Russet Sparrow (1 Viewer)

This bird is listed under different names by different taxonomic authorities:
H&M: Passer cinnamomeus (Gould, 1836)
IOC: Passer rutilans (Temminck, 1836) (including P. r. cinnamomeus (Gould, 1836))
Birdlife: Passer cinnamomeus (Temminck, 1836)

Which one is correct? I assume the discrepancies are caused by the same year of both descriptions?

Mr. Edward Dickinson dates rutilans as 1835 as opposed to 1836 in Peters.
http://repository.naturalis.nl/document/46425 . Appendix III p. 46.Gould presented Pyrgita cinnomonea at the 12/8/1835 meeting of the PZS and this was most likely published later.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/96158#page/363/mode/1up .

mb1848 said:

Mr. Edward Dickinson dates rutilans as 1835 as opposed to 1836 in Peters.

Click to expand...

I understand it as the opposite. H&M4 has a footnote associated to cinnamomeus:

Mlíkovský (2011) [1758] dated this 8 April 1838 [sic] thus giving this name precedence over rutilans.

Click to expand...

('1838' is a typo for 1836; in the list the name is attributed to Gould 1836, Mlíkovský 2011 [see below] wrote 1836, and of course 8 April 1838 makes no sense as this would not give precedence to the name over rutilans.)
...and another associated to rutilans:

Livr. 99 must be dated from 1836 see Dickinson (2001) [716].

Click to expand...

Peters [here] dated rutilans from 1835.
Dickinson (2001) [716] is indeed http://repository.naturalis.nl/document/46425 -- column headers in the table are admittedly a bit unclear, but the 'Date' suggested to be correct is that in the column next to 'Livr. No. New' as opposed to that in the column next to 'Livr. No. Old', i.e., 1836 as opposed to 1835.
Mlíkovský (2011) [1758] is [this], and it suggests dating Gould's name from 8 Apr 1836, and Temminck's from 31 Dec 1836.

Thanks Laurent, your analysis is right sorry for the confusion.
No Latin on picture:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/112979#page/488/mode/1up .
G. Crotch dates livraison 101 to August 30, 1836.
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/55161#page/528/mode/1up .

I knew I could count on birdforum's taxonomists - in-depth analysis as usual, thank you!