-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Dutch Birding taxa names 2009 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
colonelboris
Right way up again
I'm saying nothing about sending off a crisp 5 Euro note for the 2008 ticklist and getting the 2006 instead...
mb1848
Well-known member
Thanks Laurent:
Geocichla again, sorry. I think that the ornithologists lost track of Kuhl’s writings over time. This is confirmed by this:
http://www.barkhuis.nl/pdfs/pagesfrom_inseparablefriends.pdf . But I would like to read the whole book. In 1881 Seebohm used Kuhl’s name Geocichla but could not give a good citation.
Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum Vol. 5 (1881)
Catalogue of the Passeriformes or Perching Birds in the Collection of the British Museum, Cichlomorphae: Part II, containing the family Turdidae, (Warblers and Thrushes) By Henry Seebohm.
On page 147, “Geocichla, Kuhl (reference unknown) Said to be in some popular Dutch periodical.”
Alfred Newton from his Dictionary of Birds says of Geocichla:
“…an attempt has been made (Catalogue Birds Brit. Mus. V p. 147) to foist it on a composite group of some 40 species of Thrushes which have been referred to a ghost-like genus Geocichla the characters and type of which continue to defy discovery. The assertion (loc. cit.) that Kuhl, to whom this supposed genus is attributed, founded it “in some popular Dutch periodical” is unconfirmed by evidence and is contradicted by all we know of his strickly scientific practice.”
In an Ardea article in Dutch on van Swinderen it says
“In the library of the Museum of Natural History in Leiden is bound together a book of Kuhl's writings from the library of Temminck. These are some writings of Kühl, which van SWINDEREN (1822, 2) does not mention.” It was entitled Conspectus Psittacorum . I know Kuhl published in Isis which was not mentioned in the biography of Kuhl by van Swinderen. The chance that Geocichla is in a 104 page book about parrots is low but I believe that Horsfield as an old time Dutch East Indies hand could have seen Temminck’s book including all of Kuhl’s writings and just lazily described it as Conspectus Psittacorum??
Gould:
It belongs to an interesting group, which was first characterized by M. Kuhl, and of which the Society’s collection possesses four well- marked species.
The 1836 P.Z.S. is online and at page 5 starts out :
January 26, 1836 N.A. Vigors Esq. in the chair.
Specimens were exhibited of numerous Birds, chiefly from the Society’s collection; and Mr. Gould at the request of the Chairman, directed the attention of the Meeting to those among them which he regarded as principally interesting either on account of their novelty or for the peculiarity of their form. …Page 6 The remaining previously undescribed Birds that were exhibited were characterized by Mr. Gould as follows:
Page 7, Geocichla rubecula. (description in Latin) Hab. in Java. This pretty species resembles in many respects the Red-breast, Erithacus Rubecula, Swainson. It belongs to an interesting group, which was first characterized by M. Kuhl, and of which the Society’s collection possesses four well- marked species. Gould does not use Geocichla as a new name. (Jerdon uses Geocichla (Kuhl) in the Birds of India and Oates & Blanford uses Kuhl teste Gould 1836) I need to get a hold of Kuhl, H. (1820) Conspectus Psittacorum. Cum specierum definitionibus, novarum descriptionibus, synonymis et circa patriam singularum naturalem adversariis, adjecto indice museorum, urbi earum artificiosae exuviae servantur. Bonnae (Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. Nat. Cur. Vol.X). As stated above I think Moore and Horsfield were mistaken and the name came from another 1820 publication of Kuhl’s Buffonii et Daubentonii figurarum Avium coloratum nomina systematica, collegit Henricus Kuhl editit praefatione & indicibus auxit Theodorus von Swinderen. Groning. It may be nomen nudem since he named over 1000 birds in just 28 pages.
Reviewed here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9J...s:04XVJeXTz5qnNpT3bxkFen&lr=&client=firefox-a (at page 395)
And here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=e-...onii+et+Daubentonii&client=firefox-a#PPA75,M1 .
A nice biography of Kuhl :
http://books.google.com/books?id=zk...X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA22,M1 .
As for the date of S. Muller Geokichla:
Zoonomen: Tijdschrift Voor Natuurlijke Geschiedenis en Physiologie. Amsterdam; Leiden. 1-12 1834-45
It appears that vol.II with an imprint date of 1835, was actually available in 1836 ref. Richmond CW. 1926. "Note on Myiothera loricata S. Müller." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 39:141.
As for the date of Geocichla Kuhl teste Gould: Pages 1-8 for Part IV (1836 of the PZS were delivered on April 9, 1836. (Zoonomen)
In the biography it mentioned that Kuhl had access to the birds Latham used in his Indian book; they had been sold at auction and were at the Leiden Museum. Kuhl used a Latham bird from India as the type for Geocichla.
http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E0260954108000089 . Sorry this paper had been free but now is not.
Geocichla again, sorry. I think that the ornithologists lost track of Kuhl’s writings over time. This is confirmed by this:
http://www.barkhuis.nl/pdfs/pagesfrom_inseparablefriends.pdf . But I would like to read the whole book. In 1881 Seebohm used Kuhl’s name Geocichla but could not give a good citation.
Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum Vol. 5 (1881)
Catalogue of the Passeriformes or Perching Birds in the Collection of the British Museum, Cichlomorphae: Part II, containing the family Turdidae, (Warblers and Thrushes) By Henry Seebohm.
On page 147, “Geocichla, Kuhl (reference unknown) Said to be in some popular Dutch periodical.”
Alfred Newton from his Dictionary of Birds says of Geocichla:
“…an attempt has been made (Catalogue Birds Brit. Mus. V p. 147) to foist it on a composite group of some 40 species of Thrushes which have been referred to a ghost-like genus Geocichla the characters and type of which continue to defy discovery. The assertion (loc. cit.) that Kuhl, to whom this supposed genus is attributed, founded it “in some popular Dutch periodical” is unconfirmed by evidence and is contradicted by all we know of his strickly scientific practice.”
In an Ardea article in Dutch on van Swinderen it says
“In the library of the Museum of Natural History in Leiden is bound together a book of Kuhl's writings from the library of Temminck. These are some writings of Kühl, which van SWINDEREN (1822, 2) does not mention.” It was entitled Conspectus Psittacorum . I know Kuhl published in Isis which was not mentioned in the biography of Kuhl by van Swinderen. The chance that Geocichla is in a 104 page book about parrots is low but I believe that Horsfield as an old time Dutch East Indies hand could have seen Temminck’s book including all of Kuhl’s writings and just lazily described it as Conspectus Psittacorum??
Gould:
It belongs to an interesting group, which was first characterized by M. Kuhl, and of which the Society’s collection possesses four well- marked species.
The 1836 P.Z.S. is online and at page 5 starts out :
January 26, 1836 N.A. Vigors Esq. in the chair.
Specimens were exhibited of numerous Birds, chiefly from the Society’s collection; and Mr. Gould at the request of the Chairman, directed the attention of the Meeting to those among them which he regarded as principally interesting either on account of their novelty or for the peculiarity of their form. …Page 6 The remaining previously undescribed Birds that were exhibited were characterized by Mr. Gould as follows:
Page 7, Geocichla rubecula. (description in Latin) Hab. in Java. This pretty species resembles in many respects the Red-breast, Erithacus Rubecula, Swainson. It belongs to an interesting group, which was first characterized by M. Kuhl, and of which the Society’s collection possesses four well- marked species. Gould does not use Geocichla as a new name. (Jerdon uses Geocichla (Kuhl) in the Birds of India and Oates & Blanford uses Kuhl teste Gould 1836) I need to get a hold of Kuhl, H. (1820) Conspectus Psittacorum. Cum specierum definitionibus, novarum descriptionibus, synonymis et circa patriam singularum naturalem adversariis, adjecto indice museorum, urbi earum artificiosae exuviae servantur. Bonnae (Nova Acta Acad. Caes. Leop.-Carol. Nat. Cur. Vol.X). As stated above I think Moore and Horsfield were mistaken and the name came from another 1820 publication of Kuhl’s Buffonii et Daubentonii figurarum Avium coloratum nomina systematica, collegit Henricus Kuhl editit praefatione & indicibus auxit Theodorus von Swinderen. Groning. It may be nomen nudem since he named over 1000 birds in just 28 pages.
Reviewed here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9J...s:04XVJeXTz5qnNpT3bxkFen&lr=&client=firefox-a (at page 395)
And here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=e-...onii+et+Daubentonii&client=firefox-a#PPA75,M1 .
A nice biography of Kuhl :
http://books.google.com/books?id=zk...X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA22,M1 .
As for the date of S. Muller Geokichla:
Zoonomen: Tijdschrift Voor Natuurlijke Geschiedenis en Physiologie. Amsterdam; Leiden. 1-12 1834-45
It appears that vol.II with an imprint date of 1835, was actually available in 1836 ref. Richmond CW. 1926. "Note on Myiothera loricata S. Müller." Proc.Biol.Soc.Wash. 39:141.
As for the date of Geocichla Kuhl teste Gould: Pages 1-8 for Part IV (1836 of the PZS were delivered on April 9, 1836. (Zoonomen)
In the biography it mentioned that Kuhl had access to the birds Latham used in his Indian book; they had been sold at auction and were at the Leiden Museum. Kuhl used a Latham bird from India as the type for Geocichla.
http://www.eupjournals.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E0260954108000089 . Sorry this paper had been free but now is not.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
New version (15 Aug 2009) now available. But from a quick look there don't seem to be any taxonomic revisions.
All I noticed were a couple of new species for the WP (Anastomus lamelligerus, Phoenicurus auroreus), and highlighting of a couple of additional distinct subspecies (Ketupa zeylonensis semenowi 'Western Brown Fish Owl', Strix uralensis macroura 'Carpathian Ural Owl'), but I may have missed something...
Sterna acuflavida hasn't yet been recognised at species level despite acknowledgement of Efe et al 2009 in DB 31(3) - perhaps awaiting endorsement by CSNA?
Also, Moltoni's Warbler is still named Sylvia subalpina (rather than S moltonii), despite evident sceptism of Baccetti et al 2006 elsewhere, eg:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=143810
Richard
