l_raty
laurent raty
I wouldn't be too sure about this. What I translated as 'illustrious' is the 'cl.' that precedes Bullock's name in the Latin sentence. This stands (in principle) for clarissimus, literally 'brightest' or 'very bright'. Wagler used it for about every person he alluded to in his text ('cl.' occurs 214 times in the OCR of the book) -- I'm not sure it implies anything, besides a vague expression of his respect for the person he was citing.I had no luck in trying to find Wagler's "type" (nor did I find this specimen in any "Leadbeater's collection"). However I assume that "illustrious" would indicate that Wagler had the, at that time, well-known Bullock Senior in mind.
I don't really see anything in these sources that would add to the present debate.
It should not be, IMO.And what about the bird mentioned as "Calocitta bullockii (not Pica bullockii Wagler)", here, ... which is a bird described by Sclater 1858 (here), from Honduras! Or did Sclater only thought it/they was/were the same? And today the latter is simply an invalid preoccupied name for of the subspecies Calocitta formosa pompata/Cyanocorax formosus pompatus BANGS 1914 ... or?
If so, it´s not listed among the synonyms in the Key.
Sclater did not provide any description, and explicitly attributed the name to Wagler, who had indeed made it available previously; as a consequence, Sclater did not create anything new nomenclaturally.
There is no such thing as "Calocitta bullockii (not Pica bullockii Wagler) Sclater"; only a Calocitta bullockii Wagler apud (or sensu) Sclater: this was but a particular instance of taxonomic usage of Wagler's name, with which Hellmayr happened to disagree, subjectively.