Zoological Citation Notes --V

• The collector of this specimen was Arthur S. Vernay (note the ..ay ending).
• The subspecific epithet is misspelt, which should allow correction however the collector's name is also misspelt in the text. So it seems we are stuck with the incorrect spelling.

• Usually attributed to Barboza du Bocage. This undoubtedly started with CBBM XIII:123 (1890), and has been followed since (e.g. Peters XV:99 (1962) [= Amadon].
• The original description by Hartlaub and Finsch was based on a specimen that Bocage sent them, Following the name the article has the string "(in litt.).
• The description and measurements provided show no indication of being Bocage's, and presumably he only proposed the name "verreauxi" in the text of his letter.
• We cannot be certain what else Bocage's letter contained though it seems extremely unlikely that the descriptive text (in German, and not surrounded by quotation marks) is due to Bocage.
• Laurent Raty's interpretation (as provided by Martin Schneider) is as follows:

  "So far as I understand from the OD, the bird was found in Benguela by Anchieta, who sent specimen(s) to the Lisbon Museum; from there, Bocage then forwarded 'a nice male' to Finsch and/or Hartlaub for comparison with their own material. Presumably the name travelled to Germany with this specimen, in an accompanying letter (and/or possibly written on the specimen label). If the Germans had a specimen, they certainly had the necessary material to write their own description; the published description is not in quotes, or attributed explicitly to Bocage; this description does not appear to differ significantly in style from the other descriptions of the work; it is written in German; it describes only the male and gives a single set of measurements (in German units), which are presumably those of the bird sent to Germany. In all likelihood, this description was authored by F&H."

• My interpretation fully agrees with this, and I believe that the name suggested by Bocage is a manuscript name, and the description is due to Finsch and Hartlaub giving them the authority for the name.
• Thanks to Laurent Raty and Martin Schneider for recognizing this point which had been overlooked for so long by so many workers.
2017.08.22; 2019.10.21

• Peters Checklist 13:174 (= Paynter 1970) gives the date for this as 1951, but on the same page dates Pipilo erythophthalmus orientalis Sibley (published in the same Vol. 50 no.2) to 1950 with no comment or explanation.
• H&M 3^rd:797 follows the Peters citations without comment.
• The Richmond Index indicates that Vol.50 no.2 was published on 24 Nov. 1950, and in contrast to Peters and H&M 3^rd I employ 1950 for all [[>

• Originally described in Merula, so parentheses are required for the authority when it is listed in Turdus.
• Peters Checklist 10:198,199 (= Ripley 1964) incorrectly lists the original combination as Turdus vitiensis so authors who follow this treatment (e.g H&M 3^rd:669, HBW 10:650, (and myself until now), wrongly list the authority without parentheses.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• H&M 3^rd:666 (Corrigenda 2.1) (presumably from 2002) changes this date to 1870, citing "[RJD in prep.]".
• The dates of this serial are a problem. My work to date continues to support 1869, and in my communications with Bob Dowsett (RJD) on this matter (2003 thru 2005) he has not referred to any publication that resolves the uncertainty.
• Absent a published and convincing demonstration that 1870 is correct, I consider no.8 (the December 1869 number) to have actually been published in 1869.

• Peters Checklist 10:176 (= Ripley 1964) dates this to 1902, suggesting he did not consult Zimmer 1926.
• Subsequent authors (H&M 3^rd:666 (through Corrigenda 8); HBW 10 (2005)) seem simply to have unquestioningly followed the Peters Checklist.
• The Richmond Index, and Zimmer (1926) make it clear that this portion of the work was published in 1900.

• Peters Checklist 9:413 (= Paynter 1960) dates this to 1851.
• This is followed by H&M 3^rd: even though they date taxa from later in this work (Cyanerpes caeruleus longirostris Mus.Hein. 1 p.96; H&M 3^rd:814) to 1850 without comment.
• Uncertainties exist regarding the date of publication of the first portions of this work, but I currently follow the Browning & Monroe recommendation to date vol.1, through p.106 to 1850.
• Whatever dating approach is used, it seems to me that some attempt should be made to apply it consistently, and some rationale or support should be given.

• Treated by Peters Checklist 11:161 (= Traylor 1986) as a subspecies of A. flavida. and this is followed by H&M 3^rd:560.
• In a published treatment more recent than Peters 1986 (Sibley & Monroe 1990 p.599) the status of this taxon is discussed, and interpreted there to be a full species. No mention of this interpretation is made by H&M 3^rd.
• Sibley & Monroe refer to Hall & Moreau 1970 "An Atlas of speciation of in African Passerine Birds" p.181, a work which is referenced in H&M 3^rd.

• The Peters Checklist 12:231 (= Rand 1967) cites this taxon to
  • Cyanomitra verticalis viridisplendens (Reichenow) 1892 J.Orn. 40 no.197 p.54,132
• Based on the date (1892) this appears to be followed by H&M 3^rd:706
• Sclater,WL in Syst.Ethiop. 2:703 also cites this source for the name, and Rand may not have looked beyond Sclater's compilation.
• The Richmond Index indicates that Reichenow published this name in 1891, and I believe this is the correct date and citation for the name.
• Thanks to Michael Rieser for brining this to my attention.

• As noted in the Richmond Index, Shaw consistently misspells Vieillot's name as "Viellot" throughout the volume.
• Understandably, the specific epithet is often emended to "vieilloti", and the justification of that emandation is the subject of dispute.
• In my view, special judgments and divination of "original intent" are avoided by simply employing the spelling used by the author of the name.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Usually cited as
  • Heliangelus viola (Gould) 1853 Monogr.Trochil. pt5 pl.1,text
• Peters Checklist 5:107 correctly dates the Monogr.Trochil. publication to May of 1853.
• The Richmond Index shows that this description was first published in the Athenaeum no.1329 on April 16, 1853.
• HBW 5:684 perpetuates the error from Peters Checklist.
• This situation is similar to several others noted by Bruce and McAllan (1990) the description published in the Athenaeum antedates that in the PZS by several months.
• McAllan IAW, 2004. Notornis. "Corrections to the original citations and type localities of some birds described by John Gould and recorded from New Zealand." 51:125-130. (see p.126)

• Peters Checklist 8:320 (Mayr, 1979) gives the citation as:

  Pitta venusta S. Müller, 1835, Tijdschr. Natuur. Gesch. Phys.,
  2, p. 348, pl. 5 [=8], fig. 4

  In addition to the date being wrong, the plate count does not seem to make sense.
• The Richmond Index shows the plate as:

  pl. "V. fig.4 " [IX, fig.4]

  which makes more sense, and I follow.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for picking this up.

• Cited by HBW9:790 to p."32".
• Colin Jones informs me (in litt. 2007.02.04) having seen the original that this actually occurs on p.302.

• Peters Checklist 3:17 dates this to 1900, and this date was initially followed by H&M 3^rd:173.
• The Richmond Index shows that this was published in March of 1901, and evidently a 1901 date of publication is confirmed by Dickinson (2005) Zool.Meded. 79(2):1-7 (not seen).
• The date is corrected to 1901 in the 6^th Corrigenda to H&M 3^rd.
• Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

• Peters Checklist 13:24 (Paynter) cites the authority to Grote.
• Most probably the Peters Checklist authors are here following Sclater Syst.Aeth. 2 p.829, and didn't trouble themselves to question or verify the citation.
• Other authors (e.g. H&M 3^rd:779) no doubt felt no motivation to question the Peters Checklist.
• However, other citations from nearby portions of this work are all cited to Stresemann, and none to Grote.
• The Richmond Index (a more reliabel than the Peters Checklist) cites the authority for this taxon to Stresemann.
• Edward Dickinson examined the article an question, he felt that within the description of vulpecula itself that no reference was made to Grote. However, the section in which this description is included appears to be take from a Grote manuscript, so the authority may well be "Grote in Stresemann".
• Upon examining the work (thanks to the BHL) it is clear that reference *is* made to Grote for this section, on p.38 it reads "Von Herrm Hermann Grote gin eim Manuskript "Neue Vogelformen von Neukamerun und aus em Tschadgebiet" folgenden Inhals ein: ...."
• So I was very wrong in impugning the Peters Checklist authors...

• Originally listed as Pterocles coronatus vastitus
• As noted in the Richmond Index, and in Peters' footnote (p.6) this is corrected on p.52 to vastitas.

• Peters Checklist 5:205 (Peters) cites this as :

   Alcedo vagans Lesson, Voy
  'Coquille,' Zool., 1, 1826 (1830) p.694.

• The Richmond Index includes that citation (noting it was published in Apr. 1830) but lists the taxon under Man.Orn. II p.89, which was published in June of 1828.
• Apparently this point was understood by the authors and editors of H&M 3^rd as the Corrigenda 2.1 notes to change the date from 1830 to 1828 with instructions to "add footnote".
• HBW 6:223 appears to follow the Peters Checklist, citing Lesson 1830.
• Dr David Donsker confirms (2006.01.23) that the CBBM 17:271 lists (in the synonomy for Halcyon vagans

  Alcedo vagans, Less. Voy. ‘Coquille,’ i. pt. 2,  p. 694. (1828).

  So it appears that this error commenced with Sharpe's error regarding the date of this publication.

Peters Checklist 12:340 cites this as
• Melilestes megarhynchus vagans (Bernstein) 1864 J.Orn. 12 no.72 p.405
• This same number of the J.Orn. (no.72) is listed as published in 1865 Peters Checklist 3:222 (Amazona ochrocephala nattereri).
• The Richmond Index indicates "Publ. in 1865 ? c.f. p.466" where reference is made to an Index of Consp.Gen.Av. published by E.J.Brill in 1865.
• Given the virtual certainty that this number was not published until 1865, I cite the name to the Natuurk.Tijd.Nederl.Ind. where it was published in 1864.

• Peters Checklist 3:129 lists the date as 1867 (which is the imprint date for this volume of the Ann.Lyc.Nat.Hist.N.Y.)
• The Peters Checklist date apparently has been followed by most workers, including the AOU CL 7^th Ed. p.229; HBW 4:175
• However, this journal was published in parts, and this part (read June 25, 1866) has a signature date of June, 1866, and undoubtedly was available in 1866.

• Not listed as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 8:334.
• Included by H&M 3^rd:426 with justification for inclusion by reference to Schodde and Mason, 1999 (not seen).
• Of interest, Richmond's note for this name in the Richmond Index indicates that he felt the name was a nomen nudum in the PZS location that I cite. Whether this is the citation given by Schodde & Mason, and whether they address the possibility of its being a nomen nudum here, I don't know. I am unaware of any other place to cite for the description of this bird.
• The date given by H&M 3^rd:426, and thus presumably by extension Schodde & Mason 1999, is "1865". This raises the possibility that they are citing a source other than the PZS 1862 citation which Richmond interpreted to be a nomen nudum. Someone with access to the Schodde & Mason material might be able to answer what, if any, citation they refer to; it is not material available to me.

• Conventionally given as 1935, which is the imprint date for this volume.
• My understanding is that the entire volume 87 for 1935 was not published until 1936. This understanding is from a letter sent my by Robin Sinn, Public Affairs Librarian for the Academy (May 16, 1994).

• Described by Bangs & Zappey in Prionotelus and for this reason Peters Checklist 5:150 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by HBW 6:123 and H&M 3 ^rd:280 (parentheses added without comment in Corrigenda 2.1).
• Schulze et al. p.2822 list Prionotelus as due to Reichenbach "[pro Priotelus G.R. Gray 1840]" which I interpret to indicate that it is a Reichenbach emendation. If this interpretation is correct then no parentheses are needed for the authority.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:36 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:177 and by HBW 4:221.
• It appears to me that Ptilopus is an 1841 Strickland emendation of Swainson's Ptilinopus. As an emendation it appears to me that it implies that the authority here should not be in parentheses.

• Originally described in Ptilopus and for this reason Peters Checklist 3:28 places the authority in parentheses. This is followed by H&M 3^rd:176 and by HBW 4:216.
• 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.

• Most often the final livrasons of this work are dated to 1832. In this workers are following the work of Sherborn and Woodward. 1906. Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, 7:390
• However, CW Richmond noted (and published in 1917) the fact that livr.1-5 were reviewed in Férrusac's Bulletin XXVI p.291-292 (for September 1831, and thus all names from these apparently date to 1831. His note (Proc.U.S.Natl.Mus. 53 no.2221 p.622; publ. Aug. 16, 1917) reads:

   4Sherborn and Woodward (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., ser. 7, vol. 17,
  March, 1906, p.390)  accept August, 1832, as the date of livraison 4 of this
  work, but the first five parts are  said to have been "terminées et
  publiées" by the reviewer of them in  Férussac's Bull. Sci. Nat.,
  vol.26, for September, 1831, p.291, and there can be no question that
  Saxicoloides was published in this year.  It is some months earlier than
  Thamnobia Swainson, which appeared in February, 1832.

• This fact was repeated by Browning & Monroe. 1991. Arch.Nat.Hist. 18(3):386.
• There appears to be some confusion about the volume number for Sherborn and Woodwards work, listed by Richmond as volume 17, and by other workers as volume 7.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 14:275 as dated to 1871, though no evidence or support for this assertion is given.
• The Richmond Index dates this to 1870, which is the imprint date.
• Edward Dickinson indicates that Verreaux in an 1871 paper cited this name to 1870. Absent evidence that demonstrates a delay of publication the date must be regarded as 1870.

• The situation on the taxon-name and concept here appears to me to be a bit sketchy.
• The citation as given here follows that in the AOU CL 5^thEd. p.348, as well as that given by the type record from the U.S.Natl.Museum.
• The card in the Richmond Index gives the same citation, but with some interesting features. following the citation it says:

  [no descr.; mentioned in text under C. richardsonii.] [=C. richardsonii.]
  
  "Prof. Baird has always, to me, verbis et literis, indicated his decided 
  conviction that there are two species in the collection; and we have been 
  in the habit of designating these gray specimens as Contopus Veliei, after 
  Dr. Velie, who sent the first example from the mountains of Colorado 
  Territory."

  (quotes in original).
  • Who was being quoted here was not initially clear to me, but I suspected that it is Coues. (based on the fancy phrasing "verbis et literis" and the unusual Coues-like syntax.) Roy McDiarmid copied the original description for me, confirming that it is Coues. (see below).
  • Note also, that the borders of the Colorado Territory (established in 1861 from portions of the Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, and New Mexico Territories) had the same boundaries as the current state of Colorado. Coues (or whoever is being quoted) may have been referring to a general region, rather than to the specifically defined geopolitical entity -- The Colorado Territory.
• Deignan. 1961. Type Specimens of the U.S. National Museum. p.282 notes:

  The number of cotypes is unknown, and most of them are probably no
  longer in the collection; even Dr. Velie's "first example from the mountains
  of Colorado Territory" is not now to be found in Washington.  No. 36938 
  is a lectotype, chosen by Coues, at Richmond's prompting, long after publication
  of the name. It should be mentioned that Phillips and Parkes (op. cit., p.245) 
  consider Dr. Velie's lost specimen to be the only possible type.

• So it was not clear (to me at least) if an adequate description has been published.
• Tyrannula richardsonii Swainson is held by Peters Checklist 8:130 to be a synonym of Sayornis phoebe. In this Traylor is following Phillips and Parkes 1955, Condor, 57:244.
• Phillips and Parkes article argues that Swainson's Tyrannula richardsoni taken in June at Cumberland House, Saskatchewan, is in fact a Sayornis rather than a Contopus, and that Baird's and Coues' interpretation that Swainson's bird was a juvenile is unsupportable given the measurements, state of moult, and location.
• They state:

  The availability of the name veliei Coues has been another moot point in Contopus
  nomenclature. The name was rejected by its author, but he described its basis; thus it is 
  not a nomen nudum, and we consider it to be available under the International Rules 
  and Opinion 4.  We do not concur, however, in Fort Whipple, Arizona, as the type locality. 
  Coues characteristically ranged far afield in his paper on birds of Fort Whipple and Arizona, 
  as has already been noted at one point by Swarth (Pac. Coast Avif., 10, 1914:28). 
  From Coues's account, one can not be sure that he had any Arizona specimen 
  that he would have considered to be veliei.

• Coues' original description (p.61) is as follows

   
  64. CONTOPUS RICHARDSONII (Swains.) Baird.
  ...
  ...
  In examining the very large series of skins I have collected on the Rio
  Grande in New Mexico, and in Arizona, together with specimens from Colorado
  Territory and other parts of the west, there has been made upon me an im-
  pression that there are two species.  By far the majority of specimens are of
  the regulation Richardsonii type.  A few others in the series and from very
  various and diverse localities, differ in being all over of a more decided and
  uniform grayish brown; with less of olive above and with no trace below of 
  any sulphury olive on the abdomen; this part with the throat being more
  decidedly dull whitish than the rest of the series; and the breast more purely
  gray, in contrast to the lighter colored throat and abdomen.  The bird may be
  well described as a miniature of C. borealis  Prof. Baird has always, to me
  verbis et literis indicated his decided conviction that there are two species in
  the collection; and we have been in the habit of designating these gray speci-
  mens as Contopus Veliei, after Dr. Velie, who sent the first examples from the
  mountains of Colorado Territory.  But the proportions of the birds appear the
  same in every specimen; and I have noticed, too, that all these gray ones are
  late summer or fall birds, and I must candidly confess my inability to 
  satisfactorily discern in the series a second species.

• So it seems to me we have the peculiar situation of a taxon described by an author who did not believe the entity was identifiable. Additionally it is not clear to me that the name is in fact associated with a designated type specimen, Richmond's admonition to Coues notwithstanding. Overall a very peculiar situation.

• Peters Checklist 13:391 (Storer) cites the authority to "Salvin and Godman (ex Oustalet MS)", and the authority thus is given as Salvin & Godman in H&M 3^rd:813.
• Colin Jones noted, upon examination of the original description, that Oustalet's text is directly quoted by Salvin and Godman, who attribute the name to him as well as publishing his quoted text.
• The Richmond Index attributes the authority to "Oustalet in Salvin & Godman", which I interpret to be correct, and the shorter listing must show Oustalet as the author.

• Cited by Peters Checklist 5:32 as due to Bourcier & E. Verreaux
• Cited by HBW 5:568 as due to "J. Verreaux & E. Verreaux" (though the citation listed on p.688 lists only E. Verreaux for the article in which this name appears).
• Cited by H&M 3^rd:260 as due to "J. Verreaux & E. Verreaux", but in Corrigenda 2.1 this is changed to "Boucard & Verreaux" (!), though no reason is given. Boucard would have been 14 years old in 1853 when this name was published, so the correction seems less likely than the original combination.
• The Richmond Index lists only Bourcier as the author of the name, noting that the type is in the Edouard Verreaux collection, and that the bird was named for Edouard Verreaux.
• Absent any additional information, I follow the Richmond Index. In addition to being much less prone to errors than the other sources consulted, in this instance it seems to me to be the most consistent, logical and believable.
• For the reasons above, previously given as
  • Lophornis chalybeus verreauxii Bourcier 1853 Rev.Mag.Zool.(2) 5 p.193 pl.6
• Colin Jones brought to my attention Zimmer 1950. "Studies of Peruvian Birds, No. 57 The genera Colibri, Anthracothorax, Klais, Lophornis, and Chlorestes. Am.Mus.Novitat. No.1463:1-28. Which is also mentioned in Corrigenda 5 of H&M 3^rd. On p.17-18 Zimmer discusses the matter of the authority as follows:

   The authority for the name of this form has been given variously by different authors.  The
  paper comprising the original description was undoubtedly written by Jules and Edouard Verreaux,
  although they cite Bourcier as authority fo the name, probaby from the label of the type. They
  appear as authors of the paper also in the list of contents as the end of the number of the Revue
  in which it appeared, but in the index to the entire volume, Bourcier is given as the author of
  the paper and the name. In Mulsant and Verreaux's “Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches”
  (vol. 3 p.221) Bourcier is cited as authority for the name, but on page 229, in a bibliography 
  of papers by J. and E. Verreaux, the title of the original article again appears. Although there 
  is no doubt that Bourcier planned to honor Edouard Verreaux by naming this bird for him, I see 
  no way he can be credited even as part author since he had no connection with the original
  publication.

  [ 2011.09.30 ] However, Martin Schneider. notes (in litt.)

   
  http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/48709#page/310/mode/1up
  
  Translated it says: 
  The names of Verreaux came by error on the article. It was only Boucier who wrote the article.

• Cited by Peters Checkist 6:62 as
  • Trachyphonus erythrocephalus versicolor Hartlaub 1883 Abh.naturwiss.Ver.Bremen 8 p.208
  And this is followed by HBW 7:175,560.
• The basis for Peters' belief that this volume of the Bremen Abh. was delayed until 1883 is not clear, but in additon the date appears to be moot. The original description appears to have been published in the Centralbl.Orn. and then repeated in J.Orn., and in both of these instances was available in the summer of 1882. The Richmond Index gives dates of June (Centralbl.Orn.) and July (J.Orn.) of 1882 for the publication of these names.
• Bob Dowsett writes (2004.03.29) on his investigation of these names and sources. (some format editing added)

  Hartlaub
  
  From: Hartlaub G. 1882. Diagnosen neuer Arten aus Centralafrika,
  gesammelt von Dr. Emin Bey. Orn.Centralb. 7:91-92.
  
  Trachyphonus erythrocephalus versicolor Hartlaub 1882, Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Phyllastrephus strepitans rufescens Hartlaub 1882, Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Myrmecocichla albifrons clericalis (Hartlaub 1882), Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Anthoscopus musculus (Hartlaub 1882), Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Lanius gubernator Hartlaub 1882, Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Lagonosticta rara oenochroa (Hartlaub 1882), Orn.Centralb. 7:91.§
  Ploceus baglafecht emini (Hartlaub 1882), Orn.Centralb. 7: 92.§
  Emberiza affinis forbesi (Hartlaub 1882), Orn.Centralb. 7: 92.§
  
  This was reviewed in "Ibis" 1882: 602, where the 8 new taxa are
  named. All these taxa are from suitable localities, visited by Emin, in
  Uganda and Sudan. No volume number is given in "Ibis".
  
  Of the above, those marked § are repeated in Hartlaub G. 1882.
  Ueber eineige neue Vögel aus dem oberen Nilgebiete. J. Orn. 30:
  ??-?? [not seen critically by me] -- according to the review in "Ibis"
  1883: 103 (where date given as July 1882). According to that review, the
  J. Orn. paper describes just one bird as new:
  Francolinus sephaena ochrogaster Hartlaub 1882, J. Orn. 30: 327.
  
  Hartlaub also published:
  Hartlaub G. 1882. Zweiter Beitrag zur Ornithologie der
  östlich aequatorialen Gebiete Afrikas. Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen 8(1882):184-232. 
  It is clear from the "Ibis" review (1883: 214-5) that this is a summary of the previous
  publications, with just one new taxon:
  Cisticola chiniana ladoensis Hartlaub 1882, Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen 8:189.
  I have also seen quoted for 
  Francolinus sephaena ochrogaster Hartlaub, Beitr. Abh. Naturw. Ver. Bremen 8:218
  -- another example of the Bremen publication being a later summary.
  Whether this last is 1882 or 1883, I think we can assume it is
  post the other two publications (for which the dates of June and
  July 1882 respectively given by CWR would suit me fine!)
  
  END
  

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

• Cited by Peters Checklist 6:203 to Blyth 1849 Cat.BirdsMus.As.Soc. p.64 and this may be correct. This citation is also followed by HBW 7:[559].
• The controversy over the dates of publication of the Cat.BirdsMus.As.Soc. is considerable, and some evidence holds that the date of 1852 is correct. Given this problem, I cited the 1849 issue of the J.Asiat.Soc.Bengal (which may have date/delay problems of its own..).
• The Corrigenda #2 of H&M 3^rd indicates that this came out in 1852, though the basis for this conclusion is not known to me at this time.
• Further review of this matter includes the data presented in SNAB #47 (Dickinson 2004). My interpretation of the Data presented in Dickinson 2004 suggests that the date of 1849 (as shown by the Richmond Index) is correct and that the proposal to change this date to 1852 is not. This name is published in the "Supplemental Note" (which is in JASB 18:805) which Dickinson correctly interprets as having been published before the Catalogue. Dating the publication of the Catalogue is problematic, with "proofs" in circulation prior to 1852. But it appears to me that if Dickinson's postion of dating the Catalogue to 1852 is to be followed, then this name must be dated to 1849 (or possibly 1850) and NOT 1852 as his Corrigenda 2.1 maintains.

• Peters Checklist 9:252 gives the year for this citation as 1858.
• The material was presented at the meeting for Feb. 24, 1857, and other taxa from the same meeting, and indeed published on the following page (in the case of Butalis comitatus) are cited to 1857 (see Peters Checklist 11:331).
• The Richmond Index cites this taxon to 1857 which makes the most sense and which I follow.

• The bibliographic orthography is challenging here. The details of the citation have been looked into by Frank Steinheimer and I include his discussion of this.
• The reference is as follows:

  
  Isert, P. E. (1789): 
  Kurze Beschreibung und Abbildung einiger Vögel aus Guinea.
  Beobachtungen und Entdeckungen aus der Naturkunde von der 
  Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 3
  [& Schriften der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 9]: 
  pp. 16-20, pl. 1.  
  
  Description of Musophaga violacea on page 18-(19), plate 1. 
  
  Evidence of date: as on title pages; the journal has two title pages and has been published
  as two different series within each volume for several years; however, in library science the 
  right title page is the main title to be quoted 
  ("Beobachtungen und Entdeckungen aus der Naturkunde 
  von der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin"),
  while the left one remains a subtitle only (above in squared brackets).
  

• For literature resolution of this problem, see Bruce & David. 2007. "Spelling, authorship, and date of the name of the Pacific Eider (Somateria mollisima v-nigrum)". Auk. 124(2):709-712.
• My previous discussion of this issue is below (2007.05.24).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• A good deal of confusion surrounds this name, with issues of spelling, authorship, and the citational source.
• Normand David (in litt. 2003.08.10) offered these clarifications and understandings.

  I address here [the] issue: v-nigrum (-nigram, -nigra). 
  In short: I think that a Bonaparte's name (v-nigrum) has priority over Gray´s names. 
  Most of the information comes from Murray Bruce.
  
  Last fall, I  wrote what follows to Dick Banks:
  
  _____________________________ N. David to RCBAnks, 11/14/02
  
  Dick
  
  AOU 1998 Check-list (p. 78) gives in Notes under Somateria mollissima: "S. v-nigrum Gray, 1856".
  
  Please note that Bruce and McAllan 1990 (Some problems in vertebrate
  nomenclature. II. Birds. Part 1.
  Bull. Mus.  reg.  Sci. nat. Torino 8 (2): 453-485) list the following original combinations:
  
  a) Somateria V-nigrum Bonaparte, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 41: 655, 22 October 1855 
  b) S[omateria] V. nigram Gray, The Athenaeum, 1 December 1855 
  c) Somateria V. nigrum Gray, The Literary Gazette, 22 December 1855 
  d) Somateria V-nigra Gray, PZSL, 5 February 1856
  
  It is apparent that Gray's communication at a meeting of the Zool. Soc. of London on 27 November 1855 
  was reported in three different British journals or newpapers (with three different spellings). 
  However Bonaparte had obtained details of the new taxon from Gray during a visit at the British 
  Museum and published the name before Gray. Cramp (1977) Vol I (p. 595) lists the taxon as 
  "v-nigrum Bonaparte 1855".
  
  I have not seen Bonaparte's original text, I don't know if his name is available or valid, 
  I have not checked synonymies, and I don't know if somebody ever commented on the case. 
  I merely want to bring it to your attention. But the use of Bonaparte's name solves the problem 
  of Gray's spellings!
  
  The 1999 Code Examples under Art. 31.2.1 gives "m-nigrum" as an invariable noun 
  in apposition with the understanding that nigrum agrees in gender with the neuter letter m 
  (not with the genus). 
  Art. 32.5.2.4.3 prescribes that an hyphen is conserved between a letter and a second element
  (when the letter denotes descriptively a character).
  
  Now must Gray's original "v-nigra" or "v-nigram" be corrected to v-nigrum? 
  I am not absolutely sure because I do not see in the Code an article that says so clearly and 
  explicitely. This is why Bonaparte's name solves the problem.
  
  Yours ____________________________________
  
  
  Additional comments: 
  1) I suspect (and this is only a guess) that Bonaparte hastened to find a type specimen 
  (see below) that matched what Gray showed to him. 
  2) Can we use the Glossary of the Code (under "noun phrase, p.112) to correct an original 
  "femurrubra" to femurrubrum, or an original "v-nigra" to v-nigrum? 
  In this case, the question becomes irrelevant if Bonaparte's v-nigrum, which is correctly 
  formed according to the Examples under Art. 31.2.1 and the Glossary, has priority. 
  Remember that Examples are not part of the Code rules, but that the Glossary is. 
  3) The only avian name constructed like femurrubrum that I am aware of is respublica 
  (where publica agrees in gender with res).
  
  Dick Banks replied as follows:
  
  ___________________________ Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:44:55 -0500 
  From: "Richard Banks"
  To: Normand David  Cc: Alan Peterson
  Subject: Re: v-nigram /v-nigra /v-nigrum Mime-Version: 1.0
  
  Normand--Thank you for the information on Somateria v-nigrum. 
  I have not yet found that particular paper by Bonaparte but I suspect that the name is available. 
  The card in the Richmond file lists a type locality and a type, "immature, in collection of 
  M. Hardy of Dieppe." It gives the date of the publication as "not earlier than Oct. 22." 
  Type locality is "propre aux contrees les plus boreales de l'Amerique."
  
  There is also a card for Somateria v. nigram Gray, with the date Dec. 1, 1855 (Athenaeum), 
  and one for v-nigra Gray, Proceedings, 5 Feb. 1856. 
  Gray's type locality is Kotzebue Sound, and the second card mentions a specimen in the BM collection.
  
  It looks as though V-nigrum Bonaparte 1855 has priority, and if v is neuter, it is a noun.
  
  I think I will not make a change for the check-list right away. 
  There must be some reason that Gray has been cited so consistently. I'll have to try to find out.
  
  But the 5th edition of the Check-list gives v-nigra Bonaparte 1855, with his type locality 
  equated to Kotzebue Sound.
  So, between 1957 and 1998, Gray gained the advantage over Bonaparte. 
  Perhaps following the revised part 1 of Peters, but who knows?
  
  I am copying this to Alan Peterson and to Dan Gibson.
  
  Regards--Dick
  ____________________________
  

• I interpret (2003.08.10) this matter to be not fully resolved, but adopt the author as Bonaparte, and the name as v-nigrum.
• If "conventional use" prompts the use of Gray as the author (despite Bonaparte's priority) then multiple problems (nomenclatural and citational) need further resolution.
• The page number is frequently given as "p.655" but as Michael Rieser points out the actual page number is p.661.

• HBW 2:572 gives the citation as PZS 1870 p.403. This correlates to Nov. of 1870.
• The Richmond Index gives a citation of Ibis ser.2 vol.VI no.XXII p.300 with a date of April, 1870.
• I follow the citation from the Richmond Index.

• Peters Checklist 12:134 (Greenway) shows the BBOC volume as "15".
• The Richmond Index, shows that the volume number here is 14.

• Often spelled C. viridicyana
• Originally Garrulus viridi-cyanus Lafresnaye & Orbigny 1838.
• David and Gosselin. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC 2002. 122(1):40 discuss this.
• "The final component cyanus is the latinized Greek noun κυαλνος [kuanos: a blue substance, a blue stone, a blue bird]. The adjectival form would have been viridicyaneus (Latin) or chlorocyaneus (latinized from Greek)."
• They indicate the spelling should be Cyanolyca viridicyanus.
• During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Cyanolyca viridicyan... does not occur in the Zoo. Rec..

• Split from C. vulpina by Zimmer, K. J. (1997) Species limits in Cranioleuca vulpina. Orn. Monogr. 48 p.849-864.

• Peters Checklist 15:266 has "1851".
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• The Richmond Index has the citation as "Institute VI no.226 April 1838 p.128";
• I am not sure which has priority.
• The Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 23:244 gives the page of the citation as "p.443"; Sherborn gives "p.444".
2016.12.28
• I find the name on p.444, following some description that starts on p.443..

• Peters Checklist 4:15 has "p.60".
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 3:69 erroneously omits the date.

Eriocnemis vestita 1839

• Peters Checklist 5:109 has "1838".
• {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1839".

• Peters Checklist 3:156 lists 1831.
• {Zimmer, 1926} p.389 and {Sherborn 1902} indicate the date for livr.10 is 1833.

• Peters Checklist 3:130 lists "1810".
• H&M 3^rd:169 lists as 1810, but the Corrigenda changes this to 1809.
• See {Browning & Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 4:8 has a 1789 date and a different source.
• I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

• Peters Checklist 14:108 has "1851?"
• See {Browning & Monroe, 1991}.

• Peters Checklist 9:302 has 1851.
• See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

• Not in Peters Checklist Vol.11.
• Alstrom and Olsson, Ibis 141:545-568. 1999 discuss part of the Seicercus complex. They consider
  • Seicercus latouchei Bangs 1929 Proc.NewEngl.Zool.Cl. 11 p.4
  to be a subspecies of S. valentini

• Not in Peters Checklist or Sibley & Monroe.
• Appears to be accepted as a good species, but generic placement (originally in Chordeiles) seems to have been incorrect.

• Debated as to species status, with arguments pro and con by Sibley & Monroe p.20.
• Paul Johnsgard, The Pheasants of the World, Oxford University Press, 1986 evidently argues for full species status.
• Ref. Rolf de By.

• Peters Checklist 14:80 has 1851.
• See {Browning & Monroe, 1991}.

• 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 5:593 that "morphology, behaviour, and biogeography" argue for inclusion in Leucippus.

Strix virgata 1849

• Peters Checklist 4:154 has 1848.
• Ms. Robin Sinn, librarian at the Academy of Natural Sciences indicates that this portion of Vol.4 for 1848 was published in 1849.

Surniculus velutinus Systematics

• Usually treated as a subspecies of S. lugubris. HBW 4:569 separates it as a species on the basis of vocalization and juvenile plumage.

• Usually placed in Gypopsitta.
• Collar in Handbook of Birds of the World 4:457 states the character of bare head in the adults is "probably of little or not taxonomic significance; in other respects clearly belongs in Pionopsitta..."

• Peters Checklist 14:52 (Lowrey & Monroe) list this date as 1864.
• This was published in Pt2 for 1863, published in 1863 of that year, as The Richmond Index, and Duncan show.
• The AOU 7^th CL p.563 has the date correct as 1863.

• Usually placed in Caprimulgus where it was described by Bonaparte.
• Proposed as a monotypic genus Veles by Bangs.
• Cleere N. 2001. BBOC "The validity of the genus Veles Bangs, 1918 (Caprimulgidae)." 121:278-279. proposes that the morphological, vocal, and behavioural differences from other Nightjars, warrants it's treatment in the genus Veles as proposed by Bangs.
• Cleere is uncertain of its true affinities but proposes "placement of Veles between Eurostopdus and Nyctidromus."

• The date for this livraison is usually given as 1835 (e.g. Peters 10:234, Cat.Brds.Br.Mus. 12:566 (Sharpe), 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".

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