Tapera (1 Viewer)

[RSN]

Fernando C. Straube, 2020

Sobre andorinhas, andorinhões e a etimologia de Tapera Thunberg, 1819

Atualidades Ornitológicas 216, 9-15.

Abstract:

The alleged current etymology of the genus Tapera is related to the Brazilian mythologic entity called “Matinta-pereira”. However, there is another interpretation based on historical, linguistic, in addition to the information available in its original description. The words “tapera” and “taperá” are discussed, including their dates as words in the Brazilian Portuguese language, as well as its use for swallows (Hirundinidae), swifts (Apodidae) and even other birds. Judging the fragility of the etymological hypothesis, I conclude that tapera and taperá are originally paroxytonous, independent, and therefore not cognate words. In addition, its use is commonly applied to the Apodidae and Hirundinidae families, even though historically the current use has alluded to the latter. It is precisely this word that inspired Thunberg when describing the genus Tapera, which referes to the name used by Marcgrave for swallows and not “Matinta-pereira” as suggested by some authors.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Regarding the generic name Tapera (regardless of the conclusions made in this Portuguese Paper).

🚦Note that Fernando C. Straube's quotation of Thunberg's OD (of Tapera) from 1819, is rendered/interpreted erroneously, on page 13 [errors, and typos, marked in bold red]:

"Vid första påseendet skulle man anse den for en Caprimulgus, hvilket slågte åger en egen brokig beklådning och teckning på sine fjådrar; och vid nårmare granskning skulle man lått förestålla sig, att den i auseende till nåbabet, borde föras till Pipra."

In (Swedish) it's:

[TAPERA Brasiliensis, Ett nytt Fogel-Slägte ...]
Vid första påseendet skulle man anse den för en Caprimulgus, hvilket slägte äger en egen brokig beklädning och teckning på sine fjädrar; och vid närmare granskning skulle man lätt föreställa sig, att den i anseende till näbbet, borde föras till Pipra.

The same goes for the following (mis-)quotation of Thunberg's text (and intentions), on p.14, in the following part:

Nem Caprimulgus, nem Pipra – tampouco Matinta-Pereira
O fragmento mais importante da descrição de Thunberg, ignorado por todos os autores já citados, porém, é (os grifos são meus): “Vid en nogare undersökning finner man dock lått, att denne Fogel åfven så litet kan förenas med de nyssnåmnde fogelslågten, som med Svalorna, i anseende till dess åt båda sidor hopkrammade nåbb” (“Em um exame mais atento, entretanto, ...

In a more proper Swedish Thunberg's part of this text ought to be rendered as:

"Vid en nogare undersökning finner man dock lätt, att denne Fogel äfven så litet kan förenas med de nyssnämnde fogelslägten, som med Svalorna, i anseende till dess åt båda sidor hopkrammade näbb"

[and (of course): the Swedish word Svalorna itself (The Swallows), wasn't under-lined in Thunberg's text at all, but just typed in italics]

Note, that in those days the (mere, sole) typographical use of the Swedish letters å (alt. as in this particular case; a – with a tiny e on top) versus the letter ä wasn't all that strict.

Straube's "nåbabet" (on p.13) versus the more correct "näbbet" is, of course, just a typo. It's still today näbb (beak), in Swedish (we've never had a word like: "nåbabet", or even "näbab/et"). Also consider/compare "näbbet" = (old school) definite singular form, versus today's näbben (for the same beak). At least he got the old word "anseende" (regarding) correct, the second time (on p.14).

Though, as far as I can tell (not knowing Portuguese, that is) those typos/misinterpretations didn't result, or had any major impact, on the conclusion Straube made (that is, due to those misquotations themselves). If correct in the rest of it ... that's far, far beyond my capacity (and scope).

Either way, I just wanted to point out that; a quote is a quote, and as such, always a Quote, always to be quoted exactly the way it was written (or/alt. intended) as far as ever possible, and as such, this goes; down to the very last letter, italics, dots, and all. Any discrepancies should be marked (or explained), preferably in [square] brackets. Simply to avoid further misinterpretations. As I've l was thought quotes are to be treated as (close to) Holy, alt. to be rendered as close to the Original as ever possible.

Thus, note that the exact same parts, just as they are quoted in James's Key to Scientific Names, for the generic name Tapera, are fully correct* ... if someone now, by this thread alone, suddenly started to think otherwise.


Equally, note that Thunberg's piece/paper/OD, in a similar way/misreading is/was also erroneously written in Straube's List of Referências bibliográficas (on p.15 – with even more awkward typos!):

Thunberg, C.P. (1819) Tapera brasiliensis, ett nytt Fogel-Slugte beskristvet af C. P. Thunberg. Götheborgs Kongl. Wettenskaps och Witterhets Samhållets nya Handlingar 3:1-VI.

In my opinion/mind/view it ought to be (if put in the same fashion, of course) written:

Thunberg, C.P. (1819) TAPERA Brasiliensis, Ett nytt Fogel-Slägte beskrifvet af C. P. THUNBERG. Götheborgs Kongl. Wettenskaps och Witterhets Samhällets nya Handlingar 3:1-VI.

Mr Straube's used; "Slugte" and "beskristvet" isn't (and has never been) any Swedish words.

For the full OD see attached PDFs (and note that Thunberg in his Original paper also wrote the name of this bird as "Taperæ Brasiliensis" (on p.V/5). Also attached is my own attempt to transcribe/translate its relevant parts (all sent to James, some years ago, back in 2016).

Cheers

Björn

PS. Below is a brief, tiny Lesson in Swedish 🇸🇪🔎, as the Swedish letters (still) today are just the same:
å (aa), pronounced aw (in English, like in: Law or ought)
versus
ä (ae, æ), pronounced ea (in English, like in: bear or air)

The same risk of confusion is always (alt. could be) present when 'foreigners' (read: Non-Swedes, or Non-Scandinavians) try to interpret any early Swedish (printed) texts, like, for example, the words:
år (year) versus är (is), åra (a paddle) versus ära (honour/glory), and årta (garganey) versus ärta (pea) ... and onwards.

(The latter Bird/Duck has absolutely nothing to do with this particular Topic) 🙃

---

*James, except (of course), for a single missed blank space, in the generic Tapera entry (in the phrase):

• (syn. Progne Ϯ Brown-chested Martin P. tapera) Specific name Hirundo taperaLinnaeus, 1766; ...

 

[l_raty]

You seem to have forgotten the attachments ?

The OD can be seen at https://books.google.com/books?id=C5Fjm-eXWfQC&pg=PP13 -- not great quality, though.

Straube's multiple misinterpretations of ä as å are obviously due to Thunberg's use of "old-style" ä, with a small e above the letter instead of two dots. The same errors are actually present in the OCR layer of the Google Books file (which he may conceivably have used ?).
"Taperæ" in "Taperæ Brasiliensis speciela beskrifning är följande" is a Latin genitive -- the phrase introduces the speciela beskrifning of Tapera Brasiliensis.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

You seem to have forgotten the attachments ?
...

That I certainly did!

Apparently, time for a cup of coffee ...



Björn

PS. And, thanks Laurent, for explaining the "Latin genitive" part!