Zoological Citation Notes --Y

• Originally spelled Yourdini.
• Subsequently most authors spell this gourdini though they are unwilling or unable to give any justification or rationale for this emendation.
• [2019.02.14]: The "rationale" used is "prevailing usage" though I am unaware of anyone, anywhere undertaking and publishing the analysis to support this position. Rather it appears more an "opinion" which self appointed savants think is "good enough".
• I find the current jack-boot process of "literary cleansing" distasteful enough, but draw the line at non-literature supported assertions of "prevailing usage".

• Peters Checklist 12:210 (= Rand 1967) gives the author as Hartert, and this was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:704; Corrigenda 2.1 says

  author van Someren not Hartert.

• What basis, one wonders, is there for this change? The facts are these:
  1. The text of the article in question reads:

       DR. ERNST HARTERT exhibited a new Sunbird, which he
     described as follows, on behalf of Dr. V.G.L. van Someren:-
     	Anthreptes yokanae, sp. nov. 

     [description follows]. Note: no attribution to van Someren associated with the "sp. nov." text.
  2. The relevant portion of the Code states:

      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 it "clear from the contents that" [van Someren] and not [Hartert] "is alone responsible...."? I think not. van Someren's role is not fully defined here.
• Additionally I note that in the description of the next species in this article (Phyllastrephus rabai p.64) the text starts out:

    DR. ERNST HARTERT also exhibited a Green Bulbul of the
  genus Phyllastraphus, which was described by Dr. van Someren and himself as follows:--
  	Phyllastraphus rabai Hart. & van Som. sp. nov. 

  [description follows]. Note: van Someren explicitly place by Harter in the authority.
• Therefore, I interpret the Code to require the authority for yokanae to be given to Hartert. Not all agree with this.

• Conventionally cited to 1767, which is the imprint date for this volume of the Philos.Trans.; Vol 57 is the "December" volume of the Transactions.
• The Richmond Index has a note indicating that this was published in 1768, which prompted further investigation.
• Forster's paper (pp.312-357)

  XXXIII. Specimen Hiſtoriae Naturalis Vol-
  genſis. Auctore J. R. Forſter

  notes at the beginning (p.312)

  Read June 18, 1767 

  and at the end of the article (p.357) notes

  Dabam Londini, die xxvii Febr. anni 1767

• However, the final paper (pp.517-536) in this volume notes (p.517)

  Title read December 17, 1767

  but it notes that the paper itself was

  Read Feb. 4, 1768

• Therefore, with regards to Forster's paper, a date of 1767 can hold only if it is demonstrated that the individual articles were published separately prior to publication of the volume as a whole.
• A fundamental lesson is evident in this case. Many workers stress the importance of examining the original descriptions (though in fact this is very rarely done). It is however only a half-truth, but is a belief that has lead many workers badly astray. It is more correct to indicate that the original work must be examined, as very often there are indications within the work, but apart from the original description itself, that are necessary to a proper understanding of the disposition of the publication. In literature from the 18^th, 19^th and early 20^th centuries, often it is necessary to examine multiple copies of "the work" to understand the true state of affairs.
• Subsequent to the work noted above, I (belatedly) look this name up in Sherborn's Index Animalium. Sherborn dates this to 1768 which appers to lend considerable support to the use of that date.
• [2010.11.08] Sadly these difficulties have been compounded by the ICZN. In their "Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology" (1987) they place the name on the official list, but don't spell the specific epithet correctly. They employ the spelling yeltonensis -- a spelling actually employed in 1801 by Georg Suckow (a fact of which we must presume they are ignorant). The spelling used by Forster was yeltoniensis, so added to the problem is the error in the ICZN Official List.
• The original text can be seen here: Philosophical Transactions 57:350
• Thanks to Colin Jones and Edward Dickinson for pointing this out.

• 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. in discussing M.m.adusta place M.m.yuriria in synonomy.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:143 (Blake) to Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny.
• H&M 3^rd:769 lists the authority in the opposite order, as d'Orbigny & Lafresnay. The standard of H&M 3^rd seems to demand that others justify the tiniest departure from citations as given by the Peters checklist. A requirement that H&M 3^rd does not appear to meet itself. H&M 3^rd may justify this "departure from Peters" somewhere, but I certainly can't find it.
• The order d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye is that given by the Richmond Index, which is the justification I use for the order that I employ.

• Peters Checklist 8:195 lists the volume number as 22, on p.19 the list the volume number for a bird (Empidonax atrirostris form p.234 in the same year as from volume 23.
• Volume 23 makes sense for the volume for 1871.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for recognizing this.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.13.
• Sibley & Monroe, and Wolters attribute this taxon to "Ihering", and this is also followed by "Nomina". 1998. Andrew & McAllen.
• The Richmond index in the entry for Emberizoides macrourus ypiranganus lists "H & R von Ihering" and is the citation I give here.

Aramides ypecaha spelling

• Bowdler Sharpe in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum. vol.23, spells the specific epithet "ypacaha" both in the species listing and the citation.
• Sherborn lists a "Rallus ypacaha" C. Dumont. Dict. Sci. Nat. XLIV, 1826 p.418" as well as the "ypecaha" 1819 Vieillot.

• Peters Checklist 14:240 (Howell, Paynter, and Rand) gives the authors name in parentheses "(Audubon)", and lists a synonomy:
  • Fringilla mexicana Audubon, Ornith.Biogr., 5, p. 282, pl. 433, fig. 4 -- "Upper California." Not Carduelis mexicanus Swainson, 1827.
  • Carduelis yarrellii Audubon, 1839, Syn. Birds. N. Amer. p. 117 -- "Upper California" [error]; Bahia, Brazil, designated by Todd, 1926, Ann. Carnegie Mus., 17, p.32
• The synonomy in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 12 p.198 is similar, differing in that the name is spelled with one "i", as yarrelli.
• Cabanis & Heine Mus. Heineanum Th.1 p.159 list this taxon in Astralginus which they erect there. They spell the name:
• • "A. Yarrelli."
  • " Carduelis Yarrellii Audub."
• (I do not find a listing for Carduelis yarrellii in the Richmond Index.)

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