Zoological Citation Notes --X

• H&M 3^rd:634 lists this taxon without putting the authority in parentheses.
• Griscom, however, described this as Heleodytes capistratus xerophilus (Am.Mus.Novit. 414:7), so parentheses are appropirate for the authority.

• Peters Checklist 12:23 (Mayr 1967) give this citation as:

  Pectoralis xanthoprocta Gould, 1838 Synops. Birds 
  Australia, pt. 3 pl.53

  The Richmond Index gives the plate as "pl.[18]" which I follow.
• Sherborn in Index Animalium does not give a plate or other details, simply indicating it was published in April of 1838.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 13:109 (Paynter, 1970) to Gray alone as the author.
• The Richmond Index entry has an entry that originally read:

  J. Gould, in C. Darwin

  the "J.Gould" is crossed out and "G.R. Gray" written in above. Richmond correctly dates this name to Nov. 1839.
• The entry in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 12:789 is interesting in that it gives the citation as "p. 196 pl. 23 (1841)", so the page number, plate number, and year all appear to be wrong.
• Steinheimer FD, Dickinson EC, & Walters M. 2006. "The zoolog y of the voyage of the HMS Beagle Part III. Birds: new avian names, their authorship and their dates." BBOC 126:(3):171-193, discusses this question in detail. They conclude that Gould & Gray stand as co-authors for this taxon.

• Several interesting points arise regarding this name. The details are well provided by Murray Bruce (in litt. 2006.08.14).

  I can fill you in on this one.  Salomonsen in Peters XII: 203 also cited a paper by Hindwood,
  1950, Emu 49:207 [= 205-208].  Hindwood's article was on the attempted 'multiple christening'
  of this pardalote.
  
  Apparently, Ramsay had written a description of the new bird on 10 December, to be called
  Pardalotus chrysoprymna, but changed to P. leadbeateri before he sent it to ZSL for
  publication in PZS.  It was read to the society but by then he was aware of McCoy's description so
  he withdrew his paper.
  
  McCoy had learnt of Ramsay's planned description so he rushed his into the Melbourne newspaper
  (McCoy was at the museum in Melbourne, while Ramsay was his counterpart in Sydney) while also
  sending it for publication in England.  Interestingly, Hindwood's article has much detail, mostly
  from Ramsay's papers, but he does not seem to have actually seen the newspaper article or he would
  have provided more details of it.
  
  I have a copy.  He is listed as M'Coy and his short article is entitled "On a new Victorian species
  of Diamond Bird".  As his focus was all about beating Ramsay, the description of broadbenti
  was not part of this bit of skulduggery.
  
  The newspaper is called 'The Australasian' and if Hindwood had seen it he could have added the
  detail that it is vol. 1, no. 39, p. 1221.  Of greater significance is the fact that the name was
  spelled 'xanthopyge', not xanthopygus, as in Ann. Mag. NH.
  
  I think there is a partial facsimile elsewhere in Emu because the adjacent column on the same page
  is an article featuring the original description of Casuarius Johnsonii by F. Mueller [note
  'ii' as Mueller was a botanist and well versed in Latin, of course].  This was featured in a paper
  on the early history of the cassowary in Australia but  I don't recall where it is without digging
  around but that can wait at the moment.  There also was a facsimile in this article of the earlier
  description in a newspaper by Wall, who named it australis.

• Cited by H&M 3^rd:120 to van Bemmel & Hoogerwerf 1940
• Cited by HBW 3:163,[725] to van Bemmel & Hoogerwerf 1941
• The Richmond Index cites this name to van Bemmel alone (noting that A. Hoogerwerf collected the specimen Aug. 9, 1938), and indicates that the name is in Afl.5, with a date of Dec, 1940.
• So there is disagreement with regards the authority and the date. Although I have some question as to Hoogerwerf's standing in the authority, I will follow H&M 3^rd unless further details become available.

• The citation is conventionally given to the J.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila. The date for the portion in which this is published is given as "Feb. 1826".
• The Richmond Index indicates that the description was also read Jan. 24, 1826 for the Ann.Lyc.Nat.Hist.N.Y., though the date when it was published there (vol. II p.52) is uncertain. If it antedates the Philadelphia publication, it would be the source to cite.
• The dates of publication of the Ann.Lyc.Nat.Hist.N.Y. are a mystery and a problem, and it is likely that certainty regarding the dates of publication may never be ours. The citation is best left to the Philadelphia publication, unless additional information becomes available.
• This potential problem is not discussed in the AOU CL's or in Peters Checklist.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.3.
• See Whitney, Bret M. & Pacheco, Jose Fernando. 2000. BBOC 119(4)(1999):231-214. "The valid name for Blue-winged Parrotlet and designation of the lectotype of Pstittaculus xanthopterygius Spix, 1824." for a discussion of this taxon.
• Often held to be
  • Forpus crassirostris (Taczanowski) 1883 PZS Pt1 p.72
  but Whitney & Pacheco show why xanthopterygius is the correct name for nomeclatural reasons.

• Peters Checklist 8:299 lists 1842.
• Pages 1-400 of this work were issued in 1841.

• Peters Checklist 14:166 has "1851?".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Listed in Peters Checklist 10:35 as a subspecies of Erithacus erythrothorax.
• The paper by Pamela Beresford and Joel Cracraft. "Speciation in Forest Robins (Stiphrornis): Species Limits, Phylogenetic Relationships, and Molecular Biogeography." 1999. Am.Mus.Novit. 3270. p.1-22 evidently holds that Stiphrornis must be split into two species.

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