• 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.

"diagnosis not seen" for genus names in the Key A through S (1 Viewer)

Dryocichloides Irwin & Clancey 1974: 6 (34), p.15.
I hope Mr. Jobling has not already found this at Tring.
 

Attachments

  • arnoldia1.pdf
    244.3 KB · Views: 32
  • Dryocichloides.pdf
    274.1 KB · Views: 31
Hersepis Mathews 1936: p.32
Still not seen but a little more info.
From the Key: "(syn. Hirundo Ϯ Pacific Swallow H. tahitica) Portmanteau of genera Herse Gray, 1841, swallow, and Hypurolepis Gould, 1868, swallow. Diagnosis not yet seen (Mathews 1936, A Supplement to the Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, to which is added those birds of New Zealand not figured by Buller, 32)."
But Richmond says species name is taitensis.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/H/h00339a.jpg .
Ibis agrees.
https://books.google.com/books?id=z...ved=0ahUKEwiqqMSZ79DbAhX0KX0KHaoQBWUQ6AEIJzAA .
Explained as a name from Lesson?
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/SP/Hier/hier00440a.jpg .
 
Hirundo tahitica Gm. is the correct name. Mathews 1930, Systema Avium Australasianarum, II, p. 438, gives a synonymy of Hypurolepis tahitica (currently Hirundo tahitica) as follows:
Hirundo tahitica Gmelin, Syst. Nat. vol. i. p. 1016, April 20th, 1789: Tahiti.
Hirundo taitensis Lesson, Voy. 'Coquille,' vol. i. p. 648, 1826: Society Islands (O.Taiti).
Hirundo pyrrholaema Forster, Descr. Anim. ed. Licht. p. 241, (pref. Jan. 1st) 1844: Tahiti.
Petrochelidon pacifica Sharpe, Cat. Birds Brit. Mus. vol. x. p. 141, (pref. March 9th) 1885; as synonym of H. tahitica, ex Cassin (Ubi?). Not Cassin, Cat. Hirund. Philad. Mus. p. 5, 1853.
 
Last edited:
Hirundo tahitica Gm. is the correct name
I agree.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/105243#page/443/mode/1up .
I was just guessing that Mathews was taking the slightly different descriptions of Gmelin and Lesson to state there were two tahitian swallow species??
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/83107#page/522/mode/1up . Gmelin is based on Latham which is based on a specimen of Banks from the first Cook trip. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/105231#page/7/mode/1up .
Lesson is based on specimens from La Coquille journey.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/119032#page/298/mode/1up .
I look forward to you viewing Hersepis.
As an aside in May 2018 a book was published with a chapter called Who was Gregory Mathews?
http://www.buteobooks.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Store_Code=BBBAO&Screen=PROD&Product_Code=CHAO4 .
 
Last edited:
more on Hersepis

In Ibis, 78: 838, it is said:
We thought at first that this work contained no new names, but we eventually found that, tucked away in the synonymy of Hypurolepis javanica (p. 32), a new genus, Hersepis, is proposed for H. taitensis !
I strongly suspect this name will not be available under the current rules.
In any case, if really "tucked away in the synonymy of Hypurolepis javanica" (NB: not tahitica...[?]), it seems reasonably likely that it will:
- Not have been used as valid. A name must be used as the valid name of a taxon when introduced (its validity may be given as conditional, though); a name simply treated as an invalid synonym is not thereby made available, except if it was (1) published before 1961 and (2) subsequently, but also before 1961, adopted as the valid of a taxon or treated as a senior homonym in some other work. It seems highly improbable that this last condition would be fulfilled in the present case.
- Lack a diagnosis. This work is from 1936; to be available, all names introduced after 1930 which are not new replacement names must come with a statement in words of characters purported to differentiate the taxon. (This would in most cases make a name quite visible in a synonymy; the Ibis commentary suggests this was not so.)


(I would call Hirundo tahitica Gmelin 1789 the correct valid name [given the taxonomy accepted nowadays by most ornithologists] of the taxonomic species that includes the nominal type species.
The name of the type species proper (sensu ICZN) would remain Hirundo taitensis Lesson (if this is indeed what Hersepis was proposed for): "The name of a type species remains unchanged even when it is a junior synonym" (ICZN 67.1.2; see also [Rec. 67B and the example that comes with it]). Only Lesson's specimens would determine the correct application of the genus-group name; the specimens seen by Latham, that form the base of Gmelin's tahitica, would not. Neither would (in principle, at least) other specimens seen by Mathews and to which he might have applied this name.)
 
Thank you Laurent. Finding the Ibis bit is so interesting. HBW has H. javanica as a seperate species but Zoonomen and Dickinson SNAB 14 has javanica as a subspecies of H. tahitica. Both species names are dated 1789. I know that Sparrman had Cook specimens so I checked and javanica was collected by Dr. Clas F. Hornstedt in Java.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/128097#page/109/mode/1up .
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/117/1175858989.pdf .
SNAB 14:
http://repository.naturalis.nl/document/46435 .
 
Catalogue of type specimens. 2. General zoology. Evolutionsmuseet (Uppsala University Museum of Evolution, Zoology section), version 4, by Lars Wallin, Sweden (1996):
Sparrman, Anders. 1789.
Museum Carlsonianum, in quo novas et selectas Aves, coloribus ad vivum brevique descriptione illustratas. Fasc. 4.
- Stockholm.
Hirundo javanica AVES type # 305


[here, p.29.]

Hirundo javanica Sparrman 1789, p. -. Type # 305 .
Category: holotype . Type locality: Indonesia, Java. Collector: C.Hornstedt.


[p.40]
If of any help?
--
 
Last edited:
Thanks Björn. The online record says: 1 mounted specimen.Included in the material bought by Thunberg at the auction on specimens from Museum Carlsonianum.Thunberg label: Hirundo javanica. Mus.Academ.; Original description: C.Hornstedt;
 
Annotationes Ornithologiae Orientalis
● Cristemberiza Momiyama 1929: 1 (3), p.319
● Micreophona Momiyama 1928: 1 (3), p.319
● Sieboldornis Momiyama 1928: 1 (3), p.319
Not seen but some information about their diagnosis.(?)
From an article mentioned here in the past. List of Birds Described by the Japanese Authors. Hachisuka
Genus Micreophona Momiyama = Eophona Gould. Annot. Ornith. Orient., Vol. I, p. 319, Dec. 21, 1928. Type, by original designation: Eophona migratorie Hartert. The name is proposed for this Grosbeak because sexes are dissimilar in colour. Genus Cristemberiza Momiyama = Emberiza Linnaeus. Annot. Ornith. Orient., Vol. I, p. 319, Dec. 21, 1928. Type, by original designation: Emberiza elegans Temminck. The Yellow-throated Bunting has occipital feathers slightly longer than most members of Emberize and form a more noticeable crest. Momiyama considers it worth generic separation. Genus Sieboldornis Momiyarma = Bombycilla Vieillot. Annol. Ornith. Orient., Vol. I, p. 319, Dec. 21, 1928. Type, by original designation: Bombycivora Japonica Siebold. On account of having no “waxy” tips on the secondaries, the Japanese Waxwing is separated from the Yellow Waxwing, Bombycilla garrulus.
Genus Rukia and Kubaryum diagnosis also in this article:
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjo1915/11/53-54/11_53-54_270/_pdf .
 
Last edited:
Hirundo javanica continuation ...

Mark, a picture of the bird in question, "Hirundo javanica" (even if in a bad state, and a very bad photo/print), is shown in a paper written by Christina Granroth and Kees Rookmaaker, here, on page 83.

The byline tells us: "Hirundo javanica. en javanesisk fink uppstoppad och preparerad av Hornstedt.", meaning: "Hirundo javanica, a javan finch [sic] stuffed and prepared by Hornstedt."* ... the following part is all about preparation.

If of interest?

/B
_______________________________________________________________________________
*"C.Hornstedt." = Dr. Clas Fredrik Hornstedt (1758-1809), Swedish Physician, Botanist, Zoologist and collector (here, in Swedish)
 
Last edited:
Annotationes Ornithologiae Orientalis
● Cristemberiza Momiyama 1929: 1 (3), p.319
● Micreophona Momiyama 1928: 1 (3), p.319
● Sieboldornis Momiyama 1928: 1 (3), p.319
Not seen but some information about their diagnosis.(?)
From an article mentioned here in the past. List of Birds Described by the Japanese Authors. Hachisuka
From https://books.google.com/books?id=Bc1FAAAAYAAJ&q="Descriptions+of+Three"&redir_esc=y
Descriptions of Three New Genera and One New Species of Passerine Birds from Eastern Asia.
BY
TOKU T. MOMIYAMA, M.O.S.J, M.Z.S.J, C.F.A.O.U, M.B.O.U., ETC.

Micreophona, gen. nov.​
Resembles Eophona, but strictly distinguished from it by having the striking characters as follows: the coloration of males is remarkably different from that of females. In breeding season, both sexes have semicircular, bluish white spots at the basal part of the bill.
Type: Eophona migratoria migratoria = Eophona melanura migratoria HARTERT, 1903.
Cristemberiza, gen. nov.​
Differs from Emberiza in having a longer crest.
Type: Emberiza e. elegans = Emberiza elegans TEMMINCK, 1835.
Sieboldornis, gen. nov.​
Like Bombycilla, but exactly differs from it in having no “waxy” tips on the secondaries.
Type: Bombycilla japonica = Bombycivora japonica SIEBOLD, 1824.
Cyanoptila caeruleiceps MOMIYAMA, sp. nov​
[...]
(Obviously the three names should be from the same year. Richmond and Neave both agree with Hachisuka about 1928.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Björn and Laurent.
Macronus Jardine & Selby 1835: series I, III (10), pl. 150, p.91.
Here is plate 150.
http://www.vogelprenten.nl/nl/beaut...-fluffy-backed-tit-babbler-by-selby-1836.html .
Zoonomen says: Macronus/Macronous Jardine & Selby (Illustrations of Ornithology, 1835, Vol. III, pl.150)
The plate has Macronus and the the text has Macronous.
The index of volume III (the only vol. of four that has an index) in which the plate was bound has Macronus.
I see the index here: https://books.google.com/books?id=x...ved=0ahUKEwiK6-KQ-tXbAhV4HDQIHbzMC4MQ6AEIJzAA .
I believe this was addressed in Justified corrections to avian names under Article 32.5.1.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Zootaxa 2009.
 
Last edited:
Bengal Sporting Magazine
● Milvulus Hodgson 1836: VIII (28), p.183.
Still not seen but Blyth discusses Milvinae.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/123801#page/357/mode/1up .
Less helpful,
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/123801#page/163/mode/1up .
Richmond's take.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/15670393#page/538/mode/1up .
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/M/m00779a.jpg .
Baker Fauna of British India has Milvulus Hodgs., Bengal Sporting Mag., vol. viii, p. 183, Oct. 1836. Type by mon., Falco Indus Boddaert. Haliastuv Selby, Cat. Gen. Subgeu. Types Aves, p. 2 (note),
1840. Type by orig. desig., H. pondicerianus Gmelin = Falco indus
Boddaert. Also mentions a new Hodgson genus for this Dentiger Hodgs., Zool. Miscell., p. 81, after June 1844.
Type by mon., D. 'pondicerianus Gmelin (Gray, Cat. Birds
Nepal, p. 43, 1846). I am confused.
Close but no cigar:
https://www.herewardbooks.co.uk/books/detail/23319.htm .
Available for 250 pounds
 
Last edited:
Gender names diagnosis left. If I missed something yell.
Supplement to the Birds of Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands, to which is added those birds of New Zealand not figured by Buller
● Hersepis Mathews 1936: p.32

Beiträge zur Ornithologie Afrika's
● Carpospiza von Müller 1854, III, pl. X

Bengal Sporting Magazine
● Milvulus Hodgson 1836: VIII (28), p.183

Biological Leaflet
● Tacitathena L. Kelso & E. Kelso 1937: no. 7

The Birds of Australia
● Argentiphilemon Mathews 1925: XII, p. 96
● Buccokitta Mathews 1926: XII (7), 313

Birds of (the Island of) Java
● Bonaparteis Kuroda 1933: I, p. 53

The Birds of Norfolk & Lord Howe Islands and the Australasian polar quadrant (with additions to 'The Birds of Australia')
● Sylvestrornis Mathews 1928: p.4
● Kentrophorina Mathews 1928: p.6
Guia completo para identificação das aves do Brasil
● Sakesphoroides Grantsau 2010: 2, p.651

Illustrations of Ornithology
● Macronus Jardine & Selby 1835: series I, III (10), pl. 150, p.91.
● Oreopholus Jardine & Selby 1835: series I, III (10), pl. 151, p.93
The India Review of Works on Science, and Journal of Foreign Science and the Arts
● Bahila Hodgson 1838: 2 (2) (1837), p.87
Vögel ferner Länder
● Poikilocarbo Boetticher 1935: 3

Zoologisch-technologischer Leitfaden für Realschulen und Gymnasien (Magdeburg)
● Hemiprocne Riemann 1838, p.34
Verhandlungen des naturhistorischen Vereins für das Großherzogtum Hessen und Umgebung
● Cittura Kaup 1848: 2, p.68
● Chloroceryle Kaup 1848: 2, p.68
 
Illustrations of Ornithology
● Macronus Jardine & Selby 1835: series I, III (10), pl. 150, p.91.
● Oreopholus Jardine & Selby 1835: series I, III (10), pl. 151, p.93
I transcribed the Macronus text earlier - [here]. (I did not find a way into the Oreopholus text.)

In the text, both the generic and the specific names of Macronus/-ous ptilosus are said to relate to the bird having "a series of plumes which spring from the centre of the back, and from the sides of the breast; these have the quill broad, and flat at the base, (and of a clear white colour,) where it is furnished with soft and downy webs, but which, as they advance upon the shafts, become like fine and delicate hairy filaments, which hang over the rest of the plumage: all the other feathering of the bird is remarkably loose and unconnected, but without any rigidity." I'm not at all clear about the actual derivation of the generic name, though. (The dual OS doesn't help guessing out what they intended... A derivation from ονυξ/onux, claw/nail, doesn't seem likely.)
 
Last edited:
Sorry Laurent I missed that. At least diagnosis and plate are reunited. I was looking through an online snippet of Jackson & Davies book on Jardine to see why volume III is so rare, but drew a blank.
 
The Birds of Australia
● Argentiphilemon Mathews 1925: XII, p. 96.
In an later Ibis it says: The result is that he rejects the genus Philemon for Australia, and leaves it to Papuasia. He proposes Argentiphilemon for the species argenticeps Gould, but does not use it in place of Neophilemon in the subsequent pages.
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/A/a00972a.jpg .
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top