Ludwig Brehm's Verzeichniss ... (1855) (1 Viewer)

When looking through an old List of "European" birds I happened to notice a few unfamiliar names (!), as below, red ones not included in today's HBW Alive Key!

Ludwig Brehm. 1855. Verzeichniss der europäischen Vögel nach den Species und Subspecies. Naumannia 5: 266-300 (here).

Page 275: "Crucirostra pityospittacus, Cuv. (Loxia pityospittacus, Bechst.)"
Page 278: "M. [Melanocorypha] araba, nobis, n. sp."
Page 287: "P. [Perdix] labatei *"
Page 293: "Recurvirostra helevi, nobis." [**]
Page 297: "a.) Mar. [Mareca] Kajolka, Brm." [***]
Page 298: "Aythya Valisneri, Brm. (Aythya erythrocephala, Mus Berol.)"
Page 300: "Podiceps hebrycidus, Lath. (Columbys hebrycidus, L.)"

I guess there could be even more! Those was the ones that caught the eye, simply browsing through it ... looking for any possibly missed "Swedish" ones.

The Original descriptions of the main part are unknown to me, but I assume Brehm didn´t coin them in this list, as others, like the Lark and the Avocet above, or (for example); "Chenalopex varius" (on p.297) alt. "Podiceps orientalis" (on p.299), all were clearly marked "nobis" (new). And (most of) the red ones above was not marked in this way ...

Either way; I thought it might be worth posting them here on BirdForum, as I happened to notice them. Take them for what they´re worth, maybe they´re all typos!?

However; enjoy!

Björn
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"*[Foot-note; p.287] Ist nach brieflichen Mittheilungen des Herrn Abbé Caire eine meh als z w e i f e l h a f t e Art."
____________________________________________________________________________________________
** helebi in today's HBW Alive Key
*** The odd (Russian?) name "M. Kajolka" was also mentioned by Dubois, 1860 (here).

Some of these names are obvious spelling errors, but I am intrigued by araba (which is perhaps new), Kajolka (I am sure there is something similar in the Key, but cannot yet put my finger on it), and hebrycidus (?hybridus, ?hebridius). Join Rey and I in the asylum.

N.B. See thread 'Nomina mystica or Nomina deliria...' #37 for slight change of Key policy re inclusion of misspellings.

"araba" should be arabs.
"Mareca Kajolka Brehm" is a misspelled recombination of [Anas Penelope var. β kagolka Gmelin], with Brehm claiming the authorship of the combination (not of the specific name).
"Podiceps hebrycidus Latham" = Podiceps hebridalis Latham ? (This one does exist, at least.)

I just want to repeat what Laurent has said Nobis does not mean new although it can infer a new name?? To quote

['Nobis', the dative plural of the first-person pronoun. It's what is called a 'dative of possession': 'to us', as in 'it belongs to us'. It means the author(s) of the work is/are claiming the authorship of the name. The plural can be a true plural (i.e., more than one author) or a royal plural (one author only, talking of himself in the plural).
'Mihi' is the same, but in the singular.
/QUOTE]

Click to expand...

I think I´ve got the explanation/error/origin for Brehm's: "Crucirostra pityospittacus, Cuv. (Loxia pityospittacus, Bechst.)"

... "Crucirostra, Cuvier ... Lo. [Loxia] pytiopsittacus Temm." (here), which was/is "Pytyopsittacus" in its original version (i.e. today's Parrot Crossbill Loxia pytyopsittacus BORKHAUSEN 1783, here).

Simply another typo/typos!

Calalp said:

Page 275: "Crucirostra pityospittacus, Cuv. (Loxia pityospittacus, Bechst.)"
Page 278: "M. [Melanocorypha] araba, nobis, n. sp."
Page 287: "P. [Perdix] labatei *"
Page 293: "Recurvirostra helevi, nobis."
Page 297: "a.) Mar. [Mareca] Kajolka, Brm."
Page 298: "Aythya Valisneri, Brm. (Aythya erythrocephala, Mus Berol.)"
Page 300: "Podiceps hebrycidus, Lath. (Columbys hebrycidus, L.)"

Click to expand...

= pytyopsittacus, arabs, labatiei, helebi, kagolka, valisneria, and hebridicus (or hebridalis).

Sigh! Why did Brehm skip the spelling lessons in School!?

All typos/errors. He even magaged to misspell names coined by himself!

Let´s forget about this thread all together.

Sorry for wasting anyones time!

Björn
---

Calalp said:

hebridicus (or hebridalis)

Click to expand...

Latham originally (1787. Supplement to the General synopsis of birds. [here]) used Podiceps hebridalis.
Gmelin (1789. Systema naturae. [here]) called the same bird hebridicus, possibly independently of Latham's hebridalis (he did not cite the Supplement, only the Synopsis itself, vol. III, p. 292 [here], where Latham used only English names); he did not recognise Latham's genus Podiceps either, and had the bird as Colymbus hebridicus.
Latham then (1790. Index ornithologicus. [here]) apparently accepted Gmelin's version of the species name, but persisted with Podiceps.

This resulted in citations of "Podiceps hebridicus Latham" by subsequent authors; albeit, in today's usage, it would be more correct to write "Podiceps hebridicus (Gmelin)".