Zoological Citation Notes --A

• 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 they do not understand the title of the serial. "Nyt" is a full word (meaning "News" in Danish) and not an abbreviation as would be indicated by their string ending in a period. 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.

• Peters Checklist 13:232 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to volume 4 "pt. 3 Ois." of d'Orbigny's Voy.Am.merid.
This may be true, but neither Richmond nor Sherborn include an indication of which segment this was published in. By convention the publishing portions of this work are referred to as livraison, not "parts", but I am sure that Paynter was making a valiant effort at conveying what his understandings were here.
• The irregular publishing history of this work allow for a great deal of uncertainty, and I doubt that Paynter acquainted himself with the complexity of the problem. I am reluctant to believe that Paynter either understood, or resolved the bibliographic details here.

• 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. 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 choose to follow the Richmond Index.

• 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 1890 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.290.

• 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 "atragulris (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.

• 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, tho 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 americanus 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.

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

This citation is a bit of a mystery:

• Peters Checklist 9:29 gives it as:
  Lafresnaye, 1836, Mag.Zool., p.3, pl.58 ; with a note "fide Macdonald, 1953" which may relate to the type location.
• The Richmond index does not have a listing for Certhilauda albofasciata that I can find.
• Sherborn gives:
  "albofasciata Certhilauda, Lafr.; G.R. Gray, Genera of Birds, II. Nov. 1844, 383."

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

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

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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

• 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".

• 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".

• 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.

• 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.

Zoological Citation Notes --B

Peters Checklist 13:206 (=Paynter, 1970) spells the specific epithet "borelli" (with a single -i ending).
• The Richmond Index shows the specific epithet as spelled borellii as does Sharpe's Hand-List 5:337.
• The original orthography is borellii, the original description reproduced here:

  

• Thanks to Edward Dickinson for providing a scan of the original description (in litt. 2007.04.19).

• Peters Checklist 14:291 (=Howell, et al., 1968) cites this to 1884 but on the preceeding page (p.290) cites L.c.japonica (from the same article) to 1885!!.
• The Richmond Index shows that both were published April 28, 1884.

• This taxon is often attributed to Moore, 1856. Dickinson 2004 points out that the Bonaparte Compte Rendu 41 1855 publication has priority.
• The description there is as follows:

  

• Peters Checklist 14:204 (Mayr, 1968) cites this to volume 9 Sonderheft which makes no sense for 1923.
• The Richmond Index shows that it is volume XIX Sonderheft.

• Peters Checklist 14:102 (Greenway, 1968) lists the original combination as:

  Psittirostra bailleui

  .
• The original combination was Loxiodes Bailleui as shown by the Richmond Index, and Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:49.
• Greenway's error of placing the authority for Loxiodes bailleui in parentheses is repeated by H&M 3 ^rd:758 (through Corrigenda 6 2006.12.13). The error is also repeated by the AOU CL 6^th:757, but is corrected by the 7^th:672.

• Dickinson indicates (H&M 3 ^rd Corrigenda 6; 2006.12), that the wrapper for this no. bears the string "2/35" and dates this to 1935 on that basis.
• Dickinson does not indicate other details of this matter, however, "no.9" is shown by the Richmond Index to the be December issue, so it is certainly believable that its publication may have been delayed into the next year.

• Originally as Muscicapa brasierii.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this was named for Mr. Phillip Brasher of Brooklyn, hence, as I understand it, the correction is required.
• There appear to have been a number of Phillip Brasher's in New York, and a town in upstate was named for one. A Phillip Brasher of Brooklyn is mentioned several times in association with birds collected on Long Island in the first half of the 19^th Cent. This, undoubtedly was the acquaintance that Giraud Jr was honoring.

• Peters Checklist 14:60 lists the authority in the order Lafresnaye and d'Orbigny.
• I follow the Richmond Index, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:391, and H&M 3 ^rd:766 in employing this order.
• Sharpe's Hand-list 5:124 lists only d'Orbigny
• On a side note, Sharpe in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 10:391 in the synonomy of Muscicapa bivittata misses the use of Trichas bivittatus in Rev.Zool. 1840 p.231. Though he does recognize Gray's subsequent use as Trichas bivittatus in 1846 Gen.Birds 1:197. (Of course, the Richmond Index provides this more complete information).

• Previously the taxon
  • Nothoprocta kalinowskii Berlepsch & Stolzmann 1901 Ornis 11 p.192
  was held at species level.
• See Krabbe & Schulenberg "A Mystery Solved: the identity and distribution of Kalinowski's Tinamou Nothoprocta kalinowskii BBOC 125(4):253-260, 2005. They show the taxon to be synonomous with Nothoprocta ornata branickii.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Sundevall's name originally appears as barthelemica not bartholemica as it now appears to be universally spelled.
• The title of the article in question is:

  Foglarne på ön S:t Barthelemy, efter de af Dr A. von Goës hemsända samlingarna bestämde.

  The name appears first on p.582 where it is spelled

  Dendroeca petechia, stirps barthelemcia

  (not bartholemica). The name is there followed by a detailed paragraph in Swedish which appear to be at least in part a description. In addition, Sundevall uniformly spells the name of the island "S:t Barthelemy" thoughout his paper.
• In a subsequent paper in the same number (no.6) of the same Journal, Sundevall discusses members of the genus DENDROECA and there on p.607 he has:

  [Dendroeca petechia] a) bartholemica (ex insula S:t Barthelemy).

  with a diagnosis (in Latin).
• Ridgway in 1902 the Birds of Middle and North America (p.520) holds barthelemy from p.582 to be a nomen nudum It appears from Ridgway's remark that the description there is only a description of the eggs.

• Peters Checklist 14:193 [Blake 1968] cites this name to 1866, and this is followed without comment by H&M 3 ^rd:775.
• Both Peters Checklist, and H&M 3^rd cite other taxa from the latter portions of this work to 1867, however.
• The Richmond Index has a note on the card for this name "published 1867".
• Additionally, the draft of the Type list of birds in the ANSP (p.349 of 2006.09.01 draft) lists this as

  Quiscalus brachypterus Cassin, 1867, Proc. ANSP (1866), 18, p. 406

• On the basis of the best information available and on the basis of consistency, I date this to 1867.

• Peters Checklist 14:185 shows the publication date as 1942 without comment or discussion, and this appears to be followed by H&M 3 ^rd:772.
• The assertion that this taxon was published in 1942 rather than 1941 would appear to call for some support. In Peters Checklist, all other taxa I know of from this publication are dated to 1941. My working notes to date show:

  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.13 p.005 Cnemotriccus fuscatus beniensis Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.366	1941
  	Peters 8:147	1941
  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.13 p.006 Cymbilaimus sanctaemariae Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.379	1941
  	Peters 7:154	1941
  1941 Ark.Zool. 33B no.013 p.007 Hylopezus auricularis Gyldenstolpe 
  	H&M p.400	1941
  	Peters 7:271	1941
  	

• The Richmond Index shows this to be in the June 26, 1941 number (33B no.13).
• The Corrigenda #6 (Dec. 2006) of H&M 3 ^rd has these features:
  1. It corrects the date appropriately to 1941 with a note that the original description was checked where the text "Trykt den 26 juni 1941" is found.
  2. It includes a comment which appears to be an error. The comment following the notation to change the date from 1942 reads:

     		['Peters' was right. OD checked]

     This does not seem to make sense. Peters 14:185, as I indicated, shows the date as 1942 (sic). So the note should read: "['Peters' (=Blake) was wrong].

• H&M 3 ^rd:380 lists the date as 1869.
• Peters Checklist 7:206 shows the publication date as 1868 (though in a manner that confuses many workers). Dickinson in Corrigenda 3 recognized this type of error for the citation for Frederickena unduligera Pelzeln, but seems to have missed it here
• In support of 1868 we also find: The Richmond Index (which notes it was published in late Sept. 1868), and HBW 8:609.

• Follows (at least in part) Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK, Kiure J. 2006. "The forest batis Batis mixta, is two species: description of a new, narrowly distributed Batis species in the Eastern Arc biodiversity hotspot." J.Orn. 147:578-590.

• Some controversy exists as there is no "type specimen" for this taxon. Type material, consisting of a few feathers that had worked loose from the captured (and extensively photographed and documented) specimen.

• The relationship between Basilinna and Hylocharis is of interest. As partial history is as follows. Previously
  1. Basilinna was employed for leucotis and xantusi in the 2^nd AOU CL (1895).
  2. Basilinna was used as a subgenus of Hylocharis in the 4^th AOU CL (1931).
  3. this continued in the 5^th AOU CL (1957).
  4. In the 6^th AOU CL (1983), Basilinna was listed as a synonym of Hylocharis (subgenera not being used).
  5. In 1995 Howell & Webb "A guide to the birds of Mexico and N. Central America" Oxford Press (not seen) Evidently put leucotis and xantusi back in Basillina at genus level.
  6. HBW 5 appears to follow Howell & Webb's treatment.
• Thus, there does not appear to be a good published basis for this treatment. However, unpublished molecular work, as well as studies of the birds themselves are said to support holding Basillina as distinct from Hylocharis (and evidently not even it's sister taxon, despite it's previously being held to be a subgenus of it).
• The use of this genus thus is labelled "tentative" by H&M 3^rd:268.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):260 (Steinbacher), HBW 1:496, and H&M 3^rd:82 to Reichenbach, 1853.
• In this it appears that Steinbacher is following Sharpe, Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 26:18 where Sharpe gives this citation. HBW, and H&M 3^rd in turn may well be following Peters.
• Sharpe appears to have ignored G.R. Gray's 1847 use of the Reichenbach MS name in his Genera of Birds 3:565,566.
• Steinbacher, HBW, and H&M 3^rd in turn, have ingored Sherborn's Index Animalium p.893, and Neave 1:455 which list only Gray's 1847 publication of this name.
• Also one must note that H&M 3^rd on the same page (p.82) cites another name (Nipponia) from the same page of Reichenbach's work but dates Nipponia 1850, and Bostrychia 1853.

• The form bogotensis usually listed as a subspecies of Patagioenas subvinaceous (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:72; HBW 4:128; H&M 3^rd:160).
• Evidently, Hellmayr 1942 in "Catalogue of Birds of the Americas" 1(1):472 indicates that he examined the type of bogotensis and determined it to belong to the plumbea group. (not seen).
• Thus the name Columba ogliviegranti becomes available for the form to which the name bogotensis has been applied.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):329 dates this to 1866, and this is followed without comment by HBW 2:149.
• Florence Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek has confirmed the dates for the various parts of this work. Her compilation shows this to have been published in 1865.

• Often spelt O. brunneicapillum. (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:13 (Traylor)).
• Originally described as Tyrranulus brunneicapillus Lawrence, 1862.
• 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..."
• They indicate (#144)

  Tyrannulus brunneicapillus Lawrence, 1862, must be spelt Ornithion
  	brunneicapillus, and should not be changed to O. brunneicapillum.

• Originally spelled Anabates boissonneautii (note the "t").
• Normand David has examined the original description and writes:

  
  The original is indeed boissonneautii, but the authors write:  "nous la dédions à M.
  Boissonneau." (we dedicate the name to Mr. Boissonneau).

• The Code (1999) indicates (Article 32.5)

  32.5. Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).
  
  	32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any 
  	external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a 
  	lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. 
  	Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, 
  	are not to be considered inadvertent errors.

  My initial interpretation was that under the current Code the species group name must be corrected to boissonneauii; arguing that boissonneautii is an "incorrect latinization", and thus requiring it remain the same, seemed unsupportable.
• However, Normand David reflects further on this problem, and writes (2006.02.09):

  Note that art. 31.1.1 gives much latitude to authors. For  example, the name Margaret can be latinized to
  Margarita or Magaretha,  yielding the genitives margaritae or margarethae. Now, can we have
  Boissonneau = boissonneautius = boissonneautii ?  The more I think  about it, the more I am
  inclined to say that "boissonneautii" may not  be correctible.

• The Code, in my interpretation, requires that the decision turns on distinguishing between two kinds of error: an "error of latinisation" versus a typographic error or lapsus calami. It must be noted that the Code provides no guidlines, directions, or instructions on how these two types of errors are to be distinguished. I am amused to speculate as to why no guidelines or further instructions are offered for making this determination. However, as no charitable explanations come to mind I will refrain from including the possibilities that occur to me.
• Peters Checklist 7:63 spells the name employing the "t".
• HBW 8:327 (van Remsen, 2003) employs the "t", as does H&M 3^rd:414 (up at least to Corrigenda 5).

• Listed by Peters Checklist to Mearns, Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash., 19, 1916...
• Volume 19 makes no sense for 1916, and the Richmond index lists this to volume 29, which does make sense.
• Similarly HBW 3:726 also lists this to volume 19 (sic), suggesting that at least in this instance the HBW workers simply copied the citation from the Peters Checklist, which of course is what most of us do. It does seem to suggest that it is unlikely that the original description was actually examined in this instance.

• The Richmond Index (while not having a citational card for this name) has a card that says

  Probably named for Ferdinand Bauer who collected (plants only?) in Australia circa 1805.

• This would be Ferdinand Lucas Bauer (1760 - 1826) a Viennese artist who was a member of the 1801-1803 journey of the HMS Investigator, under the command of Cpt. Matthew Flinders.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):340 (Amadon) lists the date here as 1879.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in May of 1880, a fact supported by the 1929 Index listing dates of publication by the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.Wales.
• H&M 3^rd:107 has the date as 1889, but this is corrected in Corrigenda 2.1

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:37 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177, and by HBW 4:222.
• 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.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1979 1(2):432-433 to
  • Cygnus buccinator Richardson 1832 FaunaBor.-Am.[Swainson&Richardson] 2(1831) p.464
• The AOU CL 37^th Supplement 1989 p.533 changes the citation to Richardson in Wilson and Bonaparte, as I have it here. The data in support of this change are not given, however it is a reversion to the citation as given in the 1957 AOU Cl 5^thEd. p.49.
• HBW 1992 1:633 (Carboneras) cites the 1832 Fauna Borealis-Americana source; no mention of the change by the AOU is made.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:175 and HBW 4:207 place the authority in parentheses.
• 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.
• Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the Richmond Index indicates that the plate for this bird was published in Afd. 1 (the text is in Afd. 2). This is of some potential import, as there is controversy over the date of publication of the initial portion of this serial, with some suggestion that early parts were available in 1862. Thus, 1862 can not be considered as disproved in this instance, but it appears very unlikely to me. I expect the imprint date for the work is 1863, but have never seen the material myself (2005.04.29).

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:35 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176, but not by HBW 4:217.
• 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.

• Cited by HBW 4:179,615 to 1863 (and with no reference to the plate).
• This portion of the PZS was published in 1864 (April according to Duncan, and Feb. according to the Richmond Index).
• H&M 3^rd:170 cites this to 1863, but corrects this to 1864 in the Corrigenda 2.1 -- though no reference is made to the plate.

• Conventionally dated as 1840, as I do here.
• Dated by the Richmond Index to 1841, with a note that the "Oct." number in which this is described contains Meteorological data from 22 Dec. 1840.
• Clearly, the ostensible imprint date of October, 1840 is wrong, and the earliest possible date of publication is 22 Dec., 1840.
• Richmond's date of 1841 appears the most probable, but without specific information demonstrating the delay of publication was beyond December (as likely as that is) I interpret the "nomenclatural" date to be Dec. 31, 1840.

• Peters Checklist 8:45 gives 1935, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:353
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• The citation is usually (e.g. 2:46; HBW 2:574) given as:
  • Callipepla douglasii bensoni Ridgway 1887 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 10 p.148
• Michael Rieser notes correctly, however, that the description in Forest and Stream (March 3, 1887) preceeded that in the Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. (July 2, 1887).

• Peters Checklist 8:241 gives 1837.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The original description reads:

  	18. PSARIS Brasziliensis.
    Cinereous white: head, ears, chin spot, wings and 
  tail black: orbits, naked,: bill black, the marginal
  base red.  Female with the head, ears, and back, dark
  cinereous, striped with blackish: lenght of the wing,
  about five inches.
    Inhabits Northern Brazil.
    Differs from Cayanensis in having the orbits red and naked;
  and from Guinensis in being larger, in the bill being entirely
  black beyond the nostrils, and in the female being without a
  black hood on the head and ears, as in that species.  It is the 
  largest and commonest of Brazil.

• The date for this taxon is variably represented as 1848 and 1849. Peters Checklist 14:59 uses 1849, though the Checklist cites other taxa from later in the same volume as 1848. Neave cites this name to 1849; the Richmond Index lists 1848, but Richmond's unpublished notes present data that may favor, but does not prove 1849.
• The imprint date for the volume in question apparently is 1848, and I am not aware of any of the authors who use 1849 as citing any published support for 1849 (though this date is followed by many).
• I used 1849, primarily based upon CWR's unpublished notes arguing in favor of that date.
• On further reflection, I felt that the case for 1849 is not really "made" and that it remains to be shown that the imprint date "1848" is wrong.

• A complicated and unresolved situation here.
• Psittacus borneus (=Eos bornea) Linnaeus is based on a plate by Edwards, but does not appear to be currently identifiable.
• Michael Walters (to whom I am indebted for all my understanding here) proposed (Forktail. 1998 13:124) that due to Psittacus borneus Linnaeus being unidentifiable, that Psittacus rubra Gmelin 1788 is the appropriate name for this taxon.
• This proposal, however, is complicated by the presence of the name Psittacus ruber Scopoli 1769, which Michael informs me is a synonym for Psittacus erithacus Linnaeus, 1758, and thus not available.
• The manner in which this will be resolved is not currently evident.

• Peters Checklist 4:228 lists the year as 1922, which makes no sense for vol. 38 of the Novit.Zool.
• This was published in that volume in 1932.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 7:12 as published in 1905 and most library listings for this work show it starting publishing in 1905.
• The Richmond Index shows the date for this as 1904, which I follow here. Additionally 1904 is cited and referenced in the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda #2.

• HBW 7:517 (Short) names this bird:

  Celeus brachyurus squamigularis (Sundevall) 1866 Consp.Av.Picinarum p.89

• Edward Dickinson points out in the Corrigenda #2 to H&M 3^rd that Short mistakenly sunk the Raffles name.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:231 as published in 1863, and this is followed by HBW 7:534 and H&M 3^rd:327
• The Richmond Index indicates that this material was presented at the meeting for Nov. 24 1863, and shows this as rec'd by the Smithsonian Institution on Feb. 12, 1864.
• The 1913 compilation by the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila indicates that this material was acknowledged in receipt by the Smithsonian Institution Jan. 27, 1864.
• While these two representations differ by about 3 weeks, it seems very unlikely that the material was available almost a month prior to the first acknowledged date of receipt.

• Peters Checklist 5:10 gives p.22 in the citation for Phaëthornis Boliviana.
• The name actually appears on p.42 (original seen).

• This citation comes from Peters Checklist 5:270.
• I feel uncertain here, as there is no entry for this taxon in The Richmond index, though he does have entries for three other "varieties" of B. rhinoceros from the same page and by the same authors (vars. Indica, Javanica, & Sumatrana), so it seems a puzzle that this one (if correct) is not present.

• Peters Checklist 6:23 gives 1935, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:217; (HBW 7:137 does not recognize as distinct).
• My information from the Library at the Philadelphia Academy, is that this volume was published in 1936.

• The citation given by Peters Checklist 1(2):436 (Johnsgaard) is
  • Anser brachyrhynchus Baillon 1834 Mem.Soc.R.Emulat.Abbevil.(2) (1833) p.74
  and this is not discussed, footnoted, or commented on.
• This citation is followed by HBW 1:581,[631], and H&M 3^rd:62.
• The Richmond Index gives the year as 1833, as do the unpublished notes by Richmond regarding dates of publication. Similarly, the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 27:103 gives 1833.
• None of the sources giving "1833" make any mention of a second series for this work, and it seems quite early for such a serial to have a second series. Nevertheless, it is possible.
• Sherborn lists this taxon as described 1834 (1833) and thus it would appear he had some indication that the publication date was delayed compared to the imprint date. He gives no indication of a "second series".

• Peters Checklist 4:160 lists the original combination as Strix biddulphi.
• The Richmond index shows the original combination as Syrnium biddulfi which requires the authority to be in parentheses.
• HBW 5:198, and H & M 3^rd:228 list Scully's name without parentheses, thereby following the Peters citation. I expect the Richmond Cardex is correct and follow that here.

• Spelled Bubo bubo borrissowi in H & M 3^rd:227
• The Richmond Index, and Peters Checklist 4:115 spell this with one "r". In addition the Richmond Index indicates that the taxon is "named for Borisow", so it appears that the correct spelling has only one "r".

• Peters Checklist 11:304 (Traylor) gives the citation as:

  	Dioptrornis brunnea Cabanis, 1886, Journ. Ornith., 34, pl.
  	1, fig. 1, and Bradyornis (Dioptrornis) brunnea Cabanis,
  	1887, Journ. Ornith., 35, p.92

• The Richmond Index gives the J.Orn 35 citation, and has a comment. "Pl.1 fig. 1 [No plate!!]"

• Peters Checklist 9:329 (Mayr & Greenway_have Verreaux as the author here.
• Thanks to Murray Bruce for pointing out (in litt. 2006.12.14) that this was simply a manuscript name employed by Hartlaub, to whom the authority in fact belongs.
• H&M 3^rd:460 correctly attributes the name to Hartlaub.

• The form:
  • Campethera scriptoricauda (Reichenow) 1896 Orn.Monatsb. 4 p.131
  is often treated as a separate species. (e.g. HBW 7:458).
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.02.08): "Short L.L. 1973. 'Remarks on the status of Campethera "scriptoricauda", and related species.' Bull. Brit. Ornithol. Club 93:72-74" gave convincing reasons for this being merely a race of C. bennettii, and our own extensive field experience confirms this.

• In his recent revision of the Sunbirds, Irwin. 1999 "The genus Nectarinia and the evolution and diversification of sunbirds: an Afrotropical perspective." Honeyguide 45: 49. spells this "bocagei".
• Shelley spelled this "bocagii".

• Often spelled H. bilopha or H. bilophum (e.g. HBW, Sibley & Monroe ).
• Originally Trochilus bilophus Temminck 1820.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):40
• "Some names (such as purpuroptera, nigricephala, etc.) may look like latinized Greek adjectives at first glance, but their Latin initial components cannot be part of Greek adjectives. Since they end in a latinized Greek noun, such names are noun phrases, and the origianl spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged. (ICZN 1999, 31.2.1,32.3,34.2.1). ... Since the adverbial stem bi- is Latin, it cannot be part of a Greek adjective. The final component lophus is here the latinized Greek noun λοφος [lophos: crest]. The adjectival form would have been bicristatus (Latin), or dilophus (latinized from Greek)."
• They indicate the spelling should be Heliactin bilophus .
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination does not occur in the Zoo. Rec.

• Usually (and understandably) treated as feminine gender (e.g. Peters and Sibley & Monroe).
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names. "BBOC 2002. 122(1):35 indicate " ... that Bleda is the name of Attila's brother and thus Bleda Bonaparte, 1857, must be treated as masculine, as is Atilla Lesson, 1830."
• Bleda and Attila became co-leaders of the Huns in 434 A.D. Bleda was murdered by his brother Attila in 445 A.D., with Attila thereby becoming the absolute ruler of the Huns; he conquered the Eastern Roman Empire, and his repeated attacks fatally weakened the Western Roman Empire.
• Therefore, B. syndactyla (Swainson) 1837, B. eximia (Hartlaub) 1855, B. canicapilla (Hartlaub) 1854, B. notata (Cassin) 1857 become B. syndactylus (Swainson) 1837, B. eximius (Hartlaub) 1855, B. canicapi:w llus (Hartlaub) 1854, B. notatus (Cassin) 1857.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combinations Bleda syndactyla, Bleda eximia, and Bleda canicapilla, but not Bleda notata occur in the Zoo. Rec.. If the Zoo. Rec. data were used as the index of "prevailing usage" and ICZN 1999 Art. 33.3.1 is proposed for maintaining the spellings in the literature which incorrectly employ a feminine ending, the rule might conceivably apply to the above 3 examples, but not to Bleda notata. A confused and unpleasant jumble of gender endings within one genus might result.

• Often spelt A. brunneicapilla. Originally described as Tyrranulus brunneicapillus Lawrence, 1863.
• 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 Aplonis brunneicapilla occurs in the Zoo. Rec., it occurs 3 times.

• Commonly treated as a subspecies of H. ruficollis.
• Rasmussen & Collar HBW 7:131 argue for consideration as a full species, though indicate further study is needed.

• Peters Checklist 3:172 interprets Psittacus magnificus as having priority.
• Sibley and Monroe do not discuss this issue.
• Homberger (Senckenberg Buch 70 (1994), 425-434) found the bill morphology and feeding ecology of Calyptorhynchus banksii graptogyne Schodde, Saunders & Homberger In Schodde, 1988 to be very different from the other taxa in that species and recommended its treatment as a good species.
• Placed by the ICZN in the "Official Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000. 2001. p.9

Alectoris barbara 1791

• Peters Checklist 2:66 has 1792.
• HBW 2:486,571 gives 1792.
• I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 and Sherborn though 1792 is supported by some evidence.

• Peters Checklist 8:321 has 1845, and cites "pp. 10, 15, pl. 2"
• Richmond, et al. 1992 has 1839, with "?40" penciled in, then crossed out, and the date Dec. 18, 1839 written in.
• Sherborn 1902 has 1840.
• As this is published in pt1, I think there is no support for 1845, and I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here.
• Additional evidence has become available to me. Edward C. Dickinson kindly provided (2007.02.18) a reproduction of the article Husson AM, Holthuis LB. 1955. "The dates of publication of the 'Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche Bezittingen' edited by C.J. Temminck." Zool.Meded. 34 no.2 p.17-24. several points become clear from this, including the basis for confusion regarding the dates and the likelihood that the citation given by Peters (=Mayr) is incorrect as to the date as well as some of the pagination.
• Peters (=Mayr, 1979) appears to be simply reproducing the citation as given in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 14:444, where Sclater (spelling the specific epithet baudi with a single -i) cites Muller & Schlegel (without a date) and "pp.10,15, pl.ii" Husson & Holthuis make it clear (p.22) that pt1 (Aves) included pp. 1-12 (sheets 1-3), pll.1-3; so "p.15" for part 1 (Aves) is not possible. Mayr quite possibly relied on Sclater and did not check the original material.
• Regarding Pitta baudii Husson & Holthuis provide interesting details that two sets of plates were published (which they designate "2" and "II"). The second plate evidently published some time later. This is implied by the fact that the motivation for reproduction of the plates was excessive fading, which presumably would not have been evident in the year the first set was published (Dec, 1839).

• Peters Checklist 15:249 attributes to Blyth.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 attributes to Tytler in Blyth.
• The index notes that the original misspelling "bazlei" arose because Tytler had no chance to correct the proofs. The name was corrected, by Tytler, on p.464.

Casuarius bennetti 1858

• Peters Checklist 1:8 gives 1857.
• HBW 1:97 (Jutglar) perpetuates this error.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show a publication date of Jan. 28, 1858, and this is confirmed by the listing by Duncan of the dates of publication.

Myrmeciza berlepschi

• Peters Checklist 7:217, has Sipia [Pyriglena] berlepschi (Hartert) 1898 BBOC 7 p.xxix and Myrmeciza berlepschi Ridgway 1909 Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 22 p.74 (Vol.7 p.237).
• Sibley and Monroe, 1990 originally had Sipia berlepschi but in the Supplement (p.50) treat Sipia as not distinct from Myrmeciza .
• Thus Myrmeciza berlepschi Ridgway would become a junior homonym.

Amazilia beryllina Deppe

• Peters Checklist 5:69 lists Lichtenstein as the author.
• See Browning and Monroe, 1991.
• In HBW 5:604 Dr. A.A. Weller misattributes this taxon to Lichtenstein.

  Deppe

Streptopelia bitorquata 1809

• Peters Checklist 3:121 lists 1810.
• See Browning and Monroe, 1991.

• Peters Checklist 6:211 has 1807
• HBW 7:491 (Short & Horne) also give 1807 as the date. It is difficult to imagine this is anything other than simply copying the data from Peters.
• The AOU Checklists have, since at least the 4^th edition (1931), indicated that the 1807 imprint date was problematic, and that 1808 or 1809 were more likely correct.
• Browning and Monroe, 1991 resolved this issue as fully as it appears possible. This resolution demonstrates 1809 to be the correct date, as is indicated in the 1998 7^th Edition of the Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 1:260 attributes this name to Reichenbach 1853, I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 here.

• Peters Checklist 10:14 has 1822.
• I follow Richmond, et al., 1992 and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 11:296 transposes the digits in the date, as "1874".

• Peters Checklist 3.:251 has 1873.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show this date as 1871.

• Peters Checklist 10:136 has 1938 (sic).

• Richmond, et al. 1992 has two notes here
  1. "Probably not publ. till 1850"
  2. "Plate dated Dec. 1849".
• My guess is that 1850 is most likely.
• Listed by Sherborn as 1849.
• The 1850 "guess" appears to be further supported by data found in CWR's unpublished notes on dates of publication. A card there documents data he extracted 'From a cover of a "separate" of Sclater's "Synopsis of Galbulidae" 1853.' The data are as follows:

   
  1848. "Commenced in the middle of 1848, and in the latter part 
  	of that year, Three parts were Published."  10 pls. Price  9 shillings. 
  1849. "Seven Parts have been Published."  	27 pls.  Price 21 shillings. 
  1850. "Seven Parts have been Published."  	21 pls. Price 21 shillings. 
  1851. "Six Parts have been Published."  	14 pls. Price 18 shillings. 
  1852. "Seven Parts have been Published." 	20 pls. Price 24 shillings.
  As this taxon is plate number 38, and it appears that 37 plates had been published by the
  end of 1849, 1850 would seem the date for this taxon.

• If an imprint date of "1849" is present on this portion of the work (which I have never seen) it might render these speculations moot under the current mode of interpreting the Code.

• Peters Checklist 4:89 has 1873.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 indicates Nov. 1872.
• this publication started in 1872.

• Peters Checklist 10:29 has 1840.
• Richmond, et al. 1992 show, this was published in July of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 1:84 lists pt4 but leaves out vol.2.

• Usually cited as 1849, but Mathews, 1925 demonstrates this is 1852.

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:285.
• 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 2:153 has 1842, which is the date on the title page of this work.
• See Mathews, for a discussion of dates of publications of the hefte.
• I believe that 1841 is the historically probable date of publication, but that 1842 would appear to be the date nomenclaturally required according to the logic of the 1999 Code. See the citation entry for Gemein.Handb.-undHilfsb. for a discussion of this.

• See Ryan PG, Hood J, Bloomer P, Komen J, Crowe TM. "Barlow's Lark: a new species in the Karoo Lark Certhiluada albescens complex of southwest Africa. Ibis. 1998. 140:605-619.
• Originally a subspecies of C. erythrochlamys.
• Separated on the basis of morphology, vocalization, behavior, and cytochrome b genotype.

• The Nature publication is listed as anonymous and published in June 5, 1879.
• Evidently it was written by Ramsay.
• A more detailed description subsequently appeared in the June 16 issue of the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W. ser.1 Vol. IV (no page given).
• This data derived from the Richmond Index.
• Murray Bruce writes:
  • "'Monachus barbatus': I have a copy of this 1879 Nature article and the names in it are clearly indicated as Ramsay's."

Apus berliozi

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.

• Peters Checklist 2:39 lists the volume here as "9" .
• The AOU 5^th edition checklist also lists "9".
• Most other sources list "XI" for the volume; these include Sherborn, earlier (and later) editions of the AOU checklist, and Coues Birds of the Northwest.
• I speculate that "XI" was misread as "IX" and this transposition error repeated in the 5^th Ed. of the AOU Checklist -- then corrected in the 6^th.

• Peters Checklist 6:80 has 1867.
• This volume of the PANSP was published in both 1867 and 1868. Pages up through 112 were published by November of 1867, and after that the remainder in 1868. [See PNAS 1913 An Index to the Scientific Contents fo the Journal and Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia p.xiii]
• The 1913 PANSP Index, would appear to suggest a split in the material from the Sept. 24 meeting -- with some published in 1867 and some published in 1868. I think this is most unlikely.
• I expect that Baillonius was actually published in 1867 as it was presented at the Sept. 24 meeting, and one other taxon from that meeting (Pteroglossus castanotis australis Cassin on p.112) is dated to 1867.
• For the moment, in deference to the 1913 PANSP Index, I leave the date as 1868.

• Peters Checklist 9:239 lists plate 13.
• I follow the Richmond Index.
• Sherborn does not list a plate for this taxon.

• Felt until recently to be extinct.
• Found still living in N. India. See Birding. Abbott, David F., Oct. 1998.

• Attributed (as here) to Blyth.
• C.W. Benson argues "Although Blyth is usually credited with the name bitorquatus, it would appear more correct to attribute it to Jerdon."
  Benson. 2000(1999). Type specimens of Bird Skins in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. United Kindgom. BOC Occasional Publication No. 4. p.44

• Not in Peters Checklist, or Sibley and Monroe.
• Some confusion exists regarding the proper citation for this taxon, as evidently some or all of the description may have been published elsewhere (newspaper, &c).
• The citation given here appears to be currently the accepted one.

• Usually treated as part of Platycercus.
• Collar, HBW Vol.4 includes as a separate Genus.

• The last confirmed sighting of this species was in April 1962 near Charleston, South Carolina.

• Peters Checklist 14:42 (Monroe) includes 1883 in the date.
• I find no evidence to support 1883 for this. The Bulletin no.193 for the U.S.National Museum indicates that this article (no.285) was published on Sept. 11, 1882.
• In the AOU CL's the date was correctly indicated in the 4^th (1931), 5^th (1958), and 7^th Editions, but listed as 1883 in the 6^th (1983). H&M 3^rd:763 follows the unlucky and erroneous path of Peters, and lists the date incorrectly as 1883.
• H&M 3^rd:120 correctly lists Rallus longirostris beldingi (from the following page of this same article) to 1882.

• Treated as a subspecies of C. gallicus by Peters Checklist 1:310.
• Treated as a group with C. pectoralis by Sibley & Monroe.
• Treated as a full species by HBW 2:131
• Clark discusses the relationships and argues for full species status based on morphology and distributional data. Clark WS. Plumage differences and taxonomic status of three similar Circaetus snake-eagles. 1999. BBOC 119(1):56-59.

• Helbig et al. discuss the Phylloscopus collybita complex and postulate phylogenetic hypotheses based on mtDNA (cyt b) and vocalizations. They hold P. brehmii to be a full species and basal in the complex.

  Helbig AJ, Martens J, Seibold I, Henning F, Schottler B, Wink M. Phylogeny and species limits in the Palearctic chiffchaff Phylloscopus complex: mitochondrial genetic differentiation and bioacoustic evidence. 1996. Ibis 138(4):650-666

• Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

• Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex and propose five species where there were held to be one. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

Heliactin bilophus Systematics/Nomenclature

• HBW 5:663 indicates the Temminck name biloph has one year's priority over the previously and widely used name cornuta Wied.
• Heliactin cornuta (Wied-Neuwied) 1821 ReiseBrasil. 2 p.190,note

• Peters Checklist 4:97 has 1876, which is correct. See {Poggi R, 1996}.
• Unfortunately, the HBW 5:167 has "1875" for the date, reviving this common error.

• Usually placed in Ketupa.
• HBW 5:193 indicates that skeletal and skull details appear to be those of a Bubo.

• I include the note from Normand David, bringing to my attention the status of this taxon. I had thought it was described from remains of dead birds -- never taken as living specimens (which would exclude it from my list), but it appears otherwise.

  M N. David writes:

  "I think that Dromaius baudinianus Parker 1984 (BBOC 104: 19-22) should be
  recognized. HANZAB has it, presumably founded on bones (I have not seen
  BBOC 104).
  
  But Jouanin 1959 (Oiseau & RFO 29: 169-203) tells the whole story of
  Baudin's expedition. It is extremely complicated. In short: birds (some
  alive, some dead) were brought back to France from King and Kangaroo
  islands; there are extant specimens to substantiate D. ater (from King I.)
  and at least one (now in Geneva) from Kangaroo I. At the time (=1959), the
  Kangaroo I. specimen had not received a formal name.
  I feel that it could be included in baudinianus Parker 1984.
  
  Parker 1984 (BBOC 104: 19-22) described the species from bone material.
  
  Balouet, J. C. & C. Jouanin. 1990. Systematique et origine geographique des
  emeus recoltés par l'expedition Baudin. Oiseau & RFO 60: 314-318.
  In this paper, they established that:
  
  a Paris museum specimen is D. ater
  the Firenza museum specimen is D. ater
  a Paris skeleton is D. baudinianus
  the Genova skin (boneless, undoubtedly separated from the Paris skeleton) is D. baudiniaus.
  
  From what I know, birds kept alive in Paris, did not bred but lived for over 20 years."
  

• Originally as Lophornis delattrei brachylopha by RT Moore in 1949.
• Treated as Lophornis brachylophus without comment by HBW 5:567.
• Peters Checklist 5:31-32 appears to interpret the genus as feminine: having L. ornata, L. magnifica, and L. stictolopha for example.
• See the comment under Lophornis for a discussion of the gender, and an explanation for the HBW treatment of this name.
• This bird is not in Peters vol.5.

• Peters 1(2):32 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
• HBW 1:132 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
• H&M p.33 also perpetuates this error.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprint date indicates.

• Peters Checklist 4:223 gives the author as Horsfield.
• The Richmond index gives the author as McClelland, which I followed for a while.
• Upon examining the text of the original article, the presentation of McClelland's material was made by Horsfield, and in his introduction his reading McClelland's letter is placed in triple quotes, and the section is followed with text "--Extract from Mr. McClelland's letter to the Secretary of the Bengal Government." The sections where the taxa (mammals and birds) are described include English text contained within quotes and followed by a phrase "--McClelland's MS."
• I interpret the Latin diagnosis to have been composed by Horsfield, and when indicated the English text to be McClelland's.
• The taxon in question has the following text

  			Fam. HIRUNDINIDÆ
  			Genus HIRUNDO, Auct.
    10. HIRUNDO BREVIROSTRIS.  Suprà nigricans nitore olivaceo;
      subtùs fuscescens, alis elongatis; caudâ mediori subfurcatâ; ros-
  	tro brevissimo.
    
    This species agrees with Hirundo fuciphaga in habitat, in propor-
  tional length of the wing, and shortness of beak, and in colour above;
  but it is darker underneath, and more than one third larger: entire
  length six inches.
  

• As there is no appended string saying "--McClelland's MS." I interpret all the text to be Horsfield's
Picture of page

• Evidently the type locality is:
  • 1530 m, 6.5 km east, 2.9 km north of the peak of Mt Kitanglad in the Sawaga (Lalawan) River drainage, Sitio Kinubalan, Barangay Dalwangan, Municipality of Malaybalay, Bukidnon Province, Mindanao, Philippines.

• Peters Checklist 15:190 (Mayr) gives 1880.
• Bolton's listing of the numbers for this serial indicate volume 9 of this series is in both 1879 and 1880.
• This is p.1 of article #5 so it appears 1880 may be likely.
• The Richmond index lists the date as 1879, with "?80" pencilled in.
• The question of the probability of 1879 vs 1880 turns on the number of articles published per volume. At present I dont have any data on that. (2001.10.20)
• In the abscence of other evidence I use 1879.

• Peters Checklist 4:247 lists this as 1865.
• HBW 5:454 (Chantler) also lists this as 1865.
• The Richmond Index gives March of 1866, which fits the data published by Duncan (1937).

• Peters Checklist 4:234 lists this as 1865.
• HBW 5:422 (Chantler) also lists this as 1865.
• The Richmond Index gives March of 1866, which fits the data published by Duncan (1937).

• The Richmond Index for this taxon appears to contain an error (quite a rare finding in my experience) The listing is:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Monarcha (Piezorhynus) browni  E.P. Ramsay.  1883.
  Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1883, Part IV, April, 1883, 711.
  Type locality: "Marrabo,"		Solomon Group.
  					Coll. for Rev.
  					Geo. Brown.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Pt 4 in April would imply that the volume is 1882. The April printings were the final part (IV) for the previous years meetings.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 4:121; HBW 5:193,687) cited as:
  • Bubo blakistoni Seebohm 1884 PZS(1883) p.466
• The Richmond Index listing gives: Seebohm Ibis ser.5 Vol.II no.V Jan 1884 p.42
• A note added to the Richmond Index card says: 'First "descr." in PZS "Nov. 1883", 466.' [The quotation marks are, I believe, indicative of Richmond's skepticism regarding the truth of the particulars as stated.]
• For something to be published on p.466 (Pt4) of the PZS in 1884, the earliest it could have been published would be April, which would give the Jan. 1884 Ibis publication priority.
• Therefore, contra to Peters and HBW, I follow the Richmond Index and list the Seebohm Ibis, January 1884 citation.

• Peters Checklist 5:134 and HBW 5:668,687 give 1887.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show that this part was published in April 1, 1888.

• Initially proposed in the monotypic genus Veles by Bangs.
• Usually listed in Caprimulgus (e.g. HBW 5:359) though there has been consideration of its unusual characteristics.
• Cleere N. 2001. BBOC "The validity of the genus Veles Bangs, 1918 (Caprimulgidae)." 121:278-279. proposes that the morphological, vocal, and behavioural differences from other Nightjars, warrants it's treatment in the genus Veles as proposed by Bangs.
• Bonaparte's description is as follows:

  *23. C. binotatus, Temm. Mus. Lugd.  ex Borneo. Nigri-
  	cans, abdomine subtiliter rufo-vermiculatus: colli macula
  	utrinque alba: remigibus fuscis rufo-maculatis: rectricibus
  	omnibus atro rufoque variis, sine maculis albis.
  	

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 15:173, 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".

• Considerable evidence indicates that Branta canadensis is parphyletic.
• Recent and compelling evidence is in:
  Paxinos EE, James HF, Olson SL, Sorenson MD, Jackson J, Fleischer RC. "mtDNA from fossils reveals a radiation of Hawaiian geese recently derived from the Canada goose (Branta canadensis)." 2002. PNAS 99(3):1399-1404.

Zoological Citation Notes --C

• H&M 3^rd:473 has a note stating

  Peters et al.(1960:218) credited this name to McClelland, however there is only a Latin
  diagnosis by Horsfield, the description in English usually supplied by McClelland is absent.

• It is not only Peters Checklist that credits this name to McClelland, as the CBBM 3:306 (Sharpe, 1877), The Richmond Index, Gray Hand-List of Birds Pt1 p.323 also attrbute this name to McClelland.
• The note by Dickenson et al. is intriguing in that is appears to suggest that Horsfield commonly supplied the Latin diagnosis and McClelland the English description. This, and other taxa attributed to McClelland would appear to deserve examination to determine the roles of authority. The note by Dickinson would appear to suggest that Horsfield might have authorial standing in some of the other taxa from this article.

• Conventionally cited (e.g. Peters Checklist 12:425 (= Salomonsen 1967) ) as:

  Chaetoptila† (f.) Sclater,PL 1871 Ibis p.358

• H&M 3^rd:431 up through Corrigenda 6, cites "Sclater 1871".
• This name was published as a subgenus of Anthochaera Vigors & Horsfield, 1827 by Gray in his Hand list in volume 1, and thus in 1869. In that citation, he cites "Sclater, 1868", though to date such a use has not been identified.
• 
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for bringing this to my attention.

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 4:21; HBW 3:[611]) given as

  Cerococcyx Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 p.230

• The Richmond Index gives a date of April, 1882 for that volume and number of the J.Orn., however the Orn.Centralblatt also containing the erection of this genus was issued on March 1, 1882.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• vespertinus and abeillei are often placed in the genus Hesperiphona, though currently not so by the AOU Cl 7^th.

• The original spelling (as correctly noted by Peters Checklist 11:472 (=Mayr 1986) was cœsia not cæsia and it appears this was intended as the text following the name reads:

  Rostro atro; pedibus bruneis; corpore toto cœruleo-cœsio; ventre
  brunneo-plumbeo ; crisso cinereo; pennis alarum caudaque nigris cæsio
  marginatis.  Hab.  Sumatra.

  (emphasis added)

  And the "oe" ligatures and "ae" ligatures are easily distinguished in the descriptive text.

• I am not aware of a sound basis for following the emendation that Mayr makes here.

• Peters Checklist 13:147 (= Paynter 1970), cites this to "p. 96" while it is actually found on p.99, as shown by the Richmond Index, as well as by Sherborn's Index Animalium.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Taxa that were originally described in Chamaezosa Cabanis are often written with the authority in parentheses.
• Some sources (Nomen. Zoolog. and the Richmond Index, Ridgway) hold this to be an emendation of Chamaeza Vigors. Sherborn's Index Animalium does not seem to list it as an emendation.

• The number of species to be included here is debated. Genetic evidence has provided support for three species, as opposed to three subspecies. This would appear to make sense under the phylogenetic species concept. For the moment I am reluctant to determine species level status simply on the basis of relative genetic distances.
• ref. Banks J, Van Buren A, Chapel Y, Whitfield JB. 2006. "Genetic evidence for three species of rockhopper penguins, Eudyptes chrysocome." Polar Biology 30:61-67.

• The authors propose treating this as a phylogenetic species, and possibly under the biological species concept as a subspecies of Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus.
• Clements (2007) treats this as a full species.
• This taxon is not discussed by H&M 3^rd up through Corrigenda 6. Interestingly neither is it discussed in the SACC (accessed 2007.06.20).

• A peculiar bibliographic situation exists here. The latter portion of Lawrence's paper (with the initial segment on pp.359-361) was continued following the "General Index that occurs at the end of the volume. A footnote at the bottom of the initial page of the continuation states, "This portion of the paper was inadvertantly left out by the editor." The pagination is peculiar in that the final page of the "General Index" has page numbers "428", "429" at the top of the two columns (all other "General Index" pages have only one page number for the two columns). The next page (on which the bird description occurs has no page number imprinted (!), but clearly it should be regarded as the equivalent of "429" as the following page is numbered "430".
• The note at the top of the "continuation" says: "[Continued from p.359]", though it appears to me that it would be more correct to say "[Continued from p.361]", as p.359 at bottom is where the article starts.
• Despite the fact that this name is functionally on p.429, I label it "p.["429" bis]" as it is the second page that bears that number.

• A complex and confusing situation here. I attempt to follow Sánchez-González LA, Navarro-Siqüenza AG, Peterson AT, & Garcia-Moreno J. "Taxonomy of Chlorospingus ophthalmicus in Mexico and northern Central America." BBOC 127(1):34-49.
• The taxonomic and nomenclatural implications of the partial revision here are considerable, and it must be regarded as incompletely resolved.

• Conventionally spelled corebicolor (contra carebicolor) and this may be correct.
• However, the Richmond Index clearly spells this carebicolor with a line over the "ae" indicating that it is a ligature (æ). I follow the Richmond Index until it is demonstrated that his rendering is incorrect.

• Conventionally spelled coelicolor (contra caelicolor) and this may be correct.
• However, the Richmond Index clearly spells this caelicolor with a line over the "ae" indicating that it is a ligature (æ). I follow the Richmond Index until it is demonstrated that his rendering is incorrect.

• Peters Checklist 13:318 (=Storer, 1970) dates this to 1836, and this is initially followed by H&M:807.
• H&M Corrigenda 2.1 changes this date to 1835 and cites Browning & Monroe (1991).
• Browning & Monroe 1991 p.391 reveals a problem:
  • line 7 of the Orn.Draw. section states:

    ... Part 3 (pls. 26-38) on 10 July 1834; Part 4 (pls. 39-50) on 2 January 1835; ...

    (Note 1834 for Part 3 )

    while on line 19 of this section it states:

    "T.[anagra] cana (10 July) 1835, Pt. 3, pl. 37

    (Note 1835 for Part 3 )

• Certainly the most likely interpretation is that the 1835 is a lapsus for 1834, which is the date that makes the most sense, and that I employ.

• Peters 14:262 [= Howell et al. 1968] cites this to Bonaparte 1850 in Consp.Gen.Av. p.507
• H&M:753 (through Corrigenda 6) apparently follows this, and discusses the citation only with regard to the question of the date 1850 vs 1851 (footnote #1).
• The majority of authors (Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 12:232, Neave, Meyer, the Richmond Index) give priority to the Reichenbach citaion, and this was recently discussed by Kirwan & Gregory 2005. BBOC 125(1):68-80 (see p.77) where the Reichenbach citation was again held to have priority.
• H&M:753 (through Corrigenda 6) do not give a rationale for citing this to Bonaparte rather than Reichenbach.

• It seems surprising for an African Bird to have been described in a work on Cuban natural history.
• Peters Checklist 14:218 (=Howell, Paynter & Rand) correctly point to a discussion in The Auk 1920 37:300 that explains this peculiarity.
• The Peters Checklist authors almost get the authors of this work correct, they suggets that the authors are "Bangs and Peters" while in fact they were Bangs and Penard.

• In 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. 149:449 the authority for Cettia acanthizoides concolor is listed without parentheses.
• Ogilvie-Grant described this form with the combination Horeites acanthizoiedes concolor, so when listed in Cettia the authority should be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 13:118 shows the publication date as 1942 without comment or discussion. This was initially followed by H&M 3 ^rd:790.
• The Richmond Index shows this to be in the June 26, 1941 number (33B no.13).
• The Corrigenda #6 (Dec. 2006) of H&M 3 ^rd corrects the date appropriately to 1941 with a note that the original description was checked where the text "Trykt den 26 juni 1941" is found.

• Of interest, in his 1946 Condor paper in which he describes Aimophila carpalis cohaerens RT Moore attributes the name Aimophila carpalis not to Coues 1873, but to Bendire in 1872, giving the citation "Ornith. and Oöl. 7, 1882:121" (which looks like 1882 to me).
• I find no other authors citing this, and do not find and evidence of such a periodical.
• The text from that article, reproduced in Deignan's Type Specimens of Birds in the U.S. Natl. Museum (p.644) suggests to me that Bendire was writing in 1882 of events which may have occurred in 1872.

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussing M.m.graminea place M.m.coronatorum in synonomy and comment:

  Birds of Is. Los Coronados ("coronatorum"), San Miguel I. ("micronyx"), and other
  Channel Is.  ("clementae") were named on basis of slight mean differences in bill and leg
  length, hallux length, and overall size, respectively, but populations are not diagnosable
  (Patten 2001).

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussing M.m.graminea place M.m.clementae in synonomy and comment:

  Birds of Is. Los Coronados
  ("coronatorum"), San Miguel I. ("micronyx"), and other Channel Is.
  ("clementae") were named on basis of slight
  mean differences in bill and leg length, hallux length, and overall size, respectively, but
  populations are not diagnosable (Patten 2001).

• Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. in discussing M.m.heermanni place M.m.mailliardi in synonomy and comment:

   Weak clinal variation from south to north
  involving reduced grayish fringes to mantle-feathers and reduced brown between black medial
  streak and fringe; birds called "mailliardi" and "cooperi" cannot be told from
  heermanni sensu stricto, nor from each other.

• Orignially published as Palaeornis Calthrapae but the bird was named for Layard's first wife, whose maiden name was Calthrop. It appears the name was a manuscript name due to Layard, but was published by Blyth.
• Sharpe's Hand-List 1900 2:32 has the following note:

  calthorpæ *
  ...
  ...
  * This is the correct rendering of the name. It was dedicated by Mr. E.L. Layard
  to his first wife, who was a Miss Calthorp.  He told me this himself, remarking that
  he had himself inadvertantly perpetuated the error, through a misprint in his 'Birds
  of South Africa,' where he intended to call a Pipit Anthus calthorpæ, but for the
  second time his printer failed him, and it appeared as calthropæ.

  I find no evidence of this pipit name.
• Sherborn Index Animalium 1924 p.1006 has an entry for

  calthropae Psittacus, E. L. Layard, Journ. Ceylon Br. R. Asiat. Soc. [II (5) 1849-50]
  	1850, 75  ; ed. 2, 1890, 200.

  which appears to be junior to the Blyth publication, in a different publication, and with a different spelling!!.
• Peters Checklist 3:246 errs in the belief that the bird was named for a Miss Calthorp. In this, he cites, and is following the error in Sharpe's Hand-List 1900 2:32
• Dickinson et al. write (H&M 3^rd:[828]):

  The lapsus by Blyth was emended in or before Salvadori (1891); this taxon was named for a Miss
  Calthrop and not as Peters (1937) wrote a Miss Calthorp. Use of this accurate emendation from 1891 
  to 1937, has been succeeded by over 50 years of use of calthorpae. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
  resurrected calthropae, but we judge that calthorpae must benefit from the rules on 
  prevailing usage.

• The definition of "prevailing usage" from the glossary of the ICZN 1999 is as follows:

  usage, prevailing, n.
      Of a name: that usage of the name which is adopted by at least a substantial majority of
      the most recent authors concerned with the relevant taxon, irrespective of how long ago
      their work was published.

• So, in my view, a demonstration of "prevailing usage" must publish the results of a study showing what universe of data was examined, why that universe of data is sufficient and appropriate to answer the question of frequency of use by different authors, and show that the data demonstrate a substantial majority (i.e. number) of authors used a particular rendering of a name. The argument must include logic in support of the fact that the "majority" is a substantial majority, and not just a simple majority.
  The discussion by Dickinson et al. does not indicte the range of publications and authors consisdered, it does not demonstrate (or even mention) a majority, let alone a "substantial majority" of authors, nor does it indicate criteria for deciding which authors were "concerned with the taxon" (whatever that means). The argument in support of "prevailing usage" appears to be based upon the recent duration of use, while the definition requires establishing a frequency of use (substantial majority of authors concerned with the taxon). It may well be that the proposed prevailing usage can be demonstrated, but in my view, it must be published and the component criteria must be presented with supporting logic and arguments. Until such a time I interpret it to be incompatible with the Code 1999 to use calthorpae.
• The representations in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 20:461-462 are of some interest. We have:

  15. Palæornis calthropæ [main heading]
  	Palæornis calthrapæ Blyth 1849
  		[with 9 additional entries from 6 authors following]
  	Palæornis calthropæ Kelaart 1852
  		[with approx. 26 additional entries from 18 authors following]
  	Palæornis calthrapa Bp. 1857
  	Palæornis calthropiæ Schlegel 1864

  Obviously, this sketch must not be interpreted to be any evalution of the "most recent authors concerned with this taxon", but I include it here for interest.

• Previously cited as:

  Chalcopsitta (f.) Bonaparte 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.3

  The Comptes Rendu citation has priority.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:147 (Blake) to Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny.
• H&M 3^rd:769 lists the authority in the opposite order, as d'Orbigny & Lafresnay. The standard of H&M 3^rd seems to demand that others justify the tiniest departure from citations as given by the Peters checklist. A requirement that H&M 3^rd does not appear to meet itself. H&M 3^rd may justify this "departure from Peters" somewhere, but I certainly can't find it.
• The order d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye is that given by the Richmond Index, which is the justification I use for the order that I employ.

• A very complicated situation here. At issue are the following:
  1. the spelling of the specific epithet
  2. the author of the name
  3. the place where the name first occurs
  4. the date of publication.
• Conventionally (e.g. Peters Checklist 5:32) cited as
  • Trochilus chalybeus Vieillot 1822 Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 2 p.574
  I say "conventionally", however it must be noted that it is common to misread the Peters Citation and to wrongly interpret his date as 1823. In fact he has 1823 as the imprint date with a published date of 1822.
• The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 16:426 begins the citation thus:

  	Trochilus chalyæus, Vieill. Enc. Méth. p.574; Temm. Pl. Col. 66.
  		f.2; Gray Hand-l. B. i. p.147

  Salvin thus appears to believe the name is due to Vieillot and that it is spelled with a ligature (-æ-).
• The evidence (which is moderately complex) initially suggested that the spelling chalybæus may have been used on the wrappers to livr.11, though the name on the plate is rendered chalybeus.
• There does seem to be an exellent structure of data and arguments that the Pl.Col. livr. 11 (June 1821) publication, in whatever form, antedates the Tabl.Meth. publication where Vieillot is often held to be the author. Examples of the wrapper for livr. 11 have been actively sought for over a century but it is not clear if they can be found, or will resolve all of the uncertainties.
• The Richmond Index lists the name as Trochilus chalbeus and gives the authority to Temminck (with "Vieill." -- suggeting that it is a manuscript name of Vieillot's), and dates it to June of 1821.
• Edward Dickinson provides more details on this matter (in litt. 2006.10.21); relevant portions of his communication are:

  	Contrary to what I wrote before Temminck did NOT use chalybæus on the wrapper. Froriep
  	gave chalybeus and so did the Belgian reviewer in the Annales Générales des Sci.
  	Phys.  
  	
  	So chalybæus is only in the Tableau Méthodique, which as you recall is an
  	    index, binding plan and link between the Buffon plates and the T&L plates.
   
      ... you remind[] me about the Swiss reports on Temminck & Laugier. I do have the set of
  	these and I attach a PDF showing the list of the 6 notes that appeared in vols. 4 and 5. These take us up
  	to the end of Pl. 120 and thus to the end of the livraisons that appeared before their text did. And thus
  	yes, it is possible to cross check Froriep against this source, which I seem to have done but do not seem
  	to have entered into a comparative spreadsheet. I have also copied for you the page that deals with
  	livraison 11 and you will see that the Swiss review also gives the spelling as chalybeus. So we
  	have 3/3 votes for that.
   
      For the record, ... the details that I have for these sources -- not quite complete as to dates -- are as
      follows:
   
      Froriep in Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- unf Heilkunde:
   
      	a) 1821 in an issue dated Julius 1821 and numbered PRO 2: 
      		cols 19-22 include an overview and the details of livraisons I to VIII all of which can only be
      		from the wrappers
   
      	b) 1822 in an issue dated Oktober 1822 and numbered Pro 53 as well as (Nr. 9 des III Bandes): 
      		cols 129-132 include the details of Livraisons IX to XXIII and certainly for the last three (at
      		least) Froreip must have been able to see text as well as plates. In the Introductory paragraph of
      		text Froreip wrote "Dies Werk geht uunterbrochen fort. Auch ist der Bunsch nach einem
      		beschreibenden Texte; den wir den wir Notizen Nr. 2 pag. 21 ausserten, ets füllt worden, uns
      		seit dem 20sten Heft jedesmal der Text beigefügt; der zu denfrühern Heften
      		gehörige wird nachgeholt." .
   
      Anon. in the Annales Générales des Sci. Phys. (Bruxelles)
   
      a) In Vol.7 pp.361-371: an extensive review which includes the details of the first 6 livraisons. The
  	details most probably came from the wrappers (comparison with Froriep might reveal differences but I have
  	not yet made these)
   
      b) In Vol.8 pp.395-396: details of livraisons 7 to 11. The volume title page has 1821 on it. If this is
  	correct then all the listed details must have come from the wrappers or from Froriep.
   
      Anon. "U". in the Naturwiss. Anz. Schweiz Ges:
   
      As per the details attached; dates of issue of each part of the review not yet known to me.
   
      Note that we have at least two sources for all of Livraisons 1-20 and a third source for 1-11. 
  
  	

• The Richmond Index also lists:

  	Trochilus chalybeus Bechstein 1811 Allg.Uebers.Vogel[Latham] 4 1 p.222
  	Based on Actes.Soc.Hist.Nat. Paris, I. pt.1 1792, p.116, no.48

• Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.1208) gives essentially the same thing (but substantially more abbreviated).
• Why the Bechstein name (with a full decade of priority) is not the valid name is not clear to me.

• Peters Checklist 7:199 lists the date as 1867.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.
• H&M 3^rd:386 lists the date as 1867, but this is corrected in the Corrigenda 2.1 to 1868.
• HBW 8:597 has the date correct, as 1868.

• Conventionally cited to 1887 (e.g. Peters Checklist 9:97 (Mayr & Greenway 1960) ; H&M 3^rd:532; Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Aethiop. II:583).
• 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.

• It appears that there is much uncertainty concerning the systematics in this species.
• See Brumfield RT. 2005. "Mitochondrial variation in Bolivian populations of the Variable Antshrike (THAMNOPHILUS CAERULESCENS)." Auk 122(2):414-432 and Isler MT, Isler PR, & Brumfield RT . 2005. "Clinal variation in vocalizations of and Antbird (THAMNOPHILIDAE)." Auk 122(2):433-444.
• We can expect much change and turmoil in this species, and probably in this group as a whole.

• H&M 3^rd:382 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 the previous page (p.380). But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:559 has the date correct as 1868.

• H&M 3^rd:381 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 the previous page (p.380). But this error is not corrected as of Corrigenda 5 in 2006.
• HBW 8:550 has the date correct as 1868.

• Peters Checklist 12:447 gives the date for this publication as "1868".
• Gage and Stearn. 1988. "A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London" p.215 show that this was published Feb. 27, 1878 (a Wed.).
• H&M 3^rd:448 correctly gives the date as 1878, but makes no mention of differing from the Peters Checklist in this regard. I must note that when anyone else differs from the listings in the Peters Checklist, great editorial excitement is engendered and explicit demonstrations of proof and support for the variant position are demanded.

• Peters Checklist 5:107 lists the original combination here as Heliangelus micraster cutervensis Simon, Hist. Hat. Trochil., 1921, p.182,369
• Colin Jones astutely noticed that Zimmer in Am.Mus.Novit. no.1540 p.29 gives the original citation as "H[eliotrypha] micraster cutervensis", which would imply that the authority should be in parentheses.
• The Richmond Index confirms that the original description is as "Heliotrypha micraster cutervensis".
• HBW 5:637 and H&M 3^rd:272 apparently follow the Peters Checklist error, in that they do not put the authority in parentheses.

• Spelled by Peters Checklist 1(2):416 "Falco Cuvieri" (note -i).
• I expect that this follows (without additional examination) Sharpe. Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 1874 1:400 where the name is listed with an "-i" ending.
• Sharpe in CBBM 1 may well have been following Gray's Hand-List of Birds I:20 where it is spelled Cuvieri.
• My facsimile collection of Smith's works (Willoughby Society, 1880) shows the name clearly as

  FALCO CUVIERII

• The listing in the Richmond Index spells the name with the -ii ending.
• The single -i spelling seems to be commonly, but not universally, met with. Wolters (1975) in Die Vogelarten der Erde p.78 spells the name Falco cuvierii.
• Similarly, Sherborn in Index Animalium p.1712 (a work that was certainly readily available to the authors of the Peters Checklist) spells the name cuvierii.
• HBW 2:268 lists the name correctly as Falco cuvierii.
• Edward Dickinson informs me (in litt. 2006.08.03) that the first edition of Peters Checklist (1931) uses Falco cuvierii.
• In further additional information due to Bob Dowsett's efforts, it is established that the Willughby Reprint of Sir Andrew Smith's Miscellaneous Ornithological Papers accurately reflects the original spelling (FALCO CUVIERII) of the name. This was established by Margaret Sandwith kindly providing a scan of the original material.

• Usually cited to 1838 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1(2):159), and this appears to be conventionally followed.
• The entry in the Richmond Index clearly and strongly shows a 9 overwriting the final "8" in 1838. So Richmond dates this to 1839, not 1838.
• Dates for this early Russian Serial are problematic. Sherborn in his listing for this name, includes the Mém.Acad.Imp.Sci. St. Petersburg which Peters shows as an 1840 version of the description published earlier in the Bulletin.
• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:450-459 has a number of entries of interest. For Phaëthon catesbyi (p.457) only the 1840 Mém. of the St. Petersb. Academy is listed. Yet the listing for Phaëthon flavirostris (p.454) cites "Bull.Acad. St. Pétersb. ii p.349 (1837)" so some study of the Bulletin occured in developing these names.
• The AOU CL 5^th (1957):27 lists the Bulletin and dates it to 1838.
• HBW 1(1992):289 (J. Orta) dates this taxon to 1840 Bulletin with a citation that appears to be a strange combination of data from various sources. I am confused enough by this early Russian periodical that I can not say anything is necessarily wrong, but the HBW citaion (p.[631]) doesn't fit easily with any of the other citations I have examined.
• For this taxon, 1838 certainly appears possible. The collation of data for the Bulletin suggests a good measure of confusion simply regarding the orderly nomenclature of the publication (even ignoring the problem of establishing the exact date). See the entry for Bull.Sci.Acad.Imp.Sci.St.Petersb. for some details in this regard.
• From my perspective, in the abscence of very little in the way of definite data, the choice is between the convention , or reliablity. I choose the latter (i.e. CWR).
• It must also be noted that Mathews has written on the matter of this name (Mathews. 1915. Auk 32(2):195-197). Mathews takes what seems to me to be a high-handed, and imperious attitude in his article. Consistent with much of his work, his data are incomplete, there is at least one typographic problem (perhaps not his fault), and the clarity of his position is not what it might be. The citation he gives for Brandt's use of the name does not appear to be the earliest one available.

• Spelled Furnarius Commersoni in the listing on page 34.
• Spelled Furnarius Commersonii in the note no.2 on page 34.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 12:242 to 1843 and this appears to be followed universally.
• Sheets-Pyenson, Susan. 1981. "War and Peace in Natural History Publishing: The Naturalist's Library, 1833-1843." ISIS 72:50-72. addresses this work in detail. From her study of Jardine's correspondence she determines that this work was published in Dec. 1842.
• I am unaware of any reason not to believe her interpretation, which appears to have been universally ignored by the ornithological community.
• Iredale also published on this work (Iredale. 1951. "'The Naturalist's Library: an Essay in Bibliography.' Australian Zoologist 11:322-332.) and Edward Dickinson kindly provided me a copy to study. It is clear that uncertainty remains as to whether this volume was published in Dec. 1842, or in 1843. Possible explanations can be provided for either case. The appearance (but not the certainty) is that Sheets-Pyenson may have dated this based on information in the Jardine correspondence (which was material unknown to Iredale), and Sheets-Pyenson was fully aware of and relied partly Iredale's work when she published her paper. For the present time I am employing the dating she published on p.72 of her work.

• It appears that this was originally spelled Sparvius cirrocephalus -- based on The Richmond Index, Sherborn's Index Animalium (p.1327), and Strickland's 1855 Onrithological Synonyms (p.111).
• It further appears (based on Sherborn) that GR Gray emended the name to cirrhocephalus in 1848 in his List. Birds Coll. B.M. p.???
• Sharpe used the spelling cirrhocephalus in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. I:141 (without comment), and this then appears to have been followed by many modern workers (e.g. Peters Checklist 1(2):339 (Amadon) and H&M 3^rd:107).
• However, it must be noted that HBW 2(1994):157 employs the original spelling cirrocephalus.
• Without having examined Gray's 1848 work (which I presume is the original emendation) I can not be certain exactly what he has done there and why. It is my confidant guess that it is an unjustified emendation. If this is so, then the question becomes whether cirrhocephalus is in "prevailing usage". Unless and until either the emendation is demonstrated to be justified or there is published evidence that the spelling cirrhocephalus entirely satisfies all the requirements of "prevaling usage" I will employ the original spelling.

• My intention and attempt here is to follow the systematics of Sorenson MD & Payne RB. 2005. "Molecular systematics: cuckoo phylogeny inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences" Pp. 69-94 in R.B. Payne. Bird Families of the World (15): Cuckoos. Oxford University Press.

• My intention and attempt here is to follow the systematics of Sorenson MD & Payne RB. 2005. "Molecular systematics: cuckoo phylogeny inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences" Pp. 69-94 in R.B. Payne. Bird Families of the World (15): Cuckoos. Oxford University Press. as followed by the AOU CL 47^th Supplement. 2006.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):74 lists the plate as "pl.10"; the Richmond Index lists the plate as "pl.XI".
• A point such as this may seem overly picky, but Richmond additionally notes that the name is spelled "caribaea" on the plate. Attention to detail and fidelity are not the strong points of the post-Peters volumes of the Checklist.
• HBW 1:[631] is unaware of, or chooses not to include reference to the plate.

• The nomenclature and systematics of this species is complicated and confusing. I follow the recent paper by Tennyson and Bartle (2005) with regards the nomenclature and systematics.
• ref. Tennyson AJD, Barlte JA. 2005. "A scientific name for fulmar prions nesting at Auckland and Heard Islands." Notornis. 52:47-55.
• Thanks to the always helpful Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):369 as:

   
  	Buteo calurus Cassin, 1856, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadel- 
  	phia, 7(1855), p.281

  .
• The citation to "1856" is followed (without comment) by HBW 2:184 and H&M 3 ^rd:111; although the AOU CL 5^th:106 dates this to May 22, 1855, and the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1:189 dates this to 1855 as well.
• This paper was presented at the Meeting of Feb.27, 1855 and appeared in no.VII of volume VII. Receipt of "no.VII" for that volume was acknowledged by the Boston Society of Natural History Library on May 22 of 1855. Thus 1855 is the proper date for this taxon.
• Undoubtedly the "May 22, 1855" date as listed in the 1957 AOU CL 5^th: 106 comes from this acknowledgement of receipt. It seems peculiar that Stresemann and Amadon in preparing this portion of the Peters Checklist did not take the trouble to see what the AOU Checklist committee had resolved, especially as Amadon himself was on that Committee.
• However, perhaps this is not so strange, as consulting the AOU Checklists seems these days to be the exception rather than the rule.

• Peters Checklist 8:180 (Traylor) cites this to 1827. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:373 and HBW 9:405
• The actual date here is a bit of a mystery. Zimmer p.154 discusses the problem of dating names from this work in detail, including details provided by both Sherborn (Ind.Anim Pt.2 p.xli and Mathews Bibliography of the Birds of Australia p.63). It appears that certainty with regards dates is not to be had.
• Mathews writes:

  We have therefor for the volumes as generally met with, Vol. I. before Aug.6th, 1828;
  Vol. II., before May 21st, 1829; Vol. III before Jan. 23rd, 1830.

• The volume numbers are, of course themselves confusing. There were 16 vols. Vol.VI (Aves I); Vol.VII (Aves II) and Vol.VIII (Aves III). Note that Zimmer p.154 appears to have an error listing

   Vol.III (Aves III)

  but lower down referring to

  At the close of Vol.VIII (Aves III).

• With nothing better to proceed on, I accept Mathews' dates, and date Vol.VI (Aves I) to 1828.

• Conventionally listed as published in 1891, which is the imprint date.
• James Jobling has noticed that Zimmer (p.97) notes (quotes are Zimmer's)

  	"It was completed in December last, and is dated 1891, though it was not
  	actually accessible to the public until the middle of last March"
  	(Ibis, July 1892).

• Of interest, of a number of taxa from this source checked in the Richmond Index, one (Neophema) is dated "1891?".
• Based on the data Zimmer quotes from Ibis, I dated all taxa from this source to 1891. Other interpretations are, however possible. If multiple copies not "accessible" to the public were distributed (say at the Museum) during 1891, then the publication date would be 1891 so this date is based on speculation. Arguments can be made for either date. "Completion" is not the same as publication, and this approach argues for using 1892. My general approach has been in controversial issues to default to following the Richmond Index, which here would also appear to favor 1891. However published material including specific details (i.e. The Ibis note) appeared to support 1892.
• Additional reflection prompted me to change back to 1891, based on the distinction between "accessibil[ity] to the public" and "publication". That is material may be published, yet not "accesible to the public".
• Who knows, I may change my mind again.

• Peters Checklist 2:254 gives the citation here as

  	Eudromias crassirostris Severtzov, Izvest. Imp. Obsch. Estestr. Antr. i
  	Ethnogr. Moskva, 3, no. 2 ["Turkestanski Jevotni"], 1873, p.146.

  All other taxa cited to this source (and some to Turk. Jevotni) are cited to volume 8 not 3. I have no independant confirmation of the volume number, but fully expect that it is a typographic error (a common one) substituting 3 for 8.

• Evidently based on a bird, of questionable identity, referred to in the Vulgate Bible.
• My researches suggest that the occurance is in Leviticus Chapter 11 where it is indicated which birds may be eaten and which are to be detested, held in abomination and not eaten.
• The relevant text of the Vulgate Bible (note line # 19) is:

  Leviticus
  	Chapter 11
  1 locutus est Dominus ad Mosen et Aaron dicens
  2 dicite filiis Israhel haec sunt animalia quae comedere debetis de cunctis animantibus terrae
  3 omne quod habet divisam ungulam et ruminat in pecoribus comedetis
  4 quicquid autem ruminat quidem et habet ungulam sed non dividit eam sicut camelus 
  	et cetera non comedetis illud et inter inmunda reputabitis
  5 chyrogryllius qui ruminat ungulamque non dividit inmundus est
  6 lepus quoque nam et ipse ruminat sed ungulam non dividit
  7 et sus qui cum ungulam dividat non ruminat
  8 horum carnibus non vescemini nec cadavera contingetis quia inmunda sunt vobis
  9 haec sunt quae gignuntur in aquis et vesci licitum est omne quod habet pinnulas 
  	et squamas tam in mari quam in fluminibus et stagnis comedetis
  10 quicquid autem pinnulas et squamas non habet eorum quae in aquis moventur 
  	et vivunt abominabile vobis
  11 et execrandum erit carnes eorum non comedetis et morticina vitabitis
  12 cuncta quae non habent pinnulas et squamas in aquis polluta erunt
  13 haec sunt quae de avibus comedere non debetis et vitanda sunt vobis aquilam 
  	et grypem et alietum
  14 milvum ac vulturem iuxta genus suum
  15 et omne corvini generis in similitudinem suam
  16 strutionem et noctuam et larum et accipitrem iuxta genus suum
  17 bubonem et mergulum et ibin
  18 cycnum et onocrotalum et porphirionem
  19 erodionem et charadrion iuxta genus suum opupam quoque et vespertilionem
  20 omne de volucribus quod graditur super quattuor pedes abominabile erit vobis
  21 quicquid autem ambulat quidem super quattuor pedes sed habet longiora retro crura 
  	per quae salit super terram ...

• An unusual situation here, where the genus group name is published prior to the scientific description of any of the component species.
• Peters Checklist 2:308 comments that J.R. Forster has

  Diagnosis only, no species included.

• The first species described, and subsequently included in the genus is Vaginalis alba Gmelin 1789. A name based on Latham's work. Essentially all that Gmelin did was assign binomina and Latin descriptions to birds that were described (without Latin binomina) by Latham. Thus it is my speculation that Forster was able to write a diagnosis for Chionis based on Latham's description and illustration and lacking only a Latin binomen. The binomen was subsequently supplied by Gmelin.

• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 4 p.10 indicates that the date fro this taxon is 1811 and not 1808 as conventionally given. The rationale for this decision is not given, but the note references a 1953 Stresemann article in Mitt.Zool.Mus.Berlin 29(1):75-106 (not seen), and an article in prep. It will be interesting to learn of the details here.

• Peters Checklist 8:320 (Mayr) lists this as

   	Pitta coccinea Eyton, 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. London,
   	p.104

• The Richmond Index listing is:

   	Pitta coccinea J.C.Eyton 1839, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.,
   	part VII, no. LXXVIII, Nov. 1839, 140

• So the problem is p.140 or p.104 ? A question that should be easily resolvable by checking the original description. Richmond's listing of "no.LXXVII" does provide an additional clue. no.LXVIII for this volume is listed by Duncan as including pp.93-110, and being published in November. Page 140 is listed as occuring in no.LXXXII which was not published until March of 1840.
• It appears to me that the Peters (Mayr) listing is correct, and that this is a rare example of a transposition error by Richmond.
• HBW 8:792 lists the page as 104.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:397 (Mayr) cited as
• Malurus cyaneus cyaneus (Latham) 1783 Gen.Syn.Birds 2 p.501
However Ellis's description would appear to antedate this.
• Priority of Ellis's description depends on the date actually being 1782; all the copies of this work I have found in library Catalogues, have been of the second edition, with a publication date of 1783.
• The 1782 version is cited by the Richmond Index.

• The Richmond Index give the original description as follows:

  A small bird of the Motacilla genus with a bright blue head, which we, on
  that account, called Motacilla cyanea.

• This is the original description, according to Mathews, Aust.Av.Rec. I, 1912, p.93.

• Peters Checklist 11:392 (Mayr) cites this as:

  Todopsis coronata Gould, 1878, Birds Australia, pt. 8

• Birds of Australia pt. 8 was, of course, published in September of 1842 some 35 years before this name was published.
• Presumably Dr Mayr, or whoever actually wrote this section for him, confused "The Birds of New Guinea and the Adjacent Papuan Islands" with "The Birds of Australia".

• Originally spelled columbiana (according to Peters Checklist 2:212; The Richmond Index; HBW 3:207).
• H&M 3^rd:126 spells this colombiana which makes more sense, but is incorrect.

• Originally spelled Neocrex colombianus by Bangs.
• Misspelled Neocrex columbianus by Peters Checklist 2:194; and this error has been repeated (e.g. H&M 3^rd:124) sometimes, and the name has been rendered correctly sometimes (e.g. HBW 3:191).

• Originally spelled Rallus Corrius in Vol.3 no.3 Jan. 15, 1887 p.33.
• Spelt Rallus Coryi in corrected description in Vol.3 no.6, Feb. 5, 1887 p.69
• Whether this satisfies the Code requirements for a "demonstrably intentional" change is, in my view, slightly uncertain given the uncertainties in Art. 33.2.1, and the lack of an opportunity to examine the original description and subsequent corrected description. However, it appears very likely that the case does satisfy the Code requirements, and it has been treated as an accpeted emendation for many decades.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 10:232 (Deignan) to "Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.", and in this Deignan appears to be following the Richmond Index, which also lists this as the source.
• Evanhuis' detailed presentation regarding this publication (Evanhuis) indicates that this must have been in Ann.Nat.Hist.
• Sherborn (p.1131) incorrectly cites this to the later publication in 1841 in the PZS.

• Originally spelled "castanotus" by Gould.
• This has been corrected to castanotum.
• Basis for and validity of this correction uncertain at present (2006.04.08).

• Not recognized as a species by H&M 3^rd.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:25 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174 and by HBW 4:206.
• 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.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:33 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW 4:217.
• 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 3:29 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 but not by HBW 4:215.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus (as well as a genus group name used in insect taxonomy). As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 3:13 dates this to 1823.
• The Richmond Index dates this to July of 1822, as does Sherborn (Ind.Anim. p.1052)

• Usually cited to the J.As.Soc.Bengal
  • Peters III:16 cites to J.A.S.B. 14, 1840 p.852 -- the 1840 must be a lapsus for 1845 or 1846, as it makes no sense for vol. 14.
  • H&M 3^rd:172 puts the date (more reasonably) at 1846.
  • HBW 5:195 uses 1846 and points to J.A.S.B. 14:852.
• CWR, has a J.A.S.B. card for

  Tr[eron] chloroptera  J.A.S.B. XIV, pt.II, no.168; n.s. no.84, Dec, 1845, 852, in text.

  and a note "Blyth's paper is Dated May 22, 1846" -- dating the taxon to 1846.
• Prior to that he has a card as follows. (quotes " " are Richmond's)

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Treron chroloptera         "B"
  India Sporting Review, II, no.3, Sept., 1845, 28 (in text).
  
      " A fifth Hurryaul, [APP: not completely sure of this word, possibly Hurryanl? ]
  of superior dimensions, but otherwise
  much resembling the pompadora, has lately been received
  by the Museum of the Asiatic Society from the Nicobar
  Islands, and is named by the Curator - Treron chloroptera." (full ref.)
  
                           (Book in Dept. Agr. library).
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Blyth was the Curator of the Museum of the Asiatic Society of Bengal from ca. 1841-1861.

• Peters Checklist 3:143 notes that Chalcopsittacus is an emendation by Salvadori and Sharpe of Chalcopsitta Bonaparte. Thus Peters does not place taxa descr. in Chalcopsittacus but now held in Chalcopsitta in parentheses. (duivenbodei and syringanuchalis).
• Of the recent sources available to me it appears that HBW 4:341 (Collar. 1997) started the interpretation of not accepting Chalcopsittacus as an emendation of Chalcopsitta and thus putting the authority in parentheses. This then seems to have been followed, or should I say parroted, by H&M 3^rd:184 (2003).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Taxa from this source are almost universally dated to 1846, the imprint date.
• Regarding the date of publication, Roy McDiarmid writes (2005.01.11)

  	In 1926, C. Davies Sherborn, Ann Mag Nat Hist ser. 9, vol.
  	17:271-272 published a brief note titled: Dates of Publication of
  	Early Catalogues of Natural History issued by the British Museum. In that
  	work Sherborn attributes the Catal. Spec. and Drawings .... by Hodgson to
  	G. R. Gray, 1846 with the bracketed date [9 January 1847].  In the text he
  	states that 'Information supplied from the Records by permission of the
  	Trustees of the British Museum.'  Further, he stated that many difficulties
  	have arisen in question of priority and that it is impossible to recover the
  	exact date they were offered for public sale. He continues that " ... we
  	must be contented to recover the exact day on which they were 'laid on the
  	table' of the Trustees, a preliminary to the issue to the public.' He
  	notes that these are the dates he used in the Index Animalium.

• This is cited by Peters Checklist 6:140 to 1844.
• This is initially followed by H&M 3^rd:318 (but corrected to 1845 in Corrigenda 3).
• HBW 7:537 (Winkler & Christie) evidently follows Peters Checklist and uses 1844 without comment.
• The Richmond Index dates this taxon to 1845, noting "Ref. to Madr. paper of Aug. 9, 1845 in this no.!"

• Originally published as Capsiempis flaveola cerula as shown by the Richmond Cardex, as well as by Deignan 1961 p.293 and HBW 9:287.
• Listed by H&M 3^rd:354 as C. f. cerulua
• Corrected by H&M 3^rd: Corrigenda 3 to C. f. cerula

• The authority for this genus seems to perpetually change, attributed to 1826, then to 1825; to Vigors and then to Swainson.
• H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 takes the position that the authority is Swainson in Vigors, and dates it to 1825. The basis for this assertion is given as ICZN decision 67.
• The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 1987. p.71 lists:

  Colaptes Swainson, 1825, in Vigors, Trans. linn. Soc. London
  14(3): 457 (gender: masculine) (type species, by monotypy
  :Cuclus auratus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:
  112) (Aves) 0.67

• This Official 1987 act by the ICZN seems to be largely ignored, and see below for excellent reasons to do this. The AOU CL 7^thEd. (1998) p.343 lists Vigors as the author, as does HBW 7:510 (2002).
• The 1825 Vigors citation, which the ICZN chose as the basis for this genus is of interest. The Richmond Index card for this includes the following notes (quotes are Richmond's).

  "This group forms the genus Colaptes of Mr. Swainson."
  (this is the only "orig. diag." given by Vigors

  (The parentheses are unclosed in the original.)
• The type is apparently indicated as Cuclus auratus Linn. by monotypy, so what constitutes the "group" is not clear, not having seen the paper.
• Swainson's role in this nomenclatural act appears to me, at least, to be minimal and well below that which should afford him status as the author of the genus. Richmond lists the name Colaptes as a "[Swainson MS.]" name.
• Roy McDiarmid kindly provided a copy of text of Opinion 67 (Smith.Ins. Publ. no.2409. April, 1916). This constitutes 102 bird names placed in the Official List of Generic names. In this list, the name Colaptes is listed as follows.

  Colaptes (Swainson MS.) Vigors, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond., 14, iii, 1825, 457.
  	Mt., Cuculus auratus Linn.

  The author of this taxon is clearly held by Opinion 67 to be Vigors, and not Swainson, and while it may be interesting, it is useless to speculate on the basis for this error. However, error it is, and one now enshrined in the "Official Lists...". From my point of view the intention of this part of Opinion 67, while extremely clear to me, escaped the understanding of the authors of the 1987 "Official List....". I follow the original intention and action of Opinion 67 and list the author as Vigors.

• This occurs in the "1994" volume of Orn.Neotrop.
• I learn from Normand David (in litt. 2004.11.19) that the back cover of this number (no.2) shows "10 May, 1995", so that must be taken as the date for the taxon.

• Peters Checklist 8:122 (Traylor) 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.

• The Peters Checklist 8:26 (Traylor) lists the volume number as "15 no.362" this is inconsistent with his orthographic representation of this work, which he represents as 15(362) on p.70 of the same volume of the Checklist.
• 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 either of his own or elsewhere in the Peters Checklist Series. I fight my own battles with unwillingness, inability, and disinclination, and know that it is not an easy fight.

• The original description of the genus reads:

  CHRYSOMUS, SW. (fig. 243.)  Bill resembling Zanthor-
  nis; but the margin of both mandibles inflexed.  Wings moderate; the first quil
  rather shorter than the second. Tail rounded. Feet formed for walking. Toes large,
  very long, and slender : middle toe longer than the tarsus; lateral toes equal; 
  hinder toe shorter than the tarsus. Claws long, very slender, and but slightly 
  curved.
  
  icterocephalus. Edw. pl.323. zanthopygius. Part 5. No. 190.
  

• I am somewhat uncertain about this citation.
• N.J. Collar says in HBW 4:456 (1997).

  NE Brazilian population, if proven racially distinct, must be known as
  chryseura (Swainson, 1820), not ruficauda Berla, 1954.

  Though the specific Swainson citation is not given in HBW 4.
• The only citation I can find for this name is from the Richmond Index

  Psittacus chryseürus Wm. Swainson 1823
  Zoological Illustrations, ser.1, 3, no.28, Jan. 1823. pl.141 + text

  I do not find it in Sherborn, it is not in Peters Checklist, and it is not in the Hand-List of the Genera and species of Birds edited by Ogilvie-Grant and Sharpe, so I presume it is not in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. XX (not examined 2004.09.12).
• I suspect (but do not know) that the correct date for this name should be 1823, and cited as above.

• The original description reads (emphasis added for cyanochlora):

    PISTTACULUS SANCTI THOMAE. __ Psittacus (Psittacula) St.
  Thomae, Kuhl. -- Psittacus gregarius fem. Spix, pl.34, fig.
  2 et 3.
    Très semblable au passerinus, mais à teintes beaucoup plus
  claries et passant, dans le premier plumage, au jaune sur le front
  et le devant de la tête en général. -- Aile 2 pouce 9 lignes
  à 2 pouces 11 lignes; queue 16 à 17 lignes; hauteur de la
  mandibule supérieure 3 lignes, largeur de l'inférieure 4 lignes.
    Observé sur les bords du fleuve des Amazones et du Rio
  branco.
    1. Mâle en habit de passage, tué le 28 Déc. 1831, Forte
  do Rio branco, Guyane portugaise, voyage de Natterer; obtenu 
  en 1864 du Musée de Vienne sous le nom de Psittacula cya-
  nochlora, Natterer. -- 2. Femelle au premier plumage, tuée
  le 24 Mai 1822, Foret de Rio branco, Natterer, du Musée de
  Vienne, 1864, sous le nome de Psittacula cyanochlora. --3.
  Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck. -- 4.
  Individu au premier plumage, du Cabinet de Temminck, éti-
  quette de la main de Kuhl mème: Psit. St. Thomae. -- 5.
  Individu au premier plumage, acquis en 1860.
  

• Often cited as:
  • Eclectus roratus cornelia Bonaparte 1850 PZS(1849) Pt17 no.198 p.143 pl.11
• Peters Checklist 3:231 includes a note that says:

  "The description may have first appeared in Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. 
  Paris, 30, Feb., 1850, p.135."

• The dates of publication of the PZS number are uncertain -- listed by Duncan and CWR as "Ja-Je" for 1850. This number (6) of the Compt.Rend. is for the Séance du Lundi 11 Février 1850.
• It is my guess that this number of the Compt.Rend. was published before the no.198 of the PZS. My logic here is that no.198 of the PZS is the fifth number of this volume of the PZS that is designated as occuring in the "Jan. - June" period. Thus, it appears likely that it may have been later than the middle of Feb. It is not impossible that the PZS publication appeared earlier.
• I do not know what (if any) imprint dates may be on this number of the PZS, or on the wrappers in which it was delivered.
• It also is of interest that Peters Checklist 3:231 lists the plate in the PZS as "pl.11". The Richmond Index lists the plate in the PZS as

  Aves, pl."X".

  The implication of the quotation marks around the plate number are not immediately clear to me, but suggest the possibility that it is incorrectly numbered.
• HBW 4:[611] lists the PZS citation, including the page number but not the plate.

• Not P. grisola.
• ref M.P.Walters, 2003. Systematic notes on Asian birds. 39. "The correct name for the Mangrove Whistler Pachycephala cinerea (Blyth)". Zool. Verh. Leiden, 344:107-109.

• Cited by Peters 7:4 to 1840; and this is followed by H&M ^rd:335.
• HBW 8:83 lists the date as 1839. This is supported by Sherborn C:1058, as well as Sclater 1930 Syst.Av.Ethiop. 2:305, and the Richmond Index, where it is noted that this is from "Part VII" with a date of Sept. 2, 1839. Additionally, taxa described on subsequent plates 28,30 & 32 (Bradornis infuscatus, Ploceus subaureus, & Microparra capensis) are all dated to 1839 by Peters, Sherborn, Richmond, and H&M.

• Peters Checklist 5:197 lists the original combination as Halcyon cyanoventris and this is also followed by HBW 6:207.
• Sherborn Ind.Anim. C:1733, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was initially described in Alcedo. This interpretation is represented correctly in H&M 3^rd:286.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 8:317 (Mayr) as 1860.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in March of 1861, a fact confirmed by Duncan.

• The date here is a bit of a mystery. Peters Checklist 6:223 show the date as 1830, as does the Richmond Index and HBW 7:552.
• Sherborn lists the date as "ante May 1832", and a later date seems to make much more sense given the page and plate numbers.
• With some trepidation I adopt 1832 until additional understandings become available.

• Peters Checklist 3:205 cites this to Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév. découv., 1847 p.251 with a note that he is "unable to verify this reference." This note is appropriate as this name occurs nowhere on p.251 of the cited reference.
• The exact correct citation is still a bit of a mystery. The citation I give here is from the Richmond Index, though Richmond has a note that the Lesson 1847 article quotes "Echo, 1844, t.2" Peters refers to that citation, but says "the name does not appear there" -- implying he examined the extremely rare L'Echo du Monde Savant but did not examine the much more readily available Descr. Mamm. et Ois. rév. découv.
• It is clear that there is uncertainty with regard to the citation for this taxon.
• Great thanks to Michael Rieser for checking the page cited by Peters and demonstrating that the name is not present there.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 3:207 to Salvadori, and this is followed by HBW 4 :451 and H & M 3^rd:201.
• Vitor Piacentini communicates (2004.03.03)

  J. F. Pacheco [indicated] that the correct author's name is (Pelzeln, 1870).
  There is a note in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) that deals with it. 
  According do Olivério Pinto (1978. Novo catálogo das aves do Brasil), the basonym is:
  Sittace cyanoptera Pelzeln, 1870, Orn. Bras., (3), p.260 (in the synonymy of
  "Brotogeris jugularis")

• H&M 3^rd:268 spells this circumventris without comment.
• The original name is Colibri amethystinus circumventus (verified).

• This citation is currently a bit of a guess on my part. Peters Checklist 6:195 cites this as
  "Dendrocopus minor comminutus Hartert, Bds. Brit. Isles, 1907, p. 22"
  
• I can find no work by that title for that date, and presume that the reference is to the serial entitled British Birds which commenced in 1907.

• Peters Checklist 5:23 gives 39 as the volume number. HBW 5:688 follows Peters in this.
• Peters' citations for four taxa described alongside C. t. crissalis (namely, Lepidopyga luminosa phæochroa, Amazilia chionopectus orienticola, Amazilia fimbriata elegantissima, and Ocreatus underwoodi polystictus) have 29 as the volume number. Reference to Todd's work on pages 5 and 36 also use that number.
• The Richmond Index confirms that volume 29 is correct.

• Peters Checklist 9:32 (Mayr & Greenway) lists the date here as 1841.
• The Richmond Index, Zimmer, and Sherborn all show that this part was published in Nov. 1839.

• H&M 3^rd:409 cites 1916 for this taxon. 1916 is the year that Cherrie described Synallaxis rufogularis. But due to Synallaxis rufogularis Gould 1839, a replacement name was required and supplied by Gyldentolpe in 1930.
• HBW 8:280 has the correct date and citation.

• Peters Checklist 5:267 attributes pl.530 to livr.88 and thus to 1831. HBW 6:499 follows Peters in this.
• The Richmond Index shows that this plate occurs in livr.89, and thus dates it to Feb. 1832
• Dickinson 2001. also determines pl.530 to be in livr.89 and he dates it to Feb. 11, 1832

• H&M 3^rd:416 misspells this colombianum.
• It originally was P[hilydor] columbianus.

• The specific epithet is spelled columbiana by Peters Checklist 7:87 and by the Richmond Index.
• H & M 3^rd:409 makes the understandable error of spelling it with an "o" (colombianus) instead of with a "u".

• The specific epithet is spelled columbiana by Peters Checklist 7:68; but David & Gosselin BBOC 2002 144:277 indicate that this must be spelled columbianus in accordance with the current (1999) ICZN approach.
• H & M 3^rd:403 appropriately notes the correct spelling of the end of the subspecies epithet, but makes the error of spelling it with an "o" (colombianus) instead of with a "u", as both the Peters Checklist, and the Richmond Index indicate it was spelled.

• Conventionally cited to Gurney 1868. (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:137; HBW 2:565; H & M 3 ^rd:40)
• This citation is not discussed, and thus would appear to be based more on convention than understanding.
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one discussing the Gurney name, and its relationship to the previous use by Gray, and another that refers to a name by Statius Muller. That card contains this information:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Numida coronata "Pallas" Phillipp (Ludwig Statius) Müller. 1776
  Vollständigen Natursystems Supplements-und Register-Band} 1776, 126.
  [Pall. Spic. Zool. IV p.18 ?]
  (See Cassin. Proc. Acad. N.S. Phila 1864, 247)
  "Es fuhret gleichaur eine kegelförmige Bischofs-
  mütze oder Pabstkrone auf dem Kopfe, und die Kehle
  haf eine Falte. Die Fürsze sind schwarze. Diese Art kommt
  aus Africa. Pallas Miscell." (full descr.)
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• Why this citation is not used, referred to, or discussed is not known to me. In addition the standing of the Pallas citation is uncertain, but intriguing as the Pallas subspecies Numida meleagris mitratus is cited to the same page (p.18) (though with a plate).

• Conventionally spelt coyolocos.
• It seems clear that the original spelling was Coyleos.
• The name is interpreted to have been based on "le Coyolcos" of Buffon, and workers have felt uninibited in their recognition of Statius Miller's intent.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:132 to Neumann, and this is repeated by HBW 5:223, and H&M 3^rd:232.
• The Richmond Index indicates the author is Reichenow, and I follow this.

• In HBW 2:511,573 Coturnix chinensis novaeguineae Rand is cited as "1942 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 79".
• The correct citation is to the Am.Mus.Novit. no.1122, published in 1941.
• As the taxon was described in Excalfactoria chinensis there should be parentheses around the author's name.

• In HBW 2:510,573 the Mayr & Rand subspecies of Coturnix ypsilophora are cited as "1937 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 73".
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that the correct citation is 1935 and Am.Mus.Novit.

• HBW 2:513 list the authors of as Whistler & Kinnear.
• The Richmond Index lists only Hugh Whistler as the author.

• Authorship frequently given as Vigors & Horsfield (e.g. Peters Checkist 7:7).
• Thanks to Murray Bruce's work on this it is clear that Vigors was the author of the bird descriptions in the catalogue attached to the Memoir by Lady Raffles. This sole authorship was indicated by the Marquis Tweddale in Ibis 1877 (4)1:284.
• Bruce indicates that the likelihood is that Gray attributed authorship to Vigors & Horsfield based upon their names in attribution for a plate in the work.

• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.38 spells this colombiana, which makes logical sense, but does not follow the spelling as given by the Richmond Index, Peters Checklist 2:18, and HBW 2:345.

• Correct original spelling is camaronensis (as pointed out by Bob Dowsett, and confirmed in the Richmond Index).
• As Dowsett also points out, this spelling is supported by the spelling "Camaroons" in the title of the paper.
• Peters Checklist 10:153 (S.D. Ripley) spells this cameronensis.

• Given by Peters Checklist 9:318 (Mayr & Greenway) list this as:
  • Dryoscopus cubla (Shaw) 1809 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 7 pt2 p.328
• Bob Dowsett tell me (2003.05.05) that Latham's name has priority here.
• I presume that Latham's name (based on Le Vaillant Ois. d'Afr. pl.72 f. 1 & 2) is therefor a senior synonym to Shaw's name (presumably based on the same work?).

• Pallas' original description, reproduced by Sherborn, is reproduced here:

 N.  78 COLUMBA (cristata) cœrulescens, capitis
        crista maxima compressa diffusa cirrhosa.  Mang.
	supra Phasianum.  Rostrum columbinum.  Corpus
	plumbeo cœrulescens antrorsum dilutius.  Fascia
	nigra a rostro ducta, oculos includens.  Irides
	fulvæ.  Dorsum medium humerique tinctura
	transversa punicea, antice abrupte terminata,
	postice obsolescente.  Tectrices secundariæ albæ,
	extremitate puniceonigræ.  Cauda plumbeo-
	fusca, apicibus rectricum dilutioribus. Phasia-
	nus cristatus Brissonii Spec. 6.     [Banda.]

• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):334.

Deppe

 PTILONOPUS CHALCURUS			B.M.

 Ptilononpus chalcurus, G. R. GRAY.

 Cook's Islands (Harvey or Hervey Island).
 Very similar to the Ptilonopus coralensis, but the front and top
of the head shining greyish-purple.

domini- 22. A. rufa. capite anteriore fuliginoso, speculo alarum
  ca.   candido, rectricum scapis alterimus.  Briss. av. 6
    p. 472 t. 41 f. 2.
    Chilcanauhtli.  Hern. mex. 21.   Raj. av. 177
    Chilcanauhtli.  Hern. mex. 44.   Raj. av. 176
    Habitat in America meridionali.