• Peters Checklist 11:473 (= Watson 1986) dates this to 1898 without comment.
• This dating is followed, also without comment, by H&M 3^rd:49
7
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1899, noting that it was published in Heft 2 of Volume XVI of this serial. That Heft evidently has a date of Sept. 1899.
• Until additional data or indication of some understanding of this dating issue is brought forward, I will follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist 15:136 (= Greenway 1962) gets the details of the nomenclature wrong.
• Greenway give the original citation as

  Sphecotheres Vieillot, 1816, Anaylse, p.42. Type by monotypy, Sphecotheres viridis
  Vieillot.

  This should read

  Sphecotheres Vieillot, 1816, Anaylse, p.42. Type by monotypy, Sphecothera viridis
  Vieillot.

• Vieillot uses Sphecotheres on p.42, but uses Sphecotera not only on p.68 where the name of the type is given as Sphecotera viridis, but also in the index (p.70) where the name Specothera is listed along with the etymology: the basis given as:

  Sphecotera [σφηξ, vespa θηραω, venor].

• Normand David informs me (in litt. 2008.01.25) that Bonaparte (1854:539) acted as the first reviser, selecting Sphecotheres.

• It appears there is need for a first reviser for this name. Baird provisionally introduces the name as Vireo Swainsonii in text on p.336, but lists the name in the table on p.331 as swainsoni.
• The double "i" -ii ending appears to be the one that is widely and consistently in use, and seems the one that should logically be chosen by a First Reviser.

• Peters Checklist 9:171 (= Peters & Mayr 1960) cite this to

  Graculus sumbensis A.B. Meyer, 1882
  Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien, 31, p.765

• That citation is one of two included in the Richmond Index, I use the one from an earlier page which is supported by the diagnosis reproduced in the J.Orn. 1884 p.399 as follows:

   304. Graucalus sumbensis.
  	  A. B. Meyer, Verhandl. zool. bot. Ges. Wien 1881. p. 726.
  	  G. supra dilute caerulescente-cinereus, capite paulo obscuriore,
  margine frontali et lateribus capitis nigerrimis; collo antico nigricante,
  pectore cinereo albescente, fasciolis transversis cinereis; abdomine,
  tibiis et subcaudalibus albis; remigibus primariis fuscescentibus,
  exterius subtiliter albo limbatis, secundariis et tertiariis
  nigricantibus, in pogonio externo cinereis albo limbatis; subalaribus
  albis; uropygio et rectricibus caudae superioribus vix albescentibus,
  cauda nigricante, rectricum apicibus albis, rectricibus duabus mediis
  cinerascentibus, rectrice extima exterius subtiliter albolimbato; rostro
  pedibusque nigris.
  	Long. tot. c. 380 mm.; al. 173 mm.; caud. 170 mm.; rostri
  25 mm.; tarsi 22 mm. (Sex: ign.).
  Hab.: Ins. Sumba.

• [2009.09.19] Colin Jones confirms that the Peters/Mayr page citation is correct by examination of an image of the original material. Verh.K.K.Zool. 1881 p.765

• Cited by Peters Checklist to Ramsay, 1878, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:463.
• The Corrigenda 2.1 says:

  Cracticus quoyi spaldingi: author, Masters, not E.P. Ramsay

  though no support, justification or reference is provided.
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this name,
  1. the first is for

     Cracticus spaldingi "Masters" E.P. Ramsay. 1878

     in Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W., II, Pt. 2, Jan., 1878, 211 (in text). This has a note that reads:

     "Mr. Masters informs me that he has received from Port Darwin, a fine new
     species of Cracticus, allied to C. quoyi, but having a larger
     and stronger bill, the description of this species, which has been named after its
     discoverer Cracticus spaldingi, will be published in the next number
     of the Society's Proceedings" (full description).

  2. The second is for Master's publication (apparently 4 months later) in the May issue of the Proceedings.
  3. Gadow in CBBM 8:102 cites Cracticus spaldingi to Masters in the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W. ii p.277 with a date of 1877. (!)
• Roy McDiarmid provided copies of the original materials, which support what Richmond has in his Index.
• Both Dickinson and Schodde were helpful in pointing out that the interpretation of the CODE art. 50.1.1 supports Masters and not Ramsay as the author. Masters is "alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability" (though not responsible for the "actual publication".

• Often held to be a subspecies of Anser fabalis.
• Elevated to species level by the AOU CL 48^th Supplement (p.1111) on the basis of morhpology, behavior, and geographic distribution as evidenced by banding returns.

• Previously treated as a subspecies of Pterodroma phaeopygia, and it is still so treated by H&M 3^rd:74 (through Corrigenda 6 (2006)).
• Dave Nicolson helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.05.25) that the

  AOU (43rd supplement, The Auk 119(3) [July, 2002], 897-906.... see p.898)
  notes: "Pterodroma sandwichensis is recognized as a species distinct from P.
  phaeopygia on the basis of differences in vocalizations and morphology (Tomkins
  and Milne 1991, Browne et al. 1997) that are comparable to species-level
  differences elsewhere in the genus."

• This 2002 AOU resolution is not mentioned by the H&M Checklist or Corrigendas (through 2006).

• Peters Checklist 13:302 (=Storer, 1970) lists the authority in parentheses, presumably because Lafresnaye described this in Pyranga. This is followed, without comment, by H&M 3^rd: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.
• Modern workers have clearly addressed this problem, but thier interpretations apparently have not been attended to; The AOU CL 7^th 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)).

• Donegan TM & Huertas B. 2006. "A new brush-finch in the Atlapetes latinuchus complex from the Yariguies Mountains and adjacent Eastern Andes of Colombia." BBOC 126(2):94-116 argue that:
  • Atlapetes latinuchus simplex (Berlepsch) 1888 Ibis p.128
  is a junior synonmym of Atlapetes latinucha spodionotus.

• It seems clear from the Richmond Index, Peters Checklist 12:249 (Rand, 1967), and Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.914) that the original spelling by Gmelin was:

  [Certhia] Sovimanga

  with a v not a u.
• Gadow in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 9:43 renders this "v" as a "u" and this had been followed uncritically and without comment or discussion by many since then.
• I employ the spelling used by the original author.

• Conventionally cited to Cabanis alone.
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:8 point out that Schütt included a descriptive note that was published by Cabanis as part of his description. Steinheimer and Dean do not mention the fact (which I find important) that Schütt's note was enclosed in quotes in Cabanis' article.

2014.04.03
• This is usually cited to 1880.
• It appears that this Number (no.152) 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.
2014.04.03

• H&M 3^rd:793 lists the authority in parentheses "(Ridgway, 1884)".
• The CBBM 12:81 lists the original combination as "Oryzoborus salvini", but gets the page number wrong ("p.400" while it is p.401) and the year wrong ("1883" while it is 1884).
• The Richmond Index lists the name as "O[ryzoborus] Salvini"
• This name is coined in the same foot note as Oryzoborus nuttingi. All in all, I expect that parentheses are incorrect for the authority here.

• H&M 3^rd:787 spells the subspecific epithet "soraria", but corrects this in Corrigenda #4.
• The original description is thus in Auk 15:226 :

• Peters Checklist 13:81 (Paynter, 1970) dates the publication of the name Spizella to 1831. It appears he may not have consulted either the AOU Checklist 5^th available at that time (or in fact any of the previous AOU Checklists) or the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 12:657.
• This number (52) of the Giorn.Arcad.Sci.Lett.Arti [Rome] represents the Oct-Dec. number of 1831, that is shown by the Richmond Index to have been published April 9, 1832.
• H&M 3^rd:785 lists the date for Spizella (from p.205 of this work) to 1831, while on p.802 dates Paroria (from p.206 of this work) to 1832 without a comment on the date in either location.

• H&M 3^rd:293 correctly lists the date as 1885.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 erroneously changes the date to 1885. Stating

  Megaceryle torquata stictipennis: date, 1886, not 1885 [USNM Bull.193 shows that
  this paper was delivered to the printers in two parts; the second part in Jan, 1886]

• The text of the USNM Bulletin no.193 p.62 reads (in part):

  Pp. 621-624, Dec, 28, 1885; p.625, Jan. 20, 1886.

  as this name was published on p.623, 1885 is the correct date and should not be changed.

• Peters Checklist 13:49 (1970) notes that the author's reprints were mailed 25 November, 1900, and this fact is also indicated both within the article itself (note at foot of p.8) and addtionally in the Richmond Index.
• H&M 3^rd:782 lists the date as 1901 without discussion, as do Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

• Held to be a distinct subspecies by Peters Checklist 13:47 (1970), and by H&M 3^rd:781.
• Held to be a synonym of M.m.fallax by Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. They cite Marshall 1942, Phillips et al. 1964, and Patten 2001 (none of these seen to date 2006.12.25).
• Arcese et al. comment:

  The range ascribed to it by S. F. Baird included a mix of
  M.m.fallax (sensu lato) and the as-yet-unnamed M.m.montana (see above).
  This confusion may be why Grinnell (1914:175) asserted that his new taxon, M.m.saltonis,
  was a valid subspecies, "sharply defined both geographically and specifically," because he was
  comparing M.m.montana to M.m.fallax rather than M. m. fallax to his new
  taxon. In practice, most specimens of M. m. saltonis and M. m. fallax (sensu
  stricto) not diagnosable (Patten 2001).

• This name is not to be found in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus., Ridgway BirdsM.N.Am., or Sherborn.
• BWP cites this to "Brehm, 1826" (without parentheses) apparently in the belief that Brehm described it in Calcarius. They do not give an actual citation for the name (that I can find).
• H&M 3^rd:780 also cites "Brehm, 1826" without parentheses presumably following BWP?
• Hussell, D. J. T., and R. Montgomerie. 2002. Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus). In The Birds of North America, No. 656 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. cite "(Brehm, 1826)" with no further details.
• The Richmond Index shows that the original combination was Emberiza subcalcarata.

• The original spelling of the subspecfic epithet ends in -y, not -ii. Edward Dickinson has confirmed this by examining the original description, and his confirmation supports what is published in the Richmond Index.

• Conventionally cited to 1888 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:121 (1934) ; H&M 3^rd:59; HBW 2:543 (1994)).
• The actual dates of publication of the J.Orn. during this period are extremely problematic. Delays of between 3 and 9 or more months between the "imprint date" and the actual date of publication being one of the problems.
• However in this instance there is very good published evidence to support the interpretation that this name was not published until 1888. The Richmond Index, as well as the unpublished notes on Dates of Publication point repeatedly to a note in the Ibis 1891:616 where evidence is published concerning the actual apparent dates of availability for the J.Orn. during this period. The 1888 Oct. number (184) containing this description was not recieved at the London Zoological Society until Feb. 23, 1889 (virtually a 4 month delay).
• Edward Dickinson (in litt. maintains that the imprint date is the appropriate date to use according to his interpretation of the Code. (He relies on the French text of Art. 21.2 French text "est à adopter comme correcte en l'absence de preuve du contraire"). The corresponding English text is "is adopted to be correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary.", so the difference hinges on the distinction between "evidence" and "preuve" (proof), a difference which encompasses the minor and the profound.
• The publishing history of the J.Orn. is vastly rich in evidence of delays and irregularities, and some of the evidences can be regarded as tantamount to proofs, but most, so far, are not.

• H&M 3^rd:384 dates this to 1869, though this was published in 1868. This error results from lack of understanding of the (changing, confusing and inconsistent) orthography used in the Peters Checklist volumes. Other examples of this erroneous interpretation are corrected (e.g. Frederickena unduligera unduligera on p.380. But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:574 has the date correct as 1868.

• H&M 3^rd:382 dates this to 1869, though this was published in 1868. This error results from lack of understanding of the (changing, confusing and inconsistent) orthography used in the Peters Checklist volumes. Other examples of this erroneous interpretation are corrected (e.g. Frederickena unduligera unduligera on the previous page (p.380). But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:558 has the date correct as 1868.

• The sparkline following genus citation shows the distribution of the (sorted) dates of description for the taxa included in the genus.
• 1758 and 2006 are included in the plots for reference, but only 1758 is shown (v.i.).
• Taxa after 1858 (a date chosen arbitrarily, and 100 years after Linnaeus' Systema Nat. ed.10) initially were red but I have tried another approach (2006.10.02).
• With the new approach all the data are gray, and I include a datum for the current year, but plot it as white so that it does not show. This should give all the plots the same total range. {Note: it looks to me like I may need to "start" all the sparkline plots by making sure that the 0 point is always present; unfortunately, I dont think I can plot an initial point as white, which I would prefer to do... I must experiment more with this.}.
• Another point deserves mention. when subspecies are present, the plots over-represent the data, in that the dates are plotted not only for the species, but for the nominate subspecies (and those two dates are necessarily identical). If I did each of these entirely by hand, I could eliminate one of these dates, but as I have a semi-automated script for extracting and printing the data in useable form, the problem of removing just these duplicates is not so simple (or at least not as simple as I am.). Nevertheless, even with the "over-represented" data, the overall pattern may hopefully be present in a manner that is interesting.
• The whole thing, of course, may be a waste of time, but without trying one will never know.
• Sparklines are generated using Joe Gregorio's Bitworking site
• Sparklines, a data tool which flows from the genius of Ed Tufte, are useful for summarizing information in a small space, they will be useful or interesting here is, at the moment, uncertain.

Peters Checklist 11 appears to be inconsistent in dating publications from volume 6 of the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland. On page 432, Acanthiza squamata from p.248 of that work is dated to 1890, while on p. 412 Sericornis gutturalis from p.244 of the same work is dated to 1889. The Richmond Index shows that both names were published in pt.V of volume VI, and dates both to 1889.
• H&M 3^rd follows the Peters Checklist in this apparent inconsistency. In neither case is documentation or support given for the dates used.
• It seems clear that 1889 must be the imprint date for this volume, and thus the burden of published proof would appear to rest with those who propose a date other than 1889.
• I follow the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 8:235 gives 1837.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
• My copy of this work has an imprint date of 1838 on the title page.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):275 (Amadon), lists the original combination as Cathartes aura septentrionalis, such a trinomen would, it seems to me, be quite remarkable in 1839.
• The Richmond Index confirms that the original combination was Cathartes septentrionalis, and this is also shown in the AOU CL 5^th Ed. p.98.

• Previously placed in Thyromanes.
• I follow the AOU CL 47^th Supplement, whose note in this matter reads:

  Placed in the genus Thyromanes by Oberholser (1898) because of similarities
  to Thyromanes bewickii in bill structure. Phillips (1986) use the specific
  name insularis Lawrence and placed the species in Troglodytes; see
  Banks and Browning (1995) for comments on nomenclature. It is here placed in
  Troglodytes because of an analysis of the mitochondrial ND2 gene (Martinez
  Gomez et al. 2005) reveals that it is part of the T. aedon complex. Howell
  and Webb (1995) treated the species in Troglodytes on the basis of voice,
  behavior, and plumage.

• Treated as a full species in Troglodytes by IOC World Bird List (2.1)
• Treated as a full species in Thryomanes by H&M 3^rd:636, through Corrigenda 8.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):334 lists the date for this taxon as 1875, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:106; as well as HBW 2:150.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of 1877 for this. Initially I followed this, but the collation of names from this source suggest that 1875 would appear to be more probable.
• Voisin C, Voisin J-F. 2001. "Liste des types d'oiseaux des collections du Musém national d'Histoire naturelle de Paris. 8: Rapaces diurnes (Accipitridés), première partie." Zoosystema 23(1):173-190. list this bird to 1875, giving the citation I have here.

• This genus is proposed for resurrection by Bridge ES, Jones AW, & Baker AJ. 2006. "A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution." Mol.Phylogenet.Evol. 35:459-469.
• Birdge et al. actually propose the genus group name as Sternula Gould 1843, based on his PZS article in which, among other things S. nereis is described. However, that name is preoccupied by Sternula Boie 1822. Boie includes Sterna minimus Linnaeus = S. albifrons Pallas as the type (by monotypy), so it appears that Sternula Boie may well be appropriate for the role sought by Bridges et al.. On that basis I tentatively (and with considerable reluctance) include it here, but it is for Bridges et al. to confirm or deny that this is appropriate.

• The treatment here is substantially different from H&M 3^rd which "take[s] a broad view of the genus Sterna" (p.149 fn.3).
• The treatment here largely follows HBW 3 (1996) and Bridge ES, Jones AW, & Baker AJ. 2006. "A phylogenetic framework for the terns (Sternini) inferred from mtDNA sequences: implications for taxonomy and plumage evolution." Mol.Phylogenet.Evol. 35:459-469.

• Conventionally cited to Brehm alone (e.g. HBW 3:526 (van Gils & Wiersma); Peters Checklist 2:286).
• However, Zimmer (p.89,90), and Schleneker 2004 (p.35) make it clear that Schilling was also an author for Band 3.
• I have not seen the O.D. but the Code (Art. 50.1) states that unless the text makes it clear that the name or act is the resposibility of only one person then the authority should be attribeted to the author's of the work. (This article of the Code is so very badly worded, that some member or members of the Commission must, in my opinion, be either deeply embarrased, or profoundly ignorant. (both are states with which I personally have a great deal of familiarity).

• Sometimes cited as
  • Charadrius mongolus stegmanni Stresemann 1940 Orn.Monatsb. 48 p.55
  but it appears that the Portenko publication has priority.

• An interesting and confusing situation here. The original Ibis 1859 description is in an article:

  XXXIII. List of Birds observed and collected during a Voyage in
  	the Red Sea. By Dr. THEODOR VON HEUGLIN. Edited and
  	translated by Dr. G. HARTLAUB. 

  On p. 342 the relavent text reads:

  45. LANIUS SOMALICUS, Hartl. n. sp.
  	Above, fine black, except the middle of back being transversely
  variegated with grey and whitish; below, white without any rose-
  tint.  Tail much like that of L. minor  1st November, 1857,
  I killed two birds of this kind on a marshy and well-wooded plain
  near Bender-Gam in the country of the Ker-Singeli-Somals.
  Both were afterwards lost during a fight. Size of L. minor. The
  female above more of a dirty fuliginous colour.
  	[There can be no doubt about this being a new species.— ED.]

• So Hartlaub lists himself as the author, but can only be working from Heuglin's description (as both birds were lost "during a fight"). The description itself is peculiar with the locality information seeming to interrupt the physical description which then resumes.
• The roles of Hartlaub and Heuglin in this matter remain speculative, but as it seems certain that Heuglin's description (with evidently peculiar editing) is that which is employed, I include his name in the authority.
• Special thanks to Edward Dickinson for sending along a scan of the article with original description, which enabled me to finally understand the nature of the controversy and confusion here.

• Systematics follows Robbins MB & Zimmer KJ. 2005. "Taxonomy, vocalisations and natural history of Philydor dimidiatum (Furnariidae), with comments on the systematics of Syndactyla and Simoxenops." BBOC 2005 125(3):212-228.
• Previous genus

  Simoxenops (m.) Chapman 1937 Auk 54 p.208 Citation

  subsumed in Syndactyla.

• Peters Checklist 12:375 (Finn Salomensen) lists this as 1861.
• The Richmond Index shows that it was published in Feb. 1862.
• H&M 3^rd:432 initially listed this as 1861, following the Peters Checklist error. This was corrected in Corrigenda 2.1

• Peters Checklist 2:168 list this taxon as Ortygonax rytirhynchos (Vieillot) Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat., 28, 1819, p.549; with a comment that Peters believed that it was identifiable, and not unidentifiable as claimed by Zimmer.
• HBW 3:193 simply states that "P. rytirhynchos is unidentifiable", suggesting (wrongly I am sure) that they are unaware of or uninterested in the postion that Peters took regarding this name.
• H&M 3^rd:125 which is usually fastidious in commenting on its differences from Peters checklist makes no mention of or reference to this controversy, or of Peters' position.

• Often written with a single "i", as scotti, though the original description clearly has a double "i" (-ii) ending.
• The AOU 5^th Ed. CL has the correct spelling; the first instance I find of it spelled incorrectly is in HBW 3:167. It is spelled incorrectly in H&M 3^rd:121, but corrected in Corrigenda 2.1

• Michael Rieser notes that most examples given for this citation are wrong, giving the plate as "pl. 11" (eleven) while in fact the plate is "ii" (Roman numeral "two").
• He (Reiser) notes:

  The erroneous interpretation dates as far back as Baird (1860,
  BirdsNAm p.185), who cites "pl. xi, fig. 3." His citation is repeated by
  Baird, Brewer & Ridgway (Hist.N.Am.Birds 2 p.347); Ridgway
  (Bull.U.S.Natl.Mus. no.50 pt4 p.603); and the A.O.U.  Check-list.
   
  The following authors got it right -- they all cite pl. 2: 
  Cabanis & Heine (Mus.Hein. 2 p.68); 
  Bonaparte (Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.189);
  Gray (Gen.Birds 1 p.[249]); 
  Audubon (Orn.Biogr. 4 p.428) pl. 2; and 
  Salvin & Godman (Biol.Centr.-Am.  2 p.62).

• In the AOU CL, this error first appears in the 1931 4^th Edition, and is reproduced thereafter.
• Additionally I (APP) note that even earlier than Baird, 1860. the plate is listed as "xi" in 1858 Baird Rept.Exped.Surv.RR.Pacific (p.185) which appears to me to possibly be the original erroneous occurance.
• Nuttall 1832 1:277 correctly lists the plate as "pl. 2"; additionally it is correctly listed by Coues 1874 (Birds of the NorthWest p.241); as well as by Sclater, PL. 1888. Cat.B.Brit.Mus. 14:32
• Of course the occurance of the error "pl. 11" in Peters Checklist 8:148 (Traylor) ensures its perpetuation by most modern authors.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:177 and HBW 4:218 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.
• HBW 4218 dates this citation to 1873. Understandable confusion as this volume, in twelve issues was published from 1871 to 1873. This portion of the volume was clearly issued in 1871 and the HBW citation is incorrect.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:176 and HBW 4:218 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.
• HBW 4218 dates this citation to 1873. Understandable confusion as this volume, in twelve issues was published from 1871 to 1873. This portion of the volume was clearly issued in 1871 and the HBW citation is incorrect.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:36 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177.
• 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.

• Previously lepidus and optatus were treated as subspecies of saturatus.
• King. 2005. BBOC 125(1):48-55. discusses the subspecies of Cuculus saturatus and presents data and arguments for regarding the three subspecies as full species, based on voice, morphology and range.
• Unfortunately, King does not discuss the nomenclatural situation surrounding optatus Gould/horsfieldi Moore, and treats the taxon as Cuculus horsfieldi Moore, 1857. Schodde and Mason 1997, have argued that C. horsfieldi Moore, 1857 is a junior synonym of C. optatus Gould 1845. Until I am aware of arguments that counter Schodde and Mason's position, I follow their interpretation.

• Described by Hargitt in the genus Campophilus.
• Treated by Peters Checklist 6:231 in Phloeoceastes.
• H&M 3^rd:326 has "(Hargitt)", and thus must interpret Campophilus as a distinct valid genus, though this is not discussed.
• HBW 7:531 does not place the author in parentheses.
• Campophilus is held to be an Agassiz emendation of Campephilus by Cabanis & Heine 1863. Mus.Heine. 4:100, Sherborn Ind.Anim. p.1019, Neave I:562, and the Richmond Index.
• Similarly, the AOU CL 6^th:398 and AOU CL 7^th:346 treat the authority without parentheses.
• Clearly, H&M 3^rd is not simply copying someone else's error, so the basis for the decision not to treat Campophilus as an emendation would appear to warrant some discussion.
• Thanks to Michael Reiser for bringing this to my attention, as I had been perpretrating what appears to me to be an error

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:174 and HBW 4:207 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.

• The original description indicates that the Type specimen was collected by (and thus presumably named for) H. Snehtlage.
• Thus the bird is presumably named for H. Snethalge (a male) and not E. Snethlage (a female), and the species epithet should remain spelled as is.

• Often held to be a subspecies of T. olivaceus (e.g. Peters Checklist 10:181; H&M 3^rd:667).
• Bowie, et al. 2003. indicate reasons for elevating it to full species status. Rauri CK Bowie, Paulette Bloomer, Phillip A Clancey, Timothy M Crowe. 2003. "The Karoo Thrush (Turdus smithi Bonaparte 1850), a southern African endemic" Ostrich 74(1&2):1-7.
• Thanks to Dave Donsker for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 10:181 has 1851. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 5:116 to Hist.Nat.Ois.-Mouches 1829.
• This citation is subsequently treated as "holy writ" (HBW 5 :647,685 (K.L. Schuchmann); H&M 3^rd:273
• The Richmond Index lists the 1829 citation, as well as the 1828 citation,
• I see no reason to ignore the 1828 citation, which, if valid, clearly must have priority.

• The spelling of the specific epithet was questioned by van Rootselaar (2002), who felt that since Sam Veasna was a man, the epithet should be spelled samveasnai.
• This is discussed in Duckworth & Alstrom (2004).
• Duckworth JW & Alström P. 2004. "Motacilla samvaesnae is the correct scientific name for the Mekong Wagtail." BBOC 124(4):290-292.

• Conventionally cited (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:68; HBW 1:632) as
  • Pterodroma solandri (Gould) 1844 PZS Pt12 no.133 p.57
• McAllan 2004 points out that this part of the PZS was published in Sept. 1844, and Gould's description in the Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. preceeded it, coming out in May of 1844. McAllan's understanding of the dates conforms with the data in the Richmond Index.
• McAllan IAW, 2004. Notornis. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." 51:125-130. (see p.126)

• Peters Checklist 8:165 (Traylor) lists this date as 1858.
• This portion of the volume was published in 1859 as indicated by the Richmond Index, as well as by Duncan.

• A very confusing situation where this taxon is often cited to 1841, 1844, or 1845, as well as being cited to different page numbers. This confusion arises from a peculiar publishing history that has recently been clarified, though some mysteries still remain.
• For a discussion of this complex case, see Dickinson EC, et al.. 2004. "The dating of names proposed in the first Supplement to Thomas Jerdon's Catalogue of the birds of the peninsula of India.". Bull.Zool.Nomen. 61(4):214-224..
Jerdons Cat 1841 BullZoolNom 6:214-224.pdf

• Originally published as Uromyias agraphia squamigera.
• Listed by H&M 3^rd:353 as A. a. squamigerus
• Listed by HBW 9:283 as A. a. squamigerus
• Corrected by H&M 3^rd: Corrigenda 3 to A. a. squamiger

• Spelled Perdicula argoondah salimali (one "i") in H&M 3^rd:55.
• The Richmond Index shows this as spelled with an "-ii" ending, and so it is also spelled in HBW 2:513.
• The H&M 3^rd:Corrigenda 3.1 corrects this to salimalii.

• Conventionally given as 1935, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• My understanding is that the entire volume 87 for 1935 was not published until 1936. This understanding is from a letter sent my by Robin Sinn, Public Affairs Librarian for the Academy (May 16, 1994).

• Peters Checklist 8:120 (Traylor) gives a date of 1874.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1875.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives April 1875.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Listed by Peters Checklist as 1883.
• The Richmond Index, and subsequently Duncan indicate that this part (Pt4) of this volume was published in April of 1884.

• Peters Checklist 8:28 (Traylor) lists the date as "1861".
• H&M 3^rd:351 also gives a date of 1861 with no correction to 1862 in Corrigenda 2.
• The Richmond Index gives Feb. 1, 1862 for this Part of the volume.
• Duncan (1937) lists April 1862 for this part.

• The original description reads:

  		28. PACHYRUNCHUS Spixii.
  
    Male. -- Above, black, with the rump and tail covers
  cinereous: beneath entirely cinereous: crown glossy
  steel-black: wings and tail, black, margined and tipt
  with white: spurious quill between the first and second.
    Female -- Above, pale olive, where the male is grey:
  lesser wing covers, and scapular quills, edged with
  yellowish white: greater wing covers, and lesser quills,
  edged with ochraceous: under plumage greyish white,
  tinged with yellow: no spurious quill.
  	Inhabits Brazil? : Mus. Paris. Nob.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  290		TWO CENTURIES AND A QUARTER
  	Crown glossy steel-black, changing to unglossed black on the
  nape, neck, and interscapulars; from whence to the base of the
  tail feathers the colour is dark cinereous: all the under parts
  pure uniform cinereous, rather paler than the rump: bill short,
  broad.
  

• Peters Checklist 12:122 (Snow) lists this as having a print date of 1838, and a publishing date of 1837.
• This appears to be correct. The Richmond Index lists this taxon to "April 1837" (CWR's quote marks), with a note "see P.Z.S. 1839, p.162".

• The citation is usually given to Sclater and the PZS (e.g. Peters 3:165; HBW 4:366,615) as:
  • Cyclopsitta gulielmitertii suavissima Sclater,PL 1876 PZS Pt3 p.520 pl.54
  However this Part of the PZS is dated to October, 1876. In the abscence of a day specified or evidence given for the day it was in existence as a published work, the ICZN (1999) Article 21.3 indicates that the date to be adopted in such a case is the last day of the month (Tuesday 31 Oct, 1876).
  • However, as noted by the Richmond Index, Salvadori published a full description of this bird in Ann.Mus.Civ.Stor.Nat. with an imprint date of October 7, 1876 (Sat.), and under the name Cyclopsittacus suavissimus "Sclat.".
  • Edward Dickinson writes (2004.10.17):

     I have looked into this one and I found a volume of the PZS for 1876 
     in which the wrapper for the part with page 520 in it has been dated,
     in pencilled handwriting "Zoology Dept., 30/10/76".

  • Thus it appears that priority must be assigned to the Salvadori citation.

• Some interesting points on this name which often escape notice.
1. The name is first used on July 9, 1885 in Nature XXXII no.819, on p.238 in the text, where it is a nomen nudem. (It is published as a valid name on Oct. 1 in PZS).
2. In the PZS the name is spelled "P. spengeleri" (emphasis added) contra "spengeli" in the text).
3. The bird is named for Dr W. Spengel, who was the Director of the Bremen Museum at that time, and where the type was held.

• Peters checklist 9:162 cites this as
  • Heterura sylvana Blyth 1845 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 14 p.556
• Murray Bruce points out that the precedent, and thus correct citation is to Hodgson in the issue of PZS published earlier in the same year (1845).

• A confusing situation here, and I am thankful to Murray Bruce for bringing this to my attention.
• Variously spelled sephaniodes and sephanoides by Lesson. Not surprisingly, in addition to questions of prevailing usage, there is confusion (at least on my part) about which use actually has priority. It appears that the "erroneous" spelling sephaniodes may have priority, but little use until de Schaunesee brought it back into use in around 1966, noting that it was in fact the original spelling.
• Additionally I note on the tabular list of plates, kindly supplied by Edward Dickinson (2006.01.22) that the name is spelled stephanoides, adding further confusion to the matter.

• Peters Checklist 6:29 lists the author as Sclater (alone), and this is followed by HBW 7:218 as well as H&M 3^rd:304.
• The Richmond Index gives authority to Sclater & Salvin.
• Also of note: Zimmer 1930 FieldMus.Nat.Hist.Pub.Zool.Ser. 17:303 also cites both Sclater and Salvin as authors of this taxon.
• The facts supporting these contending claims are unknown to me, not having seen the original material.
• Of uncertain importance in considering this question, both Peters Checklist, and H&M 3^rd attribute authorship to both Sclater and Salvin for Crypturus transfasciatus [now =Crypturellus transfasciatus] which is described on the subsequent page and the subsequent plate. As well as for Myiarchus semirufus Sclater,PL & Salvin 1878 PZS Pt1 p.138 pl.11 which is two pages and one plate precedent.
• I interpret the evidence to support CW Richmond and JT Zimmer.

• The page number is given by Peters Checklist 5:243 as p.31, and the copy of the Proceedings I have examined in fact has the sp. nov. description beginning on p.31.
• However, the Richmond Index lists the initial page as p.30. Unfortunately, the copy I have examined has leaf 29,30 removed, so I can neither confirm nor disprove the assertion by Richmond.

• Peters Checklist 7:8 lists this as published in 1879, and gives the citation as "Trans.Linn.Soc.London, Zool.(2), 1 pt.6 1879, p.344"
• The Richmond Index gives the same citation, and dates it to 1877. Other taxa from this volume and part are given by Peters as from 1879.
• Neave 4:111 and Schulze 5(22):3101 also date this to 1877.
• I have not seen this publication, but don't know of any taxa by Sharpe published in it in 1879.
• While I certainly have not disproved the citation given by Peters, I expect that it is an error, and follow the Richmond Index, Neave, and Schulze here.
• H&M 3^rd:336 lists this date as 1879, presumably following Peters.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 3:236 as "A.B. Meyer, Verh.k.k.zool.-bot.Ges.Wien, 34, 1874, p.39."
• The volume number does not appear to correlate correctly with the year. HBW 4:613 gives volume 24 which makes much more sense, and I follow their citation.

• Originally Oreotrochilus chimborazo söderströmi (Peters Checklist 5:93).
• H&M 3^rd:270 spells this soderstromi without comment. HBW 5:623 uses the form soederstroemi.
• I interpreted soederstroemi to be correct, but as pointed out by EC Dickinson (2005.01.28) Söderstrom was Swedish, not German, so the ICZN requirement for changing "ö" to "oe" does not apply.

• Peters Checklist 5:38 has the authors' names without parentheses, giving Chlorostilbon Salvini as the original combination. HBW 5:573 and H&M 3^rd:261 follow Peters in not using parentheses.
• Cabanis and Heine first established salvini in combination with Chlorolampis, not Chlorostilbon (original seen).

• Originally described as "stejenegeri".
• As to the status of the emendation stejnegeri I am uncertain, though I expect that it may be the only name that is used.
The requirement imposed by the ICZN for determination of "prevailing usage" (Glossary) is as follows:

usage, prevailing, n. Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at
least a substantial majority of the most recent authors concerned with the 
relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago their work was published.

The challenge of determining all the usages of a name by "recent" authors is certainly Titanic at the very least, and certainly well beyond my meager capabilities.
• In this instance I will proceed on the unsupported assumption that the name "stejenegeri" has not been much used since it was intially published. This assumption should not be imagined in any way to even remotely satisfy the explicit requirements promulgated by the savants at the ICZN.

• Peters Checklist 6:198 gives the year for this as 1853 and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:318.
• The Ibis did not commence publication until 1859, and Swinhoe would have been 17 years of age in 1853.
• The Richmond Index shows the date to be 1863, and this date is also shown by HBW 7:474.

• Originally described in Dendropicus
• Peters Checklist 6:177 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Dendropicus to be a generic entity different from Dendropios. This is not followed by HBW 7:465 but is by H&M 3^rd:316.
• 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).
     Thus 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.

• Long held in a monotypic genus and prevoiusly listed as:

  Nyctea (f.) Stephens 1826 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 13 pt2 p.62

  • Nyctea scandiaca (Linnaeus) 1758 Syst.Nat.ed.10 p.92

"white plumage, small ear-tufts, dense plumage, short bill, eyes largely
concealed by long and dense feathers, and feathered claws, can be explained as
adaptations to arctic environments.."

• H&M 3^rd:309 spells this "salvadori" (with one "i"), but correct this to salvadorii in the Corrigenda.

• Peters Checklist 13:94 (Mayr & Greenway) lists the date here as 1841.
• The Richmond Index, Zimmer, and Sherborn all show that this part was published in Nov. 1839.

• Worthy of note, and as indicated by HBW 2:255, it was originally spelled simitorquata

• H&M 3^rd:415 gives a date of 1928 for this genus.
• In 1928 Chapman erected the genus Anachilus for this bird. However Anachilus Leconte 1861 Coleoptera made the name unavailable. Chapman provided the replacement name in 1937.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 6:16 as "Proc.Zool.Soc. London, pt.21 1853 (1854), p.123 pl.51" and this citation is followed (without discussion) by HBW 7:561.
• The Richmond Index shows that that portion of the PZS was published on Nov. 14 1854, a fact that Duncan was also able to understand from his researches.
• Sclater also published this in "Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist" where it was published in June of 1854.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 6:15 as "Proc.Zool.Soc. London, pt.21 1853 (1854), p.123" and this citation is followed (without discussion) by HBW 7:561.
• The Richmond Index shows that that portion of the PZS was published on Nov. 14 1854, a fact that Duncan was also able to understand from his researches.
• Sclater also published this in "Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist" where it was published in May of 1854.

• Validity as a subspecies is highly questionable and has been recognized as so since discussed by Stejneger in 1887 Stegneger. 1887. Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 10(609):75-102.
• Also discussed by Olson, 1996. Olson SL. 1996. "H.M.S. Blonde and Hawaiian Ornithology". Arch.Nat.Hist. 23(1):1-41. who points out that Bloxam never actually had a specimen in hand, and that the bird not only has colonized the islands since the arrival of Polynesians, but also does not differ from those of Eurasia and N. America.

• A confusing nomenclatural situation here. The author of the taxon is usually given as Gloger, sometimes as Eversmann or Gray, but it appeared to me the Thunberg's description had priority for this name. Which taxon is involved is another issue.
• Peters Checklist 4:114 gives the citation as
  Strix sibirica "Licht." Gloger, Das Abändern der Vögel, 1833, p. 142.
• This citation is followed by HBW 5:684, and H&M 3^rd:225.
• (Of interest the citation given by Peters Checklist 4:165 for Strix nebulosa lapponica Thunberg 1798, is from the same source as that for Strix sibirica and occurs on the page preceeding that description. Thus it would not appear that this source was unknown to Peters.
• I got a copy of Thunberg's description of Strix sibirica (thanks to Ante Strand in Stockholm) and a copy of that is here. The description "without ears" and "white-bodied" sounds more like Bubo scandiacus.
• Nevertheless, it appears to me that the name Strix sibiricus Gloger is not available for this taxon.
• The next problem will be to try to get a copy of Gloger's description, as it appears from Peter's entry 'Strix sibirica "Licht." Gloger' that Gloger was using a Lichtenstein name , possibly a manuscript name.
• Sharpe in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 2:17 has two owl names sibirica in the synonomy of Bubo turcomanus Eversmann, he has
  • "Strix sibirica, Schl. & Susem. Vög Eur. Taf. 44."
  • "Bubo sibiricus, Gray, Cat. Accipitr. B.M. 1844, p.99; id Gen.B. i. p.37; Bp. Consp. i. p.49; Licht. Nomencl. Av. p.7; Strickl. Orn. Syn. p.213.
• The Bonaparte entry is as follows:

  4. Bubo sibiricus, Eversm. (cinereus err. Gr. - Strix
  	sibirica, Licht. - turcomana ? nec leucomanna, Eversm.
  	Isis, 1839. p.70.) Susemihl, Vög. Eur. t.44. - Mitch.
  	Gen. B. t.13. ex Asia sept. A. praecedenti vix dis-
  	tinctus; coloribus dilutioribus.

• The Stirckland entry is as follows:

  361 a BUBO SIBIRICUS, Eversmann, 1841. -Mus. Brit.
  
  	Bubo sibiricus, Eversm. Addend. - Gray, Gen. B. fol. sp.2.
  	pl. 13; List B. Brit. Mus. p.99-Bonap. Consp. Av. p.49.
  
  	Habitat.-Siberia.

• None of these workers appear to have been aware of Thunberg's name, and it appears that Peters, in turn followed Sharpe, Bonaparte, and Strickland.
• Again, my interpretation is the Strix sibirica Gloger is not an available name.

• Taxon is dated to 1873 by Peters Checklist 4:162; the Richmond Index, and Harris' 1928 Condor 30:73, and Deignan's 1961 Type specimens of Birds in the U.S. Natl. Museum p.157.
• HBW 5:199,686 correctly dates it to 1874.
• H&M 3^rd Ed.:228 dates this to 1873 (though dating Tyto alba guatemalae from earlier in the same work to 1874 (!).
• This number of volume 5 of the Bull.EssexInst. is dated December, 1873, but Banks & Browning 1979. "Correct citations for some North American Bird Taxa." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 92(1):195-203 demonstrate that the latter numbers of this volume were not available until 1874.

• Peters Checklist 4:82 has a typographic error, spelling this sorocula.

• Often cited as Chasen & Hoogerwerf (e.g. HBW 2:547, and John Penhalurick's Bird Data Base.
• Cited by the Richmond Index as "Chasen in Chasen & Hoogerwerf" and by H & M 3^rd as Chasen, which I follow.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:143 (JC Greenway, Jr.) as occuring in volume "9" of the Rev.Franc.Orn.
• The date and page are correct but the other details are not. The journal is Ois.Rev.FranceOrn. (not Rev.Franc.Orn.) and the volume is 11. (fide APP).

• Cited by HBW 2:513,575 as Whistler 1943 J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc. 44:208.
• H & M also gives 1943.
• I follow the citation from the Richmond Index here.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 2:61 as "Orn.Mitt., 1, 1910, p.108"; and HBW 2 duplicates this citation.
• The Richmond Index gives the citation here as "Messager Ornitholgique [!Russian] I, no.2, May. 1/14, 1910, 108 (in text)". The page number is identical. See the entry for Mess.Orn. for an explanation of the titles.
• The citation for Tetrastes bonasia sibiricus (v.i.) , has the same relationship between "Orn.Mitt." and "Messager Ornitholoqiue".

• Cited by Peters Checklist 2:38 as "Orn.Mitt., 7, 1916, p.224"; and HBW 2 duplicates this citation.
• The Richmond Index gives the citation here as "Messager Ornitholgique [!Russian] VII, no.4, Dec. 15/28, 1916, 224 (in text)".
• The original, (seen) says "(in Russian) we call this (in Latin) Tetrastes bonasia sibiricus nom. emend."

• Sibley & Monroe 1990 treat Centropus burchelli as distinct from superciliosus.
• That taxon is:
  • Centropus burchelli Swainson 1838 Anim.Menag.(1837) p.321
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.04.03):

  Centropus burchelli Swainson 1838 Anim.Menag.(1837) p.321 
  There is still no further evidence to refute the claim that this is merely a race of C. superciliosus:
  Dowsett R.J. & Dowsett-Lemaire F. 1993. "Comments on the taxonomy of some Afrotropical bird species."
  Tauraco Res. Rep. 5:323-389 (p. 335).
  The identical voice of the various forms, and the presence of hybrids in zones of parapatry, 
  continue to be the argument for lumping them.

Franklin's description reads:

95. CERTHIA SPILONOTA. Sit. suprà griseo-fusca, albo maculata  ;
	capite albo graciliter striato; gulâ abdomineque albidis, hoc
	fusco fasciato ; caudâ albo fuscoque fasciatà.
	Longitudo 5½.
  The tail of this bird is soft and flexible, in which respect it differs
   from the type of the genus, but it agrees in all others.
   

• Note that the description appears on p.121, not p.125. The Peters Checklist 12:160 (JC Greenway) shows the page as 125, an error.

Vigors' description reads:

GARRULUS STRIATUS. Garr. pallidè brunneus, subtus, pallidor;
	corporis supra subtusque plumis in medio albo longitudinaliter
	striatis; cristâ verticali, remigibus, rectricibusque unicoloribus.
  This latter species was observed to deviate in general colour and
markings from the European species, although accoring in form;
and in the former characters to exhibit a manifest approach to the
Nutcrackers, or the genus Nucifraga of Brisson.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 1:389 as "p. 72", an error for p.75
• This error is perpetuated in HBW 2:574 (AC Kemp).
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett for bringing this to my attention.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N. 168 	MOTACILLA (striata) supra cinerea, sub-
	tus alba, capite colloque fusco striatis, pennis
	fuscus.  Magn. Phœnicuri.  Rostrum nigricat.
	Cauda æqualis, cinerascens.  Remiges interio-
	res limbo exteriori pallido, omnes cauda ni-
	griores.  Caput antici, collumque subtus prae-
	ter gulam, & pectoris pars lineolis longitu-
	dinalibus.  Cantu excellit.  
	

• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Valt hier." "hier" is here in Dutch. There is a footnote to the locality data. The footnote reads 'Called "Hofzanger, Basterd Nagtegaal" in "Catalogue."'
My guess is that "Nagtegaal" might mean nightengale.
• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):336-7.

• This name appears simple, but linguistic and nomenclatural difficulties lie beneath the placid surface.
• The name is considered to be based on a Latin word sericeus meaning silken. (see for example Jobling, 1991).
• The word is attributed to the historian Florus by Lewis & Short A Latin Dictionary, Oxford, 1879. Their entry says:
  "(sericeus, a, um, a false read. for sericis, Flor. 3,11,8)"
• I tried to find the word used in Flory, and the closest I can get are two lines that use sericisque. They are:
  1 1, 24, 1| Hic ille positis aureis sericisque tentoriis sub ipso freti
  2 1, 46, 1| Surenas ostendere signa auro sericisque vexillis vibrantia.
  
• Glare, 1982 which is certainly a "standard Latin dictionary" does not list the word, raising the question as to whether it is a valid Classical or Medeival Latin word.
• Normand David (in litt. 2002.09.30) writes:
  "To me, the word sericeus is obviously adjectival. My Latin-French dictionary has the adjective sericeus (-a, -um), meaning "silken", with the same reference as in Lewis (the historian Florus 3, 11, 8).

  Why Glare (not at home here) lists only sericus I don't know. I suspect that he considered sericeus as a variant of sericus.

  At any rate, sericeus can easily by viewed as the Greek serikos [σηρικος] that was latinized with the addition of the latin adjectival suffix -eus (-ea, -eum). Non-latin words to which are added Latin adjectival suffixes are adjectives (Mexico, mexicanus; etc.).

  Note also (see Peters IX:286) that Criniger sericea "Muller" Blyth 1865 is now Hypsipetes criniger sericeus."

• Therefore, it appears reasonable to accept sericea either on the somewhat shaky (in my view) grounds that it is a valid Latin adjective, or on the grounds that it is a non-Latin word with a Latin adjectival suffix added.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 11:337 as a subspecies of F. hypoleuca.
• Raised to species level on the basis of mtDNA analysis.
  Ref.: Satre, Glenn-Peter, Thomas Borge and Truls Moum. 2001. "A new bird species? The taxonomic status of 'the Atlas Flycatcher' assessed from DNA sequence analysis." Ibis 143:494-497.
• The title above would appear incorrect, in that Bonaparte proposed the taxon as new in 1850.
• His description reads:

  "*2. M. speculigera, Selys, Mus.
  Longchamps. ex Afr.
  sept. Nigerrima; subtus alba: fronte, scapularibus, specu-
  loque alarum albis: collari nullo. Media inter affinissimas M. 
  albicapillam et collarem!"
  

• Marek Kuziemko writes:
  "Scenopoeetes dentirostris (Ramsay,EP) 1876 Often placed in Ailuroedus, but the DNA sequence data support the assignment to Scenopoeetes. Kusmierski, et al. (1993. J. Evol. Biol. 6:737-752) sequenced a segment of the cytochrome b gene from 13 species of bowerbirds. They concluded that the bowerbirds are monophyletic and not close to the birds-of-paradise. The bowerbirds formed two groups:
  Ailuroedus buccoides, melanotis and crassirostris in one group;
  the other species in a second group that divides into three clusters:
  1. Scenopoeetes
  2. Prionidura, Amblyornis and Archboldia
  3. Sericulus, Ptilonorhynchus and Chlamydera.
  They place Archboldia in Amblyornis."

• Jobling gives the derivation (p.211) as "Gr. skene a house; poietes a maker."
• "poietes" (of Jobling), is ποιητος [poietes: one who makes, a maker] which is masculine. Hence the genus group name Scenepoeetes is masculine.
• dentirostris appears to me to end in the Latin variable adjective rostris based on David & Gosselin. 2002. BBOC 122(1):36, where they state: "Adjectives derived from the above Latin nouns would end in a recognizable suffix (e.g. -caudatus, -dorsalis, -rostratus, -rostris, etc.)." I interpret -rostris to be the masculine nominative singular form of the variable adjective.

• Often spelled C. spinicauda (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe, HBW)
• Originally Cypselus spinicaudus Temminck 1839.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):37 indicate the spelling should be Chaetura spinicaudus.
• It appears to me from their argument that spinicaudus of Temminck is a noun phrase, -caudus being a modified ending to the feminine noun cauda. The original spelling of the noun phrase stands, and spinicaudus is correct.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Chaetura spinicaud[a,us] does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelled C. subruficapillus (e.g. Sibley & Monroe).
• Originally Drymoica subruficapilla Smith 1843.
• 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 Cisticola subrificapilla. Their argument is that it " should not be changed to C. subruficapillus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Cisticola subrificapilla occurs in the Zoo. Rec..

• Usually regarded as conspecific with N. macrorhynchos Gmelin.
• Rasmussen and Collar (HBW 7:105) hold this to be valid as a full species, based on distinctive vocalizations and appearance in an apparently isolated population. They note that additional studies to evaluate its status as a species are appropriate.

• Sibley & Monore in Suppl. place sclateri as a group under punensis.
• However, sclateri is senior to punensis. Thus I interpret sclateri to be the name for the species.

Scytalopus sanctaemartae

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:284.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe & Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:286.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe & Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:287.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe & Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

Authorship

• Usually attributed to White, but see Nelson EC. 1998. Archives of Nat. Hist. 25(2): 149-211. making the case that White is not the author of any of the taxa in this work.

• Peters Checklist 4:77 lists Milne-Edwards as the author.
• This approach is followed by HBW 5:73, as well as H&M 3^rd:219
• The Richmond Index lists Grandidier, A in Milne-Edwards
• Examination of a copy of the work in question demonstrates that the article is in fact by Milne-Edwards, and that the footnote in which the taxon is named reads (in part) as follows:

  M. Grandidier a donné à l'espèce unique qui compose ce
  genre le nom de H. Soumagnei, et il lue assigne les caractères
  suivants: « Ce Strigidé est tout entier d'un roux ferrugineux
  moucheté de noir. Chaque plume des parties supérieures porte le
  long du rachis deux ou trois taches foncées, plus nombreuses, main moins
  grandes la tête que sur le dos; celles de la face inférieure, ainsi
  que les tectrices des ailes et les pennes de la queue, n'en prtent qu'une seule
  située à leur pointe. Les barbes internes des rémiges sont
  coupées de petites raies noires. Le disque facail est d'une teinte
  vineuse pâle, le conque auditive est trè-developpée et
  pourvue d'un opercule énorme. Longueur totale om,3o, aile om,2o, 
  queue om,107, bec (en suivant son arête) om,o36, tarse om,oo6, doigt médian om,o3,
  pouce om,o15.

• I interpret this to be a direct quote of Grandidier's text, as indicated by the «.
• ICZN 1999 50.1.1 states:

  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. ...

• I interpret that situation to hold here, and consider the author of this name to be Grandidier.

• Peters Checklist 4:87 has "1848".
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that this portion of Vol.4 for 1848 was published in 1849.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
• Described in Hemiprocne. (fide APP AMNH). Evidently used here as a noun in apposition.

• Peters Checklist 1:441 gives the conventional citation as Vigors, 1833 List Animals Gardens Zool. Soc. Lond.
• see {Olson, SL 1989. "David Douglas and the original description of the Hawaiian Goose." Elepaio 49(8):49-51.}.

• Peters Checklist 6:175 lists this date as 1783, apparently a typographic error.

• Peters Checklist 7:148 indicates Vol.3 of Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} which indicates vol.1 Livr.5.

• Peters Checklist 15:188 has "1835".
• {Sherborn, 1902} indicates that this was published in Sep. of 1834.

Corvus sinaloae

Not treated as a valid species by Peters Checklist Vol.15 (see p.269).

• Peters Checklist 2:79 has 1857, and this is copied by HBW 7:256.
• The Library at the Acad. Nat Sci. in Philadelphia confirms that this was published in 1858. The paper was presented at a meeting on Dec. 29, 1857, but not published until the next year.

Scytalopus speluncae Citation

Peters Checklist 7:284 indicates Vol. 3 of Mem.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb., I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} which indicates vol. 1 Livr.5.

• The Peters Checklist 2:275 has 1830 without comment or discussion.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 has a penciled note "publ. 1831".
• Additionally Sherborn lists this taxon date as "1830(1831)".
• The general convention has been to follow the Peters Checklist date, evidently dismissing the Sherborn and Richmond data as not worthy of mention.
• [2010.01.03] Motivated by Dr David Donsker's questions on this the facts seem to be resolved. Fascicle 12 (the final fascicle) in Tomo 4 contains the continuation of Bonaparte's article. This fascicle contains a final article dated 4 Gennajo 1831, and on the Imprimature page near the end bears the dates 10 Augusti and 11 Augusti 1831.
• There is some evidence (from Sherborn) that Bonaparte may have issued a "separate" of his work, thus keeping open the possibility that 1830 might still be the correct date for this taxon. However, use of 1830 for this name certainly requires demonstration that a separate was published in 1830, and that separate satisfied the criteria for publication.
• Absent demonstration of the presence and character of an 1830 separate, 1831 is the correct date for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 7:127 has 1935.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that this portion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.

• Peters Checklist 9:334 has 1831 and does not give the livraison number.
• It is livr.5, and hence 1830.

• Peters Checklist 3:32 lists 1810, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Turnix sylvatica 1789

• Peters Checklist 2:143 has 1787. This is followed without comment by HBW 3:53 and H&M 3^rd:129
• The title imprint includes both 1787 and 1789; {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} list the date as 1789.
• The Willughby Society Reprint of this work has a forward by Alfred Newton, and he states (p.iv)

   
  	"It remains to say that the following Memoire was published at Paris in
  	1789,"
  	

  It is the Memoire for the Year 1787, but not published until 1789.
2013.09.21
• The title page can be seen here: Hist.Acad.R.Sci.Paris["1787"] T.P.

Columbina talpacoti 1810

Peters Checklist 3:109 lists 1811. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Tauraco 1779

Peters Checklist 4:3 has 1779, which I believe is correct. Often dated as 1797; this may result from a 1797 reprint of the original work. Sometimes dated as 1799 (e.g. {Richmond, et al. 1992}), though the basis for this is unclear.

Actinodura sodangorum

Not in Peters Checklist.

Syma

Not used in Peters Checklist Vol.5. As Halcyon

Galucidium sanchezi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.

Gallinula silvestris

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Sturnella superciliaris 1850

Peters Checklist 14:175 has 1851?. See {Browning & Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 9:379 spells this schulzii.
• Sibley & Monroe, 1990 refer to Ridgely & Tudor. 1989. The Birds of South America. vol.1 p.131 for the correct spelling. This spelling -- with one "i" -- is also as it is shown in the Richmond Index. (but see below).
• [2009.09.20]In H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4, Dickinson et al. state:

  Cinclus schulzii: spelling, not schulzi [error in H&M 1; OD checked]"

  .
• The Richmond Index cards actually show two spellings for this on two separate cards.
  1. Cinclus Schulzi (attributed to p.182 alone) and also noting J.Orn. 1884 32:431. [My copy of this volume of J.Orn. shows the name rendered "Cinclus Schulzi" (single -i ending).]
  2. Cinclus Schulzii attributed to pp."182-3 (in text)" so it is possible the name may appear more than once? and perhaps with two spellings?
• My examination of the Orn.Centralbl. 7:182,183 confirms Dickinson's observation. The name is found (p.183) spelled Schulzii. The confusions here may have resulted from the later J.Orn. reproduction of the description with the subsequent incorrect -i spelling.
• The same pairing of alternate spellings can be found for Phloeotomus Schulzii also found in the same two notes in Orn.Centralbl. and J.Orn. In CBBM 18:517, Hargitt (1890) uses "Phloeotomus schulzi" and cites the J.Orn. reproduction of the description (1883) rather than the first occurance (Orn.Centralbl. 1882) where it is shown as Ph.[oleotomus] Schulzii.
....; 2009.09.20

• Peters Checklist 11:351 has 1940 (sic).

Saxicola 1802

• Peters Checklist 10:104 has 1803.
• Uncertainty remains regarding the publishing history of this work.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists this taxon as published in 1802
• Mathews lists all of Vol.1 as 1802
• {Zimmer, 1926} indicates that at least some of Vol. 1 was published in 1802.
• The AOU checklist 7^th ed. follows 1802.

Poeoptera stuhlmanni Citation

Peters checklist vol.15 p.86 gives the volume as "11", evidently a typo for 1.

• Peters Checklist 15:101 (= Amadon 1962) lists only "p.65".
• H&M 3^rd:657, Corrigenda 2.1 instructs the reader to "add brackets; described in Lamprocolius".
• The Richmond Index however, has a card for Lamprotornis superbus E. Rüppell 1845, and cites Syst.Uber.Vogel.Nord-Ost-Afrika's pp.65, 75, pl.26. [Note, for reasons that are unclear, I do not have a copy of this card in my images scanned from the Index at the Smithsonian. The card is definitely present in the Microfiche set.]
• Dr Richard Banks confirms (in litt 2009.06.22) that the species is described in Lamprotornis, and is listed in that genus on all 3 pages.
• The basis for the assertion that this was "described in Lamprocolius" is not clear to me.

• Peters Checklist 15:117 (= Amadon 1962) has "1877"; this was published in 1875.
• H&M 3^rd:653 iterates the date from the Peters Checklist.
• This error undoubtedly stems from Sharpe's citation in the CBBM 13:96.

Pseudochelidon sirintarae

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.9.

Hirundo striolata Citation

Peters Checklist 9:117 gives Temminck & Schlegel 1847 in Siebold's Fauna japonica Aves p.33. I follow the citation given by the Richmond Index, which is 3 years prior.

Phyllastrephus strepitans Citation

Peters Checklist 9:265 lists vol. 1. This is from volume IV no.18, Sept. 15 of the Orn.Centralb.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.11.
• Alstrom and Olsson, Ibis 141:545-568. 1999. discuss part of the Seicercus complex.
• Martens, et al. disagree with Alstrom and Olsson on the interpretation of this group.
• See Alstrom and Olsson. Ibis. 2000 142:495-500.

Stymphalornis

The taxonomic placement of this taxon is tentative, and based on the information that it is evidently "related to Formicivora". The generic status is evidently conferred on the basis of peculiar syringeal morphology. The title of the paper in which the Genus is erected and the species described is: Um novo Formicariidae do Sul do Brasil (Aves, Passeriformes).

I am thankful to Norbert Bahr for information regarding this matter.

Loriculus sclateri

Often treated as conspecific with L. amabilis. Treated as a full species by Collar in HBW. Vol.4.

• 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 and recognized the following species as components:
  • punctatus
  • stictocephalus
  • sticturus
  • pelzelni
  • ambiguus

• 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 and recognized the following species as components:
  • punctatus
  • stictocephalus
  • sticturus
  • pelzelni
  • ambiguus

Myrmotherula snowi

• Whitney & Pacheco (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 809-819 provided evidence for species status of Myrmotherula snowi Teixeira & Gonzaga, 1985 (described as a subsp. of M. unicolor), as have already done Collar et al. (1992), Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Whitney & Pacheco (1995).
• Myrmotherula unicolor snowi Teixeira & Gonzaga, 1985
  Teixeira, D. M. & L. P. Gonzaga: Uma nova subespécie de Myrmotherula unicolor (Menétries, 1835) (Passeriformes, Formicariidae) do nordeste do Brasil. Boletim do Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Nova Série, Zoologia, No. 310: 1-16 (2)

• Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.14):
  In his monograph on pittas and broadbills, Lambert (1996) split Eurylaimus samarensis from E. steerii , based on morphological differences.

• Much revision is going on in this group. With a lack of agreement between Martens & Eck and Alstrom & Olsson
• Norbert Bahr has helped bring this to my attention. Per Alstrom has been persistently helpful in helping me understand this unfolding mystery.
• Martens & Eck give a table of their interpretation of valid taxa and the different taxonomic positions in Watson(1986), Martens et al.(1999) and Alstrom & Olsson(1999):

  Taxon          Watson             Martens et al.            A & O
  
  burkii         S. b. burkii       S. burkii                 S. burkii
  whistleri      S. b. whistleri    S. (w.) whistleri         S. w. whistleri
  nemoralis      S. b. burkii       S. (w.) nemoralis         S. w. nemoralis
  valentini      S. b. valentini    S. valentini              S. v. valentini
  latouchei      S. b. valentini    no material available     S. v. latouchei
  soror          -                  S. "latouchei"	    S. soror sp. nov.
  omeiensis      -                  S. omeiensis sp. nov.     S. tephrocephalus
  tephrocephalus S. b. tephroceph.  S. tephrocephalus         S. tephrocephalus
  distinctus     S. b. distinctus   S. distinctus             S. tephrocephalus
  

• There are, of course, some differences in the evaluation of several taxa. Their 1999 paper with the description of omeiensis includes supplementary genetic material. They point to the fact that supplementary material from different areas is needed before the relations can be determined with confidence.
• In their latest paper (in German) they made some hints on A & O results not fitting their understanding of the puzzle.
• It would appear that A & O would agree about a "lack of fit" in the interpretations. Their Letter to the Ibis ("Golden-spectacled Warbler systematics" Alstrom & Olsson. Ibis. 2000 142(3): 495-500) discusses this issue in detail. The support of their interpretation is extensive, with zoogeographic, sonographic, morphological and DNA data, as well as wide personal experience with the birds in the field, and study of type specimens.
• They recognize:

  S. burkii (Burton, 1836)
  S. whistleri Ticehurst, 1925
  	sspp:	whistleri Ticehurst, 1925
  		nemoralis Koelz, 1954
  S. tephrocephalus (Anderson, 1871)
  S. omeiensis Martens, Eck, Packert & Sun, 1999
  S. valentini (Hartert, 1907)
  	sspp:	valentini (Hartert, 1907)
  		latouchei (Bangs, 1929)
  S. soror Alstrom & Olsson, 1999
  

• Named after Friedrich Sellow (1789-1831)
• A German arriving in Brazil in 1814. Collected with Wied-Neuwied. Shipped 1,604 specimens to M.H.K. Lichtenstein in Berlin. In 1831 he drowned in the Rio Doce of Minas Gerais.

• Sharpe. 1885. Catalogue Birds Britisn Museum vol.10 p.371 gives the citation as Sclater. PZS. 1856 p.292 Aves pl.120.
• This would have been published in 1857. Hence the Bonaparte citation has priority.

• Treated as a race by HBW 3:377.
• I follow Pearson and Ash's treatment.
• Note the spelling: often misspelt somaliensis. Pearson DJ, Ash JS. 1996. BBOC 116(4):225-229.

• Held by Peters Checklist 13:182 to be a subspecies.
• Raposo and Parrini argue, based on morphology and distribution that it is a valid species. Raposo MA, Parrini R. "On the validity of the Half-Collared Sparrow Arremon semitorquatus Swainson, 1837." BBOC. 1997 117(4):294-298.
• The SACC appears to hold this to be a full species, but H&M 3^rd:798 holds this to be a subspecies and mention the paper by Raposo & Parrini.
• The H&M 3^rd:798 footnote reads:

  Raposo & Parrini (1997) demonstrate that there is no intergradation with taciturnus and
  argued for recognition of semitorquatus as a species. 
  They confirm, however, that there is no sympatry.

  It is not clear to me that absence of sympatry is a convincing argument against full species status.

Certhilauda semitorquata systematics

Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

Certhilauda subcoronata systematics

Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

Stactolaema sowerbyi systematics

Clancey PA, The taxonomy of the Stactolaema anchietae biogeographical unit of southern savanna woodland barbets. 1995. Honeyguide 41:131-135.

• There is considerable confusion regarding the nomenclature here.
• The issues to consider are, the citation, the author, the plate number, and the date.
• HBW 3:497 in the taxonomy section show Gray describing this bird in Gallinago, and thus they do not place the authority in parentheses.
• Peters Checklist 2:278 gives

  Scolopax stricklandii G.R. Gray, Zool. Voy. 'Erebus' and 'Terror,'
  Bds., 1845, pl.23.

• Sherborn in Index Animalium p.6192 has two listing:

  stricklandii Gallinago GR Gray List Birds Coll. B.M. III. 1844, 112
  stricklandi Scolopax J.E. Gray, Zool. "Ereb.-Terr." (2) 1845, plate 23
  [teste R.B.S.]
  

• The Cat.Birds.Br.Mus xiv:660 (Sharpe) has

  
  	16  Gallinago stricklandi
  
  Gallinago stricklandi, Gray, List. Grall. Brit. Mus. p.112 (1844: Hermit Is.);
  id. Gen. B. iii p.583 (1846); etc.
  Scolopax stricklandi, Gray, Voy. 'Erebus" & "Terror,' Birds, pl. 23 (1846);
  etc.
  
   ...

• From : Gray, G.R., Genera of Birds, iii, p. 583 (June, 1846).

  G. Stricklandii G.R. Gray, Voy. Ereb. & Terr. Birds. pl.33 [no date given].

• So at this point, we don't know which citation to use, which Gray it is (G.R. Gray, or J.E. Gray) or which plate the name is one (pl.23 or pl.33).
• Dickinson indicates (H&M Corrigenda 2.1R) that the GR Gray 1844 name is a nomen nudum though support for this assertion is not given. This would, however explain why GR Gray 1844 would not be an appropriate citation. I proceed on the basis that this is correct.
• If not Gray 1844, then it would appear that Voy.Ereb.Terr. is the correct citation (as given by Peters), but GR Gray (himself) cites this to pl.33 while Sherborn (held in virtual god-like reverence by many British workers) cites J.E. Gray as the author, and suggests that his work on this name involved the aid of Sharpe (who was, with GR Gray, the author of the latter portions of this work).
• The best understanding of this work (known to me) is Zimmer 1926. Zimmer is thoughtful detailed and careful; he answers many questions,, but not all.

• Veron G, Winney BJ. 2000. Ibis 142:446-456. "Phylogenetic relationships within the turacos (Musophagidae)." spell this T. schuetti (note single "i"). This is in agreement with the HBW 4:500, and more recently H & M 3 ^rd:206.
• Sclater's Syst.Av.Ethiopicarum 1924 lists the name with only one "i", and I suspect that many authors may be following this source.
• Peters lists the name (in Tauraco) with the double "i" ending, as do Sibley & Monroe.
• The initial Cabanis name was Corythaix Schüttii. The "u" has an umlaut, producing the "ue".
• I believe that the "ii" ending is correct.

Otus semitorques Systematics

Peters checklist 4:98 lists as a subspecies of O. bakkamoena. HBW 5:158 holds it to ba a full species based on vocalization and eye color.

Otus semitorques 1844

• Peters Checklist 4:98 lists a date of 1850.
• This portion of the work was published in 1844; the final portion was published in 1850.

Otus senegalensis Systematics

Originally described in Scops HBW holds as a full species, separated from O. scops on the basis of plumage, vocalizations, and size.

Otus sunia Systematics

Originally described in Scops HBW holds as a full species, separated from O. scops and numerous other similar owls on the basis of vocalizations.

• HBW 5:173 holds as a full species, separated from O. asio and O. kennecotii on the basis of vocalizations and eye color.
• Also now recognized as a full species by the AOU CL 7^th ed.

• Ciccaba Wagler 1832 Isis 25 col.1222
  • Ciccaba virgata
  • Ciccaba nigrolineata
  • Ciccaba huhula
  • Ciccaba albitarsus
  • Ciccaba woodfordii

• Systematics uncertain.
• Norman JA, Christidis L, Westerman M, Hill FAR. 1998. Molecular data confirms the specific status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox natalis. Emu 98:197-208. provisionally propose splitting this into at least 3 species.

• Previously two species were in:
  • Catharacta Brunnich 1764 Orn.Boreal. p.32
  AOU checklist 42nd supplement, merges Catharacta into Stercorarius. Based on the studies of
  1. Cohen BL, Baker AJ, Blechschmidt K, Dittman DL,Furness RW, Gerwin JA, Helbig AJ, De Korte J, Marshall HD, Palma RL, Peter HU, Ramli R, Siebold I, Willcox MS, Wilson RH, and Zink RM. 1997. Enigmatic phylogeny of skuas. Proceedings Royal Soc. London Series B. 264:181-190.
  2. Andersson M. 1973. Behaviour of the Pomarine Skua Sterocarius pomarinus Temm. with comparative remarks on Stercorarinae. Ornis Scandinavica 4:1-16, Braun MJ, and Brumfield RT. 1998. Enigmatic phylogeny of skuas. An alternative hypothesis. Proceedings Royal Soc. London Series B. 265:995-999.

Chalcopsitta sintillata Spelling

Peters Checklist 3:144 spells "C. sintillata".
Sibley & Monroe p.108 spells "C. sintillata".
HBW 4:341 spells "C. scintillata". with the comment that it was "emended to scintillata in 1839.
The justification of the emendation is not discussed.
Temminck appears to have spelt it "sintillata" in 1835. In the livr. 101-2 of Pl.Col. p.61 he did indeed spell it "scintillata" and the date for that work is probably 1839. I assume that is the work referred to as the emendation. However the justification of that emendation is not certain in my understanding.
In a side note: the HBW leaves both sintillata and scintillata out of the index.

Columba sjostedti Citation

• HBW 4:117 gives a citation of Reichenow, 1898.
• Peters Checklist 3:64 has this citation and notes it is a nomen nudum.
• Peters also gives the 1901 citation with the note: "First description".
• I have seen neither of these, but my experience suggests it is unlikely in such a situation that the HBW citation is the correct one.

Coracias spatulata Spelling

Spelt "Coracias spatulatus" in the original text.

Chaetura spinicauda Citation

Peters Checklist 4:239 gives "p.57" This is followed by the AOU Checklist, and HBW. Both Sherborn and the Richmond index give the page as "p.78", which I follow here.

Strix Nomenclature

• Strix is a classical feminine Latin noun.

• Previously cited as
  • Scleroptila Roberts 1940 BirdsS.Afr.[Roberts] p.71
• The Richmond index listed the Roberts citation with a hand written note saying "New here ?".
• The Blyth citation would appear to be appropriate.
• Usually cited as 1849, but {Mathews 1925} demonstrates this is 1852.

Columba simplex systematics

Not recognized by Sibley & Monroe, and often considered conspecific with C. larvatus.
HBW 4:132 indicates it differs in voice and does not respond to recorded voice calls of C. larvatus.
Often place in the genus:

• Aplopelia Bonaparte 1855 Compt.Rend. 40 p.18

Charmosyna stellae Systematics

Normand David brought this to my attention:

Voisin & Voisin treated Charmosyna stellae (including goliathina + wahnesi) as a separate species (from C. papou).
Voisin, C. & J-F. Voisin. 1997. A propos du Lori papaou, Charmosyna papaou (Scopoli, 1786). Alauda 65 (2) 191-195.
I only have a photocopy of the first page of the paper and the abstract reads:
"A few individuals of Charmosyna papou papaou (Scopoli, 1786) differ from the others by the colour of their upperwing, which is light green, distinctly paler than the colour of their backs, and eventually by some blue on the alula, remiges and upperwing coverts. By some other colour characters, they remind of the melanistic form which is found in the three other subspecies currently recognized in the Papuan Lory. In addition, C. papou papou possesses several constant, well marked characters of its own, and its cepahlic blue and black band does not appear to be homologous of the cephalic band of the three other forms. In these conditions, it seems preferable to consider Charmosyna papou (Scopoili, 1786) as a separate species, and to keep the other three forms under the name Charmosyna stellae Meyer, 1886, which has priority.

• Peters Checklist 12:215 (Rand) has 1788.
• The Richmond Index Turdus aethiopicus has "1788" with last "8" crossed out and "9" written in.

• The Richmond Index lists "pl.25".
• Peters Checklist 8:212 (Traylor) lists: "... p.18, part (not pl. 25)"
• I am not sure what this means, does it mean:
  • part 25, not plate 25? If so what is the "part"?
  • plate 25 exists, but does not pertain to the taxon?
  • are there other "parts" (whatever those are) that should be referenced for Spix taxa?
• Colin Jones, confirms (in litt. 2006.01.07) that it is on plate 25.

• Often given as published in 1851 (Peters 1:352; HBW 2:168), though the basis for this is not clear to me. My presumption is that the later numbers of this volume were published in 1851, and Dean Amadon presumed that all the numbers of the volume were published in 1851, though the imprint date is 1850. I expect the editors of HBW in this instance followed the Peters Checklist without further evaluation.
• Gyldenstolpe. 1926 Ark.Zool. Band 19 A no. 1 p.89 gives a citation for Micronisus nilocticus Sundev. from p. 132 of this work. He lists the date as 8^th May, 1850. which is the date for all the other entities in this volume that he discusses. Further he lists this date for this taxon on p.90.
• I see no reason to follow the Peters or HBW citations in the face of the specific and detailed data from Gyldenstolpe.

• Often spelled Coracias spatulata, however as noted in HBW 6:371-2, Coracias is masculine.

• When squamiger was placed in Brachypteracias I presented the argument over spelling the specific epithet thus:
• Often spelt Brachypteracias squamigera, as it was originally described by Lafresnaye. HBW 6:387 notes: 'Species name often erroneously listed as squamigera, as in the original description; however, genus name had initially been established (by same author) in combination with the taxa B. leptosomus and B. (=Atelornis) pittoides, using etymology "Coracias brachypterus", and thus necessarily masculine, requiring agreement in gender of this species name.
• Therefore, the correct combination is Brachypteracias squamiger.

• Kirchman et al., Auk 2001 118(4):849-863 analyse the ground-rollers based on several mitochondrial genes, and propose ressurrecting the monotypic genus Geobiastes for "B. squamigera"(sic), and cite "Sharpe, R.B. 1871. 'On the Coraciidae of the Ethiopian region.' Ibis 3:184-203,270-289." as the authority for Geobiastes.
• This work by Sharpe, has an initial portion published in the April, 1871 number of the Ibis, and continued in the succeeding July, 1871 number. The initial portion includes reference to a plate (presumably published with the April number). Kirchman et al., do not refer to the plate in their citation.
• Kirchman et al., use the specific epithet squamigerus. In fact this is the spelling that Sharpe apparently uses frequently in the second portion of the article, having used Geobiastes squamigera in the plate in the April number.
• However
  • it appears that the Ibis article is not the proper authority to cite for Geobiastes, and
  • Geobiastes squamigerus (sic) is an improper emendation.
• The Richmond Index shows Sharpe's Geobiastes in combination with the epithet squamigera. And references "Cat. of Afr. Birds in the Coll. of R.B. Sharpe" 1871 p.5 with a note that this was "publ before the April 'Ibis', 1871!". I interpret this to be the proper authority for Geobiastes and the problem remains to determine the gender of Geobiastes.

• First we turn to the word itself for primary gender indications.
• Geobiastes appears to be based on the Greek roots Geo = earth, and biastos violent; biastes, one who uses force.
• Alexander Sens Associate Professor and Chair, Classics, Georgetown University writes:
  • "As for the genus, -biastes looks to me like an agent noun formation from the Greek verb biazomai (do force to, compell). ... Now, these formations are usually masculine (1st declension masculine in ancient Greek), but they may sometimes be treated as feminine. Indeed, the basic rule in Greek is that oftentimes compound adjectives have only two terminations, viz. a masculine/femine and a neuter, which means that a word that looks masculine may also serve as feminine. In other words, you could get away with either -ger or -gera, but in my view the former is the easier."
• So it does not appear that an unambiguous gender can be determined from the word alone. It further appears that masculine or feminine are the two possibilities.
• Next we consider Sharpe's use when erecting the genus.
• Which work to use Cat.Afr.Birds, or Ibis for April & July, 1871 ?
• The published evidence (Richmond Index, and Zimmer, 1926) supports priority for the Cat.Afr.Birds and this is the easiest case to consider.
In the Cat. Afr. Birds on page 5 Sharpe has:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....
	Subfam.  BRACHYPTERACIANEA.
		Genus BRACHYPTERACIAS.
41. Brachypteracias leptosoma.
    Brachypteracias leptosoma, Less.; Sharpe, Ibis, April 1871.
	 a. Madagascar (Crossley).

	 	Genus GEOBIASTES.
42. Geobiastes squamigera. 	
	Geobiastes squamigera (Lafr.); Sharpe, Ibis, April 1871. 
	 a. Madagascar (Crossley).

	 	Genus ATELORNIS.
43. Atelornis pittoides.  
	Atelornis pittoides (Lafr.); Sharpe, Ibis, April 1871.  
	a,b,c.  Madagascar (Crossley). 
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
	

• Does this have nomenclatural standing for the erection of a genus?
  • The ICZN 1999 states:
  • "12.1 Requirements. To be available, every new name published before 1931 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must be accompanied by a description or a definition of the taxon that it denotes, or by an indication.
  • 12.2 Indications. For the purposes of this Article the word "indication" denotes only the following:
  • ...
  • 12.2.5. in the case of a new genus-group name, the use of one or more available specific names in combination with it, of clearly included under it, or clearly refered to it by bibliographic reference, provided that the specific name or names can be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon or taxa;"
  • The text in Cat.Afr.Birds clearly sastifies 12.2.5. The available specific name squamigera is used in combination with the new genus-group name (Geobiastes) and included under it, and can be unambiguously assigned to the nominal species-group Brachypteracias squamigera (sic) Lafresnaye.
• The case of the Ibis publication is more complex: two forms squamigera, and squamigerus are used, and the issues of dates of publication for the two parts of the article, as well as the date of publication of the plate come for consideration.
• Absent contraveneing evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the April number was published first with it's plate, the July number appearing subsequently. Such a history would suggest that Sharpe initially used the form squamigera and then became convinced there was a problem with this, emending the form to squamigerus. Either case appears to be incorrect, requiring correction to squamiger; squamigera is feminine, while Brachypteracias is masculine; squamigerus is not a correctly formed latin adjective (see below).

• For formation of the specific epithet, the following applies.
  • The Oxford Latin Dictionary (1982 Glare, ed.) gives:
    "squamiger ~era ~erum, a. Equipped with scales, scaly. ..."
• The possibilities are Geobiastes squamiger m., Geobiastes squamigera f., or Geobiastes squamigerum n.
• Geobiastes squamigerus would appear to me to be supportable only if it were argued that the specific epithet was not a latin word, but presumably a string of latin letters and with no established relation to the quality of being "scaly". I don't believe such an argument exists.
• I currently represent the name as squamiger, based on Sharpe's use of the combination "Geobiastes squamigera" in the Cat. of Afr. Birds in the Coll. of R.B. Sharpe which Richmond understood to antedate the Ibis article. The taxon is based on Brachypteracias squamigera (sic) Lafresnaye, 1838 = Brachypteracias squamiger Lafresnaye Thus Geobiastes is masculine, and the combination is Geobiastes squamiger (Lafresnaye) 1838.

• Prum erects the genus Snowornis for the clade containing subalaris and cryptolophus.
• The type for Lipaugus is Muscicapa vociferans Wied-Neuwied 1820, and this is also the type of the Genus Lathria which Prum had proposed for subalaris and cryptolophus.
• No genus name thus being available for the clade, hence Prum erected Snowornis.
• The diagnosis is based upon:
  1. The insertion of the M. tracheolateralus on the lateral syringeal memebranes between the A1 and B1 supporting syringeal elements.
  2. The abscence of intrinsic syringeal musculature.
  3. Mainly ischiadic hindlimb arterial supply.
  4. Largely olive-green plumage, with yellow eye-ring, and yellow underwing coverts.
  5. Partially concealed black crown patch in male, or both sexes.

• Hayes FE. 2001. "Geographic variation, hybridization, and the leapfrog pattern of evolution in the Suiriri Flycatchers (Suiriri suiriri) Complex." Auk 118:457-471. discusses this group. The relationships are not fully resolved, and a third form may or may not warrant elevation to specific status.
• Similarly S. suiriri may be paraphyletic.
• The third form is:
  Suiriri bahiae (Berlepsch) 1893 Orn.Monatsb. 1 p.12
  Originally described in Empidagra.

• See Weller A-A. 2001. BBOC 121:98-107.

• Peters Checklist 8:39 (Traylor) lists this as "1858".
• This part of the volume was published in 1859.

• The specimen from which this species was described was collected by J.L. Sowerby in "Mashona-Land". The specimen is (or was) in the collection of the British Museum.
• The species was described by Ernst Hartert and he named it "in honor of J. Lawrence Sowerby."
• Jobling 'A Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names' gives the following:
• "sowerbyi After J.W.(sic) Sowerby (fl.1891) English trooper in British South African Mounted Police and collecter"
• "The Bird Collectors" by Richard and Barbara Mearns has this:
• 'Lawrence Sowerby, while fighting in the Matabele War of 1898, is said to have made a worthwhile collection of sixty-six birds with the standard issue Lee-Metford rifle because he had nothing more suitable. [...] One wonders how many other birds were completely blown away by the large bullets, though Sharpe highly commended Sowerby for the specimens he sent to the BMNH commenting that "It is not given to every young ornithologist to shoot a Hoopoe with a bullet, and then make a good skin of it" (Sowerby 1898).'
• Sowerby, J.L. 1898. ON a Collection of Birds from Fort Chiguagua, Mashonaland [ with additional notes by R.B. Sharpe]. Ibis. pp.567-587.
• The Lee-Metfield rifle was a box-magazine fed bolt action .303 rifle. Originally with black powder when issued in 1888. It evolved into the Lee-Enfield standard bolt action rifle of WWI.

• There is at least one other Sowerby name related to J. Lawrence Sowerby:
  • Smilorhis sowerbyi Sharpe 1898 Ibis p.572 pl XII fig.1 (where spelt "sowerbii).
  • Smilorhis = Stactolaema.

• There is another ornithologist "Sowerby".
  • Eophona migratoria sowerbyi Riley 1915 Proc. Biol.Soc.Washington 28 p.165.
  • Riley originally described it as Eophona melanura sowerbyi = Coccothraustes migratorius sowerbyi; C. migratorius = E. migratoria.
  • The Richmond Index note on this bird says it was collected in CHINA, and named for Arthur de Carle Sowerby.
  • Pomatorhinus erythrogenys sowerbyi Deignan 1952. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 65 p.122
    • collected in China Jan 9 by Arthur de Carle Sowerby.
  • Turdus merula sowerbyi Deignan, 1951 Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 64 p.134.
    • collected by David C. Graham March 2, 1924 in China.
    • I presume the name honors Arthur de Carle Sowerby.

• Peters Checklist 8:24 (Traylor) lists the date as "1861".
• The Richmond Index gives Feb. 1 1862 for this Part of the volume.
• Duncan (1937) lists April 1862 for this part.

• Peters Checklist 2:168 gives a date of 1869.
• HBW 3:162 (PB Taylor) gives a date of 1869.
• Sharpe Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 22 p.48 gives 1869.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1870.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives March 1869.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Peters Checklist 5:269 gives a date of 1870.
• HBW 6:520 (AC Kemp) gives a date of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1871.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives April 1871.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Peters Checklist 8:174 (Traylor) gives a date of 1874.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1875.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives April 1875.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• Kirchman JJ, Hackett SJ, Goodman SM & Bates JM. 2001. "Phylogeny and systematics of Ground Rollers (Brachypteraciidae) of Madagascar." The Auk 118(4):849-863. propose returning B. squamigera (sic) to the monotypic genus Geobiastes Sharpe as the majority of evidence suggests Brachypteracias is not monophyletic.
• Their name formation, as "Geobiastes squamigerus appears incorrect to me; see note on the specific epithet regarding spelling Geobiastes squamiger.

• Peters Checklist 13:283 (Paynter) gives this date as 1883.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

• Peters Checklist 14:243 (Paynter & Rand) gives this date as 1883.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

A confusing situation here.

• The Richmond Index lists the name as a Blyth taxon, with a note "Blyth quotes (p.367) Hodgson's diagnosis but does not say where it was published." In addition he has the "o" in Saroglossa underlined indicating he was attentive to that particular (see below).
• There is a Richmond Index card for Saraglossa Hodgson Zool. Misc. 1844 "june".
  • This card has "A nomen nudem here!" (with the exclamation mark crossed out)
  • The card also has the line "no descr." crossed out.
  • The type is listed as "Saraglossa spilopterus [no authority given] [= Lamprotornis spiloptera Vigors]". Which is the type of Saroglossa Hodgson.
• Neave gives: "Saroglossa (err. pro Sara- Hodgson 1844) Blyth 1844. J.As.Soc.Bengal, 13, 367."
• Sherborn gives: "Saroglossa E. Blyth err. pro Saraglossa, B.H.Hodgson 1844 . J.As.Soc.Bengal, XIII (post Oct.) 367."
• Sherborn gives: "Saraglossa B.H. Hodgson ... Zool. Misc. June 1844 [n. n.]"

• Has been spelt sepiarium. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):18 discuss this. They indicate that "The adjective sepiaria is derived from the Latin noun sepes, -is [hedge], to which the adjectival suffix -arius, (a, -um) was added."
• Jobling (1991) gives the derivation as "sepiaria Mod. L. sepiarius, living in hedges (L. saepes or sepes, a hedge; -arius, pertaining to."
• "Modern Latin" is not Latin, by the ICZN 1999 definition (Glossary), thus sepiaria appears to me NOT to be a latin adjective or participle; therefore I interpret David & Gosselin to interpret it as a Latin adjectival suffix (-arius) added to a Latin word. The Latin word in question "sepes" is given by Wood to mean hedge; it is listed in Glare and Lewis & Short as a variant of saepes.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Malacocincla sepiaria occurs in the Zoo. Rec.

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