Alcedinidae (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Is the Alcedo cristata of Gmelin (1788) the same as the Alcedo cristata of Pallas (1764). Gmelin places his species at Ambon, however I cannot find the original work of Pallas in which the species is described. Do you know where we can find his Adumbratiunculæ. Avium variarum praecedenti elencho insertarum, sed quæ in Systemate Naturæ Illustr. Linnæi nondum extant ?

 

[Xenospiza]

Beredeneerde catalogus van eene, by uitstek fraaye en weergaalooze verzameling, zoo van inlandsche als uitheemsche vogelen, viervoetige en gekorvene dieren ... - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[Xenospiza]

But was it Pallas...? https://www.researchgate.net/public...an_Vroeg_1764_described_by_Pallas_and_Vosmaer

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Beredeneerde catalogus van eene, by uitstek fraaye en weergaalooze verzameling, zoo van inlandsche als uitheemsche vogelen, viervoetige en gekorvene dieren ... - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

Ok. Merci. So these are descriptions that were added at the last minute and not a full work? I understand better. I thought I would find the type locality of Alcedo cristata in the OD. But that doesn't tell me if Alcedo cristata Pallas (1764) and Alcedo cristata Gmelin (1788) are the same species.

 

[JustinJansen]

Gmelin described merely birds from Latham, so would it be mentioned in Latham?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Gmelin described merely birds from Latham, so would it be mentioned in Latham?

Just check if Latham cites Pallas

 

[l_raty]

Ok. Merci. So these are descriptions that were added at the last minute and not a full work? I understand better. I thought I would find the type locality of Alcedo cristata in the OD. But that doesn't tell me if Alcedo cristata Pallas (1764) and Alcedo cristata Gmelin (1788) are the same species.

If you accept that the Alcedo cristata in the Adumbratiunculae (here) was the same as the kleine gekuifde ysvogel (Cristata) of the main text (here), then the type locality is given as the Cape of Good Hope.

Gmelin 1788 took this name from Linnaeus 1766. Note that the 1766 and 1788 diagnoses are perfectly identical ("A. brachyura subcristata caerulea, subtus rufa, crista nigro-undulata."), and the two references cited by Linnaeus 1766, Seba (here), and Brisson (text here, coloured version of the plate here), are repeated by Gmelin. Buffon's 'Le Vintsi' and Pl. Enl. 756, fig. 1 were associated to Brisson's bird by Buffon himself, and to Linnaeus' 1766 concept by Latham 1782; Gmelin followed this and added these three references to the two original ones.

I won't try to guess what Seba's bird may have been. (Indeed, I have no clear idea what many of Seba's birds were... )

The birds illustrated and described by Brisson and Buffon (greenish crest, the feathers with distinct black marks; a blue line running from the shoulder to the eye; rufous cheek; whitish throat) must have been some kind of Malachite Kingfisher, I believe -- either Malachite of Madagascar Malachite -- despite both authors claimed they were from the Philippines. None of the E Asian small Kingfishers shows similar characters. (Back then, ships that went to E Asia had to sail around Africa -- there would be nothing exaggeratedly strange in finding African material among what a ship coming back from the Philippines was bringing back.)

Pallas' bird is of course a Malachite Kingfisher too.

Linnaeus did not cite Pallas; neither did Latham.
(Linnaeus certainly knew Pallas' work, as he cited it ['Pall. adumb.', 'Pallas. adumbrant.', etc.] under a couple of other species. As for Latham, I guess it is quite probable that he had never seen this work at all.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Buffon's 'Le Vintsi' and Pl. Enl. 756, fig. 1 were associated to Brisson's bird by Buffon himself, and to Linnaeus' 1766 concept by Latham 1782; Gmelin followed this and added these three references to the two original ones.



The birds illustrated and described by Brisson and Buffon (greenish crest, the feathers with distinct black marks; a blue line running from the shoulder to the eye; rufous cheek; whitish throat) must have been some kind of Malachite Kingfisher, I believe -- either Malachite of Madagascar Malachite -- despite both authors claimed they were from the Philippines.

The bird illustrated on the Planches Enluminées has an orange beak, which is a characteristic of "Corythornis cristatus" but which is not found in vintsioides. I don't know if the specimens have deteriorated but the orange beak may be a determining criterion 🤔🧐

 

[l_raty]

The bird illustrated on the Planches Enluminées has an orange beak, which is a characteristic of "Corythornis cristatus" but which is not found in vintsioides.

Yes but the bird described and illustrated by Brisson had a black bill, hence, if a cristatus, it would have to be a juvenile -- which may not be compatible with the bright and shining upperparts colours described by this author...?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Yes but the bird described and illustrated by Brisson had a black bill, hence, if a cristatus, it would have to be a juvenile -- which may not be compatible with the bright and shining upperparts colours described by this author...?

I'm asking myself all these questions because I wondered if there wasn't something wrong with the name "Martin-pêcheur vintsi" currently given to Corythornis vintsioides. This species was first described under the name Alcedo vintsioides — le Martin-pêcheur vintsioïde – because the authors found it to have many similarities with the Vintsy (per se), so the Martin-pêcheur vintsi is not vintsioides. That's why I wanted to know if all of the Alcedo cristata and "Le Vintsy" of Buffon used in literature referred to the same bird. If yes, "Martin-pêcheur vintsi" is a name synonymous with "Martin-pêcheur huppé ".

 

[l_raty]

I have no idea which rules you apply, which makes it a bit difficult to comment.

Buffon called his bird "vintsi", because he thought it was the same as Brisson's "Martin-pescheur hupé des Philippines", and Brisson had cited "vintsi" as a local (i.e., Filipino) name for this bird.
"Vintsy" is said in the Key to be a Malagasy name for Corythornis vintsioides. This seems to be confirmed by this. (Of course, a Malagasy name for "A species of crested kingfisher. Corythornis cristata, L." can only apply to C. vintsioides, as C. cristatus proper does not exist on Madagascar.)
The specimen described by Brisson had been brought back by Pierre Poivre. Brisson cited other birds that were brought back by Poivre from Madagascar (e.g., his "Gespier de Madagascar" : t.4 (1760) - Ornithologie, ou, Méthode contenant la division des oiseaux en ordres, sections, genres, especes & leurs variétés - Biodiversity Heritage Library), hence it is not inconceivable that the kingfisher came from there too. Actually, the fact that Brisson cited an apparent Malagasy name as a local name for his bird would tend to support this idea, I think.

If so, "vintsy" would be :
1) initially, a Malagasy name for Corythornis vintsioides,
2) second, a name cited as a local name by Brisson in association with a specimen that was actually C. vintsioides,
3) third, a name that was adopted as a French name by Buffon in association with a specimen (the orange-billed bird illustrated on Pl. Enl. 756) that was probably C. cristatus, which Buffon (erroneously) thought was the same species as Brisson's bird.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I have no idea which rules you apply, which makes it a bit difficult to comment.

I try as best I can to respect the history of names used in naturalist literature. I still need to know where to look because there are a lot of works that I don't know about. That's why there are any "if" and conditionals.

Perfect, thank you. I should be more diligent in my research

 

[Peter Kovalik]

N. J. Collar and R. W. Martin (2024) Sangihe Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx sangirensis: a distinct and extinct endemic species. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 144: 76-90.
Sangihe Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx sangirensis: a distinct and extinct endemic species

Abstract
Adolf Meyer, first author of the name of the dwarf kingfisher Ceyx sangirensis, never visited the island of Sangihe, north of Sulawesi, on which he and co-author Wiglesworth stated the two syntypes were collected (by hired hunters) in the 1870s. The form was lumped with Sulawesi Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx fallax in 1945 and split again only in 2014, based on characters shown by two other specimens Meyer had sent to the UK. However, because (a) the species was (apparently) not seen again after Meyer's birds were collected in 1874 and (b) Meyer wrote elsewhere that the original labels of some of his Sulawesi material were lost, it was recently suggested that C. sangirensis did not originate on the island. Two further specimens have come to light (including one apparently taken in 1876, thus not by Meyer's collectors) and, although one syntype has been destroyed, the total of birds conforming to key diagnostic features and labelled from Sangihe is now six. This evidence combined with other information indicates that C. sangirensis is or was indeed endemic to Sangihe, and comparisons with 39 C. fallax confirm that it should be treated as a separate species, distinguished by its longer bill and tail, more extensive blue-spangled black crown, few or no shining pale turquoise lower dorsal feathers, more mauve or magenta wash dorsally with cobalt- or royal-blue on the uppertail-coverts, and less extensive white throat. A review of field work, including three months by one of us in remaining forest on the island in 2015, shows that the species has not definitively been seen since the 1870s and must regrettably be regarded as extinct.