Caley's Tree Martin ssp. (1 Viewer)

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Let's have a look at the (alleged) dedicatee behind ...

caleyi as in:
• the invalid (or at least debated)* Tree Martin ssp. (Hirundo/Hylochelidon) Petrochelidon nigricans caleyi MATHEWS 1913 (here), as "Petrochelidon nigricans caleyi", no dedication, no explanation, nothing ... only: "Type, Albury, New South Wales, October, 1903".

In today's Key: explained as:

caleyi / caleyii
George Caley (1770-1829) English botanist, early explorer in Australia 1800-1810, Superintendent of Botanic Gardens St. Vincent 1816-1823 (syn. Petrochelidon nigricans neglecta).

...and, I can agree (but, this far, not any further than) that it might possibly, plausibly, or could, be aimed at this guy, the (far earlier) British botanist, explorer and collector George Caley (1770–1829), "one of Sir Banks's protegés", collector of various Naturalia (birds, plants, etc.) in Australia in the early 1800's (arrived 15th of April 1800, and he left again 12th of May 1810, back in England 25 October, the same year), ... [and if so, as far as I can tell, based on nothing but the fact that we know that Mathews, at times, commemorated some, at least a few, of the "Pioneers" in/of Australian Natural History (even if they themselves were gone ages, decades prior to the discovery, or the description, of the bird in question)].

Thus, if so (in short): Born 10 June 1770, in West Riding (according to Webb, below, even if Wikipedia claims that he was born "in Craven"?), Yorkshire, England, he (and his Family/Parents) soon moved to Oldham, Lancashire, then schooling in Manchester, etc,. etc., ... after the Australian adventures (mentioned above) he settled down in Chadderton, near Manchester (by then in poor health), a k a superintendent of the Botanic Garden, on the Caribbean Island St Vincent 1816–1822/3 ... and onwards, until he died on the 23rd of May 1829, in London.

For even more (much more) info on this particular guy, see the book (originally a PhD Thesis): George Caley: Nineteenth Century Naturalist, by Joan Webb (1995). Book review, here (on pp.137-139). Or see the Australian Dictionary of Biography (here). Or here ... and elsewhere (he's pretty easy to find).

However, probably not to be mixed-up (which has been done!) with the fairly well-known Australian ornithologist Neville William Cayley (1886–1950), author of "What bird is that" (1931). ... or? See (for example); Systematic notes on Asian birds. 14. Types of the Hirundinidae, by Dickinson, Dekker, Eck & Somadikarta (2001) here, see foot-note 26 on p.155 [my blue and bolds]:

26. Given as cayleyi in Peters (1960). The original spelling is used here. We have not traced an emendation prior to Peters. Such a spelling would honour Neville W. Cayley, the well-known Australian ornithologist and author of “What bird is that?” and it is very possible that the author of the emendation thought this had been intended. However, the name Mathews gave probably relates to George Caley (M. LeCroy, in litt. 23 Jan. 2000).

But, (at least in my mind) it could equally have been aimed at the latter Cayley's Father, Neville Henry Peniston Cayley (1854–1903), who died in May the same year as the type was collected!? Born in Norwich, England, migrated to Australia (in 1877) where he became a celebrated Bird Painter. Note that this guy seems to have been born Caley. A silent tribute from Mathews? Or not.

Well, in this case we all have to judge by/for ourselves. Thus, take you pick!

And take it all for what it's worth (if anything). It's just some observations, and speculations (read; me thinking out loud). In the case of (the self-willed) Mr Mathews it's, as always, hard to tell ...

However; enjoy!

And, don't hesitate to prove either way!

I certainly would like to know if anyone have anything, just some kind of indication, or something clearly pointing in favour of either one, or the other ... or even (better) proof of the same.

If so, please enlighten me (and us all).

This far, if the caleyi Tree Martin ssp. was included in my MS, or even in my notes (which I'm glad to say it's not) I would have a (big bold) question mark re. the dedicatee.

But that's me, of course ...

Björn

PS. In the case of the invalid "Haliaeetus calei" Vigors & Horsfield 1827 (found/noticed by Laurent, back in 2018, here) the intention is far less dubious, in that particular case it's clearly a commemoration of the first-mentioned George Caley [even if in its Latinized form; (Domini) GEORGII CALEY ... nomine designetur (named after him)]

All in line with today's Key:

calei
George Caley (1770-1829) English botanist, early explorer in Australia 1800-1810, Superintendent of Botanic Gardens St Vincent 1816-1823 (syn. Erythrotriorchis radiatus) (Laurent Raty in litt.).

On that one I'm pretty sure we can all agree.

/B

---

*By most(?) considered a synonym of nominate Petrochelidon n. nigricans (Vieillot, 1817), or P. n. neglecta MATHEWS 1912.

 

[PScofield]

LeCroy says:

....Mathews consistently spelled it caleyi and Caleya, undoubtedly honoring George Caley, who made important early collections of New South Wales birds (see Whittell, 1954: 99–100, and Webb, 1990). Caley's collections were deposited originally in the Museum of the Linnean Society of London (Vigors and Horsfield, 1827) and later transferred to BMNH (Sharpe, 1906: 414–415, Kinnear, 1932). Vigors and Horsfield (1827: 190) named Hirundo pyrrhonota, based on a Latham manuscript name that was later said to be a synonym of Hirundo nigricans Vieillot, 1817 (Sharpe, 1885: 190), nec Hirundo pyrrhonota Vieillot, 1817 (Sharpe, 1885: 193). The implication, by Vigors and Horsfield (1827: 140), who published extensive field notes on this taxon written by Caley, and by Sharpe (1906: 415), was that the type was collected by Caley in New South Wales. It is logical to think that Mathews, believing that the type of H. pyrrhonota Vigors and Horsfield was based on a Caley specimen from New South Wales, would name his new taxon after Caley.

and I agree.

 

[l_raty]

and I agree.

This makes senses to me as well.

• the invalid (or at least debated)* Tree Martin ssp. (Hirundo/Hylochelidon) Petrochelidon nigricans caleyi MATHEWS 1913 (here), as "Petrochelidon nigricans caleyi", no dedication, no explanation, nothing ... only: "Type, Albury, New South Wales, October, 1903".

Björn, note that Mathews actually provided some explanations, lower down on the same page, in what seems to be his account of Petrochelidon nigricans nigricans.
In his Reference List, he had cited three names as applying to the the NS Wales race of Petrochelidon nigricans : Hirundo nigricans Vieillot, H. pyrrhonota Vigors & Horsfield, and Collocalia arborea Gould. Here, he dismissed all three, two of them because he now thought them to apply to the Tasmanian population instead, the third one (Vigors & Horsfield's) because it was preoccupied :

Lesson, however, in L’Echo du Monde Savant, writing with knowledge of the locality of Hirundo nigricans Vieillot, definitely gives “ Hobart Town, Tasmania ”; while Stone (Austral Av. Rec., Vol. I, p. 154, 1913) has informed us that the type of Collocalia arborea Gould also came from Tasmania. This leaves the New South Wales bird nameless as, though Vigors and Horsfield certainly described Hirundo pyrrhonota from that locality, their name is unavailable, being preoccupied by Vieillot.

Mathews, about Caley, in 1925:

The majority of the new birds described by Vigors and Horsfield (q.v.) were collected by Caley.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

Thanks guys! Fair enough, you've convinced me.

Thus, 'Much Ado About Nothing', (my) question-mark deleted.

Both the (debated) Tree Martin ssp. caleyi Mathews 1913 (incl. the presumed/alleged version "cayleyi", as of Peters, 1960), and the invalid (Red) Goshawk ssp. calei Vigors & Horsfield 1827 ought to be aimed at George Caley (1770–1829).

Thanks again!

This would, of course, also include the (invalid) Generic name Caleya Mathews 1913 (here).

Mr Caley ... over and out!

Björn