Zoological Citation Notes --L

Stephanoxis lalandi loddigesii Author 2014.11.10
Vanellus crassirostris leucopterus Citation 2014.04.06
Sarothura lugens Nomenclature 2013.10.13; 2014.02.15; 2014.02.17
Lonnberg Citation 2011.10.09 -->
Actinodura egertoni lewisi Nomenclature 2011.08.29; 2011.08.30
Momotus lessonii Nomenclature 2010.07.05; 2010.07.06
Treron apicauda laotianus Nomenclature 2010.06.22
Dicaeum ignipectus luzoniense Citation 2010.06.20
Peneoenanthe pulverulenta leucura Citation 2010.03.13
Speirops leucophaeus Nomenclature 2010.01.26
Anaplectes rubriceps leuconotos Nomenclature 2009.12.26
Tachycineta leucopyga Nomenclature 2009.08.29
Lamprotornis splendidus lessoni Citation 2009.06.20
Leach Authority 2009.06.06; 2017.12.03
Cutia legalleni Systematics 2009.03.07
Poliolais lopezi Nomenclature 2008.12.25
Poliolais lopezi Nomenclature 2008.10.31
Galerida cristata leautungensis Nomenclature 2008.08.18
Leptopoecile Nomenclature 2008.07.22
Anthreptes longuemarei Citation 2008.07.13
Corvus corax laurencei Nomenclature 2008.05.22; 2013.09.27
Garrulus glandarius leucotis Citation 2008.05.14
Henicopernis longicauda Nomenclature 2008.04.19; 2008.04.20
Automolus lammi Systematics 2008.03.19
Haliaeetus leucoryphus Citation 2007.12.15
Laniarius leucorhynchus Citation 2007.08.25
Loriculus Systematics 2007.07.04
Tanagra cyanotis lutleyi Nomenclature 2007.05.05
Zonotrichia leucophrys Citation 2007.04.18
Carduelis lawrencei Citation 2007.03.27; 2007.12.19
Citation 2007.02.18
Sterna hirundo longipennis Citation 2007.01.27
Phyllastraphus lorenzi Systematics 2006.12.31; 2008.12.02
Piranga leucoptera Nomenclature 2006.12.03; 2009.08.01
Cacicus chrysonotus leucoramphus Date 2006.10.22; 2006.11.04
Chlorostilbon lucidus Nomenclature 2006.10.09
Dasyornis broadbenti litoralis Nomenclature Spelling 2006.08.14
Strix liturata Concept 2006.08.05
Pyrrhura leucotis Nomenclature 2006.07.27
Leptocoma 1850 2006.06.12; 2008.06.25
Malurus leucopterus leuconotus Citation Artamus cinereus melanops Citation 2006.04.16; 2007.09.06
Myzomela cardinalis lifuensis Citation 2005.11.12
Sylvia melanocephala leucogastra Concept 2005.10.08
Lophotis Citation 2005.09.10
Emberiza leucocephalos Nomenclature 2005.06.11
Ptilinopus viridis lewisii Nomenclature 2005.05.03
Ptilinopus cinctus lettiensis Citation 2005.04.26
Pseudocolapates lawrencii Citation Cantorchilus modestus zeledoni Citation 2005.02.25; 2009.05.06
Chalcophaps indica longirostris Citation 2005.02.15
Agriornis montanus leucurus Concept 2004.12.26
Leucopeza Date 2004.10.17
Diopsittacus nobilist longipennis Citation 2004.09.27
Amazona autumnalis lilacina Concept
  • The original description is as follows:
      122. Amazona (psittacus) Lilacina,
    		Lesson, esp. nouv.
    	Corpore viridi; fronte rubro, sincipite
    lilacino; abdomine, tectricibusque inferio-
    ribus viridiluteus; speculo igneo super alas
    et remigum parte terminali nigro cœruleo.
      Le perroquet à occiput couleur de lilas,
    appartient à la tribu des Amazones, petite
    coupe que Swainson a nommée Chrysotis en
    1837, et qui répond à la majeure partie des
    Androglossus de Vigors. Les perroquets ama-
    zones appartiennent à l'Amérique équatoriale
    et celui que nous décrivons ici, vit aux alen-
    tours de Gayaquil, sur les rivages de l'Océan
      De perroquet mesure 32 centimètres de 
    longueur totale. Son bec a le ruban de son
    aréte convexe assez étroit. Il est renflé sur le
    côté, et de nuance brunâtre ou de corne, ses
    tarses courts et robustes sont noirâtres ainsi
    que les ongles.
      La forme du corps ne diffère point de celle
    des autres amazones. Les ailes atteignent le
    milieu de la queue, et celle-ci est courte et
    légèrement arrondie au sommet.
      Le plumage des parties supérieures du &c. &c.
    Geotrygon leucometopia Concept 2004.07.27
    Corydon sumatranus laoensis Citation 2004.04.17; 2006.11.09
    Picoides scalaris lucasanus Citation 2004.02.02
    Dendrocopos minor ledouci Citation 2004.01.30
    Pseudocoloptes lawrencii Citation 2003.12.31
    Glaucidium perlatum licua Concept 2003.11.29
    Turnix suscitator leggei Citation 2003.10.18
    Ninox boobook lurida Citation 2003.09.18
    Hirundo lucida Author 2003.08.30; 2007.12.13
    Otus magicus leucospilus Date 2003.08.16
    Turnix sylvatica lepurana Concept
    Lagopus Nomenclature 2003.06.07; 2004.02.03;2004.02.04
    Megapodius laperouse senex 1868 2003.05.17
    Psophocichla litsitsirupa Spelling 2003.05.15
    Turdus libonyana Spelling 2003.05.10
    Leptodon Nomenclature 2003.05.08
    Serilophus lunatus Concept 2003.05.03
    Lerwa lerwa Concept 2003.05.03
    Strix leptogrammica Citation 2003.03.09
    Enicognathus leptorhynchus Concept 2002.03.27
    Garrulas lanceolatus Concept 2002.03.27
    Columba larvata Concept 2003.02.09
    Bradypterus lopezi Spelling 2003.01.11
    Bradypterus lopezi Citation 2003.01.11
    Knipolegus lophotes Citation 2002.11.23; 2003.10.26
    Garrulax leucolophus Date 2002.11.22;2003.12.31;2009.02.23
    Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger Concept 2002.08.15; 2003.12.31
    Formicivora littoralis Concept
    Lepidothrix Nomenclature. 2002.08.11; 2009.07.12
    Discosura longicaudus Spelling 2002.07.14
    Acrocephalus luscinius Spelling 2002.07.11
    Serinus leucolaemus Spelling 2002.06.26
    Cheramoeca leucosterna Spelling 2002.07.10
    1801 vs 1802


    Previous discussions of the work

    This work has been dated 1801 or 1802 by various workers. A selection of some of these considerations are below.

    States, variants, and "issues"

    These bibliographic technical terms are often confusing; a consideration of these matters is most useful if the definitions are explicated.

    Definitions of "issue"

    1. An Issue is the whole number of copies of a form of an edition put on sale at any time or times as a consciously planned printed unit and varying only in relation to the form of an 'ideal copy' of this unit. The criteria are that the book must differ in some typographical way from copies of the edition first put on the market, yte be composed largely of sheets deriving from the original setting; and that the copies forming another issue must be a purposeful publishing unit removed from the original issue either in form (separate issue) or in time (reissue).
    2. (emphasis added)

      "Principals of Bibliographic Description", Bowers F, Russell & Russell, NY. 1962 p.40

    3. An issue is all the copies of that part of an edition which is identifiable as
      a consciously planned printed unit distinct from the basic form of the ideal copy.
      "A New Introduction to Bibliography" Gaskell P, Oak Knoll Press, New Castle, Delaware 1972 p.315
    4. When alterations, corrections, additions or excisions are effected in a book during
      the process of manufacture, so that copies exhibiting variations go on sale on publication
      day indiscriminantly, these variant copies are conveniently classified as belonging to different
      states of the edition. ... When similar variations can be clearly shown to have
      originated in some action taken after the book was published, two (or more) issues are
      "ABC for Book Collectors", Carter J, Alfred A Knopf, 5th ed., Revised. 1987 p.121-122
    5. Carter goes on to say (p.122)

      Yet in fact the onus of proof that an observed variation derives from a deliberate action taken after
      publication lies, or should lie, like an iron weight on the conscience of anyone who begins to write the word issue.
      It is a salutary, if rather too sweeping, preposition that all variants of this kind should be called states until
      they have been proved otherwise -- or simply left as VARIANTS.
  • Schodde R, Dickinson EC, Steinheimer FD & Bock WJ. 2010. "The Date of Latham's Supplementum Indicis Ornithologici 1801 or 1802?" South Australian Ornitholgist 35(8):232-235 demonstrate (as others have) that the General Supplement II exists in more than one state, though "state" is not a term they use. They provide evidence of at least three variants (or states), and discuss some, but not all of the variant states that are known to exist. They also appear to assume that these different variant states constitute different "issues" (p.233), though the basis for this assumption is not discussed. Assuming that a "state" or "variant" is equivalent to an "issue" is a simple, but profound error. The presence of "at least two issues" (p.233) appears to be central to their argument, as they state that the presence of multiple issues
    breaks the nexus between the Latin Supplementum and a single issue of the English Supplement II.
    Establishing multiple "issues" (according to the bibliographic definitions above) requires either determining the initial date of publication (an end toward which this exercise is directed) or establishing what Leigh, Sotheby & Son saw as constituting a "planned printed unit". As far as I can tell none of these have been done, so it appears to me that the presence of "issues" in this matter remains for the moment entirely speculative. Also note that they imply three different states for the General Synopsis, but mention only "at least two issues" (p.233). I am confused by the use of "issue" made by Schodde et al..

  • Schodde et al. also emphasize important information revealed in a footnote in Latham's 1821 "A General History of Birds". The text there reads:
    	*A little time prior to the publication of the Second Supplement, on finding it very
    	inconvenient to confer with my Booksellers so often as I had been accustomed to do, from the
    	great distance I then lived from London, I agreed to put the remaining copies of the Seven
    	Volumes, then published, into their hands, at a fair valuation; and finding it to be their wish
    	that I should form an Eighth Volume, from the additional material I had collected since the
    	publication of my first Supplement, I furnished it to them, to be printed at their own cost;
    	but not long after, I learned, to my surprise, that instead of 500, the number of copies
    	printed of the former Volumes, only 250 were struck off. What end this was to answer was
    	known only to themselves, and I think it right to mention the circumstance here, to exculpate
    	myself from the blame which has attached to me on that procedure, and which from that
    	Volume not being then my property, it was not in my power to prevent.
    and can be examined here: Latham 1821 p.vi.

    The footnote indicates that control (printing, production, and release to the public [i.e. publication]) were entirely under Leigh, Sotheby & Son's control. Latham also indicates that the publishers responded to forces unknown to Latham and resulting in an outcome that was surprising and disappointing to him (producing only 250 rather than 500 copies). Their actions were unkown to Latham and surprised him when he learned of them. Now, over two centuries later, our knowledge of what occured, why, and when is necessarily uncertain.

    The relation between Latham and the firm of Leigh, Sotheby & Son seems peculiar. Leigh, Sotheby and Son published almost nothing but Auction Catalogues at this time. The fact that John Latham was John Sotheby's cousin (ref. Herrmann F. 1981 "Sotheby's Portrait of an Auction House". WW Norton & Co. p.14) may possibly have played a role in their decision to continue publishing Latham's material.

    Schodde et al. correctly indicate that "the London publisher (Leigh, Sotheby & Son) managed and distributed both" Supplements... "and was free to issue them at any time once they were printed" (p.233). However, the time of issuance is speculative, they were equally free to delay issuance if they felt there were other matters of greater priority. Presumably this was not the only work Leigh, Sotheby & Son managed at this time and other considerations could easily have been factors in the timing of the distribution of the material. Imaginative speculation can come up with a host of scenarios, many of which would posit issueance in 1801, and many of which could produce a delay into 1802.

  • I wondered what taxa might be affected by dating this work to 1801 or 1802.
  • The Richmond Index notes that the genus group Menura appears to have been a late addition to the work. Richmond does not indicate how he knows this, but it appears that the nature of the material supports his assertion. Thanks to Daria Wingreen-Mason's expert examination of the two copies in the Cullman library, we know that Menura occurs on the asterisked single leaf with signature "Mm5" (pages 271* 272*). Wingreen-Mason indicates that asterisks were used to indicate "bis" and these pages follow directly after unasterisked pages of the same numbering. The unique text shows that the pages are not cancellans, and their nature as an "addition" is further supported by the fact they are a single leaf signature. The potential that this single leaf may be a possible clue to the dating problem flows from the fact that precedence for the name Menura may be contested between Latham and Davies. This matter is not discussed by Schodde et al..

    The details of that matter I understand as follows:

    Thus, if a date later than late May is established for Latham's Latin Supplement, priority for the name Menura would go to Davies, but Latham's presentation of a copy to the Royal Society on 1 April 1802 eliminates this possibility. Schodde et al. discussed the problem of the possibility of Davies' name having priority (2007. BBOC 127(4):273) but dismissed the the problem based on their interpretation that 1801 was the date of publication for Latham's work. In my view, even if 1802 is accepted as the date of publication for Latham's use of the name the date of March or April still preceeds the established date for the Davies publication.

  • We can only speculate on the implications that may be attached to the apparent reduction of the production run to 250 copies rather than the 500 Latham expected. These speculations are limited only by one's imagination.

  • Schodde et al. state (p.233)
    [the presence of multiple states of
    the English Supplementum II] is evidence that there were at least two issues 
    of that work, so breaking the nexus between the Latin Supplementum and a single
    issue of the English Supplement II (emphasis added).

    It does not seem to me that the number of issues of this work has been established, and I believe no useful discussion of this is presented by Schodde et al., and indeed I am not sure what their definition of "issue" is. There is nothing to prevent different "states" of a work from being issued at the same time. Again, it must be emphasized that Latham's own subsequent (1821) evidence indicates that Leigh, Sotheby & Sons were free to produce and issue the material in any manner they saw fit.

  • The Code does not currently propose that contested considerations of dating be resolved by a competition between speculative scenarios. Schodde et al. present only one possible scenario, but many others are similarly possible.

    It is not improbable that with multiple changes, and with other additional considerations not relating to this work, Leigh, Sotheby & Son may have delayed release to the public (i.e. publication) of the material until these considerations were resolved. We don't know if this publication had a high priority, or a low priority for Leigh, Sotheby & Son. It is reasonable to speculate that due to their ownership of the material they felt free to deal with it in a manner commensurate with all of their priorities and consisderations. They do not appear to have expected much in the way of sales for the work (as evidenced by cutting the production run in half from its companion works). It appears they felt they were released from satisfying Latham's expectations, and could deal with the matter at their convenience. They owned the material and we must expect that it was dealt with in a manner commensurate with all the priorities of the firm. I also speculate that concerns over publishing priority (which we are so concerned with) may not have concerned them at all.

  • The tantalizing possibility of resolving all this by recovering records from the firm of Leigh, Sotheby & Son (now Sotheby's) would appear to be prevented by the tragic fact of the fire on 29 June, 1865 that gutted Sotheby's and destroyed most of their stock and buisness records. (ref. Herrmann F. 1981 "Sotheby's Portrait of an Auction House". WW Norton & Co. p.55).
  • Schodde et al. state quite explicitly that there is "evidence for 1802" (p.233) but move to dismiss it on the grounds that it is "too circumstantial and open to question" -- no such qualifying language or rationale is expressed in the Code.
  • Schodde et al. also comment that the French and English texts have "equivalent force" (p.233) quoting the Code Art. 86.2. I interpret this to mean that one can not say the French text (using the word "prueve") is any more or less "correct" than the English text (using the word "evidence"). Certainly it is not currently "proven" that the date 1801 is incorrect, and therefore since the English text has "equal force" we must then ask is there "evidence" that it is incorrect. Schodde et al. state, as indicated, that there is. It then seems to me that the appropriate course is to proceed on the basis of Article 21.4, and we know that this was in existence as a published work in April of 1802, with the delivery of the work to the Royal Society.

    In passing it is interesting to note that the French heading of Article 21.4 is "Date inexacte". It is a mistake (and an understandable one) to think that when the French say "inexacte" they mean "inexact". My petite LaRousse (1963) p.548 defines INEXACTE as "Qui contient des erreurs; faux" which I interpret as: "containing errors; false", indeed, what we think of as "incorrect" (as used in the English version of 21.4). The Latin "exacte", of course means "precise, accurate", more in-line with English use. "Correct" in the LaRousse is defined as "conforme aux règles" (conforming to the rule). It seems to me that in these senses "inextacte" is more appropriate than "incorrecte".

  • I consider this to be an interesting and challenging case, and one which is not well served by the language of the Code as currently constituted. I say this because there is still "evidence" against accepting 1801, and the first demonstration "of its existence as a published work" (the language of Art. 21.4) is apparently in April of 1802, when a copy was presented to the Royal Society.
  • Schodde et al. emphasize the existence of different "states" of the English Supplement II (which they call "issues" and which have attendant potential implications for the dating of the Latin Supplementum). Perhaps it is appropriate to treat "states" the way the Code treats "parts", but if this is made explicit, I don't find it.
  • Additional points regarding Schodde et al.
    1. On p. 231 they state:
      	These same species were published concurrently 
      	in vernacular English in the Supplement.
      Given that the dates and nature of publication are in question, can it be stated that they were published "concurrently? then treat it as an established fact. In addition this idea of "concurrent" publication would seem to contrast with their statement (p.233)
      that there were at least two issues of that work,
      	thus breaking the nexus between the Latin Supplementum and a single issue of the 
      	English Supplement II supposedly no later than 1 April 1802.
      On the one hand they are state they are "published concurrently" but on the other hand hold that the "nexus" between them is broken. Which is it?
    2. Schodde et al. offer no alternative possibilities to the one that they present. Though many others are possible. Perhaps Leigh, Sotheby & Son held this as a job of very low priority, and with the evidence of ongoing changes and modifications of the work held back all copies. Possibly they only released material when Latham himself asked for copies to be given to the Royal Society and the Linnean Society and they gave him copies and then modified the subsequent copies to comply with the date and the content changes that had been supplied. Speculation such as these are limited only by imagination.
    3. Schodde et al. discuss the reasoning that Browning and Monroe (1991) used in coming to their decision that 1802 was correct, but then Schodde et al. supply their own reasoning for that of Browning and Monroe. For example, Browning and Monroe make no mention of "page proofs", though Schodde et al. imply that Browning and Monroe felt that the Latin Supplementum "could not have been type-set until page proofs of the English Supplement II were available."
  • There is an additional, and in my view more important, variant "state" of this work The Richmond index mentions a page that is an apparent "late addition" to the work; the page where the genus Menura is described. In support of the possibility that this was a "late addition" to the work is the fact that it is a single leaf signature "Mm5" and with pagination "271*, 272*". It is found immediately following pp.271,272 which is part of signature "Mm2" and is followed by signature "Nn". Note that the signature progression is generally ... Ii Ii2 Kk Kk2 Ll Ll2 &c in this portion of the work. "5" is a distinctly unusual suffix. Some letters, J in this case, and often I, U, V, or W are often omitted, a convention continued from the manuscript period. This added single leaf signature is noted in Zimmer, but other than Richmond no one else seems to have noted it, commented on it, or considered if it has implications regarding the history of publication. To date it appears to be present in most copies of the work. However the copy owned by Dr David Donsker lacks this 271*, 272* leaf. The existence of this volume (with a colored title page plate, and an imprint date of 1801) appears to me to be stronger evidence for the possibility of a pre-1802 issue than the evidence suggested by Schodded et al.. Stronger evidence but still speculative at this point, it seems to me.
  • [2010.11.25; 2011.01.29]

    Additional facts developed in this matter:

    2003.05.21; 2003.10.13; 2004.02.05; 2011.01.29
    Cercomacra laeta
    Scleroptila levalliantoides spelling ....; 2004.04.18; 2010.01.08; 2010.07.11.2013.04.06
    Laniocera 1841 ....; 2004.10.02
    Lipaugus lanioides Citation
    Larosterna 1852
    Columba larvata 1809
    Chlamydera lauterbachi citation
    Brachypteryx leucophrys 2003.03.07
    Dendrocopos leucopterus 1871
    Furnarius leucopus Citation
    Coracina leucopygia 1850
    Turdoides leucopygius 1837
    Rallina leucospila 1876
    Rhagologus leucostigma 1876
    Dendrocopos leucotos 1802 2002.06.29
    Clamator levaillantii
    Garrulus lidthi 1850
    Bartramia longicuada citation (plate)
    Falco longipennis 1838
    Lophotibis Citation
    Ornisyma lumachella = Augastes lumachella 1839 ....; 2004.10.15
    Gorsachius leuconotus Citation
    Caliechthrus leucolophus Citation
    Lophotriccus 1884 ....; 2004.11.15
    Amazilia luciae 1868
    Sturnella (Pezites) loyca
    Cichlopsis leucogenys 1850
    Thryothorus longirostris 1819
    Thescelocichla leucopleura Citation
    Caracara lutosa
    Seicercus latouchei
    Colinus leucopogon
    Camptorhynchus labradorious Extinct
    Poecile lugubris spelling
    Pyrrhura lepida Nomenclature/Systematics
    Augastes lumachella Spelling
    Otus lettia Systematics
    Otus lempijii Systematics
    Thalassornis leconontus Spelling
    Lorius Nomenclature
    Cacatua leadbeateri Systematics
    Ducula lacernulata Date
    Ducula luctuosa Date
    Lonchura leucogastroides 1858
    Botaurus lentiginosus a Author ....; 2006.06.02
    Lymnocryptes Author Citation ....;2005.04.23; 2006.05.27
    Artamus leucoryn Concept / name

    Lophornis Nomenclature

    Normand David writes an explanatory note (2001.04.28):

    Lophornis spelling

    The Greek noun ornis [bird] is masculine as well as feminine (Liddell & Scott 1996, Greek-English Lexicon). Accordingly, names ending in -ornis do not end in a transliterated Greek word of fixed gender (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.2), but end in a word of common gender (ICZN 1999, Arts. 30.1, ICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.2, Examples) stated that "Ichthyornis, ending in -ornis (ornis), is masculine", but examples "do not form part of the legislative text of the Code" (ICZN 1999, Art. 89.2). Actually, Ichthyornis Marsh, 1872, is masculine because it was established in combination with dispar (a Latin adjective not indicative of a particular gender) not because it ends in -ornis.

    A name that is or ends in a Latin or Greek word of common gender is feminine only when it is established in combination with one or more feminine Latin or latinized adjectives; it must be treated as masculine in all other situations (ICZN 1999, Arts. 30.1, and

    Indeed, Anthornis Gray, 1840, which was established in combination with the feminine latinized adjectives melanura and caeruleocephala, is presently treated as feminine (as per Peters 1964, etc.), and Torreornis Barbour & Peters, 1927, which was established in combination with the feminine Latin adjective inexpectata, is also treated as feminine (as per AOU 1998, etc.).


    Lophornis Lesson, 1829, was established without a name in combination [Lesson listing seven species names in combination with Ornismya], and is thus MASCULINE.

    Consequently HBW 5 has the correct spellings for the adjectival names combined with Lophornis.

    Normand David, Directeur general
    Association quebecoise des groupes d'ornithologues
    4545 Pierre-de-Coubertin
    C. P. 1000, Succ. M
    Montreal, Qc
    H1V  3R2

    Le Maout Spelling 2003.02.15
    Poecilotriccus luluae Concept
    Lipaugus Spelling ....;2004.04.18
    Lipaugus Citation Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
    Chiroxiphia lanceolata Citation Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.
    Laterallus levraudi Date
    Calonectris leucomelas Date
    Comments&Suggestions to Data Steward
    Alan P. Peterson, M.D.
    POB 1999
    Walla Walla, WA 99362-0999

    Last updated 2017.12.03