• Usually cited to 1932, however the colophon at the end of no.4, and on the final cover (wrapper) reads:

  Angers, Soc. an des Editions de l'Ouest, 40, rue du Cornet -- 1-33-3049

  indicating that this number was printed in January of 1933.

• Peters Checklist 14:246 (= Paynter 1968) shows the authority as "Hartert & Rothschild". They are listed in the opposite order, both in the lead to the note, and in the authorial attribution following the name.
• The listing in the Peters style is followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:756
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• As Colin Jones points out (in litt. 2010.04.17) the original spelling of the epithet is obscuriora. So questions arise concerning the proper rendering of the name when the taxon is held in the masculine Gallirallus.
• Normand David notes (in litt. 2010.04.19) that the case is a bit of a puzzle. He indicates that the form obscurior would be correct as the masculine or the feminine adjectival, but the question is not currently resolved as to whether a change to obscurior is in fact correct.

• Peters Checklist 14:342 (= Traylor 1968) shows the date as 1851, which may be correct.
• Dating names from this work is always problematic. The Richmond Index shows the date as 1852, which I follow.
• Richmond Index card.
• The unpublished notes by CWR on Dates of Publication has a card stating that "Pt. 5+6 (as one) 1851. Not publ. till 1852. T.p. bears this date.
• I follow the Richmond data on this in the abscence of other evidence.

• Peters Checklist 15:40 (= Moreau 1962) dates this to 1822, and this is followed, without comment by H&M 3^rd:720 (through Corrigenda 8).
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1820, which I follow.
• Richmond Index card Icterus olivaceus Hahn,CW
• I do not find this taxon listed in Sherborn, however three other taxa from Lief. 6 of this work (pll.1-3 ) are dated by Sherborn to 1820.
  1. aurantia Xanthornus, Wagler in C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 1.
  2. flavaxilla Xanthornus, C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 2.
  3. melanocephalus Icterus, C. W. Hahn, Voegel aus Asien etc. (6) 1820, pl. 3.
• The date of 1822, most probably comes from merely copying the date given by Sharpe (1890) in the CBBM 13:431. The basis for his dating the work to 1822 is unknown to me.

• H&M 3^rd:381 cites the second author as "Hernandez", but cites the same author from the same volume and number of this publication for Campylorhynchus zonatus imparalis (on p.277) as "Hernandez-Camacho".
• Similarly, HBW 8:546 cites this second author simply as "Hernandez".
• The Richmond Index cites the author of this taxon as "Hernandez C."

• Originally described as a subspecies of Xenoperdix undzungwensis, but in 2005, Bowie and Fjeldså presented evidence and arguments for elevation to species level.
• GENETIC AND MORPHOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR TWO SPECIES IN THE UDZUNGWA FOREST PARTRIDGE XENOPERDIX UDZUNGWENSIS Rauri C.K. Bowie & Jon Fjeldså
• No mention of this systematic issue is made in H&M 3^rd:55, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• The name Malacocircus orissae is not easily found, being absent from Peters Checklist, The Richmond Index, and CBBM. Edward Dickinson helped me by indicating that it is found in Jerdon's Illustrations of Indian Ornithology.
• H&M 3^rd:610 cites this taxon to 1847, but cites the surrounding taxa (Turdoides striata malabarica, Turdoides striata orientalis, and Turdoides affinis from the same source to 1845.
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2009.03.05) that 1847 is an error and should be 1845.

• See: Martens, J., Sun, Yue-Hua & M. Päckert. 2008. "Intraspecific differentiation of Sino-Himalayan bush-dwelling Phylloscopus leaf warblers, with description of two new taxa. (P. fuscatus, P. fuligiventer, P. affinis, P. armandii, P. subaffinis). Verterbrate Zoology 58(2):233-265.

• Spelled Cyanistes caeruleus ogilastrae by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:528.
• Originally spelled Parus caeruleus ogliastrae
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 15:184 (= Mayr 1962) dates this to 1864, and this is followed without comment in H&M 3^rd:515.
• This same number of the J.Orn. (no.72) is listed as published in 1865 by Peters Checklist 3:222 (Amazona ochrocephala nattereri).
• The Richmond Index indicates "Publ. in 1865? cf. p.466" where reference is made to an Index of Consp.Gen.Av. published by E.J.Brill in 1865.
• See R.W.R.J. Dekker & C. Quaisser, 2006. "Type specimens of birds in the National Museum of Natural History, Leiden. Part 3. Passerines: Pachycephalidae - Corvidae (Peters's sequence)." NNM Technical Bulletin 9:1-77 (see pp.28-29). The authors discuss the actual date of publication of J.Orn. 12 no.72, concurring that it is most likely 1865.

• I found the H&M 3^rd treatment of Oriolus problematic. In some instances (e.g. the treatment of Sphecotheres viridis, hypoleucus, vielloti, flaviventris) the nature of agreement with and departure from the Peters Checklist treatment is explained and referenced. In other instances (e.g. recognition of Oriolus melanotis, and lack of recognition of Oriolus viridifuscus) changes are not mentioned, discussed or referenced. In these cases it is not clear if the change results from nomenclature or whether the changed listing represents a systematic decision. I believe that H&M 3^rd does not pretend to be, and can not be regarded as a systematic work.
• Edward Dickinson (in litt. 2008.01.26) indicates that the treatment of Oriolidae follows the presentation in Dickinson et al. SNAB 42 & 43, though this is not mentioned in H&M 3^rd.

• This taxon is not included in Peters Checklist 14 (1968).
• H&M 3^rd:483 (through Corrigenda 7 2007) gives no justification or rationale for its recognition.

• Peters Checklist 14:106 (= Blake 1968) renders the journal name as "Arkiv f. Naturg.", while by all indications it is "Archiv für Naturgeschichte" (-ch- not -k-).
• In most other locations throughout the Peters Checklist the correct -ch- is used.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):431 (= Johnsgard 1979) cites this to "p. 502".
• HBW 1:632 does not give a page number for this citation.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this taxon occurs on p.501, a fact that is verified by Colin Jones (in litt. 2007.12.03).
• The erroneous Peters probably stems from the citation in the CBBM 27:35 (= Salvadori 1895), who lists "p. 502". It appears that Johnsgard did not actually check the original.

• Rediscovered, and validated as a distinct species. (ref. Krabbe et al., 2005. Orn. Colombiana 3:28-35).

• H&M 3^rd:389 footnotes this taxon with the note reading:

  2Perhaps 1927 see J.f.Orn. (1930:134)

• Turning to J.Orn. 78 Heft 1 pp.133-134 we find the "Wissenshaftlich Arbeiten Dr. Emilie Snethalge's" and on p.134 the listing for 1927 includes two works:
  1. Bemerkungen ... Journ. f. Orn. 1927, S. 371-374.
  2. "Novas especies e Subspecies de Aves do Brasil Central. Boletim do Musen Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, vol. IV , 2, S.1-8.
  The first article is indeed found in the 1927 volume of the J.Orn., in the "April" Heft.2. So what are we to do with the suggestion that the Boletim aritcle may date to 1927 rather than 1928?
• My working notes on taxa from this source are as follows:

  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.1 Knipolegus aterrimus franciscanus
  Snethlage,E
  	H&M p.369 "Probably 1927"
  	CWR has J.Orn cite and note: 
  	"Originally described in Boletim de Museum
  	Nacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.1"
  
  	Collected Snethlage June 21, 1926
  
  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.2 pl. Phylloscartes roquettei
  Snethlage,E
  	H&M p.357 "Probably 1927"
  	CWR has J.Orn cite and note: 
  	"Previously described in Boletim de Museum
  	Nacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.2"
  
  	Collected Snethlage July 3, 1926
  
  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.5 Thamnophilus caerulescens
  ochraceiventer Snethlage,E
  	H&M p.382 NO footnote mentioning date.
  	CWR has J.Orn cite and note: 
  	"Previously described in Boletim de Museum
  	Nacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.5"
  
  	Collected Snethlage May 17, 1927
  
  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.6 Cercomacra nigrescens ochrogyna
  Snethlage,E
  	H&M p.389 "Perhaps 1927"
  	CWR has J.Orn cite and note: 
  	"Probably described in Boletim de Museum
  	Nacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.6"
  
  	Collected Snethlage Sept. 14, 1927
  
  1928 Bol.Mus.Nac.RiodeJaneiro 4 no.2 p.6 pl. Cercomacra ferdinandi Snethlage,E
  	H&M p.389 "Perhaps 1927"
  	CWR has J.Orn cite and note: 
  	"Probably described in Boletim de Museum
  	Nacional, Rio de Janiero June 1928, vol.IV no.2 p.6"
  
  	Collected Snethlage Sept. 21, 1927
  	
  

• Richmond's data seems to suggest these appeared in "no.2" which is the "June 1928" number of the Boletim. For them to have appeared as much as 6 months prior to the imprint date would seem to require a preprint, or author's separate, but no suggestion of such an entity is made. It must be noted that H&M's treatment of these possibilities is inconsistent ("Probably", "Perhaps", or no mention of the issue of dating to 1927).
• From my point of view much more substantial evidence and documentation is required before a date of "1927" can be seriously considered. I expect the listing in the J.Orn. bibliography is simply an error with regard to the year listing.

• Cited by Peters checklist first as
  • Thamnophilus caeruleus ochraceiventer Snethlage,E 1928 J.Orn. 76 p.585
  and then to the Boletim.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the Boletim is the June number, while Heft 3 of the J.Orn. is for July and that the Boletim publication preceeded the J.Orn.
• HBW 8:796 cites only the J.Orn. publication (though it cites the Boletim 4 no.2 for two Cercromacra taxa !!).

• Usually cited as
  • Poospiza ornata (Leybold) 1865 J.Orn. 13 no.78 p.405
• There are several problems with that citation. First, that portion of the J.Orn. was not published until 1866 (fide The Richmond Index), but mor importantly, Landbeck published the material in the F. Leybold publication in the Anales Universidad Chile (no.6 Junio).
• Therefore, I follow the Richmond Index in this case.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:245 to 1843 and this is followed universally.
• Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981. "War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist's Library, 1833-1843." ISIS 72:50-72. addresses this work in detail. From her study of Jardine's correspondence she determines that this work was published in Dec. 1842.
• I am unaware of any reason not to believe her interpretation, which appears to have been universally ignored by the ornithological community.
• Iredale also published on this work (Iredale. 1951. "'The Naturalist's Library: an Essay in Bibliography.' Australian Zoologist 11:322-332.) and Edward Dickinson kindly provided me a copy to study. It is clear that uncertainty remains as to whether this volume was published in Dec. 1842, or in 1843. Possible explanations can be provided for either case. The appearance (but not the certainty) is that Sheets-Pyenson may have dated this based on information in the Jardine correspondence (which was material unknown to Iredale), and Sheets-Pyenson was fully aware of and relied partly Iredale's work when she published her paper. For the present time I am employing the dating she published on p.72 of her work.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:141 to 1873, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:234; HBW 5:233.
• Confusion here may have been amplified by the fact that the CBBM 2:177 lists no date for the citation.
• The first part of this journal was published in 1872; the Richmond Index shows this first part to have come out in Nov. of 1872.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1287 as
  • Pernis ptilorhyncus orientalis Taczanowski 1891 Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb.(7) 39 p.50
  They are equivalent. This work was part of the Series of the Memoires.

• Even the most idle speculation suggests that this bird is named for A. d'Orbigny. Its spelling with a "y" instead of "i" does note appear to result from "incorrect latinisation" and correction to orbignesius would appear appropriate.
• However, Normand David has investigated this and writes (2006.02.10):

  The original  orbygnesia Souancé 1856 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2)
  8: 63-64) has no internal indication whatsoever. I see no solid ground
  for a correction (but of course  =  orbygnesius when combined
  with a masc. genus).

• This genus is proposed for resurrection by Bridge ES, Jones AW, & Baker AJ. 2006. "A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution." Mol.Phylogenet.Evol. 35:459-469.
• The name ends in prion, (πριων) [trans. saw or sawyer] which is masculine, and the 1999 Code (Art. 30.1.2) indicates that the genus group name is thus masculine.
• If I am correct in my interpretation of the gender for Onychoprion, then it seems to me the specific epithets should be fuscatus, lunatus, and aleuticus (anaethetus should stand).

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:175 and HBW 4:209 place the authority in parentheses.
• 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.

• There are a number of unusual features here.
  1. The date of the genus antedates the date of the type species.
  2. As is implied by #1, the genus apparently was erected with no component species, or any designated type species.
  3. The type species was described in a genus spelled Oxyrhyncus contra Oxyruncus. And this name is interpreted to be an emendation of Temminck's genus. The Richmond Index says the emendation "must be presumed to be an error of the press." (CWR appears to be quoting someone else's text here).
  4. The Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 14:280 has this genus as Oxyrhamphus Strickland 1841, and has "Oxyrhynchus Temm. Pl.Col. t. 125 (1823)", suggesting they were unaware of Oxyruncus Temm. Man.Orn. 1820 ? O. flammiceps Temm. is listed as the type. Sclater does not give a date fro this taxon in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. but the plate number would indicate a date of April 1822 according to the Richmond Index, and confirmed by Dickenson's 2001 published analysis (p.47) of the Pl.Col. publishing history.
  5. Swainson used Oxyrhyncus in Zool.Ill. 1821, evidently as an emendation for Temminck's 1820 Oxyruncus, though as noted above this appears to possibly have been interpreted as a printing error.

• Often cited to 1864 (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:189; HBW 4:435; H&M 3^rd:197).
• This portion of the PZS was published in 1865.

• A confusing situation exists regarding the relationship between Ortalis and Ortalida.
• It appears that both names can be attributed to Merrem in 1786, though Ortalida is also attributed to Cuvier 1817 (=1816) and J.J. Fleming 1822.
• The cards in the Richmond Index, include entries for both Ortalida and Ortalis attributed to Merrem. There is a note stating "properly used in the nominative form of Ortalis. Additionally one card for Ortalis Merrem, has a note "(not in Germ. Ed.!)".
• Thus it appears that Ortalis and Ortalida can be regarded as different grammatical forms of the same word, and further that some confusion may result from one form (Ortalis) not being present in some editions (while present in others).
• Ortalis mccalli Baird, and Ortalis cinereiceps Gray, were both described in Ortalida, which for nomenclatural purposes, I regard as equivalent to Ortalis.

1. Ortalida albiventris Berlepsch 1885
2. Ortalida bronzina Gray,GR 1867
3. Ortalida Carraco Wagler 1832
4. Ortalida cinerieceps Gray,GR 1867
5. Ortalida Frantzii Cabanis 1869
6. Ortalida Goudotii Lesson 1828
7. Ortalida montagnii Bonaparte 1856
8. Ortalida plubeiceps Gray,GR 1867
9. Ortalida ruficauda Jardine 1847
10. Ortalida ruficrissa Sclater & Salvin 1870
11. Ortalida superciliaris Gray,GR 1867
12. Ortalida Wagleri Gray,GR 1867

" ... Observaui etiam in diuresis Cracibus, hactenus quidem descriptis, a
grandi inde Cracis Alectoris cera ad plane deficientem, inque caeteris con-
generum auium speciebus a cutis nudae, sub gutture pendulae, genarumque nud-
arum, papillosarum, et reliquorum capitis ornamentorum, tam carneorum quam
pennaceorum praesentia, ad harum vaque rerum defectum, tot vix animaduerten-
endos adesse gradus, qui impediant, quo minus generum characteres certi inde
possint depromi; multasque adeo volucrum species, multis modis a systematum
conditoribus aut separartas aut coniunctas, tam propinqua cognatione inter se
esse connexas, vt omnes ad vnum idemque genus, Alector (germanice Hocko) nom-
inandum, referendae sint, sitque adeo verisimile, eas, nisi magnitudo impe-
diat, generatione hybrida pullos procreare posse: Quod genus, cum multas sane
species comprehendat, in plures phalanges diuidenum videtur, quarum primam cum
Linnaeo atque Brissio Cracem, eam, ad quam nostra pertinet species, Penelopen,
tertiam, ad quam Phasianus Motmot et similes ei referendae sunt aues, Ortalida
appello. A Gallopauone Iacupema nostra, omnium internarum externarumque par-
tium figura differt: a Phasianis quoque cum congeneribus separanda rectricum
numero duodeno, earum figura, defectu calcarium in maribus, partiumque in-
ternarum structura.

• Usually called
  • Cuculus horsfieldi Moore 1858 Cat.BirdsMus.East-Ind.Co.[Horsfield & Moore] 2 p.703 Concept
• Gould's adult-male of the type specimen optatus, formerly considered to be a C. saturatus and thus used as a subspecies name, is actually referrable to C. horsfieldi. Thus it is a senior synonym.
• Higgins PJ. 1999. "Handbook of Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctic Birds." 4.

• Peters Checkslist 15:38 gives the citation as:
  • Ploceus ocularis Smith,A 1839 Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.30
• Bob Dowsett points out that this is antedated by the 1838 S.Afr.Comm.Advertiser publication.

• Originally spelled "Ocrophus" by Linnaeus, and this spelling is followed by Peters Checklist 2:267 (1934).
• It appears there was concern about the spelling for some time, as for example Mathews in 1913 published the trinomen Tringa ochropus assami (Austr.Av.Rec. 1:188).
• However, ochropus has been officially recognised and ocrophus officially rejected by ICZN under their Direction 17 of 14 July 1955 (erroneously listed by Sibley & Monroe, 1990:237 as 1952 [sic]).
• One notes, with some amusement that the now accepted spelling (ochropus) is that which Gmelin employed in 1789, but Linnaeus still gets awarded the authority.
[2015.01.06]

• Listed by Peters Checklist 11:79 as a subspecies of H. pallida.
• Elevation to species status proposed by the BOU. Knox AG, Collinson M, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT & Sangster G. 2002. "Taxonomic recommendations for British Birds." Ibis 144(4):708-709.

• Peters Checklist 6:98 and HBW 7:436 give 1836.
• The dates of issue of the J.As.Soc.Bengal are problematic. Both Sherborn and Neave give 1837 for this volume of the Journal. The Richmond Index gives a date of "Dec. 1836"
• 1836 may be correct, and the conflict is not easily resolved at the moment. I will not be surprised if the date ends up being 1837, as indicated by Sherborn and Neave.

• Possibly a hybrid, probably extinct. See Livezey. 1997. A Phylogenetic Calssification of Waterfowl, including selected fossil species. Ann.CarnagieMus. 66(4):477,483. .

• The 1983 AOU Checklist lists this as 1878, though this species was published in 1877.

• Peters Checklist 1:112 gives a different title for the source; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 11:383 has 1871. Zimmer's studies on the dates of publication for this work indicate 1870, which I follow here.

• Peters Checklist 15:275 has 1851. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Used by Sibley & Monroe.
• Not used in Peters Checklist Vol.4. As Clamator.
• Not used in HBW Vol.4. As Clamator. The comment there indicates that separation from Clamator was based on differences in wing-shape and plumage.

• Peters Checklist 2:200 has olivacea which is correct.
• Originally Gallinula olivacea.
• Amaurornis is feminine.
• HBW 3:181 has A. olivaceus with no comment on the spelling.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4. Thanks to Rolf de By for bringing this to my attention.

• See Johnson KP & Lanyon SM. 1999. Auk 116(3):759-768. for a discussion of Grackle/ally systematics, and proposal to place badius in Oreopsar, rather than in Molothrus.
• See Lowther PE. 2001. BBOC 121:280,281 for the nomenclature of the genus name.

• Although an alternative treatment of this confusing group was published by Altrom and Olsson, where they described a new species Seicercus soror Alstrom & Olsson 1999 Ibis 141 p.556-557 the paper by Martens et. al apparently preceeded it by several days.
• This taxon was described there, and the form considered as S. soror by Alstrom & Olsson apparently is treated as S. latouchei by these authors.
• Alstrom & Olsson in a letter to the Ibis 2000. 142:495-500. Further discuss the systmatics here. They recognize S. omeiensis, but disagree in some other interpretations.

• Not in Peters Checklist, or Sibley and Monroe.
• Described by Short as a "race" of C. spectabilis. Whittaker and Oren. 1999. BBOC. 119(4):235-260. "Important ornithological records from the Rio Jurua, western Amazonia, including twelve additions to the Brazilian avifauna". present arguments based on morphology, plumage, range, and habitat for elevation to full species status.

• Normally part of Ara; I follow the treatment of Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol. 4, by N.J. Collar. Morphology, voice and behaviour are offered as the basis for re-instating the old genus for this form.

• Two species listed in Sibley & Monroe are demoted to subspecific status by Collar, in Handbook of Birds of the World, 4:473.
• These taxa are held at species level by the Howard & Moore Checklist 3^rd Ed.
• Amazona oratrix Ridgway 1887 Man.N.Am.Birds p.587
• Amazona auropalliata (Lesson) 1842 Rev.Zool. 5 p.135

• Placed by Peters and Sibley and Monroe in Lonchura.
• Baptista et al. (1999) published on the relationships of some mannikins and waxbills in the Estrildidae (J. Orn. 140: 179-192), based on downy plumes, nestling palate markings, begging vocalizations, agonistic and courtship behavior, and allozymes. They proposed that the genera Padda and Euodice be merged with Lonchura.

• Not in Peters Checklist or Sibley and Monroe.
• The name honors Alfonso Manuel Olalla, who with his family collected over 70,000 specimens of Neotropical birds.
• Placement within the genus is tentative.
• Coopmans and Krabbe comment that the three recognized subspecies of M. caniceps may be candidates for species rank.
• They are:
  • Myiopagis caniceps cinerea (Pelzeln) 1868 Orn.Brasil. pt.2 p.108,180
  • Myiopagis caniceps parambae (Hellmayr) 1904 BBOC 14 p.54
  • Myiopagis caniceps absita (Wetmore) 1963 Smiths.Misc.Coll. 145 p.7

• Previously as:
  • Apteryx owenii Gould 1847 PZS Pt15 no.175 p.94
• Note that the page number is given as "93" by Peters Checklist, and Sherborn, and as "94" by The Richmond Index, and Salvadori's Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum, vol. 27.
• However McAllen IAW. 2004 "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." Notornis 51:125 notes that the PZS publication was preceeded by both the Athenaeum and the Literary Gazette, and that McAllen and Bruce, acting as first revisers, selected the Lit.Gaz. as the original publication of the name.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Garcia-Moreno J, Arctander P. Pre-Pleistocene differentiation among Chat-Tryants. 1998. Condor 100(4):629-640.
• A phylogenetic study using mtDNA, geographic and morphologic data concludes that "Becuase of the incomplete resolution of the phylogeny, we do not think that a sufficiently strong case exists for including Tumbezia salvini in Ochthoeca (as done by Lanyon 1986). Instead, we suggest maintaining it as a monobasic genus in the chat-tyrant assembly. Tumbezia salvini shows some distincitve pulmage and habitat characteristics not shared by the Andean chat-tyrants."
• They recommend merging Silvicutrix with Ochthoeca and elevating O. frontalis, spodionota, O. cinnamomeiventris and thoracica to species rank.

• At present I attempt to follow HBW.
• The confusions, and dynamics of new data and understandings in this group are considerable, and I expect changes to be frequent and continued.
• I often chuckle when I remember Burt Monroe's exclaimations about owl systematics.

Ptilinopus ornatus Date

HBW 4:209 gives a date of 1873. See my entry for the citational source for the indication that the date is 1871.

• HBW 4:206 lists Gray and Mitchell as the authors of this taxon.
• David William Mitchell was the secretary to the Zoological Society of London, and the illustrator of this work. His authorial status here is not clear to me, however the card in the Richmond index indicates "... 1844 p.[467. where P. occipitalis G. R. Gray, nomen nudum]". Thus Mitchell may well have authorial standing.

• HBW 6:110 (N.J. Collar) attributes the original description to Temminck Harpactes oreskios 1823. The genus Harpactes he attributes to Swainson, 1823. Both cant be right.
• Collar appears to be following Peters 5:163. Peters has "(Temminck)" for the authority, supporting the idea that Temminck could not have described oreskios in Harpactes.
• Sherborn makes it clear that Temminck described Trogon oreskios in 1823.
• It appears that Gray in 1845 in Gen.Birds App. p.71 lists "Harpactes oreskios Temminck, 1823" and probably thus initiating the confusion.

• Peters Checklist 14:232 (Howell, et al.) gives the date as 1842.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1843.

• Peters 11:69 (Watson) gives the citation as
  • Salicaria turdina orientalis Temminck and Schlegel, 1847, in Siebold, Fauna Japonica, Aves, p.50, pl. 20 B.
• Sherborn gives:
  • turdina-orientalis Salicaria, Temminck & Schlegel, in Siebold F. Japon. (Aves, 1847), 50.
• I don't find a card for this taxon in the Richmond Index.
• Sharpe's Handlist 4:187 lists the taxon as Acrocephalus orientalis (Temm. & Schl.).
• If the Sherborn listing is correct, I wonder if current interpretations would have resulted in the name being Acrocephalus turdinaorientalis.
• Murray Bruce sends his helpful input indicating that the Peters citation is correct. (email 2001.09.30)
• I was somewhat sceptical that trinomial nomenclature occurred this early, but M. Bruce goes on to indicate

  "Schlegel has been credited with establishing trinomial nomenclature in 1844 in both the commencement of the parts of the ornithology of Fauna Japonica and in his little book 'Systematische Ubersicht der Vogel Europas'. Of course, it didn't catch on and Schlegel was inconsistent later, but at the time he did use trinomials. In fact, in Fauna Japonica, of 201 species listed for Japan, 18 were named trinomially (although a few of these included 'var.'). See for example, Prunella rubida (Peters 10:12).

  ... referring to Mayr (1942, Systematics and the Origin of Species), on p.110 he states 'H. Schlegel was apparently the first author (from 1844 on) to use trinomials consistently (even though hesitatingly) for geographic subdivisions of the species.' As Mayr further points out, European ornithologists didn't approve and eventually the Americans adopted it ...".

• Peters Checklist 14:135 (Blake) gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:359 also gives a date of 1859.
• 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.

• Lowther, PE. 2001. "New name for the Bolivian Blackbird". BBOC. 121:280,281. demonstrates:
• • Agelaioides (misspelled in text as Agelaiodes) Cassin, 1866 has precedence over Oreopsar Sclater, 1939.
  • Placing bolivianus Sclater, 1939 and badius Vieillot, 1819 in the same genus as proposed by Johnson & Lanyon 1999. Auk 116:759-768. creates a secondary homonomy due to the existence of Molothrus badius bolivianus Hellmayr, 1917.
• Lowther therefor proposes the nomen novum Agelaioides oreopsar along with resurrecting the genus Agelaioides.

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