zoonomen.net

Zoological Citation Notes -- M

Pterodroma magentae Citation

Peters Checklist 1(2):68 (Jouanin & Mougin) list this taxon as "1869 (early)", though no evidence in support of this assertion of delayed publication is offered.
Edward Dickinson indicates (in litt. 2004.11.22) that his examination of the serial revealed no direct evidence of delayed publication.
No modification, notation or entry is found in the H&M Corrigenda 4 (2006.01.31). This is either oversight (probable), or acceptance without explanation of 1869 for this taxon and 1868 for another taxon (Caprimulgus climacurus nigricans (Salvadori)) for another taxon from the same volume and number (improbable).
In the abscence of actual evidence for a delay in the publication, the imprint date of 1868 appears to me to be appropriate to use here.

2004.11.24;2006.04.02

Merulaxis / Merulaxis ater Citation

These citations are problematic and contoversial. The dates of livr.5 do not appear to have been established with certainty and it is variously cited to 1830 or 1831.
Of interest in his description of Merulaxis ater evidently Lesson notes: "Cent. Zool., pl.30" (data from Richmond Index). The Richmond Index dates that portion of Cent. Zool. to 1831, and speculates that Lesson's note would make it likely that the description of M. ater appeared first in Cent. Zool. If this were established to be true, and if the 1831 date is accepted for livr.IV of Cent. Zool., then it would appear quite certain that at least the latter pages of livr.5 of TraitedOrn. should be dated to 1831, and not 1830.
However, it must be noted that at this time Lesson was working on multiple works and a confusing number of internal references exist, so that we can not be sure he is referring to published material when he cites "Cent.Zool.".

2004.11.11

Motacilla Systematics

Currently (2004) there is much debate and less consensus regarding the systematics of this group. Changes in systematics can be expected to continue.
Recent publications include:
1. Voelker G. 2002. "Systematics and historical biogeography of wagtails: Dispersal versus vicariance revisited." Condor 104(4):725-739.
2. Alström K, Mild K, & Zetterström. 2003. Pipits and Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America. Christopher Helm, London.
3. Pavlova A, et al.. 2003. "Phylogeographic patterns in Motacilla flava and Motacilla citreola: Species limits and population history." Auk 120(3):744-758.
4. Banks RC, et al. 2004. "Forty-fifth Supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list of North American Birds." Auk 121(3):992.

2004.10.16

Nyctiphyrnis mcleodii Citation

Peters Checklist 4:195 lists the page number for this taxon as "p.88". HBW 5:[683] lists the pagination as "87-88".
The name and description occur on p.89, as is correctly indicated in the AOU CL's 6^th & 7^th Edns.
Thanks to Michael Rieser for picking this up.

2004.10.08

Accipiter melanoleucos Nomenclature

Originally spelled melanoleueus by Smith (fide CWR, Sherborn "M,N";3967; and Willughby reprints of Smith's work).
Apparently interpreted to be an error (at least by Peters 1(2):346 to be an error, though the rationale for that is not explicated).
Therefore, as near as I am able to determine, this appears to be an emendation which has not been questioned, and even if not supportable now resides cheerfully in the cesspool of prevailing usage.
Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing the issue of the original spelling to my attention.

2004.06.17

Micropsitta geelvikiana misorensis 1876

Peters Checklist 3:168 has 1875.
See {Poggi R, 1996}.
Unfortunately, the HBW 4:365 has "1875" for the date, perpetuating this common error.

2004.06.06

Masius Nomenclature.

Bonaparte's note reads:

  Genus dicatum Aloysio Masio meo, Italicis-
simo,  exuli etiam cariori, amplitudine in-
genii, animi virtute, lacertorum vigore
aeque praeclaro! ... Utinam multos tales
filios Italia et vel Gallia progenuerint! ....

This is translated by Jobling (1991) as:

My genus is dedicated to Aloysius Masi, the very essence of Italy,
exiled yet dear, talented, intellectual, energetic, and distinguished!
Would that Italy of France could always produce such sons!

Jobling goes on to comment: "The only candidate for this eulogy (here freely translated from the original Latin) would seem to be the republican Colonel Masi, a supporter of Garibaldi, but no further details are provided."
Jobling must be correct in this. Of interest, Luigi Masi of Perugia, Italy was initially hired by Bonaparte as the tutor of his children. Masi continued with the family for many many years and became Bonaparte's personal secretary, travelling with him to many meetings. Luigi (who would appear not to be Aloysius) is mentioned many times in Stroud's 2000 Biography of Bonaparte. Aloysius Masi is not mentioned.

2004.06.04

Pitta sordida mulleri Spelling

Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) renders this "Pitta mülleri in the original description, and thus spells it "Pitta sordida muelleri". This would be appropriate, if in fact Bonaparte had spelled it with an umlaut and the name was either German or indeterminate as to origin.
I have checked two copies of the Consp.Gen.Av. and the name is spelled "(Pitta mulleri, Bp.)", and thus "ue" is incorrect.
H&M 3^rd:338 renders this name correctly.
Bonaparte describes this name in Brachyrus even though the binomen listed is "Pitta mulleri, Bp.". I interpret this to be a Bp. manuscript name, but published first here.
H&M 3^rd:338 apparently follows Peters Checklist 8:322 (Mayr) in listing this without parentheses. Mayr does not appear to have attended to either the actual spelling of the name or the overall structure of Bonaparte's work.
Thanks to Colin Jones for pointing out my error in following H&M and Peters.

2004.05.05; 2007.12.14

Picus miniaceus Spelling

Spelled Picus mineaceus by Peters Checklist 6:142
H&M 3^rd:327 spells the specific epithet miniaceus, and this follows what is given in the Richmond Index, Sherborn and HBW 7:537.

2004.04.01

Anser fabalis middendorffii Nomenclature

Spelled middendorffi with only one terminal "i" in the Richmond Index.
Edward C. Dickinson checked the original description and confirms that the name is spelled with an -ii ending. (in litt. 2004.03.21).

2004.03.21

Chalybura buffonii micans Citation

Peters Checklist 5:78 gives 55 as the volume number.
Both the Richmond Index and HOLLIS Catalog (http://holliscatalog.harvard.edu/) show that the name in question appears in volume 65.

2004.02.09 (RMR)

Myiarchus magnirostris Nomenclature

An interesting nomenclatural situation applies to this name as described by Zimmer, 1926 p.158

	The generic names of some of the new species have been altered to
accord with generic changes proposed herein by Gray, as, for example,
Myiobius magnirostris, p.48 pl.VIII. Gould's manuscript name,
Tyrannula magnirostris, is cited in synonomy but appears on
the plate, while the new combination is given without authority
other than that it follows Gray's proposal of Myiobius for
Tyrannula of Swainson. In this case, the authorship of the species may
remain with Gould since the plate has priority over the text (see below), but
Darwin appears to be properly the author of the new combination of names.

2004.01.17

Progne modesta Citation

Peters Checklist 9:88 (Mayr & Greenway) date this to 1838, and this if followed by H&M 3^rd:533.
Sherborn showed (in 1897 Ann.Mag.Hist.Nat. (6) 20:483) that this part was published in July 1839, a fact also listed in Zimmer and Sherborn's Index Animalium, as well as the Richmond Index.

2004.01.16

Upupa epops marginata Citation

The date of this citation raises a problem.
- The Peters Checklist 5:249 dates this to 1860. (This is followed by H&M 3^rd:297, and HBW 6:410.)
- Peters may be following Sclater 1924 Systema Avium Ethiopicarum 1:232 who gives 1860.
The Richmond Index dates this to 1859, and notes that the signature is dated "Dec. 12, 1859".
The relatively late date of the signature imprint certainly suggests that its publication could have been delayed until 1860, though Peters gives no details or support for this date, and himself dates taxa from earlier in the volume to 1859.
To date I do not have data from the Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. (where I suspect Sclater may have gotten his date for the Syst.Av.Aethiop.).
If 1860 is correct (which I suspect may well be the case) the implication here is that either Th.II was issued in parts (presumably signatures) or the entire volume would have to be dated to 1860. This last case would affect quite a few taxa, and might have substantial priority implications.

2003.12.21

Synallaxis stictothorax maculatus Date

The date given for this by Peters Checklist 7:93, and H&M 3^rd:410 is 1874.
Foster, and the Richmond Index indicate that this was in no.6-7 of Volume X and these were published in the period of March to May of 1872.
I choose to follow the Richmond Index, and Foster here. The dates of this publication are, however quite problematic.

2003.12.06

Cacomantis sonneratii musicus Concept

The Richmond index gives a copy of the description:

"cauda rotundata, nigro maculata, supra testaceus
subuts albus fasciis transversis subundulatis nigris,
remigum apicibus nigris testaceo marginatis."

A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

2003.11.01

Cacomantis sonneratii musicus Citation

Peters Checklist 4:22 gives the date as 1804, but provides no data, discussion, or support for that date. And HBW 4:559 appears to follow the Peters Citation.
The Richmond index gives a date of 1803 and notes "(4^th quarter)" of 1803. A reference note to "See Bartels, Orn.Monatsb., 1927, 21." is included (not seen).

2003.11.01

Galbula ruficauda melanogenia Citation

Peters Checklist 6:7 lists this as 1853, giving no notes, discussion of details, or basis for using that date. This date is followed by HBW 7:96, again with no discussion of the date.
The Richmond Index lists this as 1852, with a note that the "Article is dated April 16, 1852" [this may, however be a printers date - APP].
Zimmer lists the dates for this publication as ending in 1852, but with no further details.
Sclater (the author of the taxon) lists the date as 1852 in Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 19:166. [though I think this is relatively weak date evidence].
Murray Bruce's research on this publication would appear to support 1852 for all but the last 21 pages of the Contributions. [see note on Contr.Orn. for details].
I interpret the evidence to supports 1852.

2003.10.29

Megascops kennicottii macfarlanei Concept

Considered by Marshall (1967) and H&M 3^rd to be included in their Otus k.bendirei.
Cannings RJ & Angell T. 2001. Birds of North America. No. 597 Western Screech Owl. p.3 refer to size and plumage coloration differences and hold it to be a separate race. They include tabular data (p.16) which show the macfarlanei weights and wing-lengths to be substantially the largest.
The type for macfarlanei was collected in my home town (Walla Walla, WA). [[2010.06.12] Initially I thought this was collected by Wm. Brewster, but I think Brewster was probably not in Walla Walla in 1881. Brewster comments in his Bull.Nutt.Orn.Club article on birds of the Fort Walla Walla vicinity, that Bendire sent him his collection of birds from that region, and encouraged Brewster to publish any findings of interest.] The bird was collected on Oct. 22 1881, by Capt. Charles Bendire. Capt. Bendire was stationed at Ft. Walla Walla from June 1878 until May 1882. (Fort Walla Walla, given as the type locality for a number of subspecies, actually occupied 3 locations, from its inception to the current day. When Capt. Bendire served there it was located at it's current location where it now functions as a Veterans Administration Hospital, and where Western Screech Owls -- quite abundant in Walla Walla -- can be heard to this day on the grounds.)
The bird was named for "Mr Robert Macfarlane who, as is well known, was a personal friend of Robert Kennicott and an enterprising and accomplished field ornithologist."
Coues (KeyN.A.Birds p.634) lists Macfarlane as a member of the Hudson Bay Company.

2003.10.26; 2010.06.12

Pseudoscops clamator midas Concept

The original description occurs as a footnote to OTUS MEXICANUS G. Cuvier. and reads:

*) Otus midas, Lichtenstein, Nomencl. Mus. Berol., p. 6, est foudé sur
un individu femelle d'un hibou sous tous les rapports sembable an mexicanus,
mais d'une taille plus considérable.  Il a été tué dans les environs de Monté-
video.  Longuer totale 18 pouces.  Aile 11 pouces 6 lignes.  Pointe de l'aile
2 pouces. Queue 5 pouces 9 lignes.  Aigrettes 33 lignes.  Hauteur de la man-
dible supérieure 5 lignes.  Oiel 5 lignes de demie. Tarse 26 lignes.  Doigt du
milieu 19 lignes.

2003.09.21

Microparra Citation

Citation usually (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:226; HBW 3:[725]) given as
Microparra Cabanis 1877 J.Orn. 25 p.349
The Richmond Index gives a date of July, 1877 for that volume and number of the J.Orn., however the Orn.Centralblatt also containing the erection of this genus was issued on June 15, 1877.

2003.08.30

Malacopteron Concept

The original description reads

		Genus MALACOPTERON, n.g.
Rostrum ferè capiti æquale, altius quà latum, ad apicem incisum,
  ultraque nares compressum, ad basim setis armatum; mandibulâ
  inferiore ad basim tumidâ.
Tarsi mediocres; digiti externi vix longiores quàm interni, poste-
  riores medios æquantes; ungues compressi posteriores longissimi;
  scuta tarsi vix divisa.
Alæ breves, rotundatæ; pennis secondariis primarias ferè æquantibus;
  primâ pennarum spuriâ, secundâ breviore tertiâ quæ longissima
  est.
Cauda paucarum pennarum composita, rotundata; tectricibus supe-
  rioribus mollibus et longis.
  Obs. This genus is allied to Microtarsus in some particulars and
to Brachipus in others; it agrees with both in the soft and downy
nature of the tail coverts.

2003.05.29

Tauraco macrorhynchus Concept

The original description reads

  CORYTHAIX MACRORHYNCHUS.   Cor. rostro prægrandi aurantico,
    ad basin sanguineo; capite, cristâ, collo pectoreque viridibus;
    cristâ ad apicem albâ et purpureo notatâ, lineâ albâ infra oculos
    excurrente; dorso alisque metallicè purpureis; primariis san-
    guineis nigro marginatis; caudâ supernè metallicè viridi; femo-
    ribus caudâque subtù nigris tarsis nigris.
  Long. tot. 14 poll.; rostri, 1¼; alæ 6; caudæ 6; tarsi, 1¼.
  Hab. ---?
  This species of Corythaix lived for some time in the Society's
Menagerie, having been purchased from a dealer who was unac-
quainted with its locality.
  Compared with the known species of the genus, it approaches
most nearly to the Corythaix Persa of authors, but from this it may
readily be distinguished by its smaller size; and the form, compara-
tively large size and colouring of the beak.  The colouring of the
plumage also differs in some respects: like C. Persa, the head, neck
and breast are green, but the feathers on these parts are of a deeper
hue than in that species; the feathers of the crest, instead of being
simply tipped with white, having a white transverse line near the
apex, but at the apex they are purple-black.  Minute black feathers
encircle the eye, and a white stripe extends from beneath the eye
on to the ear.  The beak is much arched above, and somewhat in-
flated at the base; the nostrils are very large, and not hidden, as in
C. Persa, by the decumbent feathers, these extending only to the
posterior angle of the nostril.  The upper mandible is of a bright 
yellow color, excepting all that portion which lies below and be-
hind the nostrils, which is of a brilliant red colour; the lower mandi-
ble is of the same red tint, but tipped with yellow.  Both mandi-
bles present simple sharp-cutting edges, in this respect exhibiting a
different structure from that observable in the the allied species, C. Persa
and C. Buffonii, in which the mandibles have their cutting edges
serrated.  The back and upper surface of the wings are of a deep
purple-blue tint, exhibiting in certain parts greenish reflections.
The primaries (with the exception of the first quill) and second-
aries (with the excpetion of the three of four innermost quills) are
red, margined with black; the shafts of these feathers are also black.
The outer primary is black, and the two or three following feathers
are broadly margined externally with the same colour.  All the 
wing feathers are black at the base; on the outermost feathers the
black colouring occupies but little space, but in each successive
feather it increases in extent.  The feathers of the tail are of a very
dark green colour above, inclining to black; beneath they are black,
but exhibit indistinct purple reflections.  The rump, upper and un-
der tail-coverts, thighs, and vent are black, obscurely tinted with
purple or green in parts.  The tarsi are black.  The eyes are hazel,
and the naked, or almost naked space around the eye, is of a crimson
colour; not carunculated, as in C. Buffonii and C. leucotis.

2003.05.29

Ortalis vetula mccalli Spelling

Originally spelled with one "i" by Baird (fide in original).
Spelled with one "i" in Peters Checklist 2:19 and Cat.B.Brit.Mus. 22:512, and the Richmond Index.
HBW 2:342(plate),343 spell this as mccallii (note double "i"), and this is repeated in H&M 3^rd Ed. p.37.
I interpret one "i" to be correct.

2003.05.18

Megapodius reinwardti macgillivrayi Citation

Often given as 1861 (e.g. Peters Checklist 2:4; HBW 2:309; H&M 3^rd Ed.:37)

2003.05.18

Crypturellus soui meserythrus 1860

Peters 1(2):21 (Blake) lists this as 1859.
HBW 1:128 (Cabot) perpetuates this error.
H&M 3^rd Ed. p.31 also perpetuates this error.
This portion of the Proceedings was published in Feb. of 1860, not 1859 as the imprint date indicates.

Passer motitensis Citation

Cited by Peters Checklist 25:15 (Moreau & Greenway) as:
- Passer motitensis Smith,A 1848 Ill.Zool.S.Afr. pl.114
However, as Bob Dowsett pointed out, this is pre-dated by the 1836 Rep.Exped.Centr.Afr. which I reproduce here.

Pyrgita Motitensis.   Top of head and back of neck grey;
  eyebrows, sides of neck, and back, chestnut; the interscapu-
  lars dashed with dark black-brown; eyeband, chin, and
  throat, black; cheeks white; breast and belly rusty white.
  Length 6¼ inches. Inhabits the country about Old Latakoo.

2003.05.10

Speirops melanocephalus Spelling

Peters Checklist 12:337 (Moreau) spells this S. melenocephala, as Gray composed the name.
However, all compound names ending in -ops are manditorily masculine, regardless of their derivation or their treatment by their authors (ICZN 1999:Art. 30.1.4.3. This Speirops is masculine and melanocephalus should also be.

2003.05.10

Macronous Nomenclature

There are interesting uncertainties here regarding the spelling of this name. Macronous vs. Macronus

To date (2003.05.02) best summarized by this portion of an email from Normand David:

Macronus/Macronous Jardine & Selby (Illustrations of Ornithology, 1835, Vol. III, pl.150) 
The plate has Macronus and the the text has Macronous.
The index of volume III (the only vol. of four that has an index) in which the plate was
bound has Macronus.
All references cited by the Cat.B.Br.Mus. that I have seen have Macronus 
(from Gray�s 1841 "Genera..." to Sharpe's 1903 "Handlist ..." + various minor papers in
Ibis, PZSL, BBOC), except for Blyth 1842 (JASB 11:795) and Blyth 1849 
(Cat. Birds Mus As. Soc.).
All indications show that Macronus was in overwhelming use from 1835
until 1963 and 1964, when Deignan (1963, Check-list Birds Thailand) used
Macronous with no explanation); in Peters (1964) X:318, he (Deignan) 
invoked Blyth's 1842 "Macronous" as a First Reviser action (but it does not meet
the requirements of the Code), despite the fact that "the editors would
prefer to maintain this more frequently used spelling [=Macronus]".
Did anyone else acted as First Reviser?
Perhaps the answer lies in Proc. Biol. Soc Wash. (1905) 18:4, where
Mearns established Macronous mindanensis montanus; or Chasen 1935, A
Handlist of Malaysian Birds (Bull Raffles Museum 11:1-389), or Deignan
1950 (Bull Raffles Museum 23:127-129, where he introduced Macronus
striaticeps mearnsi.
These publications [must still be checked]...
I note that Wolters (1982, Vogelarten der Erde) used Macronus instead of
"Macronous" (which he cites).
Unless we find something else, it seems that Deignan was the first
author to use Macronous consistently at one point in time. I think now
this is unfortunate because Macronus was much more frequent and closer
to the etymology (onyx, claw; not ous, ear).
On the other hand, can we say that Deignan in Peters acted as First
Reviser? He cited Macronous (text to plate) and Macronus (plate), and
used Macronous. I am not sure yet if this meets [the] Art. 24.2.3 phrase 
"selected one spelling as correct".

2003.05.02

Aerodramus maximus Concept, Nomenclature

A confusing situation here. Discussed by:
1. Deignan, 1955 Deignan HG. 1955. "The Identity of Collocalia maxima Hume." BBOC 75(6):82.
2. HBW 5:433.

2003.03.01

Pterodroma madeira Citation

Peters Checklist 1:73 gives the page number as "179".
This error is repeated in HBW 1:632.
The description of Pterodroma mollis maderia subsp. nov. is on p.161 of no.CCCLXXVIII. The name is in fact used on p.179 (which is in the following number - no.CCCLXXIX), but it is not new there.
The Richmond Index gives the citation properly as p.161.

2003.02.09

Syrmaticus mikado Citation

Peters Checklist 2:130 gives the page number as "68".
This error is repeated in HBW 2:573 (McGowan)
The description starts on p.122.

2002.12.21

Vidua macroura Concept

Pallas' original description is reproduced here:

N. 144 	FRINGILLA (macroura) supra nigra, macula
	humerali subtusque alba, recticibus quatuor
	intermediis longissimis, lateralibus interius o-
	blique albis.  Magnitudo Spini.

Data taken from Sherborn CD. 1905. "The new species of Birds in Vroeg's Catalogue, 1764." Smiths.Misc.Coll. 47(3):336.
The locality (taken from the Catalogue, not the Adumbratiunculae) is given as "Oostindie." = East Indies.
Peters Checklist 14:395 indicates "East Indies; error, emended to Angola by Gmelin, 1789, Syst.Nat. 1(2), p.883."

2002.11.16

Struthio molybdophanes Citation

The citation was given as conventionally cited
- Struthio molybdophanes Reichenow 1883 Mitt.Orn. p.202 Concept
however there is some uncertainty here. Using bibliographic tools and library searches, I have not identified with certainty the entity "Mittheilungen des Ornithologischen Vereins [Vereines] in Wien". I suspect that this may be the title of a subsection of a larger work.
The Richmond Index gives the source as:
- "Sonntagsb. d. Norddeutsch. Allgemein. Zeitung no.37, 16 Sept. 1883"
  with a note saying:
  'orig. diag. ? repr. in J.f.O. 1883, 399.
  Mitth. des Orn.. Vereines in Wien, VII, no.10 Oct., 1883 p.202 (in text).'
- On a second card detailing the J. fur Orn. 1884 listing is a note in Richmond's hand stating:
  'probably first described in a newspaper - "Norddeutschen Allg. Zeitung."
  no.37 of Sept. 16, 1883!'
  This "probably" is written above a "possibly" which is crossed out.
There was a German newspaper "Norddeutsche allgemeine Zeitung" published 1870-1942 which would appear to be the paper referred to.
By date, this would certainly appear to have priority, and if it satisfies the requirements for adequacy of description would appear to be the appropriate citation.
My guess is that Richmond did not actually see the Norddeutsh. Allg. Zeitung entry. His changing "possibly" to "probably" suggests he got some additional information, but NOT certainty regarding this question.

Norbert Bahr helpfully writes (2009.12.13):

 
	In his work "Die Vögel Afrikas", Reichenow cited 
	first his publication in the newspaper `Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung"
	, supporting that that article has priority over the description in 
	Mitt. Orn. Ver. Wien, and perhaps the source on which Richmond 
	based his change from `possibly' to `probably' (?).

The No.37 Sonntagsblatt evidently has an imprint date of 16 Sept. 1883 (a Sunday), but was published on Saturday 15 Sept. 1883, based on Reichenow's note in the DieVog.Afr. (vol.1 p.12).

2002.11.02; 2009.12.13; 2019.03.14

Centrocercus minimus Nomenclature

I previously followed the AOU. 42^nd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2000. 117(3):850. for the citation, which was:
- Centrocercus minimus Bradbury & Vehrencamp 1998 PrincipalsAnimalCommunication cover p.iv,770
I now follow the AOU. 43^rd supplement to the AOU Checklist Auk 2002. 119(3):899.
A complex and unfortunate situation exists here. I understand this name, though unpublished, was used informally for some time. The Bradbury and Vehrencamp publication of the name was not intended as the species description, but nonetheless was interpreted by Banks, and others who have reviewed the data and the applicable rules, as satisfying the ICZN rules then in effect, and was thus, whether advertent or not, a valid species description.
Shortly after that publication, the new 4^th ICZN rules came into effect and the description would NOT then have satisfied the criteria.
Those who worked on recognition of the taxon published their work in the last 2000 issue of The Wilson Bulletin, where they described it as as "new species", and did NOT cite the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work, OR the AOU checklist update's use of the name as a Bradbury and Vehrencamp taxon.
I understand that there was some consideration to petition the ICZN to suppress the Bradbury and Vehrencamp work (which had unquestioned priority) and thus have their work (being the next available) as the citation.
The action of the AOU Checklist Committee may make this moot. The Checklist Committee held that the name was used by Vehrencamp and Bradbury as "a means of temporary reference and not for formal taxonomic use as a scientific name in zoological nomenclature," and thus was excluded under ICZN 1985 Art.1(b)(6) and ICZN 1999 Art. 1.3.5.
This would appear to be a lesson and a motivator to remember the importance of publishing and establishing valid names so they can be used by the scientific community in a uniform and consistent manner.
An additional point:
- I can not understand Young et al.'s motivation for NOT mentioning either Bradbury & Vehrencamp, OR the initial findings of the AOU Checklist Committee in their WilsonBull. article of description. I can understand their disappointment, and concern over the problem, but by not mentioning the issue in their WilsonBull. paper they ensure that the nomenclatural issue will be more difficult to understand when people in the future look back on this name. In addition, in my view, it produces the possibility of an interpretation of petulance, rather than a desire to resolve and clarify a nomenclatural issue.

2002.10.01

Melanopareia maranonica Concept

Listed by Peters Checklist 7:282 as a full species.
Sibley & Monroe suggest possibly a full species, (and use the form M. maranonica).
The genus group name Melanopareia ends in the transliterated Greek word παρεια [pareia: cheek] which is feminine. Thus Sibley & Monroe's interpretation that the form should be maranonica. However the specific epithet is based on the Rio Marañon, and thus may be a noun in apposition. Chapman described the species as maranonicus but for the moment I use maranonica.
This approach is supported by Normand David who writes (2002.10.23): "Although formed from the Rio Marañon, the name maranonicus of Chapman is necessarily adjectival because ending in the adjectival suffix -icus, just like amazonicus/amazonica from the Amazon River. Because Melanopareia is feminine, maranonicus needs the mandatory correction to maranonica."
Has been treated as a subspecies of M. elegans, but they differ morphologically and are allopatric (see Rigdely & Tudor, 1994, and Sibley 1996).

2002.10.24

Sericornis magnirostra Spelling

Often spelt S. magnirostris. Originally described as Acanthiza magnirostra Gould, 1838.
David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):38 discuss this. They indicate that: "To change magnirosta to magnirostis would turn and invariable noun phrase into a variable adjective."
During the period of 1978-1992 the combination Sericornis magnirostris occurs 3 times in the Zoo. Rec.; Sericornis magnirostra does not occur.

2002.07.14

Often placed in the monotypic genus
Eupetomena Gould 1853 Monogr.Trochil. pt6 pl.1,text
HBW 5:554 (Schuchmann) notes: "song structure and enlarged shaft of primary in [the] male support [the] present treatment in Campylopterus.

2002.07.13

Cygnus melancoryphus Spelling

Often spelt C. melancorypha. Originally described as Anas melancorypha Molina, 1782. (Not melanocorypha).
David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):27 discuss this. They indicate that: Sibley & Monroe (1990) were mistaken in regarding this name as a noun in apposition (which they did because of the capitalization). The state: "Molina's name is feminine and agrees in gender with the genus Anas, we conclude that melanocorypha can only be the correct latinization of the Greek adjectival μελαγκορυφος [melagkoruphos; black-headed], as diagnosed by Molina (1782,234), and not the latinized masculine noun μελαγκορυφος [ melagkoruphos: tit or warbler]."
μελαγ-κορυφος is defined by Liddell & Scott as "a bird, the black-cap, Motacilla atricapilla L.; or (as Sundevall) Parus palustris, the marsh tit. Ar. Av. 877, Arist. H. A. 8. 3, 5., 9. 15, 2; acc. to Plin. 10. 44, the μ was the same bird as the ficedula (συκαλις), the latter name being given it during the fig season.
During the period of 1978-1992 the combinations C. melanocorypha and C. melancorypha occur twelve times each in the Zoo. Rec..

2002.07.07

Ptilonopus melanospilus Spelling

Often spelt P. melanospila. Originally described as Jotreron melanospila Salvadori, 1875.
David N & Gosselin M. 2002. "Gender agreement of avian species names." BBOC. 122(1):25 discuss this. They indicate that: "The name melanospila is latinized from the Greek adjective μελανοσπιλος [melanospilos; black-spotted]. Jotrereon Bonaparte, 1854, ending in the transliterated (masculine and feminine) Greek adjective τρηρον [treron:shy], is masculine because it was not established in combination with a feminine adjective (ICZN 1999, Art. 30.1.4.2)."
During the period of 1978-1992 the combination P. melanospila occurs twice in the Zoo. Rec..

2002.07.07

Loxia megaplaga Systematics

See Smith, PW. "The history and taxonomic status of the Hispaniolan Crossbill Loxia megaplaga." BBOC. 1997(1998). 117(4):264-271.
Peters Checklist 14:293 lists this as a subspecies of Loxia leucoptera.

Scytalopus micropterus Systematics

Treated as a subspecies by Peters 7:284.
Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg (Remsen, 1998 )

Scytalopus meridanus Systematics

Treated as a subspecies by Peters Vol.7 p.286.
Elevated to species level by Krabbe and Schulenberg ( Remsen, 1998)

Lagopus mutus 1781

Usually cited as 1776.
See Tyrberg. BBOC 118(1):56-7. 1998.

Hemignathus munroi Author Douglas Pratt

The Richmond Index, lists the author as Douglas, an error for Douglas Pratt.
Further confusion with this taxon is possible because of the 1919 Perkins taxon Dysmordrepanis munroi.

Coracina macei 1830

Peters Checklist 9:169 has 1831.
Uncertainty exits about the date of publication of livr.5; I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi 1860

The actual date of publication is uncertain for this work.
The preface is dated Oct. 1859, and hence 1859 is conventionally used.
The accession number for the British Museum Library copy of this work is "60.3.-7.2" penciled on the back of the title page.
The Ibis April 1860 issues notes "an early copy received".
I regard the preponderance of evidence as supporting 1860 as the publishing date.

Cnemophilus macgregorii Citation

Peters Checklist 15:183 does not mention the Appendix, and lists "p.62".
I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} here.

Vanellus macropterus

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Accipiter madagascariensis 1833 Citation

Peters Checklist 1:341 gives 1834 and p.282-83.
{Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates 1833, p.80, and checking a facsimile of the papers indicates the Peters Checklist is in error.
The author is usually given as Smith (Peters Checklist 1:341; HBW 2:157) The Richmond Cardex has Peters crossed out, and "Verreaux" written in. Apparently from independant information H&M 3^rd Corrigenda concurs with the Richmond Index, and lists Verreaux as the author of the taxon.
In further support of this possibility, Strickland 1855 Ornithological Synonyms p.114 lists the author of the taxon as "Smith, Verreaux", but lists the date as "1830" (!).

2003.10.03

Campephilus magellanicus 1827

Peters Checklist 6:232 lists the date as 1828.
The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1827.
HBW 7:533 (Short & Horne) gives 1828, evidently following the Peters Checklist.

2002.06.30

Ptiloris magnificus Citation

Peters Checklist 15:187 does not list the plates or figure, which are from {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

Trachyphonus margaritatus 1828

Peters Checklist 6:63 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of the work.
{Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1828.
The date proposed by Peters not only appears most unlikely but it suggests that Peters did not actually examine this rare and confusing work during the preparation of this portion of the Checklist. Unpublished notes by CW Richmond indicate that on p.30 of this work (where this bird is described) the date of "Sept. 1827" is mentioned, so this portion of the work (which is Hefte 7) certainly had to be published subsequent to that time.

....;2004.01.18

Geopelia maugeus 1809

Peters Checklist 3:101 lists 1811. See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Ramphotrigon megacephalum 1835

Peters Checklist 8:97 has a question on the date.
{See Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Melampitta 1871

Peters Checklist 10:239 has 1873.
I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

Cercomacra melanaria Citation

Peters Checklist 7:217 has vol.3 of Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersb.
I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992} here.

Tricholaema melanocephala 1829

Peters Checklist 6:188 gives 1826 which is the imprint date of the work.
{Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} give 1829.
{Richmond, et al. 1992} notes on the card that Ruppell in Neue Wirbelth. Vog. gives 1827 as the date for this species.

Accipiter melanochlamys 1876

Peters Checklist 1:333 has 1875. See {Poggi, 1996}.

Oriolus melanotis

Not used by Peters Checklist.
Originally described in Mimeta.

Vireolanius melitophrys 1850

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

Monarcha menckei Citation

Peters Checklist 11:511 lists this as vol."2", evidently a typographic error.

Cracticus mentalis 1875

Peters Checklist 15:166 has 1876, but see {Poggi R, 1996}.
H&M 3^rd:463 cites this to 1876 without comment (through Corrigenda 6). However, H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 6 cites Poggi in other instances (e.g. for Pachycephala leucogastra which appears on p.822 of vol. 7. The Corrigenda cites Poggi 1996 as reason to change the date of P. leucogastra from 1875 to 1876 (!!!). Poggi makes it clear (pp.102-103) that the imprint date of Volume 7 is "1875" and that pp.1-796
```
"belong to 1875 and pages 797--895 most likely belong to 1875".
```
My understanding of the Code suggests that 1875 must be used as the date of publication unless and until there is more evidence or proof of delay.
The Richmond Index notes that this "article [is] dated Nov. 21"; while it is probable that there may have been delay, certainly this date or the volume date of 1875 must be regarded as the "date specified", and treated as correct until shown to be wrong.

....; 2007.09.03

Picus mentalis 1826

Peters Checklist 6:142 lists the date as 1825 and this is followed by HBW 7:538.
The date given by {Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn, 1902} is 1826.
The data listed by Dickinson, 2001. Zool.Verh. 335 also indicates 1826 is correct.

2002.06.30

Elaenia mesoleuca Author

Peters Checklist 8:31 lists Lichtenstein as the author, but see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.
Deppe

Falco mexicanus 1850

Peters Checklist 1:417 gives 1851 in agreement with {Sherborn, 1902} and {Richmond, et al. 1992}, however, {Browning and Monroe, 1991} show 1850 to be correct.

Pachycephala meyeri 1889

Peters Checklist 12:16 has 1890, I follow {Richmond, et al. 1992}.

Micrastur Citation

The Peters Checklist 1:395 has List.Gen.Birds, which is correct, but this genus was not described until the second edition, which was published in 1841, the date shown in the Checklist.

Ramphomicron microrhynchum 1840

Peters Checklist 5:117 has 1839. {Richmond, et al. 1992} says "publ. 1840".

Ilicura militaris Author

Peters Checklist 8:266 attributes this to Shaw and Nodder, my understanding is that Nodder did not actually contribute to these descriptions.

Ilicura militaris 1809

Peters Checklist 8:266 lists 1808, {Richmond, et al. 1992} indicates Feb. 1809.
Of greater interest is the fact that Sherborn's 1895 Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist article, discussing the dates of publication of the Nat.Misc., indicates that this plate would have been published in 1808. This Ann.Mag.Nat.Hist. article is often cited as the final word on the dates of publication for the Nat.Misc. However, Sherborn himself clearly didn't think so, as in the Ind.Anim. 1928 p.4064 he cites this taxon to 1809.
Nevertheless, this taxon is usually cited to 1808 (e.g. Peters Checklist 8:266 (Traylor) and H&M 3^rd:340. The H&M 3^rd Corrigenda 3.1 proposes changing the authority to Shaw, as opposed to Peters "Shaw & Nodder" but leaves the date issue unaddressed.
Not surprisingly, the Richmond Index dates this to Feb. 1809, a date that Sherborn himself was eventually able to understand himself was correct; a vision that yet awaits the Peters Checklist and its followers.

Lybius minor 1816

Peters Checklist 6:59 has "1817 (1816)" which in this volume means an imprint date of 1817, and a date of availability of 1816.
HBW 7 (Short & Horne) give "1817" on p.195, though the citation given on p.[559] of that work is 1816. Of some interest, the same authors (Short & Horne) date Cuvier's same work correctly in the citation for Megalaima flavifrons on p.205 !
see {Browning and Monroe, 1991}. for data supporting 1816 as the date of availability.

2002.06.29

Vireo modestus 1861

Peters Checklist 14:118 has 1860.
{Richmond, et al. 1992} show that this was published in March 1861.

Moho 1830

Peters Checklist 12:424 has 1831
{Richmond, et al. 1992} and {Sherborn 1902} have 1830 which seems more believable, as this is in livr.4 of the work.
H&M 3^rd:431 also dates this to 1831, in the text and argues, without providing any supporting data, in the Corrigendas 3 & 4 that 1831 is correct. A conclusion that must have been carefully considered, but with which I can not agree.

....; 2005.09.19

Mohoua 1837

Peters Checklist 11:460 has 1835.
There is much uncertainty about this date, and I do not find an entry in {Richmond, et al. 1992}. I follow Sherborn.

Batis molitor 1836

Peters Checklist 11:381 has 1850.
This work was issued from 1818 to 1836, and reissued in 1850. This plate and description were published in 1836 according to {Richmond, et al. 1992}, Sherborn, and Zimmer.

Artamus monachus 1850

Peters Checklist 15:163 has 1851.
See {Browning and Monroe, 1991}.

Necrosyrtes monachus Citation

Peters Checklist 1:305 has truncated the citation, listing pl.22 (sic).

Brachypteryx montana 1821

Peters Checklist 10:18 has 1822.
I follow {Richmond, et al., 1992} and Sherborn.

Aeronautes montivagus Citation

Peters Checklist 4:253 attributes this to "Rev. Zool." which did not commence until 1838.

Musophaga 1788

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

Myiornis Citation

Peters Checklist 8:71 lists "Aves Nuevas Paraguay"
Aves Nuevas Del Paraguay are reprints from An.Cient.Paraguayos. I know of no indication that they preceeded the journal.

Perdicula manipurensis 1881

Peters Checklist 2:98 shows a date of 1880. However, on p.129 of the same volume it gives a date of 1881 for a taxon (Callophasis humiae) from an earlier page of the same volume.
Sept. 1881 is indicated for this taxon by Richmond, et al. 1992.

Lybius melanopterus Citation

Peters Checklist 6:59 has "Ber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin".
I follow the orthography of Richmond, et al. 1992, which is consistant with other similar citations.

Pitta maxima & Pitta sordida novaeguinae Pitta erythrogaster celebensis 1845

Peters Checklist 8:326 has 1845.
The Richmond Index lists these as "1839 ?40".
Sherborn lists these as 1840.
See E.C.Dickinson "Systematic notes on Asian Birds. 5 Types of the Pittidae" p.108 note 8.. He indicates that pp.1-12 and 3 plates appeared in 1839 and pp.13-24 appeared in 1845 along with formal descriptions of all species

2002.11.22;2004.05.08

Muscipipra 1830

The dates of livr.5 are uncertain.
Peters Checklist 8:186 has 1831, which may be right.
My researches favor 1830.

Myrmotherula multostriata

Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 7:189.
See Isler ML, Ilser PR, Whitney BM. 1999. Auk 116(1):83-96.

Amblyornis macgregoriae Citation

Peters Checklist 15:176 leaves out reference to the Appendix.

Copsychus malabricus 1786

Peters Checklist 11:69 has 1788.
The Richmond Index, and Sherborn both give 1786, which I follow.

Thryothorus modestus 1861; Thryothorus rufalbus cumanensis 1861

Peters Checklist 9:411,412 (= Paynter 1960) has 1860.
The Richmond Index indicates that the latter portion of Vol. 8 of J.Orn. (at least after p.323) was not published until Jan. of 1861.

(before 2004); 2009.05.09

Anthoscopus minutus Author

Peters Checklist 12:68 has Shaw and Nodder. It is my understanding Nodder did not contribute to these descriptions.

Amaurornis magnirostris

Not in Peters Checklist Vol.2.

Molothrus oryzivorus Generic placement

See Johnson KP & Lanyon SM. 1999. Auk 116(3):759-768. for a discusson of grackle/ally systematics, and the proposal to place oryzivorus in Molothrus, thereby eliminating the monospecific genus Scaphidura.

Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi

The original citation reads: (formatting as in original)

 THALASSIDROMA (BULWERIA) MACGILLIVRAYI.	B.M.
 Like  T. Bulweri, but with bill rather larger; and it is without
the sooty-brown on the wings.
 Feejee Islands (Ngau).

Struthio molybdophanes

Considered as likely a full species by many authors.

Freitag, S and Robinson, TJ. 1993. Auk 110(3):614-622. "Phylogeographic Patterns in Mitochondrial DNA of the Ostrich (Strutio camelus)." presents an analysis of the genus. I interpreted them to argue that the geographical, morphological, and genetic evidence supported the treatment of molybdophanes as a full species. This was based mainly on their statement (p.621)

 "Furthermore, in addition to these adaptational differences, there are reports
indicating interbreeding difficulties between them (Brown et al. 1982, Lewis and Pomeroy 1989). This
supports published suggestions that molybdophanes is phenotypically the most distinct of
the Ostrich subspecies, and that separate species status may be warranted (Brown et al. 1882, Lewis
and Pomeroy 1989), an observation which is strengthened by the magnitude of sequence divergence
between molybdophanes and other Ostrich lineages detected in our study."

H&M 3^rd ed. p.34 has a note stating:

"Freitag & Robinson (1993) reviewed molecular evidence for treatment of this as one species or
two. We interpret the authors to be supportive of single species treatment."

My interpretation would still be that Freitag & Robinson favored specific recognition of molybdophanes.

2003.05.15; 2003.05.17

Apteryx mantelli

Treated as a subspecies by Peters Checklist 1:11.
Not treated by Sibley & Monroe.
Baker et al. (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 1995, 8254-8258) found that two species of Brown Kiwis should be recognized:

Apteryx mantelli on North Island and Okarito on the South Island of NZ;
A. australis on southern South Island and Stewart I.

They found differences in mtDNA, Allozymes, morphology, and feather lice

Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.

Rhynchotus maculicollis

Treated by Peters Checklist as a subspecies.
Sjoerd Maijer (Auk 113, 1996, 695-697) described significant differences in the voices of the two subspecies of the Red-winged Tinamou Rhynchotus rufescens.
He proposed reinstating R. maculicollis Gray, 1867 as a good species based on voice, morphology and ecology.
The HBW vol.1 1992, still treated the form as a subspecies.

Thanks to Norbert Bahr for bringing this to my attention.

Myophonus spelling

I include below (a slightly edited) text of Rolf de By's discussion of the spelling of this name. [98.02.16]

Myiophonus species
	Myophonus species ** S/M has Myiophonus; Peters X p. 140 disc. spell.
What I write here, is the outcome of a discussion I helped
organize, but the hard work (literature review) was done by others.  Clearly,
there have been four ways of spelling. On the issue of My[i]ophon[e]us, S&M write:
"This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus,
Myophonus, and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used the
correct spelling."  Issue settled, it seems.  Not so.  BTW, all spellings are in
regular use, it seems.  Utter confusion.
If it's any help, according to my interpretation the three possible names mean:
  Myophonus		"Mouse-voiced"
  Myiophonus		"Fly-voiced"
  Myiophoneus		"Fly-murderer"
I know, this is no proof, but I do feel (if you know the birds; largish blue thrushes)
the top translation makes most sense.  Here's what Tim Inskipp eventually wrote,
and what to my eyes seemed the killer:
> The genus was described by Temminck in 1822 in Nouveau receuil de planches 
> coloriees d'oiseaux. 
> 
> Sibley & Monroe (1990, Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world) used 
> the spelling Myiophonus, stating that:
> 
> `This genus has been spelled in various ways, most frequently Myiophoneus, 
> Myophonus and Myophoneus; Biswas (1961: 670) and Deignan (1965) used the 
> correct spelling.'
> 
> However, Biswas (1961) used the spelling Myiophoneus, explaining in a 
> footnote that:
> 
> `Vaurie (1959a, p. 415) has reverted back to the spelling Myophonus. It is 
> true that on the explanation of pl. 170 of Temminck & Laugier's Planches 
> color., livr. 29 (1822) the generic name is spelt as Myophonus, but two pages 
> preceding it, where the genus is described, it is spelt as Myiophoneus.'
> 
> Ripley (1964, Subfamily Turdinae in Check-list of birds of the world, 10) 
> gave the citation for the genus as:
> 
>  'Myiophoneus Temminck 1822, Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170. Type, by original 
> designation, Turdus flavirostris Horsfield.'
> 
> He explained in a footnote that:
> 
> 'Temminck (ibid.), in his generic description, spells the new genus 
> Myiophoneus, and on the following page accompanying plate 170 spells it 
> "Myophonus."'
> 
> Deignan (1965) gave a characteristically detailed summary of the situation: 
> 
> 'The first citation for Genus Myophonus Temminck should read: Myophonus 
> Temminck, 1822 (Dec.) Pl. Col., livr. 29, pl. 170 and text. Type, by 
> monotypy, Myophonus metallicus Temminck. (The plate is lettered Myophone 
> luisant).
>    The name next appears in literature as Myiophonus Boie, 1829, Isis, p. 
> 1029, lapsus or nomen emendatum.
>    Its third guise, accompanied by a proper generic diagnosis, is Myiophoneus 
> Temminck, 1832 (post Mch. 2), Pl. col., livr. 29, p. [211].
>    At this third appearance the genus is expanded to include, in addition to 
> M. flavirostris (Horsfield), 1821 (May), with which M. metallicus Temminck, 
> 1822, is now synonymized; also:-
>    (1) Myophonus Horsfieldii Vigors, 1831 (Mch. 2), corrupted to Myiophoneus 
> [sic] Horsfeldii [sic];
>    (2) Myophonus Temminckii Vigors, 1832 (Mch. 2), changed to Myiophoneus 
> [sic] Temminckii;
>    (3) Pitta glaucina Temminck, 1823 (Apr.), here listed as Myiophoneus [sic] 
> glaucinus and cited from pl. 190 [sic] (correctly, pl. 194).
>    The footnote on page 140 of Peters' Volume X states that the generic name 
> should be "Myiophoneus," because it so appears, emendated from Myophonus, on 
> the page (properly sheet) preceding the description of Myophonus metallicus 
> Temminck, 1822.
>    Since, however, that preceding sheet cites species named in April 1823, on 
> 2nd March 1831, and on 2nd March 1832, it could not have been issued prior to 
> 2nd March 1832 (as a replacement of an earlier and discarded sheet?). There 
> is then no such name as "Myiophoneus Temminck and Laugier, 1822", as supposed 
> by Delacour (Auk, 1942, p. 246) and by the revisor of the whistling-thrushes 
> for Peters' Check-list.
>    To complete the confusion, we find Temminck using, in the Tableau 
> Methodique of January 1839, which summarizes the Planches Coloriees, both 
> Myophonus and Myiophoneus on the same page 15!
>    If stability in ornithological nomenclature be considered desirable, why 
> are we asked to use a so-called emendation (in fact a wholly new generic 
> name!) that first appeared in print some ten years after the simple, easily 
> spelled and easily pronounced Myophonus Temminck of 1822?'
> 
> I have cited all this because it is a good example of how often authors 
> misquote or misinterpret previously published works. Note that Deignan's plea 
> was apparently ignored by many recent world checklists: Clements (1991: 
> Myiophonus), Howard & Moore (1980, 1984, 1991: Myiophoneus), Walters (1980: 
> Myiophoneus).
>

Dickinson treats this situation in his discussion of Pl.col. Zool. Verh. Leiden 335 :29, making it clear that the initial spelling was Myophonus, and that the confusions followed after the issuance of part of the same livraison (29) ten years later when both spellings occured.

I follow Dickinson and use Myophonus.

( ); 2003.11.03

Megapodiidae Taxonomic treatment

Systematics and taxonomy of the megapodes from
Jones, D. N., R. W. R. J. Dekker & C. S. Roselaar. 1995. The Megapodes Megapodiidae. Oxford Univ. Pr., Oxford, New York, Tokyo.

Cyanoramphus malherbi

Long treated as a color morph of C. auriceps
Recent evidence (Triggs, SJ & Daugherty, CH. 1996. Bird Conservation International 6:89-101) suggests assortive mating amoung the few remaining birds and species status is proposed.

Touit melanonota

Listed in Peters Checklist 3:209 as T. melanonotus.
Listed in Sibley & Monroe p.128 as T. melanonotus, without comment on the spelling.
Collar in HBW 4:456 list this as T. melanonota also without comment on the spelling.
Treatment of other Touit names suggests the genus is regarded as feminine. The specific epithet here does not appear to be a noun in apposition.

Percnostola minor

Not listed in Sibley & Monroe; Peter Checklist 7:230 lists as a subspecies of P. rufifrons;
Capparella et al (1997), Orn. Monogr. 48: 165-170 provided reasons for splitting Percnostola minor from P. rufifrons.

Amytornis merrotsyi

The always helpful Norbert Bahr writes (00.04.14):
"In a revision of the genus Amytornis, Les Christidis (Austr. J. Zool. 47(1999): 113-124) found that A. striatus in fact represents two species: A. striatus Gould, 1840, and A. merrotsyi Mellor, 1913; based on genetics and morphology.

Musophagidae systematics

I previously attempted to follow Veron G, Winney BJ. 2000. Ibis 142:446-456. "Phylogenetic relationships within the turacos (Musophagidae).". A few points to note in that regard: there are some small discrepancies in spelling of specific epithets, and Veron & Winney do not analyse, treat, or discuss T. ruspolli or T. bannermani, hence their placements in the genus is my speculation.
Currently, the listing follows H&M 3^rd which is more similar to the Peters Checklist arrangement, though substantial differences exist. H&M 3^rd does not discuss Veron & Winney.

( ); 2003.10.19

Ectopistes migratorius Extinct

The last known individual of this species died on September 1, 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoological Gardens, Ohio.

Otus madagascariensis

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.

Otus mayottensis

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 Mayotte, an island in the Comoro group.

Nothura minor nomenclature

In the Catalogue of Birds in the British Museum 27:563 Salvadori lists this species as Nothura media.
The citation is given as: Tinamus medius Spix 1825 Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.81
The second name listed in synonomy is: Tinamus minor Spix 1825 Av.Sp.Nov.Brasil. 2 p.65 pl.82
A footnote states: "Mr. Oglilvie Grant says the Turnix variegatus Vieill. (N.D. xxxv. p.47; Enc. Meth. i. p.330, pl.232. f.4), is probably a Tinamou (Nothura media), but I cannot find that either the description or the plate agrees with the latter bird."
"Nothura minor, Darw. (nec Spix Zool. Voy. 'Beagle,' iii p.119 (Bahia Blanca) (1841); Gould, Voy. of 'Beagle' Birds, p.119 (1841)." is given in the synonomy of Nothura darwini. on p.562
Why the name is not Nothura media rather than N. minor is not clear to me, but this point is not likely to have been overlooked by previous workers.

Chlamydotis macqueenii

Gaucher et al. separate C. macqueenii from C. undulatus on the basis of male reproductive behaviour and cytochrome b gene analysis. Gaucher P, Paillat P, Chappuis C, Saint Jalme M, Lotifkhah F, Wink M. 1996. "Taxonomy of the Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undualta subspecies considered on the basis of sexual display and genetic divergence." Ibis 138:273-282.
The HBW 3:265 does not split C. macqueenii but mentions that "it may merit treatment as a separate species."
Thanks to Marek Kuziemko for bringing this to my attention.

Anas malacorhynchos Spelling

Sibley and Monroe spell this "malachorhynchus"
It was originally spelt "malacorhynchos" and most authors now spell it so.

Esacus magnirostris Systematics/Nomenclature

Previously as:
- Burhinus giganteus (Wagler) 1829 Isis 22 col.647 [Charadrius]
HBW 3:350 has a discussion of the confusing nomenclature.

Thanks to Colin Jones for bringing this to my attention.

Micrastur mirandollei Systematics

Schelgel's entry reads:"

  ASTUR MIRANDOLLEI, Schelgel dans le Nederl. Tigdsch. v.d.
Dierkunde, I, p.130.
  Tarses rêvetus d'écailles hexagonales, longs de 3 pouces,
jaunâtres. Aile 8 pouces 6 lignes. Queue 6 pouces 3 lignes.
Hauteur de la mandibule supérieure 7 lignes.  Doigt du milieu
15 lignes.  Dessus gris, dessous blanc à baguettes des plumes
noirâtres.  Queue d'un brun noir avec 5 barres claires.
  Observe a Surinam.
1. Adulte, Surinam, présenté par Mr. Mirandolle: idividu
type, figuré dans l'ouvrage cité."

Mr. Mirandolle was a resident of Surinam.
The units of measurement here are of interest. Pouce is a unit of length used in 14^th to 18^th century France. Replaced by the metric system during the Revolution. France, however, fairly quickly abandoned the metric system under Napolean, reverting (as we see here) to old systems of measurement.
Pouce is derived from the word for "thumb"; ligne means line and is a watchmaker's measeure for the thickness of a watch movement.
Pouce = 1.0657 inches, 27.07 mm. 12 pouces = 1 pied-de-roi.
ligne = 2.256 mm; 12 douziemes; that is, 12 ligne to a pouce.
S.F. Baird on p.XVI of vol.IX of the Pac.RRReports has a note reading:
"The English inch is about equal to 11.26 French lines, .9389 French inches, or to 25.40 Millimetres."
This would suggest there may be some variability in the conversion.

Neopsittacus musschenbroekii Date

HBW 4:360 lists the date here as 1873.
Collar is consistent in citing this volume as 1873, however this portion was published in 1871.
See the details at Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk.

Amaurornis moluccana Spelling

Sibley & Monroe have A. moluccanus
This is followed by HBW 3:181 where they do not comment on the spelling.
Amaurornis is feminine and moluccana is correct.

Microhierax melanoleucos Spelling

Normand David writes (2001.01.05)
"Ierax melanoleucos Blyth, 1843, must be listed Microhierax melanoleucos [as per Peters (1931), Wolters (1982)], and should not be changed to M. melanoleucus [as in Peters (1979a), etc.]. I have checked the original reference."

Streptopelia mayeri Systematics

Peters Checklist 3:74 and HBW 4:132 place this in a monotypic genus:
- Nesoenas Salvadori 1893 Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. 21 p.240,327
HBW characterizes the "true taxonomic relationships uncertain", so I initially left it in Columba.
Johnson et al. "A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera Streptopeia and Columba". 2001. The Auk 118(4):874-887. present zoogeographic as well as nuclear and mitochondrial genetic evidence supporting their proposal to merge Nesoenas into Streptopelia.
Peters felt the form was extinct, however in 1994 the number of free living individuals on Mauritius was counted as 77.

Bubo magellanicus Systematics and Nomenclature

A complex systematic and nomenclatural situation.
Recently summarized (in litt. 2004.05.15) by Norbert Bahr, who reviewed and translated two of the recent papers relating to these questions. For the present, I interpret the implications of these works (v. i.) to favor the intepretation that Bubo magellanicus should be held to be a species distinct from Bubo virginianus.

Norbert's email (with slight editing) is below, and is followed by my previous notes on this taxon.

... I can help you with translations of the König et al. (1996) as well
as the Weick (1999) articles on American Bubo, as I have both these papers at
hand. I will start with an extended summary of the paper by König et al. (1996).
König, C., P. Heidrich & M. Wink (1996): Zur Taxonomie der Uhus (Strigidae: Bubo
spp.) im südlichen S¨damerika. Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk., Ser. A, Nr. 540, 1-9
[Taxonomy of Great Horned Owls (Strigidae: Bubo spp.) in southern South
America.]
According to Amadon & Bull (1988) there is only one Bubo species in the whole
American continent from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego: Bubo virginianus. Traylor
[Auk 75: 143-148 (1958)] studied variation and races of the Great Horned Owl in
South America and came to the conclusion that the form east of the Andes must be
Bubo virginianus nacurutu, whereas the birds of Patagonia, Chile, and of the
Andes from Tierra del Fuego to Peru should be called B. v. magellanicus. Indeed,
nacurutu and magellanicus are rather different: they have very obvious
differences in bill and foot dimensions, and in the barring of the underparts.
Fjeldsa & Krabbe (1990) used the name magellanicus for the smaller taxon from
Patagonia and the southern Andes.
It would be a surprise that a subspecies occuring in sub-arctic Patagonia and
the High Andes is smaller than a [sister] subspecies living in warmer climatic
conditions, and indeed, compared to other subsp. of virginianus, magellanicus is
a dwarf form. Besides these morphological differences, the vocalizations of both
Bubo forms are quite distinct. The Great Horned Owl is called 'nacurutú' in
Argentinia, but 'tucúquere' in Chile, apparently an onomatopetic transcription
of the calls of these birds.
Morphologic and bioacoustic comparison of the forms magellanicus and nacurutu.
B. magellanicus is small, has a relatively small bill (culmen under 43 mm) and
comparatively small feet. Below, this taxon [is] barred very narrowly light and dark.
There are light morphs showing much white, but there are also rather dark morphs
with a brownish main color.
The wings are, according to Traylor, in males from Chile and Argentinia on
average 329,0 mm (318-339), in females 342,9 mm (330-358). Birds from the Andes
of Bolivia and Peru are somewhat larger (wings 351-380 mm); the bill is on
average 38,0 mm in males and 39,3 mm in females. Birds in the Stuttgart
collection agree with these measurements.
If one compares living birds side by side, so the different culmen and talon
measurements are very obvious [ther are photos of pairs of both forms in the
paper which show these differences very impressive!]. Further on, both taxa have
different 'faces' and feather ears (longer in nacurutu).
Still more impressive are the differences in songs of both taxa. Both sexes of
magellanicus sing in duet, the male uttering a double-call "wu-b�h" with a
quiet tremolo on "o": "wu-b�h-worrrr". 'Tuc�quere' is a good circumscription of
this vocalization. The female sings similarily, but the tremolo is a little
longer.
The nacurutu subsp. of virginianus is a little larger than magellanicus, with
large feet and a stronger bill. Barring is not as narrow and the facial
expression is more "wild", caused by the longer feather ears and the strong bill.
Wing length in 15 males is 341,4 mm on average (330-354), in 21 females 363,1 mm
(240-376); the strong bill is about 45,6 mm in 14 males and 48,8 mm in 20 females.
Pairs vocalize in duets also. The song of males is like "wu-bubú buh buh" in
females like "wu-bububú" followed by a drawn-out "buh". The first part of the
females song is fairly good circumscribed with 'nja-curutú'.
Molecular biological results
Heidrich and Wink conducted a sequence analysis of the mt cytochrome b genes in
their laboratory. Material was used from blood and feathers and by PCR they
amplified 960 base pairs. Nucleotide sequences differed in 15 positions (1,6%),
according to about 800 000 years when using the 2% rule. Both taxa are
apparently sibling species, comparable to the differentiation of Spotted and
Lesser Spotted Eagles (Aquila clanga, A. pomarina) or the Imperial and Spanish
Imperial Eagles (A. heliaca, A. adalberti).
Discussion
As vocalizations are likely the most important mechanisms of isolation in owls,
it seems highly probable that B. magellanicus and B. virginianus are good
species. Genetic distances not only confirm this assumption, but also confirm
the hypothesis that vocalizations in owls are of special importance for owl
taxonomy.
The form nacurutu apparently represents a subspecies of Bubo virginianus,
distributed in North and most of South America. It occurs in southern South
America east of the Andes, where it has its southern limits in the Province of
Buenos Aires.
Bubo magellanicus is relatively common in Tierra del fuego and Patagonia, where
it lives in mountainous habitats. There it occurs in loosely wooded areas of
southern beech as well as in mountains. It is distributed northward on the
Pacific slope (Chile) as well as in the central part (high-andine) of the Andes
of Peru, agreeing with Traylor's findings of magellanicus. In the eastern slopes
of the Andes an overlapping zone of both species may be found, where B.
magellanicus apparently prefers rocky areas.
Weick, F. (1999): Zur Taxonomie der Amerikanischen Uhus (Bubo spp). Unter
Berücksichtigung eines grö�tenteils parallel variierenden Polymorphismus
innerhalb der Subspecies. �kologie der V�gel 21: 363-387
[Taxonomy of the American Great horned Owls (Bubo spp) with consideration of a
mostly parallel variation within the polymorphic subspecies.]
The author was studying specimens of New World Bubo in preparation for the
plates of K�nig et al. (Owls) in several museums, where he found a enormous
variability in plumages within populations. The evident polymorphism is obvious
in most subspecies and varies parallel among taxa. Without knowledge of the
locality of collection, many specimens are impossible to classify correctly.
Original descriptions of subspecies are of little help, as they were often based
on too few specimens of the same color morph. Most authors do not mention color
morphs in Great Horned Owls at all, an exception is Oberholser's paper of 1904.
Comments on taxonomy
New World Bubo are an interesting group with a complicated taxonomy, determined
by the following factors:
a. with some exceptions, there is relatively few material of these birds
available. In zoos and in private collections of living birds the number of
individuals and subspecies is limited.
b. polymorphy, the existence of two or more color morphs, shows parallel
variation among subspecies; this means that there are very similarely colored
birds in different distrubutional areas. The scale light-intermediate-dark birds
is often shifted from one subspecies to the other. The light morph of one subsp.
can be similar to the intermediate or dark morphs of another subsp.
c. a number of well described subspecies, of relatively small populations, is
surrounded often by a number of variants occupying a larger area.
d. there are broad zones of intergradation with intermediate populations between
races.

Comments on distribution, size and coloration
The species is distributed from the west coast of Alaska, over subarctic boreal
areas of Canada, parts of the tundras of Canada and Labrador, to Middle and
South America and Tierra del Fuego. It is lacking on the Queen Charlotte Is.,
the West Indies, and larger areas of the South American lowland rain forests.
Some insular areas of occurence within these areas are little known. There are
some obvious clines in size and coloration in agreement with Bergmann's and
Gloger's rules.
Color morphs and intermediate populations
As mentioned above, each subspec. has its typical morph, but there are one or
more other morphs detectable. Often these morphs agree well with morphs of other
subsp., but not always in size and proportions. There are two color plates
showing the different morphs and subspecies, and two maps depicting the
distribution of the subsp.
Checking of the collecting localities and breeding places revealed that several
described subsp. are only morphs of other subsp. So is lagophonus only a synonym
of saturatus (the latter is given as restricted to a small coastal area in
western North America, but it occurs also in the interior of Brit. Columbia).
Weick found large areas of secondary contact between the forms wapacuthu,
heterocnemis, occidentalis and virginianus, where intermediate populations are
found. Smaller areas of introgrssion are known between virginianus and
pallescens, pallescens and pacificus, and pacificus and saturatus.
Comments on earlier publications
Weick has reviewd the literature on Amer. Bubo (Oberholser 1904; Kelso & Kelso
1934, Eck & Busse 1973, Voous 1988, Peters 1940 and many more; Karalus & Eckart
1974 listed all what is known on described subsp., resulting in up to three
subsp. for one and the same area!)
Revision of the complex
After giving material and methods, Weick lists the following subsp. as valid,
with synonyms , morphs, distribution
Bubo virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)

B. v. saturatus (Gmelin, 1788)
syn. lagophonus; algistus; leucomelas
coastal areas of w Alaska, parts of interior Alaska, Yukon Valley, coasts of
SE Alaska to Washington, parts of NE and W Oregon, Brit. Columbia, NC Alberta,
intergradation zone in N California.
4 morphs (dark; intermediate; light; black-and-white)
B. v. pacificus Cassin, 1854
syn. icelus
SW USA northward to S Oregon, eastwards to W & C Nevada,
south to NW Baja California;
intergradation zone with saturatus
2 morphs (grey; dark; no light morph;
intermediate birds are mixed with saturatus?)
B. v. wapacuthu (Gmelin, 1788)
syn. arcticus; subarcticus; scalariventris
Canada from James Bay and N Lake Superior to the Rocky Mts. and the Mackenzie
Valley, southwards to N. alberta, Saskatchewan, C Manitoba and N Ontario;
there is a wide area of of introgression with heterocnemis and nominate
virginianus in eastern Canada, where also birds of all three subsp. may occur
without introgression.
4 morphs (light, almost white birds occure in the more southern parts of the
range; intermediate; dark; black-and-white, similar to saturatus)
B. v. heterocnemis (Oberholser, 1904)
syn. neochorus; scalariventris
E North America: Ungava Peninsula, Labrador, [APP: Newfoundland], Nova Scotia, New Brunswick,
Ontario, N Maine; introgression zone with wapacuthu
4 morphs (light, rare in this taxon; intermediate grey; dark, typical;
black-and-white)
B. v. occidentalis Stone, 1896
C Alberta, S Saskatchewan, S Manitoba in the North southwards to
NE California, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, W Minnesota;
introgression with wapacuthu in N, and with virginianus in E.
1 morph (grey, typical birds, lighter than nominate, with lighter and finer
barring; intermediate birds are probably occidentalis x wapacuthu)
B. v. virginianus (Gmelin, 1788)
S Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, southwards to the Gulf Coast,
Florida, w to E Minnesota, SE South Dakota, E Kansas, Oklahoma, E Texas;
introgression zones in N with heterocnemis, in W with occidentalis
and pallescens.
2 morphs (similar in barring and markings to occidentalis, but with
significantly chestnut to orange-brownish ground color, also these tones in the face;
light, rare and probably introgression with pallescens)
B. v. pallescens Stone, 1897
SW USA, SE California, S Arizona, S New Mexico, S Texas, NE Baja California,
and Mexico south to Guerrero, Morelos, W Veracruz;
introgression zone in N with pacificus, in C and SE Texas with virginianus
4 morphs (light brown/ochre; intermediate; grey; black-and-white with broad
barring on the underside)
B. v. elachistus Brewster, 1902
Baja California south of 30�N
smallest subsp., 2 morphs (light; dark)
B. v. mayensis Nelson, 1901
syn. mesembrinus; melancercus
Middle America
4 morphs (grey; intermediate with light ochre, especially in the face; dark brown;
black-and-white, but with narrower barring than pallescens)
B. v. nacurutu (Vieillot, 1817)
syn. scotinus; elutus
tropical lowlands of South America e of the Andes, there is little knowledge
about its distribution in E Argentina, Uruguay and E Brasil.
4 morphs (light grey, rare; brownish grey with pale face and breast patches
of various browns; dark with very dark face, similar to nigrescens but
with totally different barring and without nigrescens' white patches;
black-and-white)
B. v. deserti Reiser, 1905
northern C Bahia; birds from Barra (Bahia) and Santarem are of uncertain subspecies
2 morphs ( grey with much white above and below, white tips to the feather ears,
white barring on upper tail coverts; intermediate with narrow and fine
barring below and somewhat light upperside)
B. v. nigerscens von Berlepsch, 1884
syn. colombianus
moderate temperature zones of the Andes from NW Peru to Ecuador and Colombia
darkest form with dark patches on breast, almost no barring recognizable
above, but with strongly contrasting white patches, tail very dark; no morphs

Bubo magellanicus (Lesson, 1828)
syn. andicolus
Tierra del Fuego, S and W Argentinia, Chile, Bolivian Highlands,
temperate zones of C Peru
considered a different species here;
extremely small bill and feet
3 morphs (light with white or yellowish belly, above light greybrown;
intermediate [brown]; dark, similar to nacurutu in color,
but with breat patches and markings darker)

There are two color plates showing standardized birds of the different morphs, 
accompanied with a list of all the morphs and in which subsp. they can be found.
Address of author:
Friedhelm Weick
Pommernstr. 34
D-76646 Bruchsal-Untergrombach
Germany

2004.05.16

[Begin previous Notes]

A complex situation here. (Thanks to Normand David for most of the details on this).

The argument for recognition of the form as distinct from B. virginianus is put forward by:

Konig, C., P. Heidrich & M. Wink. 1996. Zur Taxononie der Uhus (Strigidae: Bubo spp.) im sudlichen Sudamerika.Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde. Ser. A, Nr. 540, 1-9.
The abstract reads:
"Bubo magellanicus is much smaller than true viginianus (e.g. spp. nacurutu), with rather small talons and a small bill. Beyond that the barring of the underside is finer. The most striking difference is being found in vocalizations: B. magellanicus and B. virginianus have totally different songs. The differences have beeen secured by DNA-evidence (PCR, DNA-sequences), as both species differ by nucleotide substitutions of 1.6%. Subspecific differences normally vary between 0 and 1% nucleotide substitutions."

The nomenclature iincludes the following issues.

HBW 5:185 gives the citation as J.F. Gmelin, 1788.
The Richmond index card for Strix magellanicus Gmelin, 1788 has the handwritten written notes. "not citable from Gmelin" and "Possibly in Latham 1790?".
The Richmond index also has a card:
"S[trix] B[ubo] magellanica Dr. George Adolph Suckow 1800" Anf.theor.ang.Naturgesch.Thier. 2 pt1 p.202
Claus Konig,Friedhelm Weick and Jan-Hendrik Becking. In their 1999 book Owls of the World give Lesson, 1828.

In Cat.BirdsBrit.Mus. II:29 (=Sharpe 1875), under Bubo magellanicus, the synonymy is as follows:

Hibou des terres magellaniques  Buff. Pl. enl i, pl. 385
Bubo magellanicus Gm. SN i p. 286
Nacurutu Azara Apunt. ii, p. 192
Strix nacurutu Vieillot NDHN vii: 44
Asio magellanicus Less. Man. d'orn. 1: 116

Vieillot is cited correctly (original seen by ND).

Lesson's 1828 Manuel d'ornithologie 1: 116, verbatim:

XXXIVe Genre. Hibou, asio Briss., otus, Cuv.; strix, auct.
(...)
Le type de ce genre est le
Hibou � aigrettes courtes, strix ascalaphus, Savigny; Tem., pl 57
(...)
On doit ajouter le
(...)
Hibou des terres magellaniques (Strix magellanicus, Gm.) enl. 385
Brun fauve, tr�s finement stri�; la gorge et le ventre blancs; la queue
ray�e de noir. Habite l'extr�mit� de l'Am�rique m�ridionale. On le dit
aussi de l'Am�rique du Nord.

The issue of nomenclature here has been previously addressed: Traylor 1958 (Auk 75:143-149) Variation in South American Great Horned Owls, recognized four subspecies of Bubo virginianus: magellanicus, nacurutu, nigrescens, deserti. He commented on the nomenclature as follows:
All birds were previously treated under magellanicus Gmelin 1788; Oberholser 1908 (Science Bulletin 1, no 14: 371-374, Mus. Brooklyn Inst. Arts Sci.) showed that Gmelin used the name in a varietal or descriptive sense, and that therefore the earliest name available was nacurutu Vieillot 1817. (Oberholser's paper not seen by APP or ND at this time (2001.01.21)).
Traylor argues that Vieillot's nacurutu is a composite from Buffon's Hibou des terres magellaniques and Azara's nacurutu, and further that nacurutu must be restricted to Paraguay (and/or Rio de la Plata, Argentina), and that a name is needed for the birds west of the Andes.
"The earliest available name appears to be Lesson's 1828: 116 validation of Gmelin's magellanicus with a reference to Buffon and a description".
Under Bubo virginianus magellanicus (Lesson 1828), Traylor gives: Strix magellanicus Lesson 1828 Man. d'Orn. 1:116.
It would appear that (Lesson, 1828) is the correct citation here.
Murry Bruce adds additional information to this puzzle: (email 2001.05.11)
"Bubo magellanicus: The citation for this name was one of the queries I examined for HBW 5, so I'm responsible for having it cited to Gmelin. I studied the issues you discuss and the question of it being a varietal name was considered (I even sent a photocopy of the relevant page from my copy of Gmelin to HBW). I reasoned that there are inconsistencies in the recognition of varietal names from Gmelin, but as demonstrated by Lesson, Cat. BM, etc., this has gone on for a long time.
- If Oberholser was the first to change Gmelin's name, was this Richmond's influence or vice versa?
- Was this influenced by changes to the rules of nomenclature at the time?
- If Gmelin is not accepted, then why does Lesson 1828 get priority over Suckow 1800?
- Is Suckow's name also treated as a varietal name?
- If so, consider a name like Columba livia. Gmelin named it as a variety of C. domestica, yet we use it.
- Also in 1800 some of Daudin's names were in a varietal format, but we accept them.
I considered these issues at the time and decided to stay with Gmelin."

Triclaria malachitacea Citation

Peters Checklist 3:224 gives the plate number as "38", which does not seem appropriate for the page sequence, as Colin Jones astutely recognized. The Richmond Index shows that the plate number is 28.

Ictinaetus malayensis Citation

Peters Checklist 1(2):378 lists the plate number as "pl.177". The plate number is 117 (fide CWR).
Thanks to Colin Jones for seeing this.

Cuculus micropterus 1838

Listed by Peters Checklist 4:17 as 1837.
The Richmond Index shows this to have been published Dec. 5 1838. Peters' error is perpetuated by HBW 4:553 (R.B. Payne).

Hemitriccus minimus Concept

Often treated as:
- Hemitriccus aenigma (Zimmer) 1940 Am.Mus.Novit. no.1066 p.14
Zimmer described it in Euscarthmornis Oberholser 1923 Auk 40:327.
Doug Stotz has revisited the question of the nomenclature and systematics of this taxon. Stotz DF. "Specific status and nomenclature of Hemitriccus minimus and Hemitriccus aenigma. Auk 109 p.916-917. and demonstrates E. aenigma is a junior synonym of Snethlage minima Todd 1925.

Macheiramphus Citation

HBW 2:113 lists the citation as "Bonaparte, 1850".
Peters Checklist 1:289 gives the Westerman citation Westerman 1851 Bijdr.Dierk. 1 pt2 p.29 with a footnote that reads:
"¹Macheiramphus Bonaparte, 1850, Rev. Mag. Zool., Paris, ser. 2, 2, p.482, resurrected by Deignan, 1960, Bull. Brit. Ornith. Club, 80 p.121, while a senior synonym, must be regarded as a nomen oblitum, unused for 110 years. --D. A." (Dean Amadon).

Edward C. Dickinson writes (2004.09.25)

The problem with [Amadon's] reasoning is that Deignan (1960) resurrected
the name before the first edition of the Code appeared in 1961. In Article
23 of the 1963 Code the form used was 'After 1960 a zoologist who
discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission'. It follows that
an action in 1960 is not covered by the Code and Deignan's resurrection of
this name must stand.

....;2004.09.27

Geopelia maugei spelling

Originally spelt "Columba Maugeus", and the specific epithet is therefore often spelt "maugeus. (e.g. Peters Checklist 3:101).
HBW 4:157 spells this G. maugei and has a note (4:158) stating "Specific name sometimes erroneously spelt maugeus; original spelling emended by Temminck himself in 1811." [No reference given].
The question, of course, is not who emended the name, but rather does the emendation meet the ICZN criteria?
It is with some trepidation that I adopt the spelling of the HBW, as it is not clear to me that the error necessarily lies with those who use maugeus.
H&M 3^rd:165 comments (f.n. #10) that the spelling maugei is judged to be in prevailing usage.

.... ; 2005.02.20

Porphyrio martinica Spelling

Originally as Fulica martinica.
Sibley and Monroe have as Porphyrio martinicus It appears to me that it is a noun in apposition, and I favor the likelihood that P. martinica will be seen as correct.
Norman David writes (2001.03.12).
Porphyrio is masculine. The word martinicensis is definitely adjectival (masculine and feminine; neuter: martinicense).
But martinica appears a noun in apposition (a place name), as the several African place names combined with Cisticola. Porphyrio martinica may be correct. The original name martinica (and several others, e.g. dominica, cajanea, guinea, etc.) are problematic. They must be studied together, and I plan to do that in the near future.
Note, however, that the suffix -us, -a, -um is adjectival when added to a noun ending with a consonant (e.g., hainanus, hainana, hainanum, from Hainan). Thus, martinicus could be viewed as a modified noun, not as an adjective. But I am not yet 100% sure.
For resolution as martinicus, 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.114.)

....; 2011.10.16

Current "resolution" now seems to favor the "noun in apposition" interpretation, as supported by Schodde and Bock 2016.

Cettia major Author

Peters Checklist (George Watson) 11:13 gives Horsefield and Moore as the authors. I follow the Richmond Index which cites Moore as the author here.

Zosterops mayottensis Date

Peters Checklist (Reginald E. Moreau) 12:336 gives the date as "1866".
This portion of the Proceedings was published in 1867.

Odontophorus melanonotus Citation

Peters Checklist 2:54 gives the author as "Gould", the date as "1860" and p.382.
The Richmond index has the same page ("p.382") but:
- gives the author as G.R. Gray, and
- gives "pt. III" and the date as "Mch. 1861".
For the volume year "1860" part iii was issued "Between August 1860 and March, 1861" (PZS 107(a):72).
The Richmond index lists the type as in the "Gould Colln."
HBW 2:429 lists "Gould" and "1860", appearing to reflect the Peters citation.
Roy McDiarmid checked the PZS paper for me, and saw no indication that GR Gray was the author of the taxon (JE Gray was the chair of the meeting where the Gould paper was read).
This paper occurs in signature no.440 which includes p.369-384.

2002.12.05

Zoological Citation Notes -- M

Microparra Cabanis 1877 J.Orn. 25 p.349

Eupetomena Gould 1853 Monogr.Trochil. pt6 pl.1,text