Questions on synonyms ... in today's; Neocossyphus, Sitta, and Milvus (1 Viewer)

I have some questions regarding some synonyms (all eponyms, all commemorating Swedish guys) ... this as there are different bids or contradictory claims (alt. different opinions) in various references.

So what about ...

arrhenii as in:
• "Neocossyphus rufus arrhenii" LÖNNBERG 1917 (here) ... equal of; nominate Neocossyphus rufus rufus FISCHER & REICHENOW 1884 or N. rufus gabunensis NEUMANN 1908 ... ?


bergmani as in:
• "Sitta europaea bergmani" MOMIYAMA 1931 (OD attached)... equal of; Sitta europaea baicalensis TACZANOWSKI 1882 or S. e. clara STEJNEGER 1887 or ... ?

Note that the OD tells us "(nec Stejneger)". Is it possibly equal of yet another one of today's subspecies ... ? Maybe Sitta europaea asiatica GOULD 1835 ... ?


forskahlii as in:
• "[Falco] Forskåhlii" GMELIN 1788 (here) ... equal of; Milvus milvus LINNAEUS 1758 or Milvus (migrans) aegyptius GMELIN 1788 ... ?

To me it looks like the latter! (... luckily, regarding precedence/priority, described two pages earlier )


Anyone know the most recent findings/conclusions?

If any reply, please state according to what list/taxonomy.

Grateful for all the help I can get!

Björn (... following the IOC list)
--

Calalp said:

... luckily, regarding precedence/priority, described two pages earlier

Click to expand...

Björn

I think that page precedence does not count under the Code: you therefore need a first reviser action to choose between them if they are synonyms.

Mike

On distribution arrhenii = gabunensis
On distribution bergmani = clara
On distribution (wintering in Egypt) forskahli = migrans

James Jobling said:

On distribution arrhenii = gabunensis
On distribution bergmani = clara
On distribution (wintering in Egypt) forskahli = migrans
___________________________________________
Last edited by James Jobling : Yesterday at 17:50. Reason: missing i

Click to expand...

Thanks James, and simply based on distribution I would be inclined to agree (that´s what made me wonder to start with), at least on arrhenii and bergmani, but less on forskahlii (... and by the way, you forgot one ending -i on that one as well ).

However; I fear it´s not all that easy ...

• arrhenii
According to NRM (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet), the Natural History Museum, in Stockholm, who keep the Type of arrhenii (here), from "Eastern Belgian Congo" (indicating it ought to be a specimen of N. r. gabunensis), it´s equal of the nominate Red-tailed Ant-thrush Neocossyphus rufus rufus FISCHER & REICHENOW 1884 ... (originating in East Africa)!?


On this one I don´t know what to believe. A bit troublesome if reputable Museum collections is to be erroneous ...


• bergmani
Apparently, according to Dickinson et al. 2006 (Systematic notes on Asian birds. 66. Types of the Sittidae and Certhiidae), the Type of the bergmani Nuthatch is lost, but following the distribution of today's subspecies it does fit with S. e. clara STEJNEGER 1887.

Compare with the other relevant subspecies (attached) listed in Momiyama's paper. To make it a bit easier to follow I might add:

Momiyama's No.4; "Sitta europæa clara", was based on "Sitta amurensis clara Stejneger, Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus. ix, pp.392-393, 1886" (here) ... from; "Hokkaidô" [a k a Yesso, Ezo, Yezo alt. Yeso].

The type of No.2; S. e. bergmani was from "Kunashir, Southern Kuril`e Islands" [most likely today's Kunashir/Kunashiri (Island) / 国後島, the most Southern Island in the Kurile Islands chain].

And the preceding subspecies, No.1; "Sitta europæa takatsukasai" was from "Urup and Etorup, Southern Kurile Islands" [most likely the two neighbouring Islands, to the north; Urup (Island) and Iturup/Etorofu-to (Island) 択捉島).

Which does fit the distributions today, as told in HBW:

• S. e. takatsukasai Momiyama, 1931 - SC Kuril Is (Urup, Iturup).
• S. e. clara Stejneger, 1887 - S Kurils (Kunashir, Shikotan) and N Japan (Hokkaido).

Click to expand...

However; note that bergmani yesterday was listed as a synonym of Sitta europaea asiatica in the HBW Alive Key!?

In any case; Sten Bergman collected birds on the Southern Kuriles from the Autumn of 1929 until the Summer of 1930. And I assume "his" bird ended up in Mr. Okada's collection (and not in the one of Momiyama, as suggested by Dickinson et al). Looks like I have to trace down Okada's "Sangaku" Paper of 1930, doesn´t it?


• forskahlii
And it´s even trickier with the Kite "[Falco] Forskåhlii". The Linnaean disciple Forsskål*] described this, (later "his") Kite in Descriptiones Animalium** (1775), here (or see attached relevant excerpt) ... without a binomial scientific name.

Does this far longer Latin text (than Gmelin's few, scanty lines) tell us anything additional? Making it possible to pin-point its identity? If it is Milvus (migrans) aegyptius?

Anyone feel like translating it?

Either way I doubt that this "Forskåhlii" was ever aimed at the Red Kite Milvus milvus (as indicated in today's Key!) Most of the Red Kites (at least the ones who does migrate) winters in Spain.

Björn

_____________________________________________________
*The Swedish (alt. Finnish-Swedish) naturalist Peter (not Pehr) Forsskål (1732-1763).
Born 11 January 1732, in Helsingfors/Helsinki (Finland, in those days, Sweden)
... and he died 11 July 1763, in Jerim, in Southwest Arabia (in today's Yemen).

**Published "post mortem auctoris", 1775, edited by Carsten Niebuhr.
A book where the Author is/was called (and his surname misspelled): "Petrus Forskål".
--

A few hours ago, in the Bird Name Etymology subforum, Martin added t a link to Shaw's General Zoology (1809) that might be of help for anyone still in doubt on the identity of "[Falco] Forskåhlii" ... here.

Making me even more convinced we're dealing with a synonym of the aegyptius Kite!

Anyone who disagree?

Björn

PS. Note Shaw's remark:

NATIVE of Egypt, where it is said to be very common in summer: ...

... in the Gmelinian edition of Systema Naturæ, viz, first under the title Falco ægyptius, and again under that of F. Forskahlii.

Click to expand...

--

Shaw says very common in summer. ??

1. FALCO with yellow cere and feet; ashy above, ferrugineous below; with dark brown wings; with forked, brown-barred tail of the length of the body.

DESCRIPTION. From the tip of the bill to the end of the tail nearly a cubit. Bill and cere yellow. Feathers of the head lanceolate, rufescent-grey, black in the middle, with isolated bristles towards the mouth. Back feathers and upper wing coverts ashy: with dark brown shaft. Remiges dark brown, the 5 first ones narrowed towards the tip, all of them on the inferior side grey, barred dark-brown: black towards the apex. Wings below grey-brown, with obscure barring: coverts ferrigineous, with a black central line. Same colour of the feathers below the body: all are white closest to the skin. Tail of the length of the body, and extending past the tip of the folded wing. 12 rectrices, towards the centre progressively a bit shorter: ashy, with dark brown bars. Thighs and nearly the half tibiae feathered: remaining part of the tibia and fingers yellow. Nails black: the rear and inner ones equal to one another, with the reamining ones larger.

LOCATION: in Egypt frequent in winter. Arab. Haddáj.

OBSERVATION. Either Falco (10) Milvus? but not wholly ferrugineous, and no whitish head. Or Falco (11) forficatus? but not whitish below, really ferrugineous.

Thanks Laurent! :t: Excellent, at a quick glance (I´ll look into it later, in detail) that´s a fairly good match on the Black or Yellow-billed Kite Milvus migrans/aegyptius ...

Makes one wonder why today's Key claims it as:

forskahlii / forskali / forskalii
... (syn. Falco sp?, syn. Lophoceros nasutus, syn. Milvus milvus).

Click to expand...

I've confirmed the Hornbill synonym, but cannot figure out which one would match the Red Kite. Are we dealing with two different raptor synonyms?

What did I miss?

mb1848 said:

Shaw says very common in summer. ??

Click to expand...

Mark, So I noted, but in my world, there's nothing necessarily contradicting, or excluding, in a bird being frequent in winter and/versus very common in summer?

Either way I doubt that the Red Kite ever was more or less frequent in Egypt.

What's your (or anybody else's) conclusion on the ID, following Forsskål's description (in post #7)?

Björn
---

Continuation on Gmelin's [Falco]"Forskåhlii

If Gmelin's [Falco]"Forskåhlii" (alt. its modern version forskahlii) is a Kite, I assume Latham's [Falco] "Forskalii" (forskalii) from 1790, here, must be the same, as the latter apparently (according to the Richmond card, here) only was an emendation of the former spelling. Note that Latham's first Reference goes back to Forsskål's "Fn. Arab.* p. vi. 1. & p. 1.1" (1775). [here (alt. here), the same pages/reference as Gmelin used in 1788].

Doesn´t this make Latham's [Falco]""Forskalii" (double-i, without h) simply an unjustified/incorrect subsequent spelling?

Also note Latham's latter reference back to his own "Arabian Kite" (from 1787) without any binomial name, here, ... a text fairly similar to Shaw's text of 1809.

To me this only strengthen the case that Gmelin's [Falco]"Forskåhlii" (and the Key's "Falco sp.?") truly was/is equal of either the Black or Yellow-billed Kite Milvus migrans/aegyptius.


I guess it´s the "Milvus Forskali" (no h, single, ending -i) of Brehm 1849 (1851), in the Paper Etwas über die Arten der europäischen Vögel, that messed things up, and caused most of the confusion (in this thread and elsewhere ), as this bird got the note "Nordosteuropaisches Inseln" (on the Richmond card, here), however the full text, in German (here) tells us:

Milvus Forskali, den beiden vorhergehenden sehr ähnlich, aber durch seinen weissgrundigen Oberkopf und Hinterhals, seinen sehr kurzen Schnabel und die rostfarbigen , langen Flecken auf dem Oberflügel - die mittlern obern Flügeldeckfedern sind so gefärbt - und durch die hochrostfarbige Flügelkante leicht von den beiden vorhergehenden zu unterscheiden. Ob dieser Vogel die nordosteuropäischen Inseln niemals berührt, können wir nicht sagen, allein es wäre diess sehr möglich.

Click to expand...

In this case I think (with only minor knowledge of German) that we possibly, might, could be dealing with the Red Kite Milvus milvus!

Anyone who get the full content?

Björn

__________________________
*"Fn. Arab." = the so called "Fauna Arabica", i.e. Descriptiones animalium, (avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium ...) is, as far as I can tell, the Fauna counterpart of Forsskål's Flora Ægyptiaco-Arabica: ... (sive descriptiones plantarum quas per Aegyptum inferiorem et Arabiam felicem), same editor: Niebuhr (1775).

I think Latham's Forskalii is more likely to have been a deliberate change, i.e., an unjustified emendation, rather than a simple incorrect subsequent spelling. (Latham cited the correct OS from Gmelin in the synonymy of his Forskalii [albeit with the å rendered as a simple a], yet he used a different spelling for the valid name of the species. Note also that his citation of Forskål's work in the same synonymy reads Forskal. Fn. Arab., without a h in the author's name.)
(Either way, deliberate or not, Latham's Forskalii is quite clearly a subsequent spelling of Gmelin's Forskåhlii. Note that, as Latham also cited Gmelin's aegyptius in the synonymy of this name, he is also arguably the First Reviser, and forskahlii should in principle take precedence over aegyptius. Forskahlii would presumably match the conditions to be a forgotten name, however...?)

The possibility that the bird might have been a Red Kite ("Falco (10) Milvus" Linn. 1758) was mentioned by Forskåhl from the very beginning, see the last line of my translation above. This was also repeated by Latham: "Rostrum flavum : remiges versus apicem nigrae : cauda cinerea — an sequens ? sed nec totus ferrugineus, nec caput albidum" (= "bill yellow : remiges black towards the tip : tail ashy — or [might this be] the next one ? but not wholly ferrugineous, and no whitish head"; the next species in Latham's Index ornithologicus is Falco Milvus).

Brehm's text means, more or less:
The whitish head and rusty tones in the wing suggest Red Kite. On the other hand, the bill of Red Kite actually averages longer than that of Black Kite. Also, Brehm's "two previous ones" presumably referred to #2 and #3 in his treatment of the genus: Milvus ater / M. fuscus (i.e., Black Kite) and M. parasiticus (i.e., Yellow-billed Kite); Red Kite was in first position, as Milvus regalis / M. ruber; in other words, Brehm himself appears to have regarded Milvus Forskali as closer to Black than to Red Kite.
Note also that Brehm did not claim the authorship of Milvus Forskali, thus we might conceivably still be dealing with an (odd) interpretation of Gmelin's name, here.
(In any case, even if separately available, it would seem a bit odd to claim the nordosteuropäischen Inseln as the "type locality" of Forskali Brehm, when the only thing Brehm actually wrote about these islands in the OD was that he had NO evidence that the bird frequented them...)

Laurent, in this last post I actually think your arguments sum to it being impossible to determine with certainty what Forskåhl's bird really represented without access to the original type (was it actually a red x black hybrid?). If that is true, then is should be deemed an indeterminable name and not a name that can take precedence over any other name?

Niels

njlarsen said:

Laurent, in this last post I actually think your arguments sum to it being impossible to determine with certainty what Forskåhl's bird really represented without access to the original type (was it actually a red x black hybrid?). If that is true, then is should be deemed an indeterminable name and not a name that can take precedence over any other name?

Click to expand...

It's Brehm's bird (my last paragraph) that is causing me problems, much more than Forskåhl's.

Forskåhl's bird (or birds? if the species was common, he presumably saw more than one...?), on range alone, seems extremely unlikely to have anything to do with a Red Kite. And Forskåhl's plumage description does not suggest this species either (e.g., head not pale; upperparts not rufescent; tail ashy, not rufous; underside of the remiges grey, not white). Some plumage details may fit Yellow-billed better than Black, e.g., apparently rather greyish back and upperwing covert, and a more ferrugineous tone on the underwing coverts and underparts. Then there is this yellow bill and cere...

Compare the following links, and texts (in German), by Alfred Brehm, 1883 (the Son of Ludwig Brehm, who wrote the 1849/51 piece):

Milan (Milvus migrans) versus Schmarotzermilan (Milvus Forskali) ... with illustrations!

Does those texts make the case any clearer? (This far, no need for a full translation )

Also note the text on "Yellow-billed Kite", here (page 30). And the following line: "Milvus forskali (refer to Milvus migrans parasitus)", found here, down the page, in the tabular List of synonyms.

System overload. I don´t know what to think.

Björn

PS. Laurent, his surname is Forsskål (not Forskåhl), double-s, no h.
--

Neocossyphus rufus arrhenii

Regarding the Type of the "arrhenii" Ant-thrush (here), I´ve been in contact with Ulf Johansson, Curator at NRM (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet), the Natural History Museum, in Stockholm, and he agrees that something looks fishy with the claim of it being synonymous of the nominate subspecies Neocossyphus r. rufus.

He promissed to take a closer look at the specimen itself, its history, and to check the morphology in detail, but unfortunate the Type collections at NRM are being moved, and not accessible until April this year.

Thereby, on arrhenii, we will simply have to be patient, and wait, to see what he will find, if a replacement into gabunensis will be done (the most likely rearrangement, also in his mind).

We´ll see.

Calalp said:

Does those texts make the case any clearer? (This far, no need for a full translation )

Click to expand...

Milvus Forskali here is given as an African version of the German species, so close to it that some have doubted its species status, and differing at first glance mainly in a straw-yellow, instead of black, bill -- which clearly fits Yellow-billed Kite quite well. The range is given as the whole of Africa, to the exception of the Atlas countries, as well as Madagascar (so far, so good), Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, probably even European Turkey (over-optimistic...). Brehm cites as synonyms of Milvus Forskali: Milvus parasiticus, M. aegyptius, M. leucorhynchus, Falco Forskali, F. Forskahli, F. aegyptius, F. parasitus and F. parasiticus.

It may be worth noting that AE Brehm's Thierleben is a work that went through a very large number of versions and editions, both during Brehm's lifetime and after his death. In the earliest version, Brehm had used the name Hydroictinia parasitica for the same bird -- "Von dem afrikanischen Vertreter des Milans, welcher mit Fug und Recht Schmarotzermilan (Hydroictinia parasitica) genannt wird" [here], in 1866. ("Schmarotzermilan" means "Parasitic Kite"; he still used this vernacular for the bird in 1882.) He must have decided at some point that Forskali was a synonym and was the name that had priority.
Before Brehm, Schlegel 1844 [here] had also adopted parasiticus (attributing it to Latham 1801, although it dates from Daudin 1800, who spelled it parasitus) as valid for the African birds, citing both of Gmelin's names in its synonymy.
Daudin himself [ibid.] treated the Egyptian birds as distinct from the birds of the rest of Africa, calling them aegyptius Gm. and citing Forskahlii Gm. as a synonym. Blanford in 1870 [here] used aegyptius as valid, placing both Forskhalii Gm. and parasiticus "Latham" in its synonymy. Closer to us, Hartert, in 1914 [here], adopted a treatment similar to Daudin's (albeit he treated the corresponding taxa as subspecies, rather than as species), also citing Forskahlii as a synonym of a valid aegyptius. Although not explicit in these works, I suspect the adoption of aegyptius as valid by these authors may indeed have resulted from the application of some type of "page precedence" rule. (Which, as Mike noted above, doesn't exist in the current Code.)

Thanks Laurent, that´s (just about) how I understood it ... :t:

The thing that made me a bit uncertain was the contradictory claims in today's HBW Alive Key regarding "Falco parasitus" DAUDIN 1800:

parasitus
L. parasitus parasite < Gr. παρασιτος parasitos parasite.
● ex "Parasite" of Levaillant 1798, pl. 22 (subsp. Milvus migrans).

Click to expand...

versus "Falco parasiticus" LATHAM 1801 (also here), the latter, according to the Richmond card (here), an emendation of the former spelling:

parasiticus
[...]
● ex "Parasite" of Levaillant 1798, pl. 22 (syn. Milvus aegyptius).
[...]

Click to expand...

Two different conclusions, both based on the same plate (here) ... !?!

This said; even if Levaillant's bird on Plate itself is pretty hard to recognize. To me Levaillant's bird looks like a juvenile aegyptius! Or (maybe) a ditto parasiticus (subspecies of aegyptius, according to IOC). Although depicted with a somewhat disproportionate (long) tail.

/B

PS. Also relevant in this context is Latham's "Parasite F. [Falcon]", here (even without any binomial name).

PPS. Is it possible (by the text, in French) to tell the geographic origin of Levaillant's bird
--

Levaillant says that he found that bird in all the part of Africa that he visited, more commonly in the regions well supplied in small game, notably in the Caffre and Great Namaqua countries. He then goes on explaining how the Dutch call it in the Cape colonies.

Latham's Falco parasiticus is a mere incorrect subsequent spelling of Daundin's name, with no separate nomenclatural standing.
(Latham cited the name incorrectly as having been used by Daudin 1800 with this spelling; he did not cite the correct original spelling at all, and did not express any intent to introduce a new spelling; as a consequence, the spelling change cannot be interpreted as intentional, and does not represent an emendation in the sense of the Code.)

But neither an "emendation" nor an "incorrect subsequent spelling" explain the two different identities ... does it?

Today's updated HBW Alive Key:

parasitus
[...]
● ex "Parasite" of Levaillant 1798, pl. 22 (subsp. Milvus migrans).

Click to expand...

parasiticus
[...]
● ex "Parasite" of Levaillant 1798, pl. 22 (syn. Milvus migrans parasitus).
[...]

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Just to make things clear: following IOC (and my MS) this is the Milvus aegyptius parasitus, the South African (south of the Sahara + Comoros and Madagascar) subspecies of Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius.

End of this small detour from Mr Forsskål's Kite (just had to straighten out the overall picture, the things I didn´t understand) ... back to the track!

/B