Zoological Citation Notes --R

• Peters Checklist X:163 (1964) is confused and confusing in this area, and has a citation for this taxon that does not seem to match the publication of the name.
• The top of page heading changes from "Family MUSCICAPIDAE" to "Subfamily TURDINAE" in the middle of the genus Cercomela.
• The citation for Phaeornis rutha is given as "Occ. Papers Bishop Mus. [Honolulu], 4, pp. 43; 81"
• This serial has peculiar pagination, with through pagination for the volume and individual pagination for the component numbers.
• The description for this bird is on p.171 of the volume, and p.81 of part 2.
Occ.Pap.BishopMus. 4 no.2 p.171 / 81

• Peters XII:285 and others cite this to 1845
• The name first appeared on the plate in no.11 in 1845.
• See, for example the Richmond Index card for this taxon. R I Card Arachnothera robusta
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• Conventionally cited to Derjugin & Bianchi (e.g. Peters CL XIV:298, Howard & Moore 3^rd:757, HBW.)
• My review of the original article indicates that Bianchi suggested a provisional name (Pyrrhula pyrrhula rossikowi), if the form in question proved to be adequately distinct.
• My interpretation is that Derjugin alone is thus the author of the name.

• See Dickinson and Dickinson & Jones; Priority! 2011 (CD Plate LXVI); Zoological Bibliography 2(1):41; Zoological Bibliography 2(2):80 for data on this confusing situation.

• The citation as given conventionally and as give here to J.Orn. 26 p.209 is almost certainly the incorrect citation.
• The evidence is overwhelming, but not absolute, that the correct citation is more likely to be:
  • Illadopsis rufescens (Reichenow) 1878 Orn.Centralbl. 3 no.9 p.71
• During this period, the J.Orn. seems to have been consistently late in publication, usually about 5 to 7 months after the nominal date. The no. that follows that containing Turdoides rufescens (no.143), which is nominally the "Juli" number, includes an article by Nehrkorn that is noted "Riddagshausen im Nov. 78." at the end, making "Juli" clearly incorrect. I do not find specific evidence of delay for no.142 (the "April" number), but given the fact that the surrounding numbers were late, it is unlikely that no.142 was published on time. This taxon was also described in the May number (no.9) of the Orn.Centralblatt for 1878. To date I know of no evidence for delay of publication in Orn.Centralblatt so it is extremely likely that the "May" number for that serial was published well before the "April" number of J.Orn.

• The original spelling is clearly "rubicapilla", though this is often rendered "rubricapilla"
• The original can be seen here: J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 2 no.23 p.576

• Cited by Peters Checklist XIV:344 (= Traylor 1968) as:
  • Estrilda astrild rubriventris (Vieillot) 1823 Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 livr.93 p.992
• Trayor includes a discussion of the correction of the type locality by Sclater, WL, but does not appear to be aware (as Sclater evidently was not) of the publication of this name in 1817.
• The 1817 use can be seen here: Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 12 p.184
• This name is listed in Sherborn's Index Animalium, which, though readily available appears to have been rarely, if ever, consulted by the later authors of the Peters Checklist.
• Thanks to Gastone Rabascini for pointing this out.

• Peters Checklist 7:10 gives the page number for this taxon as "p. 1" while infact it is "p. l", lower case "L" - Roman numeral for 50.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
• HBW 8:793 (2003) perpetuates the error of page "1".

• Originally spelled rubiginosis, not rubiginosus as it has been frequently incorrectly rendered.
• Richmond Index Card Calamanthus rubiginosis
• Victorian Naturalist v.16 p.3
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Conventionally cited to 1871.
• Zimmer 1926 p.301 lists his best determination of the dating of the parts of this publication. He lists

   
  		pp. ? - 656 pll. VII and XXVb, before Oct. 3, 1870

• Schultze et al. p.3034 give the date for this as "VII 1871" (= July 1871). So clearly some uncertainty remains.

• Usually listed as "rufopalliatus" (e.g. by CBBM, Peters CL, AOU CL, H&M 3^rd:672.) however the original orthography is clearly "rofopalliatus". (and as shown by Sherborn's Index Animalium p.5538). The original can be seen here: Rev.Zool. 3 p.259 Rev.Zool. 3 p.260
• The name, however, (as helpfully pointed out by Normand David) is listed as "rufopalliatus" in the index, which can be seen here: Rev.Zool. 3 p.377
• Bangs and Penard, in 1919 (Bull.Mus.Comp.Zool. 63:31) include both spellings, and implicitly have chosen rufopalliatus. This can be seen here: Bull.Mus.Comp.Zool. 63 p.31
• I initially interpreted Bangs and Penard as having functioned as first revisers in this matter, and use the name as rufopalliatus. However, Norman David again helpfully points out, that in the example of a Journal (such as Rev.Zool.) the Index presumably is not made up by the author(s) of the articles that compose the volume. This would suggest that a first reviser action may not be possible in this case.
• Additionally, I note that the Rev.Zool. Index is included with the December number, while the name rofopalliatus is to be found in the September number, and these separately issued numbers are viewed as separate works by the Code. Thus a "clear indication" of error, or lapsus, can be sought only in the September number. In the description, the word roussâtre is used twice, and the phrase broun roux assez vif occurs once. These words (and the appearance of the bird) are strong indications that the "reddish" or rufo- "idea" is appropriate. An incorrect latinization on Lafresnaye's part is unlikely (though one has to rely on external evidence for this fact) so a lapsus calami is an acceptable interpretation, and correction to rufopalliatus can be employed.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Most often spelled with a double -ll (rueppellii).
• Colin Jones points out that the original is spelled with one -l (Rüppelii) and I note that no mention of Rüppell is made in the article. So I employ the spelling as originally published.
• I suppose this lack of specific reference raises a question as to whether the epithet should be spelled ruppelii rather than rueppelii.
• The original description can be seen here: Oefv.Vet.-Akad.Forh. 13:174

• Conventionally (and without any discussion) dated to 1884 (see for example Peters Checklist IX:376 (= Greenway 1960); H&M 3^rd:698, HBW 10:353); Cat.Libr.Brit.Mus.(N.H.):2142).
• 1884, may be correct, but as the foot of the title page says has an imprint date of 1885. Unless and until documentation of publishing in 1884 is brought forward, I follow the ICZN Code (1999) and use the date specified.
• The Survey of Western Palestine (Title Page) 1885

2013.06.30
• However, other copies evidently show 1884 at the foot of the title page!.
• The Survey of Western Palestine (Title Page) 1884

• Peters Checklist 10:48 (= Ripley 1964) lists the original combination as Nemura rufilata.
• The Richmond Index lists the original combination as N[emura] rufilatus
• Richmond Index Card N[emura] rufilatus
• This PZS entry is also noticed in Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.5635), which in addition notes the name in 1844 in J.E. Gray's Zool.Misc. on p.83 (where apparently it is a nomen nudum).

• See McAllen IAW. Notornis, 2006, "Fijian birds described in newspapers." 53:254-257 for a discussion of the citation for this name.

• H&M 3^rd:661 gives the date for this taxon as 1985, (through Corrigenda 8) but gives the date as 1984 (!!) in the list of taxa published after the Peters Checklist, where the entry reads:

   * Zoothera piaggiae ruwenzorii Prigogine, 1984
     Prigogine, A. Les populations occidentales de la Grive Terrestre d'Abyssinie,
  	Zoothera piaggiae, et description d'une nouvelle sous-espFce du Ruwenzori. 
  	Gerfaut, 74: 383-389. See p. 386.

• It is not clear which of these entries is correct, but the 1984 date would seem to fit the pattern of publication. It also agrees with the entry in the Richmond Index.
• Richmond Index Card Zoothera piaggiae ruwenzorii

• Peters Checklist 10:95 (= Ripley 1964) cites this to "Rev.Zool. [Paris]" in 1860, which is incorrect.
• The last volume of Rev.Zool. (11) was published in 1848. This was published in the second series of Rev.Mag.Zool.

• I initially gave the citation here as given in Peters Checklist 15:89 [= Amadon 1962]. I am suspicious about the date ("1865"), though it may be correct.
• This work is, so far, a bit of a mystery, and appears to have been frequently re-issued with title pages bearing different dates. I suspect that the publishing history is complex, and may be largely unknown.
• I wonder what basis Amadon had for the date of 1865 for this name.
• Colin Jones points out (2009.06.22) that I had overlooked the Corrigenda note indicating that apparently data have been found indicating that the correct date is "1856" based on information in the Biblio. de la France. It will be interesting to see what is brought forth on this.

• Peters Checklist 15:115 (= Amadon 1962) cites this to Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova 10:12, and spells the name with a single -i ending.
• The Richmond Index indicates the Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova issue was published May 3, 1877, but this included the manuscript of an article in the Sydney Mail, published on Saturday Feb. 24, 1877.
• The Richmond Index indicates that the name in the Sydney Mail, and the Ann.Mus.Civ.Genova was spelled with a double -ii ending.
• The CBBM 13:115 entry lists this name with the double -ii ending, but also says the name was published in Ibis in 1877. That article also notes that it was reprinted from the Sydney Mail Feb. 24, 1877 (see footnote on p.363). Of interest in this printing, the name is spelled with a single -i ending.
• I believe the Sydney Mail publication clearly has priority (contra Peters), and employs the double -ii ending. (contra Peters, and H&M 3^rd:653).

• Peters Checklist 12:158 (= Greenway 1967) gives the original combination as Certhia himalanya ripponi which is incorrect.
• I have the original description before me and the original combination is Certhia familiaris ripponi.
• Similarly, Greenway misrepresents, or did not understand what was happening in the replacement name situation. The replacement name is given for Certhia familiaris intermedia not "Certhia h. intermedia Kinnear", as rendered by Greenway.

• Peters Checklist 12:160 (= Greenway 1967) cites Meinertzhagen alone as the author, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:648.
• At the head of the page where this (and other) taxa are described it reads:

  	Col. and Mrs. MEINERTZHAGEN forwarded the descriptions
  	of six new races of birds from India and the Himalayas :-

  .
• The Richmond Index also shows both Meinterzhagens as the authors of this taxon.
• If a rationale exists for citing only Col. Meinertzhagen for this name, it is unknown to me.

• Peters Checklist 9:321 (= Rand 1960) cites this to "p. 370").
• It is found on p.340, and the authority, given there, is to Hartlaub & Finsch.
• CBBM 8:128, has the page number correct
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• The Richmond Index indicates that Thryothorus ridgwayi Berlepsch 1888 is =T. griseigula (Lawr.), citing Nov.Zool. 1913 20 p.229 (not seen).
"T. griseigularis (Lawr.) is almost certainly Formicovorus griseigula. Lawrence 1883. Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci. 2 no.12 June 1883 p.382.
• Peters Checklist 9:403, makes no mention of this, and presumably Paynter was unaware of this matter.

2014.04.06
• 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.

• This taxon is not listed in Peters Checklist 9, but is included in H&M 3^rd:634. It is accompanied only with a note in Corrigendum 6 indicating the subspecific epithet should be held as "rufus, not rufum because of "gender concordance".
• It does not appear to me to have been carefully considered, or well worked out.
  1. The name is listed as

      C.r.rufum Nelson 1897

  2. As near as I can find, Nelson never described a "rufum/rufus" taxon in Campylorhynchus, but did describe Heleodytes humilis rufus in 1897 (Auk 14:69), and I presume this is the taxon in consideration here.
  3. A.R. Phillips "The Known Birds of North and Middle America Part I" (1986) is not directly referenced by the authors of H&M 3^rd in relation to this taxon, but they may have consulted. Phillips (p.122) who cites:

     	(?)C. r. rufum (Nelson) 1897, Auk 14:69

     and notes "A poorly marked race, if indeed recognizable."
  4. Thus Phillips, unlike H&M 3^rd, understood that the bird was not described in Campylorhynchus and he appears to have been skeptical as its standing.
  5. Of interest, H&M 3^rd:634 lists Camplylorhynchus rufinuchus nigricaudatus with the authority as "(Nelson, 1897)" suggesting that Nelson described two taxa, now held as subspecies of the same species, but described them in different genera in the same year! Certainly not impossible, but it does suggest to me at least that additional investigation is appropriate if a high standard of nomenclatural accuracy is one's goal.
  6. If additional published information is available regarding the status and standing of this taxon, H&M 3^rd does not supply us with any information in that regard.
  7. I am left with the impression that this taxon may not be well worked up with apparently minimal support in the literature.

• H&M 3^rd: treats this as a subspecies of O. guttata without comment.
• IOC Worldbird list holds this as a full species, citing Sick 1993, a citation not mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
• It appears the SACC has not yet acted upon this.

• Liocichla ripponi is split from Liocichla pheonicea by Collar & Robson 2007 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Garrulax ruficeps is split from Garrulax albogularis by Collar 2006 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Often cited to 1855 (e.g. HBW 4:133; H&M 3^rd:160 (but corrected to 1845 in Corrigenda 4).
• The Richmond Index shows the correct citation as 1845.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 11:74 (= Traylor 1986) gives the date for this taxon as 1876.
• This is followed by H&M 3^rd:584 and by HBW 11:633.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this portion of volume 1 of the Bull.Soc.Zool.Fr. (from the meeting of Dec. 15) was published in Jan. 1877, and I follow that date.

• See Krabbe N 2008. " Vocal evidence for restitution of species rank to a Santa Marta endemic: Automolus rufipectus Bangs (Furnariidae), with comments on its generic affinities." BBOC 128(4):219-227. for reasons for elevation to species rank.

• Peters Checklist 9:48 (= Peters 1960) gives the citation as:
  • A[lauda] rufescens Vieillot 1820 Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 p.322
• Why the earlier description is not cited is unknown to me.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Previously placed in Automolus.
• See Zimmer KJ, et al. 2008 "Taxonomy, vocalisations, syringeal morphology and natural history of Automolus rorarimae (Furnariidae)." BBOC 128(3):187-206. for a discussion of this taxon.

  Note that the gender of the genus groups differ and it is possible that some of the subspecific epithets might need change in this regard. However, they appear correct to me.

• Zimmer et al. do not discuss the validity of the subspecies here, and I presume they should best be considered questionable.

• Peters Checklist 12:66 (= Snow 1967) lists the original combination as

  Anthoscopus roccatii

  which is incorrect.
• The Richmond Index indicates the name was originally published as

  Anthoscopus Roceatii

  (noting that this is a misprint for Roccatii).
• Misprint or not, it must be determined if specific and adequate reference to Dr A. Roccati is made in the article to justify "correction" of the name to roccatii.
2015.05.13
• Checking the original demonstrates that Dr Roccatti is explicitly mentioned. I agree therefor the correction is justified.

• Peters Checklist 12:115 (= Snow 1967) lists the original combination as

  Parus caeruleus raddei

  though for a number of reasons this is extremely improbable.
• The Richmond Index lists the original combination as

  Cyanistes coeruleus raddei

  which is much more probable, and what I follow.
• HBW 12:747, and H&M 3^rd:526 both list the authority as if it the taxon was originally described in Parus, and it is unlikely in both these instances that any futher investigations occured beyond "looking it up in Peters".

• Most often (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:566; Sherborn Ind.Anim. p.5503; Richmond Index) cited to 1819. Sherborn cites December 1819.
• H&M 3^rd:521 (through Corrigenda 6) cites this to 1820, without discussion, documentation or comment.
• As H&M 3^rd give no reason, supporting data or supporting references for "1820", I follow the published authorities listed above.
• Further problems attend this citation. Peters Checklist 11:566 cites "p.341 pl.29" though the Richmond Index cites p."340 pl.XXX"; Sherborn cites p."341" and does not cite, or is unaware of the plate. I choose to follow the Richmond Index unless or until additional data are brought forward.
• Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2008.04.20) that having examined the article (which begins on p.340, that name appears on p.341. The plate is referred to in the text as "Pl. xxix" but is actually numbered "XXX".

• This taxon is given as due to "Temminck 1840" by H&M 3^rd:481 (with no correction through Corrigenda 7); the taxon is not listed by Peters Checklist 9.
• The Richmond Index lists this to Pl.Col. Tabl. Methodique p.18.
• Edward Dickinson kindly looked into this and determined that the 1840 citation appears to come from Hartert's Vogel der Palaarktischen Fauna.
• Dickinson writes (in litt. 2008.01.04)

      The Tabl. Máth. is Livr. 102 and dates from 1839.
   
      I attach p. 14 from the "in folio" edition which shows what you would expect; 
      I would guess that p. 19 is CWR correctly citing it from the "in quarto" edition.
   
      No information is known to me about which edition appeared first, it
      seems they are believed to have been produced alongside each other. If
      you wish your page number to be accurate you will need to cite the
      edition.
  
      I agree the citation needs to be from here, and not from 1840.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 13:338 (= Paynter 1970) with the authority in parentheses, and this is followed without comment or discussion by H&M 3^rd:809 (and through Corrigenda 6).
• This was described by Sclater in Iridornis which I interpret to be an 1854 Bonaparte emendation (Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(4)1:27) of the Lesson 1844 name Iridisornis.
• In such an instance, it is my understanding that if the Code is to be followed then the authority should not be in parentheses.
• If parentheses are to be employed it must be demonstrated that Iridornis Bonaparte is NOT simply an emendation of Iridisornis Lesson.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Note that this name is wrongly shown in Peters Checklist XVI Comprehensive Index p.424 as "Rhinopomatus" where "Rhinopomastus" is wanted.

• Peters Checklist 13:199 (= Paynter 1970) shows this in vol.5 pl.1 fig.1 (the exact same citation as for Buarremon baroni).
• The Richmond Index cites this to pl.1 fig.2, which appears much more likely to be correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• A confusing selection of citations are given for this genus group name, and it appears the majority of them are in error.
1. Peters Checklist 7:279 (1951) cites this to:

   Rhinocrypta G.R. Gray, List Gen. Bds., 1840, p.25

2. Sclater, 1890 CBBM XV:347 gives:

   Rhinocrypta, Gray, List of Gen. 1841, p.25

3. Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.5499) and Neave (Nom.Zool. 4:44) give

   Gray 1841 List Gen. Birds 2nded. p.25

4. The Richmond Index includes a card that shows this name present in the List Gen. Birds 2^nded. p.25, but has an additional card listing the name to

   Zoology Voy. H.M.S. Beagle pt.III, Birds, no.15 Mch., 1841,
   corrigenda.

5. This Zoology Voy. H.M.S. Beagle citation is also given by Schulze et al. Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum. 1936. Band 4 lief. 21 p.3033.
• The question then becomes which publication has priority, Gray's Corrigenda to the Zool.Voy.Beagle or the 2^nd Edition of Gray's List Gen.Birds?
• Steinheimer, Dickinson, and Walters .2006. BBOC 126(3):171-193 wrote a detailed discussion of nomenclatural issues from the Zoology of the Voy. of the Beagle. So I contacted Frank Steinheimer to see if he could shed light on this problem.
• Steinheimer indicates that they had overlooked the nomenclatural importance of this name on the Corrigenda page (though they do discuss (p.189) the genus group name Einicoris which appears on the Corrigenda).
• Steinheimer indicates (in litt. 2007.06.24) that the preface to the 2^nd ed. of Gray's List Gen. Birds is dated 1^st Aug. 1841, so it had to be published after this (and after the Corrigenda to the Zool.Voy.Beagle).

• Peters Checklist 5:40 gives the page number for this as p.587 of the 1881 Ibis.
• Colin Jones points out that the British Museum type listing gives p.597r.
• In addition to the Br.Mus. type listing, the Richmond Index, and the CBBM 16:71 (Salvin) give p.597.
• HBW 5:687 also cites p.587, presumably following the Peters Checklist.

• Conventionally given as:
  • Atrichornis rufescens (Ramsay,EP) 1867 PZS(1866) Pt3 p.438
• Colin Jones helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.02.06) that Schodde gives this Newspaper citation as the place where the name and description first occured. The number (362) suggests that it may well have been late in December of 1866.

• I find the systematic situation somewhat confusing, with uncertainty regarding the validity of the taxon:
  1. It is listed as a questionable taxon by Peters Checklist 13:99; preceeded by a "?" and with a foot note suggesting it may not be separable from simulans.
  2. 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. does not mention the taxon, but lists simulans as a "Mexican subspecies" -- I mention this only becuase the type of rupicola was collected in Arizona, so if rupicola and simulans are synonomous, then simulans would appear to be a US & Mexican subspecies and I would expect it to be listed in the "Southwest desert group".
  3. H&M 3^rd:787 (incl. Corr. 6) lists the taxon without comment regarding its validity, and thus appear to have accepted the taxon but give no support for this.

• Treated as a subspecies of Passerculus sandwichensis by most works.
• Zink 1991 presents considerable data in support of a substantial difference between this form and other forms of P. sandwichensis.
• Despite a reasonable amount of literature and discussion on this point, H&M 3^rd makes not mention of this.

• This taxon was previously listed as
  • Rupornis magnirostris petulans (Van Rossem) 1935 Condor 37 p.215
  The van Rossem name served as a replacement name when this taxon was in Buteo; the replacement name being necessary due to the preoccupation by Buteo ruficaudus Vieillot 1807.
• When held in Rupornis the replacement name is not required and Sclater and Salvin's name has priority.
• Thanks (again) to Colin Jones for this excellent pick-up.

• This name was published in the "Nov." Heft for 1870. The probability that it was actually published in 1870 is very very low. The delay for this last number during this period was generally a minimum of 3 months. However, as of yet, no proof of this delay is known to exist.

• Published in the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia "for 1870" (which I infer is tantamount to vol. 22, though I expect no "Vol. XXII" is to be found on the wrappers.
• The falcon name was published in number which included material from the Dec. 27, 1870 meeting (a Tuesday).
• The 5^th AOU CL dates this to March 14, 1871, and this is the date given by the 1913 Index published by the Academy. This date would appear to derive from the fact that at the meeting of March 14, 1871 there was discussion of the fact that the Sept.-Dec. number had been published. Thus it is likely the actual date of publication preceeds March 14, 1871, but it seems reasonable to accept that as a date when it was proven to be available.

• Originally spelled "rufusecens" (actually apparently Falcon rufuscens according to the Richmond Index).
• Peters Checklist 1(2):407 lists the original combination as "Falco rufuscens [sic]" evidently aware of the specific epithet spelling, but not that of the genus group.
• HBW 2:259 lists the taxon as Falco rufescens without note or comment.
• Sherborn (p.5612) lists the taxon as:

  rufuscens (sic) Falcon (sic), ... 

• Sharpe Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 1:426 refers in text to:

  ... a dark Kestrel that Swainson named Falco rufescens.

• It appears to me that the overwhelming likelihood is that Sherborn and Richmond are correct, Peters is partly correct, and Sharpe and HBW are wrong with regards the initial spelling.
• Normand David addresses the matter of this name (in litt. 2006.07.28) thus:

  rufuscens, Swainson, 1837, Birds W. Afr 1:109 
  Peters I:407 cites "rufuscens [sic]" and uses rufescens
  
  with at least 34 other similar cases.  They are "defective" or misspelled Latin words. Now art.
  32.5.1 says "Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel,
  are not to be considered inadvertent errors";  but since only foreign (non-Latin) words can be
  transliterated or latinized (see definitions in the Glossary), it follows that "defective" Latin
  words can be viewed as inadvertent errors.
  
  As far as I can see, this is why "rufuscens" was corrected to rufescens (the
  correction is good Latin). Here I advocate the use of correction (see the title of 32.5: Spellings
  that must be corrected...);  and the Code creates confusion by using "justified emendation" (33.2.2)
  -it should be mandatory correction, and the concept of (unjustified) emendation should be applied
  only to deliberate changes (33.2.1).
  
  Good news: the correction to rufescens does not fall prey to PU: PU preys upon subsequent spellings
  not original spellings.

• Usually cited with Hartert alone as the author.
• The Richmond Index (1992) shows the authority as Hartert & F.C.R. Jourdain.
• Edward Dickinson kindly investigated this and determined that the article in question is written by Hartert "Assisted by F. C. R. Jourdain", and as Dickinson noted, the discussion of the form is all in the first person singular -- presumably Hartert.
• Workers citing Hartert alone include Peters Checklist 1:172 (Dorst & Mougin); H&M 3^rd:92; HBW 1:346; BWP.
• My reading suggests that Code is not exactly clear about interpreting such an instance, but it seems reasonable to follow convention, as well as what the Code probably holds, and list only Hartert in the authority.

• Originally spelled "Sylvia ruppeli" (previously I had this wrongly spelled myself as "ruppelli", but the Richmond Index card makes it clear it has only one "l" -2008.06.28) by Temminck, according to the Richmond Index, and confirmed by Normand David and Edward C. Dickinson, who examined the original description (in litt. 2006.05.10)
• Often, in fact usually, spelled "rueppelli", based understandably on the fact that it is named after Rüppell, who was German and spelled his name with an "ü". Spelling the specific epithet rueppelli would be correct if Temminck had rendered it rüppelli (which he clearly did NOT).

• Originally spelled "E[urocephalus] ruppelli" by Bonaparte, according to the Richmond Index, and confirmed by Normand David, who examined the original description (in litt. 2006.05.10
• Often, in fact usually, spelled "rueppelli", based understandably on the fact that it is named after Rüppell, who was German and spelled his name with an "ü". Spelling the specific epithet rueppelli would be correct if Bonaparte had rendered it rüppelli (which he clearly did NOT).
• It may be that "prevailing usage" will be inovked as a basis for persisting with the rendering rueppelli. For now I employ the original spelling, as it is in no way clear to me that "prevailing usage" applies in this case.
• There is no discussion of the spelling as late as the 2007.12 Corrigenda 7 for the H&M 3^rd CL. [APP: 2007.12.30]

• Peters Checklist 1(2):282 (Stresemann & Amadon) dates this to 1841, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:98 and HBW 2:107.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was published in "Afl. 5" of the Zoologie (Aves) portion of this. Richmond also notes that Gray in Gen. Av. I:23 notes that it is in "no.5".
• Sharpe in Cat.B.B.M 1:358 dates this to "1839-44" and curiously cites it to "p.35, tab.5", while others consistently cite p.37.
• Strickland in Orn.Synonyms 1:127 dates this to 1839.
• If we accept this as occuring in "no. 5" then Husson AM, Hothuis LB. 1955. Zoologishce Mededelingen Uitgegeven Door Het Rijksmuseum Van Natuurlijke Historie te Leiden. XXXIV(2):17-25. 17 Oct 1955. confirm a date of 1841 (October 11).

• Described in Pionias which is an 1867 unjustified emendation by Finsch of Pionus Wagler 1832.
• Thanks to Steven Gregory for looking into this, and to Colin Jones for persistance in seeing the resolution through.

• See Sitz.K.Akad.Wiss.Wien for a discussion of the dates and inconsistency of citation for this serial.
• Of interest the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3 corrects the date for Myzomela cruentata (on p.202 of this serial) from 1875 to 1874 but make no mention of the date for Myzomela rubrobrunnea which is on the following page (p.203).
• Dates for this serial were published by the Society in 1929, and I am thankful to Edward Dickinson for providing me with a copy of that Index.

• Ridgway in Bull.U.S.Natl.Mus. no.50 pt6 p.179 gives pl. 694 (which would be DCXCIV)
• I follow Peters Checklist 6:228 and the Richmond Index, which give DCXLIX = 649.
• AB Meyer's 1879 Index to Reichenbach's work also lists the plate number as "DCXLIX". Addtionally Meyer's Index attributes this name to Lichtenstein (probably as a manuscript name), The Richmond Index notes '"Lichtst." MS.', though Peters Checklist 6:228 does not trouble itself with this level of accuracy and detail.
• Thanks to Michael Reiser for picking this up.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:176 and HBW 4:212 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.

• Often cited to 1983 (e.g. HBW 4:179,612; H&M 3^rd:170).
• The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 notes that the first edition of this was published in 1979, and refers to Ibis. 1981 123:575 for details.

• A genus-group name with spelling like this is an obvious source of potential spelling and emendation problems. Peters Checklist 3:81,82 gives only a slight hint of this. The Checklist puts the authority for Reinwardtoena griseotincta in parentheses, indicating that Peters felt that as it was described in Reinwardtoenas that parentheses were appropriate.
• What in fact do we have for renderings of this genus group name?
  1. Reinwardtoena Bonaparte 1854 CompteRendu 39 p.1112
  2. Reinwardtaenas Bonaparte 1854 Ann.Sci.Nat.(4) 1 p.140 (evidently a nomen nudum)/
  3. Reinwardtaena Gray,GR 1856 ListBirdsBrit.Mus. pt4 p.40
  4. Reinwardtoenas Salvadori 1892 Mem.R.Accad.Sci.Torino(2) 42(1891) p.60
  5. Reinwardtoenas Salvadori 1893 Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 21 p.365
• H&M 3^rd:163 must evidently interpret Reinwardtoenas to simply be an emendation, as it differs from the Peters Checklist with regard to parentheses for the authority, but gives no rationale or support for the position taken.

• This bird is often referred to as
  • Anthus pelopus Gray,JE & Gray,GR 1847 Cat.Mamm.BirdsNepalThibet[Gray,JE] p.154 Nomenclature Nomenclature (Date)
  • See, for example, Deignan HG, 1960. "The Oldest name for the Roseate Pipit". BBOC 80(7):120.
  • However, as Edward Dickinson pointed out to me, the name Anthus roseatus was established as the approved name by the ICZN in Opinion 803, (1967.03.06) so considerations of priority and the mysteries of publishing history become moot with regard to this name.
  2005.01.22; 2007.08.18

• Described by Mathews in Dromiceius which is the way this name was spelled in Vieillot's Analyse on p.54, but spelled Dromaius on p.70. (see Nomenclature)
• As Gray's action as first reviser establishes Dromaius as the correct form, Mathews' use of Dromiceius appears to me to constitute the use of an incorrect spelling, and thus the authority should not be in parentheses according to ICZN 1999 Art. 51.3.1
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Usually cited, as here, to the first edition of Gray's Gen.Birds. which has an apparent publishing date of May, 1844.
• Several points of interest are raised in the Richmond Index.
  1. The second edition of pages 11-12 of this work was issued in June, 1849, and the name there is changed to A. ferrugineus Lichtenstein.
  2. The name Archibuteo regalis may first have been used in a publication "List Accip.", published ostensibly Feb. 12, 1844 (evidently the imprint date), where the name appears to have been a nomen nudum.
  3. It appears that the List Accip. was reviewed in Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. for May of 1844, which would suggest that it may have preceeded the May publication of the First edition of the Gen.Birds.
  4. The Richmond Index also includes a note that the first Ed. of Gray's Gen.Birds was suppressed -- the note reading "[ed. 1 suppressed],".

• Recently described as a separate species. An abstract of the publication indicates

  The new species differs only slightly from the other brown kiwis. Differences
  can be found in plumage colour and colouration of bare parts, which are all
  paler than in other brown kiwis with the head, neck and belly feathers
  noticeably grey (often with some white on the head), the softness of the
  feathers (softer when stroked backwards than in Tokoeka), the shorter bill and
  the barred outer wing feathers (not present in the other brown kiwis). Apart
  from the holotype, only six specimens (paratypes) of the new species are known. 
  

• Additionally there are comments on the name

  The existence of more than one species of brown kiwi had already been deduced
  from molecular studies in 2001 and was published two years later (Burbidge, M L,
  Colbourne, R M, Robertson, H A & Baker, A J 2003. Molecular and other biological
  evidence supports the recognition of at least three species of brown kiwi.
  Conserv.Genet. 4: 167-177). However, the name 'Apteryx rowii' used
  in this publication does not comply in every aspect with the rules set by the
  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the same applies to
  earlier descriptions of this taxon, all leading to invalid scientific names
  (nomina nuda). A nomen nudum ('naked name') implies that the given
  name has no official status (is invalid) and should not be used to refer to the
  taxon involved. Considering the urgent need for a properly established
  scientific name for the new species, Tennyson et al (2003) decided that it was
  best to quickly name and describe the new species in a separate publication.
  Tokoeka is a polytypic species with at least three different 'lineages', now
  grouped into two subspecies. Further studies may reveal that more subspecies
  should be recognized or that subspecies should also be awarded species status.
  More information on the status, population and distribution of all five kiwi
  species, including colour photographs of each species, can be found at the kiwi
  recovery website (www.kiwirecovery.org.nz/Kiwi/Home/).

• Thanks to Murray Bruce for bringing this to my attention and providing the details.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:317 (Mayr) as 1874.
• Florence Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek has confirmed the dates for the various parts of this work. Her compilation shows this to have been published in 1871.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:317 (Mayr) as 1859, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:338
• The Richmond Index lists this as from 1860 and suggestst that evidence on p.463 of that volume and number (not seen) indicate that it could not have been published before Jan. 22, 1860.
• The Peters Checklist, and H&M are inconsistent in treating the dates of taxa from this volume and number of J.Orn., dating most to 1859 (which is the imprint date) and at least one other (Illadopsis) as 1860.
• Neave and Schulze treat Illadopsis as being published in 1860, and in fact Schulze suggests that it was published "1860 VII", which I interpret to be July (!) of 1860.

• Dating of Bd. III (which has an imprint date of 1848) is variable and inconsistent among and within various workers.
• The unpublished CW Richmond Dates-of-Publication cards address this issue (see entry under Reisen-Brit.Guiana), and while they do not fully resolve the question, I interpret the preponderance of evidence to support 1849 for Bd. III.

• Originally described in Dendropicus
• Peters Checklist 6:180 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Dendropicus to be a generic entity different from Dendropios. This is not followed by HBW 7:467 nor by H&M 3^rd:317.
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

• The relationship between Dendropicos and Dendropicus is an interesting one, and undoubtedly has been fully worked out, though to date (2004.01.24) I can't find documentation of this. What I do know is that:
  1. Both names are due to Malherbe in 1849.
  2. Dendropicos Malherbe 1849 Mem.Acad.R.Metz 30 p.316,338 is dated by Sherborn to "(post May)" of 1849. It is probably this finding of Sherborn's that is reflected in Peters "(after may 1849)".
  3. The date of Dendropicus is more of a problem. It was published in
  4. Dendropicus Malherbe 1849 Rev.Mag.Zool. (2) 1 p.532. This is the same source and page given as the citation for Dendropicos hartlaubii. Thus it is not clear whether Dendorpicus is a lapsus, an emendation or a new genus description, though the latter seems unlikely.
  5. Sherborn has these entries

      
     Dendropicos A.  Malherbe, Mém. Ac. Metz., XXX (post May) 1849, 338. -A.
     Dendropicus  Malh. 1849; teste Waterhouse, Dendropicos est. q.v.

     ("q.v." = quod vide = for which see).
     I interpret Sherborn to interpret Dendropicus to be an emendation of Dendropicos, or possibly vice versa if the Rev.Mag.Zool. publication antedates the Mem.Acad.R.Metz.
  6. The issue of dates of the Rev.Mag.Zool. is problematic. Richmond has many notes on this problem in his unpublished notes on Dates of Publication. Perhaps most salient is his note saying:

      Revue Zoologique. Important! The nos. of the
     Rev.Zool. prob. never came out during the month mentioned
     on the 1st. page of no.

• In summary, I interpret Dendropicus to be an emendation of Dendropicos.

• Originally described in Megalæma
• Peters Checklist 6:35 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalæma to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by HBW 7:205 and H&M 3^rd:305, and in neither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

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

• Originally described in Megalæma
• Peters Checklist 6:32 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalæma to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by HBW 7:200 and H&M 3^rd:305, and in neither case does this appear to warrant discussion.
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

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

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

• The citation given by Peters Checklist 4:143 is for volume 1 of the second series of the Bull.Hebdo.Assoc.Sci.France.
• HBW 5:686 duplicates this reference to volume 1.
• The Richmond Index, indicates that this is volume 2 of the second series, and this is more consistent with other citations for taxa described by Oustalet on the same page. The Peters Checklist 5:267 lists Buceros montani from p.205 of volume 2 of the same series and in the same year. HBW 6:528 also lists this as from volume 2.
• I follow the Richmond index, and use volume 2.

• Peters Checklist 4:137 gives a date of 1860.
• HBW 5:231 also gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of March 1861.
• Duncan PZS 1937 says this section of the PZS was "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861."
• I follow Richmond here.

• Authorship frequently given as Vigors & Horsfield (e.g. Peters Checkist 6:146; HBW 7:545).
• Thanks to Murray Bruce's work on this it is clear that Vigors was the author of the bird descriptions in the catalogue attached to the Memoir by Lady Raffles. This sole authorship was indicated by the Marquis Tweddale in Ibis 1877 (4)1:284.
• Bruce indicates that the likelihood is that Gray attributed authorship to Vigors & Horsfield based upon their names in attribution for a plate in the work.

• A complex nomenclatural situation:
  1. Name first published by Sclater without a description in PZS 1860 p.253.
  2. Name published with a description of the skeleton by Parker in 1866 (Trans.Zool.Soc.London 5(1864) p.205-232.
  3. Name also listed (sometimes with details of anatomical parts) by Owen (1861), Salvin (1861,1865), Parker (1862), GR Gray (1867), and Huxley (1867).
• The publication in ExoticOrn. is held to be the first with satisfactory description. That citation is as follows:
  • Tinamus major robustus Sclater,PL & Salvin 1868 ExoticOrn. Pt6 p.87 pl.xliv
• [2010.05.26] Colin Jones has helpfully pointed out that while the initial description in PZS is a nomen nudum, the name was, in the Ibis in 1861, also linked with a egg, with an associated description.
• It appears to me that this satisfies the requirements for the original description. This apparently valid nomenclatural act is not acknowledged or discussed by recent authors to my knowledge.

• Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in Buteo. Finding Buteo to be paraphyletic, they propose two ways of resolving this:
  1. include Parabuteo into Buteo or
  2. exclude B. leucorrhous and B. magnirostris while including Asturina nitida and Geranoaetus melanoleucus.
• They chose the second approach because of the 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.

• Peters Checklist 1:380 (Stresemann & Amadon) the Richmond Index and Sherborn have livr.76 pl.455. Sherborn adds a note "extremo 1827".
• HBW 2:575 replicates the error, most probably following the Peters citation.
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, demonstrating that the "76" is most likely a misprint for 77. A misprint being more likely than the plate having been issued with the wrong livraison.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.52'

• Listed by Peters Checklist 4:210 as 1908. HBW 5:370 (Cleere) repeats this error.
• While the initial numbers of BBOC 23 were published in 1908, no. CLII containing the description of Caprimulgus ruwenzoriii was published June 10, 1909.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

 
N.  281 COLYMBUS (ruficollis,) fuscus, collo subtus
	rufo.  Magn. infra Alcam Allen.  Totus fuscus,
	subtus albicante nebulosus.  Collum totum subtus
	late ferrugineo-rufum in Mare; in femina ob-
	soletius, eique gula albo fusoque nebulosa, &
	truncus subtus medio albo argentatus.  Rostrum
	nigrum, basi subtus oblique flavum.
	

• The locality looks problematic to me, and the Sherborn aritcle has what I interpret to be a note, added in brackets and reproduced exactly here:

  "[Is the female of 280, which is called "  ruficollis,"
  	"zeer zeldzaam in onze Meiren."]"
  	

• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):339-340.
• The italicized species epithet in parentheses "(ruficollis,), has a comma following the species epithet. This occurs in some, but a minority, of the representations in Sherborn's article. I have no idea if there is any significance to this, and in fact if it represents the actuality of the text as printed.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 1:270 and HBW 1:525 (del Hoyo) as a subspecies of P. ruber.
• Elevation to species status proposed by the BOU. Knox AG, Collinson M, Helbig AJ, Parkin DT & Sangster G. 2002. "Taxonomic recommendations for British Birds." Ibis 144(4):707-708., based on plumage, coloration, displays, and vocalizations.
• Elevated to species level by AOU CL 49^th Supplement 2008 p.760

• Listed by Peters Checklist 2:278 and HBW 3:489 (van Gils & Wiersma) as a subspecies of S. saturata.
• Marek Kuziemko brought to my attention a recent revision of this species. I quote his email (2002.07.24)
• "Recently Kennedy et al. (2001) separated rosenbergi from S. saturata as a separated species. They argue that rosenbergii, compared to saturata, is:
  1. isolated from the other form by at least 2,500 km, which for a sedentary population is expected to mean negligible gene flow between them;
  2. significantly larger in wing, tail, tarsus and culmen length;
  3. strikingly different in plumage: upperparts much darker and more loosely barred; conspicuous and well-developed white spots on malar, supraloral and chin; darker throat, breast and belly with latter barred with white.
  Ref.: Kennedy RS, Fisher TH, Harrap SCB, Diesmos AC & Manamtam AS. 2001. "A new species of woodcock (Aves: Scolopacidae) from the Philippines and a re-evaluation of other Asian/Papuasian woodcock." Forktail 17: 1-12."

• Often spelled R. ruficapillus (e.g. Peters).
• Originally Pogonocichla ruficapilla Sundevall 1850.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):38 discuss this.
• "As a final component of species-group names, -capilla is the Latin noun capillus with a modified ending, and does not include any adjectival suffix. Adjectival names derived from capillus would end in a recognizable suffix (-capillata, capillosa, etc.). Original names ending in capilla [the modified Latin noun capillus] are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition."
• They indicate the spelling should be Phylloscopus ruficapilla. Their argument is that it " should not be changed to P. ruficapillus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Phylloscopus ruficapilla occurs once and Phylloscopus ruficapillus occurs twice the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelled U. ruficauda (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe).
• Originally Ochetorhynchus ruficaudus Meyen 1834.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):37 indicate the spelling should be Upucerthia ruficaudus. Their argument is that "-caudus is derived from a noun, but is not adjectival; if it were adjectival it would end in -caudatus. "Although -us (-a, -um) can be a Latin adjectival suffix, it is only when added to a noun that ends in a consonant." Rather, the name is a noun phrase, that must be treated as a noun in apposition, with the original spelling retained.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Upucerthia ruficauda occurs once in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelled E. roseicapillus (e.g. Peters).
• Originally Cacatua roseicapilla Vieillot 1817.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):38 "As a final component of species-group names, -capilla is the Latin noun capillus with a modified ending, and does not include any adjectival suffix. Adjectival names derived from capillus would end in a recognizable suffix (-capillata, capillosa, etc.). Original names ending in capilla [the modified Latin noun capillus] are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition."
• They indicate the spelling should be Eolophus roseicapilla. Their argument is that it " should not be changed to E. roseicapllus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Eolophus roseicapllus occurs 54 times in the Zoo. Rec.;Eolophus roseicaplla occurs 5 times during that period.

• Often spelled C. rufrigaster (e.g. Sibley & Monroe).
• Originally Muscicapa rufigastra Raffles 1822.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):37 indicate the spelling should be Cyornis rufigastra. Their argument is that "-gastra is derived from a noun, but is not adjectival. Rather, the name is a noun phrase, that must be treated as a noun in apposition, with the origial spelling retained.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Cyornis rufigastra occurs in the Zoo. Rec..

• Peters Checklist 11:361 uses the spelling ruecki noting that this was an emendation made by Sharpe in his Hand-list of Birds, 1901 3:214.
• Sibley & Monroe hold this to be an unjustified emendation.
• The taxon is named after M. Rück. Rück collected the specimen in Malacca (type -- 2 specimens -- in the Paris Museum). However the Richmond Index indicates that Oustalet's spelling of the species epithet is Ruckii.
• Sharpe's spelling in his Hand-List is, in fact, ruecki as Peters indicates.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the species epithet ru[e]cki[i] does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..
• [2009.09.14] The question, of course, is: was M. Rück German, or (more probably) Dutch? If he was Dutch, the spelling ruckii would be appropriate if German or if it is uncertain, then the umlaut may be appropriate.
• In Corrigenda 8 Dickinson et al. may have the correct decision, but their facts appear to be simply wrong. They write:

  Cyornis ruecki [M. LeCroy 2008, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist 313 p. 94 found the original spelling 
  to be rückii and lacking evidence for whether the name was based upon a German word 
  retained the spelling ruecki; she appears to have not retained -ii due to prevaiing usage. 
  We may use rueckii in next Edition.]

  My reading of Mary LeCroy's finding is different, she says (p.94):

  Originally, the current name of this form was spelled Siphia ruckii, without an umlaut
  (Oustalet, 1881: 78),...

  The phrase "without an umlaut" indicates to me that she did not "f[ind' the original spelling to be rückii" so if the umlaut is "retained" it is retained from the emendation and certainly not from the original description.
• Dickinson et al. appear to be proceeding on the basis of incorrect facts (Mary's finding). Ideally we would determine the nationality of M. Rück; like Mary, I have so far not been able to do this.
• Given the confusion (and error) here I retain the original spelling "ruckii" for the present.
• [2009.09.15] One factor that may add to the confusion here is that the diagnosis was "reproduced" by Reichenow and Schalow in J.Orn. 32:398 (1884); in that location the binomen is rendered

  301. Siphia Rückii.

• Originally Bucco rubricapillus Gmelin, 1788.
• Often spelt M. rubricapilla. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, Peters).
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that "The word capillus is and always has been a noun. Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin noun capillus are noun phrases to be treated as nouns in apposition."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Megalaima rubricapill... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

Placement within Scytalopus is uncertain, and should not be afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end of the genus.

Usually cited as 1840, though some evidence suggests 1839 is possible.
Peters Checklist 11:287 has 1804(sic).

• Streptopelia risoria not afforded specific status by Peters, Sibley & Monroe, H&M. 3^rd or HBW 4.
• This taxon is of some importance, as it is the type for Streptopelia, but the confusions are considerable, and largely unaddressed in recent works.
• The AOU Cl 7^thed. p.222 says:

   Notes. -- Also known as Barbary Dove. This widely domesticated and locally introduced
  form is now deemed to be derived from the African S. roseogrisea(Sundevall, 1957 [sic = 1857])
  [African Collared-Dove] rather thand S. deccaocto (Goodwin 1983).  ... There is con-
  troversy whether the name risoria can be applied to any wild population at all (Sibley and
  Monroe 1990).

  Goodwin D. 1983. Pigeons and Doves of the world, 3rd ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York..
• AOU CL 7^th ed. also recognizes Streptopelia decaocto, which HBW would appear to regard as a synonym of S. risoria.
• This seems to be a complicated and difficult situation, made more so by what appear to be the largely ignored implications regarding estblishing the type for Streptopelia.
• Previously included:
  • Streptopelia risoria (Linnaeus) 1758 Syst.Nat.ed.10 p.165 Concept
  but it has been felt appropriate to use the name of the wild species in place of a name based on domesticated birds.

• Peters Checklist 10:212 has "1870".
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} which indicates June 1869.

• Both {Sherborn, 1902} and Peters 2:154 attribute this to Bennett., and Sherborn indicates it is E. T. Bennett.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists Gray (without designating which Gray) for this citation.
• Both Sherborn 1902 and {Richmond, et al. 1992} note "Ex Licht.".
• I am uncertain what standing Gray has in this matter, though G.R. Gray used the name Balearica regulorum in 1844 in his List of Birds of the British Museum, where again it is "Ex. Licht.".
• The article in the PZS (a segment called "On several animals recently added to the Society's Menagerie." is attributed in the table of contents (p.[iii]) to E.T. Bennett, Esq. However, the text of the material makes note of points made by "Mr. Gray" regarding the morphology of the birds and those implications, thus suggesting that it may be Gray who is establishing the material.
• The text of the matter reads:

   The two species may thus be distinguished:
  
  		Genus ANTHROPOÏDES, Vieill.
  
   *Occipite cristato, cristâ erectâ, effusâ e plumis setaceis constante.
  
  ANTHROPOÏDES PAVONINUS, Viell. Anth. genis nudis, supernè
    albis infernè latè roseis; paleari minimo; gutturis plumis elon-
    gatis nigriescentibus.
  Ardea pavonina, Linn. et Auct.
  Hab. in Africâ Septontrionali et Occidentali.
  
  ANTHROPOÏDES REGULORUM. Anth. genis nudis, albis supernè
    roseis; paleari magno; gutturis plumis elongatis pendulinis cæru-
    lescenti-cinereis.
  
    Grus Regulorums, Licht.
    Hab. in Africâ Meridionali.
    It is probable that this latter species has been figured by Petiver
  and by Kolbe; but their representations are by no means sufficiently
  defined to authorize a postivie reference to them.
    Mr. Gray took occasion to remark that the oval form of the
  nostrils in the crowned Cranes, added to other distinguishing cha-
  racters which have frequently been pointed out, might be regarded
  as indicating a generic difference between them and the Demoiselle
  and Stanley Cranes, in which the nostrils have the lengthened form
  usual in the genus Grus, a genus from which they scarcely differ
  except in the comparative shortness of their bill.  For the group
  including the crowned Cranes the name of Balearica might, he 
  thought, be retained; and that of Anthropoïdes be appropriated to
  the one comprehending Anth. Virgo, Vieill. and Anth. paradisæus,
  Bechst.

• Thus, while it appears there are clearly indications of Gray's involvement, the full extent is not (to me) evident, and I continue to treat Bennett as the author.

• Peters Checklist 15:199 lists "p.131-291".
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 12:369 has "1824".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} have 1820, which is more believable for livr.5 of this work.

• Peters Checklist 5:84 has "1838".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} says Rev.Zool I, [no.12] for Dec. 1838, with a note "publ. 1839".

• Peters Checklist 7:121 lists "1886".
• {Harris, 1928} and {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicate, this was published Feb. 14, 1887.

• Peters Checklist 6:230 lists the date as 1819 with a footnote to the citation saying "So cited by Sherborn".
• Wolters (p.162) lists the taxon as 1819.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} list the date as 1818.
• Which publication of Sherborn's Peters refers to is not indicated.
• HBW 7:532 (Short & Horne) list 1819, evidently following the Peters Checklist.
[2010.07.05]
• Peters Checklist 2:205 cites a taxon from later in the same work (Crex galeata p.36) to 1818.

• Peters Checklist 2:7 has "1817".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 3:78 lists "1834".
• Livraison 95 was published in 1835, as Peters correctly cites for other taxa in Vol. 3.

• Peters Checklist 7:151 indicates "1869".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates this was "(pub. late Sep., 1868)".

• Peters Checklist 1:373 has "1827".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates the publishing date is 1829.

• Peters Checklist 4:163 lists "1828", as does Wolters.
• HBW 5:200 (I. Heynen), also gives "1828".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has December, 1827 which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 12:435 has "p.13" apparently a typographic truncation of p.137.

• Peters Checklist 4:105 shows this as Vol. "40"
• It is Vol. 35.

• Peters Checklist 14:175 leaves the date out of the citation

• Peters Checklist 10:86 has "1823" a transpostion for 1832, the date when this volume was published.

Troglodytes rufocilatus

• Peters Checklist 9:427 treats as a subspecies of solstitialis.

• Peters Checklist 9:427 has 1881.
• This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of 1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.5. Not in Sibley & Monroe.

• Spelt Rougetius rougetii in Peters Checklist, by Sibley & Monroe, HBW, H&M 3^rd, and in the Richmond Index..
• In The Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 23:163 the name is spelt R. rougeti with only one "i".

• Spelt variously Rhynochetos, Rhinochetos, Rhinochetus.
• Sharpe uses "Rhinochetos" in the Cataloge of Birds in the British Museum 23:246.

• Sharpe, 1885. in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 10:396 gives p.249.
• Sherborn and Richmond give p.294, which I follow.
• This is supported by my copy which has the name on p.294.

• See Cardoso da Silva JM, New data support the specific status of Reiser's Tyrannulet, a central Brazilian endemic. 1996. BBOC 116(2):109-113.

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

• Mitochondrial sequence data supports previous suggestions that Z. rotensis is a species distinct from other Bridled White-eyes in the Marianas. Slikas B, Jones IB, Derrickson SR, Fleischer RC. Phylogenetic relationships of Micronesian White-eyes based on mitochondrial sequence data. 2000. Auk 117(2):355-365.

• The authority is listed without parentheses by Peters Checklist 1:148.
• The taxon was originally described by Gray as "Podiceps (Poliocephalus) rufopectus".
• The ICZN 1999 article 51 c (i) states: "This use of parentheses applies only to changes in the name of the genus with which the species-group name is combined; it is not affected by the presence of a subgeneric name ..."
• Therefore I list the authority in parentheses.

• Recognized as a full species by Peters Checklist 4:174.
• Not recognized as a full species by Sibley & Monroe.
• Recognized as a full species by AOU Checklist 7^th ed.
• Recognized as a full species by HBW 5:229.
• Considered by all who discuss it to possibly be a conspecific with A. acadicus. True status and relationships appear somewhat uncertain.

• As Peters Checklist 4:64 notes: "This is the original spelling; Temminck wrote it radiatus in Tabl. Meth. 1838, p.53, and the latter name is often used."

• Originally spelt reinwardtsi. And is so spelt in Peters Checklist 3:81, also so spelt in Sibley & Monroe.
• HBW 4:146 spells it reinwartii, with the note that Temminck "himself" emended the name. I presume that this refers to his emendation in Pl.Col. livr.101-2 (probably 1839) p.81 (though I am made somehwhat uneasy by the fact that the authors of the article do not include a specific reference to the emandation article). Whether that emendation satisfies the ICZN requirements is not known to me.
• With some unease, I follow the spelling favored by the authors of the HBW article.

• HBW 2:550 lists the author as "Maingonnat" [sic] which is correct.
• Peters Checklist II:132 spells the author's name Maingounat, in this following Delacour's rendering in Ibis 1929:203(note).
• Many authors follow the spelling as given in Peters Checklist

• Included by some authors in Thinornis.
• Normand David writes:
  Both HANZAB 2 and Christidis & Boles (1994, RAOU Monograph 2) include rubricollis and novaeseelandiae in Thinornis.

• 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. and Auk 110(3):678

• Peters 2:250 and HBW 3:432 have 1822.
• Livr. 8 of this work was published in March of 1821.(see Zimmer p.627).

• Sibley and Monroe leave the parentheses off, though Vigors described this in Fringilla.
• Peters Checklist 14:275 (Mayr) spells this C. rhodochrous and lists the original as "Fringilla rodochroa [sic]..."
• Sibley and Monroe have a note indicating it was consistently spelt without the "h".

• Vigors described this in Fringilla.
• Peters Checklist 14:278 (Howell et al., 1968) spells this C. rhodopeplus and lists the original as "Fringilla rodopepla [sic]..."
• The original spelling is clearly "rodopepla".

• Usually spelt Histurgops ruifcauda.
• I initially interpreted ICZN 1999 30.1.4.3 to state that the genus-group name is masculine. If so, I believed the species-group name should be ruficaudatus.
• Normand David corrected me in this (2002.05.29); he writes:

  "The original spelling Histurgops ruficauda Reichenow, 1887 is used correctly by Peters (XV:6) and S & M 1990. Although Histurgops is masculine, the species-group name ruficauda is an invariable noun phrase (and needs no change)."

• Peters Checklist 5:271 lists 1842.
• Pages 1-400 of this work were issued in 1841.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 3:48, HBW 4:234, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 15:14, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

• Usually (e.g. Peters 8:306 (DW Snow)) listed as:
  • Rupicola Brisson 1760 Orn. 4 p.437
• The name is first used in vol.1 where it is available as a binomial.
• Thanks to Steven Gregory for this understanding.

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