Baron von Heuglin and some of "his" Birds (1 Viewer)

It´s time to deal with a great (and multi-commemorated) German collector!

I think there is little doubt that the following five birds, in either their Scientific or Common name, all commemorate the well-known German explorer Baron Martin Theodor von Heuglin (1824–1876):

● Heuglin's Bustard Neotis heuglinii HARTLAUB 1859
● Three-banded Courser Rhinoptilus cinctus HEUGLIN 1863 a k a "Heuglin's Courser"
● Heuglin's Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini FINSCH & HARTLAUB 1870 a k a "Heuglin's Red-breasted Wheatear"
● Siberian Gull Larus (fuscus/argentatus) heuglini BREE 1876 a k a "Heuglin's Herring Gull", "Heuglin's Lesser Black-backed Gull" or simply "Heuglin's Gull"
● Heuglin's Masked Weaver Ploceus heuglini REICHENOW 1886 a k a "Heuglin's Weaver"

But the issue is why and how?

The same von Heuglin is also commemorated in several other subspecies (and other taxa), but in this thread I will focus exclusively on the above, as they are the only ones commemorating him in their Common Swedish names (my major subject). As you can see the same goes for their English (or alternate/earlier English) names ... so feel free to join the ride!

Since the type descriptions of the two "tricky ones" is written in German (that I understand very little of) I feel solving those ones (in forthcoming posts) will need some help from Bird Forum readers with far better knowledge of German than I master …

But let´s begin with the three "easy ones" (with links to original descriptions):
● the Bustard Neotis heuglinii (as "Otis heuglinii") HARTLAUB 1859 (Page 344 + Plate 11)
● the Courser Rhinoptilus cinctus (as "Hemerodromus cinctus") HEUGLIN 1863 (Page 31 + Plate 1)
● the Gull Larus (fuscus/argentatus) heuglini (as "Larus Heuglini") BREE 1876 (Page 59 + following Plate)

= the same von Heuglin … when's, how's and why's = CHECK!

Anyone disagree?

And, just for the fun of it; attached, the Plate of "his" Gull.

59 Views and no objections ...

Ok, so far, so good ...

● Heuglin's Bustard Neotis heuglinii HARTLAUB 1859 = CHECK!
● Three-banded Courser Rhinoptilus cinctus HEUGLIN 1863 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini FINSCH & HARTLAUB 1870
● Siberian Gull Larus (fuscus/argentatus) heuglini BREE 1876 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Masked Weaver Ploceus heuglini REICHENOW 1886

Now … Let´s deal with the more "tricky ones"!

First; "his" Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini FINSCH & HARTLAUB 1870

This Bird was described as "Saxicola Heuglini" (on pp. 258-259, attached) in: Finsch, O & G Hartlaub. 1870. Baron Carl Claus von der Decken’s Reisen in Ostafrika in den jahren 1859–1865. Wissenschaftlicher Teil. Vierter Band. Die Vögel Ost-Afrikas /alt. Vögel Ost-Afrikas. Baron Carl Claus von der Decken’s Reisen in Ostafrika 4: Link to full volume here.

In that type description Finsch and Hartlaub also refer to "Saxicola Heuglini, Nob. — S. leucorhoides, Heugl. (nec Guér.), J. f. Orn. 1862. p. 291 (ohne Beschreibung)" which is a reference to a text by Heuglin himself (wriiten 1861, in Adoa, 1st of December 1861) published in: von Heuglin, T. 1862. Beiträge zur Ornithologie Nord-Ost-Afrika’s. Journal für Ornithologie 10: 285-307 (pp. 290-291, attached). Link to full volume here.

Can someone who knows German better than I do (close to none!) please explain the story behind this bird, what went down, of how, when and why this Wheatear became "Heuglins"?

In Heuglin's article he describes some Saxicola ? species, and then continues:

"A very similar, but 1/5th smaller, species I collected years ago around Gondar, and sent numerous specimens to various museums on the continent, but I clumsily did so under a name already in use, S. leucorhoides. This name is also used by Guerin in the Rev. Zool. for an Abyssinian wheatear, which doubtlessly is identical with S. lugubrus (Ruepp)."

Finsch's article, after the horizontal line, says:

"We here add the description of two new, so far unrecognized/misidentified [both interpretations possible with the given formulation], Saxicola species from Abyssinia."

He then describes Saxicola frenata, and continues with Saxicola heuglini. `ohne Beschreibung' means `without description'.

After the description of the species he adds:

"Description after a specimen (female) from Gondar in Abyssinia, which the collection in Bremen received through Mr von Heuglin sine nomine [means wthout name - presumably pointing out that the name used was not available?] S. leucorhoides. As is well-known this name has been used by Guerin, whose S. leucurhoides [is the `u' a misprint?] is certainly not identical with S. lugubris, Ruepp., as v. Heuglin assumes, but probably with S. leucura (Gml)."

"S. heuglini [why the capital H in the original?] is a smaller version of the preceding species (frenata), from which it is distinguished by its significantly darker colouring; and by the same means [it may be distinguished] from S. oenanthe (female).- Whether the here by us described for the first time species [awkward but closest to original - let me know if the meaning is unclear] is merely the female of an already known species we are unable to decide since we do not have any information regarding the colouring of the two sexes."

He then turns to Saxicola pallida.

So apparently Heuglin sent back specimens under an unavailable name, and when somebody decided to publish a formal description they picked his name as a suitable alternative.

Andrea

The text doesn't say "sine nomine", it's "s.n.", which stands for "sub nomine" - "under the name".

nartreB was faster than me on "s.n."

Guérin wrote it with a 'u', this is no misprint. And, furthermore, with no 'h': Saxicola leucuroides.
Thus Heuglin sent specimens to museums with a name that he later realized was preoccupied according to the rules of his time (...or at least he though so; under today's rules, the 'o' instead of 'u' would make the two names different; not to mention that they actually have distinct derivation--leucuroides = leucura-like, with leucura a latinization of λευκουρος = white-tailed; leucorhoides = leucorhoa-like, with leucorhoa a latinization of λευκορροος = white-rumped). Anyway, Heuglin never actually published this name in a way that would make it nomenclaturally available--what he wrote on the specimens is of course unpublished; and in his note he just declares having made a mistake on the specimens: he does not describe the species, and he also clearly does not use the name as valid, which is mandatory to make a name available.

(Capitalizing specific epithets used to be quite frequent, before it was decided that this was not to be done. "Heuglini" is a proper name, after all.)

Thanks for correcting my `s.n.' I wasn't sure and looked it up, and only found one interpretation. I need a better dictionary! I should just stick to the German and leave the taxonomy to people who know about it...

Thanks also for answering my questions regarding various spellings! I know very litte about taxonomy and find it very interesting. These threads a way of finding out more without reading some heavy duty books.

Andrea

Thanks Andrea, "nartreb" and Laurent!

Just to be on the safe side; I assume, by your replies, presumably by context, that the "s.n." cannot be interpreted as the otherwise quite common species nova (new species) ... or ?

I´m put on hold ...

No response to my little question-mark in post #7 ... ?
:scribe:

Time to push on! Feel free to join "the ride", but beware; it´s a bumpy road ...

Since, no-one seem willing to deal with my minor hesitation and little question mark in post#7, I´ll ignore it (simply assuming Laurent and "nartreb" is correct, they usually are!) and I´ll try to take it from here ... If I´ve understood this the proper way: the "Saxicola sp?" is not today's Heuglin's Wheatear, as I (with my meager understand of German) first thought!? We´re here apparently dealing with two different Wheatears! To my defence both (but they didn´t!) could have been known as Heuglin's.

Ok, guys, let´s see if I got it right ...

Here we go!

On the 1st of December 1861 Theodor von Heuglin, wrote a letter from Adoa (in today's Ethiopia), which was published in 1862, where he mentioned a "Saxicola sp?", that he´d came to be suspicious about. And, on top of that he mentioned a second one, a similar Wheatear, one fifth smaller. The former he described, but not the latter.

He thought the "Saxicola sp?" might be new, he´d never (at that time) seen such one before, but suggested it might, could, be the "Myrmecocichla Quartini" by Bonaparte "… die ich nicht kenne" (… that I do not know of).

Regarding the other one, the smaller Wheatear, only mentioned briefly in this article, as present in the same area, von Heuglin just noted that, such Wheatears, had he collected years ago in the nearby Gondar, Abyssinia, "in zahlreichen Exemplar" (in several specimens), thereafter sending them to various European museums, literarily having mislabeled them, "s. n." (sub nomine), under the name, "Saxicola leucorhoides", but now he had awkwardly, realized that such a name was already in use by Guérin [even if Guérin spelled it "leucuroides!] . Now von Heuglin had realized that he´d been a bit clumpsy, instead he´d come to the conclusion; that those, the the smaller ones, should "ohne Zweifel" (without doubt) instead have been labeled "S. lugubris".

Theodor von Heuglin's suspicion and repentance was carefully scrutinized by Finsch & Hartlaub, who, in their book (Wissenschaftlicher Teil. Vierter Band. Die Vögel Ost-Afrikas), published in 1870, came to their final deduction:

● The "Saxicola sp?" was certainly not the "Myrmecocichla Quartini" BONAPARTE 1854 [… which, in its turn, is a Synonym of today's White-winged Cliff-chat Thamnolaea semirufa RÜPPELL 1837. Not to be confused with the Yellow-bellied Waxbill (Coccopygia) Estrilda quartinia BONAPARTE 1850].

Instead the "Saxicola sp?" was the "Saxicola frenata" [today's subspecies Oenanthe bottae frenata HEUGLIN 1869] that Finsch & Hartlaub (when they wrote their text) only had read about in von Heuglin's own M. S. (apparently it hadn´t been published when they studied the "frenata" in his manuscript, but it later became so, in May 1896*), shortly before Finsch & Hartlaub's own account came in print.

*von Heuglin, T. 1869. Journal für Ornithologie 17 (99): p. 158 . See link (here).

● And the smaller, mislabeled one, was neither any "Saxicola leucorhoides" or the "S. leucuroides" by GUÉRIN [both synonyms (I think!?) to "S. leucura", today's Black Wheatear Oenanthe leucura GMELIN 1789] nor was it a "S. lugubris" [today's Abyssinian Wheatear Oenanthe lugubris RÜPPELL 1837]. It was yet another Wheatear – a brand new species!

One of those "mislabeled" specimens had apparently ended up in the collection in Bremen, Germany, and it was from this specimen, a single female bird, that Finsch & Hartlaub formally described the new species – coining the name "Saxicola Heuglini" (without any explicit dedication) after the man himself, Theodor von Heuglin, who had personally collected it, in Gondar Abyssinia. The fact that Mr. von Heuglin hadn´t identified it properly was a minor concern. Thereafter it was "his" Wheatear! No matter what. Unregardless if we today treat it as a species, or as a subspecies; we know know it as: Heuglins Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini!

Is this a proper interpretation of how it all went down?

This surely show what is well known, at least among us with some Field experience of Wheatears, especially females and juveniles ones, of those South European and African Species – it´s a tricky business!

Cheers!

-------

PS. And, please, don´t hesitate to remark on any, even the most minor, mistake I´ve done trying to understand it! I can´t say I feel very safe that I got it right! In such a taxonomic mish-mash it´s hard trying to puzzle together the content out of loose excerpts, some few translations and the German (for me hard-to-understand) text.

PPS. Until anyone, with better understand of both/either Taxonomy and/or German, gives me an OK, on the above mentioned course of events I will be stuck ...

Quoting myself ... !?

As I apparently missunderstood!

Calalp said:

... the the smaller ones, should "ohne Zweifel" (without doubt) instead have been labeled "S. lugubris". ...

Click to expand...

That´s not what Theodor von Heuglin said at all: What he insted claimed "ohne Zweifel" (without doubt) was that it was Guérin's "species" that was equal of Rüppell's "S. lugubris".

He had just realized he´d mislabeled the smaller ones, with Guérin's preoccupied (synonymous) name!

Just like Andrea, Laurent and "nartreb" told us ...

Sorry for confusing things! It´s obviously too hot, much too hot in Stockholm, Sweden. We´ve had around 30°C the last days (32°C, today!) and no air-condition ... my brain got mushy!

The rest (I hope!) as in Post No. #9 ...

Or, in brief, jumping all the "pot-holes" …

The 1st of December 1861 Theodor von Heuglin wrote a letter, from Adoa, Abyssinia (published in 1862) where he reports of an eventually new species, a "Saxicola sp?" [later described by himself, as "Saxicola frenata", today the subspecies Oenanthe bottae frenata HEUGLIN 1869]. In the same letter he regretfully admit having realized that the smaller Wheatears, similar but one fifth smaller, present in the same area, was the same ones that he´d collected earlier, in vast numbers, in nearby Gondar, Abyssinia, which he at that time, in "ungeschickter Weise" ("a careless way" alt. "unskillful –", "clumpsy way"), literally had mislabeled with a preoccupied name and as such he´d sent them to various museums in Europe. I guess he felt a bit negligent ... [like me! ]

One of those smaller Wheatears was apparently found in the collection of the Natural History Museum in Bremen, Germany, and was scrutinized by its Director Otto Finsch, helped by Gustav Hartlaub. In 1870 Finsch and Hartlaub could only confirm the "Saxicola sp.?" as today's O. b. frenata and concluded that the smaller one they´d got, a single female specimen, was yet another brand new Wheatear – today's Heuglins Wheatear O. (b.) heuglini!

The various twists and turns (highly possible confusions, subspecies and/alt. synonyms, other species etc. etc.) is in this case, (at least on my behalf) of minor relevance (I have a dead-line to keep). We´ve checked the most important thing; the commemoration is Chrystal clear!

Ok, one down … it´s still steaming hot, but I think we´re getting there ...

● Heuglin's Bustard Neotis heuglinii HARTLAUB 1859 = CHECK!
● Three-banded Courser Rhinoptilus cinctus HEUGLIN 1863 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini FINSCH & HARTLAUB 1870 = CHECK!
● Siberian Gull Larus (fuscus/argentatus) heuglini BREE 1876 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Masked Weaver Ploceus heuglini REICHENOW 1886

Just one more to go!

Let´s deal with the last one of those five: Heuglin's Masked Weaver Ploceus heuglini REICHENOW 1886 a k a simply "Heuglin's Weaver" …

This Weaver was described as "Ploceus heuglini" (on pp.147, attached) in: Reichenow, A. 1886. Monographie der Gattung Ploceus CUV. Zoologische Jahrbücher; Zeitschrift für Systematik, Geographie und Biologie die Thiere 1 : 113-164. Link to full volume (here).

Once again with a reference to an article by von Heuglin himself: "Textor atrogularis v. HEUGL. (nec VOIGT 1) J. O. 1864 p. 245." – with the Foot-note: "1) Textor atrogularis Voigt ist identisch mit Symplectes nigricollis (VIEIL.)" [… identical of today's Black-necked Weaver VIEILLOT 1805, I think/hope?] – the reference itself is equivalent of pp.245-246 (attached) in : von Heuglin, T. 1864. Ornithologische Miscellen aus Central-Africa. Journal für Ornithologie Band 12 (IV. Heft, No. 70): 241-276. Link to full volume (here).

And once again … I´m stuck, totally lost, relying on you guys … :h?:

Anyone, please, who does understand German, feel like explaining the story behind this bird as well ... how it all went down, the when's and why's, of how this Weaver, as well, became "Heuglins"?

Cheers!

This leaves me feeling somewhat confused.

Please bear in mind that my expertise is German, and I'm a rank beginner in matters of taxonomy.

First of all, you are correct with your interpretation of `ist identish mit' as being `is identical with'. (Googling for the scientific names involved suggests, however, that some people suggested later that Reichenow got the wrong species here, but that doesn't concern us further here, I assume.)

Interpreting this I assume this means that Reichenow is pointing out here that the name atrogularis is not available and that's why he goes for heuglini?

Von Heuglin's paper begins with him explaining that this is a progress report of his current travels, and he mentions that he's been ill and because of that, as well as the rainy season limiting what he can do, there isn't a lot of work that he has been able to do.

Scanning down the text he has some general comments about Ploceus weavers, which were `everywhere' (but not in flocks). He goes on to say something about their nesting behaviour. The last sentence of that paragraph (immediately preceding the description) says:

"... as well as a species similar to Pl. baglafect Buff. which seems new to me."

Now my Latin is extremely rusty and I wouldn't want to go anywhere near translating the species description, but doesn't `Pl. vitellino similis' mean `similar to Pl vitellino' (as opposed to similar to baglafecht as in the preceding text)?

I note that Reichenow only describes the male, which agrees with v. Heuglin's article. I'm somewhat puzzled, however, by this fact given that v. Heuglin continues after the Latin description:

"In May of this year I bagged a female weaver not far from Meshra el Req, which however could not be preserved. It was similar in colour to Pl. flavoviridis Ruepp. In size it was similar to my Pl. atrogularis and had a white iris, was therefore presumably the female for the species just described, which I met in singles in August and September in Bongo [I won't try to do anything with geographical names other than give a translation where appropriate], usually in marshy flooded areas and in durrah fields. The breeding period is end of August, the nest, in shape of a bag, [there is presumably an accepted English term for this kind of nest but I'm drawing a blank] is fairly high on thorny bushes and trees and is attached to the tip of weak branches..."

If he thinks he had the female, why didn't he describe it? Also, in Reichenow's account some of this material seems to appear (eg the eggs are described as being the same, unusual colour), but some of the description is different (eg Reichenow says the nests are on tall trees on clearings in montane forest), although Reichenow appears to invoke v. Heuglin as his source ("Near the Gazelle River, it seems, according to v. Heuglin, ...").

I'd be happy to translate more but I suspect that this won't really help you with finding out how the bird received its name.

I hope this is a first step,

Andrea

Thanks Andrea!

It sure is a first step … and a good one! And I bear that in mind. Your expertise in German is exactly what I appreciate … we have quite a few good taxonomists here. Especially on our "Parent-Forum" Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature.

Like you noticed, this one (as well) is a bit tricky, but don´t bother trying to solve the Latin part. Not yet, at least. I will read trough the whole thing once over, helped by your translation, and we´ll see if I understand how it all went down.

But I have to admit it does look like a case for our multi-talented friend Laurent ("l_raty"). However I assume he´s on a well-deserved Holiday since I haven´t noticed his presence her on Bird Forum, since he posted his Post No. #5 here. I will give it a try myself, and we´ll see what Laurent thinks of it when he returns thoroughly rested. Or someone else?

And: I´m glad your "... happy to translate more", because I am about to post yet another (in my view, awkward) "German" thread. I hope you feel up to struggle with that one as well!?

Once again; thanks!

It wasn´t as complicated as I thought!

Anyway; this is how it went down … [Note:] in my opinion, as far as I understand:

In 1864 Theodor von Heuglin simply described a "Textor atrogularis", based on a single male specimen [that he himself had collected at Bongo, Central Africa, in August 1863] – a name apparently preoccupied by VOIGT 1831 [in its turn, a junior synonym of "Malimbus nigricollis" today's Black-necked Weaver Ploceus nigricollis VIEILLOT 1805. Not to be confused with "Lagonosticta nigricollis" – today's Firefinch subspecies Lagonosticta vinacea nigricollis HEUGLIN 1863 or any other of those many nigricollis birds]. In 1886 Anton Reichenow only concluded that this was the case, and renamed von Heuglin's bird "Ploceus heuglini" – after the man who first discovered and collected it. As well as described it … even if Theodor von Heuglin did so using a name already forfeit.

Andrea, about your question regarding the "Weibchens noch unbekannt" ("female still unknown"): "If he thinks he had the female, why didn't he describe it?" I guess the main clue is (your own word) "thinks", in as von Heuglin (and Reichenow, like most naturalist) didn´t (and doesn´t) like any uncertainty. He (they) want to know. Better say nothing than speculate. It could, might, also have been the case that the suspected female specimen, the one that " … could not be preserved", was in such a state that neither preserving nor sufficient description was impossible to make. Remember that the "ornithologists" in that Era went birdhunting with shotguns!

However; this, the Weaver commemoration, is also beyond doubt … making it:
● Heuglin's Bustard Neotis heuglinii HARTLAUB 1859 = CHECK!
● Three-banded Courser Rhinoptilus cinctus HEUGLIN 1863 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Wheatear Oenanthe (bottae) heuglini FINSCH & HARTLAUB 1870 = CHECK!
● Siberian Gull Larus (fuscus/argentatus) heuglini BREE 1876 = CHECK!
● Heuglin's Masked Weaver Ploceus heuglini REICHENOW 1886 = CHECK!

That´s it, time to "wrap it up" …

But before I leave (this Thread) I thought it could be worth mentioning, that the same von Heuglin is apparently also (without counter-checking them!) claimed to be commemorated in:
● White-browed Robin-Chat Cossypha heuglini HARTLAUB 1866 a k a "Heuglin's Robin-Chat", "Heuglin's White-browed Robin-Chat" or simply "Heuglin's Robin"
... as well as the following subspecies:
● Turdoides rubiginosa heuglini SHARPE 1883
● Dendropicos obsoletus heuglini NEUMANN 1904
● (Dicrocercus) Merops hirundineus heuglini NEUMANN 1906
● Francolinus clappertoni heuglini NEUMANN 1907
● Alcedo semitorquata heuglini LAUBMANN 1925
● … and the junior synonym "Centropus heuglini" (sometimes treaded as a subspecie) Centropus monachus "heuglini" NEUMANN 1911 (Syn: "Fischer's Coucal" Centropus monachus fischeri REICHENOW 1887)
● … and, on top of that, in several other, Non-Bird-taxa, like, for example; the amphipod Weyprechtia heuglini BUCHHOLZ 1874, the Moth Smerinthus heuglini FELDER 1874 as well as the invalid fish "Clarotes Heuglini" KNER 1855 (a junior synonym of "Wide Head Catfish "Clarotes" laticeps RÜPPELL 1829) etc. etc.

Now, finally: That´s it …

Thanks everybody!

von Heuglin … over and out!

---------------

PS. And just for the fun of it … Here´s a Group photo (attached) including Baron von Heuglin. He is supposedly, at least claimed to be the one, to the right, sitting on the floor … smoking Water Pipe!)

Disclaimer!

Calalp said:

Anyway; this is how it went down … [Note:] in my opinion, as far as I understand:

In 1864 Theodor von Heuglin simply described a "Textor atrogularis", based on a single male specimen [that he himself had collected at Bongo, Central Africa, in August 1863] – a name apparently preoccupied by VOIGT 1831 [in its turn, a junior synonym of "Malimbus nigricollis" today's Black-necked Weaver Ploceus nigricollis VIEILLOT 1805. Not to be confused with "Lagonosticta nigricollis" – today's Firefinch subspecies Lagonosticta vinacea nigricollis HEUGLIN 1863 or any other of those many nigricollis birds]. In 1886 Anton Reichenow only concluded that this was the case, and renamed von Heuglin's bird "Ploceus heuglini" – after the man who first discovered and collected it. As well as described it … even if Theodor von Heuglin did so using a name already forfeit.

Click to expand...

Heuglin's Masked Weaver was harder to understand than I thought!

I strongly suspect that my short conclusion (as above quoted, in grey, from the beginning of my Post No. # 15) regarding this species is erroneous in details. It wasn´t as simple as that! However I´ve rewritten own entry (in Swedish) regarding this species, in such a way that I, on my behalf, won´t need any further help (… the how's, when's and why's got very brief … but safe, since its commemoration is quite obvious).

I just wanted to point this out, so no-one, in their turn, will quote that much too simplified and incorrect summary of how this Weaver became "Heuglin's".

You all better forget it completely. If I could I would have deleted it. If your´e about to write anything on this "his" (Masked) Weaver I recommend you to start all over, from the very beginning. Then You might get it right.

Sorry, if I caused any confusion.
:scribe:
PS: I assume we´ve got the other 4 correct!