Zoological Citation Notes --P
Mulleripicus funebris parkesi Nomenclature (date)
- This taxon is dated variably to 1957 or 1958.
- Birds of the World (accessed 2021.11.27) for example dates it to 1957 (the imprint and
sequentially expected date for this volume).
- As Dickinson et al. have shown, the first number of this volume (86) was
not published until 1 Feb 1958.
- It is a virtual certainty that the publication date for this taxon in 1958.
2021.11.27
Carpodacus pulcuerrimus Citation
- Conventionally cited as:
- Carpodacus pulcherrimus (Moore) 1856 Proc.Zool.Soc.London["1855"] Pt23 no.297 p.216
- The name is first used by Hodgson in Gray,JE Zool.Misc. 3:85.
- This part of the Zool.Misc. is cited for genus group names, but evidently
is not sufficient for specific names such as this.
20210.10.20
Trachyphonus purpuratus Nomenclature
- Originally spelled LURPURATUS; noted by Peters CL (and ignored by the CBBM).
- This is taken to be an obvious lapsus, which it probably is.
2021.06.01
Phaps Citation
- The date I give (1835) is probably wrong.
-
- It is apparently published in a re-issued verson
for which the date is uncertain.
2021.04.25
Hylopezus paraensis Citation
2020.12.29
Myzomela prawiradilagae Citation date
- A confusing, and in my view an unfortunate situation here
- The portion of the hard copy published J.Orn. containing this new
description is in the January 2020 issue.
- However, there is a copy of the material online dated 5 Oct. 2019, and a note
in the hard copy indicating it was "Published 05 October 2019".
- The online copy ("Published" in 2019) is unpaginated.
- Thus, we end up with an unusual citation discordant between the online version
and the print version. The citation MUST be to the online version.
- I am unclear whether it is appropriate to include the "number" (as is conventionally done).
- It appears to me this is similar to author's preprints that were frequently issued in the
19th and early 20th centuries. These often had different pagination from the
copy included in the final published volume, and the taxa involved must be cited
to the author's preprints.
- The lack of pagination, no doubt seems a triviality to most, but I see it as a serious
deficiency, and hold myself back from expressing the very strong critical feelings I have
on the matter.
- The note on the website further limits the authors of the taxon to the "(first, second and last of 7)".
2020.10.12
Phasianus cholchicus principalis Citation
- Cited by Peters Checklist II:122 to "p.322 pl.32"
- The correct page and plate citation is p.324 and pl.22, as
pointed out by Dr Richard Schodde.
2020.03.12
Rhea pennata Nomenclature
- This name is cited to 1834 (Peters CL I:7) and Hellmayr & Conover 1(1):6.
Salvadori (CBBM 27:582 gives the date "1835-1838".
These all refer to the second volume (Itineraire) of the Voy.Am.merid.
- Note, that this same volume is cited to "ca. 1839" by Peters (Peters III:200 for Arara aymara (also pubished in volume 2 of the Itineraire).
Cory (Cat.B.Am. II(1):73 cites the parrot to 1839. H&M 4th I:357 cites this name to 1839, though Orbigny's Arara aymara is not discussed by Dickinson & Lebossé (at least not that I find).
- The work by Dickinson & Lebossé (Zoological Bibliography V(1-5) 2017-2018) does not deal
the parrot name or the rhea name; it appears they chose not to investigate the dates of the Itineraire (ZB 2017 5(1):4)
even though one and possibly two new taxa are described therein.
- Dickinson and Lebossé's work make it clear that this work (Voy.Am.merid.) overall had mulitple and complex publication delays.
- I speculate that these delays
may explain why Orbigny included a note in the April 1837 issue of L'Echo du Monde Savant claiming his authority for this name.
It appears he was concerned that a publication by Gould might threaten the priority of his authorship, and indeed later that year (Nov. 21) Gould
published a description of the bird with the name Rhea darwinii (PZS V no.li:35)
- Sherborn cites the 1837 Echo du Monde Savant for the name Rhea pennata.
- It appears that as brief as the note is, the 1837 Echo du Monde Savant citation is the authority for the name, unless it is shown
that the volume 2 Itineraire was published before 1837. If so this in turn would then require a different
date for the parrot name.
- This vexed matter was addressed by Salvadori in CBBM XVII:583 where his note indicates that Des Murs held that Orbigny named
the bird in 1830 in his correspondence with Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire. The 1837 vol.1 (n.s.) of Charlesworth's Magazine of
Natural Hist. (p.504) refers to a letter in which Orbigny claims priority for the name. The letter was published in "one of the French
scientific journals", but one that Salvadori was not able to find.
A portion of the Echo text is reproduced here:
L'Echo du Monde Savant
4 année (N.226) 2e division. - Sciences naturelle et géographiques. No.67.- Samedi 22 avril 1837.
p. 58
Non-seulement cette dé fut imprimée á cette époque
dans les journaux qui relatèeut mes lettres adressées de
Patagonie, mais, après un courte description, dans la partie
historique de mon Voyage (t.2, p.67, notes). Je lui ai donné
le nom latin de Rhea pennata, tiré de son principal caractère,
d'avoir les tarses emplumés.
The URL for this volume of L'Echo du Monde Savant is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=kUY8AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA58&lpg=RA5-PA58&dq=l%27%C3%A9cho+du+monde+savant+1837+pennata&source=bl&ots=KZXOkTER8O&sig=-WblA_hSv3WMyi7ufvm2DrZ0IwM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjOr47EjNbfAhULDHwKHchxBUEQ6AEwCHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=l'%C3%A9cho%20du%20monde%20savant%201837%20pennata&f=false
2019.01.08
Salpinctes obsoletus pulverius Concept
- Originally separated by Grinnell on the basis of foot size.
- Hellmayr notes (Cat.B.Am. XIII ptVII p.274 n.1
"According to Grinnell's recent investigations, neither
S. o. pulverius, of San Nicolas Island,
nor S.o.proximus, of San Martin Island, are
properly separable from the Common Rock Wren.
- This taxon is included in IOC 7.3 without comment
Heterophasia picaoides Nomenclature
- Conventionally given as picaeoides.
- Modern authors appear to be following Cat.B.Br.Mus. 7:401 (Sharpe 1883),
or Peters CL X:420 (Deignan 1964).
- As noted by both of these sources, the original spelling is Pieaoides.
- Sharpe may be basing his spelling on the unpublished plate that is in the collection
of the Br. Mus.
- However, in the cited and published source for the name, not only does the spelling
employ the e rather than the c, but also the text immediately
following the name states: "Pie-like". This can be seen here:
J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 8 p.38
- What Hodgson means by "Pie-like" is not made more explicit. My guess is that it means Pie, as in Magpie,
which, of course, is why pica... also seems so appropriate.
- It appears unlikely that "Pie-like" is a misprint for "Pic-like, which would seem unlikely as an expression in English.
- My interpretation is that picaoides is an unjustified emendation.
Hodgson's spelling and specific intent are explicit in the original publication.
- The spelling picaeoides may be acceptible if it is present on the plate, and
the plate is demonstrated to satisfy publication requirements. However, even in this case, Hodgson's published
text "Pie-like" seems compelling, and would implies accepting the inference of "pica" for (mag)pie as a basis for the "pica..." spelling.
- In The Zoological Miscellany G.R. Gray lists the names on plates and drawings in the Cat.Nip.Birds, and on p.83 has both "T. ? picaoides, 363" and also
a name "Alcopus (Sibia) picaoides, 246" so it seems the "c" spelling was used on the plates.
- "pie" was a commonly used name for the magpie in the 18th and 19th
centuries. See for example "The Life of Thomas Nuttall" 1967. J.E. Graustein
Harvard Univ. Press (p.6) where she quotes Nuttall writing about the magpie:
"As might have been anticiapted from his sagacity, the Pie hs been
considered as a messenger of fate in the north of Europe..."
.
So when Hodgson said "Pie-like", it seems reasonable to interpret that he meant
"Pie-like" and NOT "Pica-like", and that this was then represented as "pieaoides". This best argument for a different intention (to my mind) is the "a" in
the name.
- There is a long tradition of persons feeling they can recognize
error, when something does not match their expectation. The Code allows
correction of obvious errors, but why this is in fact an obvious error is not
clear to me.
2020.04.06
- I am (at long last) convinced by countervailing arguments.
The Latinization of "pie" would PROBABLY be "pic" and the most parsimonious explanation
for this unusual published spelling would be a lapsus by the type setter looking at the text
and picking up a bit of "e" type, while Hodgson almost certainly would have written "c".
- My strong (perhaps overly strong) preference for original spellings leaves me a bit unsatisfied here.
I feel I am uncomfortable dealing with things as they actually happened, rather than rushing about
re-writing history so that if fits my expectations.
- In ornithological nomenclature this name pops out for the unusual spelling, and thus gets lots of attention.
In non-ornithological nomenclature the number of unusual appearing names is substantial, and trying to investigate
which should be forced to comply with one's expectations seems a silly and bootless task.
2014.12.03; 2019.07.24; 2020.02.14; 2020.04.06
Pionites melanocephalus pallidus Citation
- Conventionally cited to 1889.
- The number in which this appears (no. 187 "Juli") includes a dateline on p.321 of
"Hann. Münden, October 1889."
Also on p.326 is the dateline:
"Dresden, den 10 November 1889."
So the imprint date of "Juli" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
- The first evidence that I know of for this being in existence as a published work is the
notice given in the 1891 Ibis p.616 where this number was noted as rec'd at the Zoological Soc. on
Jan. 14, 1890.
2014.04.06
Cacicus haemorrhous pachyrhynchus Citation
- Conventionally cited to 1889.
- The number in which this appears (no. 187 "Juli") includes a dateline on p.321 of
"Hann. Münden, October 1889."
Also on p.326 is the dateline:
"Dresden, den 10 November 1889."
So the imprint date of "Juli" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
- The first evidence that I know of for this being in existence as a published work is the
notice given in the 1891 Ibis p.616 where this number was noted as rec'd at the Zoological Soc. on
Jan. 14, 1890.
2014.04.06
Phylloscopus poliocephalus Nomenclature
- This name appears to be incorrect.
The nominatea Phylloscopus poliocephalus (Salvadori>) 1876
is junior to one of the included subspecies Phylloscopus poliocephalus maforensis(Meyer,AB) 1874.
2013.04.06
Heliomaster constantii pinicola Nomenclature
- Often the authority is given in parentheses.
- The facts as I understand them are these.
- My interpretation is that Gould may well have had "Helioster" on the drawing while the plate had "Heliomaster".
- "Helioster" was never published as a name, though Gould may have intended it to be.
- If in fact a plate (or text) was published with the name as "Helioster pinicola" and that name were shown to have priority, the matter might be more difficult.
- Based on the facts and my interpretations, I do not place the authority in parentheses.
- Thanks as always to Colin Jones for bringing this matter to my attention.
2011.11.24 (#2)
- With additional information, Michael Reiser writes and indeed there was a plate published with the name "Helioster" on the plate, as seen on the plate at gallica.bnf.fr.
2011.11.24
Aegotheles bennettii plumiferNomenclature.
2011.10.16
Onychognathus walleri preussi Citation
- Conventionally cited as:
- Onychognathus walleri preussi Reichenow 1892 J.Orn. 40 no.197[=198] p.184,219
- However that number of the J.Orn. was published in April (or perhaps it is more
accurate to say was not published before April (the imprint date). It
was more probably published some good number of months later.
This name was also published by Reichenow in the
Sitz.Allg.Deutsch.Orn.Ges.Berlin which was Ausgegeben on 19 Feb. 1892.
- Peters Checklist 15:87 (= Amadon 1862) is probably merely copying
Sclater Syst.Av.Aethiop. 2:664 (1930).
- Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for picking this up.
2010.11.10
Peucedramus Citation
- Conventionally cited to Henshaw, who was the author of the Birds section
of the U.S. Geographical survey 1875,1876. However the text
makes it quite clear that the name is due to Coues, and
Coues' manuscript is explicitly given in quote marks and
attributed to Coues.
- The material can be seen here:
- Title page Henshaw 1875
- Henshaw 1875 p.201
- Henshaw 1875 p.202
- It should additionally be noted that there has been some question as to
whether this should be dated to 1875 or 1876.
Indeed a portion of the work was published in 1876, this section commences a number
of pages after this portion, and covers 1875 field work. The section
containing Peucedramus was published in 1875.
- Thanks to Leslie Oversteet for determining the details of the dates
of publication for this work.
2010.11.03
Euplectes psammacromius Nomenclature
- Peters Checklist 15:72 (= Greenway 1961) renders the original combination
incorrectly as "Penthetria psammocromia". He may have been simply following
Sclater (Syst.Av.Aethiop. p.766 1930) and most probably did not trouble himself
to check the original description.
- The original description can be see here:
Orn.Monatsb. 8 no.3 p.39
- Understandably, subsequent authors, also not checking the original description have
perpetrated this error.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
2010.10.17
Geothlypis poliocephala Citation
- Peters Checklist 14:42 (= Lowery 1962) gives the page number
as 225, however the name and diagnosis first appear on p.220 in the key.
2010.07.24
Selenidera piperivora Nomenclature
- [2010.06.08] Previously as Selenidera culik with this discussion.
- I have some difficulty making sense of this citation.
I follow Peters Checklist 6:79, and do not find an entry for this in the Richmond
Index.
- The orthography of the Sherborn entry is a confusion. It reads:
"culik Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I11."
The subscripted "11" tempts me to interpret it as the species number, however
the citation for Selenidera reinwardtii is similarly:
"reinwardtii Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I11."
Surprisingly, the Sherborn listing for Campethera punctuligera is :
"punctuligera Picus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. 211."
(bolding supplied)
The Richmond Index list this as "[p.27]".
The Sherborn listing for Pteroglossus Humbloti is:
"humbloti Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign I9".
The Richmond Index lists this as "[p.9]" so in this instance the p.no and sp.no appear to match.
So I remain confused.
- Additional difficulties are to be found here:
Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2006. "Mandatory changes to the scientific names of three
Neotropical birds" BBOC 126(3):242-244. note that Linnaeus' 1758 name was felt to be "not
identifiable" (by Peters and others), but that the 1766 Linnean entry was adequate. The 1766 Linnean
name has additionally been used by multiple authors (from 1907 to 2004) and they
felt it must be considered the valid name for this taxon. They would give the citation as:
- However, as noted by Murray Bruce (in litt. 2006.10.19)
their points do not change the fact that the (adequately described) Linnaeus 1766 name is
preoccupied by the (unidentifiable) Linnaeus 1758 name. Thus it would seem that
culik must stand
- Whitney & Pacheco 2006 do not reference (and may not have seen)
an important work in which Peters addresses this matter. I am thankful to Murray Bruce for bringing it to my attention. It is:
Peters JL. 1930. "The identity of the toucans described by Linnaeus in the 10th and 12th editions of the
Systema Naturae." Auk 47:405-408.
- [2010.06.08]: Note now, however
Piacentini, Vd, Pachecho JF & Whitney BM. 2010. "The name Ramphastos piperivora Linnaeus
revisited" BBOC 130(2):141-143, where this matter is dealt with in detail.
...., 2004.01.02; 2006.10.19; 2010.06.08; 2010.08.13
Egretta intermedia plumifera Systematics
- Peters Checklist I(2):209 (= Payne 1979) treats this
as a synonym of Egretta intermedia intermedia and
H&M 3rd:87
follows this.
- Dr David Donsker tells me that Kuslan & Hancock. (2005) "The Herons",
Oxford University Press recognize the subspecies, and tentatively I follow that.
2010.01.14
Lonchura leucogastra palawana Citation
- Peters Checklist 14:378 (= Paynter 1968) cites this to "no.13 p.11" which makes
no sense whatsoever. No.13 was published in 1952.
- This "no.13" apparently is a lapsus for no.73.
2009.12.17; 2009.12.19
Ploceus pelzelni Citation
- A confusing situation here.
- Peters Checklist 15:37 (= Moreau 1962) cites:
- Originally I had this as
- However, at least 4 months prior to Hartlaub's publication in Zool.Jarhb. (May 1887)
Shelley published this name in Ibis (Jan. 1887 p.23) with the following text:
Dr. Hartlaub informs me by letter that his Hyphantornis crocata
is totally distinct from the Icteropsis crocata, Pelz.,
for which latter species he has therefore suggested the name
of Sitagra pelzelni.
- Pelzeln erected the genus Icteropsis in 1881 in Verh.k.k.Zool.-Bot.Ges.Wien
31:149 where Hartlaub's Hyphantornis crocata (with a Latin diagnosis apparently
by Pelzeln) is the type by monotypy.
-
Verh.k.k.Zool.-Bot.Ges.Wien 31:149
-
Verh.k.k.Zool.-Bot.Ges.Wien 31:150
- It appears to me that by indication Shelley's publication satisfies the relevant provisions
of Articles 10 and 11 of the Code, and despite his intentions, Shelley is the author of the
name.
- Hartlaub's Hyphantornis crocata has the diagnosis reproduced in J.Orn. 30:451,
where it cites the original in Abh.Naturw.Ver.Bremen VII Band 2. Heft 1881 p.100 -
the citation given for Ploceus crocata.
- It does not seem correct to me to cite this name to 1887 Zool.Jahrb. when the name
was used earlier and linked, by indication, with Icteropsis crocata, whatever the
status of that name may be.
- H&M 3rd:270 (through Corrigenda 8) gives Hartlaub as the author of the name, without comment.
2009.10.30
Pyrgilauda Nomenclature
- H&M 3rd:718 notes that they follow
Stepanyan 1990 (not seen) in accepting this genus.
- This may well be correct, but I do have some question here. Twenty years
before Verreaux published this name in the Nouv.Arch.Mus.Nat.Hist., Bonaparte
listed "Pyrgilauda Verreaux" as a synonom of
Pyrrhulauda Smith 1829.
- I do not know if this possible prior use of the name was addressed by
Stepanyan or not, but will presume that it was.
2009.10.25
Dicaeum pygmaeum Citation
- H&M 3rd:702 (et. Corrigenda through 8) appears
to be confused concerning this and possibly other citations from this source. To date (2009.10.10)
I find the following taxa and Corrigenda notes:
- Dicaeum pygaeum Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.2 pl.2
702,"Dicaeum pygmaeum pygmaeum : date, 1835 not 1833 [see Kennedy et al. 1985; also ECD et al. in prep.]"
[Corrigenda 6]
- Acrocephalus luscinius syrinx Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.6 pl.8
585, "Acrocephalus luscinius syrinx : date 1833 not 1835 [wrapper says publ. March 1833]"
[Corrigenda 7]
- Erythrura trichroa trichroa Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. 2 livr.1 p.8 pl.10
733, "Erythrura trichroa trichroa : date, 1833 not 1835 [wrapper says publ. Mars. 1833.]"
[Corrigenda 7]
- It appears to me that #1 was missed in the date revision, as the wrapper presumably
applies to the entire livraison (1) and the date
would seem to have to apply to this taxon as well as to the others in the same livraison.
2009.10.10
Prionochilus olivaceus parsonsi Nomenclature
- Peters Checklist 12:172 (= Salomonsen 1967) spells the specific
epithet "parsoni" (with only one "s") but spells it correctly
in the citation. The citation, however, makes no reference to the plate.
- The Richmond Index indicates that the taxon is named after Mr William Parsons of Manilla.
2009.09.22
Sheppardia bocagei poensis Citation
- Peters Checklist 10:50 (= Ripley 1964) gives the page number
as "p. 9"
- This is also followed by HBW 10:[811].
- On p.9 of vol. XIII of BBOC, I find:
- Cossypha archeri
- Phlexis rufescens
- Cryptolopha leta
- Apalis personata
- The Richmond Index indicates that Callene poensis is found on p.37, and
that is what I find as well.
2009.08.03
Pogoncichla Systematics
- I follow HBW 10:729 (2005 Collar) for the subspecies here.
2009.08.03
Turdus flavipes polionota (Platycichla flavipes polionota) Citation
- Peters Checklist 10:176 (= Ripley 1964) dates this to 1902, suggesting
he did not consult Zimmer 1926.
- Subsequent authors (H&M 3rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8);
HBW 10 (2005)) seem simply to have unquestioningly followed the Peters Checklist.
- The Richmond Index, and Zimmer (1926) make it clear that this portion of the work
was published in 1900.
2009.07.21
Catharus guttatus polionotus Citation
- Peters Checklist 10:174 (= Ripley 1964) includes a very small
lapsus giving the name of the serial as "Condon", instead of Condor.
2009.07.19
Parus cinereus planorum Nomenclature
- Previously as:
- Dickinson 2009. acts as first reviser in selecting this name
to replace Parus nipalensis Hodgson (not Parus nipalensis Hodgson).
- (ref. Dickinson, E. C. 2009. A substitute name for Parus nipalensis
Hodgson, 1837. Indian Birds 5(1):16.)
- Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.
2009.06.28; 2010.08.09
Zoothera heinei papuensis Citation
- H&M 3rd: Corrigenda (through Corrigenda 8) includes a
correction to this date (from Corrigenda 4), it reads:
662,"Zoothera heinei papuensis: date, 1882, not 1881 [see Sherborn, 1934] {New ref?}"
- This reference must be to Sherborn, C. D. 1934.
Dates of publication of catalogues of natural history (post 1850)
issued by the British Museum.
The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany,
and Geology, Tenth Series 13:308-312.
- The relevant text there (p.309) reads:
Catal. of the Birds. --
....
V. Passeriformes. By Seebohm, 1881 (30 April, 1881).
- I do not see any logic that would support dating this name to 1882 rather than 1881,
based on Sherborn's publication. (It should be noted that Sherborn recognizes that
the publication date of the following volume (VI) should be 1882,
rather than the imprint date of 1881.)
- Also of interest, H&M 3rd:661 (the previous page)
date Zoothera dixoni (= Geochicla dixoni) by Seebohm from 3 pages
later in the same Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. volume (V) to 1881,
and do not "correct" this date to 1882.
- The cited reference and the context all suggest that the Corrigenda 4 "correction"
is simply an error.
- I follow the Sherborn reference evidently cited by H&M 3rd,
as well as the Richmond Index, and cite this name to 1881.
- I discuss the dates of these volumes in some detail here
Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.
2009.06.28
Aplonis tabuensis pachyrhampha Nomenclature
- The original combination is spelled Aplonis tabuensis pachyrhamphus.
- This spelling is followed by Peters Checklist 15:77 (= Amadon 1962).
- H&M 3rd:652 (through Corrigenda 8) spells this
A. t. pachyrampha (contra pachyrhampha). Presumably this
is a lapsus.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.
2009.06.18
Microbates collaris paraguensis Citation
- In Peters Checklist 10:444 (= Paynter 1964) attributes the authority to
only one Phelps.
- H&M 3rd:643 goes further in attributing this name
specifically to the senior Phelps alone.
- The Richmond Index attributes this name to Phelps Sr. and Jr. which is consistent
with other names from this same article. At least some other taxa from this article are
attributed by H&M 3rd and Peters to both Phelps's but
no explanation is offered for using only the senior Phelps for this particular name.
Other taxa from this article include, but are not limited to:
- Synallaxis cinnamomea aveledoi
- Certhiaxis cinnamomeus marabinu
- Sublegatus arenarum tortugensis
- Coereba flaveola frailensis
- I follow the Richmond Index here.
2009.05.29
Troglodytes aedon parkmanii Nomenclature
- This bird was named for the famous and wealthy Boston physician,
George Parkman (1790-1849). Parkman was the victim of one of the most famous murders
of the 19th century. His fellow Harvard faculty member John Webster (1793-1850)
was convicted and executed for the 1849 murder.
The case was sensational, controversial, and with repercussions that
last in the law to this day.
This case is credited with establishing the requirement of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, as opposed to "an absolute certainty" (at the time the standard
in a murder trial). Other important precedents were set in this trial as well, and
the witnesses included historical figures including Oliver Wendall Holmes, Sr.,
William T.G. Morton (famous for introducing the use of ether for anesthesia).
Simon Schama published a history of the affair (1991), and a PBS documentary
was produced on the subject. While Chief Justice Shaw is noted and quoted for his
instructions to the jury in the case, that at that time "real time" stenographic
recordings of trials did not exist. Shaw's "instructions", as delivered from
the bench, were felt by the reporters present to be garbled and confusing.
Shaw seems to have responded by writing down what he felt the instructions were,
and these seem to be clear and direct, so it is speculated that his "instuctions"
were probably not those that he actually delivered in court.
That, at least, is a speculation.
2009.05.17; 2009.05.24
Garrulax peninsulae Systematics
- Garrulax peninsulae 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 3rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).
2009.03.02
Rhea pennata Systematics
- Previously as:
- The SACC merged Pterocnemia into Rhea (2008).
- Thanks to the IOC world bird list for notification of this.
2009.02.21
Chrysomma poecilotis Systematics
- Treated in Moupinia by H&M 3rd (through Corrigenda 8).
- The IOC World list moves this to Chrysomma following Collar & Robson 2007; Rasmussen & Anderton 2005.
2009.02.19
Coracina striata panayensis Nomenclature
- Steere, describes two taxa with the specific epithet panayensis on p.14 of this work.
- 125. Artamides panayensis
- 128. Edoliisoma (Graucalus) panayensis
- Both taxa are now held to be in Coracina, with Artamides panayensis = the subspecies Coracina striata panayensis.
- In 1952 Ripley proposed a new name (Coracina ostenta for Edoliisoma (Graucalus) panayensis)
because of the homonomy.
- In Peters Checklist 9:251 (= Mayr 1960) has a footnote stating:
1. This name [referring to Coracina ostenta Ripley 1952] is invalid because of the mandatory provision
stated in Bull.Zoöl.Nomencl., 4, 1950, p. 265, par. 33 and id., 14, 1957, p.184, Art.
24, Sect. 14, which states that "If homonyms are of identical date, one
proposed for a species takes precedence over one proposed for a subspecies." cf. p.177, E.M.
This appears to me to be incorrect. Steere proposes both taxa as species (each name is followed
by the string "sp. nov.") so the mandatory provision cited by Mayr does not apply in this case.
- Thanks to Mathew Louis for bringing this to my attention.
2009.01.30
Phylloscopus affinis perflavus Systematics
- 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.
2009.01.26; 2017.12.07
Malacocincla malaccensis poliogenis Nomenclature
- The Richmond Index indicates that this name is spelled Brachypterux poliogenis in the text
and Brachypterux poliogenys on the plate.
- Peters Checklist 10:251 (= Deignan 1964) gives only the spelling from the text, with no mention of
the alternate spelling on the plate.
- H&M 3rd:601 correct this in Corrigenda 8 of 2008.
2009.01.25
Sporophila palustris Systematics
- The taxon was studied by Juan Areta using previously unpublished vocal and habitat data.
(Areta JI, 2008. "Entre Rios Seedeater (Sporophila zelichi): a species that never was." J.FieldOrn. 79(4):352-363).
- His conclusion was that S. zelichi is a color morph of S. palustris
2009.01.03
Arachnothera clarae philippinensis Nomenclature
- Clements Checklist th ed.:543 misspells this "philippensis.
- Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.
2008.12.27
Oreolais pulcher Nomenclature
- Nguembock et al. define Oreolais as masculine (p.764) but use the
combination "Oreolais pulchra (sic) in the tree diagram (p.763).
The current Rules of nomenclature would require Oreolais pulcher.
2008.10.17
Chalcomitra senegalensis proteus Nomenclature
- This form has been conventionally referred to as:
- See Steinhimer 2008. "Lectotype designation for Cinnyris proteus
Rüppell, 1840 (Nectarinidae)" BBOC 128(2):142-144 and ICZN Opinion
2187 for this name.
- Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.
2008.09.05
Merops philippinus Citation
- Conventionally cited to 1766 (Peters CL 5:235; H&M 3rd:296; HBW 6:338; Richmond Index).
- Rainer Massmann helpfully points out (in litt. 2008.08.16) that the errata was published in 1767
(fide "A Catalogue of the Works of Linnaeus ... British Museums" 1933. p.11).
- Thus the name must be dated to 1767, rather than to 1766.
2008.08.16
Stiphrornis pyrrholaemus Citation
- On p.29 of this publication, the name is given as
Stiphrornis pyrrholaemus sp. nov. (Schmidt & Angehr)
which implies (to me at least) that Schmidt and Angehr see themselves as the author of the taxon.
It is interesting that their names are given in parentheses, which are reserved in the Code
for indicating that a "species group name is combined with a generic name other than the original one"
(Art. 51.3), and that surely is not the case here.
Regarding authority the Code reads
If a work is by more than one person but it is clear from the contents that
only one of these is responsible for the name or act, then that person is the author;
otherwise the author of the work is deemed to be the author of the name or act.
This statement has obvious logical deficiencies, but lets see if I can apply what I interpret to
be the intent of this portion to this problem.
- My guess would be that if the content of this work (whatever else the authors may subsequently
say is immaterial) makes it clear that only Schmidt and Angher were responsible "for the name or act"
then they would be deemed to be the authors of the name.
- The first sentance of the abstract reads:
We describe a new species of forest robin from ...
This seems to create a problem, as the "we" seemingly must refer to the authors (all of them) of the paper.
If there was a note in the text, or a footnote on the name that said something like "Schmidt and Angehr alone
are responsible for naming this taxon" then the case would be clear -- to me at least.
- Probably it is reasonable to interpret the text on p.29 as "making it clear" that Schmidt and Angehr alone
were responsible for naming this taxon, but it is also reasonable to state that a few words to that effect
would have demonstrated awareness of the applicable Code as well as eliminating any uncertainty.
- I do not see it as entirely unreasonable to interpret the authors of the work as the authors of the name.
2008.08.15
Mirafra poecilosterna Citation
- Peters Checklist 9:20 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this name to volume 1 of the Orn.Centralb.
- This makes no sense as the Orn.Centralb. started in 1876.
Undoubtedly this is a typographic error for "IV" or "4" which is the correct volume.
2008.08.01
Petrochelidon fulva poeciloma Nomenclature
2008.07.08
Ptyonoprogne obsoleta pallida Nomenclature
- H&M 3rd:536 places the authority for this name in parentheses with
no comment, though this departs from Peters Checklist 9:103 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960).
HBW 9:673 (= Turner,AK 2004) holds the taxon as Ptyonoprogne fuligula pallida and
does not place the authority in parenthese. In my view this latter approach is correct.
- It appears, both from the Richmond Index and from the Peters CL rendering, that Hume's original
combination was as Ptionoprogne Pallida. So the question becomes: was there a proposed
genus group name Ptionoprogne published prior to Humes use of the name, or was it simply
an emendation of Reichenbach's Ptyonoprogne?.
The Richmond Index indicates two uses of Ptionoprogne:
- Stoliczka used this name in the June issue of J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal XLI Pt2 no.2 p.219,231,
though Richmond comments "[pro Ptyonoprogne Rchb. 1850]" -- indicating it was
an emendation.
- Blanford proposed (or used) a genus group name Ptionoprogne
which Geibel quotes as "Ibis 1863 III 214".
This second instance might require the use of parentheses for
the current representation as Ptyonoprogne obsoleta pallida. However, Richmond indicates that Blanford's
name was actually published in 1873, which would post-date Hume's use, thus supporting the interpretation that
Hume's use was an emendation. In that case compliance with the Code (1999) would require that parentheses
not be used for the authority.
2008/07.05
Periparus ater pekinensis Nomenclature
- Peters Checklist 12:94 (= Snow 1967) cites this name to
David 1870 Ibis, p.155
which most probably simply parrots the
entry in the CBBM 8:41. Other authors (H&M 3rd:526;
HBW 12:722) in turn appear to parrot the Peters entry.
- It appears to me that this name was first published in 1868 by J. Verreaux as cited.
(data from the Richmond Index). That taxon is linked to material that is (or was) in
the Paris Museum. Whether that material can be now identified with certainty is
not known to me.
- As there is a published indication (the Richmond Index) that the
first use of the name is due to Verreaux 1868, the burden of
proof lies upon those who support the use of a later publication (1870) by a
different author (David).
- (2009.08.16) Colin Jones supplied me with the URL to examine this work,
the article commences:
Le Muséum d'histoire naturelle a reçu dernièrement
d'un de ses correspondants, M. l'abbé A. David, missionnaire eu Chine,
un certain nombre d'Oiseaux, parmi lesquels nous avons remarqué les
suivants comme constituant des espèces nouvelles pour la science :
- The name is given, followed by "A. David" but there are no quotes around
the desription, or any indication that David supplied anything other than the specimen
and (apparently) the manuscript name.
- I continue to interpret this matter such that the author of the name is Verreaux, and
the date cited should be 1868, though it must be stressed that this contrasts with
Peters, HBW 12:722; &
H&M 3rd:526 (through Corrigenda 8), whom all list David 1870,
and offer no comments or discussion of the matter.
- The 1868 description can be seen here:
- Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(5) 10 p.[68]
2008.06.09; 2008.12.14; 2009.08.16; 2010.07.05
Corvus pectoralis Nomenclature
- This form is frequently cited to Corvus torquatus Lesson 1830 [APP: actually 1831].
- Eck (1984 et. seq.) has brought forward the reminder that Lesson's name is
preoccupied by Corvus monedula torquata Bechstein 1791.
- Thanks to Rob Hickling for suggesting this note.
2008.05.31
Paridae Systematics
- With the 7th Ed. of the AOU CL (1998) Poecile, Baeolophus were
split from the genus Parus.
- H&M 3rd:523 et.seq, which in contrast to the AOU CL can not
be considered a systematic work (just as this website can not), leaves Parus unsplit, and in fact makes
no mention, that I can find of this issue. (Some lower level revisions are, however, cited to the 1998 AOU CL).
- The HBW 12 also splits the genus, though this fact again is not mentioned by H&M 3rd.
2008.05.23
Garrulus glandariuis pekingensis Nomenclature
2008/05.08
Porzana paykullii Citation
- Peters Checklist 2:186 gives "p.258" and pl.5.
- The Richmond Index on one card gives page "259" and does not give a plate. Another card gives
p.258 and pl.5
- Not knowing which is correct, I follow the "majority" -- p.258 and pl.5 .
2008.05.04
Cyanolycra pulchra Citation
- H&M 3rd:505 dates this to 1876, but in the Corrigenda #5 changes this
to 1875, referencing "[ECD et al. in prep]" -- though one would expect an "in prep." citation to have been
published after these years have passed.
- My data from the Richmond Index, suggests that unless a source other than the Ann.Lyc.Nat.Hist.N.Y. is cited,
the name should be dated to 1876.
- The Richmond Index notes that the paper was read Oct. 11, 1875, that the signature was dated Nov. 1875,
but that the cover for the nos. where this was published (nos. 7-8) is dated Feb. 1876.
- Richmond Index Card Cyanocitta pulchra
2008.05.02
Microeca fascinans pallida Citation
- Peters Checklist 11:558 (= Mayr 1986) dates this to 1884. This is followed by H&M
3rd:521 without discussion.
- The Richmond Index, however, gives the date as "1885?".
- The date of Rhipidura phasiana, which was first named in the same paper as the present
taxon, is corrected from 1884 to 1885 in the Corrigenda to H&M 3rd. Curiously,
Micraeca [sic] pallida receives no such treatment.
- Also worthy of note here is the date 1885 ascribed to Melithreptus vinitinctus, the third taxon
named in De Vis's paper, in Peters Checklist 12:396 (= Salomonsen 1967).
- Although the justification for citing 1885 in all cases is as yet unclear, it is followed here pending
further inquiry.
2008.04.13 (RMR)
Phonygammus keraudrenii purpureoviolaceus Nomenclature
- Originally described as Phonygama purpureo-violacea, according to Peters
Check-list 15:186 (= Mayr 1962).
- The taxon is placed in Phonygammus by Mayr, and he does not
include parentheses around the author's name in the check-list proper.
- H&M 3rd:516, however, place A.B. Meyer's name in
parentheses.
- As Phonygama Lesson, 1828, is an emendation of
Phonygammus Lesson & Garnot, 1826, the inclusion of
parentheses is unnecessary.
2008.03.29 (RMR)
Lanius meridionalis pallidirostris Citation
- Peters Checklist 9:359 cites this taxon to "1852". This is
followed by H&M 3rd:481 (through Corrigenda 6),
though H&M 3rd:460 cites Laniarius
aethiopicus sublacteus from two pages later in the same number (no.10) to
1851 (also without comment).
- Until it is demonstrated that no.10 (which contained the material from
the meeting of Dec. 26, 1851) was not published until 1852 I will try to cite
all taxa from this number to 1851.
2008.01.01
Lanius isabellinus phoenicuroides Citation
- Peters Checkist 9:346 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this
to Schalow in J.Orn. 23 1875. This is found in no.130, the
"April" number of the J.Orn. which according to the pattern that is
slowly emerging was probably delayed for a minimum of 3-8 months before
it actually appeared.
- In Schalow's J.Orn. use of the name he attributes it to Severtzov in
1873, also in the J.Orn. where Severtzov uses the name Lanio
phoenicuroides p.347 in a list, where it appears to be a nomen
nudum.
- Severtzov also published the name L[anius] phaeicuroides in the
Nov. 1875 number of Stray Feathers III no.5 p.429. My
interpretation of the Richmond Index card in this case is that Severtzov
was using L. phaenicuroides for L. phaenicuris (described
in that work at p.144). So the Schalow use of the name may very will be
the first valid instance of use. If not, the date could be a problem as
the Nov. Stray Feathers volume could quite possibly have preceeded the
"April" J.Orn. number for that year.
2007.12.30
Coracina lineata pusilla Nomenclature
- The citation here is given as in Peters Checklist 9:178 (= Mayr & Greenway
1960).
- The Richmond Index also lists
Graucalus pusillus "Bl." Jerdon 1872
Ibis, ser.3, II, no.VI, April 1872 p.117 (in text). where the name is listed in the synonomy
of Graucalus layardi Blyth.
- Mayr and Greenway give no information regarding this name.
2007.09.17; 2007.12.15
Aegithina tiphia philipi Citation
- Peters Checklist 9:301 (= Delacour 1960) dates this name to 1885. This is
followed by H&M 3rd:465 (through Corrigenda 6).
- The Richmond Index, giving a much fuller and more detailed citation lists the date as
1886, which I follow.
2007.09.06
Cracticus nigrogularis picatus Citation
- Peters Checklist 15:167 (= Amadon, 1962) cites this as:
this appears to be incorrect.
- To determine if this plate 50 was published before the PZS article it is
necessary to know in which part of Birds of Australia it was published. Amadon either
did not know, or did not supply that information.
- Mathews in his Suppl. to the Birds of Australia (p.49) indicates that Cracticus
picatus is to be found in pt XXXIV of Gould's Birds of Australia which Zimmer (p.255)
indicates appeared on December 1, 1848. Therefore, Amadon's citation is not
the correct one, and the PZS publication (appearing on Nov. 14, 1848) is correct.
2007.09.03
Formicarius analis pallidus Nomenclature
- Listed by Peters Checklist 7:240 with the authority in parentheses, and
the original combination as Furnarius pallidus.
- H&M 3rd:397 (through Corrigenda 6) also lists the
authority in parentheses, presumably following the Peters Checklist
- HBW 8:703 similarly places the authority in parentheses (but places this
subspecies in F. moniliger(!) -- Clements 2007 p.303 similarly places this
subspecies in F. moniliger).
- I can not resolve the uncertainty regarding the affinities of this subspecies, or
the species level status of moniliger, but I can correct the nomenclatural
errors. The Richmond Index demonstrates that the
original binomen was indeed Furnarius pallidus, however Richmond
has included notes indicating that
- "The name is corrected to "Formicarius" in index to the
vol.!"
- "in some copies [it is] corrected by a a slip pasted over the name, reading
"Formicarius pallidus"
- The Code's discussion of such situations is as follows:
32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).
32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any
external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a
lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect
transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are
not to be considered inadvertent errors.
32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or
author's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a
circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or work
issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted as
clear evidence of an inadvertent error.
I interpret this to mean that the original spelling must be corrected and the
original combination must be regarded as Formicarius pallidus and thus no
parentheses for the authority are to be used.
2007.06.23
Passerculus Systematics
- Rising discusses the nature and validity of subspecies and revises the
Passerculus sandwichensis subspecies accordingly.
Rising JD. 2007. "Named subspecies and their significance in contemporary
ornithology." Ch. 4 in Ornithological Monographs no.63. Festschrift for Ned K.
Johnson: Geographic vatiation and evolution in birds. Orn.Monogr. no.63. Cicero and
Remsen eds. pp.43-54..
- The genus previously appeared thus:
2007.06.16
Saltator coerulescens plumbiceps Nomenclature
- Several issues here
- The original spelling appears to be plumbiceps, based on the Richmond Index.
- Gadow in CBBM 11:289 (1886) emends this without comment
to plumbeiceps; Lawrence is listed as the author.
- H&M 3rd:824 (through Corrigenda 6) also lists the author
as Lawrence (but with the correct spelling for the species epithet).
- The Richmond Index lists the author as "Baird in Lawrence", which I follow until this is shown
to be incorrect.
- Examination of a copy of the original description (kindly provided by Craig Ludwig and Roy McDiarmid of the Smithsonian)
clarified many issues. The spelling is clearly as indicated by Richmond in the Richmond Index and the author of the taxon is
Baird and not Lawrence.
- Most workers attribute this name to Lawrence (e.g. Sclater CBBM
11:289; Deignan USNM Bull. 221:591;
H&M 3rd:824; 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 (p.477):
15. Saltator plumbiceps, Baird, MS.
"Male. Upper plumage grayish olive, the head above and at the
sides cinereous; tail olivaceous; quills dark biown edged with ashy gray; beneath
whitish, tinged with gray or brownish gray on jugulum and breast, passing behind on
the remaining under parts into pale fulvous, of which color also are the axillaries;
superciliary line reaching to the nape, bend of the wing and broad throat stripe
white, the latter margined with a black line and above this a light gray one; irides
reddish; bill and feet dark brown.
"Length 8 in.; wing 4.; tail 3.75; bill from nostrils .56, commissure .90;
tarsus 1.06.
"Habitat.— Mazatlan. Collected by J. Xantus, 1863. No. of type,
29,372.
"This species, as far as I can ascertain, is undescribed, and is interesting
as being the most northern representative of the genus yet discovered. It approaches
the Saltator rufiventris of Vigors (S. vigorsii of Gray, and, perhaps,
of Bonaparte, Notes Ornith. 23), and considered perhaps justly to be a synonym of
S. grandis, but appears to be lighter below, the abdomen and crissum by no
means rufous, and the super ciliary stripe extending far beyond the eye; it resembles
typical specimen of qrandis in the absence of clear olivaceous on the back and
wings; it is, however, much paler beneath,
the head lighter, the black stripe bordering the throat narrow, and with a light line
above it; although the wings are longer, the bill is smaller, narrower, and much less
tumid."
Remarks.— In the color of the back this species is much like S.
grandis, but is of a lighter olive, the latter species has the sides of the head
brownish black, the black border to the throat much wider, and the under surface very
much darker; the new species in its under plumage resembles somewhat S.
olivaciens, hut the colors are paler, less cinereous, and the tinge of fulvous
more diffused.
It is noted that only the "Remarks" section is not enclosed in quotes, and this
section must be attributed to Lawrence.
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.
2007.06.14; 2007.07.03
Piranga Nomenclature
- Peters Checklist 13 (=Storer, 1970) lists the authority in parentheses when taxa were described in Pyranga
and are now held in Piranga.
- This is followed, without comment, by H&M 3rd:818 (through Corrigenda 6).
- The published literature (Neave, 1940 p.1057 & The Richmond Index) makes it clear that Pyranga Vieillot, 1817
is merely an emendation of Piranga Vieillot, 1808.
- Therefore, if the published literature and the ICZN Code (1999) is to be followed, the authority should not be in
parentheses.
- This problem has been addressed repeatedly and previously, but these published interpretations are apparently
neglected ; The AOU CL 7th lists all taxa currently
held in Piranga but described in Pyranga without parentheses for the authority (viz: P. roseogularis,
P. bidentata, & P.leucoptera (pp.577-579)). Indeed every AOU CL. since the
second (1895!) has consistently listed authorities for taxa described in Pyranga without parentheses, even though they
are now held in Piranga.
2007.05.23
Aramadis cajanea plumbeicollis Citation
- Mark Brown has brought to my attention some confusion and uncertainty regrading this citation.
- This taxon is often cited (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:175 lists this citation to volume "2" of
"An. Mus. Nac. Costa Rica", and has a footnote indicating that the name is a nomen nudum in "An.Mus.Nac.Costa
Rica, 1, 1887, p.131."
- The Handbook of Learned Societies and Institutes of Americas by the Carnegie Institute suggests two possibilities
there is uncertainty about whether the description was published in volume 1 or 2. If published in volume 2 the date of
publication may well be 1889.
- The Richmond Index (which has the highest probability of being correct) does not list a volume number, but
lists the taxon to p.3 and 1888. This would fit with the scenario (which appears most likely to me) that there was
no volume "2" of the An.Mus.Nac.CostaRica -- which was continued as the "Anales del Instituto Fisico-Geografico
y del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica".
- For now I follow the citation as shown in the Richmond Index.
- Thanks again to Mark Brown for bringing this interesting bit of confusion to my attention.
- Further (and better) understanding comes via Frederick Brammer (in. litt. 2020.12.23) who
directs my attention to Marcondes,Rafael Sobral; Silveira,Luís Fábio (2015): A taxonomic review of Aramides cajaneus (Aves, Gruiformes, Rallidae)
with notes on morphological variation in other species of the genus. Zookeys 500:111-140.
-
- They present the publishing history and demonstrate that volume 2, as previously cited, was never in fact published
which obviates its use as an indication for the 1888 name use, which now must be held as a nomen nudem.
2005.05.18; 2020.12.23
Percnostola Systematics
- H&M 3rd:391 essentially follows Peters Checklist
(1951) though the listing is a mixture of old systematics and some recent taxa added.
- I attempt to follow Isler ML et al. 2001 & 2007 The Wilson Bulletin
113&119:164-176 & 53-70.
2007.04.23
Philemon citreogularis papuensis Nomenclature
2007.04.21
Leucosticte brandti pallidior Citation
- Peters Checklist 14:259 [=Howell et al., 1968] dates this to 1909,
though as usual no support is given for this date.
- Many other taxa from much later in this serial are dated to 1908 in other parts of the
Peters Checklist.
- The Richmond Index dates this to 1908, and provides substantially greater
bibliographic detail, noting that this is in No.1-2 for July of 1908.
- Many of the dates given by Howell et al. in this volume of the Peters Checklist
do not enjoy the support of evidence, documentation, or logic, and this may be another
such case.
- With no evidence of delay until 1909, I date this to 1908, following the Richmond
Index.
2007.04.02
Sporophila minuta parva Citation
- Peters Checklist 13:145 (Paynter, 1970) list this as:
Spermophila parva Lawrence, 1883, Ann. New York
Acad. Sci., 26 (1882), p. 382
- This is volume 2, not "26". Nevertheless, Paynter was able to get the date right.
This bird is described in no.12 for that volume, the June issue. Richmond's notes indicate that
Ridgway's copy was received June 22, 1893.
2007.02.11
Sporophila plumbea Citation
- Peters Checklist 13:136 (Paynter, 1970) gives the citation as:
Fringilla plumbea Wied, 1831, Beitr. Naturg. Brasilien, 3(2), p.579
which is
incorrect. Part 2 of volume 3 of this work commences on p.637 as demonstrated by Zimmer
(p.422). The citation should read:
Fringilla plumbea Wied, 1830, Beitr. Naturg. Brasilien, 3(1), p.579
- Therefore, 1830 is the correct date, and is the date shown by CBBM 12:97 and the
Richmond Index, and other careful workers.
- A useful work for dealing with Wied-Neuwied taxa is Allen JA. 1898. "On the Maximilian Types of
South American Birds in the American Museum of Natural History" Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 2
(19):209-276. This work does not appear to have been consulted by Paynter in this instance at
least.
....;2007.02.10
Melanerpes pulcher Systematics
- The AOU CL 47th Supplement elevates this to species level, based
on Wetmore. 1968. The Birds of the Republic of Panama, part 2. Smiths.Misc.Collections,
vol.150, and Stiles and Skutch. 1989. A Guide to the Birds of Costa Rica. Cornell University
Press. Ithaca, N.Y.
2007.01.21
Aimophila ruficeps pallidissima Nomenclature
- Collins, P. W. 1999. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps). In The Birds of
North America, No. 472 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia,
PA. spells the subspecific epithet with one "s" pallidisima
- Review of the original description confirms the spelling with a double "s" (e.g. Peters
Checklist 13:98, and H&M 3rd:787) is correct.
2007.01.20
Cincolsoma punctatum Citation
- Conventionally cited to 1794 (e.g. Peters Checklist 10:231 (Deignan, 1964)).
- The Richmond Index card for this taxon has "1794" with the "4" crossed out and "5" written over
it. The basis for this change is not completely clear, but there are apparent problems with the
"1794" date. Mathews in Biliography of the Birds of Australia p.124 notes that pt. III was received
at the Linnean Society (Lond.) on Feb. 4th, 1794, but on the line below notes that the Gött
Journ., Vol. I, heft 2, p.143 notes the date of 1795 for pt. III.
- The internal inconsistency of Mathews' dates seems typical to me. His statement that pt. III was
received Feb. 4th, 1794 seems particularly problematic as apparently pll. IX, X of this part bear
the date "10/9/94". It is possible that Mathews intended to say the material was received Feb. 4th
1795.
- In any event, for the moment I base my date of 1795 on the Richmond Index and the date that is
evidently given in the Göttingishes Journal I, heft 2 p.143
2007.01.20
Zonotrichia capensis pulacayensis Citation
- There seems to be some question as to whether this was published in 1908 or 1909, based
both on the entry in Peters Checklist 13:58, and the entry in the Richmond Index.
- The H&M 3rd Corrigenda #5 says
date 1908, not 1909 [OD examined]
Edward Dickinson provides additional details on this (in litt. 2007.01.01). he states:
Within this volume this paper is found in "No. 7 et dernier" and the date of publication of that is
given as 24 Nov. 1908. This is not to be seen on the two pages of the paper but as I recall in the
contents list for the volume.
2006.12.31; 2007.01.01
Pycnonotus Citation
- This genus group name is attributed by Sherborn Index Animalium p.5321 to "H. Boie".
- Edward Dickinson, confirms, by a copy of the original description, that the author of this taxon
is in fact "F. Boie".
2006.11.23
Parula pitiayumi pacifica Citation
- This citation as given in Peters Checklist 14:13 presents a significant challenge.
The citation as given in the Peters Checklist is:
Parula pitiayumi pacifica Berlepsch and Taczanowski (ex
Berlepsch MS), 1885, Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 52
(1884), p.286
- Very little of that make sense, certainly there is no "volume 52" that occurs during this period,
and the only part of the "1884" volume that was published in 1885 was Pt.4 pp.475-645.
- As there were other taxa attributable to Berlepsch & Taczanowski close to this page number (pp.296,299)
in the 1884 Pt3, I presume that is the correct portion of the serial to cite.
- H&M 3rd:760 is no help (citing this to "1885") and this
clearly problematic date is not mentioned or discussed in the Corrigenda (up to #8).
- Lowery & Monroe clearly did not treat this citation very effectively, and Paynter's & Mayr's
editorial responsibilities appear to have been in full repose when reviewing this entry.
2006.11.21; 2008.11.15
Rhipidura personata Citation
- Previously listed as:
- See McAllen IAW. Notornis, 2006, "Fijian birds described in newspapers." 53:254-257 for a
discussion of the citation for this name.
2006.11.06
Icterus pustulus pustuloides Citation
- H&M 3rd:771 cites this as I. p. pustuloides (Wagler, 1829)
(!!).
- This taxon was described in Icterus by Van Rossem in 1927.
2006.11.02
Tyto alba punctatissima Nomenclature
- I previously listed this as dated to 1839, and due to Gray based on the fact that
the Richmond Index shows that this is in "no.9" of Pt III, and shows a date of July, 1839.
- Zimmer 1926 cites Sherborn's work on this {Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.,(6) 20, p.483}
where it is shown that this was published in July of 1839.
- However, Steinheimer FD, Dickinson EC, & Walters M. 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, discusses this question in detail. For this taxon the plate (by Gould) was
evidently published first (in 1838) and the text (by Gray) subsequently in 1839.
- Steinheimer, Dickinson, & Walters also argue that the authorship should be Gould &
Gray.
-
2003.10.16; 2006.10.08
Heliodoxa leadbeateri parvula Citation
- Peters Checklist 5:88 cites this taxon to 1887, which is the imprint date for this
number (No.179) of the J.Orn. This date is followed by most workers (e.g.H&M
3rd:269; HBW 5:615).
- The Richmond Index notes that this number of the J.Orn. was "Issued in Nov. or later!" and
references Ibis 1891 p.616, where Sclater indicates that Waterhouse has furnished him with the dates
at which parts of the J.Orn. were received at the Library of the Zoological Society of London. This
number was received March 5, 1888, which appears to be the first date at which this number can be
proven to be available.
2014.04.04
- Given the information above, the date "1887" is simply not compliant with the rules of the Code.
With November information in the "Juli" Heft, that date specified in the work can be characterized
as being found to be incorrect. The Code then requires that the earliest day on which the work is
demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted. The data above would suggest March 5, 1888.
- However, at least part of this work was published as an author's separate, or author's edition.
A copy of that separate is found in Ridgway's material and includes notations by Richmond. The cover wrapper
includes the date "Januar" and the hand written note on the wrapper indicates that it was "Rec'd Jan. 30, 1888" (a Monday).
(Absent the specification as to day the work would need to have been dated Jan. 31, 1888.)
- A date of 1887 remains possible but would require specific data
demonstrating the Juli Heft as being available as a published work in 1887. I know
of no such data or evidence, and given the publishing history of this serial, expect that it is unlikely.
Absent such a demonstration, 1888 is the correct date. Furhtermore, the citation must be to the (repaginated)
author's edition, demonstrated to be in existence more than a month before the Heft was received at the Zoological
Society.
2006.09.27; 2014.04.04
Rhipidura phasian Citation
- There are discrepancies between the citation in Peters Checklist and the
Richmond Index. The Peters Checklist cites:
Rhipidura phasiana De Vis, 1884, Proc.Roy.Soc.Queensland, 1 p.156
The Richmond Index lists this as:
Rhipidura phasiana C.W. De Vis. 1885?
Proc. Roy. Soc. Queensl., I, pt.? 1885? 158
So the year may be 1885 rather than 1884, and the page numbers do not agree (with the
greatest likelihood that the Richmond Index is correct).
- The note in the Corrigenda to H&M 3rd states it is 1885, and in
support of this says "[see title page of the volume]" what is on the title page is not
stated, nor is it indicated how this proves that the publication dates is 1885. For example is it
know by the author of the H&M note that this was published in parts? A simple authoritative
statement is of some interest here, but I do not find it dispositive.
2006.08.29; 2008.03.24
Phaeochroa Systematics
- H&M 3rd:278 follows HBW 5 in merging Phaeochroa
into Campylopterus. HBW does not give published basis or rationale for this treatment.
- Dick Banks informs me (in litt. 2006.08.21) that the AOU CL committee considered and
rejected merging Phaeochroa into Campylopterus as did the SACC.
2006.08.21
Falco sparverius papuanus Citation Date
- Peters Checklist 1(2):cites this to 1894.
- H&M 3rd:96 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 5 cites Eck & Quaisser, 2004 regarding dates from this source
and changes quite a few dates based on this 2004 paper: a good number were changed so that they did
not agree with the dates I had. These changes did not appear to me to make any real sense at
all.
- The H&M Corrigenda 5 (2006.01.31) does not mention the May 2005 paper by
Quaisser & Eck "Korrekturne und Ergänzungen zum Verzeichnis der Typen der Vogelsammlung des
Mueseums fü Tierkunde in den Staatlichen Naturhistorischen Sammlungen Dresden" Zool.
Abhand.(Dresden) 55:129-138. The correction table at back (pp.137-138), to my distinct
satisfaction, confirms the dates I had been using all along, often not in agreement with Peters
Checklist, but always in agreement with the Richmond Index. I suppose I should anticipate yet MORE
information becoming available that proves all my dates wrong!!!
2006.07.30
Leptopogon amaurocephalus pileatus Citation
- Usually cited to 1865. However, the Richmond Index for this taxon has a note:
"Nov.", 1865 Publ. 1866
The notes on the covers of these issues would support that interpretation.
2006.07.20
Ixobrychus minutus payesii Nomenclature
- Two issues must be considered here, the spelling of the subspecies group name and the
attribution of authority.
- Regarding the authority
- Sclater in Syst.Av.Ethiop. 1:30 attributes the name to Hartlaub, and adding
parentheticaly "(ex Verreaux)".
- Sharpe in his Hand-list 1:202 attributes the authority to Verreaux with a note
"(Cf. O. Neumann J.f.O. 1898 pp.282-284)". In the Hand-list, of course, Sharpe is pointing to
CBBM.
- In CBBM 26:225 (Ogilvie-Grant) it is attributed to Ardea payesi, Hartl.
J.f.O. 1858, p.42 (ex J.Verr. MSS.). [APP: note the -i ending here]
- The Richmond Index attributes the name to Verreaux in Hartlaub.
- The relevant text of the article itself reads:
- German
Eine genaue Vergleichung, welche mein Freund Jules Verreaux zwischen der neuen Art aus
Westafrica und dem von Bernier herstammenden Exemplar des madagascarischen A. podiceps der
Pariser Sammlung austellen konnte, ergab auf den ersten Blick die specifische Verschiedenheit
beider.
- Translation
An exact comparison, which my friend Jules Verreuax was able to make out between the new type from
West Africa and the specimen that stems out of Bernier of the madagascarian A. podiceps of
the Paris collection, instantly revealed the specific differences of both.
- This does not seem to me to indicate that Verreaux had any real role in publishing the name,
so I attribute the authority to Hartlaub.
- Regarding the spelling, the the use of Payesi with single -i ending in the footnote
would appear to be an incorrect subsequent spelling.
2006.06.24
Drymotoxeres (Campylorhamphus) pucheranii Nomenclature
- Often (e.g. Peters Checklist 7:54; HBW 8:445) listed as
- The name in Des Murs' work, is attributed to Lafresnaye, and the descriptive
diagnostic material and the name are, I understand, included in quotes -- showing
that Lafresnaye's text is being used. Therefore, my interpretation is that the
author of the name is Lafresnaye (or more formally Lafresnaye in Des Murs).
- The spelling is pucherani on the plate, and pucheranii in the
text, additionally Lafresnaye uses the spelling pucheranii in his 1850
Rev.Mag.Zool. article.
- Therefore, I attribute the authority to Lafresnaye, rather than Des Murs, and
the spelling as pucheranii.
- [2010.01.20] David, Dickinson, & Gregory. 2009. "Contributons to a List
of First Reviser actions: ornithology." Zootaxa 2085:1-24 hold Lafresnaye to be the
First Reviser (p.7) when he used pucheranii in his 1850, Rev.Mag.Zool. article.
2006.05.27; 2010.11.21
Tachybaptus ruficollis philippensis Nomenclature -- spelling
- Sherborn, Index Animalium p.742 of the pre 1800 volume, spells this
philippinensis, not philippensis as seen elsewhere (Peters, The
Richmond Index).
- Further confusing the matter is the treatment by both the Cat.B.Br.Mus. and
Sharpe's Handlist.
- Sharpes Hand list Vol. 1 p.113 lists:
2. philippinensis (Bonn.). (p.511.)
but, lists it as
philippensis (Podicipes) i. 113.
on p.142 of the General Index.
- Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 26:511 lists:
Colymbus philippensis, Bonnat. Tabl. Encycl. Méth. i. p.58, pl.46.
fig. 3 (1790).
So inconsistency and a merry mixture of philippensis and
philippinensis results.
2006.04.22
Buteo buteo pojana Citation
- Peters Checklist 1(2):371 cites this as
Falco pojana Savi, 1822, Nuovo Giornale Pisa, 22, p.68
and
this seems to essentially mirror that found in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1:186.
- The actual title of the serial in question varies somewhat in representation
among the few Library Catalogues I have found it in, but generally it is:
Nuovo giornale de' letterati
published in Pisa.
- This journal commenced publication in 1822 (ceasing in 1839) making the
likelihood of volume 22 in 1822 seem low.
- Sherborn in his Index Animalium.list some 32 taxa to this source, and there
confirms that this name does in fact occur in volume 22, but the date of that volume
is 1831.
- Carlo Violani very helpfully looked into this for me. The copies of the Journal that are
held in the Univ. Pavia library extend from 1821 to 1835. This taxon occurs in volume 22 for
1831 (not 1822) and the name first appears on p.63 (not p.68)
- Given the fact that this name was published some 9 years later than it has
generally have been considered to be, it is not known to me if there might be a
senior synonym that must be considered.
2006.03.26; 2006.09.15
Accipiter novaehollandiea pulchellus Citation
- Peters Checklist 1(2):332 dates this taxon to 1881.
- This error is repeated by HBW 2:149.
- The Richmond Index notes the date of publication as Jan. 26, 1882, and this
is confirmed to be correct by "A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of
London". 1988. Gage AT, Stearn WT. p.215.
2006.03.12
Accipiter novaehollandiea polionotus Citation
- The date of this taxon is a problem. Peters Checklist 1(2):331,
dates it to 1890 without note or comment, and this is followed by H&M
3rd:105 as well as HBW 2:149.
- The Richmond Index dates this as "1890" with "?89" written above the
date.
- Peters Checklist 4:26 dates Cacomantis arfakianus from 30
pages later in this same work (p.177) to 1889, with a note saying
"Reprint, p.49" and a footnote showing the Cuckoo was also published in
"Aggiunte alla Ornitologica della Papuasia e delle Molucche".
- The Richmond Index card also has written in "Aggiunte Orn. Pap. pte.
I". for Urospizias polionotus and it is my suspicion that that is
probably the correctly cited source.
- If this really was in Pt. I of the Agg. Orn. Pap., it appears it should be
dated to 1889.
- This would be quite a bit easier to work out if Peters in vol.4 or
Stresemann & Amadon in volume 1(2) had taken the trouble to actually
sort out this citation.
- With some trepidation, (more regarding the correct source to cite rather
than the date) I date this to 1889.
- My strong suspicion is that this should probably be cited to the Aggiunte
Orn.Pap.Mol., but that almost certainly would have a different page number,
than that given here.
2013.12.20
- Gastone Rabascini confirmes that this was published in 1879.
- Tommaso Salvadori describes this species in 1889 "Agginte alla Ornitologia della paupasia e delle Molucche, pt. 1, p. 5 (n.n.), p. 19, Sp. 1036 (27 bis), 17 Novembre. (Estratto delle memorie Memorie della Royal Accademia di Torino, Serie II, Tom. XL, p. 147)".
2013.12.22
Calidris alpina pacifica Synonomy
2005.12.25; 2006.09.19
Oreophilus ruficollis pallidus Citation
- H&M 3rd:137 has 1935.
- Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences
indicates that this portion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.
2005.12.07
- Described by Rand in Collocalia, and now held to be in
Aerodramus.
- Price et al. 2005. "Phylogenetic relationships of the Papuan
Swiftlet Aerodramus papuensis and implications fo the evolution
of avian echolocation." Ibis 147(4):790-796. discuss this bird
and its relationships. It appears that the Papuan swift probably does
not belong in Aerodramus. Price et al. indicate that
molecular data suggests that papuensis is the sister taxon to
Hydrochrous gigas, though unlike H. gigas it does
echolocate. It differs from other echolocating "Aerodramus" swifts, in
that not only does it have 3 (as opposed to 4!) toes, but does not
appear to nest in caves (the presumed adaptive basis for echolocation of
the other "Aerodramus" swifts.
- It appears to me, that the Papuan swift belongs in a monotypic
genus.
2005.11.05
Xiphorhynchus fuscus pintoi Nomenclature
- Previously as
- Longmore and Silveira. 2005. "A replacement name for
Xiphorhynchus fuscus brevirostiris (Pinto 1938)". BBOC.
125(2):153-154. discuss the nomenclature here, and propose a
replacement name.
- Thanks to Jirka Schmidt for bringing this to my attention.
2005.11.04
Excalfactoria chinensis papuensis Citation
- In HBW 2:511,573 Coturnix chinensis papuensis Mayr
& Rand is cited as "1937 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist.
73".
- Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that the
correct citation is 1936 and Am.Mus.Novit.
- The bird was described in Excalfactoria and so the authority
should be in parentheses if held in Coturnix, contra both HBW 2:511 and
H&M 3rd:54.
- Thanks to Norbert Bahr for pointing this out.
2003.06.25; 2005.10.31; 2009.05.22
Dendroica pityophila Date
Peters Checklist 14:24 (Lowery & Monroe) date this to
1858.
- The Richmond Index indicates that this paper was read Oct. 22, 1855
and the number was published in Oct. 1855.
- Lowrey & Monroe apparently took 1858 (the last date of the
volume VI) as the date for the entire volume, ignoring the fact
that this work was published in parts. Their error has then been
followed by most other workers, including the AOU CL 6th and 7th
eds. as well as H&M 3rd:762.
- The H&M 3rd Corrigenda 5 dates this tentatively to 1856 "indeed
possibly 1855" though no data are given in support.
- See the note for Chordeiles gundlachii
2005.10.15; 2006.11.25
Xanthotis polygrammus poikilosternos Citation
- This volume (70) of the Stizungsberichte Math-Nat. of Vienna
evidently has an imprint date of 1874. An interpretation that derives
from the entry in the Richmond Index, as well as the listing in Peters
Checlist 12:389 (Salomonsen).
- However, Salomonsen apparently interprets the material to have been
delayed until 1875 (the date he gives for the taxon), though no
evidence in support of this idea is supplied.
- H&M 3rd:431 follows the dating given by Peters, even
though the date 1874 is given to other taxa that occur later in
this
work (e.g. Zosterops minor, mysorensis occuring on pp.115 and
116 of the Sitzungsberichte are dated by H&M 3rd to
1874. (see p.627).
- I see no reason not to use the imprint date, and thus follow the
date which is published in the Richmond Index for this taxon.
2005.09.20
Piciodes scalaris parvus Citation
- Cited by Peters Checklist 6:213 as
-
As Michael Reiser points out, Bangs indicates in The Auk 22:168
that the citation with priority is the Proc.Bost.Soc.N.H. which was
published in 1844. Richmond indicates that the signature for this
portion is dated May, 1844; he also notes that the Bost.J.N.H.
publication (as cited by Peters) is dated Jan. 1845. Sherborn, similarly
in the Ind.Anim. p.4779 shows the Bost.J.N.H. as following the
Proceedings (though he is less certain of the date of the latter,
listing it as 1844-1845).
- Interestingly, Ridgway also had trouble with this citation,
erroneously listing it to Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila. 1845 v:90, in
The Birds of North and Middle America part VI p.249.
2005.05.05
Ptilinopus huttoni Nomenclature
- Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters
Checklist 3:31 places the authority in parentheses. This is
followed by H&M 3rd:175 but not by HBW 4:211.
- It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation
of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that
it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
2005.04.28
Ptilinopus perlatus plumbeicollis Citation
- Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M
3rd: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.
2005.04.29
Pogoniulus Citation
- Peters Checklist 6:44 correctly cites this taxon to 1842. (in
this volume when there are two dates, the date in parentheses is the
date of publication; the unparenthesized date is the imprint date).
- Not surprisingly, this is misinterpreted by most workers who have
used this as their source of information, and have listed the date as
1844 (e.g. H&M 3rd:307, HBW 7:182).
- The dates of publication of this work were dealt with in detail by Sherborn and Palmer
in 1899. Sherborn CD, Palmer TS. 1899. "Dates of d'Orbigny's 'Dictionnaire Universel
d'Histored Naturelle,' 1839-1849." Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7) 3:350-352. Sherborn and
Palmer's treatment is reflected in subsequent compilations (e.g. Sherborn's
Index Animalium, Schulze et al., Neave), and those treatments have been
demonstrably ignored by most subsequent workers.
2005.04.26; 2005.11.11
Ptilinopus rivoli prasinorrhous Citation
- Originally described in Ptilonopus and for
this reason Peters Checklist 3:34 places the authority in parentheses.
This is followed by H&M 3rd:176, but not by HBW 4:217.
- It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's
Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the
authority here should not be in parentheses.
2005.04.25
Ptilinopus magnificus puella Citation
- The author for this taxon is usually given as Lesson alone. In this,
the various authorities appear to be simply copying one another.
- I infer (from Sharpe's Hand-List) that Salvadori in the CBBM 21:170 list
only Lesson as the author. [This is confirmed by the work of Dave Donsker
2005.04.22]
- Sherbron Ind.Anim. p.5220 also lists only Lesson.
- The Richmond Index lists Lesson & Garnot, which in the abscence of
information to the contrary, I follow.
- Dave Donsker additionally noted that Gray in his 1844 Genera of
Birds
lists only Lesson as the author if this taxon. Thus it is likely that Salvadori may
simply have been following Gray in this regard.
2005.04.22
Treron psittaceus Nomenclature
- This taxon would appear to be the result of less than complete reseach by Salvadori
when he prepared the Columbiformes volume of the Cat.B.Br.Mus. Salvadori cites Temminck & Knip
as the authors of this taxon, and this appears to be followed without question or comment by
Peters III:17 and HBW 4:198.
- No mention is made of
Though certainly other currently valid taxa are cited to this source.
- The Forster name, would create problems of its own because, at least according to the Richmond
Index it is a synonym of Columba vernans Linnaeus 1771 (now Treron vernans).
So it appears that the currently used name is a junior primary homonym of a name that is itself a
synonym of a taxon now in the same genus (!).
- To the extent I have been able to determine, the senior homonym (Columba psittacea) is
likely a nomen oblitum unused since 1899. If this name has been used since 1899,
I understand from Edward Dickinson that the most likely place for it to have occured would be
in the works of Oberholser in his treatment of the Abbott collections from the East Indies.
I have not had the opportunity to see if the name is in fact used there, but probably this
should be pursued, as Oberholser undoubtedly used the Richmond Index, where this Forster name is
included. Therefore Oberholser could have easily known of the name.
2005.04.14
Caloenas nicobarica pelewensis Citation
- Listed by Peters Checklist 3:139 as occuring in volume
4.
- The Richmond Index makes no reference to volume structure, and list
this as occuring in "Heft VIII", which I follow.
2005.03.05
Lampornis calolaemus pectoralis Nomenclature
- This taxon was originally described in Oreopyra.
- Corrigenda 3 for H&M 3rd directs the reader to "remove the
bracket", though no rationale is given.
- It appears to me that the parentheses are appropriate, and I leave them as
is.
2004.01.24
Columba larvatus principalis Citation
- The authority is conventionally attributed to Hartlaub, which undoubtedly is
at least in part correct.
- The Richmond Index lists the authority as "Hartlaub, in H. Dohrn." raising
(at least for me) the question as to whether H. Dohrn has some standing in the
authority.
2005.01.15
Myiarchus cinerascens pertinax Citation
- Often cited to 1859 (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:202, H&M
3rd:378)
- Cited back in 1957 by the AOU CL 5th Ed. p.339 as published Jan 12,
1860.
- H&M 3rd: 167 cites Columbina passerina pallescens from 2
pages later in this serial (p.305) to 1860.
- This species description was presented at the meeting of Nov. 27, 1859.
2005.01.09; 2005.02.26
Pitangus Citation
- Cited by Peters Checklist 8:207 (Traylor, 1979) and by Wolters
(p.183) as published in 1826; these are either typographic errors or remarkable
assertions.
- Nevertheless, this date ("1826") is followed without comment or question by
H&M 3rd:374 as well as by HBW 9:408 (? J.A. Mobely).
- What this tells us is that none of these authors consulted The Richmond
Index, Neave, Schulze, or such obscure references as the 3rd,
4th, 5th, 6th or 7th AOU
Checklists where 1827 is the date cited.
- Nilaus from some three pages earlier in the same volume of the
Zool.Journ. is cited by Peters Checklist 9:314 (Peters, Mayr &
Greenway, 1960) to 1827, with a notation that suggests it has an imprint
date of 1828 (!). Similarly, Wolters (p.230) cites 1827 for Nilaus.
- CW Richmond's unpublished notes on Dates of Publication indicates that the
table of contents of the Journal has Vol. III no. X for "April-September, 1827".
Furthermore, Richmond notes that the Trans. of the Linn. Soc. of London quotes
no.6-10 for the Zool.Journ. as "1825-1827", which would certainly put this
number in 1827. Thus it appears that neither Traylor nor Wolters examined
the original serial or sought any corroborative information regarding the
date
- Subsequent workers, are clearly ready to accept Peters Checklist without
question, or without consideration of sources such as the AOU Checklists.
2004.12.30
Contopus sordidulus peninsulae Citation
- Published in the Auk, no. 2 April, with an author's edition
pubished 2 months before, on Feb. 17, 1891 [CWR].
2004.11.27
Tolmomyias sulphurescens peruvianus Date
- Peters Checklist 8:102 (Traylor) gives this date as
1883.
- This is copied by H&M 3rd:363, but corrected in Corrigenda
2.1.
- Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.
2004.11.17
Muscicapa pomarea = Pomarea pomarea Author
2004.11.13; 2008.03.31
Pomarea Systematics
- The treatment here follows Cibois A, Thibault J, Pasquet E. 2004.
"Biogeography of Eastern Polynesian Monarchs (POMEREA): An endemic genus close
to extinction." The Condor 106(4):837-851.
2004.11.13
Leptopogon amaurocephalus perivianus Date
- Peters Checklist 8:61 lists the date as 1867.
- This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.
2004.11.07
Anairetes agraphia plengei Nomenclature
- Listed in H&M 3rd:353 as "A. a. plengei (Schulengerg &
Graham, 1981)". However this subspecies was described in Anairetes, so it
seems to me that the parentheses are in error.
2004.11.01
Emberiza pusilla Citation
- Peters Checklist 13:22 cites the page number as "p.647"
- The Richmond Index, The Cat.B.Br.Mus. 12:487 list the page number as
p.697.
- Thanks to Slim Sreedharan of the Sarawak Museum in Borneo for picking this up.
He also indicates that the entry in volume 10 of Handbook of the Birds of India and
Pakistan (Ali , Salim & Ripley, Dillon S.,) also lists this as p.697.
2004.10.19
Pipreola Concept
- The original description reads:
222. SUBGEN. PIPREOLA.
SUBGEN. CHARACTER. - Wings moderate; the pri-
maries not narrowed: tarsus shorter than the middle toe;
lateral toes nearly equal, the inner being scarcely shorter
than the outer; inner, cleft to the base; outer toe con-
nected to the middle only as far as the first joint: tail
very short.
The peculiar structure of the feet in this bird, so different
from that of the typical Pipræ, induces me to consider it as
the type of one of the subgenera; Metopia is probably an-
other; and I have an imperfect acquaintance with a third.
PIPREOLA chlorolepidota.
...
2004.10.09
Tyto alba poensis Concept
- The name
is often used for Afrotropical forms. However, see Bruce MD & Dowsett
RJ, 2004. "The correct name of the Afrotropical mainland subspecies of the Barn
Owl Tyto alba." BBOC 124(3):184-187.
2004.09.29
Toxorhamphus poliopterus Citation
- Peters Checklist 12:342 (Salomonsen) gives the date for this as
1883.
- The Richmond Index indicates that this name is in Vol.16, no.92 for
April 6, 1882.
Additionally, the Peters checklist cites other taxa from this volume
to 1882.
- Absent any specific evidence that this publication was delayed, I
follow the Richmond Index, and the other citations from the Peters
Checklist and use 1882.
2004.09.19
Pyrrhura molinae phoenicura Concept
- The original description reads:
CONURUS PHOENICURUS, Natterer.
Joues vertes; les autres parties de la têtre brunes; plumes des
côtés et du dessous du cou, ainsi que du jabot, brunes, mais
largement terminées de brun-gris. Rouge du ventre imparfaite-
ment prononcé. Bec brun. — Aile 4 pouces 6 lignes à 4 pou-
ces 9 lignes; queue 5 pouces 2 lignes; hauteru de la mandible
supérieure 4 lignes et demie; largeur de l'inférieure 5 lignes et
demie.
Habite le Brésil.
1. Mâle, tué en Octobre 1825, Mato grosso, voyage de J.
Natterer, du Musée de Vienne, 1864. ‚ 2. Femelle, tuée le
3 Juillet 1826, Brésil, voyage de J. Natterer, du Musée de
Vienne, 1864.
2004.09.09
Aulacorhynchus prasinus Citation
- The citation is conventionally given (e.g. Peters Checklist
6:71; HBW 7:251,560; H&M 3rd:301) as based
upon:
- Aulacorhynchus prasinus (Gould) 1834 PZS Pt2 no.19 p.78
- However, this name was also described in the first edition of
Monogr. Ramphast. in part I, which was published in 1833, and
should be cited there.
- I speculate that the confusion arose from the fact that it was
overlooked that this Monograph was issued in parts, and that the PZS
publication of this name occured at about the same time (or slightly
after?) the completion of Part II of the Monograph, or even more
possibly the date for the publication of the final part is taken as the
date for the entire work.
2004.06.13; 2004.06.18
Megalaima pulcherrima Nomenclature
2004.05.16
Pitta phayrei/Gecinulus grantia viridis Citation
- There is inconsistency in the treatment of dates for taxa
from this volume and number of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal.
- Pitta phayrei (Blyth) 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.343 [H&M
p.337 as 1863]
- Gecinulus grantia viridis Blyth 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.341
[H&M p.330 as 1862]
- Peters 8:312 [= Mayr] is the source of 1863 for Anthocincla
phayrei. Mayr has it as "1863 JASB 31(1862)" thus indicating that vol.31
(for 1862) was not out until 1863. Peters 6:147 [=Peters] lists
Gecinulus viridis to 1862.
- CWR has notes on these taxa, listing both in 1862 in vol.31 with a
handwritten notes indicating "no.3 [not ante June]" (A. Phayrei)
and "no.3 not earlier than June" (G. viridis).
- This JASB is such an unresolved nightmare, that I am willing to believe
almost anything is possible. But especially as these two taxa occur in the same
number (no.3) of this volume, I would think they should both have the same year
date (until some story helps us understand otherwise). It appears from CWR's
note, and from Mayr's treatment that there must be some evidence for delay, or
at the very least "time uncertainty". As the imprint date would appear to be
1862, I am unwilling to put either (or both) of these taxa in 1863 until someone
can demonstrate that 1862 is not possible.
2004.05.15
Halcyon leucocephala pallidiventris Date
- The Richmond Index raises the question that this may have been
published in 1881.
2014.04.03.
- It appears that this Number (no.152) indeed must have been published in 1881. On p.431 notice is given of a
publication printed in Berlin in 1881.
- At this time, the publication of the J.Orn. was generally running 6 months (or more) behind schedule.
2004.04.25; 2014.04.03
Pezopetes Date
- Peters Checklist 13:206 (Paynter) dates this 1860, which is the
imprint date for this volume. This is followed by H&M 3rd:799.
- The Richmond Index indicates that no.48 of Volume 8 was published May 30, 1861.
- Neave 3:683 also lists this as "[1861]".
- Shulze 4(19):2604 dates this "1860 [1861 V]" which would appear to support
the Richmond Index interpretation for May of 1861."
- I follow the Richmond index, Neave, and Schulze here
2004.04.24
Dryocopus javensis philippinensis Nomenclature
- Peters Checklist 6:153 spells this "philippensis"
- Originally described as Thriponax Philippinensis by
Steere.
- The emendation to philippensis may be due to Hargitt, who
appears to have spelled it this way in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 18:305
(not seen -- APP) and this appears to have been followed by Peters
without checking the original description.
- HBW 7:527 has the correct spelling and they include a note
indicating that it is frequently spelled philippensis.
2004.04.17
Picus flavinucha pierrei Citation
- The citation here (taken from Peters Checklist 6:139) doesn't look like
it can possibly be correct.
- The listings I have for this serial indicate that the second series commenced in 1887,
so one would think that this taxon would be in the second series, which would make
volume 11 very unlikely for this date. Peters may have confused vol. 11 with no. 11.
- I do not find this taxon in the Richmond Index and thus do not have another reliable source
for comparison.
- The HBW 7:561 lists this as in volume 11 of Le Natrualiste, and I presume that they are
simply parroting the Peters citation.
2004.03.14
Venilornis nigriceps pectoralis
Citation
- H&M 3rd:322 attributes this name to Berlepsch &
Taczanowski, and this should be Berlepsch & Stolzmann
according to the Peters Checklist and the Richmond Index.
2004.02.07
Campethera nivosa poensis Nomenclature
- The authority is listed in parentheses by Peters Checklist 6:121, but
not by H&M 3rd:316. (Contrast with C.t.taeniolaema et
C.t.hausburgi on the same page). It is not listed in parentheses by
HBW 7:463.
- Originally described as Campothera poensis so the interpretation
by H&M 3rd apparently agress that Campothera is an
emendation of Campethera and not a distincly described genus.
- I do not find Campothera as a distinctly
described genus in The Richmond Index, or in Naeve. ICZN 1999 art. 51.3.1
states: "Parentheses are not used when the species-group name as originally
combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name...",
and absent demonstration of a distinctly described genus Campothera I
include the authority without parentheses.
2004.01.22
Pedionomus Nomenclature
- The citation given here is that given conventionally and was published in
May of 1841. This name was first published in The Athenaeum in October of 1840.
(see The Richmond Index).
- Bruce & McAllan. 1990 "Some Problems in Vertebrate Nomenclature. II
Birds Part 1." p.457 discuss this problem in detail. The recommend suppressing
the 1840 Athenaeum publication for nomenclatural reasons.
- The Zoological Record indicates that between vol.118 and vol.134 they record
Pedionomus Gould 1840 used three times, and Pedionomus Gould 1841
used once.
2004.01.03
Penelopides Systematics
- For the systematics of Penelopides I follow HBW 6:[506]-508.
2001 (Kemp).
2003.12.27
Syndactyla guttulata pallida Citation
- Peters Checklist 7:126 transposes the numbers of the Am.Mus.Novit.
as "1207", the correct number is 1270.
2003.12.13
Leptasthenura fulginiceps paranensis Note
- In a rare occurrence this taxon is left out of the index in Peters
Checklist 7:309. It is present in the Comprehensive Index
16:380.
- I have not found it in the Richmond Index in
Leptashtenura. It is present as such in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus.
15:37.
2003.12.02
Nystalus maculatus pallidigula Citation
- Listed by Peters Checklist 6:14 as "Am.Mus.Novit., no.6, 1923, p.6"
- no.6 makes no sense for 1923 for this serial. The Richmond Index shows this to be in no.58
2003.10.31
Otus scops pulchellus Date
- Peters Checklist 4:90 gives the date for this as 1801,
(but on page 163 for Stryx uralensis Pallas, in the same work,
has a date of 1771).
- The Richmond index has a date of 1771, which is consistent with
other taxa from this part of the work, and I follow that here.
2003.10.16
Glaucidium brasilianum phaloenoides Spelling
- This subspecific epithet is spelled "phalaenoides" in H&M 3rd:231.
- Peters Checklist 4:130 spells this "phaloenoides".
- The Richmond Index gives the spelling "phaloenoides" for the Daudin name,
and "phalaenoides" as an 1801 Latham emendation of the Daudin name.
2003.09.06
Myioparus plumbeus Author
- The author is usually given as Hartlaub (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:334).
- The Richmond Index gives the author of Stenostira plumbea as J. Verreaux in Hartlaub.
- Examination of the original description, suggests to me that this is a
Verreaux manuscript name. The Latin diagnosis given in Hartlaub's article
gives no indication (that I can find) that Verreaux provided
anything other than the name (and possibly the specimen).
2003.08.30; 2007.12.13
Pachycoccyx Citation
- Citation usually
(e.g. Peters Checklist 4:14; HBW 3:[611]) given as
Pachycoccyx Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30
p.230
- The Richmond Index gives a date of April, 1882 for that volume and number of the J.Orn.,
however the Orn.Centralblatt also
containing the erection of this genus was issued on March 1, 1882.
2003.08.30
Mirafra passerina 1926
- This portion of the Ark.Zool. was not fully published until 1927, however
Ante Strand in Stockholm confirms that a preprint was published on 12 Nov. 1926.
2003.08.13; 2003.08.25
Oreortyx picta plumifera Citation
- Cited by HBW 2:572 as PZS 1837 (1838) p.42.
- This was published in Pt. V and this part (including p. 42) was published Dec. 7 1837.
- However, as noted by the Richmond Index, this name was also pubished with a plate [9]
in the Icones. Av. and this part of that work was published in Aug. 1837, and thus has priority.
2003.05.24
Crypturellus tataupa perivianus Nomenclature
- Listed in Peters Checklist 1(2):34 (Blake) as
peruviana and this is followed by many others.
- However David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement
of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):21 discuss Latinized
words adjectives ending in a Latin adjectival suffix, and indicate that
this must agree in gender with the Genus group name: hence
peruvianus.
2003.05.13
Crypturellus obsoletus punensis Citation
- Peters Checklist 1(2):25 (Blake) gives the volume for the
1917 BBOC as 28 (sic), a misprint for 38.
- HBW 1:[631] perpetuates this error, though of interest in
other citations (e.g. 2:[571]) they correctly list the 1917
volume number as 38.
[2010.03.05]
- Taxa from this number are usually dated to 1917 (which is the imprint date).
- However, Hartert in Novit.Zool. 1922, p.324 notes in several locations that
this was not published until Jan. of 1918, though an exact day is not given.
- Novit.Zool. 1922 p.374
2003.05.12; 2010.03.05
Hemipus picatus Concept
- Originally as Muscicapa picata
- Original description reads:
44. MUSCICAPA PICATA. Musc. suprà atra, subtùs sordidè alba;
strigá a mento ad nucham utrinque extendente, fasciá alarum,
uropygio crisso, apicibusque rectricum duarum lateralium albis.
Longitudo corporis 5 2/5 unc. caudæ 2 2/5.
2003.04.19
Pseudopodoces Systematics
- Previously held to be a Corvid.
- James et al. use molecular and osteological data to indicate
that P. humilis is a Parid and not a Corvid. The
authors indicate that it may be within Parus but determination of
it's status and relative position must await further work. They offer no
hints, suggestions, or help regarding it's position relative to other
parids, and my placement of it following Parus results only from
their lack of indications in this matter.
- James HF, Ericson PGP, Slikas B, Lei F-M, Gill FB, & Olson
SL. 2003. "Pseudopodoces humilis, a misclassified terrestrial tit
(Paridae) of the Tibetan Plateau; evolutionary consequences of shifting
adaptive zones." Ibis. 145:185-202.
2003.04.18
Percnohierax Concept
- Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in
Buteo. Finding Buteo to be paraphyletic, they propose two
ways of resolving this:
- include Parabuteo into Buteo or
- 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.
- 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.
2003.04.12
Neophron percnopterus Spelling
- Linnaeus's original spelling is clearly Perenopterus.
- This spelling does not seem inadvertant. The specific epithets in Linnaeus' listing are spelled both Perenopterus,
and Percnopterus.
- Peters Checklist 1(2):304 interprets the name as based on Hasselquist's 1757 Iter Palestinum p.209
which does indeed seem to be listed in Linnaeus's entry. It is the third (!) of his entries, the first being
"Perenopterus s. Gypaëtos. Aldr. orn. t. 2. c. 10. Raj. av. 8."
- It is not clear to my why this name is determinative of the spelling, while Linnaeus' seems to have
intentionally chosen another spelling.
- The text in Linnaeus's Systema Natura 10th Ed. reads:
Pereno- 6. V. remigibus nigris margine exteriore (præter extimas)
pterus. canis.
Perenopterus ſ. Gypaëtos. Aldr. orn. t. 2. c. 10. Raj.
av. 8.
Falco montanus ægyptiacus. Haſſelqv. act. Stockh. 1751.
p. 196
Vultur, Percnopterus, capite nudo, gula plumoſa. Has-
ſelq. itin. 209.
Vultur niger. Raj av. 9.
Vultur bæticus. Raj av. 10.
Vultur albus. Raj av. 10.
Vultur aquilina. Aldr. orn. Alb. av. 2. p. 3. t. 3.
Vultur fulvus, bætico bellonii congener. Raj. av. 10.
Habitat in Ægypto.
Mas totus albus: Remigibus atris margine exteriore ca-
nis, exceptis duabus primis unicoloribus: Femina tota
fuſca: Remigibus quatuor extimis concoloribus. Ro-
ſtrum atrum cera flava. Haſſelqv. Nares perpetuo
ſtillant. Raj.
Purgat Cairi terram a cadaverum fætore, ſtipendiis al-
lectus. Haſſelq.
- However in the 12th Ed. p.123 all occurances are spelled with a "c" --
percnopterus.
- Rainer Massmann adds additional understanding on this (in litt. 2008.08.16) he
"found that both [earlier] authors, in fact, clearly used the spelling 'Percnopterus',
so that Linnaeus' citation is incorrect. The ICZN apparently came to the same conclusion and declared perenopterus
to be an incorrect original spelling (Opinion 411) and placed it on the Official Index, while percnopterus was placed on
the Official List."
2003.04.02; 2008.08.16
Anthus pelopus Nomenclature
- This bird, the Roseate Pipit, is named Anthus roseatus in Peters Checklist 9:160.
The citation is:
- Deignan, 1960 argues that the name Anthus pelopus Gray, JE. 1846 has priority.
- Deignan HG. 1960. "The Oldest name for the Roseate Pipit". BBOC 80:120..
- Peters Checklist (Mayr & Greenway) have a footnote opposing use of Anthus pelopus Gray 1846, but base
this on the occurance of the name in Gray's Zool.Misc. where they hold it to be a nomen nudum.
- The Richmond Index also lists the Zool.Misc. presentation of the name as a nomen nudum, but shows the name
appearing twice in the Cat.Mamm.BirdsThibet, once on p.77 (where it is a nomen nudum) and on p.154 where it is
accompanied by a description.
- The data and arguments available to me so far would appear to support Deignan's position that Anthus pelopus
has priority and is valid.
2003.03.31
Pyrenestes Spelling
- Originally spelt Pirenestes.
- Peters Checklist 14:318 (Traylor) in a footnote indicates that:
"Pirenestes" is a lapsus for Pyrenestes which was used five times
in the text and in Swainson, 1837, Class. Birds, 2, p.279. --M.A.T."
- "p.279" is a lapsus for p.277 which is where the name occurs in Class.Birds 2.
2003.03.01; 2003.10.14
Melierax poliopterus Citation
- Peters Checklist 1:322 (Amadon) gives the citation as:
- This is also followed by HBW 2:144,[571] (Thiollay).
- Robert Dowsett pointed out (2002.12.26) the 1868 J.Orn. citation is appropriate;
this, indeed, is the citation given in the Richmond Index and what I follow here.
2002.12.29
Tachyeres patachonicus Citation
- Previously cited as:
- This is also the citation given by HBW 1:592,632
(Carboneras), and Peters Checklist 1:453 (Johnsgard).
- The ICZN "Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology
Supplement 1986-2000" 2001. p.61 indicates that the Zool.J. 1828 name is
suppressed according to Opinion 1648 (1991.06.27). This is
subsequent to the Peters Checklist 1 and prior to HBW
1.
2002.12.28
Zosterops pallida Citation
- Peters Checklist 12:328 (Moreau) lists the page number as
p.295.
- The Richmond Index and Sherborn, as well as the ICZN "Official Lists
and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000." give
the page number as 294.
- Bob Dowsett confirms from his copy that it occurs on p.294
2003.02.09
Casuarius papuanus Concept
- Previously held to be a subspecies of C. bennetti (e.g.
Peters Checklist,
HBW)
- S. Davies Davies S. 2002. "Ratites and Tinamous". OUP holds this to be a
good species.
- Thanks to Daniel Philippe for bringing this to my attention.
2002.12.28
Pilherodius Citation
- Usually (e.g. Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:171 (Sharpe); Peters Checklist 1(2):195
(RB Payne); HBW 1:405) cited as:
- The basis for this citation is not clear, though most authors are probably following
Peters, who in turn is following Sharpe. Certainly the Reichenbach citation has priority and is a valid source for the
genus name.
- H&M 3rd:87 cites the genus to Reichenbach and 1850 (!). In this citation, no reference
is made to the standard references on genus group names (Neave, Schulze (et al., and Richmond) all of whom date
this to 1852. The dating of these Reichenbach publications is difficult and confusing. Richmond's work (see discussion
on Nipponia) puts forward strong evidence for 1853,
which I follow.
2002.11.28; 2006.06.28
Ducula pistrinaria Citation
- Peters Checklist 3:48 gives the page number as "p.34".
- The Richmond Index gives the page number as "36", which I follow.
2002.11.27
Xipholena punicea Concept
- Pallas' original description is reproduced here:
N. 99 TURDUS (puniceus) corpore purpureo, alis cau-
daque discoloribus. Femina forte haec est, alarum
pennis fuscis, uti & cauda. In simillima alia ave,
que mas videtur, alarum remiges primarias albas
extimas apice nigricantes, tectricesque secundi
ordinis elongatas, carinatasque observavimus.
Brissonio utraque avis Cotingis annumeratur,
quorum 5. & 6. speciem efficit. Quem hic marem
innuimus Edwardi Tab. 341. exhibet.
The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is
given as "Zuyd America."
Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds
in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll.
47(3):334-5.
2002.11.15
Phylloscartes paulista Spelling
- Usually spelled Phylloscartes paulistus.
- Fernando Costa Straube helpfully writes (2002.10.30) and explains the
status of the spelling of the specific epithet. I include here a copy of
the the paper (with abstract in English) addressing this.
Abstract
Willisornis poecilinotus Spelling
- Listed by Peters 7:252 as
Hypocnemis poecilonota
- Both the Richmond Index and Sheborn show the specific
epithet spelled poecilinota and it is unlikely
that either or both of them are incorrect in this.
- Special thanks to Michael Rieser for this very good pick up.
- David N, Gosselin M. 2002. "The grammatical gender of avian
genera." BBOC 122(4):257-282 discuss the gender of
Hylophylax on page 264.
Hylophylax Ridgway, 1909 was not combined with a species epithet
when it was originally established, and thus is masculine.
2003.01.18; 2008.03.29
Automolus paraensis Concept
- Listed by Peters 7:134 as a subspecies of A.
infuscatus
- Zimmer KJ. 2002. "Species limits in Olive-backed foliage-gleaners
(Automolus:FURNARIIDAE)." WilsonBull. 114(1):20-37. argues that this form
merits full species status based on morphology, plumage, and most especially vocalizations.
2002.10.17
Passerina Systematics
- Order of species within genus follows AOU Checklist Supplement
43. July, 2002. 119(3):904
- See Klicka J, Fry AJ, Zink RM, Thompson CW. "A
Cytochrome-b perspective on Passerina Bunting
Relationships." 2001. Auk 118(3):611-623.
2002.09.17
Hedydipna pallidigaster Spelling
- Originally described as Anthreptes pallidigaster by
Sclater and Moreau, 1935.
- In his recent revision of the Sunbirds, Irwin. 1999 "The
genus Nectarinia and the evolution and diversification of sunbirds:
an Afrotropical perspective." Honeyguide 45: 49.
spells the specific epithet
"pallidigastra". Presumably because the
genus of the gender Hedydipna is feminine.
- However David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement
of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):30 discuss
Latinized Greek adjectives ending in -GASTRA and indicate that
"Original names that end in -gaster and that have Latin
initial components (such as flavigaster, rufigaster,
etc.) are noun phrases that end in the classical Latin noun
gaster, and are to be treated as nouns in apposition, with
gender ending unchanged (ICZN 1999, Art.31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1,
Glossary:noun phrase)."
- Thus I interpret the correct form to be Hedydipna
pallidigaster.
2002.09.13
Oropendola
[Psarocolius, Gymnostinops, Ocyalus]
Concept
- Molecular and song character analysis of the OROPENDULAS by
Price and S. Lanyon (Evolution. 2002 56(7):1514-1529)
suggest some systematic revision of the OROPENDULA group is needed
(ABSTRACT):
- Within P. angustifrons the subspecies P. angustifrons
atrocastaneus differs substantially from the other P.
angustifrons subspecies. Price and Lanyon do not specifically
propose elevating this to species status, though in recent years
many others have elevated subspecific taxa to species level with
much, much less support, and I anticipate that many (though not
necessarily Price and Lanyon) will take this of proof of its status
as a species. If held to be a species, the taxon would be:
- There is strong support for excluding Psarocolius oseryi
from the genus Psarocolius, but Price and Lanyon state
(p.1523) "However, we have yet to determine this species' closest
allies within the oropendula-cacique clade, so we await a more
detailed analysis of cacique phylogeny before suggesting a revised
classification." Recent listings (e.g. Gill & Wright 2006 and Lanyon in "The tree
of life") list this as Clypicterus oseryi. Within
- The song based estimates of phylogeny positioned Psarocolius
viridis within Gymnostinops, and suggested it was most
closely related to Gymnostinops bifasciatus (!). Further
molecular studies are underway to clarify this situation.
2002.09.07; 2006.10.22
Pipridae Systematics
- I largely try to follow Prum's treatment of the Manakins.
Prum RO. 1994. "Syringeal Morphology, Phylogeny, and
Evolution of the Neotropical Manakins (Aves: Pipridae)".
Am.Mus.Novit. no.3043 p.1-65".
- Currently unresolved (2002.08.11) Prum does not list
Corapipo altera Hellmayr 1906. I have not yet seen all of
the Am.Mus.Novitates in which he discusses this, and don't know if
he deals with the question of the status of C. altera.
2002.08.11
Platyspiza Systematics
- Often (Peters Checklist 13:164; Sibley & Monroe)
included in Camarhynchus.
- Recently placed in the monospecific genus Platyspiza
Sato A, O'huigin C, Figueroa F, Grant PR, Grant BR, Tichy H,
& Klein J. 1999 "Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed by
mtDNA sequences." PNAS USA 96:5101-5106, Burns
KJ, Hackett SJ, & Klein NK. 2002. "Phylogenetic relationships
and morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and their
relatives." Evolution 56(6):1240-1252.
- The systematics of this group remains somewhat uncertain. I
asked Kevin Burns about this and his email reply (2002.08.07) with
explanation includes this discussion:
- "The Sato et al. paper reported the Darwin's finches sequences
that I used and the vegetarian finches they used were labeled with
the genus name Platyspiza. Likewise, the genbank records
also used Platypsiza. Therefore, I thought it would avoid
confusion if I followed the taxomony used in the Sato et al. paper,
although they didn't explicitly justify their taxomony.
However, based on their results, one could make a case for
resurrecting Platypsiza (including only the Vegetarian
Finch). In their trees, they show Certhidea branch[ing] off
first, followed by Platypsiza, followed by a clade
containing uniting Geospiza with Camarhynchus and
Cocos Is. finch. Interestingly, the Camarhynchus species
themselves (excluding Platypspiza) do not show up as
individual, monophyletic species. That is, morphologically
identified species of tree finches are intermingled. This either
means that something very unusual is going on in sequence evolution
within the tree finches or the species of tree finches are not
described properly. In any case, Platypspiza is clearly
distinct from this cluster of Camarhynchus individuals."
Lamprotornis purpuroptera Spelling
- Often spelled L. purpuropterus (e.g. Peters,
Sibley & Monroe ).
- Peters Checklist 15:97 (Dean Amadon) gives the original form
as Lamprotornis purpuroptera Rüppell 1845.
- The Richmond Index gives the original form as Lamprotornis
purpuropterus Rüppell 1845.
- David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species
names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):39
- "Some names (such as purpuroptera, nigricephala, etc.)
may look like latinized Greek adjectives at first glance, but their
Lain initial components cannot be part of Greek adjectives. Since
they end in a latinized Greek noun, such names are noun phrases,
and the origianl spelling is to be retained, with gender ending
unchanged. (ICZN 1999, 31.2.1,32.3,34.2.1). " ... The component
ptera is the Greek noun
πυτερον [pteron:
wing] latinized with a feminine ending. The adjectival form would
have been purpuralaris (Latin), or porphyroptera
(latinized from Greek)."
- They indicate the spelling should be Lamprotornis
purpuroptera.
- During the period of 1978-1992 I only find the combination
Lamprotornis purpuropterus (once) in the Zoo.
Rec.
2002.07.18; 2003.05.10
Zosterops poliogastrus Spelling
- Often spelt Z. poliogastra. Originally described
as Zosterops poliogastra Heuglin, 1861.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of
avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):31 discuss this.
They indicate that "Zosterops is masculine. (ICZN 1999, Art.
30.1.4.3). The name poliogastra is latinized from the Greek
adjectival
πολριογαστρος
[poliogastros: grey-bellied]."
- During the period of 1978-1992 I find only the combination
Zosterops poligaster in the Zoo. Rec.
2002.07.10
Trichixos
pyrrophygus Spelling
- Often spelt T. pyrropyga. Originally described as
Trichixos pyrropyga Lesson, 1839.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of
avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):29 discuss this.
They indicate that Trichixos is masculine.
- The word is evidently transliterated from the Greek
τριχ [trich:hair] and
ιχος [ixos: birdlime or
mistletoe]. Though τριχας
[trichas: "a bird of the thrush kind" (Liddell & Scott)]
would also perhaps be a possibility for the stem of the first part
of the word.
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combination does not occur
in the Zoo. Rec.
2002.07.09
Bubo poensis
Date
- Peters Checklist 4:119 lists this date as "1853".
- This volume of the PZS was for 1853, however all numbers of
this were published in 1854 and 1855.
- The Richmond index correctly shows the 1854 date.
- HBW 5:188,684 (Holt et al.) perpetuates the 1853
error.
- Of interest HBW 7:132 (Rasmussen & Collar) use
"1854" (the correct date) for a taxon (Malacoptila
fulvogularis) from this same volume of the PZS.
- Additionally, H & M 3rd:226 shows the date as 1853.
02.06.27;2003.08.31
Todiramphus pyrrhopygius Spelling
- Often spelt T. pyrrhopygia. Originally described
as Halcyon pyrrhopygia Gould 1840.
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of
avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):24 discuss this.
They indicate that: "... Halcyon is indisputably feminine
(ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.1); moreover, the undisputed adjectival
suffix -ιος [-ios: -ius
(Woods 1944: xii)], in
πυρροπυγιος
[purropugios; red-rumped], correctly latinized in
pyrrhopygius (-a, -um) leaves no doubt that we are
dealing with an adjective." [And thus variable].
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combinations Halcyon
pyrrhopygia and Todirhamphus pyrrhopygia occur in the
Zoo. Rec..
Emblema pictum
Spelling
- Spelt picta. (e.g. Peters), as Gould originally
described it (in Emblema), or pictum (e.g.
Sibley & Monroe).
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of
avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):20 discuss this.
They indicate that "Emblema picta Gould, 1842, must be
corrected to Emblema pictum . Emblema is
neuter (ICZN 1999, Art.30.1.1)"
-
- The relevant portion of 30.1.1 -- "a genus-group name that is
or ends in a Latin word takes the gender given for that word in
standard Latin dictionaries"; here (Glare, 1983) gives:
- "emblema ~atis n. ... 1. An inlaid pavement,
mosaic, 2. An inlaid relief attached to the inside of a silver bowl
or sim."
- "pictus ~a ~um, a. ... Painted."
- Thus "Emblema" is, neuter as noted by Sibley &
Monroe (following McAllan & Bruce, 1988), and "picta /
pictus" is an adjective in the nominative singular. Does
that mean picta (the feminine form) "must" be
corrected?
- "31.2 Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it
is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the
nominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic name
with which it is at any time combined."
- Are there arguments that would support Emblema picta?
- Should it be maintained on the basis of "prevailing usage"?
- During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Emblema
picta occurs in the Zoo. Rec.., where I find it
12 times. It would thus appear to be a contender for maintenance on
the basis of "prevailing usage".
- However, Article 33.3.1 that deals with prevailing usage
pertains to "incorrect subsequent spellings [which
are] in prevailing usage and [are] attributed to the publication of
the original spelling" in prevailing usage and [are] attributed to
the publication of the original spelling". (emphasis added).
- I interpret "Emblema picta" to be a "correct original spelling"
as follows:
-
- Article 32.2 Correct original spelling. states: "The
original spelling of a name is the "correct original spelling",
unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article
32.5."
- 32.5 states: "Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect
original spellings).
- 32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without
recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of
an inadvertant error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or
printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or
latinization, or use of and inappropriate connecting vowel, are not
to be considered inadvertant errors."
- Thus, 32.5.1 is not applicable (no such specific inadvertant
error has been proposed), and I don't recognize any of the other
subparts of Article 32.5 as applying. The original spelling (while
incorrect by the current code) would appear to be a "correct
original spelling" (sensu Article 32.2) [it is the original
spelling, and it is not "demonstrably incorrect as provided in
Article 32.5"]. This makes sense; it would be inappropriate and
nunc pro tunc to deem Gould's construction "incorrect" by
rules that were not in existance at the time he formed the
name.
- As it is not an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (as treated in
Article 33.3.1) "picta" does not benefit from protection on
the basis of prevailing usage.
- Emblema picta is a "correct original spelling"
(emphasis added); 33.1.1 does not apply and it must agree in gender
with Emblema.
- Thus David & Gosselin's argument appears consistent with
ICZN 1999 Article 34.2 "The ending of a Latin or latinized
adjectival or participal species-group name must agee in gender
with the generic name with which is is at any time combined [Art.
31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed
accordingly (the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Art.
50.3.2])."
2002.06.09
Buteo
polyosoma
- Separation into B. poecilochrous and B. polyosoma has
been controversial.
- The taxon
is regarded by some as a subspecies of B. polyosoma.
- Initially separation was proposed primarily on the basis of wing
length and "Stresemann's wing formula."
- See Farquhar CC. 1998. "Buteo polyosoma and b.
poecilochrous, the 'Red-Backed Buzzards' of South America are
conspecific" Condor 100:27-43.
Farquhar's findings:
- "at least 27 distinct adult plumage morphs (formerly five) in this
species group, ... with no relationship to morphometric variables and
only minor geographic variation."
- Immature plumages and vocalizations are "similarly ineffective
in diagnosing taxa".
- "... neither of the currently accepted morphometric characters
examined here serve to separate taxon polyosoma from taxon
poeciolochrous."
- Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in
Buteo. Within Buteo they
"detected an average distance of 1.28% between the subspecies
polyosoma and poecilichrous in ΨCR1, whereas no
genetic variability was found in an unpublished cytb data set of
606 bp (C. Farquhar, pers. comm.)."
They treat the two as conspecific, an interpretation that appears to
enjoy increasing support from published data and associated analyses.
- 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.
- However, the pendulum for the moment now (2003.11) swings back in the other direction.
Cabot & de Vries, 2003, BBOC 123:190-207 interpret Farquhar's work
to be in error and argue for regard as a full species.
- This matter is further complicated by uncertainty regarding the type
locality, Gurney indicating that the bird came from "Yauayacu" in
Ecuado; no such locality has been identified. This matter is discussed
by Cabot & de Vries, 2005, BBOC
125:147-148. In agreement with Conover (1949) they
consider the type locality to be Yanayacu, Ecuador.
2003.04.13; 2003.11.15; 2005.11.05
Cercomacra parkeri
- Placement within Cercomacra is uncertain, and should not be
afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it at the end of
the Genus, absent any information.
Phylloscartes
parkeri
- Placement within Phylloscartes is uncertain, and should not be
afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end
of the genus.
Scytalopus
parkeri
- Placement within Scytalopus is uncertain, and should not be
afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end
of the genus.
Scytalopus parvirostris
- Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:284.
- Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg
Remsen, 1998
Formation of Family group name
- Controversy here.
- Pteroclididae, I believe satisfies the ICZN requirements
for family group name formation.
- However, Bonaparte. 1831. Saggio di una distribuzione
metodica degli animali vertibrate. forms the name as
Pteroclidae. This obviously antedates the formulation of the
ICZN rules.
- The question then is: what basis exists for accepting or
rejecting family group names published prior to the current rules
coming into effect?
- Those with more knowledge and experience than I disagree on
these matters.
Tympahnuchus pallidicinctus Citation
- Peters Checklist 2:41 has Bull. Essex Inst. 5 p.199; but
see {Banks and Browning, 1979}.
Charadrius pallidus
....;2005.12.11
Microdynamis parva 1876
- Peters Checklist 4:36 has 1875; see {Poggi R, 1996}.
Pelagoroma Citation
- Peters Checklist 1:105 gives a different title for the
source; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Falco peregrinus Author Citation
- Previously cited as
As Tunstall's work has been declared by the ICZN unavailable as a publication
for binomina. However, (as pointed out by
Dr Jiri Mlikovsky of the National Museum of the Czech Republic) the ICZN made
exception for some specific names, Falco peregrinus among them.
- "peregrinus, Falco [Tunstall], 1771, Ornithologia britannica:
1. (Aves) 0. 882" is listed as a name on the Official list. (ICZN
1987:274).
- See also Holthuis IB, Junge GCA. 1958. The specific names in
Tunstall's Ornithologia Britannica 1771. Ardea. 46 (3/4)
p.167-170.
....; 2004.01.10
Turdus pelios 1850
- Peters Checklist 10:180 has 1851. See {Browning and
Monroe, 1991}.
Penelopina Citation, year
- Peters Checklist 2:21 gives 1862 Av.Syst.Nat.
Columbariae p.152.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.
Glaucidium perlatum 1817
- Peters Checklist 4:131 has 1818.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} use 1817.
Puffinus lherminieri persicus 1872
- Peters Checklist 1(2):99 has 1873; this publication started in
1872.
- Most authors follow the listing in Peters Checklist
Petroica 1829
- Peters Checklist 11:562 has 1830; {Richmond, et al. 1992}
and {Sherborn, 1902} both indicate 1829.
Phacellodomus Author
- Peters Checklist 7:111 makes a typographic error in the
full citation,substituting Reichenow for Reichenbach.
Pachycephala phaionota 1850
- Peters Checklist 12:13 has "1851?" See {Browning and
Monroe, 1991}.
Streptoprocne phelpsi
- Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
- Previously placed in Cypseloides
- but see Marin AM snd Stiles GF. 1992. "On the biology of
five species of swifts in Costa Rica." Proc. West. Found. Vert.
Zool., 4:287-351.
Vireo philadelphicus Citation
- Peters Checklist 14:121 gives "pl.10 fig.2" as part of
this citation, as do the AOU 1983 and 1957 checklists. An engaging
fiction.
- There is no pl.10 in the volume in which this bird is
described,
- nor is there reference to the plate in the original
description.
- Ralph Browning and Dick Banks determined for me that the plate
is actually pl.1 of the next volume (6), where the Philadelphia
vireo is fig.2.
Philepitta Citation
- The Richmond Index gives the following:
- L'Institut VI no.226 April 1838 p.128
- Rev.Zool. 1 no.4 for April 1838 p.49
- Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(2) IX 1838 p.137.
- Sherborn Ind.Animal. p.4907 gives:
Mag.Zool.(2) 1839 1 pl.3
- Neave 3:708 goves:
- Institute 6 1838 p.128
- Mag.Zool.(2) 1 1839 pl.3
- Schulze 4(19):2631 gives: Institute v. 6 p.128
1838
- Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 14:409 cites Mag.Zool. 1839, pl.3.
- I do not pretend to understand the reason why Peters (= Amadon) is
alone in citing the Compt.Rend. and I am very skeptical that it is
correct.
....; 2004.04.17
Spizaetus philippensis author
Phoebetria Citation
- Peters Checklist 1(2):57 gives a different title for the source;
I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Phylidonyris 1830
- Peters Checklist 12:425 has 1831; {Richmond, et al. 1992}
and {Sherborn, 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as this
is in livr.4 of the work.
Oreortyx pictus Citation
- Peters Checklist 2:43 gives the Philos. Mag. n.s.
citation;
- {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION,
1983}, and {Baird, 1858}indicate that this Trans.Linn.Soc.Lond.
citation has priority.
2015.05.12
- Gastone Rabascini points out that the Trans. appears to have been published in mid February, while the Philos.Mag. is dated "January".
- The AOU CL 7th ed. cites the taxon to the Philos.Mag.
Climacteris picumnus Author
- Peters Checklist 12:163 has Temminck and Laugier 1824
Pl.Col. p.281.
- This should be livr.47 pl.281 fig.1 (not page 281).
- In addition, I follow Zimmer's position that no taxa should be
attributed to Laugier.
- The 1820 Man.Orn. citation is given by Sherborn, with the
appended note that Mathews has verified this.
Ptilogonys
- Swainson's 1824 work, in which this spelling was used, was
not published. (See Browing, 1989).
- The 1827 work cited here uses the spelling "Ptiliogonys"
in contradistinction both to the common use of the name, and
apparently to Swainson's subsequent use.
- On this basis Ptiliogonys is regarded as an incorrect
original spelling, and Ptilogonys a justifiable
emendation.
Pipreola 1838
- Usually listed as 1837, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Ducula pistrinaria 1854
- Peters Checklist 3:48 lists 1855.
- The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71
according to taxa listed in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.
- Mathews suggests p.1-160 of volume 2 are from 1855.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here, though 1855 may be
right.
Pitangus 1827
- Peters Checklist 8:207 lists 1826.
- The dates of publication of the Zool.J. are confusing, but the
evidence seems good for most of vol.3 being published in 1827 with
some latter portions perhaps in 1828.
- I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS'
UNION, 1983 Checklist, and {Sherborn, 1902} here.
Charmosyna placentis 1835
- Peters Checklist 3:159 gives 1834 for this entry.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} both give 1835,
which seems more appropriate for livr.93.
Pseudalethe poliocephala 1850
- Peters Checklist 10:63 has 1851. See {Browning and
Monroe, 1991}.
....; 2009.08.01
Columba pollenii 1865
- Peters Checklist 3:71 lists 1866.
- {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists "1866?".
- Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched the
dates of publication for this work.
- Vol. 3 pp.1-180 were published in 1865.
Pomatostomus 1850
- Peters Checklist 10:279 has 1851. See {Browning and
Monroe, 1991}.
Ptilinopus porphyreus 1822
- Peters Checklist 3:27 lists 1823. Livr.18 was published
in 1822 {Zimmer, 1926}.
Chlorocichla prigoginei
- Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4. In {Mayr, 1957} the citation is listed as p.424.
- Bob Dowsett confirms (2003.02.08) that it is from p.328
2003.02.09
Pseudocolopteryx Citation
- Peters Checklist 8:50 lists p.48; {Richmond, et al. 1992}
indicates "pp.38, 45" which I follow.
Psittacella 1871
- Peters Checklist 3.:251 has 1873; {Richmond, et al. 1992}
shows this date as 1871.
- Schulze et al. Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum
4(21):2938 show a published date of 1871, and an imprint date of 1873.
- The listing given me by Florence Pieters also supports a date of 1871 for
this.
....;2004.09.20
Guttera pucherani 1861
- Peters Checklist 2:139 has 1860; {Richmond, et al. 1992},
notes this was published in Jan. of 1861.
- H&M 3rd:40 follows Peters in using 1860, as does HBW
2:566.
....;2004.04.24
Pardalotus punctatus Author
- Peters Checklist 12:203 has Shaw and Nodder. It is my
understanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.
Lycocorax pyrrhopterus 1850
- Peters Checklist 15:184 has 1851. See {Browning and
Monroe, 1991}.
Crypturellus parvirostris Citation
- Peters Checklist 1:34 does not list a page for this
citation. The page number here is from (Richmond, et al. 1992).
Myrmotherula
pacifica
- Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:189.
- See Isler ML, Ilser PR, Whitney BM. 1999. Auk
116(1):83-96.
Trichixos pyrropyga Citation
- Peters Checklist 11:73 gives "Rev.Mag.Zool." which
commenced in 1849. Rev.Zool. constitutes series 1 for
Rev.Mag.Zool.
Aplonis panayensis 1786
- Peters Checklist 15:84 has 1783. The first part of this
work was published in 1786.
(prior to 2002)
Lamprotornis purpureus 1776
Peters Checklist 15:92 has 1766, a lapsus
calami for 1776.
Cistothorus palustris 1810
Peters Checklist 9:394 has 1807. This volume was
published in 1810.
Phedina Citation
- Peters Checklist 9:100 lists Bonaparte 1857,
Riv.Contemp.Torino 9 p.210.
- I follow the Richmond Index, Neave and Schulze et al. (p.2642).
....;2008.06.30
Psaricolius Citation
- The exact citation here is a puzzle to me.
- Peters Checklist 14:138 (Blake) lists "sig. 22
[=23]".
- The Richmond Index has "[p.337]." with a pencilled note,
seemingly in Richmond's hand, saying: "{also 323 under #24 + #5 +
p.125 #5}".
- Sherborn lists "sign. 221". The subscript means the
1st page of the 22nd signature.
- With 16 page signatures, which Murray Bruce tells me this work
has, this would equal p.337.
- The Richmond citation seems to suggest that at there is some
complexity to the problem.
- I am not sure on what basis the Peters authors suggest that
this signature is misnumbered.
Glaucidium parkeri
Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
Thanks for Rolf de By for bringing this to my attention.
Propyrrhura
- 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.
Pionopsitta for vulturina.
- Usually placed in Gypopsitta.
- Collar in HBW 4:457 states the character of bare head in the
adults is "probably of little or no taxonomic significance; in
other respects clearly belongs in Pionopsitta..."
Psittacula
- A form in this genus (Psittacula intermedia) was
previously listed as a full species, and is so listed by Collar in
HBW 4:400.
- Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild) 1895 Novit.Zool. 2 p.492
- However, it is of hybrid origin (P. himalayana x P.
cyanocephala) and not a species. Rasmussen, P. C. & N. J.
Collar (1999): Bull. Oriental Bird Cl. 29: 36-41.
Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.
Thamnophilus
pelzelni
- Not in Sibley & Monroe.
- Treated by Peters Checklist 7:173 as a subspecies.
- Isler et al. (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 355-381
revised the Thamnophilus punctatus complex, recognizing the
following species as the components:
punctatus; stictocephalus; sticturus; pelzelni;
ambiguus.
- Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.
Corythaixoides
personatus spelling
- I attempt to follow the work of Veron and Winney. Veron
G, Winney BJ. 2000. Ibis 142:446-456. "Phylogenetic relationships
within the turacos (Musophagidae)."
- However, they spell this Corythaixoides
personata.
- Listed in Peters as Crinifer personata.
- Sibley and Monroe spell this Corythaixoides
personata on p. 167.
- In the Supplement they have the note on p.29 "Corythaixoides
personatus ... genus is masculine."
- The HBW 4:505 uses personatus
- [Normand David writes]: "Corythaixoides ends in the
suffix -oides, and is masculine because it was established
without any name in combination (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.4).
Therefore, the correct spelling for Chizaerhis personata
Rüppell, 1842, is Corythaixoides personatus.
Campephilus principalis Long considered most probably
extinct
- The last confirmed sightings of this species in the U.S. were
in Louisiana's Singer Tract in 1943-1944
- the last confirmed sighting in Cuba was on March 16, 1987 in
Ojito de Agua.
- Then confirmation of sighting of a male in 2005 in Arkansas.
....;2005.04.28
Otus pembaensis
- 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 pembaensis Citation
- Peters Checklist 4:95 lists the volume of the BBOC as
"37". This is volume 57.
Tinamotis pentlandii Spelling
- Spelt almost universally "pentlandii" (note two "i's").
- Salvadori in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum
Vol.27 p.568 (1895), has a mixture of spellings - using one "i" for
the listing, and the citation, but two "i's" under the synonomies
Tinamus pentlandii and Eudroma pentlandii.
- Andrew and McAllan in "Nomina" (1997) have the following note
under T. pentlandii, (though they do NOT include a listing
of the name with only one "i").
- "Masculine eponymous species-group names have been spelled with
either the single -i (or -ei) or double -ii termination. The ICZN
settled for original usage but the case is not necessarily
resolved. Dundee & Smith (1989 Syst. Zool. 38:279-283) argue
that if there is no clear evidence of latinisation of the person's
name then the species-group name should be spelled with the single
-i termination."
Granatellus pelzelni Citation
- Sharpe 1885. Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum, Vol.10
p.370 gives the page number as 607.
- The Richmond Index and Peters Checklist 14:80 give
p.606.
Cuculus pectoralis systematics
- Previously treated as a subspecies of C. fugax.
- More recently song analysis has been weighted more heavily in
cuckoo-specification considerations, and the HBW 4:512
thereby argues for elevation to full specific status.
Pyrrhua perlata Systematics/Nomenclature
A confusing situation:
- The type of the name perlata is an immature of:
- This makes that name a junior synonym of P. perlata
- The form previously known as P. perlata now becomes
P. lepida.
Otus petersoni Systematics
- Held by HBW 5:179 to be a full species.
- There has been, and is, debate on this point.
Pyrroglaux Systematics
- Used by Peters Checklist 4:109.
- Not used by Sibley & Monroe.
- Used by HBW 5 where Dr Schuchmann states: "appears more
distantly related."
Ptilopsis Systematics
- Not used by Peters Checklist 4 or Sibley & Monroe.
- Generic separation from Otus on the basis of eye-size,
and "molecular-biological studies" (HBW 5:182).
- Type is currently uncertain. No type given by Kaup in erection
of genus. He included two species "Scops leucotis Sw." and "Scops
megalotis Gray" according to the Richmond Index entry. I have yet
to determine (2001.10.27) which species is the type.
Phalacrocorax
pygmeus Systematics
- Originally described in Pelecanus and spelt
"pygmeus".
- Often spelt "pygmaeus" (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, 1990
-- corrected in Supplement 1993).
- HBW 1:353 list it as "pygmaeus".
- It appears to me that this (as previously) is an unjustified
emendation.
- 2019.02.09: In the current time, a vast frenzy of grammatical and linguistic "tidying up" is being
forced on the world of biological nomenclature. I think this is foolish, wrong headed and puts
scientific considerations secondary to notions of grammatical and linguistic purity. There is NO
question that is eventuates not only in nomenclatural instability, but ensures future instability.
- I imagine this process may seem reasonable to those carrying out "linguistic cleansing" of avian nomenclature,
They have their work cut out for them with insect names. If they are NOT willing to undertake this cleansing
in other taxonomic groups, perhaps the whole idea needs to be reconsidered.
- Nevertheless, forces that I consder to be effectively anti-scientific are found increasingly present these days, and it appears to me
that this influence has spread to biological nomenclature.
- Under the current regime, this name is to be spelt pygmaeus.
- I am reminded of when I asked a knowledgable Latin scholar to help me translate the Intoduction to Bonaparte's Consp.Gen.Av. -- all the
translator could talk about was how "poor" Bonaparte's Latin was.
....;2019.02.09
Charadrius peronii Concept
- Schlegel's description reads:
"CHARADRIUS PERONII. Temminck.
En general semblable au Charadrius cantianus, mais d'une
taille beaucoup moins forte, a tarses par contre plus allonges,
aux taches laterales noires du jabot prolongees, en guise de
large band, a travers le devant du manteau, et a tarses d'un
brun rougeatre. Aile 3 pouces 4 lignes a 3 pouces 7 lignes;
queue 18 lignes; bec 6 lignes a 6 lignes a trois quats; tarse
11 lignes et demie a 12 lignes et demie; partie nue de la
jambe 6 lignes; doigt du milieu 6 lignes et demie.
Observe dans l'Archipel Indien.
1,2 Males adultes, Banjer a Borneo, voyage du Dr. S.
Muller. -- 3,4 Males adultes, tues le 8 Juin 1844, Tabena
a Borneo, voyage du Dr. Schwaner. -- 5. Male adulte, tue
le 11 Septembre 1844, Papattan a Borneo, Schwaner. -- 6.
Adulte, Borneo, voyage du Dr. Croockewit. -- 7. Maue au
plumage imparfait, Borneo, S. Muller. -- 8 Male adulte,
Java, voyage de Kuhl et van Hasselt. -- 9. Femelle au plu-
mage imparfait, Java, Kuhl et van Hasselt. -- 10., 11. Indi-
vidus au plumage impartait, voyage du Prof. d Vriese, Java,
1862. -- 12. Male adulte, tue en Mars 1828, ile de Semao
pres de Timor, voyage de S. Muller. --13. Femelle au plu-
mage imparfait, tuce en Mars 1828, Semao, S. Muller.
- The units of measurement here are of interest.
Pouce is a unit of length used in 14th to 18th century
France. It was 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 measure 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.
Prioniturus platenae Author
- In HBW 4:391 and in the references, Collar gives Blasius's
initials as "A.W.H."
- I understand his name to be Wilhelm August Heinrich Blasius,
and most generally referred to as Wilhelm Blasius.
Pterodroma Systematics
- Previously four species: P. aterrima,becki,rostratus,
& macgillivrayi were held by Sibley & Monroe to be
in Pseudobulweria.
- HBW 1 (Carboneras) does not recognize Pseudobulweria.
- Carboneras does not seem to me to give a very explicit
discussion of his rationale for not including it as a genus.
- It is also worthy of note, that while the index of HBW 1:694 lists
only pages 237,248 under the heading Pseudobulweria the greatest and most
useful presentation regarding the genus occurs on p.217.
- Previously the genus was:
Ducula poliocephala Citation 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.[469. where C. poliocephala G. R. Gray, nomen
nudum]"....
- Thus Mitchell may well have authorial standing.
Podicephorus Status
- Often treated in Podiceps.
- Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention. His
note reads:
"A case has been made for placing Colymbus major
Boddaert, 1783 (= Podiceps major) in the newly established
monotypic genus Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994.
Bochenski, Z. B. 1994. The comparative osteology of grebes
(Aves: Podicipediformes) and its systematic implications. Acta
zool. cracov. 37 (1):191-346.
The summary reads: "...a revision of the genus Podiceps
is proposed, to the effect that 1) the species "Podiceps" major is
placed in a new monotypic genus Podicephorus, and 2)
Podiceps grisegena grisegena and P. g. holboellii are
restored to their species status".
....;2006.04.24
Xanthotis polygramma 1862
- Peters Checklist 12:388 (Finn Salomensen) lists this as
1861.
- The Richmond Index shows that it was published in Feb.
1862.
Aramidopsis plateni Citation
- HBW 3:175 gives the author as "A.W.H. Blasius";
- HBW 3:725 gives the citation as "(1886). In: Russ'
Isis:103"
- Peters Checklist 2:176 gives the citation as "Blasius,
in Russ' Isis p.103 [also Braunschw. Anz., 3 March, 1886...]"
My researches indicate:
- The author's is: Wilhelm August Heinrich Blasius M.D. Ph.D.
[1845-1912], so why the initials "A.W.H." are used in that order is
not clear to me.
- The Richmond index indicates the Russ' Isis was
published in "Apr, 1 1886" and the Braunschw. Anz. source would
appear to have priority.
- I dont find a card in the Richmond Index giving more details of
the Braunschw. Anz. publication of this name.
Primolius Concept Nomenclature
- Previously part of Ara
- In the HBW 4, N.J. Collar offers morphology, voice and
behaviour as the basis for re-instating the old genus for this
form, and there it is treated in Propyrrhura.
- For a discussion of the nomenclature, see Penhallurick J. 2001
"Primolius Bonaparte, 1857 has priority over Propyrhura Ribero, 1920." BBOC
121:38,39.
Phylloscopus Systematics
- A very complex and confusing genus, with many cryptic species.
Recent comprehensive study of many of the cryptic species is:
Irwin DE, Alstrom P, Olsson U & Benowitz-Fredericks ZM.
2001. "Crytpic species in the genus Phylloscopus (Old World
leaf warblers). Ibis 143:233-247.
Pterocnemia Systematics
- Often included in Rhea.
- Separated from Rhea by HBW 1:89. and in this they
follow Peters Checklist 1:6.
- I am not aware of the arguments pro and con its
status as a monotypic genus.
Phoeniculus purpureus Citation
- Richmond says "Miller in Shaw
CimeliaPhysica 1796 pl.LII"
Phoeniculus purpureus Concept
- Previously Phoeniculus damarensis (Ogilvie-Grant) 1901 BBOC 12 p.37 ( the Violet Woodhoopoe) was considered a distinct
species.
- See Cooper MI, Cunningnham M, Cherry MI. 2001. "Taxonomic
status of the Namibian Violet Woodhoopoe Phoeniculus
damarensis as determined by mitochondrial DNA". Ibis
143(4):572-579.
They argue minimal genetic differences between the forms (less than most intraspecific
values) and the lack of evolutionary independance or a clear phenotypic diagnosis, indicate
the Violet Woodhoopoe should be synonomized with the Green Hoopoe (P.
purpureus).
Heteromunia pectoralis Systematics Citation
- Originally described in Amadina
- Peters Checklist 14:387 (Paynter, Mayr, Traylor) place
in Lonchura in the subgenus Heteromunia.
- Their citation includes a lapsus as it reads "Gould,
1841, Proc.Zool.Soc.London, 8 (1940)..." (emphasis
supplied).
Psuedodacnis Concept
Sclater's text reads:
11. Pseudodacnis, gen. nov.
General characters of Calliste, but bill rather longer and
more slender. Wings rather long, first four primaries equal and longest.
Plumage of Dacnis.
- Calliste Boie 1826 = Tangara Brisson 1760
Previously a monotypic genus.
- See Klicka J, Fry AJ, Zink RM, Thompson CW. "A
Cytochrome-b perspective on Passerina Bunting
Relationships." 2001. Auk 118(3):611-623.
- They argue based on data from a variety of phylogenetic
methods, that Guiraca nests within Passerina. They
discuss the basis for the size difference (Guiraca being
much larger than Passerina).
Elaenia pallatangae Date
- Peters Checklist 8:34 (Traylor) lists the date as
1861.
- Pt3 of this volume was published in Feb. 1862 according to the
Richmond Index.
- Duncan (1937) lists this Part as published in April 1862.
Nephelomyias pulcher Date
- Peters Checklist 8:121 (Traylor) gives a date of
1860 for Myiophobus pulcher.
- 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.
- I follow the Richmond Index here.
....;2009.12.01
Lonchura pallida
Date
- Peters Checklist 14:382 (Mayr,Paynter,Traylor) gives the
date as 1863.
- This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1864
according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
Zoothera princei
Date
- Peters Checklist 10:153 (Ripley) gives the date as
1873.
- This was published in Pt3 of the volume which came out in 1874
according to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
Locustella pleskei
Date
- Peters Checklist 11:54 (Mayr) gives the date as
1889.
- This was published in Pt4 of the volume which came out April 1,
1890 ccording to both Duncan and the Richmond Index.
Aethopyga
primigenia Spelling
- Often spelt primigenius. (e.g. Sibley &
Monroe, Peters, HBW)
- David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of
avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):18 discuss this.
They indicate that "Philippinia primigenius Hachisuka, 1941,
must be spelt Aethopyga primigenia, not A.
primigenius. Phillipinia Hachisuka, 1941, however is
masculine because it was originally established in combination with
a masculine adjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.2.3)."
- primigenius ~a ~um is a classical Latin adjective
meaning: 1.) earliest to be born. 2.) original, primitive; serving
as a base for derivatives. It is in this latter sense evidently
that Hachisuka used the word. Jobling (1991) indicates Hachisuka
felt the species was a primitive species linking Aethopyga
and Cinnyris.
- During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Aethopyga
primigen... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..
Comments & Suggestions to Data
Steward
Alan P. Peterson, M.D.
POB 1999
Walla Walla, WA 99362-0999
Last updated 2023.03.15