HBWAlive Key; mission accomplished or mission impossible? (1 Viewer)

(Mrs) Severtzov's Tit Warbler Leptopoecile sophiae

Hard to let go of this bird ...

After having done some (desk) birdwatching I have to admit that I'm a bit puzzled by the two birds on Severtzov's Plate, simply as they don't look much like today's White-browed Tit-Warbler (a k a Severtzov's Tit Warbler), here, nor do they look similar (not even close) to the birds depicted as "Leptopœcile sophiæ, Severz." in Gould's Birds of Asia (here) [note that Gould, on the Plate (here), ascribed it to "Cab." (Cabanis)... !?]

To me the bird on Severtzov's Plate, doesn't match Sveretzov's word (in Dresser's translation) "In form this bird approaches the Tits, ...", neither do they resemble any Tit-Warbler that I know (which, on the other hand, doesn't say much). To me they look more like badly stuffed Oriole specimens or, in proportions, like some odd Laughingthrush (in Trochalopteron, like this one, but no, neither one fits) ... with a Flycatchers beak/bill, and with such a tail ... ?

As I see it, Severtzov's depicted birds (on that black-and-white plate) has; small head vs sout body, a somewhat streaked tail (with outher tail feathers much shorter and white [!], or clearly paler), eye-brow, pale rump, pointy down-curved tip of beak/bill (with a fluffy/bristled base). Nope, this case beats me, I do not know, by looking at the Plate I simply cannot identify it!

Anyone who knows the Bird Fauna of Turkestan (or Yarkand) better?

Or maybe Severtzov's dear wife Sofya wasn't as "good [an] artist" as her husband imagined, or liked to believe (if she was the one who drew that Plate, of course). Consider (!) the possibility (even if highly unlikely) that she was drawing a different bird species contrary to the one Severtzov was writing about?

Well, that's about it. I´m done on this one.

(Leptopoecile) sophiae ... over and out!

Björn

I believe Severtzov himself is the artist, as per pl. 7 & 9. Similarly, the Penduline Tit looks a bit stretched too.

Re meissneri (as in Leptopoecile elegans meissneri, IOC but not HBW): the Key gives this as an honorific for a German banker in Shanghai, Paul Meissner (likely as Meißner), who was involved in the Dolan Expedition during which Ernst Schäfer collected the type specimen (described as Lophobasileus elegans meissneri in 'Third Preliminary Report on the Results of the Second Dolan Expedition to West China and Tibet: Four New Birds from Tibet', Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 89 (1937), 385.

The only actual relation between Schäfer and a Meißner (with any connection to the Dolan Expedition) I can find is in the acknowledgments of Schäfer's Unbekanntes Tibet (Berlin, 1937), which deals with his travels in Tibet in the early to mid-1930s, where there is a Direktor Meißner, Schanghai.

I presume this Meißner is Kurt Meißner, a businessman and Japanologist based in Tokyo, but also director of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens (German East Asiatic Society), and present in Shanghai at the time of the Second Dolan China and Tibet Expedition (see here).

PS Why is Schäfer known as Shäfer?

Re. meissneri ... yet another sidetrack, in this thread

Joek, as you're fairly new here on BirdForum ...

Note that meissneri wasn't included in this long and winding thread (until you posted it), see posts #1 (alt. #19), and James's added #228, #255, #267, and #282. If you onwards find other cases/names that seems to need some sort of amendment, or additions, you'd better start a new thread (all of its own), simply to keep things apart (and to avoid confusion).

Regarding Herr Schäfer and/or Herr Meissner (alt. Meißner), I cannot help. I know nothing about them. Sorry. Neither one of those guys (nor any birds by the name schaeferi or meissneri) are included in my MS (i.e. of Swedish Common/Vernacular Bird names).

However; keep on digging! At a first place (based only on your post #363) it looks like you're onto something ...

Björn

PS. Just curious; where (on Earth) did you find Schäfer written as "Shäfer"?

Joek,
I think you are right about Kurt Meissner. During the recent unpleasantness, Schäfer was a member of the SS (see Nowak 2018, Biologists in the Age of Totalitarianism, pp. 323-334), and was more likely to have honoured a director of the OAG which grew stronger links with the Nazis.

Calalp said:

Joek, as you're fairly new here on BirdForum ...

Note that meissneri wasn't included in this long and winding thread (until you posted it), see posts #1 (alt. #19), and James's added #228, #255, #267, and #282. If you onwards find other cases/names that seems to need some sort of amendment, or additions, you'd better start a new thread (all of its own), simply to keep things apart (and to avoid confusion).

Click to expand...

Thanks, Björn, I realized this after my post. Thanks for pointing it out.

Calalp said:

PS. Just curious; where (on Earth) did you find Schäfer written as "Shäfer"?

Click to expand...

I've come across Schäfer as Shäfer in the IOC's list of Bushtits and in Alan Peterson's list of Aegithalidae (two authoritative sources, methinks).
As HBWAlive does not recognize meissneri as a subspecies of Leptopoecile elegans, it does not provide any authorial info.

James Jobling said:

Joek,
I think you are right about Kurt Meissner. During the recent unpleasantness, Schäfer was a member of the SS (see Nowak 2018, Biologists in the Age of Totalitarianism, pp. 323-334), and was more likely to have honoured a director of the OAG which grew stronger links with the Nazis.

Click to expand...

Thanks, James. I should have mentioned both Schäfer's and the OAG's involvement with the Nazi regime, it was one of the links I followed to get to Kurt Meissner.

joekroex said:

...
I've come across Schäfer as Shäfer in the IOC's list of Bushtits and in Alan Peterson's list of Aegithalidae (two authoritative sources, ...

Click to expand...

Hopefully someone in contact with either one reads this, and could correct the typos "Shäfer" resp. "Shafer" into Schäfer.

Well spotted!

/B

PS. Compare with "Passer montanus maximus" and "Petronia petronia jyekundensis", both described in the same paper, both acredited to Schäfer (for examples, see; here, here, here or here).

--

Calalp said:

PS. Compare with "Passer montanus maximus" and "Petronia petronia jyekundensis", both described in the same paper, both acredited to Schäfer (for examples, see; here, here, here or here).

Click to expand...

It gets even worse with Petronia petronia jyekundensis. I came across this (p. 304) while looking for Schäfer and Shäfer, both names in the same entry.

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ...

Apparently hard do let go of this one!

Thereby, let's return to the old topic (from earlier this Autumn) regarding the bird named shanbu and/or/alt./versus shanhu (see posts 228, 327, 329-330, 332, 334-343) ...

First I have to thank Laurent, for the information of the proper OD, the one printed by Georg Emanuel Beer, Lipsiae/Leipzig (1788–93); "... the edition that 'counts')". Also thanks for thouroghly digging into this case, and its finest details (in post #336). :t:

When I (full of self-confindece) posted my (somehat cocky) first reply (#327) in this topic, I had no idea there were two different Editions of Gmelin's Systema naturae 1789 [that Lyon Edition sure fooled me!]. Nor could I even dream of there being three (2 X Beer)! All three from 1789. Sigh, even more things to remember, to keep in mind, onwards.

However, I´m glad that we managed to find the most important part in this case, (and this Subforum, i.e. the Etymology itself), the origin of the shanhu/shanbu name, being, like James by right pointed out; originally found in Latham's General Synopsis, vol. II, part 1 (of 1783), on pp.37-38, where we find this bird as No. 36; BLACK-FACED THR. [Thrush], and the explanatory phrase: "This inhabits China, ... known there by the name Shan-hu." (here).

[Note the similar letter h in China and (twice) in Shan-hu. Compare with the Italic (closed) b, frequently used in the same book. There's no Shan-bu in this work by Latham. At least not that I can find]

As far as I can tell Latham did not write this name with the letter b (anywhere?). Why it does appear in such a way, in one (Leipzig) Edition (but not the other) of Gmelin's 1789 work is (far) beyond my understanding. Sorting out the History of book editions is a game I try to avoid (as far as possible).

l_raty said:

...
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.

Click to expand...

Maybe this paper, in the journal The Nautilus (even if dealing with Conchology) could be somewhat illuminating?
• Kabat, A. R. & Petit, R. E. 1988. The two printings of J. F. Gmelin’s Systema Naturae, 13th edition (1788–96). The Nautilus 102 (4): pp. 164-166. (here)

Either way, it doesn't seem to deal with the (seemingly unknown!?) fact that there apparently was/is two different versions/printings also of the Lipsiae (Leipzig) edition! To me, it looks like the Authors were totally unaware of this complicating factor ...

Which one, of the two Beer, Lipsiae (Leipzig) Editions, that truly was the very first one to leave the Print shop? Who knows? I sure don't. Sorting out the History of 18th Century book editions is a game I try to avoid (as far as possible). Such matters I gladly leave in the hands of (more clever) Bibliophiles and Librarians ...

However: enjoy!

Björn

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... II

But ... if two different Editions exist of Gmelin's Systema naturae 1789 (part II), also of the Lipsiae/Leipzig version (which clearly seems to be the case), couldn't this fact have an impact on quite a few scientific names (also on valid ones) originating from this particular work!? [A thought that apparently did strike Laurent as well, see post #336]. Maybe we should (or ought to) inform our friends in the Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature forum? Or better not disturb the peace ...

Sorting out this case would, could keep anyone busy for quite a while (most likely years, ages). Or are the two different Lipsiae/Leipzig editions maybe, already a well-known fact among scholars, scientists and other nomenclaturists (in ornithology)?

If not, it looks like a case clearly in need of some elucidating research.

Björn
--

@Bjorn for a discussion on this subject (2 editions) see also Dickinson et al 2011 in Priority pages 93-94.

Thanks for reminding me, Justin!

I read it ages ago (back in 2011, I guess, when it was published), but now, in this case, it simply slipped my mind ...

For anyone who hasn't read it at all, Dickinson et al 2011 (pp.93-94):

Gmelin, J.F. (1788-1789). Systema Naturae, per regna tria Naturae: secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis.1 2 parts (1-500; 501-1032). – 2 editions: Lipsiae (Leipzig, Germany) and Lugduni Monachorum (Lyon, France)2.

Remarks on publishing details. The two editions appear to differ as to their dates. Pars (part) 1 of the Leipzig edition appeared in 1788 but the Lyon edition not till 1789; pars 2 of the Leipzig edition appeared in 1789 and may have been later than pars 2 of the Lyon edition (see Kabat & Petit, 1988).

Reasons for considering the date problematic. Different dates have been cited by authorities not realising that there were two editions. Wood (1931: 360) did not identify the edition, but referred to another printing beginning in 1789.

Published authorities on this case. Hopkinson (1908); Apstein (1916), and, as regards the two editions, Kabat & Petit (1988). No significant difference in content between the two editions has been reported, so it is likely that name spellings do not differ, and nor will the pages to cite for original descriptions.

Conclusions/Recommendations. Cite, and preferably consult, the Leipzig edition and follow Hopkinson (1908) with 1788 (25 Jul) and 1789 (20 Apr). R. [ECD]

Notes: (1) The title is preceded by “Caroli a Linné” and his titles and memberships. This is usually omitted in citation. However, Gmelin did offer this as the Editio Decima Tertia, aucta reformata of Linnaeus’s classic. (2) Not Lugduni Batavorum (Leiden).​

​

[Priority! The dating of scientific names in ornithology: a Directory to the Literature and its Reviewers.
Compiled and edited by E. C. Dickinson, L. K. Overstreet, R. J. Dowsett and M. D. Bruce (2011).
Copyright 2011 © Edward C. Dickinson (here)]​

Click to expand...

Wow, not even Edward Dickinson (the nomenclatural Grand Master of ornithological bibliography, true Order, and corrections), and his Crew, seems to have noted the two different versions/editions also of the Lipsiae (Leipzig) book/s! That's rare.

"No significant difference in content between the two editions has been reported". Until now. Or maybe not "significant" enough?

We'll see ...

Björn
--

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... III

Bear with me, I know I'm stretching the patience of some, but I keep posting in this topic, in this thread (and in this Subforum), even if we're now suddenly far from dealing with the etymology (of shanbu/shanhu) ... simply as I don't know where else to put it (without causing nothing but confusion, or completely lose context).

In any case, here's another comparison, of pure bibliophilistic, or possibly nomenclaturistic, concern – with some additional, odd discrepancies/names (not listed in Laurent's post #336), present in the two versions of Gmelin's Systema naturae ... (1789), Tome I, Pars II (Volume one, Part two), both attributed to the Lipsiae (Leipzig) edition, printed by Georg Emanuel Beer, (i.e. the edition that 'counts').

Onwards, to keep the two versions apart I will call them the LINNE/Shanbu version versus the LINNÉ/Shanhu version, following how the name of Gmelin's predecessor* was typed on the title page in each one respectively.

And note: this comparison is made solely from those six copies found by Laurent (again see his post #336), and only regarding the names of the "species" listed [marked in bold by me]. I simply didn't have time enough to compare the full text/s .

________________________________________

Ok, here goes ... (the first five spellings that differ):

On page 544:
• "[Mergus] encullatus" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• "[Mergus] cucullatus" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which (as far as I can tell), refer to the OD of today's Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus LINNAEUS 1758, as "[Mergus] cucullatus" (here), thus in line with the Original Spelling in the LINNÉ/Shanhu copies [thereby not "encullatus", as in the LINNE/Shanbu copies].


On page 548:
• "[Mergus] aſiaticus" [with a long s, in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• "[Mergus] ɟaſiaticus" [with a (voiced) palatal stop/plosive (!?), in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... both with a single reference to S. G. Gmelin it. 2. p. 188. t. 20" [i.e. Samuel Georg Gmelin's Reise durch Rußland ... , from 1774; here, see page 188, also depicted on a Plate), which is a Non-Latin work. [J. F. Gmelin's "asiaticus" (which must be the most proper spelling, as it's from Russia/Asia) ought to be a synonym for today's Common Merganser/Goosander Mergus merganser LINNAEUS 1758, most likely of nominate ssp.?]


On page 552:
• "[Alca] tutracula" (!?) [as it looks in the BHL copy, from NCSU (North Carolina State University Libraries), but this is only a smudged version of "tetracula", just like it's typed in the other two copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• "[Alca] tetracula" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which does refer to Alca tetracula PALLAS 1769 (here), which, in its turn, is a synonym of today's Crested Auklet Aethia cristatella PALLAS 1769 (earlier a k a Simorhynchus cristatellus).


On page 657:
• "[Scolopax] Phacopus" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• "[Scolopax] Phaeopus" [in in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which refer to the OD/OS of today's (Common/Eurasian) Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus LINNAEUS 1758 (here), as "[Scolopax] Phæopus"[thus not "Phacopus"]


On page 678:
• "[Tringa] eucoptera" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• "[Tringa] leucoptera" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which is regarded as the OS/OD of today's (extinct) Tahitian Sandpiper Prosobonia leucoptera (GMELIN, JF, 1789), thus not "eucoptera" – a fact that talks strongly in favour of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version, as the one most trusted/used today (even if it, of course, still doesn't tell us which version was the very first one!?)

The latter sure makes me wonder how many other of today's valid taxa originates in Gmelin's Lipsiae (Leipzig) edition of 1789 ... ?!?

To be continued ...

/B

______________________________________________________________________________
*the Great Linnaeus (1707–78), nobled Carl von Linné (1757), original instigator and Author of Systema naturae, a major work
published in several editions, continuously updated, revised and expanded, from the very first, tiny edition, published in 1735,
onwards, incl. the very corner stone of today's nomenclature (Edition 10, 1758), all the way until the 12th Edition (1766–1768).
The subsequent, 13th Edition (the very one we're dealing with in this case) was edited by Johann Friedrich Gmelin (1748–1804).

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... IV

The next five spellings that differ are the following:


On page 708 (and this one is even more strange):
• [Parra] "ariabilis" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Parra] "variabilis" [in the copy of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version, from Missouri Botanical Garden, but only in that one! It's "ariabilis" in the other two!!!]
... which (as far as I can tell) ought to refer to "[Parra] variabilis" LINNAEUS 1766 (here), which, in its turn, seems to be a synonym of today's Northern Jacana Jacana spinosa (LINNAEUS, 1758). Note that spinosa (alt. ſpinoſa, or even spinosus) is missing in the 1766 Edition!? Richmond card here.



On page 728:
• [Didus] "neptus" in two copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version, but "ineptus" in the copy from Austrian National Library), though the different-looking letter (i) could possibly have been added later, or even post-print]
• [Didus] "ineptus" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which must refer to [Didus] "ineptus" LINNAEUS 1766 (here), which, in its turn, is a synonym of the today's (extinct) Dodo Raphus cucullatus LINNAEUS 1758 (originally placed in Struthio).



On page 739:
• [Phasianus] "tophaccus" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Phasianus] "tophaceus" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... with one single reference: "Gallina vertice tuberoſo. Pall. Spicil. zool. 4. p.20. t.3", which (as I understand it) takes us to vol. 4 of Spicilegia zoologica, by Pallas and his account of a "Gallinae vertice tuberoso" (here from 1767), as well as to the tabula/Plate (No. III, here). Its true identity I cannot determine. To me it looks like some (any) kind of (maltreated, battered) Galliformes ... a bird that Gmelin simply renamed tophaccus or/alt. tophaceus (most likely the latter). Latham listed the same bird/name, with the same reference, as "[Phasianus] "tophaceus " (in 1790, here).



On page 763:
• [Tetrao] "coyolcos" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Tetrao] "Coyolcos" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which is only a minor difference (lower-case versus capital/upper-case c/C), but still proof of different printings, originating (in this spelling) from Buffon's "Le COYOLCOS" from 1772 (here) which was/is a French version/adaptation of Hernández's "Coyolcozque".

Müller's scientific name "Tetrao Coyoleos" from 1776 (here, 13 years prior to Gmelin 1789), is apparently considered a typographical error (at least by Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, here), most likely as it clearly refers to the same "Buffon".



On page 794:
• [Alauda] "ubra" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Alauda] "rubra" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which (as far as I can tell) is the OD/OS of this name, with several references to various descriptions of a "Red" (rubra) bird/lark/pipit. Note that Latham, in 1790, listed the same bird/name, with just about the same references, as "[Alauda] "rubra" (here).

[Regardless of how it was originally written/typed, it's (as I understand it) a synonym of today's Water Pipit Anthus spinoletta LINNAEUS 1758, as [Alauda] "Spinoletta".]


To be continued ...

/B
--

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... V

Another five spellings that differ ...:

On page 814 [i.e. the very reason for this lengthy topic, see #327, 329-332, 334-343, 370+ ...]:
• [Turdus] "Shanbu" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Turdus] "Shanhu" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... originating in Latham's General Synopsis, vol. II, part 1 (from 1783), where we find this bird (on pp.37-38) as No. 36; BLACK-FACED THR. [Thrush], with the self-explanatory phrase: "This inhabits China, ... known there by the name Shan-hu." (here)

[Again; note the similar letter h in China and (twice) in Shan-hu. Compare with the Italic (closed) b, frequently used in the same book. As far as I can tell there's no Shan-bu in this work. I doubt Latham ever wrote this (local) name with the letter b (in any of his works).]



On page 844:
• [Loxia] "leucoptera" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Loxia] leueoptera (!?) [as it looks like in the LINNÉ/Shanhu version, both in the copy from Missouri Botanical Garden, and in the copy from Austrian National Library, but those are (most likely) smudges from the printing press. It's "leucoptera" in the copy from Oxford University!]
... which is considered as the OD/OS of today's Two-barred Crossbill Loxia leucoptera GMELIN 1789 (in reference to Latham's WHITE-WINGED CROSSBILL, from 1783, here), which clearly talks in favour of the "leucoptera" spelling. Compare with the HBW Alive Key explanation: "leucoptera Gr. λευκοπτερος leukopteros white-winged < λευκος leukos white; -πτερος -pteros -winged < πτερον pteron wing.



On page 902 (and, in this case; beware of font/type face!):
• [Fringilla] "Iulenſis" (read; Iulensis, with Capital i/I) [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Fringilla] "lulenſis" (read; lulensis, with lower case l/L) [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... with reference/s to Fauna svecica, by Linnaeus (1746), and his No.197 "FRINGILLA fusca, pectore alarum ..." (here), which, in its turn, refers to Rudbeck's "Carduelis Lulenſis" ("Lulenis"), with the explanation; "Habitat in Luloæ in Weſtrobotnia". It´s also written [Fringilla] "lulenſis" (that is, as in a lower case Lulensis) in Systema naturae (Edition 10) Linnaeus 1758 (here).

Nowadays this bird/name is (at least by some, as far as I can tell) considered a "nomen dubium". Or? In 1835 the Swedish scholar and great ornithologist Sven Nilsson listed this "Fringilla Lulensis" (here) as a synonym of today's Brambling F. montifringilla LINNAEUS 1758 (OD on the same page, as in the link above).

Either way; all referring to the Swedish city Luleå.



On page 912:
• [Fringilla] "Caſpa" (read; Caspa) [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Fringilla] "Capſa" (read; Capsa) [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
[note that both spellings occur in the List of references in the LINNE/Shanbu version, but it is only written as "Capſa" Sparrow/Finch in the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... with references, that takes us to Shaw's "Capsa Sparrow", from 1738 and Latham's "CAPSA F. [FINCH], from 1783. Either way written, nowaday's they are all synonyms of today's House Bunting (Fringillaria) Emberiza sahari LEVAILLANT 1850 (earlier dealt with, back in 2017, in thread Shaw's "Capsa Sparrow" alt. ditto Finch, hence [Fringilla] "Capsa" GMELIN 1789, here).



On page 934:
• [Muscicapa] "citarin" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Muscicapa] "crinita" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
[Note that there's a scribbled pencil note, in the LINNE/Shanbu copy from the National Library of the Netherlands, correcting it to "crinita"]
... which, at a short, first glance, looks like some kind of typo (in both version/all copies!) of Brisson's "Muſcicapa virginiana criſtata" (which I think is a non-trinomen). .. ? However, "cristata" (meaning "long-haired" alt. "hairy") would be in line with the reference to Pennant's "Creſted Fly-catcher" (from 1785) here, as well as the [Muſcicapa] "crinita" listed by Linnaeus (1766), here.

As far as I can tell it's a synonym of today's Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus LINNAEUS 1758 (here), as [Turdus] "crinitus".


To be continued ...


/B
--

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... VI

And the very last 3 spellings that differ:

Also on page 934:
• [Muscicapa] "udoviciana" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Muscicapa] "ludoviciana" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which (as far as I can tell ) is the OD/OS of this bird/name), equal of (today's) crinita/crinitus above. As originating in Louisiana, Louisiane (from Ludovicius), USA, I assume the latter is the proper version (thus simply a typo/printers error).



On page 951:
• [Motacilla] "honariensis" [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Motacilla] "bonariensis" [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... which clearly is an error as it ought to have had its cause in (the type location given); "Habitat in Bonaria", thus yet another obvious typo/printers error in the former version/s. The reference to Lathams White-chinned Warbler (here) makes it even more apparent
(at least for a Non-Latin guy SMILEY); "Inhabits Buenos Ayres." [all in line with the explanation in today's Key: "bonariensis Mod. L. Bonaria Buenos Aires, Argentina ..." and onwards].

Which of today's birds this was aimed at is all unknown to me [the Key has it equally as: "(unident.)"/unidentified]. An English interpretation of its Characters (here), but I'm not familiar enough with the Argentinian Avifauna to even dare guessing. Anyone else who knows their/the Birds of Buenos Aires?



On page 975:
• [Motacilla] "crythrogaſtra" (read: crythrogastra) [in all three copies of the LINNE/Shanbu version]
• [Motacilla] "erythrogaſtra" (read: erythrogastra) [in all three copies of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version]
... with a first reference to "Güldenſt. nov. comm. Petrop. 19. p. 469. t. 16.17" which leads to Güldenstädt, 1775, and his: "MOTACILLA ERYTHROGASTRA ..., tanta etiam depraedicanda de Motacilla Erythrogaſtra, ..." [here + tabula/Plate XVI/16, here (of the male) and tabula/Plate XVII/17, here (of the female)], which clearly talk in favour of the LINNÉ/Shanhu version being the most correct print [as this is the very OD/OS of today's Güldenstädt's/White-winged Redstart Phoenicurus erythrogastrus (Güldenstädt, 1775)].

---

Well, that's it ... all in all, at least 18 names that differ, and there could possibly be even more! Both of names (that I've simply missed) and/or in other unseen copies (digitized or not) of the same work, who knows?

Also note that, for example, [Anas] "Nyraca" is erroneously written/typed, in both Editions/versions (on p.542), in all six copies, contrary to its proper version; nyroca, as in today's Ferruginous Pochard Aythya nyroca GÜLDENSTÄDT 1770, as "Anas nyroca" (here & here). The same goes for [Hirundo] "pelasgia" (on p.1023, it both versions, in all six copies), which I assume is a reference to, and typo/mistake for, today's Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica LINNAEUS 1758, as "[Hirundo] pelagica" (here). Or?

Either way, it's pretty clear that both versions should/could have been in use of (alt. would have been improved by) a more vigilant Editor. However, asking for an all faultless book, when talking of a work of 1800 pages, is nothing but a dream. After all, in all, it's a work made by Humans. [I for one surely know how easy those irritating typos slip through the most hopeful fingers].

However, in an attempt to reach some sort of conclusion: Doesn't all of this indicate that the LINNÉ/Shanhu volume/Edition ought to be the one most commonly trusted/used ... ?

The LINNE/Shanbu Edition clearly seems to have had a much more sloppy Editor.

I'd use the LINNÉ/Shanhu Edition.

Björn

PS. The Edition of Beer, Leipzig, that is, not the Lyon one).

For anyone keen on digging further into this case; the Lugduni/Lugdunom (Lyon) Edition/version (from 1789-1796), with copies present in various places, both in libraries and digitized on the net, is most easily recognized by the typed "K k", in the right corner of the Title page – those letters are lacking in all copies/versions/editions from Lipsiae (Leipzig). At least the ones I've seen this far. What that "K k" means? I haven't got a clue!

PPS. James, if both "Shanhu" and "Shanbu" deserves its place in the HBW Alive Key (with or without the "►"), shouldn't all the other odd, however erroneous, spellings/typings (in the same copy/ies) ought to be treated in the same way?

Or/Alt. could the second printing session/edition possibly be considered as a "First Revisor Act"?

shanbu versus shanhu, continuation ... VII

Last post (in the shanhu/shanbu) matter ...

Also note; that the other, French printing session (i.e. the third), known as the Lugduni or Lugdunom [Lyon, France] Edition/copies, printed by Delamollière (also in 1789), is not included in today's comparison, simply as it clearly, apparently was printed after the (two) German Lipsidae/Leipzig Session/s. Yet another comparison between the corrected/amended Lipsidae/Leipzig version and the French [Lyon] copy/copies, would (of course) be interesting, simply to see if they differ as well, or if they are (somewhat) similar. Possibly with the same content?

However, that's far, far beyond my time-frame. I'm done!

shanhu/shanbu ... over and out! (... at least on my part)

/B

PS. I´m sure glad this Laughing-trush isn't one of mine!

Björn,
shanbu, shanhu, cando, cantdo, maydo, willdo .......
The following is from the Guide to Key Entries, and applies equally to specific names and their multitudinous variations and misspellings; "Penultimately (Var.), a list of variant spellings of the genus name (whether current or synonymised). Most of these are misspellings or purist amendments, e.g. the use of different connectant vowels in compound words, the insertion of the correct genitive form, or the replacement of 'barbarisms' with classical equivalents. The list is not exhaustive, as I have not deliberately sought errors, naming only those encountered during reading or which have been brought to my attention. Easily comprehended transposition or omission of letters have often been excluded, as have variant transcriptions of the Greek rough breathing (e.g. e for ἑ instead of he, r for ῥ instead of rh), and some of the older orthographies (e.g. oe instead of ae (and vice versa), J instead of I)."
So little time ............

Thank you Björn for your posts! Very interesting to me. The sales catalogue of the Leverian Museum is an intersting document but no shanbu nor shanhu.