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.)
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).
He [Zedlitz] also gave another new name, "natalensis, but that form must be called cyanogaster Daud.
Ploceus baglafecht nyikae
Othyphantes stuhlmanni nyikae
Cittacincla nigricauda Vorderman, 1893, Nat. Tijds. Neder. Ind., 42, p. 197which appears to make no sense. Other taxa from this date and author are cited to volume 52.
and I had initially used this citation as well.
Numida Linné 1766 Syst.Nat.ed.12 1 p.273
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).
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
Perisoreus canadensis nigricapillus, Ridgway, 1882, Proc.U.S. Natl. Mus., 5 no.1, p.15A 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.
5Type species of Neohierax here submerged.which makes H&M 3rd 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?
Vultur Nubicus H. Smith, 1829, in Griffith, Animal King- dom 6, p. 164
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]).
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.
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
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.
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.]
"Pamela Rasmussen when describing Ninox ios (WilsonBull.
'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)".
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~