Polyborus vs. Caracara (2 Viewers)

Merrem starts his account with the notion, that the name Caracara has originally been a vernacular, used in the Antilles for
This part is already somewhat confusing to me. It suggests, that the name Caracara, as a scientific name, might have been created prior to Merrem, but perhaps these previous authors used Caracara only as vernacular. The word "vor" (=prior to) may be a misprint of "von" (=of).

The remaining text is just as Laurent has summarized it, except for the last sentence:
So the C. apparently stands for Caracara.

Rainer

Thanks Rainer - this last sentence indeed makes things much clearer.

Azara:
http://books.google.be/books?id=AUVl3MUBcyQC&pg=PA30
was not binominal. Many names (including, largely, Vieillot's "Caracara proprement dit", Polyborus vulgaris) are based on his descriptions, but the names he published are not available.
Cuvier, AFAIK, used only Falco
1817: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1844826
1829: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1977070

Any opinion on the type of Polyborus?

Cheers,
L -

"Any opinion on the type of Polyborus?"

The type is Polyborus vulgaris from Vieillot ? Because of Art 70.3?
http://www.archive.org/stream/nouveaudictionna05metc#page/257/mode/1up .
The gardens and menagerie of the Zoological Society delineated, Volume 2
By Edward Turner Bennett. (1831)

“Marcgrave was the first to introduce into Europe the name of Caracara, the vulgar appellation of the bird in Brasil, derived from its hoarse and peculiar cry. But although M. Cuvier regards Marcgrave’s Caracara as identical with our own, both the figure and description are so much at variance with the latter, that we feel ourselves compelled to adopt in preference the opinion of Professor Lichenstein, founded upon the original drawing, that they belong to a totally different bird.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=t0...ions:OCLC7471753#v=onepage&q=Caracara&f=false . Page 299.

Marcgrave’s watercolors and oils? or painted by someone else? under his direction? were at Lichenstein’s museum.
They were published in 1995 FERRÃO, C. & SOARES, J.P.M. (Eds.), 1995a. Brasil Holandês, T.2, Libri Principis. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Index, vol.1, 192p. There is a Vol. 2 also. It might behoove someone to look at these for a Caracara.



Die Werke von Marcgrave und Piso über Naturgeschichte Brasiliens, etc. von Herrn. Lichtenstein

Cap. XII. P. 211.
Caracara ist Falco brasiliensis Gm., eine freilich durchaus räthselhafte, ganz allein auf dieser Stelle bei Marcgrave beruhende Species, von der ich nur bemerken will, daß sie nach der Abbildung (L.P. II. p. 212) am nächsten mit unserm Falco rufus verwandt ist.


http://books.google.com/books?id=mO...siliens&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false .

Cap. XII. P. 211
Caracara Falco brasiliensis is Gm., A mysterious well of course, wants all alone on this point at Marcgrave based species, of which I only noticed that she is related to the figure (LP, II, p. 212) with our closest rufus Falco . (Google translation)


THE BIRDS OF THE REPUBLIC OF PANAMA, Part 1. By ALEXANDER WETMORE: (1965)

CARACARA PLANCUS (Miller): Caracara; Carancho

Falco Plancus J. F. Miller, Var. Subj. Nat. Hist., pt. 3, 1777, pl. 17. (Tierra del Fuego.)

The generic name Caracara used here follows acceptance of this name in the last edition of the A.O.U. Check-list of North American Birds (1957, p. 116). Polyborus proposed in 1816 by Vieillot (Anal. Nouv. Orn. filem., p. 22) with "Caracara, Buff.," which is Falco
brasiliensis Gmelin, as its only species and therefore its type, was long the accepted genus for the caracaras. Buffon's name "Caracara" is based on a bird described by Marcgrave in his Historia Natural do Brasil published in 1648, with an illustration in the stilted form com- mon in works on natural history of that period. In a study of the original paintings from which the figure was reproduced Adolf Schneider (Journ. Orn., 1938, pp. 93-94, fig. 3) found that the Caracara of Marcgrave actually is the harrier known currently as Circus buffoni (Gmelin). The generic name Polyborus, 1816, thus
becomes a synonym of Circus Lacepede, 1799. The next available name for the group formerly called Polyborus is Caracara Merrem (in Ersch u. Gruber, Allg. Encycl. Wiss. Kiinste, vol. 15, 1826, p. 159). Amadon (Auk, 1954, pp. 203-204) has cited a personal communica- tion from Stresemann who "would prefer to declare the drawing as unidentifiable" in order to avoid this change. But examination of the figure reproduced by Schneider shows definitely that it is a harrier. While the drawing, like most of its day, is crude, the evident ruff on the side of the small head clearly indicates a harrier, and the barring on the under tail coverts is characteristic of Circus buffoni. This species ranges widely in northern and eastern South America from Colombia, Venezuela, and Trinidad to central Chile, Argentina, and much of Brazil. Specimens are recorded from Para and from Espiritu Santo to the north and south of the area where Marcgrave traveled, a point that Stresemann seems to have overlooked in his comment that no harrier had been recorded from the region concerned. There seems to be no reason to reject the identification.



Make up a new name and type?
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2009/f/z02013p016f.pdf .
http://acd.ufrj.br/~museuhp/CP/Bol-Zool/BolZool2006/Bol Zool MN 523.pdf .


Amadon
On the Correct Names for the Caracaras and for the Long-winged Harrier.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v071n02/p0203-p0204.pdf .

The name Falco brasiliensis Omelin 1788 and the genus Polyborus Vieillot both
have as their type a miniature colored drawing by Marcgrave

Falco brasiliensis Gmelin, Syst. Nat., 1, (1), p. 262, 1788 — based on (Brisson ex) Marcgrave's "Caracara," Hist. Nat. Bras., p. 211, northeastern Brazil; hab.
subst. Pernambuco






Lesson 1828 has Caracara as a genus:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KY...&ved=0CBsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Caracara&f=false .

I hope Melanie's enjoying the consequences of her small enquiry...

Richard

Edward Turner Bennett. (1831) said:

“Marcgrave was the first to introduce into Europe the name of Caracara, the vulgar appellation of the bird in Brasil, derived from its hoarse and peculiar cry. But although M. Cuvier regards Marcgrave’s Caracara as identical with our own, both the figure and description are so much at variance with the latter, that we feel ourselves compelled to adopt in preference the opinion of Professor Lichenstein, founded upon the original drawing, that they belong to a totally different bird.”

Click to expand...

I'd actually be curious to know what people think of Marcgrave's bird in practice. (In any case, I wouldn't give too much weight to criticisms like the above one, because the author probably didn't have the smallest idea of how a juv caracara looks--and if the bird illustrated by Marcgrave was a caracara, as far as I am concerned, it was clearly a juvenile.)

The best on-line representation of Marcgrave's work is, I think, this one: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/289304

Here is a fast translation of the description:
Now, what do you think -- can this be the SC Caracara, or do you recognise something else here?

l_raty said:

Now, what do you think -- can this be the SC Caracara, or do you recognise something else here?

Click to expand...

The description (and illustration) seems a closer (but imperfect) match for Chimango and/or Yellow-headed Caracara, but doesn't sound like Crested (even juv).

Richard

Richard Klim said:

The description (and illustration) seems a closer (but imperfect) match for Chimango and/or Yellow-headed Caracara, but doesn't sound like Crested (even juv).

Richard

Click to expand...

So you'd be tempted to make this a caracara, but not a crested?
Chimango's is probably not a possibility where Marcgrave travelled, but Yellow-headed should be doable.
Note the white-breasted/-bellied (or -vented?) variant alluded to at the end of the description, with yellow-orange skin around the eyes.

l_raty said:

So you'd be tempted to make this a caracara, but not a crested?
Chimango's is probably not a possibility where Marcgrave travelled, but Yellow-headed should be doable.
Note the white-breasted/-bellied (or -vented?) variant alluded to at the end of the description, with yellow-orange skin around the eyes.

Click to expand...

The white breast & belly of the second example could match adult Yellow-headed ('creamy yellowish-white' according to HBW), with the other perhaps being a juv.

Yellow-headed has 'bare skin around eyes bright yellow' (HBW).

Wing dimension is also a better match (span 35", cf Crested 47").

Richard

The coloured picture looks like a juvenile Yellow-headed Caracara with the white in the wing of an adult.
http://www.arthurgrosset.com/sabirds/yellow-headed caracara.html .

Below is a scan of a reproduction of a watercolor, prepared by one of Marcgraves companions under his supervision in Brazil. It was reproduced, together with 3 other plates, in the paper by A. Schneider in the "Journal fuer Ornithologie" (1938), to which Wetmore (see post by mb1848) referred. It formed part of a collection of about 150 watercolors and oilpaintings, showing virtually all of Marcgraves birds, which were bound together in 6 volumes and were housed in the former "Prussian State Library" (now Berlin State Library) in Berlin until the end of WWII, since when they are missing. About 800,000 volumes from this library alone were brought to the former Soviet Union as part of so called "Beutekunst" (trophy art), but whether Marcgraves paintings still exist in some Russian art depot, or were destroyed during war, is apparently unknown.

According to Schneider, the names of all birds were written directly on the plates in what appears to be Marcgraves handwriting, so identification of the plates with the text seems to have been straightforward. In many cases the watercolors and oilpaintings served as model for the crude woodcuts in Marcgraves posthumuosly edited and published book. Schneider identified the bird below as Long-winged Harrier (Circus buffoni), and Wetmore agreed. What do you think?

Rainer M.

The watercolor has the classic facial disk of a Harrier. I did not notice the barring on the undertail in the colored woodcut but it is there. Vieillot when setting up Polyborus still mentions Falco brasiliensis and is Falco brasiliensis the same as Falco Plancus or Circus buffoni? And if the type of Polyborus is not Marcgraves bird but Polyborus vulgaris the common Caracara does it have priority?

Falco brasiliensis Gmelin 1788 is exclusively based on Marcgraves bird. Falco buffoni was also named by Gmelin in the same publication. If both are regarded synonyms, we have to look for a first reviser action, but lets assume for the moment, that the correct name for the Long-winged Harrier is Circus buffoni (Gmelin 1788).
Yes, after all Polyborus vulgaris Vieillot seems to be the type species of Polyborus. It was based on Marcgraves report (but not the watercolor, that was not known to Vieillot) as well as on an account by Azara, that can be referred to Falco plancus Miller 1777. So, finally, a lectotype designation might be in place, that could make Polyborus either a junior synonym of Circus, or a senior synonym of Caracara. I'd prefer the latter...

Rainer M.

Recommendation 74B. Preference for illustrated specimen. Other things being equal, an author who designates a lectotype should give preference to a syntype of which an illustration has been published.

Now I know why Streseman & Banks & Dove wanted it to remain unidentifiable!

Yes, I agree that the watercolor changes the perspective significantly.
Still not fully convinced that what is barred on the illustration really includes the undertail, though. It could very well simply be the tail proper (which of course is barred in many raptors - including caracaras).
But this could quite easily be a harrier, indeed.

When he introduced Polyborus vulgaris, Vieillot also alluded to the presence of the species 'en nature au Jardin du Roi'--and if it was there, he undoubtedly had seen it himself. This would automatically make the specimen(s) from the Jardin du Roi parts of the type series. Thus the bird illustrated here: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b21000500.item.f7 might in fact quite easily be a syntype...

Richard Klim said:

I hope Melanie's enjoying the consequences of her small enquiry...

Click to expand...

I don't know for Melanie, but I am fascinated and I now wonder how many cases could be similar to this one.

Me too.

Daniel Philippe said:

I don't know for Melanie, but I am fascinated and I now wonder how many cases could be similar to this one.

Click to expand...

"a collection of about 150 watercolors and oilpaintings, showing virtually all of Marcgraves birds, which were bound together in 6 volumes and were housed in the former "Prussian State Library" (now Berlin State Library) in Berlin until the end of WWII, since when they are missing. About 800,000 volumes from this library alone were brought to the former Soviet Union as part of so called "Beutekunst" (trophy art), but whether Marcgraves paintings still exist in some Russian art depot, or were destroyed during war, is apparently unknown."

Not so, "The watercolors and oil paintings eventually were deposited in the Preussiche Staatsbibliothek in Berlin and catalogued as Libri picturuti A (two volumes of watercolors and four volumes of oil paintings). These were the originals examined by Lichtenstein (1817, 1823) and by Schneider (1938). In 1941, the paintings were evacuated to Silesia and were not seen or heard of until rediscovered in Poland in 1977 (Whitehead 1979b, 1982). They are now in the Jagiellon Library in Cracow, Poland." There are copies from Leningrad but they are from at least the early 1800s.

Sorry to beat a dead horse but I am changing my mind.

"the names of all birds were written directly on the plates in what appears to be Marcgraves handwriting" I think this is unlikely and perhaps unknowable but more modern research into the drawings and paintings do not think this is Marcgraves handwriting. Marcgraves was competitive with “Bill” Piso and so wrote in code. So cautious was Marcgrave that some things were written in a second cipher. E.W. Gudger a keen student of Marcgraves in the early 20th Century believed that the “marginal notes on the original paintings are presumably those of Count Johann Moritz.”
Marcgrave wrote notes supposedly in German and there are Dutch, and Latin writings on the Leningrad collection. Early researchers believed that the Berlin watercolors were the originals of Marcgrave but now they are considered copies. I think it is unknowable if Marcgrave wrote on the Berlin collection of drawings and paintings. So again they have no direct taxonomic relevance.

I think the Marcgrave description and drawing is of the Yellow-headed Caracara. Is it so strange that the paintings and drawings from approximately 1630 made by Europeans of the harrier and caracara in Dutch Brazil would look generally alike? In addition, is it so strange that the people who made the colored woodcut (?) of Caracara might choose to use a very similar form to the watercolor of the Long-winged Harrier? It probably saved energy and time. Actually the Marcgrave & Piso book put together by deLaet did not use woodcuts it is early copper engraving. Piso’s book from 1658 which is a mash up of Piso & Marcgrave with other information uses woodcuts and the illustrations are much worse. Grudger in his article Georg Marcgrave a Postscript lists the engraver as de Bray which I am sure is the sons of Theodor de Bry. Europe’s best natural history engravers? Is it so strange that the Tupi native people called the Harrier and the Caracara similar or the same names? In Piso & Marcgrave is a bird called Cariçara the black-faced ibis Theristicus melanopis . Some of the engravings in the Marcgrave 1648 book were from a book by de Laet published in 1640. (Paratrygon aiereba (Muller & Heinle 1841) the senior synonym of the freshwater stingray Revista Brasileira De Zoologia (1991).) Marcgraves did not oversee the production of the printed book of 1648 because he died in Africa. Marcgrave was described as someone who could have become the Aristotle of his age a great scientist. Albert Eckhout (painter of the 300+bird oil paintings?) was a great painter but not a great observer of nature and scientist as was Marcgrave? Prince Maurice/Moritz etc had wild animals brought to his garden in Brazil where Eeckhout drew things but Marcgraves went out in the wilds with soldiers. The colored Caracara in Piso & Marcgrave 1648 matches the description from the book. In addition, the description does not match the harrier picture. I am a lawyer and we often look at intent to guide us. What was the intent of the engraver and colorist of the Caracara in Marcgrave 1648? Did they intend to make a representation of a harrier? No. If he or she had, it would have been easy with a few strokes to draw the facial disk. He or she did not. The harrier picture is hearsay, it is not in the taxonomic literature. It is not inherently reliable evidence.
“Several species of cephalopods occur along the Brazilian coasts, but none are recorded by Marcgrave (in Piso & Marcgrave) This is especially remarkable because among the collections of animal pictures of Johan Maurits, there were available to De Laet at least two representing cephalopods. Judging by copies in the Leningrad archives these may be identified…This seems to confirm the suspicion that De Laet did not use all Marcgrave’s notes for his Historia text. Perhaps for the same reason the coelenterates are missing in Marcgraves book.” So the harrier watercolor was from some notes of Marcgrave that confused deLaet or he simply did not put it into the book. Or it may have not even been from Marcgrave, the research into the Leningrad copies and the original copes of the Dutch Brazil paintings from Berlin shows paintings and drawing from unknown sources sneaked into this collection.

In Grudger's 1912 Biography of Marcgraves he quotes Schnieder from 1786 saying “I have so often heard of a collection of original paintings of Brazilian animals which Prince Johann Moritz of Nassau formerly governor of the one time Dutch Brazil, had made and had annotated in his own handwriting and… given to the great Elector of Brandenberg…all the sheets are designated by numbers, however without a perfect arrangement having been brought about in the two different banded separated the one from the other…By comparing them with (the figures in) Marcgrave’s Natural History of Brazil it is plainly shown that Marcgrave had all the best painted figures copied as woodcuts in the same size. How faithfully! Thereon we have his own word. The added remarks are in Dutch and we know certainly by the Prince’s own hand, and everywhere agree with Marcgraves text. However they are extremely brief and indicate only the sizes and relationships of the animals with one another. The collection itself may no longer be complete, at any rate I have in vain sought therein for some of Marcgrave’s sketches, however there are to be sure some sketches which Marcgraves did not copy, and some few animals which he did not know. In the main I note that on careful comparison this collection explains Marcgraves text in general. This also can not be in error since Marcgrave has only been able to afford woodcuts, and his draughtsman has not seldom copied the original figures entirely wrong; in the annotated collection on the contrary all the animals have their natural colors whose differentiation so often must give the essential points of distinction between nearly related species and genera.
Bloch in 1788 describes this collection of drawings as made on white parchment and consisting of two sets. “The first contains …87 birds…in all 183 sheets. On each (sheet) is a figure of a fish, bird…All are very beautifully designed and painted in part with very bright and beautiful colors. Above the animal one finds the name which it bears in Brazil, and below mention is often made in the Dutch language of its size. The second part also on white parchment…contains two quadrupeds, 15 birds…it consists of 114 sheets on which one finds the designs mentioned which have been made by the same hand as those of the first part.
Along with the preceding lot of drawings in the Royal Library of Berlin is a large number of oil paintings bearing the title: Theatrum rerum Naturalium Brasiliae. (Icones) in 4 Banden Libri picturati …In 1717 an anonymous author notes that these oil paintings are in four banden and that the first are 357 fishes in the second 303 birds…1460 in all.” He refers to a smaller collection of watercolors but does not give the number. Lichenstein tells us in 1811 Illiger brought these to the attention of the modern scientific world. (!!!???)

Boeseman, M. et al., 1990. Seventeenth century drawings of Brazilian animals in Leningrad.— Zool. Verh., Leiden, 267:1-189,43 (partly coloured) pis.

http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/149096 . (large file, save file as)

http://www.jstor.org/pss/20104320 .
• A Note on the Spiny Lobster Described by Marcgrave in His Historia Naturalis Brasiliae (1648)
• Marcio L. Vianna
• Crustaceana, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Nov., 1987)

http://books.google.com/books?id=a5...&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=anteater&f=false .
Visions of savage paradise: Albert Eckhout, court painter in colonial Dutch Brasil
By Rebecca Parker Brienen

http://books.google.com/books?id=Gm...v=onepage&q=Libri principis Marcgrave&f=false .
La distribucion de Tropidacris cristata (orthoptera: Acridoidea) segun la “Historia rerum naturalium Brasiliae: de Georg Marcgrave (1648)



The correct name for the Olivaceous Cormorant, “Maiague” of Piso (1658).-
http://www.scricciolo.com/Nuovo_Neornithes/Piso - p0101-p0106.pdf .

http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/E0260954108000879 .
More about the Libri picturati.

That's a long post!
Note that the variations Count/Prince Johann Moritz and Maurice all refer to Johan Maurits van Nassau (I'm sure you know, but not all of the readers will).

mb1848 said:

... the paintings were evacuated to Silesia and were not seen or heard of until rediscovered in Poland in 1977 (Whitehead 1979b, 1982). They are now in the Jagiellon Library in Cracow, Poland."

Click to expand...

Very interesting! I had my information from Stresemann's "Entwicklung der Ornithologie" (1951), which is admittedly not the most recent source. Good to know the plates are extant!

"the names of all birds were written directly on the plates in what appears to be Marcgraves handwriting" I think this is unlikely and perhaps unknowable but more modern research into the drawings and paintings do not think this is Marcgraves handwriting.

Click to expand...

Well, I can only refer to Schneider (1938) on this matter. The oil paintings contain the names of the birds in Lingoa geral, written by the painter (apparently Albert van den Eeckhout). So I was wrong here, they were perhaps not by Marcgrave. Nevertheless, Eeckhout was in Brazil with Marcgrave and must have seen the birds himself, so I would consider the names reliable.
The watercolors, by Zacharias Wagner, another of Marcgraves companions in Brazil, apparently contain notes in two different handwritings. Count Moritz von Nassau obviously added information such as the size of the birds and sometimes other details. The names however were neither written by Count Moritz nor by Wagner, whose handwriting is known from an illustrated manuscript kept in Dresden in 1938. This manuscript contains some copies of the original watercolors, but Wagner gave them different names!

Schneider says of the bird names of the original watercolors:
"Sie sind im Gegensatz zu den [...] Schriftzügen [des Wagner] von vollkommener Sachlichkeit und stimmen in den meisten Fällen mit denen der Oelbilder und des Marcgraveschen Textes überein"
("They are in contrast to [Wagner's] writing of perfect dispassion and agree in most cases with those of the oil paintings and Marcgraves text.")
Therefore Schneider concluded that the names (not the other notes) on the watercolors were by Marcgrave himself.

Early researchers believed that the Berlin watercolors were the originals of Marcgrave but now they are considered copies.

Click to expand...

Copies of what? For several species there are oil paintings and watercolors. Sometimes the former seem to be copies of the latter, and sometimes vice versa, although usually the watercolors are more detailed and naturalistic. Both were prepared by artists who were on place in Brazil, together with Marcgrave, and the names on the plates agree with those in Marcgraves book. To me there is no reasonable doubt that their identification with the species in Marcgraves book is reliable.

What was the intent of the engraver and colorist of the Caracara in Marcgrave 1648? Did they intend to make a representation of a harrier? No.

Click to expand...

So who was the author of that book? Marcgrave, who had passed away many years before? Or the editor/publisher/engraver/colorist? I'd say it isn't their intention what counts! BTW, even if Marcgrave had mixed Harrier and Falcon into his Caracara, the Harrier depicted on the watercolor would still be a syntype.

The harrier picture is hearsay, it is not in the taxonomic literature. It is not inherently reliable evidence.

Click to expand...

I think this is contrary to taxonomic practice. What about all those Forster paintings from Cook's second voyage, that obviously served as the basis for so many of Latham's species, without ever mentioning Forster? Or, what about species where the types were not mentioned in the publication but were later identified through collection research. Basically the same problem, indirect evidence, not from the publication itself! All invalid?

Or it may have not even been from Marcgrave, the research into the Leningrad copies and the original copes of the Dutch Brazil paintings from Berlin shows paintings and drawing from unknown sources sneaked into this collection.

Click to expand...

Highly unlikely! Schneider made it clear that all original paintings were made by only two artists, based on painting style, one for the oil paintings, one for the watercolors.

In Grudger's 1912 Biography of Marcgraves he quotes Schnieder from 1786 saying “[...] The collection itself may no longer be complete, at any rate I have in vain sought therein for some of Marcgrave’s sketches, however there are to be sure some sketches which Marcgraves did not copy, and some few animals which he did not know. [...] This also can not be in error since Marcgrave has only been able to afford woodcuts, and his draughtsman has not seldom copied the original figures entirely wrong;

Click to expand...

Yes, some watercolors and oil paintings were missing, perhaps as early as 1660, when the oil paintings were bound together. However, Schneider (1786) missed the fact that the book was edited and illustrated long after Marcgraves death. It was not Marcgrave who copied from the paintings, it wasn't he who didn't know some animals from the paintings, it wasn't he who could only afford woodcuts (Count Moritz had instead paid for the expedition, including the painters), and it wasn't his engraver, who made those unidentifiable illustrations in the book.

Lichenstein tells us in 1811 Illiger brought these to the attention of the modern scientific world. (!!!???)

Click to expand...

Schneider (1786) had called Bloch's attention to the plates, who used them for a number of copper engravings of fishes. Schneider tried to identify 13 bird species, with minimal success. Then Illiger took notice of them but died before he could publish anything. Lichtenstein continued and identified many of the bird species.

Have to check the sources you listed.

Rainer M.

Rainier, thank you for all the information. This is a complex case. If it is not biological science to kick out evidence like the harrier picture, my legal argument is that it should be given less weight, less heft than the caracara picture and description as published in 1648. Especially thank you for this:
"Schneider (1786) had called Bloch's attention to the plates, who used them for a number of copper engravings of fishes. Schneider tried to identify 13 bird species, with minimal success. Then Illiger took notice of them but died before he could publish anything. Lichtenstein continued and identified many of the bird species."
But I believe that Illiger actually did publish something about the Dutch Brazil birds, in fact about the Caracara.
This is from Illiger's 1811 Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium:

Sunt rêvera duae Falconum species nondum descriptae e Brasilia allatae, tota rostji et pedum structura Gallinaceis, praesertim Penelopibus, ita similes, ut notis externis aegre ab iis distinguantur. Alus Falconibus Brasiliensibus tarsi admodum elongati sunt.

This is from page 234 of:
http://books.google.com/books?id=hJ...+mammalium+et+avium&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false
My Latin is slightly better than my German neither are good. But I think Illiger addresses the confusion between the Gallinacious like bird called Caracara Laurent thought was feral guinea fowls. Illiger also uses the word Brasiliensibus as had Marcgrave. I would be interested in a translation of this sentence.