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.
Gayaquil.

  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
pacifique.
  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.

• Held by H&M 3^rd:169 to be a subspecies of Geotrygon caniceps.
• The 2004 45^th AOU CL supplement p.989 elevates this to full species status.

• Peters Checklist 7:5 gives the date as 1929 without comment.
• The Richmond Index lists the volume imprint date as 1828 and has a note "(publ. Feb. 21, 1929)". And this is confirmed by the publishing date listed in the Journal on the Table of Contents (p.435). (provided by Edward C. Dickenson 2006.11.08).
• it would appear that for this taxon and this volume of Peters checklist the citation should be "1928 (1929)".

• A peculiar situation here.
• Peters Checklist cites this name to

  
  "Xantus" Baird Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 1859 p.302.
  

  There are some possible problems with this citation.
  1. This is apparently volume XI of the Proceedings, and this latter portion was not issued until 1860.
  2. Both the Richmond Index, and H.G. Deignan, 1961. "Type Specimens of Birds in the United States National Museum" p.226 cite this name to Xántus, and cite p.298 of this volume (contra p.302)..
     (Deignan -- on the same page -- refers to other aspects of Peters Checklist 6, but makes no mention of this substantial difference in citation.)
  3. HBW 7:490 follows the Peters citation, and has no discussion regarding the discrepancies of citation.
  4. H&M 3^rd:321 similarly follows the Peters Citation.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Deignan here, but remain confused by the discrepancy and the lack of discussion thereof.

• Peters Checklist 6:195 gives the page number as "p.22" and HBW 7:561 follows this.
• The Richmond Index gives the page number as p.27. I follow the Richmond Index on this.

• The citation is conventionally given as 1878 (e.g. Peters Checklist 7:119; H&M 3^rd:414; Harris. 1928 Condor 30(1):80 (where dated to 1878.12.10)).
• However, the Richmond Index has "1879?" and a note:"Publ. Jan. 1879?".

• Diagnosis of Strix licua is reproduced in the Richmond Index, where it reads:

  "Habitu (i.e. partim inter se ratione, præcipue remigum rectricumque 
  longitudine mutua) et pictura, simillima Str. passerinae Lin. 
  (pygmaeae, Becht.) sed major, 8-pollicaris, differt quoque rectricum 
  fasciis 6 albis latoribus vix linearibus, sed interruptis, e macula utrinque 
  orbiculari conflatus, terminali nulla."

• Peters Checklist 2:146 gives the volume number for the BBOC here as "43"; the HBW 3:728 replicates this error.
• The correct volume number of the BBOC for this citation is 41. It is in no.ccliii (253).

• In Peters Checklist 4:139 the citation given for Ninox lurida De Vis is "Rep.Sci.Exped.Queensland, 1889, p.31,84"
• H&M 3^rd:234 gives 1889, apparently following the Peters citation.
• The HBW 5:232,684 gives De Vis, 1887, and the Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W.
• The Richmond index gives this same 1887 Proc.Linn.Soc.N.S.W. citation for Ninox boobook v. lurida; it does not have a listing for Ninox lurida as seems to be implied by Peters.
• I follow the Richmond Index, and the HBW here.

• Peters Checklist 9:107 gives the author as "J. Verreaux" Hartlaub.
• The Richmond Index gives the author of Hirundo lucida as J. Verreaux in Hartlaub.
• Examination of the original description, suggests to me that this is a Verreaux manuscript name. The Latin diagnosis given in Hartlaub's article gives no indication (that I can find) that Verreaux provided anything other than the name (and possibly the specimen).

• Treated virtually universally as a masculine noun in ornithological literature. I don't find any instance in the Zoo.Rec. since 1978 where it was treated as feminine.
• David and Gosselin. "The grammatical gender of avian genera. " BBOC 2002. 122(4):258 present compelling evidence that the name is feminine. The Latin noun Lagopus is feminine, and Brisson himself consistently used feminine adjectives in combination with Lagopus.
• The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Glare. 1982 lists:

  lagopus ~odis, f. [Gk. λαγωπους]
  	1 A ptarmigan.
  	praecipus sapore ~us PLIN. Nat.10.133.
  	2 A trefoil, perh. hare's foot trefoil.
  	~us sistit aluome e nino pota.. nascitur in segetibus PLIN.
  	Nat.26.53.

• In dicussing this matter Normand David (2004.02.04) sends along additional notes of interest (slightly edited here):

  Remember Art. 26: 
  	"If the spelling of a scientific name...is the same as a
  Greek or Latin word. that name...is deemed to be a word in the relevant
  language unless the author states otherwise when making the name
  available". 
  Brisson did not say that he was using the Greek word
  λαγωπους, thus he was using the classical
  Latin feminine noun lagopus (white grouse, ptarmigan), 
  as given by all Latin dictionaries.
  	I have checked Pliny's text for the use of lagopus: to refer 
  to the beast, Pliny uses the feminine determinative pronoun "eam" 
  in the accusative case (from ea = this/that). There is no doubt
  whatsoever that lagopus is a feminine Latin noun. 

• Often cited as 1867 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:6; HBW 2:306, H&M 3^rd:36).
• This portion of the PZS was published in 1868.

• Often, and usually spelled Psophocichla litsipsirupa.
• Originally described by Smith as Merula Litsitsirupa. However this occurs in the extremely rare Rept.Exed.Cent.Afr. and thus the name usually comes from the 1880 reprint of this work by Salvin and the Willughby Society, where there is a typographic error, substituting "p" for "t".
• Despite it's long, and relatively frequent (but not exclusive) use, the misspelled version is an is an incorrect subsequent spelling (ICZN 1999. Arts. 33.3 and 33.5), that is not in prevailing usage (ICZN 1999.Art. 33.3.1). Thus litsitsirupa is correct.
• The name is evidently based on a tribal name in the language Tswana.
• Thanks to Bob Dowsett and Normand David for pointing this out, and clarifying the details.

• Peters Checklist 10:184 (Deignan) lists this as Turdus libonyanus, and has it as originally described as Merula libonyanus by Smith.
• Bob Dowsett informs me (2003.05.05) that this is a local name, thus a noun in apposition and should be liboyana rather than liboyanus.
• According to the Richmond Index, as well as my reprint of Smith's original description, his original spelling was Merula Libonyana. contra the listing in the Peters Checklist.
• Since 1978 libonyanus appears 8 times and libonyana appears twice in the Zoo.Rec.
.

• Leptodon vs Odontriorchis
• A useful note on this question from Dick Banks (2003.05.05) reads:

  1950 would seem to be the time that the name went back to Leptodon. 
   
  In the Mexican Check-list (Friedmann, Griscom, and Moore) the species is called
  Odontriorchis palliatus.
    
  In Friedmann's part 11 of Ridgway's Birds of N & M America, it is Leptodon cayanensis.
  The first was out in June 1950, the second in Sept. 1950.  
  It seems obvious that Friedmann changed his mind while that volume of Ridgway 
  was in prep., maybe in press.  There is a paragraph on p.94, at the end of the 
  description of the genus Leptodon that uses the name Odontriorchis, 
  which apparently he neglected to change. Also, in the list of synonyms and citations 
  for the generic name, he uses the wording for the type species 
  Falco cayennensis Gmelin = Falco palliatus "Max" Temminck, 
  suggesting that the latter is the valid name for the
  species. But then he uses Falco cayanensis Latham for the name of the
  species.  
  	The citation of the type species of Leptodon Sundevall on the card in the
  Richmond files is like the AOU Check-list, not as in Friedmann 1950 or in
  revised vol. 1 of Peters.  And I have no idea why we [AOU] list the type locality
  of cayanensis Latham as "in Cayana = Bahia, Brazil."  Bahia is the revised
  or restricted type locality for palliatus.
  
  Okay, I looked last where I should have looked first, at Hellmayr &
  Conover, 1949.  Cat. Birds  Amer., part 1, no. 4. Leptodon Sundevall is NOT
  preoccupied by Rafinesque's name, which actually was different.  And there
  is no reason to reject Latham's cayanensis, which is what had opened the
  door for palliatus.  And Bahia in the type locality came from Spix, and
  should not be equated to Latham's Cayana. 
  
  Friedmann apparently got Hellmayr and Conover after preparing the Mexican
  Check-list[;] [...] before completing the volume of Ridgway but too late to cite
  it.  Everyone since has followed H&C and/or Friedmann, but apparently no one
  has ever said why (if they knew), at least in anything I looked at.  
  
  Addendum--Eisenmann 1955 used Leptodon cayanensis and said "Odontriorchis
  palliatus of many authorities" in a footnote, but did not say why.
  

• Gould's description reads:

    EURYLAIMUS LUNATUS. Eur. capite cristato; crista genisque
      brunneis; fasciâ supraciliari nigrâ gulâ cinerascente; collo, in-
      terscapulio, pectore, abdomineque cœrulescenti-cinereis; tergo
      uropygioque castaneis; parauchenio lunâ albâ notato; scapula-
      ribus nigris; alis lazulinis, ad apicem fasciâ latâ nigrâ notatis,
      remigibus prioribus quatuor albo apiculatis acutism secundariis ab-
      ruptis tribus interioribus castaneis; caudâ nigrâ, recticibus tri-
      bus externis apices versus albis.
    Fœm. Lunulâ ad colli latera nullâ.
    Long. tot. 6½ unc. ; rostri a rictu ad apicem, ¾; rostri as basin
  lat. 5/8; long. alæ, 3½; caudæ 2; tarsi, 5/8.
    Hab. apud Rangoon.
    The beak is dark olive inclining to black, and is lighter at its edges
  and along the culmen. The tarsi are brownish black.
    The beautiful semilunar mark which extends across the whole
  of each side of the neck, consists of silvery white feathers, elevated
  above the rest, and abruptly terminated as if clipped by scissors.

• Hodgson's description reads:

    PERDIX LERWA. Per. nigra, albo castaneoque transversim lin-
      ata; pectore brunneo; tarsis lutra calcar plumosis; remige 2dâ
      longiore.
    The great comparative expanse of the wing; the diminution of
  its rounded form by the second quill feather being the longest; the
  increased length and strength of the tail; and the extent of the
  feathering of the tarsi, are remarkable characters, which give
  to this species a peculiar interest.

• Peters Checklist 4:159 has "1831" and "livr.88"
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} has "[livr.88 ,]", and "1831".
• {Sherborn, 1902} has "88" "1831".
• Dickinson EC (2001) discusses this, and reaches the conclusion that this plate is associated with livr. 88 and was published in 1832.
• 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.43,45'

King's description reads:

PSITTICARA LEPTORHYNCHA. Psitt. viridis;  fronte, strigâ per
	oculos, caudâque rufis ; capite nigro, abdomine imo rufo, varie-
	gatis ; mandibulâ superiori elongatâ, gracillimâ.
Staturâ Psitt. Lichtensteinii æqualis.
Habitat in insulâ Chiloe.
	

Vigors' description reads:

GARRULUS LANCEOLATUS. Garr. vinaceo-badius; capite sub-
	cristato, gulâ, juglo, alisque atris ; collo anteriori albo lanceo-
	lato ; pteromatibus remigibusque cærulo fasciatus, illis albo ter-
	minatus ; caudâ cæleâ, nigro fasciata, fasciâ latâ apicali albo
	terminatâ notatâ.
	

• This is the first avian description in the PZS.

• Sometimes a form
  Columba simplex (Hartlaub) 1849 Rev.Mag.Zool. (2) 1 p.497
  is split from C. larvata. Often place in the genus:
  • Aplopelia Bonaparte 1855 Compt.Rend. 40 p.18
• HBW 4:132 indicates C. simplex differs in voice and does not respond to recorded voice calls of C. larvatus.
• Bob Dowsett writes (2003.02.08):
  

  Columba (Aplopelia) simplex:
  The voice of A. larvata s.l. shows many dialects (pers obs & published recordings), 
  and it is clear that this is true even with the insular simplex 
  (see Christy's book on birds of Sao Tomé & Principe). There is the
  added problem that morphologically it is difficult to separate these
  island birds with confidence (see White's 1965 Checklist of
  Non Passerines), and Sao Tomé is the type locality of simplex
  s.s.  So we've little confidence in HBW's treatment (and note that
  Borrow & Demey have none either), so would advise against splitting
  simplex from larvata.
  

• Originally spelled "lopezi"
• Peters Checklist 11:22 notes: "Spelling corrected to lopesi, Alexander, 1903, Ibis p.375."
• I do not recognize in the original publication itself any evidence that this is an inadvertant error, and thus believe the original spelling must stand. (ICZN 1999. Art. 32.5, 52.5.1).

• Peters Checklist 11:22 gives the page number as "p.48".
• The species is described on p.49.

• I am confused by this citation, and give it here as shown in Peters Checklist 8:178 (Traylor), and in Sherborn. I do not find a card for this name in the Richmond Index. (other than one which refers to a 1927 Hellmayr use of the name).
• The Catalogue of Birds of the British Museum 14:43 (PL Sclater) gives the citation as: "Knipolegus lophotes Boie, Isis, 1826, p.973." This is citing the location where the genus Knipolegus is erected.
• The Richmond Index card for the genus Knipolegus indicates that Boie refers to

  "Musc. lophotes Tem. und
  cyaneirostris Vieill. Az. 181."

  Which further confuses me regarding the name lophotes.
• Steven Gregory has done some looking into this problem and writes (2003.10.25):

  Knipolegus is very interesting. Edward [Dickinson] and I have photocopies of Boie's article. Knipolegus is introduced thus:

  Isis Von Oken, 1826, vol. 19. Col. 973 First part of footnote 2 (to X. Fam. Muscicapidae Vigors. Muscicapa Lin.)

  Ferner könnten als Gattungen abgesondert werden: Knipolegus für Musc.
  lophotes Tem. und cyaneirostris Vieill. Az. 181;

  Which translates roughly as:

  Furthermore could be isolated as genus: Knipolegus for Musc. lophotes Tem. and cyaneirostris Vieill. Az. 181;

  I cannot (yet) find where Temminck may have used 'lophotes' prior to 1826, but nevertheless P.L.Sclater (1888: 43) identifies Boie's 1826 use of the combination Knipolegus lophotes with Muscicapa galeata Spix, Av. Bras. ii. p.20, pl.27 (male) [1825]. This in turn, Traylor in Peters [8] (1979: 178), considers to be 'not Lichtenstein, 1823' and promotes Boie's later use: Knipolegus lophotes Boie, 1828, new name for Muscicapa galeata Spix, 1825. This is not, I suspect, anywhere near the bottom of the species name issue raised here, but it would appear that Boie has listed two species with the introduction of Knipolegus, and with nothing that looks like a designation. This leaves Traylors statement (1979:173) 'Type, by monotypy, Muscicapa cyanirostris Vieillot.' looking a little contrived (or did he leave Zimmer's MS untouched for this genus?).

  Turning to the 'usual suspects' for subsequent designation I find:

  G.R.Gray, (1840: 30) Knipolegus, Boie (1826). K. comatus, (Licht.) n. M. lophotes, Temm. B[lechropus] cristatus, Swains., K. lophotes Boie. [all listed by Sclater (1888: 43) in the same synonymy.]

  G.R.Gray, (1841: 40) ditto.

  G.R.Gray, (1855: 48) Knipolegus, Boie (1826). Cnipolegus, Strickl. 1841. (Muscicapa comatus, Licht.)

  P.L.Sclater (1888: 42) Knipolegus, Boie, Isis, 1826, p. (sic) 973. ... type C. comatus.

  All of which suggests that the Crested Black Tyrant (correct name?), rather than the Blue-billed Black Tyrant is the type... I/we need to look further into the species name question, the key will be whether Temminck's presumed use of lophotes which prompted Boie to quote it, actually exists. Otherwise most uses of lophotes will be nomina nuda [until Hellmayr, 1827, as suggested by Wolters (1977: 181)?].

  Steve

• Peters Checklist 10:351 (Deignan) gives a date of 1815.
• This portion of the Transactions was published Jan. 24, 1816.
• Raphael S. 1970. Biol.J.Linn.Soc. 2:61-76.

• Treated as a subspecies of L. affinis by Peters Checklist 7:51.
• Has been considered conspecific with L. affinis, but vocally distinct and allopatric. Split of lacrymiger from Middle American L. affinis follows Hellmayr, Ridgely & Tudor (1994); AOU (1998) suggests the possibility of a split as well.

• Marek Kuziemko writes (2002.07.24):
  "Gonzaga and Pacheco (1990) described this species as a subspecies of F. serrana, they suggested it might be a full species. It is considered as such by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) on the basis of clear morphological differences and distinctly different habitat. Tobias and Williams (Cotinga 5: 62-66) support separation from serrana citing differences in ecology and plumage.

• The name Lepidothrix terminates in thrix, transliterated from the Greek θριξ [thrix: hair] which is feminine, therefore ICZN 1999 Art. 30.1.2 indicates the genus group name is feminine.

• Often spelled D. longicauda (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe, HBW)
• Originally Trochilus longicaudus Gmelin 1788.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):37 indicate the spelling should be Discosura longicaudus. They state "should not be changed to D. longicauda. "Since -longi is a Latin adjectival stem, longicaudus can only end here in the Latin noun cauda [tail] with a modified ending."
• Thus, it appears to me that longicaudus of Gmelin is a noun phrase, -caudus being a modified ending to the feminine noun cauda. The original spelling of the noun phrase stands.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Dicosurra longicauda[us] does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelt A. luscinia. Originally described as Thryothorus luscinius Quoy & Gaimard, 1830.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):32 discuss this. They indicate that: "luscinius is a classical Latin noun, as is luscinia, both having the same meaning [nightingale]."
• During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Acrocephalus luscinia occurs in the Zoo. Rec.. I find it 3 times during that period.

• Often spelt S. leucolaema (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, and Peters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "Alario leucolaema Sharpe, 1903, must be corrected to Alario leucolaemus, and the present spelling is Serinus leucolaemus, not S. leucolaema. The name leucolaema is latinized from the Greek adjectival λευκολαιμος [leucolaimos: white-throated]. Alario Bonaparte, 1850, is masculine (Jobling 1991; ICZN 1999 Art. 30.1.4.5)."
• • Alario Bonaparte, 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. p.519 is erected in tautonomic combination with "Fringilla alario L."[innaeus].
    • Linnaeus described alario in Emberiza in 1758 (p.179) and in Fringilla in 1766 (p.319). The Latin descriptions differ somewhat but he attributes them both to the same prior description ("Alb. av. 3. p. 63. t. 67.") and as living in the same place ("Cap. b. Spei.").
  • Alario is presumably derived from the adjective alarius, ~a, ~um - Of or consisting of auxiliary cavalry or other troops, - which Jobling interprets as "on the wing (originally the wing of an army)."
  • The name does not clearly indicate gender. ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.5 indicates that when the ending of the genus-group name ends in a Latin word that does not indicate a particular gender, the name is to be treated as masculine, hence necessitating the correction to Alario leucolaemus
• The question then is what is the gender of Serinus?
  • Jobling gives "Serinus French serin, a canary or serin."
  • Koch established Serinus in combination with Serinus hortulanus Koch = Fringilla serinus Linnaeus [1766] according to Peters Checklist 14:208.
  • hortulanus is a classical masculine Latin noun meaning "a gardener" or a classical Latin adjective meaning "of gardens".
  • Thus Serinus is masculine.
  • Alario leucolaema Sharpe, 1903 must be corrected to Alario leucolaemus Sharpe, 1903 and the correct form of Serinus leucolaemus is necessitated by the masculine gender of Serinus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the name does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelt leucosternum or leucosternus. (e.g. Sibley & Monroe, and Peters)
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):17-18 discuss this. They indicate that: "Gould's leucosternus (one of his many idiosyncratic gender combinations ...) is simply the latinized Greek adjective λευκοστερνος [leukosternos: white-chested] (Liddell & Scott 1996). Although the Greek leukosternos is masculine and feminine, the Latinized version leucosternus is only masculine (ICZN 1999, Art. 31.2.3 Example)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Cheramoeca leucosternus occurs in the Zoo. Rec. 2 times (in 1979) and Cheramoeca leucosternum occurs 4 times (in 1980, 1987, and 1993); Cheramoeca leucosterna not at all.

• A very confusing and contentious case
• There are two works:
  1. The General Synopsis Supplement II, (hereafter referred to as the General Synopsis) and
  2. the Suppl.Ind.Orn.
  which are bibliographically distinct entities, but may (or may not) have been printed and published as a single physical entity. Adding to the confusion is the fact that both are named "Supplements" to previous extensive works. The General Synopsis is in English, and the Suppl.Ind.Orn. is in Latin. Both works were produced by the same printer and in the copy I have examined are on paper of similar character (which in much of the volume has a distinctly bluish cast).
• The General Synopsis appears to be established as published in 1802. And if this fact is accepted ad argumentum then the question of the dating of Suppl.Ind.Orn. turns on whether Suppl.Ind.Orn. and the General Synopsis were published together. To support the idea of a date of 1801 for Suppl.Ind.Orn. and accept a date of 1802 for the General Synopsis would require evidence to support that Suppl.Ind.Orn. was available as an entity distinct from the two -- which are usually found bound together.
• Conventionally cited in the literature as 1801, but interpreted by Browning and Monroe, 1991 to be 1802. Which I followed until 2003.05.21. At which time I felt the arguments of Murray Bruce (v.i.) were convincing, and that 1802 was speculative without actual supporting evidence provided.
• Subsequently, upon examination of CW Richmond's unpublished notes on Dates of Publication the following evidence came to my attention. Richmond has a handwritten card that presents the following :

  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Latham, Suppl. Ind. Orn.
   
  dated 1801, But he quotes an article in App. II, 
  of his General Synopsis which is dated 1802,
  it must therefore have been issued later than 1801.
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  

• I have now (2004.02.24) examined the General Synopsis, and have a clearer understanding of the problem, though at the moment a clear resolution is not evident. Similarly it appears I will want to re-examine the work above. Initially I had interpreted the note to mean that "he" (Latham) "quotes an article" (of the Suppl.Ind.Orn.) in the General Synopsis -- but this of course makes no sense with regard to fixing the date for the Suppl.Ind.Orn. I now think the Richmond card means that within the Suppl.Ind.Orn. that Latham quotes an article which is in his General Synopsis. Richmond's thinking then is that if the General Synopsis is dated as published in 1802 (even though many copies bear the imprint date of 1801), then it implies that the Suppl.Ind.Orn. came out at the same time or later than the General Synopsis.
• I think this argument is not unreasonable, but there is the possibility, that as Latham is the author of both works, he could possibly quote and article of his own, that he had written but that had not yet been published.
• For the moment, I leave the confused and convuluted notes below I have written on this subject.

[BEGIN OLD NOTES]

The full facts of the publication history do not appear to be fully resolved with certainty, but my current interpretation is as follows.

• It appears to be established with a high degree of certainty that at least the English version of this work, was delayed in publication until 1802. I believe it was the discovery of this delay, that prompted Browning and Monroe to revise the date to 1802. Browning and Monroe noted that "some copies of the work" are dated "MDCCCI" and some "MDCCCII" but did not clearly distinguish between the Latin and English versions.
• The fact that the imprint date of the English version was modified to reflect the delayed publication and that the imprint date of the Latin version shows 1801 argues for its not having been delayed until 1802.
• If a Latin version of the work was shown have have an imprint date of "MDCCCII" I would revert to the interpretation that 1802 would need to be followed for all taxa cited from the work.
• Usually cited as 1801, but see Browning and Monroe, 1991. "Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds." Archives of Natural History 18(3):385-386..
• The Handbook of Birds of the World, (at least in volumes 1-6) continues to list the date as 1801.
• Murray Bruce offers strong arguments in favor of 1801. (2001.05.11) which I include here:

  [BEGIN M. BRUCE]

  Latham 1801 vs 1802:
  I agree with Browning & Monroe 1991 that the English version of Latham's second supplement to his 'Synopsis' apparently was delayed until 1802, but disagree that the Latin version was "probably available that same year" (my italics).

  Following Art. 21.2 of the Code, with reference to Art. 21.3, the date of publication of the Latin version is specified in the work as 1801 and can be dated to 31 Dec. 1801.

• • [APP: ICZN "21.2 Date specified. The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the abscence of evidence to the contrary."]
  • [APP: ICZN "21.3 Date incompletely specified. If the day of publication is not specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of publication, but in the absence of such evidence the date to be adopted is
    • 21.3.1 the last day of the month, when month and year, but not day are specified or demonstrated, or
    • 21.3.2 the last day of the year when only the year is specified or demonstrated
    ]
  There is no proof it came out in 1802, only proof indicating a delayed publication of the English version.

  As early as 1787 (introduction to the first supplement) Latham was quite clear that Latin diagnoses of the birds described in his English works needed to be published separately "to be of real utility". His 1790 Index was the Latin version of his 'Synopsis' and first supplement, plus some recent discoveries, notably from Australia. The delayed publication meant Gmelin got the credit for nearly all his new birds in the 'Synopsis'.

  In the introduction to the 1790 Index Latham complained of what Gmelin had done and it is apparent that he reluctantly accepted most, but not all, of Gmelin's names. With increasing competition from other publications, I hardly think Latham would allow himself to have his names usurped a second time. Both versions of the second supplement were clearly intended to be published in 1801 and the easier to produce Latin version would have appeared first, while the English version was delayed (most probably due to the production and printing of plates). I think the English version was the only one announced by the Royal Society because it was more expensive to produce and the publishers were keen for a return on their investment, and also because the source of the Latin names came out after the Latin version.

  The 1801 text is full of new discoveries from Australia, even with competition from others, notably the works of George Shaw, and delays could have cost Latham priority for some of them.

  In my opinion, I don't understand how a date change has been accepted without any proof to justify the change.

  [END M. BRUCE]

• Additional thoughts from Murray Bruce (2003.05.17):

  A paper I sought to use when working on the bird classification history
  turned up too late.  This is W.L. Sclater's excellent little historical
  overview of early African ornithology published in the Hartert Festschrift
  (J. f. O. 1929).  In a concluding section on Latham he stated: "His first
  work 'A General Synopsis' was issued in three volumes with two supplements
  between 1781 and 1802" and a little later "In a second work 'Index
  Ornithologicus' in two volumes published in 1790 with a supplement issued in
  1801".  This distinction between the two is clearer in older sources and I
  think the confusion for some has been because they were often bound together
  and obviously connected by subject.
  
  

• Murray Bruce has continued to send additional arguments and indications in favor of 1801 contra 1802, and on long reflection I remain undecided (2003.05.17). The ICZN Code certainly does not seem to settle the case. A literal reading of the Code would suggest that any evidence against the specified publication date, would render that date invalid irrespective of the quality or character of the evidence.
• As I see it, in the abscence of proof that both the Latin, and the English versions of the Supplement were delayed until 1802, it is appropriate to defer to the imprint date of 1801. The probability that both Latin and English versions were delayed until 1802, given only that we know for sure that the English version was delayed, can not be established, and the imprint date.
[END OLD NOTES]
• Of possible interest, but uncertain application in this issue comes the following understanding from Gaskell P. 1995. "A New Introduction to Bibliography". Oak Knoll Press. Delaware. on p.317-318 he notes.

  'The Rule in general observed among Printers,' wrote Nichols concerning 
  eighteenth-century practice, 'is, that when a Book happens not to be
  ready for publication before November, the date of the ensuing year is
  used.'

  ref. Nichols, J. Literary anecdotes, London 1812, iii, p. 249 n.

• Split from C. tyrannina by: Bierregaard, R. O.,Jr., Cohn-Haft, M. and Stotz, D. F. (1997) "Cryptic biodiversity: an overlooked species and new subspecies of antbird (Aves: Formicariidae) with a revision of Cercomacra tyrannina in northeastern South America." Orn.Monogr. 48: 111-128.

• Sometimes placed in Scleroptila.
• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.
• Spelling is a confusion here. Originally spelled by Smith as given here.
• Spelt levaillantoides, understandably, in many locations.
• My interpretation is that levaillantoides is an unjustified emendation. Not all agree with this.
• This is an example of a name which might be approached by the ICZN Prevailing Usage "concept". If so, this should be fun to watch. Prevailing usage is defined as

   "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 it needs to be established and presented
  1. That the "authors" in question are "published"
  2. That the proposed authors "concerned" with the taxon.
  3. That they are the "most recent"
  4. That their number constitutes a substantial majority (which in itself is undefined, but clearly a simple majority will in no way suffice).
• I presume that these data will require formal presentation and publication, and that simply the "considered opinion" or "estimation" of some concerned individual would not suffice.
• This barrier is sufficiently high, that for birds (at least) it is tantamount to establishing "original spelling" as the requirement.

• Peters, Sherborn, and Richmond, et al. 1992 list this as 1840.
• However {Richmond, et al. 1992} card for [Haematornis] luteolus which is published on p.354 notes "Publ. in 1841". So I interpret this date as 1841 as well.
• Shulze et al. Band 3 lief. 13 p.1764 lists the date for this taxon as "1840 [1841]", indicating an imprint date of 1840 and a publication date of 1841.

• Peters Checklist 8:296 lists this as "p.156".
• {Richmond, et al.} indicates it is col.156.

• Peters Checklist 2:344 gives 1849 as it is usually cited.
• Mathews, 1925 demonstrates this is 1852.

• Peters Checklist 3:121 lists 1810.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Reichenow's name is usually not enclosed with parentheses (see Peters Checklist 15:181) but this was originally placed in Chlamydodera.
• Chlamydodera however, appears to be an emendation of Chlamydera Gould, which is Gould's emendation of Calodera Gould (preoccupied).
• However, the issue is (in my mind) still in question, as:
  1. The portion of Birds of Australia where Gould erects his emendation "Chlamydera" is (according to the Richmond Index) "suppressed".
  2. There is a Chlamydodera in Agassiz's Nomen. Zool. Index 1846, which is an emendation pro Gould's Chlamydera.

• Peters Checklist 10:16 (Ripley) has "leucophrys Temminck, 1827, Pl.Col., livr. 76 pl.448, fig.1". But as Dickinson points out, the same plate is refered to as livr.75 by Deignan in the same volume on pp.293,309
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, and {Sherborn, 1902} indicate the name is "leucophris".
• {Richmond, et al., 1992} show livr.74.
• {Sherborn, 1902} has a note "(74,? err. pro 75)".
• 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'

• Peters Checklist 6:187 gives 1870.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} gives 1871, indicating it was published 15 Jan.
• HBW 7:486 (Short & Horne) give 1870, evidently following the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 7:70 does not include the figure and number information, which I take from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 9:179 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 10:344 has 1840.
• See {Zimmer, 1926}.

• Peters Checklist 2:173 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 12:7 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996.}

• Uncertainty remains regarding the publishing history of this work.
• Peters Checklist 6:189 has 1803.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} lists this taxon as published in 1802
• Mathews lists all of Vol.1 as 1802
• {Zimmer, 1926} indicates that at least some of Vol. 1 was published in 1802.
• HBW 7:483 (Short & Horne) give "1803", and in this they most probably are simply following Peters Checklist.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol. 4.
• Often placed in Oxylophus.
• Dr R.B. Payne in HBW vol.4 does not recognize Oxylyphus.

• Peters Checklist 15:235 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The Peters Checklist 2:259 does not include reference to the plate.

• The Peters Checklist 1:417 has 1837, which agrees with Sherborn.
• However {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates a date of Jan.1 1838, which I follow here.

• Peters Checklist 1:262 gives a different title for the source.
• H&M 3^rd:83 cites this to 1853, but cites another genus (Nipponia) on the preceeding page of H&M (p.82) and from the very same page of Reichenbach's work to 1850(!).
• I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}, and Zimmer, and other authors who recognize that lifr. 3 of this work (containing the names) was issued in 1853.

• Peters Checklist 5:126 has 1838.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} has "publ. 1839".
• This occurs in no.12 (for Dec. 1838). Regarding the December numbers of the Rev.Zool. it is certain that some of these were not published until the year following the imprint date, and it is possible that the December numbers were never published in the imprint year.

• Peters Checklist 1:231 lists the page as 33
• It is species 33 and is on unnumbered page 189.

• Peters Checklist 4:35 includes only p.22.
• The additional page is referenced in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 8:73 has 1883.
• This latter part of the Proceedings was not published until 1884 according to the Richmond Index, and also subsequently determined by Duncan.
• While other taxa from this part of the PZS have been corrected from 1883 to 1884 in the H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 2.1 (e.g. Carduelis siemiradzkii H&M p.750), Lophotriccus is not corrected.

• Peters Checklist 5:64 has 1867, as do the AOU Checklists.
• All pages of this volume of the Proceedings prior to p.113 were published in 1867. Part 4 (p.113 to end) were recieved by the Entomological Society of Philadelphia prior to May 11, 1868.
• Therefore I interpret 1868 to be the likely date, though 1867 is not impossible. (Part 3 was received by the Smithsonian on Nov. 1, 1867.)

• Peters Checklist 14:176 conisders this to be synonymous with militaris.

• Peters Checklist 10:94 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 9:415 has 1818.
• Vol.34 of this work was published in 1819, according to the researches of Richmond and Sherborn.

• Peters Checklist 9:263 transposes the numbers in indicating the page numbers ("p.238" for p.328), and lists the publication year as 1856.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Philadelphia Academy has confirmed for me the page number, and that this portion of Vol.7 was published and available in 1855.

• Not in Sibley and Monroe as a species.
• Listed in Peters Checklist Vol.1 as subsecies.
• See Dove and Banks. 1999. A Taxonomic study of the Crested Caracaras. The Wilson Bullentin 111(3):330-339. for a discussion of Caracara taxonomy, and the recommendation for elevation to species status.
• Often misspelt C. lutosus (for example in AOU CL, Dove & Banks, 1999 and HBW vol.2 p.250) However, corrected to C. lutoa, in the supplement to the Checklist Auk 117(3).

• By one interpretation, this taxon is regarded as the same as Seicercus soror Alstrom & Olsson 1999 Ibis 141 p.556-557.
• The publication Martens, Eck, Packert & Sun, 1999 Zool. Abhandlungen Staatliches Mus. fur Tierkunde Dresden 50, 281-327 ( The Golden-spectacled Warbler Seicercus burkii - a species swarm (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae) Part 1). appeared several days before that of Alstrom & Olsson and proposed at least 6 species in the S. burkii complex (incl. S. soror): distinctus, valentini, omeiensis, soror (under the name "latouchei"),whistleri, burkii.
• However, the taxonomic and systematic considerations are not equivalent between Martens, et al., and Alstrom and Olsson. Further resolution of the issue may occur, but the most complete consideration at this time (2000.10.07) is the letter to Ibis by Alstrom and Olsson "Golden-spectacled Warbler Systematic" Ibis 2000. 142:495-500. They hold S. latouchei to be a subspecies of S. valentini.

• Treated as a full species by J.P. Carroll, in: Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2, J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (eds.), Barcelona, 1994

• Extinct. The last known specimen of this species was taken on December 12, 1878 in Elmira, New York.

• The AOU Checklist 42^nd supplement changes the spelling of three specific epithets of chickadees that were in Parus and are now in Poecile.
• It appeared to me that this name should perhaps be "lugubra".
  Hoever, as Armand David pointed out to me:

  " the -is ending never changes to -a; the -is ending is masculine as well as feminine, and the -e ending in neuter.

• A confusing situation:
• The type of the name perlata is an immature of:
  • Pyrrhura rhodogaster (Sclater,PL) 1864 PZS p.298 pl.24
• making that name a junior synonym of P. perlata.
• The form previously known as P. perlata now becomes P. lepida.
• Originally described by Wagler in Sittace

• Most often spelt "lumachellus".
• Prof. K. L. Schuchmann argues that the original spelling "lumachella" "comes from Italian and thus [is] invariable in scientific nomenclature." HBW 5:660.

• Described in Scops
• Peters Checklist 4:98 has as a subspecies of Otus bakkamoena
• Sibley & Monroe treat this as a "group".
• HBW 5:158 holds it to be a species, predominantly on the basis of vocalizations.

• Originally described in Srix [sic].
• Held by Peters Checklist 4:99 to be a subsepcies of O. bakkamoena.
• Held by Sibley & Monroe to be a species, then moved to "group" status in the Supplement.
• Held by HBW 5:158 to be a full species, evidently predominantly on the basis of vocalizations.

• This taxon was spelt "leuconotus" by Eyton (who also is the author of the genus).
• This spelling is correctly given in the HBW 1:577 in their "taxonomy" listing.
• However, the name is spelt "leuconotos" two lines above this in the species listing.
• The nominate subspecies is listed as T. l. leuconotus.
• I do not find discussion of the spelling, or justification for change in the text.
• The "Errata" (tipped in separate leaf, dated Barcelona, March 1993) discusses other issues on this page (p.577) but not this.
• I interpret this to be an editorial lapsus; if not it would appear to me to be an unjustified emendation.

• Previously listed as:
• Lorius Boddaert 1783 TablePlanchesEnlum. p.42
• However, the Vigors name is the officially listed name for the Genus by the ICZN, the Boddaert name evidently suppressed in a 1970 decision. (ref. N.J. Collar in HBW 4:348).

• Brown DM, Toft CA. 1999. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Cockatoos (PSITTACIFORMES: CACATUIDAE). AUK 116(1):141-157. argue that this perhaps should be returned to the monospecific genus
• • Lophochroa Bonaparte 1857 Compt.Rend. 44 :537

• HBW 4:240 gives 1823.
• Zimmer indicates the date for this livraison is 1822.

• HBW 4:241 gives 1825.
• Zimmer indicates the date for this livraison is 1824.

• Listed as 1856 by Peters Checklist 14:374.
• This is in the second volume of the work with an imprint date of 1856. All the indications I find show that to have been published in 1858, the date given by the Richmond Index and Mathews' Bibliographic listing of this work (June 30, 1858).
• HBW and Peters usually list taxa from this volume as 1856 or 1857.

• HBW 1:428 gives Montagu as the author of this taxon, as does (I am told) the recent Heron Handbook.
• Montagu was given as the author by the AOU CL 4^th ed. (1931), and changed to Rackett in the AOU CL 5^th ed. (1957), and has remained so in subsequent editions.
• Peters 1(2):243 also lists Rackett.
• No mention of the issue of authorship is made in HBW.
• I presume that the AOU changed from Montagu to Rackett on the basis of some positive information, and thus I follow the AOU here.
• Alan Knox; Historic Collections; University of Aberdeen King's College; Aberdeen very helpfully provided more information on this (in litt. 2006.06.02).
  Twenty-eighth Supplement to The American Ornithologists' Union Check-List of North American Birds. Auk 70 (1953): 359-361.

  Botaurus lentiginosus, formerly accepted as based on Ardea lentiginosa
  Montagu, Suppl. Orn. Dict., 1813 (preface dated June), not paged, is now taken from
  the earlier description by Rackett of the same specimen: Ardea lentiginosa,
  in Pulteney, Cat. Birds, Shells, and some of the more rare Plants of Dorsetshire,
  second edition (enlarged), May, 1813, p. 14. (Parish of Piddleton, Dorsetshire,
  England.) The name will be cited as Botaurus lentiginosus (Rackett), with the
  reference as given above. See Macdonald and Grant, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club, vol. 71,
  no. 5, June 22, 1951, p. 30.

• In turn, Macdonald and Grant's 1951 paper shows that the problem turns upon establishing priority for the two publications. Macdonald and Grant indicate that internal evidence suggests Montagu's work has priority, other evidence suggests that Rackett's work was published first.
  1. Rackett's work states (p.14)

     Mr Montagu has obligingly communicated the
     description of this new species.

     and he refers to Monatgu's "Supplement"
  2. However, the fly leaf of the copy of Rackett's work that is held in the library of the Linnean Society has an inscription in Rackett's handwriting, dated "May 24th, 1813".
  3. The Introduction to Montagu's work is dated June 1813, so it appears Rackett's work has priority.

• Authorship often attributed to Kaup. As in Peters (1940) 2:279 and AOU CL 7^th(1998):176.
  • Lymnocryptes Kaup 1829 Skizz.Entwick.-Gesch.Europ.Thierw. p.118
• HBW 3:491 gives the Boie citation, as does Sherborn.
• The Archives of the Academy of Natural History in Philadelphia contain a letter from CWR to Witmer Stone (1927.04.23) in which he points out that the Boie citation is earlier than the Kaup.
• The Boie citation is listed in the 1931 AOU 4^th Checklist (p.111). It is of some interest that Peters cites Kaup, almost 9 years after the AOU CL, and makes no mention of the Boie citation.
• The AOU CL 5^th(1957):180 changes to the 1829 Boie citation without comment, and this is continued in the AOU CL 6^th(1983):204.
• Lymnocryptes does not seem to appear in the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. Presumably the change in the AOU CL 4^th resulted from following Peters Checklist.

• The specific epithet "leucorynchus" as it is usually given would appear to be an unjustified emendation.
• The full and formatted text of the original description is:

  "leucoryn. LANIUS niger, rostro pectore abdomine uropygioque
            albis.
          Lanius manillensis. Briss. av. 2. p. 180. t. 18. f. 2.
            Aub. misc. t. 9. f. 1.
          Habitat in Manillis.
          Cauda aequalis."
  

• See MantissaPlant. for a discussion of the significance of the period following the specific epithet.
• Peters Checklist (Mayr) 15:161-3 has the following (selected appropriate entries):

  "Artamus leucorhynchus leucorhynchus (Linnaeus)
          Lanius leucoryn[chus] Linnaeus, 1771 ... .
  
          Artamus      leucoryn. macroterus Oberholser, 1932 ... .
  
  ?Artamus leucorhynchus amydrus Oberholser
          Artamus leucoryn amydrus Oberholser, 1917 ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus humei Stresemann
          Artamus leucorhynchos humei Stresemann, 1913 ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus celebensis Bruggermann
          Artamus leucorrhynchus (L.). var. celebensis Bruggermann, 1876 ...
  ... .
  ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus leucopygialis Gould
          ... .
          ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus parvirostris Hartert, 1899 ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus harterti Mathews, 1912 ... .
          Artamus leucorhynchus melvillensis Mathews, 1912 ... .
  
  ... .
  
  Artamus leucorhynchus tenuis Mayr
          Artamus leucorhynchys tenuis Mayr, 1943 ... .
  
  ... ."
  

  We have:

  • leucoryn. Linnaeus 1771
  • leucorrhynchus Bruggemann 1876
  • leucorhynchus Hartert 1899
  • leucorynchos Stresemann 1913
  • leucoryn Oberholser 1917
  • leucoryn. Oberholser 1932
  • leucorhynchus Mayr 1943
  • leucoryn[chus] Mayr (pro Linnaeus) 1962
• If the name "leucoryn" is interpreted as an abbreviation, or in some way requiring completion then the rationale for that must be given. It is not supportable on the basis or the period "." at the end of the name in the original publication (see Mantissa Plantarum details).
• If some some argument exits why Linnaeus intended a longer name, there must be evidence why he had the extension "-chus" rather than "-chos" in mind, and why he did not intend longer names for others he published.

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, 30.1.4.2). 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 30.1.4.2).

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.).

Therefore:

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

• N.J. Collar HBW 3:263 spells this man's name "Le Mahout".
• I understand this man to be Emmanuel Le Maout [1800-1877].
• He is listed as "Le Maout" in the Catalogue of the Books of the British Museum, and his name is spelt "Le Maout" on the title page of works such as:

  Le Maout, Emmanuel & Joseph Decaisne: Traité général de botanique descriptive et analytique. Première partie: abrégé d’organographie, d’anatomie et de physiologie. Deuxième partie: iconographie, description et histoire des familles. Paris, F. Didot, 1868, 1. ed., pp. x, 746, 5500 engraved text-illustrations by Louis Charles Auguste Steinheil and Alfred Riocreux, small folio (217 x 314 mm).

• I agree with the suggestion that the spelling "Le Mahout" most probably results from the inadvertant result of "spell-checking".

• Separated from its allospecies P. ruficeps on the basis of facial markings, belly color, and song.
• Type Location: Peru, Departmento Amazonas, 3.5 road mi. (5.63 km) SE of Corosha. 6900 ft.

  Corosha

• Originally spelt "Lipangus" by Boie.
• Peters Checklist 8:293 (Zimmer) includes a note indicating
  • 'The cited classical derivation, "λιπαυγσς = splendore deficiens," indicates a correctible error. -- J.T.Z.'
  • The subject of "correctible errors" is not inappropriate here, as the Greek orthography in this volume of Peters appears to have been a challenge for the M.C.Z. press. Their rendering of the Greek appears problematic on two accounts.
    • The attempt at the Greek letter υ looks clearly like the use of a lower case Gothic "u" to appear υ-like.
    • Even accepting the attempt at rendering the upsilon, the word appears to be spelled incorrectly -- as written it ends in two sigma's, the usual sigma and the final sigma. The Greek word in fact is λιπαυγης [=deserted by light, dark, sunless; blind] In the Richmond Index, this is rendered λιπαυγος
• The Richmond index cites Cabanis Arch. fur Naturgesch. 1847 Band I p.233 (footnote) for the initial emendation.
• Normand David has investigated this matter further and writes (2005.12.09):

  
  I had the opportunity to take a look at Boie 1828 (Isis, p. 318)
  
  The original is Lipangus [sic], with a footnote that reads: "Lipangos, splendore
  deficiens". Lipangos is written with Greek letters. The difference between "n" and "u" is slight
  but visible. The Greek word "lipangos" does not exist, but there is the adjective lipanges
  [dark, deserted by light; =the Latin splendore deficiens/lacking light].
  
  Is the error correctible under 32.5.1? Meaning that we have an inadvertent error as indicated by
  internal information in the OD. A purist would say that Lipauges should be the correct
  form of the genus. Others would argue that Boie thought that lipaugos was the classical
  Greek form, that he latinized correctly,  but inadvertently with "n" instead of "u" both in
  Greek and in Latin.
  
  One thing for sure, if the spelling Lipaugus is not accepted as a justified emendation of
  "Lipangus", it is an unjustified emendation in prevailing usage.
  
  Note that the name is cited Lipaugus Boie 1828 -not Lipaugus Cabanis 1847
  (33.2.3)-; and now, under 33.2.3.1, when an unjustified emendation is in prevailing usage AND is
  attributed to the original author and date, it is deemed to be a justified emendation!
  
  Well, as far as I can SEE,  Lipaugus it is, no matter how!
  ND 

• Peters 8:293 (Zimmer) lists "p.318.
• This work is cited by columns; there are two per side of a (physical) page.

• Peters 8:267 (Zimmer) lists "p.931.
• This work is cited by columns; there are two per side of a (physical) page.

• Peters Checklist 2:191 gives a date of 1868.
• HBW 3:157 (PB Taylor) gives a date of 1868.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Apr. 1869.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS gives March 1869.
• I follow the Richmond Index and Duncan here.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:89, AOU CL 7^th ed. p.17, HBW 1:251, 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".

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