Zoological Citation Notes --W

• The original spelling of this epithet in the 1896 publication is willkouskii and can be seen here: O.D. BHL Image
• The text refers repeatedly to a "Mr. Willkousky", and in THIS publication there is no indication that this name is misspelled.
  Later (in 1897) we can INFER that a "u" was printed where an "n" was intended. This comes from a note in the follwing year that PROPOSES a "correction" to the spelling of the specific epithet, but does NOT in fact directly indicate the spelling of the name of the gentleman after whom it is to be named.
  That note can be seen here: "Correction note" BHL Image
• What to do?
• The Code says this:

  32.4. Status of incorrect original spellings

  • An original spelling is an "incorrect original spelling" if it must be corrected as required in Article 32.5. An incorrect original spelling has no separate availability and cannot enter into homonymy or be used as a substitute name.

  32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings)

  • 32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors.
  • 32.5.1.1. The correction of a spelling of a name in a publisher's or author's corrigendum issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work (or if in a journal, or work issued in parts, in one of the parts of the same volume) is to be accepted as clear evidence of an inadvertent error.

• Is there "clear evidence of an inadvertent error" "in the original publication itself"? -- emphatically NOT.
• Is the correction "issued simultaneously with the original work or as a circulated slip to be inserted in the work"? -- emphatcially NOT.
• My interpretation (which I have learned is worth almost nothing) is that this name should be spelled as originally published (willtouskii)
• An argument of "prevailing usage" would probably be supportable, as the correction (whilst not valid as a correction according to the Code) was published so soon after the introduction of the name.

• See Dickinson 2021 Zoologicl Bibliography 8(2):15-30, for a discussion of the spelling of the name and the correct citation for this taxon.

• Spelled "woodhousii" on p.xliii, where it is a nomen nudum.

• Peters Checklist III:21 (= Peters 1937) puts the authority in parentheses, and gives the original combination (incorrectly) as Vinago wakefieldii.
• This was described in Treron.
• Peters may have been mislead by Sclater's Systema Avium Aethiopicarum I:176 (1924), where the combination is shown as "Vinago wakefieldii", and the original combination is omitted.
• HBW 4:201 appears to follow one of these sources, and also uses parentheses.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 12:333 (= Mayr 1967) cites this to 1935, which is simply wrong. This number (CCCLXXX) of volume LV of the BBOC was published 30 Oct. 1934.
• Similarly, it appears appropriate to attribute the authority to Sclater & Moreau, since the article commences: "Mr. W.L. Sclater exhibited and described, on behalf of Mr. R.E. Moreau and himself, two new birds..."
• H&M 3^rd:630 follows the Peters Checklist and corrects this date in Corrigenda 8.
• As Bob Dowsett suggests, the authorial order is more properly Moreau & Sclater, and I follow his suggestion (2009.05.19).

• H&M 3^rd:619 (through Corrigenda 8, late 2008) shows the authority without parentheses.
• This was described as Schoeniparus brunneus weigoldi so if it is held in Alcippe it is appropriate to list the authority in parentheses.

• Babax woodi is split from Babax lanceolatus by Rasmussen & Anderton 2005.
• No mention of this treatment is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Held by H&M 3^rd:590 (through Corrigenda 8 of late 2008) to be a subspecies of fuscatus.
• See: Martens, J., Sun, Yue-Hua & M. Päckert. 2008. "Intraspecific differentiation of Sino-Himalayan bush-dwelling Phylloscopus leaf warblers, with description of two new taxa. (P. fuscatus, P. fuligiventer, P. affinis, P. armandii, P. subaffinis). Verterbrate Zoology 58(2):233-265.
• They move weigoldi to fulgiventer.

Nomenclature

• Peters Checklist 15:190 (= Blake 1968) lists the original combination as Quiscalus mexicanus westoni.
• This is incorrect, as Sprunt described this in Cassidix as shown by the Richmond Index.
• Blake does not appear to have checked Hellmayr 1937 XIII ptX p.89, where the original combination in Cassidix is also shown.
• H&M 3^rd:775 also apparently simply follows Peters, as it does not place the authority in parentheses, even though it holds this as a subspecies of Quiscalus major.

• Originally described in mexicanus.
• Included in major by BNA, and by H&M 3^rd:775, though why this is not held in mexicanus is not discussed in either of those presentations.
• My guess is that the matter of whether this is better held in mexicanus or major, is treated in Stevenson, H. M. 1978. "The populations of Boat-tailed Grackles in the southeastern United States." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 91:27-51. (not seen as of 2008.11.29).

• Originally spelled Athena whiteleyi and named for Henry Whiteley Jr.
• CBBM 2:222 (Sharpe 1875) probably started the difficulty by listing this as Athene whitelyi and this spelling has been repeated by most authors subsequently (Peters Checklist 4:134 (= Peters 1940); HBW 5:221 (AA Weller 1999); H&M 3^rd:231 (2003, thru Corrigenda of 2008).
• I interpret the spelling "whitelyi" to be an ISS.
• Many thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 9:230 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite the original combination (correctly) as Ixidia webberi [sic] with a double "bb". They list the name as weberi, but give no rationale or basis for what they apparently imagined was a correction.
• This unsupported orthography is followed by H&M 3^rd:566 (through Corr.8), but not by HBW 10:176 (2005).
• The Richmond Index lists the original combination as webberi with a note that it was collected by "Capt. Webber".
• The CBBM 6:171 also spells this webberi.
• I have not seen the original description, but it appears to me that the original spelling must stand.

• Peters Checklist 15:214 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this to 1854 and this error is followed by many workers.
• This name was published in the supplement to vol.2 of the J.Orn. and there are multiple indications that it was not published until 1855 (date at foot of title page, and correspondences dated "Januar 1855" on pp.LXIX and XCIII.
• Taxa from this supplement must be dated 1855, and presumably Dec. 31, 1855 unless and until data demonstrating it's availability earlier in that year becomes available.

• Molecular studies of Hylophylax show that inclusion of Hypocnemius poecilinota Cabanis 1847 in the genus results in a polyphyletic assemblage.
  (ref. Brumfield RT, Tello JG, Cheviron ZA, Carling MD, Crochet N & Rosenberg KV (2007) Phylogenetic conservatism and antiquity of a tropical specialization: army-ant following in the typical antbirds (Thamnophilidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45:1-13.)
• As pointed out by Agne CEQ, & Pacheco JF (2007) employing the 1918 Chubb name Dichropogon for poecilinota, which is non-sister to the other Hylophylax taxa runs afoul of the 1910 Dipteran genus name Dichropogon Bezzi.
  (ref. Agne CEQ, & Pacheco JF "A homonomy in Thamnophilidae: a new name for Dichropogon Chubb." Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 15(3):484-485. Sept. 2007).
• Agne and Pacheco do not discuss the gender of the genus group name they propose, but it is honorific to Edwin O'Neill Willis so I presume that Willisornis like Hylophylax is masculine, and the combination Willisornis poecilinotus is compliant with the gender-agreement requirement currently the fashion adopted by the ICZN.
• Thanks to Van Remsen for bringing this to my attention, and to Marek Kuziemko for providing a copy of the PDF.

• Peters Checklist

• Conventionally treated as a subspecies of C. uncinatus.
• Johnson JA, Thorstrom R, & Mindell DP. 2007. "Systematic and conservation of the hook-billed kite including the island taxa from Cuba and Granada". Animal Conservation. pp.1-11 Argue that the Cuban form is most appropriately regarded as a full species.
• Johnson, Thorstrom & Mindell Abstract available here. -- Since this is science, payment of funds will of course be required to actually read the article.

• For a summary of the status of this taxon see Stopiglia R, Raposo MA. 2006. "The name Synallaxis whitneyi Pacheco and Gonzaga, 1995, is not a synonym of Synallaxis cinereus Wied, 1831 (Aves: Passeriformes: Furnariidae)." Zootaxa 1166:49-55.
• In short, Wied-Neuwied introduced the name Synallaxis cinereus as a replacement name for Parulus ruficeps Spix, 1824. Thus the Code (ICZN 1999, Article 72.7) constrains it so that the types of Synallaxis cinereus Wied-Nuewied, 1831 are the types of Parulus ruficeps Spix, 1824.
• Previously the Bahia Spinetail was listed as
  • Synallaxis cinerea Wied-Neuwied 1831 Beitr.Naturgesch.Brasil. 3 p.685
• It is also worth noting that there is frequently confusion regarding the spelling of the specific epithet cinerea vs. cinereus. Wied-Neuwied spelled the name cinerea on the specimen lable (a MS name), and cinereus in the publication.
• The genus group name is feminine, so cinerea is correct.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:38 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175.
• 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.

• Listed by H&M 3^rd:319 as "westermanni" (with two n's).
• This appears to be anomalous, as Peters Checklist 6:194, HBW 7:478, and Short (1982) p.247 all spell this with on "n". (I understand it is to be corrected in H&M 3 - Corrigenda 4).
• The confusion may arise from Muscicapula westermanni = Ficedula westermanni (Sharpe) 1888. PZS pt3 p.270 (spelt "westermanni", O.D. seen which contains only this version of the spelling; no direct mention of Mr Westerman is made).
• These eviently are eponymous honorifics for Gerardus Frederik Westerman (1807-1890) a Dutch zoologist in the East Indies.

• I am somewhat uncertain as to which citation has priority here. The Richmond Index cites both the PZS citation for May, as well as:
  • Dendrochelidon wallacei Gould 1859 BirdsAsia[Gould] 1 pt9 May pl.23,text
• Note the difference in spelling of the specific epithet.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 10:347 (Deignan) to
  • Babax waddelli Dresser 1905 PZS Vol.1 Pt1 p.54 pl.4
  with the text "(June)" added.
• This part was indeed published in June of 1904 (Duncan and the Richmond Index agree on that), however this publication is antedated by some 6 months by the Abstract of the Proceedings published on Jan. 24, 1905, as dated by the Richmond Index.
• Duncan appears to have been unaware of the Abstracts, or had other reasons to not mention them in his article.

• Peters Checklist 3:237 gives "p. 72"
• HBW 4:614 (Collar) repeats this error.
• The description starts on p.71

• Peters Checklist 15:141 has "1866".
• Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched the dates of publication for this work. Vol.3 pp.1-180 were published in 1865.

Otus watsonii 1849

• Peters Checklist 4:107 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.

• Peters Checklist 15:188 spells this "wallacei ".
• Sibley & Monroe, 1990 point out that Mary LeCroy argues that the correct spelling here is "wallacii ". LeCroy, M. 1983. BBOC. 103:144-145. This is followed by Sibley & Monroe, and many lists.
• Bruce and McAllan 1990, discuss this issue in length and in detail. They present themselves as first revisors and take the following postions:
  
  • the spelling should be "wallacei ".
  • the author should be G.R. Gray and not Gould.
  • the citation should be Athanaeum no.1639 p.425 (published 26 March 1859).
  • two publications on the same day described this taxon, they are.
  • • Athanaeum no.1639 p.425 [publ. 26 March 1859]
    • Literary Gazette 39(n.s.) p.406 [publ. 26 March 1859]
  • They propose Gray and Athanaeum.
  • In a related argument they maintain Semeioptera is the correct spelling for the genus-group name.
• However, The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. Supplement 1986-2000. 2001:85. Rules the spelling is "wallacii", based on Opinion. 1606 (APP: not seen 02.12.25). In the Supplement, no reference is made to the Athenaeum publication of the name, or questions regarding the Genus-group name spelling (which they list as "Semeioptera" and which they rule on in the same opinion).
• Thus it appears to me (not having seen the Opinion) that "stability" of zoological nomenclature is believed best served by changing originally published names to what it is felt they should have been.
• Bruce MD & McAllan IAW. Some problems in vertebrate nomenclature. II Birds. Part.1. dal Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali - Torino. Vol.8 1990.

• Peters Checklist 15:141 has "1866".
• This portion of Vol.3 was published int 1865.

• Alstrom and Olsson, Ibis 141:545-568. 1999. discuss part of the Seicercus complex.

• O'Neil et al. state "... belongs to group with largely black-and-white plumage: C. saquamatus, C. maculicoronatus, and C. hypoleucus" but do not make more explicit statements regarding its specific systematic statement.
• The placement within the genus follows H&M 3^rd:303 and HBW 7:213, though I am unaware of the rationale for this relative position within the genus. The discussion in the paper where it is described and the dicussion in HBW 7:213 all suggest it is more closely related to taxa that it is not placed adjacent to in the list. The positional listing within the genus could be "geographic", which if true, in my view, would lend weight to the interpretation that the non-alphabetic within-genus species group order is presumptious and a bit pre-mature.

• Citation usually (Peters 3:242 P. eupatria wardi) given as:
  • Psittacula wardi† (Newton,E) 1867 PZS Pt2 p.346
  • The Richmond Index lists an Ibis citation from July (the PZS being Oct.) which I follow.
• The HBW (N.J. Collar) does not list this taxon, does not discuss it and does not list it as a subspecies of P. eupatria (as Peters does).
• Sibley & Monroe list this as a full species level, but extinct.

• Peters Checklist 2:7 lists 1860.
• HBW 2:305 (A. Elliott) lists 1860.
• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus 22:462 (Ogilvie-Grant) lists 1860.
• Duncan PZS 1937 says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861".
• The Richmond Index shows "Mch 1861", which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 7:13 lists "1887(1888)".
• The Richmond Index and Duncan show this part (3) was published in Oct. 1 1887.
• However the details of this matter are instructive. Most of the particulars are detailed in an article by Dickinson in the Journal of the History of Natural History (in press 2004.03.28 as I write this extension to this note).
• This story is worth summarizing, and some additional facts lend depth to the understanding.
• Edward Dickinson contacted me questioning the date (1887 vs 1888) in the summer of 2003. In zoonomen I had the date listed as 1887, and in this followed both the Richmond Index, and Duncan.
• Dickinson examined a copy of the article (p.558) that lead him to the reasonable conclusion that it must have come out in 1888, that Peters' citation was correct, and that both Duncan and Richmond were wrong. The copy of the article initially examined by Dickinson has the running head:

   The Secretary on additions to the Menagerie. [Nov. 15,

  and as it is known that the material from the meeting of Nov. 15, (1887) was not published until 1888, it is easy to understand the initial interpretation that this page was not published until then.
• I felt that it was unlikely that Duncan, and more importantly, Richmond were wrong on this particular matter, and proposed the hypothesis that possibly two (or more) states of the publication existed. From my limited studies of this serial, I knew that subscriptions were available in different schedules (as individual parts, or numbers, or as completed volumes), and had noted the possibility that examination of a single set of the serial might not always answer a particular question as to dates of publication. I was excited that this conjecture might be shown to be true in the case of Calyptomena whiteheadi. Dickinson (who strongly indicated that he felt that Richmond and Duncan were wrong) agreed that investigating that possibility was important.
• Dickinson's persistence and effective use of resources demonstrated the proposed hypothesis to be correct, thus vindicating both Richmond and Duncan.
• The details of Dickinson's article show that Ann Sylph in the Society's Library found an unbound set of this material which had a running head:

  	Mr. R.B. Sharpe on a new Calyptomena. [June 23,

  and with the lower portion of the page blank. The initially examined copy not only had the later version of the running head, but had the beginning of the notes of the Nov. meeting at the bottom of the page (p.558).
• The main point to illustrate here, is that even in a serial produced in substantial numbers, multiple states can exist, and that examining only one set of a serial (or examples from only one type of set) may produce an incorrect interpretation.
• In addition, it is reassuring that Richmond (who's work is not mentioned in Dickinson's article) is demonstrated to be correct on this point, though his work was clearly ignored by Peters during his preparation of vol.7. Further Duncan, working many decades after Richmond, and presumably using different sources of information, was able to correctly and independantly understand what Richmond had already established.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 2:356, HBW 3:716, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• • Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• • Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
  • I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".

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