• Peters Checklist 1(2):cites this to 1894.
• H&M 3^rd:96 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 5 cites Eck & Quaisser, 2004 regarding dates from this source and changes quite a few dates based on this 2004 paper: a good number were changed so that they did not agree with the dates I had. These changes did not appear to me to make any real sense at all.
• The H&M Corrigenda 5 (2006.01.31) does not mention the May 2005 paper by Quaisser & Eck "Korrekturne und Ergänzungen zum Verzeichnis der Typen der Vogelsammlung des Mueseums fü Tierkunde in den Staatlichen Naturhistorischen Sammlungen Dresden" Zool. Abhand.(Dresden) 55:129-138. The correction table at back (pp.137-138), to my distinct satisfaction, confirms the dates I had been using all along, often not in agreement with Peters Checklist, but always in agreement with the Richmond Index. I suppose I should anticipate yet MORE information becoming available that proves all my dates wrong!!!

• Usually cited to 1865. However, the Richmond Index for this taxon has a note:

  "Nov.", 1865 Publ. 1866

  The notes on the covers of these issues would support that interpretation.

• Two issues must be considered here, the spelling of the subspecies group name and the attribution of authority.
• Regarding the authority
  • Sclater in Syst.Av.Ethiop. 1:30 attributes the name to Hartlaub, and adding parentheticaly "(ex Verreaux)".
  • Sharpe in his Hand-list 1:202 attributes the authority to Verreaux with a note "(Cf. O. Neumann J.f.O. 1898 pp.282-284)". In the Hand-list, of course, Sharpe is pointing to CBBM.
  • In CBBM 26:225 (Ogilvie-Grant) it is attributed to Ardea payesi, Hartl. J.f.O. 1858, p.42 (ex J.Verr. MSS.). [APP: note the -i ending here]
  • The Richmond Index attributes the name to Verreaux in Hartlaub.
  • The relevant text of the article itself reads:
    • German

      Eine genaue Vergleichung, welche mein Freund Jules Verreaux zwischen der neuen Art aus
      Westafrica und dem von Bernier herstammenden Exemplar des madagascarischen A. podiceps der
      Pariser Sammlung austellen konnte, ergab auf den ersten Blick die specifische Verschiedenheit
      beider.

    • Translation

      An exact comparison, which my friend Jules Verreuax was able to make out between the new type from
      West Africa and the specimen that stems out of Bernier of the madagascarian A. podiceps of
      the Paris collection, instantly revealed the specific differences of both.

  • This does not seem to me to indicate that Verreaux had any real role in publishing the name, so I attribute the authority to Hartlaub.

• Regarding the spelling, the the use of Payesi with single -i ending in the footnote would appear to be an incorrect subsequent spelling.

• Often (e.g. Peters Checklist 7:54; HBW 8:445) listed as
  • Campylorhamphus pucherani (Des Murs) 1849 Iconogr.Orn. livr.12 pl.69,text
• The name in Des Murs' work, is attributed to Lafresnaye, and the descriptive diagnostic material and the name are, I understand, included in quotes -- showing that Lafresnaye's text is being used. Therefore, my interpretation is that the author of the name is Lafresnaye (or more formally Lafresnaye in Des Murs).
• The spelling is pucherani on the plate, and pucheranii in the text, additionally Lafresnaye uses the spelling pucheranii in his 1850 Rev.Mag.Zool. article.
• Therefore, I attribute the authority to Lafresnaye, rather than Des Murs, and the spelling as pucheranii.

• Sherborn, Index Animalium p.742 of the pre 1800 volume, spells this philippinensis, not philippensis as seen elsewhere (Peters, The Richmond Index).
• Further confusing the matter is the treatment by both the Cat.B.Br.Mus. and Sharpe's Handlist.
  1. Sharpes Hand list Vol. 1 p.113 lists:

     	2. philippinensis (Bonn.). (p.511.)

     but, lists it as

     	philippensis (Podicipes) i. 113.

     on p.142 of the General Index.
  2. Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 26:511 lists:

     	Colymbus philippensis, Bonnat. Tabl. Encycl. Méth. i. p.58, pl.46.
     	fig. 3 (1790).

• Peters Checklist 1(2):371 cites this as

  Falco pojana Savi, 1822, Nuovo Giornale Pisa, 22, p.68

  and this seems to essentially mirror that found in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 1:186.
• The actual title of the serial in question varies somewhat in representation among the few Library Catalogues I have found it in, but generally it is:

  Nuovo giornale de' letterati

  published in Pisa.
• This journal commenced publication in 1822 (ceasing in 1839) making the likelihood of volume 22 in 1822 seem low.
• Sherborn in his Index Animalium.list some 32 taxa to this source, and there confirms that this name does in fact occur in volume 22, but the date of that volume is 1831.
• Carlo Violani very helpfully looked into this for me. The copies of the Journal that are held in the Univ. Pavia library extend from 1821 to 1835. This taxon occurs in volume 22 for 1831 (not 1822) and the name first appears on p.63 (not p.68)
• Given the fact that this name was published some 9 years later than it has generally have been considered to be, it is not known to me if there might be a senior synonym that must be considered.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):332 dates this taxon to 1881.
• This error is repeated by HBW 2:149.
• The Richmond Index notes the date of publication as Jan. 26, 1882, and this is confirmed to be correct by "A Bicentenary History of the Linnean Society of London". 1988. Gage AT, Stearn WT. p.215.

• The date of this taxon is a problem. Peters Checklist 1(2):331, dates it to 1890 without note or comment, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:105 as well as HBW 2:149.
• The Richmond Index dates this as "1890" with "?89" written above the date.
• Peters Checklist 4:26 dates Cacomantis arfakianus from 30 pages later in this same work (p.177) to 1889, with a note saying "Reprint, p.49" and a footnote showing the Cuckoo was also published in "Aggiunte alla Ornitologica della Papuasia e delle Molucche".
• The Richmond Index card also has written in "Aggiunte Orn. Pap. pte. I". for Urospizias polionotus and it is my suspicion that that is probably the correctly cited source.
• If this really was in Pt. I of the Agg. Orn. Pap., it appears it should be dated to 1889.
• This would be quite a bit easier to work out if Peters in vol.4 or Stresemann & Amadon in volume 1(2) had taken the trouble to actually sort out this citation.
• With some trepidation, (more regarding the correct source to cite rather than the date) I date this to 1889.
• My strong suspicion is that this should probably be cited to the Aggiunte Orn.Pap.Mol., but that almost certainly would have a different page number, than that given here.

• Apparently described by Coues in Palidna.
  • The genus group name Palidna is a puzzle to me, I do not find it in the Richmond Index, in Neave, in Sherborn, or in Schulze (et al.).
• This taxon is not listed in Peters Checklist Vol.2, not do I find it in the Richmond Index, but the Richmond Index card for Actodroma Bairdii Coues 1861, includes a note:

  Coues' first new species! (not counting Palidna pacifica!)

• Colin Jones appears to have solved this mystery (as he has many others).Palidna undoubtedly is an emendation of Pelidna which is a Cuvier 1816 name.
• The data from the citation are taken from Deignan Bull.U.S.Nat.Mus. no.221, 1961 p.90

• H&M 3^rd:137 has 1935.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that this portion of Vol.87 was published in 1936.

• Described by Rand in Collocalia, and now held to be in Aerodramus.
• Price et al. 2005. "Phylogenetic relationships of the Papuan Swiftlet Aerodramus papuensis and implications fo the evolution of avian echolocation." Ibis 147(4):790-796. discuss this bird and its relationships. It appears that the Papuan swift probably does not belong in Aerodramus. Price et al. indicate that molecular data suggests that papuensis is the sister taxon to Hydrochrous gigas, though unlike H. gigas it does echolocate. It differs from other echolocating "Aerodramus" swifts, in that not only does it have 3 (as opposed to 4!) toes, but does not appear to nest in caves (the presumed adaptive basis for echolocation of the other "Aerodramus" swifts.
• It appears to me, that the Papuan swift belongs in a monotypic genus.

• Previously as
  • Xiphorhynchus fuscus brevirostris Pinto 1938 Rev.Mus.Paulista 22(1937) p.384
• Longmore and Silveira. 2005. "A replacement name for Xiphorhynchus fuscus brevirostiris (Pinto 1938)". BBOC. 125(2):153-154. discuss the nomenclature here, and propose a replacement name.
• Thanks to Jirka Schmidt for bringing this to my attention.

• In HBW 2:511,573 Coturnix chinensis papuensis Mayr & Rand is cited as "1937 Bull.Am.Mus.Nat.Hist. 73".
• Edward Dickinson confirms (in litt. 2003.06.24) that the correct citation is 1936 and Am.Mus.Novit.
• The bird was described in Excalfactoria and so the authority should be in parentheses, contra both HBW 2:511 and H&M 3^rd:54.
• Thanks to Norbert Bahr for pointing this out.

Peters Checklist 14:24 (Lowery & Monroe) date this to 1858.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this paper was read Oct. 22, 1855 and the number was published in Oct. 1855.
• Lowrey & Monroe apparently took 1858 (the last date of the volume VI) as the date for the entire volume, ignoring the fact that this work was published in parts. Their error has then been followed by most other workers, including the AOU CL 6th and 7th eds. as well as H&M 3^rd:762.
• The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 5 dates this tentatively to 1856 "indeed possibly 1855" though no data are given in support.
• See the note for Chordeiles gundlachii

• This volume (70) of the Stizungsberichte Math-Nat. of Vienna evidently has an imprint date of 1874. An interpretation that derives from the entry in the Richmond Index, as well as the listing in Peters Checlist 12:389 (Salomonsen).
• However, Salomonsen apparently interprets the material to have been delayed until 1875 (the date he gives for the taxon), though no evidence in support of this idea is supplied.
• H&M 3^rd:431 follows the dating given by Peters, even though the date 1874 is given to other taxa that occur later in this work (e.g. Zosterops minor, mysorensis occuring on pp.115 and 116 of the Sitzungsberichte are dated by H&M 3^rd to 1874. (see p.627).
• I see no reason not to use the imprint date, and thus follow the date which is published in the Richmond Index for this taxon.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:213 as
  • Picoides scalaris parvus (Cabot) 1845 BostonJ.Nat.Hist. 5 p.92
• As Michael Reiser points out, Bangs indicates in The Auk 22:168 that the citation with priority is the Proc.Bost.Soc.N.H. which was published in 1844. Richmond indicates that the signature for this portion is dated May, 1844; he also notes that the Bost.J.N.H. publication (as cited by Peters) is dated Jan. 1845. Sherborn, similarly in the Ind.Anim. p.4779 shows the Bost.J.N.H. as following the Proceedings (though he is less certain of the date of the latter, listing it as 1844-1845).
• Interestingly, Ridgway also had trouble with this citation, erroneously listing it to Proc.Acad.Nat.Sci.Phila. 1845 v:90, in The Birds of North and Middle America part VI p.249.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:31 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:175 but not by HBW 4:211.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby 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 H&M 3^rd:175 and HBW 4:209 place the authority in parentheses.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Peters Checklist 6:44 correctly cites this taxon to 1842. (in this volume when there are two dates, the date in parentheses is the date of publication; the unparenthesized date is the imprint date).
• Not surprisingly, this is misinterpreted by most workers who have used this as their source of information, and have listed the date as 1844 (e.g. H&M 3^rd:307, HBW 7:182).
• The dates of publication of this work were dealt with in detail by Sherborn and Palmer in 1899. Sherborn CD, Palmer TS. 1899. "Dates of d'Orbigny's 'Dictionnaire Universel d'Histored Naturelle,' 1839-1849." Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist.(7) 3:350-352. Sherborn and Palmer's treatment is reflected in subsequent compilations (e.g. Sherborn's Index Animalium, Schulze et al., Neave), and those treatments have been demonstrably ignored by most subsequent workers.

• Originally described in Ptilonopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:34 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176, but not by HBW 4:217.
• It appears to me that Ptilonopus is an 1833 Selby emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• The author for this taxon is usually given as Lesson alone. In this, the various authorities appear to be simply copying one another.
• I infer (from Sharpe's Hand-List) that Salvadori in the CBBM 21:170 list only Lesson as the author. [This is confirmed by the work of Dave Donsker 2005.04.22]
• Sherbron Ind.Anim. p.5220 also lists only Lesson.
• The Richmond Index lists Lesson & Garnot, which in the abscence of information to the contrary, I follow.
• Dave Donsker additionally noted that Gray in his 1844 Genera of Birds lists only Lesson as the author if this taxon. Thus it is likely that Salvadori may simply have been following Gray in this regard.

• This taxon would appear to be the result of less than complete reseach by Salvadori when he prepared the Columbiformes volume of the Cat.B.Br.Mus. Salvadori cites Temminck & Knip as the authors of this taxon, and this appears to be followed without question or comment by Peters III:17 and HBW 4:198.
• No mention is made of
  • [Columba] psittacea Forster,JR 1795 FaunulaIndica.ed.2 p.10
  Though certainly other currently valid taxa are cited to this source.
• The Forster name, would create problems of its own because, at least according to the Richmond Index it is a synonym of Columba vernans Linnaeus 1771 (now Treron vernans). So it appears that the currently used name is a junior primary homonym of a name that is itself a synonym of a taxon now in the same genus (!).
• To the extent I have been able to determine, the senior homonym (Columba psittacea) is likely a nomen oblitum unused since 1899. If this name has been used since 1899, I understand from Edward Dickinson that the most likely place for it to have occured would be in the works of Oberholser in his treatment of the Abbott collections from the East Indies. I have not had the opportunity to see if the name is in fact used there, but probably this should be pursued, as Oberholser undoubtedly used the Richmond Index, where this Forster name is included. Therefore Oberholser could have easily known of the name.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 3:139 as occuring in volume 4.
• The Richmond Index makes no reference to volume structure, and list this as occuring in "Heft VIII", which I follow.

• This taxon was originally described in Oreopyra.
• Corrigenda 3 for H&:M 3^rd directs the reader to "remove the bracket", though no rationale is given.
• It appears to me that the parentheses are appropriate, and I leave them as is.

• The authority is conventionally attributed to Hartlaub, which undoubtedly is at least in part correct.
• The Richmond Index lists the authority as "Hartlaub, in H. Dohrn." raising (at least for me) the question as to whether H. Dohrn has some standing in the authority.

• Often cited to 1859 (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:202, H&M 3^rd:378)
• Cited back in 1957 by the AOU CL 5^th Ed. p.339 as published Jan 12, 1860.
• H&M 3^rd: 167 cites Columbina passerina pallescens from 2 pages later in this serial (p.305) to 1860.
• This species description was presented at the meeting of Nov. 27, 1859.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 8:207 (Traylor, 1979) and by Wolters (p.183) as published in 1826; these are either typographic errors or remarkable assertions.
• Nevertheless, this date ("1826") is followed without comment or question by H&:M 3^rd:374 as well as by HBW 9:408 (? J.A. Mobely).
• What this tells us is that none of these authors consulted The Richmond Index, Neave, Schulze, or such obscure references as the 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th, 6^th or 7^th AOU Checklists where 1827 is the date cited.
• Nilaus from some three pages earlier in the same volume of the Zool.Journ. is cited by Peters Checklist 9:314 (Peters, Mayr & Greenway, 1960) to 1827, with a notation that suggests it has an imprint date of 1828 (!). Similarly, Wolters (p.230) cites 1827 for Nilaus.
• CW Richmond's unpublished notes on Dates of Publication indicates that the table of contents of the Journal has Vol. III no. X for "April-September, 1827". Furthermore, Richmond notes that the Trans. of the Linn. Soc. of London quotes no.6-10 for the Zool.Journ. as "1825-1827", which would certainly put this number in 1827. Thus it appears that neither Traylor nor Wolters examined the original serial or sought any corroborative information regarding the date
• Subsequent workers, are clearly ready to accept Peters Checklist without question, or without consideration of sources such as the AOU Checklists.

• Published in the Auk, no. 2 April, with an author's edition pubished 2 months before, on Feb. 17, 1891 [CWR].

• Peters Checklist 8:102 (Traylor) gives this date as 1883.
• This is copied by H&M 3^rd:363, but corrected in Corrigenda 2.1.
• Duncan and the Richmond Index show this was published in April of 1884.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):493 (Mayr) gives the author of this taxon as Garnot, and this is followed by Cibois et al. Condor 106(4):839.
• Zimmer 1926 p.188 indicates that "The plates of the birds antedate the corresponding descriptions in the text and hence must be cited, under Lesson and Garnot together, for certain names."
• Whether this is one of those names or not is unknown to me.
• Additionally, it must be noted that the plate in Voy.Coq. antedates Lesson's published description in Man.D'Orn. by only one week (21 June, 1828 vs 28 June, 1828).
• Also of minor interest, Sharpe's citation in the Cat.B.Br.Mus. 1879. 4:434 Cites Man.D'Orn. but seems to get the page number wrong -- giving p.193 (the Richmond Index gives p.192) and in Voy.Coq. cites pl.18 (The Richmond Index, and Peters Checklist give pl.17).

Systematics

(2008.03.31
• H&M 3^rd:500 has a note stating:

  Considered a separate species by Holyoak & Thibault (1984).

  No argument against this position is brought forward, and presumably the systematics of Peters Checklist is followed without further consideration.
• Cibois et al. Condor 2006 106(4):839 consider this a full species (see Table I), though this work is not discussed by H&M.

• The treatment here follows Cibois A, Thibault J, Pasquet E. 2004. "Biogeography of Eastern Polynesian Monarchs (POMEREA): An endemic genus close to extinction." The Condor 106(4):837-851.

• Peters Checklist 8:61 lists the date as 1867.
• This portion of the Proceedings was published in April, 1868.

• Listed in H&M 3^rd:353 as "A. a. plengei (Schulengerg & Graham, 1981)". However this subspecies was described in Anairetes, so it seems to me that the parentheses are in error.

• Peters Checklist 13:22 cites the page number as "p.647"
• The Richmond Index, The Cat.B.Br.Mus. 12:487 list the page number as p.697.
• Thanks to Slim Sreedharan of the Sarawak Museum in Borneo for picking this up. He also indicates that the entry in volume 10 of Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan (Ali , Salim & Ripley, Dillon S.,) also lists this as p.697.

• The original description reads:

  		222. SUBGEN. PIPREOLA.
  
    SUBGEN. CHARACTER. - Wings moderate; the pri-
  maries not narrowed: tarsus shorter than the middle toe;
  lateral toes nearly equal, the inner being scarcely shorter
  than the outer; inner, cleft to the base; outer toe con-
  nected to the middle only as far as the first joint: tail
  very short.
    The peculiar structure of the feet in this bird, so different
  from that of the typical Pipræ, induces me to consider it as
  the type of one of the subgenera; Metopia is probably an-
  other; and I have an imperfect acquaintance with a third.
  
  		PIPREOLA chlorolepidota.
  
  ...
  
  

• The name
  • Tyto alba affinis (Blyth) 1862 Ibis p.388
  is often used for Afrotropical forms. However, see Bruce MD & Dowsett RJ, 2004. "The correct name of the Afrotropical mainland subspecies of the Barn Owl Tyto alba." BBOC 124(3):184-187.

• Peters Checklist 12:342 (Salomonsen) gives the date for this as 1883.
• The Richmond Index indicates that this name is in Vol.16, no.92 for April 6, 1882.
Additionally, the Peters checklist cites other taxa from this volume to 1882.
• Absent any specific evidence that this publication was delayed, I follow the Richmond Index, and the other citations from the Peters Checklist and use 1882.

• The original description reads:

    CONURUS PHOENICURUS, Natterer.
    Joues vertes; les autres parties de la têtre brunes; plumes des
  côtés et du dessous du cou, ainsi que du jabot, brunes, mais
  largement terminées de brun-gris.  Rouge du ventre imparfaite-
  ment prononcé. Bec brun. —  Aile 4 pouces 6 lignes à 4 pou-
  ces 9 lignes; queue 5 pouces 2 lignes; hauteru de la mandible
  supérieure 4 lignes et demie; largeur de l'inférieure 5 lignes et
  demie.
    Habite le Brésil.
    1. Mâle, tué en Octobre 1825, Mato grosso, voyage de J.
  Natterer, du Musée de Vienne, 1864. ‚ 2. Femelle, tuée le
  3 Juillet 1826, Brésil, voyage de J. Natterer, du Musée de
  Vienne, 1864.
  

• The citation is conventionally given (e.g. Peters Checklist 6:71; HBW 7:251,560; H&M 3^rd:301) as based upon:
  • Aulacorhynchus prasinus (Gould) 1834 PZS Pt2 no.19 p.78
• However, this name was also described in the first edition of Monogr. Ramphast. in part I, which was published in 1833, and should be cited there.
• I speculate that the confusion arose from the fact that it was overlooked that this Monograph was issued in parts, and that the PZS publication of this name occured at about the same time (or slightly after?) the completion of Part II of the Monograph, or even more possibly the date for the publication of the final part is taken as the date for the entire work.

• Originally described in Megalæma
• Peters Checklist 6:39 puts the author's name in parentheses, interpreting Megalæma to be different from Megalaima. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:306
• ICZN 1999 51.3.1 states:

   
  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]).

• To date, I am unable to find any indication that Megalæma was proposed as a distinct generic entity. Thus I interpret it to be an emendation and do not use parentheses around the author's name. Sherborn lists Megalaema (without ligature) as an Agassiz "emend. pro Megalaima, Gray.", and Schulze "Nomen. animalium gen. et subgen." p.1995 also has this interpretation.
• If Megalæma was proposed distinctly as a genus, and is not a misspelling or emendation I would be very eager to know of the facts supporting that case as it appears to be unknown to Sherborn, Richmond, or Schulze, et al.

• There is inconsistency in the treatment of dates for taxa from this volume and number of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal.
  1. Pitta phayrei (Blyth) 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.343 [H&M p.337 as 1863]
  2. Gecinulus grantia viridis Blyth 1862 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 31 p.341 [H&M p.330 as 1862]
• Peters 8:312 [= Mayr] is the source of 1863 for Anthocincla phayrei. Mayr has it as "1863 JASB 31(1862)" thus indicating that vol.31 (for 1862) was not out until 1863. Peters 6:147 [=Peters] lists Gecinulus viridis to 1862.
• CWR has notes on these taxa, listing both in 1862 in vol.31 with a handwritten notes indicating "no.3 [not ante June]" (A. Phayrei) and "no.3 not earlier than June" (G. viridis).
• This JASB is such an unresolved nightmare, that I am willing to believe almost anything is possible. But especially as these two taxa occur in the same number (no.3) of this volume, I would think they should both have the same year date (until some story helps us understand otherwise). It appears from CWR's note, and from Mayr's treatment that there must be some evidence for delay, or at the very least "time uncertainty". As the imprint date would appear to be 1862, I am unwilling to put either (or both) of these taxa in 1863 until someone can demonstrate that 1862 is not possible.

• The Richmond Index raises the question that this may have been published in 1881.

• Peters Checklist 13:206 (Paynter) dates this 1860, which is the imprint date for this volume. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:799.
• The Richmond Index indicates that no.48 of Volume 8 was published May 30, 1861.
• Neave 3:683 also lists this as "[1861]".
• Shulze 4(19):2604 dates this "1860 [1861 V]" which would appear to support the Richmond Index interpretation for May of 1861."
• I follow the Richmond index, Neave, and Schulze here

• Peters Checklist 6:153 spells this "philippensis"
• Originally described as Thriponax Philippinensis by Steere.
• The emendation to philippensis may be due to Hargitt, who appears to have spelled it this way in Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 18:305 (not seen -- APP) and this appears to have been followed by Peters without checking the original description.
• HBW 7:527 has the correct spelling and they include a note indicating that it is frequently spelled philippensis.

• The citation here (taken from Peters Checklist 6:139) doesn't look like it can possibly be correct.
• The listings I have for this serial indicate that the second series commenced in 1887, so one would think that this taxon would be in the second series, which would make volume 11 very unlikely for this date. Peters may have confused vol. 11 with no. 11.
• I do not find this taxon in the Richmond Index and thus do not have another reliable source for comparison.
• The HBW 7:561 lists this as in volume 11 of Le Natrualiste, and I presume that they are simply parroting the Peters citation.

• H&M 3^rd:322 attributes this name to Berlepsch & Taczanowski, and this should be Berlepsch & Stolzmann according to the Peters Checklist and the Richmond Index.

• The authority is listed in parentheses by Peters Checklist 6:121, but not by H&M 3^rd:316. (Contrast with C.t.taeniolaema et C.t.hausburgi on the same page). It is not listed in parentheses by HBW 7:463.
• Originally described as Campothera poensis so the interpretation by H&M 3^rd apparently agress that Campothera is an emendation of Campethera and not a distincly described genus.
• I do not find Campothera as a distinctly described genus in The Richmond Index, or in Naeve. ICZN 1999 art. 51.3.1 states: "Parentheses are not used when the species-group name as originally combined with an incorrect spelling or an emendation of the generic name...", and absent demonstration of a distinctly described genus Campothera I include the authority without parentheses.

• The citation given here is that given conventionally and was published in May of 1841. This name was first published in The Athenaeum in October of 1840. (see The Richmond Index).
• Bruce & McAllan. 1990 "Some Problems in Vertebrate Nomenclature. II Birds Part 1." p.457 discuss this problem in detail. The recommend suppressing the 1840 Athenaeum publication for nomenclatural reasons.
• The Zoological Record indicates that between vol.118 and vol.134 they record Pedionomus Gould 1840 used three times, and Pedionomus Gould 1841 used once.

• For the systematics of Penelopides I follow HBW 6:[506]-508. 2001 (Kemp).

• Peters Checklist 7:126 transposes the numbers of the Am.Mus.Novit. as "1207", the correct number is 1270.

• In a rare occurrence this taxon is left out of the index in Peters Checklist 7:309. It is present in the Comprehensive Index 16:380.
• I have not found it in the Richmond Index in Leptashtenura. It is present as such in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 15:37.

• Listed by Peters Checklist 6:14 as "Am.Mus.Novit., no.6, 1923, p.6"
• no.6 makes no sense for 1923 for this serial. The Richmond Index shows this to be in no.58

• Peters Checklist 4:90 gives the date for this as 1801, (but on page 163 for Stryx uralensis Pallas, in the same work, has a date of 1771).
• The Richmond index has a date of 1771, which is consistent with other taxa from this part of the work, and I follow that here.

• This subspecific epithet is spelled "phalaenoides" in H&M 3^rd:231.
• Peters Checklist 4:130 spells this "phaloenoides".
• The Richmond Index gives the spelling "phaloenoides" for the Daudin name, and "phalaenoides" as an 1801 Latham emendation of the Daudin name.

• The author is usually given as Hartlaub (e.g. Peters Checklist 11:334).
• The Richmond Index gives the author of Stenostira plumbea 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).

• Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 4:14; HBW 3:[611]) given as

  Pachycoccyx Cabanis 1882 J.Orn. 30 p.230

• The Richmond Index gives a date of April, 1882 for that volume and number of the J.Orn., however the Orn.Centralblatt also containing the erection of this genus was issued on March 1, 1882.

• This portion of the Ark.Zool. was not fully published until 1927, however Ante Strand in Stockholm confirms that a preprint was published on 12 Nov. 1926.

• Cited by HBW 2:572 as PZS 1837 (1838) p.42.
• This was published in Pt. V and this part (including p. 42) was published Dec. 7 1837.
• However, as noted by the Richmond Index, this name was also pubished with a plate [9] in the Icones. Av. and this part of that work was published in Aug. 1837, and thus has priority.

• Listed in Peters Checklist 1(2):34 (Blake) as peruviana and this is followed by many others.
• However David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):21 discuss Latinized words adjectives ending in a Latin adjectival suffix, and indicate that this must agree in gender with the Genus group name: hence peruvianus.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):25 (Blake) gives the volume for the 1917 BBOC as 28 (sic), a misprint for 38.
• HBW 1:[631] perpetuates this error, though of interest in other citations (e.g. 2:[571]) they correctly list the 1917 volume number as 38.

• Originally as Muscicapa picata
• Original description reads:

  44. MUSCICAPA PICATA. Musc. suprà atra, subtùs sordidè alba;
      strigá a mento ad nucham utrinque extendente, fasciá alarum,
      uropygio crisso, apicibusque rectricum duarum lateralium albis.
      Longitudo corporis 5 2/5 unc. caudæ 2 2/5.

• Previously held to be a Corvid.
• James et al. use molecular and osteological data to indicate that P. humilis is a Parid and not a Corvid. The authors indicate that it may be within Parus but determination of it's status and relative position must await further work. They offer no hints, suggestions, or help regarding it's position relative to other parids, and my placement of it following Parus results only from their lack of indications in this matter.
• James HF, Ericson PGP, Slikas B, Lei F-M, Gill FB, & Olson SL. 2003. "Pseudopodoces humilis, a misclassified terrestrial tit (Paridae) of the Tibetan Plateau; evolutionary consequences of shifting adaptive zones." Ibis. 145:185-202.

• Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in Buteo. Finding Buteo to be paraphyletic, they propose two ways of resolving this:
  1. include Parabuteo into Buteo or
  2. exclude B. leucorrhous and B. magnirostris while including Asturina nitida and Geranoaetus melanoleucus.
• They chose the second approach because of the general acceptance of Parabuteo as distinct, and on the basis of support from their molecular data.
• Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003. "Molecular phylogeny of the genus Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:328-342.

• Linnaeus's original spelling is clearly Perenopterus.
• This spelling does not seem inadvertant. The specific epithets in Linnaeus' listing are spelled both Perenopterus, and Percnopterus.
• Peters Checklist 1(2):304 interprets the name as based on Hasselquist's 1757 Iter Palestinum p.209 which does indeed seem to be listed in Linnaeus's entry. It is the third (!) of his entries, the first being "Perenopterus s. Gypaëtos. Aldr. orn. t. 2. c. 10. Raj. av. 8."
• It is not clear to my why this name is determinative of the spelling, while Linnaeus' seems to have intentionally chosen another spelling.
• The text in Linnaeus's Systema Natura 10^th Ed. reads:

  Pereno-	 6. V. remigibus nigris margine exteriore (præter extimas)
   pterus.	canis.
  	  Perenopterus ſ. Gypaëtos. Aldr. orn. t. 2. c. 10. Raj.
  	    av.  8.
  	  Falco montanus ægyptiacus. Haſſelqv. act. Stockh. 1751.
  	    p. 196
  	  Vultur, Percnopterus, capite nudo, gula plumoſa. Has-
  	    ſelq. itin. 209.
  	  Vultur niger. Raj av. 9.
  	  Vultur bæticus. Raj av. 10.
  	  Vultur albus. Raj av. 10.
  	  Vultur aquilina. Aldr. orn. Alb. av. 2. p. 3. t. 3.
  	  Vultur fulvus, bætico bellonii congener. Raj. av. 10.
  	  Habitat in Ægypto.
  	  Mas totus albus: Remigibus atris margine exteriore ca-
  	    nis, exceptis duabus primis unicoloribus: Femina  tota
  	    fuſca: Remigibus quatuor extimis concoloribus. Ro-
  	    ſtrum  atrum cera flava. Haſſelqv. Nares perpetuo
  	    ſtillant. Raj.
  	  Purgat Cairi terram a cadaverum fætore, ſtipendiis al-
  	    lectus. Haſſelq.
  		

• However in the 12^th Ed. p.123 all occurances are spelled with a "c" -- percnopterus.

• This bird, the Roseate Pipit, is named Anthus roseatus in Peters Checklist 9:160. The citation is:
  • Anthus roseatus Blyth 1847 J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal 16 p.437
• Deignan, 1960 argues that the name Anthus pelopus Gray, JE. 1846 has priority.
  • Deignan HG. 1960. "The Oldest name for the Roseate Pipit". BBOC 80:120..
• Peters Checklist (Mayr & Greenway) have a footnote opposing use of Anthus pelopus Gray 1846, but base this on the occurance of the name in Gray's Zool.Misc. where they hold it to be a nomen nudum.
• The Richmond Index also lists the Zool.Misc. presentation of the name as a nomen nudum, but shows the name appearing twice in the Cat.Mamm.BirdsThibet, once on p.77 (where it is a nomen nudum) and on p.154 where it is accompanied by a description.
• The data and arguments available to me so far would appear to support Deignan's position that Anthus pelopus has priority and is valid.

• Originally spelt Pirenestes.
• Peters Checklist 14:318 (Traylor) in a footnote indicates that:

  	"Pirenestes" is a lapsus for Pyrenestes which was used five times 
  	in the text and in Swainson, 1837, Class. Birds, 2, p.279. --M.A.T."
  	

• "p.279" is a lapsus for p.277 which is where the name occurs in Class.Birds 2.

• Peters Checklist 1:322 (Amadon) gives the citation as:
  • Melierax poliopterus Cabanis 1869 ReisenOst.-Afr.[Decken] 3 pt1 p.40
• This is also followed by HBW 2:144,[571] (Thiollay).
• Robert Dowsett pointed out (2002.12.26) the 1868 J.Orn. citation is appropriate; this, indeed, is the citation given in the Richmond Index and what I follow here.

• Previously cited as:
  • Tachyeres patachonicus (King) 1828 Zool.J. 4 p.100
• This is also the citation given by HBW 1:592,632 (Carboneras), and Peters Checklist 1:453 (Johnsgard).
• The ICZN "Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology Supplement 1986-2000" 2001. p.61 indicates that the Zool.J. 1828 name is suppressed according to Opinion 1648 (1991.06.27). This is subsequent to the Peters Checklist 1 and prior to HBW 1.

• Peters Checklist 12:328 (Moreau) lists the page number as p.295.
• The Richmond Index and Sherborn, as well as the ICZN "Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000." give the page number as 294.
• Bob Dowsett confirms from his copy that it occurs on p.294

• Previously held to be a subspecies of C. bennetti (e.g. Peters Checklist, HBW)
• S. Davies Davies S. 2002. "Ratites and Tinamous". OUP holds this to be a good species.
• Thanks to Daniel Philippe for bringing this to my attention.

• Usually (e.g. Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 26:171 (Sharpe); Peters Checklist 1(2):195 (RB Payne); HBW 1:405) cited as:

  Pilherodius Bonaparte 1855 Consp.Gen.Av. 2 p.139

• The basis for this citation is not clear, though most authors are probably following Peters, who in turn is following Sharpe. Certainly the Reichenbach citation has priority and is a valid source for the genus name.
• H&M 3^rd:87 cites the genus to Reichenbach and 1850 (!). In this citation, no reference is made to the standard references on genus group names (Neave, Schulze (et al., and Richmond) all of whom date this to 1852. The dating of these Reichenbach publications is difficult and confusing. Richmond's work (see discussion on Nipponia) puts forward strong evidence for 1853, which I follow.

• Peters Checklist 3:48 gives the page number as "p.34".
• The Richmond Index gives the page number as "36", which I follow.

• Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N.  99 	TURDUS (puniceus) corpore purpureo, alis cau- 
	daque discoloribus.  Femina forte haec est, alarum
	pennis fuscis, uti & cauda.  In simillima alia ave,
	que mas videtur, alarum remiges primarias albas
	extimas apice nigricantes, tectricesque secundi
	ordinis elongatas, carinatasque observavimus.
	Brissonio utraque avis Cotingis annumeratur,
	quorum 5. & 6. speciem efficit.  Quem hic marem
	innuimus Edwardi Tab. 341. exhibet.
	

• The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Zuyd America."
• Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):334-5.

• Usually spelled Phylloscartes paulistus.
• Fernando Costa Straube helpfully writes (2002.10.30) and explains the status of the spelling of the specific epithet. I include here a copy of the the paper (with abstract in English) addressing this.
Abstract

• Listed by Peters 7:252 as Hypocnemis poecilonota
• Both the Richmond Index and Sheborn show the specific epithet spelled poecilinota and it is unlikely that either or both of them are incorrect in this.
• Special thanks to Michael Rieser for this very good pick up.
• David N, Gosselin M. 2002. "The grammatical gender of avian genera." BBOC 122(4):257-282 discuss the gender of Hylophylax on page 264. Hylophylax Ridgway, 1909 was not combined with a species epithet when it was originally established, and thus is masculine.

• Listed by Peters 7:134 as a subspecies of A. infuscatus
• Zimmer KJ. 2002. "Species limits in Olive-backed foliage-gleaners (Automolus:FURNARIIDAE)." WilsonBull. 114(1):20-37. argues that this form merits full species status based on morphology, plumage, and most especially vocalizations.

• Order of species within genus follows AOU Checklist Supplement 43. July, 2002. 119(3):904
• See Klicka J, Fry AJ, Zink RM, Thompson CW. "A Cytochrome-b perspective on Passerina Bunting Relationships." 2001. Auk 118(3):611-623.

• Originally described as Anthreptes pallidigaster by Sclater and Moreau, 1935.
• In his recent revision of the Sunbirds, Irwin. 1999 "The genus Nectarinia and the evolution and diversification of sunbirds: an Afrotropical perspective." Honeyguide 45: 49. spells the specific epithet "pallidigastra". Presumably because the genus of the gender Hedydipna is feminine.
• However David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):30 discuss Latinized Greek adjectives ending in -GASTRA and indicate that "Original names that end in -gaster and that have Latin initial components (such as flavigaster, rufigaster, etc.) are noun phrases that end in the classical Latin noun gaster, and are to be treated as nouns in apposition, with gender ending unchanged (ICZN 1999, Art.31.2.1, 32.3, 34.2.1, Glossary:noun phrase)."
• Thus I interpret the correct form to be Hedydipna pallidigaster.

• Molecular and song character analysis of the OROPENDULAS by Price and S. Lanyon (Evolution. 2002 56(7):1514-1529) suggest some systematic revision of the OROPENDULA group is needed (ABSTRACT):
  • Within P. angustifrons the subspecies P. angustifrons atrocastaneus differs substantially from the other P. angustifrons subspecies. Price and Lanyon do not specifically propose elevating this to species status, though in recent years many others have elevated subspecific taxa to species level with much, much less support, and I anticipate that many (though not necessarily Price and Lanyon) will take this of proof of its status as a species. If held to be a species, the taxon would be:
    • Psarocolius atrocastaneus Cabanis 1873 J.Orn. 21 p.309
  • There is strong support for excluding Psarocolius oseryi from the genus Psarocolius, but Price and Lanyon state (p.1523) "However, we have yet to determine this species' closest allies within the oropendula-cacique clade, so we await a more detailed analysis of cacique phylogeny before suggesting a revised classification." Recent listings (e.g. Gill & Wright 2006 and Lanyon in "The tree of life") list this as Clypicterus oseryi. Within

    Clypicterus Bonaparte 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.426

  • The song based estimates of phylogeny positioned Psarocolius viridis within Gymnostinops, and suggested it was most closely related to Gymnostinops bifasciatus (!). Further molecular studies are underway to clarify this situation.

• I largely try to follow Prum's treatment of the Manakins. Prum RO. 1994. "Syringeal Morphology, Phylogeny, and Evolution of the Neotropical Manakins (Aves: Pipridae)". Am.Mus.Novit. no.3043 p.1-65".
• Currently unresolved (2002.08.11) Prum does not list Corapipo altera Hellmayr 1906. I have not yet seen all of the Am.Mus.Novitates in which he discusses this, and don't know if he deals with the question of the status of C. altera.

• Often (Peters Checklist 13:164; Sibley & Monroe) included in Camarhynchus.
• Recently placed in the monospecific genus Platyspiza Sato A, O'huigin C, Figueroa F, Grant PR, Grant BR, Tichy H, & Klein J. 1999 "Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed by mtDNA sequences." PNAS USA 96:5101-5106, Burns KJ, Hackett SJ, & Klein NK. 2002. "Phylogenetic relationships and morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and their relatives." Evolution 56(6):1240-1252.
• The systematics of this group remains somewhat uncertain. I asked Kevin Burns about this and his email reply (2002.08.07) with explanation includes this discussion:
  • "The Sato et al. paper reported the Darwin's finches sequences that I used and the vegetarian finches they used were labeled with the genus name Platyspiza. Likewise, the genbank records also used Platypsiza. Therefore, I thought it would avoid confusion if I followed the taxomony used in the Sato et al. paper, although they didn't explicitly justify their taxomony.

    However, based on their results, one could make a case for resurrecting Platypsiza (including only the Vegetarian Finch). In their trees, they show Certhidea branch[ing] off first, followed by Platypsiza, followed by a clade containing uniting Geospiza with Camarhynchus and Cocos Is. finch. Interestingly, the Camarhynchus species themselves (excluding Platypspiza) do not show up as individual, monophyletic species. That is, morphologically identified species of tree finches are intermingled. This either means that something very unusual is going on in sequence evolution within the tree finches or the species of tree finches are not described properly. In any case, Platypspiza is clearly distinct from this cluster of Camarhynchus individuals."

• Often spelled L. purpuropterus (e.g. Peters, Sibley & Monroe ).
• Peters Checklist 15:97 (Dean Amadon) gives the original form as Lamprotornis purpuroptera Rüppell 1845.
• The Richmond Index gives the original form as Lamprotornis purpuropterus Rüppell 1845.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):39
• "Some names (such as purpuroptera, nigricephala, etc.) may look like latinized Greek adjectives at first glance, but their Lain initial components cannot be part of Greek adjectives. Since they end in a latinized Greek noun, such names are noun phrases, and the origianl spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged. (ICZN 1999, 31.2.1,32.3,34.2.1). " ... The component ptera is the Greek noun πυτερον [pteron: wing] latinized with a feminine ending. The adjectival form would have been purpuralaris (Latin), or porphyroptera (latinized from Greek)."
• They indicate the spelling should be Lamprotornis purpuroptera.
• During the period of 1978-1992 I only find the combination Lamprotornis purpuropterus (once) in the Zoo. Rec.

• Often spelt Z. poliogastra. Originally described as Zosterops poliogastra Heuglin, 1861.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):31 discuss this. They indicate that "Zosterops is masculine. (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.3). The name poliogastra is latinized from the Greek adjectival πολριογαστρος [poliogastros: grey-bellied]."
• During the period of 1978-1992 I find only the combination Zosterops poligaster in the Zoo. Rec.

• Often spelt T. pyrropyga. Originally described as Trichixos pyrropyga Lesson, 1839.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):29 discuss this. They indicate that Trichixos is masculine.
• The word is evidently transliterated from the Greek τριχ [trich:hair] and ιχος [ixos: birdlime or mistletoe]. Though τριχας [trichas: "a bird of the thrush kind" (Liddell & Scott)] would also perhaps be a possibility for the stem of the first part of the word.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination does not occur in the Zoo. Rec.

• Peters Checklist 4:119 lists this date as "1853".
• This volume of the PZS was for 1853, however all numbers of this were published in 1854 and 1855.
• The Richmond index correctly shows the 1854 date.
• HBW 5:188,684 (Holt et al.) perpetuates the 1853 error.
• Of interest HBW 7:132 (Rasmussen & Collar) use "1854" (the correct date) for a taxon (Malacoptila fulvogularis) from this same volume of the PZS.
• Additionally, H & M 3^rd:226 shows the date as 1853.

• Often spelt T. pyrrhopygia. Originally described as Halcyon pyrrhopygia Gould 1840.
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):24 discuss this. They indicate that: "... Halcyon is indisputably feminine (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.1); moreover, the undisputed adjectival suffix -ιος [-ios: -ius (Woods 1944: xii)], in πυρροπυγιος [purropugios; red-rumped], correctly latinized in pyrrhopygius (-a, -um) leaves no doubt that we are dealing with an adjective." [And thus variable].
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combinations Halcyon pyrrhopygia and Todirhamphus pyrrhopygia occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Spelt picta. (e.g. Peters), as Gould originally described it (in Emblema), or pictum (e.g. Sibley & Monroe).
• David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):20 discuss this. They indicate that "Emblema picta Gould, 1842, must be corrected to Emblema pictum . Emblema is neuter (ICZN 1999, Art.30.1.1)"
• • The relevant portion of 30.1.1 -- "a genus-group name that is or ends in a Latin word takes the gender given for that word in standard Latin dictionaries"; here (Glare, 1983) gives:
    • "emblema ~atis n. ... 1. An inlaid pavement, mosaic, 2. An inlaid relief attached to the inside of a silver bowl or sim."
    • "pictus ~a ~um, a. ... Painted."
• Thus "Emblema" is, neuter as noted by Sibley & Monroe (following McAllan & Bruce, 1988), and "picta / pictus" is an adjective in the nominative singular. Does that mean picta (the feminine form) "must" be corrected?
• "31.2 Agreement in gender. A species-group name, if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective or participle in the nominative singular, must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined."
• Are there arguments that would support Emblema picta?
  • Should it be maintained on the basis of "prevailing usage"?
    • During the period of 1978-1992 only the combination Emblema picta occurs in the Zoo. Rec.., where I find it 12 times. It would thus appear to be a contender for maintenance on the basis of "prevailing usage".
    • However, Article 33.3.1 that deals with prevailing usage pertains to "incorrect subsequent spellings [which are] in prevailing usage and [are] attributed to the publication of the original spelling" in prevailing usage and [are] attributed to the publication of the original spelling". (emphasis added).
    • I interpret "Emblema picta" to be a "correct original spelling" as follows:
    • • Article 32.2 Correct original spelling. states: "The original spelling of a name is the "correct original spelling", unless it is demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5."
      • 32.5 states: "Spellings that must be corrected (incorrect original spellings).
        • 32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertant error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of and inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertant errors."
      • Thus, 32.5.1 is not applicable (no such specific inadvertant error has been proposed), and I don't recognize any of the other subparts of Article 32.5 as applying. The original spelling (while incorrect by the current code) would appear to be a "correct original spelling" (sensu Article 32.2) [it is the original spelling, and it is not "demonstrably incorrect as provided in Article 32.5"]. This makes sense; it would be inappropriate and nunc pro tunc to deem Gould's construction "incorrect" by rules that were not in existance at the time he formed the name.
    • As it is not an "incorrect subsequent spelling" (as treated in Article 33.3.1) "picta" does not benefit from protection on the basis of prevailing usage.
    • Emblema picta is a "correct original spelling" (emphasis added); 33.1.1 does not apply and it must agree in gender with Emblema.
  • Thus David & Gosselin's argument appears consistent with ICZN 1999 Article 34.2 "The ending of a Latin or latinized adjectival or participal species-group name must agee in gender with the generic name with which is is at any time combined [Art. 31.2]; if the gender ending is incorrect it must be changed accordingly (the author and date of the name remain unchanged [Art. 50.3.2])."

• Separation into B. poecilochrous and B. polyosoma has been controversial.
• The taxon
  • Buteo poecilochrous Gurney 1879 Ibis p.176
  is regarded by some as a subspecies of B. polyosoma.
• Initially separation was proposed primarily on the basis of wing length and "Stresemann's wing formula."
• See Farquhar CC. 1998. "Buteo polyosoma and b. poecilochrous, the 'Red-Backed Buzzards' of South America are conspecific" Condor 100:27-43.
  Farquhar's findings:
  • "at least 27 distinct adult plumage morphs (formerly five) in this species group, ... with no relationship to morphometric variables and only minor geographic variation."
  • Immature plumages and vocalizations are "similarly ineffective in diagnosing taxa".
  • "... neither of the currently accepted morphometric characters examined here serve to separate taxon polyosoma from taxon poeciolochrous."
• Riesing et al. treat the phylogenetic and taxonomic relationships in Buteo. Within Buteo they

  "detected an average distance of 1.28% between the subspecies
  polyosoma and poecilichrous in ΨCR1, whereas no
  genetic variability was found in an unpublished cytb data set of
  606 bp (C. Farquhar, pers. comm.)."

  They treat the two as conspecific, an interpretation that appears to enjoy increasing support from published data and associated analyses.
• Riesing MJ, Kruckenhauser L, Gamauf A, Haring E. 2003. "Molecular phylogeny of the genus Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences." Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 27:328-342.
• However, the pendulum for the moment now (2003.11) swings back in the other direction. Cabot & de Vries, 2003, BBOC 123:190-207 interpret Farquhar's work to be in error and argue for regard as a full species.
• This matter is further complicated by uncertainty regarding the type locality, Gurney indicating that the bird came from "Yauayacu" in Ecuado; no such locality has been identified. This matter is discussed by Cabot & de Vries, 2005, BBOC 125:147-148. In agreement with Conover (1949) they consider the type locality to be Yanayacu, Ecuador.

• Placement within Cercomacra is uncertain, and should not be afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it at the end of the Genus, absent any information.

• Placement within Phylloscartes is uncertain, and should not be afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end of the genus.

• Placement within Scytalopus is uncertain, and should not be afforded any authority. I have arbitrarily placed it toward the end of the genus.

Scytalopus parvirostris

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

• Controversy here.
• Pteroclididae, I believe satisfies the ICZN requirements for family group name formation.
• However, Bonaparte. 1831. Saggio di una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertibrate. forms the name as Pteroclidae. This obviously antedates the formulation of the ICZN rules.
• The question then is: what basis exists for accepting or rejecting family group names published prior to the current rules coming into effect?
• Those with more knowledge and experience than I disagree on these matters.

• Peters Checklist 2:41 has Bull. Essex Inst. 5 p.199; but see {Banks and Browning, 1979}.

• Peters Checklist 2:250 considers this a synonym of Charadrius alexandrinus marginatus Vieillot 1818.
• Benson 1999 "Type specimens in the Univ. Mus. Zool. Camb." p.42 notes that

   Roberts examined this specimen, and as a result resuscitated
  Strickland's name; now commonly recognized as applicable to the species
  (not venustus as above ...

  Roberts A. 1936 Ann.Transv.Mus. 18(3):265.

• Peters Checklist 4:36 has 1875; see {Poggi R, 1996}.

• Peters Checklist 1:105 gives a different title for the source; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Previously cited as
  • Falco peregrinus Gmelin 1788 Syst.Nat. 1 pt1 p.272
  As Tunstall's work has been declared by the ICZN unavailable as a publication for binomina. However, (as pointed out by Dr Jiri Mlikovsky of the National Museum of the Czech Republic) the ICZN made exception for some specific names, Falco peregrinus among them.
• "peregrinus, Falco [Tunstall], 1771, Ornithologia britannica: 1. (Aves) 0. 882" is listed as a name on the Official list. (ICZN 1987:274).
• See also Holthuis IB, Junge GCA. 1958. The specific names in Tunstall's Ornithologia Britannica 1771. Ardea. 46 (3/4) p.167-170.

• Peters Checklist 10:180 has 1851. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 2:21 gives 1862 Av.Syst.Nat. Columbariae p.152.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

• Peters Checklist 4:131 has 1818.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} use 1817.

• Peters Checklist 1(2):99 has 1873; this publication started in 1872.
• Most authors follow the listing in Peters Checklist

• Peters Checklist 11:562 has 1830; {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} both indicate 1829.

• Peters Checklist 7:111 makes a typographic error in the full citation,substituting Reichenow for Reichenbach.

• Peters Checklist 12:13 has "1851?" See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Streptoprocne phelpsi

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.
• Previously placed in Cypseloides
• but see Marin AM snd Stiles GF. 1992. "On the biology of five species of swifts in Costa Rica." Proc. West. Found. Vert. Zool., 4:287-351.

• Peters Checklist 14:121 gives "pl.10 fig.2" as part of this citation, as do the AOU 1983 and 1957 checklists. An engaging fiction.
• There is no pl.10 in the volume in which this bird is described,
• nor is there reference to the plate in the original description.
• Ralph Browning and Dick Banks determined for me that the plate is actually pl.1 of the next volume (6), where the Philadelphia vireo is fig.2.

• The Richmond Index gives the following:
  1. L'Institut VI no.226 April 1838 p.128
  2. Rev.Zool. 1 no.4 for April 1838 p.49
  3. Ann.Sci.Nat.Zool.(2) IX 1838 p.137.
• Sherborn Ind.Animal. p.4907 gives: Mag.Zool.(2) 1839 1 pl.3
• Neave 3:708 goves:
  1. Institute 6 1838 p.128
  2. Mag.Zool.(2) 1 1839 pl.3
• Schulze 4(19):2631 gives: Institute v. 6 p.128 1838
• Cat.BirdsBr.Mus. 14:409 cites Mag.Zool. 1839, pl.3.
• I do not pretend to understand the reason why Peters (= Amadon) is alone in citing the Compt.Rend. and I am very skeptical that it is correct.

• Peters Checklist 1:388 gives Gould as the author.
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} attributes this to Gurney in Gould.
• Sharpe in Cat.B.Br.Mus. 1:261 also attributes this to Gurney in Gould.
• Edward Dickinson writes (2004.06.20):

  "Gould used a Gurney MS name and 'credited' him, but the description is apparently by Gould himself and there are no grounds for giving credit to Gurney."

• ....; 2004.06.20

• Peters Checklist 1(2):57 gives a different title for the source; I follow {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 12:425 has 1831; {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as this is in livr.4 of the work.

• Peters Checklist 2:43 gives the Philos. Mag. n.s. citation;
• {Richmond, et al. 1992}, {AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1983}, and {Baird, 1858}indicate that this Trans.Linn.Soc.Lond. citation has priority.

• Peters Checklist 12:163 has Temminck and Laugier 1824 Pl.Col. p.281.
• This should be livr.47 pl.281 fig.1 (not page 281).
• In addition, I follow Zimmer's position that no taxa should be attributed to Laugier.
• The 1820 Man.Orn. citation is given by Sherborn, with the appended note that Mathews has verified this.

• Swainson's 1824 work, in which this spelling was used, was not published. (See Browing, 1989).
• The 1827 work cited here uses the spelling "Ptiliogonys" in contradistinction both to the common use of the name, and apparently to Swainson's subsequent use.
• On this basis Ptiliogonys is regarded as an incorrect original spelling, and Ptilogonys a justifiable emendation.

• Usually listed as 1837, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 3:48 lists 1855.
• The signatures of volume 2 are dated 1854 up to at least p.71 according to taxa listed in {Richmond, et al. 1992}.
• Mathews suggests p.1-160 of volume 2 are from 1855.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here, though 1855 may be right.

• Peters Checklist 8:207 lists 1826.
• The dates of publication of the Zool.J. are confusing, but the evidence seems good for most of vol.3 being published in 1827 with some latter portions perhaps in 1828.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} the AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION, 1983 Checklist