Zoological Citation Notes --U

• Peters Checklist 13:106 (Paynter, 1970) lists the authority as Lafresnay and d'Orbigny.
• This sequence does not correspond with that in CBBM 12:792, the Richmond Index, or H&M 3^rd:788. I follow these other authors.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:163 to "Anh. p.3"
• What this refers to is unclear to me. The Latin appendices (presumably where these names come from) appear by library listings to be on pp.453-504 (for part 1).
• The Richmond Index indicates that this name occurs on p.452 (in text) and on p.455; Colin Jones pointed out this problem to me and indicates that he noted the name on p.455 in the version online.
• HBW 5:686 cites this name to page 3 (presumably copying the Peters Citation). Since it costs a great deal of money to know of the HBW citation, one is tempted to imagine the value of the information is commensurate with the cost of the source. As my information is free (not actually true, it costs ME alot of money to provide) I suppose the prudent recommendation would be that one should ignore my work and bow down in gracious, subservient obeisance to Peters and HBW. I strongly recommend taking that approach.

• Originally spelled Amaurornis olivaceus ultimus by Mayr.
• The feminine gender of Amaurornis necessitates correction to ultima.

• Peters Checklist 3:54 cites both Stresemann and Paludan as the authors of this taxon; this is also as it is shown in the Richmond Index, and in HBW 4:233.
• H&M 3^rd:179, also list both authors, but in Corrigenda 3.1, it removes Paludan from the authority. This may very well be correct, but no rationale or data in support of this move is given, and until I am aware of the basis for that move, will follow the convention of citing both authors.

• Peters Checklist 6:190 dates this to 1861, and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:319.
• Zimmer's discussion of this work, and CWR's unpublished notes on the Dates of Publication make it clear that this material was most probably published in 1860.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 4:107 to Sclater 1859 and Trans.Zool.Soc.London 4 p.265 pl.61 and this is repeated by HBW 5:180.
• Edward Dickinson points out that the description in the PZS was published in 1858 (July according to CWR) and thus has priority.

• Often spelt P. urinator (e.g. Peters Checklist 1:120)
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names."BBOC 2002. 122(1):36 discuss this, arguing that it is not a Latin adjective, and must remain unchanged as urinatrix.
• In their table on p.48 they incorrectly list Sibley & Monroe (third column) as "n" for "an incorrect spelling is used"; this should be "y" as Sibley & Monroe on p.327 use Pelecanoides urinatrix.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Pelecanoides urinatrix occurs in the Zoo. Rec. 50 times; Pelecanoides urinator occurs only twice, one time being discussed as an unjustified emendation.

Scytalopus urubambae

• Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:287.
• Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg Remsen, 1998

• Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.14):
  In his monograph on pittas and broadbills, Lambert (1996) [...] split Pitta ussheri from P. granatina. Based on parapatry and lacking evidence of hybridization.
• H&M 3^rd:338 treat this as a supspecies of P. granatina.

Pseudoseisura unirufa

• Treated by Peters Checklist 7:122 as a subspecies.
• Zimmer & Whittaker. 2000. "The Rufous Cacholote is Two Species." Condor 102:409-422 present behavioural and vocalization evidence for splitting the species.

• Groff JG. 2000. Molecular evidence for the systematic position of Urocynchramus pylzowi. Auk 117:787-791 discusses the systematics of this bird. He follows Domeniewski (1918) and Wolters (1979) in suggesting a family for this bird. He argues that it represents "a relict member of a lineage as old as, or older than, other families of finches."
• I have tentatively placed it before the Fringillidae.

Phyllomyias urichi

• See Cardoso da Silva JM, New data support the specific status of Reiser's Tyrannulet, a central Brazilian endemic. 1996. BBOC 116(2):109-113. Cardoso da Silva argues that the number of unique diagnostic characters (ref. Stotz DF, The taxonomic status of Phyllomias reiseri. 1990. BBOC 110:184-187.) and its geographic separation from it's relatives by enormous distance suggest it should be treated as a distinct species.

Urotriorchis Systematics

• Previously placed close to Accipiter, and sometimes merged in it.
• However, Mlikovsky's study of osteology shows "Urotriorchis differs from Accipiter in a number of osteological characters and agrees in them with the Polemaetus group of eagles." Coracoid, scapular, furcular, and sternal features are discussed. Most significantly, a character of ungual phalanges is unique to the claws of Urotriochis, Polemaetus, Spizaetus, Spizastur, and Lophaetus.
• In this character state there is a "broad, well developed and elevated facet postero-dorsally to the articular surface" of the phalanx.
• Oroaetus isidori was not examined in that study.
• Mlikovsky, J. 1999. "Note on the osteology and taxonomic position of African Long-tailed Hawk Urotriorchis macrourus (Aves: Accipitridae)". BBOC 119(1): 32-37.

• Peters Checklist 8:295 gives a date of 1859.
• The AOU CL 8^th:417 also gives a date of 1859.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossed out).
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

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