• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Thought about grahami (1 Viewer)

Taphrospilus

Well-known member
If I look at OD of Aramides cajanea grahami I have some doubts that the dedication is for Ronald William Graham (1870-1949) as claimed in the key.

...was collected by the late Ronald Graham

If he was dead at least in 1919 he can't be still alive in 1949. Who the correct collector may, I have no clue.

Take it for what's worth.
 
Warren 1966, about the holotype -- https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/8708234 :
grahami Aramides cajanea grahami Chubb, 1919 . . .15
Ibis, (11) 1 : 53. Holotype, Adult. Reg. no. 1845.8.25.56. Para, Brazil. Collected and presented by R. S. Graham.
Ronald S., thus, not Ronald W., and the registration seems to have happened 25 years before Ronald William G. was born.
 
Last edited:
Thanks both. That will teach me to rely too much on Owen Wynne 1969, p. 81 (although he does only suggest Sir Ronald with a query). Key corrected.
 
But the given name 'Ronald' (fide Chubb 1919, nec Wynne 1969; not contradicted by Warren 1966) would presumably remain correct, though, James ?

(My understanding of Reg. nos is that they start with the date in format yyyy.[m]m.[d]d -- thus, for this bird, I'd read the date as 25 Aug 1845; as he apparently presented the specimen himself, I'd say 'fl. 1845'. Or am I making incorrect assumptions here ?)
 
Last edited:
"Collected and presented by R. S. Graham." (here), which ought to be from this delivery (in 1845); also see; here, here, and here.

Who this "R. S. Graham" was [more than what you/we've got this far; Ronald S. Graham (fl. 1845), "late" in 1919], who collected the Type in Pará, Brazil ...? I haven't got a clue.

Good luck finding him!

/B

______________________________________________
Not to confuse (?) with; James Duncan Graham (1799–1865), American engineer, astronomer and collector of biological specimens, commemorated in (for example); the Iguana Anolis grahami GRAY, 1845, as "Anolis Grahami" (a substitute name for A. punctatus GRAY 1840, not A. punctatus DAUDIN 1802) a k a Graham's Anole ... neither with the Scottish botanist Robert Graham (1786–1845) nor Sir Ronald William Graham (1870–1949)
 
Last edited:
He is given as "R. Graham, Esq." on [p. 249 of Sharpe 1906, vol. 2].

I now find that a Reginald Simpson Graham, Esq., born 31 Dec 1813, died with his wife and 6 yo daughter, "at Para, in the Brazils, by the upsetting of a canoe", on 24 Mar 1845.

No hard evidence that it's the same person, however, so take it for what it's worth. (In case it would be, Chubb would have been wrong about the given name (not that much, though -- there's a lot in common between Ronald and Reginald), and the birds could obviously not have been presented by him personally in Aug 1845.)
 
Last edited:
Depends on how we interpret "presented". Maybe he just send his manuscript with the specimen? Or the way he prepared the birds?

At least it would explain that nothing more seems to be collected by this gentleman. As well the location Para would fit.
 
Mrs. R. S. Graham was Dora-Ennis Bellairs. Reginald father of R. S. was from Etterby Cumberland.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wmNmAAAAMAAJ&dq=Miss+Bellairs+;+Graham+1845&source=gbs_navlinks_s page 72. Reynold, Ronald Reginald are variants of each other from different sources into English. Sharpe just got confused.
Dora "married Reginald Simpson Graham on 10th September 1838 in Bedworth, Warwickshire. Their daughter also named Dora Ennis was born in 1839 in Salford, Lancashire. The family are found in the 1841 census in Eccles, Lancashire, when Reginald's occupation is listed as a merchant."
http://personalia.co.uk/epages/950018630.sf/en_US/?ObjectPath=/Shops/950018630/Products/pm0018 .
 
Last edited:
Beware of mix-ups guys!
....
I now find that a Reginald Simpson Graham, Esq., born 31 Dec 1813, died with his wife and 6 yo daughter, "at Para, in the Brazils, by the upsetting of a canoe", on 24 Mar 1845.
...

The Gentleman's Magazine 1845:
OBITUARY [i.e. OBITUARIES]
[...]
March 24. At Para, in the Brazils, by the upsetting of a canoe, aged 31, Reginald Simpson Graham, esq. of Manchester, son of Reginald Graham, esq. late of Etterby, near Carlisle; also his wife, Dora-Ennis eldest dau, of the Rev. Henry Bellairs, Rector of Bedworth, near Coventry; and Dora Ennis, their only child, aged six years.

[here]
If he's truly equal of "our guy" I have no idea. But sure, it looks like it, he could be. Or not.

/B

PS. Also see here and/or here (p.106/826, right column).
--
 
Last edited:
Reginald Simpson Graham appears to have been a friend of John Peter George Smith, who seems to have been established in Brazil at that time. According to a letter by Smith to Graham (described in Santos et al 2010 [here], p. 187, where Smith and Graham appear, somewhat incidentally, in a text introducing paintings by Smith's wife), Smith intended to return to Europe and, in Dec 1844 in Pará, was preparing to dispatch unaccompanied baggage to England.

Smith's wife, Emma Juliana Smith, née Gray, was the daughter of Maria Emma Gray, who became the wife of John Edward Gray after the death of her first husband (Emma Juliana's father, Francis Edward Gray -- and a cousin of John Edward). See also [here], where Smith is said to be Gray's son-in-law. Smith himself was a life member of the British Association for the Advancement of Science ([here]), and many specimens in the British Museum were presented by him as well (see, e.g., [this]). These include "a large collection [of reptiles and batrachians] from Pernambuco and Para", presented in 1845 by him and his wife (see [here]).

Would Smith, after Reginald's death, have presented bird specimens in his name to the Museum...?

In any case, the context seems to be there...


Beware of mix-ups guys!
Agreed, but the father died on 15 Aug 1829 if we believe [this] (last § of p. 355). Thus the risk of confusion in documents from around 1845 should in principle be quite low.
 
David "Davy" Crockett King of the wild frontier died in 1836. D.C. Graham born 1844. Many US children are named for heroes like George Washington Smith or Daniel Boone Brown. Martin the book you cite gets David Crockett Graham's state of birth wrong on the first page. They say it is Michigan but the Wikipedia gets it right Arkansas.
 
Mr Graham No. 2

Quick one, just to be on the safe side (and for the fun of it) ... ;)

• the subspecies Garrulax maesi grahami RILEY 1922 (here) as "Dryonastes grahami"
• the invalid "Antiornis grahami" RILEY 1926 (here) [syn. Horornis flavolivaceus intricatus/Cettia flavolivacea intricata (Hartert, E, 1909)]

Yep! Looks ok for; Rev. David Crockett Graham (1884–1961) ... for more details on this guy, see; Smithsonian Institution Archives (here and/or here), Wiki (here), ... alt. elsewhere.

/B
 
“the invalid "Antiornis grahami" RILEY 1926 (here) [syn. Horornis flavolivaceus intricatus/Cettia flavolivacea intricata(Hartert, E, 1909)]”
That is the classification in 1986 Check-list of Birds of the World a continuation of the works of James L. Peters edited by Ernst Mayr and G. William Cottrell Vol. XI. George E. Watson was the writer of the Oriental Sylviidae old world warblers. On page 14 George E. Watson footnote says
'Although Deignan, 1961, Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., no. 221, p. 443, synonymized Antiornis grahami with Cettia fortipes davidiana, I provisionally follow Parker, 1964, Bull. Brit. Ornith. Club, 84, pp. 113- 114, in this allocation. The entire series may be made up of young birds.—G. E. W.
Watson follows Parker in placing Antornis grahami in Cettia flavolivacea. But he should have followed Parker into making grahami a subspecies of Cettia flavolivacea. Watson’s last sentence of the footnote is proof he never read Parker 1964 because in it Parker shows there were multiple adult birds included in the series collected by Graham.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/126839#page/155/mode/1up .
I know when we speak about the key we are limited to its taxonomy but it is wrong and Parker is right.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top