Zoological Citation Notes --M

• HBW 9:647 (Turner,AK 2004) states:

  	Name paludibula has priority over minor but the former
  	has been in use since at least 1894 and thus retained by virtually all
  	recent authors

• Cotyle paludibula Ruppell 1840 NeueWirbelth.Vog. p.106 does indeed antedate Cotyle minor Cabanis 1850 Mus.Hein. 1 p.49.

• Peters Checklist 12:350 (= Salomonsen 1967) cites this to p."318", while the correct page number is p.316.
• This appears on initial examination to simply be an error on Salomonsen's part, as the CBBM IX:128 has the page listing correct.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 15:266 (= Blake & Vaurie 1962) cite this to J.Orn. 12 p.407. However, that page number is in no.72 which was not published until 1865. Further it is clear that the J.Orn. publication was not the first appearance of the name, which apparently actually did appear in 1864 in the Natuurk.Tijdschr.Neder.Ind. So the Peters Checklist authors appear to have gotten the citation wrong, but serendipitously their date is correct.

• I do not find any discussion of the name Garrulus americanus ou minor Dumont 1822, but it appears from the Richmond Index that it was a nomen nudum, and even if that were not the case it certainly must be a nomen oblitum.

• See Schodde R, & Dickinson EC. 2005. "The valid name for the north-west Australian subspecies of the Shining Flycatcher Myiagra alecto (Monarchidae)". BBOC 125(1):47-48 for action as first revisers in selecting this name.
• In the BBOC article Schodde & Dickinson do not include the specific page number where Anonymous [= Mathews] uses this name. The page number (p.42) is supplied from Peters Checklist 11:524 and confirmed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 11:570 (= Mayr 1986) cites this to 1894.
• H&M 3^rd:519 follows this dating.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1893, noting that the preface to IV no.3 is dated Mai 1893.
• The H&M Corrigenda 6 corrects their date to 1893, citing Quaisser & Eck 2006. The earlier date is followed here.

• Peters Checklist 15:134 (= Greenway, 1962) spells this madaraspatanus which is incorrect. The original spelling is maderaspatanus.
• Interestingly, the taxon does not make it into the Peters Checklist Index (vol.XVI) spelled either correctly or incorrectly.
• The Richmond Index card shows the correct spelling Oriolus Maderaspatanus
• Thanks to Theo de Kok and to Edward Dickinson for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 7:18, cites this to Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 30, 1917.
• This appears to be the source for H&M 3^rd: 420, which cites this to 1917 without comment.
• Colin Jones correctly noted that this was published in volume 32 in 1919, and, as would be expected, the Richmond Index shows the correct citation.
• Worthy of note HBW 8:405 (2003) correctly cites this to 1919 as does Hellmayr 1925 (for which, thanks to Normand David).
• Richmond Index

• Commonly cited to 1890 without comment (e.g. Peters 12:16 (= Mayr 1967)).
• The Richmond Index has two cards for this taxon, one citing it to p.230 and 1890, and the other citing it to p.104 and 1889. Whether these were printed separately (as implied by the differing page number) and issued at different dates is not clear. In this case I follow the pagination and earlier date as listed by the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 12:20 (= Mayr 1967) cites this name to

  "Contrib. Ornith. II, p.91" 

  which (other than the "II") appears to be patterned after the CBBM 8:186 (= Gadow 1883), although Mayr does not list the plate (pl.30) and Gadow does.
• The Richmond Index has this in "no.5" of the Contributions to Ornithology and reflects the peculiar pagination scheme that was actually employed there.

• Peters Checklist 12:20 (= Mayr 1967) correctly lists the original combination as Pachycephala macrorhyncha, but inexplicably lists the name as Pachycephala macrorhynchus (!).
• Again (v.s.) this may be patterned after the CBBM 8:185-187 (= Gadow 1883), where a mixture of macrorhyncha/macrorhynchus is used.
• Seemingly, this "tradition" is continued, as H&M 3^rd:476 (through Corrigenda 6) lists the taxon as "Pachycephala macrorhyncha" and yet in the footnote #2 states:

   ...
  macrorhynchus is an older name.

• H&M 3^rd:471 follows the Peters Checklist 9:206 by putting the authority in parentheses.
• Jackson described this bird in Campophaga and that spelling is held by published authors (Neave, Richmond) to be simply an Agassiz emendation of Campephaga Vieillot. Therefore, adherence to the Code would indicate that the authority should not be in parentheses.

• 51.3.1. Parentheses are not used when the species-group name was
  originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name (this
  applies even though an unjustified emendation is an available name with its own authorship
  and date [Art. 33.2.3]).

• Colin Jones helpfully points out (in litt. 2007.09.09) that this was described in Poeocephalus and that this is merely an Aggasiz emendation of Poiocephalus and thus no parentheses are needed for the ciation.

• Peters Checklist 9:328 (= Mayr & Greenway 1960) cite this to "Rev.Mag.Zool." which is an error. This is found in "Rev.Zool.".
• Mayr and Greenway appear to have been unaware of, or confused by the publishing history of these serials. It certainly appears that they did not examine the original materials.
• Of interest, two years (1962) later Mayr & Greenway 15:57 get the citation correct for Sycobius st. thomae which is found on p.109 of this serial.
• Sclater in Syst.Av.Aethiop. II:620 has the citation correct for this taxon. As does Gadow CBBM 8:136.

• For the species order within genus, I follow Beehler et al.. 2007. "A new species of Smoky Honeyeater (Meliphagidae:Melipotes) from western New Guinea". Auk. 124(3):1000-1009.

Previously as

Spizastur (m.) Gray,GR 1841 ListGen.BirdsEd.2 p.3

• Spizastur melanoleucus (Vieillot) 1816 Nouv.Dict.Hist.Nat. 4 p.482

however, the AOU CL 48^th Supplement (p.1112) notes that DNA studies (Helbig AJ, Kocum A, Seibold I, & Braun MJ. 2005. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 35:147-164) show that melanoleucus is the sister species to Spizaetus ornatus.

• Most workers attribute this name to Lawrence (e.g. Sclater CBBM 15:131; Peters Checklist 7:44; Deignan USNM Bull. 221:239; H&M 3^rd:424 ; HBW 8:432 and this interpretation is understandable when it is based on either a casual and partial review of the original description, or more commonly when the attribution simply results from uncritically reproducing the work of others (as I did until looking into this matter in more detail).
• The name is usually listed as a "Baird MS" name except in the case of the Richmond Index where the name is listed as

  Baird in G. N. Lawrence

  so the question arises: what are the facts of the matter?
• First, Lawrence's note at the end of the article (p.482) must be heeded, it reads:

    Note.— I recently found in certain families of birds in the
  collection of the Smith. Institution, several new species, and 
  among others some with MS. names given by Prof. Baird,
  which I have adopted; these are the five last described in the
  above paper. Prof. Baird kindly furnished me with his notes,
  made a few years since when he received the birds, with his
  permission to use them and to make such alterations as I
  might deem necessary; his notes are indicated by quotation 
  marks.

  (emphasis supplied).
The description that preceeds this is:

	19. Dendrornis mentalis, Baird, MS.
	
  "This species has a very close resemblance to D. eburneirostris
in the reddish brown wings, tail and rump, the cential brownish
yellow shaft streaks of the feathers of back and belly becoming
shorter and more oval on the upper part of head and neck, and
still wider on the breast; the feet, however, are larger, and the
tarsus shorter, so that the former exceed the latter, while in _
eburnirostris the tarsus is longer than or at least nearly equal to
the middle toe and claw; the shade of reddish brown on wings and 
tail is lighter, the shafts of tail-feathers are light yellowish rufous,
instead of very dark reddish brown; the chin and upper part of
the throat in eburneirostris are uniform clear buff yellow, in the
new species these parts are lighter in color, and the feathers are 
margined with brown, as are those a on the lower part of the
throat; the yellowish of the shaft streaks in the head and back is
much paler; bill pale horn color, clouded; iris red; legs dark
brown.

  "Length 9.25; wing 4.34; tail 3.90; bill above 1.70, from nostril
1.28, gape 1.67; tarsus .88; middle toe and claw 1.00, middle toe
alone .70.

  "Habitat.— Mexico, Mazatlan Collected by J Xantus. No. 
of type, 23,859.

  "Four specimens compared with a like numbem of eburneirostris, show
the peculvinties above referred to, in the pale colors, large feet and dusky margins
to the feathers of the chin.
  "I find no mention of any Dendrornis in Eastern Mexico, north of Cordova
or Xalapa, and of none in Western Mexico at all. The present species exhibits a range
considerably further to the north than any other of the genus."

• Article 50.1.1 of the Code (1999) reads:

  50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an
  author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the
  criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the
  author of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the
  work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.

  I hold that given the details of this matter and given Art. 50.1.1 that Baird is the author here.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 1(2):104 (Jouanin & Mougin, 1979) as a synonym of Oceanitis exasperatus Mathews, 1912, and H&M 3^rd:77 similar regards it as simply a color morph. These positions may be correct and further review is needed.
• However other publicaitions treat this as a full species. Tentative inclusion at this time.
Recent publication treating this as a full sp. include:
• Saville, Sav, Brent Stephenson, Ian Southey. 2003 [Apr]. A possible sighting of an 'extinct' bird - the New Zealand storm-petrel. Birding World 16(4):173-175
• Flood, Bob. 2003 [Nov]. The New Zealand storm-petrel is not extinct. Birding World 16(11):479-482
• Carter, Mike. 2003 [Dec]. A contribution to the discussion re the separation of white-bellied storm-petrel, the white-bellied 'morph' of black-bellied storm petrel and NZ storm-petrel. Australasian Seabird Bulletin 41:19-21
• Bourne, W. R. P. 2004. The origin of specimens of New Zealand storm petrel (Pealeornis maoriana Mathews, 1932). Notornis 51(1):57-58
• Stephenson, Brent. 2004 [Jun]. Return of the New Zealand storm petrel. Wingspan 14(2):20-21, 23
• Weimerskirch, Henri. 2005. Albatrosses and Petrels Across the World. Marine-Ornithology 33(1):73
• Thanks to Dave Nicolson for much of the information on this.

• Peters Checklist 7:239 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 13:195 (Paynter, 1970) cites this to 1870.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show that this was published in April of 1871.

• Peters Checklist 14:221 shows the date as a transposed number -- "1859" (sic) a date which is impossible for the BBOC.

• The citation as given here, is that given by Peters Checklist 14:203 (Mayr) and is questionable.
• The Richmond Index on the card for this citation has a note at the end stating:

  At the end of the article in which this name occurs it says:
  "Extrait du Journal l'Institut, 1me section, 1859, p.45."

• The L'Institut citation may very well have precedence.

• Peters Checklist 11:111 (Traylor, 1986) cites this to
  • Dryodromas melanurus Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 no.159 p.349
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:13 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 on June 1 (no.11&12), while the J.Orn. was article was not published before July of 1882.

• Peters Checklist 4:21 (Peters, 1940) cites this to
  • Cercococcyx mechowi Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 no.158 p.230
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:6 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 in March (no.5&6).

• Peters Checklist 1(2):322 (Stresemann & Amadon, 1979) cite this to
  • Melierax metabates mechowi Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 p.229
• Steinheimer FD & Dean WRJ. 2007. Zootaxa 1387:4 point out that this was initially published in the Orn.Centralblatt 7 in March (no.5&6).

• Webb, E. A., and C. E. Bock. 1996. Botteri's Sparrow (Aimophila botterii). In The Birds of North America, No. 216 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. indicates that A.b.botterii and A.b.mexicana appear to be inseparable. In support the authors cite:
  1. J. T. Marshall, R. B. Clapp 1985. Status report: Aimophila botterii texana Phillips. Office of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Survey Section, and Smithson. Inst., Washington, D.C.
  2. E. A. Webb 1985. Distribution, habitat and breeding biology of the Botteri's Sparrow (Aimophila botterii arizonae). Master's thesis, Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.
• No mention is made of this issue in H&M 3^rd:786

• Often cited to either:
  1. Ammodramus xanthornus Gould 1839 Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin] pt11 p.90 pl.30
  2. Ammodramus xanthornus Darwin 1839 Zool.Voy.Beagle[Darwin] pt11 p.90 pl.30
  and of these, the Gould citation appears to be correct, as the publication of Gould's plate evidently preceeded the publication of the text by four months. (ref. Steinheimer, Dickinson, & Walters. 2006. "The zoology of the voyage of the HMS Beagle. Part III. Birds: new avian names, their authorship and their dates" BBOC 126(3):171-193.).
• However, I am not convinced, as Steinheimer et al. appear to be, that the correct name for this subspecies is Myospiza humeralis xanthornus (Gould). Rather, it appears to me that Myospiza humeralis manimbe (Lichtenstein, 1823) may be correct. Steinheimer et al. state that the "substitute name Ammodramus manimbe (Gray, 1839) is a junior synonym." but this statement has problems of its own.
  1. The reference "(Gray, 1839)" is not clear to me -- are they referring to Gray's contribution to the "Zool.Voy.Beagle" ?? (the only Gray reference they cite is Gray 1840 List of Genera of Birds.
  2. It is not clear to me why this is a "replacement name", but I have not seen Gray's entry.
  3. From various sources including the CBBM 12:691, it appears likely that the combination used by Gray was Ammodramus manimbe and thus the use of parentheses around the date and Gray's name here would be incorrect.
  4. It does not address the more important issue of the status of Fringilla manimbe Lichtenstein, 1823.
  Additionally it must be noted that the card in the Richmond Index for Ammodramus xanthornus Gould has a note saying:

  		Suppressed in favor of A. manimbe.

  though I can so far find no evidence of this suppression.
• Lichtenstein's 1823 name is cited by Ridgway 1898 as the type for Myospiza, and is usually cited appropriately as a junior synonym of Tanagra humeralis Bosc 1792. This fact alone does not make the name unavailable for a subspecies.
• The question then becomes if the Lichtenstein name can be applied to the same population as the Gould name, and if so it clearly has priority by 16 years.
• The Lichtenstein specimen is listed as coming from "Bahia", and it is difficult to know exactly what that meant in 1823. Today, it refer to a State in central to southern Brazil.
• Chapman 1912 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. vol.31 Article XVI p.162 describes specimens of Myospiza manimbe maninbe both from Bahia (the type locality) and much farther south and west from Chapada in the state of Matto Grosso, fairly close to and actually south of north eastern Bolivia, which is the range indicated by H&M 3^rd:785 for Myospiza humeralis xanthornus Gould.
• It appears to me that the systematic problem with this species is great, and resolution of the nomenclatural issues must await progress on the systematic front.
• The Gould xanthornus name may well be the appropriate one for this population, but only if manimbe Lichtenstein is shown to be a synonym of humeralis Bosc, and not a senior synonym of xanthornis Gould.

• H&M 3^rd:776 dates this to 1881. In this they appears to be simply following Peters Checklist 14:88. It must be an oversight, as it does not follow Dickinson's own publication of the dates for this serial (J.Zool. (2005) 266:427-430). The H&M authors also do not appear to have checked the CBBM as Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 11:38 (Sclater, 1886) also dates this to 1880.
• The Richmond Index indicates the date for this is Aug. 1880, which I follow

• I follow the 2002 treatment by Arcese P., Sogge MK, Marr AB, & Patten MA. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (Poole A & Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.
• The treatment by H&M 3^rd:781-782 essentially follows Peters Checklist 13 (1970), and contains these taxa:

  Melospiza (f.) Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.xx,xl,440,476

  • Melospiza melodia (Wilson,A) 1810 Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia adusta Nelson 1899 Auk 16 p.28
  • Melospiza melodia amaka Gabrielson & Lincoln 1951 Condor 53 p.253
  • Melospiza melodia atlantica Todd 1924 Auk 41 p.147 Type locality
  • Melospiza melodia azteca Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia caurina Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.36
  • Melospiza melodia clementae Townsend,CH 1890 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia cleonensis Ridgway 1899 Bull.CooperOrn.Club 1 p.87
  • Melospiza melodia cooperi Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.35 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia coronatorum Grinnell & Daggett 1903 Auk 20 p.34 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia euphonia Wetmore 1936 Smiths.Misc.Coll. 95 no.17 p.1
  • Melospiza melodia fallax (Baird,SF) 1854 Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Philadelphia 7 p.119
  • Melospiza melodia fisherella Oberholser 1911 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 24 p.251 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia goldmani Nelson 1899 Auk 16 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia gouldii Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.477,479
  • Melospiza melodia graminea Townsend,CH 1890 Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 13 no.799 p.139
  • Melospiza melodia heermanni Baird,SF 1858 Rep.Expl.Surv.RR.Pac. 9 p.477,478
  • Melospiza melodia inexspectata Riley 1911 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 24 p.234
  • Melospiza melodia insignis Baird,SF 1869 Trans.ChicagoAcad.Sci. 1 p.319 pl.29 fig.2
  • Melospiza melodia juddi Bishop 1896 Auk 13 p.132 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia kenaiensis Ridgway 1900 Auk 17 p.29
  • Melospiza melodia mailliardi Grinnell 1911 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 7 p.197 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia maxillaris Grinnell 1909 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 5 p.265
  • Melospiza melodia maxima Gabrielson & Lincoln 1951 Condor 53 p.251
  • Melospiza melodia melodia (Wilson,A) 1810 Am.Orn. 2 p.125 pl.16 fig.4
  • Melospiza melodia merrilli Brewster 1896 Auk 13 p.46
  • Melospiza melodia mexicana Baird,SF 1874 Hist.N.Am.Birds[Baird,Brewer,Ridgway] 2 p.18,note
  • Melospiza melodia micronyx Grinnell 1928 Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 41 p.37 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia montana Henshaw 1884 Auk 1 p.224
  • Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser 1899 Auk 16 p.183 Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia niceae Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.51 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia pusillula Ridgway 1899 Auk 16 p.35
  • Melospiza melodia rivularis Bryant,WE 1888 Proc.Cal.Acad.Sci.(2) 1 p.197
  • Melospiza melodia rufina (Bonaparte) 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.477
  • Melospiza melodia saltonis Grinnell 1909 Univ.Calif.Pub.Zool. 5 p.268 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia samuelis (Baird,SF) 1858 Proc.BostonSoc.Nat.Hist. 6 p.379
  • Melospiza melodia sanaka McGregor 1900 Condor 3 p.8 Nomenclature
  • Melospiza melodia villai Phillips,AR & Dickerman 1957 Auk 74 p.380
  • Melospiza melodia yuriria Phillips,AR & Dickerman 1957 Auk 74 p.381 Systematics
  • Melospiza melodia zacapu Dickerman 1963 Occ.Pap.Minn.Mus.Nat.Hist. no.9 p.40 Systematics

• 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. in discussing M.m.graminea place M.m.micronys in synonomy.

• 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. in discussing M.m.heermanni place M.m.mailliardi in synonomy and comment:

  Weak clinal variation from south to north involving reduced grayish fringes to mantle-feathers and reduced brown between
  black medial streak and fringe; birds called "mailliardi" and "cooperi" cannot be told from heermanni
  sensu stricto, nor from each other.

• 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. comment:

  Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser, 1899. Name given as new name to replace preoccupied 
  Fringilla cinerea (not of Gmelin) Audubon, 1839. 

• Actually Fringilla cinerea is nowhere mentioned by Oberholser in his 1899 Auk note, where he writes:

  Fringilla guttata Nuttall (Man. Orn., ed. 2, 1840, I, 581), which is now
  Melospiza fasciata guttata, is debarred by Fringilla guttata Vieillot
  (Nouv. Dict. d'Hist. Nat., 1817, XII, 233), for an Australian Weaver-bird.
  As the Rusty Song Sparrow seems to have no other name, it may be
  called Melospiza melodia morphna.

• The place the name Fringilla cinerea Audubon plays in this story appears to be as follows. The type of Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is specimen #1860 in the USNM collection. It was collected by John K. Townsend, and received into the collection from Spencer Baird. It was in Baird's private collection and he had in turn acquired it from Edward Harris, who had himself gotten it either from Audubon or Townsend. A different Townsend specimen from his "Columbia river" material (tag # 1942) had also been in Baird's private collection, and Baird had written on the label

  "Fringilla cineara of Audubon. Type of his description and figure."

• Friedmann's summary (p.664) is:

    Melospiza melodia morphna Oberholser is a new name for guttata Nuttall,
  preoccupied in Fringilla, and is based on the same type specimen(s).
    In summary, No. 1860 is a cotype of Fringilla cinerea Audubon, and also
  a probable cotype of Fringilla guttata Nuttall and of Melospiza melodia morphna
  Oberholser; No. 1942 is a probable cotype of Fringilla cinerea 
  Audubon, but presumably has no connection with the other two names.

• Originally described as Zonotrichia musica
• Emberiza musica Kittlitz, 1836 is a nomen nudum.

• Conventionally cited as

  Microcerculus Sclater,PL 1862 Cat.Coll.Am.Birds p.19

• The difficulty is that if this is cited to 1862, then Microcerculus Salvin 1861 PZS Pt2 p.202 would appear to have priority.
• Zimmer (p.560) presents evidence (but not proof) that pp.1-192 of Sclater's work this work may have appeared in 1861. If that is true then the conventional citation (with the date changed to 1861) may be correct, but would depend on establishing that the portion of Sclater's publication actually preceeds Salvin's.
• Edward Dickinson and Steven Gregory kindly provided additional information on this (in litt. 2006.12.09) showing that:
  From CBBM, vi, p. 295:

  Microcerculus, Baird, Review Amer. B. p. 113 (1864, ex Sclater, Cat. Amer. B. p.19, 1862).
  [Type] M. bambla. Cf. Salvin & Godman, Biol. Centr.-Amer., Aves, i, p. 76.

  In the Salvin & Godman reference we find:

   
  Microcerculus (section of Cyphorhinus), Sclater, Cat. Am. B. p.19 (1862); Baird, Rev. Am. B. i.  p.113 (1864).
  (Type Turdus bambla, Bodd.)

  [Steven notes]:Somewhat circular, and no mention of 1861. I also note that Boddaert's original combination was Formicarius bambla, which should be included in the citation for the genus, and not just Baird's "Turdus bambla".
• Steven also notes that Schulze et al. (as well as Neave) cite Salvin as the author of the genus.
• Michael Rieser provides (in litt. 2007.09.15) the description from the PZS:

      1. CYPHORHINUS PHILOMELA.
      Long. tot. 4, alæ 2-3, caudæ 1 poll. angl. et dec.
      Hab. In Prov. Veræ Pacis sylvis montium.
      Obs. Affinis Cyphorhino bamblæ ex Cayenna, sed tectricibus alarum
  	maculatis et non albo vittatis facile notabilis.
      This Wren belongs to the division of this genus which Dr. Sclater
  	has classed under the name of Microcerculus. It is known to the
  	natives as the 'Ruiseñor, ' or Nightingale -- a name it has acquired from its
  	great vocal powers.

• This description is suggestive of the possibility that the name had already been published, but it certainly does not prove that to be so.

• van Rossem's note on p.223 reads:

  Named for Messrs. John W. and Joseph Mallliard, in appreciation
  of their valuable work with the Redwinged Blackbirds of California.

  Joseph Mailliard was (at that time) the Curator Emeritus of Ornithology at the California Academy of Sciences. I presume, but don't know for sure than John W. was his brother.
• I can not restrain from adding some additional notes of interest here. My father-in-law knew Joseph Mailliard and his son William Somers Mailliard, who was a congressional representative for California from 1953-1974. It is my understanding that Joseph Mailliard had ancestry that included paternity by Charles Lucien Bonaparte.
• Joseph Mailliard was a member of the Bohemian Club of San Francisco, and wrote a book "Birds of the Bohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California". 1931. Published by A Friend of Bohemia. The eponymous subspecies is included in the list (p.48).
• Subsequently, another book entitled "Birds of the Bohemian Grove, Monte Rio, California" 2003. was written (and illustrated) by Hermann Heinzel. Published by A Member of the Old Guard. The bird is there described and illustrated (p.70) though interestingly no mention is made of the association with Mailliard.
• The subspecies mailliardorum does occur in the Bohemian Grove (I have seen it there), though the type was collected 28 April, 1901 in Palo Alto, California by Theodore Jesse Hoover (1871-1955). Theodore J. Hoover, one of the founding members of the Cooper Ornithological Society, was later to became the Dean of the School of Engineering at Stanford. He would have been in his senior year at Stanford when he collected the bird.
  It seems to me that Theodore Jesse Hoover must be the brother of president Herbert Hoover, though I have yet to find this actually stated. Both Theodore and Herbert were born (T. - Jan. 28, 1871; H. - Aug. 10, 1874) in West Branch, Iowa, and Herbert's father was named Jesse, so it seems extremely likely that they were brothers. After his parent's death, Herbert was sent to Newburg, Oregon where he grew up in his uncle's house. The possible separation of the boys may explain why their brotherhood may not receive much emphasis.
• Herbert Hoover was an ardent Bohemian, and I would guess that it is likely that Theodore was as well, though I find no evidence of this.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:145 (Blake) as published in 1864, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:769 (and corrected in Corrigenda 2.1).
• The Richmond Index shows that this portion of the PZS was published in Feb. 1865

• In a minor infelicity, Fjeldsa et al. get the page number wrong when listing the citation for Batis mixta Shelley. [=Pachyprora mixta Shelley]. They list (p.588) the page number as "259"; Peters Checklist 11:379; Sclater Syst.Av.Aethiop. 2:420; and the Richmond Index all list the page number as 359.
• Fjeldså J, Bowie RCK, Kiure J. 2006. "The forest batis Batis mixta, is two species: description of a new, narrowly distributed Batis species in the Eastern Arc biodiversity hotspot." J.Orn. 147:578-590.

• Previously listed as
  • Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi Mathews 1910 Novit.Zool. 17 no.3 p.501
  and Acanthiza pusilla archibaldi is the name used by H&M 3 ^rd:448 {and through Corrigenda #5} (without further discussion).
• Colin Jones points out that Schodde in the CSIRO checklist of Australian birds, holds A. p. archibaldi to be a junior synonym of A. p. magnirostris Campbell. This can currently (2006.10.07) be found at http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/abrs/fauna/tree.pl?pstrVol=AVES&pintMode=1

• Zimmer in Am.Mus.Novit. 1933 no.668 p.1 lists:

  Thamnophilus melanurus SCLATER, 1855 (April), Edinb. N. Philos. Journ.
  (N.S.) I, p. 233-part; River Ucayali, e. Perú; ♂ imm.; British Mus.

• It would be interesting to know how Zimmer knows that this work was published in April, but this fact (if correct) is the reason the name is cited here rather than to Gould in PZS pt23 no.288 p.69 (published May 16, 1855) or to Gould Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(2) 15 no.89 p.345 (publ. May 1855).

• The Richmond Index suggests the possiblity that this bird may have been described by Hodgson in Gray's Zoological Miscellany p.81 (which would be 1844).
• Thanks to Daria Wingren-Mason of the Cullman Library, I have examined an image of page 81 of Gray's Zoological Miscellany. Gray uses the name "F. milvipes" which is followed by the number "26". The number "26" refers either to a picture, or a specimen sent by Hodgson to the British Museum. Therefore with some confidance I interpret the Gray publication of this name in 1844 as not satisfying the requirements for it to be the citation for the taxon name.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):408 (1979,Stresemann & Amadon) cite this name to 1919, and this is followed by others (e.g. HBW 2:260; H&M 3^rd:95).
• All these works correctly list the volume of the Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. as 54, however this was published Nov. 2, 1917, not in 1919.
• The correct date is shown in the Richmond Index, and confirmed by the "List and Index of the Publications of the United States National Museum (1875-1946)" p.154.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):185 lists the author of this taxon as Heuglin.
• The Richmond Index listed the author as Hartlaub, so naturally I was interested to determine which was correct.
• Edward Dickinson examined the original description and confirmed Richmond's indication that Hartlaub was the author. As a result of this the correction was made in Corrigenda #5.
• HBW 1:324 also listed Heuglin as the author of this taxon. I presumed that they (like H&M) had simply followed the Peters Checklist without troubling to confirm the authority -- as this is the conventional (though lazy) practice.
• Of interest, Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:431 is where all this may have started, as there Ogilvie-Grant lists Heuglin rather than Hartlaub as the author. Despite the charming belief to the contrary, it appears that for a large number of taxa, the authors of the Peters Checklist merely accepted the listings from the Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. as "holy writ" much the way most authors today regard those from the Peters Checklist. Richmond was a worker who attended to quite a different and higher standard.
• Also worthy of mention is not only the 1931 publication of Mathews ∧ Iredale (A Manual of Birds of Ausltrlia), but the work by Pittman and Jehl (Pittman RL, Jehl JL Jr., 1998. The Wilson Bulletin 110(2):155-170.). Pittman and Jehl quote the Mathews & Iredale work which appears to correctly hold Hartlaub as the author of Sula melanops.

• The authority here is often attributed to Vigors & Children (as opposed to Children & Vigors). See, for example, Peters Checklist (1979) 1(2):201 (where it is listed as "Anon. = Vigors & Children"). I speculate that here the example of CBBM (1898 [=1899]) 26:70 is being followed.
• H&M 3^rd lists this initially as Vigors & Children, but adopts Children & Vigors in the Corrigenda 2.1 which I follow.
• Bob Dowsett informs me that review of the original descriptions and additional supporting evidence ( including Zool.J. 1827 p.452) argues for Children & Vigors as the proper authority for the taxa named as new in this work.

• When in Zanclostomus listed as
  • Zanclostomus curvirostris borneensis (Blasius,W & Nehrkorn) 1881 Jahrb.Ver.Naturwiss.Braunschwieg(1880-1881) p.125
• In Phaenicophaeus this name is preoccupied by
  • Rhopodytes borneensis Salvadori 1874 Ann.Mus.Civ.Stor.Nat.Genova 5 p.72
  which is now held to be in Phaenicophaeus
• It is replaced by Berlepsch's name (which in Peters Checklist 4:56 was replaced by the Blasius & Nehrkorn name).
• Many thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention (2006.06.03), and pointing out the proper replacement name.

• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1926.02.23) Richmond indicates that this name occurs as both Myrmornis and Myrmornithion (or Myrmornithon -- it is slightly illegible) occuring in another portion of the work. No one else seems to mention this fact.
• Normand David (in litt. 2006.07.26) has looked into and resovled this matter. He writes:

   ... here are the citations from Hermann's Tabula affinitatum animalium (1783), 
  of which I have a photocopy of the relevant pages before my eyes:
  
  page 188 (not 180 as sometimes given)
  Myrmornithis
  
  page 189
  Myrmornithum
  Myrmornin
  
  pages 210- 211
  Myrmorni- them
  
  page 235
  Myrmornis
  
  The nominative singular is Myrmornis; all other instances have different case endings 
  according to Latin grammar, that must be corrected to the nominative singular 
  (arts. 11.8.1 and 32.5.2.7).

• The Peters Checklist 7:255 (1951) footnotes the variants Myrmornithis, Myrmornithem and interprets them as "not available under Opinion 183".
• The Peters Checklist erroneously lists the page as "p.180"; the Richmond Index shows the page as "188", as Normand David has confirmed.

• There is some confusion regarding this citation.
  1. Peters Checklist 5:22 gives "Guide du Naturaliste 2 p.7"
  2. The Richmond Index gives "Guide du Naturaliste No. 1, Jan. 1880, page 8."
  3. Schulze et al. p.2018 give vol.2 and p.7
  so I initially followed the consensus (vol.2 p.7).
Additionally, both the Richmond Index, and Schulze et al. note that the name also occurs in 1880 in Annuire Mus. Caen vol.1:224. Peters seems to have been unaware of this second source, and which actually had priority was unknown to me.
• Previously cited as

  Melanotrochilus (m.) Deslongchamps 1880 GuideNat. 2 p.7

• Subsequently (2006.10.16) Michael Rieser brought to my attention an article by Bob Mengel directly addressing this situation.

  Mengel RM. 1960. "Errors concerning the date and source of the name Melanotrochilus Eudes-Deslongchamps (Trochilidae)." Auk 77:87-88.

  Mengel brings attention to the fact that Neave (Nomenclator Zoologicus 3:90, 1940) correctly indicates that the name was published earlier. Deslongchamps (Eudes Deslongchamps) published a diagnosis of the genus and a full account of Melanotrochilus fuscus (Trochilus fuscus Vieillot, Nouv.Dict.Hist.Hat. 7:348, 1817). This apparently was first published in 1879 in Deslongchamps. "Catalogue descriptif des oiseaux du Musée de Caen appartenent a la famille des Trochilidés ou Oiseaux-Mouches". Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, ser.III, tom.III pp.8-325 (for 1878-1879, dated 1879 on title page), and ser.III tom.IV (pp.324-325: noted by Mengel to be misnumbered 224-225). The genus is erected on p.314, and thus the date of 1879 is appropriate.

• Mengel also notes additional details, including the fact that the article was reprinted at least twice with slight changes.

• Peters Checklist 13:158 (Paynter) lists this as published in

  1919 Smiths.Misc. Coll., 81(13), p.4

  . Casual inspection suggests that either the date or the volume number is way off.
• This date is followed by H&M ^rd:795 and is uncorrected at least up to Corrigenda 5.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in 1929, not 1919; a date for which the volume number makes sense.

• This name was clearly spelled melanophris by Temminck in 1828.
• Peters Checklist 1(2):54 includes a footnote saying

  Corrected to melanophrys, Temminck, 1839, Planches Color.,
  Tableau Méthod., livr. 102, p.76. C.J. and J.-L. M.

• Of course it is interesting to know of this correction, but the question is not whether it was corrected, but whether the correction satisfies the Code requirements with regards emendations. It may very well be that the correction does satisfy these, but in the abscence of a specific indication in that regard I retain the original spelling.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original description is as follows:

   
  Olive, head and throat black; body white;
  sides and vent ferruginous; wings, and lateral tail feathers (in one sex)
  with yellow spots.
  Table land. Real del Monte. Temiscaltipec.
  Total length, 9 inches: wings, 3½;
  tail, 4¾ tarsi,1 1/10; 
  hind toe and claw, 9/10.

• The Richmond Index indicates that the original description is as follows:

  Olivaceous brown; head and throat black; body white; sides and vent rufous;
  back, wings, and lateral tail feathers with white spots.
  Table land. Real del Monte.
  Total length, 8½: wings, 3½; tail, 4; tarsi,1 1/10;
  hind toe and claw, ¾.

• As this O.D. is not readily available to most workers, and there is debate about the validity of this as a subspecies, I thought it might be useful to reproduce the description here (copied from the Richmond Index).

• Caput & dorsum fusco & ferrugineo varium, pennis fuscis ferrugineo
  marginatus. Tectrises alarum & et caudæ fuscæ apicus limbo
  ferrugineo. marginatis Remiges omnes fuscæ fasciis pluribus ob
  scuriscribus apice albo-ferrugineo. Rectrices fuscæ fasciis quatuor
  latis fusco-nigrescentibus albo utrinque marginatis, apice albo.
  Corpus inferne totum ferrugineum masulis longitudinalibus, subovatis,
  fuscis, pennis singularis ferrugenis, scapo, & utrinque a
  scapo fuscis, Cauda inferne albescens fassiis transparentibus.
  Cera cærulescens. Pedes lutei. Magnitudo Gallinæ.

• Originally named Astur macrocelides in the 1855 J.Orn. publication (fide Peters Checklist 1(2):325; and The Richmond Index).
• This is spelled macroscelides by the Peters Checklist and this spelling is followed by H&M 3^rd:105 without comment.
• HBW 2:145 is either unaware of this nomenclatural issue, or chooses to make no comment on it.
• The validity of this emendation is unknown to me, and as this issue is not addressed by these authors I elect to use the original spelling, until I am shown that this is incorrect.
• Normad David has investigated this matter, and writes (2006.03.10) that the original indeed is macrocelides, and further that this was employed by the Peters Checklist vol. 1 in the first edition. The issue then would appear to me to descend into the unfortunate and unsatisfactory realm of "prevailing usage".

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4 to Lesson, Voy. 'Coquille,' Atlas, 1827, pl.22; Zool. 1830, p.647.
• Previously, I had as
  • Hemiprocne mystacea (Lesson) 1827 Voy.Coq. Atlas pl.22; 1830 Zool. p.647
• Zimmer (p.187) dates the publication of pl.22 to Oct. 27.
• The Richmond Index lists this name, with the authority of Lesson & Garnot to Ferrusacs Bulletin for May of 1827 (where pl.22 of the Coquille Atlas is quoted).
• This is all very confused, and it seems that both Zimmer and Richmond can't both be right. Richmond does not list the Voy.Coq. citation here, and apparently believed that the Ferrusac's bulletin entry had priority. I defer to Richmond here.
• H&M 3^rd:255 lists this to Lesson, 1827. Presumably this follows the Peters Checklist, though in other instances for this source the decision appears to have been taken to attribute authority to Lesson & Garnot (!!). Very confusing.
• HBW 5:465,685 also attributes this to Lesson in Voy.Coq. and it appears that Wells is simply reproducing the Peters material without critical evaluation.

Hemipodius melanogaster Gould, Syn. Bds. Austr., pt. 2, 1837, pl..[31]

Hemipodius melanogaster John Gould 1837.
Synopsis of the Birds of Australia and the Adjacent Islands, Part II, April, 1837, Pl.[12], text.

melanogaster  Hemipodius, J. Gould, Syn.Birds.Austral. (2) Apr. 1837.

• Considered by many to be a full species, rather than a subspecies of Larus cachinnans.
• AOU CL to adopt full species status in 48^th Supplement to the CL (to be published July 2007); (ref. Dick Banks in litt. 2007.04.18).

• The basis for recognition of this as a valid subspecies is currently unknown to me.
• HBW 3:618 says "Two subspecies recognized." By whom this recognition occurs, or on what basis is not indicated. Although superb, HBW is emphatically not a taxonomic work, though it is often mistaken for one.
• H&M 3^rd:148 cites HBW 3 as the basis for recognition as a subspecies.
• The Richmond index lists this taxon as "[Atricilla] megalopterus Bruch", suggesting that the bird was not actually described in Larus.

• Regarding the spelling/emendation of this name, Normand David writes (2005.12.23):

  
    ... the original matsudariae, Ibis 1922:311
  	was universally corrected (see Peters I:117) to
  	matsudairae
  
  	It seems that, because Viscount Matsudaira is cited several times in the paper as collector
  	(but no formal dedication), subsequent authors saw sufficient reason under 32.5.1
  	(inadvertent error) to bring about a "justified emendation".

• The author's name on this article (Auk 1936 53:194) is listed as

  Leonidas Partenko

• I believe that the same individual more commonly gives his name as

  Leonidas Portenko

  or

  Leonid Aleksanrovich Portenko

• Treated by H&M 3^rd:133 as a subspecies of Himantopus himantopus. The foot note (#7) on p.132 indicates, and Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2005.09.21), that the systematic listing follows that of HBW 3. The basis for this would appear to boil down to an introductory note by Pierce on p.332, where the difficulties of the problem are presented, and the decisions taken appear to be on the basis that

   
  Most authors have preferred to accept only two species, the Black-winged
  Stilt (Himantopus himantopus) and Black Stilt (Himantopus novaezelandae), 
  although some consider these two forms conspecific.

  This statement is made without any citations, references, or supporting data. Whom "most authors" are is not indicated, and this appears to me to be an erroneous extension of "prevailing usage", as applied to nomenclature, to systematics. Perhaps in the future we can look forward to establishment of systematic relationships by a process of popular vote.
• The AOU Checklist Committee considers mexicanus to be a species in the absence of any published taxonomic treatment to the contrary. (Dick Banks, in litt. 2005.08.31)
• In sharp contrast to the standards of the AOU Checklist Committee, the HBW and its followers appear to enjoy the freespirited pleasures of being unencumbered by the tedium of requiring published scientific support here. Whether this philosophy is restricted to this problem, this author, just this volume, or to the whole series is unknown to me.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 25:174 (Mayr) to 1874, and this was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:427.
• This portion of the PZS was published in April of 1875, and this date was subsequently corrected in the H&M Corrigenda 2.1.

• Peters Checklist 25:174 (Mayr) gives this date for this taxon as 1882.
• The correct date of 1883 was published in the Richmond Index (1992).
The incorrect 1882 date was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:427, and then corrected in Corrigenda 3.2
• Of interest, the citation for Aegotheles bennettii plumiferus is given by Peters Checklist 4:183 for 1883, and it comes from 4 pages prior to the description of Ailurodeus melanocephalus.

• This name is attributed to Boie in 1844 Isis 37 col.188, note. and it appears that this tradition of reference was established by Saunders in Cat.B.Br.Mus. 25:145 and followed by Mathews.
• In a letter from CW Richmond to Witmer Stone (1915.02.05) some interesting questions are raised.
  1. Richmond indicates that Boie describes a Sterna minutus from the collection of Prince Essling (and from some British Museums) "which is a species of Anous or Micronous."
  2. Richmond also asserts that the Essling specimen is allegedly from California and thus may not be Australian.
  3. Richmond indicates that Boie lists his species of Anous with the abbreviation St. and "dittos" all the species which suggests to Richmond that Boie intended to call his new species Sterna minutus (a name which is, of course, preoccupied by Sterna minuta Linnaeus 1766 = S. albifrons Pallas 1764). -- but see below regarding St..
  4. Richmond regards the Essling specimen as the type (as it is the only "definite one" that Boie mentions).
  5. If the Essling specimen is from California it is possibly not related to the form that Matthews has in mind.
  6. If the specimen does relate to one of the forms Matthews has in mind, the name may be preoccupied, and Richmond suggests in such a case Anous leucocapillus Gould may be the appropriate available name.
• The Richmond Index, in fact, lists a card for Anous minutus Boie (!), but it does not appear to be in Richmond's hand, and cites the type locality as determined by Mathews.
• Sherborn's Index Animalium has a listing (p.4100) as follows:

  minuta  Sternula (L.), F. Boie, Isis (Oken), 1822, 563. -- Sterna, 1766.

  Suggesting that Boie may also possibly have been referring to his previous use of Sternula minuta.
• The Richmond Index has a card for the genus group name Sternula F. Boie Isis (Oken) Bd. X Heft V, col.563 1822, and gives the type as "minuta".
• So all this is somewhat confusing, but it appears to me (without having seen any of the primary sources) that Boie in 1844 was listing the species of Anous and included there names that he had previously held to be in "St." -- presumably his Sternula. Thus it may well be appropriate to list the authority without parentheses if the type specimen is in fact not from California, as the Essling specimen would appear to be.
• If the type specimen for this name is not from the Australasian region the entire taxon would appear to be problematic.
• It appears to me that further investigation of this matter is appropriate.

• The specific epithet is spelled mocino by Peters Checklist 5:148.
• Originally spelled Mocinno but in honor of José Mociño, as correctly shown by the Richmond Index.
• Peters thereby introduced an incorrect subsequent spelling.
• These points are of slight historical interest, as the ICZN ruled that the correct spelling is mocinno (Direction #43), and placed the name in the Official approved list.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking up this spelling issue, and to Normand David and Edward Dickinson for helping to establish the confirmatory details.

• Originally described in Ptinilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:32 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175.
• It appears to me that Ptinilopus is an 1831 Bonaparte Giorn. arcad., 49:52 emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.
• H&M 3^rd:175 clearly must interpret Bonaparte's name to be something other than an emendation, though the support for such an interpretation is not presented. Such support would be particularly interesting to know of, as it is appears that in the Voy.Pol.Sud. work the name is "Spelled Ptinilopus in all places here." (to quote the Richmond Index), and evidently is corrected in Arch.Mus.Hist.Nat., VII, 1855 p.365(note) (again from the Richmond Index).

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:26 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:174.
• 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.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:34 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 and by HBW 4:217.
• 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.
• HBW 4217 dates this citation to 1873. Understandable confusion as this volume, in twelve issues was published from 1871 to 1873. This portion of the volume was clearly issued in 1871 and the HBW citation is incorrect.

• CW Richmond comments in Proc.U.S.Nat.Mus. 1902 26:691 that Laticauda Lesson 1843 L'Echo du Monde Savant ser.2 VIII, Oct. 22, 1843 col.758 "has priority over and should replace Metallura Gould, 1847."
• In this he would appear to be ignoring the presence of Laticauda Laurenti, 1768. Syn. Rept. p.109 (a genus group name still in use for a Colubrid sea-snake).

• Peters Checklist 8:169 (Traylor) gives the citation as:
  • Sylvia macloviana Garnot 1829 Voy,'Coquille,'Zool. 1(2), p.540
  There are a number of apparent problems with this citation, as it appears to me that the date, volume, number, and page rendering do not appear to correlate with the actual structure of the publication as I understand it.
• More important, the Richmond Index indicates there is a publication of this name by Garnot three years prior to the date given by Traylor.

• These citations are problematic and contoversial. The dates of livr.5 do not appear to have been established with certainty and it is variously cited to 1830 or 1831.
• Of interest in his description of Merulaxis ater evidently Lesson notes: "Cent. Zool., pl.30" (data from Richmond Index). The Richmond Index dates that portion of Cent. Zool. to 1831, and speculates that Lesson's note would make it likely that the description of M. ater appeared first in Cent. Zool. If this were established to be true, and if the 1831 date is accepted for livr.IV of Cent. Zool., then it would appear quite certain that at least the latter pages of livr.5 of TraitedOrn. should be dated to 1831, and not 1830.
• However, it must be noted that at this time Lesson was working on multiple works and a confusing number of internal references exist, so that we can not be sure he is referring to published material when he cites "Cent.Zool.".

• Currently (2004) there is much debate and less consensus regarding the systematics of this group. Changes in systematics can be expected to continue.
• Recent publications include:
  1. Voelker G. 2002. "Systematics and historical biogeography of wagtails: Dispersal versus vicariance revisited." Condor 104(4):725-739.
  2. Alström K, Mild K, & Zetterström. 2003. Pipits and Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America. Christopher Helm, London.
  3. Pavlova A, et al.. 2003. "Phylogeographic patterns in Motacilla flava and Motacilla citreola: Species limits and population history." Auk 120(3):744-758.
  4. Banks RC, et al. 2004. "Forty-fifth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds." Auk 121(3):992.

• Peters Checklist 4:195 lists the page number for this taxon as "p.88". HBW 5:[683] lists the pagination as "87-88".
• The name and description occur on p.89, as is correctly indicated in the AOU CL's 6^th & 7^th Edns.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

• Originally spelled melanoleueus by Smith (fide CWR, Sherborn "M,N";3967; and Willughby reprints of Smith's work).
• Apparently interpreted to be an error (at least by Peters 1(2):346 to be an error, though the rationale for that is not explicated).
• Therefore, as near as I am able to determine, this appears to be an emendation which has not been questioned, and even if not supportable now resides cheerfully in the cesspool of prevailing usage.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing the issue of the original spelling to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 3:168 has 1875.
• See {Poggi R, 1996}.
• Unfortunately, the HBW 4:365 has "1875" for the date, perpetuating this common error.

• Bonaparte's note reads:

    Genus dicatum Aloysio Masio meo, Italicis-
  simo,  exuli etiam cariori, amplitudine in-
  genii, animi virtute, lacertorum vigore
  aeque praeclaro! ... Utinam multos tales
  filios Italia et vel Gallia progenuerint! ....

• This is translated by Jobling (1991) as:

  My genus is dedicated to Aloysius Masi, the very essence of Italy,
  exiled yet dear, talented, intellectual, energetic, and distinguished!
  Would that Italy of France could always produce such sons!

• Jobling goes on to comment: "The only candidate for this eulogy (here freely translated from the original Latin) would seem to be the republican Colonel Masi, a supporter of Garibaldi, but no further details are provided."
• Jobling must be correct in this. Of interest, Luigi Masi of Perugia, Italy was initially hired by Bonaparte as the tutor of his children. Masi continued with the family for many many years and became Bonaparte's personal secretary, travelling with him to many meetings. Luigi (who would appear not to be Aloysius) is mentioned many times in Stroud's 2000 Biography of Bonaparte. Aloysius Masi is not mentioned.

• Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) renders this "Pitta mülleri in the original description, and thus spells it "Pitta sordida muelleri". This would be appropriate, if in fact Bonaparte had spelled it with an umlaut and the name was either German or indeterminate as to origin.
• I have checked two copies of the Consp.Gen.Av. and the name is spelled "(Pitta mulleri, Bp.)", and thus "ue" is incorrect.
• H&M 3^rd:338 renders this name correctly.
• Bonaparte describes this name in Brachyrus even though the binomen listed is "Pitta mulleri, Bp.". I interpret this to be a Bp. manuscript name, but published first here.
• H&M 3^rd:338 apparently follows Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) in listing this without parentheses. Mayr does not appear to have attended to either the actual spelling of the name or the overall structure of Bonaparte's work.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out my error in following H&M and Peters.

• Spelled Picus mineaceus by Peters Checklist 6:142
• H&M 3^rd:327 spells the specific epithet miniaceus, and this follows what is given in the Richmond Index, Sherborn and HBW 7:537.

• Spelled middendorffi with only one terminal "i" in the Richmond Index.
• Edward C. Dickinson checked the original description and confirms that the name is spelled with an -ii ending. (in litt. 2004.03.21).

• Peters Checklist 5:78 gives 55 as the volume number.
• Both the Richmond Index and HOLLIS Catalog (http://holliscatalog.harvard.edu/) show that the name in question appears in volume 65.

• An interesting nomenclatural situation applies to this name as described by Zimmer, 1926 p.158

  	The generic names of some of the new species have been altered to
  accord with generic changes proposed herein by Gray, as, for example,
  Myiobius magnirostris, p.48 pl.VIII. Gould's manuscript name,
  Tyrannula magnirostris, is cited in synonomy bout appears on
  the plate, while the new combination is given without authority
  other than that it follows Gray's proposal of Myiobius for
  Tyrannula of Swainson. In this case, the authorship of the species may
  remain with Gould since the plate has priority over the text (see below), but
  Darwin appears to be properly the author of the new combination of names.
  

• Peters Checklist 9:88 (Mayr & Greenway) date this to 1838, and this if followed by H&M 3^rd:533.
• Sherborn showed (in 1897 Ann.Mag.Hist.Nat. (6) 20:483) that this part was published in July 1839, a fact also listed in Zimmer and Sherborn's Index Animalium, as well as the Richmond Index.

• The date of this citation raises a problem.
  • The Peters Checklist 5:249 dates this to 1860. (This is followed by H&M 3^rd:297, and HBW 6:410.)
  • Peters may be following Sclater 1924 Systema Avium Ethiopicarum 1:232 who gives 1860.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1859, and notes that the signature is dated "Dec. 12, 1859".
• The relatively late date of the signature imprint certainly suggests that its publication could have been delayed until 1860, though Peters gives no details or support for this date, and himself dates taxa from earlier in the volume to 1859.
• To date I do not have data from the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. (where I suspect Sclater may have gotten his date for the Syst.Av.Aethiop.).
• If 1860 is correct (which I suspect may well be the case) the implication here is that either Th.II was issued in parts (presumably signatures) or the entire volume would have to be dated to 1860. This last case would affect quite a few taxa, and might have substantial priority implications.

• The date given for this by Peters Checklist 7:93, and H&M 3^rd:410 is 1874.
• Foster, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was in no.6-7 of Volume X and these were published in the period of March to May of 1872.
• I choose to follow the Richmond Index, and Foster here. The dates of this publication are, however quite problematic.

• The Richmond index gives a copy of the description:

  "cauda rotundata, nigro maculata, supra testaceus
  subuts albus fasciis transversis subundulatis nigris,
  remigum apicibus nigris testaceo marginatis."

• A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist 4:22 gives the date as 1804, but provides no data, discussion, or support for that date. And HBW 4:559 appears to follow the Peters Citation.
• The Richmond index gives a date of 1803 and notes "(4^th quarter)" of 1803. A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

• Peters Checklist 6:7 lists this as 1853, giving no notes, discussion of details, or basis for using that date. This date is followed by HBW 7:96, again with no discussion of the date.
• The Richmond Index lists this as 1852, with a note that the "Article is dated April 16, 1852" [this may, however be a printers date - APP].
• Zimmer lists the dates for this publication as ending in 1852, but with no further details.
• Sclater (the author of the taxon) lists the date as 1852 in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 19:166. [though I think this is relatively weak date evidence].
• Murray Bruce's research on this publication would appear to support 1852 for all but the last 21 pages of the Contributions. [see note on Contr.Orn. for details].
• I interpret the evidence to supports 1852.

• Considered by Marshall (1967) and H&M 3^rd to be included in their Otus k.bendirei.
• Cannings RJ & Angell T. 2001. Birds of North America. No. 597 Western Screech Owl. p.3 refer to size and plumage coloration differences and hold it to be a separate race. They include tabular data (p.16) which show the macfarlanei weights and wing-lengths to be substantially the largest.
• The type for macfarlanei was collected in my home town (Walla Walla, WA) by Wm. Brewster on Oct. 22 1881. He was evidently accompanied by Capt. Charles Bendire as his name is also mentioned on the card in the Richmond Index. Capt. Bendire was stationed at Ft. Walla Walla from June 1878 until May 1882. (Fort Walla Walla, given as the type locality for a number of subspecies, actually occupied 3 locations, from its inception to the current day. When Capt. Bendire served there it was located at it's current location where it now functions as a Veterans Administration Hospital, and where Western Screech Owls -- quite abundant in Walla Walla -- can be heard to this day on the grounds.)

• The original description occurs as a footnote to OTUS MEXICANUS G. Cuvier. and reads:

  *) Otus midas, Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Mus. Berol., p. 6, est foudé sur
  un individu femelle d'un hibou sous tous les rapports sembable an mexicanus,
  mais d'une taille plus considérable.  Il a été tué dans les environs de Monté-
  video.  Longuer totale 18 pouces.  Aile 11 pouces 6 lignes.  Pointe de l'aile
  2 pouces. Queue 5 pouces 9 lignes.  Aigrettes 33 lignes.  Hauteur de la man-
  dible supérieure 5 lignes.  Oiel 5 lignes de demie. Tarse 26 lignes.  Doigt du
  milieu 19 lignes.

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:226; HBW 3:[725]) given as

  Microparra Cabanis 1877 J.Orn. 25 p.349

• The Richmond Index gives a date of July, 1877 for that volume and number of the J.Orn., however the Orn.Centralblatt also containing the erection of this genus was issued on June 15, 1877.

• The original description reads

  		Genus MALACOPTERON, n.g.
  
  Rostrum ferè capiti æquale, altius quà latum, ad apicem incisum,
    ultraque nares compressum, ad basim setis armatum; mandibulâ
    inferiore ad basim tumidâ.
  Tarsi mediocres; digiti externi vix longiores quàm interni, poste-
    riores medios æquantes; ungues compressi posteriores longissimi;
    scuta tarsi vix divisa.
  Alæ breves, rotundatæ; pennis secondariis primarias ferè æquantibus;
    primâ pennarum spuriâ, secundâ breviore tertiâ quæ longissima
    est.
  Cauda paucarum pennarum composita, rotundata; tectricibus supe-
    rioribus mollibus et longis.
    Obs. This genus is allied to Microtarsus in some particulars and
  to Brachipus in others; it agrees with both in the soft and downy
  nature of the tail coverts.
  

• The original description reads

    CORYTHAIX MACRORHYNCHUS.   Cor. rostro prægrandi aurantico,
      ad basin sanguineo; capite, cristâ, collo pectoreque viridibus;
      cristâ ad apicem albâ et purpureo notatâ, lineâ albâ infra oculos
      excurrente; dorso alisque metallicè purpureis; primariis san-
      guineis nigro marginatis; caudâ supernè metallicè viridi; femo-
      ribus caudâque subtù nigris tarsis nigris.
    Long. tot. 14 poll.; rostri, 1¼; alæ 6; caudæ 6; tarsi, 1¼.
    Hab. ---?
    This species of Corythaix lived for some time in the Society's
  Menagerie, having been purchased from a dealer who was unac-
  quainted with its locality.
    Compared with the known species of the genus, it approaches
  most nearly to the Corythaix Persa of authors, but from this it may
  readily be distinguished by its smaller size; and the form, compara-
  tively large size and colouring of the beak.  The colouring of the
  plumage also differs in some respects: like C. Persa, the head, neck
  and breast are green, but the feathers on these parts are of a deeper
  hue than in that species; the feathers of the crest, instead of being
  simply tipped with white, having a white transverse line near the
  apex, but at the apex they are purple-black.  Minute black feathers
  encircle the eye, and a white stripe extends from beneath the eye
  on to the ear.  The beak is much arched above, and somewhat in-
  flated at the base; the nostrils are very large, and not hidden, as in
  C. Persa, by the decumbent feathers, these extending only to the
  posterior angle of the nostril.  The upper mandible is of a bright 
  yellow color, excepting all that portion which lies below and be-
  hind the nostrils, which is of a brilliant red colour; the lower mandi-
  ble is of the same red tint, but tipped with yellow.  Both mandi-
  bles present simple sharp-cutting edges, in this respect exhibiting a
  different structure from that observable in the the allied species, C. Persa
  and C. Buffonii, in which the mandibles have their cutting edges
  serrated.  The back and upper surface of the wings are of a deep
  purple-blue tint, exhibiting in certain parts greenish reflections.
  The primaries (with the exception of the first quill) and second-
  aries (with the excpetion of the three of four innermost quills) are
  red, margined with black; the shafts of these feathers are also black.
  The outer primary is black, and the two or three following feathers
  are broadly margined externally with the same colour.  All the 
  wing feathers are black at the base; on the outermost feathers the
  black colouring occupies but little space, but in each successive
  feather it increases in extent.  The feathers of the tail are of a very
  dark green colour above, inclining to black; beneath they are black,
  but exhibit indistinct purple reflections.  The rump, upper and un-
  der tail-coverts, thighs, and vent are black, obscurely tinted with
  purple or green in parts.  The tarsi are black.  The eyes are hazel,
  and the naked, or almost naked space around the eye, is of a crimson
  colour; not carunculated, as in C. Buffonii and C. leucotis.
  

• Originally spelled with one "i" by Baird (fide in original).
• Spelled with one "i" in Peters Checklist 2:19 and Cat.B.Brit.Mus. 22:512, and the Richmond Index.
• HBW 2:342(plate),343 spell this as mccallii (note double "i"), and this is repeated in H&M 3^rd Ed. p.37.
• I interpret one "i" to be correct.

• Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:4; HBW 2:309; H&M 3^rd Ed.:37)
This part was published in Feb. 1862.

• Peters 1(2):21 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
• HBW 1:128 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
• H&M 3^rd Ed. p.31 also perpetuates this error.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprint date indicates.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 25:15 (Moreau & Greenway) as:
  • Passer motitensis Smith,A 1848 Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.114
• However, as Bob Dowsett pointed out, this is pre-dated by the 1836 Rep.Exped.Centr.Afr. which I reproduce here.

Pyrgita Motitensis.   Top of head and back of neck grey;
  eyebrows, sides of neck, and back, chestnut; the interscapu-
  lars dashed with dark black-brown; eyeband, chin, and
  throat, black; cheeks white; breast and belly rusty white.
  Length 6¼ inches. Inhabits the country about Old Latakoo.

• Peters Checklist 12:337 (Moreau) spells this S. melenocephala, as Gray composed the name.
• However, all compound names ending in -ops are manditorily masculine, regardless of their derivation or their treatment by their authors (ICZN 1999:Art. 30.1.4.3. This Speirops is masculine and melanocephalus should also be.

• There are interesting uncertainties here regarding the spelling of this name. Macronous vs. Macronus
• To date (2003.05.02) best summarized by this portion of an email from Normand David:

  
  Macronus/Macronous Jardine & Selby (Illustrations of Ornithology, 1835, Vol. III, pl.150) 
  The plate has Macronus and the the text has Macronous.
  The index of volume III (the only vol. of four that has an index) in which the plate was
  bound has Macronus.
  
  All references cited by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. that I have seen have Macronus 
  (from Gray´s 1841 "Genera..." to Sharpe's 1903 "Handlist ..." + various minor papers in
  Ibis, PZSL, BBOC), except for Blyth 1842 (JASB 11:795) and Blyth 1849 
  (Cat. Birds Mus As. Soc.).
  
  All indications show that Macronus was in overwhelming use from 1835
  until 1963 and 1964, when Deignan (1963, Check-list Birds Thailand) used
  Macronous with no explanation); in Peters (1964) X:318, he (Deignan) 
  invoked Blyth's 1842 "Macronous" as a First Reviser action (but it does not meet
  the requirements of the Code), despite the fact that "the editors would
  prefer to maintain this more frequently used spelling [=Macronus]".
  
  Did anyone else acted as First Reviser?
  
  Perhaps the answer lies in Proc. Biol. Soc Wash. (1905) 18:4, where
  Mearns established Macronous mindanensis montanus; or Chasen 1935, A
  Handlist of Malaysian Birds (Bull Raffles Museum 11:1-389), or Deignan
  1950 (Bull Raffles Museum 23:127-129, where he introduced Macronus
  striaticeps mearnsi.
  
  These publications [must still be checked]...
  
  I note that Wolters (1982, Vogelarten der Erde) used Macronus instead of
  "Macronous" (which he cites).
  
  Unless we find something else, it seems that Deignan was the first
  author to use Macronous consistently at one point in time. I think now
  this is unfortunate because Macronus was much more frequent and closer
  to the etymology (onyx, claw; not ous, ear).
  
  On the other hand, can we say that Deignan in Peters acted as First
  Reviser? He cited Macronous (text to plate) and Macronus (plate), and
  used Macronous. I am not sure yet if this meets [the] Art. 24.2.3 phrase 
  "selected one spelling as correct".
  

• A confusing situation here. Discussed by:
  1. Deignan, 1955 Deignan HG. 1955. "The Identity of Collocalia maxima Hume." BBOC 75(6):82.
  2. HBW 5:433.

• Peters Checklist 1:73 gives the page number as "179".
• This error is repeated in HBW 1:632.
• The description of Pterodroma mollis maderia subsp. nov. is on p.161 of no.CCCLXXVIII. The name is in fact used on p.179 (which is in the following number - no.CCCLXXIX), but it is not new there.
• The Richmond Index gives the citation properly as p.161.

• Peters Checklist 2:130 gives the page number as "68".
• This error is repeated in HBW 2:573 (McGowan)
• The description starts on p.122.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

• N. 144 	FRINGILLA (macroura) supra nigra, macula
  	humerali subtusque alba, recticibus quatuor
  	intermediis longissimis, lateralibus interius o-
  	blique albis.  Magnitudo Spini. 

• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):336.
• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Oostindie." = East Indies.
• Peters Checklist 14:395 indicates "East Indies; error, emended to Angola by Gmelin, 1789, Syst.Nat. 1(2), p.883."

• The citation is given as conventionally cited, however there is some uncertainty here. Using bibliographic tools and library searches, I have not identified with certainty the entity "Mittheilungen des Ornithologischen Vereins [Vereines] in Wien". I suspect that this may be the title of a subsection of a larger work.
• The Richmond Index gives the source as:
  • "Sonntagsb. d. Norddeutsch. Allgemein. Zeitung no.37, 16 Sept. 1883"
    with a note saying:
    'orig. diag. ? repr. in J.f.O. 1883, 399.
    Mitth. des Orn.. Vereines in Wien, VII, no.10 Oct., 1883 p.202 (in text).'
  • On a second card detailing the J. fur Orn. 1884 listing is a note in Richmond's hand stating:
    'probably first described in a newspaper - "Norddeutschen Allg. Zeitung."
    no.37 of Sept. 16, 1883!'
    This "probably" is written above a "possibly" which is crossed out.
• There was a German newspaper "Norddeutsche allgemeine Zeitung" published 1870-1942 which would appear to be the paper referred to.
• By date, this would certainly appear to have priority, and if it satisfies the requirements for adequacy of description would appear to be the appropriate citation.
• My guess is that Richmond did not actually see the Norddeutsh. Allg. Zeitung entry. His changing "possibly" to "probably" suggests he got some additional information, but NOT certainty regarding this question.

• I previously followed the AOU. 42^nd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2000. 117(3):850. for the citation, which was:
  • Centrocercus minimus Bradbury & Vehrencamp 1998 PrincipalsAnimalCommunication cover p.iv,770
• I now follow the AOU. 43^rd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2002. 119(3):899.
• A complex and unfortunate situation exists here. I understand this name, though unpublished, was used informally for some time. The Bradbury and Vehrencamp publication of the name was not intended as the species description, but nonetheless was interpreted by Banks, and others who have reviewed the data and the applicable rules, as satisfying the ICZN rules then in effect, and was thus, whether advertent or not, a valid species description.
• Shortly after that publication, the new 4^th ICZN rules came into effect and the description would NOT then have satisfied the criteria.
• Those who worked on recognition of the taxon published their work in the last 2000 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, where they described it as as "new species", and did NOT cite the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work, OR the AOU checklist update's use of the name as a Bradbury and Vehrencamp taxon.
• I understand that there was some consideration to petition the ICZN to suppress the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work (which had unquestioned priority) and thus have their work (being the next available) as the citation.
• The action of the AOU Checklist Committee may make this moot. The Checklist Committee held that the name was used by Vehrencamp and Bradbury as "a means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as a scientific name in zoological nomenclature," and thus was excluded under ICZN 1985 Art.1(b)(6) and ICZN 1999 Art. 1.3.5.
• This would appear to be a lesson and a motivator to remember the importance of publishing and establishing valid names so they can be used by the scientific community in a uniform and consistent manner.
• An additional point:
  • I can not understand Young et al.'s motivation for NOT mentioning either Bradbury & Vehrencamp, OR the initial findings of the AOU Checklist Committee in their WilsonBull. article of description. I can understand their disappointment, and concern over the problem, but by not mentioning the issue in their WilsonBull. paper they ensure that the nomenclatural issue will be more difficult to understand when people in the future look back on this name. In addition, in my view, it produces the possibility of an interpretation of petulance, rather than a desire to resolve and clarify a nomenclatural issue.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 7:282 as a full species.
• Sibley & Monroe suggest possibly a full species, (and use the form M. maranonica).
• The genus group name Melanopareia ends in the transliterated Greek word παρεια [pareia: cheek] which is feminine. Thus Sibley & Monroe's interpretation that the form should be maranonica. However the specific epithet is based on the Rio Marañon, and thus may be a noun in apposition. Chapman described the species as maranonicus but for the moment I use maranonica.
• This approach is supported by Normand David who writes (2002.10.23): "Although formed from the Rio Marañon, the name maranonicus of Chapman is necessarily adjectival because ending in the adjectival suffix -icus, just like amazonicus/amazonica from the Amazon River. Because Melanopareia is feminine, maranonicus needs the mandatory correction to maranonica."
• Has been treated as a subspecies of M. elegans, but they differ morphologically and are allopatric (see Rigdely & Tudor, 1994, and Sibley 1996).

• Often spelt S. magnirostris. Originally described as Acanthiza magnirostra Gould, 1838.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):38 discuss this. They indicate that: "To change magnirosta to magnirostis would turn and invariable noun phrase into a variable adjective."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Sericornis magnirostris occurs 3 times in the Zoo. Rec.; Sericornis magnirostra does not occur.

• Often placed in the monotypic genus

  Eupetomena Gould 1853 Monogr.Trochil. pt6 pl.1,text

• HBW 5:554 (Schuchmann) notes: "song structure and enlarged shaft of primary in [the] male support [the] present treatment in Campylopterus.

• Often spelt C. melancorypha. Originally described as Anas melancorypha Molina, 1782. (Not melanocorypha).
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):27 discuss this. They indicate that: Sibley & Monroe (1990) were mistaken in regarding this name as a noun in apposition (which they did because of the capitalization). The state: "Molina's name is feminine and agrees in gender with the genus Anas, we conclude that melanocorypha can only be the correct latinization of the Greek adjectival μελαγκορυφος [melagkoruphos; black-headed], as diagnosed by Molina (1782,234), and not the latinized masculine noun μελαγκορυφος [ melagkoruphos: tit or warbler]."
• μελαγ-κορυφος is defined by Liddell & Scott as "a bird, the black-cap, Motacilla atricapilla L.; or (as Sundevall) Parus palustris, the marsh tit. Ar. Av. 877, Arist. H. A. 8. 3, 5., 9. 15, 2; acc. to Plin. 10. 44, the μ was the same bird as the ficedula (συκαλις), the latter name being given it during the fig season.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinations C. melanocorypha and C. melancorypha occur twelve times each in the Zoo. Rec..

• Often spelt P. melanospila. Originally described as Jotreron melanospila Salvadori, 1875.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name melanospila is latinized from the Greek adjective μελανοσπιλος [melanospilos; black-spotted]. Jotrereon Bonaparte, 1854, ending in the transliterated (masculine and feminine) Greek adjective τρηρον [treron:shy], is masculine because it was not established in combination with a feminine adjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.2)."
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination P. melanospila occurs twice in the Zoo. Rec..

• See Smith, PW. "The history and taxonomic status of the Hispaniolan Crossbill Loxia megaplaga." BBOC. 1997(1998). 117(4):264-271.
• Peters Checklist 14:293 lists this as a subspecies of Loxia leucoptera.

Scytalopus micropterus Systematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:284.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg (Remsen, 1998 )

Scytalopus meridanus Systematics

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters Vol.7 p.286.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg ( Remsen, 1998)

• Usually cited as 1776.
• See Tyrberg. BBOC 118(1):56-7. 1998.

Hemignathus munroi Author Douglas Pratt

• The Richmond Index, lists the author as Douglas, an error for Douglas Pratt.
• Further confusion with this taxon is possible because of the 1919 Perkins taxon Dysmordrepanis munroi.

• Peters Checklist 9:169 has 1831.
• Uncertainty exits about the date of publication of livr.5; I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
• The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and hence 1859 is conventionally used.
• The accession number for the British Museum Library copy of this work is "60.3.-7.2" penciled on the back of the title page.
• The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
• I regard the preponderance of evidence as supporting 1860 as the publishing date.

• Peters Checklist 15:183 does not mention the Appendix, and lists "p.62".
• I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

Vanellus macropterus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

• Peters Checklist 1:341 gives 1834 and p.282-83.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates 1833, p.80, and checking a facsimile of the papers indicates the Peters Checklist is in error.
• The author is usually given as Smith (Peters Checklist 1:341; HBW 2:157) The Richmond Cardex has Peters crossed out, and "Verreaux" written in. Apparently from independant information H&M 3^rd Corrigenda concurs with the Richmond Index, and lists Verreaux as the author of the taxon.
• In further support of this possibility, Strickland 1855 Ornithological Synonyms p.114 lists the author of the taxon as "Smith, Verreaux", but lists the date as "1830" (!).

• Peters Checklist 6:232 lists the date as 1828.
• The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1827.
• HBW 7:533 (Short & Horne) gives 1828, evidently following the Peters Checklist.

• Peters Checklist 15:187 does not list the plates or figure, which are from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 6:63 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of the work.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1828.
• The date proposed by Peters not only appears most unlikely but it suggests that Peters did not actually examine this rare and confusing work during the preparation of this portion of the Checklist. Unpublished notes by CW Richmond indicate that on p.30 of this work (where this bird is described) the date of "Sept. 1827" is mentioned, so this portion of the work (which is Hefte 7) certainly had to be published subsequent to that time.

• Peters Checklist 3:101 lists 1811. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters