Zoological Citation Notes --D

• Described by de Schauensee as a subspecies of Herpsilochmus sticturus.
• Marek Kuziemko writes (2002.07.24) "Often considered to be a race of H. sticturus, but Ridgely and Tudor (1994) treat dugandi as a full species because it is widely allopatric to sticturus and female plumages differ. They are vocally similar. Ref.: Ridgely, R. S., and G. Tudor. 1994. The birds of South America, 2. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.."

• Listed in Peters Checklist 6:62 as "[1847]".
• Listed by Sherborn as "[1847]"
• Listed by HBW 7:176 as "1850".
• 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 ages were delayed."

Nannopsittaca dachilleae

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.3.

Psarisomus dalhousiae page number

• Peters Checklist 7:11 has p.589, evidently a typographic error.
• for p.389.

Xenopirostris damii 1865

• Peters Checklist 9:366 has 1866.
• Florence F.J.M. Pieters of Artis Bibliotheek researched the dates of publication for this work. Vol.3 pp.1-180 were published in 1865.

• Peters Checklist 15:150 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:61 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:28 has 1840.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} show, this was published in July of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 7:24 has 1853.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has 1852.

• Peters Checklist 6:45 lists the date as 1856.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and from the Library of the Academy is 1855.

• Peters Checklist 3:176 has Kakatoe ducrops.
• Sibley and Monroe 1990:112 indicate that ducrops Bonaparte is supressed.

• Peters Checklist 14:176 has "1851?".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:82 has 1834.
• All my studies indicate that this work was published in 1832.

Donacobius 1831

Peters Checklist 9:456 has 1832. Zimmer p.614 makes it clear that despite the uncertainties and date confusions surrounding the publication of this work, 1831 appears to be the date for this section.

Lophophanes dichrous 1845

Peters Checklist 12:98 lists this as 1844. The publishing history of the J.As.Soc.Bengal is uncertain. My researches suggest that in vol.13 of the Journal the changeover from 1844 to 1845 is around p.936.

Nomonyx dominicus

This change in ending follows the 7th AOU Checklist. Was Oxyura dominica becomes dominicus in Nomonyx.

Diglossopis

Not used by Peters Checklist, Vol.13. Recognized by Bock, 1985 Neotrop. Ornith. Ornith.Monogr. no.36 p.319-332.

Megapodius decollatus Citation

Peters Checklist 2:5 gives vol. "31". The Richmond Index gives vol. 21, which I follow.

Diopsittaca

Normally part of Ara I follow the treatment of Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol. 4, by N.J. Collar . Morphology, voice and behaviour are offered as the basis for re-instating the old genus for this form.

Dumetia 1852

Peters Checklist 10:317 gives 1849 as it is usually cited. `Mathews, 1925 indicates this is 1852. [Bock 1994 explains: This work was finally published after 1 Sept 1852, although the proof sheets for the bulk of the book were printed in 1849...]

Dicaeum 1816

Peters Checklist 12:174 has 1817. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Listed in the text of Vieillot's work (Analyse) as "Dromiceius" (p.54);
• Listed in index (p.70) as "Dromaius [dromaios (in Greek script), velox]."
• Jobling interprets this as "fleet of foot, swift". "Dromiceius" is interpreted as a printer's misread of the manuscript.
• GR Gray, as first reviser 1840. List.Gen.Birds p.63 establishes Dromaius as the spelling of use.

• Spelt almost universally "darwinii" (note ...ii).
• Salvadori in Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum 27:562 (1895) spells it "Nothura darwini" (note one "i") consistently (3 times). The corresponding plate "XIX", however, spells it "darwinii" with two "i's".

Motacillid Systematics

Ericson PGP, Johansson US, and Parsons TJ. Major Divisions in Oscines Revealed by Insertions in the Nuclear Gene c-myc: A Novel Gene in Avian Phylogenetics. 2000. Auk 117:1069-1078. The authors argue that the motacillids (with vestigial 10th primaries) are more closely related to the New-World nine primaried oscines than previously thought. This hypothesis is supported by their data on unique amino acid insertions in the nuclear gene c-myc.

They argue that the motacillids belong to a clade with the Emberizidae, Fringillidae, Parulidae and Icteridae.

Glaucis dohrnii Systematics

Usually placed in Ramphodon.
In HBW vol.5 p.538 C. Hinkelmann takes the position that the morphology "clearly" indicates placement in Glaucis.

Picoides dorsalis Systematics

Split from Picoides tridactylus by Zink, et al. despite substantial morphologic similarity on the basis of substantial genetic differentiation.
Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, & Dittman DL. 1995. "Trans-Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in birds." The Condor 97 (3): 639-649

• Spelt as both N. dominica and N. dominicus
• A confusing situation, and perhaps not fully resolved. At present the issue boils down to whether dominica in Linnaeus's original combination Anas dominica was adjectival, or a noun in apposition. Adjectival use would then currently require dominicus; if a noun in apposition it would be dominica.

Linnaeus' original citation reads:

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

• Peters Checklist 1(2):410 (Stresemann & Amadon) list this as 1864.
• HBW 2:262 (AC Kemp) lists this as 1864.
• This Part of PZS was published in Aug of 1864 according to the Richmond Index.

• HBW 6:496 (Kemp) holds
  • Tockus jacksoni (Ogilvie-Grant) 1891 Ibis p.127
  to be a subspecies of Tockus deckeni.
• Peters Checklist 5:260 held this to be a full species, but questioned that the form jacksoni might represent the young of T. deckeni.

• From 1976 to 1996 the Zoological Record includes these spellings:
• • Perdix daurica
  • Perdix dauricae
  • Perdix dauuriae
  • Perdix dauurica
  • Perdix dauuricae
  • Perdix dauuricus
• Peters Checklist 2:89 gives the original combination as: Tetrao perdix var. daurica [sic] Pallas.
• Vaurie (1965) used dauurica.
• McGowan in HBW 2:505 gives the original combination as:
  • P. d. dauurica (Pallas 1811)
  and used dauuricae.
• Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.15 used "dauuricae", but in the supplement S&M 1993 p.16 wrote: "The correct spelling of the specific name is Perdix dauurica (Stepanyan 1990a)".
• Tetrao perdix is described on p.77 of Pallas' 1811 work, and on p.78 where "dauuricae" appears the representation is
  • "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae".
  The first and third words are in italics. A ten line description follows.
• I quote Normand David's discussion of the grammar that applies here:
  "Pallas's wording is "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae". The word varietatis is a feminine noun in the genitive case, and dauuricae is the adjective dauuricus (-a, -um) in the feminine form of the genitive case. The word rupestris is a Modern Latin adjective (derived from the classical noun rupes: rock, mountain, cavern) in the genitive case (the nominative is identical). The literal translation is:
  • in French: "de la variété rupestre daourienne"
  • in English: "of the Daurian rupestrian variety".
  IF dauuricae Pallas 1811 is available, then it falls under ICZN (Code 1999) Art. 11.9.2: dauuricae (genitive) = dauurica (nominative), or fell under ICZN (Code 1985) Art. 11 (h) (ii)."
• The significance of italics and nonitalics remains of interest. I summarize Michael Walters' email note discussing this:
  • Pallas is a binomial work. His species no.226 on p.77 of vol.2 is Tetrao Perdix. Under this work he describes two varieties of the species.
    • "Varietatis rupestris dauuricae"
    • "Varietatem albam" (which is presumably an albino).
    It seems clear from this [second instance] that he was intending to describe a colour variety, not a taxon, thus Michael interprets Peters' conclusion, though not his citation, [regarding "dauurica"] would appear to be correct, (i.e. that the name was not proposed in a nomenclatural sense). According to Ogilvie-Grant (Cat. Birds, 23, p.192) the only subsequent use of Pallas's name prior to Verreaux & Des Murs name barbata (1863) was Schrenck (1859) Reise. Amur-L., i, p.521.
    [END of summary of Michael's email]
  • "Varietatis" would appear to clearly not be a name in a nomenclatural sense, and is in italics.
  • "rupestris" and "albam" (not in italics) also appear not to be names in an nomenclatural sense.
  • "dauuricae" (in italics) is (now) treated as a name in a nomenclatural sense, though possibly not so intended originally.
  • Thus it would appear that nomenclatural intent in this work, as in many others, can not be inferred simply from the order of the words or the italicization.
• The issue of the number of u's in dauurica appears to have settled upon dauurica as the accepted form, though the basis for the controversy or the resolution is not at the moment known to me.