Type, by subsequent designation, Alcedo guttata Vigors = Ceryle guttulata Stejneger (Sharpe, Monogr. Alced., 1871, p.viii.)Which I interpret to mean that Sharpe designated the type as Ceryle guttata Vigors.
Based on Daubenton, Pl. Enl. 679. "Martin-pêcheur hupé du Cap de Bonne-Esperance." (Buffon, VII, p.188).
The type of M. m. mercedesfosterae was collected by Dickerman (#17102) and is deposited in the AMNH (#816795).
Remarks: Naumburg (1930) pointed out that Lawrence's holotype of minor from "Bogotá" (which I [KC Parkes] have examined at the American Museum of Natural History) was not of the well-known "Bogotá" trade skin make, but instead matches "the well-known Orinoco or Trinidad make". This was reiterated by Zimmer (1953) who pointed out its resemblance to other Trinidad specimens. These clearly belong to the subspecies of the coastal mountains of Venezuela; the holotype differs only in having a flat wing measurement of of 180 mm, 3 mm shorter than any mainland specimen (its wing lenght is cited by Zimmer and others as 178 mm, but he undoubtedly did not flatten the wing fully on the ruler). I have no hesitation in accepting Zimmer's tentative suggestion, and restrict the type locality of Hemiprocne minor Lawrence to Trinidad. ffrench (1991) believed that the swifts of this species seen in Trinidad represented "a post-breeding dispersal, probably from the Venezuelan Andes." Birds from those mountains, however, belong to a different subspecies than do the available Trinidad specimens; as the latter are matched by those of the coastal mountains, the name minor will apply to the coastal and not the Andean birds.
Macropygia phasianella Bonaparte 1854 Compt. Rend. 39 p.1111
The following points, I think, tell it all.All a salutary illustration of the need to check original sources. Cheers, Dick
- "M. phasianella, Pl. Col. 100", name and reference, was the one of the included species in Swainson's original description of Macropygia, and was later designated its type species. As no other included species has been so designated, all that remains is to clarify the identity of "M. phasianella, Pl. Col. 100".
- Whatever is said on wrappers and however much we like to interpret what was in people's minds, the root information bearing on the identity of "M. phasianella, Pl. Col. 100" is what was actually said IN the original reference itself.
- I have now checked that reference, and, despite my halting French, it is clear that Temminck there simply expanded his concept of Columba phasianella as published in the Trans.Linn.Soc. in 1821 to include the populations through the Moluccas and Sundas to the Philippines (and "jusqu'a la Nouvelle Hollande"); even "Columba Amboinensis Lath." was included as the young of the year.
- The Philippines are only specified according to the fruit eating habits of the species: The pigeon became common around Manilla in February where it could be shot in numbers.
- The opening two sentences of the text to Pl. 100 - Adult read: "Nous figurons cet oiseau sous le plumage de l'etat parfait. Une courte notice, pris sur un jeune individu tue a la Nouvelle-Hollande , a ete donnee dans le vol. 13 des Transactions Linneennes, pag. 129, sous le noms indiques ci-dessus..." These names, given in the heading, are "Colombe Phasianelle" and 'Columba phasianella. Temm.'.
- So "M. phasianella" in "Pl. Col. 100" is not a new name based on a Philippine or Sundan form. It is the same name as Columba phasianella Temminck, 1821, which should therefore be cited as the nominal type species of Macropygia Swainson.
- As for a footnote in H&M, why not refer to to the Zoo. Cat. Aust. 37.2, p. 23 for explanation. It's not as clear as it could be, but it is enough. If anyone isn't satisfied with that and wants to query, let them waste their time working it out.
