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: 3089225" data-attributes="member: 24811">Below are all the instances I could find in the Aves part of Pallas' Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, where the author used an adjective with geographical meaning, combined to the noun varietas, in a description."Aquila Albicilla var. Sibirica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA347&#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA347&#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as: "AQUILA albicilla." // "TAB. ß. Varietas Sibirica rostro paulo breviore, magis adunco, intense flavo; cera concolore; iridibus item flavis, maxime differt."("AQUILA albicilla." // "TAB. A Siberian ß variety with a slightly shorter bill, more hooked, intense yellow; cere of the same colour; irises also yellow, differs hugely.")The main description depicts a bird with pale wax-colored bill and greyish-white irises. Pallas obviously perceived the difference as geographical, but I suspect his Siberian birds were just full adults, the other ones being younger.The "TAB." should indicate an illustration, I think, but I can't find any.Currently accepted name Haliaeetus albicilla albicilla (Linnaeus, 1758)."Muscicapa grisola var. Dauurica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA461&#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA461&#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as: "MUSCICAPA grisola." //  "TAB. ß. Varietas Dauurica quam, ob summam similitudinem, speciem distincta pronunciare non ausim, magnitudine tamen et colore differt:"("MUSCICAPA grisola." // "A Daurian ß variety which, owing to the great similarity, I do not dare to declare a separate species, differs however in size and colour:")Currently accepted name "Muscicapa dauurica Pallas, 1811" / Muscicapa latirostris Raffles, 1822. (I prefer the latter; usage is not settled, so choosing one or the other does not introduce instability.)"Passer arctous var. Curilica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA22#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as: "PASSER arctous." // "Varietates plures ex insulis Curilis et Americanis accepi" // "ß. 1. Ex insulis Curilis:" // "ß. 2. itidem Curilica:"("PASSER arctous." // "I accepted multiple varieties from the Kuril and American islands" // "ß. 1. from the Kuril islands:" // "ß. 2. similarly Kurilian:")A rather symptomatic case. The word "itidem" (similarly), preceding "Curilica" (Kurilian) in the second variety, indicates unambiguously that the function of the adjective is identical to that of the phrase "Ex insulis Curilis" (from the Kuril islands), which is used for the first variety. This word is clearly not intended as a name, but only as an indication of where the variety occurs.Currently accepted name Leucosticte arctoa brunneonucha (Brandt, 1842): [<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=goI-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PP100#v=onepage&q=curilica&f=false" target="_blank">OD</a>]; junior to Pallas, 1811; Brandt based himself directly on Pallas' Kurilian variety to describe his bird."Tetrao Perdix var. dauurica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PPA78#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PPA78#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as: "TETRAO Perdix. // "Descr. Varietatis rupestris dauuricae:"("TETRAO Perdix." // "Description of a Daurian rupestrian variety:")Currently accepted name "Perdix dauurica Pallas, 1811". (But I would prefer Perdix daurica Schrenk, 1860: [<a href="http://archive.org/stream/reisenundforschu0112schr#page/521/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>]. Switching would imply only a minor change of spelling, which I think is not a serious stability issue either. Particularly as the spelling "daurica", though not "official", is in fact regularly used nowadays [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daurian_partridge" target="_blank">Example...</a>], and is probably the spelling that has been most frequently used in the past.)"Phasianus colchicus var. mongolica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NUEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as: "PHASIANUS colchicus." // "Descr. Varietatis mongolicae:"("PHASIANUS colchicus." // "Description of a Mongolian variety:") Note the wording parallels perfectly that used for the partridge, save the fact that, here, the ambiguity associated to the presence of a second adjective is absent (ie., it is better).Currently accepted name Phasianus colchicus mongolicus Brandt, 1844: [<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=pyAYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">OD</a>]; junior to Pallas, 1811; Brandt based himself directly on Pallas' Mongolian variety to describe his bird.An additional, interesting case, not involving the word varietas in the original text, but that was nevertheless infered to be a "var." by some subsequent authors, is this:"Sitta europaea var. Sibirica"<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA547#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=NEEAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA547#v=onepage&q&f=false</a>Stands as "SITTA europaea" // "Supra avis tota coerulescens, subtus sordidius alba, in Siberia candidior: sed hypochondria et subcaudales (praeter apicem albo maculatum) in rossica ave intense ferruginea, in Sibirica vix summa crepido hypochondriorum feruginescit" // "Pondus in rossica ad 6 drachm in sibirica infra 5 dr."("SITTA europaea" // "Bird's upperpart entirely bluish, underpart dirty white, purer white in Siberia: but upper flanks and undertails (save the white-marked tip) intensely rufous in the Russian bird, in the Siberian [bird] the base of the upper flanks becomes barely reddish." // "Weight in the Russian [bird] up to 6 drachm, in the Siberian [one] below 5 dr.")Has been accepted as a name by <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=xuxBm9kg1YwC&pg=PA195#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank">Cassin, 1858</a>, but is not anymore nowadays.Currently accepted name Sitta europaea asiatica Gould 1835: [<a href="http://biodiversitylibrary.org/item/133913#page/359/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>]; junior to Pallas, 1811.----Of these cases, the first one seems to be a misinterpretation by Pallas rather than a geographical form; furthermore, the bird goes by a name that is senior to 1811, thus how you read Pallas' text cannot affect its nomenclature.Of the remaining ones:- the partrige's dauurica is currently usually deemed ok (but see Normand David's comments on <a href="http://www.zoonomen.net/avtax/n/d.html#P.dauuricaNomenclature" target="_blank">Zoonomen</a>: I'm in any case not the only one to ask questions; the name barbata Verreaux & DesMurs, 1868 [<a href="http://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofgen63busi#page/62/mode/1up" target="_blank">OD</a>], has for a very long time coexisted with daurica in the literature, on the account of such questions);- the flycatcher's dauurica is disputed;- the last three are unambiguously and universally treated as not being available names, as the birds involved all go by accepted names that are junior to Pallas, 1811. Additionally, in two cases, these accepted names were directly based on Pallas' texts: they were introduced under the assumption that the adjectives used by Pallas were not available names, and this remained undisputed until today. And in the third case, Cassin listed Gould's currently accepted name (attributing it to Temminck) in the synonymy of his Sitta sibirica, thus none of these cases can be thought to be a result of Pallas' text having been overlooked or not associated to the right taxon.Consistency would require to treat all these cases identically, which is clearly not what is being done nowadays. (Switching towards using some of these as names was a step away from a consistent interpretation of Pallas' work.)In any case, I see no clear signal in usage, based on the above, that a geographical adjective associated to the word varietas in Pallas' text must be treated as an available name.(There are, in these two books, more instances of descriptive adjectives appearing next to varietas (words like major, minor, leucophaea, alba, intermixta, elegans, insignis, pulcherima, leucopyga--note adjectives always agree in gender with the word varietas), than instances of geographical adjectives; but I still have to come across one of the descriptive adjectives being deemed to be an available name.  A few of these, however, quite clearly refer to differentiated populations, to which Pallas attributes a distinct range in the text. I do not really see why we should construe a text saying "Siberian variety which is bigger" as giving availability to "Siberian", and one saying "bigger variety which inhabits Siberia", as being qualitatively different, and giving no availability to "bigger".If needed, I can provide a list of >50 accepted avian names meaning "bigger" in Latin without too many problems. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />)</blockquote>

Verification