Symplectes tephronotus Reichenow, 1892 Journ.f.Orn. 40 no.198 p.184
Turdus tricolor Vieillot, 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., nouv. éd., 30, p. 291which on casual inspection apparently must be a typographic for 20 rather than 30 (which was published in 1819).
Aegithina viridissima thapsina Oberholser, 1917 Smiths.Misc.Coll. 60, (7) p.40which makes no sense, volume 60 was published in 1912, not 1917. The only things correct about this citation are the year and the page number.
Ara tricolor Bechsteinand therefore does not list the authority in parentheses. This is followed by the 6th and 7th AOU CL's (p.273; p.237).
"A" [=Psittacus] tricolor "Vaillant" J.M. Bechstein, 1811and Richmond says it is based on
"L' Ara tricolor, Vaillant. Hist Nat. des Peroquets ..."
Psittacus tricolor(but probably should have P[sittacus] tricolor).
Sittasomus griseicapillus transitivus Pinto and Camargo, Papéis Avulsos do Depto. Zool. Scr. da Agricultura, São Paulo, 1, no. 26, 1948, p. 317
*14. ASTUR trinotatusnot Accipiter trinotatus
Falco tanypterus Schlegel, 1843, Abh.Gebiete Zool. Vergleich. Anat. Heft 3, p.8 pls.12-13.
Schlegel(1843) Abh.Gebiete Zool. Vergleich Anat. 3: 3, 8.[APP: remarkably, this citation is given for both feldeggii and tanypterus; clearly an error on the part of HBW.]
tanypterus Falco, H. Schlegel, Abh. Gebiete Zool. I (3) 1841, 8.
F. tanypterus Licht. Abhand. --Bonap.Rev. Zool.1850, p.485.
Falco tanypterus, Schl. Abhandl. Geb. Zool. &c. p.8, Taf. 12,13 (1841, ex Licht. Mus.Berol.); Bp. Consp. i p.25 (1850)
18.Falco tanypterus, Licht. -Schlegel, Abhand. tab. 12 et 13.In summary, at this point it appeared that the Schlegel Abhand. citation was the most frequently cited. Peters holds this to be 1843, though with no supporting data. 1841 seemed "a good guess" to me for Falco biarmicu feldeggii, and Hartert's note for that taxon suggests (but does not prove) that those feldeggii plates followed at least plates 9 and 10. Therefure 1841 may be a reasonable guess for this taxon.
"Heft III:(2), 8, pl.12 (ad.) & pl.13 (fem. juv.)they do not appear to discuss the interpretation by Browning & Monroe.
Pyrrhula telasco Lesson, 1828, Voy. Coquille, Zool., 1, livr. 8, pl.15, fig.3; idem., op. cit., 1830, livr.15, p.663
Pyrrhula telasco Less. Voy. Coquille i p.663, pl.15 fig.3 (1826)
5. The last species, finally, Col. torringtoni, Layard, is properly said, only a race of Pal. elphinstoni, particular to Ceylon ...Bonaparte's Comptes Rendu Description
31.1.2. A species-group name, if a noun in the genitive case (see Article 11.9.1.3) formed directly from a modern personal name, is to be formed by adding to the stem of that name -i if the personal name is that of a man, -orum if of men or of man (men) and woman (women) together, -ae if of a woman, and -arum if of women; the stem of such a name is determined by the action of the original author when forming the genitive.I agree with the interpretation that the name must be rendered torringtoniae.
The acceptance of 1853, rather than 1854 relies on the minutes of a committee meeting held on 21 December 1853 (Lamprey, 1855), which record that 'A letter from Dr. Kelaart was read and laid on the table, stating that he had been at great expense in publishing, and requesting that the Society would accept copies of his work in lieu of subscriptions due. It was then moved and agreed to, that two copies of his publication be recieved, in lieu of all past arrears of subscriptions due by him to the Society, and that a recommendation be made by the Committee at teh next General Meeting, that he be made a Corresponding member of the Society.'It must be noted:
"Remarks -- This beautiful pigeon we have named after Lady Torrington..."Pittie and Dickinson state in their footnote (#6, p.198)
"There seems to be no reason to suggest that the 'we' was a 'Royal plural.'"They give no support for this assertion, and tell us nothing of the patterns of use of "I" or "we" in the rest of the work; patterns of use which might make one position or the other clear.
"But we regret exceedingly that since we left Newera Ellia, we have not been able to gain further information on the subject. It is to be hoped that some Zoologist will soon visit that interesting locality and complete the work which we have only begun."
"Our own labours would, like those of too many collectors, have been a chaotic mess, but for the assistance of the cabinet investigations of such eminent men as the Grays and Blyths. Would that we had more opportunities of consulting their works and extending under such auspices, our researches in the natural history of our native land."
"There seems to be no reason to suggest that the 'we' was a 'Royal plural.'"The use of "we" neither demonstrates nor excludes the possibility of Blyth's inclusion in the authority, and should, it seems to me, be ignored.
50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.So is there any indication from the contents of the work that speaks to the responsibility for the nomenclatural act? As noted by Wijesinghe the title of Appendix C is as follows:
Appendix C. Notes and Descriptions of some new or little known species of Ceylon birds: by Ed. Blyth, Esq. Curator of the Bengal Asiatic Society's Museum. From the Journals of the Asiatic Society.[The footnote to this title says: 'The "remarks" are mine.-E. F. K.']. and we have:
"Remarks -- This beautiful pigeon we have named after Lady Torrington..."and this act of naming thus appears to be attributable to "E. F. K." = Kelaart, based on the contents of the work.
Regarding the year of publication of Kelaart's Prodromus (including the Appendix pages 1-50), I think we can fix it at 1853, since Pethiyagoda & Manamendra-Arachchi (1998) refer to a "flyer" issued by Kelaart in 1853 advertising his book as "just published in one Vol. 8vo cloth; price 10s. 6d."
In Écho du monde savant 2, 2nd divis., no. 24, Sci. Nat. et Géogr., p.107 (1836), Lafresnaye wrote (thank you Jean-François for the transcription): "...je me crois en droit, non pas de donner un quatrième nom nouveau au Roitelet omnicolor (Dieu me garde de cette manie si fatale à la Science !), mais de lui rendre le nom générique de Tachuris que d'Azzara lui avait imposé, il y a plus de trente-cinq ans dans son excellente description, et de lui laisser le nom d'espèce d'omnicolor de Vieillot, et sous lequel il est connu si généralement. Dès lors, le Tachuris omnicolor devient le type d'un genre dans le groupe assez nombreux des Fluvicolinae de Swainson, ou Gobe-mouches riverains, et suivra immédiatement les Gobe-mouches petit coq et Guira yetata..." Here, Lafresnaye established genus Tachuris, with Regulus omnicolor Vieillot, 1823 (not Muscicapa regia Lafresnaye ...) as type species. All this because I wanted to know the grammatical gender of Tachuris. It is masculine, and the names now combined with it (libertatis, alticola, loaensis, rubrigastra) do not change.
Tachuris Lafresnaye, 1836, Écho du Monde Savant, 3, 2nd divis., no.24, Sci. Nat. et Géogr., p. 107
L Écho du Monde Savant, 3e année,
{138,
no. {24 June 12, 1836. p.107 (in text).
With an additonal handwritten note saying:First publ. in Mem. Soc. Acad. de Falaise, at least so Lafr. says in the present paper!. June 12, 1836 would be a Sunday, which fits the indicated schedule of publication for this serial.
STRIX TURCOMANA, MIHI. St. aurita, albido-ferruginea, fusco varia, cauda elongata, fasciis quinque fusco variis. Unum tantum hujus strigis exemplar inter mare Ca- spium et lacum Aralansem in littore alto saxoso, apud in- colas Tschink dicto, inveni hieme; cum autem a ceteris congeneribus valde differt, sub proprio nomine describam. Descriptio. Non multo brevior Bubone, sed multo gra- cilior et colore laetior. Caput auritum supra ferru- gineum fusco maculatum, auribus magnis ferrugineis, apice nigris; rostro nigro. Collum et pectus fer- ruginea, lituris longitudinalibus fuscis; abdomen et crissum pallidora, vel ferruginoso-albida, lituris longtiudinalibus taeniolisque transversalibus fuscis varia. Supra avis pallide ferruginea et albo macu- lata, ubique fusco fasciatum variegata et irrorata. Remiges ferruginei fusco fasciati, apice obscuriores: primus totus, secundus dimidio, tertius apice serra- tus. Cauda valde elongata, (in pelle sicco 6½ polli cibus alis longio), pallide ferruginea, taeniolis nu- merosis fasciisque quinque distinctioribus latis fus- cis varia. Pedes cum digitis hirsuti, ferruginei, concolores; ungues magni nigri. — Longitudo pel- lis sicci duo pedes a capite ad caudae apicem. —
Tilmatura is also Aufzählung d. Colibris (1854), on p.6 Reichenbach introduces it as a replacement name for Tryphaena Gould, preoccupied in Entomology. Peters' footnote (1945: 133) is incorrect, Tilmatura cannot be considered a nomen nudum on p.8, if clearly a nomen novum on p.6.
TROCHILUS TYRIANTHINUS. Troch. capite suprà dorsoque aureo- viridibus; gulá splendenti saturatè viridi; alis brunneo fuscis; caudâ subrotundatâ, latissimâ, aureo-purpureâ: rostro gracili, brevissimo, recto. Long. corporis 4 unc.; rostri 4 lin. This bird differs from all the known species by its small bill, which is much shorter than the head; and by the rich golden-purple tail composed of very broad feathers.
After placing this species in Tockus in Birds of Africa, the hornbill specialist Kemp went back to the monotypic genus Tropicranus in HBW [6:496]. The latter is surely the best treatment for this very distinctive bird, as remarked by: Borrow N. & Demey R. 2001. "Birds of Western Africa". London: Helm. Note that Kemp similarly went back on his earlier decision to put all Bycanistes hornbills in Ceratogymna, another about-turn that is surely correct.
HYLACTES TARNII. Hyl. saturatè fusco brunneus ; fronte, dorso, abdomineque rufus, hoc fusco fasciato. Habitat in insulâ Chiloe et Portu Otway Sinu Peñas.
VI. Ord. Palmipeden 4 Fam. Lamellirostern Mergus Anas; Querquedula; Anas, Tadorna, Souchet Marila. Eider, Clangula, Macreuse, Bernicla, An- ser, Cygnus
It is difficult to see a valid genus description in the above
text. I cannot see the "type by tautonymy Anas tadorna Linnaeus"
listed in the above text (as given by AOU 1957: p. 70).
The correct citation for Tadorna is either:
Tadorna Boie 1822 Tagebuch Reise Norwegen pp. 140, 351 (as in HBW 1: 591)
or
Tadorna Fleming 1822 Philosophy of Zoology 2: 260 (as in Peters I, first Edition, and AOU 1931)
whichever has priority.
--------------------------------------------------
Espinosa de los Monteros A. Phylogenetic relationships among the Trogons. 1998. Auk 115(4):937-954.
Glaucidium tucumanum Systematics
86. Motacilla tractrac, the African Whinchat. This species inhabits the Auteniquis country, perching on bushes. It is about the size of the European whinchat, but extremely wild and shy, rarely approaching the haunts of men; sometimes it may be seen in the cattle-inclo- sures; but, if a man approach, flies off directly; then you may discover that the rump is white, as are also the four lateral tail-feathers, which it spreads much as it flies. It is called trac-trac becuase it seems to express that syllable repeatedly in its cry. In flapping its wing, and shaking its tail, it resembles the rest of the species. There is nothing striking in the plumage. It is cinereous grey on the head and mantle, lighter on the lower part of the back, and entirely white on the tail-coverts; the front of the neck and breast are lightsh grey; the rest of the under part white. The twelve tail-feathers are black tipped with white, and of equal length; the first on each side are edged outwardly with white, the fourth and third have it only toward the origin; the third, how- ever, rather more than the fourth; the two last, i.e. the outermost of all, are white all along. The wing-feathers are brwon, edged, the first of them with light brown, the last with white. The bill, legs and feet, are black; the eye, which is very large, nut-brown; a row of white fea- thers encircles the eyelids. The bird digs a hole for its nest at the foot of a dwarf-tree or bush; the eggs are four in number, greyish, with an infinite number of brown dots. Though this species be very difficult of approach, M. Vaillant succeded in killing eight males and five fe- males. The latter were rather smaller, and the white over the vent not so extensive. In the young bird the features of the mantle are bordered with rufous. Vol. XVI No.1095
Spizella taverni Species or subspecies?
The debate here is sharply drawn, and strongly presented on both sides.
The debate and its implications are fascinating. The enthusiastic pursuit of the "species concept" is not over, despite numerous announcements of its resolution. My own personal view is unimportant. I think the "phylogenetic species concept" has more appearance of utility and testability than the "biological species concept" but I think it suffers from a difficulty that will be not less problematic than that bedeviling the biological species concept. Collection of enough data to resolve the full extent of variability of the population in question will be often impracticle.
The idea of a species as a "narrative predictor" (which I believe is due to Robert O'Hara) is a good one to keep in mind. Both BSC and PSC discussions of S. taverni seem to me to include consideration of what will happen to the isolated allopatric population. While I tend to generally favor the Biological Species Concept, I think the attempt to acheive "taxonomic balance" is impossible on practical grounds. I also think that definition of population limits and what degrees and character of differences are sufficient to constitute a species will be a challenge for the Phylogenetic Species Concept. Some of the early characterizations of the Phylogenetic Species Concept seemed to me poorly thought out, and the defense predominantly by ad hominem attacks made it seem more religous than scientific.
I leave Spizella taverni in at full species rank which would appear to suggest I more swayed by the PSC than the BSC position here. If this continues I am confidant it will be hard to keep up with the number (doubling at least) of species that will soon constitute the AVES.
The PSC approach does seem more appropriate and tractable for addressing phylogeographic issues.
Most classical Latin nouns that end in the substantival suffix -cola [dweller] are masculine, but a few are feminine as well as masculine [e.g. monticola, limicola (Glare 1982)]. Thus, generic names that end in -cola and that happen to be classical Latin words of common or variable gender, or happen to be newly derived words, are not all mandatorily masculine contrary to what Clancey (1992: 221), Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1993: 359), and Sibley & Monroe (1990: 592) have concluded; they are feminine if originally established in combination with a feminine adjectival name (Godfrey 1965: Auk 82: 273). For example, Arundinicola d'Orbigny, 1840, originally established in combination with the latinized adjective leucocephala, is feminine and currently treated as such. Therefore:
Bambusicola Gould, 1863, was first established in combination with the noun phrase sonorivox, and is thus masculine. [The name sonorivox, although ending in a feminine noun, is not an adjective; it is an invariable noun phrase like ruficauda]. And the correct combination is Bambusicola thoracicus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Todiramphus divinus Lesson 1827.
Mem.Soc. d'hist.Nat. Paris, III, 1827, 422 {read Aug. 21
Named from its: "joue un grand role dans l'ancienne theogonie des
habitans des archipels de la Societe. C'etait un des oiseaux
favoris du dieu Oro."
Type locality: BoraBora Id. Society Group.
2 Spns.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
