Regarding the generic name
Tapera (r
egardless 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: L
aw or
ought)
versus
ä (ae, æ), pronounced
ea (in English, like in: b
ear 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; ...