BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 3347108" data-attributes="member: 24811">It's also "<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11690175" target="_blank">Cyanocitta woodhousii</a>" and "<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11690205" target="_blank">woodhousii, Cyanocitta</a>" in the index, and "<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11690125" target="_blank">Cyanocitta woodhousii</a>" in Appendix A (imprint date Oct 18, 1858, on [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/11690121" target="_blank">p.921</a>]).Imprint dates indicate the date of printing, and do not necessarily reflect publication; sometimes works are printed in parts, then bound into a volume by the publisher and distributed as a single whole, in which case there is only one date of publication for the volume. I don't know the details, but <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36194633" target="_blank">Zimmer 1926</a> gives a single date for Part II (Volume IX).What seems certain is that the front matters cannot be earlier than the page it points to, hence it is certainly not a nomen nudum. There are two distinct possible scenarii:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">if it was published later, woodhousii is an incorrect subsequent spelling without nomenclatural standing;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">if it was published simultaneously, woodhousii is an alternative original spelling.</li> </ol>In the latter case, in the absence of clear evidence in the work itself that one of the spellings is due to an "inadvertent error" (and thus must be corrected into the other), you need a First Reviser. Under the 4th ed. of the Code, if Baird himself (the original author of the work) used only one of the spellings as valid in a subsequent publication, before any other First Reviser act was published, he is the First Reviser. The list (the "front matters") of the Reports of explorations and surveys, to ascertain etc., was reissued separately under a new title reading "Catalogue of North American birds, chiefly in the museum of the Smithsonian Institution", attributed to Baird, once <a href="https://books.google.be/books?id=DlFCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR43" target="_blank">in 1858</a>, in an unmodified format and more or less simultaneously with the book itself, and again <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/37555068" target="_blank">in 1859</a>, this time in a deeply modified format, in the second volume of the Smithsonian Miscell. Coll. (See Zimmer's notes [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/36194633" target="_blank">here</a>].) In both, only woodhousii is used. Also in the <a href="https://books.google.be/books?id=_yRPAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA20" target="_blank">Report on the United States and Mexican boundary survey</a> in 1859, Baird used only woodhousii.------Addition:Before 2000, Baird's subsequent publications would not have been acceptable First Reviser acts, because he cited only one of the original spelling. The First Reviser, if one was needed, would then probably have been <a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/7491501" target="_blank">Ridgway 1904</a>, who clearly listed both spellings in his synonymy and used woodhouseii as valid. So, if this volume was published as a whole, this might be a case of a correct spelling that changed in 2000, due to the addition of the new <a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=24&nfv=#2" target="_blank">Art. 24.2.4</a>.</blockquote>

Verification