his description of Merulaxis ater evidently Lesson notes: "Cent. Zool., pl.30" (data from Richmond Index). The Richmond Index dates that portion of Cent. Zool. to 1831, and speculates that Lesson's note would make it likely that the description of M. ater appeared first in Cent. Zool. If this were established to be true, and if the 1831 date is accepted for livr.IV of Cent. Zool., then it would appear quite certain that at least the latter pages of livr.5 of TraitedOrn. should be dated to 1831, and not 1830.
• However, it must be noted that at this time Lesson was working on multiple works and a confusing number of internal references exist, so that we can not be sure he is referring to published material when he cites "Cent.Zool.".

• Currently (2004) there is much debate and less consensus regarding the systematics of this group. Changes in systematics can be expected to continue.
• Recent publications include:
  1. Voelker G. 2002. "Systematics and historical biogeography of wagtails: Dispersal versus vicariance revisited." Condor 104(4):725-739.
  2. Alström K, Mild K, & Zetterström. 2003. Pipits and Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America. Christopher Helm, London.
  3. Pavlova A, et al.. 2003. "Phylogeographic patterns in Motacilla flava and Motacilla citreola: Species limits and population history." Auk 120(3):744-758.
  4. Banks RC, et al. 2004. "Forty-fifth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds." Auk 121(3):992.

• Peters Checklist 4:195 lists the page number for this taxon as "p.88". HBW 5:[683] lists the pagination as "87-88".
• The name and description occur on p.89, as is correctly indicated in the AOU CL's 6^th & 7^th Edns.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

• Originally spelled melanoleueus by Smith (fide CWR, Sherborn "M,N";3967; and Willughby reprints of Smith's work).
• Apparently interpreted to be an error (at least by Peters 1(2):346 to be an error, though the rationale for that is not explicated).
• Therefore, as near as I am able to determine, this appears to be an emendation which has not been questioned, and even if not supportable now resides cheerfully in the cesspool of prevailing usage.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing the issue of the original spelling to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 3:168 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.
• Unfortunately, the HBW 4:365 has "1875" for the date, perpetuating this common error.

• Bonaparte's note reads:

    Genus dicatum Aloysio Masio meo, Italicis-
  simo,  exuli etiam cariori, amplitudine in-
  genii, animi virtute, lacertorum vigore
  aeque praeclaro! ... Utinam multos tales
  filios Italia et vel Gallia progenuerint! ....

• This is translated by Jobling (1991) as:

  My genus is dedicated to Aloysius Masi, the very essence of Italy,
  exiled yet dear, talented, intellectual, energetic, and distinguished!
  Would that Italy of France could always produce such sons!

• Jobling goes on to comment: "The only candidate for this eulogy (here freely translated from the original Latin) would seem to be the republican Colonel Masi, a supporter of Garibaldi, but no further details are provided."
• Jobling must be correct in this. Of interest, Luigi Masi of Perugia, Italy was initially hired by Bonaparte as the tutor of his children. Masi continued with the family for many many years and became Bonaparte's personal secretary, travelling with him to many meetings. Luigi (who would appear not to be Aloysius) is mentioned many times in Stroud's 2000 Biography of Bonaparte. Aloysius Masi is not mentioned.

• Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) renders this "Pitta mülleri in the original description, and thus spells it "Pitta sordida muelleri". This would be appropriate, if in fact Bonaparte had spelled it with an umlaut and the name was either German or indeterminate as to origin.
• I have checked two copies of the Consp.Gen.Av. and the name is spelled "(Pitta mulleri, Bp.)", and thus "ue" is incorrect.
• H&M 3^rd:338 renders this name correctly.
• Bonaparte describes this name in Brachyrus even though the binomen listed is "Pitta mulleri, Bp.". I interpret this to be a Bp. manuscript name, but published first here.
• H&M 3^rd:338 apparently follows Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) in listing this without parentheses. Mayr does not appear to have attended to either the actual spelling of the name or the overall structure of Bonaparte's work.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out my error in following H&M and Peters.

• Spelled Picus mineaceus by Peters Checklist 6:142
• H&M 3^rd:327 spells the specific epithet miniaceus, and this follows what is given in the Richmond Index, Sherborn and HBW 7:537.

• Spelled middendorffi with only one terminal "i" in the Richmond Index.
• Edward C. Dickinson checked the original description and confirms that the name is spelled with an -ii ending. (in litt. 2004.03.21).

• Peters Checklist 5:78 gives 55 as the volume number.
• Both the Richmond Index and HOLLIS Catalog (http://holliscatalog.harvard.edu/) show that the name in question appears in volume 65.

• An interesting nomenclatural situation applies to this name as described by Zimmer, 1926 p.158

  	The generic names of some of the new species have been altered to
  accord with generic changes proposed herein by Gray, as, for example,
  Myiobius magnirostris, p.48 pl.VIII. Gould's manuscript name,
  Tyrannula magnirostris, is cited in synonomy but appears on
  the plate, while the new combination is given without authority
  other than that it follows Gray's proposal of Myiobius for
  Tyrannula of Swainson. In this case, the authorship of the species may
  remain with Gould since the plate has priority over the text (see below), but
  Darwin appears to be properly the author of the new combination of names.
  

• Peters Checklist 9:88 (Mayr & Greenway) date this to 1838, and this if followed by H&M 3^rd:533.
• Sherborn showed (in 1897 Ann.Mag.Hist.Nat. (6) 20:483) that this part was published in July 1839, a fact also listed in Zimmer and Sherborn's Index Animalium, as well as the Richmond Index.

• The date of this citation raises a problem.
  • The Peters Checklist 5:249 dates this to 1860. (This is followed by H&M 3^rd:297, and HBW 6:410.)
  • Peters may be following Sclater 1924 Systema Avium Ethiopicarum 1:232 who gives 1860.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1859, and notes that the signature is dated "Dec. 12, 1859".
• The relatively late date of the signature imprint certainly suggests that its publication could have been delayed until 1860, though Peters gives no details or support for this date, and himself dates taxa from earlier in the volume to 1859.
• To date I do not have data from the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. (where I suspect Sclater may have gotten his date for the Syst.Av.Aethiop.).
• If 1860 is correct (which I suspect may well be the case) the implication here is that either Th.II was issued in parts (presumably signatures) or the entire volume would have to be dated to 1860. This last case would affect quite a few taxa, and might have substantial priority implications.

• The date given for this by Peters Checklist 7:93, and H&M 3^rd:410 is 1874.
• Foster, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was in no.6-7 of Volume X and these were published in the period of March to May of 1872.
• I choose to follow the Richmond Index, and Foster here. The dates of this publication are, however quite problematic.

• The Richmond index gives a copy of the description:

  "cauda rotundata, nigro maculata, supra testaceus
  subuts albus fasciis transversis subundulatis nigris,
  remigum apicibus nigris testaceo marginatis."

• A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist 4:22 gives the date as 1804, but provides no data, discussion, or support for that date. And HBW 4:559 appears to follow the Peters Citation.
• The Richmond index gives a date of 1803 and notes "(4^th quarter)" of 1803. A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist 6:7 lists this as 1853, giving no notes, discussion of details, or basis for using that date. This date is followed by HBW 7:96, again with no discussion of the date.
• The Richmond Index lists this as 1852, with a note that the "Article is dated April 16, 1852" [this may, however be a printers date - APP].
• Zimmer lists the dates for this publication as ending in 1852, but with no further details.
• Sclater (the author of the taxon) lists the date as 1852 in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 19:166. [though I think this is relatively weak date evidence].
• Murray Bruce's research on this publication would appear to support 1852 for all but the last 21 pages of the Contributions. [see note on Contr.Orn. for details].
• I interpret the evidence to supports 1852.

• Considered by Marshall (1967) and H&M 3^rd to be included in their Otus k.bendirei.
• Cannings RJ & Angell T. 2001. Birds of North America. No. 597 Western Screech Owl. p.3 refer to size and plumage coloration differences and hold it to be a separate race. They include tabular data (p.16) which show the macfarlanei weights and wing-lengths to be substantially the largest.
• The type for macfarlanei was collected in my home town (Walla Walla, WA). [[2010.06.12] Initially I thought this was collected by Wm. Brewster, but I think Brewster was probably not in Walla Walla in 1881. Brewster comments in his Bull.Nutt.Orn.Club article on birds of the Fort Walla Walla vicinity, that Bendire sent him his collection of birds from that region, and encouraged Brewster to publish any findings of interest.] The bird was collected on Oct. 22 1881, by Capt. Charles Bendire. Capt. Bendire was stationed at Ft. Walla Walla from June 1878 until May 1882. (Fort Walla Walla, given as the type locality for a number of subspecies, actually occupied 3 locations, from its inception to the current day. When Capt. Bendire served there it was located at it's current location where it now functions as a Veterans Administration Hospital, and where Western Screech Owls -- quite abundant in Walla Walla -- can be heard to this day on the grounds.)
• The bird was named for "Mr Robert Macfarlane who, as is well known, was a personal friend of Robert Kennicott and an enterprising and accomplished field ornithologist."
• Coues (KeyN.A.Birds p.634) lists Macfarlane as a member of the Hudson Bay Company.

• The original description occurs as a footnote to OTUS MEXICANUS G. Cuvier. and reads:

  *) Otus midas, Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Mus. Berol., p. 6, est foudé sur
  un individu femelle d'un hibou sous tous les rapports sembable an mexicanus,
  mais d'une taille plus considérable.  Il a été tué dans les environs de Monté-
  video.  Longuer totale 18 pouces.  Aile 11 pouces 6 lignes.  Pointe de l'aile
  2 pouces. Queue 5 pouces 9 lignes.  Aigrettes 33 lignes.  Hauteur de la man-
  dible supérieure 5 lignes.  Oiel 5 lignes de demie. Tarse 26 lignes.  Doigt du
  milieu 19 lignes.

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:226; HBW 3:[725]) given as

  Microparra Cabanis 1877 J.Orn. 25 p.349

• The Richmond Index gives a date of July, 1877 for that volume and number of the J.Orn., however the Orn.Centralblatt also containing the erection of this genus was issued on June 15, 1877.

• The original description reads

  		Genus MALACOPTERON, n.g.
  
  Rostrum ferè capiti æquale, altius quà latum, ad apicem incisum,
    ultraque nares compressum, ad basim setis armatum; mandibulâ
    inferiore ad basim tumidâ.
  Tarsi mediocres; digiti externi vix longiores quàm interni, poste-
    riores medios æquantes; ungues compressi posteriores longissimi;
    scuta tarsi vix divisa.
  Alæ breves, rotundatæ; pennis secondariis primarias ferè æquantibus;
    primâ pennarum spuriâ, secundâ breviore tertiâ quæ longissima
    est.
  Cauda paucarum pennarum composita, rotundata; tectricibus supe-
    rioribus mollibus et longis.
    Obs. This genus is allied to Microtarsus in some particulars and
  to Brachipus in others; it agrees with both in the soft and downy
  nature of the tail coverts.
  

• The original description reads

    CORYTHAIX MACRORHYNCHUS.   Cor. rostro prægrandi aurantico,
      ad basin sanguineo; capite, cristâ, collo pectoreque viridibus;
      cristâ ad apicem albâ et purpureo notatâ, lineâ albâ infra oculos
      excurrente; dorso alisque metallicè purpureis; primariis san-
      guineis nigro marginatis; caudâ supernè metallicè viridi; femo-
      ribus caudâque subtù nigris tarsis nigris.
    Long. tot. 14 poll.; rostri, 1¼; alæ 6; caudæ 6; tarsi, 1¼.
    Hab. ---?
    This species of Corythaix lived for some time in the Society's
  Menagerie, having been purchased from a dealer who was unac-
  quainted with its locality.
    Compared with the known species of the genus, it approaches
  most nearly to the Corythaix Persa of authors, but from this it may
  readily be distinguished by its smaller size; and the form, compara-
  tively large size and colouring of the beak.  The colouring of the
  plumage also differs in some respects: like C. Persa, the head, neck
  and breast are green, but the feathers on these parts are of a deeper
  hue than in that species; the feathers of the crest, instead of being
  simply tipped with white, having a white transverse line near the
  apex, but at the apex they are purple-black.  Minute black feathers
  encircle the eye, and a white stripe extends from beneath the eye
  on to the ear.  The beak is much arched above, and somewhat in-
  flated at the base; the nostrils are very large, and not hidden, as in
  C. Persa, by the decumbent feathers, these extending only to the
  posterior angle of the nostril.  The upper mandible is of a bright 
  yellow color, excepting all that portion which lies below and be-
  hind the nostrils, which is of a brilliant red colour; the lower mandi-
  ble is of the same red tint, but tipped with yellow.  Both mandi-
  bles present simple sharp-cutting edges, in this respect exhibiting a
  different structure from that observable in the the allied species, C. Persa
  and C. Buffonii, in which the mandibles have their cutting edges
  serrated.  The back and upper surface of the wings are of a deep
  purple-blue tint, exhibiting in certain parts greenish reflections.
  The primaries (with the exception of the first quill) and second-
  aries (with the excpetion of the three of four innermost quills) are
  red, margined with black; the shafts of these feathers are also black.
  The outer primary is black, and the two or three following feathers
  are broadly margined externally with the same colour.  All the 
  wing feathers are black at the base; on the outermost feathers the
  black colouring occupies but little space, but in each successive
  feather it increases in extent.  The feathers of the tail are of a very
  dark green colour above, inclining to black; beneath they are black,
  but exhibit indistinct purple reflections.  The rump, upper and un-
  der tail-coverts, thighs, and vent are black, obscurely tinted with
  purple or green in parts.  The tarsi are black.  The eyes are hazel,
  and the naked, or almost naked space around the eye, is of a crimson
  colour; not carunculated, as in C. Buffonii and C. leucotis.
  

• Originally spelled with one "i" by Baird (fide in original).
• Spelled with one "i" in Peters Checklist 2:19 and Cat.B.Brit.Mus. 22:512, and the Richmond Index.
• HBW 2:342(plate),343 spell this as mccallii (note double "i"), and this is repeated in H&M 3^rd Ed. p.37.
• I interpret one "i" to be correct.

• Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:4; HBW 2:309; H&M 3^rd Ed.:37)
This part was published in Feb. 1862.

• Peters 1(2):21 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
• HBW 1:128 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.31 also perpetuates this error.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprint date indicates.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 25:15 (Moreau & Greenway) as:
  • Passer motitensis Smith,A 1848 Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.114
• However, as Bob Dowsett pointed out, this is pre-dated by the 1836 Rep.Exped.Centr.Afr. which I reproduce here.

Pyrgita Motitensis.   Top of head and back of neck grey;
  eyebrows, sides of neck, and back, chestnut; the interscapu-
  lars dashed with dark black-brown; eyeband, chin, and
  throat, black; cheeks white; breast and belly rusty white.
  Length 6¼ inches. Inhabits the country about Old Latakoo.

• Peters Checklist 12:337 (Moreau) spells this S. melenocephala, as Gray composed the name.
• However, all compound names ending in -ops are manditorily masculine, regardless of their derivation or their treatment by their authors (ICZN 1999:Art. 30.1.4.3. This Speirops is masculine and melanocephalus should also be.

• There are interesting uncertainties here regarding the spelling of this name. Macronous vs. Macronus
• To date (2003.05.02) best summarized by this portion of an email from Normand David:

  
  Macronus/Macronous Jardine & Selby (Illustrations of Ornithology, 1835, Vol. III, pl.150) 
  The plate has Macronus and the the text has Macronous.
  The index of volume III (the only vol. of four that has an index) in which the plate was
  bound has Macronus.
  
  All references cited by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. that I have seen have Macronus 
  (from Gray´s 1841 "Genera..." to Sharpe's 1903 "Handlist ..." + various minor papers in
  Ibis, PZSL, BBOC), except for Blyth 1842 (JASB 11:795) and Blyth 1849 
  (Cat. Birds Mus As. Soc.).
  
  All indications show that Macronus was in overwhelming use from 1835
  until 1963 and 1964, when Deignan (1963, Check-list Birds Thailand) used
  Macronous with no explanation); in Peters (1964) X:318, he (Deignan) 
  invoked Blyth's 1842 "Macronous" as a First Reviser action (but it does not meet
  the requirements of the Code), despite the fact that "the editors would
  prefer to maintain this more frequently used spelling [=Macronus]".
  
  Did anyone else acted as First Reviser?
  
  Perhaps the answer lies in Proc. Biol. Soc Wash. (1905) 18:4, where
  Mearns established Macronous mindanensis montanus; or Chasen 1935, A
  Handlist of Malaysian Birds (Bull Raffles Museum 11:1-389), or Deignan
  1950 (Bull Raffles Museum 23:127-129, where he introduced Macronus
  striaticeps mearnsi.
  
  These publications [must still be checked]...
  
  I note that Wolters (1982, Vogelarten der Erde) used Macronus instead of
  "Macronous" (which he cites).
  
  Unless we find something else, it seems that Deignan was the first
  author to use Macronous consistently at one point in time. I think now
  this is unfortunate because Macronus was much more frequent and closer
  to the etymology (onyx, claw; not ous, ear).
  
  On the other hand, can we say that Deignan in Peters acted as First
  Reviser? He cited Macronous (text to plate) and Macronus (plate), and
  used Macronous. I am not sure yet if this meets [the] Art. 24.2.3 phrase 
  "selected one spelling as correct".
  

• A confusing situation here. Discussed by:
  1. Deignan, 1955 Deignan HG. 1955. "The Identity of Collocalia maxima Hume." BBOC 75(6):82.
  2. HBW 5:433.

• Peters Checklist 1:73 gives the page number as "179".
• This error is repeated in HBW 1:632.
• The description of Pterodroma mollis maderia subsp. nov. is on p.161 of no.CCCLXXVIII. The name is in fact used on p.179 (which is in the following number - no.CCCLXXIX), but it is not new there.
• The Richmond Index gives the citation properly as p.161.

• Peters Checklist 2:130 gives the page number as "68".
• This error is repeated in HBW 2:573 (McGowan)
• The description starts on p.122.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

• N. 144 	FRINGILLA (macroura) supra nigra, macula
  	humerali subtusque alba, recticibus quatuor
  	intermediis longissimis, lateralibus interius o-
  	blique albis.  Magnitudo Spini. 

• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):336.
• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Oostindie." = East Indies.
• Peters Checklist 14:395 indicates "East Indies; error, emended to Angola by Gmelin, 1789, Syst.Nat. 1(2), p.883."

• The citation was given as conventionally cited
  • Struthio molybdophanes Reichenow 1883 Mitt.Orn. p.202 Concept
  however there is some uncertainty here. Using bibliographic tools and library searches, I have not identified with certainty the entity "Mittheilungen des Ornithologischen Vereins [Vereines] in Wien". I suspect that this may be the title of a subsection of a larger work.
• The Richmond Index gives the source as:
  • "Sonntagsb. d. Norddeutsch. Allgemein. Zeitung no.37, 16 Sept. 1883"
    with a note saying:
    'orig. diag. ? repr. in J.f.O. 1883, 399.
    Mitth. des Orn.. Vereines in Wien, VII, no.10 Oct., 1883 p.202 (in text).'
  • On a second card detailing the J. fur Orn. 1884 listing is a note in Richmond's hand stating:
    'probably first described in a newspaper - "Norddeutschen Allg. Zeitung."
    no.37 of Sept. 16, 1883!'
    This "probably" is written above a "possibly" which is crossed out.
• There was a German newspaper "Norddeutsche allgemeine Zeitung" published 1870-1942 which would appear to be the paper referred to.
• By date, this would certainly appear to have priority, and if it satisfies the requirements for adequacy of description would appear to be the appropriate citation.
• My guess is that Richmond did not actually see the Norddeutsh. Allg. Zeitung entry. His changing "possibly" to "probably" suggests he got some additional information, but NOT certainty regarding this question.
• Norbert Bahr helpfully writes (2009.12.13):

   
  	In his work "Die Vögel Afrikas", Reichenow cited 
  	first his publication in the newspaper `Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung"
  	, supporting that that article has priority over the description in 
  	Mitt. Orn. Ver. Wien, and perhaps the source on which Richmond 
  	based his change from `possibly' to `probably' (?).

• The No.37 Sonntagsblatt evidently has an imprint date of 16 Sept. 1883 (a Sunday), but was published on Saturday 15 Sept. 1883, based on Reichenow's note in the DieVog.Afr. (vol.1 p.12).

• I previously followed the AOU. 42^nd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2000. 117(3):850. for the citation, which was:
  • Centrocercus minimus Bradbury & Vehrencamp 1998 PrincipalsAnimalCommunication cover p.iv,770
• I now follow the AOU. 43^rd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2002. 119(3):899.
• A complex and unfortunate situation exists here. I understand this name, though unpublished, was used informally for some time. The Bradbury and Vehrencamp publication of the name was not intended as the species description, but nonetheless was interpreted by Banks, and others who have reviewed the data and the applicable rules, as satisfying the ICZN rules then in effect, and was thus, whether advertent or not, a valid species description.
• Shortly after that publication, the new 4^th ICZN rules came into effect and the description would NOT then have satisfied the criteria.
• Those who worked on recognition of the taxon published their work in the last 2000 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, where they described it as as "new species", and did NOT cite the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work, OR the AOU checklist update's use of the name as a Bradbury and Vehrencamp taxon.
• I understand that there was some consideration to petition the ICZN to suppress the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work (which had unquestioned priority) and thus have their work (being the next available) as the citation.
• The action of the AOU Checklist Committee may make this moot. The Checklist Committee held that the name was used by Vehrencamp and Bradbury as "a means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as a scientific name in zoological nomenclature," and thus was excluded under ICZN 1985 Art.1(b)(6) and ICZN 1999 Art. 1.3.5.
• This would appear to be a lesson and a motivator to remember the importance of publishing and establishing valid names so they can be used by the scientific community in a uniform and consistent manner.
• An additional point:
  • I can not understand Young et al.'s motivation for NOT mentioning either Bradbury & Vehrencamp, OR the initial findings of the AOU Checklist Committee in their WilsonBull. article of description. I can understand their disappointment, and concern over the problem, but by not mentioning the issue in their WilsonBull. paper they ensure that the nomenclatural issue will be more difficult to understand when people in the future look back on this name. In addition, in my view, it produces the possibility of an interpretation of petulance, rather than a desire to resolve and clarify a nomenclatural issue.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 7:282 as a full species.
• Sibley & Monroe suggest possibly a full species, (and use the form M. maranonica).
• The genus group name Melanopareia ends in the transliterated Greek word παρεια [pareia: cheek] which is feminine. Thus Sibley & Monroe's interpretation that the form should be maranonica. However the specific epithet is based on the Rio Marañon, and thus may be a noun in apposition. Chapman described the species as maranonicus but for the moment I use maranonica.
• This approach is supported by Normand David who writes (2002.10.23): "Although formed from the Rio Marañon, the name maranonicus of Chapman is necessarily adjectival because ending in the adjectival suffix -icus, just like amazonicus/amazonica from the Amazon River. Because Melanopareia is feminine, maranonicus needs the mandatory correction to maranonica."
• Has been treated as a subspecies of M. elegans, but they differ morphologically and are allopatric (see Rigdely & Tudor, 1994, and Sibley 1996).

• Often spelt S. magnirostris. Originally described as Acanthiza magnirostra Gould, 1838.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):38 discuss this. They indicate that: "To change magnirosta to magnirostis would turn and invariable noun phrase into a variable adjective."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Sericornis magnirostris occurs 3 times in the Zoo. Rec.; Sericornis magnirostra does not occur.

• Often placed in the monotypic genus

  Eupetomena Gould 1853 Monogr.Trochil. pt6 pl.1,text

• HBW 5:554 (Schuchmann) notes: "song structure and enlarged shaft of primary in [the] male support [the] present treatment in Campylopterus.

• Often spelt C. melancorypha. Originally described as Anas melancorypha Molina, 1782. (Not melanocorypha).
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):27 discuss this. They indicate that: Sibley & Monroe (1990) were mistaken in regarding this name as a noun in apposition (which they did because of the capitalization). The state: "Molina's name is feminine and agrees in gender with the genus Anas, we conclude that melanocorypha can only be the correct latinization of the Greek adjectival μελαγκορυφος [melagkoruphos; black-headed], as diagnosed by Molina (1782,234), and not the latinized masculine noun μελαγκορυφος [ melagkoruphos: tit or warbler]."
• μελαγ-κορυφος is defined by Liddell & Scott as "a bird, the black-cap, Motacilla atricapilla L.; or (as Sundevall) Parus palustris, the marsh tit. Ar. Av. 877, Arist. H. A. 8. 3, 5., 9. 15, 2; acc. to Plin. 10. 44, the μ was the same bird as the ficedula (συκαλις), the latter name being given it during the fig season.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinations C. melanocorypha and C. melancorypha occur twelve times each in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelt P. melanospila. Originally described as Jotreron melanospila Salvadori, 1875.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name melanospila is latinized from the Greek adjective μελανοσπιλος [melanospilos; black-spotted]. Jotrereon Bonaparte, 1854, ending in the transliterated (masculine and feminine) Greek adjective τρηρον [treron:shy], is masculine because it was not established in combination with a feminine adjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.2)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination P. melanospila occurs twice in the Zoo. Rec..

• See Smith, PW. "The history and taxonomic status of the Hispaniolan Crossbill Loxia megaplaga." BBOC. 1997(1998). 117(4):264-271.
• Peters Checklist 14:293 lists this as a subspecies of Loxia leucoptera.

Scytalopus micropterus Systematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:284.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg (Remsen, 1998 )

Scytalopus meridanus Systematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Vol.7 p.286.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg ( Remsen, 1998)

• Usually cited as 1776.
• See Tyrberg. BBOC 118(1):56-7. 1998.

Hemignathus munroi Author Douglas Pratt

• The Richmond Index, lists the author as Douglas, an error for Douglas Pratt.
• Further confusion with this taxon is possible because of the 1919 Perkins taxon Dysmordrepanis munroi.

• Peters Checklist 9:169 has 1831.
• Uncertainty exits about the date of publication of livr.5; I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
• The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and hence 1859 is conventionally used.
• The accession number for the British Museum Library copy of this work is "60.3.-7.2" penciled on the back of the title page.
• The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
• I regard the preponderance of evidence as supporting 1860 as the publishing date.

• Peters Checklist 15:183 does not mention the Appendix, and lists "p.62".
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

Vanellus macropterus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

• Peters Checklist 1:341 gives 1834 and p.282-83.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates 1833, p.80, and checking a facsimile of the papers indicates the Peters Checklist is in error.
• The author is usually given as Smith (Peters Checklist 1:341; HBW 2:157) The Richmond Cardex has Peters crossed out, and "Verreaux" written in. Apparently from independant information H&M 3^rd Corrigenda concurs with the Richmond Index, and lists Verreaux as the author of the taxon.
• In further support of this possibility, Strickland 1855 Ornithological Synonyms p.114 lists the author of the taxon as "Smith, Verreaux", but lists the date as "1830" (!).

• Peters Checklist 6:232 lists the date as 1828.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1827.
• HBW 7:533 (Short & Horne) gives 1828, evidently following the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 15:187 does not list the plates or figure, which are from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 6:63 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of the work.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1828.
• The date proposed by Peters not only appears most unlikely but it suggests that Peters did not actually examine this rare and confusing work during the preparation of this portion of the Checklist. Unpublished notes by CW Richmond indicate that on p.30 of this work (where this bird is described) the date of "Sept. 1827" is mentioned, so this portion of the work (which is Hefte 7) certainly had to be published subsequent to that time.

• Peters Checklist 3:101 lists 1811. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 8:97 has a question on the date.
• {See Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:239 has 1873.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 7:217 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 6:188 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of the work.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1829.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} notes on the card that Ruppell in Neue Wirbelth. Vog. gives 1827 as the date for this species.

• Peters Checklist 1:333 has 1875. See {Poggi, 1996}.

• Not used by Peters Checklist.
• Originally described in Mimeta.

• Peters Checklist 14:108 has "1851?"
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 11:511 lists this as vol."2", evidently a typographic error.

• Peters Checklist 15:166 has 1876, but see {Poggi R, 1996}.
• H&M 3^rd:463 cites this to 1876 without comment (through Corrigenda 6). However, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 cites Poggi in other instances (e.g. for Pachycephala leucogastra which appears on p.822 of vol. 7. The Corrigenda cites Poggi 1996 as reason to change the date of P. leucogastra from 1875 to 1876 (!!!). Poggi makes it clear (pp.102-103) that the imprint date of Volume 7 is "1875" and that pp.1-796

  "belong to 1875 and pages 797--895 most likely belong to 1875".

• My understanding of the Code suggests that 1875 must be used as the date of publication unless and until there is more evidence or proof of delay.
• The Richmond Index notes that this "article [is] dated Nov. 21"; while it is probable that there may have been delay, certainly this date or the volume date of 1875 must be regarded as the "date specified", and treated as correct until shown to be wrong.

• Peters Checklist 6:142 lists the date as 1825 and this is followed by HBW 7:538.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1826.
• The data listed by Dickinson, 2001. Zool.Verh. 335 also indicates 1826 is correct.

Elaenia mesoleuca Author

• Peters Checklist 8:31 lists Lichtenstein as the author, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
• Deppe

• Peters Checklist 1:417 gives 1851 in agreement with {Sherborn, 1902} and {Richmond, et al. 1992}, however, {Browning and Monroe, 1991} show 1850 to be correct.

• Peters Checklist 12:16 has 1890, I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• The Peters Checklist 1:395 has List.Gen.Birds, which is correct, but this genus was not described until the second edition, which was published in 1841, the date shown in the Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 5:117 has 1839. {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1840".

• Peters Checklist 8:266 attributes this to Shaw and Nodder, my understanding is that Nodder did not actually contribute to these descriptions.

• Peters Checklist 8:266 lists 1808, {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates Feb. 1809.
• Of greater interest is the fact that Sherborn's 1895 Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist article, discussing the dates of publication of the Nat.Misc., indicates that this plate would have been published in 1808. This Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. article is often cited as the final word on the dates of publication for the Nat.Misc. However, Sherborn himself clearly didn't think so, as in the Ind.Anim. 1928 p.4064 he cites this taxon to 1809.
• Nevertheless, this taxon is usually cited to 1808 (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:266 (Traylor) and H&M 3^rd:340. The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 proposes changing the authority to Shaw, as opposed to Peters "Shaw & Nodder" but leaves the date issue unaddressed.
• Not surprisingly, the Richmond Index dates this to Feb. 1809, a date that Sherborn himself was eventually able to understand himself was correct; a vision that yet awaits the Peters Checklist and its followers.

• Peters Checklist 6:59 has "1817 (1816)" which in this volume means an imprint date of 1817, and a date of availability of 1816.
• HBW 7 (Short & Horne) give "1817" on p.195, though the citation given on p.[559] of that work is 1816. Of some interest, the same authors (Short & Horne) date Cuvier's same work correctly in the citation for Megalaima flavifrons on p.205 !
• see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}. for data supporting 1816 as the date of availability.

• Peters Checklist 14:118 has 1860.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show that this was published in March 1861.

• Peters Checklist 12:424 has 1831
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as this is in livr.4 of the work.
• H&M 3^rd:431 also dates this to 1831, in the text and argues, without providing any supporting data, in the Corrigendas 3 & 4 that 1831 is correct. A conclusion that must have been carefully considered, but with which I can not agree.

• Peters Checklist 11:460 has 1835.
• There is much uncertainty about this date, and I do not find an entry in {Richmond, et al. 1992}. I follow Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 11:381 has 1850.
• This work was issued from 1818 to 1836, and reissued in 1850. This plate and description were published in 1836 according to {Richmond, et al. 1992}, Sherborn, and Zimmer.

Artamus monachus 1850

• Peters Checklist 15:163 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 1:305 has truncated the citation, listing pl.22 (sic).

Brachypteryx montana 1821

• Peters Checklist 10:18 has 1822.
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 4:253 attributes this to "Rev. Zool." which did not commence until 1838.

• Peters Checklist 4:8 has a 1789 date and a different source
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 8:71 lists "Aves Nuevas Paraguay"
• Aves Nuevas Del Paraguay are reprints from An.Cient.Paraguayos. I know of no indication that they preceeded the journal.

• Peters Checklist 2:98 shows a date of 1880. However, on p.129 of the same volume it gives a date of 1881 for a taxon (Callophasis humiae) from an earlier page of the same volume.
• Sept. 1881 is indicated for this taxon by Richmond, et al. 1992.

• Peters Checklist 6:59 has "Ber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin".
• I follow the orthography of Richmond, et al. 1992, which is consistant with other similar citations.

• Peters Checklist 8:326 has 1845.
• The Richmond Index lists these as "1839 ?40".
• Sherborn lists these as 1840.
• See E.C.Dickinson "Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 5 Types of the Pittidae" p.108 note 8.. He indicates that pp.1-12 and 3 plates appeared in 1839 and pp.13-24 appeared in 1845 along with formal descriptions of all species

• The dates of livr.5 are uncertain.
• Peters Checklist 8:186 has 1831, which may be right.
• My researches favor 1830.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:189.
• See Isler ML, Ilser PR, Whitney BM. 1999. Auk 116(1):83-96.

Amblyornis macgregoriae Citation

Peters Checklist 15:176 leaves out reference to the Appendix.

• Peters Checklist 11:69 has 1788.
• The Richmond Index, and Sherborn both give 1786, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 9:411,412 (= Paynter 1960) has 1860.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the latter portion of Vol. 8 of J.Orn. (at least after p.323) was not published until Jan. of 1861.

Anthoscopus minutus Author

Peters Checklist 12:68 has Shaw and Nodder. It is my understanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.

Amaurornis magnirostris

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Molothrus oryzivorus Generic placement

See Johnson KP & Lanyon SM. 1999. Auk 116(3):759-768. for a discusson of grackle/ally systematics, and the proposal to place oryzivorus in Molothrus, thereby eliminating the monospecific genus Scaphidura.

Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi

The original citation reads: (formatting as in original)

 THALASSIDROMA (BULWERIA) MACGILLIVRAYI.	B.M.
 Like  T. Bulweri, but with bill rather larger; and it is without
the sooty-brown on the wings.
 Feejee Islands (Ngau).

• Considered as likely a full species by many authors.
• Freitag, S and Robinson, TJ. 1993. Auk 110(3):614-622. "Phylogeographic Patterns in Mitochondrial DNA of the Ostrich (Strutio camelus)." presents an analysis of the genus. I interpreted them to argue that the geographical, morphological, and genetic evidence supported the treatment of molybdophanes as a full species. This was based mainly on their statement (p.621)

   "Furthermore, in addition to these adaptational differences, there are reports
  indicating interbreeding difficulties between them (Brown et al. 1982, Lewis and Pomeroy 1989). This
  supports published suggestions that molybdophanes is phenotypically the most distinct of
  the Ostrich subspecies, and that separate species status may be warranted (Brown et al. 1882, Lewis
  and Pomeroy 1989), an observation which is strengthened by the magnitude of sequence divergence
  between molybdophanes and other Ostrich lineages detected in our study." 

• H&M 3^rd ed. p.34 has a note stating:

  "Freitag & Robinson (1993) reviewed molecular evidence for treatment of this as one species or
  two. We interpret the authors to be supportive of single species treatment."

• My interpretation would still be that Freitag & Robinson favored specific recognition of molybdophanes.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 1:11.
• Not treated by Sibley & Monroe.
• Baker et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 1995, 8254-8258) found that two species of Brown Kiwis should be recognized:
• Apteryx mantelli on North Island and Okarito on the South Island of NZ;
• A. australis on southern South Island and Stewart I.
• They found differences in mtDNA, Allozymes, morphology, and feather lice

• Treated by Peters Checklist as a subspecies.
• Sjoerd Maijer (Auk 113, 1996, 695-697) described significant differences in the voices of the two subspecies of the Red-winged Tinamou Rhynchotus rufescens.
• He proposed reinstating R. maculicollis Gray, 1867 as a good species based on voice, morphology and ecology.
• The HBW vol.1 1992, still treated the form as a subspecies.

Myophonus spelling

I include below (a slightly edited) text of Rolf de By's discussion of the spelling of this name. [98.02.16]

Myiophonus species
	Myophonus species ** S/M has Myiophonus; Peters X p. 140 disc. spell.
What I write here, is the outcome of a discussion I helped
organize, but the hard work (literature review) was done by others.  Clearly,
there have been four ways of spelling. On the issue of My[i]ophon[e]us, S&M write:
"This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus,
Myophonus, and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used the
correct spelling."  Issue settled, it seems.  Not so.  BTW, all spellings are in
regular use, it seems.  Utter confusion.
If it's any help, according to my interpretation the three possible names mean:
  Myophonus		"Mouse-voiced"
  Myiophonus		"Fly-voiced"
  Myiophoneus		"Fly-murderer"
I know, this is no proof, but I do feel (if you know the birds; largish blue thrushes)
the top translation makes most sense.  Here's what Tim Inskipp eventually wrote,
and what to my eyes seemed the killer:

> The genus was described by Temminck in 1822 in Nouveau receuil de planches 
> coloriees d'oiseaux. 
> 
> Sibley & Monroe (1990, Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world) used 
> the spelling Myiophonus, stating that:
> 
> `This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus, 
> Myophonus and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used the 
> correct spelling.'
> 
> However, Biswas (1961) used the spelling Myiophoneus, explaining in a 
> footnote that:
> 
> `Vaurie (1959a, p. 415) has reverted back to the spelling Myophonus. It is 
> true that on the explanation of pl. 170 of Temminck & Laugier's Planches 
> color., livr. 29 (1822) the generic name is spelt as Myophonus, but two pages 
> preceding it, where the genus is described, it is spelt as Myiophoneus.'
> 
> Ripley (1964, Subfamily Turdinae in Check-list of birds of the world, 10) 
> gave the citation for the genus as:
> 
>  'Myiophoneus Temminck 1822, Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170. Type, by original 
> designation, Turdus flavirostris Horsfield.'
> 
> He explained in a footnote that:
> 
> 'Temminck (ibid.), in his generic description, spells the new genus 
> Myiophoneus, and on the following page accompanying plate 170 spells it 
> "Myophonus."'
> 
> Deignan (1965) gave a characteristically detailed summary of the situation: 
> 
> 'The first citation for Genus Myophonus Temminck should read: Myophonus 
> Temminck, 1822 (Dec.) Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170 and text. Type, by 
> monotypy, Myophonus metallicus Temminck. (The plate is lettered Myophone 
> luisant).
>    The name next appears in literature as Myiophonus Boie, 1829, Isis, p. 
> 1029, lapsus or nomen emendatum.
>    Its third guise, accompanied by a proper generic diagnosis, is Myiophoneus 
> Temminck, 1832 (post Mch. 2), Pl. col., livr. 29, p. [211].
>    At this third appearance the genus is expanded to include, in addition to 
> M. flavirostris (Horsfield), 1821 (May), with which M. metallicus Temminck, 
> 1822, is now synonymized; also:-
>    (1) Myophonus Horsfieldii Vigors, 1831 (Mch. 2), corrupted to Myiophoneus 
> [sic] Horsfeldii [sic];
>    (2) Myophonus Temminckii Vigors, 1832 (Mch. 2), changed to Myiophoneus 
> [sic] Temminckii;
>    (3) Pitta glaucina Temminck, 1823 (Apr.), here listed as Myiophoneus [sic] 
> glaucinus and cited from pl. 190 [sic] (correctly, pl. 194).
>    The footnote on page 140 of Peters' Volume X states that the generic name 
> should be "Myiophoneus," because it so appears, emendated from Myophonus, on 
> the page (properly sheet) preceding the description of Myophonus metallicus 
> Temminck, 1822.
>    Since, however, that preceding sheet cites species named in April 1823, on 
> 2nd March 1831, and on 2nd March 1832, it could not have been issued prior to 
> 2nd March 1832 (as a replacement of an earlier and discarded sheet?). There 
> is then no such name as "Myiophoneus Temminck and Laugier, 1822", as supposed 
> by Delacour (Auk, 1942, p. 246) and by the revisor of the whistling-thrushes 
> for Peters' Check-list.
>    To complete the confusion, we find Temminck using, in the Tableau 
> Methodique of January 1839, which summarizes the Planches Coloriees, both 
> Myophonus and Myiophoneus on the same page 15!
>    If stability in ornithological nomenclature be considered desirable, why 
> are we asked to use a so-called emendation (in fact a wholly new generic 
> name!) that first appeared in print some ten years after the simple, easily 
> spelled and easily pronounced Myophonus Temminck of 1822?'
> 
> I have cited all this because it is a good example of how often authors 
> misquote or misinterpret previously published works. Note that Deignan's plea 
> was apparently ignored by many recent world checklists: Clements (1991: 
> Myiophonus), Howard & Moore (1980, 1984, 1991: Myiophoneus), Walters (1980: 
> Myiophoneus).
> 

• Systematics and taxonomy of the megapodes from
  Jones, D. N., R. W. R. J. Dekker & C. S. Roselaar. 1995. The Megapodes Megapodiidae. Oxford Univ. Pr., Oxford, New York, Tokyo.

• Long treated as a color morph of C. auriceps
• Recent evidence (Triggs, SJ & Daugherty, CH. 1996. Bird Conservation International 6:89-101) suggests assortive mating amoung the few remaining birds and species status is proposed.

• Listed in Peters Checklist 3:209 as T. melanonotus.
• Listed in Sibley & Monroe p.128 as T. melanonotus, without comment on the spelling.
• Collar in HBW 4:456 list this as T. melanonota also without comment on the spelling.
• Treatment of other Touit names suggests the genus is regarded as feminine. The specific epithet here does not appear to be a noun in apposition.

• Not listed in Sibley & Monroe; Peter Checklist 7:230 lists as a subspecies of P. rufifrons;
• Capparella et al (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 165-170 provided reasons for splitting Percnostola minor from P. rufifrons.

• The always helpful Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.14):
  "In a revision of the genus Amytornis, Les Christidis (Austr. J. Zool. 47(1999): 113-124) found that A. striatus in fact represents two species: A. striatus Gould, 1840, and A. merrotsyi Mellor, 1913; based on genetics and morphology.

• I previously attempted to follow Veron G, Winney BJ. 2000. Ibis 142:446-456. "Phylogenetic relationships within the turacos (Musophagidae).". A few points to note in that regard: there are some small discrepancies in spelling of specific epithets, and Veron & Winney do not analyse, treat, or discuss T. ruspolli or T. bannermani, hence their placements in the genus is my speculation.
• Currently, the listing follows H&M 3^rd which is more similar to the Peters Checklist arrangement, though substantial differences exist. H&M 3^rd does not discuss Veron & Winney.

• The last known individual of this species died on September 1, 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoological Gardens, Ohio.

• 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.

Otus mayottensis

• 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.
• The name is derived from Mayotte, an island in the Comoro group.

• In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 27:563 Salvadori lists this species as Nothura media.
• The citation is given as: Tinamus medius Spix 1825 Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.81
• The second name listed in synonomy is: Tinamus minor Spix 1825 Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.82
• A footnote states: "Mr. Oglilvie Grant says the Turnix variegatus Vieill. (N.D. xxxv. p.47; Enc. Meth. i. p.330, pl.232. f.4), is probably a Tinamou (Nothura media), but I cannot find that either the description or the plate agrees with the latter bird."
• "Nothura minor, Darw. (nec Spix Zool. Voy. 'Beagle,' iii p.119 (Bahia Blanca) (1841); Gould, Voy. of 'Beagle' Birds, p.119 (1841)." is given in the synonomy of Nothura darwini. on p.562
• Why the name is not Nothura media rather than N. minor is not clear to me, but this point is not likely to have been overlooked by previous workers.

• Gaucher et al. separate C. macqueenii from C. undulatus on the basis of male reproductive behaviour and cytochrome b gene analysis. Gaucher P, Paillat P, Chappuis C, Saint Jalme M, Lotifkhah F, Wink M. 1996. "Taxonomy of the Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undualta subspecies considered on the basis of sexual display and genetic divergence." Ibis 138:273-282.
• The HBW 3:265 does not split C. macqueenii but mentions that "it may merit treatment as a separate species."
• Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Sibley and Monroe spell this "malachorhynchus"
• It was originally spelt "malacorhynchos" and most authors now spell it so.

• Previously as:
  • Burhinus giganteus (Wagler) 1829 Isis 22 col.647 [Charadrius]
• HBW 3:350 has a discussion of the confusing nomenclature.

Micrastur mirandollei Systematics

• Schelgel's entry reads:"

    ASTUR MIRANDOLLEI, Schelgel dans le Nederl. Tigdsch. v.d.
  Dierkunde, I, p.130.
    Tarses rêvetus d'écailles hexagonales, longs de 3 pouces,
  jaunâtres. Aile 8 pouces 6 lignes. Queue 6 pouces 3 lignes.
  Hauteur de la mandibule supérieure 7 lignes.  Doigt du milieu
  15 lignes.  Dessus gris, dessous blanc à baguettes des plumes
  noirâtres.  Queue d'un brun noir avec 5 barres claires.
    Observe a Surinam.
  
  1. Adulte, Surinam, présenté par Mr. Mirandolle: idividu
  type, figuré dans l'ouvrage cité."

• Mr. Mirandolle was a resident of Surinam.
• 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 measeure 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 would suggest there may be some variability in the conversion.

• HBW 4:360 lists the date here as 1873.
• Collar is consistent in citing this volume as 1873, however this portion was published in 1871.
  See the details at Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

• Sibley & Monroe have A. moluccanus
• This is followed by HBW 3:181 where they do not comment on the spelling.
• Amaurornis is feminine and moluccana is correct.

• Normand David writes (2001.01.05)

  "Ierax melanoleucos Blyth, 1843, must be listed Microhierax melanoleucos [as per Peters (1931), Wolters (1982)], and should not be changed to M. melanoleucus [as in Peters (1979a), etc.]. I have checked the original reference."

• Peters Checklist 3:74 and HBW 4:132 place this in a monotypic genus:
  • Nesoenas Salvadori 1893 Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 21 p.240,327
• HBW characterizes the "true taxonomic relationships uncertain", so I initially left it in Columba.
• Johnson et al. "A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera Streptopeia and Columba". 2001. The Auk 118(4):874-887. present zoogeographic as well as nuclear and mitochondrial genetic evidence supporting their proposal to merge Nesoenas into Streptopelia.
• Peters felt the form was extinct, however in 1994 the number of free living individuals on Mauritius was counted as 77.

• A complex systematic and nomenclatural situation.
• Recently summarized (in litt. 2004.05.15) by Norbert Bahr, who reviewed and translated two of the recent papers relating to these questions. For the present, I interpret the implications of these works (v. i.) to favor the intepretation that Bubo magellanicus should be held to be a species distinct from Bubo virginianus.
• Norbert's email (with slight editing) is below, and is followed by my previous notes on this taxon.

   ... I can help you with translations of the König et al. (1996) as well
  as the Weick (1999) articles on American Bubo, as I have both these papers at
  hand. I will start with an extended summary of the paper by König et al. (1996).
  
  König, C., P. Heidrich & M. Wink (1996): Zur Taxonomie der Uhus (Strigidae: Bubo
  spp.) im südlichen S¨damerika. Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk., Ser. A, Nr. 540, 1-9
  [Taxonomy of Great Horned Owls (Strigidae: Bubo spp.) in southern South 
  America.]
  
  According to Amadon & Bull (1988) there is only one Bubo species in the whole
  American continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego: Bubo virginianus. Traylor
  [Auk 75: 143-148 (1958)] studied variation and races of the Great Horned Owl in 
  South America and came to the conclusion that the form east of the Andes must be 
  Bubo virginianus nacurutu, whereas the birds of Patagonia, Chile, and of the
  Andes from Tierra del Fuego to Peru should be called B. v. magellanicus. Indeed,
  nacurutu and magellanicus are rather different: they have very obvious
  differences in bill and foot dimensions, and in the barring of the underparts. 
  Fjeldsa & Krabbe (1990) used the name magellanicus for the smaller taxon from
  Patagonia and the southern Andes.
  It would be a surprise that a subspecies occuring in sub-arctic Patagonia and 
  the High Andes is smaller than a [sister] subspecies living in warmer climatic
  conditions, and indeed, compared to other subsp. of virginianus, magellanicus is
  a dwarf form. Besides these morphological differences, the vocalizations of both 
  Bubo forms are quite distinct. The Great Horned Owl is called 'nacurutú' in
  Argentinia, but 'tucúquere' in Chile, apparently an onomatopetic transcription
  of the calls of these birds.
  
  Morphologic and bioacoustic comparison of the forms magellanicus and nacurutu.
  B. magellanicus is small, has a relatively small bill (culmen under 43 mm) and
  comparatively small feet. Below, this taxon [is] barred very narrowly light and dark.
  There are light morphs showing much white, but there are also rather dark morphs 
  with a brownish main color.
  The wings are, according to Traylor, in males from Chile and Argentinia on 
  average 329,0 mm (318-339), in females 342,9 mm (330-358). Birds from the Andes 
  of Bolivia and Peru are somewhat larger (wings 351-380 mm); the bill is on 
  average 38,0 mm in males and 39,3 mm in females. Birds in the Stuttgart 
  collection agree with these measurements.
  If one compares living birds side by side, so the different culmen and talon 
  measurements are very obvious [ther are photos of pairs of both forms in the 
  paper which show these differences very impressive!]. Further on, both taxa have 
  different 'faces' and feather ears (longer in nacurutu).
  Still more impressive are the differences in songs of both taxa. Both sexes of 
  magellanicus sing in duet, the male uttering a double-call "wu-búh" with a
  quiet tremolo on "o": "wu-búh-worrrr". 'Tucúquere' is a good circumscription of 
  this vocalization. The female sings similarily, but the tremolo is a little 
  longer.
  The nacurutu subsp. of virginianus is a little larger than magellanicus, with
  large feet and a stronger bill. Barring is not as narrow and the facial 
  expression is more "wild", caused by the longer feather ears and the strong bill.
  Wing length in 15 males is 341,4 mm on average (330-354), in 21 females 363,1 mm 
  (240-376); the strong bill is about 45,6 mm in 14 males and 48,8 mm in 20 females.
  Pairs vocalize in duets also. The song of males is like "wu-bubú buh buh" in
  females like "wu-bububú" followed by a drawn-out "buh". The first part of the
  females song is fairly good circumscribed with 'nja-curutú'.
  
  Molecular biological results
  Heidrich and Wink conducted a sequence analysis of the mt cytochrome b genes in 
  their laboratory. Material was used from blood and feathers and by PCR they 
  amplified 960 base pairs. Nucleotide sequences differed in 15 positions (1,6%), 
  according to about 800 000 years when using the 2% rule. Both taxa are 
  apparently sibling species, comparable to the differentiation of Spotted and 
  Lesser Spotted Eagles (Aquila clanga, A. pomarina) or the Imperial and Spanish
  Imperial Eagles (A. heliaca, A. adalberti).
  
  Discussion
  As vocalizations are likely the most important mechanisms of isolation in owls, 
  it seems highly probable that B. magellanicus and B. virginianus are good
  species. Genetic distances not only confirm this assumption, but also confirm 
  the hypothesis that vocalizations in owls are of special importance for owl 
  taxonomy.
  The form nacurutu apparently represents a subspecies of Bubo virginianus,
  distributed in North and most of South America. It occurs in southern South 
  America east of the Andes, where it has its southern limits in the Province of 
  Buenos Aires.
  Bubo magellanicus is relatively common in Tierra del fuego and Patagonia, where
  it lives in mountainous habitats. There it occurs in loosely wooded areas of 
  southern beech as well as in mountains. It is distributed northward on the
  Pacific slope (Chile) as well as in the central part (high-andine) of the Andes 
  of Peru, agreeing with Traylor's findings of magellanicus. In the eastern slopes
  of the Andes an overlapping zone of both species may be found, where B.
  magellanicus apparently prefers rocky areas.
  
  Weick, F. (1999): Zur Taxonomie der Amerikanischen Uhus (Bubo spp). Unter
  Berücksichtigung eines größtenteils parallel variierenden Polymorphismus
  innerhalb der Subspecies. Ökologie der Vögel 21: 363-387
  [Taxonomy of the American Great horned Owls (Bubo spp) with consideration of a 
  mostly parallel variation within the polymorphic subspecies.]
  
  The author was studying specimens of New World Bubo in preparation for the
  plates of König et al. (Owls) in several museums, where he found a enormous 
  variability  in plumages within populations. The evident polymorphism is obvious 
  in most subspecies and varies parallel among taxa. Without knowledge of the 
  locality of collection, many specimens are impossible to classify correctly. 
  Original descriptions of subspecies are of little help, as they were often based 
  on too few specimens of the same color morph. Most authors do not mention color 
  morphs in Great Horned Owls at all, an exception is Oberholser's paper of 1904.
  
  Comments on taxonomy
  New World Bubo are an interesting group with a complicated taxonomy, determined 
  by the following factors:
  
  a. with some exceptions, there is relatively few material of these birds
  available. In zoos and in private collections of living birds the number of 
  individuals and subspecies is limited.
  b. polymorphy, the existence of two or more color morphs, shows parallel
  variation among subspecies; this means that there are very similarely colored
  birds in different distrubutional areas. The scale light-intermediate-dark birds 
  is often shifted from one subspecies to the other. The light morph of one subsp. 
  can be similar to the intermediate or dark morphs of another subsp.
  c. a number of well described subspecies, of relatively small populations, is
  surrounded often by a number of variants occupying a larger area.
  d. there are broad zones of intergradation with intermediate populations between
  races.
  
  
  Comments on distribution, size and coloration
  The species is distributed from the west coast of Alaska, over subarctic boreal 
  areas of Canada, parts of the tundras of Canada and Labrador, to Middle and 
  South America and Tierra del Fuego. It is lacking on the Queen Charlotte Is., 
  the West Indies, and larger areas of the South American lowland rain forests.
  Some insular areas of occurence within these areas are little known. There are 
  some obvious clines in size and coloration in agreement with Bergmann's and 
  Gloger's rules. 
  
  Color morphs and intermediate populations
  As mentioned above, each subspec. has its typical morph, but there are one or 
  more other morphs detectable. Often these morphs agree well with morphs of other 
  subsp., but not always in size and proportions. There are two color plates 
  showing the different morphs and subspecies, and two maps depicting the 
  distribution of the subsp.
  Checking of the collecting localities and breeding places revealed that several 
  described subsp. are only morphs of other subsp. So is lagophonus only a synonym
  of saturatus (the latter is given as restricted to a small coastal area in
  western North America, but it occurs also in the interior of Brit. Columbia). 
  Weick found large areas of secondary contact between the forms wapacuthu,
  heterocnemis, occidentalis and virginianus, where intermediate populations are
  found. Smaller areas of introgrssion are known between virginianus and
  pallescens, pallescens and pacificus, and pacificus and saturatus.
  
  Comments on earlier publications
  Weick has reviewd the literature on Amer. Bubo (Oberholser 1904; Kelso & Kelso 
  1934, Eck & Busse 1973, Voous 1988, Peters 1940 and many more; Karalus & Eckart 
  1974 listed all what is known on described subsp., resulting in up to three 
  subsp. for one and the same area!)
  
  Revision of the complex
  After giving material and methods, Weick lists the following subsp. as valid, 
  with synonyms , morphs, distribution
  
  Bubo virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)
  
  B. v. saturatus (Gmelin, 1788)
     syn. lagophonus; algistus; leucomelas
     coastal areas of w Alaska, parts of interior Alaska, Yukon Valley, coasts of
     SE Alaska to Washington, parts of NE and W Oregon, Brit. Columbia, NC Alberta, 
     intergradation zone in N California.
     4 morphs (dark; intermediate; light; black-and-white)
  B. v. pacificus Cassin, 1854
     syn. icelus
     SW USA northward to S Oregon, eastwards to W & C Nevada, 
     south to NW Baja California; 
     intergradation zone with saturatus
     2 morphs (grey; dark; no light morph; 
     intermediate birds are mixed with saturatus?)
  B. v. wapacuthu (Gmelin, 1788)
     syn. arcticus; subarcticus; scalariventris
     Canada from James Bay and N Lake Superior to the Rocky Mts. and the Mackenzie 
     Valley, southwards to N. alberta, Saskatchewan, C Manitoba and N Ontario;
     there is a wide area of of introgression with heterocnemis and nominate
     virginianus in eastern Canada, where also birds of all three subsp. may occur 
     without introgression.
     4 morphs (light, almost white birds occure in the more southern parts of the 
     range; intermediate; dark; black-and-white, similar to saturatus)
  B. v. heterocnemis (Oberholser, 1904)
     syn. neochorus; scalariventris
     E North America: Ungava Peninsula, Labrador, [APP: Newfoundland], Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
     Ontario, N Maine; introgression zone with wapacuthu
     4 morphs (light, rare in this taxon; intermediate grey; dark, typical; 
     black-and-white)
  B. v. occidentalis Stone, 1896
     C Alberta, S Saskatchewan, S Manitoba in the North southwards to 
     NE California, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, W Minnesota; 
     introgression with wapacuthu in N, and with virginianus in E.
     1 morph (grey, typical birds, lighter than nominate, with lighter and finer 
     barring; intermediate birds are probably occidentalis x wapacuthu)
  B. v. virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)
     S Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, southwards to the Gulf Coast, 
     Florida, w to E Minnesota, SE South Dakota, E Kansas, Oklahoma, E Texas;
     introgression zones in N with heterocnemis, in W with occidentalis
     and pallescens.
     2 morphs (similar in barring and markings to occidentalis, but with 
     significantly chestnut to orange-brownish ground color, also these tones in the face; 
     light, rare and probably introgression with pallescens)
  B. v. pallescens Stone, 1897
     SW USA, SE California, S Arizona, S New Mexico, S Texas, NE Baja California, 
     and Mexico south to Guerrero, Morelos, W Veracruz; 
     introgression zone in N  with pacificus, in C and SE Texas with virginianus
     4 morphs (light brown/ochre; intermediate; grey; black-and-white with broad 
     barring on the underside)
  B. v. elachistus Brewster, 1902
     Baja California south of 30°N
     smallest subsp., 2 morphs (light; dark)
  B. v. mayensis Nelson, 1901
     syn. mesembrinus; melancercus
     Middle America
     4 morphs (grey; intermediate with light ochre, especially in the face; dark brown; 
     black-and-white, but with narrower barring than pallescens)
  B. v. nacurutu (Vieillot, 1817)
      syn. scotinus; elutus
      tropical lowlands of South America e of the Andes, there is little knowledge 
      about its distribution in E Argentina, Uruguay and E Brasil.
      4 morphs (light grey, rare; brownish grey with pale face and breast patches
      of various browns; dark with very dark face, similar to nigrescens but 
      with totally different barring and without nigrescens' white patches; 
      black-and-white)
  B. v. deserti Reiser, 1905
      northern C Bahia; birds from Barra (Bahia) and Santarem are of uncertain subspecies
      2 morphs ( grey with much white above and below, white tips to the feather ears, 
      white barring on upper tail coverts; intermediate with narrow and fine
      barring below and somewhat light upperside)
  B. v. nigerscens von Berlepsch, 1884
      syn. colombianus
      moderate temperature zones of the Andes from NW Peru to Ecuador and Colombia
      darkest form with dark patches on breast, almost no barring recognizable 
      above, but with strongly contrasting white patches, tail very dark; no morphs
  	
  
  Bubo magellanicus (Lesson, 1828)
  	syn. andicolus 
  	Tierra del Fuego, S and W Argentinia, Chile, Bolivian Highlands, 
  	temperate zones of C Peru 
  	considered a different species here; 
  	extremely small bill and feet 
  	3 morphs (light with white or yellowish belly, above light greybrown; 
  	intermediate [brown]; dark, similar to nacurutu in color, 
  	but with breat patches and markings darker)
  	

There are two color plates showing standardized birds of the different morphs, 
accompanied with a list of all the morphs and in which subsp. they can be found.
Address of author:
Friedhelm Weick
Pommernstr. 34
D-76646 Bruchsal-Untergrombach
Germany

[Begin previous Notes]

• Peters Checklist (George Watson) 11:13 gives Horsefield and Moore as the authors. I follow the Richmond Index which cites Moore as the author here.

• Peters Checklist (Reginald E. Moreau) 12:336 gives the date as "1866".
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in 1867.

• Peters Checklist 2:54 gives the author as "Gould", the date as "1860" and p.382.
• The Richmond index has the same page ("p.382") but:
  • gives the author as G.R. Gray, and
  • gives "pt. III" and the date as "Mch. 1861".
• For the volume year "1860" part iii was issued "Between August 1860 and March, 1861" (PZS 107(a):72).
• The Richmond index lists the type as in the "Gould Colln."
• HBW 2:429 lists "Gould" and "1860", appearing to reflect the Peters citation.
• Roy McDiarmid checked the PZS paper for me, and saw no indication that GR Gray was the author of the taxon (JE Gray was the chair of the meeting where the Gould paper was read).
• This paper occurs in signature no.440 which includes p.369-384.

Forpus modestus Nomenclature

• Previously cited as:
  • Forpus sclateri (Gray,GR) 1859 ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt3 sect.2 p.86
• Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2006. "Mandatory changes to the scientific names of three Neotropical birds" BBOC 126(3):242-244. suggest that the use of sclateri was based on Peters belief that Psittacula modesta Cabanis 1848 was a secondary junior homonym of Psittacula modesta (Fraser, 1845). The latter is, of course, actually Palaeornis modestus Fraser 1845 PZS Pt13 no.144 p.16., though Pachco & Whitney do not give the original combination.
• Pacheco & Whitney hold
  • Forpus modestus eidos Peters,JL 1937 Check-ListBirdsWorld 3 p.205
  to be a synonym of Forpus modestus modestus.
• Thus we have:
  1. Palaeornis modestus Fraser 1845 PZS Pt13 no.144 p.16.
  2. Psittacula modestus Cabanis 1848 ReisenBrit.-Guiana[Schomburgk] 3 p.727
  3. Psittacula sclateri Gray,GR 1859 ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt3 sect.2 p.86
  4. Psitacella [sic] modesta Schlegel 1871 Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. 4 p.36
• Pacheco and Whitney indicate that Fraser's name and Cabanis' name "appl[y] the name modesta to different nominal genera (PsittaculaCuvier, 1800 [type: Psittacus alexandri Linnaeus] and Psittacula Illiger, 1811 [type: Psittacus passerinus Linnaeus])"
• I am still working to understand if this rationale is correct.
• Thus it seems that:
  1. 1845 Fraser described Palaeornis modesta, this bird has no type locality (it was a caged bird) but is presumed (based on who knows what?) to be an Australasian parrot from Engano Island.
  2. This taxon was subsequently (?when ?by whom) placed in Psittacula, and at least some believe that this Psittacula was felt to be Psittacula Illiger 1811 (how is this known?).
  3. 1848 Cabanis described a South American (eastern Venezuela) parrot as Psittacula modesta, and evidently there is some belief that the Psittacula that Cabanis had in mind was Psittacula Cuvier, (how is this known?).
  4. 1859 Gray described Psittacula sclateri for a parrot from Rio Javari, Peru.
  5. Peters held that Psittacula modesta Cabanis was pre-occupied by Psittacula modesta (Fraser). and erected Forpus slateri eidos as a new name for Psittacula modesta Cabanis. He supported this decision with Hellmayr's discussion of the character and distribution of the races of Forpus sclateri Hellmayr. 1910. Novit.Zool. 17:404-405 (a work which is not referenced by Pacheco & Whitney 2006).

2006.10.08;2006.10.19;2006.10.21; 2010.02.12

---

Thamnophilus murinus Date

• Peters Checklist 7:171 lists the date as 1867.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.

---

Melidectes Date

• Peters Checklist 12:415 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Melidectes torquatus Date

• Peters Checklist 12:419 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Melipotes Date

• Peters Checklist 12:420 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Melipotes gymnops Date

• Peters Checklist 12:420 (Salomonsen) gives this date as 1873.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1874.

---

Coracina mindanensis Date

• Peters Checklist 9:190 (Mayr & Greenway) gives this date as 1878.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1879.

---

Turdus maculirostis Date

• Peters Checklist 10:221 (Ripley) gives this date as 1883.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

---

Ficedula mugimaki Date

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:339, 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".

---

Bradypterus major Citation

• Often given as Bradypterus major (Brooks,WE) 1872 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 41 p.77 (e.g. Peters 1(2):27 (Mayr)).
• This description was published twice by the Society, and the Proceedings publication (Sept. 1871) antedates the Journal (May 1, 1872). [Dates from CWR].
• The work of Aasheesh Pittie and Edward Dickinson brought this fact to my attention.

---

Manacus Citation

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:260 (DW Snow)) listed as:
  • Manacus Brisson 1760 Orn. 4 p.442
• The name is first used in vol.1 where it is available as a binomial.
• Thanks to Steven Gregory for this understanding.

---

Puffinus mauretanicus Concept

• Sangster G, Knox AG, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT. 2002. "Taxonomic recommendations for European birds" Ibis 144:153-159.
• Differs from P. yelkouan in anatomy of the skull and genetically. Genetic analysis is interpreted to demonstrate separate monophyly from P. yelkouan and "independant evolutionary tracks for a considerable time."
• "despite close proximity of breeding colonies, there are no reports of interbreeding between [P. mauretanicus] and [P. yelkouan]." And one infers that this has, in fact, been looked for.

---

Lanius meridionalis Concept

• Listed by Peters Checklist 9:357 (Mayr & Greenway) as a subspecies.
• Sangster G, et al. 2002. Ibis 144:156 argue for elevation to specific status based on diagnostic plumage, behaviour, habitat, and demonstration of no interbreeding in contact zones.

---

Threskiornis moluccus Nomenclature.

• For resolution as moluccus , see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.114.)

....; 2011.10.16
• But wait!! now held to be a noun in apposition (see Schodde & Bock 2016).

2011.10.16; 2017.09.01

---

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

Last updated 2024.08.16