• 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.

HBWAlive Key; mission accomplished or mission impossible? (3 Viewers)

garrinus & Dorisella/Dorisornis

Two quick attempts on ...

• garrinus as in "Parus atricapillus garrinus" BEHLE 1951 (OD here)

Possibly, maybe of the Latin Garrio, see Ainsworth's (considerably older) Thesaurus Linguæ Latinæ Compendiarius: ... (from 1808), here, (in a rather poor scan): "to prate, to talk idly, to chat, to babble, to gabble, to ....", where we find the following example; "Garrinus quicquid in buccam venit, ..." (if I, not understanding a single word of it/Latin, read it properly) ;)

If so; babbling, chatting, jabbering away, like any Chickadee/Titmouse.

... and:

• • Dorisella/Dorisornis as in the two generic names "Dorisella" and "Dorisornis" (both) WOLTERS 1980 (ODs here, in the good, old thread "diagnosis not seen" for genus names in the Key A through S, see attached JPGs)

If we have ruled out his Mother, which I think we have (her name seems to have been Elfriede) [remember, Die Vogelarten der Erde (1975-1982), where Dorisornis and Dorisella appeared, was dedicated to: "Den Andenken an meine Mutter"], and if we have precluded the possibility of any (all?) other possible, contemporary Ladies by the name Doris (see the same thread, posts #160-172)... could it possibly have something to do with Doris, the mythological (beutiful) Titaness/Oceanid/sea nymph, daughter of Oceanus (Okeanos) and Tethys ... ?

Alt. the name Doris itself, apparently it (also) have the meaning; gift, present (... or even "pure water", which, of course, could be a good gift/present, for the ones who doesn't have it) ... ?

Maybe something could be understood by comparing with the (even if far, far older) invalid Fly/insect "Tach. [Tachina] Doris" MEIGEN 1824 (here). All in German and Latin (and as such beyond me).

If of any help?

Or, wasn't Wolters much for mythological names?

Björn
--
 
Last edited:
Calalp said:
where we find the following example; "Garrinus quicquid in buccam venit, ..." (if I, not understanding a single word of it/Latin, read it properly) ;)
Click to expand...
It's "Garrimus", I'm afraid. ;)
(Something like: "we chatter whatever comes in our mouth".)
 
l_raty said:
It's "Garrimus", I'm afraid. ;)
(Something like: "we chatter whatever comes in our mouth".)
Click to expand...

I really, really should try to stay away from those Latin names ... not just babble away like I always do.

Björn

PS. But still; does that exclude the possibility of connecting/linking garrinus to Garrio (alt. Garrío), as in chattering?
--
 
Last edited:
Against better judgement, yet another try on this Latin name/bird/ssp. ...

(Rocky Mountain) Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus garrinus

Also note that the Common/Vernacular name Chickadee is onomatopoetic, from its alarm call (a chattering; "chick-a-dee-dee-dee"). To me it looks like William Behle simply translated (alt. rendered or explained) the Common name (of the species) into Latin.

That is, of course, if garrinus can be linked/connected to (or derived from) Garrio (alt. Garrío) ... ?

Or from/to garrire?

For what it's worth.

Björn
--
 
Last edited:
Garrire and garrio are the same verb.
Resp. the infinitive, "to chatter", and 1st pers. sing. indic. present, "I chatter".
 
Last edited:
-inus is an adjectival suffix (a variant of -ianus, -anus, etc.), which can mean "pertaining to", "looking like", and other similar things. An adjectival name formed with this suffix could be descriptive (accipitrinus, -a, -um, "hawk-like"), could be a toponym (pomarinus, -a, -um, "from Pomerania", cf. the eagle), could indicate a type of habitat (alpinus, -a, -um, alpine, etc.), or be an eponym (alexandrinus, -a, -um, "of Alexander the Great", cf. the parakeet). But it's a suffix that is normally added to a noun/name, not to a verbal stem.
-rinus can also be a latinisation of Greek -ρινος (-rhinos, "-nosed"; as in pomarinus, -a, -um, in the case of the skua) -- but I don't think this is a very likely explanation in the present case.

I cannot say what Behle had in mind which he did not explain, but it would strike me as a bit strange to propose, for a subspecies, a name being a latinization of the word acting as a vernacular generic name for the group of species to which the species that subspecies belongs to, belongs.
I'd rather expect some reference to a peculiarity of the ssp itself, in the present case perhaps either its very brown or 'foxed' colour, or its range... But an etymology of garrinus resulting in this type of meaning eludes me.

PS -- I now note that throughout the paper fortuitus is misspelled 'fortuitous' (cf. English fortuitious ?), which may indicate that a fully perfect Latin is not necessarily to be expected.
 
Last edited:
shanbu ... or shanhu!?

Regarding the missing "shanbu" ( simply as I cannot find an OD of any bird what-so ever, by this name, with this particular spelling, anywhere) ...

• shanbu (? ... which, in my mind, ought to be; shanhu), at least as in "[Turdus] Shanhu" [sic] GMELIN 1789 (OD here), same spelling in the Edition kept in BHL (here). Or are those both typos, alt. (Printers) mistake/s? Or erroneous Editons?

Compare with today's HBW Alive Key entry:
shanbu
Etymology undiscovered; probably from a Chinese name for the laughingthrushes; "107. TURDUS. ... Shanbu. 41. T. mento, gula et area oculorum nigris, litura ad aures magna alba, reliquo capite, cum jugulo, pectore et abdomine griseis, dorso et alis ex virescente fuscis. Black faced Thrush. Lath. Syn. II. I. p. 37. n. 36. Habitat in Sinae silvis frequens, insectis utplurimum victitans, merulae magnitudine. Rostrum atrum; pedes fusci." (J. Gmelin 1789, Systema Naturae, I (ii), 814) (syn. Dryonastes chinensis).
Click to expand...

And the Key's cross-reference: "shanhu ► shanbu" ...!?

James, to me it looks like it ought to be the other way around. Shouldn't it be: shanbu ► shanhu ...?! ;)

Or?

/Björn
--
 
Last edited:
Maybe a bit foolish (and against better judgement), but here's yet another try on garrinus ...

For whatever it is worth; there's a (today invalid) US spider "Cicurina garrina" (in Agelenidae) CHAMBERLIN 1919 (here), [nowadays a synonym of C. robusta SIMON 1886, today in Hahniidae], from Upper Montane areas of Utah, (here, p.114, and here), which is similar (in name ;)) to the alternate (more recent) name of this ssp. Poecile atricapilla/atricapillus "garrina".

If the subspecific name (of the Chickadee/Titmouse) was altered, shouldn't someone (whomever changed it) reasonably know what kind of name they/he/she were altering?

Also note that the same Chamberlin established the generic name (Garrina) in 1915, on the Central American Centipedes Garrina ochra (in Geophilidae), here.

Any of it makes sense? Any other similarities? Like their colour, or their claws ..?!?

Hopefully of some use.

/Björn (truly, simply fumbling about in the dark on this one)

PS. But remember, we do have the (babbling/Babbler) generic name Garritornis, coined by Iredale, in 1956.
 
Shanhu ... part II

Ouups, I almost forgot the most relevant, second part (the second page, in my notes) of my piece/contribution/attempt on shanhu (in post #327) – the very topic of this whole forum; the etymology part.

If we widen the scope slightly and look at the OD of the true Identity of this synonym; today's (hard-to-place) Black-throated Laughingthrush (Ianthocincla/Dryonastes/Garrulax) Pterorhinus chinensis SCOPOLI 1791 ("OD"? here), as "LANIUS (chinensis) fuscescens; capito nigro, ... " (though, if truly a bi- or trinomina, in this text, is all beyond me). In any case, no local name given, nor any other possible explanation (at least not that I can tell).

However, in Thomas Pennant's book THE VIEW OF INDIA EXTRA GANGEM, CHINA AND JAPAN (vol.3, from 1800) [a k a The view of Hindoostan ..., (which in fact only is the title/s for vol. 1 and 2, from 1798)], we find that this is: "The Shan-hu of the Chinese" [here]

Thereby, it´s an Autochthonym. It wasn't trickier than that.

Well, that's about it, at least on Gmelin's "[Turdus] Shanhu".

Enjoy!

Björn

PS. Anyone feel like owning one, having one at home?
If you're in the vicinity of Hong Kong, you will find a:
"San Hu (Black Throated Laughing Thrush) For Sale"!
[here]

On the same page also written either "Sanhu", "sanhu" or "sanwu" ...
--
 
Last edited:
Thanks Björn,
This name reinforces the fact that we should always go back to the original source. In this case, Latham's 1783, General Synopsis, II (1), where, like Pennant after him, the name Shan-hu is referred to. However, since Gmelin, although misreading the name from a casual glance, wrote shanbu I shall keep that as the header.
Shanbu amended, duly acknowledged.
 
Calalp said:
If the subspecific name (of the Chickadee/Titmouse) was altered, shouldn't someone (whomever changed it) reasonably know what kind of name they/he/she were altering?
Click to expand...
The person who altered it must have assumed it was adjectival, and probably assumed it ended up in the suffix -inus, -ina, -inum. But (s)he would not necessarily have known anything about the first part of the name. Sometimes such assumptions are made without any other base than a simple guess, though. (Cf. caixana, which Hartert assumed "had to" end in -anus, -ana, -anum.)
I find it intriguing that the spider is from Utah too. A mere coincidence, or...?
 
James Jobling said:
Thanks Björn,
... However, since Gmelin, although misreading the name from a casual glance, wrote shanbu I shall keep that as the header.
....
Click to expand...
You're welcome James, but ... I don't understand where Gmelin (even if "from a casual glance") wrote it "shanbu" ... ?!

At least that's not how it's written in "his" Systema naturae of 1789. Compare with the attached excerpts (from the two "OD"s linked to in #327). Surely there's no b in those ones.

Wasn't/isn't that the OD?

Björn

PS. Either way; the reference to Latham 1783 (prior to Gmelin) sure made the case even stronger! ;)
 

Attachments

  • bibdigital copy.jpg
    bibdigital copy.jpg
    13.6 KB · Views: 8
  • BHL copy.jpg
    BHL copy.jpg
    17.7 KB · Views: 6
l_raty said:
...
I find it intriguing that the spider is from Utah too. A mere coincidence, or...?
Click to expand...
I was intrigued by that as well, Laurent ...

I have also noted that Garrin seems to be a fairly Common name in Utah (both as given name and surname). Same goes for the (given) name Garrie.

But none found close, or in connection, to William Behle.

/B
 
Calalp said:
At least that's not how it's written in "his" Systema naturae of 1789. Compare with the attached excerpts (from the two "OD"s linked to in #327). Surely there's no b in those ones.

Wasn't/isn't that the OD?
Click to expand...
Both links are to the Lyon edition (JB Delamollière, 1789-1796; check the title page of vol. I of the set), which is later than the Leipzig edition (1788-1793), thus actually, no, these are not the OD. The lettering used here was a bit different -- see, i.a., 'Thrush', while in (the two versions of) the Leipzig ed., it was 'Thruſh', with a long s.
But this does not solve the problem, as there are two apparent versions of the Leipzig edition of Part II with different spellings. Without knowing which one of these two versions was first, we cannot know what the actual OS was.

(For what it's worth: the 'ſh' in 'Thruſh' also seems consistently tighter (the ſ being closer to the h) in the 'Shanbu' Leipzig volume than in the 'Shanhu' Leipzig volume. The less tight version (= 'Shanhu' volume) may be more in line with the rest of the work, see e.g. 'ſhrew' [here] in Part I; 'Blackfiſh' [here] in Part III. I see no such difference between parts I and III of the two sets.)
 
Last edited:
l_raty said:
...which is becoming quite strange, as these should in principle be the same edition (Georg. Emanuel. Beer, Leipzig, 1788-93 -- this is the edition that 'counts').
Click to expand...
All the differences in name spelling seem to be due to errors in the "Shanbu" volume, which are absent/corrected in the "Shanhu" volume.
Note there is another b/h confusion among the cases listed above (bonariensis/honariensis), but here the 'h' variant would be a demonstrable inadvertent mistake due to "Habitat in Bonaria" appearing in the text.
It seems quite likely to me that all these problems (incl. Shanbu vs. Shanhu) are plain typographer's errors. (Rather than Gmelin himself having misread any name from a casual glance at the original works.)


Online copies of the "Shanhu" volume:
Online copies of the "Shanbu" volume:
So both variants seem widespread. All the above copies are attributed to the original Beer/Leipzig edition.

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

OK, I'll give up on this (for now at least).

As I see it, either a typo-free volume was produced to correct an original volume that had too many errors in it (and thus Shanbu is the OS); or the publisher ran out of copies of this particular volume at some point, and produced an undeclared "quick and dirty" new edition (with many typos) in order to remain able to sell complete sets of the work (and thus Shanhu is the OS). I'd tend to lean towards the second option, but I can't really tell for sure.

If anyone knows more about this case, I'd be interested.

If "Shanbu" and "Shanhu" in "the Leipzig edition" are given equal precedence, the Lyon edition (which has the same authors) could presumably be viewed as having established "Shanhu" as the correct OS.
 
Last edited:
l_raty said:
OK, I'll give up on this (for now at least).
Click to expand...
I can't, apparently... |:mad:| (Sorry if this is becoming boring.)

There are actually differences between the respective Parts I and Parts III of the two BHL sets as well -- not just between the Parts II. (I see no differences (so far) between the respective Parts IV and Parts V.)
The process may have been more careful in Part I than in Part II: on a quick check, I found no differences between the names used for birds in both versions. But there is a number of instances where names are printed in the margin differently in the two versions -- e.g., on one line in one version, on two lines in the other -- which clearly proves that the text received two distinct typesettings. For example:
 
Last edited:
Boring, Laurent? No way. There might be bits and pieces, cases that I don't understand ... but boring. Nope.

Even if a bit short of time I had a quick look at this odd case ...

Note that there are examples of names being written on one versus two lines also in volume 1, Part 2 (in the Beer/Leipzig Edition/s), see page 700: cartha-gena vs carthage-na, or on p.706: ludovici-ana vs ludovicia-na. There's also an "alba" (in Italics) vs (a non-italic) "alba", on p.780, clearly indicating (on top of all earlier said) that we're looking at two different works/books.

To me this, and all the other facts presented in this thread, talks in favor of the "Shanhu" spelling/Edition/version. [From the Beer/Leipzig Edition, that is ;) (alt. presumably, possibly also, equally the Lyon one)]

I'll take a deeper look at this most peculiar case, comparing the different editions/version, the coming week-end (or whenever time allows).

Björn
 
mb1848 said:
I agree with Björn. Very interesting I only wish I could add something. Sherborn lists Shanhu and refers to Gray. So Gray's Genera lists Shanhu.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/123658#page/475/mode/1up .
Refers to Le Vaillant T. 43.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/125975#page/224/mode/1up . And Sonnerat?
Click to expand...
Mark [glad to see you back here on the Etymology forum], Gray's listed "Sonn. Voy. t.107.", is a reference to Sonnerat's Voyage aux Indes orientales et a la Chine ... Tome second (from 1782), and to t./tabula/plate 107, where this bird was depicted as "Petit Geay de la Chine" (here, and its enclosed text; "Le petit Geay de la Chine", here).

However, this text/work doesn't mention any local name (at least not that I can find), neither a shanhu nor a shanbu (or the proper version Shan-hu), thereby, in this topic (the etymology itself), it's of less concern.

Björn

PS. If you necessarily feel like adding something ;) ... maybe you can find an additional piece regarding "Irene Morden" [a k a Irene (Shields) Hambright Morden?], in the on-going thread ireneae ... ? You've repeatedly shown yourself very capable finding your way through various US records/censuses/archives. To me, it looks like Martin is on the right track, but he (and James) seems to be in need of some sort of confirmation, a last piece of link/connection. I'm pretty sure they would appreciate some help regarding Mrs. Morden.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top