This number was reviewed in the 1838 issue of Allegemeine Bibliographie F¨u;r Deutschland.
For resolution as unduliger, see
David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names
under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.105.)
Sicalis uropigyalis Nomenclature
Initially spelled Emberiza uropigyalis.
Sharpe (1888) CBBM XII:776 renders this as Emberiza uropygialis.
Hellmayr (1938) CBA XI310 hold uropigyalis to be a "typogr. error"
but it is not clear the basis for regarding it so. The possibility that it is
an incorrect latinization does not seem to me to be excluded.
Peters Checklist 13:31 (= Paynter, 1970) shows the spelling of the original
combination correctly, but employs the emended spelling without comment.
Most subsequent authors appear to follow CBBM/Peters Checklist, also without comment.
My impression is that "unusual" spellings in this work by d'Orbigny and Lafresnaye
are relatively common, anda given that,
I do not know how to distinguish incorrect latinizations
from typographic errors. The Code states explicitly that there must be
"clear evidence of an inadvertent error" "in the original publication itself"
in order to require correction. In the abscence of such evidence in the work
itself, I follow the Code, and employ the original spelling. It is worth mentioning
also that this Code was not in effect when Hellmayr or Paynter published
If an argument for so called prevailing usage is to be brought forward in support
of the emended spelling, I believe that argument must be published and must
clearly amd explicitly satisfy all the necessary requirements to be
[2010.05.11] Independant of my considerations (be they right or wrong) Normand David
writes (2010.05.10) he "agree[s] that the original spelling should stand" and adds that
"'uropygialis' is a homonym of uropigyalis under art. 58."
Treated by IOC World Bird Names 2.0 (2009.02) as a full species.
H&M 3rd:587 treats as a subspecies of
IOC World Bird List spells the specific epithet usambarae;
it was originally spelled usambara.
Ptyrticus turdinus upembae Citation
Peters Checklist 10:262 (= Deignan, 1964) lists the volume number as "21" which can not be right for 1951 for this serial.
The Richmond Index shows that that volume number is "27", which does make sense and suggests that "21" was merely a lapbus for "27".
Phrygilus unicolor Citation
Peters Checklist 13:106 (Paynter, 1970) lists the authority as Lafresnay and
This sequence does not correspond with that in CBBM 12:792, the Richmond
Index, or H&M 3rd:788. I follow these other authors.
Strix uralensis Citation
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.
Amaurornis olivaceus ultima Nomenclature
Originally spelled Amaurornis olivaceus ultimus by Mayr.
The feminine gender of Amaurornis necessitates correction to ultima.
Ducula rufigaster uropygialis Citation
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 3rd: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
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
Megascops watsoni usta Citation
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
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
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
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.
Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:287.
Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg
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 3rd:338 treat this as a supspecies of P.
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
I have tentatively placed it before the
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
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
In this character state there is a "broad, well developed and
elevated facet postero-dorsally to the articular surface" of the
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.
Thanks to Normand David for bringing this to my attention.
Lipaugus unirufus Date
Peters Checklist 8:295 gives a date of 1859.
The AOU CL 8th:417 also gives a date of 1859.
The Richmond Index gives a date of Feb. 1860 (with 1859 crossed
Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says
"Issued between October 1859 and February 1860." for Part. III of
I follow the Richmond Index here.
to Data Steward
Alan P. Peterson, M.D.
Walla Walla, WA 99362-0999