Zoological Citation Notes --N

• For a reason why Sherborn's citation:

  	667 nobilis Gracula  B. Merrem  Avium rar. Icones  I. 1784  7.

  is wrong, see Witmer Stone Auk
Auk (3) p.468

• Also published (description) in 1838 Orn.Biogr. 4 p.450

• The publication dates of the components of Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool. are problematic.
• The Richmond Index notes that this name is cited variably to 1867 and 1868. Fulica newtonii Milne-Edwards
• The RI card makes 1868 appear likely, but for now I use the imprint date.

• For resolution as nesophila , 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.107.)

• Spelled "nanschanica" by H&M 3^rd:738 without comment; presumably following Peters Checklist X:8 (= Ripley 1963).
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was originally spelled "nanshanica" and I follow that until it is demonstrated otherwise.
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for picking this up.

• Often cited to 1893 and the CBBM, but the name clearly appears in 1889 in the Ibis.
• The Ibis article is somewhat ambiguous as to the authorship.

• Peters Checklist 14:332 (= Traylor 1968) treats the name [Uraeginthus bengalus] natalansis as a synonym of Uraeginthus angolensis niassensis Reichenow, while H&M 3^rd:729 holds it as a full subspecies under the name U.a.natalansis Zedlitz.
• The Richmond Index holds Zedlitz's name as a junior synonym of a Daudin name, with the statement

  Uraeginthus [bengalus?] natalensis Zedlitz = cyanogaster Daudin. (cf. Hartert, Nov.Zool.
  	1919, 141).

  The Daudin taxon Richmond refers to is Daudin's Loxia cyanogastra, which is held by the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 13: 402 to be a synonym of Estrilda angolensis (= Uraeginthus angolensis).
• The Richmond's card: Loxia cyano gastra Daudin
• Hartert's statement reads (Novit.Zool. 1919 26:141):

  He [Zedlitz] also gave another new name, "natalensis, but that form must be
  	called cyanogaster Daud.

• H&M 3^rd:729 has no additional discussion of this name, neither refuting nor acknowledging Hartert's assertion.
• Absent a refutation of Hartert's assertion, I follow his recommendation.

• Peters Checklist 15:33 (= Moreau 1962) gives the original combination as

  	Ploceus baglafecht nyikae

• Benson described this as

  	Othyphantes stuhlmanni nyikae

• Peters Checklist 10:72 (= Ripley 1964) gives the citation as

          Cittacincla nigricauda Vorderman, 1893, Nat. Tijds. Neder. Ind.,
  	42, p. 197

  which appears to make no sense. Other taxa from this date and author are cited to volume 52.
• HBW 10:819 replicates this apparent error.
• The Richmond Index has scant data for this citation and does not include the volume number.
• I use the volume number that appears to make the most sense, but have not seen the original.

• Peters Checklist XI:206 (= Traylor 1986) cites this as:

  Newtonia Schlegel & Pollen 1868 FauneMadag.[Pollen&Dam] 2 p.101

  and I had initially used this citation as well.

• Michael Rieser points out that the Richmond Index, Neave, and Schulze et al. all cite a reference by Schlegel in the PZS from 1866 [=1867].
• In that location, Schlegel uses the genus group name Newtonia and lists the included species "Erythrosterna (?) brunneicauda, Newton" thus satisfying the Code requirement for establishment of a genus group name by indication (Art. 12.2.5).
• H&M 3^rd:462 (through Corrigenda 8) uses 1868, presumably following the Peters Checklist.

• In HBW 2:511,573 Coturnix chinensis novaeguineae Rand is cited as "1942 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 79".
• The correct citation is to the Am.Mus.Novit. no.1122, published in 1941.
• As the taxon was described in Excalfactoria chinensis there should be parentheses around the author's name if it is held in Coturnix.

• H&M 3^rd:529,638 (through Corrigenda 8) does not distinguish between Henry M. Stevenson and James O. Stevenson.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:51 in Francolinus held by IOC World Bird list 2.0 (2009.02) in Ptilopachus.
• Systematics is not discussed in either source.
• [2010.01.10] A reference is supplied by Dr Donsker: Crowe TM et al. (2006). "Phylogenetics, biogeography and classification of, and character evolution in, gamebirds (Aves: Galliformes): Effects of character exclusion, data partitioning and missing data." Cladistics 22:495-532. See specifically pages 519 and 521.

• Peters Checklist 2:134 give the citation as

  	Numida Linné 1766 Syst.Nat.ed.12 1 p.273

• H&M 3^rd:40 cites the name to 1766, apparently following Peters Checklist.
• Rainer Massmann points out (in litt. 2008.08.16) that this name is on the Official List (Opinion 67) 1987 p.133 where it is cited to 1764.
• The Official List citation is concordant with the corresponding card in the Richmond Index.

• H&M 3^rd:539, has a footnote (#4) relating to this name that reads:

  It has been found that Gould and Moore both named this and both named the taxon glaucogularis 
  in April.[sic] 1855. In fact Moore's paper in 1855 included a third taxon (leucogenys) 
  in the same genus. Snow (1967:56) credited this third name to Horsfield & Moore, 1854; 
  this citation is correct for all three names and has priority, however the name
  is attributable to Moore, alone, see Art. 50.1 of the Code (I. C. Z. N., 1999).

• The statement that the Moore citation is "correct for all three" does not make it clear what "this citation" is -- is it the same page? or does the "citation" merely refer to the "work" (Cat.BirdsEastIndiaCompany)? Absent sufficient supporting or specifying information I will use the Gould 1855 citation until adequately supported contravening data are brought forward.

• John Penhallurick writes (in litt. 2008.06.25):

  I notice that you keep Ninox boobook and Ninox novaeseelendiae as separate species.
  This is incorrect, as is made plain in the 2008 edition of Christidis &
  Boles, Systematics and Taxonomomy of Australian birds. They state on page 165:
  "It is important to correct two major misquotations in the literature of the
  findings of Norman et al.1998b [= Norman, Olsen & Christidis, Biological
  Conservation 86:33-36].
  Olsen(1999) stated that molecular data in Norman et al. (1998b) supported
  the separation of boobook and novaeseelandiae as separate species and the
  inclusion of Tasmanian leucopsis in the latter. Higgins (1999) stated that
  Norman et al. (1998b) concluded that novaeseelandiae, undulata and leucopsis
  formed a group separate from those of mainland Australia. Both statements
  are in error. Norman et al. (1998b) did not present data on Australian
  mainland boobook. Instead they included leucopsis as a representative of the
  Australian forms for comparison with extralimital forms."
  Thus what they really concluded was that the Australian forms were
  conspecific with novaeseelandiae.
  You can see this on my website.
  John Penhallurick

• Peters Checklist 15:236 (=Blake & Vaurie 1962) give the citation as

  	Perisoreus canadensis nigricapillus, Ridgway, 1882, Proc.U.S.
  	Natl. Mus., 5 no.1, p.15

  A very peculiar error, it is of course no.259, not "no.1" suggesting they did not look at the original, or did not understand the way material was published in the Proceedings, or both.

• Originally described in Phonygammus (original seen).
• H&M 3^rd:516, however, mistakenly place the author's name in parentheses.

• I follow Ryan PG. 2008. "Taxonomic and conservation implications of ecological speciation in Nesospiza buntings on Tristan da Cunha." Bird Conservation International 18:20-29.
• Thanks to the enormously helpful Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• 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.217 and 1890, and the other citing it to p.91 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.
• (2013.01.06) Gastone Rabascini has a copy of the "Aggiunte" and shows that part 2 was approved 17 November 1889 and printed 26 March 1890.

• Peters Checklist 15:135 (= Greenway 1962) lists "pl. 13" in the citation.
• No plate is listed in the citations in the Richmond Index, or in the CBBM 3:221 (where the name is spelled Oriolus nigellicaudus).
• I presume that Greenway mistakenly copied the plate number from the Ibis citation immediately above this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):240 (=Payne, 1979) gets the citation for this name almost completely wrong. It must be noted that there are some confusing features to the citation, but it is surprising that Payne apparently did not trouble to check the CBBM 26:235 which would have at least enabled him to get the author of the name right.
• Confusion arises because this bird is discussed in volume 3 p.99 of publications of the New Zealand Institute, but there are two p.99's (!). On p.99 of the Proceedings (actually Proceedings of the Otago Institute, published as part of the Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute) A.C. Purdie describes and names this bird. On p.99 of the Transactions of the New Zealand Institute Potts discusses this bird (and says he finds it indistiguishable from Ardeola pusilla Gould).
Presumably Payne was forced to rely on secondary sources for his work on this taxon, but the secondary sources apparently did not even include the CBBM.
• Not surprisingly, the Richmond Index has the details correct for this taxon, and review of the original description on-line confirms Richmond's interpretation.

• For a discussion of the taxonomy and systematics, see:
  Australian Journal of Zoology, 2007. 55:73-78 A new endemic family of New Zealand passerine birds: adding heat to a biodiversity hotspot Driskell A, Christidis L, Gill BJ ,G, Boles WE, Barker FK, & Longmore NW.
• Thanks to Murray Bruce for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 12:408 (Salomonsen, 1967) dates this taxon to 1843. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:436.
• My collation of the pages from this work indicate that it must be in pt5, which was published March 30, 1842.
• Dekker and Quaisser (2006) in "Type specimens of birds in the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Pt.3 Passerines: Pachycephalidae - Corvidae" p.33 correctly note Salomonsen's error, and also agree that this name was published 30 March 1842.

• Peters Checklist 13:90 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to 1873 in the Bull.EssexInst. 5:191, and this apparently is followed, without comment, by H&M 3^rd:786.
• Volume 5 of the Bull.EssexInst. is dated December, 1873, but Banks & Browning 1979. "Correct citations for some North American Bird Taxa." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 92(1):195-203 demonstrate that the latter numbers of this volume were not available until Feb. 1874, and thus the Baird, Brewer & Ridgway publication (available 24 Feb. 1874) has priority, and the taxon must be dated to 1874.

• 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.mexicana place M.m.niceae in synonomy.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):260 (Kahl) indicates the original combination as "Bostrychia hagedash nilotica", though he shows (8 lines above) Neumann describing "Hagedashia hadedash eralangeri" on the same page of the same publication.
• The Richmond Index shows the Neumann citation as "Hagedasia hagedash nilotica, which seems much more believable. It is not clear if the rendering Hagedasia / Hagedashia is Richmond's lapsus or Neumann's.
• HBW 1:496, apparently follows the Peters listing, as it does not show the authority in parentheses.
• Thanks to Edward Dickinson for reminding me to look into the details on this.

• Peters Checklist 24:324 (1968; Paynter & Mayr) cite this to volume 14 of the J.Orn. for 1868. 14 is the volume for 1866.
• The correct volume (as shown in the Richmond Index, and verified from the J.Orn. itself) is 16.
• The Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 13:274 cites Spermophaga niveiguttata (sic) to "Peters J.f.O. 1868 p.133" so the error in "Volume" number did not come from there. Sharpe got the spelling of the specific epithet wrong (or more probably intentionally changed it); Paynter and Mayr show the spelling correctly but have the citation wrong.

• A confused and confusing situation here.
• Peters Checklist 1(2):398 does not use Neohierax.
• H&M 3^rd:94 has a footnote stating:

  5Type species of Neohierax here submerged.

  which makes H&M 3^rd sound like a primary systematic work. But as no authority, data, or arguments are presented that clearly can not be so. Perhaps this is emulation of Peters Checklist?
• HBW 2:225 includes insignis in Polihierax and refers the reader to "page 219" for a discussion of Neohierax. This discussion is to be found on p.220, where remarkably, they indicate that insignis "is not a sister taxon of the African species, and is even placed in a different clade. Because of these differences, an earlier generic name, Neohierax, may be applied to the Asian species."
• Neohierax Swann 1922 would not appear to me to be "earlier" than Polihierax Kaup 1847, and I presume they were trying to express the idea that Neohierax had been used previously.
• The HBW authors do not provide any rationale, data, or arguments against using Neohierax, so we are left to wonder.
• Wolters p.76 (1975) places insignis in Neohierax without discussion or comment.

• The authors for Nicator and for Nicator gularis are listed by Peters Checklist 9:274 and Sclater Systema Avium Aethiopicarum 2:638 as Hartlaub & Finsch, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:576
• The authority for the Genus group name is listed by reliable workers in the reverse order (i.e. Finsch & Hartlaub). These workers include Sharpe's Hand-list (p.299), The Richmond Index, Schulze et al. p.2255, Neave 3:331, and (less reliably) even Scudder 1882. Nomenclator Zoologicus II p.210.
• Similarly for Nicator gularis The Richmond Index differs from Peters and H&M 3^rd in listing the authors as Finsch & Hartlaub.
• I follow the Richmond Index (and other authors) in using the Finsch & Hartlaub listing.
• However, the availability of this work on-line, and Colin Jones' careful study of the matter shows that the authors themselves list the authority as "Hartl. et Finsch.", and thus it seems appropriate to follow this.

Voisin & Voisin. 1999. "Liste des types d'oiseaux des collections du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle de Paris. 6. Coucous (Cuculidae)" Zoosystema 21(2):379-402. Date this taxon to 1817.
• All four volumes of this work were presented at a meeting of the Acad. des Science on 2 Dec. 1816, and that must be accepted as the date of publication. The work, which I imagine the Voisons examined, has an imprint date of 1817, so it is easy to be mislead.
• Peters Checklist 4:71 (1940) has this date correct, though most workers are (understandably) confused by the dating orthography used in the Peters volumes (which is inconstant). HBW 4:585 (1997) has the incorrect date of 1817, as does Cat.B.Br.Mus. 19:357.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:113 (et Corrigenda 5 2006.01.31) to be polytypic.
• Clark WS. 2005. "Steppe-Eagle Aquila nipalensis is monotypic." BBOC 125(2):149-153. Argues that the variation is clinal.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):309 cites this as:

  Vultur Nubicus H. Smith, 1829, in Griffith, Animal King-
  	dom 6, p. 164

• Thanks to Edward Dickinson I am aware of Cowan, C.F. 1969. "Notes on Griffith's Animal Kingdom of Cuvier (1824-1835)". J. Soc. Bibliogr. Nat. Hist. 5:137-40. (April). which makes it clear that none of volume 6 was published in 1829 (the imprint date for all the bird volumes).
• H&M 3^rd:102 initally listed the citation as shown in Peters CL, but in Corrigenda 2.1 changed the author to C.H. Smith and the date to 1827.
• The author of the taxon is Charles Hamilton Smith, confirmed by the Cowan paper, as well as the Richmond Index, but I do not recognize a basis for dating this name to 1827. The first part (part no.14) of this volume was in fact printed in 1827, but the page limitations of the parts are unknown. Unless or until the page limits for the part are established I feel this taxon must be dated to 1828.

• The authority given by Peters Checklist 11:394 (Mayr) is "Salvadori & D'Albertis", and this was initially followd by H&M 3^rd:430.
• The Richmond Index attributes the authority to "D'Albertis (in Salvadori & D'Albertis)"; a fact which is agreed to by Corrigenda 4.0 of H&M, where the note says "OD checked".

• Dated by Peter Checklist 7:39 as published in 1853, though no evidence for this is given.
The Richmond Index dates this to 1852, and absent other indications I follow this.
• The only portions of this work that appear to have been delayed until 1853 would seem to be the very last parts of the work, of which this is most certainly not one. 1853, is, however not impossible
• The Cat.B.Br.Mus. 15:138 (Sclater) gives the date for this as 1852.

• Peters Checklist 3:49 cites this to 1865, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:178
• This portion of the Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. was published in 1866, and other taxa from earlier in this work are cited by H&M 3^rd to 1866 (e.g. Tyto rosenbergii (p.218) and Ceyx fallax (p.290)).
• HBW 4:229 correctly gives the date as 1866.

• Usually cited as
  • Hirundo neoxena Gould 1843 PZS(1842) Pt10 no.117 p.131
  (e.g. Peters Checklist 9:110 ; H&M 3^rd:535 and Corrigenda).
• However McAllan (2004) points out that publication in BirdsAustr. was available in early December, 1842, while the PZS publication was not published until Feb. 1843.
• McAllan IAW, 2004. Notornis. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." 51:125-130. (see p.128)

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:44 (Burt Monroe, Jr) to p.197, a transpostion for the actual page number p.179.
• The AOU CL 7^th Ed. p.559 has the correct citation.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking up this error.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 3 as "1864 (1865), which in this volume indicates an imprint date of 1864, and a publication date of 1865. Peters does not indicate the basis for this assertion.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this in in the Nov. number (no.72) for the year of 1864, but raises the question of publication in a handwritten note which reads: "Publ. in 1865? cf. p.466".
• HBW 4:474 and H&M 3^rd:204 give 1865 without comment.

• I am somewhat unsure of which citation is correct here: Peters Checklist 6:138 gives Proc.As.Soc.Bengal, 5, May, 1874 p.106
• The Richmond Index gives that citation, noting that the paper was read 1 May, 1874. The primary citation it gives is the Stray Feathers one, from the June number. The volume number "5" given for the Proc.As.Soc.Bengal doesn't appear to make any sense to me, and this reduces my confidance in this citation.
• I am not sure which has priortiy, but I follow the Richmond Index in primarily citing Stray Feathers

• Peters Checklist 6:142 gives a date of 1897 for this taxon, and this is followed by HBW 7:537 and H&M 3^rd:327.
• The Richmond Index dates this taxon to 1896.
• Peters Checklist 4:123 dates Ketupa ketupu minor from this same volume (though four pages earlier) to 1896, and this also is followed by HBW and H&M 3^rd with no comment in any of those works for the basis of dating the woodpecker to 1897 and the owl to 1896.
• In the absence of any evidence provided to support 1897 by any of these works, I follow the Richmond Index.

• Status of this taxon is uncertain. Has been held to be:
  1. conspecific with P. spilogaster;
  2. lumped into P. exilis;
  3. a junior synonym of P. salvinii; and
  4. a synonym of P. squamulatus obsoletus.
• Since this one bird has been variously considered to be synonomous with four entirely different taxa, I arbitrarily choose to leave it for the present as a full species.

• Peters Checklist 9:31 (Mayr & Greenway) lists the date here as 1841.
• The Richmond Index, Zimmer, and Sherborn all show that this part was published in Nov. 1839.

• Originally described in Megalæma
• Peters Checklist 6:36 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalæma to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by HBW 7:205 and H&M 3^rd:305, and in neither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

• Thus it appears that at least HBW and H&M consider Megalæma to be something other than an emendation or incorrect spelling.
• To date, I am unable to find any indication that Megalæma was proposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendation and do not use parentheses around the author's name. Sherborn lists Megalaema (without ligature) as an Agassiz "emend. pro Megalaima, Gray.", and Schulze "Nomen. animalium gen. et subgen." p.1995 also has this interpretation.
• If Megalæma was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not a misspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know of the facts supporting that case as it appears to be unknown to Sherborn, Richmond, or Schulze, et al.

• The Richmond Index indicates that this occurs on p.181 of the author's separate and p.180 in the completed volume.
• Peters Checklist 7:86 and HBW 8:793 cite only the page in the completed volume.
• Colin Jones also correctly points (in litt. 2008.06.21) out that the original spelling is nigrifumosa though this spelling is not followed by Peters Checklist, H&M 3^rd:409, or HBW 8:283.
• Subsequently, it appears this is recognized by H&M 3^rd, as the Corrigenda 8 states: "Synallaxis brachyura nigrifumosa: spelling, not nigrofumosa [Deignan, 1961; OD still to be checked]".

• The citation is conventionally given as J.Orn. 1907 55:333,335. (e.g) Peters Checklist 4:164; HBW 5:[683]; and John Penhallurick's excellent Bird Data Project http://worldbirdinfo.net/
• The Richmond Cardex also lists this source, but indicates it was published in July of 1907; The Russian journal Psovaia I Rujienaia Okhota XIII included this description (presumably in Russian) and was published in March of 1907.
• The date (given by the Richmond Index) is March 10, 1907 (o.s.). [The Russians did not convert to the Gregorian calender (n.s.) until 1918.] March 10, 1907 (o.s.) = March 23, 1907 (n.s.) so this source still antecedes the J.Orn. publication.
• However, examination of the pages in question, kindly provided by the Owl literature group, shows no use of this name on pp.86-88!!!, though the article that preceeds the ornithological artical was written by Nikolskii.
Psovaia Ruzhenia i Ochota no.6 pp.86-88

• Previously
  Lophura imperialis (Delacour & Jabouille) 1924 BBOC 45 p.29
  was held to be a species but shown to be a hybird of L.edwardsi (M) X L. nycthemera (F).
  Garson. 2001. Oriental Bird Club 33:52

• Citation conventionally given as Av.Syst.Nat. 1862 p.154
• I take my citation from the Richmond Index.

• The placement of B. nitidis after B. platypterus follows the 47^th Supplement to the AOU CL.

• Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in Buteo. Finding Buteo to be paraphyletic, they propose two ways of resolving this:
  1. include Parabuteo into Buteo or
  2. exclude B. leucorrhous and B. magnirostris while including Asturina nitida and Geranoaetus melanoleucus.
• They chose the second approach because of the general acceptance of Parabuteo as distinct, and on the basis of support from their molecular data. Therefore, the genus
  

  Asturina Vieillot 1816 Analyse p.24,68

  
  is interpreted to be within Buteo.
• Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003. "Molecular phylogeny of the genus Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:328-342.

• A complex issue, historically, nomenclaturally, and taxonomically.
• Usually referred to as Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin) 1789 Syst.Nat. 1 pt2 p.717 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:187,188; HBW 3:189 (Taylor)).
• This name and the identity of this bird is discussed in detail by Lysaght. Lysaght A. 1956. "A note on the Polynesian Black or Sooty Rail Prozana nigra (Miller) 1784." BBOC 76(6):97-98. Briefly summarized here:
  • This bird was discovered at Tahiti and painted by Georg Forster on Cook's 1772-1775 voyage. (Icon. ined., 1, pl.130)
  • As Sherborn and Iredale point out (Sherborn CD, Iredale T. 1921 " J.F. Miller's Icones." Ibis. 3:302-309.) Forster's plate was copied by J.F. Miller and published as no.50 in the 1776-1792 series "Various subjects of Natural History", and the interleaved text gives the name as Rallus nigra and the locality as "Otaheite".
  • Latham in 1785 separated the Tabuan from the Tahitian Rail, and his accounts were the basis for Gmelin's Latin descriptions of Rallus tabuensis and Rallus tahitiensis.
  • The second edition of Miller's plates was issued as Cimelia Physica and is much more widely known and available than the rare first edition. In it the plates are accompanyed by descriptions by George Shaw. In this second edition the Polynesian Black Rail appeared under the Gmelin name Rallus tabuensis. Shaw remarks that the rail was discovered when Banks was in the Pacific, a statement almost certainly false, but probably arising from the fact that Forster's plates were in Bank's possession.
  • Miller's name Rallus nigra was ignored until 1921 when Sherborn and Iredale published their findings regarding the dates of Millers plates.
  • Sherborn and Iredale determined that Miller's name antedated Gmelin's Rallus tabuensis, but were uncertain how Miller's bird related to the Henderson Island rail Porzana atra North 1908.
  • Mathews Systema Avium Australasianarum 1927. p.92 accepted Miller's name as correct for the Polynesian Black Rail from Tahiti, Tonga, and Fiji, but treated the birds from the last two islands as races.
  • Peters Checklist 2:188 discusses Miller's plate but as Lysaght points out makes some errors:
    1. Peters says "No locality", while the locality of "Otaheite" is in fact given.
    2. Peters' representation of the the size "somewhat larger than tabuensis" does not correlate with the fact that these dimensions are not greater than those given by Amadon in the series of skins from the Whitney expedition."
  • Lysaght concludes: "the very widely distributed species about which Amadon has given so many interesting details should be known as Porzana nigra (Miller) 1784."
• HBW 3:140 (Taylor), increases at least my confusion, by referring to a bird "The Tahiti Crake Porzana nigra" as being exctinct "post-1784(?)".
  It is not clear to me what bird is referred to here, and the basis for it's being considered extinct. The "post-1784" date certainly suggests the possibility that they are referring to a Miller taxon.
  Taylor does not reference Lysaght's 1956 work on this name.

• Peters Checklist 6:13 gives the page number for the BBOC citation as "p.20"
• HBW 7:560 replicates this error.
• The description begins on p.21

• Recently this group has seen much activity and revision. Iam dependant on the help of Clive Mann for the systematics of this group, and have tried to represent his indications of how the group is best currently reperesented.
• Clive (and others) may very well not agree with all of the nomenclatural interpretations and decisions I have taken here.
• I understand further changes in the group may be expected.
• If I have misrepresented or misunderstood some aspects of this complex situation, the errors must be considered mine, and mine alone.

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

• Often spelled P. nigrimentum (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe).
• Originally Ploceus nigrimentus Reichenow 1904.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):37 indicate the spelling should be Ploceus nigrimentus. Their argument is that "-mentus is derived from a noun, but is not adjectival. Rather, the name is a noun phrase, that must be treated as a noun in apposition, with the original spelling retained.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Ploceus nigriment... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec.

• Peters Checklist 6:12,13 includes this in Bucco.
• Rasmussen & Collar HBW 7:104 argue for inclusion in a monotypic genus. This is based on:
• The presence of a black, strongly bifid bill tip.
• The presence of "some distinctive plumage features".
• H&M 3 ^rd:332 include this in Bucco and do not discuss Rasmussen & Collar's treatment.

• The first part of this volume was published in 1871, contra Peters. See the citation notes.

• Peters 2:194 lists 1868
• HBW 3:191 (PB Taylor) also lists 1868.
• Sharpe Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 22:163 gives 1868.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Duncan, 1937} show this was published in 1869.

• Peters Checklist 10:210 (=Ripley 1964) has 1860 and this is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:670 (through Corrigenda 6).
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} note indicates "not published until Jan. 1861". This is undoubtedly due to the note on the wrapper for this number (no.47) that states "Ausgegeben im Januar 1861."
• Strangely, Ripley in Peters Checklist 10:216 dates Turdus plebejus (from the preceeding page of the same number (n.47) to 1861 (!!), which is correct and is followed by H&M 3^rd:670

• Peters Checklist 1(2):54 has 1849, apparently a typographic error for 1839.
• This use of 1849, unsupported by fact, evidence, probability, or discussion by Peters' successors, is followed by HBW 1:212, similarly without comment, discussion or supporting evidence.

• Peters Checkist 3:80 lists 1875. See {Poggi R, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 5:77 (and others) give the date for this as 1867.
• The material was presented at the meeting of Dec. 31, 1867, so it appears reasonable to surmise that it was not published and available until 1868.
• The Richmond Index {Richmond, et al. 1992} card for this has "8" penciled above 1867.

• While both {Richmond, et al. 1992} and Peters Checklist date this as 1836, my collation of J. As. Soc. Bengal publications suggests that Vol.5, after p.772 was published in 1837. However some uncertainty remains.

• Peters Checklist 1:266 gives a different title and date for the source. Peters dates this to 1853. Schulze et al. p.2260 list "[1852]". The brackets suggest to me that this date is being supplied by the authors.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of 1852, (but v.i. for his support of 1853).
• Neave 3:337 gives a date of 1852.
• Dekker RWRJ, Dickinson EC, & Morioka H. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 18. Some nomenclatural issues relating to Japanese taxa described in the Planches Coloriées (1820-1839) and Fauna Japonicq, Aves (1844)." Zool.Verhand. 2001. 335:[199]-214, tables 1-3, discuss this issue in detail.
  • They address some of the complexities to be found here, and reach the conclusion that the material should be dated to 1850.
  • In their footnote (#10) they suggest that other workers had an "insufficient understanding" of the material when reaching the conclusion to date the material to 1852.
  • However, in their address to this problem some of the careful work done by others on this confusing matter is not acknowledged and may not have been consulted.
• Zimmer p.510-511 also discusses this problem in detail. Zimmer does not appear himself to take a stand with regards the specific date, but notes that the text portion was issued as Lieferung 3 of the work "Handbuch der Speciellen Ornitholologie". This work dates from 1851-1854, a fact which would appear to void Dekker et al.'s assertion of 1850. (Zimmer's work is not mentioned by Dekker et al..)
• As the dating problem appears to turn upon the date for Lief. 3 of the "Handbuch ..." Richmond's belief that this material should be dated 1853 is indicated in his publication 1917 Proc. U.S. Nat.Mus. 53 no.2221 p.615. There he writes in footnote #3.

  
  This portion of Reichenbach's complicated work is generally quoted as of 1852, probably because it
  contains a "Vorwort" dated "1, October, 1852", but it seems not to have been published until 1853.
  It appeared in the third Lieferung of the "Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie," and consists of
  pages I-XXXI, with signature marks bearing the words, "Systema Avium." Hartlaub, in his record of
  ornithology for 1853 (Archiv. für Naturgesch., 1854, vol. 2, p.33) includes it among the
  publications of that year.

• The uncertainties here are considerable, but I feel that 1853 is the date currently best supported by logic and by the published work of knowledgable authors.

• Peters Checklist 9:372 gives 1837.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• See {Walters M., 1996} The customary citation refers to "CG Reichenbach", or "C Reichenbach". It appears no such individual published at that time. Additionally the date 1795 (sic) is demonstrated to be incorrect.

• The 1983 AOU Checklist p.463 has 1883
• However, {Richmond, et al. 1992}, and {Harris, 1928} indicate 16 Sept. 1882.

• Peters Checklist 1:40 does not list a page for this citation.
• The page mumber here is from (Richmond, et al. 1992).

• Systematics uncertain.
• Consisdered a primitive Pyconontid by Dowsett, et al. (See Dowsett RJ, Olson SL, Roy MS, & Dowsett-Lemaire F. "Systematics status of the Black-collared Bulbul Neolestes torquatus" Ibis 141:22-28. 1999).
• See also Zuccon D & Ericson PGP. "The phylogenetic position of the Black-collared Bulbul Neolestes torquatus" Ibis 152:386-392. 2010, for additional support for the interpretation that this is a Bulbul, and for an argument that it is nested within the Afrotropical clade (rather than basal).

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
• Considered by the authors to be part of a superspecies with G. nubicola,costaricanum, and gnoma.

• Peters Checklist Vol.1 affords subspecies status.
• Kennedy and Spencer "Phylogeny, Biogeography, and Taxonomy of Australasian Teals" 2000. Auk 117:154-163 argue for elevation to full specific status, based on DNA, morphological, and behavioural data.

• Originally described in Chordeiles
• I quote from Rolf de By's notes on this bird.
  "In the booklet that comes with the CD A Sound Guide to Nightjars and Related Nightbirds, Ranft and Cleere state: "Chordeiles veilliardi (Lencioni-Neto 1995) was erroneously described in that genus. It is clearly a member of the genus Nyctiprogne, as documented by Bret M. Whitney, Jose Fernando Pacheco, Paulo Sérgio Moreira da Fonseca, and Richard E. Webster near Januária, Minas Gerais, in November 1995" (B.M. Whitney in litt., January 1998)"
• HBW 5:334 places this in Chordeiles

• Usually placed in Troglodytes.
• See Rice NH, Peterson AT, and Escalona-Segura. 1999. Phylogenetic patterns in montane Troglodytes Wrens. Condor. 101:446-451. They argue on the basis of genetic data (mtDNA), song, zoogeography, and morphology that Troglodytes is paraphyletic if troglodytes is included.
• Many controversies and uncertainties exist in Wren systematics. Multiple publications since 1999 have attempted to address and improve, if not solve the questions in this group. (e.g.Rice et al. 1999; Martínez Gómez et al. 2005; Mann et al. 2006) though I do not find these acknowledged, discussed, or refuted in H&M 3^rd (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008).
• H&M 3^rd:639 notes that their Troglodytes troglodytes tentatively follows the 1986 Phillips treatment.
• Current classifications appear often to accept old, clearly incorrect, paraphyletic taxa, without comment, rather than accepting classifications acknowledging present understandings and uncertainties. It thus appears preferable to accept classifications that are certainly wrong and will have to be changed, rather than to accept classifications that will probably need to be changed. It is understandable to feel that is seems fruitless to make a change now, when that result will simply need to be changed again in the future. This line of argument, however, would seem to imply the nonsense approach of simply sticking with Linnaeus 1758 until "all the data are in".

• Has included two subspecies that are designated as having full specific status:
• Cyanoramphus cookii (Gray,GR) 1859 ListBirdsBr.Mus. pt3 sect.2 p.13
• Treated in Sibley and Monroe as a full species;
• treated by Collar in HBW Vol.4 p.371 as a subspecies.
• Cyanoramphus saisseti (Verreaux,J & Des Murs) 1860 Rev.Mag.Zool. (2) 12 p.387
• not treated by Sibley and Monroe as a species
• sometimes considered a separate species.

• Chappuis and Erard (1993) revised Bleda.
• (Zeitschr. Zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch. 31:280-299) based on morphology and acoustics. They proposed a species pair and superspecies: Bleda syndactyla and B. eximia as the pair; and B. canicapilla and B. notata (hitherto notata a subsp. of eximia!) as the superspecies.

• Traditionally placed in the Manakins.
• Mobely JA and Plum RO. 1995. "Phylogenetic relationships of the Cinnamon Tyrant, Neopipo cinnamomea to the Tyrant Flycatchers (TYRANNIDAE)." The Condor 97:650-662. present an analysis of morphological and nest architecture characters, and conclude that N. cinnamomea is not a Manakin, but a Tyrant flycatcher.

• Peters Checklist 1:44 lists the second page as "p.753" as does the Richmond Index.
• Salvadori's Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 27:564 lists the page as "733".

• Regarding the order these species-group taxa are listed, I find some variation, and no explanation for the sequences given. They are:

  S&M		HBW; Wolters	Morony,Bock&Farand
  Nothura		Nothura		Nothura  
   darwinii  	 boraquira 	 maculosa 
   chacoensis 	 minor 	 	 darwinii  
   maculosa 	 darwinii  	 chacoensis 
   minor 	 	 maculosa 	 minor 
   boraquira 	 (chacoensis) 	 boraquira 
  

• Given in Peters Checklist 9:111 as "pl.[20]", this agrees with the Richmond index.
• Sharpe in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum gives it as "pl.40".

• Species limits and definitional issues are difficult in the Viduae.
• Species status is afforded based on genetic and morphologic differences. Payne RB, Payne LL. "Song mimicy and species associations of west African indigobirds Vidua with Quail-finch Ortygospiza atricollis. Goldbreast Amandava sublflava and Brown Twinspot Clytospiza montieri." Ibis. 1994 136(3):291-304.

• Until recently spelt "noevia".
• Originally spelt "noevia" on p.258 of Daudin's work, and subsequently spelt "naevia" on p.463.
• At present I am not aware of the arguments offered in favor of the reversion to the "ae" form.

• Systematics uncertain.
• Norman JA, Christidis L, Westerman M, Hill FAR. 1998. Molecular data confirms the specific status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox natalis. Emu 98:197-208.

• Peters Checklist 4:131 lists 1828.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has December, 1827. Written as "December". (quotes in original).
• HBW 5:218 has 1828.
• Sherborn has "Aug.-Nov. [i.e.Dec. 31] 1827."

• The original description reads:
  

  PROCELLARIA NEGLECTA.
  
    Il existe, par rapport a l'exacte determination de cette espece,
  des difficultes non moins grandes que celles que j'ai rencon-
  trees en etudiant ma Procellaria incerta.  Le Prince Bonaparte
  a ecrit, sur l'etiquette d'un de nos individus de l'espece du
  presentarticle, le nom d'Aestrelata diabolica, quoique ce savant
  decrit sous ce nom, dans son ouvrage, une espece tres diffe-
  rente, savoir Procellaria haesitata de Kuhl et Temminck.
  It parait aussi que la Procellaria parvirostris de Peale, voir
  Cassin, Unit St. Expl. Exped., p.411, pl. 40, est tres voisine
  de notre espece, mais qu'elle s'en distingue par les memes
  caracteres qui separant la Procellaria rostrata de Peale de notre
  Procellaria incerta.
    Teintes du plumage et des pieds comme dans la Procellaria
  incerta; mais d'une taille beaucoup moins forte et a tiges des
  remiges blanchatres.  Aile 10 pouces et 6 a 11 lignes; pointe
  de l'aile 4 pouces et 1 a 10 lignes.  Queue 3 pouces et 8 a
  11 lignes.  Bec: longeur 13 lignes et demie; hauteur 4 a 5
  lignes; largeur 5 lignes et demie a 6 lignes et demie.  Longueur
  de tubes nasaux un peu plus de 2 lignes.  Tarse 17 lignes a
  17 lignes et demie. Doigt du millieu 19 lignes a 19 lignes
  et demie.
    1. Male, iles Kermadec, Ocean pacifique, par Mr. J. Ver-
  reaux. -- Femelle, tuee en Juillet 1854, Sunday Island,
  Ocean pacifique, par Mr. Verreaux, 1865, sous le nom d'Ae-
  strelata diabolica. -- 3. Male, tue en Juillet 1854, iles Ker-
  madec, acquis en 1863 pr Mr. Verreaux et etiquette de la
  propre main du Prince Bonaparte: Aestrelata diabolica.
  

• 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.

• Peculiar uncertainty with regard to the citation:
  1. Peters Checklist 5:264 cites Buceros nipalensis Hodgson 1829 As.Res. 18 pt1 p.178 pl.1,2
  2. Sherborn Ind.Anim. p.4290 cites nipalensis Buceros Hodgson 1832 As.Res. XVIII (1) p.178 [APP: note 1832].
  3. Carus and Englemann. 1861. p.1182 list "Hodgson, B. H. On a new species of Buceros (B. Nipalensis). in: Gleanings in Science. Vol.1. 1829. p. 249--252. -- Asiat. Reseach. Vol. 17. Phys. Cl. p.178-186. (Mit 2 Taf.) -- Féruss. Bull. Sc. nat. Tom. 26. 1831. p.79-81." [APP: note As.Res. 17 (contra 18).]
  4. Aasheesh Pittie has kindly provided his notes on this taxon and it appears that additional uncertainty remains. His notes include the following:

     
     	HODGSON, B. H. 1833. On a New Species of Buceros. 
     	Asiatick Researches  XVIII (I): 178-186 (1829?). (With two plates.).    
     
     	[The generally accepted year for this paper 
     	and the new taxon Buceros nipalensis is 1829, 
     	however see Nair, P. T. 2000. 
     	(Proceeding of the Asiatic Society. 1833-1841. Volume IV. Book I. Calcutta: 
     	The Asiatic Society.), for accepting 1833 here.]

     [APP: I have not seen the Nair 2000 work, and am not sure whether it addresses the question of this taxon being published in "Gleanings in Science" in 1829.]
  Nair, P. Thankappan. (Ed.) 2000. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. Volume IV, 1833-1841. James Prinsep's Period. Book I. i-xxxii, 1-1461. The Asiatic Society: Calcutta.

• Normand David notes:

  "Pamela Rasmussen when describing Ninox ios (WilsonBull. 111:463) wrote:
  'Ninox, which although usually treated as feminine, is a port-manteau combining Nisus and Noctua'. Jobling (1991) already gave that explanation."
  As David noted, she appears to be hinting that Ninox may not be feminine.

  David goes on to note: "Ninox is 'formed from Latin words" (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1), and is feminine because it ends in the feminine Latin noun nox [night] (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.1)".

• It would appear that its "usually [being] treated as feminine" is appropriate.

• An interesting and confusing situation here.
• Originally spelt "Columba naina".
• HBW 4:222 has a note: "Species name emended by Temminck himself in a subsequent publication."
• No reference is given for this subsequent emendation by Temminck. Nor is it clear if the emendation satisfies the ICZN requirements.
• Most probably the emendation referred to is that in Pl.Col. livr.101-102 Tabl.Meth. p.80 where the name is spelled [Columba] nana (at least according to the Richmond Index).
• I am not fully convinced that change to nanus is warranted.
• H&M 3^rd:177 has a footnote stating:

  The original name used here is judged to be in prevailing usage: see Art. 33.2 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999)
  and p.828 herein.

  p.828 is a table of Emendations, in which it is asserted that the "correction seems to run counter to prevailing usage since 1937." The data in support of this statement are not provided, and why the date 1937 is chosen is not clear to me.
• My impression, not having the benefit of having seen the original material, is that Temminck's emendation from naina to nana is probably an unjustified emendation, as I expect he does not satisfy the requirements of "an explicit statement of intention", or citing both the original and the changed spelling. If it is an unjustified emendation, it would be important only if the unjustified emendation were in "prevailing usage" -- an extraordinarily difficult condition to establish, and one that, in my opinion, would require documentation of data collection and analysis; statement of opinion as the basis for determination of "prevailing usage" would, I expect, be disastrous.
• My position, which may well be wrong, is that the original spelling nainus is appropriate to use unless it is demonstrated that Temminck's emendation to nanus is justified, or that the unjustified emendation (nanus) is in prevailing usage as specifically defined by the Code.
• [2010.01.16] On further reflection, I think my previous position was incorrect. I think that use of nanaus instead of nainus is justified on the basis of the emendation which is included as a part (livr.101 Tabl.Meth.) of the same work as that in which nainus is used.
• I don't think "Prevailing usage" need be called in as an auxillary in this matter.

2015.06.14
• Lo and behold, the name is now reverted to the "nai" spelling.

• Some uncertainty exists here. The citation is often given as:
• Sturnus nigricollis (Paykull) 1807 K.Vet.Akad.NyaHandl. 28 p.291,292,293 pl.9
• However, Gyldenstolpe. 1926 Ark.Zool. Band 19 A no. 1 p.8 gives vol. XXVII (contra XXVIII).
• The Richmond index gives both the volume 27 and volume 28 citations, and lists page 291 for each. The volume 28 citation has additional pages, the plate, and a comment that the name is not listed on the plate. It additionally has pencil editing to show that "1807 = 1808".
• Sherborn lists only the volume 28 citation, with an indication of "1807[1808]".
• I am not certain here, but follow the Gyldenstolpe citation, as it appears he worked most closely with the issue. His lack of discussion of the Vol. XXVIII material is, however, disquieting.

• Often spelt Coracias noevia, however as noted in HBW 6:371, Coracias is masculine and the appearance of the name varies with the original typescripts, the intent of the author is inferred to have been naevia.

• Usually cited as
  • Nestor notabilis Gould 1856 PZS Pt24 no.306 p.94 Citation
• Peters Checklist 3:142 lists the page as "p. 941".
• There is no page 941 in this volume. The page is 94 (a rare typo/lapsus for Jim Peters).
• HBW 4:612 perpetuates this error.
• Additionally as noted by Bruce and McAllan (1990) the description published in the Athenaeum antedates that in the PZS by several months.
• McAllan IAW, 2004. Notornis. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." 51:125-130. (see p.126)

• Peters 7:268 (Peters) has 1859.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860.

• Peters Checklist 3:71 gives a date of 1860 which I interpret to be correct.
• This date is not consistent with other dates from this portion of the PZS, as given by Peters.
• The AOU CL 8^th:221 gives a date of 1859.
• The HBW 4:128 gives 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossed out).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters 2:77 gives the date as 1834.
• HBW 2:498 (McGowan) also gives the date as 1834.
• The Richmond Index gives 1833, and "Nov".
• This portion of the Journal was (despite its name) published in monthly parts according to the Willughby Society reprint introduction by Osbert Salvin.
• Thus it would make sense for the Oct. meeting to be published in Nov. as Richmond indicates.

• Peters Checklist 9:407 (Mayr & Greenway) gives 1860.
• The AOU CL 7^th Ed. p.476 gives 1861.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was published in May of 1860.
• This fits the schedule given by Duncan.

• Peters Checklist 8:255 (Traylor) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• Schulze et al. show "[1861 III]", thus independantly arriving at the same interpretation as CWR.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Schulze et al. here.

• Peters Checklist 9:257 (Mayr & Greenway) give a date of 1890.
• This was published in Part III, which according to Duncan and the Richmond Index was available Oct. 1, 1889.

• Usually (e.g. Peters 2:132; HBW 2:548,575) listed as:
  • Polyplectron emphanum Temminck 1831 Pl.Col. livr.88 pl.540
• See Dickinson EC. 2001. BBOC 121:266-272 "The correct scientific name of the Palawan Peacock-pheasant is Polyplectron napoleonis Lesson, 1831.
  Dickinson has made a detailed study of the history of the publications in question. In brief, he demonstrates that Polyplectron napoleonis Lesson, 1831 is a name senior to Polyplectron emphanum Temminck, 1832 (usually incorrectly cited as Polyplectron emphanum Temminck, 1831). Dickinson's work supports in particular the findings of Zimmer, and in this instance is indicative of Dec. 1832 as the date appropriate to the text containing the scientific name.
  Further Dickinson shows that Polyplecton napoleonis satisfies the requirements of Art. 23.9 of the Code (ICZN, 1999) for the reversal of a prevailing usage. Dickinson shows that the name has been used as a valid name after 1899 (Beebe 1922 evidently used P. napoleonis). Thus the Code requirement of both conditions necessary to maintain prevailing usage in the face of a senior synonym is not met and the senior synonym must be held to be the valid name.
• Dickinson 2001 gives his citation as:
  • Polyplectrum [sic] napoleonis Lesson 1831 (June), TraitedOrn. part 8 p.650
• Of interest, the Richmond index card is:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Polyplectrum Napoleonis        Lesson        1831
   
  Traite d'Ornithologie, livr. 7, Apr. 1831 p.487 [name];
  ibid., livr. 8, June 1831, p.650 [descr.].
   
  Type locality: "l'Inde"
   
  Type: Coll. of prince Massena, duc du Rivoli.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Similarly the Cat.BirdsBrit.Museum 22 p.361 lists "p.487,650" in the citation for Polyplectrum napoleonis.
• Dickinson indicates the livr. 7 p.487 is the name (held to be a nomen nudem by Lowe 1925) and cites p.650 where the description occurs in the addenda and corrigenda.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 11:338, 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. (not 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".