Cypsiurus Citation

I follow the orthographic representation of the Richmond index for this work.

Colaptes 1825

Peters Checklist Vol.6 p.100 has 1826. Richmond, et al. 1992 indicate 1825 with a note that "A footnote in this article is dated Jan. 1825."

Geotrygon carrikeri

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.3. Originally as Oreopeleia lawrencii carrikeri

Trogon comptus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.5.

Caridonax

Not used in Peters Checklist Vol.5.
Caridonax was recognized by White and Bruce. 1986 The Birds of Wallacea. Brit. Orn. Union Checklist no.7 p.273.

Otus collari

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.4.

Contopus (Muscicapa > Nuttalornis)

Contopus cooperi

Previously as borealis. For use of cooperi, see Banks and Browning. 1995.

Caracara vs. Polyborus

I wrote Griffiths (99.01.28) to see if she had additional information here, or an opinion on Polyborus vs Caracara. Her response indicates she had changed Polyborus to Caracara in the proofs, but this change was not able to be included.

She also notes:
"HOWEVER - if Caracara plancus and Ibycter americanus are sister taxa, the name Caracara will be sunk. I am currently acquiring samples of all species and subspecies within the Caracarini to resolve relationships of the caracaras." in litt. Email 99.02.03

Cacatua vs Kakatoe Cuvier

A discussion of the phylogeny of this group Brown DM, Toft CA. 1999. Molecular Systematics and Biogeography of the Cockatoos. Auk. 116(1):141-157. uses Cacatua and does not refer to Kakatoe.

Colin Jones tells me the Australian C/L has a note saying see Mayr, Keast and Serventy 1964 Bull.Zool.Nom.21(5) for use of this name

Lanius colluroides 1832

Peters Checklist Vol.9 p.347 has 1834. Sherborn, Richmond, and the history of publication of this work indicate it was published in Aug. of 1832.

Cichlopsis 1850

Peters Checklist Vol.10 p.89 has 1851. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Muscicapa cassini 1860

Peters Checklist Vol.11 p.331 has 1859. The Richmond Index indicates this was not published until after Jan 22, 1860.

Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris Citation

Peters Checklist Vol.10 p.120 gives "Rev.Zool." (sic). The journal is Mag.Zool.

• Peters Checklist 15:114 gives "Linn. 1766 Syst.Nat. 12 ed. 1 p.165", where the taxon is indeed present.
• However, it is also present in the 10th ed.
• The text of the two citations is identicle with the exception that in the 12th ed. an additional reference is added.
• Both citations refer to "Sturnus cheninfis niger. Edw. av. 19. t. 19."
• However the 12th has a following line
  • "Merula finenfis criftata. Briss. av. 2 p.253.

I see no reason not to cite the 10th edition here, and in this am consistent with the AOU Checklist 7th ed.

Cistothorus 1850

Peters Checklist Vol.9 p.391 has 1851. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 9:253 lists this as 1860(1859).
• The first signatures of Vol. 11 were received at the Smithsonian on Jan. 6, 1860.
• However, Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy, checked this date for me and indicates that this initial portion of Vol.11 was available in 1859.

Glaucidium costaricanum

As a subpecies in Peters Checklist Vol.4 p.130.

Considered by Robbins and Styles Auk 116 p.313, 1999 to be part of a superspecies with G. nubicola,costaricanum, and gnoma.

Chrysothlypis chrysomelaena spelling

"Note that AOU 1998 uses chrysomelas (p. xlviii), and chrysomelaena (p. 571).

Remember that the original name is Tachyphonus chrysomelas Sclater & Salvin, 1869.

Chrysothlypis chrysomelaena spelling:

Usually given as chrysomelas. AOU 7th ed. CL uses chrysomelaena, referencing Deignan, 1961. In that work, Type Specimens of Birds In the United States National Museum p.588, Deignan makes this argument. 'Since Hellmayr (loc. cit.) has listed this form as Chrysothlypis chrysomelas chrysomelas, it follows that he must have considered the generic name Chrysothlypis masculine. All other names ending with -thlypis, however have been consistently treated, by himself and others, as feminine (cf. Geothlypis, Chamaethlypis, and Euthlypis), and Chrysothlypis must therefore also be feminine.'

[N David continues]
Names ending in -thlypis are not feminine because they are combined with feminine adjectival name; they are feminine because they end in a transliterated Greek feminine word [ICZN 1960 30 (a) (ii)]. The rule still prevails in ICZN (1999, Art. 30.1.2). This means that an original name such as "Chrysothlypis albus" would need a mandatory correction (= C. alba). In this case, an author's belief is ignored by the Code.

[Deignan's note continues]
'If this be granted, we must use a latinized form of the feminine ending of the Greek adjective meaning "black." A comparable case is Turdus protomelas Cabanis, 1867, which, placed by Seebohm in the genus Merula became Merula protomelaena (see Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum 5: 265, 1881).'

[N. David's final comment]
In 1960, the rule governing gender agreement of species-group names was not explicit; in fact, it held in two lines: "an adjective must agree in gender with the generic name with which it is at any time combined". The 1985 and 1999 Codes, however, are very explicit: an original species-group that is or ends in a word that is not Latin or latinized must be treated as indeclinable. Thus, all original names ending in -melas [from melas (black) in Greek) are invariable, even if melas is an adjective. The rationale behind this rule is that Latin is the language of scientific nomenclature; species-group names that are or end in foreign words (neither Latin nor latinized) cannot have their ending changed as Latin or latinized adjectives."

--------------------------------------------------
Normand David, Directeur général
Association québécoise des groupes d'ornithologues
4545 Pierre-de-Coubertin
C. P. 1000, Succ. M
Montréal, Qc
H1V 3R2

• Peters Checklist 9;253 has 1860 (as Pycnonotus curvirostris).
• Vol.11 of the Proceedings has an imprint date of 1859, though many of the signatures were not printed until 1860.
• This taxon is in the second signature; signatures 11 and 12 were received by the Smithsonian on Jan.6 1860.
• Thus it seems likely that absent any specific contraveneing evidence 1859 -- the imprint date -- is correct in this case.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, Librarian at the Philadelphia Academy indicates that her researches also show 1859 as the date for this taxon.

• Peters Checklist 9:260 has 1881.
• This volume was published in 1882, though it has an imprint date of 1881.
• The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

Phyllastrephus cabanisi 1882

Peters Checklist Vol.9 p.269 has 1881. This volume was published in 1882, tho it has an imprint date of 1881. The Richmond Index shows all taxa from this volume as occuring in 1882, with the note: 'vol. dated "1881"'.

Caracara cheriway Systematics

Anas chlorotis

Ptilinopus chalcurus

 PTILONOPUS CHALCURUS			B.M.

 Ptilononpus chalcurus, G. R. GRAY.

 Cook's Islands (Harvey or Hervey Island).
 Very similar to the Ptilonopus coralensis, but the front and top
of the head shining greyish-purple.

Criniger chloronotus 1859

Peters Checklist Vol.9 p.275 give "1860". This was published on 25 Jan. 1859.

Inezia caudata

Ara chloroptera spelling

In Handbook of Birds of the World, Vol. 4, N.J. Collar argues that the specific epithet here should be spelt chloroptera stating: "Original spelling has been taken as evidence that the name was created as a masculine noun: however, [it is] at least as likely to be a lapsus calumi (sic), and long-standing feminine ending should thus be retained."

(I have yet to decide if the self-reflexive lapsus calamis strengthens or weakens this argument.)

1. Peters Checklist Vol.3 (1936) p.182 list the bird as Ara chloroptera and lists the citation to Grey's name Ara chloropterus. No comment on spelling is made.

2. Wolter's Die Vogelarten Die Erde (1975-82) lists Ara chrloroptera with no comment on spelling.

AOU Checklists

3. The 6th AOU checklist (1983) is the first to list the bird and gives the name as Ara chloroptera, and erroneously lists the name as being Ara chloroptera in Gray's original description.

4. Sibley and Monroe (1990) indicate their belief that the name was formed as "a noun in apposition and thus should retain the masculine ending." (p. 123).

5. The 7th AOU checklist (1998) lists the bird as Ara chloropterus in its main listing, and (correctly) in the citation. No comment is made on spelling.

chloropterus is ,without question, the original spelling, in Gray's description.

"Ara" is a Lacepede genus and the name is formed from a Tupi (Brazilian) word. "chloropterus" comes from the Greek khloros, green or yellow, and -pteros, winged. This appears to me to be an adjectival construction, so I have trouble seeing the "noun in apposition" argument as having much force.

Though I would prefer to retain the original (and remain consistent with the AOU checklist) I adopt "chloroptera". In my view, more evidence than speculative supposition would increase my enthusiasm for altering the original.

Forpus crassirostris

In the past referred to as Forpus xanthopterygius.

Collar, in Handbook of Birds of the World Vol.4 states "...F. xanthopterygius was shown in 1905 to have been applied to an immature Brotogeris chiriri, but which was mistakenly reinstated in 1945, when present species was separated from F. passerinus."

Odontospiza caniceps generic placement

• that the genera Padda and Euodice should be merged with Lonchura;
• Spermestes should be recognized and Odontospiza belongs to Spermestes;
• Odontospiza caniceps (= Lonchura griseicapilla) becomes Spermestes caniceps.

More thanks yet to Normand David for pointing out the problem here.
His comments (slightly edited) are:
All mannikins are treated in Lonchura Sykes 1832, which has priority over all other genera.
Except that nana is maintained in Lemuresthes Wolters, 1949, a replacement name for Lepidopygia (see Peters XIV: 369-370).

But now Spermestes is lumped into Lonchura, and cucullata is the type species of Spermestes, now called Lonchura cucullata.

Then I think that it is not possible to use Spermestes as a distinct genus from Lonchura for only caniceps Reichenow, 1879, when cucullata -the type species- is not included.

If caniceps alone is not placed in Lonchura, then the correct name would be Odontospiza caniceps (Reichenow, 1879) because caniceps is the type species of Odontospiza -see Peters XIV: 368.

[End of N. David's comment]

All this makes sense to me, suggesting Spermestes can not stand as the genus group name.

Pteroptochos castaneus

Listed by Peters Checklist Vol.7 p.278 as a full species; treated by Sibley and Monroe as a "group" of P. tarnii. Howell and Webb. 1995. BBOC 115:171-177. argue for treatment as a full species.

Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.

Serinua corsicana

Controversy here as to specific versus subspecific status.
Sangster G. 2000. Ibis 142:487-490 presents a summary of the data and arguments. From a phylogenetic species concept point-of-view, he supports elevation to full species level.

Though my own view is not of much importance, I feel the "phylogenetic species concept" (as it is styled) is weak as a concept, but quite useful as a tool. The definitional constraints appear to me to be poorly thought out. With it, discrimination of entities is more a function of effort applied and sophistication of methodology than anything else. Given close enough study all organisms (save monozygotic twins) can be distinguished as separate entities and ancestral lineal descent can be demonstrated -- so the number of of species appear to have the potential to approach the number of individuals if the motivation for distinction is high enough.

With some trepidation I include this as a full species.

Cornuropsis carolinensis Extinct

The last known individual of this species died on February 21, 1918 in the Cincinnati Zoological Gardens, Ohio.

Eupherusa cyanophrys

Not in Peters Checklist Vol. 5.

Cryptosylvicola Sytematics

Placement with the family is uncertain, and no authority should be afforded my locating it between Randia and Newtonia. This speculative placement is based on a suggestion from Paul Salaman. Further work is being done on the genetic relationships, and I expect it's placement to change.

Ibis 138(2): 153-159. 1996..

Otus capnodes

See Rasmussen PC, Schulenberg TS, Hawkins F and Voninavoko R. 2000. "Geographic variation in the Malagasy Scops-Owl (Otus rutilus auct.): the existence of an unrecognized species on Madagascar and the taxonomy of other Indian Ocean taxa. BBOC. 120:75-102.

The name is derived from the greek word for "smoky".

The type is felt (by Richmond) to be either in the Norwich museum or in the Cambridge museum.
Rasmussen et al. consider all the Cambridge museum examples to be syntypes, and the Norwich museum example to be the selected type.

Parus carpi systematics

Treated by Peters Checklist as a subspecies of Parus niger. While it may be more associated with Parus leucomelas. Clancy (1995( presents morphologic and geographic arguments in support of his separation as a full speciess. (First presented by him in 1980, but now with additional data to support.) Clancy PA. Taxonomic relationships in Namibian Black Tit Parus spp. 1995. BBOC 115(3):181-185.

Cleptornis systematics

Slikas et al. show genetic evidence that argue Cleptornis is a the sister clade to Zosterops (at least the ones in their study). Slikas B, Jones IB, Derrickson SR, Fleischer RC. Phylogenetic relationships of Micronesian White-eyes based on mitochondrial sequence data. 2000. Auk 117(2):355-365.

Certhilauda chauna systematics

Based on morphologic, genetic and geographic data, Ryan and Bloomer have revised the Long-billed Lark complex. The position of C. chauna is not resolved. Ryan PR, Bloomer P. The Long-Billed Lark complex: A species mosaic in southwestern Africa. 1999. Auk 116(1):194-208.

Odontophorus columbianus Citation

Peters Checklist Vol.2 p.55 lists Gould's name in parntheses, though he described this bird in Odontophorus.

Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

Leucippus chionogaster Systematics

Often placed in Amazilia.
Karl Schuchmann's student A.A. Weller at Institut und Museum Konig in Bonn. has been working on the group. He states in HBW vol.5 p.593 that "morphology, behaviour, and biogeography" argue for inclusion in Leucippus.

Otus cooperi Systematics

Described in Scops. Recognized as a full species by the AOU CL 7th ed. and HBW vol.5.

Otus colombianus Systematics

Recognized as a full species by HBW vol.5 p.179, though its distinctness from O. ingens is "still debated".
HBW erroneously indicates Traylor as having described the bird as a full species of Otus. He desccribed it as a subspecies of Otus ingens

Bubo cinerascens Systematics

HBW vol.5 p.188 indicates that while this is usually treated as conspecific with B. africanus the difference in plumage and bare-part colors, and the fact that it does not interbreed in areas of overlap indicate full species status.

Strix chacoensis Systematics

HBW vol.5 p.201 states it it is usually treated as a race of S. rufipes, but it differs in voice, plumage and morphology.

Glaucidium cobanense Systematics

HBW vol.5 p.211 states that separation from G. gnoma "perhaps currently unwarranted as vocalizations undescribed."

Asio clamator Systematics

Placed by Peters Checklist vol.4 p.166 in a monospecific genus Rhinoptynx Kaup 1851.
Placed by Sibley & Monroe in Pseudoscops.
HBW vol.5 p.239 places it in Asio and says recent DNA studies support this.

Chen canagica Spelling

[Normand David writes]:
"Chen Boie, 1822, and the final component of Alopochen Stejneger in Kingsley 1885, Cyanochen Bonaparte 1856, and Neochen Oberholser, 1918, are the transliterated Greek noun Xen (goose), which is masculine as well as feminine.

A genus-group name that is or ends in a word of common or variable gender (masculine or feminine) is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it is feminine or treated it as feminine in combination with an adjectival species group name (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.2).

Because all four names were established in combination with a feminine adjectival name (Chen hyperborea, Neochen jubata, Alopochen aegyptiaca, Cyanochen cyanoptera), they are all feminine.

Therefore, the correct spelling for Anas canagica Sevastianov, 1802, is Chen canagica or Anser canagicus (anser is a masculine Latin noun)."

Otus collari Note

In the index of HBW vol.5 they list this bird as appearing on p.165; in fact it is on p.167.

Cacatuidae Systematics

See HBW vol.4.
Also Brown DM, Toft CA. 1999. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Cockatoos (PSITTACIFORMES: CACATUIDAE). AUK 116(1):141-157.

Chaetocercus Systematics

In HBW vol.4 T. Zucher merges Acestrura into Chaetocercus arguing that there is no evidence based on external morphology to maintain as separate.
Previously:

Clamator Systematics

Species jacobinus and levaillantii are often placed in Oxylophus, which R.B. Payne in HBW vol.4 does not recognize.

Cochlearius cochlearius Spelling

Spelt cochlearia by Sibley & Monroe, cochlearius by most others. David N & Gosselin M. 2000. "The supposed significance of originally capitalized species-group names." BBOC. 120(4):263 discuss this issue in detail and indicate that the name is not a Latin noun, but is a Latin adjectival name and is cochlearius as it is a Latin adjectival, not a noun.

Procellaria conspicillata status

Procellaria conspicillata appears to be distinct. A case (plumage and voice differences) is made by Ryan, P. G. 1998. The taxonomic and conservation status of the Spectacled Petrel Procellaria conspicillata. Bird Conservation International 8: 223-235.

Glossopsita concinna Citation

The citational details here are a bit confusing. The citation in Peters Vol.3 is:

Selenidera culik Citation

I have some difficulty making sense of this citation.
I follow Peters 6:79, and do not find an entry for this in the Richmond Index.
The orthography of the Sherborn entry is a confusion. It reads:
"culik Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I₁₁."
The subscripted "11" tempts me to interpret it as the species number, however the citation for Selenidera reinwardtii is similarly:
"reinwardtii Pteroglossus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. I₁₁."
Surprisingly, the Sherborn listing for Campethera punctuligera is:
"punctuligera Picus, J. Wagler, Syst. Avium, I. 1827, sign. 2₁₁."(bolding supplied)
So it seems unlikely that the subscripted number is the species number.
The Richmond Index list this as "[p.27]".
So I remain confused.

Larus canus Systematics

It is often suggested to me that this is two species, and it may well be. The basis for the suggestion is the paper by Zink et al. Zink RM, Rohwer S, Andreev AV, and Dittmann DL. 1995. "Trans-Beringia Comparisons of Mitochondrial DNA Differentiation in Birds." The Condor. 97(3):650-662.

The relevant paragraph states.

"Our Larus canus sample represented the subspecies kamtschatschensis (Russia) and brachyrhyncus (U.S.), which are separated only by the Bering Sea. Larus c. kamtschatschensis is a larger and heavier-billed form than North American brachyrhynchus , and slightly darker dorsally, especially in juvenile plumage; tail patterns differ in first basic plumages (Cramp and Simmons, 1983). The mtDNA data suggest that two species are represented, a possibility also raised by Sibley and Monroe (1990). previous molecular studies revealed little differentiation over a large area in a gull species (e.g. Bell 1992). Although gulls tend to wander, there are no North American records of L. c. kamtschatschensis. The species level mtDNA differentiation of p=0.02 was consistent with the morphological differentiation of the east Siberian form."

They did NOT look at the nominate subspecies Larus canus canus, and did not address the issue of intergradation as raised by Sibley and Monroe.

To date I do not find the argument totally convincing for a separation of species. I expect the argument will be made convincing with more data.

The subspecific forms are:

Pycnopygius cinereus 1874

Peters Checklist 12:402 (Finn Salomensen) lists this as 1873. The Richmond Index shows that it was published in Apr. 1874.

Pachycephala caledonica 1789

Peters Checklist 12:31 (Mayr) has 1788.
The Richmond Index Muscicapa calidonica has "1788" with last "8" crossed out and "9" written in.

Irena cyanogastra Spelling

Normand David writes (2001.03.10):
The genus name Irena is feminine, being the latinized Greek word Eirene with a feminine Latin ending (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.3). The original name Irena cyanogastra Vigors, 1831, must remain as is, and should not be changed to "I. cyanogaster". The full explication is very complicated; it is part of a long paper now submitted to the BBOC, and accepted. Will be published in late 2001 or early 2002. In short: cyanogastra is the feminine form of the latinized Greek adjectival word kuanogastros [blue-bellied].

Malaconotus cruentus Citation

A bit of a puzzle here. Peters (A.L. Rand) 9:338 gives:

Spelt Alcedo cyanopecta, by Sibley & Monroe p.87, HBW 6:235, had Alcedo cyanopectus, Peters 5:179 has Ceyx cyano-pectus.

Coracias caudatus Spelling

Often spelt Coracias caudata, however as noted in HBW 6:371-2, Coracias is masculine.

Emberiza calandra systematics

Conventionally listed in the monotypic genus:

Lysurus castaneiceps 1860

• Peters Checklist 8:122 (Traylor) gives a date of 1860.
• The Richmond Index gives a date of Mar. 1861.
• Duncan's 1937 listing of dates of Publication of the PZS says "Issued between August 1860 and March 1861." for Part. III of this year.
• I follow the Richmond Index here.

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 10:236, Richmond Index, Sherborn)
• Dickinson EC (2001) points out that Mees (1994) provides evidence to the contrary.
• Dickinson EC. 2001. 'Systematic notes on Asian birds. 9. The "Nouveau recueil de planches coloriees" of Temminck & Laugier (1820-1839)' Zool. Verh., Leiden 335 p.7-56'
• To quote Dickinson: 'Mees (1994) reported that an "Avis accompagnant la 97e livraison" was present in the copy of the "Planches coloriées" in Leiden and that this carries the date April 1836. It follows that the dates for livraisons 98 and 99 must also date from 1836, presumably from after April, and thus from December 31.'
• Mees, G.F., 1994. "Vogelkundig onderzoek op Nieuw Guinea in 1828. Terugblik op de ornithologische resultaten van de reis van Zr. Ms. Korvet Triton naar de zuid-west kust van Nieuw-Guinea." Zool. Bijdr. Leiden 40: 1-64, fig. 1-8, colour pl. 1-12. (noot 15).
• I interpret Avis to mean "a sort of preface".