Zoological Citation Notes --A

• Original spelling is "altera", not "alter".
• Thanks to Wayne Longmore for picking this up.

• This occurs in the "2001" (Vol.113) issue of the Wilson Bulletin.
• The backmatter of no.2 for this volume states "This issue of The Wilson Bulletin was published on 18 Feb. 2002."

• Sherborn, in Index Animalium (p.230), spells the specific epithet "alteralbus". (Verified in both online version, and physical book.
• The correct spelling is verified from the original description.
• O.D. p.113

• This was included in the August 1966 issue of the J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc.
;
• The J.BombayNat.Hist.Soc. 100 no.2&3 indicates this number was published 1967.03.27.

• Peters III:200 cites this to "ca. 1839".
• H&M 4^th:357 follows this.
• Dickinson et al. have written several papers discussing dates in this complex and confusing work. To date I find NO discussion of this taxon, though it is in Peters CL, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. and in Sherborn's Index Animalium. The name may have been overlooked as it is not treated in Cory and Hellmayr's Birds of the Americas II no.1 (Cory,1918).
• I identified this name as occuring in the Itinerary and not as previously cited.
• I had interpreted the date 1847 to be likely given that the name appears on p.376, and livraison 89 (1847) contained text pages 369-395 and the work of Dickinson et al. seemed to suggest that was appropriate for that portion of the Itinerary. But the date was substantially at variance with the date Dickinson and Remsen gave in the 4^th edition (Non-Passerines) of the Checklist.
• Happily, Dickinson also recognized this problem and has subsequently corrected the date as had I. His work is pubished in Zool.Biblio. 5(8):399-402. March 8, 2019.
• Additionally, his work shows details of the irregular publishing history and indicates that this portion was issued in 1841.

• Peters XII:285 and others cite this to 1845
• The name first appeared on the plate in no.11 in 1845.
• See, for example the Richmond Index card for this taxon. R I Card Arachnothera armata
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing this out.

• 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.

• For resolution as amazonum , see

  David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.108-109.)

• The authority is usually listed without parentheses, however the Richmond Index shows this taxon as described in Nisus.
• Richmond Index Card Nisus affinis
• To date I have note been able to examine the original description.

• Previously cited as:
  • Coracina tenuirostris aruensis (Sharpe) 1878 Mitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden Heft3 p.369
• This is the citation as given in Peters Checklist IX:186 (either Peters or Mayr 1960), which in turn merely parrots the citation as given in CBBM 452.
• The Mitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden citation can be seen here Mitt.Zool.Mus.Dresden Heft3 p.369, and to my understanding it is hardly satisfactory as a basis for the name, though the entry in the CBBM in 1879 certainly is.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• The citation is often (e.g. H&M 3^rd:271; HBW 5:631,684 given as "1854", implying the citation as here:
  • Coeligena iris aurora (Gould) 1854 PZS["1853"] Pt21 no.251 p.61
  However, this was published July 25, 1854.
• The name was published April 16, 1853 in No. 1329 of the Athenaeum. This fact was discussed several decades ago and the description there reproduced (Bruce & McAllen 1990 p.463) though this literature apparently has been ignored by current workers. I believe that description, having priority, is correct. I find no discussion of this in H&M 3^rd.

• Previously as
  • Oriolus larvatus tibicen Lawson 1962 DurbanMus.Novit. 6 no.16 p.192 Nomenclature
• My previous reasoning is below. However, on reflection I think that it is right that Hartert's action (placing the nomen nudum in the synonomy of Oriolus oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus)) is tantamount to publishing the name as a synonym, and thus requiring a replacement name.
[Previous note:
• Lawson proposed a replacement name for this taxon, based on the fact that Brehm,AE in 1866 proposed a name Oriolus Galbula tibicen (Verz.Samml. p.4).
• However, Brehm's name is a nomen nudum, so by my understanding of the Code, the 1962 name Oriolus larvatus tibicen is available.
• H&M 3^rd:488 (and through 2008 Corrigendum 8) accepts Lawson's replacement name, and makes no comment regarding the application of the Code to this problem.
• This taxon is not in Peters Checklist 15 so this interpretation of the Code relative to this matter is not due to those authors.
[2010.07.15]
• Returning to this matter thanks to the motivation of Dr David Donsker.
• I am interested in the following questions:
  • Was A.E. Brehm's use of Oriolus Galbula tibicen (Verz.Samml. p.4) actually a nomen nudum? Lawson says it was, and he is probably correct.
  • If Brehm's name is a nomen nudum, then does Hartert's inclusion of it in the synonomy of Oriolus oriolus oriolus (Linnaeus) prevent it's being used again? [APP: this sounds possible and even probable to me, but as of yet I have not confirmed it to be so.]
  • What is the work "Verz. Samml. 1866" referred to by Lawson? It does not seem to be the 1842 work with this title by Lichtenstein.
  • It appears to be this work, a copy of which is in the Tring library:

    Verzeichniss der nachgelassenen Sammlung (meist) europäischer Vögel 
    von Dr. Ch. L. Brehm...nach Arten (Species) und Unterarten (Subspecies)
        Brehm, Alfred Edmund, 1829-1884.
    Main author: 	Brehm, Alfred Edmund, 1829-1884.
    Title: 	Verzeichniss der nachgelassenen Sammlung (meist) europäischer Vögel von Dr. Ch. L. Brehm...nach Arten (Species) und Unterarten (Subspecies)
    Publisher info: 	Hamburg, 1866.
    Physical descrip: 	16p ; 8vo
    Misc. local note: 	In bound vol. of reprints entitled: [European Ornithology Vol.1]
    Subject - person: 	Brehm, Ch. L, Dr.
    

  • Hartert does indeed list this name in the synonomy of Oriolus oriolus oriolus,

    
    86. Oriolus oriolus oriolus (L.).
    
    ...
    Oriolus Galbula musicus, tibicen, minor, alticeps, planiceps, crassirostris, septentrionalis
    A. Brehm, Verz. Samml., p. 4 (nom. nuda!).

    Note that he does not list 1866, which suggests that Lawson got that from another source, and may actually have seen the work.
  • What part of the Code applies to this issue? There is 11.6 which reads as follows:

    
    	11.6. Publication as a synonym. A name which when first published 
    in an available work was treated as a junior synonym of a name then used as valid is not 
    thereby made available.

    That does not seem to apply, as this was first published in an available work (apparently as a nomen nudum) and subsequently listed as a synonym. The name (the nomen nudum) was published in a work that apparently is not excluded by Article 9 (facsimiles, labels, photographs, microform, web "publishing", &c).
• This is currently not resolved to my satisfaction. [2010.07.15]

2010.07.16

• Peters Checklist 8:80 [Hemitriccus obsoletus; (= Traylor 1979) & Peters Checklist 7:80 Oreophylax moreirae:; (= Peters 1951)] dates taxa from this volume to 1906, though the basis for this is not made clear.
• Volume 13 has an imprint date of 1905 on the cover, and Rieser and I do not find any indications in the journal that its publication was delayed. Until such indication is brought forward, I use the date specified.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Normand David indicates (in litt. 2009.12.20) that he believes this name requires correction to aurantius, as the original description in Latin, 'includes "macula ... aurantia", indicating use of the word as an adjective.'
• Thanks for Theo de Kok for bringing this to my attention.

• Conventionally cited as
  • Poephila atropygialis Diggles 1876 Trans.Philos.Soc.Queensland p.11
  and that may be correct.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this most probably was published first in a newspaper (The Queenslander), apparently prior to the publication in the Transactions.
• Richmond Index Card Poephila atropygialis (side 2)
• [2010.01.05] Murray Bruce kindly supplied publishing details (in litt.) for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 15:72 (= Moreau 1962) gives the citation as:

  	Penthetria asymmmetrura Reichenow, 1892, Journ. f. Orn., 40
  	p. 126

  . This citation appears to merely follow that given by W.L. Sclater. 1930 Systema Avium Aethiopicarum p.766.
• It is my impression that Moreau relied heavily on Sclater's excellent (though not faultless) compilation of African birds. If true, it is interesting that this fine work by Sclater gets no mention in the Introduction to volume XV of Peters Checklist.
• As Moreau apparently followed Sclater, so other author's follow the Peters Checklist. This name is frequently dated to 1892.
• This name appears to have been published 30 November, 1891, in the Allg.DeutscheOrn.Ges.Berlin and should, I believe, be cited to that publication and that date.

• Peters Checklist 15:49 (= Moreau 1962) gives the citation as:

  	Hyphantornis axillaris Heuglin, 1867, Journ. f. Orn., 15, p.381.

  This may simply be a repetition of the CBBM 13:460 (= Sharpe 1890) citation, which is given as:

  	Hyphantornis axillaris Heuglin, 1867, J. f. O., 1867,  p.381.

• The facts of the matter appear more complex and uncertain to me. Heuglin did indeed use the name Hyphantornis axillaris on p.381 of J.Orn. 15 no.90 p.381, however, he used it previously in J.Orn. 15 no.89 p.298 where he writes:

  Ploceus melanocephalus P. WüUrt., Icon. No. 43.
  ist eine höchst eigenthüimliche Art und fällt mit dem von mir in
  Cab. Journ. 1865 p. 98. beschriebenen Webervogel, den ich Hyphan-
  tornis axillaris benannt habe, zusammen. Meine Vögel sind übrii
  gens nicht vollkommen ausgefärbt, weshalb ich den vom Herzog
  yon Würtemberg in Qamamil gesammelten, der sein vollkommenes
  Hochzeitkleid trägt, hier näher charakterisire:
  	Hyphantornis: pileo, nucha, faeie et cello antico nitide nigris;
  interscapulio, scapularibus, tergo et uropygio, colli lateribus, pect-
  ore, epigastreo et abdomine laterali laete castaneis; abdomine
  reliquo flavissimo, ex parte castaneo tincto; area humerali fumosa,
  plumis omnibus late flavo-viridi marginatis; tectricibus alarum
  majoribus nigris, late et conspicue flav0 marginatis et castaneo
  lavatis; tectricibus alae secundi ordinis magis et purius castaneis,
  basi flavis, macula obsoleta mediana pogonii interni nigricante;
  tertiariis nigricantibus, flare marginatis, laete castaneo lavatis;
  remigibus fuscis, pogonio interne late-, externo stricte flavo margi-
  natis; rectricibus pallide olivaceo fusis, laete flare limbatis; --
  rostro nigro, pedibus rubellis. ~ Long. tot. circa 5½''. -- rostr.
  aft. 8"'. -- al. 2" 10'". ~ caud. 1" 8--9'". ~ tars. 9--10"'. --

• This may be a nomen nudum and I am currently seeking help for interpreting the German to establish whether this use of the name satisfies the requirements of the Code.
• Whether Sharpe, or Moreau was aware of this earlier use of the name is unknown to me.
• Of some interest, if the citation, as given by Sharpe and Moreau is used there is some possibility that it may date from 1868, rather than 1867. In the Richmond Index, it is noted that no.90 was published in "Dec. or later". Though the full details of this possibility are not currently known.

• A minor point here, the Richmond Index card indicates that this bird was named for "Frau Annaliesa Heinrich" (not Annalisa Heinrich) and it would seem to me that if the original description (not seen) so indicates, that the specific epithet should be annaliesa, not annalisa.
• Richmond Index Card Dendrobiastes hyperythra annalisa
• Normand David helpfully comments (2009.09.12) that Stresemann apparently is latinizing "Annaliesa" to annalisa and is using this as a noun in apposition.

• Peters Checklist 10:67 (= Ripley 1964) misspells the authors name as "Elliott" (with two t's).
• H&M 3^rd:680 and HBW 10:765 spell the author's name correctly.

• Described in Ixus.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:346 (= Salomonsen 1967) to 1870.
• This date is followed by H&M 3^rd:439 (through Corrigenda 8)
• The Richomnd Index shows that this was published in April of 1871.
• Salomonsen may have been confused by the submission date at the end of the article (and bottom of page 364). The submission date was 19 August, 1870.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• H&M 3^rd:485, dates this to 1862, though it dates other taxa from the same article to 1861 (i.e. Myiarchus tuberculifer brunneiceps (p.377)).).
• This undoubtedly results from simply following Peters Checklist 14:132 (= Blake 1968).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist 15:97 (= Anamdon 1962) gives the citation as:

  	Lamprotornis purpuropterus aeneocephalus Heuglin, 1863, Journ.f.Orn., 6,
  	p.22

  which makes no sense.
• This name first occurs in 1856 Sitz.K.Akad.Wiss.Wien 19 Heft2 p. 288 where evidently it is a nomen nudum. It does occur in J.Orn. 11 no.61 on p.22, so evidently Amadon merely got the volume number wrong.

• Peters Checklist 15:105 (= Anamdon 1962) gives the author of this taxon as Tytler, and this is followed without discussion by H&M 3^rd:655 (through Corrigenda 8).
• The Richmond Index gives the author as Beavan, which seems to me to be much more in line with the current Code (even though that did not exist at the time Richmond prepared his card).
• The article in this issue of the Ibis is by Beavan, though he describes many taxa collected by Tytler. For this particular species, Beavan quotes Blyth's discussion of this bird and gives a description "taken from specimens in Col. Tytler's Museum". For other taxa, Beavan directly quotes comments presumably from Tytler (after the quoted text there is the string "(R.C.T.)" but this does not occur in the text relating to Temenuchus andamensis (pp.329-300).
• This situation is almost exactly congruent with that of Eulabes andamanensis, (now Gracula religiosa anadamensis) which is described on the next page (p.331) and is attributed to Beavan by both Amadon, and Dickinson (!!).
• I follow the Richmond Index here (as well as my understanding of the Code) and attribute the authority to Beavan.

• For a discussion of the confusion and difficulties concerning this citation, see Cleere N. 2002. Forktail 18:147.

• H&M 3^rd:652 (though Corrigenda 8) lists the authority in parentheses.
• The original combination was Aplornis opaca aenea. However, I find no evidence of a genus group name Aplornis, and I feel the correct interpretation here is that "Aplornis" is merely an emendation of Aplonis, a possibility very strongly supported by the fact that these authors described two other subspecies of Aplonis opaca in the same year, and described them in Aplonis, not "Aplornis".
• The Code reads:

  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]).

• Peters Checklist 10:653 (= Paynter 1964) dates this to 1832, and in this he was probably following Hellmayr 1934:495. It appears in this instance, as in others, neither Paynter nor Hellmayr consulted Zimmer 1926.
• In Zimmer's discussion of the difficulties in dating this work he indicates (1926:614) that this plate was in a group almost certainly issued in 1831.
• The Richmond Index gives 1831 as the date for this taxon, and I follow the Richmond Index and Zimmer here.

• Originally described in Heleodytes.
• H&M 3^rd:634 lists the authority without parentheses, apparently an oversight, and probably relating to the fact that the taxon is not listed in Peters Checklist 9.

• H&M 3^rd: treats this as a subspecies of O. guttata without comment.
• IOC Worldbird list holds this as a full species, citing Sick 1993, a citation not mentioned in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8.
• It appears the SACC has not yet acted upon this.

• This citation is based on, but is not identical to, the Peters Checklist 12:305 (= ?Mayr 1967), which I consider highly questionable.
• I do not find an entry for this in the Richmond Index.
• Michael Rieser helpfully points out (2009.03.22) that A.B.Meyer's compliation of Richenbach's System der Vögel appears to suggest that this bird is in tab. 461 (CCCCLXI) not 451 as rendered by Mayr.

• Treated as a subspecies by H&M 3^rd:624.
• Treated as a full species by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02).

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:602 as a subspecies of Paradoxornis webbianus.
• The IOC World Bird name list holds this as a full species.

• Often spelled oemodium.
• This matter is dealt with in Dickinson EC & Pittie A. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 51. Dates of avian names introduced in early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal" Zool. Med. Leiden 80-5(3):113-124. p.119, footnote # 14.
• Dickinson & Pittie note that three spellings of this specific epithet were employed in the paper, Æmodius in the title, Œmodius heading the description, and Omodium on the plate.
• Dickinson & Pittie indicate that Hartert in 1907 acted as First Reviser, and selected aemodius as the rendering. There is no reason to doubt this, though it is most regrettable that Dickinson & Pittie do not give any reference for this action. Possibly it is in "Die Vogel der palaarktischen Fauna? Though it may be a number of other publications (Novit.Zool., BBOC, &c) as well.
• [2009.08.27] I note that Gill et al. in IOC World Bird names 2.2 (Aug. 2009) employ "oe..." as "oemodium".

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:602 as a subspecies of Pseudalcippe abyssinica and in support of this they cite Dowsett and Dowsett-Lemaire 1993.
• The IOC World Bird name list splits this, stating: "Pseudoalcippe atriceps is split from P. abyssinica (Collar & Robson 2007)". This is not mentioned by H&M 3^rd - through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• Garrulax annamensis is split from Garrulax merulinus by Robson 2000 and by Collar 2006 (as noted in the IOC World List 2.0 [2009.02]).
• No mention of systematic considerations concerning this taxon is made in H&M 3^rd, through Corrigenda 8 (late 2008).

• See David N, & Gregory SMS. 2008. BBOC 128(4):273-274 for an explanation of why this must be treated as masculine.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 11:165 (= Traylor 1986) as a subspecies of A. rufogularis. and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:561.
• In a published treatment more recent than Peters 1986 (Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.599) the status of this taxon is discussed, and interpreted there to be a full species. No mention of this interpretation is made by H&M 3^rd.
• Sibley & Monroe refer to Hall & Moreau 1970 "An Atlas of speciation of in African Passerine Birds" p.185, a work which is referenced in H&M 3^rd.
• H&M 3^rd:561 interpret eidos to be included in A. rufogularis argentea and cite Irwin 1997 (not seen) in this context. Irwin 1997 is not cited by Sibley & Monroe 1999 and Irwin's interpretation may not have been available when Sibley & Monroe went to press. Irwin 1997 may address the Hall and Moreau 1970 approach, as followed by Sibley & Monroe, and have shown it to be incorrect.

• Peters Checklist 11:88 (= Traylor 1986) cites this to Ibis 1869 p.102, and this appears to be followed without comment by H&M 3^rd:88 where this is cited to 1869.
• The Richmond Index points out that in 1867 Heuglin published the following in J.Orn. XV no.87 p.202 (he is discussing taxa from Antinori's 1865 "Katalog der nordost-afrikanishen Vögel.")

  			Pag. 37.
  		Drymoeca sp.? Steht der Dr. ruficeps sehr nahe und wurde
  	von Graf Salvadori Dr. Antinorii bennant.

• It appears to me this is sufficient (by indication) to establish the name, and it should be cited to this source.
• If the Salvadori Catalogue was not actually published, this may not meet the requirements of serving as an indication, and the citation then would be
  • Cisticola lateralis antinorii (Heuglin) 1869 Ibis p.102

• Almost universally cited to 1834.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 (unchanged through Corrigenda 7) says "date, 1833, not 1834 [RJD or ECD et al. in prep.]" but no more details are forthcoming.
• The Richmond Index notes "article dated July, 1834", and it seems unlikely that he is mistaken in this regard.
• We await the publication of an explanation as to why this should be dated 1833 if it is to be cited from this source.

• Richmond Index Card with diagnosis

• A very confusing and difficult situation surrounds this taxon. It is discussed in detail by Dickinson EC, 2001. Systematic Notes on Asian birds. 9. 'The "Nouveau receuil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839). See esp. pp.31,45.
• I interpret Dickinson to argue that the text to pl.337 was reissued with supplementary text at some time after the initial issue with livr.57 (1825). The evidence for this seems compelling, as the specimens did not arrive in Leiden until Oct. 8, 1828 so the date associated with livr.57 (1825) is not possible.
• The question is when this evidently supplementary text was added. Dickinson appears to take a practical approach, suggesting the first date of publication following the Oct. 8, 1828 arrival of the specimens. The next date is Sept. 5, 1829 (the date of livr.80). Though I do not find evidence presented to support the speculative possibility that it might have been published then.
• I regard the date of publication as part of the Pl.Col. as uncertain and unsupported by any evidence known to me. Absent such data, I would have to date the publication as occuring when the final part of the work was published (1839).
• However, Dickinson tells us that Lesson published this name in 1830, as part of Traité Orn. Subsequently Dickinson has argued, I think convincingly, that livr. 5 must date to 1831 (see entry for TraitedOrn. for his reasoning on this); so I take that as the putative date for this taxon as well. so I regard this as the citation that must be used, unless or until additional data (rather than speculation) is brought forward regarding the date of the supplementary text from the Pl.Col.

• Peters Checklist 15:149 (= Vaurie 1962) cites this to 1860 but on the following page (p.150) cites a taxon (Dicrurus amboinensis) from the same page in this work correctly to 1861!

• Peters Checklist 9:180 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this as:
  • Coracina papuensis angustifrons (Sharpe) 1878 J.Linn.Soc.LondonZool. 13 p.81
  though no discussion of this citation is provided.
• This citation (as least with regards to author and date) is followed by H&M 3^rd:467 (through Corrigenda 6).
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was first published by Salvadori two years earlier (with a note "Sharpe in litt.") in 1876, and I follow that citation.
• Of interest the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 4:36 1879 (by Sharpe himself) cites both references, though gives dates for neither; he lists his own reference first.

• While it has no effect on nomenclature (that I know of) it is worth noting that this name was published as an "advanced sheet" on Aug. 16, 1893. The regular issue of this was then on Oct. 25 but the taxon must be dated to the distribution of the advanced sheet.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for pointing this out.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:137 (through Corrigenda 6) and HBW 3:[300] treat this as a subspecies of Rostratula benghalensis.
• Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Rogers DI, Elbourne R, & Hassell CJ. "Mitochondrial-DNA evidence shows the Australian Painted Snipe is a full species, Rostratula australis." Emu 2007 107:185-189 present molecular, plumage and anatomical data supporting this as a full species.
• Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 9:368 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cites this to "1878 Nyt. Mag. Naturv., 24 Heft 3 p.291".
• It is clear that either they do not understand the title of the serial ("Nyt" is a full word (meaning "News" in Danish) and not an abbreviation), or the typesetter has done them wrong. Their string ending in a period would indicate an aabbreviation.. In addition the Richmond Index shows that this is in heft 4 not heft 3, and that it was published in 1879 not 1878 as indicated by Mayr & Greenway.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda corrects the date to 1879 and cites "Wetmore 1946" without further details for this.

• H&M 3^rd:746 spells this alesandrovi, however, Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2007.02.26) that the correct spelling is with an "x" not an "s" (confirmed by Vladimir Loskot) and this will be corrected subsequently.

• Peters Checklist 14:96 dates this to 1879, and this error is followed H&M 3^rd:759.
• The Richmond Index shows that this work was published in 1878, a fact subsequently confirmed by Storrs Olsen with the 1878 date correctly employed by the AOU CL since 1983.

• For systematics I follow Alstöm P, Olsson U, Rasmussen PC, Yao C-T, Ericson PGP, Sundberg R. "Morphological, vocal and genetic divergence in the Cettia acanthizoides complex (Aves: Cettiidae)." Zool.J.Linn.Soc. 2007. 149:437-452.
• Several nomenclatural details in the Alstöm et al. paper are incorrect.

• Originally described in Oryzoborus, the use of parentheses for the authority in H&M 3^rd:793 is an error (fide in litt. ECD 2007.02.11).

• Peters Checklist 1(2):380 gives the date of publication for this work as 1861, but offers no data or evidence to support this.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of 1860. The publication is entitled:

  Bericht über die XIII. Versammlung der Deutsch. Orn. Gesellshc. zu Stuttgart vom 17 bis 20
  Sept. 1860

• The CBBM 1:239 also dates this taxon to 1860.
• Norbert Bahr helpfully communicates on this (in litt. 2007.02.10):

  A Sonderheft of the Journal für Ornithologie appeared in 2001, in which Prof. R. Prinzinger
  published a paper on "150 Jahre 'Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft'", reviewing the history of the
  German Ornithologists Society, in particular the 19th century, in much detail, based on the
  archives of the DO-G. The paper contains a table on the meetings of the society, with notes on
  important dates, decisions and resolutions. The 1860 meeting took place in Stuttgart from 17th -
  20th September; the Bericht (=Proceedings) of that meeting appeared in 1861 and had 104 pages. From
  the table it is evident that the Berichte mostly appeared in the year following the meetings,
  except in the years 1867 (without a date; only 4 pp.), 1869, 1872, 1873 and 1875. In these latter
  years, the meetings were organized in spring or early summer. Note that meetings were not hold
  annually. Hölzinger (1991) agrees with Prinzinger's list for the Berichte 1 for 1860 (publ.
  1861) and 2 for 1862(1863), but gives for the 1867 meeting the same year as date of publication
  (without a date in Prinzinger), and for the 1868 meeting also 1868 as year of publication
  (Prinzinger gives 1869!). However, I consider Prinzinger's paper as more realistic and trustworthy.
  

  The table of meetings appears on p.19 of the 2001 Sonderheft of the J.Orn.

• Peters Checklist 13:190 (Paynter, 1970) lists the authority in the order Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny, and this is consistent with The Richmond Index.
• Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 11:260 lists the authority in the order d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye, and this order is employed by AOU CL 7^th:601 (1998) and H&M 3^rd:800.
• In the abscence of an opportunity to examine the work, I chose to follow the Richmond Index.
• Bjorn Bergenholtz directed me (2013.08.14) to an image from the original publication, showing that the attribution there is listed as Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny, resolving the matter.
• The Rev.Zool. 1:165. image can be seen here Rev.Zool. 1 p.165

• Peters Checklist 1(2):297 (Mayr and Amadon, 1979) give this citation as:

  Milvus affinis Gould, 1838 Synop. Birds Australia pt. 3 pl.47 fig.1 and text

  The Richmond Index and the type catalogue of the Acad.N.S.Phila. give the plate as "pl.[10]" which I follow.
• Sherborn in Index Animalium gives the plate as "pl.47" with the note "teste G.M.M."; in my experience, this increases the likelihood that "pl.[10]" is correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Many authors follow Peters Checklist 13 in placing the authority for all Aimophila taxa that were described in Haemophila in parentheses.
• Neave, Schulze, and The Richmond Index and Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 12:720 all clearly show Haemophila to be an emendation of Aimophila Swainson.
• If the Code is to be followed in such instances, the authority should not be placed in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 13:73 (Paynter) appears to have bungled the citation here, listing the original combination as Passerculus sandwichensis anulus. The Richmond Index is vastly more trustworthy than the later Peters Checklist volumes though it is rarely mentioned by current authors. The Richmond Index lists the original combination as Passerculus rostratus anulus, and I expect that is correct.

• Peters Checklist 13:72 (Paynter) spells this Passerculus athinus without comment.
• The original text is here reproduced demonstrating that the original spelling is anthinus

• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1987. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. London has this entry (p.43):

  Alle Link, 1807, Beschr. nat.-Samml. Univ. Rostock 2 : 46
  (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Alca alle
  Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 131 (Aves) O. 999

• I have not seen Opinion 999 in the 10 Oct. 1973 issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, but I presume the decision there is based on erroneous facts or incomplete research.
• All the evidence I am aware of supports a date of 1806 (not 1807) and the presence of this name in volume 1 (not volume 2) of this work. This interpretation is based upon the published works of Sherborn, Neave, Schulze, & Richmond, who all place this name in vol.1 and date it to 1806. The Richmond Index addtionally notes that the Vögel section occupies pp.17-50 which would correlate with vol.1 and not with vol.2.
• While following the Code would appear to require employing their citation as given in the "Official" list, I chose to follow Sherborn, Schulze, Neave, Richmond, and all of the AOU Checklists that list this taxon.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this issue to my attention.

• 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. place M.m.azteca in the synonomy of M.m.mexicana.

Peters Checklist 2:132 gives the citation as:

Argusianus Rafinesque, Analyse, 1815, p.219. New name for Argus 
Temminck, preoccupied. Type by monotypy and tautonomy, Phasianus argus Linné

• Peters appears to be using the CBBM 22:362 (1893) citation of Ogilvie-Grant, which reads:

   Argusianus Rafinesque, Analyse, p.219 (1815).

• It should be noted there are two works referred to by Peters as "Analyse":
  1. "Analyse D'Une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire" Vieillot 1816, (see for example 2:51) and
  2. "Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps organises, &c." Rafinesque 1815.
  I follow the convention of referring to the latter as AnalyseNat.
• As Michael Rieser points out (in litt. 2006.11.16), a deeper problem exists. This problem, as he notes, has been addressed and a resolution published. Peters' ignorance of this resolution appears to have been honored by subsequent workers who have also consistently ignored both the problem and the published resolution.
• Richmond in 'Generic names applied to the Birds during the years 1901 to 1905, inclusive, with further additions to Waterhouse's "Index Generum Avium."' Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 35: no.1656 pp.591(note a),594(note a). [Publ. 1908.12.16] brings knowledge and understanding to this problem that apparently was unavailable to Peters, who also appears to have ignored Richmond's publication. Richmond writes:

  Argus is preoccupied by Argus BOHADSCH, 1761, and Argus SCOPOLOI, 1777.
  Argusianus RAFINESQUE, 1815, now employed for the Argus Pheasant, is a pure nomen nudum at that date,
  and as a valid generic name will have to be cited from Gray, Cat. Genera and Subgenera of Birds, 1855, p.103.

• HBW 2:551 (McGowan) follows the tradition of Peters by citing Rafinesque, as does
• H&M 3^rd:61 (through Corrigenda 5).
• I subsequently understand from Edward Dickinson's communication (in litt. 2007.12.22) that Steven Gregory has determined that the name is appropriately cited to Gray,GR in 1849 Genera of Birds, Vol.2 Appendix, p.47.

• This publication is dated to 1870 by Peters Checklist 14:19, though no justification for the belief in delay of the publication is given.
• The Richmond Index cites this to "Arg.26 no.6 for July 1869"
• Until I find evidence for or proof of a delay in this publiction I will date this to 1869, which it appears must be the imprint date.

• The genus group name is based on the Greek word αγελασ&tauικος which Cabanis translates as "gesellig, in Heerden lebend." I in turn attempt to translate the German as something like "gregariousness in military life" but the Greek dictionary definintion of αγελασ&tauικος -- "disposed to herd together, social" seems rather more likely to be the idea.
• Dr Calos Sánchez Osés offers an additional suggestion regarding the etymology. He writes (in litt. 2007.04.18):

  Canabis translates the Greek word as "[...], in Heerden lebend" but maybe he
  meant "in Herden lebend" which means "living in herds / groups", as you correctly stated.
  "Heer" (neuter) is an army and "Herde" (feminine) is a herd or group (for example of animals).

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:140 (Blake) to Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny.
• H&M 3^rd:768 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.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 11:382 (Traylor) to 1856.
• Peters Checklist cites other taxa described on the same page (Phalacrocorax coronatus & neglectus) to 1855. Gyldenstlpe's Arkiv För. Zoologi Band 19 A. N:o 1. lists other types from this page to April of 1855.
• H&M 3^rd:455 lists Batis pririt affinis to 1856, but corrects this to 1855 in Corrigenda 2.1.

• The systematics and nomenclature of the "Francolins" is problematic. I have attempted to follow Crowe TM, Harley EH, Jakutowicz MB, Komen J & Crowe A. 1992. "Phylogenetic, taxonomic and biogeoraphical implications of genetic, morphological, and behavioral variation in Francolins (Phasianidae: Francolinus). Auk 109(1):24-42.
• Following their presentation, I previousl listed the taxon:
  • Scleroptila africana (Stephens) 1819 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 11 pt2 p.323
• My colleague Dr David Donsker raised questions about the gender agreement endings of some of the Scleroptilan specific epithets, and this prompted several changes.
• Normand David assisted in the understandings here, and he pointed out (2006.10.01) that:

  In Francolinus, afer Muller 1776 (the type of Pternistis =P. afra =
  Francolinus afer) is a senior homonym of afer (afra) Latham 1790, the latter
  being replaced by the junior synonym africanus (=africana) Stephens 1819. See again
  Wolters who uses Scleroptila afra (p.105) and Pternistis afer (p. 104).

• I was somewhat uncertain as to whether Latham's 1790 name was actually referable to this bird (the "Grey-Winged Francolin", but again Dr Donsker was able to provide help, he writes (2006.10.01)

  I am reasonably confident that Latham's Perdix afra (Index Ornithologicus, 1790, p.648) based
  on "Var.A. Pearled Partridge, Latham, Gen.Syn. II, ii, p.773, no. 15A refers to "Grey-winged
  Francolin", Scleroptila africana. I base this on two important features:
  
   
  The specimen, according to Latham's Gen. Syn. entry, was sent to Sir Joseph Banks from the Cape
  of Good Hope. This is perfect for the range of S. africana.
   
  The critical portion of Latham's description is as follows: "over each eye an elegant stripe,
  minutely dotted with black and white: chin, and fore part of the neck, marked in the same elegant
  manner".
   
  Of the South African francolins, only S. africana is characterized by a freckled throat which,
  according to Sinclair (1993) is its most distinctive feature. The rest of Latham's description also
  seems to fit.

• Crowe 1992 refer to Wolter's work, but make no mention (that I can find) of Wolter's recognition that afra Latham is the correct name to use when this taxon is held in Scleroptila.
• Most helpfully, Dr Richard Schodde (in litt. 2020.03.08) notes:

   “afra Latham, 1790 replaces africanus Stephens, 1819, 
  being no longer a junior secondary homonym in the same genus as 
  Pternistis afer (St. Müller, 1776) - see ICZN Art. 59.4”
  

• Art. 59.4 reads:

  59.4. Reinstatement of junior secondary homonyms rejected after 1960
  
  A species-group name rejected after 1960 on grounds of secondary homonymy 
  is to be reinstated as valid by an author who considers that the two 
  species-group taxa in question are not congeneric, unless it is invalid 
  for some other reason.
  

• Conventionally cited to 1887 (e.g. Peters Checklist 10:97 (Deignan 1964) ; H&M 3^rd:601; Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Aethiop. II:361).
• 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 1887 July. number (179) containing this description was not recieved at the London Zoological Society until March 5, 1888 (virtually a 5 month delay).
• Edward Dickinson (in litt. maintains that 1887 remains 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.
2014.04.01
• Fortunately, in this instance additional data internal to the publication sets aside concerns over nice distinctions betwee "proof" and "evidence". On p.298 of this number Dr Carl Eckstein's article the final line reads:

  Eberswalde, den 12. October 1887

  Given this fact, the "July 1887" publication date must be set aside, and the date when the material was first demonstrated to be in existence must be used. Currently this would be the 5 March 1888 date when the London Zool.Soc. acknowledged receipt of the work.

• H&M 3^rd:383 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 8:569 has the date correct as 1868.

• Peters Checklist 11:427 (Mayr) lists the page number for this taxon as "p. 106"
• The Richmond Index lists the page as "102"; which I follow.

• The Richmond Index notes that Reichenbach employs the spelling Agaia on p.XV, and Ajaia on p.XVI. This is confirmed by Neave 1:82.

• Originally spelled Carbo albiventer.
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1986 on page 192 lists this name as

  albiventor, Carbo, Lesson, 1831, Traité Orn. (8) : 604
  (Aves)
  O.409

• The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda states that this is a lapsus but does not indicate how this is known.
• [2010.01.22] Thanks to the efforts of David Nicholson of ITIS, I have read the Opinion 409 in which an apparent attempt is made by Meinertzhagen to deal with this name. In this Opinion the original name is spelled incorrectly as albiventor (twice) on p.160, correctly (twice) as albiventer (p.163), and finally incorrectly as albiventor on p.170, with apparent recommedations to render the name both ways.
• The Official List follows what seems to me to be least logical path.
• In the face of this apparent error, and with evident confusion, ignorance or inattention on the part of the Commission in this matter, I am reluctant to follow the Official List.

• The Peters Checklist 1(2):161 (Dorst & Mougin) give the page number as "p.199".
• If that were true for the second volume of the Austral Avian Record, it would date to 1915, and not 1914.
• The Richmond Index shows the page correctly as p.119.
• HBW 1:632 faithfully replicates this error from the Peters Checklist.

• Chapman named this bird Oreoibis akelyorum, but named it after Mr & Mrs. Carl Akeley.
• Contra Chapman (as followed by Peters CL 1(2):261), this must be corrected to akeleyorum.
• The requirement for this correction is noted in H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 5.

• This number of the Proceedings of the U.S. Nat. Mus. is dated Oct. 25, 1893.
• The U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. No.193 notes that advance sheets were issued Aug. 16, 1893.
• Aug. 16, 1893 is the date listed in the Richmond Index; Peters Checklist 15:140 (Vaurie) does not trouble itself with such details, but gets the year date correct.

• Usually cited to PZS pt12 no.138 Dec. 1844 p.135 (e.g. Peters 1(2):152; HBW 1:632).
• McAllen. 2004. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand" Notornis 51:125-6 points out that the publication of this name in Birds Australia (part 17 published in late Nov. 1844) antedates the publication in the PZS (late December, 1844).

• The Peters Checklist gives a confused, and inconsistant approach to dates for this number of volume 31 of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal, (see for example pp.311,312 of volume 8, where Mayr gives different years for citations to the same page). Thus it is not clear whether the "1863" date follows Peters (where one has one's pick of dates) or from Round, 2002.
• Sharpe Cat.B.Br.Mus. 14:412 dates this to 1862.
• The basis for Round's use of "1863", is unstated. For my part it, I don't know whether it is correct. Given the fact that the date is not discussed by Round, it gives the impression that he and his editors, were unaware of, or unconcerned by the problem of dating this taxon.

• The Corrigenda 5 of H&M reinstates the genus group Anthocincla for the taxon more generally referred to as Pitta phayrei. There are, however problems.
  1. The date given for this taxon is 1863, though other taxa from pages before and after the page (p.343) where this genus is described in JASB are dated in H&M to 1862
     • Gecinulus grantia viridis Blyth 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.341 -- H&M p.330 1862. (no correction in Corr. 5)
     • Treron pompadora phayrei (Blyth) 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.344 -- H&M p.172 1862 (no correction in Corrigenda)
  2. No gender is given for the Genus group name. My best guess is that it is feminine.
  3. The reference given in support "Round, 2002" is not given in the Corrigenda, however I understand from Edward Dickinson that it is Round PD. "Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 30. An undescribed acoustic display of the eared pitta Anthocincla phayrei Blyth, 1863." Zool.Verh.Leiden 340:197-199, fig.1."
  4. Sharpe separated this from Pitta, stating:

     	kept apart from Pitta on account of its longer and more compressed
     	bill, lengthened neck-feathers, shorter tarsi, and short rounded
     	wings.

     .
  5. Round states:

     	It is the only pitta to possess entirely russet or brown, non-iridescent plumage
     	as an adult, and one of very few species to possess elongate, somewhat 
     	erectile, "ear-tufts". It differs in other respects, too, having a slightly
     	longer, more slender and curved bill, and proportionately shorter tarsi than
     	other pittas. It tends to occur in drier areas, and possibly more distrubed
     	habitats than the other non-migratory pittas, often showing an association with
     	drier secondary growth, although there is considerable overlap with [the] blue
     	pitta P. cyanea Blyth, 1843, and the two species are often found
     	together. Feeding behaviour also differs, Eared pittas tend to move around less
     	when feeding, often spending many minutes foraging under the same bush or [on
     	the] same few square metres of forest floor, in contrast to other pittas which
     	tend to "patrol" through their territories when feeding, seldom remaining in any
     	one location for more than a few seconds.

     Round does not mention Sharpe's basis for generic separation: Round and Sharpe share the "shorter tarsi" criterion, and both comment on bill differences ("compressed" and "slightly longer, more slender and curved"). Round's use of "one of very few species to possess elongate, somwhat erectile, "ear-tufts"" would seem to me to argue for it being a congener with those other species, so I see that as neutral in the separate-genus-or-not argument.
• For the moment, and with some trepidation, I follow this generic split.

• The dates of the second volume of the Conspectus Generum Avium always include some uncertainty.
• This name occurs in a portion that the Richmond Index indicates has a Signature date of "1 Dec. 1855", though Richmond does not date this name to a specific year.
• Peters Checklist 1:62 lists 1857 but without comment or discussion.
• Mathews, 1925 suggests volume 2 p.1-160; 161-184 as 1856, and 185-232 from 1857.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):347 cites this as:

  Astur gentilis arrigonii Kleinschmidt, 1903, Ornith. Monatsber., 9,
  p.152

• Volume 9 appears to make no sense for 1903, and the Richmond Index cites this to volume XI (no doubt misinterpreted as "9" by the Peters authors).
The Peters error is reproduced in HBW 2:573.

• Peters Checklist 4:26 cites this as:
  • Cacomantis castaneiventris arfakianus Salvadori 1889 Mem.R.Accad.Sci.Torino(2) 40 p.177
  With a note that it is included in the "reprint" on p.49. This evidently refers to the "Aggiunte". The Aggiunte was published in 1889, while vol. 40 of the Mem. was not published until 1890. Thus I cite the taxon to the Aggiunte.

• The comments in the Richmond Index suggests that this may be quite marginal as an acceptable taxon. The comments there read:

  Mere outline of some generic characters here; almost 
  a nomen nudum.
  Figured + described by Gurney in Trans.Zool.Soc.Lond., VI,Pt.3, Mch 28,
  1867, 117, pl.27 under the name M. alcinus.

• The last comment suggests that Gurney himself did not appear to recognize this form a mere year after he published the name.
• No mention of the validity of this taxon, or the basis of it's identification are found in any of the modern works available to me. Mayr in his 1940 description of M. a. papuanusmakes no mention of this (putative) form.
• The type is (or was) evidently in the Norwich Museum, consisting of one specimen (a female).

• Cited by Peters Checklist 2:344 as being published in 1848, though no supporting data are adduced.
• The Richmond Index lists a date of 1847, with a note that the signature is dated Dec. 1847.
• I believe it is likely that 1848 may be the correct date for this taxon, but that in the abscence of proof of delay, then 1847 must be accepted as the date, unless and until proof of delay is presented.
• The 1957 AOU CL lists the date as 1847, and evidently on that basis, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3 reverted from 1848 to 1847.
• HBW 3:647 lists the taxon to 1848.

• Conventionally cited to Brehm alone (e.g. HBW 3:609 (Gochfeld & Burger)).
• However, Zimmer (p.89,90), Rolf Schlenker. "Bibliographie der Deutschen Vogelkundlichen Literatur von 1480 bis 1850" Hiersmann. Suttgart. 2004. (p.35) make it clear that Schilling was also an author for Band 3.
Schilling is also listed as an author for this taxon in the Richmond Index.

• HBW 3:423 (Piersma) includes the subspecies
  • Pluvialis apricaria altifrons (Brehm,CL) 1831 Handb.Naturgesch.Vog.Deutschl. p.542
  with only the indication that subspecies in this taxon are "debated". Literature documentation for this "debate" is not given.
• H&M 3^rd:134, includes this taxon but includes no notes, discussion, or support for its status as a subspecies.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was considered, at least at some time as a synonym of Charadrius apricarius.
• Neither HBW nor H&M pretends to be a primary taxonomic work. The inclusion of this taxon is not based, as near as I can tell, on any published data. It may well be I have missed something here, but I await indication of published support for this taxon before I include it.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:73 to Heft 2. pl.2 and text.
• HBW 7:562 gives this same citation, though pl.2 seems a peculiar number for Heft 2 (unless the plates are numbered anew in each Heft).
• The Richmond Index gives "hef. 2 pl. 17 + text", which seems more likely and which I follow.

• Norbert Bahr writes (2005.11.03)

  ..., in a recent article Grau et al. (2005) confirmed the
  systematics of the piping guans proposed by Delacour & Amadon in 1973,
  namely the merger of Pipile in Aburria. Grau et al. (2005)
  found that Pipile jacutinga is the sister species to Aburria
  aburri + all other species of Pipile; the next split
  is A. aburri, which is the sister species to the remaining
  Pipile species.  Thus, Pipile would be papraphyletic, and it
  seems the best solution to merge both genera under the oldest name,
  Aburria (as did Delacour & Amadon more than 30 years ago).
  
  Grau et al. (2005): Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 35:637-645.
  

• Previously as

  Pipile (m.) Bonaparte 1856 Compt.Rend. 42 p.877 Type

       Pipile pipile (Jacquin) 1784
       	Pipile cumanensis (Jacquin) 1784
       	Pipile cumanensis cumanensis (Jacquin)
       	Pipile cumanensis grayi (Pelzeln)
       Pipile cujubi (Pelzeln) 1858
       	Pipile cujubi cujubi (Pelzeln) 1858
       	Pipile cujubi nattereri Reichenbach
       Pipile jacutinga (Spix) 1825
  
  

• Originally described in Entomyza, and evidently (though it is not discussed) for this reason H&M 3 ^rd:435 encloses the authority in parentheses.
• Neave p.244 lists Entomyza as

  (pro -zon Swainson 1825)

  which I interpret to mean that Neave sees Entomyza Gray, as an emendation of Entomyzon Swainson.
• I do not find a card for any Genus group name Entomyza in the Richmond Index, and until other information becomes available, I interpret it as an emendation, with no parentheses required around the authority.

• This is held to be a valid subspecies by
  1. Peters Checklist (1940) 4:110
  2. AOU CL (1957) 5^th:278
  , and by
  3. Weick, Friedholm (1999). Zur Taxonomie der Amerikanischen Uhus (Bubo spp). Unter Beruecksichtigung eines groesstenteils parallel variierenden Polymorphismus innerhalb der Subspecies. Mit zwei Farbtafeln und zwei Verbreitungskarten. [Transl: Taxonomy of the American great horned owls (Bubo spp) with consideration of a mostly parallel variation within the polymorphic subspecies. With two colour plates and identification maps.]. Okologie der Vogel, 21(2):363-387.
• HBW (1999) 5:185 (KL Schuchmann) states

  Numerous geographical races named, many poorly differentiated, or
  apparently result of individual variation, or due to wandering birds from
  other parts of range: thus , forms described from coastal W Alaska
  (algistus) ... considered not acceptable: ...

  However if there is either data or a cited literature in support of this assertion I have not been able to find it.
• H&M 3^rd:225 follows HBW despite the lack of published taxonomic support for this interpretation.

• Peters Checklist 2:183 lists the author of this taxon (Ortygometra affinis) as J.E. Gray with a date of 1846.
• Sharpe 1894 Cat.B.Br.Mus. 23:106 lists the author as "Gray" and the year of publication as 1846, and this is undoubtedly the source that Peters followed, and either Peters or the C.B.B.M was then followed by H&M 3^rd:123 and HBW 3:184.
• The authorship of the Birds part of the Voy.Erebus&Terror is attributed to G.R. Gray and this portion of the work was published in 1845, not 1846.

• 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.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:27 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• 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.

• See the discussion under Chalmayera cerviniventris for a discussion of the page numbering here. Citation
• I do not find any listing in Sherborn for this taxon.

• H&M 3^rd:162 indicates this name should be used in lieu of M. batchianensis, citing Mees. 1982.
• The text of Bonaparte's description reads:

  		MACROPYGIEÆ.
  
    » A propos de diverses races de Macropygia ajoutez qu'albiceps, Temm.,
  de Ternate a la tête d'un jaune isabelle, et ressemble à mon emiliana, que
  j'ai retrouvé dans presque tous les Musées. ... 

• Usually cited to 1877 (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:94; HBW 4:138).
• However see the notes on Orn.Angola, and note that this taxon is described on p.386, which puts it in pt2, published in 1881.
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett for the understanding on this.

• Usually cited as
  • Hirundo ariel (Gould) 1843 PZS(1842) Pt10 no.117 p.132
  (e.g. Peters Checklist 9:123 ; H&M 3^rd:538 (Petrochelidon ariel)) .
• However McAllan (2004) points out that publication in BirdsAustr. was available in early December, 1842, while the PZS publication was not published until Feb. 1843.
• 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.128)

• Treated by Peters Checklist 4:207 ; HBW 5:365; and H&M 3^rd:243 as a subspecies of Caprimulgus macrurus
• Sangster G & Rozendaal FG 2004. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 41. "Territorial songs and species-level taxonomy of nightjars of the Caprimulgus macrurus complex, with description of a new species." Zool. Verh., Leiden 350:7-45. not only recognize a new species, but hold C. andamanicus to be a full species.

• H&M 3^rd:371 replaces andicola with albicauda arguing that Traylor's intrepretation of andicola and andecola not being homonomies is wrong (that is to say arguing that they ARE homonomies).
• Traylor's argument (Peters Checklist 8:166) is that they are not homonomies because the names are based on different derivations (Andium (L.) and Andes (Fr.)). It appears to me that if the derivations are in fact different, as they appear to be, then ICZN (1999) Art. 58 would hold them not to be homonomies. The Article reads:

   Article 58. Variant spellings of species-group names deemed to be 
  identical. Species-group names established for different nominal taxa that
  differ in spelling only in any of the following respects and that are of the same
  derivation and meaning are deemed to be homonyms when the nominal taxa
  they denote are included in the same genus or collective group.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 11:15 (Watson) as dated to 1871, though no evidence or support for this assertion is given.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprint date.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an 1871 paper cited this name to 1870. Absent evidence that demonstrates a delay of publication, which Watson was unwilling or unable to provide, then the date must be regarded as 1870.

• As this is the only taxon in this first volume, that I cite as published in 1879 (imprint date 1878), it seems appropriate to indicate the evidence for the publishing history.
• A publication date of 1879, is used by Peters Checklist 8:178 (Traylor); Harris. 1928. Condor 30:80; and the Richmond Index. CWR gives the date as "May ?", and Harris dates the two signatures 30,31 as "April 30 - May 2, 1879", presumably the first date for sig.30 and the May date for sig.31.
The dates used by Harris, may well be the stereotype dates for those signatures, and thus would not be the actual publication date. It is possible that this fact is indicated by CWR's use of "May ?"

• Peters Checklist 8:177 (Traylor) lists Heine as the author, and 1859 as the date for this taxon.
• The Richmond Index lists "Cabanis in Heine", and has a note for this taxon that reads "not published until 1860."
• In general, modern workers follow the Peters Checklist.
• The cover of this number includes the text:

  NB. Das erste Heft des Jahrganges 1860 ist im Druck und wird baldigst
  erscheinen.

  I translate this:

  The first heft of the year 1860 is in press and will appear soon.

  The interpretation here is problematic. Does this mean that it is "now" 1860 and that the first heft of this year (1860) is in press? Does it mean that in anticipation of the new year the first heft for that year is now in press? (the wording there would more likely be "The first heft for the year 1860 is in press...."). An alterantive interpretation would suggest that the delay is not "proven" (even though delays in publication for this serial were at this time clearly the "routine" and were expected and acknowledged by one and all) and that the "imprint date" (i.e. 1859) must stand as the nomenclatural date. I think historical fact overwhelmingly favors 1860, while the combination of current nomenclatural requirements as well as the data known at present may favor 1859. It is not apparent to me that "stability" is served, by having nomenclatural code requirements trump historical likelihood, as it is reasonable to expect that some little bit of data will show up that confirms the historical likelihood and thus necessitates a change in the citation.
• It must be noted that the problem of dating the J.Orn. is one of considerable difficulty. In my opinion it is not the kind of problem that Traylor had a particularly strong record of dealing with. I strongly suspect that Richmond is correct here, and that Traylor is wrong. The "track record" regarding other similar issues makes this a remarkably safe position to take. For full resolution, however, we must await the development of additional information.
• Initially I followed the Richmond Index in attributing the authority to Cabanis, however upon examinint the article itself (2009.06) I think I agree with Traylor. The article in question "Das Genus Cnipolegus Boie." is clearly by Heine. On page 334 where this name appears, the entry reads:

  	3. C. anthracinus Cab. nov. sp.
  ....

  The following description does not include any quoted text or other direct indications of Cabanis' involvement that I can see. Presumably Cabanis may have contributed only a manuscript name, and absent other specific evidence of his involvement the author of the article (Heine) should be held as the author of the name.

• Peters Checklist 8:102 (Traylor) gives this date as 1883.
• This is copied by H&M 3^rd:363, but corrected in Corrigenda 2.1.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

• The Peters Checklist 8:70 (Traylor) lists the volume number as "15(362)" which I interpret to be a representation of vol.15, no.362. (Note that earlier in the same volume, on p.26 Traylor represents the same work as "15 no.362").
• A comparison of other citations to this serial makes the combination of no.362 and vol.15 appear unlikely, and this peculiarity would appear to be explained by the note in the Richmond Index for this taxon. That note has "XV" scratched out and "XIV" written in above it. The note (in CWR's hand) says

  misprinted vol. "XV" on this no.!

• Another taxon from this same volume and number is Sclerurus salvini, which Jim Peters lists (7:152) as from vol.14 no.362. The Richmond Index for this taxon has the same note concering the misprinted volume number for this number. It appears to me that Traylor was unwilling, unable, or disinclined to make his citation consistent with others in the Peters Checklist Series.

• Published in the Dec. no. for Rev.Zool. VIII. Quite possibly not published until Jan. (or later) of 1846.

• Peters Checklist 8:248 lists the date for this as 1860.
• This portion of the Proceedings has a publication date of March, 1861.

• I follow the treatment by Lowther, Fraga, Schulenberg & Lanyon.
  Lowther PE, Fraga R, Schulenberg TS, & Lanyon SM. 2004. "Nomenclatural solution for a polyphyletic Agelaius." BBOC 124(3):171-175.

• Peters Checklist gives the citation for this as:

  Opopsitta diophthalma aruensis (Schlegel)
      Psittacula diophthalma aruensis Schlegel, Mus. Pays-Bas, 3, 1874,
        Psittaci revue, p.33 (Aru Islands).
  
  

  Which is almost exactly correct, but misleading due to incorrect listing of the volume number. The initial section on parrots is in volume 3 (as the set is conventionally bound). This section (no.26) is the first in the physical volume III (and is half-way through livraison #5). Page 33 of this portion discusses Psittaculus cyanopygius Souancé, and Psittacus robustus Gmelin. Psittacula diophtalma (sic), Hombron et Jacquinot. first appears on p.75 of this section, but the subspecific name "aruensis" does not appear in this volume or section.
• Psittacula diophthalma aruensis appears in bound volume V (5), livraison 11, in part no.38 (Revue ... Perroquets (Psittaci)...) on p.33.

• Peters Checklist 3:196 lists the volume of the Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. as "18", which makes no sense for 1915.
• The Richmond Index shows this as vol. 28 which is appropriate for 1915. HBW 4:615 also shows the volume correctly as 28.
• Compare also the citation for Forpus passerinus cyanophanes on 3:203 where the volume is given (correctly) as 28.

• This taxon previously represented by:
  • Charmosyna amabilis (Ramsay,EP) 1875 Proc.Linn.Soc.NewS.Wales 1 p.30
• It appears my concern over the date was justified, as I understand this was not published until 1876, and therefore C. aureicincta has priority.
• [2010.01.03] The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda notes that the correct citation may well be by Ramsay in the Sydney Morning Herald 28 July 1875.

• In contrast to virtually all listings of avian taxa, I list subspecies within species in alphabetical order.
• The convention in ornithology is to try to list subspecies in some kind of geographical order, although many ornithologists understandably believe that the subspecific ordering reflects the same kind of information as the species-within-genus sequence. The species-within-genus sequence is intended to proceed from more basal to more derived.
• A number of problems are unavoidable in trying to use a linear list to reflect geographic distributions which often are non-linear, and often not known well. Subspecies are usually described before their geographic distribution is well worked out.
• A widespread convention attempts a "north-west to south-east" arrangment. Of interest the AOU Check-lists up through the 5^th used a "north-east to south-west" convention, while with the 6^th the orientation became north-to-south or west-to-east.
• An addtional problem is that consistency of approach is understandably impossible, yet no indication is given as to whether the sequence follows a systematic, geographic, or traditional basis.
• For these reasons, I have currently adopted an alphabetical sequence for subspecies. This enhances convenience when searching through a long list of subspecies.

• Peters Checklist 5:123 lists the page number for this as "p. 90", and this error is repeated by HBW 5:688.
• The copy of the publication that I have to hand shows that the genus group name is on p.291.

• A confusing situation exists here. This name is variably attributed to Gray, Bonaparte, Hombron & Jacquinot, Hombron & Pucheran, or Pucheran.
• It appears that Gray used a name Actenoide in 1846 in Gen.Birds I:78,79. He appears to have adopted this from a vernacular name used by Hombron & Jacquinot, evidently on a plate. This name was emended to Actinoides in Gray 1848, List Birds Brit.Mus., 2(1):52, where it appears he did not use the name, but simply listed it in the synonomy of Halcyon.
• Bonaparte used the genus group name Actenoides in Consp.Gen.Av. 1850 p.157, and attributes it to Hombron & Jacquinot in Voy. Pole Sud, Ois. t.23 2 (which had not yet been published). So it is reasonable to speculate (as suggested by Edward Dickinson in litt.) that Bonaparte had been shown a draft of Hombron & Jacquinot's work and was employing their name and attributing it to them despite their publication being not yet available.
• I am told that the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 17:213 (where Edward Dickinson informs me the name appears to be mis-spelled Aetenoides, but Actenoides in the index) attributes the name to Hombron & Jacquinot 1853 Voy.Pôle Sud, Zool. iii, p.100.
• Stephen Gregory's treatment of the genus and the type is, I believe, dispositive he communicates (by email 2004.05.07):

  Actenoides 
  	Bonaparte, 1850 Conspectus Generum Avium, 1, p.157.
    [Type by] monotypy
  	Actenoides hombroni Bonaparte, 1850
    Remarks: Halcyon actenoides, Gr[ay]., which I cannot trace,
    quoted first by Bonaparte, p.157. Both Gray and Bonaparte described
    species figured by Hombron & Jacquinot in the 'Atlas', in this
    case the "Actenoide variée", pl. 23, fig. 2. (January 1845).
    Actenoïdes 
      G.R.Gray, 1848, List Specimens Birds Brit.Mus.,2(1), p.52.,
      is a nomen nudum. 
    Actenoide G.R.Gray, 1846, Genera of Birds, 1, p.80, fn,
    not introduced as a generic name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:348 (Salomonsen) as published in 1879 but evidently with an imprint date of 1878. The basis for his belief that the publication was delayed is not given.
• This was followed initially by H&M 3^rd:439.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1878.
• This date has evidently subsequently been supported by a publication in the Linn.Soc.NSW 1929 index, which is cited in support of changing the date to 1878 by the Corrigenda #2 for the H&M 3^rd.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 5:202 as published in 1885.
• This was followed by HBW 6:216, and initially also by H&M 3^rd:288.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1884.
• This date has evidently subsequently been supported by a publication in the Linn.Soc.NSW 1929 index, which is cited in support of changing the date to 1884 by the Corrigenda #2 for the H&M 3^rd.

• Authorship conventionally attributed to McClelland (i.e. Peters Checklist 5:243, HBW 6:371, The Richmond Index, et al.).
• The complex issue of the authorship of names from the McClelland drawings is treated by Edward Dickinson Dickinson EC. 2003. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. No.38 "The McClelland drawings and a reappraisal of the 1835-36 survey of the birds of Assam." Zool. Verh., Leiden 344 p.[63]-106'
• I follow his approach here

• Sometimes (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:337) held to be a subspecies
• H&M 3 ^rd:693 holds this to be a full species, and this is also followed in the Taxonomic Recomendations for British birds. Sangster et al. Ibis. 2004. 146:156..

• Peters Checklist 6:26 lists the source as "Bull.Zool.Soc.France". This abbreviation is a minor error, as the title of the serial is "BULLETIN DE LA SOCIETE ZOOLOGIQUE DE FRANCE"
• HBW 7:[559] reproduces this error exactly

• Peters Checklist 4:62 gives 1935, and this is followed by HBW 4:607 and H&M 3^rd:217
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• Often, and usually spelled "annectens"
• Originally spelled "annectans", and H&M 3^rd:621 indicates that the altered spelling is now considered to be an unjustified emendation.

• Peters Checklist 10:9 gives the date as 1844.
• The Richmond Index gives the date as Oct. 9 1843, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 10:9 gives the name as "atragularis (sic)".
• The Richmond Index gives the name as atrogularis and this is fide (copy of original seen, thanks to Edward Dickinson).

• The original description reads:

  SITAGRA ALIENA, n. sp.
    [male] Similis nulla speciei generis 'Sitagra dicti. Notæo
       concolore, flavicanti-olivadeo; pileo undique et gutture
       nigris; gutture imo laterali et præpectore castaneis;
       pectore et abdomine læ flavis, subcaudalibus magis
       cervinus; corporis lateribus olivaceo-viridioribus: rostro
       nigro; pedibus sordide corneo-cæruleis; iride coccinea.
       Long. tot. 5.6 pll., culm.0.8, alæ 2.8, caudæ 2.2,
       tarsi 0.9.
    [female] Mari similis, sed gutture, summo tantum nigro,
       gutture reliquo et præpectore castaneis.
    Hab. Ruwenzori, Feb. 13, 1902.
    Obs. This species, according to Capt. Shelley's classifi-
  cation of the Weaver-Birds (b. Afr. i. p.38), would come
  into his genus Hyphanturgus, but even then there is no
  species with a black head and throat.

• Bob Dowsett informs me that the specific name may be an anagram of the name of Mr FJ Jackson's wife - "Aline". (The taxon is described from a bird in Jackson's collection). ALIENA, obviously also can be the feminine from of the adjective meaning "strange". In the former case, it appears to me that it would not be declinable, while it obviously would in the latter -- resulting in Ploceua alienus.
Bob tells me that this is not a particularly "strange" Weaver. The description does emphasize the unique black head and throat and this could support the idea of a degree of difference. In addition, the original description does NOT make a specific mention of Jackson's wife, or her name. Therefore, after "flip-flopping" on this issue, I prefer Ploceus alienus to Ploceus aliena.

• Previously given as
  • Motacilla aguimp Dumont 1821 Dict.Sci.Nat. 21 p.466
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000." gives the Temminck citation for this.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N.  54 	ALCEDO (ænea) atroviridis, subtus, ferru-
	ginea, fascia transversa jugulari viridi-atra, albo
	variegata, abdomine albo.  Magn. vix Spinum
	æquat.   Remiges omnes interiori margine albæ,
	secundariæ exteriori albo passim interruptæ.
	

• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Surinam."
• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):333-4.

• A new (phylogenetic) species separated from P. vulturina on the basis of plumage. Previously had been held to be an immature of P. vulturina.

• I am a little puzzled here:
  • According to Peters Checklist 9:439. Originally described as "Myrm[ornis] arada Hermann, 1783 Tabl. Affin. Anim., p.211 note r"
  • I do not find an entry in the Richmond Index for this taxon (though there is one for "Myrmornis campanisoma Hermann. Tab. Affin. Anim., 1783, 189 (note in text)").

• Often spelt C. aradus. Originally described as Myrm[ornis] arada Hermann, 1783. (According to Peters Checklist 9:439.)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):40 discuss this. They indicate that: "The word arada is a native name "often wrongly made to agree in gender (Jobling 1991)".
• During the period of 1978-1992 in the Zoo. Rec. I find both combinations Cyphorhinus arada and Cyphorhinus aradus occuring once each.

• Often spelt G. andicola. Originally described as Hypsibamon andicola Cabanis, 1873.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):37 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name andicolus ends here in the substantival suffix -cola [dweller] with a modified ending." [and thus should not be changed].
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Grallaria andicol[a,us] does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelt P. atricapilla. Originally described as Parus atricapillus Linnaeus, 1766.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin noun capillus are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition... . Linnaeus's atricapillus could also be viewed as the Latin noun atricapilla with a modified ending, as it was customary for him to coin such names."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Parus atricapillus occurs 220 times in the Zoo. Rec.; Poecile is not used in combination with atricapill... during that time.

• Often spelt A. auricapilla. Originally described as Psittacus auricapillus Kuhl, 1820.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):35 discuss this. They indicate that: " Original names consisting of a Latin adjectival stem joined to the Latin noun capillus are noun phrases that are to be treated as nouns in apposition..."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Aratinga auricapilla occurs in the Zoo. Rec., it occurs 5 times.
• The HBW 4:432 (Collar) uses Aratinga auricapilla with no discussion of the nomenclature.

• Mesoamerican components of Aulacorhynchus are discussed in Navarro AG, Peterson AT, Lopez-Medrano E, & Benitez-Diaz H. 2002. "Species Limits in Mesoamerican AULACORHYNCHUS Toucanets." Wilson Bull. (2001) 113(4):363-372.
• Navarro, et al. regard three taxa as species, which are considered as subspecies by the recently published HBW 7. They give them as:
  • A. wagleri (Sturm) 1841 [The author here is Sturm according to Peters, and Sturm & Sturm according to both the Richmond Index and Sherborn.]
  • A. caeruleogularis (Gould) 1854
  • A. cognatus (Nelson) 1912
• Navarro, et al. also suggest other taxa may need consideration as full species. They are:
  • A. albivitta (Boissonneau) 1840
  • A. atrogularis (Sturm) 1841
  • A. lautus (Bangs) 1898

• Often spelt L. albidinuchus. Originally described as Domicella albidinucha Rothschild & Hartert, 1924.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " Noun phrases that end in a Latin noun are to be treated as nouns in apposition, and the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Lorius albidinuchus occurs in the Zoo. Rec., it occurs 3 times.
• The HBW 3:349 (Collar) uses Lorius albidinuchus with no discussion of the nomenclature.

• Often spelt O. atricapillus. Originally described as Stris atricapilla Temminck, 1822.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the word atricapilla can only be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequently invariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• In addition they point out that " ... atricapilla may also be viewed as a noun phrase ending in the modified Latin noun capillus, which would also make it invariable".
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Otus atricapillus occurs 9 times in the Zoo. Rec.. Otus atricapilla does not occur.

• Often spelt V. atricapillus. Originally described as Vireo atricapilla Woodhouse, 1852.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the word atricapilla can only be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequently invariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• As soon as 1853-1854 Cassin was using the binomen Vireo atricapillus in Birds.Calif.Tex.Ore.Brit.Russ.Am., Coues also used Vireo atricapillus in his works.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Vireo atricapillus occurs 13 times in the Zoo. Rec.. Vireo atricapilla does not occur.

• Often spelt Z. atricapillus. Originally described as Zosterops atricapilla Salvadori, 1879.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):33 discuss this. They indicate that: " ... the word atricapilla can only be cited as having been used as a noun in classical or mediaeval Latin, and is consequently invariable (ICZN 1999, Art. 11.9.1.2, 26, 31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary: Latin)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Zosterops atricap... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Peters Checklist 6:12 includes this in Bucco.
• Rasmussen & Collar HBW 7:104 argue for inclusion in a monotypic genus. This is based on:
• The presence of a pointed, distinctly non-bifid bill tip. (All other seemingly closely related puffbirds have some degree of bill-tip bifurcation).
• The presence of an apparently unique plumage type.
• H&M 3^rd:332 include macrodactyla in Bucco, without comment on the position taken by Rasmussen & Collar.

• Often spelt P. amauropterus. Originally described as Halcyon Amauropterus Pearson, 1841.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name must be corrected to Halcyon amauroptera ... The name amauropterus is latinized from the Greek adjectival αμαροπτερος [amauropteros; dark-winged]."

1. Placed the taxon in another genus (FRINGILLA pro EMBERIZA)
2. corrected the ablative to the plural ( atro for atris; head AND chest black)
3. described the body as chestnut colored (instead of wings as red).
4. described the tail as having four lateral black lines
5. added the Brisson reference.
6. and left the locality as the Cape of Good Hope.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 4:89 as a full species.
• Listed by Sibley & Monroe p.171 as a full species, but deleted in Supplement.
• HBW 5:154 lists this as a full species, and (Dr C. Hinkelmann) states "morphologic study clearly demonstrates its distinctness and validity as a species."

• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):21 discuss this. They indicate that: "The adjectival name albitaris (-is, -e is formed from the Latin adjective albus (-a, -um) and the stem of the latinized Greek noun ταρσος [tarsos; foot], to which was added the Latin adjetival suffix -is (-is, -e) (Glare 1982:970, under the suffix -is). To change albitarse to albitarsus would turn a variable adjective into an invariable noun."
• During the period of 1978-1992 none of these combinations occurs in the Zoo. Rec..

• The troublesome issue of Acanthogenys versusAcanthagenys is disscussed by McAllen and Bruce, 1989 and with an opposing opinion in Bruce and McAllan, 1991. I give the citation here as followed conventionally.
• The facts of the case appear to be:
• Gould's 1838 name was Acanthagenys (Sherborn and Richmond, et al. 1992 agree on this).
• Richmond, et al. 1992 atributes Acanthogenys to Gray GR 1840 in ListGenBirds p.15, where Richmond notes it is an emendation of Gould's name.
• Bruce and McAllan, 1991 p.478 discuss these names in some detail and reach the decision that Acanthogenys Gould 1844 is a junior objective synonym. Their discussion does not mention Gray's 1840 emendation.
• M. Bruce adds further clarification to this persistantly confusing issue (2001.05.12):
  [BEGIN M. BRUCE]

  Acanthogenys:
  The reason why Ian and I changed our minds on this issue was the result of looking at Gould's names as a whole. We demonstrated in the 1991 (not 1990) paper that Gould was not consistent and even ignored earlier publications of his own names. However, as we noted, it gets down to justified vs unjustified emendations and Gould's subsequent use of Acanthagenys supported it as the intended spelling (or is he being inconsistently consistent?). I checked Gray 1840 later, where an emendation can be implied (he used the same spelling in the 1841 2nd ed.). Gould's later use of Acanthogenys may have been the influence of Gray, or just a case of Gould ignoring what he did earlier.

  Whatever, Gray's spelling is the one widely used.
  [END M. BRUCE]

• On general widespread consideration of this issue, both the logic of the matter, and the consensus opinion is that the original spelling Acanthagenys stands and that Acanthogenys is an unjustified emendation.
....; 2004.12.20

• Peters Checklist 2:222 recognizes Afrotis atra (previously in Otis), and gives a citation of Syst.Nat..ed.12 that is correct for Otis afra, however this name first occurs in ed.10 on p.155.
• Examination of the font leaves no doubt in my mind that it is an "f" and not a "t".
• Bob Dowsett informs me (2003.02.14) that he and R.K. Brooke addressed this issue previously, and reached the same conclusion. Stating that "Otis atra is no more than a misreading of a badly printed text and is to be regarded at the best as an unustified emendation." (p.104). Brooke R.K. & Dowsett R.J. 1969. "The original name of the bustard Eupodotis afra". BBOC. 89:103-104.

• Peters Checklist 2:82 lists 1851.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 give 1854.
• [Deignan BBOC 80(7):121. 1960. indicates that "1848 was the date of issue only of Aflervering 1 ... . Aflevering 2, ...., was issued in 1851, as has been pointed out by Sherborn (Index Animalium, A-B, p.xvii) and Sherborn's decision is supported by the fact that Volume 1, Aflevering 2, of the Bijdragen was not received byt he Académie des Sciences at Paris until 22^nd September 1851."] [Deignan's data is supported by the CWR unpublished notes on Dates of Publication, in which he notes that Aflevering 2 & 3 were Rec'd by the Paris Academy on Sept. 22, 1851]
• These facts make the date of 1851 for Aflevering 6 extremely unlikely, and I am reluctant to follow the unsupported and unlikely date of 1851 for no other apparent reason than that it occurs in Peters Checklist.
• Absent any other data, and with 1851 apparently proposed by authors who know less of the situation than it appears Richmond did, I follow the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 2:82 lists 1851.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 give 1854.

• Peters Checklist 4:108 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 14:224 does not indicate that this is the second series.

• Peters Checklist 12:369 has a typographic error, "Amer." for "Ann.".

1875

Peters Checklist 11:577 has 1876; remarkably, the right idea, but applied in the wrong situation. See Poggi,1996.

Charmosyna amabilis 1875 vs 1876

This may be 1876, as I am uncertain where the 1875-1876 break occurs in Vol.1.

Turdus amaurochalinus

Peters Checklist 10:216 has 1851. See Browning and Monroe, 1991

• Peters Checklist 3:24 lists 1855.
• The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71 according to taxa listed in Richmond, et al. 1992.
• However, Mathews suggests volume 2 p.1-160 are from 1855.
• I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here, though 1855 may be right.

Ampelioides Verreaux

I have not determined which Verreaux this is.

Diomedea amsterdamensis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.1.

Tchagra anchietae 1869

This date is uncertain, and may well be 1870. If the volume was issued in parts, my best guess is that this will be 1869.

Upucerthia andaecolaplates

Peters Checklist 7:63 does not include the plates, which I take from Richmond, et al. 1992.

Ptilinopus arcanus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.3.

Aegotheles archboldi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
HBW 5:264 indicates this was previously treated as a race of A. albertisi, but is now seen as a sibling species, replacing A. albertisi at higher elevations.

Ardeotis

Not used by Peters Checklist Vol.2. As Choriotis Gray GR 1855.

Platylophus ardesiacus 1850

Peters Checklist 15:205 has 1851. See Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Columba argentina 1854

Peters Checklist 3:71 lists 1855. The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71 according to taxa listed in Richmond, et al. 1992. Mathews suggests volume 2 p.1-160 are from 1855. I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here, though 1855 may be right.

Anal. Nat.

Peters Checklist 2:132 cites "Rafinesque, Analyse, 1815".
On p.51 (for example) he cites "Vieillot, 1816, Analyse". The confusion results from two works:

• "Analyse D'Une Nouvelle Ornithologie Elementaire" Vieillot 1816, and
  
• "Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de l'Univers et des Corps organises, &c." Rafinesque 1815.
  

• Peters Checklist 1:69 lists 1857.
• Mathews, 1925 suggests volume 2 p.1-160; 161-184 as 1856, and 185-232 from 1857.
• I don't find it in Richmond, et al. 1992, so I follow Mathews here.

Clytoctantes atrogularis

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.7.

• Peters Checklist 2:306 has 1830.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 notes "may have appeared in 1830".
• Sherborn 1902 says "ante March 1831".

• Peters Checklist 10:166 has "Rev.Zool.[Paris], ser. 2, 1, p.158".
• I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 as Rev.Mag.Zool. is the second series of Rev.Zool.
• The date (and the volume) are somewhat in question. Peters Checklist 10:166 is the source of the volume "1"; no volume is given in the Richmond Index. The date of 1850 seems unlikely for volume 1 as most taxa from volume 1 are dated to 1849. So my suspicion is that the volume number, or date (or both) are wrong here.
• Sherborn gives the volume as "II" which makes much more sense than the Peters (S. Dillon Ripley) citation.
• Examination of this original description on-line confirms that the Ripley citation is incorrect. This is found in Ser.2 vol.2 of the Rev.Mag.Zool. Interestingly the citation is correct in the CBBM 5:289, so it is not clear what material Ripley was dealing with then he composed this portion of his text. (2009.07.11).

• Peters Checklist 9:199 has 1827, and does not list the livraison, which is 64. This puts the date at 1825 by Richmond, et al. 1992 Sherborn, and Mathews.

Piculus aurulentus

• I don't find this name in Richmond, et. al. 1992 or Sherborn
• This description is in livr.10 -- as the Peters Checklist citation indicates -- hence Zimmer's listing of the dates for Pl.Col. would indicate 1821 rather than 1823 as listed by Peters.
• This is confirmed by E. Dickinson's detailed study of Pl.Col. (referenced in the citation note).

Picus awokera 1836

• Peters Checklist 6:133 (and Wolters p.163) list the date as 1826. (Perhaps a lapsus for 1836).
• The date given by Richmond, et al. 1992 and Sherborn 1902 is 1835.
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence for 1836.
• • 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".
  • Dickinson's (2001) Appendix III "Names for which citations in Peters Check-list must be changed" shows the Peters date for Picus awokera as "1835", which I believe is a lapsus for the Peters Checklist listing of "1826".
• HBW 7:541 perpetuates the Peters Checklist lapsus of "1826"

• Peters Checklist 3:103 gives a range of dates "1838-1843", as does Sherborn.
• This date is given as 1840 in Sibley & Monroe, but the basis for that is uncertain.

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

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

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

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

• Placed by Sibley & Monroe in Grus, based on DNA-hybridization work by Krajewski.
• Further work by Krajewski, and others Krajewski C and Fetzner JW, 1994 using cyt-b DNA sequences indicates the inclusion into Grus is premature. These relationships require further resolution.

• Peters Checklist 4:252 attributes this to "Rev. Zool." which did not commence until 1838.

• Peters Checklist 5:263 attributes to JE Gray;
• The Richmond index attributes to Hodgson.

• Richmond questions whether this is a nomen nudum and notes it is also in Bonaparte Consp.Gen.Av. I p.90 where it appears to be attributed to Hodgson.

• Peters Checklist 2:59 gives "pt.3 pl.4,5 and text"; I follow (Richmond, et al. 1992).

• Peters Checklist 3:87 lists 1810. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 11:544 has 1875. See {Poggi, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 15:95 has 1870.
• The dates of publication of this Journal are somewhat of a mystery. The collected portions of the work are dated 1870. "Num VII." which includes "Aves das possessoes portugueazas d'Africa occidntal que existem no Museu de Lisboa (quarta lista)" p.333-352 has a heading of AGOSTO de 1869.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1869, but has a "? following the date. Of interest the Richmond Index dates a taxon from the previous page of this same volume and number (Telephonus anchietae) to 1869 with no "?" on the date. Peters Checklist 9:321 dates this second taxon to 1870 with no comment on the date.

• Peters Checklist 15:117 does not list the plate.

• Peters Checklist 13:124 gives "Archiv f. Naturg. 30 p.49". I follow the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 9:268 has 1881.
• This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of 1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.1.
• Not listed in Sibley & Monroe based on the interpretation that was known only from bones from the islands it had inhabited.
• However, evidently specimens were captured, taken to Paris, and bred, and the Vieillot description evidently is from one of the Paris animals, which, if true indicates the species deserves inclusion according to the Sibley & Monroe criteria.
• Norbert Bahr writes:

  
  "Concerning the emus of the South Australian islands, there are
  several mounted specimens and skeletons in the museums of Paris,
  Geneve and Firenze, which were brought back by Cpt. Baudin (some
  alive) to France. It seems that King Island Emus (Dromaius ater)
  bred in the Paris Zoo in the early 1800s, so the description of
  that species by Vieillot was based on live specimens, I think.
  
  Photos of the mounted skins have been published in Krumbiegel:
  Die Straussen- vögel. Wittenberg Lutherstadt, 1966, and
  Dottrens: Mus. Geneve 2 (1960), 12-15. Balouet & Jouanin (1990)
  clarified the situation in L'Oiseau 60, 314-318."

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.9.
• Named after the Rev. Fr. O. Appert, missionary and collector in Madagascar. Jobling (p.16) lists Appert as German, but Bob Dowsett informs me (2003.02.14) that he was Swiss.

Capito auratus

• Not listed in Sibley and Monroe.
• Listed as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 6:26. Haffer (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 281-305. recommended to re-establish Capito auratus, as he felt the reasons offered to subsume it under C. niger are insufficient.

• Brooke and Rowe. 1996 treat the Pterodroma arminjoniana/heralidca group. Their proposal is based on behavioral and molecular evidence.

  Brooke M de L, Rowe G. Behavioural and molecular evidence for specific status of the light and dark morphs of the Herald Pterodroma heralica. 1996. Ibis 138:420-432.

• The HBW 1:242 does not recognize atrata as a species, and treats heraldica as a race.
• I am still (2000.11.11) seeking the specifics for the Mathews citation.
• Murray Bruce adds this note:

  Pterodroma atrata:
  Mathews, 1912, Birds of Australia, 2 (2): 163.
  It is one of several names quoted from a MS of Daniel Solander dating from Cook's first voyage.
  Peters Checklist 1(1931):66 listed it as one of four from this source "not yet
  identified.

• Maijer argues for species status based on the distinctive plumage and unique song. Maijer S. Rediscovery of Hylopezus (macularis) auricularis: Distinctive song and habitat indicate species rank. 1998. Auk 115(4):1072-1073.

• HBW 3:496 lists this as a subspecies of G. paraguaiae but puts the authors name in parentheses.
• Taczanowski, however, desctibed it in Gallinago (though not in G. paraguaiae as implied by their listing). The HBW error may result from the listing in Peters Checklist which has Taczanowski in parentheses, as the taxon there is listed in Capella.

• In HBW 5:595 A.A. Weller gives the authority as Lesson 1826, and on p.685 gives the citation as: "Lesson(1826).Voy. 'Coquille', Zool. 1:683".
  
• Zimmer treats the extremely complex and confusing publishing history of this work in detail. The citation given above is from 1830, though that portion of the work has an imprint date of 1826.
• The citation I give follows the Richmond Index. It antedates the citation given by Weller in HBW, and that given by Peters Checklist 5:74 where he gives: "ornisyma Amazilia Lesson, Man. d'Orn., 2, 1828, p.81"
• (Why the genus name is in all lower case while the specific epithet is capitalized is unkown to me).

• Often spelt atricapillus. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, and Peters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2000. "The supposed significance of originally capitalized species-group names." BBOC. 120(4):262 discuss this issue in detail and indicate that the name is a classical Latin noun. "The fact that Linnaeus has used atricapilla in apposition to the masculine genus Turdus indicates that the word can only be a noun, not an adjective -- which would have been atricapillus in this case, as all adjectives used by Linnaeus in combination with Turdus are masculine (plumbeus, roseus, cafer, dominicus, etc.). Therefore, the correct spelling ... is Donacobius atricapilla, and not "Donacobius atricapillus".

Quoting Normand David:" Amaurornis Reichenbach 1852 (Av. Syst. Nat, p. xxi) ends in the transliterated Greek noun ornis, which is masculine as well as feminine, was established in combination with olivacea, and is thus feminine as per ICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.4.2). Peters (1934), and Dickinson et al. (1991)] correctly treated Amaurornis as feminine."

Atlapetes Systematics

An extremely complex situation.

Garcia-Moreno J & Fjeldsa J. 1999. "Evaluation of species limits in the genus Atalapetes based on the mtDNA sequence data." Ibis 141:199-207.
Is the best current treatment I am aware of.
The current species listing I show (2001.01.12) undoubtedly is incorrect. It is not fully faithful to the Garcia-Moreno/Fjeldsa listing order, though it uses some of their concepts. They treat a good number, but far from all the Atalpetes species.
Further changes are certain.

Stercorarius antarcticus Spelling

Moving this species into Stercorarius necessitates changing the specific epithet to antarcticus, for gender agreement.
Normand David tells me skua remains unchanged as it is a noun.

Chlidonias albostriatus Systematics

Sometimes place in Sterna, for example by Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic Birds, Oxford University Press.
Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention.

Actophilornis Citation

• HBW 3:289 gives "Oberholser 1899"
• The Richmond Index gives details on this:

• Oberholser's 1899 name Actophilus was published in Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 51 p.202 as a new name for Phyllopezus Sharpe, 1896 nec Peters, 1877.
  
• Actophilornis was erected as a new name for Actophilus, Oberholser, 1899 which was preoccupied by Actophilus Agassiz, 1846.

Nytyornis athertoni 1828

Peters Checklist 5:239 has the date as 1830. The Richmond index gives Nov. of 1828, which fits more with collation of other taxa from this work.

Oxyura australis 1837

Listed by Peters Checklist 1:504 as 1836; HBW 1:628 (Carles Carboneras) perpetuates this error.

This portion of PZS (part IV, no. XLV) was published on Jan 16, 1837 (Richmond Index, and PZS 1937 vol. 107 pt.1 April for a listing of dates of publication of the parts and numbers.)

• Peters Checklist 9:328 (Rand) has 1788.
• The Richmond Index Turdus aethiopicus has "1788" with last "8" crossed out and "9" written in.
• 1789 is correct as this falls in the second part of the work (pp.501-1032) published in 1789.

Anodorhynchus Citation

An apparently complex situation here:

Peters Checklist 3:179 gives the citation as:
'Anodorhynchus Spix, Av.Bras., 1, 1824, 47² [i.e. 24 bis], pl.11."

The footnote reads:
'² See Hellmayer, Abh. K. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., Kl. 2, 22, 1906, p.576.'
(not seen APP 2001.03.04)

The card in the Richmond index reads:
'Anodorynchus AVIUM SPECIES NOVAE, I, (2^nd edition of vol.1), 1838, p."47" '
Then there is a note stating: 'additional to p.47 of the original edition! ?'

The note goes on to say:
'Diagnosis here given of genus + species. Omitted in
orig. ed., where name only occurs.
The extra p.47 probably occurs in some copies of the orig.
printing, as Sherborn writes me that it is in the copy
consulted by him.'

Several questions arrise:

• Why does Peters Checklist 3:179 list the plate, while the Richmond Index does not?
• Is the date 1838 and not 1824 as suggested by Richmond?
• what does "[i.e. 24 bis]" mean with regard to this peculiar pagination? Wouldn't "[i.e. 47 bis]" make more sense?

Siphonorhis americana Spelling

• Spelt S. americanus by AOU CL (7):269; (6):310.
• Spelt S. americana by HBW 5:344 (N. Cleere) with no discussion of the spelling.
• Spelt (I am told) S. americana by the recent Nightjar monograph, with the comment that Siphonorhis "is feminine".

Normand David writes (2001.03.10):
Cyclarhis Swainson, 1824, and Siphonorhis Sclater, 1861, were formed from the feminine Greek noun ris [nose], but with the latinized rh spelling (ICZN 1985, Appendix B). Both names do not end in a truly transliterated Greek word as Ptiloris and Stachyris do. They are latinized Greek words with a changed ending that, contrary to -us, -a, or -um , is not indicative of a particular gender, and in which case should be treated as words of common gender (ICZN 1999, Arts. 30.1.3, 30.1.4.2).Because Siphonorhis was established in combination with americanus, it must be treated as masculine.

Normand David subsequently writes (2002.04.01) that Siphonorhis is feminine.

2013.01.26

---

Abroscopus albogularis Author

Peters Checklist (George Watson) 11:264 gives the author as Hodgson; I follow the Richmond Index here.

---

Coracias abyssinicus Spelling

Often spelt Coracias abyssinica, however as noted in HBW 6:371-2, Coracias is masculine.

---

Chersomanes albofasciata Citation

• Peters Checklist 9:29 gives it as:
  Certhilauda albofasciata Lafresnaye, 1836, Mag.Zool., p.3, pl.58 ; with a note "fide Macdonald, 1953" which may relate to the type location.
• Sherborn gives:
  "albofasciata Certhilauda, Lafr.; G.R. Gray, Genera of Birds, II. Nov. 1844, 383."
• The CBBM 13:515 (= Sharpe 1890) is probably the basis for Mayr and Greenway's incomplete and confused state. The listing there is "Certhilauda albofasciata, Lafr. Mag. de Zool. 1836, Ois p. 58"
• The Richmond Index gives an indication of the basis for the confusion. The name is listed as "A[lauda] albo-fasciata" with a note that it is "Certhilauda albo-fasciata on plate."
• Richmond Index Card A[lauda] albo-fasciata
• The basis for Mayr and Greenway including "p.3" is unknown to me, especially as it appears very unlikely that they actually examined the original description, and no other citations I have found include a "p. 3".

....; 2008.08.09

---

Saucerottia alfaroana Concept

Treated by most authors as a subspecies of Amazilia cyanifrons. See Weller A-A. 2001. BBOC 121(2):98-107.

---

Montifringilla adamsi 1859

• Peters Checklist 15:28 (Moreau and Greenway) give the date as 1858.
• This part of the volume was published in 1859.

---

Euryostomus azurea 1861

• Peters Checklist 5:246 gives the date as 1860.
• HBW 6:376 (CH Fry) gives the date as 1860.
• Duncan 1937 PZS indicates this part was "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861".
• The Richmond index shows "Mch 1861"; which I follow.

---

Momotus aequatorialis Concept

• HBW 6:283 (DW Snow) holds this to be a full species, stating:
  "Fairly closely related to M. momota and sometimes treated as a well marked highland race thereof, but notable differences in size and plumage, as well as in ecology, probably justify the separation as a full species."
• "probably" seems to be good enough these days.

---

Zosterops atriceps Date

• Peters Checklist 12:306 (Mayr) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

---

Moho apicalis Date

• Peters Checklist 12:425 (Mayr) gives a date of 1860.
• The AOU CL 7^th Ed. p.427 gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

---

Penelopides affinis Concept

• Peters Checklist 5:263 lists P. samarensis as a subspecies of P. panini
• Sibley & Monroe list as a full species

• Penelopides samarensis Steere 1890 ListBirdsMamms.SteereExped. p.13

• HBW 6:507 (Kemp) indicates samarensis is a subspecies of affinis but notes the status is uncertain and problematic.

---

Agelaioides Nomenclature

• Lowther, PE. 2001. "New name for the Bolivian Blackbird". BBOC. 121:280,281. demonstrates:
• • Agelaioides (misspelled in text as Agelaiodes) Cassin, 1866 has precedence over Oreopsar Sclater, 1939.
  • Placing bolivianus Sclater, 1939 and badius Vieillot, 1819 in the same genus as proposed by Johnson & Lanyon 1999. Auk 116:759-768. creates a secondary homonomy due to the existence of Molothrus badius bolivianus Hellmayr, 1917.
• Lowther therefor proposes the nomen novum Agelaioides oreopsar along with resurrecting the genus Agelaioides.

Previously the genus was:
Oreopsar Sclater,WL 1939 Ibis p.144

• Oreopsar badius (Vieillot) 1819 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 34 p.535 Concept
• Oreopsar bolivianus Sclater,WL 1939 Ibis p.144

---

Cinclosoma ajax Date

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 10:234, 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".

---

Pteruthius aenobarbus Date

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 10:234, 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".

---

Streptocitta albertinae Citation

• Peters Checklist 15:117 (Amadon) gives 1866.
• The first part of this volume was published in 1865. See details of Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. for a the history of publication of this work.

Thanks to Colin Jones for picking up this error.

---

Oenanthe albonigra Spelling

• Often spelt alboniger. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, and Peters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):17-18 discuss this. They indicate that: "The word alboniger is a compound Latin adjective that ends in the classical adjective niger, and is variable."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Oenanthe alboniger occurs in the Zoo. Rec.; it occurs 2 times between 1981 and 1988.

---

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

Last updated 2021.07.24