Accentor atragularis and A. atrogularis (1 Viewer)

[Moved from the Etymology Forum]

Looking for the OD of Prunella atrogularis (Brandt) 1843, I easily found 'Remarques sur trois espèces nouvelles d'oiseaux chanteurs appartenant aux genres Saxicola et Accentor', Bulletin de la Classe physico-mathématique de l'Académie impériale des sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg, no. 33–34, t. 2, no. 9–10 (1843), col. 140.

In this version it says Accentor atragularis but I didn't understand why atrogularis was mentioned 'everywhere' instead (with an occasional atrigularis thrown in).

So I started searching.

Richmond has atrogularis Brandt 1843 as well as Blyth 1849. The latter document is E. Blyth, 'A Supplemental Note to the Catalogue of the Birds in the Asiatic Society's Museum', Journal of the Asicatic Society of Bengal, vol. 18, pt 2, n.s. no. 32 (1849), 811–812, with 'Accentor atrogularis Hutton', where Hutton is the collector.

Bonaparte has 'Accentor atrigularis Hutton – Brandt, with a reference to the Journal of the Asiatic Society with an erroneous page number (727): Carolo Luciano Bonaparte, Conspectus generum avium (Lugduni Batavorum [Leiden]: Brill, 1850), 1: 305.

Moore has under Accentor Huttoni the synonym 'Accentor atrogularis, Hutton (nec Brandt!)' in 'Notice of All the Known Species of of the Genus Accentor, with the Description of an Uncharacterized Species from Nepal', Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, pt 22, no. 267 (1854), 119–120, referencing Blyth (above), erroneously taking Hutton the collector for the author.

Ernst Hartert goes with synonym 'Accentor atrogularis Brandt 1844' in Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. Systematische Übersicht der in Europa, Nord-Asien und der Mittelmeerregion vorkommenden Vögel (Berlin: Verlag von R. Friedländer und Sohn, 1910), Bd. 1, 771.

S. Dillon Ripley mentions 'Accentor atragularis (sic) Brandt 1844 [reference not verified]' as a synonym in 'Family Prunellidae', Check-list of Birds of the World: A Continuation of the Work of James L. Peters, ed. Ernst Mayer and Raymond A. Paynter Jr. (Cambridge, MA: Museum of Comparative Zoology, 1964), 10: 9.

Mmm…

I went back to Alan Peterson, who mentions in a note that (a) 'Peters Checklist 10:9 gives the name as "atragularis (sic)"' (see Ripley above) and (b)
'The Richmond Index gives the name as atrogularis and this is fide (copy of original seen, thanks to Edward Dickinson)', see zoonomen.net.

Why were they all referencing Brandt as having authored atrogularis while I had seen atragularis? (Even the Key mentions 'Original spelling of specific name Accentor atrogularis von Brandt, 1844.)

I kept on searching and lo and behold I found a different version of the OD, one in which Brandt mentions Accentor atrogularis.

Comparing the two versions, everything looks the same apart from the Supplements and additional maps. Even the indexes of both mention Accentor atrogularis.

Leaves me with the question, why are there two versions? Is one printed in St. Petersburg and one in Leipzig? And would this imply that the St. Petersburg one was published earlier? I cannot see any differences in dates. I presume Edward Dickinson has seen the one with atrogularis, but why is this reference so obvious that it has not been included in Priority!?

Does this have any consequences for Prunella atrogularis?

joekroex said:

Comparing the two versions, everything looks the same apart from the Supplements and additional maps. Even the indexes of both mention Accentor atrogularis.

Click to expand...

In the left column of the same page, the accounts of Accentor montanellus also differ between the two versions. The 'atrogularis' version has:

M. Temminck
a réuni cet oiseau avec raison au genre d'Accentor,
sous le nom d'Accentor montanellus (Manuel d'ornitholog.
I p. 251).

Click to expand...

while the 'atragularis' version has:

M. Temminck
a réuni cet oiseau avec raison au genre d'Accentor,
sous le nom d'Accentor (Manuel d'ornitholog. I p. 251).

Click to expand...

The latter ("Mr Temminck has rightfully united this bird to the genus Accentor, under the name of Accentor (Manuel d'ornitholog. I p. 251).") makes little sense -- the species name (which is present in the other version) is obviously omitted.

To me, this suggests very strongly that the 'atrogularis' page is a corrected version of the 'atragularis' page. Maybe this page was reprinted upon realizing that it contained mistakes, and the corrected version circulated but failed to reach some subscribers? If this happened before the volume was completed, the index would presumably have had the corrected 'atrogularis' in all the copies.

atrogularis is in wide use and attributed to the correct source, so in principle it is protected by the Code.

After pointing out another difference between the two documents, Laurent postulates:

l_raty said:

To me, this suggests very strongly that the 'atrogularis' page is a corrected version of the 'atragularis' page. Maybe this page was reprinted upon realizing that it contained mistakes, and the corrected version circulated but failed to reach some subscribers? If this happened before the volume was completed, the index would presumably have had the corrected 'atrogularis' in all the copies.

atrogularis is in wide use and attributed to the correct source, so in principle it is protected by the Code.

Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense, Laurent. I had thought along a similar line, though it is still a mystery; perhaps atragularis was a printer's error, corrected after a first print run?

Still, there is nothing wrong with atragularis as such, isn't there. Atra- is a feminine form of atri- or atro-, is it not? Only Accentor is masculine, Prunella feminine, but this doesn't concern prefixes, I would think.

joekroex said:

Still, there is nothing wrong with atragularis as such, isn't there. Atra- is a feminine form of atri- or atro-, is it not? Only Accentor is masculine, Prunella feminine, but this doesn't concern prefixes, I would think.

Click to expand...

Connecting vowels in compound words are in principle completely independent of any gender consideration.
The usual connecting vowel in Greek compounds is -o- (as in melan-o-cephalus). In classical Latin, -i- is the norm (as in atr-i-capilla); -o- was sometimes used as well, but this was more a late-Latin thing. Using -a- as a connecting vowel would be quite unusual. (This would call for correction in a plant name, I believe (see Art. 60.10 of the ICNafp [here]). But the ICZN is much less strict re. the rules of classical languages -- in an animal name, this would be acceptable.)
(If you want to read more on this subject, Stearn's Botanical Latin [here] is probably a good resource.)