• 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.

Authorship Thinocorus orbignyianus (1 Viewer)

Taphrospilus

Taphrospilus

Well-known member
I am wondering if authorship Thinocorus orbignyianus should be really attributed to Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and René Primevère Lesson. Surely we can find both names in OD here. The book was published by Lesson only here.

And if I read 50.1. of the code:

The author of a name or nomenclatural act is the person who first publishes it [Arts. 8, 11] in a way that satisfies the criteria of availability.
Click to expand...

So Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not publish the work. Why is he considered as author?
 
Taphrospilus said:
So Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire did not publish the work. Why is he considered as author?
Click to expand...
On p. 127, the text on "Les Attagis et les Tinochores" (plates 47 to 50) is indicated as being " par MM. Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire et Lesson".
If the names are attributed to them both AND the descriptive text is by them both, then they are both authors under 50.1.1.
50.1.1. However, if it is clear from the contents that some person other than an author of the work is alone responsible both for the name or act and for satisfying the criteria of availability other than actual publication, then that other person is the author of the name or act. If the identity of that other person is not explicit in the work itself, then the author is deemed to be the person who publishes the work.
Click to expand...
 
Larus dorbygni

As my questions are all related to Alcide Dessalines d’Orbigny I post it here.

La Mouette de d'Orbigny, Larus dorbignyi was described here and I assume the plate is here. I am now a little bit confused with the Richmond Card here.

As I understood birds have been described by Marie Jules César le Lorgne de Savigny. So how did Richmond come to the conclusion Victor Audouin is the author. As well somehow p. 271 do not fit with my Link. Or is there a first edition from Audouin which fits to Richmond.
 
Last edited:
I have the work in my notes as:
Audouin V. 1826. Explication sommaire des planches d’oiseaux de l'Égypte et de la Syrie. Pp. 251-318 in: Description de l'Égypte, ou recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Égypte pendant l'expédition de l'armée française. Histoire naturelle. Tome premier. 4e partie. Imprimerie impériale, Paris.
​
...with OD on p. 271: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41330293
...and where this part is explicitly by Audouin on p. 251: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41330273
And the plate: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/45894327

This is probably one of those works that were published (simultaneously?) in two different formats (the Gallica copy is in-octavo, so I presume the BHL version, which has much more text per page, may have been an in-quarto)?
In the Gallica copy, the first page of the part attributed to Audouin is p. 302: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k28022m/f309.image

(The bird doesn't look like a Little Gull at all to me, BTW. Whiskered Tern? A Chlidonias, in any case.)
 
Last edited:
Taphrospilus said:
Do you have as well an answer on my Pucheran question?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I overlooked that one. Here, at first sight, I see no 100% clear-cut answer.

The name is followed by a Latin text which is placed in double quotes, and one might possibly assume that this text is quoted from some manuscript source by Pucheran & Lafresnaye "in Musaeo Parisiense"...
Some of the Latin diagnoses he gave in quotes for other species seem, indeed, to be taken (or translated) from the reference he had just cited for the name. In some cases, he even stated explicitly that this was the case just after the Latin text. But in other cases, this just doesn't work -- e.g., at https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2340111 , the diagnosis placed in double quotes that follows "Picolaptes affinis, Dendrocolaptes affinis, Nob., Rev. Zool., 1839, p. 400." is not at all quoted from Rev. Zool., 1839, p. 400, https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2299088 .

Unless I'm overlooking something, I would tend to attribute these "Pucheran et Lafresnaye" names to Lafresnaye alone, because I lack an objective indication that Pucheran (co-)authored the quoted texts; but this is probably disputable.
 
Last edited:
Taphrospilus said:
Juvenile here?
Click to expand...
AOT...
- Audouin writes that the bird was rather similar to a Black Tern in structure. The bird on the plate looks much more tern-like than gull-like in structure to me too. (Very long wings, proportionately small head, not rounded enough for a Little Gull.)
- Chlidonias terns have restricted webbing to their feet (e.g.: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whiskered_tern_(Chlidonias_hybridus)_winter_plumage.jpg ); Little Gulls have fully webbed legs (e.g. http://www.utahbirds.org/birdsofutah/BirdsL-R/LittleGull.htm ); Audouin describes restricted webbing quite explicitly, and the plate suggests this as well.
- The upperparts (occiput, nape, back, wings and tail) are described as ashy brown with a bluish cast; I would not expect a Little Gull to look "brown" above.
- Juv Little Gulls have a pure white tail with a pure black band; here the tail looks fully dark on the plate and is concolorous with the back in the description.
 
Last edited:
One hopefully last question on this topic. Where to find syn. Arremon flavirostris polionotus mentioned in the here? Of course not Arremon flavirostris dorbignii Sclater, PL, 1856 OD.
 
Taphrospilus said:
One hopefully last question on this topic. Where to find syn. Arremon flavirostris polionotus mentioned in the here? Of course not Arremon flavirostris dorbignii Sclater, PL, 1856 OD.
Click to expand...
I don't see another separately available Arremon named after d'Orbigny anywhere. (Most significantly, probably, there is no such name in Cory & Hellmayr's Catalogue of the birds of the Americas.)
But the Key does not list a "subsp. Arremon flavirostris" either, so maybe this is inherited from some forgotten taxonomic treatment, where Sclater's name was treated as a synonym of Bonaparte's ?
 
Under Arremon flavirostris devillii Des Murs (thus not as a syn. of A. f. polionotus Bonaparte), Hellmayr listed:
Arremon orbignii (not A. d'orbignii Sclater) Sclater and Salvin, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1879, p. 603--part, Chiquitos (ex d'Orbigny).
Click to expand...
But Sclater & Slavin 1879 attributed this name there (https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28521747 ) explicitly to "Scl." alone, and cited "Arremon d'orbignii, Scl. P. Z. S. 1856, p. 81." as a synonym; thus, in my reading, this is a mere emendation of the original name, and cannot be regarded as a synonym of something else.
 
"La Mouette de Dorbigny"

Quick return to the "Larus Dorbignyi" ...

I (also) doubt that the depicted bird (fig.3, attached) could be a Little Gull (Larus) Hydrocoloeus minutus. Just about everything talks agains it! [i.e. slender body shape, length of wings, short dark tail, size/shape of head, shape of bill (on top of that; two-coloured, dark red at base, black at tip), gonys angle (!?), redish black legs, dark red alt. dark brown-red eyes (!?), minor webbing of toes, pale forehead vs light grey/off-white chin and body, etc., etc. ]. If it's intended as a Little Gull, this Plate must have been drawn (and painted) from a very odd, and extremely badly mounted, stuffed specimen. ;)

I tend to agree with Laurent that it looks more like a Tern, most likely a Chlidonias Tern, but I cannot figure out which one. It might be a Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybrida (S. hybridus), in winter plumage, or even a ditto White-cheeked Tern Sterna repressa, though it's hard to believe either way, especially with such a gull-shaped bill/beak. The latter (though only that single) detail looks more like it's from a 1st winter Black-headed Gull or even from a 2nd winter Relict Gull! And that short (dark, blackish) tail sure doesn't make the ID any easier ...

Sorry, but that's as close as I got ....

Anyone else, with a better suggestion, alt. simply with better knowledge of the Egyptian members of Laridae/Sternidae?

Björn

PS. Which of today's species is for example, the depicted No. 2? Neither that one makes any sense (at least not to me)! For the full Plate, and its texts, see link in #5.
 

Attachments

  • Fig.3.jpg
    Fig.3.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 11
Last edited:
Calalp said:
Uniformly grey ... !? Wow.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the descriptions are a bit more trustworthy than the plates in terms of colours...? (The colours of the plates may also conceivably have changed a bit with time.)

https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/41330334 :
Le dessus de la tête jusqu'aux yeux, l'occiput et la nuque sont variés de blanc et de noir; le manteau, le dos, les ailes, les rémiges et les rectrices sont d'une seule nuance de bleuâtre clair: cette teinte est un peu plus foncée et mêlée de gris le long des baguettes et vers le bout des rémiges; toutes les autres parties sont d'un blanc pur;[...]
Click to expand...
(The top of the head down to the eyes, the crown and the nape are varied of white and black; the mantle, back, wings, and flight and tail feathers are of a single shade of light bluish: this shade is slightly darker and mixed with grey along the shafts and towards the tip of the flight feathers; all the other parts are pure white; [...])
 
Last edited:
If the "colours of the plates may also conceivably have changed a bit with time" it's very odd that the well-defined forehead of fig.3 stayed all blanc pur/pure white!?

Either way, I´ll leave it here. I just wanted to point out that (to me) the depicted bird, on the Plate, doesn't look much like a Little Gull.

I assume it's true ID will remain as dusky as the bird itself.

/B
 
Taphrospilus said:
See also here on Larus Dorbignyi. On figure 2 Gelochelidon nilotica aranea?
Click to expand...
Interesting. To my eye, the shape and structure of bird 3 on the plate is more suggestive of Whiskered than of Black or White-winged (due to rather long legs and comparatively strong bill). What Audouin wrote suggests he had the experience of Black Tern in winter plumage, which makes it less likely that he would have been confused by a bird of that species. But I agree it may not be possible to be completely sure.

Gmelin's Sterna nilotica was long regarded a nomen dubium, the species being then called either anglica Montagu 1813, or aranea Wilson 1814. Egyptian birds should be G. n. nilotica (as the name suggests); G. n. aranea is the North American ssp.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 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.

Similar threads

Taphrospilus
Minor on Venilia Albertuli Bonaparte, 1850
Replies
1
Views
349
l_raty
l_raty
Taphrospilus
Paraclaravis mondetoura (Bonaparte, 1856)
Replies
1
Views
498
mb1848
mb1848
Taphrospilus
Lorius isidorii Swainson, 1829
Replies
3
Views
414
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
Minor on hilaira / hilairea / hilairii / hilarii / sanctihilarii
Replies
6
Views
462
Björn Bergenholtz
Björn Bergenholtz
Taphrospilus
Doryfera ludovicae (Bourcier & Mulsant, 1847)
Replies
1
Views
474
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top