Zoological Citation Notes --J

• Peters Checklist 14:377 (= Paynter 1968) dates this to 1873, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:735 (though Corrigenda 8).
• Possibly these authors were unaware that this work was published in parts, but both works (H&M 3^rd:558 and Peters Checklist XI:142 (= Traylor 1985)) cite Prinia subflava terricolor from an earlier page (p.349) in the work to 1874!.
• The publishing history is noted in Zimmer (p.313) and the correct dates are published in the Richmond Index.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out that the date I use differs from that in H&M 3^rd.

• Peters Checklist 11:50; H&M 3^rd:584, and HBW 11:633 all attribute the authority her to Neumann without comment or discussion.
• The Richmond Index shows the author as Erlanger. Richmond Index card: Calamocichla jacksoni.
• Absent any additional information I follow the Richmond Index.

• Spelled Chlorospingus flavopectus jaqueti by Clements Checklist 6^thed.:384, and by H&M 3^rd:817 (through Corrigenda 8, 2008).
• The original spelling, as verified by the Richmond Index, was Chlorospingus veneauelanus jacqueti and this is also correctly show in Peters CL 13:256.
• Thanks to Robert Hickling for bringing this to my attention.

• Originally described as Phonygama jamesii (original seen).
• The taxon is placed in Phonygammus by Mayr (Peters Check-list 15:186), and he does not include parentheses around the author's name in the check-list proper.
• H&M 3^rd:516, however, place Sharpe's name in parentheses.
• As Phonygama Lesson, 1828, is an emendation of Phonygammus Lesson & Garnot, 1826, the inclusion of parentheses is unnecessary.

• Usually cited to 1842 (e.g. Peters Checklist 5:50; H&M 3^rd:263;HBW 5:587,[683]
• CW Richmond presented evidence supporting the assertion that the December number of this serial probably was never published in December, but was delayed until the following year.
• Michael Rieser notes (in litt. 2007.09.27) that in an article by Lesson and Ménégaux they noted that this number (the December number) did not appear until 1 Jan. 1843
• 

• Originally spelled Passherbulus maritimus juncicola (note the two c's).
• This spelling is correctly included in the AOU CL 5^th:596 (1957).
• Peters Checklist 13:75 (= Paynter, 1970) emends this without comment to Passherbulus maritimus junicola (note the single -c), and this is followed, without comment by H&M 3^rd:75 (through Corrigenda 6).
• The original description notes that the bird is

  confined to dense patches of Juncus roemerianus ...

  and thus the name juncicola makes good sense, while junicola does not.
• Great thanks to David Nicolson of ITIS for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist 14:290 (=Howell, et al., 1968) cites this to 1885 rather than to 1884, though no data in support of this date is provided.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published April 28, 1884 and additionally indicates that the name is included in a footnote -- a point not mentioned by Howell et al..
• Morioka et al. 2005. "Types of Japanese Birds" p.61 correctly note the date as 1884. Those authors rely, at least in part, on Deignan's Type list for the Natl. Museum, who in turn relied heavily (and appropriately) on the Richmond Index.

• Generally (and understandably) listed as jamesoni.
• Peters Checklist 5:89 has

  Trochilus Jamersoni [sic. err. typ.] Bourcier ...

  and this is followed by most authors.
However the text of Bourcier's article makes no mention of "Jameson", so I believe the spelling must stand as originally printed.
• The Richmond Index does not have a card for the Compte Rendu description, but of interest, has a card for

  	Tr[ochilus] jamersoni	 M.J. Bourcier	 1851
  	Rev. et mag. de Zoolog., Feb., 1851, p. 97

  So this "jamersoni" spelling (with the "r") evidently is not unique to the Compte Rendu, a fact which would appear to decrease the probability that it is simply a typographic error by the printer.
• Normand David provides additional information (2007.01.18):

  From external sources of information, it is now apparent that Bourcier's jamersoni CRASP
  32:187 can be linked to one William Jameson, Professor at the University of Quito.
  Gould (1861), pl.95, in listing Heliodoxa jamesoni, or Jameson's Brilliant, writes "In the
  naming of this bird after Professor Jameson of Quito, M. Bourcier has my entire acquiescence...
  Happily for science, Professor Jameson has long been located at Quito..."

  [APP: "entire acquiescence" -- an interesting phrase.]
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this problem initially to my attention.

• Held to be a distinct subspecies by Peters Checklist 13:47 (1970), and by H&M 3^rd:781.
• Held to be a synonym of M.m.melodia by 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. They cite Am. Ornithol. Union 1957, Todd 1963, Browning 1978, and Patten 2001. Of these references, AOU 1957, and Todd 1963 certainly treat this as a full subspecies. The other references have not (to date 2006.12.25) been examined.
• Arcese et al. comment:

  Recognition of subspecies through much of the east "extend[s] the
  trinomial system to the limits of utility" (Mengel 1965: 511). Shortly
  after its description, Ridgway (1901: 358) synonymized M.m.juddi
  with M.m.melodia, remarking that specimens from Atlantic Coast
  and Great Plains "average slightly grayer than those from the
  intermediate region, but the difference is so slight and inconstant that
  subspecific separation seems to me unjustifiable." Bull (1974: 600)
  considered neither M.m.euphonia nor M.m.juddi valid,
  noting the "poorly differentiated" M.m.euphonia "is merely
  part of an east-west cline extending from New England and New York . . .
  through several slightly differentiated populations including the more
  western . . . juddi (itself part of the cline)."

• Peters Checklist 13:337 (Storer, 1970) lists the authority for Iridisornis jelskii in parentheses as "(Cabanis)", and lists the original combination correctly as Iridornis Jelskii.
My interpretation is that Iridornis is an emendation of Iridisornis Lesson, 1844. In the Falkenstein and Cabanis article, I do not find designation of the authority for the genus group name Iridornis but it is probably appropriate to attribute it to Bonaparte Ann.Sci.Nat. (Zool.) 4 ser. 1 p.127 where he attributes the name to "Less.".
• The Richmond Index lists Iridornis Bonaparte as an emendation of Iridisornis Lesson, as does Neave's Nomenclator Zool.
• The Code 1999 Art. 51.3.1 makes it clear that in the case of an incorrect spelling or emendation of a genus group name, the parentheses are not to be used.
• H&M 3^rd:809 follows the Peters Checklist in employing parentheses, and no comment is made on this in the Corrigenda (through Corr. 5).
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):222, cites Ardea Javanica Horsfield, 1821 to Trans.Linn.Soc.London 12 (sic) p. 190
• Sources listing this as volume 13 include:
  1. The Richmond Index
  2. CBBM 26:177
  3. Sherborn's Index Animalium p.3281
• HBW 1:632 cites vol. 12, perhaps not having bothered to look anywhere other than Peters.
• Volume 12 of the Transactions were printed in 25 Feb, 1818 (Pt 1) and 2 July, 1819 (Pt 2). So the Harvard authors of the Peter's Checklist, being only a volume off, did really quite well (by Harvard standards).

• Peters Checklist 1(2):70 cites this to "pl.59"
• There is no plate; this on page 59.
• Additionally, as correctly noted in H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 5, this was published in 1936, not 1935.
• The date is correctly represented in the Richmond Index
• HBW 1:242 appears to follow Peters, citing 1935.

• Cited by H&M 3^rd:120 to 1886. One possibility is that this is replicating the error of HBW 3:164.
• Both the Richmond Index and the U.S.Nat.Mus. Bull no.193 indicate that this was published on Feb. 10, 1887, which is the date I follow.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason H&M 3^rd:176 and HBW 4:218 place the authority in parentheses.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• The numbers of the J.Orn. almost certainly never were publishe on the "specified date" during the first 50 years or so of publication. The delay was usually months, and not infrequently as many as 6 months or more. However, proof of delay is much less frequent than the fact of it.
• The Volume 7, number 24 has a specified date of November, 1856, but contains material dated 16 Feb. 1857.

• The numbers of the J.Orn. almost certainly never were publishe on the "specified date" during the first 50 years or so of publication. The delay was usually months, and not infrequently as many as 6 months or more. However, proof of delay is much less frequent than the fact of it.
• The Volume 4, number 24 has a specified date of November, 1856, but contains material dated 16 Feb. 1857.

• Conventionally spelled JYNGINAE (e.g. Peters Checklist 6:86, HBW 7:421, Bock. 1994. "History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names" p.146; Short. 1982 "Woodpeckers of the World"; among others.
• Spelled IYNGINAE in the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 18:559
• The spelling JYGNINAE is used without comment by H&M 3^rd:311.
• The spelling is corrected in the 2^nd Corrigenda.

• Given by Peters Checklist 4:33 as occuring in volume 45 of the Orn.Monatsb.
• The Richmond Index shows this to be in volume 46, which makes a great deal more sense chronologically.
• Volume 46 (contra Peters) is also followed by HBW 4:658
.

• Peters Checklist 3:69 has "livr.86 pl.503".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} also show livr.86.
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and would appear to resolve the issue, demonstrating that the "86" should have been 85. The year date remains the same.
• 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'

• Ben King argues for separation of N. japonicus from N. scutulata (Raffles) on the basis of vocalizations and morphology. King B. 2002. "Species limits in the Brown Boobok Ninox scutulata Complex." BBOC 122(4):250-257..

• King (King B. 2002. "Species limits in the Brown Boobok Ninox scutulata Complex." BBOC 122(4):250-257) gives the citation as "N. s. japonica (Temminck and Schlegel) 1844" (p.251). This is the same as the HBW 5:233,688 citation, which gives FaunaJap. 1844 p.28.
• Edward Dickinson indicates (in litt. 2003.01.26)

  "The citation should be:
  
  Strix hirsuta japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1845, in Siebold, Fauna Japonica, Aves, p.28, pl.9B.
  
  Note: Page 28 appeared in fascicle 2 in July 1845; 
  	plate 9B appeared no earlier than 1849 (Holthuis & Sakai, 1970)."

  The footnote in H&M 3^rd:234 reads:

  12This name must date from 1845 see Holthuis & Sakai (1970).

  Holthuis LB, Sakai T. 1970. "Ph. F. Von Siebold and Fauna Japonica. A History of Early Japanese Zoology." Academic Press of Japan. Tokyo, Japan.
• So what evidence is to be found for 1844 vs 1845 for p.28 of this work?
  • Holthuis & Sakai 1970 (the authority Dickinson cites for the position that this "must be dated from 1845") give pagination for the fascicle (p.74) as

    	fasc. 1, pp. 1-24.	pls. 1,2,5,6,8,9,11,12,13, 17	1844 (14 July 1845)
    	fasc. 2, pp. 25-44.	pls. 21,22,25,28,32,35,40,41,
    				52, suppl. B	14 July 1845
    				... 

    [The date in parentheses apparently is a date given by the "Rijksarchief", apparently the date when the material was "sent out to Dutch libraries by the Dutch Government" and are presumed to be later than the "actual date of publication."]

    Holthuis also states (p.74)

    	The contents of the fascicles in many cases is incompletely 
    known. As far as the text is concerned I have not been able to add
    anything to Esaki's list. But in checking the parts of the Archiv für
    Naturgeschichte containing information on the bird volume of the 
    Fauna Japonica (see Sherborn & Jentink, 1895. Proc. zool. Soc. 
    London. p.149), it proved possible to ascertain of many plates in 
    which fascicle or groups of fascicles they were published.

  • Sherborn & Jentink, 1895 interprets the distribution of pages within fascicles differently from Holthuis, showing fascile I as pp.1-28 (not pp.1-24). This is footnoted by Sherborn and Jentink. The footnote indicates

    Wiegmann [= the Archives für Naturgeschichte] says Pernis apivorus closed this part, 
    but G.R. Gray, Genera, i. p.38, Sept. 1845, quotes p.25 and therefore 
    includes signature G in part 1.

  • Holthuis makes no mention of this footnote, of Gray's interpretation, of Sherborn's interpretation, or of "signature G". These issues may be addressed in "Esaki's list" (not seen). However, as no reference is made to this footnote or to the issue, it appears to me that Holthuis did not read, or perhaps did not understand Sherborn & Jentink's footnote; for his results he would have had to ignore, or explicitly disagree with Sherborn & Jentink's interpretation, which clearly is pp."1-28" for fascicle 1 (1844). It is not surprising that Holthuis' examination of the Archives would lead him to his interpretation. Sherborn examined the same source, but aware of the data that Holthuis followed, they explicitly disagreed with what Holthuis' interpretation would be.
  • Sherborn dates the name on p.28 to 1844 in his Index Animalium, a fact not addressed by Holthuis or by Dickinson.
• It appears to me that uncertainty remains regarding the date of this taxon and there is evidence supporting both 1844 and 1845. I do not feel compelled to follow a work that apparently is unaware of, does not understand, or ignores one of the fundamental conflicts at play here.
• Perhaps Esaki's publiction (not seen) answers these questions. Edward Dickinson kindly provided the details of that citation (though I think he has not seen it). It is: Esaki, T., 1935. Zur Einführung in Philipp Franz von Siebolds 'Fauna Japonica'. 1-54, pl. 51-58. -- [publisher unkown], Tokyo..

• The publishing history of the J.As.Soc.Bengal. remains uncertain.
• I follow Richmond, et al. 1992 in using 1849 for vol. 18.

• Peters Checklist 15:185 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.

Cisticola juncidis Concept

• Rafinesque's original description reads:

  10. Sp. SYLVIA Juncidis -- Penne fosche marginate
  di fulvastre al disopra, gola, spalle, fianchi e coscie
  solle penne fosche alla base, nere all'estremita e term-
  nate di fulvo, le due piu esteriori lo sono di bianco; uno
  spazio nudo fra l'occhio e l'orecchi, rostro fosco, piedi
  bianchicci. Oss. Mo visto questa piccola Capinera
  vicino all Rocella saltellare sopra i giuchi nei luo-
  ghi umidi; l'avero pure osservata nelle vicanze di
  Liverno, insieme colla seguente.

• Peters Checklist 9:380 (Mayr and Greenway) gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 7^th:473 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.

• Dickinson & Dekker. 2001. Discuss Mirafra javanica Horsfield, 1821. ( Dickinson EC & Dekker RWRJ. "Systematic notes on Asian birds. 11. A preliminary review of the Alaudidae" 2001. Zoologische Verhandelingen 335:61-63).
• They favor a broad concept of M. javanicus including M. cantillans Blyth, 1845 (as the Peters [Mayr & Greenway] treatment does) until a more thorough presentation of the nature of the relationship is published.
• Dickinson and Dekker 2001 further indicate that this broad concept of M. javanicus may well be eventually be split into three species.
• Mirafra simplex (Heuglin) 1868 J.Orn. 16 p.226 [Afro-Arabian]
• Mirafra cantillans Blyth 1845 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 13(1844) p.960 [Indian]
• Mirafra javanica Horsfield 1821 Trans.Linn.Soc.London(1) 13 p.159 [Australasian]

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