-
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.
Etymologies; the beginning of the end, or .... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter James Jobling
- Start date
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
mb1848
Well-known member
Milvaquila Burmeister 1850, Verzeichnis der im zoologischen Museum der Universität Halle-Wittenberg aufgestellten Säugethiere, Vögel und Amphibien, p. 24..
I think the author is Anonymous = Burmeister. After reading Deutsches anonymenlexikon by Michael Holzmann, Hanns Bohatta page 319.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-...berg aufgestellten Säugethiere, Vögel&f=false .
The card for this by Richmond says Milvaquilas not used here possibly used earlier?
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/M/m00776a.jpg .
I think the author is Anonymous = Burmeister. After reading Deutsches anonymenlexikon by Michael Holzmann, Hanns Bohatta page 319.
https://books.google.com/books?id=-...berg aufgestellten Säugethiere, Vögel&f=false .
The card for this by Richmond says Milvaquilas not used here possibly used earlier?
http://www.zoonomen.net/cit/RI/Genera/M/m00776a.jpg .
mb1848
Well-known member
Re: "Heliochera de Filippi "
Laurent wrote "not intended to form a permanent scientific record"
Mr. Jobling writes in the Key: "Laurent Raty, in litt., believes that, unless considered 'not published' under the Code, the Diario of 1846 is a sufficient indication, and that this citation and date should take precedence (cf. "Sept. 1846, was the date De Fil. "announced" the new genus before the Reunion of Ital. scientists, & not the date of publ.!" (Richmond Card Index)). Var. Euchlorornis ("Gen. EUCHLORORNIS *) Filippi 1846." The Diario has the feel of ephemera but it was published to give info to people interested in the scientific congress. ?? There are more Diarios for other congresses on google books. I am wracking my brain for a discussion of authorship of such a publication?? I think de Filippi is the author maybe de Filippi in anonymous 1846??
Laurent wrote "not intended to form a permanent scientific record"
Mr. Jobling writes in the Key: "Laurent Raty, in litt., believes that, unless considered 'not published' under the Code, the Diario of 1846 is a sufficient indication, and that this citation and date should take precedence (cf. "Sept. 1846, was the date De Fil. "announced" the new genus before the Reunion of Ital. scientists, & not the date of publ.!" (Richmond Card Index)). Var. Euchlorornis ("Gen. EUCHLORORNIS *) Filippi 1846." The Diario has the feel of ephemera but it was published to give info to people interested in the scientific congress. ?? There are more Diarios for other congresses on google books. I am wracking my brain for a discussion of authorship of such a publication?? I think de Filippi is the author maybe de Filippi in anonymous 1846??
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
The author would be De Filippi as per ICZN 50.2. (The addition of "in Whoever" is not regulated by the Code.)
There is another potential issue with Heliochera, which I did not realize initially; the species name here was given in error as "rufo-cristata" instead of rubrocristata as used by d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye. As the authors are specified, I would tend to make this a simple error (misspelling) for Ampelis rubrocristata d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 [here]. But... an actual Ampelis rufocristata Boissonneau 1840 [here] also exists; this name denotes the very same taxonomic species (the red crest of which is obviously a major defining character), but was introduced independently, presumably based on different type material, thus would represent a distinct nominal species. On this base, it might be possible to argue that the species included in 1846 cannot actually "be unambiguously assigned to a nominal species-group taxon", in which case the name might not be available...
(No such issue exists with Euchlornis; OINS here Ampeylis [sic] Riefferi, A. arcuata, A. aureo-pectus; type Ampelis riefferii Boissonneau 1840 by subsequent designation of Gray 1855 [here] -- unless a type was designated in 1847 in the unseen Museum mediolanense, of course.)
Last edited:
l_raty
laurent raty
Of course "earlier" might simply be on a label or in an internal document at the zoologischen Museum der Universität Halle-Wittenberg...
If the name was introduced that way and not subsequently (and before 1961) adopted as a valid name or treated as a senior homonym, it may be unavailable under the present rules.
mb1848
Well-known member
Thank you Laurent. In a publication about the Congress an author cites de Filippi as citing A. rufo-cristata and A. riefferi Boiss. These names are on the same page of Rev. Zoo..
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37087572#page/155/mode/1up . So I do not think Diario misspelled? The book about the congress.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UW9UTfNXCaUC&dq=Ampeylis+Riefferi,&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Page 16.
Boiss., names a bird for La Fresnaye and d'Orbigny in the article and cites Mag. Zool. article by them. Hellmayr says that Boiss. birds are from Santa Fe de Bogata Columbia and D'Orbigny and La Fresnaye birds are from Bolivia and the Bolivia population may be seperatble when he gets more material. Dott. de Filippi definitly cites rubrocristata in the 1847 Atti Sci.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37087572#page/155/mode/1up . So I do not think Diario misspelled? The book about the congress.
https://books.google.com/books?id=UW9UTfNXCaUC&dq=Ampeylis+Riefferi,&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Page 16.
Boiss., names a bird for La Fresnaye and d'Orbigny in the article and cites Mag. Zool. article by them. Hellmayr says that Boiss. birds are from Santa Fe de Bogata Columbia and D'Orbigny and La Fresnaye birds are from Bolivia and the Bolivia population may be seperatble when he gets more material. Dott. de Filippi definitly cites rubrocristata in the 1847 Atti Sci.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Heliochera:
Dickinson & LaBosse 2018 Zoological Bibliography:
“Hellmayr (1925a) placed this taxon (rubrocristatus ) in the genus Heliochera. Hellmayr (1929a: 98) sustained that treatment. Snow (1979b: 285) placed Heliochera de Filippi, 1847, in the synonymy of genus Ampelion Tschudi, 1845.”
• Zoonomen states “Ampelion:
o CWR gives
"Cab. MSS. 1845"
"184 " with "5-6" written in after the "4". The page is given as "21"
o Peters 8:285 (DW Snow) gives Tschudi, 1845, and p.21.
o Sherborn gives: "J. Cabanis in J.J. Tschudi, Fauna Peru. (Orn.) 1846, 137."
o Neave gives: "Cabanis 1846, in Tschudi, Fauna Peru. (Orn.) 137."
o Schulze gives: p.21,137 1844 [1845].
o The year, page, and author are in question.”
What I think happened was that dott. De Filippi in his oral remarks at the Congress September 1846. He used the Boiss. Name for the taxa rufo cristata. Two publications report this use. Sitting in the audience I can prove was Bonaparte Prince Canino. I think he told De Filippi there was an older better name. In the printed version of his oral presentation he changed to rubrocristata. But the first published use of Heliochera used rufo cristata. If Ampelion was published after September 1846, ie 12/31/1846 Heliochera would be the genus name.
Dickinson & LaBosse 2018 Zoological Bibliography:
“Hellmayr (1925a) placed this taxon (rubrocristatus ) in the genus Heliochera. Hellmayr (1929a: 98) sustained that treatment. Snow (1979b: 285) placed Heliochera de Filippi, 1847, in the synonymy of genus Ampelion Tschudi, 1845.”
• Zoonomen states “Ampelion:
o CWR gives
"Cab. MSS. 1845"
"184 " with "5-6" written in after the "4". The page is given as "21"
o Peters 8:285 (DW Snow) gives Tschudi, 1845, and p.21.
o Sherborn gives: "J. Cabanis in J.J. Tschudi, Fauna Peru. (Orn.) 1846, 137."
o Neave gives: "Cabanis 1846, in Tschudi, Fauna Peru. (Orn.) 137."
o Schulze gives: p.21,137 1844 [1845].
o The year, page, and author are in question.”
What I think happened was that dott. De Filippi in his oral remarks at the Congress September 1846. He used the Boiss. Name for the taxa rufo cristata. Two publications report this use. Sitting in the audience I can prove was Bonaparte Prince Canino. I think he told De Filippi there was an older better name. In the printed version of his oral presentation he changed to rubrocristata. But the first published use of Heliochera used rufo cristata. If Ampelion was published after September 1846, ie 12/31/1846 Heliochera would be the genus name.
l_raty
laurent raty
Ampelion
|
On p. 21 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40008067, the name was merely combined with one available species-group name, (Ampelis rufaxilla Tschudi, published in 1844), in a list of known Peruvian birds.
On p. 137 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40008183, a Latin diagnosis (by Tschudi?) and a German description (by Cabanis) were added; and three more, non-Peruvian species were included (Procnias cucullata, Ampelis rubrocristata, Procnias melanocephala), in addition to A. rufaxilla.
It seems in any case critical for the current use of the generic name that p. 21 pre-dates p. 137, because it is only then that the type can be the single species included on that page. Should the two pages be given the same date (e.g., 31 Dec 1846), as they are clearly the same work, and as the same name, attributed to the same author, is used on both for what cannot reasonably be claimed to be two distinct concepts (one Peruvian species in a Peru-only list; that same Peruvian species and three others outside of the restricted context of this list), they would have to be considered in combination; if so there would be four OINS instead of one, and the type would be Procnias cucullata Swainson 1821, because Gray designated that species in 1849 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43592014. This would make Ampelion a synonym of Carpornis Gray 1846. (This name was indeed used for what is now Carpornis until the mid-20th C.)
Some discussion of the dates of publication in Zimmer 1926: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36282989
1845 seems to be the most widely accepted year nowadays. It appears to derive mainly from Wagner, in the second Heft of Arch. Naturgesch. of 1846 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13705313 , having listed Lieferung VI of Tschudi's work, incl. the conclusions of the mammalogy and the first part of the ornithology, among the productions of 1845.
In Isis https://books.google.com/books?id=GNOMs_DXZP8C&pg=PA311, OTOH, the same Lieferung VI, with pp. 1-32 of the bird text, was announced in Heft III-IV of the 1846 volume as dating from 1846.
Even if 1845 was not accepted, perhaps some "not-later-than" date could be derived from this ? (E.g., not later than 30 April 1846, based on the announcement in the April issue of Isis ? Not sure to which extent this journal is known to have been in schedule at this time.)
Thanks Mark. This led me to review my notes on Ampelion, and to realize that, having started with Neave, I had indeed completely overlooked the appearance of the name on p. 21. |
|On p. 21 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40008067, the name was merely combined with one available species-group name, (Ampelis rufaxilla Tschudi, published in 1844), in a list of known Peruvian birds.
On p. 137 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40008183, a Latin diagnosis (by Tschudi?) and a German description (by Cabanis) were added; and three more, non-Peruvian species were included (Procnias cucullata, Ampelis rubrocristata, Procnias melanocephala), in addition to A. rufaxilla.
It seems in any case critical for the current use of the generic name that p. 21 pre-dates p. 137, because it is only then that the type can be the single species included on that page. Should the two pages be given the same date (e.g., 31 Dec 1846), as they are clearly the same work, and as the same name, attributed to the same author, is used on both for what cannot reasonably be claimed to be two distinct concepts (one Peruvian species in a Peru-only list; that same Peruvian species and three others outside of the restricted context of this list), they would have to be considered in combination; if so there would be four OINS instead of one, and the type would be Procnias cucullata Swainson 1821, because Gray designated that species in 1849 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43592014. This would make Ampelion a synonym of Carpornis Gray 1846. (This name was indeed used for what is now Carpornis until the mid-20th C.)
Some discussion of the dates of publication in Zimmer 1926: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36282989
1845 seems to be the most widely accepted year nowadays. It appears to derive mainly from Wagner, in the second Heft of Arch. Naturgesch. of 1846 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13705313 , having listed Lieferung VI of Tschudi's work, incl. the conclusions of the mammalogy and the first part of the ornithology, among the productions of 1845.
In Isis https://books.google.com/books?id=GNOMs_DXZP8C&pg=PA311, OTOH, the same Lieferung VI, with pp. 1-32 of the bird text, was announced in Heft III-IV of the 1846 volume as dating from 1846.
Even if 1845 was not accepted, perhaps some "not-later-than" date could be derived from this ? (E.g., not later than 30 April 1846, based on the announcement in the April issue of Isis ? Not sure to which extent this journal is known to have been in schedule at this time.)
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Wow. Thanks again Laurent. We do not want Carpornis do we? There were problems in the 1846 Isis publishing. Heft III und IV were published together. And Heft 11 und 12 were published together in March 1847. I looked in III and IV of Literascher Unzieger which is published with Isis von Oken. I could not see them mentioning any book or Journal being published in June or July???
https://books.google.com/books?id=GNOMs_DXZP8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Look after column 920. Isis ended publication in 1848 due to Continental political disorder.
https://books.google.com/books?id=GNOMs_DXZP8C&source=gbs_navlinks_s . Look after column 920. Isis ended publication in 1848 due to Continental political disorder.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
• de Filippi 1847, Museum Mediolanense. Animalia Vertebrata, classis 2, Aves has excudebat "Aloysius de Jacobo Pirola' on it. As does a book on Molluscs.
• https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42916#page/7/mode/1up .It would still be nice to see this.
•
• Sturnella bellicosa Filippi 1847 Mus.Mediol.Anim.Vert. cl.2 Aves p.15,32
• Drymophila genei (Filippi) 1847 Mus.Mediol.Anim.Vert. cl.2 Aves p.9,31
• Heliochera de Filippi 1847, Museum Mediolanense. Animalia Vertebrata, classis 2, Aves, pp. 12. 31.
• Euchlornis de Filippi 1847 p. 12, 31.
• It is in a Milan library and is fasciola without front? I.e. no covers.
• https://opac.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/scheda.jsp?bid=IT\ICCU\LO1\1296787 .
• https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/42916#page/7/mode/1up .It would still be nice to see this.
•
• Sturnella bellicosa Filippi 1847 Mus.Mediol.Anim.Vert. cl.2 Aves p.15,32
• Drymophila genei (Filippi) 1847 Mus.Mediol.Anim.Vert. cl.2 Aves p.9,31
• Heliochera de Filippi 1847, Museum Mediolanense. Animalia Vertebrata, classis 2, Aves, pp. 12. 31.
• Euchlornis de Filippi 1847 p. 12, 31.
• It is in a Milan library and is fasciola without front? I.e. no covers.
• https://opac.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/scheda.jsp?bid=IT\ICCU\LO1\1296787 .
mb1848
Well-known member
Ampelion:
In 1859 Cabanis says he was the author and the date was 1845. Then he comments on the spelling. He states the genus name he created in 1845 as Ampelio. And then he cites Tschudi's Ampelion with an exclamation mark. The species for Ampelio 1845 was melanocephalus.
In 1859 Cabanis says he was the author and the date was 1845. Then he comments on the spelling. He states the genus name he created in 1845 as Ampelio. And then he cites Tschudi's Ampelion with an exclamation mark. The species for Ampelio 1845 was melanocephalus.
Taphrospilus
Well-known member
Taphrospilus
Well-known member
Thank's to Naturalis please find attached p. 12 and 31 of de Filippis work. Now it is up to you all to find answers to all your questions
mb1848
Well-known member
Thank you Martin and Naturalis. Lots to unwind here. On p. 31 is Garrulax vittatus de Fil. which was synomized by Salvadori into Timalia mitrata Mull. in 2/1868.
https://books.google.com/books?id=m...AX+VITTATUS.+De+Filippi&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Page 270.
Here is a review of this see page 154-155.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHc5AAAAcAAJ&dq=Pachyramphus+dimidiatus&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Lanius jeracopis, De Fil. Mus. Mediol. Aves, p. 31 (1847), fide Salvad. I.e. Lanius phcenicurus, Pall., .
Ceblepyris luctuosus, De Filippi (Mus. Mediol. p. 31), is the male of Pericrocotus cinereus, Lafr. Z. 184-5, p. 94), and 'the latter name has priority. T. Salvadori, Atti ..
Crimson-backed Tanager Ramphocelus dimidiatus?
Grauculus torquatus???
https://books.google.com/books?id=m...AX+VITTATUS.+De+Filippi&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Page 270.
Here is a review of this see page 154-155.
https://books.google.com/books?id=WHc5AAAAcAAJ&dq=Pachyramphus+dimidiatus&source=gbs_navlinks_s .
Lanius jeracopis, De Fil. Mus. Mediol. Aves, p. 31 (1847), fide Salvad. I.e. Lanius phcenicurus, Pall., .
Ceblepyris luctuosus, De Filippi (Mus. Mediol. p. 31), is the male of Pericrocotus cinereus, Lafr. Z. 184-5, p. 94), and 'the latter name has priority. T. Salvadori, Atti ..
Crimson-backed Tanager Ramphocelus dimidiatus?
Grauculus torquatus???
Last edited:
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
l_raty
laurent raty
Thanks from me as well.
So the Euchlornis text quoted in the key was indeed already from Museum mediolanense.
(Although: the (12) doesn't appear to be a footnote after all, it's a note that appears on a completely different page. Thus, if this still had a chance to be the source of the name, it would in theory be important to know if p. 12 (one sp included) and p. 31 (two more spp added, plus a third with reservations) were published on the same date. Different dates would mean a type fixation by monotypy with p. 12 only; identical dates would make a subsequent designation necessary. That being said, the species designated subsequently was that which was included on p. 12, thus the final outcome would not change.)
So the Euchlornis text quoted in the key was indeed already from Museum mediolanense.
(Although: the (12) doesn't appear to be a footnote after all, it's a note that appears on a completely different page. Thus, if this still had a chance to be the source of the name, it would in theory be important to know if p. 12 (one sp included) and p. 31 (two more spp added, plus a third with reservations) were published on the same date. Different dates would mean a type fixation by monotypy with p. 12 only; identical dates would make a subsequent designation necessary. That being said, the species designated subsequently was that which was included on p. 12, thus the final outcome would not change.)
mb1848
Well-known member
Museum mediolanense seems to be published as a piece, a 32 page document in the month of March 1847. Same date as the Atti? It does not seem to be part of a journal but is a part of a series of catalogues of the museum's holdings like the mollusc one. I like how De Filippi in M.M. dates his genus Heliochera sep. 1846 and dates Carponis as dec. 1846.
Thanks Björn you are right .
No. Pachyramphus is a becard not a tanager? De Filippi mentions Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard in the description.
Thanks Björn you are right .
Last edited:
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
Mark, also note that Heliochera and Ampelio [sic] are to be found in the latter link, in post #96 (from 1864), on p.264+ resp. 267.
The same Catalogo ... , by Orazio Antinori, is also dealing with "Museum Mediolanese , Animala vertebrata, Classis II, Aves, Mediolani 1847", starting on the same, latter page (p.267) ... as I see it; the Aves/Bird part do seems to have been published in March 1847 (in line with what's told in post #76) ...
If of any use?
/B
--
The same Catalogo ... , by Orazio Antinori, is also dealing with "Museum Mediolanese , Animala vertebrata, Classis II, Aves, Mediolani 1847", starting on the same, latter page (p.267) ... as I see it; the Aves/Bird part do seems to have been published in March 1847 (in line with what's told in post #76) ...
If of any use?
/B
--
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
Acrocephalus:
2015 book: Von der Naturgeschichte zur Zoologie: Blasius Merrem und die Entwicklung
In a 2015 book it states that Merrem was the author of the 1814 review in the ALZ. Björn linked to an encyclopedia article of Acrocephalus printed in 1818 authored by Merrem. Without Merrem no one would have heard of Acrocephalus?
2015 book: Von der Naturgeschichte zur Zoologie: Blasius Merrem und die Entwicklung
Last edited:
Similar threads
