Names lacking in the Key (2 Viewers)

Calalp said:

If true, or not, is beyond my capacity.

Click to expand...

Aïe...

Yes, I see it now -- and I agree completely with Richmond. In a number of cases, he appears to use "names" that look like binomina, but are indeed a Linnaean order name used in the singular (presumably because it applied to only one species there), followed by a Linnaean generic name, with no species name. Not only "Gralla parra" (Grallae: Parra; which I had not found at all -- less-than-ideal OCR) and "Gralla fulica" (Grallae: Fulica), but also "Passer sturnus" (Passeres: Sturnus), "Pica certhia" (Picae: Certhia), "Pica picus" (Picae: Picus), "Pica alcedo" (Picae: Alcedo), "Pica oriolus" (Picae: Oriolus), "Pica ramphastos" (Picae: Ramphastos).

Then I have to retract what I wrote above entirely -- Gralla is not a generic name, and neither is Fulica a species name. Sorry about the fuss.

Laurent,
No need for sorrow. Considering your very important, well-researched and knowledgeable definitive contributions to these forums over the years I have no problem with the extremely rare hiccoughs.
Gralla? never heard of it!
All serenity.

I agree wholeheartedly in the latest comment by James; don't worry about "the fuss", Laurent!

That you make a mistake (even a tiny one, like this) is extremely rare!

Almost irritatingly rare.

The habit of misreading is usually my expertise.



Björn

Thank you both for the kind words. I make mistakes (like anyone) and I guess I will survive to this one.
(I swear I never intend to be "irritating", though. o)

Muscicapara d'Orbigny 1840

Admittedly, Muscicapara "is" in the Key; but it is currently not given the status of a name in its own right, only that of variant of Muscicapa -- which I have a hard time agreeing with. So I'll pretend that it qualifies for this thread.

Muscicapara d'Orbigny 1840
d'Orbigny AD. 1835-1844. Voyage dans l'Amérique méridionale (le Brésil, la République orientale de l'Uruguay, la République Argentine, la Patagonie, la République du Chili, la République de Bolivia, la République du Pérou). Tome quatrième. 3e partie: oiseaux. P Bertrand, Paris.
p. 323: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/43586223

Genre 7. GOBE-MOUCHES PAROÏDES, Muscicapara, Nob.
Ce sont, en général, de petites espèces à bec assez faible, court, peu déprimé, la tête petite, les ailes longues, les doigts longs et forts, la queue courte. Toutes sont forestières ou buissonnières, se tiennent cachées dans l'intérieur des fourrés, qu'elles parcourent continuellement en y chassant les insectes, se cramponnant aux branches comme les Mésanges, sans jamais descendre à terre. On les trouve dans les régions chaudes et tempérées situées à l'est des Andes.

Click to expand...

For a group called "gobe-mouches paroïdes" (i.e., tit-like flycatchers – the generic name itself being presumably a portmanteau of Muscicapa and Parus) (cf. Lesson's "moucherolles paroïdes", Paroides, https://books.google.com/books?id=R1o2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA385). Authorship definitely claimed by d'Orbigny here ("Nob."): certainly not a slip for Muscicapa, or any other already established name. The group was quite heterogeneous ("composite") by today's standards, which is perhaps one of the reasons why it ended up being ignored by some/many.

Originally included species:

• Muscicapara oleaginea = Muscicapa oleaginea Lichtenstein 1823 (now in Mionectes Cabanis 1844),
• Muscicapara striaticollis = Muscicapa striaticollis d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 (now in Mionectes Cabanis 1844),
• Muscicapara vermivora = Sylvia vermivora Gmelin 1789 (now in Helmitheros Rafinesque 1819 – Parulidae),
• Muscicapara bivittata = Muscicapa bivittata d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 (now in Myiothlypis Cabanis 1850 – Parulidae),
• Muscicapara viridicata = Muscicapa viridicata Vieillot 1817 (now in Myiopagis Salvin & Godman 1888),
• Muscicapara angustirostris = Muscicapa angustirostris d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 (now [as a ssp] in Phylloscartes Cabanis & Heine 1860),
• Muscicapara gaimardii = Muscicapara gaimardii d'Orbigny 1840, now in Myiopagis Salvin & Godman 1888),
• Muscicapara subcristata = Sylvia subcristata Vieillot 1817 (now in Serpophaga Gould 1839),
• Muscicapara leucophrys = Muscicapa leucophrys d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 (now in Ochthoeca Cabanis 1847),
• Muscicapara stramineoventris = Muscicapa stramineoventris d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 (syn. Sylvia pectoralis Vieillot 1817, see Rothschild 1925 https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/3243454, now in Polystictus Reichenbach 1850),
• Muscicapara obsoleta = Muscicapa obsoleta Temminck 1824 (now in Camptostoma Sclater 1857),
• Muscicapara ventralis = Muscicapa ventralis Temminck 1824 (now in Phylloscartes Cabanis & Heine 1860),
• Muscicapara boliviana = Muscicapara boliviana d'Orbigny 1840 (new name for Muscicapa olivacea d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye 1837 [nec Linnaeus], now in Zimmerius Traylor 1977).

This name was listed by Sherborn https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36253414, Waterhouse https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/22649304, Neave http://ubio.org/NZ/PDF/Vol3/pg0229.png, but appears completely omitted in the Richmond Index. (I double checked. )
(Of the other two generic names that elsewhere are attributed to d'Orbigny 1840, Arundinicola [OD] and Suiriri [OD], the first is also omitted in the Richmond Index, and the second only has a card pointing to a later use of the name by Strickland. Muscicapara gaimardii and Muscicapara boliviana are also omitted from the "species and subspecies" part of the Index. So it seems that it's the work as a whole that was being ignored by Richmond.)

Gray made Muscicapara a synonym of Elania/Elaenia (repeatedly) and of Helinaia (once, 1841, for the Parulidae part of the original group); it was as well made a synonym of Elainea by Giebel 1875 (https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/48112340; Giebel here also distributed the originally included species into various genera: Elainea, Serpophaga, Euscarthmus, Setophaga -- in a rather inconsistent way, I think; e.g., bivittata to Elainea, thus retained as a tyrant flycatcher, but viridicata to Setophaga, thus made a wood-warbler).
The rest of the literature seems basically to have ignored it as a generic name -- Muscicapara appears in many species synonymies (it is part of the original combination of two names that are currently in use), but was apparently not treated as a genus-group name in its own right, and was omitted from the generic synonymies.

I found no published type designation.

Laurent.
Excellent discovery re Muscicapara. I have still to edit the appropriate Key entries, but, in the light of the history succinctly outlined by you, and unless otherwise advised, intend to make Muscicapara a synonym of Serpophaga, with type S. subcristata. I had toyed with Mionectes Cabanis, 1844, the exotically named Oleaginous Pipromorph, but Serpophaga Gould, 1839, is the only tyrannid genus which predates Muscicapara, thus avoiding the very unlikely event of generic replacement.

Euphasia Mulsant & Verreaux 1876

Name: Euphasia
Authority: Mulsant & Verreaux
Year: 1876
OD ref: Mulsant E, Verreaux E. 1876. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux mouches ou colibris formant la famille des Trochilidés. Tome deuxième. Deyrolle, Paris.
Page: 289
OD link: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/39879048
Included nominal species: none (in a key of genera with descriptive elements only).
Type species: [not fixed?]
Type species syn.?: ?
Fixation by: subsequent ?
Fixation ref: ?
Page: ?
Fixation link: ?
Type OD ref: ?
Page: ?
Type OD link: ?
Notes: Junior homonym of Euphasia Stephens 1830 (Lepidoptera), senior homonym of Euphasia Townsend 1908 (Diptera). In a key of genera published at the end of Vol. 2 of the work; in Vol. 3: 1-2, https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/39878410, a new key was produced which did not include this name. No nominal species seems to have ever been placed under this name. The name was reported by: Richmond CW. 1917. Generic names applied to birds during the years 1906 to 1915, inclusive, with additions and corrections to Waterhouse's "Index Generum Avium." Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., 53: 565-636.; p. 590; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7554068; there, Richmond claimed that it was changed to Eudosia in Vol. 3. This does not appear correct: the group that best matches the original Euphasia (“Poitrine ornée d'une bande transversale blanche, grêle et interrompue dans son milieu ... Euphasia.”) was called Pilonia in Vol. 3 (“Devant des épaules marqué d'une tache blanche en forme de croissant, inclinant sur les côtés de la poitrine, ou représentant une bande transversale blanche, largement interrompue dans son milieu ... Pilonia.”); Eudosia of Vol. 3 (“Poitrine couverte sur son milieu de plumes blanches constituant une grosse tache non étendue d'une épaule à l'autre … Eudosia.”) matches a group that was nameless in Vol 2 (“Poitrine marquée dans son milieu d'une tache blanche non étendue d'une épaule à l'autre.”). The species included in Pilonia in Vol. 3 were: Pilonia prunelli (Trochilus prunellei Bourcier 1843), P. wilsoni (Trochilus wilsoni Delattre & Bourcier 1846).
ICZN: n/a
Available: yes
Family: Trochilidae

It was listed in the Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names, Helm 2010 (p.152), or see attached jpg ... !?

/B

Calalp said:

It was listed in the Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names, Helm 2010 (p.152), or see attached jpg ... !?

Click to expand...

Indeed. But it's gone now, so far as I can assess.

(And this was Richmond's interpretation: Euphasia as an 'original spelling'/precursor of Eudosia, while (as I noted above) a comparison of the diagnoses makes Euphasia a precursor of Pilonia, not of Eudosia. Additionally, I also suspect that Eudosia was actually published significantly earlier than Euphasia : in [this], which appears to be an early separate edition of a paper that was also published in 1876 in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon; this separate bears 1875 as its date of publication, and its content is recorded at length in [Zool. Rec. 12] as having been published in 1875 (with the pagination of the separate, not that of the journal). Euphasia is from 1876.)

l_raty said:

[this], which appears to be an early separate edition of a paper that was also published in 1876 in Ann. Soc. Linn. Lyon; this separate bears 1875 as its date of publication, and its content is recorded at length in [Zool. Rec. 12] as having been published in 1875 (with the pagination of the separate, not that of the journal).

Click to expand...

This had been published on 25 Dec 1875 according to Bibliographie de la France https://books.google.com/books?id=BTw8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA755&dq=mulsant

Euphasia.
Well judged, Laurent, and I agree with your interpretations. For the sake of conformity, and for use in the Key only, I have chosen Trochilus (now Coeligena) prunellei as the type of Euphasia, as that is the type of Pilonia.

Albanora Mulsant & Verreaux 1874

Another obscure "precursor name" from the same work.

Name : Albanora
Authority : Mulsant & Verreaux
Year : 1874
OD ref : Mulsant E, Verreaux E. 1874. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches ou colibris constituant la famille des Trochilidés. Tome premier. Société Linéenne, Lyon.
Page : 283
OD link : https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/39878274
Included nominal species : none directly included (in a key of genera with descriptive elements only).
Type species : [not fixed?]
Type species syn.? : ?
Fixation by : subsequent ?
Fixation ref : ?
Page : ?
Fixation link : ?
Type OD ref : ?
Page : ?
Type OD link : ?
Notes : In a key of genera with descriptive elements; in the text (p. 309: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/39878302; part of the same livraison), Leucodora was used for the apparently corresponding taxon. The only subsequent citation of this name I can find (besides Neave), reads “Leucodora (Albanora p. 283) Muls., Hist. nat. des Ois. mouch. I 309” (Pelzeln A von. 1876. Bericht über die Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der Vögel während des Jahres 1875. Arch. Naturgesch., 42 (2): 144-208; p. 177; https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6242211 ). It might perhaps be argued that the name could be seen as an “alternative original spelling” of Leucodora, in which case the adoption of Leucodora by Mulsant in 1875 is a FR act (Mulsant E. 1875. Catalogue des oiseaux-mouches ou colibris. H Georg, Lyon; Deyrolle, Paris; Boucard, London.; p. 10; https://books.google.com/books?id=Sf9HAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10 ), and Albanora lacks standing. If treated as an available name, Albanora has in effect automatic “precedence” over Leucodora because the latter is preoccupied, hence cannot become valid at all. Albanora was used at generic rank only; the equivalent group in the text included Leucodora norrisi (= Trochilus norrisii Bourcier 1847), L. edwardi (= Trochilus edward Delattre & Bourcier 1846), L. niveiventris (= Trochilus niveoventer Gould 1851); the first of these three was excluded from Leucodora at subgeneric rank.
ICZN : n/a
Available : yes ?
Family : Trochilidae

Albanora.
Thanks, Laurent. Another name snatched from obscurity, altho' the etymology presently eludes me (see Key entry) - any other suggestions or pointers would be gratefully received. For the purposes of the Key only, I have chosen Trochilus edward as the type of Albanora.

Sarcoramphus sacra

I don't know if the entries should include every name associated to them, but Sarcoramphus is not mentioned in sacra, for Bartram's "Painted Vulture".

Rafael.
Thank you for raising this matter. No, the entries for verbs and adjectives in the Key do not provide the names of every species/subspecies associated with them, since the text succinctly explains the epithet and the reader may draw the inference in each case. The inclusion of separate entries, identified by ●, is purely arbitrary, although many are included because the epithet is based on earlier vernacular names. To include every species/subspecies under each heading would be onerous (e.g. affinis is used in at least eighty names, striata/striatus in at least thirty). Readers interested in the usages of names could consult, amongst others, Paynter 1987, volume XVI (Comprehensive Index) of Peters Checklist, and del Hoyo et al. 2013, Handbook of the Birds of the World, Special volume, pp. 505-597.
PS. However, in view of your interest, I have added a short entry for Vultur sacer under that name.

balchaschensis

Podiceps griseigena balchaschensis Korelov 1948.

This name is cited in a number of places in the Russian / Kazakh literature, as a syn. of either P. g. gisegena, or P. p. holbollii. Including on some recent websites, e.g. http://www.birds.kz/v2taxon.php?l=en&s=11. Also in good old BWP I, where it was a made an "outpost of holboellii". (Although it seems to me that the ssp ranges as accepted in HBW Online [and, actually, all other recent checklists] imply that all Kazakhstani populations, and thus 'balchaschensis', must be nominate.)
I did not find the OD online. (I'm actually not even sure of the reference. Possibly in : Корелов МН. 1948. Материалы по позвоночным животным на левобережье р. Или (междуречье Чилика и Чарына). Известия Академии наук Казахской ССР. Серия зоологическая, 8.)

Named after Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan.

Opaethus Stephens 1815

Opaethus appears in the Key only as an alternative spelling of Opoethus, which is given a diagnosis quoted from Vieillot 1816 [p. 29] and [p. 70]. Both spellings were used by Vieillot 1816; however, Opaethus had also been used by Stephens 1815 [here].
Is Stephens' introduction of Opaethus being overlooked, or is there another reason for the above ?

l_raty said:

Podiceps griseigena balchaschensis Korelov 1948.

This name is cited in a number of places in the Russian / Kazakh literature, as a syn. of either P. g. gisegena, or P. p. holbollii. Including on some recent websites, e.g. http://www.birds.kz/v2taxon.php?l=en&s=11. Also in good old BWP I, where it was a made an "outpost of holboellii". (Although it seems to me that the ssp ranges as accepted in HBW Online [and, actually, all other recent checklists] imply that all Kazakhstani populations, and thus 'balchaschensis', must be nominate.)
I did not find the OD online. (I'm actually not even sure of the reference. Possibly in : Корелов МН. 1948. Материалы по позвоночным животным на левобережье р. Или (междуречье Чилика и Чарына). Известия Академии наук Казахской ССР. Серия зоологическая, 8.)

Named after Lake Balkhash in Kazakhstan.

Click to expand...

The description of this grebe has been published by M. N. Korelov (1948) in Isvestija Akademii Nauk Kasakhskoi SSR 63, Ser. Zool. 8, pp. 122-127; the new taxon is introduced on p. 124 in the text. The type localities are: Almaty province of south-east Kazakhstan (Karakastek, lower Lipsa River, middle Ili River between Chilik and Charyn, Ili River delta, Karakul and Sasyqkol lakes, Astana ponds) and Kulsai in the Terskey Alatau Mts. of Kyrgyzstan.

Norbert R. said:

The description of this grebe has been published by M. N. Korelov (1948) in Isvestija Akademii Nauk Kasakhskoi SSR 63, Ser. Zool. 8, pp. 122-127; the new taxon is introduced on p. 124 in the text. The type localities are: Almaty province of south-east Kazakhstan (Karakastek, lower Lipsa River, middle Ili River between Chilik and Charyn, Ili River delta, Karakul and Sasyqkol lakes, Astana ponds) and Kulsai in the Terskey Alatau Mts. of Kyrgyzstan.

Click to expand...

So I presume this is indeed the reference I had suggested ? (It's the same journal, but you don't give the title of the paper and I failed to find the pages. A translation of the title would be more or less "Data on the vertebrate animals on the left bank of the river Ili (between the Chilik and the Charyn).")

EDIT -- No. I finally found the pages of 'my' reference (cited in [this]), and they appear to be 94-121. Thus the paper with the grebe description would follow this one directly in the same volume.

EDIT 2 --
But I still don't find it online.

l_raty said:

Opaethus appears in the Key only as an alternative spelling of Opoethus, which is given a diagnosis quoted from Vieillot 1816 [p. 29] and [p. 70]. Both spellings were used by Vieillot 1816; however, Opaethus had also been used by Stephens 1815 [here].
Is Stephens' introduction of Opaethus being overlooked, or is there another reason for the above ?

Click to expand...

At this point, not much of an etymology matter ... but I don't think Opæthus has been "overlooked".

Richmond lists "Opaethus Stephens 1815", but if we look at the card itself (here) it looks a bit more vague/uncertain. There we find the year equipped with a question mark: "1815?", and a scribbled pencil note "= v. 1816".

Maybe this particular (v.?) volume (IX, part 1), even if dated 1815 on the title page, didn't leave the print shop, or reached its readers, until the following year, and if so Vieillot could possibly been earlier? But what do I know?

Dickinson, et al (2011) Priority! The dating of scientific names in ornithology, (here) does comment this work (alt. works), on p.147 ...

If of any help?

I guess the next question would be (for comparison); when, in 1816, was Vieillot's Analyse ... released?

Good luck finding the exact date/s.

Björn
-