Zoological Citation Notes --E

• H&M 3^rd p.622 evidently interprets Herpornis to be a valid genus independant of Erpornis, and not an Agassiz 1846 emendation of Blyth's 1844 name.
• My work suggests that Neave, Schulze (et al.), Richmond, Gray (1869 Hand-List Genera and Species of birds Part 1 p.315), and Salvin (1882 Cat.Coll.Birds. Hugh Strickland p.73) all see the original Erpornis spelling as subsequently modified (emended). I follow these authors and interpret Herpronis to be an emendation of Erpornis, and thus no parenteses for the authority are required if the original combination was made in Herpornis. (Code 1999 Art. 51.3.1).
• Scudder Nomenclator Zoologicus Part II p.146 lists "Herpornis Hodgs. Aves 1844", but I believe this is an error.

• Peters Checklist 10:238 (Deignan, 1964) treats Eupetes in the MUSCICAPIDAE and places it following Ptilorrhoa.
• Jonsson et al. 2007. Biol. Lett. find that somewhat surprisingly, Eupetes is a sister taxon to Chaetops and Picathartes. The discuss the possible basis for this unusual and apparently relictual geographical distribution. Jonsson KA, Fjeldså J, Ericson PGP, & Irestedt M. "Systenatic placement of an enigmatic Southeast Asion taxon Eupetes macrocerus and implications for the biogeography of a main songbird radiation, the Passerida." Biology Letters Phylogeny (Royal Society). pp.1-4. (online doi:10.1098rsbl.2007.0054).
• Some nomenclatural difficulties arise as the H&M Checklist include a family Eupetidae that contains Androphobus, Psophodes, Ptilorrhoa and Eupetes. It seems this polyphyletic assemblage is based on the convenience of geographical and superficial morphological similarity, and that the actual phylogeny is quite different.

• Peters Checklist 13:108 (Paynter 1970) gives the citation as:
  • Phrygilus alaudinus excelsus Berlepsch 1906 Ornis 13 p.127
  While the Richmond Index gives the citation as:
  • Phrygilus alaudinus excelsus Berlepsch 1907 Ornis 14 p.351
• The Peters Checklist citation may be correct, but I believe that parts of vol.13 were published in 1909 and 1910, and may have been published after vol.14.
• For now I am following the Richmond Index, but the Peters citation may be correct.

• Originally described as a subspecies of Pampa pampa.
• The question here is full species, versus subspecies of Campylopterus curvipennis?
• In favor of ssp.
  • Peters (1945) 5:19
  • Wolters (1976) lief.2 p.127
  • HBW (1999) 5:550; H&M 3^rd p.258 -- citing HBW 5:550 as the basis.
• In favor of sp.
  • AOU CL 6th (1983) p.329
  • AOU CL 7th (1998) p.285
• Lowrey & Dalquest. 1951 U.Kans.Publ.Mus.Nat.Hist. 3:583-586 appears to be the main published material addressing the question of the appropriate level of this taxon. It is cited both by authors who hold this to be a full species, and those who hold it to be a subspecies.
• In my view, HBW is not a primary taxonomic/systematic work, and it is of note that in this matter it, like H&M 3^rd, does not reference the AOU CL, which IS a primary taxonomic/systematic work, and which I follow here.

• Formerly considered conspecific with Calonectris diomedea.
• Patterson JB, Armistead G. 2004. "First record of Cape Verde Shearwater (Calonectris edwardsii) for North America." North American Birds 58:468-473. present discussion of the rationale for recognition of this taxon at the species level. Morphologic and vocalization differences are felt to be convincing for its distinction as a species.
• Neither the 47^th Supplement to the AOU Checklist, nor Patteson & Armistead 2004 cite Bourne's 1986 discussion of this taxon and the possibility of it's being a full species. Bourne, WRP. 1986. "Recent work on the origin and suppression of bird species in the Cape Verde Isands, especially the shearwaters, the herons, the kites and the sparrows." BBOC 106(4):163-170.. In that work Bourne treats the form as a subspecies and suggests that there is clinal variation in the morphology, and that the birds are "all very similar in behaviour and ecology."
• In the 1986 paper, Bourne misspells the (sub)specific epithet "edwardsi" with only one "-i".

• Cited by Peters Checklist 1(2):364 as:

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

  .
• The citation to "1856" is followed (without comment) by HBW 2:179 and H&M 3 ^rd:110; although the AOU CL 5^th:107 dates this to May 22, 1855, and the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1:192 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: 107 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.

• This taxon was previously listed as:
  • Ptilopsis granti (Kollibay) 1910 Orn.Monatsb. 18 p.148 Concept
• With a note indicating:
  • Described by Kollibay as subspecies of Pisorhina leucotis.
  • Elevated to specific status. HBW 5:183 indicates it differs in DNA and vocal patterns from P. leucotis.
  • The card in the Richmond index says "New name for (the bird Grant should? have named, but didn't?) or because preoccupied ?"
• It seems clear, that now that the bird is in Ptilopsis Kollibay's replacement name is no longer needed.
• The Richmond index card for Scops erlangeri has a note:

  New name for the Asio leucotis leucotis of Erlanger
  (J.f.O., 1904, 233, pl. XIX, low. fig.), nec Temm. Erlanger renamed the
  northern instead of the southern form.

• The status of this name appears to me to result from a mixture of facts and opinions.
1. The name originally was Myzomela erythina [not erythrina]
2. Peters Checklist 12:354 (Salomonson) says

   		Emended to erythrina.

   Though no additional data or rationale is given in support of this. Nor is there discussion of the validity of the "emendation".
3. Since 1978 the Zoo.Rec. gives no occurances (that I can find) of either erythina or erythrina in Myzomela.
4. H&M 3^rd:441 note 3. states:

   		The emended name used here is judged to be in prevailing usage:
   		see Art. 33.2 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999)(1178)
   		and p.828.

   p.828 lists the use of erythrina in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. and in Peters Checklist. The Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. is evidently in vol.IX p.140.
5. Dr Dave Donsker has confirmed for me that the spelling in vol.IX is erythrina, so it appears we can attribute the emendation to Gadow.

• This seems a bit peculiar; H&M 3^rd lists two birds (found so far: 2005.09.11) to this and lists the date of the taxon as 1982 for each (Rallina forbesi parva p.118 and Amblyornis macgregoriae amati p.427. One is cited to "Pratt" and the other to "T.K. Pratt". The citation given is:

  1921  Pratt, T.K., 1983. Additions to the avifauna of the Adelbert Range. 
  Papua New Guinea. — Emu, 82(3):117-125 (1982).

• Thus it appears perhaps that the imprint date of this volume of the Emu is 1983, but that no.3 was published in 1982 ? Much easier to imagine the latter part of volume 82 being delayed to 1983, but then the date given for the names would certainly have been 1983, and not 1982.
• Edward Dickinson subsequently confirms (2006.04.16) that both names should be dated to 1983.
• Happily, Edward Dickinson pursued this matter and found that the

   contents page for the volume dates the issues and this issue is
  dated 24 Nov. 1982

  so the mystery is solved. I am thankful for his communication of 2006.06.01 explaining this.

• Previously treated in Porzana as well as in the monotypic genus

  Crecopsis Sharpe 1893 BBOC 1 p.27,28

• Described in Sphenocercus, a point I mention only because I found this name very difficult to "sleuth out".
• It is not mentioned in Peters Checklist vol.3, and not listed in Sharpe's Hand-list.
• Dave Donsker has confirmed for me that Salvadori lists it in Cat.B.Br.Mus. 21:11, listing it as the last entry in the synonomy of Sphenocercus korthalsi. After the description, Salvadori says

  The specimens in Beccardi's collection from Mount Singalan, 
  W. Sumatra (S. etorques, Salvad.), were most probably not fully adult birds.

• The reason for its inclusion in H&M 3^rd is not disucssed.

• Not listed in Peters Checklist vol.3
• The citation in HBW 4:[611] is a confusion listing two volume numbers (40, 41) and collection of page numbers (pp.247,658,1110), none of which is close to the correct page number for this taxon.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:276 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 the date must be regarded as 1870.

• A paper by Colston 1981 Colston PR "A newly described species of Melignomen (Indicitoridae) from Liberia, West Africa". BBOC 101(2):289-291 includes a footnote that caught my attention. The footnote reads:

  *A copy of this paper, proposing a new name, was sent to Dr. M. Louette in October 1980,
  shortly after it had been submitted for publication. Dr. Louette has since seen fit to describe
  the new honeyguide without informing us of his intention (Louette 1981, a new species of 
  honeyguide from West Africa, Rev.Zool.Afr. 95:131-135 --Melignomon eisentrauti). His
  paper came to hand while this one was in proof and it has been possible to do little more 
  than delete the proposed name and substitute eisentrauti for it in the text and table.

• I expect there are at least two sides to this story, but one must reflect, that the fame sought is not always the fame achieved.

• This citation from HBW 4:278,612 is a puzzle to me. They give Finsch, 1867, Die Papageien 1 -- which hardly looks like a compelte citation. I do not find the Finsch Papageien citation in Peters 3, or in the Richmond Index. There is, however, another Finsch name, which appears senior to me, though this name is not discussed in HBW or H&M 3^rd as near as I can find.
• The Richmond Index lists:

  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  [Cacatua] Eleonora 	Finsch 1863.
  Nederl. Tijdschrift. Dierkunde, I, Afd.?  1863, 'Berigten' p.xxi
  {"Ik heb haar, als een blijk mijner hoogachting voor den Heer
  {Westerman en zijn huisgezin, den naarm zijmer echtgenoote
  {gegeven."
  Type locality: unknown.
  	{1 living spn. in Zool. Gardens of Amsterdam.
  Type: ? Leiden Mus.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2004.06.12) that the CBBM shows the taxon as due to Finsch in 1863 in the Nederl. Tijd. Dierk. 1:xxi.

• Spelled elizabethae by Peters Checklist 7:9.
• This is understandable as La Touche named the bird after his daughter Elizabeth, but he spelled the specific epithet elisabethae and I follow that here, as does H&M 3 ^rd:336.

• Spelled efulensis HBW 4:591 as well as in H&M 3 ^rd:216
• Peters Checklist 4:73, the Richmond Index and Sclater Systema Avium Aethiopicarum 1:185 all spell this efulenensis.
• Corrected to efulenensis in the H&M 3 ^rd Corrigenda.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:145 as 1927, and this is followed by HBW 5:237,685, and H&M 3^rd:235.
• The no. of the Am.Mus.Novit. is correctly given as no.364, which is about two hundred numbers too early for 1927.
• In addition Peters Checklist 4:146 cites Spiloglaux roseoaxillaris Hatert to the same number of the Am.Mus.Novit. (no.364), but here gives the year (correctly) as 1929.
• The Richmond Index shows the year for this publication as 1929, which fits more appropriately with the no. of the Am.Mus.Novit.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist 13:5 gives the page number for this as "p.177".
• It occurs on p.176
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett for picking this up.

• Previously
  • Lophura imperialis (Delacour & Jabouille) 1924 BBOC 45 p.29
  was held to be a species but shown to be a hybird of L.edwardsi (M) X L. nycthemera (F). Garson. 2001. Oriental Bird Club 33:52

• Peters Checklist 10:293 (Deignan) has "1827" and "livr.74".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75) extremo 1827".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, demonstrating that the "74" is most likely a misprint for 75.
• Livraison 75 makes the date 1828 rather than 1827.
• 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.52-53'

• Treated by Peters Checklist 15:278 as a subspecies of C. ruficollis.
• Marek Kuziemko writes:
  "Corvus edithae Phillips 1895. Formerly treated as a race of C. ruficollis. Londei (1995. Bull. B.O.C. 115:164-166) reported behaviors similar to those of C. albus and suggested that edithae is more closely related to albus than to ruficollis. He also noted individuals he considered possible hybrids between albus and edithae. This change is adopted by Fry & Keith (2000, Birds of Africa, vol. VI).

• The form Ceyx rufidorsa Strickland 1847 PZS(1846) Pt14 no.165 p.99 is often treated as a separate species.
• HBW 6:229 (Woodall) states: This distinctive rufus-backed form, while treated as a species in the past, in some regions hybridizes, and is better treated as a color morph.

• Often spelt erithacus. (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 neologism and not a Latin adjective, or adjectival form. "The current correct spelling ... is Ceyx erithaca, and not "Ceyx erithacus".
• HBW 6:229 (Woodall) states: "[The] Original species name erithaca is a noun, and therefore remains unchanged, irrespective of [the] gender of the genus in which [it is] placed." This is incorrect, as David & Gosselin point out, the noun is erithacus not erithaca.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Ceyx erythacus occurs in the Zoo. Rec.; it occurs 4 times.

• Often spelt erythrogaster. (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe)
• Originally as Motacilla Erythrogastra Guldenstadt, 1775.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):31 discuss this. They indicate that "The name erythrogastra is latinized from the Greek adjectival ερυθρογαστρος, [eruthrogastros: red-bellied]."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Phoenicurus erythrogaster occurs in the Zoo. Rec.; it occurs 6 times.

• Listed in Peters Checklist 9:359 as "1847".
• This volume of the Voy.Abissinie evidently came out from 1847 to 1850. The entry from the Library of the British Museum (Nat. History) states:
  • "General Note: Vol.3 seems to have been published in parts, at different dates, probably as follows: Geology, p.1-84, 1947 (sic); Plantae, Mammalia and Aves as far as p.224, 1848; rest of Aves with Insecta, 1850"
  • "Publs. about item: For dates of issues of the natural history portion of this work, see Annals and magazine of natural history, ser. VII, vol.8"
  • Edward Dickinson investigated this problem and writes (2002.08.20):
    'I inspected the Tring copy when there in July, but I found no date on what I looked at. This, with a sub-title "Quatrième Parties // Histoire Naturelle. -- Zoologie." was Tome Sixième. It contains pp. 1-398 (except that it also has pages 161-182 repeated with asterisks by the numbers). I do not understand why this is ever cited as Vol.3 ...

    The dating of this I have since found discussed by Sherborn & Woodward

    Sherborn, C.D. & B.B. Woodward, 1902. "Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history portions of some French voyages. Part 2. Ferret and Galinier's 'Voyage en Abyssinie'; Lefebvre's Voyage en Abyssinie'; 'Exploration scientifique de l'Algérie'; Castelnau's 'Amérique du Sud'; umont d'Urville's 'Voyage de l'Astrolabe'; Laplace's 'Voyage sur la Favorite'; Jacquemont's Voyage dans l'Inde'; Tréhouart's 'Commission scientifique d'Islande'; Cailliaud, 'Voyage à éroé'; 'Expédition scientifique de Morée'; Fabre, 'Commission scientifique du Nord'; Du etit-Thouars, 'Voyage de la Vénus' and on the dates of the 'Faune Française'. -- Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (7) 8:161-164.

    They date the section containing pp.1-170 as 1847 and then argue that the distinct crowded smaller type pages of 161*-176*, 177-192, and 177*-192* seem to show that these parts were delayed. They date these pages along with pp.193-238 as 1851.

    On this basis the three taxa that concern us:

    1. Tracyhphonus darnaudii p.99 is 1847
    2. Lanius excubitorides p.99 would be 1847 but
    3. Lanius excubitorius p.170* is 1851.
    The latter name was not used in Peters and is not used in H&M (due to the one letter difference rule although I am not entirely sure this is safe as we deal with vowels connecting two syllables).

    The correction that the third offers relating to the second strengthens the argument that these [p]ages were delayed.

• As if this were not confusing enough, the Richmond Index card for this name cites "Voyage au Abyssinie III, "1847", 195 (text)". and cites the authors as Guérin-Méneville & Lafresnaye (!). So he cites a different page (p.195 as opposed to p.99) and entirely different authors. [2008.01.01]

• As noted by Murray Bruce (email 2001.05.11) if the genus group name Pitta is feminine, why is this not spelled erythrogastra?
• Normand David provides the answer (2002.06.17):
  • "Because in Pitta erythrogaster Temminck, 1823 (the original combination), the name erythrogaster ends in a transliterated Greek word (gaster), and is thus invariable (ICZN Art. 31.2.3).
  • The same rule applies to several other names ending in -gaster, including Sula leucogaster, from Pelecanus leucogaster Boddaert, 1783."

• Often spelt erythronota. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):24 discuss this. They indicate that "The name erythronota is latinized from the Greek adjectival ερυθρονωτος, [eruthronotos: red-backed]." Thus Sibley & Monroe's argument for the name being a noun in apposition does not appear to stand.
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Phoenicurus erythronotus occurs in the Zoo. Rec.; it occurs 3 times in 1986.

• Peters Checklist Vol.3 does not use Eclectus.
• Use of Lorius is discussed in a footnote of p.231.

• Peters Checklist cites this title differently ("Monatsb. K. Akad. Berlin").
• I checked the original at the library of the American Museum of Natural History, and cite it as I found it there.
• In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum vol.23, Sharpe similarly lists the citation as: "MB. k. Akad. Berlin, 1854, p.134".
• Peters may have confused two similarly titled journals, or may have simply followed Sharpe.

• Peters Checklist 3:112 lists 1810.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 3:68 lists 1833.
• See Duncan, 1937.

• Peters Checklist 15:264 has 1822.,
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show this was published in May 1821.

• Peters Checklist 5:104 has 1839.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} taxon says "publ. 1840".
• Peters Checklist misspells Boissonneau here and in several locations, leaving out one of the n's. This error was reproduced in several locations in {Sibley and Monroe, 1990}, but corrected in the Supplement.

• Peters Checklist 11:461 has Ephthianura.
• This was changed in {Sibley and Monroe, 1993} to Epthianura.
• Bruce and McAllan, 1990 p.479 discuss these names in some detail reaching the decision that Ephthianura Gould 1838 is a junior objective synonym of Epthianura Gould 1838.
• This decision appears consistent with the data in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 1:482 has 1832 as does HBW 1615 and H&M 3 ^rd:68.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {Zimmer, 1926}, and Sherborn all indicate 1833 is the date. Greenway in his 1973 Type Specimens of Birds in the American Museum of Natural History Part.1 p.253 also lists this as 1833.
• Use of the 1832 date may well have started with Salvadori's listing in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. 1895. 27:353.
• As this name occurs towards the end of the 2^nd part of the 4^th volume (which comprises the 5^th physical volume as the work was published), the date must be 1833, as all workers who deal with this work (Richmond, Sherborn, Cat.Books.Brit.Mus.) seem to agree that at least some part of the work was published in 1833. I am unaware of any published evidence for using 1832 as the publication date for this second Part of vol.IV.

• Peters Checklist 5:138 shows Mulsant & E.Verreaux as the authors.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has Mulsant in Mulsant & Verreaux.

• Peters Checklist 5:175 does not include the page number.

• The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
• The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and 1859 is conventionally used.
• The accession number for the British Museum Library copy of this work is "60.3.-7.2" pencilled on the back of the title page.
• The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
• I regard the preponderance of evidence as pointing to 1860 as the publishing date.
• This argument has been accepted by the AOU Checklist Committee for the 7^th ed.

• See Violani CG and Barbagali F. 1999. BBOC. 119(3):189-192 for a discussion of the name, and the status of this taxon as a species.
• Alstrom, P. 1998. Taxonomy of the Mirafra assamica complex. Forktail 13:97-107 discusses the status of the taxon and argues that the name should be M. marionae.
• I agree with Violani's argument.

• Proposed to be split from C. cubanensis on the basis of song by Garrido & Reynard, The Greater Antillean Nightjar: is it one species?, El Pitirre 7, 1 (1994): 5..
• See also Garrido, OH & Reynard, GB. 1999. Ornithol. Neotropical 9:1-12.
• Lonnberg described it in Antrostomus.
• Note: this is often misspelt eckmani. See, for example, J. Field Orn. 1999. 70(4):603. It was named after the collector Dr. E.R. Ekman.
• Thanks to Rolf de By for helping me with some of the details on this entry.

• The entire text of the original "description" reads. (formatting follows original)

  DREPANIS (HEMIGNATHUS) ELLISIANA
  
   Certhis obscura, (nec Gmel.) Vieill. Ois. dor. t. 53 ?
   Hemignathus obscurus, (nec Gmel.) Licht. Berl.Trans. 1838, t. v. 
  f. 1; Ellis's Icon. ined. 28 (1779).
   Hemignathus? obscurus, Cass. U.S. Expl. Exped. 1858, p.179.
   'Jibi' of the natives.
  
   Sandwich Islands (Oahu).
  

• Held not to be a species by Peters Checklist 5:75.
• Not treated by Sibley and Monroe.
• See Weller, A.-A. 1999. BBOC 119(3):197-202, pl.3. "On types of trochilids in The Natural History Museum, Tring II. Re-evaluation of Erythronota (?) elegans Gould 1860: a presumed extinct species in the genus.".
  Weller discusses the specimen, its morphology, the zoogeography of the genus and the implications regarding this taxon.
• Thanks to Norbert Bahr for reminding me of the implications of this paper.

Epimachus 1816

• Peters Checklist 15:190 correctly lists Dec. 1816.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

An interesting nomenclatural situation.

• Sharpe, the author of this taxon, in the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum vol. X p.47 gives the citation as "Dicaeum everetti Tweedd. Ann. Nat. Hist. (4) xx p.537 (1877)".
• Finn Salomensen in Peters Checklist 12:177 gives the Tweeddale citation (above) for Prionochilus everetti, and the Sharpe citation (Dicaeum everetti) on p.185 in the synonomy for Dicaeum hypoleucum pontifex Mayr 1946.
• Mayr, 1946, Zoologica [New York], 31, p.8. "New name for Dicaeum Everetti Tweeddale, preoccupied".

• Name is derived from Enggano Island, the type locality.
• Peters Checklist 4:93 has this as a subspecies of O. umbra (as it was so described by Riley).
• HBW 5:168 separates this from O. umbra on the basis of vocalizations.

Esacus Systematics

Previously merged in Burhinus The generic distinction appears largely on the basis of size, and appears to be controversial.

• Sometimes separated as a distinct species:
• • Anas drygalskii Reichenow 1904 Orn.Monatsb. 12 p.47

• Kaup described this as: "Nisus vel Acc. erythronemius"
• vel means "or" in Latin.
• This makes me somewhat uncertain as to whether the author's name should be in parentheses, though most works print it so.
• A similar case is Accipiter chionogaster described by Kaup as:
  "Nisus (seu Accipiter) chionogaster"
• seu is a complex and subtle Latin conjunction meaning essentially "or if".

• The Richmond index lists a citation for Kuhl, 1820 for this taxon. It is not clear to me why it does not have priority.

• Peters Checklist 7:45 gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:359 also gives a date of 1859.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossed out).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• Peters Checklist 2:6 gives a date of 1867.
• HBW 2:308 (Elliot) also gives 1867.
• The Richmond Index and Duncan (1937) make it clear this part of the publication was available in April 1868.

• Note: At the time Peters published his work (1934) Duncan's work was not available, and to be aware of Richmond's work one had to physically travel to the National Museum in Washington, D.C. However, despite the fact that both Duncan's work, and the Richmond Index are now publicly and universally available, it appears the HBW often proceeds simply by following Peters.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 13:22;29, Cat.Birds.Br.Mus. 12:497 (Sharpe), 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".