The description of the species figured on the plates was afterwards undertaken by Audoin (sic),
who, in 1826, published his "Explication Sommaire des Planches d'Oiseaux de l'Égypte et
de la Syrie" in Part 4 of Vol. I of the Hist. Nat. of the Description de l'Égypte."

Coturnix (f.) Bonnaterre 1791 Tabl.Encyc.Meth.Orn. 1 p.lxxxvii Type

Conostoma Hodgson, 1842 ['1841'],Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 10:856

Conostoma Hodgson, 1841 or 1842, Journ. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 10, p. 856

• Glaucidium castanotum (Blyth) 1852 Cat.BirdsMus.As.Soc. p.39

• Pterodroma leucoptera caledonica Naurois 1978 Compt.Rend. ser.D 287 p.269

Argicus Cabanis & Heine 1863 Mus.Hein. 4 Heft1 p.148 Concept

With a note that read:

• 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.

• Cyanomitra verticalis cyanocephala (Shaw) 1812 Gen.Zool.[Shaw] 8 p.203

Therefore, I interpret Dresser to be the author of the name, which clearly was the intention of Guillimard, though such "intent" has no force under the Code.

V. l. costaricensis Ridgway 1903, PBSW 16:107

• Phillips listing should be

  V. j. costaricensis Ridgway 1903, PBSW 16:107

• If listed in Vireo, as in H&M 3^rd:484, the authority should be in parentheses.

• Bleda canicapillus (Hartlaub) 1854 J.Orn. 2 no.7 p.25
• However, I learn from Dr Frank Stenheimer (in litt. 2008.01.14)

  The title page of "Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete..." shows that BOTH
  "Beitraege" were published in 1852, bound together in one volume including 11
  plates. No information is found that they would have been published with a
  two year gap inbetween.
  
  However, the first part was also published separately in the tiny and unknown
  journal "Verzeichnis der öffentlichen und Privat-Vorlesungen, welche am
  Hamburgischen Akademischen Gymnasium von Ostern [year] bis Ostern [year]
  gehalten werden".
  
  Complete citation: Hartlaub, Gustav (1850): Beitrag zur Ornithologie
  Westafrica's. Verzeichniss der öffentlichen und Privat-Vorlesungen,
  welche am Hamburgischen Akademischen Gymnasium von Ostern ...[probably 1849]
  bis Ostern ... [probably 1850]gehalten werden. Schulprogramm, Akademisches
  Gymnasium, Hamburg. Pp. 1-56.
  
  Thus, in the year 1850 Gustav Hartlaub had already published there his first
  part of the "Beitrag zur Ornithologie Westafrica's". Unfortunately this rare
  journal is also not available in the Zoological Institute of Hamburg so that
  I have now to trace a copy of this journal.

  So this name may well date from 1850 and from this rare source.

• H&M 3^rd:814 dates this to 1864, most probably following Peters Checklist 13:393.
• This name occurs on p.268, which is in the fifth signature. In this volume (XVI) of the Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia Sig.4 [pp.177-256] had receipt acknowledged on 12 Dec. 1864 at the Boston Society of Natural History. Sig.5, however [pp.237 et seq.] had receipt acknowledged on 13 Feb. 1865 at the Entomological Society of Philadelphia. Five signatures completed the year volume during this period.
• Thanks to Roy McDiarmid for his work on discovering the dates of receipt for various portions of this serial.
• Thanks too, to Colin Jones, for picking up my inconsistency in the way I had this citation rendered.

• Peters Checklist 11:437 (= Mayr 1986) gives the page number as "p. 189" which is a transliteration of the correct page number -- p.198.
• CBBM 7:298, Sherborn, and The Richmond Index have the page number correct as "p.198".
• HBW 12:758 (2007) replicates the error of Mayr's transliteration.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• 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 chalybæus, 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.
• Most workers are apparently unaware of and thus do not reference Bonaparte's use of Eclectus cornalia in Athenaeum no.1155, Dec. 15, 1849 p.1277, but according to the Richmond Index the name there is a nomen nudum.

• 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.
• Olav Runde confirms (in litt.2008.05.16) that this was published in British Birds but that it is described on pp.221-222 not on "p.22".

• 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 2:510,573 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.

• Peters Checklist 9:269 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"'.